Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services

Raymond, Christopher M.; Bryan, Brett A.; MacDonald, Darla Hatton; Cast, Andrea; Strathearn, Sarah; Grandgirard, Agnes; Kalivas, Tina

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006

Cited by 513 publications

(344 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

329

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to assessing change, sense of place is also useful for identifying priorities and cues for stewardship engagement in SES, for example, using tools such as described by Raymond et al (2009). When combined with qualitative enquiries into place meanings, measures of place attachment can be particularly useful for assessing competing values and preferences and how they inform ecosystem management (Davenport and Anderson 2005) to guide how to move toward stewardship-based management.…”

Section: Assess Stewardship Outcomes and Prioritiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, sense of place has been applied as a tool for assessing values and preferences in ecosystem assessments (Martín-López et al 2012, for example, to identify human-valued priority areas for environmental conservation and management (Raymond et al 2009) and to inform land-use planning (Brown and Raymond 2007).…”

Section: Sense Of Place In Assessment Of Ecosystem Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: a review and research agenda

Masterson¹,

Stedman²,

Enqvist³

et al. 2017

E&S

342

273

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. To develop and apply goals for future sustainability, we must consider what people care about and what motivates them to engage in solving sustainability issues. Sense of place theory and methods provide a rich source of insights that, like the socialecological systems perspective, assume an interconnected social and biophysical reality. However, these fields of research are only recently beginning to converge, and we see great potential for further engagement. Here, we present an approach and conceptual tools for how the sense of place perspective can contribute to social-ecological systems research. A brief review focuses on two areas where relation to place is particularly relevant: stewardship of ecosystem services, and responses to change in social-ecological systems. Based on the review, we synthesize specific ways in which sense of place may be applied by social-ecological systems researchers to analyze individual and social behaviors. We emphasize the importance of descriptive place meanings and evaluative place attachment as tools to study the patterned variation of sense of place within or among populations or types of places and the implications for resilience and transformative capacity. We conclude by setting out an agenda for future research that takes into account the concerns of resilience thinking such as the effects of dynamic ecology, interactions between temporal and spatial scales, and the interplay of rapid and incremental change on sense of place and place-related behaviors. This future research agenda also includes concerns from the broader sense of place literature such as the importance of structural power relationships on the creation of place meanings and how scaling up a sense of place may influence pro-environmental behavior.

show abstract

Section: Assess Stewardship Outcomes and Prioritiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sense Of Place In Assessment Of Ecosystem Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: a review and research agenda

Masterson¹,

Stedman²,

Enqvist³

et al. 2017

E&S

342

273

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To make better decisions, a systematic account of the relationships between ecosystem management and the generated ecosystem services is needed (de Groot et al 2010). There are recent assessments of natural capital and ecosystem services (e.g., Blashke 2005;Haines-Young et al 2006;Chan et al 2006;Naidoo and Ricketts 2006;Gimona and Van der Horst 2007;Egoh et al 2008;Meyer and Grabaum 2008;Grêt-Regamey et al 2008;Naidoo et al 2008;Raymond et al 2009). However, they are not suitable for representing services at a single location or assessing the spatial and temporal services change.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling hydrological ecosystem services and tradeoffs: a case study in Baiyangdian watershed, China

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policy makers and scientists consider that land use strategies are designed to provide direct benefits to people by protecting vital ecosystem services. However, due to lack of information and evaluation methods, there is no effective and systematic tool for assessing tradeoffs between direct human benefits and ecosystem services. Land use changes influence ecosystem properties, processes and components, which are the basis for providing services. Five alternative land use scenarios (no conversion of agricultural lands, no urban expansion, agricultural expansion, forestry expansion, and riparian reforestation) were modeled for the Baiyangdian watershed, China, a densely populated, highly modified watershed with serious water shortage and pollution problems. The model InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs) is designed to inform decisions about natural resource management, with an aim to align economic forces with conservation. Three ecosystem services (agricultural production, hydropower production, and water quality) were modeled to balance direct benefits and hydrological ecosystem services using InVEST. The results showed that: hydropower production was the greatest in the forestry expansion, but the lowest in agricultural expansion; agricultural production was reduced the most in forestry expansion, while retained the most in riparian reforestation. Riparian reforestation also provided the highest N and P retention and lowest N and P exportation. Riparian reforestation was the optimal land use strategy, since it protected and enhanced the vital ecosystem services without undermining direct human benefits. This research presents an initial analytical framework for integrating direct human benefits and ecosystem services in policy planning and illustrates its application. Although there are important potential tradeoffs between ecosystem services, this systematic planning framework offers a means for identifying valuable synergies between conservation and development.

show abstract

“…On the one hand, numerous analysts have urged governments to adopt a strict 'user-pay' principle to avoid excessive resource exploitation (see, for example, ICWE 1992; United Nations 1992). On the other hand, observers have noted that water provides a range of nonmarketable services, such that identifying 'users' is problematic enough, let alone assigning a price to reflect the benefits they enjoy (see, for instance, Raymond et al 2008;Lamoree and van Steenbergen 2006;Savenije and van der Zaag 2002). It is against that background that the concept of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) has gained prominence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pushing the Governance Boundaries: Making Transparent the Role of Water Utilities in Managing Urban Waterways

Cooper

Crase

Maybery

2016

Water Resour Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) requires simultaneous consideration of the multiple benefits that attend water. IWRM can also be more challenging in regulatory environments where the resource manager must justify choices and elements of each intervention. This is particularly challenging in the context of urban waterways that have many uses including an ecological function and a source of human amenity. To justify expenditure on maintaining and improving urban waterways for ecological and/or amenity changes regulated utilities must be able to articulate and measure these types of values with at least some degree of precision. This paper presents a generic and systematic framework for understanding the ecological and amenity values of urban waterways. We illustrate deployment of the framework in the case of Melbourne, one of Australia's fastest growing cities and a location ranked as amongst the most liveable since 2011. We also explore how the results could improve the way we measure benefits in dollar terms.

show abstract

Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services

Cited by 513 publications

References 35 publications

The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: a review and research agenda

The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: a review and research agenda

Modeling hydrological ecosystem services and tradeoffs: a case study in Baiyangdian watershed, China

Pushing the Governance Boundaries: Making Transparent the Role of Water Utilities in Managing Urban Waterways

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About