Meanings and robustness: Propositions for enhancing benefit sharing in social-ecological systems

Abstract

Given increased pressure on natural resources to deliver benefits, complex trade-offs and the regulation of behaviours in relation to benefits is of key concern. Behaviours that signify resistance to the rules according to which benefits are allocated prompt us to consider causal links and feedbacks between benefits, perceptions of benefits, meanings attached to the benefits, and the regulatory instruments that mediate the distribution of benefits. An understanding of how meanings influence the perception of benefits exposes the complexity inherent in how people perceive and allocate value to natural resource benefits. Meanings are personal, sometimes overlapping, context dependent and variable across space and time. A challenge in directing resource user behaviour in common pool resources is that the relationship between the resource and resource use is typically not interpreted to include the manner in which users associate resource benefits with meanings. We propose that collective ordering of meanings and associated rules help to direct behaviours and in doing so they contribute to the purposeful maintenance of desirable elements of a social-ecological system (i.e. robustness). Using an example, we illustrate how tensions around benefit sharing are rooted in the emergence and changing prioritisation of contexts and meanings over time. The importance of eliciting, ordering and sanctioning of meanings Meanings and robustness: Propositions for enhancing benefit sharing 577 is emphasised. We conclude by discussing the implications for robustness and benefit sharing in social-ecological systems and we comment on the usefulness and limitations of the framework.

Broadly engaging with tranquillity in protected landscapes: A matter of perspective identified in GIS

“…Consequently we assert the use of a participatory and inductive mixed methods approach that is able to capture both the "tangible and intangible meanings imbued" (Kil, Holland, & Stein, 2013 p.478) on an area − many of which, as shown in BET, will overlap and will be context dependent (Van Wyk, Breen, & Freimund, 2014). Through using an extensive and inclusive framework such as the BET means that real-world perspectives on the effect of policies i.e.…”

The ecosystem service of sense of place: benefits for human well-being and biodiversity conservation

“…Connection to nature increases peoples’ perceptions of sense of place, promoting personal involvement in conservation (Lokhorst et al 2014). In urban areas, green spaces (like public parks, private gardens, or allotments for horticulture) provide access to nature and sense of place (van Riper et al 2012; Meurk et al 2013), increasing awareness for environmental conservation (Bendt et al 2013), and social collaboration for their management (Andersson et al 2007; van Wyk et al 2014). Moreover, the conservation of soundscapes related to sense of place (such as natural quietness or the sounds of wildlife) may be a way to alleviate human pressure on ecosystems and promote biodiversity conservation (Dumyahn & Pijanowski 2011).…”

Valuing the Invaluable(?)—A Framework to Facilitate Stakeholder Engagement in the Planning of Nature-Based Solutions

“…It is hoped that by presenting soft benefits in a more structured and holistic way, their relevance for the overall urban system and the indirect influence on different budgets can be shown. Moreover, targeted and differentiated communication may increase the individual perception of benefits and the meanings that different stakeholders assign to NBS, which can fundamentally shape the final allocation of value and influence the demand and individual support for NBS [20].…”

“…Others have articulated the importance of effectively communicating nonmaterial benefits of NBS in a persuasive manner in ways that benefits can be accounted for and traded off in common framings [18][19][20]. It is in this context that the described framework has been developed.…”