Resident and stakeholder perceptions of ecosystem services associated with agricultural landscapes in New Hampshire

Wilhelm, Jennifer; Smith, Richard G.; Jolejole-Foreman, Maria Christina; Hurley, Stephanie

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101153

Cited by 23 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Menconi et al (2020) suggest that even if some NBS have a positive impact on perceived individual well‐being, the overall impact of NBS on well‐being of the neighborhood may be perceived as negative by some groups of people, for example, due to gentrification. Moreover, Casado‐Arzuaga et al (2013), Wilhelm et al (2020), Elbakidze et al (2018), Rodríguez‐Morales et al (2020), and Herivaux and Le Coent (2021) asked about perceived ES provided for society first and about the most important ES for personal well‐being afterward.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, it is not clear whether respondents are capable of distinguishing between the importance of ES to personal well‐being, community well‐being, and society well‐being. Second, there is limited evidence on whether some ES are valued for their increase in individual well‐being or rather as beneficial for the community or society's well‐being and vice versa (for further discussion, see Aguado et al, 2018; Camps‐Calvet et al, 2016; Casado‐Arzuaga et al, 2013; Jericó‐Daminello et al, 2021; Wilhelm et al, 2020). Such multidimensional perception of well‐being in NBS studies is an interesting topic for further research as hardly any studies address this.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, different types of response options to examine the intensity of preferences are applied as a part of data collection techniques. In order to understand what ES are the most important to well‐being, Likert scale questions or statements have been a vital part of preference elicitation studies (e.g., Syrbe et al, 2021; Tsantopoulos et al, 2018), as have multiple choice questions (e.g., Ferreira et al, 2021; Mara et al, 2020), ranking questions (e.g., Marques et al, 2020; Wilhelm et al, 2020), open‐ended questions (e.g., Landor‐Yamagata et al, 2018; Liu et al, 2017), numerical rating scale options (e.g., Mao et al, 2020; Williams et al, 2019), and dichotomous two‐point scale questions (e.g., Jericó‐Daminello et al, 2021). Likert scaling is used to measure preferences, and its standard format consists of a series of questions or statements for which the respondent is to indicate a degree of agreement or disagreement (Albaum, 1997).…”

Section: Methodological Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What benefits are the most important to you, your community, and society? Perception of ecosystem services provided by nature‐based solutions

Hekrle

2022

WIREs Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem services (ES) provided by nature-based solutions (NBS) have been examined using various data collection techniques and preference elicitation methods to understand what ES are important to human well-being. This article provides a systematic review of 153 scientific publications, with a focus on data collection techniques and perspectives of well-being used when eliciting preferences toward multiple ES provided by NBS. ES provided by urban parks,urban trees, and community gardens are the most commonly examined; however, generally specified NBS such as "green spaces" or "green infrastructure" prevail. The review further shows that the questionnaire surveys is the dominant technique for bringing evidence about the most preferred ES, followed by semi-structured interviews and workshops. Only a limited number of studies use revealed or stated preference methods as a part of data collection efforts such as a choice experiment or contingent valuation. Additionally, the review defines three different perspectives of well-being considered but rarely discussed in existing studies: individual; community; and society well-being perspectives. As the concept of well-being is hardly discussed in NBS literature and still depends on a large degree of subjectivity, this review highlights the need for future research that looks more deeply at individual, community, and social well-being, which is influenced differently by the implementation of NBS.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodological Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What benefits are the most important to you, your community, and society? Perception of ecosystem services provided by nature‐based solutions

Hekrle

2022

WIREs Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, management will be faced with a conflict between restoring this zone where ecosystem services highly declined due to developed agriculture and the importance for social system with providing edible plants. There is a difference in people's perception of agriculture expansion and ecosystem conservation (Wilhelm et al, 2020). Ecosystem services provided by natural ecosystems are greater than those from agriculture (Brown and MacLeod, 2011).…”

Section: Changes Of Ecosystem Services and Social Well-being Under Degradationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking Ecosystem Services to Social Well-Being: An Approach to Assess Land Degradation

Sharafatmandrad

Mashizi

2021

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land degradation usually leads to the loss of ecosystem services, which may threaten social well-being. There is no approach to identify and manage all ecosystem services based on their importance in degradation processes and social systems. This study aimed to link ecosystem services to social well-being in order to assess rangeland degradation. Eleven ecosystem services (forage production, water yield, edible plants, fuel, medicinal plants, pollination, gas regulation, soil resistivity to erosion, soil fertility, scenic beauty, and recreation) were assessed in a semiarid rangeland near Bardsir city, Kerman Province, southeast Iran. There were significant differences between the rangeland types in providing ecosystem services (p < 0.05). Four criteria and 17 indices of social well-being were weighed according to their importance for local stakeholders. Rangeland degradation was estimated using the weight of the indices for social well-being and ecosystem services. Discriminant analysis indicated that supporting services (soil fertility) and provisioning services (water yield and forage production) had the greatest impact on rangeland degradation, which is related to food security in social well-being. Ecosystem services and social well-being declined in medium and severe degradation due to plant composition change and overgrazing based on principal component analysis (PCA). More than 70% of the watershed has been highly and severely degraded. There was a trade-off relationship between ecosystem services and social well-being in very severe degraded areas because of social well-being promotion due to agriculture expansion. Based on our approach, the loss rate of the ecosystem services and social well-being indices in each degradation category is a good guide for management programs and decision-makers to meet both the needs of the people and the preservation of ecosystems.

show abstract

“…First, people’s perceptions and sociocultural differences affect their preferences for different CESs of protected areas based on attention restoration theory [ 9 , 20 , 21 ]. Additionally, the generation of economic profits in protected areas is affected by tourist consumption, thus, understanding the public perception and preference of CESs can help support the deployment and flexibility of management strategies [ 13 , 22 , 23 ]. Meanwhile, paying attention to the trade-offs and demands of stakeholders on CESs is also conducive for improving the accuracy of CES assessment and achieving resilient ecosystem management.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Cultural Ecosystem Services Value of Protected Areas Considering Stakeholders’ Preferences and Trade-Offs—Taking the Xin’an River Landscape Corridor Scenic Area as an Example

Zhu

Lin

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving the accuracy of cultural ecosystem services (CESs) value assessment and paying more attention to the preferences and trade-offs of stakeholders in the administration of CESs are of vital importance for achieving resilient ecosystem management. Combining methodologies from sociology (Q method) and economics (choice experiment), an assessment framework of CESs is introduced to examine stakeholders’ preferences and willingness to pay to participate in CESs in protected areas so as to explore how the value of CESs in protected areas can be optimized. The results show that the selection of CESs by stakeholders reflects certain synergies and trade-offs. Visitors can be classified as preferring humanistic–natural recreation, aesthetic–sense of place, or environmental education according to the factor ranking of the Q method. Visitors have a higher willingness to pay for humanistic heritage and a lower willingness to pay for sense of place experience, which can be measured at $6.55 per visit and $0.96 per visit, respectively. This indicates that the local customs and characteristics should be further explored and promoted through traditional festival celebrations and farming activities in further development of protected areas, apart from protecting local cultural heritages such as Huizhou ancient villages and halls. Furthermore, it is also necessary to actively explore the synergistic development of CESs, promote social participation, raise stakeholders’ awareness of available services, manage visitors and stakeholders from a demand perspective, and promote the realization of the value of ecological products in protected areas.

show abstract

Resident and stakeholder perceptions of ecosystem services associated with agricultural landscapes in New Hampshire

Cited by 23 publications

References 63 publications

What benefits are the most important to you, your community, and society? Perception of ecosystem services provided by nature‐based solutions

What benefits are the most important to you, your community, and society? Perception of ecosystem services provided by nature‐based solutions

Linking Ecosystem Services to Social Well-Being: An Approach to Assess Land Degradation

Assessing the Cultural Ecosystem Services Value of Protected Areas Considering Stakeholders’ Preferences and Trade-Offs—Taking the Xin’an River Landscape Corridor Scenic Area as an Example

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About