When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 29, Issue , 2018, Pages 566-578

  Turkelboom, Francis ^a   Leone, Michael ^a   Jacobs, Sander ^a   Kelemen, Eszter ^b,c   García Llorente, Marina ^d,e   Baró, Francesc ^f,g   Termansen, Mette ^h   Barton, David N ⁱ   Berry, Pam ^j   Stange, Erik ⁱ   Thoonen, Marijke ^a   Kalóczkai, Ágnes ^k   Vadineanu, Angheluta ^l   Castro, Antonio J ^m,n   Czúcz, Bálint ^k,o   Röckmann, Christine ^p   Wurbs, Daniel ^q   Odee, David ^r   Preda, Elena ^l   Gómez Baggethun, Erik ^j,s   Rusch, Graciela M ⁱ   Pastur, Guillermo Martínez ^t   Palomo, Ignacio ^e,u   Dick, Jan ^v   Casaer, Jim ^a   van Dijk, Jiska ⁱ   Priess, Joerg A ^w   Langemeyer, Johannes ^f,g   Mustajoki, Jyri ^x   Kopperoinen, Leena ^x   Baptist, Martin J ^p   Peri, Pablo Luis ^y   Mukhopadhyay, Raktima ^z   Aszalós, Réka ^k   Roy, S B ^z   Luque, Sandra ^aa   Rusch, Verónica ^ab   more..

^a RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR NATURE AND FOREST INBO   (Belgium)

^b Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG)   (Hungary)

^c Institute of Entrepreneurship and Innovation   (Hungary)

^d Madrid Institute for Rural   (Spain)

^e UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

^f INSTITUT DE CIÈNCIA I TECNOLOGIA AMBIENTALS   (Spain)

^g HOSPITAL DEL MAR   (Spain)

^h AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

ⁱ NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR NATURE RESEARCH   (Norway)

^j UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^k INSTITUTE OF ECOLOGY AND BOTANY   (Hungary)

^l UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST   (Romania)

^m Nucl Eng Idaho State University   (United States)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF ALMERÍA   (Spain)

^o MUSÉUM NATIONAL D'HISTOIRE NATURELLE   (France)

^p WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^q Geoflux GbR   (Germany)

^r KENYA FORESTRY RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Kenya)

^s NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

^t CENTRO AUSTRAL DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTÍFICAS CADIC CONICET   (Argentina)

^u BASQUE CENTRE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE BC3   (Spain)

^v CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY   (United Kingdom)

^w HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^x FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^y INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE TECNOLOGÍA AGROPECUARIA INTA   (Argentina)

^z Indian Institute of Bio Social Research and Development   (India)

^aa UMR TETIS   (France)

^ab Inst Nac de Tecnol Agropecuaria   (Argentina)

more..

Author keywords

Ecosystem use; Property regimes; Real world case studies; Stakeholder responses; Trade off analytical framework

Indexed keywords

EID: 85034973160     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Adger, W.N., Luttrell, C., The values of wetlands: Landscape and institutional perspectives - Property rights and the utilisation of wetlands. Ecol. Econ. 35 (2000), 75–89.
2. Barnes-Mauthea, M., Olesona, K., Brander, L., Zafindrasilivonon, B., Oliverb, T., van Beukering, P., Social capital as an ecosystem service: Evidence from a locally managed marine area. Ecosyst. Services 16 (2016), 283–293.
3. Baró, F., Haase, D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Frantceskaki, N., Mismatches between ecosystem services supply and demand in urban areas: A quantitative assessment in five European cities. Ecol. Ind. 55 (2015), 146–158.
4. Bennett, E.M., Peterson, G.D., Gordon, L.J., Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett. 12:12 (2009), 1394–1404.
5. Berbés-Blázquez, M., González, J.A., Pascual, U., Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 19 (2016), 134–143.
6. Berry, P., Fabok, V., Blicharska, M., Bredin, Y., Llorente, M., Kovacs, E., Geamana, N., Stanciu, A., Termansen, M., Jaakelainen, T., Haslett, J., Harrison, P., Why conserve biodiversity? A multi-national exploration of stakeholders’ views on the arguments for biodiversity conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 26:310 (2016), 1–22.
7. Cáceres, D.M., Tapella, E., Quétier, F., Díaz, S., The social value of biodiversity and ecosystem services from the perspectives of different social actors. Ecol. Soc., 20(1), 2015.
8. Cáceres, D.M., Silvetti, F., Díaz, S., The rocky path from policy-relevant science to policy implementation - a case study from the South American Chaco. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 19 (2016), 57–66.
9. Castro, A.J., Verburg, P., Martín-López, B., García-LLorente, M., Cabello, J., Vaughn, C., López, E., Ecosystem service trade-offs from the supply to social demand: a landscape-scale spatial analysis. Landscape Urban Plan. 132 (2014), 102–110.
10. Castro, A.J., Martín-López, B., Plieninger, T., López, E., Alcaraz-Segura, D., Vaughn, C.C., Cabello, J., Do protected areas networks ensure the supply of ecosystem services? Spatial patterns of two nature reserve systems in semi-arid Spain. Appl. Geogr. 60 (2015), 1–9.
11. Chan, K.M.A., Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74 (2012), 8–18.
12. Cornes, R., Sandler, T., The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods. second ed., 1996, Australian National University, Canberra.
13. Costanza, R., Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biol. Conserv. 141 (2008), 350–352.
14. Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knight, A.T., O'Farrell, P.J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Roux, D., Welz, A., Wilhelm-Rechman, A., An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (PNAS) 105:28 (2008), 9483–9488.
15. Daw, T., Brown, K., Rosendo, S., Pomeroy, R., Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ. Conserv. 38:4 (2011), 370–379, 10.1017/S0376892911000506.
16. Dick, J., Turkelboom, F., Woods, H., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Primmer, E., Saarela, S., Bezák, P., Mederly, P., Leone, M., Verheyden, W., Kelemen, E., Hauck, J., Andrew, C., Antunes, P., Aszalós, R., Baró, F., Barton, D.N., Berry, P., Bugter, R., et al. Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: results from 27 case studies. Ecosyst. Services 29 (2018), 552–565.
17. Eigenbrod, F., Armsworth, P.R., Anderson, B., Heinemeyer, A., Gillings, S., Roy, D.B., Thomas, C.D., Gaston, K.J., The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. J. Appl. Ecol. 47 (2010), 377–385, 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01777.x.
18. Elmqvist,T., Krishnaswamy, J., Hylander, K., 2011. Managing trade-offs in ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services Economics (ESE) Working Paper Series, The United Nations Environment Programme.
19. Fabricius, C., Scholes, R., Cundill, G., Mobilizing knowledge for integrated ecosystem assessments (Chapter 9). Bridging scales and knowledge systems: Concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment. 2006, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment pp. 165–182.
20. Farley, J., Costanza, R., Payments for system services: From local to global. Ecol. Econ. 69 (2010), 2060–2068.
21. Felipe-Lucia, M.R., Martin-Lopez, B., Lavorel, S., Berraquero-Diaz, L., Escalera-Reyes, J., Comin, F.A., Ecosystem services flows: why stakeholders' power relationships matter. Plos One, 10(7), 2015.
22. Fontaine, C.M., Dendoncker, N., De Vreese, R., Jacquemin, I., Marek, A., Van Herzele, A., Devillet, G., Mortelmans, D., François, L., Towards participatory integrated valuation and modelling of ecosystem services under land-use change. J. Land Use Sci. 18 (2013), 1–26.
23. Freeman, R.E., Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. 1984, Basic Books, New York.
24. García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., López-Santiago, C.A., Aguilera, P.A., Montes, C., The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: An ecosystem service approach. Environ. Sci. Policy 19–20 (2012), 136–146.
25. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Kelemen, E., Linking institutional change and the flows of ecosystem services. Case studies from Spain and Hungary. Kluvánková-Oravská, T., Chobotova, V., Jílková, J.T., Chobotova, V., Jílková, J., (eds.) Institutional Analysis of Sustainability Problems, 2008, Slovak Academy of Sciences, 118–145.
26. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Lomas, P., Zorrilla, P., Montes, C., Evolution of ecosystem services in a Mediterranean cultural landscape: Doñana case study, Spain (1956-2006). Sofo, A., (eds.) Biodiversity, 2011, InTech, 27–46.
27. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Kelemen, E., Martín, B., Palomo, I., Montes, C., Scale misfit in ecosystem service governance as a source of environmental conflict. Soc. Nat. Resour. 26 (2013), 1202–1216.
28. Grêt-Regamey, A., Walz, A., Bebi, P., Valuing ecosystem services for sustainable landscape planning in Alpine regions. Mount. Res. Dev. 28:2 (2008), 156–165.
29. Haines-Young, Potschin M. (2013). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003.
30. Halcomb, E.J., Gholizadeh, L., DiGiacomo, M., Phillips, J., Davidson, P.M., Literature review: considerations in undertaking focus group research with culturally and linguistically diverse groups. J. Clin. Nurs. 16:6 (2007), 1000–1011.
31. Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R.S., van Ierland, E.C., Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 57 (2006), 209–228.
32. Hicks, C.C., Graham, N.A.J., Cinner, J.E., Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value coral reef ecosystem services. Global Environ. Change 23:6 (2013), 1444–1453.
33. Hirsch, P.D., Adams, W.M., Brosius, J.P., Zia, A., Bariola, N., Lius, D.J., Acknowledging conservation trade-offs and embracing complexity. Conserv. Biol. 25:2 (2010), 259–264.
34. Howe, C., Suich, H., Vira, B., Mace, G.M., Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: A meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Global Environ. Change 28 (2014), 263–275.
35. Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Aguilera, P.A., Montes, C., Martín-López, B., Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecol. Econ. 108 (2014), 36–48.
36. Jax, K., Furman, E., Saarikoski, H., Barton, D.N., Dick, J., Delbaere, B., Duke, G., Görg, C., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Harrison, P.A., Maes, J., Pérez-Soba, M., Potschin-Young, M., Turkelboom, F., Saarela, S., van Dijk, J., Watt, A.D., Handling a messy world: Lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational. Ecosyst. Services 29 (2018), 415–427.
37. Kandziora, M., Burkhard, B., Müller, F., Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators—A theoretical matrix exercise. Ecol. Ind. 28 (2013), 54–78.
38. King, E., Cavender-Bares, J., Balvanera, P., Mwampamba, T.H., Polasky, S., Trade-offs in ecosystem services and varying stakeholder preferences: evaluating conflicts, obstacles, and opportunities. Ecol. Soc., 20(3), 2015.
39. Kooiman, J., Jentoft, S., 2005. Hard choices and values. Fish for life: Interactive governance for fisheries. pp. 285–302.
40. Kovács, E., Kelemen, E., Kalóczkai, Á., Margóczi, K., Pataki, G., Gébert, J., Málovics, G., Balázs, B., Roboz, Á., Krasznai Kovács, E., Mihók, B., Understanding the links between ecosystem service trade-offs and conflicts in protected areas. Ecosyst. Services 12 (2015), 117–127.
41. Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Billé, R., Pirard, R., Mermet, L., Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a literature blindspot. J. Environ. Manage. 119 (2013), 208–219.
42. MA [Millennium Ecosystem Assessment], Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being : Synthesis. 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC.
43. Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., García-Llorente, M., Montes, C., Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol. Ind. 37 (2014), 220–228.
44. McShane, T.O., Hirsch, P.D., Trung, T.C., Songorwa, A.N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B., Mutekanga, D., Van Thang, H., Dammert, J.L., Pulgar-Vidal, M., Welch-Devine, M., Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol. Conserv. 144:3 (2011), 966–972.
45. Mouchet, M.A., Lamarque, P., Martín-López, B., Crouzat, E., Gos, P., Byczek, C., Lavorel, S., An interdisciplinary methodological guide for quantifying associations between ecosystem services. Global Environ. Change 28 (2014), 298–308, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.012.
46. Muradian, R., Arsel, M., Pellegrini, L., Adaman, F., Aguilar, B., Agarwal, B., Corbera, E., Ezzine, D., Farley, J., Froger, G., Garcia-Frapolli, E., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gowdy, J., Kosoy, N., Le Coq, L.F., Leroy, P., Méral, May P., et al. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conserv. Lett. 6 (2013), 274–279.
47. Muradian, R., Gómez-Baggethun, E., The institutional dimension of “Market-based Instruments” for governing ecosystem services: introduction to the special issue. Soc. Nat. Resour. 26 (2013), 1113–1121.
48. Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D.R., Chan, K.M.A., Daily, G.C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Lonsdorf, E., Naidoo, R., Ricketts, T.H., Shaw, M.R., Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7 (2009), 4–11.
49. Niemelä, J., Saarela, S.R., Söderman, T., Kopperoinen, L., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Väre, S., Kotze, D.J., Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: a Finland case study. Biodivers. Conserv. 19:11 (2010), 3225–3243.
50. Ostrom, E., Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. 1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
51. Ostrom, E., A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104 (2007), 15181–15187.
52. Ostrom, E., A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:5939 (2009), 419–422.
53. Othoniel, B., Rugani, B., Heijungs, R., Benetto, E., Withagen, C.A., Assessment of life cycle impacts on ecosystem services: promise, problems and prospects. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50:3 (2016), 1077–1092.
54. Palomo, I., Felipe-Lucia, M.R., Bennett, E.M., Martín-López, B., Pascual, U., Chapter six-disentangling the pathways and effects of ecosystem service co-production. Adv. Ecol. Res. 54 (2016), 245–283.
55. Phelps, J., Friess, D.A., Webb, E.L., Win–win REDD+ approaches belie carbon–biodiversity trade-offs. Biol. Conserv. 154 (2012), 53–60.
56. Quintas-Soriano, C., García-Llorente, M., Castro, H., Castro, A.J., Land use-land cover impacts on ecosystem services and their implications on human well-being in arid Spain. Land Use Policy 4 (2016), 534–548.
57. Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D., Bennet, M., Ecosystem service bundles for analysing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. PNAS 107 (2010), 1–6.
58. Reed, M.S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C.H., Stringer, L.C., Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manage. 90 (2009), 1933–1949.
59. Rodriguez, J.P., Douglas, B.T., Bennett, E.M., Cumming, G.S., Cork, S.J., Agard, J., Dobson, A.P., Peterson, G.D., Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc., 11, 2006, 28.
60. Ruckelshaus, M., McKenzie, E., Tallis, H., Guerry, A., Daily, G., Kareiva, P., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T., Bhagabati, N., Wood, S., Bernhardt, J., Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol. Econ. 115 (2015), 11–21.
61. Rusch, V.E., Rusch, G.M., Goijman, A.P., Varela, S.A., Claps, L., Ecosystem services to support environmental and socially sustainable decision-making. Ecología Austral 27 (2017), 162–176.
62. Samuelson, P.A., Economics. 8th ed., 1970, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
63. Swallow, B.M., Sanga, J.K., Nyabengea, M., Bundotichc, D.K., Duraiappahd, A.K., Yaticha, T.B., Tradeoffs, synergies and traps among ecosystem services in the Lake Victoria basin of East Africa. Environ. Sci. Policy 12 (2009), 504–519.
64. Tallis, H., Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., Chang, A., An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105:28 (2008), 9457–9464, 10.1073/pnas.0705797105.
65. TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.
66. UKNEA, The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Technical Report. 2011, UK Nation Ecosystem Assessment UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
67. Van Herzele, A., Aarts, N., ‘‘My forest, my kingdom’’—Self-referentiality as a strategy in the case of small forest owners coping with government regulations. Policy Sci. 46 (2013), 63–81, 10.1007/s11077-012-9157-7.
68. Vane-Wright, R.I., Humphries, C., Williams, P., What to protect?—Systematics and the agony of choice. Biol. Conserv. 55:3 (1991), 235–254.
69. Wu, J., Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecol. 28:6 (2013), 999–1023.