IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i5p769-d97930.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performing Ecosystem Services at Mud Flats in Seocheon, Korea: Using Q Methodology for Cooperative Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Jae-hyuck Lee

    (Bureau of Ecological Research, National Institute of Ecology, Seocheon, Choongnam 33657, Korea)

  • Moohan Kim

    (Bureau of Ecological Research, National Institute of Ecology, Seocheon, Choongnam 33657, Korea)

  • Byeori Kim

    (Bureau of Ecological Research, National Institute of Ecology, Seocheon, Choongnam 33657, Korea)

  • Hong-Jun Park

    (Bureau of Ecological Research, National Institute of Ecology, Seocheon, Choongnam 33657, Korea)

  • Hyuck-soo Kwon

    (Bureau of Ecological Research, National Institute of Ecology, Seocheon, Choongnam 33657, Korea)

Abstract

The concept of ecosystem services, which are the direct and indirect benefits of nature to humans, has been established as a supporting tool to increase the efficiency in decision-making regarding environmental planning. However, preceding studies on decision-making in relation to ecosystem services have been limited to identifying differences in perception, whereas few studies have reported cooperative alternatives. Therefore, this study aimed to present a method for cooperative decision-making among ecosystem service stakeholders using Q methodology. The results showed three perspectives on ecosystem services of small mud flat areas: ecological function, ecotourism, and human activity. The perspectives on cultural services and regulating services were diverse, whereas those on supporting services were similar. Thus, supporting services were considered crucial for the cooperative assessment and management of small mud flat ecosystems as well as for the scientific evaluation of regulating services. Furthermore, this study identified practical implementation measures to increase production through land management, to manufacture related souvenirs, and to link them to ecotourism. Overall, our results demonstrated the ideal process of cooperative decision-making to improve ecosystem services.

Suggested Citation

  • Jae-hyuck Lee & Moohan Kim & Byeori Kim & Hong-Jun Park & Hyuck-soo Kwon, 2017. "Performing Ecosystem Services at Mud Flats in Seocheon, Korea: Using Q Methodology for Cooperative Decision Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-12, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:5:p:769-:d:97930
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/5/769/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/5/769/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, C.S.A. (Kris) & van Ierland, Ekko C. & Leidekker, Jakob, 2016. "Temporal scales, ecosystem dynamics, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystems services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 109-119.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Frantzeskaki, Niki & Kabisch, Nadja, 2016. "Designing a knowledge co-production operating space for urban environmental governance—Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 90-98.
    5. Cebrián-Piqueras, M.A. & Karrasch, L. & Kleyer, M., 2017. "Coupling stakeholder assessments of ecosystem services with biophysical ecosystem properties reveals importance of social contexts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 108-115.
    6. Paudyal, Kiran & Baral, Himlal & Burkhard, Benjamin & Bhandari, Santosh P. & Keenan, Rodney J., 2015. "Participatory assessment and mapping of ecosystem services in a data-poor region: Case study of community-managed forests in central Nepal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 81-92.
    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    4. Brunet, Lucas & Tuomisaari, Johanna & Lavorel, Sandra & Crouzat, Emilie & Bierry, Adeline & Peltola, Taru & Arpin, Isabelle, 2018. "Actionable knowledge for land use planning: Making ecosystem services operational," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-34.
    5. Jialiang Ni & Xiaodong Zheng & Yuman Zheng & Yunhe Zhang & Huan Li, 2023. "Coupling Coordination Development of the Ecological–Economic System in Hangzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-18, December.
    6. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Spatial dynamics of biophysical trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services in the Himalayas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    7. Mascarenhas, André & Ramos, Tomás B. & Haase, Dagmar & Santos, Rui, 2016. "Participatory selection of ecosystem services for spatial planning: Insights from the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, Portugal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 87-99.
    8. Jeanloz, Sarah & Lizin, Sebastien & Beenaerts, Natalie & Brouwer, Roy & Van Passel, Steven & Witters, Nele, 2016. "Towards a more structured selection process for attributes and levels in choice experiments: A study in a Belgian protected area," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 45-57.
    9. Targetti, S. & Raggi, M. & Zavalloni, M. & Viaggi, D., 2021. "Perceived benefits from reclaimed rural landscapes: Evidence from the lowlands of the Po River Delta, Italy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    10. Rodríguez-Morales, Beatriz & Roces-Díaz, José V. & Kelemen, Eszter & Pataki, György & Díaz-Varela, Emilio, 2020. "Perception of ecosystem services and disservices on a peri-urban communal forest: Are landowners’ and visitors’ perspectives dissimilar?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    11. Brück, Maria & Abson, David J. & Fischer, Joern & Schultner, Jannik, 2022. "Broadening the scope of ecosystem services research: Disaggregation as a powerful concept for sustainable natural resource management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    12. Jason P. Julian & Graham S. Daly & Russell C. Weaver, 2018. "University Students’ Social Demand of a Blue Space and the Influence of Life Experiences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-30, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Pingarroni, Aline & Castro, Antonio J. & Gambi, Marcos & Bongers, Frans & Kolb, Melanie & García-Frapolli, Eduardo & Balvanera, Patricia, 2022. "Uncovering spatial patterns of ecosystem services and biodiversity through local communities' preferences and perceptions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    15. Laxmi D. Bhatta & Sunita Chaudhary & Anju Pandit & Himlal Baral & Partha J. Das & Nigel E. Stork, 2016. "Ecosystem Service Changes and Livelihood Impacts in the Maguri-Motapung Wetlands of Assam, India," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-14, June.
    16. Adams, Clare & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Moglia, Magnus, 2023. "Mainstreaming nature-based solutions in cities: A systematic literature review and a proposal for facilitating urban transitions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    17. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    18. Brendan Fisher & Stephen Polasky & Thomas Sterner, 2011. "Conservation and Human Welfare: Economic Analysis of Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 151-159, February.
    19. Haobo Feng & Jian Hou & Jiahui Jiang & Linfang Shi, 2024. "Land Use Optimization from the Perspective of Multiple Stakeholder Groups: A Case Study in Yongsheng County, Yunnan Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-13, September.
    20. Bhatta, Arun & Bigsby, Hugh R. & Cullen, Ross, 2011. "Alternative to Comprehensive Ecosystem Services Markets: The Contribution of Forest-Related Programs in New Zealand," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115350, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:769-:d:97930. 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.