Testing the ecosystem service cascade framework and quickscan software tool in the context of land use planning in glenlivet estate Scotland

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 12-25

  Dick, Jan ^a   Verweij, Peter ^b   Carmen, Esther ^a   Rodela, Romina ^b,c   Andrews, Christopher ^a  

^a CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY   (United Kingdom)

^b WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c SÖDERTÖRN UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Ecosystem service tools; Knowledge integration; Spatial decision support system

Indexed keywords

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; GIS; INTEGRATED APPROACH; KNOWLEDGE; LAND USE PLANNING; NATURAL RESOURCE; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; SOFTWARE; STAKEHOLDER; TESTING METHOD; TRADE-OFF;

SCOTLAND; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 85024092084     PISSN: 21513732     EISSN: 21513740     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2016.1268648     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bryman A. 2015. Social research methods (5th edition). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2. Carberry PS, Hochman Z, McCown RL, Dalgliesh NP, Foale MA, Poulton PL, Hargreaves JNG, Hargreaves DMG, Cawthray S, Hillcoat N, et al. 2002. The FARMSCAPE approach to decision support: farmers’, advisers’, researchers’ monitoring, simulation, communication and performance evaluation. Agric Syst. 74:141–177. doi:10.1016/S0308-521X(02)00025-2
3. Chase-Dunn C, Hall TD. 1997. Rise and demise: comparing world-systems. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
4. Collins SL, Swinton SM, Anderson CW, Benson BJ, Brunt J, Gragson T, Grimm NB, Grove M, Henshaw D, Knapp AK, et al. 2007. Integrated science for society and the environment: a strategic research initiative. A miscellaneous publication of the LTER Network. Available from: https://intranet2.lternet.edu/sites/intranet2.lternet.edu/ files/documents/LTER_History/Planning_Documents/ISSE_v6.pdf
5. de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L. 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complexity. 7:260–272. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
6. Dick J, Smith R, Banin L, Reis S, E. Marian Scott, Prof Daniela Cocch P. 2014. Ecosystem service indicators: data sources and conceptual frameworks for sustainable management. SAMPJ. 5:346–375. doi:10.1108/sampj-11- 2013-0051
7. Haines-Young R, Potschin M. 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli D, Frid C, Editors. Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. BES Ecological Reviews Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; p. 110–139.
8. Hauck J, Goerg C, Varjopuro R, Ratamaki O, Jax K. 2013. Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: some stakeholder perspectives. Environ Sci Policy. 25:13–21. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.08.001
9. Inman D, Blind M, Ribarova I, Krause A, Roosenschoon O, Kassahun A, Scholten H, Arampatzis G, Abrami G, McIntosh B, et al. 2011. Perceived effectiveness of environmental decision support systems in participatory planning: evidence from small groups of end-users. Environ Model Softw. 26:302–309. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.08.005
10. King E, Cavender-Bares J, Balvanera P, Mwampamba THPolasky S. 2015. Trade-offs in ecosystem services and varying stakeholder preferences: evaluating conflicts, obstacles, and opportunities. Ecology And Society. 20: (3): 25. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES- 07822–200325.
11. Kloppenburg J. 1991. Social-theory and the de reconstruction of agricultural science - local knowledge for an alternative agriculture. Rural Sociol. 56:519–548. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.1991.tb00445.x
12. Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schägner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, Notte AL, Zulian G, et al. 2012. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem Serv. 1:31–39. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004
13. Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Amo DGD, Gómez-Baggethun E, Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B, et al. 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. Plos ONE. 7:e38970. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038970
14. Massey C, Alpass F, Flett R, Lewis K, Moriss S, Sligo F. 2006. Crossing fields: the case of a multi-disciplinary research team. Qual Res. 6:131–149. doi:10.1177/1468794106062706
15. McCown RL, Parton KA. 2006. Learning from the historical failure of farm management models to aid management practice. Part 2. Three systems approaches. Aust J Agric Res. 57:157–172. doi:10.1071/AR05052
16. Mononen L, Auvinen AP, Ahokumpu AL, Rönkä M, Aarras N, Tolvanen H, Kamppinen M, Viirret E, Kumpula T, Vihervaara P. 2016. National ecosystem service indicators: measures of social–ecological sustainability. Ecol Indic. 61:27–37. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.041
17. Morton D, Rowland C, Wood C, Meek L, Marston C, Smith G, Wadsworth R, Simpson IC 2011. Final report for LCM2007 - the new UK land cover map. Countryside Survey.
18. Murguia D, Cormont A, Tiess G, van Eupen M, Verweij P, van der Sluis T, Perez-Soba M Participatory land use planning for safeguarding access to mineral deposits in Europe. In: Proceedings of the 24th World Mining Congress; 2015; Rio de Janeiro.
19. Nelson RA, Holzworth DP, Hammer GL, Hayman PT. 2002. Infusing the use of seasonal climate forecasting into crop management practice in North East Australia using discussion support software. Agric Syst. 74:393–414. doi:10.1016/s0308-521x(02)00047-1
20. Reis S, Morris G, Fleming LE, Beck S, Taylor T, White M, Depledge MH, Steinle S, Sabel CE, Cowie H, et al. 2015. Integrating health and environmental impact analysis. Public Health. 129:1383–1389. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2013.07.006
21. Reyers B, Roux DJ, O’Farrell PJ. 2010. Can ecosystem services lead ecology on a transdisciplinary pathway? Environ Conserv. 37:501–511. doi:10.1017/s0376892910000846
22. Rodela R, Bregt AK, Perez-Soba M, Verweij P. 2015. Decision support systems as type of science-policy interface: exploring the potential of the QUICKScan software tool for knowledge integration and learning. Wageningen: Wageningen University.
23. Rosenthal A, Verutes G, McKenzie E, Arkema KK, Bhagabati N, Bremer LL, Olwero N, Vogl AL. 2015. Process matters: a framework for conducting decisionrelevant assessments of ecosystem services. Int J Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Serv Manag. 11:190–204. doi:10.1080/21513732.2014.966149
24. Rounsevell MDA, Dawson TP, Harrison PA. 2010. A conceptual framework to assess the effects of environmental change on ecosystem services. Biodivers Conserv. 19:2823–2842. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9838-5
25. Ruckelshaus M, McKenzie E, Tallis H, Guerry A, Daily G, Kareiva P, Polasky S, Ricketts T, Bhagabati N, Wood SA, et al. 2015. Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecological Econ. 115:11–21. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009
26. Ryan GW, Bernard RH. 2003. Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods. 15:85–109. doi:10.1177/1525822X02239569
27. Schröter M, van der Zanden EH, van Oudenhoven APE, Remme RP, Serna-Chavez HM, de Groot RS, Opdam P. 2014. Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conservation Lett. 7:514–523. doi:10.1111/conl.12091
28. Sharmina M, Hoolohan C, Bows-Larkin A, Burgess PJ, Colwill J, Gilbert P, Howard D, Knox J, Anderson K. 2016. A nexus perspective on competing land demands: wider lessons from a UK policy case study. Environ Sci Policy. 59:74–84. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.008
29. Smeets E, Weterings R 1999. Environmental indicators: typology and overview. Technical report No. 25 ed. Copenhagen: EEA. van Oudenhoven APE, Petz K, Alkemade R, Hein L, de
30. Groot RS. 2012. Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. Ecol Indic. 21:110–122. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.012
31. Verweij P, Janssen S, Braat L, van Eupen M, Perez-Soba M, Winograd M, de Winter W, Cormont A. 2016. QUICKScan as a quick and participatory methodology for problem identification and scoping in policy processes. Environ Sci Policy. 66:47–61.
32. Verweij P, Simoes M, Alves A, Ferraz R, Cormont A Linking bayesian belief networks and GIS to assess the ecosystem integrity in the Brazilian Amazon. In: Ames, DP, Quinn, NWT, Rizzoli, AE, Editors. Proceedings of the International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs), 7th International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software; 2014 Jun 15- 19; San Diego, California.
33. Wang X, Lian Y, Huang C, Wang X, Wang R, Shan K, Pedroli B, Eupen M, ElMahdi A, Ali M. 2012. Environmental flows and its evaluation of restoration effect based on LEDESS model in Yellow River Delta wetlands. Mitig Adapt Strategies Glob Chang. 17:357–367. doi:10.1007/s11027-011-9330-x
34. Waylen KA, Young J. 2014. Expectations and experiences of diverse forms of knowledge use: the case of the UK national ecosystem assessment. Environ Plann C. 32:229–246. doi:10.1068/c1327j