Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 241–256 | Cite as

Using the ecosystem services concept to analyse stakeholder involvement in wetland management

  • Emmanuelle Cohen-Shacham
  • Tamar Dayan
  • Rudolf de Groot
  • Coralie Beltrame
  • Fanny Guillet
  • Eran Feitelson
Original Paper

Abstract

Wetland management usually involves multiple stakeholders. This paper describes how the use of the ecosystem services (ES) concept can help to identify the main stakeholders associated with wetland conservation, using the Hula Wetland in the Sea of Galilee’s watershed as a case study. We conducted a stakeholder analysis based on semi-structured interviews. We focused on the management of two semi-natural areas within the larger Hula Wetland area (Hula Nature Reserve and Agamon), in which different management regimes are used and which provide different bundles of ES to different stakeholders. Using the ES concept in the stakeholder analysis, we were able to present the Hula Wetland management in a comprehensive manner. The approach also revealed a lack of coordination between the managing organisations which might lead to competition favouring cultural services (in particular tourism) at the expense of habitat services (i.e. biodiversity conservation) in the future. To test our method we also conducted a stakeholder analysis in the Camargue Wetland in France. The two wetlands have similar characteristics but are embedded in different institutional contexts. The Camargue Regional Park has a multi-stakeholder platform which could serve as an example for the Hula Wetland to improve its management and lead to better coordination and complementarity of ES provided by the two sub-sites. Our study showed that applying the ES concept helps to quickly identify relevant stakeholders and analyse wetland management in a more holistic way and to point towards sustainable solutions for conflicting stakeholder interests.

Keywords

Ecosystem management Ecosystem services Hula Wetland Stakeholder analysis 

References

  1. Amir S, Rechtman O (2006) The development of forest policy in Israel in the 20th century: implications for the future. For Policy Econ 8(1):35–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong D, Gosling A, Weinman J, Marteau T (1997) The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: an empirical study. Sociology 31(3):597–606. doi:10.1177/0038038597031003015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avni T (2003) The effects of institutions on open spaces landscapes and preservation patterns in Israel (In Hebrew). Dissertation, Geography Department, Hebrew University of JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  4. Avnimelech Y (1999) The drainage of the Hula Valley (Israel). A case study of a sustainable (or non-sustainable) water development project. Water for the future, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel and Jordan. N. R. Council. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  5. Avnimelech Y, Dasberg S, Harpaz A, Levin I (1978) Prevention of nitrate leakage from the Hula Basin, Israel: a case study in watershed management. Soil Sci 125:233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnea I (Ed) (2011) The Hula project—monitoring system, report of 2009–2010. Migal, Kyriat Shemona. Submitted to the water authority and KKL (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  7. Barnett HJ, Morse C (1963) Scarcity and growth. The economics of natural resource availability. Resources for the future. The Johns Hopkins Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  8. Brauman KA, Daily GC, Duarte TK, Mooney HA (2007) The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 32:67–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cast A, MacDonald DH, Grandgirard A, Kalivas T, Strathearn M, Sanderson M, Bryan B, Frahm D (2008) South Australian Murray-Darling basin environmental values report. CSIRO, Water for a Healthy Country National Research FlagshipGoogle Scholar
  10. Chan M (1995) Tree resources in Northern Thailand. local stakeholders and national policy. Natural Resources Institute, ChathamGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen-Shacham E, Dayan T, Feitelson E, de Groot RS (2011) Ecosystem service trade-offs in wetland management: drainage and rehabilitation of the Hula, Israel. Hydrol Sci J 56(8):1582–1601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins-Kreiner N, Israeli Y (2010) The Agmon Lake: supporting an integrated soft approach to ecotourism development. Tourism Geogr 12(1):118–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Committee on Sustainable Water Supplies for the Middle East (1999) Water for the future: The West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel, and Jordan. National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Costanza RR, d’Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van der Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630):253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daily GC, Ellison K (2002) The new economy of nature: the quest to make conservation profitable. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. De Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem function, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41(3):393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7(3):260–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dervieux A, Jolly G, Allouche A (2006) Gestion de l’eau et projet de territoire: vers une gestion intégrée du delta du Rhône. VertigO 7(3)Google Scholar
  19. Dimentman C, Bromley HJ, Por FD (1992) Lake Hula. Reconstruction of the fauna and hydrobiology of a lost lake. Israel Academy of Science and Humanities, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  20. Duany M (2010) From drainage to conservation of the Hula wetland: tracing the dynamics of nature intervention (in Hebrew). Dissertation, University of Haifa, IsraelGoogle Scholar
  21. Feitelson E, Rosenthal G (2012) Desalination, space and power: the ramifications of Israel’s changing water geography. Geoforum 42(2):272–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Feitelson E, Fischhendler I, Kay P (2007) Role of a central administrator in managing water resources: the case of the Israeli water commissioner. Water Resour Res 43(11):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Furth DG (1976) The huleh and its lost aquatic leaf beetle. Atala 4(1–2):4–9Google Scholar
  24. Gophen M, Tsipris Y, Meron M, Bar-Ilan I (2003) The management of Lake Agmon wetlands (Hula Valley, Israel). Hydrobiologia 506–509(1–3):803–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grimble RJ (1998) Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management. Natural Resources Institute. Available: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Pubs/files/BPG02.pdf
  26. Grimble RJ, Wellard K (1997) Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agr Syst 55:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grimble RJ, Chan M, Aglionby J, Quan J (1995) Trees and trade-offs: a stakeholder approach to natural resource management. Gatekeeper Series no. 52. IIED, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Gutman M, Kaplan D, Gutman R (2001) Restoration and conservation of fauna and flora in the re-flooded hula wetland in Northern Israel. Final report, 1997–2001, LIFE—Third Countries. TCY/97/IL/038Google Scholar
  29. Hambright KD, Zohary T (1998) Lakes Hula and Agmon: destruction and creation of wetland ecosystems in northern Israel. Wetl Ecol Manag 6(2–3):83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jordan Sources Stream Administration (2009) Life project for the Jordan River—Master plan (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  31. Klein M (1998) Water balance of the upper Jordan river basin. Water Int 23(4):244–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 8(5):468–479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Labinger Z, Skutelsky O (2005) Great rift valley migration flyway. The hula. Nomination for inscription on the world heritage list. Keren Kayemet LeIsraelGoogle Scholar
  34. Leopold A (1949) A sand county almanac, and sketches here and there. Oxford University Press, London, p 226Google Scholar
  35. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: multiscale assessments. findings of the sub-global assessments working group of the millennium ecosystem assessment. Island Press, World Resources Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  36. Markel D (2004) The Hula Project, the Israeli wetland project. Agamit 166:6–10 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  37. Markel D, Sass E, Lazar B, Bein A (1998) Biogeochemical evolution of a sulfur-iron rich aquatic system in a reflooded wetland environment (Lake Agmon, northern Israel). Wetl Ecol Manag 6:103–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mathevet R (2004) Camargue incertaine. Sciences, usages et natures. Buchet-Chastel, Ecologie, FranceGoogle Scholar
  39. Mathevet R, Etienne M, Lynam T, Calvet C (2011) Water management in the Camargue biosphere reserve: insights from comparative mental models analysis. Ecol Soc 16(1):43Google Scholar
  40. Maynard S, James D, Davidson A (2010) The development of an ecosystem services framework for South East Queensland. Environ Manag 45(5):881–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nash RF (1989) The rights of nature: a history of environmental ethics. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin 290 Google Scholar
  42. Olsvig-Whittaker L, Oron T, Kaplan D, Hassan G (2005) Conservation of Mediterranean wetlands: Israel’s two “Ramsar” sites, En Afeq and Hula nature reserves. Isr J Plant Sci 53:253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  44. Paz U (1975) Rehabilitation of the Hula Nature Reserve (Hebrew). Nat Conserv Isr 1:116–206Google Scholar
  45. Picon B (2008) L’espace et le temps en Camargue. Actes Sud, Arles, FranceGoogle Scholar
  46. Ramsar Convention Secretariat (2010) Wise use of wetlands: concepts and approaches for the wise use of wetlands. Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands, vol 1, 4th edn. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  47. Ramsar COP9 (2005) Resolution IX.9: the role of the Ramsar convention in the prevention and mitigation of impacts associated with natural phenomena, including those induced or exacerbated by human activities. Available: http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_ix_09_e.pdf
  48. Ramsar COP10 (2008) Resolution X.19: “Wetlands and river basin management: consolidated scientific and technical guidance. Available: http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_19_e.pdf
  49. Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manage 90(5):1933–1949CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Scolozzi R, Morri E, Santolini R (2012) Delphi-based change assessment in ecosystem service values to support strategic spatial planning in Italian landscapes. Ecol Indic 21:134–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S (2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol 48(3):630–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shaham G, Minzker H, Kenaan G (1990) Alternative utilization of the Hula lands—a feasibility study. Israel Ministry of Agriculture, Hula Committee (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
  53. Shmueli M, Izhaki I, Zinder O, Arad Z (2000) The physiological state of captive and migrating Great White Pelicans (Pelecanus onocrotalus) revealed by their blood chemistry. Comp Biochem Physiol Part A Mol Integr Physiol 125(1):25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shy E, Beckerman S, Oron T, Frankenberg E (1998) Repopulation and colonization by birds in the Agmon wetland, Israel. Wetl Ecol Manag 6:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Skutelsky O, Oron T (2008) Hula’s management plan (in Hebrew), Nature and Parks AuthorityGoogle Scholar
  56. Tal A (2006) Seeking sustainability: Israel’s evolving water management strategy. Science 313(5790):1081–1084CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. In: Pushpam Kumar (ed) Earthscan, London, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  58. Thompson P (2000) Re-using qualitative research data: a personal account. Forum: qualitative social research, North America. Available: <http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1044>. Accessed 18 Mar 2013
  59. Trop T (2001) Nature conservation policy in Israel: formation process, trends and future directions (In Hebrew). Dissertation, The Technion—Israel Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emmanuelle Cohen-Shacham
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tamar Dayan
    • 1
  • Rudolf de Groot
    • 3
  • Coralie Beltrame
    • 4
  • Fanny Guillet
    • 5
  • Eran Feitelson
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.SIAM DepartmentSwiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag)DübendorfSwitzerland
  3. 3.Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of MonitoringEvaluation and Wetland PolicyArlesFrance
  5. 5.CERSP UMR 7204, Muséum National d’Histoire NaturelleParisFrance
  6. 6.Department of GeographyThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations