Effects of methodology and stakeholder disaggregation on ecosystem service valuation

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Contingent valuation is one of the most commonly used methodologies utilized in ecosystem service valuation, thereby including a participatory approach to many such assessments. However, inclusion of nonmonetary stakeholder priorities is still uncommon in ecosystem service valuations and disaggregation of stakeholders is all but absent from practice. We look at four site-scale wetland ecosystem service valuations from Asia that used nonmonetary participatory stated preference techniques from a range of stakeholders, and compare these prioritizations to those obtained from the largest monetary assessments available globally, the Ecosystem Service Value Database (ESVD). Stakeholder assessment suggests very different priorities to those from monetary assessments, yet priorities between different sites remained broadly consistent. Disaggregation of beneficiaries in one site showed marked differences in values between stakeholders. Monetary values correlate positively with values held by government officers and business owners, but negatively with fishermen and women who are relying most directly on the wetland ecosystem services. Our findings emphasize that ecosystem service assessment, monetary or otherwise, must capture the diversity of values present across stakeholder groups to incorporate site scale management issues, particularly in relation to poverty alleviation.

Investigation of Ecosystem Services and Circular Economy Interactions under an Inter-organizational Framework

“…Besides, it is noteworthy that ES can be particularly perceived to natural water sources. Indeed, water resources have been widely cited as a prime example of ES, especially when the issue is valuation [38]. Because of the importance of water ecosystem services (ESw), they are being effectively evaluated in at least three aspects: clarity about the type of valuation employed; adoption of a strong theoretical basis guided by ecological knowledge; and the inclusion of analytical elements, map-modeling and imaging, which ensure social control in decision making [38,44].…”

“…Indeed, water resources have been widely cited as a prime example of ES, especially when the issue is valuation [38]. Because of the importance of water ecosystem services (ESw), they are being effectively evaluated in at least three aspects: clarity about the type of valuation employed; adoption of a strong theoretical basis guided by ecological knowledge; and the inclusion of analytical elements, map-modeling and imaging, which ensure social control in decision making [38,44]. Moreover, it can be noted that the scientific ecosystem services valuation (ESV) was evolved from the "ES under modeling, regional mapping, and geomorphologic imaging" conceptualization, to: "ES under water sources, wetlands, and aquifers", "ES under social contexts, anthropogenic activities, cultural traits, and public awareness" and (presently) "ES under economics background and governmental policies", thus satisfying the transition from one conceptual statement to another [17,31,[33][34][35]43,47].…”

Indonesia’s forest conversion moratorium assessed with an agent-based model of Land-Use Change and Ecosystem Services (LUCES)

“…Land-use policies are a key determinant of stakeholders’ land-use decisions. Stakeholders respond differently to land-use policies in an effort to maximise the benefits they receive from certain land use (Brooks et al 2014 ; Nelson et al 2009 ; van Noordwijk et al 2011 ). Their decision making is mainly influenced by their income expectations that are defined based on their knowledge and social networks (Berkes et al 2000 ; Rogers 2004 ; Turnpenny et al 2014 ).…”

Revealing ecological processes or imposing social rationalities? The politics of bounding and measuring ecosystem services

“…On the one hand, by becoming explicitly participatory, ES assessments could potentially address power asymmetries more directly. By including participation from local community members, the 'winners' and 'losers' of different policies and scenarios can be discussed, disaggregated and perhaps explicitly modeled (Brooks et al, 2014;Chan et al, 2012a;Daw et al, 2011). On the other hand, participatory ES still faces challenges in deciding which specific ES will be measured and modeled, and how (e.g., Thomas, 2014).…”