scholarly journals Representing future generations in the deliberative valuation of ecosystem services

Elem Sci Anth ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgia Mavrommati ◽  
Shannon Rogers ◽  
Richard B. Howarth ◽  
Mark E. Borsuk
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Citizen Engagement ◽  
Human Needs ◽  
Socially Constructed ◽  
Valuation Task ◽  
Deliberative Valuation ◽  
Temporal Dimensions

Even though decisions taken today about managing ecosystem services are likely to have an effect on future generations’ well-being, decision making is based largely on current generations’ values, including altruistic concern for posterity. Deliberative forms of citizen engagement can provide a methodological framework for incorporating sustainability considerations in the valuation task and for understanding the reasoning behind peoples’ choices. This paper uses a deliberative form of citizen engagement to better understand the temporal dimensions of social values by incorporating into the valuation task two plausible future scenarios and assigning to the participants the role of trustees for future generations. In particular, we employed the deliberative multicriteria evaluation (DMCE) method with eleven groups in which a total of 67 participants assessed the relative importance of ten ecosystem services in the Upper Merrimack River watershed in New Hampshire. Our results suggest that a deliberative form of citizen engagement provides the appropriate space for incorporating intergenerational concerns into decision making. Participants set environmental targets by prioritizing the satisfaction of basic human needs, securing human and environmental health, and avoiding the loss of ecosystem services that cannot be substituted and may lead to irreversible future losses. This finding suggests that when preferences are socially constructed, then ethical values underpin valuations, making it possible to integrate ecosystem service tradeoffs into environmental decisions in a manner that respects the environmental rights of future generations.

scholarly journals Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals

Proceedings ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veidemane
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Sustainable Development Goals ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Trade Off ◽  
The Sustainable Development ◽  
Development Goals ◽  
Water Ecosystems

The sustainable development goals (SDGs) for 2030 are established to address global challenges including environment and human well-being. The SDGs are interconnected and achievement of them requires consideration of the planet’s ecosystems and resources - land, water and air. Ecosystem services (ES) approach has a high potential for better planning, policy and decision making. Understanding how different ecosystems (e.g., forests, rivers, wetlands, grasslands) contribute to the social and economic benefits is critical to ensure the long-term biodiversity protection and sustainable use of ecosystems. A conceptual framework linking biodiversity and ecosystem condition (its structure and functions), and ES to human well-being has been well-established in EU by so called MAES process (Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Services) lead by the European Commission. The framework is applied in recent research studies and projects, as well as national MAES processes. Various methods are applied for MAES in terms to determine biophysical, economic and social values and to deliver integrated ecosystem assessment. Assessment of ES and trade off analysis shall provide a new perspective for land use planning and decision making at different administrative and spatial levels and in different sectoral policies. EU and national policies for instance on agriculture, fishery, forestry, climate should account the benefits provided by relevant ecosystems and to ensure that the values are not diminished but rather enhanced during the implementation of the policies. Terrestrial and water ecosystems are interconnected as land-based human activities creates pressure that impacts the conditions in water ecosystems and thus delivery of ES by rivers and lakes. For example, intensive agricultural land use produces food for people and income; however, the activity also most frequently causes problems with water quality and quantity in the catchment area and a loss of biodiversity. A risk of such trade-off shall be handled in policy development. Ecosystems also contributes to the resilience of communities by reducing the risk of natural hazards and mitigate adverse impacts. Regulating services such as flood control are substituting investments in flood protection ensured by forests, wetlands and grasslands instead of human built infrastructure. Appropriate land cover and land use shall serve as a basic flood protection measure. Natural processes are increasingly recognised to create new-type solutions that use and deploy the properties of natural ecosystems and their services in an “engineered” way. A wide range of measures called also as nature-based solutions provide another opportunity to work with nature towards global sustainability.

Environmental decision making and an ecosystems approach

2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 671-680 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob D. Fish
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Natural Resource Management ◽  
Service Provision ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Project Proposal ◽  
Stakeholder Values ◽  
Environmental Decision Making ◽  
Theoretical Design ◽  
Environmental Decision

This paper explores issues of theoretical design and application arising from ecosystem service based approaches to natural resource management. Conserving ecosystem services is now a key normative goal of environmental decision making, but the implications of embracing this concept are still little understood. In this paper I highlight two recurring and cross-cutting aspects of an ecosystems approach around which credible treatments of ecosystem services can be realized, not only in theory, but also in practice: first, the need to think ‘holistically’ about how any given project, proposal or plan would impact on service provision and human well-being; and, second, the need to manage ecosystem services in relation to wider stakeholder values, needs and priorities. While thinking about decision making from the perspective of ecosystem services is no panacea for sustainability, the paper points to a number of social science issues that interdisciplinary researchers could usefully address in these two contexts if they are to harness this concept in creative and critically engaged ways.

Using information on ecosystem services in Nepal to inform biodiversity conservation and local to national decision-making

Oryx ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ishana Thapa ◽  
Stuart H. M. Butchart ◽  
Hum Gurung ◽  
Alison J. Stattersfield ◽  
David H. L. Thomas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
National Level ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Local Context ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Trade Offs

AbstractPolicy-makers are paying increasing attention to ecosystem services, given improved understanding that they underpin human well-being, and following their integration within the Aichi Targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Decision-makers need information on trends in biodiversity and ecosystem services but tools for assessing the latter are often expensive, technically demanding and ignore the local context. In this study we used a simple, replicable participatory assessment approach to gather information on ecosystem services at important sites for biodiversity conservation in Nepal, to feed into local and national decision-making. Through engaging knowledgeable stakeholders we assessed the services delivered by Nepal's 27 Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas, the pressures affecting services through impacts on land cover and land use, and the consequences of these for people. We found that these sites provide ecosystem services to beneficiaries at a range of scales but under current pressures the balance of services will change, with local communities incurring the greatest costs. The approach provided valuable information on the trade-offs between ecosystem services and between different people, developed the capacity of civil society to engage in decision-making at the local and national level, and provided digestible information for Nepal's government. We recommend this approach in other countries where there is a lack of information on the likely impacts of land-use change on ecosystem services and people.

scholarly journals Mapping the social values of ecosystem services to support better decision making

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sedigheh Mousavipour
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Cultural Values ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Social Values ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Social Value ◽  
General View ◽  
Landscape Units

<p><b>Social values of ecosystem services are the perceived benefits of natural ecosystems for the well-being of people. For sustainable land management, social values and preferences need to be integrated into land-use decision-making. Existing methods of social value capture commonly use participatory mapping and deliberative mapping. However, social media data has recently contributed to the gathering of spatial social value data. By reducing the time and cost of mapping, social media may be effective in social value mapping. However, the credibility of this data source has rarely been assessed for land planning.</b></p> <p>This thesis critically analysed the results of social media-based mapping (passive Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI)) and deliberative mapping (expert-based evaluation) methods into providing credible social value data (recreation, aesthetics, and historical/cultural values) for recreation planning. We analysed the content of 4642 photographs uploaded to Flickr as passive VGI and the results of an online survey and face to face interview for expert-based evaluation. This thesis found both the passive VGI and expert-based evaluation could identify all three types of relevant social values for ecosystem services (recreation, aesthetics, and historical/cultural). </p> <p>Passive VGI can provide reasonably reliable information on the recreational preferences of people at the time that data is provided. Although social values identified in expert-based evaluation included useful information about current public preferences and a potential supply of recreation ecosystem services, it only captured a general view of the study area. Large areas of interest were provided by each of the experts participating in the online survey. Several landscape units were missed by passive VGI while expert-based dataset overrepresented a majority of landscape units. </p> <p>The results of this research demonstrated that spatial social value data are limited when a single method is applied. Potential users of such data need to understand their limitations. Applying several mapping methods (PPGIS, expert-based evaluation, passive VGI, etc.) may create a more useful and credible social value dataset to appropriately support recreational planning.</p>

Green infrastructure—approach and public health benefits

2018 ◽  
pp. 252-256
Author(s):  
Raffaele Lafortezza ◽  
Cecil Konijnendijk van den Bosch
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Habitat Fragmentation ◽  
Green Infrastructure ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Multiple Services ◽  
Temporal Dimensions

Green infrastructure (GI) planning is becoming a pre-eminent approach for delivering essential goods and services to people while reversing trends such as landscape and habitat fragmentation. By means of sound ecosystems delivering multiple services and benefits, GI can contribute to public health, including physical, psychological, and social aspects. These services and benefits are provided at the local, regional, and national scales, and are therefore closely knit to planning and policymaking at various levels. The Green Infrastructure Framework was conceptualized to incorporate the multifunctional, multiscale, and temporal dimensions of GI and to demonstrate the associations between ecosystem services and human well-being. It stresses biodiversity, social and territorial cohesion, and sustainable development as key contributions of GI, creating the environmental settings for well-being and community health. Adopting the GI approach and its characteristics of connectivity (by connecting ecological and social systems), accessibility, and functionality in urban planning may contribute to healthier societies.

scholarly journals Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice

2015 ◽  
Vol 112 (24) ◽  
pp. 7348-7355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne D. Guerry ◽  
Stephen Polasky ◽  
Jane Lubchenco ◽  
Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer ◽  
Gretchen C. Daily ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Change Policy ◽  
Service Information ◽  
Governance Systems ◽  
Key Dimensions

The central challenge of the 21st century is to develop economic, social, and governance systems capable of ending poverty and achieving sustainable levels of population and consumption while securing the life-support systems underpinning current and future human well-being. Essential to meeting this challenge is the incorporation of natural capital and the ecosystem services it provides into decision-making. We explore progress and crucial gaps at this frontier, reflecting upon the 10 y since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. We focus on three key dimensions of progress and ongoing challenges: raising awareness of the interdependence of ecosystems and human well-being, advancing the fundamental interdisciplinary science of ecosystem services, and implementing this science in decisions to restore natural capital and use it sustainably. Awareness of human dependence on nature is at an all-time high, the science of ecosystem services is rapidly advancing, and talk of natural capital is now common from governments to corporate boardrooms. However, successful implementation is still in early stages. We explore why ecosystem service information has yet to fundamentally change decision-making and suggest a path forward that emphasizes: (i) developing solid evidence linking decisions to impacts on natural capital and ecosystem services, and then to human well-being; (ii) working closely with leaders in government, business, and civil society to develop the knowledge, tools, and practices necessary to integrate natural capital and ecosystem services into everyday decision-making; and (iii) reforming institutions to change policy and practices to better align private short-term goals with societal long-term goals.

scholarly journals Using gross ecosystem product (GEP) to value nature in decision making

2020 ◽  
Vol 117 (25) ◽  
pp. 14593-14601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhiyun Ouyang ◽  
Changsu Song ◽  
Hua Zheng ◽  
Stephen Polasky ◽  
Yi Xiao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Green Growth ◽  
Economic Information ◽  
The World ◽  
Chinese Province ◽  
Compensation Payments

Gross domestic product (GDP) summarizes a vast amount of economic information in a single monetary metric that is widely used by decision makers around the world. However, GDP fails to capture fully the contributions of nature to economic activity and human well-being. To address this critical omission, we develop a measure of gross ecosystem product (GEP) that summarizes the value of ecosystem services in a single monetary metric. We illustrate the measurement of GEP through an application to the Chinese province of Qinghai, showing that the approach is tractable using available data. Known as the “water tower of Asia,” Qinghai is the source of the Mekong, Yangtze, and Yellow Rivers, and indeed, we find that water-related ecosystem services make up nearly two-thirds of the value of GEP for Qinghai. Importantly most of these benefits accrue downstream. In Qinghai, GEP was greater than GDP in 2000 and three-fourths as large as GDP in 2015 as its market economy grew. Large-scale investment in restoration resulted in improvements in the flows of ecosystem services measured in GEP (127.5%) over this period. Going forward, China is using GEP in decision making in multiple ways, as part of a transformation to inclusive, green growth. This includes investing in conservation of ecosystem assets to secure provision of ecosystem services through transregional compensation payments.

scholarly journals Synthesis of Two Decades of US EPA’s Ecosystem Services Research to Inform Environmental, Community and Sustainability Decision Making

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (15) ◽  
pp. 8249
Author(s):  
Matthew C. Harwell ◽  
Chloe A. Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Services Research ◽  
Holistic View ◽  
Structured Decision Making ◽  
Decision Context ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Us Epa

A conceptual framework is helpful to understand what types of ecosystem services (ES) information is needed to support decision making. Principles of structured decision making are helpful for articulating how ES consideration can influence different elements in a given decision context resulting in changes to the environment, human health, and well-being. This article presents a holistic view of an ES framework, summarizing two decades of the US EPA’s ES research, including recent advances in final ES, those ES that provide benefits directly to people. Approximately 150 peer-reviewed publications, technical reports, and book chapters characterize a large ES research portfolio. In introducing framework elements and the suite of relevant US EPA research for each element, both challenges and opportunities are identified. Lessons from research to advance each of the final ES elements can be useful for identifying gaps and future science needs. Ultimately, the goal of this article is to help the reader develop an operational understanding of the final ES conceptual framework, an understanding of the state of science for a number of ES elements, and an introduction to some ES tools, models, and frameworks that may be of use in their case-study applications or decision-making contexts.

scholarly journals Materiality Assessment of Natural Capital Risks in Australian Forestry

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg S. Smith ◽  
Francisco Ascui ◽  
Anthony P. O’Grady ◽  
Elizabeth Pinkard
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Forestry Sector ◽  
Forestry Industry ◽  
Important Input ◽  
Negative Impacts

Abstract Purpose of Review Natural capital is a term for the stocks of natural assets (e.g. natural resources and ecosystems) that yield flows of ecosystem services that benefit the economy and human well-being. Forestry is one of the industries with the greatest dependencies on natural capital, as well as having the potential for substantial positive or negative impacts on natural capital. These dependencies and impacts create direct risks to a forestry enterprise’s ongoing financial viability, which translate into indirect risks for investors and society. There are growing demands from a variety of stakeholders for more reliable information to assess such risks, but at present, these risks are not always well understood, assessed or communicated in a consistent and comparable way. This paper addresses this problem by applying a standardized methodology to develop the first systematic, evidence-based review and financial materiality assessment of natural capital risks for the Australian forestry sector. Recent Findings The vast potential scope of forestry impacts and dependencies on natural capital can be reduced to twenty key areas of relevance to Australian forestry, of which only seven to nine have been assessed as highly financially material for each of the sub-sectors of softwood plantations, hardwood plantations and native forestry. The majority of risks assessed as highly financially material are related to dependencies on natural capital. This is in part due to the fact that current regulations and certification schemes focus on managing impacts, but tend to overlook dependencies. Nearly all of the natural capital risks rated as highly material are likely to be exacerbated by climate change. Summary An improved understanding of natural capital risks is an important input to better decision-making by forestry enterprises, as well as their lenders and investors, forestry regulators and other relevant stakeholders. This paper contributes to the preparedness of the forestry industry and its stakeholders to address questions about vulnerability to future changes and declining trends in natural capital.

Introduction to the Special Issue on Ecosystem Services and the Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 389-390
Author(s):  
Justine Bell-James ◽  
Catherine E Lovelock ◽  
Anya Phelan
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Management ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Human Health ◽  
Ecological Economics ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Natural Ecosystems ◽  
Human Needs ◽  
Ecosystem Services Value ◽  
Ecological Complexity

The importance of natural ecosystems to people and their societies has been articulated by scientists since the early 1960s. From this emerged the concept of ecosystem services in the 1970s and 1980s that began to categorize ecosystem services, value and monetarize them, against a backdrop of growing global degradation of natural ecosystems. The concept of ecosystem services has given rise to new inter-disciplinary fields (e.g. ecological economics, bioeconomics, and environmental management), which seek to provide knowledge on how the well-being of humans, which is dependent on ecosystem services from nature, can be maintained. The term has also helped connect ecological complexity and dynamics to human needs and wants, as ecosystem services fundamentally underpin human health, wellbeing and prosperity

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document