Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Involving Stakeholders’ Knowledge in Co-designing Social Valuations of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Implications for Decision-Making

  • Published:
Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

ABSTRACT

We contribute to addressing two gaps that reduce the utility of ecosystem sciences for decision-making: lack of standard methods for using stakeholders’ knowledge to co-design ecosystem services science research, and absence of commensurable social valuation metrics that allow effective value comparisons. In two phases, we used co-designed instruments to conduct social valuation of biodiversity, and provisioning, cultural and regulating services. First, we conducted eight participatory fora, where experts and non-experts identified ecosystem aspects to which they ascribe value. We combined knowledge from the fora—expert and non-expert—and the literature to identify 45 ecosystem aspects of value—importance—to people. Second, we organized the valued aspects into four psychometric social valuation instruments that were reviewed and contributed to by experts and non-experts. We used those instruments in a survey questionnaire completed by 968 residents of Deschutes County, USA. Co-design led to high valuation reliabilities. The omission of either expert or non-expert knowledge would have resulted in suboptimal valuation. Unexpectedly, biodiversity was valued more than any category of ecosystem services, and urban sprawl regulation—a novel non-expert-identified function—was valued more than all aspects of climate regulation. These findings—directly resulting from co-design—illustrate that co-designed commensurable metrics are adaptable to various decision contexts; they can provide issue-specific valuations and comparisons, broader valuations, comparisons between specific and broader ecosystem services, and equity-based parameters for addressing distributional concerns vital to decision-making. Co-designed commensurable metrics lead to social valuations that are better suited for decision-making and for persuasive communication of those decisions to enhance social compliance.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Asah ST. 2014. Professionals’ perspectives: exploring the occupational and organizational psychology of community-agency interactions in forest fire management. Forestry 87:552–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asah ST, Blahna DJ, Ryan C. 2012. Involving forest communities in identifying and constructing ecosystem services: Millennium assessment and place-specificity. J Forest 110:149–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asah ST, Guerry AD, Blahna DJ, Lawler JJ. 2014. Perception, acquisition and use of ecosystem services: human behavior, and ecosystem management and policy implications. Ecosyst Serv 10:180–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett EM. 2017. Research frontiers in ecosystem service science. Ecosystems 20:31–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertheta ET, Segrestin B, Hickey GM. 2016. Considering agro-ecosystems as ecological funds for collective design: new perspectives for environmental policy. Environ Sci Policy 61:108–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blahna DJ, Asah ST, Deal RL. 2017. An ecosystem services framework. In: Van Horne B, Olson DH, Eds. People, forests and change: lessons from the pacific Northwest. Washington, DC: Island Press. p 62–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boeraeve F, Dufrene M, De Vreese R, Jacobs S, Pipart N, Turkelboom F, Verheyden W, Dendoncker N. 2018. Participatory identification and selection of ecosystem services: building on field experiences. Ecology and Society 23(2):27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10087-230227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS, Diaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM, Perrings C, Reid WV, Sarukhan J, Scholes RJ, Whyte A. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(5):1305–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini RB. 2007. Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control. Psychometrika 72(2):263–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R. 2000. Social goals and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosystems 3:4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily GC, Ed. 1997. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. p 412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily GC, Söderqvist T, Aniyar T, Arrow K, Dasgupta P, Ehrlich PR, Jansson A, Jensson B, Kautsky N, Levin S, Lubchenco J, Mäler K, Simpson D, Starrett D, Tilman D, Walker B. 2000. The value of nature and the nature of value. Science 289:395–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis RF. 2017. Scale development: theory and practice. Los Angeles (CA): Sage Publications. p 280.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVon HA, Block ME, Moyle-Wright P, Ernst DM, Hayden SJ, Lazzara DJ, Savoy SM, Kostas-Polston E. 2007. A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh 39(2):155–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. 2009. Internet, mail and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley. p 512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan OD. 1984. Notes on social measurement: historical and critical. New York: Russell Sage. p 272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood A, Brooker A, Irvine RJ, Artz RRE, Norton LR, Bullock JM, Ross L, Fielding D, Ramsay S, Roberts J, Anderson W, Dugan D, Cooksley S, Pakeman RJ. 2016. Does nature conservation enhance ecosystem services delivery? Ecosyst Serv 17:152–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field A. 2013. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: Sage Publications. p 915.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furr RM, Bacharach VR. 2014. Psychometrics: an introduction. Los Angeles (CA): Sage Publications. p 472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopal B. 2016. A conceptual framework for environmental flows assessment based on ecosystem services and their economic valuation. Ecosyst Serv 21:53–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guimares MH, McKee A, Lima ML, Vasconcelos L, Boski T, Dentinho T. 2016. Putting transdisciplinarity into practice: a mixed mode procedure for stakeholder participation in natural resource management. J Environ Plan Manage 59(1):1827–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly EC, Bliss JC. 2009. Healthy forests, healthy communities: an emerging paradigm for natural resource-dependent communities. Soc Nat Resour 22:519–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger RA, Casey MA. 2000. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. London: Sage Publications. p 219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langemeyer J, Palomo I, Baraibar S, Gómez-Baggethun E. 2017. Participatory multi-criteria decision aid: operationalizing an integrated assessment of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 30:49–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurans Y, Rankovic A, Billé R, Pirarda R, Mermet L. 2013. Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: questioning a literature blindspot. J Environ Manage 119:208–19.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MA. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press. p 137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M, Schmalzbauer BS, Hackmann H, Leemans R, Moore H. 2013. Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr Op Environ Sustain 5:420–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • McElroy T, Dowd K. 2007. Susceptibility to anchoring effects: how openness-to-experience influences responses to anchoring cues. Judgem Decis Mak 2(1):48–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie-Mohr D. 2011. Fostering sustainable behavior: an introduction to community-based social marketing. Gabriola Island (BC): New Society Publishers. p 192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser SC. 2016. Can science on transformation transform science? Lessons from co-design. Curr Op Environ Sustain 20:106–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss PA. 1994. Can there be validity without reliability? Educational Researcher 23(2):5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neugarten RA, Wolf SA, Stedman RC. 2012. Forest fights and forest rights: working forests as a strategy for reducing tensions in NewYork State. Soc Nat Resour 5:1205–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally JC. 1978. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill. p 640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Primmer E, Saarikoskia H, Vatn A. 2018. An empirical analysis of institutional demand for valuation knowledge. Ecol Econ 152:152–60.

    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 107:145–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña J. 2013. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles (CA): Sage Publications. p 408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanna S, Eja P. 2017. Recreational cultural ecosystem services: how do people describe the value? Ecosyst Serv 26:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schacter DL, Buckner RL. 1998. Priming and the Brain. Neuron 20:185–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz SH. 1994. Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of human values? J Soc Issues 50(4):19–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz SH. 1996. Value priorities and behavior: applying a theory of integrated value systems. Psychol Values Ontario Symp 8:119–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz SH, Cieciuch J, Vecchione M, Fischer R, Beierlein C, Ramos A, Verkasalo M, Lönnqvist J, Demirutku K, Dirilen-Gumus O, Konty M. 2012. Refining the theory of basic individual values. J Pers Soc Psychol 103(4):663–88.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spector PE. 1992. Summated rating scale construction: an introduction. Menlo Park (CA): Sage Publications. p 72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steelman TA, McCaffrey SM. 2011. What is limiting more flexible fire management—public or agency pressure? J Forest 109:454–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. 2013. Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson. p 980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tulving E, Schacter DL. 1990. Priming and human memory systems. Science 247:301–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turner RK. 2007. Limits to CBA in UK and European environmental policy: retrospects and future prospects. Environ Resour Econ 37:253–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Hel S. 2016. New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in Future Earth. Environ Sci Policy 61:165–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss RS. 1994. Learning from strangers: the art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: Free Press. p 246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright WCC, Eppink FV, Greenhalgh S. 2017. Are ecosystem service studies presenting the right information for decision making? Ecosyst Serv 25:128–39.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to the stakeholders who participated in the identification of valued ecosystem aspects and to the subjects of the social valuation. We thank D. French and I. Bell for help with the participatory identification, and B. Hagood, C. Henderson and R. Roberts for their assistance in administering the social valuation. We thank two anonymous reviewers, the subject matter editor and the editor for their constructive contributions. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, funded this study.

Author information

Author notes

  1. STA: Conceived of and designed study, Performed research, Analyzed data, Contributed new methods or models, Wrote the paper. DJB: Conceived of and designed study, Co-wrote the paper.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, College of the Environment, University of Washington, Box 352100, Seattle, Washington, 98195, USA

    Stanley T. Asah

  2. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 400 N. 34th St., Suite 201, Seattle, Washington, 98103, USA

    Dale J. Blahna

Authors
  1. Stanley T. Asah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dale J. Blahna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stanley T. Asah.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 144 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Asah, S.T., Blahna, D.J. Involving Stakeholders’ Knowledge in Co-designing Social Valuations of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Implications for Decision-Making. Ecosystems 23, 324–337 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-019-00405-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-019-00405-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation