New metrics for managing and sustaining the ocean's bounty

Tallis, Heather; Lester, Sarah E.; Ruckelshaus, Mary; Plummer, Mark L.; McLeod, Karen L.; Guerry, Anne D.; Andelman, Sandy; Caldwell, Margaret R.; Conte, Marc; Copps, Stephen; Fox, David S.; Fujita, Rod; Gaines, Steven D.; Gelfenbaum, Guy; Gold, Barry D.; Kareiva, Peter; Kim, Choong‐Ki; Lee, Kai; Papenfus, Michael; Redman, Scott B.; Silliman, Brian R.; Wainger, Lisa A.; White, Crow

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2011.03.013

Cited by 72 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding the suitability of the different methods exposed, we agree with Tallis et al (2012) and Ringold et al (2013) who suggest that an open combination of the two scopes identified would provide the most information, firstly identifying the valuable ecosystem services to stakeholders, and secondly, ranking their preferences (i.e., the value). This is especially important in land management, where trade-offs between alternative land uses are frequent, and a selection of ecosystem services to be enhanced or decreased might be required (Hicks et al 2013).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

“…In addition, considering ecosystems from the perspective of each stakeholder or beneficiary (Ringold et al 2013) makes it easier to differentiate between the valuation of the service (what is supplied to the beneficiary) and the value given to it [what is weighted by the beneficiary (Tallis et al 2012)]. Furthermore, a previous understanding of the reasons why an ecosystem service is valued is essential for comparing valuation outcomes across studies (see examples of typologies of values in Hein et al 2006;Anthony et al 2009;and Chan et al 2012b).…”

Section: Stage 3: the Methods For Social Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A framework for the social valuation of ecosystem services

Felipe‐Lucia

Comı́n

Escalera-Reyes

2014

AMBIO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methods to assess ecosystem services using ecological or economic approaches are considerably better defined than methods for the social approach. To identify why the social approach remains unclear, we reviewed current trends in the literature. We found two main reasons: (i) the cultural ecosystem services are usually used to represent the whole social approach, and (ii) the economic valuation based on social preferences is typically included in the social approach. Next, we proposed a framework for the social valuation of ecosystem services that provides alternatives to economics methods, enables comparison across studies, and supports decision-making in land planning and management. The framework includes the agreements emerged from the review, such as considering spatial-temporal flows, including stakeholders from all social ranges, and using two complementary methods to value ecosystem services. Finally, we provided practical recommendations learned from the application of the proposed framework in a case study.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Stage 3: the Methods For Social Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework for the social valuation of ecosystem services

Felipe‐Lucia

Comı́n

Escalera-Reyes

2014

AMBIO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Economists and social scientists have developed numerous approaches for evaluating the desirability of an environmental state to individuals or communities (Haab and McConnell 2002, Nelson 2006, Plummer 2009, Guerry et al 2012. Economists, for example, have methods for estimating values of ecosystem components that cannot readily be bought or sold (e.g., Carson et al 2001).…”

Section: Assess Ecosystem Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We first used radar plots (Fig. 2), which have proven useful for visualizing multidimensional trade-offs (e.g., Guerry et al 2012). However, because the numerical nature of radar plots may not resonate with some respondents (Bell 1984), we also developed stylized images (Fig.…”

Section: Reveal Desired Ecosystem Statementioning

confidence: 99%

Developing conservation targets in social-ecological systems

Levin¹,

Williams²,

Rehr³

et al. 2015

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The development of targets is foundational in conservation. Although progress has been made in setting targets, the diverse linkages among ecological and social components make target setting for coupled social-ecological systems extremely challenging. Developing integrated social-ecological targets is difficult because it forces policy makers to consider how management actions propagate throughout social-ecological systems, and because ultimately it is society, not scientists, that defines targets. We developed an interdisciplinary approach for identifying management targets and illustrate this approach using an example motivated by Puget Sound, USA. Our approach blends ecological modeling with empirical social science to articulate trade-offs and reveal societal preferences for different social-ecological states. The framework aims to place information in the hands of decision makers and promote discussion in the appropriate forums. Our ultimate objective is to encourage the informed participation of citizens in the development of social-ecological targets that reflect their values while also protecting key ecosystem attributes.

show abstract

“…Marine spatial planning efforts in Europe and, more recently, the U.S. are seeking to rationalize the use of coastal areas and lay the groundwork for comprehensive resource use plans (European Commission, 2011;Olsen et al, 2014). At the same time, coordinated research efforts are developing formal methods and tools to assess spatial tradeoffs in marine ecosystem services (Douvere, 2008;Hoagland et al, 2003;Kareiva et al, 2011;Tallis et al, 2011). All of this effort seeks to find ways to improve governance and inform the allocation of resources among diverse stakeholders for sustainable long term solutions that best use limited marine resources.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Private incentives for the emergence of co-production of offshore wind energy and mussel aquaculture

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technological solutions to increase the efficiency of spatial use can play a key role as part of the toolbox of marine spatial planning. Co-locating of multiple ocean uses can potentially increase the production and enjoyment of the ocean while limiting impacts. However, a basic precondition for co-locating or coproduction is that all parties' private incentives are aligned. We use a case study of co-locating an offshore wind energy firm and a mussel aquaculture firm to assess the incentive structure for cooperation and to demonstrate that social benefits from co-locating exist. We find that there is room for cooperation between firms based on potential cost sharing and that the demonstrated social benefits may arise without government intervention.

show abstract

New metrics for managing and sustaining the ocean's bounty

Abstract: 2016-12-24T18:18:19

Cited by 72 publications

References 2 publications

A framework for the social valuation of ecosystem services

A framework for the social valuation of ecosystem services

Developing conservation targets in social-ecological systems

Private incentives for the emergence of co-production of offshore wind energy and mussel aquaculture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About