Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem ... · Mapping community values for...

15
METHODS Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services Christopher M. Raymond a,e, , Brett A. Bryan b , Darla Hatton MacDonald b , Andrea Cast b,d , Sarah Strathearn b , Agnes Grandgirard b,c , Tina Kalivas b,d a Enviroconnect Pty Ltd. GPO Box 190 Stirling, South Australia 5152, Australia b CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Cornish Building, Waite Road, Urrbrae, South Australia 5064, Australia c CEMAGREF, France d University of Adelaide, Australia e Centre for Rural Health and Community Development, University of South Australia, Australia ARTICLE DATA ABSTRACT Article history: Received 14 October 2008 Received in revised form 26 November 2008 Accepted 9 December 2008 Available online 20 January 2009 Whilst biophysical, and increasingly economic, values are often used to define high priority hotspots in planning for conservation and environmental management, community values are rarely considered. The community values mapping method presented in this paper builds on the concept of natural capital and ecosystem services and the landscape values methodology to link local perception of place to a broader measure of environmental values at the landscape level. Based on in-depth interviews and a mapping task conducted with 56 natural resource management decision-makers and community representatives, we quantified and mapped values and threats to natural capital assets and ecosystem services in the South Australian MurrayDarling Basin region. GIS-based techniques were used to map the spatial distribution of natural capital and ecosystem service values and threats over the region and analyse the proportional differences at the sub-regional scale. Participants assigned the highest natural capital asset value to water and biota assets primarily for the production of cultural, regulating and provisioning services. The most highly valued ecosystem services were recreation and tourism, bequest, intrinsic and existence, fresh water provision, water regulation and food provision. Participants assigned the highest threat to regulating services associated with water and land assets. Natural capital asset and ecosystem service values varied at both sub-regional and place-specific scales. Respondents believed people were integral to the environment but also posed a high threat to natural capital and ecosystem services. The results have implications for the way values toward natural capital and ecosystem services may be integrated into planning for environmental management. © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Sense of place Threat Ecosystem services Natural resource management Social-ecological systems Environmental management Systematic conservation planning Landscape 1. Introduction Both scientific and local communities increasingly expect multiple values to be incorporated within planning for con- servation and environmental management (Raymond and Brown, 2006; Cowling et al., 2008; Kumar and Kumar, 2008; Naidoo et al., 2008). The UNESCO World Heritage Conference (2003) and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) synthesis ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 68 (2009) 1301 1315 Corresponding author. GPO Box 190 Stirling, South Australia 5152, Australia. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.M. Raymond). 0921-8009/$ see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006 available at www.sciencedirect.com www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

Transcript of Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem ... · Mapping community values for...

Page 1: Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem ... · Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services Christopher M. Raymonda,e,⁎, Brett A. Bryanb,

E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 3 0 1 – 1 3 1 5

ava i l ab l e a t www.sc i enced i rec t . com

www.e l sev i e r. com/ l oca te /eco l econ

METHODS

Mapping community values for natural capital andecosystem services

Christopher M. Raymonda,e,⁎, Brett A. Bryanb, Darla Hatton MacDonaldb, Andrea Castb,d,Sarah Strathearnb, Agnes Grandgirardb,c, Tina Kalivasb,d

aEnviroconnect Pty Ltd. GPO Box 190 Stirling, South Australia 5152, AustraliabCSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Cornish Building, Waite Road, Urrbrae, South Australia 5064, AustraliacCEMAGREF, FrancedUniversity of Adelaide, AustraliaeCentre for Rural Health and Community Development, University of South Australia, Australia

A R T I C L E D A T A

⁎ Corresponding author. GPO Box 190 StirlingE-mail address: chris.raymond@enviroconn

0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevidoi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006

A B S T R A C T

Article history:Received 14 October 2008Received in revised form26 November 2008Accepted 9 December 2008Available online 20 January 2009

Whilst biophysical, and increasingly economic, values are often used to define high priorityhotspots in planning for conservation and environmental management, community valuesare rarely considered. The community valuesmappingmethod presented in this paper buildson the concept of natural capital and ecosystem services and the landscape valuesmethodology to link local perception of place to a broader measure of environmental valuesat the landscape level. Based on in-depth interviews and a mapping task conducted with 56natural resource management decision-makers and community representatives, wequantified and mapped values and threats to natural capital assets and ecosystem servicesin the South AustralianMurray–Darling Basin region. GIS-based techniques were used tomapthe spatial distribution of natural capital and ecosystem service values and threats over theregion andanalyse theproportional differencesat the sub-regional scale. Participants assignedthe highest natural capital asset value towater and biota assets primarily for the production ofcultural, regulating andprovisioningservices.Themosthighlyvaluedecosystemserviceswererecreation and tourism, bequest, intrinsic and existence, fresh water provision, waterregulation and food provision. Participants assigned the highest threat to regulating servicesassociated with water and land assets. Natural capital asset and ecosystem service valuesvaried at both sub-regional and place-specific scales. Respondents believed people wereintegral to the environment but also posed a high threat to natural capital and ecosystemservices. The results have implications for the way values toward natural capital andecosystem services may be integrated into planning for environmental management.

© 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Sense of placeThreatEcosystem servicesNatural resource managementSocial-ecological systemsEnvironmental managementSystematic conservation planningLandscape

1. Introduction

Both scientific and local communities increasingly expectmultiple values to be incorporated within planning for con-

, South Australia 5152, Auect.com.au (C.M. Raymon

er B.V. All rights reserved

servation and environmental management (Raymond andBrown, 2006; Cowling et al., 2008; Kumar and Kumar, 2008;Naidoo et al., 2008). The UNESCO World Heritage Conference(2003) and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) synthesis

stralia.d).

.

Page 2: Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem ... · Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services Christopher M. Raymonda,e,⁎, Brett A. Bryanb,

1302 E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 3 0 1 – 1 3 1 5

urged the global scientific community to recognise a morecomprehensive view of the value of nature — both economicand local values which stem from the intrinsic relationshipbetween culture and nature, and people and place.

Natural capital and ecosystem service frameworks (e.g.,Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; de Groot et al., 2002;Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) provide functionallymeaningful ways of understanding a broad range of ecosystemvalues. Recent developments in the mapping of natural capitaland ecosystem services havedeepened this understanding overspace and time (e.g., Blashke, 2005; Bailey et al., 2006; Hein et al.,2006; Troy and Wilson, 2006; Gimona and van der Horst, 2007;Grêt-Regamey et al., 2008; Naidoo et al., 2008). The identificationof hotspots (locations of abundant phenomena) has provided away to integrate multiple environmental and economic valuesas a priority formanagement (Chan et al., 2006; Egoh et al., 2008;Tallis et al., 2008; Crossman and Bryan, 2009).

A number of participatory tools have been developed toshow how and where local knowledge should be incorporatedinto environmental decisionmaking (see Sayer and Campbell,2004; Lynam et al., 2007; Cowling et al., 2008; Reed, 2008;Stenseke, 2009 for reviews). These authors propose theneed for a science that uses active research to identify localpriorities for management; considers values at multiplescales; emphasises empowerment, equity, trust and learning,and; systematically integrates multiple knowledge systemsinto environmental decision-making. Despite these calls, thenatural capital and ecosystem service frameworks are yet toevolve in a way that engages local communities in theidentification and valuation of natural capital assets andecosystem services at place-specific and regional scales (e.g.,Kumar and Kumar, 2008).

In recent years, ‘sense of place’ researchers have directedeffort to the mapping of community values using a variety oftypologies (Kliskey, 1994; Brown and Reed, 2000; Black andLiljeblad, 2006; Tyrväinnen et al., 2007; McIntyre et al., 2008) inorder to inform environmental management. Zube's (1987)transactional concept of human–landscape relationships bestdescribes the rationale underpinning of community valuemapping. He discusses three concepts of human–landscaperelationships: “the human as an agent of biological andphysical impacts on the landscape; the human as a staticreceiver and processor of information from the landscape; andthe human as an active participant in the landscape —thinking, feeling and acting” (p. 37).

Brown et al. developed a landscape values methodology toidentify, map and measure landscape values such as aesthetic,biodiversity, cultural, economic, historic, recreation and wild-erness values (Brown and Reed, 2000; Brown, 2005; Raymondand Brown, 2006; Alessa et al., 2008). Recent studies using thelandscapevaluesmethodologyhave foundamoderatedegreeofspatial coincidence between local biodiversity values andscience-based priority areas for management (Brown et al.,2004; Raymond, 2008).

Other researchers have recognised that social–ecologicalsystems can be affected by regional policies that do notrecognise the local social and ecological dynamics (Anderieset al., 2004; Janssen et al., 2007; Janssen and Anderies, 2007). Inorder to both enhance the robustness of local social–ecologicalsystems and to solve environmental management problems,

it may be necessary to implement policy instruments andmanagement programs which recognise local values andempower local knowledge and expertise (Folke, 2006; Janssenand Anderies, 2007).

Whilst the landscape values methodology has sought tounderstand a range of values from the socio-psychologicalperspective, it has limited scope of the biophysical aspects ofvalue. Integrating the landscape values methodology with theconcept of natural capital and ecosystem services (Costanzaet al., 1997; Daily, 1997; de Groot et al., 2002; MillenniumEcosystem Assessment, 2005) may provide a potential frame-work for enabling the detailed understanding of the broad rangeof values (called community values) that can shape planning fortargeted conservation and environmental management.

Relationships between people and places can be alsoassociated with negative meanings or values (Manzo, 2005).Negative values are often associatedwith degrading processes(or threats) operating on specific ecosystem services. Folke(2006) highlights the importance of considering humanactions, including their impacts upon ecosystem services, aspart of the social–ecological system. Whilst important, fewstudies have attempted to understand how the physical andsociological dynamics of place influence the spatial distribu-tion and intensity of threat perception. The community valuesmapping methods presented in this study address this gap.

In this study, a community values mapping method ispresented that identifies, measures and maps communityvalues and threats towards natural capital assets andecosystem services in the landscape to inform planning forconservation and environmental management. The land-scape values methodology and the Millennium EcosystemAssessment (2005) framework were combined to enable themeasurement of the distribution and intensity of naturalcapital and ecosystem service values and threats as identifiedby 56 local environmental managers and community repre-sentatives in the study area. Interviewswere conductedwhichincluded a mapping task to allocate values and threats tospecific locations in the region. A Geographic InformationSystem (GIS) was used to map the multiple place-specificvalues and threats and the spatial heterogeneity was ana-lysed. The techniques are presented in the context of anapplication in the South Australian Murray–Darling Basinregion and conducted in partnership with the South Austra-lian Murray–Darling Basin Natural Resource ManagementBoard (hereafter SAMDB NRM Board).

2. Methods

2.1. Study area

The South Australian Murray–Darling Basin (SAMDB) regioncovers an areaof just over 56,000 km2 in area andapproximatesthe lower basin area of the Murray–Darling system (Fig. 1).Around 81,000 people reside in the region. The region istraversed by the River Murray, a critical source of fresh waterfor South Australia, which flows into the Ramsar listed lowerlakes, Coorong (a 100 km long coastal wetland) and Murraymouth. At the time of the study the riparian ecosystems wereunder threat due to the combination of record-low inflows and

Page 3: Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem ... · Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services Christopher M. Raymonda,e,⁎, Brett A. Bryanb,

Fig. 1 –Location and geography of the South Australian Murray–Darling Basin study area.

1303E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 3 0 1 – 1 3 1 5

Page 4: Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem ... · Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services Christopher M. Raymonda,e,⁎, Brett A. Bryanb,

1304 E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 3 0 1 – 1 3 1 5

over-extraction of water for consumptive purposes, primarilyagricultural production.

Land use in the region is dominated by dryland (23,304 km2)and irrigated (1023 km2) agricultural production. Drylandagriculture ranges from cereal cropping/grazing rotation in thesouthern part of the region, grading to modified and naturalpastures in the more arid north. The more profitable, irrigatedagriculture is dominated by perennial horticulture and pastures(Bryan et al., in press-a,b) located along the river corridor (Fig. 1).

Land,water andbiotic resourceshavebeenheavily impactedby development especially in the southern half of the region.Some 30,748 km2 of the region are mapped as remnant nativevegetation ranging from highly fragmented openmallee wood-land communities in the south to more contiguous areas ofshrubland communities in the drier north. The region supportshabitat areas for 21 fauna species of conservation significance(Kahrimanis et al., 2001). Over 32% of the area of remnantvegetation is protected as conservation parks and reserves andheritage agreements, with most of the remainder underextensive grazing by livestock (Bryan et al., 2007).

In early 2008, the SA MDB NRM Board commenced itssecond round of regional natural resource managementplanning. This study assisted the Board set targets designedto ensure the sustainability of the regional environment.Natural science data informed a description of the biophysicalchanges needed to improve natural resource condition; how-ever, the Board is responsible for prioritising resource condi-tion targets within a limited budget and the wider economicand social objectives of the community it represents. Toachieve lasting resource condition change, the targets needto be valued and accepted by the community. The informationneeds to be elicited from these actors and presented insystematic and defensible ways to regional decision-makers.

2.2. Sample

The consultative decision-making structure governing theSAMDB NRM region includes the NRM Board and fourregionally-based NRM Groups (Rangelands, Ranges to River,Mallee andCoorong, Riverland, Fig. 1). Together, these decision-makers strongly influence investment in environmental man-agement in the region. Non-proportional quota sampling(Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003) was used to select 56 decision-makers for in-depth interviews with the aim of covering thisrangeof stakeholders in the region. This samplingmethod is thenon-probabilistic analogue of stratified random sampling inthat it is typically used to assure that smaller groups areadequately represented in the sample. The sample included 28individuals fromtheSAMDBNRMBoardand the four regionally-based NRM Groups with roughly equal numbers from each ofthese bodies. In addition, 28 other community representativeswere selected to participate in the interview process.Whilst notdirectly involved with the SAMDB NRM Groups or the Board,these people were perceived to shape opinions and actionsregarding the management of natural resources in the region.

2.3. Interview design

In-depth interviews were conducted with the 56 participantsbetween November 2007 and January 2008 by three experi-

enced ethnographic interviewers. Interviews generallyoccurred in people's homes and lasted between 1.5 and 3 h.All interviews were focussed on the question: what do youvalue in the environment and why do you value it? Theinterviews consisted of four separate parts: 1) open-endedquestioning; 2) natural asset-based prompting; 3) ecosystemservice based prompting; and 4) spatial prompting. Cast et al.(2008) summarise the content of the in-depth interviews.

2.4. Modification of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(2005) framework

In parts 2 and 3 of the interview process, participants wereasked to describe their values using the Millennium Ecosys-temAssessment (2005) natural capital and ecosystem servicestypology to guide the conversation. Responses were tran-scribed, categorised, summarised and used to modify theMillennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) typology. Themodified typology includes a range of provisioning, regulating,cultural and supporting services, as well as an additional assetwhich we defined as People-related services grouped under thePeople asset (Fig. 2). This theme emerged in the discussioneven though the focus of the interview was on naturalresource management and despite explanations that peopleand their well-being are central to ecosystem services in theMillennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) approach.

Under the People asset category, Built Environments refers tobuilt infrastructure ranging from schools, roads through tosalinity interception schemes. Zoning and Planning involvesprocesses and regulationwhich control land use change and inparticular the tension around the development of “lifestyleblocks” or peri-urban development. Family and Communityfeatured prominently in discussions of landscape oftenfocussing on discussions of people's roles in schools, fire-fighting or land stewardship activities that form their senseof community. Economic Viability and Employment refers tothe general concerns expressed about economic and employ-ment security. SAMDB NRM Board Politics, General Politics andRepresentation and Leadership frequently arose in relation toinstitutional and organisational aspects of environmentalmanagement in the region. Lastly, Indigenous Perspectives referto the conceptualisations of the role Aboriginal people haveplayed in the landscape.

A number of changes were also made to the natural capitaland ecosystem service typologies to best reflect participantresponses. Water was partitioned into the two subcategories:Surface Water and Ground Water. Participants assigned valueand threat to goods and services such as Geological Resourcesand Energy which were both added under provisioningservices. Geological Resources refer to the goods and servicesderived from the extraction ofmineral resources from the landsubstrate in the region. Energy refers to the range of renewablesources such as biofuels, wind and solar power. KnowledgeSystems and Education values were grouped together to reflectthe interaction of landscapes and people in the developmentof knowledge. Similarly, Aesthetics and Inspiration were com-bined to reflect the interaction between scenic beauty andspiritual meanings. Recreationwas broadened to accommodatea broader suite of tourism benefits and lifestyle values andlabelled Recreation, Tourism and Lifestyle.

Page 5: Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem ... · Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services Christopher M. Raymonda,e,⁎, Brett A. Bryanb,

Fig. 2 –Themodified natural capital and ecosystem services typology used in the assessment of community values and threats.

1305E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 3 0 1 – 1 3 1 5

A class capturing Bequest, Intrinsic and Existence values (notgenerally described as ecosystem services) was added undercultural services as these were concepts that emergedthroughout the interviews. Bequest values are associatedwith the satisfaction from preserving a natural environmentfor future generations andexistencevalues are associatedwiththe satisfaction from knowing that a site is preserved in acertain condition irrespective of use or potential use (Krutilla,1967; Brookshire et al., 1983; Cicchetti and Wilde, 1992).Intrinsic value signals that areas have value in and of them-selves, independent of any benefit to humans (O'Neill, 1992;Vilkka, 1997).

2.5. Community values/threats mapping task

In the mapping task participants were asked to locate anddescribe places of value and threat by first arranging plasticdots (moveable plastic discs about 10 mm in diameter) on a1:325,000 scale A0 (841×1189mm) size topographic map of theSAMDB NRM region. They could move dots around untilsatisfied. Participants also had access to a recent true colourLandsat TM satellite image of the same size and scale forvisual reference.

To create scarcity and value, participants were given amaximum of 40 green dots to assign positive value and 10 red

dots to assign negative values. Participants were encouragedto view value on a continuum from red dots (= ‘negative value’)to green dots (= ‘positive value’). The green dots enabled thespatial representation of value intensities, similar to workconducted by Brown (2005, 2006), Raymond and Brown (2006),and Raymond (2008). The red dots came to be categorised asthreats, ex ante. The interviewees chose to use the red dotsto represent threats to natural capital assets and ecosystemservices, as well as threats to their quality of life or moregeneral management concerns. Further, in line with statedpreference valuation techniques (Lienhoop, 2007), the red dotswere used as a tool to provide an outlet for participants toexpress frustration (a protest vote) and other concerns aboutenvironmental management in the region. This providesgreater clarity of meaning for the values (Jorgensen et al.,1999). It was possible for participants to assign both threat andvalue to identical places on the landscape. Because the focusof the study was on themapping of value, we elected to assignparticipants only 10 red dots (1/5 of the total available dots).

Participantswere encouraged to place green and red dots atlocalities across the SAMDB study area representing theirplace-specific values and threats. One or more dots could beplaced at each locality representing a value/threat intensity.They were then asked why their place values were importantto them. Each placemay be assigned values formultiple assets

Page 6: Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem ... · Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services Christopher M. Raymonda,e,⁎, Brett A. Bryanb,

1306 E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 3 0 1 – 1 3 1 5

and services. The following questions were used to elicit moredetailed information about each place-specific value:

1 Note that formal Chi-square analysis was not performed due tothe problem of very large numbers resulting from summed valueintensity scores. Chi-square analyses typically return significantresults when large numbers are involved. Here, we simply analysethe proportional data and discuss the relative differences in thetypes of values and threats between regions.

1. What natural asset do you value there?2. What ecosystem service does that asset provide that you

value?3. What is the shape of that dot or stack of dots?4. Is there anything that could happen to impact what you

value?5. Is there anything that could be done to protect what you

value?

In question 3, participants were asked to describe thespatial extent of each of their ecosystem service and naturalcapital asset values (green dots) and threats (red dots). Duringthe mapping task the interviewers sketched the polygonsdescribing the spatial extent and location of specific valuesand threats on a smaller A3 (297×420 mm) paper copy of thetopographic map using the previously arranged dots as aguide. The types and intensities of values and threats werenoted along with any other spatially descriptive text.

2.6. Spatial database assembly and data analysis

After the interviews, 881 individual value and threat areaswere digitised as multi-part polygons in a GIS. To alleviatenon-aligned boundary problems in digitising spatial features,templates derived from established spatial databases wereused to produce exact areas where possible. In many areas,mapped values and threats involved multiple distinct areas.Polygons ranged in size from very small (e.g. b1 ha for locksand weirs) to very large (e.g. all agricultural land). The spatialdata structure included many overlapping areas of value andthreat. Each individual value and threat polygon was exportedas a raster database (or grid) of 1 ha cell resolution uniquelynamed as participant ID and value/threat ID. These 881individual value/threat grids quantified the areal extent ofeach value/threat and the intensity score (number of dots).

In parallel, the attribute information associated with eachvalue and threat area was entered into a database using thesame unique identifier to enable linking with the spatial datalayers. Each value and threat area formed a row in thedatabase coded with the relevant natural capital assets andecosystem services, the value or threat type, and the intensityscore. The database was used to summarise the total intensity(total number of dots), the number of participants identifyingthose values, and the total area identified as a value/threat foreach asset and service. Crosstabulation of intensity scoreswasused to link ecosystem services values and threats to specificnatural capital assets.

The database was also linked to the spatial value/threatinformation. Queries were built to retrieve tailored lists of gridnames (e.g. list of grid names of all value areas relating to landassets) and exported to a text file. Automated scripts weredeveloped that perform various GIS overlay operations on thesubset of grids listed in these list files. This data structureprovided the flexibility to retrieve value/threat areas forspecific combinations of assets/services and perform a rangeof spatial analyses on them.

Using this process a series of spatial layers were createdsummarising values and threats for elements of natural capitaland ecosystem services. Layers summarising the spatialdistribution of value were created by summing relevantindividual value layers (intensity scores) over the four nat-ural capital assets (land, water, biota, atmosphere) and fourecosystem service types (provisioning, regulating, cultural,supporting), respectively, using GIS overlay. Similarly, layerssummarising the spatial distribution of values and threats forboth natural capital and people were calculated by summingrelevant individual value layers (intensity scores).

Relative differences in the intensity of values and threats fornatural capital assets and ecosystem services between the fourNRM Group regions (Fig. 1) were also assessed and comparedagainst theentireSAMDBstudyareaas foraChi-squareanalysis1.A GIS zonal sum function was used to calculate the sum ofintensity scores across grid cells in each of the four NRM Groupregions and the SAMDBstudy area. Thiswasdone for bothvaluesand threats for the four natural capital assets and four ecosystemservice types. Relative proportions of summed intensity scoreswere calculated across natural capital assets and ecosystemserviceswithineachregionandtheSAMDBstudyareaasawhole.The results were used as a guide for regional environmentalmanagement decisions in addressing specific natural capitalassets and ecosystem services at the sub-regional scale.

3. Results

3.1. Respondent characteristics

Of the 28 NRM Group respondents interviewed, 22 were maleand six were female, 14 had resided in the SAMDB region alltheir life, and the shortest length of residency in the region was3.5 years. Of the 28 non-NRM Group participants, 18 were maleand 10 were female, 12 had lived in the study area all their life,and the shortest length of residence was 2 years. Mostrespondents discussed their community positions when askedhow they became community representatives (Cast et al., 2008).Four respondentswere involved in volunteer groups suchas theCountry Fire Service, three were involved in communityorganisations such as sporting clubs and 18 became involvedthrough their employment such as district councils, youthcouncils, teaching positions and soil conservation boards. NRMGroup members were more educated than non-NRM Groupmembers with 50% of NRM Group members having completedtertiary education compared to 30% of non-Group members.

3.2. Nature and intensity of community values andthreats

The nature and intensity of community values and threatsassociated with natural capital assets and ecosystem services

Page 7: Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem ... · Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services Christopher M. Raymonda,e,⁎, Brett A. Bryanb,

1307E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 3 0 1 – 1 3 1 5

were examined for the SAMDB NRM region (Fig. 1). Themajority of participants assigned value to land, biota, andground water assets (nN54) whilst only 31 participantsassigned value to surface water and atmosphere. Surfacewater was allocated the greatest aggregate value intensityscore (1309 green dots, Table 1). Biota and land assets werealso highly valued (1254 and 1203 green dots, respectively).Ground water and atmosphere assets were least valued(intensity b609 dots).

Forty one participants identified threats to land assets inthe study area, largely associated with erosion and loss of soil

Table 1 – Summary (over all participants) for each natural capscores, the number of participants identifying it as a value/thre

Intensity(total # dots)

Value Threat

AssetsSurface water 1309 197Biota 1254 132Land 1203 221Ground water 609 132Atmosphere 340 17

Ecosystem service typesCultural (C) 1319 94Regulating (R) 1022 239Provisioning (P) 1018 142Supporting (S) 302 43

Ecosystem services(C) Recreation and tourism 599 21(C) Bequest, intrinsic and existence 564 65(P) Fresh water 562 85(R) Water regulation 522 110(P) Food 492 54(R) Water purification andwaste treatment

411 121

(C) Aesthetic and inspiration 302 17(C) Cultural diversity 287 24(P) Fibre 274 24(C) Knowledge system 251 16(R) Pest regulation 222 43(C) Cultural heritage 198 1(C) Social relations 108 0(R) Natural hazards 93 9(R) Climate regulation 91 11(C) Spiritual and religious values 76 0(R) Erosion regulation 43 27(S) Primary production 40 12(C) Sense of place 39 0(S) Water cycling 32 15(P) Geological resources 28 12(P) Ornamental resources 26 0(S) Soil formation 26 10(R) Air quality regulation 21 6(S) Nutrient cycling 21 12(P) Energy 13 0(P) Genetic Rresources 11 0(P) Biochemical, medicines andpharmaceuticals

5 0

(R) Disease regulation 2 0(R) Pollination 0 0(S) Photosynthesis 0 0

quality (Table 1). For biota, 32 participants identified threats todo with weed incursion, habitat loss and threatened nativespecies, with concerns raised about unmanaged nativespecies populations (e.g. kangaroos and wombats). For groundwater, 32 participants generally associated threat with salinityimpacts on the River Murray, and over-extraction. Only fourparticipants identified threats associated with either surfacewater or atmosphere (Table 1). Threat scores were highest forland (221 red dots allocated over all participants), followed bysurface water. Biota and ground water assets were attributedmoderate levels of threat.

ital asset and ecosystem service the value/threat intensityat, and the total area demarcated as value/threat

No. of participants Total Area (km2)

Value Threat Value Threat

31 4 169,548 38,96154 32 632,719 132,89155 41 641,191 144,27854 32 90,104 33,79431 4 138,129 19,752

55 25 549,916 67,57754 43 350,592 143,26254 35 417,734 44,90138 13 185,929 33,024

46 12 181,819 14,85950 16 305,293 61,32047 28 67,032 909646 31 58,527 17,79239 17 233,698 20,22745 28 57,879 31,258

34 10 123,801 589933 7 193,188 947324 9 173,040 379739 8 131,267 503628 10 109,736 91,86428 1 61,646 27714 0 6852 016 3 61,299 13,84911 2 59,795 713 0 1201 08 10 69,205 15,7227 4 10,467 29,8966 0 35,722 07 3 2409 264

10 7 3631 63 0 208 05 3 67,285 13,3726 2 52,397 124 3 16,629 11,4193 0 349 03 0 5916 01 0 6 0

1 0 15 00 0 0 00 0 0 0

Page 8: Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem ... · Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services Christopher M. Raymonda,e,⁎, Brett A. Bryanb,

Table 2 – Crosstabulation of value and threat intensity scores for each natural capital asset by ecosystem service type

Values Threats

Provisioning Regulating Cultural Supporting Provisioning Regulating Cultural Supporting

Surface water 795 792 881 228 116 170 54 25Ground water 420 353 406 107 87 119 37 18Biota 633 735 927 239 38 116 58 28Land 593 624 879 195 95 164 81 36Atmosphere 221 184 255 93 11 15 12 5

1308 E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 3 0 1 – 1 3 1 5

With regard toecosystemservices,more than54participantsassigned high value to cultural, provisioning and regulatingservices, but only 38 participants assigned value to supportingservices (Table 1). The most highly valued ecosystem serviceswere recreation and tourism (599 green dots), bequest, intrinsicand existence (564 green dots), fresh water provisioning (562green dots), water regulation (522 green dots) and foodprovisioning (492 green dots).

Those natural capital assets assigned high value intensityscoreswere generally also assignedhigh threat intensity scores.Land and surface water assets were assigned greatest threat(N197 red dots) whilst atmosphere assets were assigned lowestthreat scores (17 red dots). Cultural services were assignedhighest value, regulating and provisioning services wereassigned highest threat (N142 red dots). For regulating services,high threat was attributed to water regulation, water purifica-tion and waste treatment, and pest regulation. High provision-ing service threat intensity scores were attributed to both freshwater and food.

Table 2 presents the associations between natural capitalasset and ecosystem service values/threats. All five naturalcapital assets were valued most highly for their cultural,provisioning and regulating services. Highest value intensityscores were assigned to surface water (881 green dots) andbiota assets (927 green dots) for the cultural services theyprovide. Participants assigned threats to natural capital assetsbased primarily on regulating services, followed by provision-ing and cultural services (Table 2). Highest threat intensityscores were assigned to surface water assets for the regulatingservices they produce (116 red dots).

Table 3 – Proportional differences in the natural capital asset anfour NRM Group regions compared to the entire SAMDB study

Rangelands Riverland Mallee an

Natural capital assetsAtmosphere 6.4 8.8Biota 40.3 35.2Land 42.2 32.4Water 11.1 23.6Total 100.0 100.0 1

Ecosystem service typesProvisioning 25.9 29.6Regulating 24.0 32.9Cultural 35.5 26.6Supporting 14.6 10.9Total 100.0 100.0 1

3.3. Spatial distribution of community values and threats

There are proportional differences in the intensity of commu-nity values toward natural capital asset and ecosystem servicesbetween NRM Group regions (Table 3). Land assets were morehighly valued in theRangelands, andMalleeandCoorong (42.2%and 38.7%) which are primarily dryland farming areas. Biotaassets were most highly valued in the Rangelands and leastvalued in the Ranges to River region (40.3% and 31.2%). Waterassets were more highly valued in the Ranges to River andRiverland regions (24.7% and 23.6%). Atmosphere assets weremore highly valued in the Ranges to River region. These valuesmay reflect the importance of asset due to economic depen-dence (Land in the Rangelands), or the value that comes fromknowledge and proximity (Water and Riverland). There may besome strategic behaviour that reflects the interest people havein getting NRM funds spent in their sub-region. However someassets, such as Chowilla and the Coorong, are valued byparticipants in the Mallee region and the Rangelands for theexistence values associated with native flora and fauna.

With regard to ecosystem services, the Riverland, Mallee andCoorong, and Ranges to River regions displayed a similarproportion of values (Table 3). The Rangelands was assignedsignificantly higher proportions of cultural (35.5%) and support-ing (14.6%)servicesand lowerproportionsofprovisioning (25.9%)and regulating (24.0%) services compared to the other regions.

There are also specific locations with high value intensityscores for natural capital (Fig. 3) and ecosystem services (Fig. 4).The RiverMurray, and to a lesser extent the floodplain, Coorongand lower lakes were attributed very high values for the water

d ecosystem service value intensity scores assigned to thearea

d Coorong Ranges to river SAMDB study area

8.1 11.2 7.636.4 31.2 37.838.7 32.9 39.216.8 24.7 15.400.0 100.0 100.0

30.3 29.2 27.731.5 32.3 27.727.0 28 31.711.2 10.5 12.900.0 100.0 100.0

Page 9: Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem ... · Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services Christopher M. Raymonda,e,⁎, Brett A. Bryanb,

Fig. 3 –Spatial distribution of value for natural capital assets: atmosphere, biota, land and water.

1309EC

OLO

GIC

AL

EC

ON

OM

IC

S68

(2009)

1301–1315

Page 10: Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem ... · Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services Christopher M. Raymonda,e,⁎, Brett A. Bryanb,

Fig. 4 –Spatial distribution of value for ecosystem service types: provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting.

1310EC

OLO

GIC

AL

EC

ON

OM

IC

S68

(2009)

1301–1315

Page 11: Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem ... · Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services Christopher M. Raymonda,e,⁎, Brett A. Bryanb,

Table 4 – Proportional differences in the natural capital asset and ecosystem service threat intensity scores assigned to thefour NRM Group regions compared to the entire SAMDB study area

Rangelands Riverland Mallee and Coorong Ranges to river SAMDB study area

Natural capital assetsAtmosphere 0.0 14.9 18.7 5.5 5.5Biota 53.7 15.8 10.2 34.2 34.2Land 44.6 33.1 29.6 36.9 36.9Water 1.6 36.3 41.6 23.3 23.3Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ecosystem service typesProvisioning 7.8 24.7 27.1 23.6 23.6Regulating 43.0 42.9 42.2 49.8 49.8Cultural 21.4 23.4 30.1 22.4 22.4Supporting 27.8 9.1 0.6 4.2 4.2Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1311E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 3 0 1 – 1 3 1 5

asset and to a lesser extent biota. The ecologically importantChowilla floodplain and the Coorong also had very high biotavalues along with locally-important areas along the RiverMurray floodplain. The large agglomeration of reserves in theeastern Rangelands region (including Bookmark Biospherereserve, Chowilla Regional Reserve, Danggali ConservationParks; Fig. 1) and the Billiat Conservation Park were assignedhigh values for both the biota and land assets.

The spatial distribution of values was similar across the fourecosystem service types with values concentrated on the RiverMurray (Fig. 4). Other areas including the Chowilla floodplain,lower lakes and Coorong were assigned high cultural andregulating service values. The reserves in the eastern Range-lands were attributed relatively high values for supporting

Fig. 5 –Spatial distribution of values and threats (inten

services, and (along with Billiat Conservation Park) high valuesfor cultural and regulating services.

We also identified proportional differences in the assign-ment of threats to natural capital and ecosystem servicesbetween NRM Group regions (Table 4). The Mallee and Coorongregionwas assigned the greatest threat to the atmosphere asset(18.7%) through the impact of wind erosion from agriculturalland on air quality. The Rangelands region was assignedproportionately greater threat to the biota asset (53.7%) primar-ily due to the impact of pest species (including kangaroos andwombats being perceived as threats to agriculture), with theMallee and Coorong having the lowest threat to biota (10.2%).The Mallee and Coorong and Riverland regions were assignedproportionately higher threats towater assets (41.6% and 36.3%)

sity scores) summed over all natural capital assets.

Page 12: Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem ... · Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services Christopher M. Raymonda,e,⁎, Brett A. Bryanb,

Table 5 – Values and threats assigned to the people asset in the study area

Intensity(total # dots)

No. of participants Total area (km2)

Value Threat Value Threat Value Threat

AssetPeople 1,181 242 55 43 492,490 85,453

Sub-categoriesBuilt environments 662 182 42 35 238,452 21,891Zoning and planning 544 131 43 33 286,419 54,942Economic viability and employment 450 48 37 15 245,946 24,996Community 304 9 26 4 140,059 12,180General politics 215 42 27 11 37,891 7,298Indigenous perspectives 148 0 18 0 60,963 0Family 85 2 13 1 1,445 1SAMDB NRM board politics 47 6 9 2 37,322 895Representation and leadership 28 8 5 2 1,018 750

1312 E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 3 0 1 – 1 3 1 5

with some threat attributed to water assets in the Ranges toRiver region (23.3%).

All four regions were assigned high threat to regulatingservices (N42.2%) which reflects concerns around reduced flowsin the River Murray and drought (water asset), diminishingground water resources, wind erosion (land asset) and theimpact of pest species (biota asset; Table 2).

Maps of total values and threats assigned to the study areasummed over all natural capital assets are presented in Fig. 5.There appears to be some spatial association between valuesand threats in the region.TheRiverMurray is anareaofbothveryhighvalue and also veryhigh threat. Other high value areas such

Fig. 6 –Spatial distribution of values and threats (in

as the lower lakes, the large reserves in the eastern Rangelandsregion, the pastoral country in the central and western Range-lands and Billiat Conservation Park were also attributed highthreat (Fig. 5). Conversely, dryland agricultural areas in thenorthernpart of theMallee andCoorongandsouthernpart of theRiverland regionwere attributed lowvalue but high threat due tothe perceived impact of drought and erosion.

3.4. Values and threats: people asset

The participants in this study viewed people as being central tothe biophysical landscape. A quote from the interview relating

tensity scores) summed over the people asset.

Page 13: Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem ... · Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services Christopher M. Raymonda,e,⁎, Brett A. Bryanb,

1313E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 3 0 1 – 1 3 1 5

to the development of one of the maps is useful for under-standing local perspectives on what they valued in the land-scape: “People…Absolutely. I just think you develop people andthe other stuff comes.” Further discussion of valued assetsranged from very local references, i.e. the home field of theirlocal football club to the pastoral land leaseholders in theRangelands region. They also acknowledged the role of peoplein degrading these landscapes.

Participants valued the built infrastructure such as roads,schools, community centres and the roles that people took onto forge sustainable communities (662 dots, Table 5). They alsosaw built infrastructure such as locks, weirs and dams as apotential threat in the Riverland and around the lower lakes in(182 dots, Table 5). Likewise, participants assigned both highvalue and high threat to zoning and planning. High values(N148 dots) were also assigned to economic viability andemployment, community, general politics and indigenousperspectives. The only other notable people asset sub-categories assigned threats were economic viability andemployment and general politics (Table 5).

The spatial distribution of community values and threats forthe people asset followed markedly different patterns (Fig. 6).Values associated with people are generally higher in thenorthern half of the study area, associated with the reserves tothe east, and located along the eastern scarp of the Mt. LoftyRanges. Threat scores associated with the people asset areconcentrated along the River Murray, including localised areasof the floodplain, irrigation districts and the lower lakes andCoorong area (Fig. 6).

4. Discussion

4.1. Use of natural capital and ecosystem serviceframework to quantify community values

The results indicate that the sample of community represen-tatives and decision-makers in this study valued the SAMDBregion for a variety of reasons. Based on a non-proportionalquota sampling approach, a structured interview processrevealed that participants valued the region not only forwater, land, biota and atmosphere asset reasons, but also for arange of aspects related to people such as built environments,zoning and planning, community and family. Participantsassociated value and threat with bequest, intrinsic andexistence values which were added to cultural services, andfor geological resources and energy which were both added toprovisioning services. This enhanced natural capital asset andecosystem service typology enabled a more detailed under-standing of the links between natural values and humaninteractions with natural systems.

Similar to studies conducted by Brown (2005) and collea-gues, community values were found to vary in distributionand type across the landscape, with significant proportionaldifferences in natural capital and ecosystem service valuesacross both NRM Group regions and places within the SAMDBstudy area. We add to recent ‘sense of place’ studies and valuemapping tools by showing that community groups are able toidentify and map specific values and threats associated withnatural capital assets and ecosystem services.

This methodology does not replace representative sur-veys of regions to infer values (e.g., Brown, 2005). Socio-demographic characteristics indicate that the majority ofparticipants were highly educated, had lived in the region fora long time and had reasonable knowledge of environmentalissues. Even with this sample, it became apparent thatcommunity representatives had difficulty identifying andmapping atmosphere asset values and associated services(only 340 dots mapped). Similarly, participants found itdifficult to map supporting services (302 dots mapped).Further complexities were discovered in the mapping ofthreats to the atmosphere asset and supporting services (17and 43 dots, respectively). Future work should consideralternative ways of prompting for these attributes with thegoal of developing a modified typology of atmosphere andsupporting services that explores these issues.

On balance, the community values mapping methodpresented in this study provides another step in the systema-tic identification and measurement of values based on localecological knowledge. It addresses some of the concernsraised by researchers (Pinto-Correia et al., 2006; Raymondand Brown, 2006; Kumar and Kumar, 2008; Stenseke, 2009)relating to the limited representation of community values inboth ecosystem service valuation and the spatial targeting ofenvironmental management priorities. It also provides thescope for basing policy interventions on community valuesand expertise measured at local and regional scales. This isseen as critical in developing place-based solutions to societalproblems such as biodiversity loss and in turn supportingrobust and adaptive social–ecological systems (Anderies et al.,2004; Folke 2006; Janssen et al., 2007; Cowling et al., 2008).

4.2. Implications for environmental management

The community values mapping method has assisted theSAMDB NRM Board revise its regional NRM plan. As a directresult of this study, “People” have been considered as an assetwithin the regional plan, alongside land, water, biodiversityand atmosphere. Long term outcomes relate to respecting,protecting and preserving natural capital and ecosystemservice values identified by local people and sharing thisknowledge in a way the leads to improved environmentaloutcomes.

Additionally, the mapping of natural capital asset andecosystem service values by community representativesenables the targeting of management actions to areas oflocal value and concern. Such targeting is likely to empowerlocal involvement in environmental management, build trustin regional planning processes and increase political supportfor the investment priorities of the SAMDBNRMBoard. Resultsindicate investment should be targeted at the River Murray, itsfloodplains, wetlands, lower lakes and Coorong estuary withmanagement directed at enhancing water and biota assets forproducing a range of ecosystem services. Investment shouldalso be targeted at protecting and enhancing biota assets inthe eastern Rangelands region (particularly the large reserves)and Billiat Conservation Park for the cultural, regulating andsupporting ecosystem services they produce. The eastern Mt.Lofty Ranges, localised areas of the floodplain, irrigationdistricts, and the lower lakes and Coorong area require most

Page 14: Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem ... · Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services Christopher M. Raymonda,e,⁎, Brett A. Bryanb,

1314 E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 3 0 1 – 1 3 1 5

attention from built environments, zoning and planning andeconomic viability and employment perspectives.

We recognise that the mapping of ecosystem services andnatural capital assets using local knowledge only provides onepart of the environmental management picture. Further analy-sis is required to capture the full potential of this information inguiding planning for, and investment in, environmental man-agement.Analysisof a rangeof spatial indicatorsmaybeused toidentify areas that provide abundant or rare value types, adiverse set of value types, or areaswhere community values areat risk. Value-specific management can then be targeted inthese areas.

Examination of the spatial relationships between scienti-fically assessed and local priorities can identify hotspots ofvalue alignment and conflict. Where conflict exists, themethod could be used to help participants understand otherstakeholders' perspectives and to negotiate alternativeresource management futures which provide for multipleecosystem services, whilst limiting harm to others. Commu-nity values and threats can be integrated with spatiallyexplicit criteria derived from natural science and economicssuch as cost, carbon sequestration rates, biodiversity value,recreation benefits and landscape benefits to enhance sys-tematic regional planning for environmental management(Crossman and Bryan, 2009).

5. Conclusion

This study develops a new method for mapping communityvalues for natural capital assets and ecosystem services thataddresses the need for capturing a broader range of valuesassigned to ecosystems over geographic space. The method isbased on concepts such as ‘sense of place’ and ‘coupled social–ecological systems’ theory which posit that human beings areagents in the landscape and attribute meaning and value tobiophysical features which are not solely instrumentaland monetary in nature. The mapping of values and threatsby a sample of community representatives in the study areashows there are regional and place-specific differences innatural capital asset and ecosystem service values andthreats. The participants also saw people as central to thelandscape and environment of the region. The methodsexamined and discussed have implications for the way eco-system services aremeasured and integrated into planning forconservation and environmental management in Australiaand elsewhere.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to community representatives inSAMDB who graciously devoted their time to the interviewprocess. This project was funded by the SA MDB Board,CSIRO's Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Program andSustainable Regional Development theme. The peer reviewsprovided by Drs Wanhong Yang, John Ward and two anon-ymous reviewers, and the research support of Marcia Sander-son, Darran King, David Frahm, and Yann Frizenschaf aregratefully acknowledged.

R E F E R E N C E S

Alessa, L., Kliskey, A., Brown, G., 2008. Social–ecological hotspotsmapping: a spatial approach for identifying coupledsocial–ecological space. LandscapeandUrbanPlanning85, 27–39.

Anderies, J.M., Janssen, M.A., Ostrom, E., 2004. A framework toanalyze the robustness of social–ecological systems from aninstitutional perspective. Ecology and Society 9 (1), 18–34.

Bailey, N., Lee, J.T., Thompson, S., 2006. Maximising the naturalcapital benefits of habitat creation: spatially targeting nativewoodland using GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning 75,227–243.

Black, A., Liljeblad, A., 2006. Integrating social values in vegetationmodels via GIS: the missing link for the Bitterroot NationalForest. Final Report JFSP Project No. 04-2-1-114. Aldo LeopoldWilderness Research Institute, Missoula, MT.

Blashke, T., 2005. The role of the spatial dimension within theframework of sustainable landscapes and natural capital.Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (3–4), 198–226.

Brookshire, D., Eubanks, L.S., Randall, A., 1983. Estimating optionprices and existence values for wildlife resources. LandEconomics 59, 1–15.

Brown, G., 2005. Mapping spatial attributes in survey research fornatural resource management: methods and applications.Society and Natural Resources 18 (1), 17–39.

Brown, G., 2006. Mapping landscape values and developmentpreferences: a method for tourism and residentialdevelopment planning. International Journal of TourismResearch 8 (2), 101–113.

Brown, G., Reed, P., 2000. Validation of a forest values typology foruse in national forest planning. Forest Science 46 (2), 240–247.

Brown, G., Smith, C., Alessa, L., Kliskey, A., 2004. A comparison ofperceptions of biological value with scientific assessment ofbiological importance. Applied Geography 24 (2), 161–180.

Bryan, B.A., Crossman,N.D., King, D.,McNeill, J.,Wang, E., Barrett, G.,Ferris,M.M.,Morrison, J.B., Pettit, C., Freudenberger, D., O, ' Leary,G., Fawcett, J., Meyer, W., 2007. Lower Murray landscape futuresdryland component: volume 3 — preliminary analysis andmodelling. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country. 378 pp. www.landscapefutures.com.au.

Bryan, B.A., Barry, S., Marvanek, S. (in press-a). Quantifying andmapping commodity-level agricultural land use change in theMurray–Darling Basin, Australia 1996/97 – 2000/01. Journal ofLand Use Science.

Bryan, B.A., Hajkowicz, S., Marvanek, S., Young, M.D. (in press-b).Mapping economic returns to agriculture for informingenvironmental policy in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia.Environmental Modelling and Assessment.

Cast, A., Hatton MacDonald, D., Grandgirard, A., Kalivas, T.,Strathearn, S., Sanderson, M., Frahm, D., Bryan, B., 2008. SouthAustralian Murray Darling basin environmental values report.CSIRO Project Report August 2008. http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/waterforahealthycountry/.

Chan, K.M.A., Shaw, M.R., Cameron, D.R., Underwood, E.C., Daily,G.C., 2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoSBiology 4 (11), 2138–2152.

Cicchetti, C.J., Wilde, L.L., 1992. Uniqueness, irreversibility, and thetheory of non-use values. American Journal of AgriculturalEconomics 74, 1121–1125.

Costanza, C., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon,B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G.,Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world'secosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260.

Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knight, A.T., O'Farrell, P.J., Reyers, B.,Rouget, M., Roux, D.J., Welz, A., Wilhelm-Rechman, A., 2008. Anoperational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services forimplementation. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the United States of America 105 (28), 9483–9488.

Page 15: Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem ... · Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services Christopher M. Raymonda,e,⁎, Brett A. Bryanb,

1315E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 3 0 1 – 1 3 1 5

Crossman, N.D., Bryan, B.A., 2009. Identifying cost-effectivehotspots for restoring natural capital and enhancing landscapemultifunctionality. Ecological Economics 68, 654–668.

Daily, G.C. (Ed.), 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence onNatural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC.

de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J., 2002. A typology forthe classification, description and valuation of ecosystemfunctions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41 (3),393–408.

Egoh, B., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Richardson, D.M., Le Maitre, D.C.,van Jaarsveld, A.S., 2008. Mapping ecosystem services forplanning and management. Agriculture Ecosystems andEnvironment 127 (1–2), 135–140.

Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective forsocial–ecological systems analyses. Global EnvironmentalChange 16, 253–267.

Gimona, A., van der Horst, D., 2007. Mapping hotspots of multiplelandscape functions: a case study on farmland afforestation inScotland. Landscape Ecology 22 (8), 1255–1264.

Grêt-Regamey, A., Bebi, P., Bishop, I.D., Schmid, W., 2008. LinkingGIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpineregion. Journal of Environmental Management 89 (3), 197–208.

Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R.S., van Ierland, E.C., 2006.Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystemservices. Ecological Economics 57, 209–228.

Janssen, M.A., Anderies, J.M., 2007. Robustness trade-offs insocial–ecological systems. International Journal of theCommons 1 (1), 43–65.

Janssen, M.A., Anderies, J.M., Ostrom, E., 2007. Robustness ofsocial–ecological systems to spatial and temporal variability.Society and Natural Resources 20, 307–322.

Jorgensen, B.S., Syme, G., Bishop, B., Nancarrow, B., 1999. Protestresponses in contingent valuation. Environmental andResource Economics 14, 131–150.

Kahrimanis, M.J., Carruthers, S., Oppermann, A., Inns, R., 2001.Biodiversity plan for the South Australian Murray–DarlingBasin. Department for Environment and Heritage, SouthAustralia.

Kliskey, A.D., 1994. A comparative analysis of approaches towilderness perception mapping. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 41, 199–236.

Krutilla, J., 1967. Conservation reconsidered. American EconomicReview 57, 777–786.

Kumar, M., Kumar, P., 2008. Valuation of the ecosystem services:a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecological Economics 64,808–819.

Lienhoop, N., 2007. Participant behaviour and performance incontingent valuation, stated preference methods forenvironmental valuation: applications from Austria andGermany. J. Meyerhof feds. Metropolis-Verlag.

Lynam, T., de Jong, W., Sheil, D., Kusumanto, T., Evans, K., 2007. Areview of tools for incorporating community knowledge,preferences and values into decision making in naturalresources management. Ecology and Society 12 (1), 5–19.

McIntyre, N., Moore, J., Yuan, M., 2008. A place-based,values-centered approach to managing recreation on

Canadian crown lands. Society and Natural Resources 21 (8),657–670.

Manzo, L., 2005. For better or worse: exploring multipledimensions of place meaning. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology 25, 67–86.

Millennium EcosystemAssessment, 2005. Ecosystems andHumanWell-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R.E.,Lehner, B., Malcolm, T.R., Ricketts, T.H., 2008. Global mappingof ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica 105 (28), 9495–9500.

O'Neill, J., 1992. The varieties of intrinsic value. Monist 75 (2),119–137.

Pinto-Correia, T., Gustavsson, R., Pirnat, J., 2006. Bridging the gapbetween centrally definedpolicies and local decisions— towardsmore sensitive and creative rural landscapemanagement. Landscape Ecology 21, 333–346.

Raymond, C.M., 2008. Mapping landscape values and perceivedclimate change risks for natural resources management: astudy of the Southern Fleurieu Peninsula region, SA, DWLBCReport 2008/07. Government of South Australia, throughDepartment of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation,Adelaide.

Raymond, C.M., Brown, G., 2006. A method for assessing protectedarea allocations using a typology of landscape values. Journalof Environmental Planning and Management 49 (6), 797–812.

Reed, M.S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmentalmanagement: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141,2417–2431.

Sayer, J.A., Campbell, B.M., 2004. The Science of SustainableDevelopment. Local Livelihoods and the Global Environment.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Stenseke, M., 2009. Local participation in cultural landscapemaintenance: lessons from Sweden. Land Use Policy 26 (2),214–223.

Tallis, H., Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., Chang, A., 2008. An ecosystemservices framework to support both practical conservation andeconomic development. Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences of the United States of America 105 (28), 9457–9464.

Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., 2003. Handbook of Mixed MethodsSampling in Social and Behavioural Research. SagePublications, London, UK.

Troy, A., Wilson, M.A., 2006. Mapping ecosystem services: practicalchallenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer.Ecological Economics 60, 435–449.

Tyrväinnen, L., Mäkinen, K., Schipperijn, J., 2007. Tools formapping social values of urban woodlands and other greenareas. Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (1), 5–19.

UNESCO World Heritage Conference, 2003. Linking universal andlocal values: managing a sustainable future for world heritageWorld Heritage Paper 13. UNESCOWorld Heritage Centre, Paris.

Vilkka, L., 1997. The Intrinsic Value of Nature. Rodopi, Amsterdam,The Netherlands.

Zube, E.H., 1987. Perceived land use patterns and landscapevalues. Landscape Ecology 1 (1), 37–45.