Do ecosystem service frameworks represent people's values?

Phoebe R Maund; Katherine N Irvine; Martin Dallimer; Robert Fish; Gail E Austen; Zoe G Davies

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101221

Do ecosystem service frameworks represent people's values?

Ecosyst Serv. 2020 Dec:46:101221. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101221.

Authors

Phoebe R Maund¹, Katherine N Irvine², Martin Dallimer³, Robert Fish¹, Gail E Austen¹, Zoe G Davies¹

Affiliations

¹ Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 8NR, UK.
² Social, Economic and Geographic Sciences Department, James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH, UK.
³ Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS9 2JT, UK.

Abstract

Since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was published, a plethora of ecosystem service frameworks have been developed to conceptualise the links between the natural environment and society. The intended geographic scales of application, the policy/practice context, and the scientific disciplines involved have driven variations in how the frameworks are constructed. However, the frameworks are homogenous in that they have been created predominately based on expert opinions and views of how ecosystem services are structured. Here, we use the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) to examine the extent to which frameworks capture people's values for British woodlands. Our findings reveal several disparities between how experts and the public conceptualise ecosystem services. The considerable refinement and specificity provided by CICES does not align with public values (e.g. some provisioning, and regulation and maintenance, services), which tend to be more generalised. We also demonstrate differences in values explained by social characteristics (e.g. ethnicity) that need to be accounted for in decision-making processes. Moving forwards, we need to consider how society views the services derived from nature and reflect this in frameworks to ensure ecosystem service approaches are effective, transparent and widely supported.

Keywords: Common international classification of ecosystem services; Cultural ecosystem services; Ecosystem service classification; Natural capital; Public values; Woodlands.