Trade-offs in ecosystem services and varying stakeholder preferences: evaluating conflicts, obstacles, and opportunities

King, Elizabeth G.; Cavender‐Bares, Jeannine; Balvanera, Patricia; Mwampamba, Tuyeni H.; Polasky, Stephen

doi:10.5751/es-07822-200325

Cited by 137 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The framework enables the identification of driving factors of and direct visualization of trade-offs due to stakeholders' preferences at spatial or temporal scale . King et al (2015) further evaluated the utility of the framework for ecosystem services trade-off analysis with critical insights to clarify conflicts among stakeholders under different scenarios.…”

Section: Trade-offs Of Ecosystem Services At Different Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review on trade-off analysis of ecosystem services for sustainable land-use management

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem services are substantial elements for human society. The central challenge to meet the human needs from ecosystems while sustain the Earth's life support systems makes it urgent to enhance efficient natural resource management for sustainable ecological and socioeconomic development. Trade-off analysis of ecosystem services can help to identify optimal decision points to balance the costs and benefits of the diverse human uses of ecosystems. In this sense, the aim of this paper is to provide key insights into ecosystem services trade-off analysis at different scales from a land use perspective, by comprehensively reviewing the trade-offs analysis tools and approaches that addressed in ecology, economics and other fields. The review will significantly contribute to future research on trade-off analysis to avoid inferior management options and offer a win-win solution based on comprehensive and efficient planning for interacting multiple ecosystem services.

show abstract

Section: Trade-offs Of Ecosystem Services At Different Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review on trade-off analysis of ecosystem services for sustainable land-use management

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast to forest function mapping with mostly stakeholders from the forest administration (StMELF 2015), a PPGIS approach with stakeholders beyond the forest sector could equally reveal further forest benefits beyond the legally bound or guided forest functions. More heterogeneous stakeholders may reveal different patterns of synergies and trade-offs (King et al 2015). In contrast to the legally bound forest function, ESS may freely allow (i) participants to identify and partly prioritize ESS; (ii) more diverse stakeholder groups may locate potentially more or different ESS in contrast to forest owners, employees from the forest agencies, or other public agencies; (iii) the ESS concept allows us to look at trade-offs or synergies and gives the freedom for integration or separation of ESS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do ecosystem services provide an added value compared to existing forest planning approaches in Central Europe?

Meyer¹,

Schulz²

2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. In forestry research, the concept of ecosystem services (ESS) is less prominent than in agricultural studies. One reason might be that multifunctional forestry and the concept of forest functions, i.e., societal demand from forest, are established and legally required planning approaches in Central Europe, e.g., in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. To explore differences in concept and perspective, we conducted a participatory stakeholder workshop to identify, score, and map ESS in an urban forest in Germany. For comparison, we used existing forest function maps. Forest function mapping as planning approach is based on a regional-scale expert assessment of forest agencies. The local ESS scoring showed a clear preference for recreation, drinking water, biodiversity, mediation of climate and water, and wood provision in decreasing order. Most stakeholder groups scored recreation highest. Drinking water was also important for most stakeholders. Recreation stakeholders scored unbalanced with an apparent focus on their own demand (Gini coefficient: 0.83). Contrastingly, forestry stakeholders scored the ESS in a balanced manner (Gini coefficient: 0.47). ESS and forest function maps highly overlapped. The stakeholders identified both synergies and trade-offs between timber and biodiversity and between drinking water and biodiversity depending on the management. Recreation has mostly trade-offs, with timber, hunting, and drinking water. The stakeholders mapped only few ESS in addition to forest functions, e.g., feed production, beekeeping, and biodiversity hotspots. Although forest functions consider most forest benefits despite weak stakeholder consultation, the opportunity to prioritize forest benefits and to analyze interactions is a clear added value of the ESS approach. The paradigm of simultaneous provision of all forest functions does not reflect heterogeneous societal preferences. The stakeholders showed a rather low level of conflict and a high level of understanding for differences in their prioritization. The reason might be the long local tradition of multiple-use forestry beginning in the late 1800s. The study area is an example for an urban forest of a larger city in Europe with high pressure from local recreation. It would be interesting to test the approach for other environmental conditions and locations of an urban forest. In general, the developed approach could be used to evaluate the quality of other planning instruments for multiple-use forestry worldwide regarding their consideration of stakeholder requirements and the potential added value of the ESS approach.

show abstract

“…Innovative research addressing ecosystem service trade-offs has employed multistakeholder processes to coproduce adaptive solutions (Abunge et al 2013, King et al 2015, Reyers et al 2015, Dedeurwaerdere et al 2016). Bringing such engagement into conservation practice could potentially be realized through refocusing current engagement, education, and social marketing practices rather than demanding entirely additional resources.…”

Section: Implications For Conservation and Development Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental justice research shows the importance of social feedbacks in ecosystem service trade-offs

Dawson¹,

Grogan²,

Martin³

et al. 2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pasgaard, and L. V. Rasmussen. 2017. Environmental justice research shows the importance of social feedbacks in ecosystem service trade-offs. ABSTRACT. In this article, we shine a spotlight on approaches to research ecosystem service trade-offs and critically assess their representation of relevant social dynamics. Although studies linking ecosystem services and human well-being have provided theoretical insights into social and ecological trade-offs, we argue that ecosystem services research has paid insufficient attention to "social feedbacks," people's cognitive and behavioral responses to change. We demonstrate that augmenting ecosystem services research with environmental justice approaches (exploring perceptions of the distribution of costs and benefits, decision making procedures, and recognition of different values and identities) can more effectively capture important responses to ecosystem governance. Spatial analysis of land use change, mixed-method assessment of multidimensional well-being, and qualitative environmental justice research were applied in three villages adjacent to Nam Et-Phou Louey National Protected Area in northern Laos. Spatial analysis showed that, from 2006 to 2015, forest clearance for cultivation remained stable within the protected area. Well-being assessment revealed the local population benefited from rapidly increasing incomes, asset ownership, and reduced poverty during that time. In combination, spatial and well-being analyses paint a picture of limited trade-offs, despite growing incentives to exploit protected land and resources through cash crops and high-value forest products. In contrast, results from environmental justice research revealed profound trade-offs between conservation and local practices, and highlight governance deficiencies relating to procedure and recognition. Consequently, formal protected area rules were perceived to be illegitimate by many and actively undermined, for example through negotiated access with alternative authorities. We conclude that although well-being research provides an essential foundation to understand diverse attachments to natural resources, the addition of environmental justice research can reveal local perceptions and social feedbacks critical to ecosystem service trade-offs, and highlight pathways to reconcile them through satisfying stakeholders' diverse, dynamic objectives.

show abstract

Trade-offs in ecosystem services and varying stakeholder preferences: evaluating conflicts, obstacles, and opportunities

Cited by 137 publications

References 43 publications

A review on trade-off analysis of ecosystem services for sustainable land-use management

A review on trade-off analysis of ecosystem services for sustainable land-use management

Do ecosystem services provide an added value compared to existing forest planning approaches in Central Europe?

Environmental justice research shows the importance of social feedbacks in ecosystem service trade-offs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About