Human well-being differs by community type: Toward reference points in a human well-being indicator useful for decision support

Fulford, Richard S.; Smith, Lisa M.; Harwell, Mathew; Dantin, Darrin D.; Russell, Marc; Harvey, Jim

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.04.003

Cited by 31 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, Fulford et al [62] found that different community types could reflect different attitudes with regard to the relative importance of domains of well-being and the services that drive that well-being. There is an increasing understanding that decisions made by local communities can have significant impacts on community well-being and require a degree of understanding regarding local impact as well as cumulative impact across multiple communities [73][74][75][76].…”

Section: Differences In Well-being By Respondent or Community Typementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the domains are relevant to characterizing Ecosystem Services and Global Ecology human well-being, regardless of time, space and culture [18], communities can easily "relate" to these well-being dimensions, making prioritization a fairly straight-forward exercise in developing relative importance values (RIVs) as weighting factors to customize HWBI. Applications of stakeholder RIVs utilized in a real community case studies are presented in Fulford et al [62]. The foundational research in the development of HWBI [11,25,63,64] has also been used to inform community-based landscape planning via the valuation ecosystem services [64].…”

Section: Characterizing Well-being In the Context Of Service Flowsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, different communities can have beliefs and value systems in common. Using a community typology approach, Fulford et al [62] developed a system to inform decision makers about sustainable decision outcomes based on the similarities and differences of communities' priorities, belief systems, and values. Communities can be divided into one of Ecosystem Services and Global Ecology eight types, which differ both in their baseline HWBI scores and in the relative importance of the different domains of HWBI (Figure 4).…”

Section: Differences In Well-being By Respondent or Community Typementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The key at a community level is linking these broader well-being measures to community-specific desires and values. Fulford et al [62] took a comparative approach toward well-being points of references based on an ecosystem goods and servicesbased community topology and Bayesian model-based cluster analysis [80] The HWBI was compared among community cluster groups to detect patterns in well-being as a function of the ecosystem goods and services community types (Figure 4). The key differences among community groups were population density and composition, economic dependence on local resources (e.g., forestry, fishing, agriculture), and to some extent geography.…”

Section: Differences In Well-being By Respondent or Community Typementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Differences among coastal county groupings indicated both strong and weak similarities resulting in three major clusters among the eight topological types (Figure 5). Fulford et al [62] determined that community decision makers could use the classification system to identify well-being values from which to gauge impact of decisions that could shift well-being. Ecosystem Services and Global Ecology…”

Section: Differences In Well-being By Respondent or Community Typementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Role of Ecosystem Services in Community Well-Being

Summers¹,

Smith²,

Fulford³

et al. 2018

Ecosystem Services and Global Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural ecosystems provide services to humans that make life possible. Life, as well as the economy, is dependent upon these ecosystem goods and services (EGS). These services also contribute to a "good" or "quality life" by influencing the well-being of individuals and communities. Understanding the relationships among EGS that contribute to and shape well-being is an important task for researchers, decision makers and policy makers. In the past, these relationships were almost completely dependent upon income and consumption of goods. Today, the relationships are based on a more holistic perception including environmental and social attributes. The importance of ecosystem services to community well-being and their interactions are described through examples of communities' perceptions of the importance of various attributes of well-being and the role of ecosystem services in defining public health.

show abstract

Section: Differences In Well-being By Respondent or Community Typementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characterizing Well-being In the Context Of Service Flowsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Differences In Well-being By Respondent or Community Typementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Differences In Well-being By Respondent or Community Typementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Differences In Well-being By Respondent or Community Typementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Role of Ecosystem Services in Community Well-Being

Summers¹,

Smith²,

Fulford³

et al. 2018

Ecosystem Services and Global Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A heterogeneous decision criteria system evaluating sustainable infrastructure development: From the lens of multidisciplinary stakeholder engagement

Xue

Liu

Liang

et al. 2021

Sustainable Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evaluation of urban infrastructure development is a decision-making process with multidisciplinary stakeholder engagement assessing sustainability metrics in different dimensions. However, there are uncertainties in such an evaluation caused by the heterogeneity between different stakeholders' preferences and the difficulty in differentiating sustainability decision criteria (DC). This study aims to formalize a multidisciplinary DC system to evaluate sustainable infrastructure development, which represents the preferences to DC metrics heterogeneously weighted by stakeholders. An empirical survey was conducted to collect the stakeholders' preferences to 50 sustainability DC metrics in which 91 infrastructure professionals from six disciplines (i.e., owner, architect, engineer, contractor, supplier, and consultant) were invited to participate. As a result, this study identified one common and six disciplinary DC sets and defined 20 DC factors with weights information structuring the multidisciplinary decision-making process, which indicates the multidisciplinary DC system is formal to be leveraged on assessing the sustainability performance of infrastructure development. In addition, the proposed multidisciplinary DC system is comprehensive in reducing uncertainties through determining the weights of DC metrics across various disciplines. Theoretically, the multidisciplinary DC system advances the knowledge of sustainability measurement by not only integrating the planet-people-prosperity framework and the product-organization-process framework but mitigating evaluation uncertainty through representing stakeholders' heterogeneity. For practical significance, such a multidisciplinary DC system will serve as a precursor for managers and policymakers in decision-making processes to enhance sustainability performances of infrastructure development.

show abstract