IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i5p718-d97220.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrating Social Values and Ecosystem Services in Systematic Conservation Planning: A Case Study in Datuan Watershed

Author

Listed:
  • Yu-Pin Lin

    (Department of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan)

  • Wei-Chih Lin

    (Geographic Information Technology Co., 4F., No. 310, Section 4, Zhongxiao E. Road., Taipei 10694, Taiwan)

  • Hsin-Yi Li

    (Fong-Yi Construction Co., LTD., 20F.-2, No.501, Section 2, Taiwan Blvd., West Dist., Taichung City 403, Taiwan)

  • Yung-Chieh Wang

    (Department of Water and Soil Conservation, National Chung Hsing University, No. 145, Xingda Road, South District, Taichung 402, Taiwan)

  • Chih-Chen Hsu

    (Department of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan)

  • Wan-Yu Lien

    (Department of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan)

  • Johnathen Anthony

    (Department of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan)

  • Joy R. Petway

    (Department of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan)

Abstract

Systematic conservation planning (SCP) deals with a delicate interplay of competing interests and has far-reaching impacts for all stakeholders and systems involved. While SCP has traditionally attempted to conserve ecosystem services that benefit ecological systems, public perceptions of conservation initiatives influence their ultimate feasibility and sustainability. In an attempt to balance ecological integrity, social utility, and urban development, this study develops a framework that applies four popular models to represent these competing factors, including two ecosystem services models—InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs) for biophysical services (BpS), and SolVES (Social Values for Ecosystem Services) for social values (SV); a land use and land cover (LULC) suitability model; and Zonation for delimiting high priority areas. We also analyze a number of conservation scenarios that consider varying levels of urban development. While BpS are distributed with considerable spatial variability, SV spatially overlap. Approximately 6% of the area was identified as having both high BpS and SV, whereas a further 24.5% of the area was identified as either high BpS low SV or vise-versa. Urban development scenarios affected the conservation area selection drastically. These results indicate tradeoffs and potential synergies between development, SV, and BpS. Our findings suggest that the information provided by the proposed framework can assist in finding solutions to social-ecological planning complexities that serve multiple stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu-Pin Lin & Wei-Chih Lin & Hsin-Yi Li & Yung-Chieh Wang & Chih-Chen Hsu & Wan-Yu Lien & Johnathen Anthony & Joy R. Petway, 2017. "Integrating Social Values and Ecosystem Services in Systematic Conservation Planning: A Case Study in Datuan Watershed," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-22, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:5:p:718-:d:97220
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/5/718/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/5/718/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Crossman, Neville D. & Burkhard, Benjamin & Nedkov, Stoyan & Willemen, Louise & Petz, Katalin & Palomo, Ignacio & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Martín-Lopez, Berta & McPhearson, Timon & Boyanova, Kremena & , 2013. "A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 4-14.
    2. Mastrangelo, Matías Enrique & Weyland, Federico & Herrera, Lorena Paola & Villarino, Sebastián Horacio & Barral, María Paula & Auer, Alejandra Denise, 2015. "Ecosystem services research in contrasting socio-ecological contexts of Argentina: Critical assessment and future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 63-73.
    3. Kremer, Peleg & Hamstead, Zoé A. & McPhearson, Timon, 2016. "The value of urban ecosystem services in New York City: A spatially explicit multicriteria analysis of landscape scale valuation scenarios," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 57-68.
    4. 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.
    5. Ferdinando Villa & Kenneth J Bagstad & Brian Voigt & Gary W Johnson & Rosimeiry Portela & Miroslav Honzák & David Batker, 2014. "A Methodology for Adaptable and Robust Ecosystem Services Assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, March.
    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. Claron, Charles & Mikou, Mehdi & Levrel, Harold & Tardieu, Léa, 2022. "Mapping urban ecosystem services to design cost-effective purchase of development rights programs: The case of the Greater Paris metropolis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    2. Tshewang Dorji & Justin D. Brookes & José M. Facelli & Robin R. Sears & Tshewang Norbu & Kuenzang Dorji & Yog Raj Chhetri & Himlal Baral, 2019. "Socio-Cultural Values of Ecosystem Services from Oak Forests in the Eastern Himalaya," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-20, April.
    3. Huashun Dou & Xiaobing Li & Shengkun Li & Dongliang Dang, 2018. "How to Detect Scale Effect of Ecosystem Services Supply? A Comprehensive Insight from Xilinhot in Inner Mongolia, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-21, October.
    4. Xinyu Ouyang & Xiangyu Luo, 2022. "Models for Assessing Urban Ecosystem Services: Status and Outlooks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    5. Linrun Qiu & Yuxiang Dong & Hai Liu, 2022. "Integrating Ecosystem Services into Planning Practice: Situation, Challenges and Inspirations," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    6. Hunggul Yudono Setio Hadi Nugroho & Fitri Nurfatriani & Yonky Indrajaya & Tri Wira Yuwati & Sulistya Ekawati & Mimi Salminah & Hendra Gunawan & Subarudi Subarudi & Markus Kudeng Sallata & Merryana Kid, 2022. "Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services from Indonesia’s Remaining Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-39, September.
    7. Yu-Pin Lin & Chi-Ju Chen & Wan-Yu Lien & Wen-Hao Chang & Joy R. Petway & Li-Chi Chiang, 2019. "Landscape Conservation Planning to Sustain Ecosystem Services under Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, March.
    8. Fuliang Deng & Tao Lin & Yue Zhao & Ying Yuan, 2017. "Zoning and Analysis of Control Units for Water Pollution Control in the Yangtze River Basin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-14, August.

    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. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    2. Adrienne Grêt-Regamey & Bettina Weibel & Kenneth J Bagstad & Marika Ferrari & Davide Geneletti & Hermann Klug & Uta Schirpke & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2014. "On the Effects of Scale for Ecosystem Services Mapping," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-26, December.
    3. 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).
    4. Schibalski, Anett & Kleyer, Michael & Maier, Martin & Schröder, Boris, 2022. "Spatiotemporally explicit prediction of future ecosystem service provisioning in response to climate change, sea level rise, and adaptation strategies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    5. Loomis, John J. & Knaus, Michael & Dziedzic, Maurício, 2019. "Integrated quantification of forest total economic value," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 335-346.
    6. Dang, Anh Nguyet & Jackson, Bethanna Marie & Benavidez, Rubianca & Tomscha, Stephanie Anne, 2021. "Review of ecosystem service assessments: Pathways for policy integration in Southeast Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    7. Fabian Delpy & Maibritt Pedersen Zari & Bethanna Jackson & Rubianca Benavidez & Thomas Westend, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Assessment Tools for Regenerative Urban Design in Oceania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, March.
    8. 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).
    9. Lusardi, Jane & Sunderland, Timothy John & Crowe, Andrew & Jackson, Bethanna Marie & Jones, Glyn, 2020. "Can process-based modelling and economic valuation of ecosystem services inform land management policy at a catchment scale?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    10. Emily C. Hazell, 2020. "Disaggregating Ecosystem Benefits: An Integrated Environmental-Deprivation Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-20, September.
    11. Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Sirén, Elina & Brunner, Sibyl Hanna & Weibel, Bettina, 2017. "Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem services concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 306-315.
    12. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.
    13. Hugé, J. & Rochette, A.J. & de Béthune, S. & Parra Paitan, C.C. & Vanderhaegen, K. & Vandervelden, T. & Van Passel, S. & Vanhove, M.P.M. & Verbist, B. & Verheyen, D. & Waas, T. & Janssens, I. & Jans, 2020. "Ecosystem services assessment tools for African Biosphere Reserves: A review and user-informed classification," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    14. Posner, Stephen & Verutes, Gregory & Koh, Insu & Denu, Doug & Ricketts, Taylor, 2016. "Global use of ecosystem service models," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 131-141.
    15. Zhichao Li & Tianqu Shao, 2019. "An Improved Ecological Services Valuation Model in Land Use Project," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-17, April.
    16. Rabe, Sven-Erik & Gantenbein, Remo & Richter, Kai-Florian & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, 2018. "Increasing the credibility of expert-based models with preference surveys – Mapping recreation in the riverine zone," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 308-317.
    17. Larondelle, Neele & Lauf, Steffen, 2016. "Balancing demand and supply of multiple urban ecosystem services on different spatial scales," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 18-31.
    18. Drakou, E.G. & Crossman, N.D. & Willemen, L. & Burkhard, B. & Palomo, I. & Maes, J. & Peedell, S., 2015. "A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 134-140.
    19. Banerjee, Onil & Crossman, Neville & Vargas, Renato & Brander, Luke & Verburg, Peter & Cicowiez, Martin & Hauck, Jennifer & McKenzie, Emily, 2020. "Global socio-economic impacts of changes in natural capital and ecosystem services: State of play and new modeling approaches," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    20. Vardon, Michael & May, Steve & Keith, Heather & Burnett, Peter & Lindenmayer, David, 2019. "Accounting for ecosystem services – Lessons from Australia for its application and use in Oceania to achieve sustainable development," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:5:p:718-:d:97220. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.