Sustainable management of global natural resources is challenged by social and environmental drivers, adding pressure to ecosystem service provision in many regions of the world where there are competing demands on environmental resources. Understanding trade-offs between ecosystem services and how they are valued by different stakeholder groups is therefore critical to maximise benefits and avoid conflict between competing uses. In this study we developed a novel participatory trade-off experiment to elicit the perception of 43 participants, from across four key stakeholder groups, working in land and water management (Environmental Regulators, Farming Advisors, Water Industry Staff and Catchment Scientists). Using the Production Possibility Frontier (PPF) concept, we quantified stakeholder assessment of both the shape and the uncertainty around the PPF in a trade-off between agricultural intensity and the ecological health of freshwater systems. The majority of stakeholder groups selected threshold and logistic decay trade-off curves to describe the relationship of the trade-off, and estimated the uncertainty around the curves to be intermediate or large. The views of the four stakeholder groups differed significantly regarding how they estimated stakeholder trade-off prioritisation; the largest difference in perspectives was identified between Environmental Regulators and Farm Advisors. The methodology considered the cultural, socioeconomic and institutional specificities of an ecosystem service interaction and identified potential sources of conflict but also possible solutions for win-win opportunities to explore and share understanding between stakeholders. Valuing stakeholder knowledge as a form of expert data and integrating this into participatory decision-making processes for land and water management thus contributes considerable value beyond traditional approaches to ecosystem service assessments.

Ensuring water, food and energy security for a growing world population represents a 21st century catchment management challenge. Failure to recognise the complexity of interactions across ecosystem service provision can risk the loss of other key environmental and socioeconomic benefits from the natural capital of catchment systems. In particular, the ability of soil and water to meet human needs is undermined by uncertainties around climate change effects, ecosystem service interactions and conflicting stakeholder interests across catchments. This critical review draws from an extensive literature to discuss the benefits and challenges of utilising an ecosystem service approach for integrated catchment management (ICM). State-of-the-art research on ecosystem service assessment, mapping and participatory approaches is evaluated and a roadmap of the key short-and longer-term research needs for maximising landscape-scale ecosystem service provision from catchments is proposed.

Competing socioecological demands and pressures on land and water resources have the potential to increase land use conflict. Understanding ecosystem service provisioning and trade-offs, competing land uses, and conflict between stakeholder groups in catchments is therefore critical to inform catchment management and the sustainable use of natural resources. We developed a novel stakeholder engagement methodology that incorporates participatory conflict mapping in three catchments with a short questionnaire to identify the perceptions of 43 participants from four key land and water management stakeholder groups: environmental regulators, water industry practitioners, the farm advisor community, and academics. The participatory mapping exercise produced heat maps of perceived conflict and land use competition, providing spatial detail of the complex combination of land use issues faced by catchment managers. Distinct, localised hotspots were identified in areas under pressure from flooding, abstraction, and urbanisation; as well as more dispersed issues of relevance at the landscape scale, such as from farming, forestry, energy production, and tourism. Subsequent regression modelling linked perceived conflict to land cover maps and identified coastal, urban, and grassland areas as the most likely land cover types associated with conflict in the study catchments. Our approach to participatory conflict mapping provides a novel platform for catchment management and can facilitate increased cooperation among different catchment stakeholders. In turn, land and water management conflicts can be recognised and their underlying drivers and likely solutions identified in an effort to better manage competing demands on catchment resources.

Catchments are socio-ecological systems integrating land, water and people with diverse roles and views. Characterising stakeholder networks and their levels of influence and interaction within catchments can help deliver more effective land and water management. In this study, we combined stakeholder analysis and social network methods to provide a novel stakeholder-mapping tool capable of identifying interactions among the land and water management communities across three contrasting study catchments. The overarching aim was to characterise the influence of different stakeholders involved in catchment management based on the perceptions of participants from four key stakeholder groups (Environmental Regulators, Water Industry Practitioners, the Farm Advisor Community, and Academics). A total of 43 participants identified 28 types of specific catchment management stakeholder groups with either core or peripheral importance to our three case study catchments. Participants contributed 490 individual scores relating to the perceived influence of these different stakeholder groups and categorised whether this influence was positive, negative or neutral for the management of catchment resources. Local Government, Farmers and Environmental Regulators were perceived to have the greatest level of influence. Social network analysis further determined which stakeholders were most commonly connected in all of the study catchments and hence formed the core of stakeholder networks in each catchment. Comparing outputs from the analysis of three contrasting river catchments, as well as between participants from four key stakeholder groups allowed identification of which stakeholders were more central to the catchment management networks. Such analyses could help facilitate effective communication within land and water management stakeholder networks by targeting highly connected opinion leaders or promoting peer learning via distinct catchment subgroups.