4.7 Article

Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 37, 期 -, 页码 220-228

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003

关键词

Indicators; Quantitative evaluation; Social-ecological system; Trade-offs; Value-articulating institutions; Value pluralism

资金

  1. European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under the OpenNESS [EC-308428]
  2. European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under the BESAFE [EC-282743]
  3. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [CGL201130266]
  4. Autonomic Organism of National Parks [018/2009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the key challenges for ecosystem services research is to develop a comprehensive methodological approach in which biophysical, socio-cultural and monetary value-domains can be explicitly considered and integrated into decision making processes. This paper operationalizes a methodological approach for ecosystem service assessment on the basis of value pluralism. We assessed eleven ecosystem services delivered in the Do (n) over tilde ana social-ecological system (SW Spain). We found that different ecosystem service trade-offs came into view depending the value-domain in which services were assessed. The use Of different valuation methods uncovers the fact that methods to elicit value actually shape and define the values being elicited. In this context, the prevalence of biophysical and monetary value-domains in scientific literature entails two main concerns: (1) the ecosystem service concept reflect in a limited extent the concerns of their beneficiaries, and (2) ecosystem service assessment results are biased towards the information provided by markets at the expense of other value-articulating institutions. Recognizing the role of ecosystem service assessment methods as value-articulating institutions, we call for a methodological framework able to contemplate the multidimensional nature of ecosystem services. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据