IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v51y2021ics2212041621000954.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participatory ecosystem service assessment to enhance environmental decision-making in a border city of South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Ilkwon
  • Lee, Jae-hyuck
  • Kwon, Hyuksoo

Abstract

Participatory methods can be used to assess the ecosystem services provided by specific areas and to identify development and conservation preferences in local communities that support the preparation of ecosystem service management strategies and conflict resolution. In this study, local participants selected ecosystem assets in a border city of South Korea and assessed the ecosystem services provided by these assets through rapid assessment. Thereafter, Q methodology was applied to assess preferences for development and conservation of ecosystem assets and the results were compared with the rapid assessment results. The local ecosystem assets contributed to the provision of ecosystem services, which were divided into cultural ecosystem services (CES) and rice field ecosystem service (RES) groups. When the results of the management preference assessment were compared with those obtained using factor analysis, ecosystem assets belonging to the CES group showed a high development preference, whereas ecosystem assets belonging to the RES group showed a high conservation preference. When formulating management plans, these findings can be used to reduce conflicts resulting from differences in the preferences for development and conservation within local communities to provide direction to ecosystem asset managements, while maintaining the ecosystem service characteristics of ecosystem assets.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Ilkwon & Lee, Jae-hyuck & Kwon, Hyuksoo, 2021. "Participatory ecosystem service assessment to enhance environmental decision-making in a border city of South Korea," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:51:y:2021:i:c:s2212041621000954
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101337
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041621000954
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101337?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. 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.
    2. Ming-Kuang Chung & Dau-Jye Lu & Bor-Wen Tsai & Kuei-Tien Chou, 2019. "Assessing Effectiveness of PPGIS on Protected Areas by Governance Quality: A Case Study of Community-Based Monitoring in Wu-Wei-Kang Wildlife Refuge, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-20, August.
    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. Crossman, Neville D. & Burkhard, Benjamin & Nedkov, Stoyan & Willemen, Louise & Petz, Katalin & Palomo, Ignacio & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Martín-Lopez, Berta & McPhearson, Timon & Boyanova, Kremena & A, 2013. "A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 4-14.
    5. Leach, Katie & Grigg, Annelisa & O'Connor, Brian & Brown, Claire & Vause, James & Gheyssens, Jonathan & Weatherdon, Lauren & Halle, Martin & Burgess, Neil D. & Fletcher, Ruth & Bekker, Sebastian & Kin, 2019. "A common framework of natural capital assets for use in public and private sector decision making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Peh, Kelvin S.-H. & Balmford, Andrew & Bradbury, Richard B. & Brown, Claire & Butchart, Stuart H.M. & Hughes, Francine M.R. & Stattersfield, Alison & Thomas, David H.L. & Walpole, Matt & Bayliss, Juli, 2013. "TESSA: A toolkit for rapid assessment of ecosystem services at sites of biodiversity conservation importance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 51-57.
    7. McInnes, R.J. & Everard, M., 2017. "Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services (RAWES): An example from Colombo, Sri Lanka," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 89-105.
    8. Harrison, Paula A. & Dunford, Rob & Barton, David N. & Kelemen, Eszter & Martín-López, Berta & Norton, Lisa & Termansen, Mette & Saarikoski, Heli & Hendriks, Kees & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Czúcz, Báli, 2018. "Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 481-498.
    9. Schröter, Matthias & Kraemer, Roland & Mantel, Martin & Kabisch, Nadja & Hecker, Susanne & Richter, Anett & Neumeier, Veronika & Bonn, Aletta, 2017. "Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 80-94.
    10. Richards, Daniel R. & Warren, Philip H. & Maltby, Lorraine & Moggridge, Helen L., 2017. "Awareness of greater numbers of ecosystem services affects preferences for floodplain management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 138-146.
    11. Hauck, Jennifer & Görg, Christoph & Varjopuro, Riku & Ratamäki, Outi & Maes, Joachim & Wittmer, Heidi & Jax, Kurt, 2013. "“Maps have an air of authority”: Potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 25-32.
    12. García-Nieto, Ana P. & García-Llorente, Marina & Iniesta-Arandia, Irene & Martín-López, Berta, 2013. "Mapping forest ecosystem services: From providing units to beneficiaries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 126-138.
    13. Buchel, Sophie & Frantzeskaki, Niki, 2015. "Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 169-177.
    14. Davies, B.B. & Hodge, I.D., 2007. "Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: A Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 323-333, March.
    15. Karimi, Azadeh & Yazdandad, Hossein & Fagerholm, Nora, 2020. "Evaluating social perceptions of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and land management: Trade-offs, synergies and implications for landscape planning and management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    16. Hélène Rey-Valette & Synthia Mathe & Jean-Michel Salles, 2017. "An assessment method of ecosystem services based on stakeholders perceptions: the Rapid Ecosystem Services Participatory Appraisal (RESPA)," Post-Print hal-01579324, HAL.
    17. 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.
    18. Hermelingmeier, Verena & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2017. "Identifying Five Different Perspectives on the Ecosystem Services Concept Using Q Methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 255-265.
    19. Helene Rey-Valette & Syndhia Mathé & Jean Michel Salles, 2017. "An assessment method of ecosystem services based on stakeholders perceptions: The Rapid Ecosystem Services Participatory Appraisal (RESPA)," Post-Print hal-02965511, HAL.
    20. Dunford, Rob & Harrison, Paula & Smith, Alison & Dick, Jan & Barton, David N. & Martin-Lopez, Berta & Kelemen, Ezsther & Jacobs, Sander & Saarikoski, Heli & Turkelboom, Francis & Verheyden, Wim & Hauc, 2018. "Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment: Experiences from real world situations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 499-514.
    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. Yang Yi & Chen Zhang & Jinqi Zhu & Yugang Zhang & Hao Sun & Hongzhang Kang, 2022. "Spatio-Temporal Evolution, Prediction and Optimization of LUCC Based on CA-Markov and InVEST Models: A Case Study of Mentougou District, Beijing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-23, February.
    2. Rosario Gómez & Julio Aguirre & Luis Oliveros & Renzo Paladines & Néstor Ortiz & Diana Encalada & Dolors Armenteras, 2023. "A Participatory Approach to Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Andean Amazonia: Three Country Case Studies for Policy Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-16, March.

    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. Tusznio, Joanna & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2020. "Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level – Challenges, opportunities, and limitations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. Lopes, Rita & Videira, Nuno, 2019. "How to articulate the multiple value dimensions of ecosystem services? Insights from implementing the PArticulatES framework in a coastal social-ecological system in Portugal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Negev, Maya & Sagie, Hila & Orenstein, Daniel E. & Zemah Shamir, Shiri & Hassan, Yousef & Amasha, Hani & Raviv, Orna & Fares, Nasrin & Lotan, Alon & Peled, Yoav & Wittenberg, Lea & Izhaki, Ido, 2019. "Using the ecosystem services framework for defining diverse human-nature relationships in a multi-ethnic biosphere reserve," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    7. Orsi, Francesco & Ciolli, Marco & Primmer, Eeva & Varumo, Liisa & Geneletti, Davide, 2020. "Mapping hotspots and bundles of forest ecosystem services across the European Union," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    8. Dick, Jan & Turkelboom, Francis & Woods, Helen & Iniesta-Arandia, Irene & Primmer, Eeva & Saarela, Sanna-Riikka & Bezák, Peter & Mederly, Peter & Leone, Michael & Verheyden, Wim & Kelemen, Eszter & Ha, 2018. "Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 552-565.
    9. Winkler, Klara J. & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2016. "More than wine: Cultural ecosystem services in vineyard landscapes in England and California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 86-98.
    10. Barton, D.N. & Kelemen, E. & Dick, J. & Martin-Lopez, B. & Gómez-Baggethun, E. & Jacobs, S. & Hendriks, C.M.A. & Termansen, M. & García- Llorente, M. & Primmer, E. & Dunford, R. & Harrison, P.A. & Tur, 2018. "(Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 529-541.
    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. Saarikoski, Heli & Primmer, Eeva & Saarela, Sanna-Riikka & Antunes, Paula & Aszalós, Réka & Baró, Francesc & Berry, Pam & Blanko, Gemma Garcia & Goméz-Baggethun, Erik & Carvalho, Laurence & Dick, Jan , 2018. "Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 579-598.
    13. Claudia Canedoli & Craig Bullock & Marcus J. Collier & Deirdre Joyce & Emilio Padoa-Schioppa, 2017. "Public Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services: Citizen Perception and Park Management in the Parco Nord of Milan (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, May.
    14. Malinga, Rebecka & Gordon, Line J. & Jewitt, Graham & Lindborg, Regina, 2015. "Mapping ecosystem services across scales and continents – A review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 57-63.
    15. 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).
    16. Chen, Chundi & Wang, Yuncai & Jia, Junsong & Mao, Longfei & Meurk, Colin D., 2019. "Ecosystem services mapping in practice: A Pasteur’s quadrant perspective," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    17. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    18. Zhang, Guanshi & Zheng, Duo & Xie, Long & Zhang, Xiu & Wu, Hongjuan & Li, Sen, 2021. "Mapping changes in the value of ecosystem services in the Yangtze River Middle Reaches Megalopolis, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Baró, Francesc & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Haase, Dagmar, 2017. "Ecosystem service bundles along the urban-rural gradient: Insights for landscape planning and management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 147-159.

    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:51:y:2021:i:c:s2212041621000954. 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.