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

Ecology and Society

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2015, Pages

  King, Elizabeth ^a   Cavender Bares, Jeannine ^b   Balvanera, Patricia ^c   Mwampamba, Tuyeni H ^c   Polasky, Stephen ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c INSTITUTO DE INVESTIGACIONES EN ECOSISTEMAS Y SUSTENTABILIDAD   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Biophysical constraint; Conflict; Ecosystem service; Human values; Participatory tool; Production possibility frontier; Sustainability; Trade off; Utility

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK; BIOPHYSICS; CONFLICT MANAGEMENT; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; STAKEHOLDER; SUSTAINABILITY; TRADE-OFF;

EID: 84943165954     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17083087     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5751/ES-07822-200325     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Arriaga, L., C. Aguilar, D. Espinosa, and R. Jiménez. 1997. Regionalización ecológica y biogeográfica de México. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimeinto y Uso de la Biodiversidad, México City, Distrito Federal, Mexico.
2. Bator, F. M. 1957. The simple analytics of welfare maximization. American Economic Review 47:22-59.
3. Bennett, E. M., G. D. Peterson, and L. J. Gordon. 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 12:1394-1404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x
4. Bestelmeyer, B. T. 2006. Threshold concepts and their use in rangeland management and restoration: the good, the bad, and the insidious. Restoration Ecology 14:325-329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2006.00140.x
5. Biggs, D., N. Abel, A. T. Knight, A. Leitch, A. Langston, and N. C. Ban. 2011. The implementation crisis in conservation planning: could “mental models” help? Conservation Letters 4:169-183.
6. Biggs, R., C. Raudsepp-Hearne, C. Atkinson-Palombo, E. Bohensky, E. Boyd, G. Cundill, H. Fox, S. Ingram, K. Kok, S. Spehar, et al. 2007. Linking futures across scales: a dialog on multiscale scenarios. Ecology and Society 12(1): 17. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art17/
7. Brosius, J. P. 2010. Conservation trade-offs and the politics of knowledge. Pages 311-328 in N. Leader-Williams, W. M. Adams, and R. J. Smith, editors. Trade-offs in conservation: deciding what to save. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444324907.ch17
8. Bryan, B. A. 2013. Incentives, land use, and ecosystem services: synthesizing complex linkages. Environmental Science & Policy 27:124-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.12.010
9. Carpenter, S. R., C. Folke, M. Scheffer, and F. R. Westley. 2009. Resilience: accounting for the noncomputable. Ecology and Society 14(1): 13. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art13/
10. Castella, J.-C. 2009. Assessing the role of learning devices and geovisualisation tools for collective action in natural resource management: experiences from Vietnam. Journal of Environmental Management 90:1313-1319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.010
11. Cavender-Bares, J., J. Heffernan, E. King, S. Polasky, P. Balvanera, and W. C. Clark. 2013. Sustainability and biodiversity. Pages 71-84 in S. Levin, editor. Encyclopedia of biodiversity. Elsevier, Oxford, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-384719-5.00390-7
12. Cavender-Bares, J., S. Polasky, E. King, and P. Balvanera. 2015. A sustainability framework for assessing trade-offs in ecosystem services. Ecology and Society 20(1): 17. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06917-200117
13. Chan, K. M. A., A. D. Guerry, P. Balvanera, S. Klain, T. Satterfield, X. Basurto, A. Bostrom, R. Chuenpagdee, R. Gould, B. S. Halpern, et al. 2012. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62:744-756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7
14. Chan, K. M. A., T. Satterfield, and J. Goldstein. 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics 74:8-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011
15. Clark, W. C. 2007. Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:1737-1738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0611291104
16. Costanza, R., B. Fisher, K. Mulder, S. Liu, and T. Christopher. 2007. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multi-scale empirical study of the relationship between species richness and net primary production. Ecological Economics 61:478-491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.021
17. Daily, G. C., S. Polasky, J. Goldstein, P. M. Kareiva, H. A. Mooney, L. Pejchar, T. H. Ricketts, J. Salzman, and R. Shallenberger. 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:21-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/080025
18. Daniel, T. C., A. Muhar, A. Arnberger, O. Aznar, J. W. Boyd, K. M. A. Chan, R. Costanza, T. Elmqvist, C. G. Flint, P. H. Gobster, et al. 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109:8812-8819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109
19. Daw, T., K. Brown, S. Rosendo, and R. Pomeroy. 2011. Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environmental Conservation 38:370-379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000506
20. De Groot, R. 2006. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multifunctional landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 75:175-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.016
21. De Groot, R. S., R. Alkemade, L. Braat, L. Hein, and L. Willemen. 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity 7:260-272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
22. Duch, G. J. 1995. Los suelos, la agricultura y vegetación en Yucatán. La milpa en Yucatan 1:97-107.
23. Ernstson, H., S. Barthel, E. Andersson, and S. T. Borgström. 2010. Scale-crossing brokers and network governance of urban ecosystem services: the case of Stockholm. Ecology and Society 15(4): 28. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art28/
24. Etienne, M., D. R. Du Toit, and S. Pollard. 2011. ARDI: a coconstruction method for participatory modeling in natural resources management. Ecology and Society 16(1): 44. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art44/
25. Ewing, P. W., and B. C. Runck. 2015. Optimizing nitrogen rates in the midwestern United States for maximum ecosystem value. Ecology and Society 20(1): 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06767-200118
26. Fischer, J., B. Brosi, G. C. Daily, P. R. Ehrlich, R. Goldman, J. Goldstein, D. B. Lindenmayer, A. D. Manning, H. A. Mooney, L. Pejchar, et al. 2008. Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6:380–385.
27. García-Barrios, L., Y. M. Galván-Miyoshi, I. A. Valdivieso-Pérez, O. R. Masera, G. Bocco, and J. Vandermeer. 2009. Neotropical forest conservation, agricultural intensification, and rural outmigration:the Mexican experience. BioScience 59:863-873. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.10.8
28. González-Esquivel, C. E., M. E. Gavito, M. Astier, M. Cadena- Salgado, E. del-Val, L. Villamil-Echeverri, Y. Merlín-Uribe, and P. Balvanera. 2015. Ecosystem service trade-offs, perceived drivers, and sustainability in contrasting agroecosystems in central Mexico. Ecology and Society 20(1): 38. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06875-200138
29. Grêt-Regamey, A., S. H. Brunner, J. Altwegg, M. Christen, and P. Bebi. 2013. Integrating expert knowledge into mapping ecosystem services trade-offs for sustainable forest management. Ecology and Society 18(3): 34. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05800-180334
30. Haase, D., N. Schwarz, M. Strohbach, F. Kroll, and R. Seppelt. 2012. Synergies, trade-offs, and losses of ecosystem services in urban regions: an integrated multiscale framework applied to the Leipzig-Halle region, Germany. Ecology and Society 17(3): 22. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04853-170322
31. Hein, L., K. van Koppen, R. S. de Groot, and E. C. van Ierland. 2006. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 57:209-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005
32. Helming, K., and M. Pérez-Soba. 2011. Landscape scenarios and multifunctionality: making land use impact assessment operational. Ecology and Society 16(1): 50. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art50/
33. Ibarra Manriquez, G., J. L. Villaseñor, and R. Duran Garcia. 1995. Riqueza de especies y endemismo del componente arbóreo de la Península de Yucatán, México. Species richness and endemisms of trees of Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Boletin de la Sociedad Botánica de México 57:49-77.
34. Jones, N. A., H. Ross, T. Lynam, P. Perez, and A. Leitch. 2011. Mental models: an interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecology and Society 16(1): 46. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art46
35. Kari, S., and K. Korhonen-Kurki. 2013. Framing local outcomes of biodiversity conservation through ecosystem services: a case study from Ranomafana, Madagascar. Ecosystem Services 3:e32–e39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.12.003
36. King, E. G., and R. J. Hobbs. 2006. Identifying linkages among conceptual models of ecosystem degradation and restoration: towards an integrative framework. Restoration Ecology 14:369-378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2006.00145.x
37. Kline, J. D., and M. J. Mazzotta. 2012. Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services in the management of public lands. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-865. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, USA.
38. Koch, E. W., E. B. Barbier, B. R. Silliman, D. J. Reed, G. M. Perillo, S. D. Hacker, E. F. Granek, J. H. Primavera, N. Muthiga, S. Polasky, et al. 2009. Non-linearity in ecosystem services: temporal and spatial variability in coastal protection. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:29-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/080126
39. Labiosa, W. B., W. M. Forney, A.-M. Esnard, D. Mitsova-Boneva, R. Bernknopf, P. Hearn, D. Hogan, L. Pearlstine, D. Strong, H. Gladwin, et al. 2013. An integrated multi-criteria scenario evaluation web tool for participatory land-use planning in urbanized areas: the Ecosystem Portfolio Model. Environmental Modelling & Software 41:210-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.10.012
40. Laterra, P., M. E. Orúe, and G. C. Booman. 2012. Spatial complexity and ecosystem services in rural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 154:56-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.013
41. Leach, M., I. Scoones, and A. Stirling. 2010. Dynamic sustainabilities: technology, environment, social justice. Earthscan, Bristol, UK.
42. López-Ridaura, S., O. Masera, and M. Astier. 2002. Evaluating the sustainability of complex socio-environmental systems. The MESMIS framework. Ecological Indicators 2:135-148.http://dx.doi.org10.1016/S1470-160X(02)00043-2
43. Lynam, T., W. de Jong, D. Sheil, T. Kusumanto, and K. Evans. 2007. A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management. Ecology and Society 12(1): 5.[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art5/
44. Martín-López, B., I. Iniesta-Arandia, M. García-Llorente, I. Palomo, I. Casado-Arzuaga, D. G. del Amo, E. Gómez-Baggethun, E. Oteros-Rozas, I. Palacios-Agundez, B. Willaarts, et al. 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 7:e38970. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970
45. Matthews, N. 2012. Water grabbing in the Mekong basin—an analysis of the winners and losers of Thailand’s hydropower development in Lao PDR. Water Alternatives 5:392-411.
46. May, R. M. 1977. Thresholds and breakpoints in ecosystems with a multiplicity of stable states. Nature 269:471-477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/269471a0
47. Mouchet, M. A., P. Lamarque, B. Martín-López, E. Crouzat, P. Gos, C. Byczek, and S. Lavorel. 2014. An interdisciplinary methodological guide for quantifying associations betweenecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 28:298-308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.012
48. Müller, F., R. de Groot, and L. Willemen. 2010. Ecosystem services at the landscape scale: the need for integrative approaches. Landscape Online 23:1-11.
49. Muradian, R., M. Arsel, L. Pellegrini, F. Adaman, B. Aguilar, B. Agarwal, E. Corbera, D. Ezzine de Blas, J. Farley, G. Froger, et al. 2013. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conservation Letters 6:274-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00309.x
50. Mwampamba, T. H. 2009. Forest recovery and carbon sequestration under shifting cultivation in the Eastern Arc Mountains, Tanzania: landscape and landuse effects. University of California Davis, Davis, California, USA.
51. Mwampamba, T. H., and M. W. Schwartz. 2011. The effects of cultivation history on forest recovery in fallows in the Eastern Arc Mountain, Tanzania. Forest Ecology and Management 261:1042-1052. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.12.026
52. Nelson, E., G. Mendoza, J. Regetz, S. Polasky, H. Tallis, D. Cameron, K. M. Chan, G. C. Daily, J. Goldstein, P. M. Kareiva, et al. 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and trade-offs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:4-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/080023
53. Nelson, E., S. Polasky, D. J. Lewis, A. J. Plantinga, E. Lonsdorf, D. White, D. Bael, and J. J. Lawler. 2008. Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a landscape. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105:9471-9476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706178105
54. Perfecto, I., and J. Vandermeer. 2010. The agroecological matrix as alternative to the land-sparing/agriculture intensification model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107:5786-5791. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905455107
55. Plieninger, T., C. Bieling, B. Ohnesorge, H. Schaich, C. Schleyer, and F. Wolff. 2013. Exploring futures of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes through participatory scenario development in the Swabian Alb, Germany. Ecology and Society 18(3): 39. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05802-180339
56. Polasky, S., E. Nelson, J. Camm, B. Csuti, P. Fackler, E. Lonsdorf, C. Montgomery, D. White, J. Arthur, B. Garber-Yonts, et al. 2008. Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biological Conservation 141:1505-1524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.03.022
57. Reed, M. S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141:2417-2431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014
58. Rietkerk, M., P. Ketner, L. Stroosnijder, and H. H. T. Prins. 1996. Sahelian rangeland development; a catastrophe? Journal of Range Management 49:512-519.
59. Rodríguez, J. P., T. D. Beard, Jr., E. M. Bennett, G. S. Cumming, S. J. Cork, J. Agard, A. P. Dobson, and G. D. Peterson. 2006. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society 11(1): 28.[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art28/
60. Roe, D., and M. Walpole. 2010. Whose value counts? Trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction. Pages 157-174 in N. Leader-Williams, W. Adams, and R. Smith, editors. Trade-offs in conservation: deciding what to save. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444324907.ch9
61. Scheffer, M., S. Carpenter, J. A. Foley, C. Folke, and B. Walker. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591-596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35098000
62. Smith, F. P., R. Gorddard, A. P. N. House, S. McIntyre, and S. M. Prober. 2012. Biodiversity and agriculture: production frontiers as a framework for exploring trade-offs and evaluating policy. Environmental Science & Policy 23:85-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.013
63. Stone-Jovicich, S. S., T. Lynam, A. Leitch, and N. A. Jones. 2011. Using consensus analysis to assess mental models about water use and management in the Crocodile River catchment, South Africa. Ecology and Society 16(1): 45.[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art45/
64. Sunderlin, W. D., A. Angelsen, B. Belcher, P. Burgers, R. Nasi, L. Santoso, and S. Wunder. 2005. Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: an overview. World Development 33:1383-1402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.10.004
65. Turnbull, L., B. P. Wilcox, J. Belnap, S. Ravi, P. D’Odorico, D. Childers, W. Gwenzi, G. Okin, J. Wainwright, K. K. Caylor, et al. 2012. Understanding the role of ecohydrological feedbacks in ecosystem state change in drylands. Ecohydrology 5:174-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eco.265
66. White, C., B. S. Halpern, and C. V. Kappel. 2012. Ecosystem service trade-off analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109:4696-4701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114215109
67. Yahdjian, L., O. E. Sala, and K. M. Havstad. 2015. Rangeland ecosystem services: shifting focus from supply to reconciling supply and demand. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13:44-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/14015