Integrating Social Values and Ecosystem Services in Systematic Conservation Planning: A Case Study in Datuan Watershed
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Area
2.2. Ecological Service Model (InVEST)
2.3. Social Value Model (SolVES)
2.4. Land Use and Land Cover Suitability
2.5. Spatial Prioritization
2.6. Multiple Objective Programming
3. Results
3.1. Spatial Distributions of Biophysical Services
3.2. Spatial Distributions of Social Values and Survey Statistics
3.3. Spatial Prioritization
3.4. Social-Ecological Matrix
4. Discussion
4.1. Spatial Distributions of Biophysical Services and Social Values
4.2. Spatial Prioritization of Biophysical Services and Social Values
4.3. Limitations of the Case Study
4.4. Social-Ecological Matrix Analysis
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Daily, G. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Fisher, B.; Turner, K.; Zylstra, M.; Brouwer, R.; Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Ferraro, P.; Green, R.; Hadley, D.; Harlow, J. Ecosystem services and economic theory: Integration for policy-relevant research. Ecol. Appl. 2008, 18, 2050–2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Whitehead, A.L.; Kujala, H.; Ives, C.D.; Gordon, A.; Lentini, P.E.; Wintle, B.A.; Nicholson, E.; Raymond, C.M. Integrating biological and social values when prioritizing places for biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2014, 28, 992–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fischer, J.; Gardner, T.A.; Bennett, E.M.; Balvanera, P.; Biggs, R.; Carpenter, S.; Daw, T.; Folke, C.; Hill, R.; Hughes, T.P.; et al. Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social-ecological systems perspective. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 144–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villa, F.; Bagstad, K.J.; Voigt, B.; Johnson, G.W.; Portela, R.; Honzak, M.; Batker, D. A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PLoS ONE 2014, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carpenter, S.R.; Mooney, H.A.; Agard, J.; Capistrano, D.; DeFries, R.S.; Diaz, S.; Dietz, T.; Duraiappah, A.K.; Oteng-Yeboah, A.; Pereira, H.M.; et al. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 1305–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Diaz, S.; Demissew, S.; Carabias, J.; Joly, C.; Lonsdale, M.; Ash, N.; Larigauderie, A.; Adhikari, J.R.; Arico, S.; Baldi, A.; et al. The ipbes conceptual framework—connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, E.M.; Cramer, W.; Begossi, A.; Cundill, G.; Diaz, S.; Egoh, B.N.; Geijzendorffer, I.R.; Krug, C.B.; Lavorel, S.; Lazos, E.; et al. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: Three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Lange, W.J.; Wise, R.M.; Forsyth, G.G.; Nahman, A. Integrating socio-economic and biophysical data to support water allocations within river basins: An example from the Inkomati water management area in South Africa. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2010, 25, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BenDor, T.; Shoemaker, D.A.; Thill, J.C.; Dorning, M.A.; Meentemeyer, R.K. A mixed-methods analysis of social-ecological feedbacks between urbanization and forest persistence. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lescourret, F.; Magda, D.; Richard, G.; Adam-Blondon, A.F.; Bardy, M.; Baudry, J.; Doussan, I.; Dumont, B.; Lefevre, F.; Litrico, I.; et al. A social-ecological approach to managing multiple agro-ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenmenger, N.; Giljum, S.; Lutter, S.; Marques, A.; Theurl, M.C.; Pereira, H.M.; Tukker, A. Towards a conceptual framework for social-ecological systems integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services with resource efficiency indicators. Sustainability 2016, 8, 201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meacham, M.; Queiroz, C.; Norstrom, A.V.; Peterson, G.D. Social-ecological drivers of multiple ecosystem services: What variables explain patterns of ecosystem services across the norrstrom drainage basin? Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tallis, H.; Ricketts, T.; Guerry, A.; Nelson, E.; Ennaanay, D.; Wolny, S.; Olwero, N.; Vigerstol, K.; Pennington, D.; Mendoza, G. Invest 2.0 Beta User’s Guide; The natural capital project; Stanford: Stanford, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Goldstein, J.H.; Caldarone, G.; Duarte, T.K.; Ennaanay, D.; Hannahs, N.; Mendoza, G.; Polasky, S.; Wolny, S.; Daily, G.C. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 7565–7570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nelson, E.; Sander, H.; Hawthorne, P.; Conte, M.; Ennaanay, D.; Wolny, S.; Manson, S.; Polasky, S. Projecting global land-use change and its effect on ecosystem service provision and biodiversity with simple models. PLoS ONE 2010, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chiang, L.C.; Lin, Y.P.; Huang, T.; Schmeller, D.S.; Verburg, P.H.; Liu, Y.L.; Ding, T.S. Simulation of ecosystem service responses to multiple disturbances from an earthquake and several typhoons. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 122, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.-P.; Lin, W.-C.; Wang, Y.-C.; Lien, W.-Y.; Huang, T.; Hsu, C.-C.; Schmeller, D.S.; Crossman, N.D. Systematically designating conservation areas for protecting habitat quality and multiple ecosystem services. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2017, 90, 126–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crossman, N.D.; Burkhard, B.; Nedkov, S.; Willemen, L.; Petz, K.; Palomo, I.; Drakou, E.G.; Martin-Lopez, B.; McPhearson, T.; Boyanova, K.; et al. A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 4, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brabham, D.C. Crowdsourcing; Mit Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Sherrouse, B.C.; Clement, J.M.; Semmens, D.J. A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31, 748–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagstad, K.J.; Semmens, D.J.; Waage, S.; Winthrop, R. A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 5, E27–E39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daily, G.C.; Polasky, S.; Goldstein, J.; Kareiva, P.M.; Mooney, H.A.; Pejchar, L.; Ricketts, T.H.; Salzman, J.; Shallenberger, R. Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryan, B.A.; Raymond, C.M.; Crossman, N.D.; King, D. Comparing spatially explicit ecological and social values for natural areas to identify effective conservation strategies. Conserv. Biol. 2011, 25, 172–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sherrouse, B.C.; Semmens, D.J.; Clement, J.M. An application of social values for ecosystem services (solves) to three national forests in colorado and wyoming. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 68–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mastrangelo, M.E.; Weyland, F.; Herrera, L.P.; Villarino, S.H.; Barral, M.P.; Auer, A.D. Ecosystem services research in contrasting socio-ecological contexts of argentina: Critical assessment and future directions. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 16, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plieninger, T.; Hartel, T.; Martin-Lopez, B.; Beaufoy, G.; Bergmeier, E.; Kirby, K.; Montero, M.J.; Moreno, G.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Van Uytvanck, J. Wood-pastures of europe: Geographic coverage, social-ecological values, conservation management, and policy implications. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 190, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boateng, P.K.; Appiah, D.O.; Adjei, P.O.-W.; Mensah, H.K. Perceptions of socio-ecological changes and their implications on changes in farming practises and agricultural land uses in the savannahs of northeast ghana. Environments 2016, 3, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kremer, P.; Hamstead, Z.A.; McPhearson, T. The value of urban ecosystem services in New York city: A spatially explicit multicriteria analysis of landscape scale valuation scenarios. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 62, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vojinovic, Z.; Keerakamolchai, W.; Weesakul, S.; Pudar, R.S.; Medina, N.; Alves, A. Combining ecosystem services with cost-benefit analysis for selection of green and grey infrastructure for flood protection in a cultural setting. Environments 2016, 4, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.-P.; Deng, D.; Lin, W.-C.; Lemmens, R.; Crossman, N.D.; Henle, K.; Schmeller, D.S. Uncertainty analysis of crowd-sourced and professionally collected field data used in species distribution models of taiwanese moths. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 181, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papworth, S.; Nghiem, T.; Chimalakonda, D.; Posa, M.; Wijedasa, L.; Bickford, D.; Carrasco, L. Quantifying the role of online news in linking conservation research to facebook and twitter. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 825–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Richards, D.R.; Friess, D.A. A rapid indicator of cultural ecosystem service usage at a fine spatial scale: Content analysis of social media photographs. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 53, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Minin, E.; Tenkanen, H.; Toivonen, T. Prospects and challenges for social media data in conservation science. Front. Environ. Sci. 2015, 3, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G.; Weber, D.; de Bie, K. Is PPGIS good enough? An empirical evaluation of the quality of PPGIS crowd-sourced spatial data for conservation planning. Land Use Policy 2015, 43, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oteros-Rozas, E.; Martín-López, B.; Fagerholm, N.; Bieling, C.; Plieninger, T. Using social media photos to explore the relation between cultural ecosystem services and landscape features across five European sites. Ecol. Indic. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casalegno, S.; Inger, R.; DeSilvey, C.; Gaston, K.J. Spatial covariance between aesthetic value & other ecosystem services. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e68437. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, I.; Berry, P.; Everard, M.; Firbank, L.; Harrison, P.; Lundy, L.; Quine, C.; Rowan, J.; Wade, R.; Watts, K. Identifying robust response options to manage environmental change using an ecosystem approach: A stress-testing case study for the UK xxx. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 52, 74–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunkel, A. Visualizing the perceived environment using crowdsourced photo geodata. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 142, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Figueroa-Alfaro, R.W.; Tang, Z. Evaluating the aesthetic value of cultural ecosystem services by mapping geo-tagged photographs from social media data on panoramio and flickr. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2017, 60, 266–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tenerelli, P.; Demšar, U.; Luque, S. Crowdsourcing indicators for cultural ecosystem services: A geographically weighted approach for mountain landscapes. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 64, 237–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gliozzo, G.; Pettorelli, N.; Haklay, M. Using crowdsourced imagery to detect cultural ecosystem services: A case study in South Wales, UK. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pastur, G.M.; Peri, P.L.; Lencinas, M.V.; Garcia-Llorente, M.; Martin-Lopez, B. Spatial patterns of cultural ecosystem services provision in southern Patagonia. Landsc. Ecol. 2016, 31, 383–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hicks, C.C.; Cinner, J.E.; Stoeckl, N.; McClanahan, T.R. Linking ecosystem services and human-values theory. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 1471–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Davis, F.W.; Stoms, D.M.; Andelman, S. Systematic reserve selection in the USA: An example from the columbia plateau ecoregion. Parks 1999, 9, 31–41. [Google Scholar]
- Moilanen, A.; Franco, A.M.A.; Early, R.I.; Fox, R.; Wintle, B.; Thomas, C.D. Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: Methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2005, 272, 1885–1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ban, N.C.; Mills, M.; Tam, J.; Hicks, C.C.; Klain, S.; Stoeckl, N.; Bottrill, M.C.; Levine, J.; Pressey, R.L.; Satterfield, T.; et al. A social-ecological approach to conservation planning: Embedding social considerations. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 11, 194–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, R.S.; Alkemade, R.; Braat, L.; Hein, L.; Willemen, L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 260–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maes, J.; Egoh, B.; Willemen, L.; Liquete, C.; Vihervaara, P.; Schagner, J.P.; Grizzetti, B.; Drakou, E.G.; La Notte, A.; Zulian, G.; et al. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Harms, M.J.; Balvanera, P. Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: A review. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2012, 8, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Opdam, P. Using ecosystem services in community-based landscape planning: Science is not ready to deliver. In Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 77–101. [Google Scholar]
- Huntsinger, L.; Oviedo, J.L. Ecosystem services are social-ecological services in a traditional pastoral system: The case of California’s mediterranean rangelands. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.-Y. Using Ppgis and Crowdsourcing for Mapping Social Values for Ecosystem Services: The Case Study of Datuan Basin. Master’s Thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, Y.P.; Wang, C.L.; Chang, C.R.; Yu, H.H. Estimation of nested spatial patterns and seasonal variation in the longitudinal distribution of Sicyopterus japonicus in the Datuan Stream, Taiwan by using geostatistical methods. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011, 178, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brown, G.; Montag, J.M.; Lyon, K. Public participation GIS: A method for identifying ecosystem services. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2012, 25, 633–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fagerholm, N.; Kayhko, N.; Ndumbaro, F.; Khamis, M. Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments—Mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 18, 421–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G.; Reed, P. Validation of a forest values typology for use in national forest planning. For. Sci. 2000, 46, 240–247. [Google Scholar]
- Sherrouse, B.C.; Semmens, D.J. Validating a method for transferring social values of ecosystem services between public lands in the rocky mountain region. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 8, 166–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sherrouse, B.C.; Semmens, D.J. Social Values for Ecosystem Services, Version 3.0 (Solves 3.0): Documentation and User Manual; US Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2015.
- Lin, Y.P.; Chu, H.J.; Wu, C.F.; Verburg, P.H. Predictive ability of logistic regression, auto-logistic regression and neural network models in empirical land-use change modeling—A case study. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2011, 25, 65–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikkonen, N.; Moilanen, A. Identification of top priority areas and management landscapes from a national natura 2000 network. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 27, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moilanen, A. Landscape zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: Unifying reserve selection strategies. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 134, 571–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McPhearson, T.; Kremer, P.; Hamstead, Z.A. Mapping ecosystem services in New York City: Applying a social-ecological approach in urban vacant land. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 5, E11–E26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fagerholm, N.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Raymond, C.M.; Torralba, M.; Moreno, G.; Plieninger, T. Assessing linkages between ecosystem services, land-use and well-being in an agroforestry landscape using public participation gis. Appl. Geogr. 2016, 74, 30–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zoderer, B.M.; Tasser, E.; Erb, K.H.; Stanghellini, P.S.L.; Tappeiner, U. Identifying and mapping the tourists’ perception of cultural ecosystem services: A case study from an alpine region. Land Use Policy 2016, 56, 251–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castella, J.C.; Bourgoin, J.; Lestrelin, G.; Bouahom, B. A model of the science-practice-policy interface in participatory land-use planning: Lessons from Laos. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29, 1095–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castro, A.J.; Verburg, P.H.; Martin-Lopez, B.; Garcia-Llorente, M.; Cabello, J.; Vaughn, C.C.; Lopez, E. Ecosystem service trade-offs from supply to social demand: A landscape-scale spatial analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 132, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nair, S.S.; Preston, B.L.; King, A.W.; Mei, R. Using landscape typologies to model socioecological systems: Application to agriculture of the United States gulf coast. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2016, 79, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kenter, J.O.; O'Brien, L.; Hockley, N.; Ravenscroft, N.; Fazey, I.; Irvine, K.N.; Reed, M.S.; Christie, M.; Brady, E.; Bryce, R.; et al. What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecol. Econ. 2015, 111, 86–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bekessy, S.A.; White, M.; Gordon, A.; Moilanen, A.; Mccarthy, M.A.; Wintle, B.A. Transparent planning for biodiversity and development in the urban fringe. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 108, 140–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, E.M.; Peterson, G.D.; Gordon, L.J. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12, 1394–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martin-Lopez, B.; Garcia-Llorente, M.; Palomo, I.; Montes, C. The conservation against development paradigm in protected areas: Valuation of ecosystem services in the Donana social-ecological system (southwestern Spain). Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1481–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anton, C.; Young, J.; Harrison, P.A.; Musche, M.; Bela, G.; Feld, C.K.; Harrington, R.; Haslett, J.R.; Pataki, G.; Rounsevell, M.D.A.; et al. Research needs for incorporating the ecosystem service approach into EU biodiversity conservation policy. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19, 2979–2994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mascia, M.B.; Brosius, J.P.; Dobson, T.A.; Forbes, B.C.; Horowitz, L.; McKean, M.A.; Turner, N.J. Conservation and the social sciences. Conserv. Biol. 2003, 17, 649–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Riper, C.J.; Kyle, G.T. Capturing multiple values of ecosystem services shaped by environmental worldviews: A spatial analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 145, 374–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martín-López, B.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; García-Llorente, M.; Montes, C. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 37, 220–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Riper, C.J.; Kyle, G.T.; Sherrouse, B.C.; Bagstad, K.J.; Sutton, S.G. Toward an integrated understanding of perceived biodiversity values and environmental conditions in a national park. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 72, 278–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dallimer, M.; Irvine, K.N.; Skinner, A.M.J.; Davies, Z.G.; Rouquette, J.R.; Maltby, L.L.; Warren, P.H.; Armsworth, P.R.; Gaston, K.J. Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: Understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. Bioscience 2012, 62, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlossberg, M.; Shuford, E. Delineating “public” and “participation” in PPGIS. URISA J. 2005, 16, 15–26. [Google Scholar]
- Maheshwari, D.; Janssen, M. Reconceptualizing measuring, benchmarking for improving interoperability in smart ecosystems: The effect of ubiquitous data and crowdsourcing. Gov. Inf. Q. 2014, 31, S84–S92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crawford, K.; Finn, M. The limits of crisis data: Analytical and ethical challenges of using social and mobile data to understand disasters. Geojournal 2015, 80, 491–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Scenario | Output Description | |
---|---|---|
1. BpS* | 1. carbon storage (mg) | |
2. habitat quality (-) | ||
3. nitrogen retention (kg) | ||
4. phosphorous retention (kg) | ||
5. soil retention (ton) | ||
6. water yield (mm) | ||
2. SV | 1. aesthetic | 7. intrinsic |
2. biological diversity | 8. learning | |
3. cultural | 9. life sustaining | |
4. economic | 10. recreation | |
5. future | 11. spiritual | |
6. historic | 12. subsistence | |
3. BpS and SV | A combination of scenarios one and two | |
4. Built-up suitability | No BpS or SV considered and no restriction on development of areas which are suitable for development based on LULC suitability model | |
5. BpS and SV including area of high development suitability | A combination of scenarios three and four, where built-up suitability is a cost to conservation | |
6. BpS and SV excluding area of high development suitability (with a threshold of 0.7) | Conservation prioritization that excludes areas that are highly suitable for development |
Ecosystem Services | Biophysical Services | ||
---|---|---|---|
High | Low | ||
Social Values | High | High–High | High–Low |
Low | Low–High | Low–Low |
Type of Value | Ds | Dr | Slope | Da | Df | Dbt | Dg | Db | Dw | LULC |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
aesthetic | 40.2 * | 9.0 | 13.1 | 6.5 | 2.5 | 3.8 | 7.5 | 5.9 | 10.3 | 1.2 |
biological diversity | 43.3 * | 8.0 | 8.7 | 5.0 | 4.8 | 7.1 | 7.4 | 6.4 | 8.9 | 0.4 |
cultural | 13.3 | 20.7 | 9.7 | 3.2 | 4.1 | 3.7 | 12.7 | 22.9 * | 8.3 | 1.4 |
economic | 37.7 * | 8.7 | 6.5 | 4.5 | 2.7 | 4.6 | 7.7 | 6.5 | 17.5 | 2.6 |
future | 40.8 * | 10.3 | 10.1 | 5.8 | 4.8 | 3.7 | 7.0 | 4.3 | 10.9 | 2.2 |
historic | 22.3 * | 18.0 | 8.5 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 3.6 | 12.0 | 16.3 | 7.8 | 3.6 |
intrinsic | 40.1 * | 9.5 | 10.7 | 6.0 | 5.1 | 8.0 | 6.6 | 7.1 | 6.7 | 0.1 |
learning | 42.2 * | 10.0 | 8.9 | 3.6 | 7.3 | 2.2 | 8.5 | 3.1 | 11.0 | 3.1 |
life sustaining | 44.0 * | 9.8 | 9.0 | 5.9 | 3.3 | 4.7 | 7.3 | 6.2 | 8.6 | 1.3 |
recreation | 38.7 * | 12.3 | 7.4 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 2.7 | 7.9 | 8.5 | 10.6 | 5.3 |
spiritual | 20.8 * | 17.7 | 17.0 | 4.6 | 5.1 | 4.9 | 11.7 | 1.5 | 4.4 | 0.2 |
subsistence | 43.5 * | 10.2 | 7.7 | 3.8 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 8.2 | 4.1 |
Question Sets | Scale Mean If Related Questions Are Deleted | Scale Variance If Related Questions Are Deleted | Correlated Question in Total Correlation | Cronbach’s Alpha If Related Questions Are Deleted |
---|---|---|---|---|
Questions related to environment | 7.24 | 3.78 | 0.54 | 0.78 |
Questions related to the culture and history | 7.49 | 3.56 | 0.61 | 0.75 |
Questions related to community activities | 7.71 | 3.35 | 0.60 | 0.76 |
Questions related to economic activities | 7.56 | 3.65 | 0.72 | 0.71 |
Outputs | Scenario 1 | Scenario 2 | Scenario 3 | Scenario 4 | Scenario 5 | Scenario 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BpS1 | 0.375 | 0.25 | 0.272 | 0.26 | 0.316 | 0.305 |
BpS2 | 0.583 | 0.086 | 0.136 | 0.052 | 0.395 | 0.239 |
BpS3 | 0.899 | 0.369 | 0.735 | 0.355 | 0.628 | 0.521 |
BpS4 | 0.884 | 0.307 | 0.617 | 0.289 | 0.577 | 0.506 |
BpS5 | 0.865 | 0.173 | 0.477 | 0.096 | 0.586 | 0.553 |
BpS6 | 0.293 | 0.311 | 0.308 | 0.304 | 0.302 | 0.304 |
SV1 | 0.210 | 0.696 | 0.663 | 0.421 | 0.497 | 0.489 |
SV2 | 0.214 | 0.713 | 0.682 | 0.424 | 0.517 | 0.492 |
SV3 | 0.218 | 0.690 | 0.660 | 0.407 | 0.508 | 0.499 |
SV4 | 0.212 | 0.700 | 0.668 | 0.413 | 0.508 | 0.499 |
SV5 | 0.219 | 0.677 | 0.647 | 0.409 | 0.495 | 0.490 |
SV6 | 0.221 | 0.676 | 0.646 | 0.404 | 0.500 | 0.494 |
SV7 | 0.225 | 0.701 | 0.673 | 0.401 | 0.527 | 0.513 |
SV8 | 0.210 | 0.682 | 0.649 | 0.423 | 0.484 | 0.479 |
SV9 | 0.220 | 0.714 | 0.685 | 0.407 | 0.533 | 0.512 |
SV10 | 0.219 | 0.694 | 0.664 | 0.404 | 0.512 | 0.505 |
SV11 | 0.222 | 0.679 | 0.65 | 0.400 | 0.504 | 0.500 |
SV12 | 0.219 | 0.677 | 0.647 | 0.409 | 0.495 | 0.490 |
built-up | 0.196 | 0.388 | 0.367 | 0.510 | 0.219 | 0.250 |
Ecosystem Services | Biophysical Services | ||
---|---|---|---|
High | Low | ||
Social Values | High | 0.0554 | 0.2445 |
Low | 0.2445 | 0.4555 |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lin, Y.-P.; Lin, W.-C.; Li, H.-Y.; Wang, Y.-C.; Hsu, C.-C.; Lien, W.-Y.; Anthony, J.; Petway, J.R. Integrating Social Values and Ecosystem Services in Systematic Conservation Planning: A Case Study in Datuan Watershed. Sustainability 2017, 9, 718. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050718
Lin Y-P, Lin W-C, Li H-Y, Wang Y-C, Hsu C-C, Lien W-Y, Anthony J, Petway JR. Integrating Social Values and Ecosystem Services in Systematic Conservation Planning: A Case Study in Datuan Watershed. Sustainability. 2017; 9(5):718. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050718
Chicago/Turabian StyleLin, Yu-Pin, Wei-Chih Lin, Hsin-Yi Li, Yung-Chieh Wang, Chih-Chen Hsu, Wan-Yu Lien, Johnathen Anthony, and Joy R. Petway. 2017. "Integrating Social Values and Ecosystem Services in Systematic Conservation Planning: A Case Study in Datuan Watershed" Sustainability 9, no. 5: 718. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050718