Evaluating conceptual definitions of ecosystem services and their implications

Danley, Brian; Widmark, Camilla

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.04.003

Cited by 67 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We retrieved the views of the cattle ranchers in order to define services according to their perceived benefits, as similar studies with other types of stakeholders have done (Berbés-Blázquez 2012, Asah et al 2014, Klain et al 2014, Mahajan and Daw 2016. We considered a service to consist of each benefit that proved to be significant for the cattle ranchers and that was directly provided by the ecosystem (details in Appendix 3.1) (Fisher et al 2009, Danley andWidmark 2016). Each service was classified under a main type, applying the nomenclature proposed by MEA (2005): provisioning, cultural, regulating, and supporting.…”

Section: Coding Of Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unraveling heterogeneity in the importance of ecosystem services: individual views of smallholders

Tauro¹,

Gómez-Baggethun²,

Garcı́a-Frapolli³

et al. 2018

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stakeholder groups are not homogeneous across individuals and through time, especially in relation to the importance of ecosystem services. However, the approaches commonly used to characterize the average importance and values of stakeholder groups overlook the heterogeneity in the individual priorities. This heterogeneity is particularly relevant for smallholders, who play a key role in ecosystem management but are more vulnerable to globalization than owners of large plots. We analyzed the priorities differentially assigned to ecosystem services and the reasons associated with the importance attributed to those services by individual cattle ranchers on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. We interviewed 27 cattle ranchers from neighboring rural communities. The services perceived by each rancher were identified from selected regional photographs. These services were then arranged in order of importance by interviewees, who were asked to provide the reasons for their choices. We used multivariate methods to examine the relationship between priorities for services and the livelihood of the individual. Interpretative qualitative methods elicited the reasons associated with the relative importance of the prioritized services. We identified 54 different services. Overall, individuals prioritized provisioning services directly related to their ranching activity. Individuals with the highest level of education and greatest diversity of productive activities (e.g., farmer, mason, merchant) also prioritized cultural services associated with ecotourism potential. The reasons associated with the importance attributed to the prioritized services varied widely among individuals. The list of ecosystem services perceived was context-specific, strongly influenced by the salient characteristics of the ecosystem and of the ranching way of life. A generational change in livelihoods has affected priorities. The reasons behind the importance of the prioritized services were diverse among individuals. By revealing the heterogeneity among individuals, we emphasize the need to make flexible policies that integrate diverse values and contexts to accomplish smallholder inclusivity.

show abstract

Section: Coding Of Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unraveling heterogeneity in the importance of ecosystem services: individual views of smallholders

Tauro¹,

Gómez-Baggethun²,

Garcı́a-Frapolli³

et al. 2018

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The variety of focal nouns in this sample of definitions (conditions, processes, outputs and benefits) reveals the difficulty of finding a logical category for things that motivate humans to protect natural habitats and places [16]. Fisher, Turner and Morling [17], affirming that ES must both be ecological and lead to human benefits, define ES as "the aspects of ecosystems utilized (actively or passively)…”

Section: What Exactly Is An Ecosystem Service?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

Gunton

Asperen

Basden

et al. 2017

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights •Ecosystem services help itemise how we value natural places, but the concept is not robust.• A more robust framework should focus on aspects of human appreciation of places.• We propose an ecosystem valuing framework with 12 universal aspects of appreciation.• This can be unambiguously complemented by ecological analyses where necessary. AbstractThe ecosystem services framework (ESF) is advantageous and widely used for itemising and quantifying ways in which humans benefit from natural places. However, it suffers from two important problems: (i) incoherence of definitions and (ii) a narrow approach to valuation, inadequate to represent the full range of human motives for conservation and the diverse interests of different stakeholders. These shortcomings can lead to a range of problems including doublecounting, blind spots and unintended consequencest. Here we propose an ecosystem valuing framework (EVF) as a broader and more rigorous way to deliver the benefits currently sought from the ESF, without the conceptual problems. The flawed genius of ecosystem servicesThe ecosystem services framework (ESF) is a very popular approach to incentivising nature conservation, increasingly used by conservation campaigners and policy makers around the world as well as by scientists contributing to this cause. Its genius is to facilitate a multi-dimensional analysis of the benefits that humans may derive from natural places, allowing a wide range of interests and conservation concerns to be considered and integrated with a broad view of sustainable development 3 and human wellbeing. As such it supports a consequentialist ethic that can be more successful than deontological approaches (see Glossary) in securing consensus and motivating action [1]. However, criticisms of the ESF as a tool for conservation raise doubts about its effectiveness and legitimacy [2,3]. The most controversial issue is probably that of monetisation, as laid out recently by Silvertown [4]. One set of responses to such problems would continue using the ESF as a general tool for assessing habitats while recognising its multilayered structure [5], supervising it to avoid unintended consequences [6], perhaps discouraging monetisation [7], and even attempting to subjugate intrinsic value under the category of services [8]. Yet there are more profound problems with the ESF that call for a radical shift if we wish to contribute to conservation as part of a sustainable development agenda. Two outstanding issues are sufficient, in our opinion, to demand an overhaul of the ESF so radical as to require a new name. First, the definitions do not work. The fact that definitions of 'ecosystem services' (ES) and of specific categories are often vague, tautologous and/or at variance with the concepts actually employed is symptomatic of deep-seated problems, as we shall explain.Second, collapsing multiple human value judgments into one or a few numerical values is a form of devaluation. We unpack this claim by exploring the inescapably cultural foundation of ...

show abstract

“…In this sense, the importance of including ecosystem services in planning processes is supported by a vast literature. In fact, the overcoming of the sectoral approaches (Geneletti, 2011;Baker et al 2013 [34][35][36][37], oriented to the coherence between the economic and environmental dimension (Danley et al 2016) [37], build the prerequisites for the integration of ecosystem services within environmental planning. In particular, the transition to anticommons and semicommons is activated through the integrated environmental planning of ecosystem services.…”

Section: Ecosystem Services Lcp (Murtas Beach) and Management Plan mentioning

confidence: 99%

Military Training Areas as Semicommons: The Territorial Valorization of Quirra (Sardinia) from Easements to Ecosystem Services

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper addresses the issue of the concurrent use of coastal areas for military training and civil activities, namely tourism. In the paper, starting from the consideration of publicly owned assets as ‘semi-commons’, we propose a method based on the comparison of planning instruments related to the different uses, and try to model them in a grid, where different weights and degrees of evaluation can be considered, in order to promote, rather than blocking, possible activities, compatible with concurrent use. The military areas in Sardinia (region and island, Italy) are around 234 km2, which constitutes 60% of the national surface affected by military easements. This situation is due to its geographic position, considered centrality in the Mediterranean for strategic reasons. This contribution evaluates the performance of the Local Coastline Plan (LCP) and the Site management plan of Community Interest (SCI) in conditions of military constraint. The case study is the municipality of Villaputzu South Sardinia, Italy), where an important coastal military easement and the use of the coast for recreational tourism purposes coexist together through specific planning, a consequence of institutional agreements between the Municipal Administration of Villaputzu and the Ministry of Defense. The idea is considering the concurrent possible land uses guaranteed by the different planning instruments, instead of focusing, as it is generally the rule, on the sum of constraints provided by the laws. The local coastline plan has been identified as the ideal planning tool, which addresses the co-existence of apparently opposite land uses and interests, as those expressed by the local municipal planning and those expressed by the military. An evaluation of the congruence of the specific objectives of the LCP and SCI shows how their combined action favors the environmental enhancement of Sardinia, contributing to the formation of ecosystem services, even in particular conditions arising from military easements. These are sites that evolve from ‘anticommons’ to ‘semicommons’. In fact, the military release process in Sardinia, together with the promiscuous military and civil use, activates unique governance policies of their kind that find a significant field of application in Sardinia to guarantee sustainable renewal of economic development of the ‘semi-commons’ awaiting to become ‘commons’.

show abstract

Evaluating conceptual definitions of ecosystem services and their implications

Cited by 67 publications

References 45 publications

Unraveling heterogeneity in the importance of ecosystem services: individual views of smallholders

Unraveling heterogeneity in the importance of ecosystem services: individual views of smallholders

Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

Military Training Areas as Semicommons: The Territorial Valorization of Quirra (Sardinia) from Easements to Ecosystem Services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About