Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment and valuation: mixed methods or mixed messages?

A mixed-method approach was used to assess and value the ecosystem services derived from the Dogger Bank, an extensive shallow sandbank in the southern North Sea. Three parallel studies were undertaken that 1) identified and quantified, where possible, how indicators for ecosystem service provision may change according to two future scenarios, 2) assessed members of the public's willingness-to-pay for improvements to a small number of ecosystem services as a consequence of a hypothetical management plan, and 3) facilitated a process of deliberation that allowed members of the public to explore the uses of the Dogger Bank and the conflicts and dilemmas involved in its management. Each of these studies was designed to answer different and specific research questions and therefore contributes different insights about the ecosystem services delivered by the Dogger Bank. This paper explores what can be gained by bringing these findings together post hoc and the extent to which the different methods are complementary. Findings suggest that mixed-method research brings more understanding than can be gained from the individual approaches alone. Nevertheless, the choice of methods used and how these methods are implemented strongly affects the results obtained

Marine ecosystem services: Linking indicators to their classification

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. There is a multitude of ecosystem service classifications available within the literature, each with its own advantages and drawbacks. Elements of them have been used to tailor a generic ecosystem service classification for the marine environment and then for a case study site within the North Sea: the Dogger Bank. Indicators for each of the ecosystem services, deemed relevant to the case study site, were identified. Each indicator was then assessed against a set of agreed criteria to ensure its relevance and applicability to environmental management. This paper identifies the need to distinguish between indicators of ecosystem services that are entirely ecological in nature (and largely reveal the potential of an ecosystem to provide ecosystem services), indicators for the ecological processes contributing to the delivery of these services, and indicators of benefits that reveal the realized human use or enjoyment of an ecosystem service. It highlights some of the difficulties faced in selecting meaningful indicators, such as problems of specificity, spatial disconnect and the considerable uncertainty about marine species, habitats and the processes, functions and services they contribute to

A Review of the Marine Economic Valuation Literature 1975 – 2011: Classifying Existing Studies by Service Type, Value Type, and Valuation Methodology

There is a long history of the application of economic valuation methods to marine environments, changes to marine environments, and changes to marine management. Increasingly, however, there is an interest in analyzing the economic consequences of changes in marine ecosystem service provision resulting from changes in marine management and marine ecosystem state. In turn, this requires either that researchers conduct new, primary valuation studies focused on particular marine ecosystem services, or that researchers use existing studies and transfer values from one research and policy context to another (also known as benefits transfer). This study presents the result of a review of the marine economic valuation literature that was conducted as a part of an EU-FP7 project with the goals of understanding 1) the state of the marine economic valuation literature in certain countries, 2) the potential for this literature to support benefits transfer-based analyses, and 3) gaps in the existing literature. The review was also intended to support the undertaking of new, gap-filling primary non-market valuation studies. The results indicate that there are many gaps in the existing marine valuation literature with respect to the individual ecosystem services valued, the valuation methodologies that have been utilized, and the types of economic value captured

Marine and Coastal Cultural Ecosystem Services: knowledge gaps and research priorities

Cultural ecosystem services (CES) reflect peoples’ physical and cognitive interactions with nature and are increasingly recognised for providing non-material benefits to human societies. Whereas coasts, seas, and oceans sustain a great proportion of the human population, CES provided by these ecosystems have remained largely unexplored. Therefore, our aims were (1) to analyse the state of research on marine and coastal CES, (2) to identify knowledge gaps, and (3) to pinpoint research priorities and the way forward. To accomplish these objectives, we did a systematic review of the scientific literature and synthesised a subset of 72 peer-reviewed publications. Results show that research on marine and coastal CES is scarce compared to other ecosystem service categories. It is primarily focused on local and regional sociocultural or economic assessments of coastal ecosystems from Western Europe and North America. Such research bias narrows the understanding of social-ecological interactions to a western cultural setting, undermining the role of other worldviews in the understanding of a wide range of interactions between cultural practices and ecosystems worldwide. Additionally, we have identified clusters of co-occurring drivers of change affecting marine and coastal habitats and their CES. Our systematic review highlights knowledge gaps in: (1) the lack of integrated valuation assessments; (2) linking the contribution of CES benefits to human wellbeing; (3) assessing more subjective and intangible CES classes; (4) identifying the role of open-ocean and deep-sea areas in providing CES; and (5) understanding the role of non-natural capital in the co-production of marine and coastal CES. Research priorities should be aimed at filling these knowledge gaps. Overcoming such challenges can result in increased appreciation of marine and coastal CES, and more balanced decision-supporting mechanisms that will ultimately contribute to more sustainable interactions between humans and marine ecosystems.Fil: Garcia Rodrigues, João. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela; EspañaFil: Conides, Alexis J.. Institute for Marine Biological Resources and Inland Waters; GreciaFil: Rivero Rodriguez, Susana. Centro Tecnológico del Mar; EspañaFil: Raicevich, Saša. National Research Council ; Italia. Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research; ItaliaFil: Pita, Pablo. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela; España. International Campus of Excellence; EspañaFil: Kleisner, Kristin M.. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Estados UnidosFil: Pita, Cristina. University of Aveiro; PortugalFil: Lopes, Priscila F. M.. Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte; BrasilFil: Alonso Roldán, Virginia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Instituto Patagónico para el Estudio de los Ecosistemas Continentales; ArgentinaFil: Ramos, Sandra S.. University of Porto; Portugal. University of Hull; Reino UnidoFil: Klaoudatos, Dimitris. Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Institute for Marine Biological Resources and Inland Waters; GreciaFil: Outeiro, Luís. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela; EspañaFil: Armstrong, Claire. University of Tromsø; NoruegaFil: Teneva, Lida. Center for Oceans, Conservation International; Estados UnidosFil: Stefanski, Stephanie. Duke University; Estados UnidosFil: Böhnke-Henrichs, Anne. Wageningen University; Países Bajos. Foundation for Sustainable Development; Países BajosFil: Kruse, Marion. Kiel University; AlemaniaFil: Lillebø, Ana I.. University of Aveiro; PortugalFil: Bennett, Elena M.. McGill University; CanadáFil: Belgrano, Andrea. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; Suecia. Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment (SIME); SueciaFil: Murillas, Arantza. Marine Research Division; EspañaFil: Sousa Pinto, Isabel. University of Porto; PortugalFil: Burkhard, Benjamin. Leibniz Universität Hannover; Alemania. Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research ZALF; AlemaniaFil: Villasante, Sebastián. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela; España. International Campus of Excellence; Españ