IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v29y2018ipap170-184.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A framework for integrating systematic stakeholder analysis in ecosystem services research: Stakeholder mapping for forest ecosystem services in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Raum, Susanne

Abstract

The concept of ecosystem services offers a useful framework for the systematic assessment of the multiple benefits ecosystems deliver. However, the anthropogenic focus of the concept also requires a detailed understanding of the stakeholders interested in the goods and services ecosystems provide. Indeed, linking ecosystem services to stakeholders and systematically mapping their potential stakes in these is essential for effective, equitable and sustainable ecosystem governance and management because it specifies who is in the system and why. This paper endeavours to provide a better appreciation of systematic stakeholder analysis in ecosystem services research by, first, presenting an illustrative stakeholder analysis example, using a key natural resource in relation to ecosystem services: forests in the UK. In this exploratory study, a qualitative approach was adopted, using a literature review and interviews to identify the stakeholders with a stake in the provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services of forests, to distinguish their characteristics, and to examine their relationships towards each other on different levels. The illustrative example then informed the design of a conceptual framework for the systematic application of stakeholder analysis in ecosystem services research. The comprehensive framework consists of a three-phase model entailing the planning phase, the execution of the actual stakeholder analysis phase, and, finally the subsequent actions. The framework incorporates stakeholders and ecosystem services on a geographical, institutional and ecosystem level. Systematic stakeholder analysis can be used to develop future activities linked to ecosystem services, including new policy or instruments, stakeholder engagement activities, and decision-making processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Raum, Susanne, 2018. "A framework for integrating systematic stakeholder analysis in ecosystem services research: Stakeholder mapping for forest ecosystem services in the UK," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 170-184.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:29:y:2018:i:pa:p:170-184
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617304989
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.001?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kandziora, Marion & Burkhard, Benjamin & Müller, Felix, 2013. "Mapping provisioning ecosystem services at the local scale using data of varying spatial and temporal resolution," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 47-59.
    2. Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2015. "Challenges in ecosystem services governance: Multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 150-157.
    3. Grimble, Robin & Wellard, Kate, 1997. "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 173-193, October.
    4. Raum, Susanne, 2018. "Reasons for Adoption and Advocacy of the Ecosystem Services Concept in UK Forestry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 47-54.
    5. 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.
    6. Duggan, Deirdre E. & Farnsworth, Keith D. & Kraak, Sarah B.M., 2013. "Identifying functional stakeholder clusters to maximise communication for the ecosystem approach to fisheries management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 56-67.
    7. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    8. Dallas J. Elgin & Christopher M. Weible, 2013. "A Stakeholder Analysis of C olorado Climate and Energy Issues Using Policy Analytical Capacity and the Advocacy Coalition Framework," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 30(1), pages 114-133, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Muradian, Roldan & Rival, Laura, 2012. "Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 93-100.
    11. Danley, Brian & Widmark, Camilla, 2016. "Evaluating conceptual definitions of ecosystem services and their implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 132-138.
    12. Maguire, Bernadine & Potts, Jonathan & Fletcher, Stephen, 2012. "The role of stakeholders in the marine planning process--Stakeholder analysis within the Solent, United Kingdom," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 246-257, January.
    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. Spyros NIAVIS & Theodora PAPATHEOCHARI & Harry COCCOSSIS, 2019. "Supporting Stakeholder Analysis Within Iczm Process In Small And Medium-Sized Mediterranean Coastal Cities With The Use Of Q-Method," Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 14(1), pages 53-74, February.
    2. Love Kumar & Farah Nadeem & Maggie Sloan & Jonas Restle-Steinert & Matthew J. Deitch & Sohail Ali Naqvi & Avinash Kumar & Claudio Sassanelli, 2022. "Fostering Green Finance for Sustainable Development: A Focus on Textile and Leather Small Medium Enterprises in Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-24, September.
    3. Rosa, Josianne Claudia Sales & Geneletti, Davide & Morrison-Saunders, Angus & Sánchez, Luis Enrique & Hughes, Michael, 2020. "To what extent can mine rehabilitation restore recreational use of forest land? Learning from 50 years of practice in southwest Australia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    4. Tianwei Geng & Hai Chen & Di Liu & Qinqin Shi & Hang Zhang, 2021. "Research on Mediating Mechanisms and the Impact on Food Provision Services in Poor Areas from the Perspective of Stakeholders," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-18, October.
    5. Marques, Marlene & Juerges, Nataly & Borges, José G., 2020. "Appraisal framework for actor interest and power analysis in forest management - Insights from Northern Portugal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    6. Bin Fu & Pei Xu & Yukuan Wang & Yingman Guo, 2019. "Integrating Ecosystem Services and Human Demand for a New Ecosystem Management Approach: A Case Study from the Giant Panda World Heritage Site," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, December.
    7. Willis Ndeda Ochilo & Stefan Toepfer & Privat Ndayihanzamaso & Idah Mugambi & Janny Vos & Celestin Niyongere, 2022. "Assessing the Plant Health System of Burundi: What It Is, Who Matters and Why," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-19, November.
    8. Xiaoshu Li & G. Andrew Stainback, 2020. "On-Site Experience Effect on Stakeholders’ Preferences of Forest Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-16, September.
    9. Bussola, Francesca & Falco, Enzo & Aukes, Ewert & Stegmaier, Peter & Sorge, Stefan & Ciolli, Marco & Gagliano, Caterina & Geneletti, Davide, 2021. "Piloting a more inclusive governance innovation strategy for forest ecosystem services management in Primiero, Italy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    10. Xiao Zhang & Jun Wang & Mingyue Zhao & Yan Gao & Yanxu Liu, 2023. "Variations of Ecosystem Services Supply and Demand on the Southeast Hilly Area of China: Implications for Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Management," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-25, March.
    11. Schwaiger, Fabian & Poschenrieder, Werner & Biber, Peter & Pretzsch, Hans, 2019. "Ecosystem service trade-offs for adaptive forest management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    12. Aulia Akbar & Johannes Flacke & Javier Martinez & Martin F.A.M. van Maarseveen, 2020. "Spatial Knowledge: A Potential to Enhance Public Participation?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-30, June.
    13. Qi Chen & Huijuan Yu & Yezhi Wang, 2021. "Research on Modern Marine Environmental Governance in China: Subject Identification, Structural Characteristics, and Operational Mechanisms," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-17, April.
    14. Maier, Carolin & Hebermehl, Wiebke & Grossmann, Carol M. & Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Hernández-Morcillo, Mónica, 2021. "Innovations for securing forest ecosystem service provision in Europe – A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    15. Sharma, Rozi & Malaviya, Piyush, 2023. "Ecosystem services and climate action from a circular bioeconomy perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    16. Kathleen C. Stosch & Richard S. Quilliam & Nils Bunnefeld & David M. Oliver, 2022. "Rapid Characterisation of Stakeholder Networks in Three Catchments Reveals Contrasting Land-Water Management Issues," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    17. Keenan, Rodney J. & Pozza, Greg & Fitzsimons, James A., 2019. "Ecosystem services in environmental policy: Barriers and opportunities for increased adoption," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Vassiliki Vlami & Jan Danek & Stamatis Zogaris & Eirini Gallou & Ioannis P. Kokkoris & George Kehayias & Panayotis Dimopoulos, 2020. "Residents’ Views on Landscape and Ecosystem Services during a Wind Farm Proposal in an Island Protected Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, March.
    19. Binglu Wu & Wenzhuo Liang & Jiening Wang & Dongxu Cui, 2022. "Rural Residents’ Perceptions of Ecosystem Services: A Study from Three Topographic Areas in Shandong Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-21, July.

    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. 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).
    2. Ho¨lzinger, Oliver & Horst, Dan van der & Sadler, Jon, 2014. "City-wide Ecosystem Assessments—Lessons from Birmingham," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 98-105.
    3. Brown, Melanie G. & Quinn, John E., 2018. "Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 254-265.
    4. 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).
    5. Sagie, Hila & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2022. "Benefits of Stakeholder integration in an ecosystem services assessment of Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve, Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    6. Kovács, Eszter & Kelemen, Eszter & Kalóczkai, à gnes & Margóczi, Katalin & Pataki, György & Gébert, Judit & Málovics, György & Balázs, Bálint & Roboz, à gnes & Krasznai Kovács, Eszter & MihÃ, 2015. "Understanding the links between ecosystem service trade-offs and conflicts in protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 117-127.
    7. Schirpke, Uta & Marino, Davide & Marucci, Angelo & Palmieri, Margherita & Scolozzi, Rocco, 2017. "Operationalising ecosystem services for effective management of protected areas: Experiences and challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 105-114.
    8. Weyland, Federico & Mastrangelo, Matías Enrique & Auer, Alejandra Denise & Barral, María Paula & Nahuelhual, Laura & Larrazábal, Alejandra & Parera, Aníbal Francisco & Berrouet Cadavid, Lina Marí, 2019. "Ecosystem services approach in Latin America: From theoretical promises to real applications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 280-293.
    9. Meyer, Claas & Chen, Cheng & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2018. "Qualitative comparative institutional analysis of environmental governance: Implications from research on payments for ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 169-180.
    10. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    11. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    12. Jiayi Zhou & Kangning Xiong & Qi Wang & Jiuhan Tang & Li Lin, 2022. "A Review of Ecological Assets and Ecological Products Supply: Implications for the Karst Rocky Desertification Control," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.
    13. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    14. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis E. & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2022. "Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    15. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    16. Schmidt, Stefan & Seppelt, Ralf, 2018. "Information content of global ecosystem service databases and their suitability for decision advice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 22-40.
    17. Sarkki, Simo & Karjalainen, Timo P., 2015. "Ecosystem service valuation in a governance debate: Practitioners' strategic argumentation on forestry in northern Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 13-22.
    18. Falk, Thomas & Spangenberg, Joachim H. & Siegmund-Schultze, Marianna & Kobbe, Susanne & Feike, Til & Kuebler, Daniel & Settele, Josef & Vorlaufer, Tobias, 2018. "Identifying governance challenges in ecosystem services management – Conceptual considerations and comparison of global forest cases," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PB), pages 193-203.
    19. 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.
    20. Sattler, Claudia & Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Meyer, Claas, 2018. "Methods in ecosystem services governance analysis: An introduction," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 155-168.

    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:ecoser:v:29:y:2018:i:pa:p:170-184. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.