Framing ecosystem services: Affecting behaviour of actors in collaborative landscape planning?

Land Use Policy

Volumn 46, Issue , 2015, Pages 223-231

  Opdam, Paul ^a   Coninx, Ingrid ^a   Dewulf, Art ^a   Steingröver, Eveliene ^a   Vos, Claire ^a   van der Wal, Merel ^b  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b OPEN UNIVERSITY OF THE NETHERLANDS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Actor behaviour; Attitudes and values; Community based environmental planning; Ecosystem services; Governance by information; Green infrastructure

Indexed keywords

COMMUNITY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; NATURE-SOCIETY RELATIONS; PLANNING PROCESS; SPATIAL PLANNING; STUDENT; SUSTAINABILITY;

EID: 84924358603     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.008     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 1991, 50:179-211.
2. Baker J., Sheate W.R., Phillips P., Eales R. Ecosystem services in environmental assessment-help or hindrance?. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013, 40:3-13.
3. Berkes F. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J. Environ. Manage. 2009, 90:1692-1702.
4. Bodin Ö., Crona B.I. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference?. Global Environ. Change 2009, 19:366-374.
5. Brick P., Cawley R.M. Producing political climate change: the hidden life of US environmentalism. Environ. Polit. 2008, 17:200-218.
6. Casado-Arzuaga I., Madariaga I., Onaindia M. Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. J. Environ. Manage. 2013, 129:33-43.
7. Cash D.W., Clark W.C., Alcock F., Dickson N., Eckley N., Jäger J. Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessement and Decision Making. JFK School of Government, Faculty Research Working Papers Series 2002, Harvard University, USA.
8. Chapin F.S., Carpenter S.R., Kofinas G.P., et al. Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009, 25:241-249.
9. Daily G.C., Matson P.A. Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation. PNAS 2008, 105:9455-9456.
10. Dahrendorf R. Essays in the Theory of Society 1968, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
11. Dake K. Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: an analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1991, 22:61-82.
12. De Groot R.S., Alkemade R., Braat L., Hein L., Willemen L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complexity 2010, 7:260-272.
13. Dinnie E., Brown K.M., Morris S. Community, cooperation and conflict: negotiating the social well-being benefits of urban green space experiences. Landscape Urban Plann. 2013, 112:1-9.
14. Douglas M. Cultural Bias 1978, Royal Anthropological Institute, London.
15. Elster J. Social norms and economic theory. J. Econ. Perspect. 1989, 3:99-117.
16. Ernstson H., Sörlin S., Elmqvist T. Social movements and ecosystem services-the role of social network structure in protecting and managing urban green areas in Stockholm. Ecol. Soc. 2008, 13(2):39. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art39/.
17. Festinger L., Riecken H.W., Schachter S. When Prophecy Fails 1956, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
18. Fisher B., Turner R.K., Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:643-653.
19. Giddens A. Living in a post-traditional society. Reflexive Modernization. Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order 1994, 56-109. Stanford University Press, Redwood City CA, USA. U. Beck, A. Giddens, S. Lash (Eds.).
20. Goldman R.L., Tallis H., Kareiva P., Dauly G.C. Field evidence that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diversify options. PNAS 2008, 105:9445-9448.
21. Gruber J.S. Key principles of community based natural resource management: a synthesis and interpretation of identified effective approaches for managing the commons. Environ. Manage. 2010, 45:52-66.
22. Haslett J.R., Berry P., Bela G., Jongman R.H.G., Pataki G., Samways M.J., Zobel M. Changing conservation strategies in Europe: a framework integrating ecosystem services and dynamics. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19:2963-2977.
23. Herzon I., Helenius J. Agricultural ditches, their biological importance and functioning. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141:1171-1183.
24. Homans G. Social Behaviour: Its Elementary Forms 1961, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
25. Hubacek K., Kronenberg J. Synthesizing different perspectives on the value or urban ecosystem services. Landscape Urban Plann. 2013, 109:1-6.
26. Jaccard J., Blanton H. The origins and structure of behaviour: conceptualizing behaviour in attitude research. Handbook of Attitudes and Attitude Change 2005, 125-171. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, USA. D. Albarracín, B.T. Johnson, M.P. Zanna (Eds.).
27. Jax K., Barton D.N., Chan K.M.A., et al. Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 93:260-268.
28. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. Am. Psychol. 1984, 39:341-350.
29. Lane M.B., McDonald G. Community-based environmental planning: operational dilemmas, planning principles and possible remedies. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 2005, 48:709-731.
30. Levin I.P., Schneider S.L., Gaeth G.J. All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 1998, 76:149-188.
31. Luck G.W., Chan K.M.A., Eser U., et al. Ethical considerations in on-ground applications of the ecosystem services concept. Bioscience 2012, 62:1020-1029.
32. Martín-López B., Gómez-Baggethun E., García-Llorente M., Montes C. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 37:220-228.
33. McCauley D.J. Selling out on nature. Nature 2006, 443:27-28.
34. MEA Millenium Ecosystem Assessment: Summary of Findings 2005, MEA, [online] Available from: http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx2005.
35. Mezirow J. How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood 1990, 1-20. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA, USA. J. Mezirow (Ed.).
36. Mol A.P.J. Environmental governance in the Information Age: the emergence of informational governance. Environ. Plann. C: Govt. Policy 2006, 24:497-514.
37. Newell P., Pattberg P., Schroeder H. Multifactor governance and the environment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2012, 37:365-387.
38. Newig J., Fritsch O. Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level-and effective?. Environ. Policy Governance 2009, 19:197-214.
39. Norgaard R.B. Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1219-1227.
40. Opdam P. Using ecosystem services in community based planning: science is not ready to deliver. Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture 2013, 77-101. Springer Verlag, Dordrecht. B. Fu, K.B. Jones (Eds.).
41. Opdam P., Westerik J., Vos C., De Vries B. The role and evolution of boundary concepts in transdisciplinary landscape planning. Plann. Theory Pract. 2015, 16. 10.1080/14649357.2014.997786.
42. Oteros-Rozas E., Martín-López B., González J.A., Plieninger T., López C.A., Montes C. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance social-ecological network. Reg. Environ. Change 2013, 14:1269-1289.
43. Pagiola S., Zhang W., Colom A. Can payments for watershed services help finance biodiversity conservation? A spatial analysis of highland Guatemala. J. Nat. Resour. Policy Res. 2010, 2:7-24.
44. Reyers B., Roux D.J., O'Farrell P.J. Can ecosystem services lead ecology on a transdisciplinary pathway?. Environ. Conserv. 2010, 37:501-511.
45. Schon D.A., Rein M. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies 1994, BasicBooks, New York, NY.
46. Schneiders A., Van Daele T., Van Landuyt W., Van Reeth W. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: complementary approaches for ecosystem management?. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21:123-133.
47. Schröter M., Van der Zanden E., Van Oudenhoven A., Remme R., Serna-Chavez H., De Groot R., Opdam P. Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a reflection on the critique and counter-arguments. Conserv. Lett. 2014, 7:514-523.
48. Seppelt R., Dormann C.F., Eppink F.V., Lautenbach S., Schmidt S. A quantitative review of ecosystem services studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48:630-636.
49. Steingröver E.G., Geertsema W., Van Wingerden W.K.R.E. Designing agricultural landscapes for natural pest control: a transdisciplinary approach in the Hoeksche Waard (The Netherlands). Landscape Ecol. 2010, 25:825-838.
50. Stern P.C. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56:407-424.
51. Termorshuizen J., Opdam P. Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol. 2009, 24:1037-1052.
52. Vaske J.J., Donnelly M.P. A value-attitude-behaviour model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1999, 12:523-537.
53. Ward Thompson C. Landscape and health: the recurring theme. Landscape Urban Plann. 2011, 99:187-195.