Testing the ecosystem service cascade framework and QUICKScan software tool in the context of land use planning in Glenlivet Estate Scotland

ABSTRACT The concept of ecosystem services has been extensively studied in recent decades. Most studies have focused on describing the specific aspects such as production, spatial extent, valuation of services and the trade-off between services. Few studies however assess the practitioners’ views on the frameworks, models or tools developed. In this paper, we report on a multi-stakeholder workshop where two tools were tested (i) the ecosystem service cascade framework was tested as a means to frame the issues and (ii) a participatory-spatial modelling method, QUICKScan, was tested as an aid to support discussion over natural resource management and planning in a multi-use landscape. A focused group discussion was utilised to determine stakeholders’ views of the cascade framework and pre- and post-workshop questionnaires quantified the stakeholders’ views of the QUICKScan method. The stakeholders identified both positive and negative aspects of both tools. The diversity of views expressed were associated with (i) the past experience of the individual with the issues discussed, (ii) the technical aspects of the tools i.e. the ability with GIS and (iii) the level of new shared knowledge they reported acquiring on the day which was related to their initial knowledge of the issue and area studied. EDITED BY Davide Geneletti

[1]  Xiaojun Wang,et al.  Environmental flows and its evaluation of restoration effect based on LEDESS model in Yellow River Delta wetlands , 2012, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.

[2]  Terry P. Dawson,et al.  A conceptual framework to assess the effects of environmental change on ecosystem services , 2010, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[3]  P. Balvanera,et al.  Trade-offs in ecosystem services and varying stakeholder preferences: evaluating conflicts, obstacles, and opportunities , 2015 .

[4]  H. Bernard,et al.  Techniques to Identify Themes , 2003 .

[5]  G. Daily,et al.  Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions , 2015 .

[6]  Gregory Verutes,et al.  Process matters: a framework for conducting decision-relevant assessments of ecosystem services , 2015 .

[7]  Richard A. Wadsworth,et al.  Final Report for LCM2007 - the new UK land cover map. Countryside Survey Technical Report No 11/07 , 2011 .

[8]  M. Rönkä,et al.  National ecosystem service indicators: Measures of social-ecological sustainability , 2016 .

[9]  Stefan Reis,et al.  Ecosystem service indicators: data sources and conceptual frameworks for sustainable management , 2014 .

[10]  P. Verweij,et al.  Linking Bayesian Belief Networks and GIS to assess the Ecosystem integrity in the Brazilian Amazon , 2014 .

[11]  Michiel Blind,et al.  Perceived effectiveness of environmental decision support systems in participatory planning: Evidence from small groups of end-users , 2011, Environ. Model. Softw..

[12]  A.P.E. van Oudenhoven,et al.  Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services , 2012 .

[13]  Marta Pérez-Soba,et al.  Decision-support systems as a type of science-policy interface: exploring the potential of the QUICKScan software tool for knowledge integration and learning , 2015 .

[14]  R. D. Groot,et al.  Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making , 2010 .

[15]  M. Depledge,et al.  Integrating health and environmental impact analysis. , 2015, Public health.

[16]  Dirk J. Roux,et al.  Can ecosystem services lead ecology on a transdisciplinary pathway? , 2010, Environmental Conservation.

[17]  Sander Janssen,et al.  QUICKScan as a quick and participatory methodology for problem identification and scoping in policy processes , 2016 .

[18]  B. Grizzetti,et al.  Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union , 2012 .

[19]  R. Haines-Young,et al.  Ecosystem Ecology: The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being , 2010 .

[20]  A.P.E. van Oudenhoven,et al.  UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Ecosystem Services as a Contested Concept: A Synthesis of Critique and Counter-arguments Schötter, , 2014 .

[21]  Jack Kloppenburg.  Social Theory and the De/Reconstruction of Agricultural Science: Local Knowledge for an Alternative Agriculture1 , 2010 .

[22]  M. Robertson,et al.  The FARMSCAPE approach to decision support: farmers', advisers', researchers' monitoring, simulation, communication and performance evaluation , 2002 .

[23]  A. Bryman.  Social Research Methods, 4th Edition , 2012 .

[24]  Kate Lewis,et al.  Crossing fields: the case of a multi-disciplinary research team , 2006 .

[25]  R. Weterings,et al.  Environmental indicators: Typology and overview , 1999 .

[26]  Thomas D. Hall,et al.  Rise and Demise, Comparing World Systems. , 1998 .

[27]  C. Görg,et al.  Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: Some stakeholder perspectives , 2013 .

[28]  P. Burgess,et al.  A nexus perspective on competing land demands: Wider lessons from a UK policy case study , 2016 .

[29]  Graeme L. Hammer,et al.  Infusing the use of seasonal climate forecasting into crop management practice in North East Australia using discussion support software , 2002 .

[30]  J. Gonzalez,et al.  Uncovering Ecosystem Service Bundles through Social Preferences , 2012, PloS one.

[31]  Juliette Young,et al.  Expectations and Experiences of Diverse Forms of Knowledge Use: The Case of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment , 2014 .

[32]  Kevin A. Parton,et al.  Learning from the historical failure of farm management models to aid management practice. Part 2. Three systems approaches , 2006 .