A Review of Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Services Data and Tools to Incorporate This into Decision-Making

Stakeholder perceptions of ecosystem services of the Wami River and Estuary

“…The dialogue pertaining to the management of riverine and coastal ecosystems has evolved over the past decade to increasingly consider ecosystem services because of their ability to link ecosystem structure and function to human well-being (Saunders et al 2015). However, as highlighted in a recent review article (Liquete et al 2013), 95% of the studies conducted to date have focused on the biophysical and/or economic aspects of ecosystem services.…”

Maritime Spatial Planning

“…The intention here is to selectively draw from this literature to examine the inclusion of CES in broader policy-relevant studies. Turner and Schaafsma (2015) provide a broad overview of coastal ES in their edited book in which Saunders et al (2015) suggest that social information is often lacking in the context of coastal ES data. Luisetti et al (2014) suggest that coastal zone ES that can be valued in economic terms with CES considered as meaningful places supplying a range of goods and benefits.…”

Considerations of Socio-Economic Input, Related Challenges and Recommendations for Ecosystem-Based Maritime Spatial Planning: A Review

“…Social data poses specific challenges for planners. For example, in decision-making for sustainable coastal management in the UK, social information is often lacking or it is not at the appropriate scale, while there is good information on provisioning services and a range of methods (Saunders et al, 2015). In addition, social data often lack the spatial dimension.…”

“…Overall, data and knowledge challenges could be summarized as (Börger et al, 2014;Kittinger et al, 2014;ESA in Practice: Lessons Learned, 2015;Hanley et al, 2015;Mongruel et al, 2015;Saunders et al, 2015): (i) lack of knowledge on the extent and status of marine habitats, species, and overall coastal and marine features, as well as on how changes affect the marine environment and hence benefits while accounting for the contributions of other inputs; (ii) variability in sectors, scales, and time regarding marine socioeconomic data coverage, as well as data of varying quality and confidence and poor metadata records; (iii) limited local data, including in terms of the beneficiaries of ESs, and limited ESs values, which, moreover, may not be robust or focused on the most valuable or important services; (iv) difficulties in eliciting, mapping, and visualizing specific ESs values due to spatial and cognitive distance (e.g., deep-sea biodiversity), as well as scale of value (social vs individual) seen in, for example, the valuation of cultural heritage; (v) over-reliance on spatial, quantitative data, which may preclude social information and; (vi) isolated collection of social, economic, and ecological data, practitioners" unfamiliarity with social science methods, and the underrepresentation of social scientists in the planning process. The latter may be because marine management might have been "biased" towards environmental data, creating a vicious cycle that is more difficult to break when financial resources are limited and social science input is not given equal weight.…”

“…Regarding input-related challenges for making ecosystem-based MSP operational, as highlighted in the previous section, these include data gaps (e.g., extent and status of -Socioeconomic and ecological data are not often collected in tandem -Many practitioners are unfamiliar with social science methods -Social scientists are "underrepresented" in the process Impacts the degree of integration in producing (Step 3) and assessing options (Step 4), non-familiarity with social science methods and needs creates data gaps having an impact on the whole process (all steps, including stakeholder engagement) Elaboration based on Börger et al, 2014;Kittinger et al, 2014;Hanley et al, 2015;Mongruel et al, 2015;Saunders et al, 2015 marine habitats, socioeconomic data including values for ESs at an appropriate scale, etc. ), as well as knowledge and methodological limitations from linking planning scenarios to ecological outcomes and values, to communicating complex, unfamiliar ecosystem information for valuation purposes (Börger et al, 2014;Hanley et al, 2015).…”