Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The inclusion of stakeholders and cultural ecosystem services in land management trade-off decisions using an ecosystem services approach

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

An ecosystem service approach for land-use or conservation decisions normally uses economic or biophysical assessments for valuating nature’s services. In contrast, even though ecosystem services are required for human well-being, the actual use of services by differing stakeholder groups are rarely considered in typical ecosystem service assessments, especially the more intangible, cultural ecosystem services.

Objectives

The aim of this research was to quantify different uses for 15 cultural and provisioning ecosystem service indicators across seven stakeholder groups in a watershed proposed with large hydroelectric dam development.

Methods

We used a large-scale survey to quantify use and frequency of use for ecosystem services.

Results

We demonstrate that different stakeholder groups use ecosystem services differently, both in terms of specific ecosystem service indicators, as well as for frequency of ecosystem service use. Across all stakeholder groups, specific cultural ecosystem services were consistently more important to participants when compared to provisioning ecosystem services, especially aesthetic/scenic values.

Conclusions

This work is of global importance as it highlights the importance of considering cultural ecosystem services (e.g. aesthetic/scenic, sense-of-place values) along with multiple stakeholder groups to identify the trade-offs and synergies during decision-making processes for land-use or conservation initiatives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alessa L, Kliskey A, Brown G (2008) Social–ecological hotspots mapping: a spatial approach for identifying coupled social–ecological space. Landsc Urban Plan 85:27–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balvanera P, Siddique I, Dee L, Paquette A, Isbell F, Gonzalez A, Byrnes J, O’Connor MI, Hungate BA, Griffin JN (2014) Linking biodiversity and ecosystem services: current uncertainties and the necessary next steps. Bioscience 64:49–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BC Oil and Gas Commission (2013) Oil and gas land use in the Fort Nelson LRMP area of British Columbia. Retrieved from http://www.bcogc.ca/node/8233/download

  • Benítez-López A, Alkemade R, Verweij PA (2010) The impacts of roads and other infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: a meta-analysis. Biol Conserv 143:1307–1316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown G (2013) The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: an empirical analysis. Ecosyst Serv 5:58–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown G, Donovan S (2013) Escaping the national forest planning quagmire: using public participation GIS to assess acceptable national forest use. J For 111:115–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown G, Fagerholm N (2015) Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosyst Serv 5:119–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown G, Montag JM, Lyon K (2012) Public participation GIS: a method for identifying ecosystem services. Soc Nat Resour 25:633–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown G, Weber D, de Bie K (2014) Assessing the value of public lands using public participation GIS (PPGIS) and social landscape metrics. Appl Geograph 53:77–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan BA, Raymond CM, Crossman ND, Macdonald DH (2010) Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: where, what, and how? Landsc Urban Plan 97:111–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol 4:e379

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Klain S, Satterfield T, Basurto X, Bostrom A, Chuenpagdee R, Gould R, Benjamin S, Hannahs N, Levine J, Norton B, Ruckelshaus M, Russell R, Tam J, Woodside U (2012a) Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62:744–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012b) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 74:8–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cimon-Morin J, Darveau M, Poulin M (2013) Fostering synergies between ecosystem services and biodiversity in conservation planning: a review. Biol Conserv 166:144–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily GC (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Darvill R (2014) Comparing and mapping ecosystem service use across interest groups in the Upper Peace River watershed. M.Sc. Thesis, Royal Roads University

  • Darvill R, Lindo Z (2015) Quantifying and mapping spatial ecosystem service use locations across stakeholder groups: implications for conservation with priorities for cultural values. Ecosys Serv 13:153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Chazal J, Quétier F, Lavorel S, Van Doorn A (2008) Including multiple differing stakeholder values into vulnerability assessments of socio-ecological systems. Glob Environ Change 18:508–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz S, Fargione J, Chapin FS III, Tilman D (2006) Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS Biol 4:1300–1305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver JC, Handly M, Fladmark KR, Nelson DE, Sullivan GM, Preston R (1996) Stratigraphy, radiocarbon dating, and culture history of Charlie Lake Cave, British Columbia. Arctic 49:265–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duniway MC, Herrick JE (2013) Assessing impacts of roads: application of a standard assessment protocol. Rangeland Ecol Manag 66:367–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn OJ (1964) Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics 6:241–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerholm N, Käyhkö N, Ndumbara F, Khamis M (2012) Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments—mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecol Indic 18:421–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fürst C, Opdam P, Inostroza L, Luque S (2014) Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning: proposing a balanced score card. Landscape Ecol 29:1435–1446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garćia-Nieto AP, Quinta-Soriano C, Garćia-Llorente M, Palomo I, Montes C, Martín-López B (2015) Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: the role of stakeholders’ profiles. Ecosyst Serv 13:141–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geijzendorffer IR, Roche PK (2013) Can biodiversity monitoring schemes provide indicators for ecosystem services? Ecol Indic 33:148–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo Z, Xiao X, Li D (2000) An assessment of ecosystem services: water flow regulation and hydroelectric power production. Ecol Appl 10:925–936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hector A, Bagchi R (2007) Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature 448:188–190

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Morcillo M, Plieninger T, Bieling C (2013) An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecol Indic 29:434–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe C, Suich H, Vira B, Mace GM (2014) Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Global Environ Change 28:263–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isbell F, Calcagno V, Hector A, Connolly J, Harploe WS, Reich PB, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schimd B, Tilman D, van Ruijven J, Weigelt A, Wilsey BJ, Zavaleta ES, Loreau M (2011) High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 477:199–202

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones-Walters L, Çil A (2011) Biodiversity and stakeholder participation. J Nature Conserv 19:327–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klain SC, Chan KMA (2012) Navigating coastal values: participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning. Ecol Econ 82:104–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamarque P, Tappeiner U, Turner C, Steinbacher M, Bardgett RD, Szukics M, Lavorel S (2011) Stakeholder perceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowledge on soil fertility and biodiversity. Region Environ Change 11:791–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefcheck JS, Byrnes JEK, Isbell F, Gamfeldt L, Griffin JN, Eisenhauer N, Hensel MJS, Hector A, Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE (2015) Biodiversity enhances ecosystem multifunctionality across trophic levels and habitats. Nature Commun. doi:10.1038/ncomms7936

    Google Scholar 

  • Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH (2012) Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol 27:19–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P (2012) Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. Int J Biodiv Sci Ecosys Serv Manag 8:17–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Amo DGD, Gómez-Baggethun E, Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B, González JA, Santos-Martín F, Onaindia M, López-Santiago C, Montes C (2012) Uncovering ecosystems service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 7:e38970

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Menzel S, Teng J (2010) Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept for conservation science. Conserv Biol 24:907–909

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Milcu AI, Hanspach J, Abson D, Fischer J (2013) Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol Soc 18(3):44

    Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Retrieved from http://www.maweb.org/en/Reports.aspx

  • Müller F, Burkhart B (2012) The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 1:26–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North Peace Economic Development Commission (2011) Spatial export analysis: assessing the contribution of the northeast and Peace River regions to British Columbia’s exports. Retrieved from http://npedc.ca/sites/npedc.ca/files/document/106/northeast-peace-river-exports-final-urban-futures-4-October-2011.pdf

  • Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, Bieling C (2013) Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33:118–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plieninger T, Bieling C, Fagerholm N, Byg A, Hartel T, Hurley P, López-Santiago CA, Nagabhatia N, Oteros-Rozas E, Raymond CM, van der Horst D, Huntsinger L (2015) The role of cultural ecosystem services in landscape management and planning. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:28–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postel S, Carpenter S (1997) Freshwater ecosystem services. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, pp 195–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Rands MRW, Adams WM, Bennun L, Butchart SHM, Clements A, Coomes D, Entwistle I, Hodge I, Kapos V, Scharlemann JPW, Sutherland WJ, Vira B (2010) Biodiversity conservation: challenges beyond 2010. Science 329:1298–1303

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond CM, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH, Cast A, Strathearn S, Grandgirard A, Kalivas T (2009) Mapping community services for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 68:1301–1315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond CM, Kenter JO, Plieninger T, Turner NJ, Alexander KA (2014) Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 107:145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyers B, O’Farrell PJ, Cowling RM, Egoh BN, Le Maitre D, Vlok JHJ (2009) Ecosystem services, land-cover change, and stakeholders: finding a sustainable foothold for a semiarid biodiversity hotspot. Ecol Soc 14(1):38

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyers B, Biggs R, Cumming GS, Elmqvist T, Hejnowicz AP, Polasky S (2013) Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological approach. Front Ecol Environ 11:268–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Frau A, Edwards-Jones G, Kaiser MJ (2011) Mapping stakeholder values for coastal zone management. Mar Ecol Prog Series 434:239–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaich H, Bieling C, Plieninger T (2010) Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research. Gaia 19:269–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallis H, Pagiola S, Zhang W, Shaikh S, Nelson E, Stanton C, Shyamsundar P (2011) Poverty and the distribution of ecosystem services. In: Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S (eds) Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 3–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner NJ, Ignace MB, Ignace R (2000) Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Ecol Appl 10:1275–1287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine KWG, Fladmark KR, Spurling BE (1980) The description, chronology and correlation of buried soils and cultural layers in a terrace section, Peace River Valley, British Columbia. Can J Soil Sci 60:185–197

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wang G, Fanh Q, Zhang L, Chen W, Chen Z, Hong H (2010) Valuing the effects of hydropower development on watershed ecosystem services: case studies in the Jiulong River Watershed, Fujian Province, China. Estuar Coast Shelf S 86:363–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all survey participants whom reside in the study area of the Upper Peace River Watershed. The comments of two anonymous reviewers were gratefully appreciated. Funding is from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grants Program to ZL (#418241-2012). RD was funded by the NSERC Industrial Postgraduate Scholarships Program, the McLean Foundation, and was supported by Wildsight Golden and Wildsight Regional. Our funding sources had no involvement in study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation of data, nor in writing of the report or in the decision to publish these results.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal Roads University, 2005 Sooke Road, Victoria, BC, V9B 5Y2, Canada

    Rachel Darvill

  2. Department of Biology, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 5B7, Canada

    Zoë Lindo

  3. Wildsight Golden, PO Box 663, Golden, BC, V0A1H0, Canada

    Rachel Darvill

Authors
  1. Rachel Darvill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zoë Lindo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zoë Lindo.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Darvill, R., Lindo, Z. The inclusion of stakeholders and cultural ecosystem services in land management trade-off decisions using an ecosystem services approach. Landscape Ecol 31, 533–545 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0260-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0260-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation