IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v37y2019ic7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the social values of ecosystem services in US and Australian marine protected areas

Author

Listed:
  • Johnson, Dana N.
  • van Riper, Carena J.
  • Chu, Maria
  • Winkler-Schor, Sophia

Abstract

Spatially explicit models for conservation planning often rely on environmental and economic indicators to prioritize management decisions. Consideration of social values in relation to landscape metrics is less common, especially across different biophysical contexts. In this paper, we compare social values mapped by outdoor recreationists who visited Santa Cruz Island within Channel Islands National Park, USA, and Hinchinbrook Island National Park, Australia using a Social Values for Ecosystem Services mapping tool that interfaced with Maximum Entropy modeling. Specifically, we determine the relative importance of 12 social values and evaluate how the relationship between three highly rated social values (Aesthetic, Biological Diversity, and Recreation) and four biophysical metrics (distance to the coast, distance to management infrastructure, slope, and elevation) differed between two marine protected areas. Our results provide insight into the spatial dynamics of social-ecological data to identify high and low priority locations in protected areas as well as enable resource management agencies to make more informed decisions about how best to engage with stakeholders. This research also supports public involvement in policy-making about land and seascapes in the USA and Australia.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:37:y:2019:i:c:7
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100919
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041618304467
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100919?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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).
    4. 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).
    5. Lisa Ernoul & Angela Wardell-Johnson & Raphaël Mathevet & Alain Sandoz & Olivier Boutron & Loïc Willm & Stephan Arnassant & Arnaud Béchet, 2021. "Context in Landscape Planning: Improving Conservation Outcomes by Identifying Social Values for a Flagship Species," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-12, June.
    6. Ante Mandić, 2020. "Structuring challenges of sustainable tourism development in protected natural areas with driving force–pressure–state–impact–response (DPSIR) framework," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 560-576, December.

    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:37:y:2019:i:c:7. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.