Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services

E CO L O G I CA L EC O NO M IC S 6 8 (2 0 0 9) 1 30 1–1 31 5

a v a i l a b l e a t w w w. s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m

w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l e c o n

METHODS

Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services Christopher M. Raymond a,e,⁎, Brett A. Bryan b , Darla Hatton MacDonald b , Andrea Cast b,d , Sarah Strathearn b , Agnes Grandgirard b,c , Tina Kalivas b,d a

Enviroconnect Pty Ltd. GPO Box 190 Stirling, South Australia 5152, Australia CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Cornish Building, Waite Road, Urrbrae, South Australia 5064, Australia c CEMAGREF, France d University of Adelaide, Australia e Centre for Rural Health and Community Development, University of South Australia, Australia b

AR TIC LE D ATA

ABSTR ACT

Article history:

Whilst biophysical, and increasingly economic, values are often used to define high priority

Received 14 October 2008

hotspots in planning for conservation and environmental management, community values

Received in revised form

are rarely considered. The community values mapping method presented in this paper builds

26 November 2008

on the concept of natural capital and ecosystem services and the landscape values

Accepted 9 December 2008

methodology to link local perception of place to a broader measure of environmental values

Available online 20 January 2009

at the landscape level. Based on in-depth interviews and a mapping task conducted with 56 natural resource management decision-makers and community representatives, we

Keywords:

quantified and mapped values and threats to natural capital assets and ecosystem services

Sense of place

in the South Australian Murray–Darling Basin region. GIS-based techniques were used to map

Threat

the spatial distribution of natural capital and ecosystem service values and threats over the

Ecosystem services

region and analyse the proportional differences at the sub-regional scale. Participants assigned

Natural resource management

the highest natural capital asset value to water and biota assets primarily for the production of

Social-ecological systems

cultural, regulating and provisioning services. The most highly valued ecosystem services were

Environmental management

recreation and tourism, bequest, intrinsic and existence, fresh water provision, water

Systematic conservation planning

regulation and food provision. Participants assigned the highest threat to regulating services

Landscape

associated with water and land assets. Natural capital asset and ecosystem service values varied at both sub-regional and place-specific scales. Respondents believed people were integral to the environment but also posed a high threat to natural capital and ecosystem services. The results have implications for the way values toward natural capital and ecosystem services may be integrated into planning for environmental management. © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

Both scientific and local communities increasingly expect multiple values to be incorporated within planning for con-

servation and environmental management (Raymond and Brown, 2006; Cowling et al., 2008; Kumar and Kumar, 2008; Naidoo et al., 2008). The UNESCO World Heritage Conference (2003) and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) synthesis

⁎ Corresponding author. GPO Box 190 Stirling, South Australia 5152, Australia. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.M. Raymond). 0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006

1302

E C O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 09 ) 13 0 1 –1 31 5

urged the global scientific community to recognise a more comprehensive view of the value of nature — both economic and local values which stem from the intrinsic relationship between culture and nature, and people and place. Natural capital and ecosystem service frameworks (e.g., Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; de Groot et al., 2002; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) provide functionally meaningful ways of understanding a broad range of ecosystem values. Recent developments in the mapping of natural capital and ecosystem services have deepened this understanding over space and time (e.g., Blashke, 2005; Bailey et al., 2006; Hein et al., 2006; Troy and Wilson, 2006; Gimona and van der Horst, 2007; Grêt-Regamey et al., 2008; Naidoo et al., 2008). The identification of hotspots (locations of abundant phenomena) has provided a way to integrate multiple environmental and economic values as a priority for management (Chan et al., 2006; Egoh et al., 2008; Tallis et al., 2008; Crossman and Bryan, 2009). A number of participatory tools have been developed to show how and where local knowledge should be incorporated into environmental decision making (see Sayer and Campbell, 2004; Lynam et al., 2007; Cowling et al., 2008; Reed, 2008; Stenseke, 2009 for reviews). These authors propose the need for a science that uses active research to identify local priorities for management; considers values at multiple scales; emphasises empowerment, equity, trust and learning, and; systematically integrates multiple knowledge systems into environmental decision-making. Despite these calls, the natural capital and ecosystem service frameworks are yet to evolve in a way that engages local communities in the identification and valuation of natural capital assets and ecosystem services at place-specific and regional scales (e.g., Kumar and Kumar, 2008). In recent years, ‘sense of place’ researchers have directed effort to the mapping of community values using a variety of typologies (Kliskey, 1994; Brown and Reed, 2000; Black and Liljeblad, 2006; Tyrväinnen et al., 2007; McIntyre et al., 2008) in order to inform environmental management. Zube's (1987) transactional concept of human–landscape relationships best describes the rationale underpinning of community value mapping. He discusses three concepts of human–landscape relationships: “the human as an agent of biological and physical impacts on the landscape; the human as a static receiver and processor of information from the landscape; and the human as an active participant in the landscape — thinking, feeling and acting” (p. 37). Brown et al. developed a landscape values methodology to identify, map and measure landscape values such as aesthetic, biodiversity, cultural, economic, historic, recreation and wilderness values (Brown and Reed, 2000; Brown, 2005; Raymond and Brown, 2006; Alessa et al., 2008). Recent studies using the landscape values methodology have found a moderate degree of spatial coincidence between local biodiversity values and science-based priority areas for management (Brown et al., 2004; Raymond, 2008). Other researchers have recognised that social–ecological systems can be affected by regional policies that do not recognise the local social and ecological dynamics (Anderies et al., 2004; Janssen et al., 2007; Janssen and Anderies, 2007). In order to both enhance the robustness of local social–ecological systems and to solve environmental management problems,

it may be necessary to implement policy instruments and management programs which recognise local values and empower local knowledge and expertise (Folke, 2006; Janssen and Anderies, 2007). Whilst the landscape values methodology has sought to understand a range of values from the socio-psychological perspective, it has limited scope of the biophysical aspects of value. Integrating the landscape values methodology with the concept of natural capital and ecosystem services (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; de Groot et al., 2002; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) may provide a potential framework for enabling the detailed understanding of the broad range of values (called community values) that can shape planning for targeted conservation and environmental management. Relationships between people and places can be also associated with negative meanings or values (Manzo, 2005). Negative values are often associated with degrading processes (or threats) operating on specific ecosystem services. Folke (2006) highlights the importance of considering human actions, including their impacts upon ecosystem services, as part of the social–ecological system. Whilst important, few studies have attempted to understand how the physical and sociological dynamics of place influence the spatial distribution and intensity of threat perception. The community values mapping methods presented in this study address this gap. In this study, a community values mapping method is presented that identifies, measures and maps community values and threats towards natural capital assets and ecosystem services in the landscape to inform planning for conservation and environmental management. The landscape values methodology and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) framework were combined to enable the measurement of the distribution and intensity of natural capital and ecosystem service values and threats as identified by 56 local environmental managers and community representatives in the study area. Interviews were conducted which included a mapping task to allocate values and threats to specific locations in the region. A Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to map the multiple place-specific values and threats and the spatial heterogeneity was analysed. The techniques are presented in the context of an application in the South Australian Murray–Darling Basin region and conducted in partnership with the South Australian Murray–Darling Basin Natural Resource Management Board (hereafter SAMDB NRM Board).

2.

Methods

2.1.

Study area

The South Australian Murray–Darling Basin (SAMDB) region covers an area of just over 56,000 km2 in area and approximates the lower basin area of the Murray–Darling system (Fig. 1). Around 81,000 people reside in the region. The region is traversed by the River Murray, a critical source of fresh water for South Australia, which flows into the Ramsar listed lower lakes, Coorong (a 100 km long coastal wetland) and Murray mouth. At the time of the study the riparian ecosystems were under threat due to the combination of record-low inflows and

E CO L O G I CA L EC O NO M IC S 6 8 (2 0 0 9) 1 30 1–1 31 5

Fig. 1 – Location and geography of the South Australian Murray–Darling Basin study area.

1303

1304

E C O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 09 ) 13 0 1 –1 31 5

over-extraction of water for consumptive purposes, primarily agricultural production. Land use in the region is dominated by dryland (23,304 km2) and irrigated (1023 km2) agricultural production. Dryland agriculture ranges from cereal cropping/grazing rotation in the southern part of the region, grading to modified and natural pastures in the more arid north. The more profitable, irrigated agriculture is dominated by perennial horticulture and pastures (Bryan et al., in press-a,b) located along the river corridor (Fig. 1). Land, water and biotic resources have been heavily impacted by development especially in the southern half of the region. Some 30,748 km2 of the region are mapped as remnant native vegetation ranging from highly fragmented open mallee woodland communities in the south to more contiguous areas of shrubland communities in the drier north. The region supports habitat areas for 21 fauna species of conservation significance (Kahrimanis et al., 2001). Over 32% of the area of remnant vegetation is protected as conservation parks and reserves and heritage agreements, with most of the remainder under extensive grazing by livestock (Bryan et al., 2007). In early 2008, the SA MDB NRM Board commenced its second round of regional natural resource management planning. This study assisted the Board set targets designed to ensure the sustainability of the regional environment. Natural science data informed a description of the biophysical changes needed to improve natural resource condition; however, the Board is responsible for prioritising resource condition targets within a limited budget and the wider economic and social objectives of the community it represents. To achieve lasting resource condition change, the targets need to be valued and accepted by the community. The information needs to be elicited from these actors and presented in systematic and defensible ways to regional decision-makers.

2.2.

Sample

The consultative decision-making structure governing the SAMDB NRM region includes the NRM Board and four regionally-based NRM Groups (Rangelands, Ranges to River, Mallee and Coorong, Riverland, Fig. 1). Together, these decisionmakers strongly influence investment in environmental management in the region. Non-proportional quota sampling (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003) was used to select 56 decisionmakers for in-depth interviews with the aim of covering this range of stakeholders in the region. This sampling method is the non-probabilistic analogue of stratified random sampling in that it is typically used to assure that smaller groups are adequately represented in the sample. The sample included 28 individuals from the SAMDB NRM Board and the four regionallybased NRM Groups with roughly equal numbers from each of these bodies. In addition, 28 other community representatives were selected to participate in the interview process. Whilst not directly involved with the SAMDB NRM Groups or the Board, these people were perceived to shape opinions and actions regarding the management of natural resources in the region.

2.3.

Interview design

In-depth interviews were conducted with the 56 participants between November 2007 and January 2008 by three experi-

enced ethnographic interviewers. Interviews generally occurred in people's homes and lasted between 1.5 and 3 h. All interviews were focussed on the question: what do you value in the environment and why do you value it? The interviews consisted of four separate parts: 1) open-ended questioning; 2) natural asset-based prompting; 3) ecosystem service based prompting; and 4) spatial prompting. Cast et al. (2008) summarise the content of the in-depth interviews.

2.4. Modification of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) framework In parts 2 and 3 of the interview process, participants were asked to describe their values using the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) natural capital and ecosystem services typology to guide the conversation. Responses were transcribed, categorised, summarised and used to modify the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) typology. The modified typology includes a range of provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services, as well as an additional asset which we defined as People-related services grouped under the People asset (Fig. 2). This theme emerged in the discussion even though the focus of the interview was on natural resource management and despite explanations that people and their well-being are central to ecosystem services in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) approach. Under the People asset category, Built Environments refers to built infrastructure ranging from schools, roads through to salinity interception schemes. Zoning and Planning involves processes and regulation which control land use change and in particular the tension around the development of “lifestyle blocks” or peri-urban development. Family and Community featured prominently in discussions of landscape often focussing on discussions of people's roles in schools, firefighting or land stewardship activities that form their sense of community. Economic Viability and Employment refers to the general concerns expressed about economic and employment security. SAMDB NRM Board Politics, General Politics and Representation and Leadership frequently arose in relation to institutional and organisational aspects of environmental management in the region. Lastly, Indigenous Perspectives refer to the conceptualisations of the role Aboriginal people have played in the landscape. A number of changes were also made to the natural capital and ecosystem service typologies to best reflect participant responses. Water was partitioned into the two subcategories: Surface Water and Ground Water. Participants assigned value and threat to goods and services such as Geological Resources and Energy which were both added under provisioning services. Geological Resources refer to the goods and services derived from the extraction of mineral resources from the land substrate in the region. Energy refers to the range of renewable sources such as biofuels, wind and solar power. Knowledge Systems and Education values were grouped together to reflect the interaction of landscapes and people in the development of knowledge. Similarly, Aesthetics and Inspiration were combined to reflect the interaction between scenic beauty and spiritual meanings. Recreation was broadened to accommodate a broader suite of tourism benefits and lifestyle values and labelled Recreation, Tourism and Lifestyle.

E CO L O G I CA L EC O NO M IC S 6 8 (2 0 0 9) 1 30 1–1 31 5

1305

Fig. 2 – The modified natural capital and ecosystem services typology used in the assessment of community values and threats.

A class capturing Bequest, Intrinsic and Existence values (not generally described as ecosystem services) was added under cultural services as these were concepts that emerged throughout the interviews. Bequest values are associated with the satisfaction from preserving a natural environment for future generations and existence values are associated with the satisfaction from knowing that a site is preserved in a certain condition irrespective of use or potential use (Krutilla, 1967; Brookshire et al., 1983; Cicchetti and Wilde, 1992). Intrinsic value signals that areas have value in and of themselves, independent of any benefit to humans (O'Neill, 1992; Vilkka, 1997).

2.5.

Community values/threats mapping task

In the mapping task participants were asked to locate and describe places of value and threat by first arranging plastic dots (moveable plastic discs about 10 mm in diameter) on a 1:325,000 scale A0 (841 × 1189 mm) size topographic map of the SAMDB NRM region. They could move dots around until satisfied. Participants also had access to a recent true colour Landsat TM satellite image of the same size and scale for visual reference. To create scarcity and value, participants were given a maximum of 40 green dots to assign positive value and 10 red

dots to assign negative values. Participants were encouraged to view value on a continuum from red dots (= ‘negative value’) to green dots (= ‘positive value’). The green dots enabled the spatial representation of value intensities, similar to work conducted by Brown (2005, 2006), Raymond and Brown (2006), and Raymond (2008). The red dots came to be categorised as threats, ex ante. The interviewees chose to use the red dots to represent threats to natural capital assets and ecosystem services, as well as threats to their quality of life or more general management concerns. Further, in line with stated preference valuation techniques (Lienhoop, 2007), the red dots were used as a tool to provide an outlet for participants to express frustration (a protest vote) and other concerns about environmental management in the region. This provides greater clarity of meaning for the values (Jorgensen et al., 1999). It was possible for participants to assign both threat and value to identical places on the landscape. Because the focus of the study was on the mapping of value, we elected to assign participants only 10 red dots (1/5 of the total available dots). Participants were encouraged to place green and red dots at localities across the SAMDB study area representing their place-specific values and threats. One or more dots could be placed at each locality representing a value/threat intensity. They were then asked why their place values were important to them. Each place may be assigned values for multiple assets

1306

E C O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 09 ) 13 0 1 –1 31 5

and services. The following questions were used to elicit more detailed information about each place-specific value:

1. What natural asset do you value there? 2. What ecosystem service does that asset provide that you value? 3. What is the shape of that dot or stack of dots? 4. Is there anything that could happen to impact what you value? 5. Is there anything that could be done to protect what you value?

In question 3, participants were asked to describe the spatial extent of each of their ecosystem service and natural capital asset values (green dots) and threats (red dots). During the mapping task the interviewers sketched the polygons describing the spatial extent and location of specific values and threats on a smaller A3 (297 × 420 mm) paper copy of the topographic map using the previously arranged dots as a guide. The types and intensities of values and threats were noted along with any other spatially descriptive text.

2.6.

Spatial database assembly and data analysis

After the interviews, 881 individual value and threat areas were digitised as multi-part polygons in a GIS. To alleviate non-aligned boundary problems in digitising spatial features, templates derived from established spatial databases were used to produce exact areas where possible. In many areas, mapped values and threats involved multiple distinct areas. Polygons ranged in size from very small (e.g. b1 ha for locks and weirs) to very large (e.g. all agricultural land). The spatial data structure included many overlapping areas of value and threat. Each individual value and threat polygon was exported as a raster database (or grid) of 1 ha cell resolution uniquely named as participant ID and value/threat ID. These 881 individual value/threat grids quantified the areal extent of each value/threat and the intensity score (number of dots). In parallel, the attribute information associated with each value and threat area was entered into a database using the same unique identifier to enable linking with the spatial data layers. Each value and threat area formed a row in the database coded with the relevant natural capital assets and ecosystem services, the value or threat type, and the intensity score. The database was used to summarise the total intensity (total number of dots), the number of participants identifying those values, and the total area identified as a value/threat for each asset and service. Crosstabulation of intensity scores was used to link ecosystem services values and threats to specific natural capital assets. The database was also linked to the spatial value/threat information. Queries were built to retrieve tailored lists of grid names (e.g. list of grid names of all value areas relating to land assets) and exported to a text file. Automated scripts were developed that perform various GIS overlay operations on the subset of grids listed in these list files. This data structure provided the flexibility to retrieve value/threat areas for specific combinations of assets/services and perform a range of spatial analyses on them.

Using this process a series of spatial layers were created summarising values and threats for elements of natural capital and ecosystem services. Layers summarising the spatial distribution of value were created by summing relevant individual value layers (intensity scores) over the four natural capital assets (land, water, biota, atmosphere) and four ecosystem service types (provisioning, regulating, cultural, supporting), respectively, using GIS overlay. Similarly, layers summarising the spatial distribution of values and threats for both natural capital and people were calculated by summing relevant individual value layers (intensity scores). Relative differences in the intensity of values and threats for natural capital assets and ecosystem services between the four NRM Group regions (Fig. 1) were also assessed and compared against the entire SAMDB study area as for a Chi-square analysis1. A GIS zonal sum function was used to calculate the sum of intensity scores across grid cells in each of the four NRM Group regions and the SAMDB study area. This was done for both values and threats for the four natural capital assets and four ecosystem service types. Relative proportions of summed intensity scores were calculated across natural capital assets and ecosystem services within each region and the SAMDB study area as a whole. The results were used as a guide for regional environmental management decisions in addressing specific natural capital assets and ecosystem services at the sub-regional scale.

3.

Results

3.1.

Respondent characteristics

Of the 28 NRM Group respondents interviewed, 22 were male and six were female, 14 had resided in the SAMDB region all their life, and the shortest length of residency in the region was 3.5 years. Of the 28 non-NRM Group participants, 18 were male and 10 were female, 12 had lived in the study area all their life, and the shortest length of residence was 2 years. Most respondents discussed their community positions when asked how they became community representatives (Cast et al., 2008). Four respondents were involved in volunteer groups such as the Country Fire Service, three were involved in community organisations such as sporting clubs and 18 became involved through their employment such as district councils, youth councils, teaching positions and soil conservation boards. NRM Group members were more educated than non-NRM Group members with 50% of NRM Group members having completed tertiary education compared to 30% of non-Group members.

3.2. Nature and intensity of community values and threats The nature and intensity of community values and threats associated with natural capital assets and ecosystem services 1 Note that formal Chi-square analysis was not performed due to the problem of very large numbers resulting from summed value intensity scores. Chi-square analyses typically return significant results when large numbers are involved. Here, we simply analyse the proportional data and discuss the relative differences in the types of values and threats between regions.

1307

E CO L O G I CA L EC O NO M IC S 6 8 (2 0 0 9) 1 30 1–1 31 5

were examined for the SAMDB NRM region (Fig. 1). The majority of participants assigned value to land, biota, and ground water assets (n N 54) whilst only 31 participants assigned value to surface water and atmosphere. Surface water was allocated the greatest aggregate value intensity score (1309 green dots, Table 1). Biota and land assets were also highly valued (1254 and 1203 green dots, respectively). Ground water and atmosphere assets were least valued (intensity b609 dots). Forty one participants identified threats to land assets in the study area, largely associated with erosion and loss of soil

quality (Table 1). For biota, 32 participants identified threats to do with weed incursion, habitat loss and threatened native species, with concerns raised about unmanaged native species populations (e.g. kangaroos and wombats). For ground water, 32 participants generally associated threat with salinity impacts on the River Murray, and over-extraction. Only four participants identified threats associated with either surface water or atmosphere (Table 1). Threat scores were highest for land (221 red dots allocated over all participants), followed by surface water. Biota and ground water assets were attributed moderate levels of threat.

Table 1 – Summary (over all participants) for each natural capital asset and ecosystem service the value/threat intensity scores, the number of participants identifying it as a value/threat, and the total area demarcated as value/threat Intensity (total # dots)

No. of participants

Total Area (km2)

Value

Threat

Value

Threat

Value

Threat

Assets Surface water Biota Land Ground water Atmosphere

1309 1254 1203 609 340

197 132 221 132 17

31 54 55 54 31

4 32 41 32 4

169,548 632,719 641,191 90,104 138,129

38,961 132,891 144,278 33,794 19,752

Ecosystem service types Cultural (C) Regulating (R) Provisioning (P) Supporting (S)

1319 1022 1018 302

94 239 142 43

55 54 54 38

25 43 35 13

549,916 350,592 417,734 185,929

67,577 143,262 44,901 33,024

599 564 562 522 492 411

21 65 85 110 54 121

46 50 47 46 39 45

12 16 28 31 17 28

181,819 305,293 67,032 58,527 233,698 57,879

14,859 61,320 9096 17,792 20,227 31,258

302 287 274 251 222 198 108 93 91 76 43 40 39 32 28 26 26 21 21 13 11 5

17 24 24 16 43 1 0 9 11 0 27 12 0 15 12 0 10 6 12 0 0 0

34 33 24 39 28 28 14 16 11 13 8 7 6 7 10 3 5 6 4 3 3 1

10 7 9 8 10 1 0 3 2 0 10 4 0 3 7 0 3 2 3 0 0 0

123,801 193,188 173,040 131,267 109,736 61,646 6852 61,299 59,795 1201 69,205 10,467 35,722 2409 3631 208 67,285 52,397 16,629 349 5916 6

5899 9473 3797 5036 91,864 277 0 13,849 7 0 15,722 29,896 0 264 6 0 13,372 12 11,419 0 0 0

2 0 0

0 0 0

1 0 0

0 0 0

15 0 0

0 0 0

Ecosystem services (C) Recreation and tourism (C) Bequest, intrinsic and existence (P) Fresh water (R) Water regulation (P) Food (R) Water purification and waste treatment (C) Aesthetic and inspiration (C) Cultural diversity (P) Fibre (C) Knowledge system (R) Pest regulation (C) Cultural heritage (C) Social relations (R) Natural hazards (R) Climate regulation (C) Spiritual and religious values (R) Erosion regulation (S) Primary production (C) Sense of place (S) Water cycling (P) Geological resources (P) Ornamental resources (S) Soil formation (R) Air quality regulation (S) Nutrient cycling (P) Energy (P) Genetic Rresources (P) Biochemical, medicines and pharmaceuticals (R) Disease regulation (R) Pollination (S) Photosynthesis

1308

E C O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 09 ) 13 0 1 –1 31 5

Table 2 – Crosstabulation of value and threat intensity scores for each natural capital asset by ecosystem service type Values

Threats

Provisioning

Regulating

Cultural

Supporting

Provisioning

Regulating

Cultural

Supporting

795 420 633 593 221

792 353 735 624 184

881 406 927 879 255

228 107 239 195 93

116 87 38 95 11

170 119 116 164 15

54 37 58 81 12

25 18 28 36 5

Surface water Ground water Biota Land Atmosphere

With regard to ecosystem services, more than 54 participants assigned high value to cultural, provisioning and regulating services, but only 38 participants assigned value to supporting services (Table 1). The most highly valued ecosystem services were recreation and tourism (599 green dots), bequest, intrinsic and existence (564 green dots), fresh water provisioning (562 green dots), water regulation (522 green dots) and food provisioning (492 green dots). Those natural capital assets assigned high value intensity scores were generally also assigned high threat intensity scores. Land and surface water assets were assigned greatest threat (N197 red dots) whilst atmosphere assets were assigned lowest threat scores (17 red dots). Cultural services were assigned highest value, regulating and provisioning services were assigned highest threat (N142 red dots). For regulating services, high threat was attributed to water regulation, water purification and waste treatment, and pest regulation. High provisioning service threat intensity scores were attributed to both fresh water and food. Table 2 presents the associations between natural capital asset and ecosystem service values/threats. All five natural capital assets were valued most highly for their cultural, provisioning and regulating services. Highest value intensity scores were assigned to surface water (881 green dots) and biota assets (927 green dots) for the cultural services they provide. Participants assigned threats to natural capital assets based primarily on regulating services, followed by provisioning and cultural services (Table 2). Highest threat intensity scores were assigned to surface water assets for the regulating services they produce (116 red dots).

3.3.

Spatial distribution of community values and threats

There are proportional differences in the intensity of community values toward natural capital asset and ecosystem services between NRM Group regions (Table 3). Land assets were more highly valued in the Rangelands, and Mallee and Coorong (42.2% and 38.7%) which are primarily dryland farming areas. Biota assets were most highly valued in the Rangelands and least valued in the Ranges to River region (40.3% and 31.2%). Water assets were more highly valued in the Ranges to River and Riverland regions (24.7% and 23.6%). Atmosphere assets were more highly valued in the Ranges to River region. These values may reflect the importance of asset due to economic dependence (Land in the Rangelands), or the value that comes from knowledge and proximity (Water and Riverland). There may be some strategic behaviour that reflects the interest people have in getting NRM funds spent in their sub-region. However some assets, such as Chowilla and the Coorong, are valued by participants in the Mallee region and the Rangelands for the existence values associated with native flora and fauna. With regard to ecosystem services, the Riverland, Mallee and Coorong, and Ranges to River regions displayed a similar proportion of values (Table 3). The Rangelands was assigned significantly higher proportions of cultural (35.5%) and supporting (14.6%) services and lower proportions of provisioning (25.9%) and regulating (24.0%) services compared to the other regions. There are also specific locations with high value intensity scores for natural capital (Fig. 3) and ecosystem services (Fig. 4). The River Murray, and to a lesser extent the floodplain, Coorong and lower lakes were attributed very high values for the water

Table 3 – Proportional differences in the natural capital asset and ecosystem service value intensity scores assigned to the four NRM Group regions compared to the entire SAMDB study area Rangelands

Riverland

Mallee and Coorong

Ranges to river

SAMDB study area

Natural capital assets Atmosphere Biota Land Water Total

6.4 40.3 42.2 11.1 100.0

8.8 35.2 32.4 23.6 100.0

8.1 36.4 38.7 16.8 100.0

11.2 31.2 32.9 24.7 100.0

7.6 37.8 39.2 15.4 100.0

Ecosystem service types Provisioning Regulating Cultural Supporting Total

25.9 24.0 35.5 14.6 100.0

29.6 32.9 26.6 10.9 100.0

30.3 31.5 27.0 11.2 100.0

29.2 32.3 28 10.5 100.0

27.7 27.7 31.7 12.9 100.0

E CO L O G I CA L EC O NO M IC S 6 8 (2 0 0 9) 1 30 1–1 31 5

Fig. 3 – Spatial distribution of value for natural capital assets: atmosphere, biota, land and water.

1309

1310 E C O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 09 ) 13 0 1 –1 31 5

Fig. 4 – Spatial distribution of value for ecosystem service types: provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting.

1311

E CO L O G I CA L EC O NO M IC S 6 8 (2 0 0 9) 1 30 1–1 31 5

Table 4 – Proportional differences in the natural capital asset and ecosystem service threat intensity scores assigned to the four NRM Group regions compared to the entire SAMDB study area Rangelands

Riverland

Mallee and Coorong

Ranges to river

SAMDB study area

Natural capital assets Atmosphere Biota Land Water Total

0.0 53.7 44.6 1.6 100.0

14.9 15.8 33.1 36.3 100.0

18.7 10.2 29.6 41.6 100.0

5.5 34.2 36.9 23.3 100.0

5.5 34.2 36.9 23.3 100.0

Ecosystem service types Provisioning Regulating Cultural Supporting Total

7.8 43.0 21.4 27.8 100.0

24.7 42.9 23.4 9.1 100.0

27.1 42.2 30.1 0.6 100.0

23.6 49.8 22.4 4.2 100.0

23.6 49.8 22.4 4.2 100.0

asset and to a lesser extent biota. The ecologically important Chowilla floodplain and the Coorong also had very high biota values along with locally-important areas along the River Murray floodplain. The large agglomeration of reserves in the eastern Rangelands region (including Bookmark Biosphere reserve, Chowilla Regional Reserve, Danggali Conservation Parks; Fig. 1) and the Billiat Conservation Park were assigned high values for both the biota and land assets. The spatial distribution of values was similar across the four ecosystem service types with values concentrated on the River Murray (Fig. 4). Other areas including the Chowilla floodplain, lower lakes and Coorong were assigned high cultural and regulating service values. The reserves in the eastern Rangelands were attributed relatively high values for supporting

services, and (along with Billiat Conservation Park) high values for cultural and regulating services. We also identified proportional differences in the assignment of threats to natural capital and ecosystem services between NRM Group regions (Table 4). The Mallee and Coorong region was assigned the greatest threat to the atmosphere asset (18.7%) through the impact of wind erosion from agricultural land on air quality. The Rangelands region was assigned proportionately greater threat to the biota asset (53.7%) primarily due to the impact of pest species (including kangaroos and wombats being perceived as threats to agriculture), with the Mallee and Coorong having the lowest threat to biota (10.2%). The Mallee and Coorong and Riverland regions were assigned proportionately higher threats to water assets (41.6% and 36.3%)

Fig. 5 – Spatial distribution of values and threats (intensity scores) summed over all natural capital assets.

1312

E C O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 09 ) 13 0 1 –1 31 5

Table 5 – Values and threats assigned to the people asset in the study area Intensity (total # dots)

Asset People Sub-categories Built environments Zoning and planning Economic viability and employment Community General politics Indigenous perspectives Family SAMDB NRM board politics Representation and leadership

Total area (km2)

No. of participants

Value

Threat

Value

Threat

Value

Threat

1,181

242

55

43

492,490

85,453

662 544 450 304 215 148 85 47 28

182 131 48 9 42 0 2 6 8

42 43 37 26 27 18 13 9 5

35 33 15 4 11 0 1 2 2

238,452 286,419 245,946 140,059 37,891 60,963 1,445 37,322 1,018

21,891 54,942 24,996 12,180 7,298 0 1 895 750

with some threat attributed to water assets in the Ranges to River region (23.3%). All four regions were assigned high threat to regulating services (N42.2%) which reflects concerns around reduced flows in the River Murray and drought (water asset), diminishing ground water resources, wind erosion (land asset) and the impact of pest species (biota asset; Table 2). Maps of total values and threats assigned to the study area summed over all natural capital assets are presented in Fig. 5. There appears to be some spatial association between values and threats in the region. The River Murray is an area of both very high value and also very high threat. Other high value areas such

as the lower lakes, the large reserves in the eastern Rangelands region, the pastoral country in the central and western Rangelands and Billiat Conservation Park were also attributed high threat (Fig. 5). Conversely, dryland agricultural areas in the northern part of the Mallee and Coorong and southern part of the Riverland region were attributed low value but high threat due to the perceived impact of drought and erosion.

3.4.

Values and threats: people asset

The participants in this study viewed people as being central to the biophysical landscape. A quote from the interview relating

Fig. 6 – Spatial distribution of values and threats (intensity scores) summed over the people asset.

E CO L O G I CA L EC O NO M IC S 6 8 (2 0 0 9) 1 30 1–1 31 5

to the development of one of the maps is useful for understanding local perspectives on what they valued in the landscape: “People…Absolutely. I just think you develop people and the other stuff comes.” Further discussion of valued assets ranged from very local references, i.e. the home field of their local football club to the pastoral land leaseholders in the Rangelands region. They also acknowledged the role of people in degrading these landscapes. Participants valued the built infrastructure such as roads, schools, community centres and the roles that people took on to forge sustainable communities (662 dots, Table 5). They also saw built infrastructure such as locks, weirs and dams as a potential threat in the Riverland and around the lower lakes in (182 dots, Table 5). Likewise, participants assigned both high value and high threat to zoning and planning. High values (N148 dots) were also assigned to economic viability and employment, community, general politics and indigenous perspectives. The only other notable people asset subcategories assigned threats were economic viability and employment and general politics (Table 5). The spatial distribution of community values and threats for the people asset followed markedly different patterns (Fig. 6). Values associated with people are generally higher in the northern half of the study area, associated with the reserves to the east, and located along the eastern scarp of the Mt. Lofty Ranges. Threat scores associated with the people asset are concentrated along the River Murray, including localised areas of the floodplain, irrigation districts and the lower lakes and Coorong area (Fig. 6).

4.

1313

This methodology does not replace representative surveys of regions to infer values (e.g., Brown, 2005). Sociodemographic characteristics indicate that the majority of participants were highly educated, had lived in the region for a long time and had reasonable knowledge of environmental issues. Even with this sample, it became apparent that community representatives had difficulty identifying and mapping atmosphere asset values and associated services (only 340 dots mapped). Similarly, participants found it difficult to map supporting services (302 dots mapped). Further complexities were discovered in the mapping of threats to the atmosphere asset and supporting services (17 and 43 dots, respectively). Future work should consider alternative ways of prompting for these attributes with the goal of developing a modified typology of atmosphere and supporting services that explores these issues. On balance, the community values mapping method presented in this study provides another step in the systematic identification and measurement of values based on local ecological knowledge. It addresses some of the concerns raised by researchers (Pinto-Correia et al., 2006; Raymond and Brown, 2006; Kumar and Kumar, 2008; Stenseke, 2009) relating to the limited representation of community values in both ecosystem service valuation and the spatial targeting of environmental management priorities. It also provides the scope for basing policy interventions on community values and expertise measured at local and regional scales. This is seen as critical in developing place-based solutions to societal problems such as biodiversity loss and in turn supporting robust and adaptive social–ecological systems (Anderies et al., 2004; Folke 2006; Janssen et al., 2007; Cowling et al., 2008).

Discussion 4.2.

4.1. Use of natural capital and ecosystem service framework to quantify community values The results indicate that the sample of community representatives and decision-makers in this study valued the SAMDB region for a variety of reasons. Based on a non-proportional quota sampling approach, a structured interview process revealed that participants valued the region not only for water, land, biota and atmosphere asset reasons, but also for a range of aspects related to people such as built environments, zoning and planning, community and family. Participants associated value and threat with bequest, intrinsic and existence values which were added to cultural services, and for geological resources and energy which were both added to provisioning services. This enhanced natural capital asset and ecosystem service typology enabled a more detailed understanding of the links between natural values and human interactions with natural systems. Similar to studies conducted by Brown (2005) and colleagues, community values were found to vary in distribution and type across the landscape, with significant proportional differences in natural capital and ecosystem service values across both NRM Group regions and places within the SAMDB study area. We add to recent ‘sense of place’ studies and value mapping tools by showing that community groups are able to identify and map specific values and threats associated with natural capital assets and ecosystem services.

Implications for environmental management

The community values mapping method has assisted the SAMDB NRM Board revise its regional NRM plan. As a direct result of this study, “People” have been considered as an asset within the regional plan, alongside land, water, biodiversity and atmosphere. Long term outcomes relate to respecting, protecting and preserving natural capital and ecosystem service values identified by local people and sharing this knowledge in a way the leads to improved environmental outcomes. Additionally, the mapping of natural capital asset and ecosystem service values by community representatives enables the targeting of management actions to areas of local value and concern. Such targeting is likely to empower local involvement in environmental management, build trust in regional planning processes and increase political support for the investment priorities of the SAMDB NRM Board. Results indicate investment should be targeted at the River Murray, its floodplains, wetlands, lower lakes and Coorong estuary with management directed at enhancing water and biota assets for producing a range of ecosystem services. Investment should also be targeted at protecting and enhancing biota assets in the eastern Rangelands region (particularly the large reserves) and Billiat Conservation Park for the cultural, regulating and supporting ecosystem services they produce. The eastern Mt. Lofty Ranges, localised areas of the floodplain, irrigation districts, and the lower lakes and Coorong area require most

1314

E C O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 09 ) 13 0 1 –1 31 5

attention from built environments, zoning and planning and economic viability and employment perspectives. We recognise that the mapping of ecosystem services and natural capital assets using local knowledge only provides one part of the environmental management picture. Further analysis is required to capture the full potential of this information in guiding planning for, and investment in, environmental management. Analysis of a range of spatial indicators may be used to identify areas that provide abundant or rare value types, a diverse set of value types, or areas where community values are at risk. Value-specific management can then be targeted in these areas. Examination of the spatial relationships between scientifically assessed and local priorities can identify hotspots of value alignment and conflict. Where conflict exists, the method could be used to help participants understand other stakeholders' perspectives and to negotiate alternative resource management futures which provide for multiple ecosystem services, whilst limiting harm to others. Community values and threats can be integrated with spatially explicit criteria derived from natural science and economics such as cost, carbon sequestration rates, biodiversity value, recreation benefits and landscape benefits to enhance systematic regional planning for environmental management (Crossman and Bryan, 2009).

5.

Conclusion

This study develops a new method for mapping community values for natural capital assets and ecosystem services that addresses the need for capturing a broader range of values assigned to ecosystems over geographic space. The method is based on concepts such as ‘sense of place’ and ‘coupled social– ecological systems’ theory which posit that human beings are agents in the landscape and attribute meaning and value to biophysical features which are not solely instrumental and monetary in nature. The mapping of values and threats by a sample of community representatives in the study area shows there are regional and place-specific differences in natural capital asset and ecosystem service values and threats. The participants also saw people as central to the landscape and environment of the region. The methods examined and discussed have implications for the way ecosystem services are measured and integrated into planning for conservation and environmental management in Australia and elsewhere.

Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to community representatives in SAMDB who graciously devoted their time to the interview process. This project was funded by the SA MDB Board, CSIRO's Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Program and Sustainable Regional Development theme. The peer reviews provided by Drs Wanhong Yang, John Ward and two anonymous reviewers, and the research support of Marcia Sanderson, Darran King, David Frahm, and Yann Frizenschaf are gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES Alessa, L., Kliskey, A., Brown, G., 2008. Social–ecological hotspots mapping: a spatial approach for identifying coupled social–ecological space. Landscape and Urban Planning 85, 27–39. Anderies, J.M., Janssen, M.A., Ostrom, E., 2004. A framework to analyze the robustness of social–ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society 9 (1), 18–34. Bailey, N., Lee, J.T., Thompson, S., 2006. Maximising the natural capital benefits of habitat creation: spatially targeting native woodland using GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning 75, 227–243. Black, A., Liljeblad, A., 2006. Integrating social values in vegetation models via GIS: the missing link for the Bitterroot National Forest. Final Report JFSP Project No. 04-2-1-114. Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, MT. Blashke, T., 2005. The role of the spatial dimension within the framework of sustainable landscapes and natural capital. Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (3–4), 198–226. Brookshire, D., Eubanks, L.S., Randall, A., 1983. Estimating option prices and existence values for wildlife resources. Land Economics 59, 1–15. Brown, G., 2005. Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management: methods and applications. Society and Natural Resources 18 (1), 17–39. Brown, G., 2006. Mapping landscape values and development preferences: a method for tourism and residential development planning. International Journal of Tourism Research 8 (2), 101–113. Brown, G., Reed, P., 2000. Validation of a forest values typology for use in national forest planning. Forest Science 46 (2), 240–247. Brown, G., Smith, C., Alessa, L., Kliskey, A., 2004. A comparison of perceptions of biological value with scientific assessment of biological importance. Applied Geography 24 (2), 161–180. Bryan, B.A., Crossman, N.D., King, D., McNeill, J., Wang, E., Barrett, G., Ferris, M.M., Morrison, J.B., Pettit, C., Freudenberger, D., O, ' Leary, G., Fawcett, J., Meyer, W., 2007. Lower Murray landscape futures dryland component: volume 3 — preliminary analysis and modelling. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country. 378 pp. www. landscapefutures.com.au. Bryan, B.A., Barry, S., Marvanek, S. (in press-a). Quantifying and mapping commodity-level agricultural land use change in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia 1996/97 – 2000/01. Journal of Land Use Science. Bryan, B.A., Hajkowicz, S., Marvanek, S., Young, M.D. (in press-b). Mapping economic returns to agriculture for informing environmental policy in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Environmental Modelling and Assessment. Cast, A., Hatton MacDonald, D., Grandgirard, A., Kalivas, T., Strathearn, S., Sanderson, M., Frahm, D., Bryan, B., 2008. South Australian Murray Darling basin environmental values report. CSIRO Project Report August 2008. http://www.clw.csiro.au/ publications/waterforahealthycountry/. Chan, K.M.A., Shaw, M.R., Cameron, D.R., Underwood, E.C., Daily, G.C., 2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biology 4 (11), 2138–2152. Cicchetti, C.J., Wilde, L.L., 1992. Uniqueness, irreversibility, and the theory of non-use values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74, 1121–1125. Costanza, C., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knight, A.T., O'Farrell, P.J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Roux, D.J., Welz, A., Wilhelm-Rechman, A., 2008. An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105 (28), 9483–9488.

E CO L O G I CA L EC O NO M IC S 6 8 (2 0 0 9) 1 30 1–1 31 5

Crossman, N.D., Bryan, B.A., 2009. Identifying cost-effective hotspots for restoring natural capital and enhancing landscape multifunctionality. Ecological Economics 68, 654–668. Daily, G.C. (Ed.), 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC. de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J., 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41 (3), 393–408. Egoh, B., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Richardson, D.M., Le Maitre, D.C., van Jaarsveld, A.S., 2008. Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 127 (1–2), 135–140. Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16, 253–267. Gimona, A., van der Horst, D., 2007. Mapping hotspots of multiple landscape functions: a case study on farmland afforestation in Scotland. Landscape Ecology 22 (8), 1255–1264. Grêt-Regamey, A., Bebi, P., Bishop, I.D., Schmid, W., 2008. Linking GIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpine region. Journal of Environmental Management 89 (3), 197–208. Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R.S., van Ierland, E.C., 2006. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 57, 209–228. Janssen, M.A., Anderies, J.M., 2007. Robustness trade-offs in social–ecological systems. International Journal of the Commons 1 (1), 43–65. Janssen, M.A., Anderies, J.M., Ostrom, E., 2007. Robustness of social–ecological systems to spatial and temporal variability. Society and Natural Resources 20, 307–322. Jorgensen, B.S., Syme, G., Bishop, B., Nancarrow, B., 1999. Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 14, 131–150. Kahrimanis, M.J., Carruthers, S., Oppermann, A., Inns, R., 2001. Biodiversity plan for the South Australian Murray–Darling Basin. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia. Kliskey, A.D., 1994. A comparative analysis of approaches to wilderness perception mapping. Journal of Environmental Management 41, 199–236. Krutilla, J., 1967. Conservation reconsidered. American Economic Review 57, 777–786. Kumar, M., Kumar, P., 2008. Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecological Economics 64, 808–819. Lienhoop, N., 2007. Participant behaviour and performance in contingent valuation, stated preference methods for environmental valuation: applications from Austria and Germany. J. Meyerhof feds. Metropolis-Verlag. Lynam, T., de Jong, W., Sheil, D., Kusumanto, T., Evans, K., 2007. A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences and values into decision making in natural resources management. Ecology and Society 12 (1), 5–19. McIntyre, N., Moore, J., Yuan, M., 2008. A place-based, values-centered approach to managing recreation on

1315

Canadian crown lands. Society and Natural Resources 21 (8), 657–670. Manzo, L., 2005. For better or worse: exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25, 67–86. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., Lehner, B., Malcolm, T.R., Ricketts, T.H., 2008. Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105 (28), 9495–9500. O'Neill, J., 1992. The varieties of intrinsic value. Monist 75 (2), 119–137. Pinto-Correia, T., Gustavsson, R., Pirnat, J., 2006. Bridging the gap between centrally defined policies and local decisions — towards more sensitive and creative rural landscape management. Landscape Ecology 21, 333–346. Raymond, C.M., 2008. Mapping landscape values and perceived climate change risks for natural resources management: a study of the Southern Fleurieu Peninsula region, SA, DWLBC Report 2008/07. Government of South Australia, through Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, Adelaide. Raymond, C.M., Brown, G., 2006. A method for assessing protected area allocations using a typology of landscape values. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49 (6), 797–812. Reed, M.S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141, 2417–2431. Sayer, J.A., Campbell, B.M., 2004. The Science of Sustainable Development. Local Livelihoods and the Global Environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Stenseke, M., 2009. Local participation in cultural landscape maintenance: lessons from Sweden. Land Use Policy 26 (2), 214–223. Tallis, H., Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., Chang, A., 2008. An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105 (28), 9457–9464. Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., 2003. Handbook of Mixed Methods Sampling in Social and Behavioural Research. Sage Publications, London, UK. Troy, A., Wilson, M.A., 2006. Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics 60, 435–449. Tyrväinnen, L., Mäkinen, K., Schipperijn, J., 2007. Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 79 (1), 5–19. UNESCO World Heritage Conference, 2003. Linking universal and local values: managing a sustainable future for world heritage World Heritage Paper 13. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris. Vilkka, L., 1997. The Intrinsic Value of Nature. Rodopi, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Zube, E.H., 1987. Perceived land use patterns and landscape values. Landscape Ecology 1 (1), 37–45.