Skip to main content

Do Ecosystem Service Frameworks Represent People’s Values?

Maund, Phoebe R., Irvine, Katherine N., Dallimer, Martin, Fish, Robert, Austen, Gail E., Davies, Zoe G. (2020) Do Ecosystem Service Frameworks Represent People’s Values? Ecosystem Services, 46 . Article Number 101221. ISSN 2212-0416. (doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101221) (KAR id:83876)

PDF Publisher pdf
Language: English


Download (2MB) Preview
[thumbnail of 1-s2.0-S2212041620301637-main.pdf]
Preview
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format
PDF Author's Accepted Manuscript
Language: English

Restricted to Repository staff only
Contact us about this Publication
[thumbnail of Maund et al Ecosystem Services.pdf]
Microsoft Word Author's Accepted Manuscript
Language: English

Restricted to Repository staff only
Contact us about this Publication
[thumbnail of Maund et al Ecosystem Services.docx]
Official URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101221

Abstract

Since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was published, a plethora of ecosystem service frameworks have been developed to conceptualise the links between the natural environment and society. The intended geographic scales of application, the policy/practice context, and the scientific disciplines involved have driven variations in how the frameworks are constructed. However, the frameworks are homogenous in that they have been created predominately based on expert opinions and views of how ecosystem services are structured. Here, we use the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) to examine the extent to which frameworks capture people’s values for British woodlands. Our findings reveal several disparities between how experts and the public conceptualise ecosystem services. The considerable refinement and specificity provided by CICES does not align with public values (e.g. some provisioning, and regulation and maintenance, services), which tend to be more generalised. We also demonstrate differences in values explained by social characteristics (e.g. ethnicity) that need to be accounted for in decision-making processes. Moving forwards, we need to consider how society views the services derived from nature and reflect this in frameworks to ensure ecosystem service approaches are effective, transparent and widely supported.

Item Type: Article
DOI/Identification number: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101221
Uncontrolled keywords: common international classification of ecosystem services; cultural ecosystem services; ecosystem service classification; natural capital; public values; woodlands
Subjects: Q Science > QH Natural history > QH75 Conservation (Biology)
Divisions: Divisions > Division of Human and Social Sciences > School of Anthropology and Conservation > DICE (Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology)
Signature Themes: Food Systems, Natural Resources and Environment
Depositing User: Zoe Davies
Date Deposited: 03 Nov 2020 14:54 UTC
Last Modified: 08 Mar 2021 15:13 UTC
Resource URI: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/83876 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)
Fish, Robert: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7198-0403
Austen, Gail E.: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6005-4869
Davies, Zoe G.: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0767-1467
  • Depositors only (login required):

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year