IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v154y2018icp1-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying Consensus on Coastal Lagoons Ecosystem Services and Conservation Priorities for an Effective Decision Making: A Q Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Sy, Mariam Maki
  • Rey-Valette, Hélène
  • Simier, Monique
  • Pasqualini, Vanina
  • Figuières, Charles
  • De Wit, Rutger

Abstract

Coastal lagoons ecosystems, while representing benefits for the local populations, have been subjected to high anthropogenic pressures for decades. Hence, conservation measures of these ecosystems are urgently needed and should be combined with their sustainable uses. To address these issues, new research avenues for decision support systems have emphasized the role of the assessment of ecosystem services for establishing conservation priorities by avoiding monetarization approaches. These approaches, because they flatten the various values of nature by projecting them on the single monetary dimension, are often rejected by the stakeholders. We undertake a Q analysis to identify levels of consensus and divergence among stakeholders on the prioritization of ecosystem services provided by two French Mediterranean coastal lagoons areas. The results highlighted that there is a strong consensus among categories of stakeholders in the study sites about the paramount importance of regulation and maintenance services. Three groups of stakeholders, each sharing the same points of view regarding ecosystem services conservation, were identified for each study site. As a non-monetary valuation, Q methodology is very instrumental for the new pluralistic approach of decision support by capturing the values expressed by the stakeholders, without triggering a rejection reflex due to the monetarization.

Suggested Citation

  • Sy, Mariam Maki & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Simier, Monique & Pasqualini, Vanina & Figuières, Charles & De Wit, Rutger, 2018. "Identifying Consensus on Coastal Lagoons Ecosystem Services and Conservation Priorities for an Effective Decision Making: A Q Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 1-13.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:154:y:2018:i:c:p:1-13
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.07.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800917317986
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.07.018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacobs, Sander & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David N. & Dunford, Robert & Harrison, Paula A. & Kelemen, Eszter & Saarikoski, Heli & Termansen, Mette & García-Llorente, Marina & Gómez-Baggethun, , 2018. "The means determine the end – Pursuing integrated valuation in practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 515-528.
    2. Keune, Hans & Dendoncker, Nicolas & Popa, Florin & Sander, Jacobs & Kampelmann, Stephan & Boeraeve, Fanny & Dufrêne, Marc & Bauler, Tom & Casaer, Jim & Cerulus, Tanya & De Blust, Geert & Denayer, Bar, 2015. "Emerging ecosystem services governance issues in the Belgium ecosystem services community of practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 212-219.
    3. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Waage, Sissel & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 27-39.
    4. Armatas, Christopher A. & Venn, Tyron J. & Watson, Alan E., 2014. "Applying Q-methodology to select and define attributes for non-market valuation: A case study from Northwest Wyoming, United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 447-456.
    5. Brigitte C. Madrian, 2014. "Applying Insights from Behavioral Economics to Policy Design," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 663-688, August.
    6. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    7. Buchel, Sophie & Frantzeskaki, Niki, 2015. "Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 169-177.
    8. Hélène Rey-Valette & Synthia Mathe & Jean-Michel Salles, 2017. "An assessment method of ecosystem services based on stakeholders perceptions: the Rapid Ecosystem Services Participatory Appraisal (RESPA)," Post-Print hal-01579324, HAL.
    9. Bredin, Yennie K. & Lindhjem, Henrik & van Dijk, Jiska & Linnell, John D.C., 2015. "Mapping value plurality towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: A Q analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 198-206.
    10. Blayac, Thierry & Mathé, Syndhia & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Fontaine, Pascal, 2014. "Perceptions of the services provided by pond fish farming in Lorraine (France)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 115-123.
    11. Syndhia Mathé & Hélène Rey-Valette, 2015. "Local Knowledge of Pond Fish-Farming Ecosystem Services: Management Implications of Stakeholders’ Perceptions in Three Different Contexts (Brazil, France and Indonesia)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-23, June.
    12. Jacobs, Sander & Dendoncker, Nicolas & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David Nicholas & Gomez-Baggethun, Erik & Boeraeve, Fanny & McGrath, Francesca L. & Vierikko, Kati & Geneletti, Davide & Sevecke, , 2016. "A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 213-220.
    13. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    14. Bark, Rosalind H. & Colloff, Matthew J. & Hatton MacDonald, Darla & Pollino, Carmel A. & Jackson, Sue & Crossman, Neville D., 2016. "Integrated valuation of ecosystem services obtained from restoring water to the environment in a major regulated river basin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 381-391.
    15. Aiora Zabala & Unai Pascual, 2016. "Bootstrapping Q Methodology to Improve the Understanding of Human Perspectives," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mariam Maki Sy & Charles C. Figuières & Helene Rey-Valette & Richard B Howarth, 2021. "Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Social Choice: The Impact of Deliberation in the context of two different Aggregation Rules," AMSE Working Papers 2107, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    2. Sy, Mariam Maki & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Figuières, Charles & Simier, Monique & De Wit, Rutger, 2021. "The impact of academic information supply and familiarity on preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    3. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Xia, Zheyi & Yuan, Chengcheng & Gao, Yang & Shen, Zhen & Liu, Kui & Huang, Yuwen & Wei, Xue & Liu, Liming, 2023. "Integrating perceptions of ecosystem services in adaptive management of country parks: A case study in peri-urban Shanghai, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    5. Mahlalela, Linda Siphiwo & Jourdain, Damien & Mungatana, Eric Dada & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark, 2022. "Diverse stakeholder perspectives and ecosystem services ranking: Application of the Q-methodology to Hawane Dam and Nature Reserve in Eswatini," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    6. Grimsrud, Kristine & Graesse, Maximo & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2020. "Using the generalised Q method in ecological economics: A better way to capture representative values and perspectives in ecosystem service management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    7. Córdoba, Gisela S. & Zepharovich, Elena, 2022. "How rural actors relate to nature. Perceptions of ecosystem services in the semi-arid Chaco of northern Argentina," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    8. Rey-Valette, Hélène & Blayac, Thierry & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2022. "Evaluating the contribution of nature to well-being: The case of ecosystem services related to fish-farming ponds in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    9. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James C.R. & Ware, Dan & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    10. Arturo Zenone & Carlo Pipitone & Giovanni D’Anna & Barbara La Porta & Tiziano Bacci & Fabio Bertasi & Claudia Bulleri & Anna Cacciuni & Sebastiano Calvo & Stefano Conconi & Maria Flavia Gravina & Ceci, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Attitudes about the Transplantations of the Mediterranean Seagrass Posidonia oceanica as a Habitat Restoration Measure after Anthropogenic Impacts: A Q Methodology Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-13, November.
    11. Manuela Rozalia Gabor & Nicoleta Cristache, 2021. "Q or R Factor Analysis for Subjectiveness Measurement in Consumer Behavior? A Study Case on Durable Goods Buying Behavior in Romania," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-24, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Armatas, Christopher A. & Campbell, Robert M. & Watson, Alan E. & Borrie, William T. & Christensen, Neal & Venn, Tyron J., 2018. "An integrated approach to valuation and tradeoff analysis of ecosystem services for national forest decision-making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 1-18.
    2. Sofia Maniatakou & Håkan Berg & Giorgos Maneas & Tim M. Daw, 2020. "Unravelling Diverse Values of Ecosystem Services: A Socio-Cultural Valuation Using Q Methodology in Messenia, Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-25, December.
    3. Grimsrud, Kristine & Graesse, Maximo & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2020. "Using the generalised Q method in ecological economics: A better way to capture representative values and perspectives in ecosystem service management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    4. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    5. Winkler, Klara J. & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2016. "More than wine: Cultural ecosystem services in vineyard landscapes in England and California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 86-98.
    6. Barton, D.N. & Kelemen, E. & Dick, J. & Martin-Lopez, B. & Gómez-Baggethun, E. & Jacobs, S. & Hendriks, C.M.A. & Termansen, M. & García- Llorente, M. & Primmer, E. & Dunford, R. & Harrison, P.A. & T, 2018. "(Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 529-541.
    7. Dimitra Syrou & Iosif Botetzagias, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions Concerning Greek Protected Areas Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, March.
    8. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James C.R. & Ware, Dan & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    9. Dendoncker, Nicolas & Turkelboom, Francis & Boeraeve, Fanny & Boerema, Annelies & Broekx, Steven & Fontaine, Corentin & Demeyer, Rolinde & De Vreese, Rik & Devillet, Guénaël & Keune, Hans & Janssens, 2018. "Integrating Ecosystem Services values for sustainability? Evidence from the Belgium Ecosystem Services community of practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 68-76.
    10. Mahlalela, Linda Siphiwo & Jourdain, Damien & Mungatana, Eric Dada & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark, 2022. "Diverse stakeholder perspectives and ecosystem services ranking: Application of the Q-methodology to Hawane Dam and Nature Reserve in Eswatini," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    11. Rey-Valette, Hélène & Blayac, Thierry & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2022. "Evaluating the contribution of nature to well-being: The case of ecosystem services related to fish-farming ponds in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    12. Fanny Boeraeve & Marc Dufrêne & Nicolas Dendoncker & Amandine Dupire & Grégory Mahy, 2020. "How Are Landscapes under Agroecological Transition Perceived and Appreciated? A Belgian Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-16, March.
    13. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    14. Sy, Mariam Maki & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Figuières, Charles & Simier, Monique & De Wit, Rutger, 2021. "The impact of academic information supply and familiarity on preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    15. Pandeya, B. & Buytaert, W. & Zulkafli, Z. & Karpouzoglou, T. & Mao, F. & Hannah, D.M., 2016. "A comparative analysis of ecosystem services valuation approaches for application at the local scale and in data scarce regions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 250-259.
    16. Primmer, Eeva & Saarikoski, Heli & Vatn, Arild, 2018. "An Empirical Analysis of Institutional Demand for Valuation Knowledge," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 152-160.
    17. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    19. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    20. Jaung, Wanggi & Putzel, Louis & Bull, Gary Q. & Kozak, Robert & Markum,, 2016. "Certification of forest watershed services: A Q methodology analysis of opportunities and challenges in Lombok, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 51-59.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:154:y:2018:i:c:p:1-13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.