Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem ... · PDF fileMapping community...
Embed Size (px)
Transcript of Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem ... · PDF fileMapping community...
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
Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem 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, Australia bCSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Cornish Building, Waite Road, Urrbrae, South Australia 5064, Australia cCEMAGREF, France dUniversity of Adelaide, Australia eCentre 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 Stirling E-mail address: [email protected]
0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevi doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006
A B S T R A C T
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 valuesmappingmethod 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 AustralianMurray–Darling Basin region. GIS-based techniques were used tomap the spatial distribution of natural capital and ecosystem service values and threats over the region andanalyse theproportional differencesat the sub-regional scale. Participants assigned the highest natural capital asset value towater and biota assets primarily for the production of cultural, regulating andprovisioningservices.Themosthighlyvaluedecosystemserviceswere 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
Both scientific and local communities increasingly expect multiple values to be incorporated within planning for con-
, South Australia 5152, Au ect.com.au (C.M. Raymon
er B.V. All rights reserved
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
mailto:[email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006
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 more comprehensive view of the value of nature — both economic and local values which stem from the intrinsic relationship between 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 functionally meaningful ways of understanding a broad range of ecosystem values. Recent developments in the mapping of natural capital and ecosystem services havedeepened this understanding over space 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 identification of hotspots (locations of abundant phenomena) has provided a way to integrate multiple environmental and economic values as 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 to show how and where local knowledge should be incorporated into environmental decisionmaking (see Sayer and Campbell, 2004; Lynam et al., 2007; Cowling et al., 2008; Reed, 2008; Stenseke, 2009 for reviews). These authors propose the need for a science that uses active research to identify local priorities for management; considers values at multiple scales; emphasises empowerment, equity, trust and learning, and; systematically integrates multiple knowledge systems into environmental decision-making. Despite these calls, the natural capital and ecosystem service frameworks are yet to evolve in a way that engages local communities in the identification and valuation of natural capital assets and ecosystem services at place-specific and regional scales (e.g., Kumar and Kumar, 2008).
In recent years, ‘sense of place’ researchers have directed effort to the mapping of community values using a variety of typologies (Kliskey, 1994; Brown and Reed, 2000; Black and Liljeblad, 2006; Tyrväinnen et al., 2007; McIntyre et al., 2008) in order to inform environmental management. Zube's (1987) transactional concept of human–landscape relationships best describes the rationale underpinning of community value mapping. He discusses three concepts of human–landscape relationships: “the human as an agent of biological and physical impacts on the landscape; the human as a static receiver and processor of information from the landscape; and the human as an active participant in the landscape — thinking, feeling and acting” (p. 37).
Brown et al. developed a landscape values methodology to identify, map and measure landscape values such as aesthetic, biodiversity, cultural, economic, historic, recreation and wild- erness values (Brown and Reed, 2000; Brown, 2005; Raymond and Brown, 2006; Alessa et al., 2008). Recent studies using the landscapevaluesmethodologyhave foundamoderatedegreeof spatial coincidence between local biodiversity values and science-based priority areas for management (Brown et al., 2004; Raymond, 2008).
Other researchers have recognised that social–ecological systems can be affected by regional policies that do not recognise the local social and ecological dynamics (Anderies et al., 2004; Janssen et al., 2007; Janssen and Anderies, 2007). In order to both enhance the robustness of local social–ecological systems and to solve environmental management problems,
it may be necessary to implement policy instruments and management programs which recognise local values and empower local knowledge and expertise (Folke, 2006; Janssen and Anderies, 2007).
Whilst the landscape values methodology has sought to understand a range of values from the socio-psychological perspective, it has limited scope of the biophysical aspects of value. Integrating the landscape values methodology with the concept of natural capital and ecosystem services (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; de Groot et al., 2002; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) may provide a potential frame- work for enabling the detailed understanding of the broad range of values (called community values) that can shape planning for targeted conservation and environmental management.
Relationships between people and places can be also associated 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 human actions, including their impacts upon ecosystem services, as part of the social–ecological system. Whilst important, few studies have attempted to understand how the physical and sociological dynamics of place influence the spatial distribu- tion and intensity of threat perception. The community values mapping methods presented in this study address this gap.
In this study, a community values mapping method is presented that identifies, measures and maps community values and threats towards natural capital assets and ecosystem services in the landscape to inform planning for conservation and environmental management. The land- scape values methodology and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) framework were combined to enable the measurement of the distribution and intensity of natural capital and ecosystem service values and threats as identified by 56 local environmental managers and community repre- sentatives in the study area. Interviewswere conductedwhich included a mapping task to allocate values and threats to specific locations in the region. A Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to map the multiple place-specific values and threats and the spatial heterogeneity was ana- lysed. The techniques are presented in the context of an application in the South Australian Murray–Darling Basin region and conducted in partnership with the South Austra- lian Murray–Darling Basin Natural Resource Management Board (hereafter SAMDB