IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v50y2021ics2212041621000590.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participatory GIS mapping highlights indirect use and existence values of coastal resources and marine conservation areas

Author

Listed:
  • Scully-Engelmeyer, Kaegan M.
  • Granek, Elise F.
  • Nielsen-Pincus, Max
  • Brown, Greg

Abstract

Consideration of social and cultural dimensions in coastal and marine planning has increased and ecosystem services provide important framing to investigate values and priorities associated with these systems. Research efforts in coastal communities offer insights on social dimensions of ocean and coastal management decisions, but questions remain about how demographics and geographic residence affect perceptions of marine resources and management. We conducted and analyzed a public participation geographic information system (PPGIS) mapping survey of Oregon residents to capture uses and perceived values of coastal and marine areas. We measured coastal values, explored regional differences in those values, and identified a suite of coastal and marine ecosystem services that Oregonians prioritize from the recently established marine reserve network. Examining respondent demographics, conservation values, and coastal geographic features, we discovered values varied by region in Oregon, with regions demonstrating distinct value orientations. Regional differences in value orientation highlight the importance of incorporating multiple interpretations of value into coastal resource communication strategies, and the consequence of coastal proximity on attitudes and values about coastal resources. Incorporating use (indirect and direct) and non-use (existence) values into a Total Economic Value framework revealed that participants prioritized indirect use (scenic, recreation) over direct use and existence values coastwide. Spatial variation of participant’s use and value locations demonstrates the utility of participatory mapping in marine spatial planning efforts, both in documenting spatially explicit non-market values of coastal areas and identifying potential areas of conflict among coastal stakeholder groups. Within Oregon’s marine reserve network, which was not delineated in the mapping exercise, value preferences diverged from coastwide averages, wherein existence values (biodiversity/wildlife, wilderness, etc.) were elevated above other categories.

Suggested Citation

  • Scully-Engelmeyer, Kaegan M. & Granek, Elise F. & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Brown, Greg, 2021. "Participatory GIS mapping highlights indirect use and existence values of coastal resources and marine conservation areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:50:y:2021:i:c:s2212041621000590
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101301
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041621000590
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101301?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. Jarvis, Rebecca M. & Bollard Breen, Barbara & Krägeloh, Christian U. & Billington, D. Rex, 2015. "Citizen science and the power of public participation in marine spatial planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 21-26.
    2. Edward B. Barbier, 2012. "Progress and Challenges in Valuing Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Services," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 1-19.
    3. Brown, Greg & Fagerholm, Nora, 2015. "Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 119-133.
    4. Burdon, D. & Potts, T. & McKinley, E. & Lew, S. & Shilland, R. & Gormley, K. & Thomson, S. & Forster, R., 2019. "Expanding the role of participatory mapping to assess ecosystem service provision in local coastal environments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    5. Klain, Sarah C. & Chan, Kai M.A., 2012. "Navigating coastal values: Participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 104-113.
    6. Schägner, Jan Philipp & Brander, Luke & Maes, Joachim & Hartje, Volkmar, 2013. "Mapping ecosystem services' values: Current practice and future prospects," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 33-46.
    7. Hannon, Bruce, 1994. "Sense of place: geographic discounting by people, animals and plants," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 157-174, July.
    8. Johnson, Dana N. & van Riper, Carena J. & Chu, Maria & Winkler-Schor, Sophia, 2019. "Comparing the social values of ecosystem services in US and Australian marine protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Craig E. Landry & John Bergstrom & John Salazar & Dylan Turner, 2021. "How Has the COVID‐19 Pandemic Affected Outdoor Recreation in the U.S.? A Revealed Preference Approach," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(1), pages 443-457, March.
    10. Plottu, Eric & Plottu, Beatrice, 2007. "The concept of Total Economic Value of environment: A reconsideration within a hierarchical rationality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 52-61, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Zhang, Weixin & Yu, Yang & Wu, Xiuqin & Pereira, Paulo & Lucas Borja, Manuel Esteban, 2020. "Integrating preferences and social values for ecosystem services in local ecological management: A framework applied in Xiaojiang Basin Yunnan province, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    2. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    4. Loc, Ho Huu & Park, Edward & Thu, Tran Ngoc & Diep, Nguyen Thi Hong & Can, Nguyen Trong, 2021. "An enhanced analytical framework of participatory GIS for ecosystem services assessment applied to a Ramsar wetland site in the Vietnam Mekong Delta," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    5. Slater, Anne-Michelle & Irvine, Katherine N & Byg, Anja A. & Davies, Ian M. & Gubbins, Matt & Kafas, Andronikos & Kenter, Jasper & MacDonald, Alison & O'Hara Murray, Rory & Potts, Tavis & Tweddle, Jac, 2020. "Integrating stakeholder knowledge through modular cooperative participatory processes for marine spatial planning outcomes (CORPORATES)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    6. Burdon, D. & Potts, T. & McKinley, E. & Lew, S. & Shilland, R. & Gormley, K. & Thomson, S. & Forster, R., 2019. "Expanding the role of participatory mapping to assess ecosystem service provision in local coastal environments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    7. van den Belt, Marjan & Stevens, Sharon M., 2016. "Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 60-72.
    8. 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).
    9. Kovács, Eszter & Kelemen, Eszter & Kalóczkai, Ágnes & Margóczi, Katalin & Pataki, György & Gébert, Judit & Málovics, György & Balázs, Bálint & Roboz, Ágnes & Krasznai Kovács, Eszter & Mihók, Barbara, 2015. "Understanding the links between ecosystem service trade-offs and conflicts in protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 117-127.
    10. Darvill, Rachel & Lindo, Zoë, 2015. "Quantifying and mapping ecosystem service use across stakeholder groups: Implications for conservation with priorities for cultural values," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 153-161.
    11. Péter Palásti & Ágnes Gulyás & Márton Kiss, 2022. "Mapping Freshwater Aquaculture’s Diverse Ecosystem Services with Participatory Techniques: A Case Study from White Lake, Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    12. Chakraborty, Shamik & Gasparatos, Alexandros & Blasiak, Robert, 2020. "Multiple values for the management and sustainable use of coastal and marine ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    13. Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Weibel, Bettina & Kienast, Felix & Rabe, Sven-Erik & Zulian, Grazia, 2015. "A tiered approach for mapping ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 16-27.
    14. Maria Beatrice Andreucci, 2018. "Economic valuation of urban green infrastructure. Principles and evidence," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(2), pages 63-84.
    15. Brown, Greg & Fagerholm, Nora, 2015. "Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 119-133.
    16. 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.
    17. Garcia, Xavier & Benages-Albert, Marta & Vall-Casas, Pere, 2018. "Landscape conflict assessment based on a mixed methods analysis of qualitative PPGIS data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 112-124.
    18. 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).
    19. Crouzat, Emilie & De Frutos, Angel & Grescho, Volker & Carver, Steve & Büermann, Andrea & Carvalho-Santos, Claudia & Kraemer, Roland & Mayor, Sarah & Pöpperl, Franziska & Rossi, Christian & Schröter, , 2022. "Potential supply and actual use of cultural ecosystem services in mountain protected areas and their surroundings," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    20. 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.

    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:50:y:2021:i:c:s2212041621000590. 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.