Abstract
Cultural ecosystem services are generally understood to be the non-material value that can be gained through ecosystems such as a sense of well-being, reflection and spiritual enhancement. These are often linked with a sense of place, culture, heritage and identity. The assessment of cultural ecosystem services, particularly in the marine environment is an inherently complex and difficult task, because they often involve making value judgments which can be hard to quantify. Methods applied to determining the value of these services are often focused on their financial value. Whilst methodologies have been developed to assess the non-material importance of these services, this paper argues that Q methodology provides a highly appropriate way of examining unmeasurable values by being able to convert qualitative, subjective data into quantitative information. The research presents two data sets derived from Q methodology which examined stakeholder views of the cultural values from two marine protected areas; the Pacific Rim National Park, Vancouver Island, Canada and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in Chichester Harbour, UK. The relevance of using Q methodology as a valuation mechanism in this type of study is examined and justified; whilst highlighting the advantages of tackling a subject of values and intangibility, highly qualitative information, with a structured, semi-automated and primarily quantitative methodology. The findings show that the case-study areas hold three predominant ‘factors’ of value for its stake holders. These include the protected areas; as a place of care for each other and oneself through the natural world; a place of spirituality; and as a place of freedom and refuge. The paper strongly argues for the use of Q methodology in such a study, which ultimately helps to bring about a depth of information that arguably traditional methods are incapable of in the same capacity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Albizua A, Zografos C (2014) A values‐based approach to vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. Applying Q methodology in the Ebro Delta, Spain. Environ Policy Gov 11:1–10
Bacher K, Gordoa A, Mikkelsen E (2014) Stakeholders' perceptions of marine fish farming in Catalonia (Spain): a Q-methodology approach. Aquaculture 424:78–85
Bennett O (2013) Marine conservation zones in England [online]. Available: www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06129.pdf [accessed: 9th July 2014]
Bischof BG (2010) Negotiating uncertainty: framing attitudes, prioritizing issues, and finding consensus in the coral reef environment management “crisis”. Ocean Coast Manag 53(10):597–614
Bohnke-Henrichs A, Baulcomb C, Koss R, Salman Hussain S, de Groot RS (2013) Typology and indicators of ecosystem services for marine spatial planning and management. J Environ Manag 130(2013):135e145
Cairns RC (2012) Understanding science in conservation: AQ method approach on the Galápagos Islands. Conserv Soc 10(3):217
Carr LM, Heyman WD (2012) “It's about seeing what's actually out there”: quantifying fishers' ecological knowledge and biases in a small-scale commercial fishery as a path toward co-management. Ocean Coast Manag 69:118–132
Chichester Conservancy (2009) Chichester area of outstanding natural beauty: management plan 2009 – 2014 [online]. Available: www.conservancy.co.uk [accessed 9th July 2014]
Daly H, Farley J (2004) Ecological economics: principles and applications. Island Press, Washington
Excel J, Graaf (2005) Q Methodology: a sneak preview [online]. Available: www.jobvanexel.nl [accessed 9th July 2014]
DE Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boummans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408
Fletcher S, Rees S, Gall, Shellock SR, Dodds W, Rodwell L (2014) Assessing the socio-economic benefits of marine protected areas. A report for Natural Resources Wales by the Centre for Marine and Coastal Policy Research, Plymouth University
Fletcher S, Saunders J, Herbert R (2011) A review of the ecosystem services provided by broadscale habitats in England’s Marine Protected Area Network. J Coast Res 64:378–383
Frantzi S, Carter NT, Lovett JC (2009) Exploring discourses on international environmental regime effectiveness with Q methodology: a case study of the Mediterranean Action Plan. J Environ Manag 90(1):177–186
Haggan N (2012) Becoming indigenous: meaureable and immeasurable values in ecosystem-based management. University of British Columbia
Herbert R, Saunders J, Fletcher S (2012) The impacts of marine protected areas on the provision of marine ecosystem services in UK waters. JNCC Report C10 – 0205 – 0374
Keenleyside KA, Dudley N, Cairns S, Hall CM, Stolton S (2012) Ecological restoration for protected areas: principles, guidelines and best practices. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, p 120
Mcbeath C (2007) Frommer’s Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands and the San Juan Islands. Wiley and Sons, Canada, p.138
MEA – Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC
Pike K, Johnson D, Fletcher S, Wright P (2011) Seeking spirituality: respecting the social value of coastal recreation resources in England and Wales. J Coast Res 61:194–204
Pike K (2010a) Social value associated with marine and coastal protected area designations in England and Wales. PhD Study awarded by Nottingham Trent University and Southampton Solent University
Pike K, Johnson DE, Fletcher S, Wright P, Lee B (2010) Social value of marine and coastal protected areas in England and Wales. Coast Manag 38:412–432
Potts T, Burdon D, Jackson E, Atkins J, Saunders J, Hastings E (2014) Do marine protected areas deliver flows of ecosystem services to support human welfare? Mar Policy 44:139–148
Sandbrook C, Scales IR, Vira B, Adams WM (2011) Value plurality among conservation professionals. Conserv Biol 25(2):285–294
Shaw PJ (2003) Multivariate statistics for the environmental sciences. Arnold, London
Stainton-Rogers R (1995) Q methodology. In: Smith JA, Harré R, VAN Langenhove L (eds) Rethinking methods in psychology. SAGE Publications Limited, London
TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems) (2014) Biodiversity: making natures’ values visible [online]. Available: www.teebweb.org [accessed 20th October 2014]
Tuler S, Webler T (2009) Stakeholder perspectives about marine oil spill response objectives: a comparative Q study of four regions. J Conting Crisis Manag 17(2):95–107
Vancouverisland.com (2014) Long Beach [online]. Available: www.vancouverisland.com/plan-your-trip/regions-and-towns/vancouver-island-bc-islands/broken-group-islands/ [accessed 20th October 2014]
Watts S, Stenner P (2012) Doing Q methodological research: theory, method & interpretation. SAGE Publications Limited, London
Webler T, Danielson S, Tuler S (2009) Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Social and Environmental Research Institute, Greenfield, MA
Wolf AM, Good J, Brown SR, Cuppen EHW, Ockwell D, Watts S (2011) Q methodology and its applications: reflections on theory’, operant subjectivity. Int J Q Methodol 35(1):48–71
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pike, K., Wright, P., Wink, B. et al. The assessment of cultural ecosystem services in the marine environment using Q methodology. J Coast Conserv 19, 667–675 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-014-0350-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-014-0350-z