IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v32y2014i2p320-340.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the Use of Ecosystem Service Knowledge in Decision Making: Lessons from International Experiences of Spatial Planning

Author

Listed:
  • Emily McKenzie

    (World Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th St NW, Washington, DC 20037-1193, USA; and WWF-UK, Panda House, Weyside Park, Goldalming, Surrey GU7 1XR, England)

  • Stephen Posner

    (Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, 617 Main Street, Burlington, VT 05405, USA)

  • Patricia Tillmann

    (World Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th St NW, Washington, DC 20037-1193, USA; and Center for Public Policy and Administration, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Gordon Hall 1st Floor, 418 North Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA 01002, USA)

  • Joanna R Bernhardt

    (Department of Zoology and Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, 6270 University Boulevard, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1ZT, Canada)

  • Kirsten Howard

    (World Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th St NW, Washington, DC 20037-1193, USA; and School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1041, USA)

  • Amy Rosenthal

    (World Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th St NW, Washington, DC 20037-1193, USA)

Abstract

The limited understanding of how ecosystem service knowledge (ESK) is used in decision making constrains our ability to learn from, replicate, and convey success stories. We explore use of ESK in decision making in three international cases: national coastal planning in Belize; regional marine spatial planning on Vancouver Island, Canada; and regional land-use planning on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. Decision makers, scientists, and stakeholders collaborated in each case to use a standardized ecosystem service accounting tool to inform spatial planning. We evaluate interview, survey, and observation data to assess evidence of ‘conceptual’, ‘strategic’, and ‘instrumental’ use of ESK. We find evidence of all modes: conceptual use dominates early planning, while strategic and instrumental uses occur iteratively in middle and late stages. Conceptual and strategic uses of ESK build understanding and compromise that facilitate instrumental use. We highlight attributes of ESK, characteristics of the process, and general conditions that appear to affect how knowledge is used. Meaningful participation, scenario development, and integration of local and traditional knowledge emerge as important for particular uses.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily McKenzie & Stephen Posner & Patricia Tillmann & Joanna R Bernhardt & Kirsten Howard & Amy Rosenthal, 2014. "Understanding the Use of Ecosystem Service Knowledge in Decision Making: Lessons from International Experiences of Spatial Planning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 320-340, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:32:y:2014:i:2:p:320-340
    DOI: 10.1068/c12292j
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c12292j
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c12292j?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kareiva, Peter & Tallis, Heather & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Daily, Gretchen C. & Polasky, Stephen (ed.), 2011. "Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199589005, Decembrie.
    2. Carol H. Weiss, 1989. "Congressional committees as users of analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 411-431.
    3. Cash, David & Clark, William & Alcock, Frank & Dickson, Nancy & Eckley, Noelle & Jager, Jill, 2002. "Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making," Working Paper Series rwp02-046, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Neselle, M. & Makui, O. & Ogutu, J. & BurnSilver, S. B. & Galvin, K.A. & Dickson, Nancy M. & Onetu, L. & Kiruswa, S. & Goldman, M. J. & Boone, R.B. & Clark, William C. & Nkedianye, D. & Said, M. Y. & , 2009. "Evolution of Models to Support Community and Policy Action with Science: Balancing Pastoral Livelihoods and Wildlife Conservation in Savannas of East Africa," Scholarly Articles 9774652, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    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. Kristjanson, Patti & Reid, Robin & Dickson, Nancy & Clark, William C. & Vishnubhotla, Prasad & Romney, Dannie & Bezkorowajnyj, Peter & Said, Mohammed & Kaelo, Dickson & Makui, Ogeli & Nkedianye, David, 2008. "Linking International Agricultural Research Knowledge with Action for Sustainable Poverty Alleviation: What Works?," Working Paper Series rwp08-045, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    2. Frélichová, Jana & VaÄ kář, David & Pártl, Adam & LouÄ ková, Blanka & HarmÃ¡Ä ková, Zuzana V. & Lorencová, EliÅ¡ka, 2014. "Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 110-117.
    3. You, Liangzhi & Wood, Stanley & Wood-Sichra, Ulrike & Wu, Wenbin, 2014. "Generating global crop distribution maps: From census to grid," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 53-60.
    4. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    5. Duke, Esther Alice & Goldstein, Joshua H. & Teel, Tara L. & Finchum, Ryan & Huber-Stearns, Heidi & Pitty, Jorge & Rodríguez P., Gladys Beatriz & Rodríguez, Samuel & Sánchez, Luis Olmedo, 2014. "Payments for ecosystem services and landowner interest: Informing program design trade-offs in Western Panama," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 44-55.
    6. Zeigermann, Ulrike & Böcher, Michael, 2020. "Challenges for bridging the gap between knowledge and governance in sustainability policy – The case of OECD ‘Focal Points’ for Policy Coherence for Development," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    7. Han-Shen Chen & Wan-Yu Liu & Chi-Ming Hsieh, 2017. "Integrating Ecosystem Services and Eco-Security to Assess Sustainable Development in Liuqiu Island," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-14, June.
    8. Zhang, Yan & Wu, Tong & Song, Changsu & Hein, Lars & Shi, Faqi & Han, Mingchen & Ouyang, Zhiyun, 2022. "Influences of climate change and land use change on the interactions of ecosystem services in China’s Xijiang River Basin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    9. Bullock Graham, 2015. "Signaling the credibility of private actors as public agents: transparency, independence, and expertise in environmental evaluations of products and companies," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 17(2), pages 177-219, August.
    10. Gillian L. Galford & Julie Nash & Alan K. Betts & Sam Carlson & Sarah Ford & Ann Hoogenboom & Deborah Markowitz & Andrew Nash & Elizabeth Palchak & Sarah Pears & Kristen L. Underwood, 2016. "Bridging the climate information gap: a framework for engaging knowledge brokers and decision makers in state climate assessments," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 383-395, October.
    11. Dragana Bojovic & Andria Nicodemou & Asun Lera St.Clair & Isadora Christel & Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, 2022. "Exploring the landscape of seasonal forecast provision by Global Producing Centres," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 1-23, May.
    12. Sébastien Chailleux, 2020. "Making the subsurface political: How enhanced oil recovery techniques reshaped the energy transition," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 38(4), pages 733-750, June.
    13. Ma, Shan & Duggan, Jennifer M. & Eichelberger, Bradley A. & McNally, Brynn W. & Foster, Jeffrey R. & Pepi, Eda & Conte, Marc N. & Daily, Gretchen C. & Ziv, Guy, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services to inform management of multiple-use landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 6-18.
    14. Klimanova, O.A. & Bukvareva, E.N. & Yu, Kolbowsky E. & Illarionova, O.A., 2023. "Assessing ecosystem services in Russia: Case studies from four municipal districts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    15. Cabral, Pedro & Feger, Clément & Levrel, Harold & Chambolle, Mélodie & Basque, Damien, 2016. "Assessing the impact of land-cover changes on ecosystem services: A first step toward integrative planning in Bordeaux, France," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 318-327.
    16. Mengyao Li & Yong Zhou & Pengnan Xiao & Yang Tian & He Huang & Liang Xiao, 2021. "Evolution of Habitat Quality and Its Topographic Gradient Effect in Northwest Hubei Province from 2000 to 2020 Based on the InVEST Model," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-25, August.
    17. Garrett Ward Richards, 2019. "The Science–Policy Relationship Hierarchy (SPRHi) model of co-production: how climate science organizations have influenced the policy process in Canadian case studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 67-95, March.
    18. Roberto Falanga & Jessica Verheij & Olivia Bina, 2021. "Green(er) Cities and Their Citizens: Insights from the Participatory Budget of Lisbon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-16, July.
    19. Pieter T. Boer & Geert W. J. Frederix & Talitha L. Feenstra & Pepijn Vemer, 2016. "Unremarked or Unperformed? Systematic Review on Reporting of Validation Efforts of Health Economic Decision Models in Seasonal Influenza and Early Breast Cancer," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(9), pages 833-845, September.
    20. Kenji Otsuka, 2022. "Co‐optation in co‐production: Maintaining credibility and legitimacy in transboundary environmental governance in East Asia," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(6), pages 771-797, November.

    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:sae:envirc:v:32:y:2014:i:2:p:320-340. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.