global environmental change - center for ocean … · diverse and often competing values and...

Global Environmental Change xxx (2013) xxxxxx

G Model

JGEC-1161; No. of Pages 10

Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers valuecoral reef ecosystem services

Christina C. Hicks a,b,c,*, Nicholas A.J. Graham a, Joshua E. Cinner a

a ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australiab School of Business, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australiac Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford University, Monterey, CA, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 17 October 2012

Received in revised form 26 July 2013

Accepted 28 July 2013

Keywords:

Environmental policy

Human behaviour

Network analysis

Preferences

Stakeholders

Values

A B S T R A C T

Managing ecosystems in a changing environment faces the challenge of balancing diverse competing

perspectives on which ecosystem services natures benefits to prioritize. Consequently, we measured

and compared how different stakeholders (managers, scientists and fishers) prioritize specific coral reef

ecosystem services. Managers priorities were more aligned with scientists priorities but all stakeholder

groups agreed that fishery, education, and habitat were high priorities. However, stakeholder groups

differed in the extent to which they prioritized certain services. Fishers tended to assigned greater

estimates to fishery and education, managers to culture, and scientists to coastal protection.

Furthermore, using network analysis to map the interactions between stakeholders priorities, we

found distinct synergies and trade-offs in how ecosystem services were prioritized, representing areas of

agreement and conflict. In the fishers network, trade-offs emerged between two services, both of a

higher priority, such as fishery and habitat. Conversely, in the scientists network, trade-offs emerged

between services of a higher and lower priority, such as habitat and culture. The trade-offs and synergies

that emerged in the managers network overlap with both fishers and scientists suggesting a potential

brokering role that managers can play in balancing both priorities and conflicts. We suggest that

measuring ecosystem service priorities can highlight key areas of agreement and conflict, both within

and across stakeholder groups, to be addressed when communicating and prioritizing decisions.

2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change

jo ur n al h o mep ag e: www .e lsev ier . co m / loc ate /g lo envc h a

1. Introduction

Societies are composed of individuals and groups that, becauseof diverse and often competing values and interests, often struggleto reach consensus-based decisions (Costanza, 2000; Verweij et al.,2006; Allison and Hobbs, 2010). Decision-makers are presentedwith hard choices; represent the values of a few perhaps adominant group or face the task of balancing diverse values andpriorities. Conservation and natural resource managers strive tomaintain functioning landscapes, resisting or reversing environ-mental change. The task of managing these landscapes isexacerbated by the challenge of balancing priorities (McShaneet al., 2011). This is in part because conservation is prioritizedwhere threats to biodiversity are greatest (Pressey et al., 2007); inareas that are often inhabited by the poor, or that have significanteconomic potential (Adams et al., 2004; Adams and Hutton, 2007).Although diverse stakeholders are often engaged in decision-

* Corresponding author at: ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James

Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia. Tel.: +61 7 4781 3193;

fax: +61 7 4781 6722.

E-mail address: [email protected] (C.C. Hicks).

Please cite this article in press as: Hicks, C.C., et al., Synergies and trecosystem services. Global Environ. Change (2013), http://dx.doi.org

0959-3780/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028

making processes, competing priorities are hard to resolve.A failure to account for the diverse priorities encounteredundermines the progress made. For example, presenting onlythe values of a dominant economic interest potentially margin-alizes the most vulnerable sectors of society (Hicks et al., 2009),increasing inequality, and exacerbating environmental decline(Cinner et al., 2011). To be successful, natural resource manage-ment should integrate conservation priorities with the goals oflocal resource users. Therefore, natural resource scientists andpractitioners need to engage in complex decision-making process-es that can deal with multiple objectives and balance competingpriorities (Tetlock, 1986; Berkes, 2007; Ban et al., 2013).

Ecosystem services refer to the benefits humans gain from nature(MA, 2005). As a concept, ecosystem services incorporate diverseperspectives, balance ecological and human objectives, and havedirect application and transferability to policy (Costanza et al., 1997;Turner et al., 2010; Atkinson et al., 2012). Furthermore, in accountingfor the full range of benefits delivered by nature, ecosystem servicesresearch takes a holistic systems perspective capable of accountingfor multiple benefits, and their interactions, simultaneously.Although human demand underpins ecosystem service concepts(Vira and Adams, 2009), stakeholders preferences for ecosystemservices are often overlooked in decision-making and most

adeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value coral reef/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09593780http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028

C.C. Hicks et al. / Global Environmental Change xxx (2013) xxxxxx2

G Model


evaluations focus on obtaining objectively measurable, biophysical(e.g. Chan et al., 2006) or economic estimates (e.g. Costanza et al.,1997; Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; Martin-Lopez et al., 2012).Preferences are important because they reflect peoples prioritiesand, together with the interpretation of the actions of others, helpdetermine behaviour (Kaplan, 1985; Costanza, 2000). Slow progressin incorporating preferences, and understanding behaviour, haslimited our ability to manage humanenvironment systems (Fultonet al., 2011).

Ecosystem services that tend to occur together are referred to asbundles, whereas services that occur at the expense of otherscreate trade-offs (Bennett et al., 2009; Raudsepp-Hearne et al.,2010; Martin-Lopez et al., 2012). These differences will be reflectedin the way people value ecosystem services and, because resourcesare finite (e.g. limited time or money), the way they prioritizeecosystem services (Costanza, 2000). For example, fisherman mayvalue the fish they can catch off a coral reef and prioritize fisheryservices, a scientist may value the knowledge they can gain fromstudying a coral reef and prioritize educational services, and atourist may value the diverse and colourful assemblages they canlook at whilst snorkelling on a coral reef and prioritize recreationalservices. When stakeholders are in agreement and assign similarpriorities to multiple ecosystem services, we would expect to seesynergies (a similar concept to bundles, but based on stakeholderpriorities) between pairs of ecosystem services. Conversely, whenstakeholders are in conflict and assign different priorities tomultiple ecosystem services, we would expect to see trade-offsbetween pairs of ecosystem services. Synergies and trade-offsoccur in space and time, and within and across stakeholder groups,creating opportunities and conflicts for natural resource manage-ment. Identifying synergies and trade-offs in stakeholderspreferences for ecosystem services should enable decision-makersto target opportunities where priorities align, and navigate orcompensate for conflicts where priorities are in opposition.

Tradeoffs arise because peoples interests vary and so they valuedifferent aspects of the same system (Hicks et al., 2009). Attempts toidentify ecosystem service trade-offs have tended to ignore thedistribution of benefits between groups and individuals withinsocieties, thus failing to identify who benefits from the flow ofecosystem services and who loses out (Daw et al., 2011), and only afew studies have considered stakeholders preferences for ecosys-tem services (Martin-Lopez et al., 2012). In order to fill this gap, weset out to determine stakeholders ecosystem service priorities andidentify areas of conflict (i.e. trade-offs: where stakeholderspriorities diverge) and areas of agreement (i.e. synergies: wherestakeholders priorities align). To do this we examine the prioritiza-tion of coral reef ecosystem services within, and across, threestakeholder groups who are likely to view the system at differentscales (scientists, managers, and fishers) in three western IndianOcean countries. Coral reefs in this region provide vital food andlivelihood security to some of the worlds lowest income and mostvulnerable people (Allison et al., 2009). In addition, this region hasexperienced some of the worst effects of climate change on live coraland associated fish assemblages (Graham et al., 2008). Therefore, theneed for effective management, and the juxtaposition of competingvalues, provides an ideal lens through which to ask: (1) Do fishers,managers, and scientists prioritize ecosystem services differently?(2) What ecosystem service synergies, and trade-offs, exist withinfisher, manager and scientist stakeholder groups?

2. Methods

2.1. Sampling

We used a combination of focus groups and individual semi-structured questionnaires to interview fishers, managers, and


scientists from three countries (Kenya, Tanzania, and Madagascar)in the western Indian Ocean (WIO) region about their preferencesfor the benefits they identified from coral reef ecosystems. For thefishers, we conducted two preliminary qualitative focus groups,and 21 subsequent focus groups in each community 6communities in Madagascar, 6 in Tanzania, and 9 in Kenya. Weobtained information from local fisher organizations on the age,primary gear used and place of residence for all registered fishers.We used this information to randomly select fishers across the age,gear and geographic range of all involved in the coral reef fishery.After piloting the surveys in each country, we conducted 497individual fisher interviews from the 21 fishing communitiesrepresenting between 20% and 40% of the fishers from eachcommunity.

We obtained information from the Western Indian OceanMarine Sciences Association (WIOMSA) the regions professionalorganization for marine research and management on registeredmanagers and scientists in the region. We used non-probabilitysampling techniques including convenience and snowball sam-pling (Henry, 1990) to approach scientists and managers who weredelegates at the 2009 Western Indian Ocean Marine SciencesAssociations (WIOMSA) biannual conference in Reunion, France.Delegates were asked where they worked and whether theyworked as a scientist or manager. Only delegates working in Kenya,Tanzania, or Madagascar were included in this study. After pilotingour surveys with managers and scientists, we conducted individualinterviews with 17 scientists and 8 managers representing 25%,19%, and 19% of the managers and scientists from Kenya, Tanzania,and Madagascar attending the symposium. Many more fisherswere interviewed than managers; however, this reflects the muchlarger number of fishers than managers or scientists working in theregion. The distinction between managers and scientists can befairly fluid (i.e. managers conduct science and some scientistsmanage). Our survey had to ask respondents whether theyidentified as managers or scientists rather than being able tostratify our sampling, this resulted in a smaller sample of managersthan scientists and should be bourn in mind when interpreting theresults.

2.2. Ecosystem service definitions

2.2.1. Expert elicitation

We used the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)classification system as a starting point to frame the key benefitsstakeholders are likely to associate with the coral reef ecosystem.For each country we conducted individual expert interviewswith managers and scientists, to establish which of the MAbenefits were most relevant to our study. These interviewsdiscussed the relevance of the services, how the services wereexperienced, wording to describe the services and suitablephotographs to convey the services. We then conducted a focusgroup, bringing together seven expert managers and scientists,who had experience working in Kenya, Tanzania and Madagas-car. The purpose of this was to ensure the services, wording, andphotographs to be used in the three countries were as consistentas possible.

2.2.2. Stakeholder elicitation

We conducted two initial fisher focus groups in Kenya with allgears in the fishery represented; these contained six and sevenfishers. The fishers were first asked to discuss the benefits theyassociated with the coral reef ecosystem. We then introduced thebenefits elicited from the expert interviews, and the selectedphotographs, and established whether there was agreementbetween fishers and experts on the services identified and whetherthe photographs were appropriate. Once we had a more definite


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028

Table 1Ecosystem services, photographs, and descriptions used in the valuation exercises.

Service Picture Description

Fishery This picture shows a fisher coming back from fishing with his catch which he may sell or

use to feed his family. This illustrates the benefit we gain from the fish we catch and sell

Habitat This picture shows a healthy coral reef with many fish and places for the small fish to hide.

This illustrates the benefits we gain from having a healthy coral reef habitat

Coastal protection This picture shows a rough sea and some trees washed away by the waves. The coral reef

provides a barrier against the force of these waves. This illustrates the benefit we gain

from having the reef buffer the force of the waves

Sanitation This picture shows women gutting and washing their fish. The sea takes away a lot of

waste for us. This illustrates the benefit we gain from using the sea to wash and clean,

knowing that when we come back tomorrow the waters will be clear again

Tourism This picture shows some tourists swimming and snorkelling, enjoying the marine

environment. This illustrates the benefits we gain from being able to relax and enjoy the

marine environment or having others come and enjoy it in this way

Education This picture shows some children learning about the sea. There is a lot of knowledge in the

coral reef environment that school children come and learn about or scientists come and

study. This picture illustrates the benefits we gain from the knowledge we have from the

time we and our elders have spent in the marine environment

Cultural This picture shows a spiritual or cultural place related to the sea. Some people follow

special traditions or norms involving the marine environment. This picture illustrates the

benefits we gain from having cultural connections to the marine environment

C.C. Hicks et al. / Global Environmental Change xxx (2013) xxxxxx 3

G Model


Please cite this article in press as: Hicks, C.C., et al., Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value coral reefecosystem services. Global Environ. Change (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028


Table 1 (Continued )

Service Picture Description

Bequest This picture of children represents the future of the reefs. This illustrates the benefits we

gain from knowing we will have healthy reefs that we can pass on to our children so that

they can benefit from all the benefits that we gain today


G Model


group of benefits associated with the coral reef ecosystem weconducted larger focus groups in each of the communitiessurveyed (21). These focus groups were to ensure the benefitswe had identified through fisher and expert consultations wereappropriate and comprehensive, and that the wording andphotographs used captured locally appropriate meanings. Thefinal selection included eight ecosystem services, with consistentdefinitions, but some different photographs were used acrosscountries. The final eight ecosystem services included oneprovisioning service (identified as fishery), two regulating services(identified as coastal protection and sanitation), four culturalservices (identified as culture, education, recreation, and bequest)(Krutilla, 1967; MA, 2005; Chan et al., 2011) and one supportingservice (identified as habitat) (Kumar, 2010) (Table 1). Ecosystemservice assessments often omit supporting services, partly to avoiddouble counting, or subsume them in regulating services (Kumar,2010). However, we do not attempt to aggregate value acrossservices, and therefore double counting should not pose a problem.Furthermore, we felt it important to include supporting services inour perception based assessment because the implications ofwhether people prioritize provisioning or supporting servicesaffect management decisions.

2.3. Ecosystem service prioritization

We used individual semi-structured interviews to elicitstakeholder priorities for the eight identified ecosystem services.The interviews were piloted in each country to test the suitabilityof questions, structure, timing, and to ensure research assistantswere comfortable in each setting. Respondents were providedwith a photograph and brief description of each ecosystemservice (developed in the focus groups; Table 1). The serviceswere discussed with the respondents to establish a commonunderstanding. We explained that we were interested in therespondents personal preferences. We then asked the respon-dents to (1) rank the services, according to how important theservices were (18); and (2) to rate the services, by distributingcounters according to where they would most like to seeimprovements (Montgomery, 2002; Hicks et al., 2009; Larson,2009). Managers and scientists were provided with 100 points todistribute across the services. We had to adjust the exercise forfishers, who were provided with 20 points in four instalments todistribute across the services. The rating and ranking responsesof the managers, scientists, and fishers were normalized to be ona common scale of 01. Data were tested for normality with QQplots of the residuals and homogeneity of variances usingLevenes test prior to analysis (Field, 2009). We used Pearsonscorrelation analysis to test for consistency between the manager,scientist, and fishers rating and ranking scores. The relativeimportance of services obtained by rating and ranking wasconsistent across stakeholder group (correlation r = 0.55,P = 0.001) so the rating responses were used for the remainderof the analyses.


2.4. Differences in ecosystem service prioritization, across stakeholder

groups

2.4.1. Analysis

Broad variation in priority estimates assigned to ecosystemservices was first assessed using a hierarchical cluster analysis,based on Euclidean distance, which found the greatest splits in thedata were among the three stakeholder groups, with little effect ofcountry. We therefore focus on patterns among and withinstakeholders.

We used a principal components analysis (PCA), based onEuclidian distance, to examine the similarities and differences inthe priorities managers, scientists, and fishers assign to the 8ecosystem services (Legendre and Legendre, 1998, CANOCO 4.5).We then looked for differences, across stakeholder groups in thepriorities assigned to individual ecosystem services using aMANOVA, followed by Tukeys HSD post hoc analysis. To illustratethese differences, we calculated an effect size on all eightecosystem services for each two way combination of the threestakeholder groups (Eq. (1)).

Cohen0s d vai va j

Svai Sva j=2(1)

where vai = ecosystem service priority of the first stakeholdergroup; vaj = ecosystem service priority of the second stakeholdergroup, S = standard deviation.

2.5. Differences in ecosystem service prioritization, within stakeholder

groups

2.5.1. Analysis

We looked for differences in ecosystem service prioritization,within stakeholder groups, using a one way ANOVA for eachstakeholder group (Field, 2009).

2.5.2. Synergies and trade-offs

A trade-off generally arises because two choices areincompatible with each other. For example, activities thatmaximize fishing yield (a provisioning service) tend to erode keyprocesses necessary for maintaining functioning ecosystems,such as herbivory (a supporting service). Many approaches existfor quantifying trade-offs e.g. cost benefit analysis (CBA), socialCBA, integrated CBA (de Groot et al., 2010) and multi-criteriadecision analysis (MCDA) (Brown et al., 2002). These are robustapproaches, effective at engaging stakeholders in discussionsover alternate options, that draw out trade-offs. However,people do not always consider the motivations or implications oftheir values and their resultant behaviour (Schwartz, 1996;Bardi and Goodwin, 2011). This can create trade-offs that are notobvious, are not realized until they occur, or affect a minority.Therefore, rather than focus on the services of a high priority,that are likely to be discussed, we were interested in drawing



Service A value Service A value

Serv

ice

B va

lue

Serv

ice

B va

lue

A) B)

Fig. 1. Heuristic illustrating (a) synergies and (b) trade-offs. Two services that arepositively correlated, create synergies; they are either both large or both small. Two

services that are negatively correlated, create a trade-off; when one is large the

other is small.

0.10.1-

0.1

0.1-

Bequest

C. protecti on

Cult ure

Educa tion

Fishery

Hab itat

Recreati on

San itation

Fisher

Manager

Scientist

PC2

= 21

.3%

PC1 = 32.8%

Fig. 2. Principle component analysis showing the variation in stakeholder groupsbased on ecosystem service values. Fishery (provisioning service); education,

recreation, culture, bequest (cultural services); coastal protection, sanitation

(regulating services); habitat (supporting service).


G Model


out the important relationships that exist between all ecosystemservices.

For each stakeholder group, we produced a correlation matrixbased on a Pearsons correlation analysis looking at similarities anddissimilarities in the way ecosystem services were prioritized. Apositive correlation between service A and B, suggests that theestimates assigned are more similar to each other than by chancealone (Legendre and Legendre, 1998); individuals within astakeholder group value these services in the same wayrepresenting a synergy between a pair of ecosystem services(Fig. 1a) (i.e. both services are high, or both services are low,relative to the range of values each service receives). A negativecorrelation between the values assigned to service A and B,suggests the estimates assigned are less similar to each other thanby chance alone (Legendre and Legendre, 1998); individuals withina stakeholder group value these services differently and a trade-offexists (Fig. 1b) (i.e. when one service is high the other service islow, relative to the range of values each service receives).

2.5.3. Mapping synergies and trade-offs

We used network analysis (NA) to visualize the synergies andtrade-offs in each stakeholder group and to determine key aspectsof their interrelatedness. NA is the study of groups as networks ofnodes connected by ties and provides methods to quantify therelations between nodes and the resultant network structure(Borgatti et al., 2009). Although network analysis is frequentlyused to study relationships between individuals, or groups ofindividuals (e.g. social network analysis see Ernston et al., 2009;Wasserman and Faust, 1994), in the 1990s NA radiated into a greatnumber of fields including physics and biology (e.g. Bascompte,2009), and continues to present new opportunities for interdisci-plinary research (e.g. Bodin and Tengo, 2012). Consequently, thenodes of a network can represent organizations (Cohen et al.,2012), occupations (Cinner and Bodin, 2010), disciplines (Hickset al., 2010), or species (Bascompte, 2009). In the same way, the tiesbetween the nodes can represent similarities (e.g. attribute),relations (e.g. kinship), interactions, or flows; and each combina-tion of ties and nodes creates different outcomes for the network(Borgatti et al., 2009). We use NA to examine the relationshipsbetween ecosystem service priorities within each stakeholdergroup. Therefore, for each stakeholder group, we have eight nodes,each representing a different ecosystem service. Our nodes areconnected by ties that represent a synergy, or trade-off between apair of ecosystem services, established from Pearsons correlationanalysis.

We dichotomized (converted to binary data) each stakeholdergroups Pearsons correlation matrix in UCINET version 6.365(Borgatti et al., 2002). The cutoff points were selected to includethe coefficients representing 40% of the strongest negative, and


40% of the strongest positive correlations for each stakeholdergroup. Because the sample size of fishers, managers, and scientistsdiffered, we decided to use a cut off point that represents aconsistent proportion of correlations rather than a significancelevel which would be biased by sample size. The network analysistherefore gives an indication of the tendencies towards a trade-offor synergy within groups rather than an indication of the strengthor number of connections across groups. It is worth noting that themanager network in particular is composed of a fairly small samplesize, so although the positive and negative trends should be fairlyrobust, they will inherently have greater uncertainty associatedwith them. We produced two matrices for each stakeholder, onerepresenting trade-offs (negative) and one representing synergies(positive). For each stakeholder group, we combined the positiveand negative matrices in NetDraw (Borgatti, 2002) to create anetwork representing stakeholders synergies and tradeoffs inecosystem service priorities. For each network, we calculated twotypes of centrality measures, degree and betweenness. Degreecentrality is a measure of the number of connections between aservice and all other services. Betweenness centrality is a measureof the number of shortest paths that run through a service,representing the importance of a service for connecting otherservices that would otherwise be unconnected (Wasserman andFaust, 1994).

3. Results

3.1. Differences in ecosystem service prioritization, across stakeholder

groups

The first axis of the PCA (32.8% variation) distinguishes betweenfishers priorities and managers and scientists priorities, withfishers tending to prioritize fishery, education and habitat morethan managers or scientists, who tended to prioritize coastalprotection and culture more than fishers (Fig. 2). The second axis ofthe PCA (21.3% variation) revealed a weaker distinction betweenmanagers and scientists priorities (Fig. 2). These differencesacross stakeholders in the priorities assigned to specific ecosystemservices were confirmed with a MANOVA test (Wilks value = 0.01,F8,39 = 10.2, P < 0.0001) (Table 2). Post hoc pairwise tests showedthat fishers assigned significantly higher priorities to fishery thanmanagers or scientists and significantly higher priorities to



Table 3Ecosystem service priorities based on average weighting assigned by each

stakeholder group. Estimates are normalized and standard error of the means

shown.

Ecosystem service Fisher* sem Manager sem Scientist* sem

Fishery 0.27 0.02 0.13 0.02 0.16 0.01

Culture 0.04 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.09 0.01

Education 0.19 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.12 0.01

Recreation 0.07 0.01 0.11 0.03 0.11 0.01

Bequest 0.09 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.12 0.01

C. protection 0.08 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.14 0.01

Sanitation 0.08 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.01

Habitat 0.19 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.15 0.01

* Significant difference across ecosystem services at 0.001 significance.

Table 2Differences in ecosystem service priorities across stakeholder group based on a

MANOVA followed by Tukeys HSD post hoc analysis. F = fishers, M = managers,

S = scientists.

Ecosystem service P F Tukeys HSD post hoc*

Fishery 0.000 18.446,2 F > M, S

Culture 0.000 17.846,2 F < S < M

Education 0.002 7.346,2 F > S

Recreation 0.010 5.146,2 F < S

Bequest 0.000 9.346,2 F < M, S

Coastal protection 0.000 38.346,2 F < M < S

Sanitation 0.382 1.046,2 NS

Habitat 0.042 3.446,2 NS

* Significant at

Bequest

C. protection

Culture

Education

Fishery

Habitat

Recreation

Sanitation

Bequest

C. prot ection

Culture

Education

Fishery

Habitat

Recreation

Sanitation

Bequest

C. protection

Culture

Education

Fishery

Habitat

Recreation

Sanitat ion

A)

B)

C)

Fig. 4. Network diagrams showing interactions among ecosystem servicesprioritized by (a) fishers, (b) managers (c) scientists, based on Pearsons

correlation analysis. Red lines indicate tradeoffs and black lines indicate

synergies between services. Size of the node reflects average value assigned to

each ecosystem service. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure

legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)

Table 4Centrality measures based on the interactions between each stakeholder groups

ecosystem service priorities. Degree and betweenness give an indication of the

influence each ecosystem service has on the whole network of ecosystem services.

Degree is the number of other services a service is connected to through a trade-off

or synergy tie. Betweenness is the extent to which a service connects two services

that would otherwise be unconnected, or brings two services closer through a

connection.

Ecosystem service Degree Betweenness

Fisher Manager Scientist Fisher Manager Scientist

Bequest 3.0 1.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0

C. protection 2.0 4.0 3.0 0.0 4.0 0.0

Culture 2.0 1.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 5.3

Education 2.0 4.0 1.0 1.3 0.7 0.0

Fishery 4.0 1.0 1.0 13.0 0.0 0.0

Habitat 3.0 3.0 5.0 1.3 0.0 5.3

Recreation 3.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 0.7 0.3

Sanitation 3.0 4.0 3.0 10.0 0.7 0.0


G Model


managers network, two synergy clusters were evident: recrea-tionhabitat; and sanitationcoastal protectioneducation, withfive trade-off ties between these two synergy clusters. Thesanitationcoastal protectioneducation cluster also traded-offwith culture, and fishery traded-off with bequest (Fig. 4b). In theScientists network, two synergy clusters were evident: recrea-tionhabitatcoastal protection; and sanitationculture. Therewere five trade-off ties between these two synergy clusters. Inaddition, culture traded-off with fishery, and habitat traded-offwith education (Fig. 4c). Bequest was unconnected in this network.

3.2. Ecosystem service influence

In network analysis, degree and betweeness centrality mea-sures give an indication of the influence a node has on the network.Degree measures the number of other nodes (in our case services)


each individual node (service) connects to. Betweeness differsslightly by measuring the number of connections a node (service)makes between parts of the network that are otherwiseunconnected.

Fishery was connected to the largest number of other services inthe fishers network (habitat, sanitation, education, and bequestgiving it a degree measure of 4). Fishery also connected the largestnumber of otherwise unconnected parts of the network (between-ness: 13) (Table 4). Coastal protection, education, recreation, andsanitation were connected to the largest number of other servicesin the managers network (all connected to 4 other services, givingthem a degree measure of 4). Coastal protection also connected thelargest number of otherwise unconnected parts of the network(betweenness 4) (Table 4). Culture and habitat were connected tothe largest number of other services in the scientists network(culture was connected to recreation, habitat, coastal protection,fishery, and sanitation, giving it a degree measure of 5; and habitatwas connected to culture, education, sanitation, coastal protection,and recreation also giving it a degree measure of 5). Culture andhabitat were also connected the largest number of otherwiseunconnected parts of the network (betweenness 5.3 and 5.3)(Table 4). These metrics suggest fishery is the most influentialservice in the fishers network, coastal protection the mostinfluential service in the managers network, and culture the mostinfluential services in the scientists network.

4. Discussion

Ecosystem service values depend on human preferences anddemand, and not just the merits of the biological system, such asdiversity and productivity (Vira and Adams, 2009). Therefore,using a multi-country case study of coral reef fisheries, we set outto: understand fishers, managers, and scientists ecosystemservice preferences; measure their priorities; map the interactionsassociated with their priorities, and; explore how this informationcan be used when stakeholder groups come together to discuss themanagement of complex ecosystems. There were similarities anddifferences in fishers, managers, and scientists ecosystem servicepriorities. Fishers were more likely to prioritize fishery values,managers were more likely to prioritize cultural values andscientists were more likely to prioritize coastal protection values.Overall, fishers priorities were most distinct from managers andscientists. However, when we examined the interactions associat-ed with each stakeholder groups priorities, areas of agreement andconflict emerged reflecting different trade-offs and synergies instakeholders ecosystem service priorities. Interestingly, thesynergies and trade-offs within the group of managers reflected




G Model


aspects of the patterns seen in both groups of fishers and scientists.Because the interactions that emerge between peoples prioritiesreflect implicit rather than explicit preferences it can bechallenging to incorporate these interactions into decision-making(McRae and Whittington, 1997). However, the synergies and trade-offs that emerge between stakeholders ecosystem service priori-ties may be the result of differences in their social characteristics,experiences, and conceptual understandings of the system; allattributes that if understood can be navigated.

Although different groups of people derive benefits fromdifferent ecosystem services (Daw et al., 2011), we foundremarkable similarities in the ecosystem services that fishers,managers, and scientists considered a priority. All three groupsassigned their highest priorities to fishery, education, and habitat.Differences emerged between stakeholder groups in the weightsassigned to each service. Fishers were most distinct in theirtendency to identify clear priorities, where managers andscientists tended to distribute their counters more evenly. Areasof agreement provide an opportunity for fishers, managers, andscientists to come together to discuss the management of thesesystems; a crucial component for successful resource management(Sutton and Tobin, 2009). Indeed, stakeholders are more easilyengaged when data on their attitudes and preferences are collectedearly on in the management process (Day et al., 2007).Communication between stakeholders is important and servesto build an understanding of stakeholders different aspirations formanagement that can help in translating abstract issues such asgoals for conservation, and ultimately create a space for solutions(Larson et al., 2013). For example, in 2004, the Great Barrier ReefMarine Park Authority in Australia implemented a new andambitious conservation plan but faced a widespread belief that,before and up to 4 years after, the majority of stakeholders were inopposition to and dissatisfied by the plan. After an extensiveconsultative process the majority of recreational fishers werefound to in fact support the plan and found it consistent with theirvalues; stakeholders attributed this largely to their involvement inthe consultation process (Sutton and Tobin, 2009). Despite theapparent similarities we found in stakeholders priorities, thedifferences that exist are likely to escalate unless explored. Thus,when stakeholders values appear to conflict, it is particularlyconstructive to engage the relevant stakeholders in a process thatexplores their priorities. This process can build a respect foralternative views, a trust between those involved, and highlightareas of agreement. For example, although the relative weightsassigned to managers and scientists priorities differ, when they areput in the context of the weights assigned to fishers priorities theyappeared very similar.

Although identifying and engaging stakeholders in a consul-tative process is important, the concept of stakeholder is oftencontroversial (Buchy and Race, 2001), and the identified groupsare rarely homogenous (Leach et al., 1999). Furthermore, thereare often power relationships within the stakeholder group thatinfluences whose voice is heard and ultimately the outcome ofresource management (Buchy and Race, 2001). We thereforeexamined the extent to which each stakeholder groups prioritieswere in agreement, representing synergies between services, orin conflict, representing trade-offs between services. We founddistinct synergies and trade-offs in fishers, managers, andscientists patterns of ecosystem service priorities that were notevident from the stakeholder groups priorities alone. Forexample, all stakeholder groups were in agreement that fishery,education, and habitat services represented their highestpriorities, but this agreement across groups did not reflectagreement within groups. Instead, fishery traded off with habitatand education in the fishers network and habitat traded-off witheducation in the manager and scientist networks. The synergies


and trade-offs associated with ecosystem services are a result ofdifferent priorities within a stakeholder group and identifypotential conflicts or opportunities that may arise in a decision-making process. There is a danger that apparent similaritiesacross groups may mask conflicts within stakeholder groups thatif not addressed would ultimately impact how individualsbehave (Kennedy et al., 2009). For example, because fishery wasconsidered a priority across all stakeholder groups it would bereasonable to expect management focusing on yield maximiza-tion to receive support. This support may exist within the groupof scientists, where fishery trades-off with culture a serviceassigned a lower priority. However, there is likely to beconflicting support within the group of managers and fisherswhere fishery trades-off with services that are assigned highpriorities bequest for managers and habitat and education forfishers. Investing in a dominant service has the potential tocreate conflicts and even marginalize certain individuals. Yet,decision-makers looking for consensus tend to focus on thestrongest values, neglecting potentially complex interactionsthat may lead to sub-optimal outcomes (Platt, 1973; Ostrom,1990).

Managers are likely to be better equipped to address conflicts ortake advantage of opportunities that arise in environmentaldecision-making if they can understand what drives the differ-ences in stakeholders priorities. It is generally accepted thatpeoples preferences are influenced by their characteristics,experiences, learning, and culture (Kaplan, 1985). Consequently,age, gender, and income, have been used to explain differences inenvironmental preferences (Nord et al., 1998; Howell and Laska,1992). However, preferences result from conscious and subcon-scious motivations (Schwartz, 1996; Bardi and Schwartz, 2003),which presents a challenge for understanding how people come tohave the preferences they do (Howell and Laska, 1992; Farber et al.,2002). It is likely that the ability to access and make use of theenvironment will influence peoples ecosystem services prefer-ences (Leach et al., 1999). Ribot and Peluso (2003) developed atheory of access that identified nine categories that shape theprocesses and relations that enable people to benefit from theirenvironment. These mechanisms include for example, peoplesknowledge and skills, their social relations and identity, and theaccess they have to capital and markets. In doing so, Ribot andPeluso (2003) provide a useful framework through whichmanagers can understand and explore differences in stakeholderspreferences.

Subconscious influences on peoples preferences may bereflected in the way they perceive nature. For example, peopleperceive nature at different scales of time (Leopold and Schwartz,1989), which influences the extent to which they prefer somethingtoday over something at a later time or their time preferences.People who perceive the benefits of nature on shorter time scalesare likely to prioritize immediate benefits over greater futurebenefits (Gollier, 2002). The trade-off between fishery and habitatin the fishers network suggests different fishers may havedifferent time preferences. Some fishers prioritize an immediatereturn from increases in their fishery yield, whereas others see thebenefit of investing in the habitat for an improvement in thefishery in the long term. Strong property rights are likely to lowerthis trade-off because people develop a confidence in the futurebenefits. Managers may therefore be wise to invest in suitableproperty rights along side existing management. Similarly, whenpeople perceive two ecosystem services as mutually exclusive theyare unlikely to prioritize both, which creates a trade-off relation-ship (Yoe, 2011). For example, a synergy tie between recreationand habitat existed in all stakeholder networks, suggesting theseservices are not perceived as mutually exclusive. Indeed, reef basedtourism is widespread in the region and closely associated with




G Model


healthy reefs for diving and snorkelling. However, in the fishersnetwork, recreation traded-off with education and bequest,suggesting these services are likely to be perceived as mutuallyexclusive. This may be because tourism is seen to pose a threat tolocal cultures by presenting an appealing and lucrative alternativeto learning about and maintaining local practices, knowledge, andtraditions (Brown et al., 1997). This appeal may lead to the loss oflocal cultures, particularly in younger generations (Hill et al.,2011). When differences in stakeholders preferences are the resultof differences in perceptions or experience rather than needs andtraits, there is some potential for values to change (Bardi andGoodwin, 2011). Exploring the factors that influence peoplespreferences, including access and perceptions, can help managersdecide on cues to introduce that could build a commonunderstanding, challenge existing values, and begin a process ofvalue change.

Communication is important when trying to coordinate action(Ostmann, 1998; Ostrom, 1990), and is easier when people think insimilar ways (Verweij et al., 2006). Fishers and scientists weremost distinct from one another, suggesting that they would find itdifficult to reach agreement on how to prioritize ecosystemservices. Although the smaller sample size of managers createsgreater uncertainty in the patterns for this group, managerspriorities, trade-offs, and synergies overlapped the most with bothfishers and scientists. This suggests managers may be well placedto anticipate and understand some of the opportunities andconflicts that fishers and scientists associate with their ecosystemservice priorities. Indeed, the nature of managers jobs means theyhave to mediate between fishers and scientists regularly. Althoughscientific research often informs management and conservation, itis managers who in the end must balance the research findingswith local issues and priorities (Fazey et al., 2006). The ability ofmanagers to balance the advice coming from scientists with theirunderstanding of different stakeholders priorities is thereforelikely to make them good negotiators around the issues ofpreference and associated decisions.

5. Conclusions

To enable effective and equitable resource management, policymakers should engage with the complexities associated withstakeholders preferences and priorities. We found that stake-holders priorities were often associated with implicit synergiesand trade-offs, potentially creating elusive opportunities andunexpected conflicts (McShane et al., 2011). Effective andequitable resource management needs stewards that are capableof navigating these conflicts and capitalizing on opportunities toreach consensus. We show that managers may be capable ofplaying such a role. This role could be furthered by introducingcues, through discussions, that address and challenge theunderlying motivations behind the observed synergies andtrade-offs in ecosystem service priorities (Bardi and Goodwin,2011). A greater understanding of these motivations will help builda common understanding of ecosystem service priorities and helpreduce conflicts over management decisions.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the Western Indian Ocean MarineScience Association (WIOMSA) through the Marine Science forManagement scheme (MASMA). Many thanks to the scientists,managers, and fishers who gave up some of their time andknowledge for this work. Earlier drafts of the manuscript wereimproved through the comments of Steve Sutton, Tim McClanahan,and Philippa Cohen and through discussions with Bob Pressey.


References

Adams, W.M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Jon, H., Roe, D.,Vira, B., Wolmer, W., 2004. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication ofpoverty. Science 306, 11461149.

Adams, W.N., Hutton, J., 2007. People, parks and poverty: political ecology andbiodiversity conservation. Conserv. Soc. 5, 147183.

Allison, E.H., Perry, A.L., Badjeck, M.C., Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Conway, D., Halls, A.S.,Pilling, G.M., Reynolds, J.D., Andrew, N.L., Dulvy, N.K., 2009. Vulnerability ofnational economies to the impacts of climate change on fisheries. Fish Fish. 10,173196.

Allison, H., Hobbs, R., 2010. Natural resource management at four social scales:psychological type matters. Environ. Manage. 45, 590602.

Atkinson, G., Bateman, I., Mourato, S., 2012. Recent advances in the valuation ofecosystem services and biodiversity. Oxford Rev. Econ. Pol. 28, 2247.

Ban, N.C., Mills, M., Tam, J., Hicks, C.C., Klain, S., Stoeckl, N., Bottrill, M.C., Levine, J.,Pressey, R.L., Satterfield, T., Chan, K.M.A., 2013. Towards a socialecologicalapproach for conservation planning: embedding social considerations. Front.Ecol. Environ. 11, 194202.

Bardi, A., Goodwin, R., 2011. The dual route to value change: individual processesand cultural moderators. J. Cross-cult. Psychol. 42, 271289.

Bardi, A., Schwartz, S.S., 2003. Values and behavior: strength and structure ofrelations. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29, 12071222.

Bascompte, J., 2009. Disentangling the web of life. Science 325, 416419.Bennett, E.M., Peterson, G.D., Gordon, L.J., 2009. Understanding relationships among

multiple ecosystem services. Ecol. Lett. 12, 13941404.Berkes, F., 2007. Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proc. Natl.

Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104, 1518815193.Bodin, O., Tengo, M., 2012. Disentangling intangible socialecological systems.

Global Environ. Change 22, 430439.Borgatti, S.P., 2002. NetDraw: Graph Visualization Software. Analytic Technologies,

Harvard.Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., Freeman, L.C., 2002. Ucinet for Windows: Software for

Social Network Analysis. Analytic Technologies, Harvard, MA.Borgatti, S.P., Mehra, A., Brass, D.J., Labianca, G., 2009. Network analysis in the social

sciences. Science 323, 892895.Boyd, J., Banzhaf, S., 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized

environmental accounting units. Ecol. Econ. 63, 616626.Brown, K., Turner, R.K., Hameed, H., Bateman, I.A.N., 1997. Environmental carrying

capacity and tourism development in the Maldives and Nepal. Environ. Conserv.24, 316325.

Brown, K., Adger, W.N., Tompkins, E., Bacon, P., Shim, D., Young, K., 2002. Trade-offanalysis for marine protected area management. Ecol. Econ. 37, 417434.

Buchy, M., Race, D., 2001. The twists and turns of community participation innatural resource management in Australia: what is missing? J. Environ. Plann.Manage. 44, 293308.

Chan, K.M.A., Goldstein, J., Satterfield, T., Hannahs, N., Kikiloi, K., Naidoo, R.,Vadeboncoeur, N., Woodside, U., 2011. Cultural services and non-use values.In: Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T.H., Daily, G.C., Polasky, S. (Eds.), NaturalCapital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford.

Chan, K.M., Shaw, M.R., Cameron, D.R., Underwood, E.C., Daily, G.C., 2006. Conser-vation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol. 4 (11) e379.

Cinner, J.E., Folke, C., Daw, T., Hicks, C.C., 2011. Responding to change: usingscenarios to understand how socio-economic factors may influence amplifyingor dampening exploitation feedbacks among Tanzanian fishers. Global Environ.Change 21, 712.

Cinner, J.E., Bodin, O., 2010. Livelihood diversification in tropical coastal communi-ties: a network based approach to analyzing livelihood landscapes. PLoS ONE 5,e11999.

Cohen, P.J., Evans, L.E., Mills, M., 2012. Social networks supporting governance ofcoastal ecosystems in Solomon Islands. Conserv. Lett. 5, 376386.

Costanza, R., 2000. Social goals and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosystems3, 410.

Costanza, R., dArge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,Naeem, S., ONeill, R., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997. Thevalue of the Worlds ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253260.

Daw, T., Brown, K., Rosendio, S., Pomeroy, R., 2011. Applying the ecosystem servicesconcept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being.Environ. Conserv. 38, 370379.

Day, J., Tanzer, J., Chadwick, V., Fernandes, L., Jago, B., 2007. The relative roles ofscience, public participation and political support in rezoning the Great BarrierReef. In: Day, J., Senior, J., Monk, S., Neal, N. (Eds.), First International MarineProtected Areas Congress Conference Proceedings, IMPAC1 2005, Geelong,Australia, pp. 559661.

de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challengesintegrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning,management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7, 260272.

Ernston, H., Sorlin, S., Elmqvist, T., 2009. Social movements and ecosystem services the role of social network structure in protecting and managing urban greenareas in Stockholm. Ecol. Soc. 13 (2) 39., http://www. ecologyandsociety. org/vol13/iss2/art39/.

Fazey, I., Fazey, J.A., Salisbury, J.G., Lindenmayer, D.B., Dovers, S., 2006. The natureand role of experiential knowledge for environmental conservation. Environ.Conserv. 33, 110.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0145http://www.%20ecologyandsociety.%20org/vol13/iss2/art39/http://www.%20ecologyandsociety.%20org/vol13/iss2/art39/http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0155http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028


G Model


Farber, S.C., Costanza, R., Wilson, M.A., 2002. Economic and ecological concepts forvaluing ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 41, 375392.

Field, A.P., 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: (And Sex and Drugs and Rock nRoll), 3rd ed. Sage Publications, London.

Fulton, E.A., Smith, A.D.M., Smith, D.C., van Putten, I.E., 2011. Human behaviour: thekey source of uncertainty in fisheries management. Fish Fish. 12, 217.

Gollier, C., 2002. Time horizon and the discount rate. J. Econ. Theory 107, 463473.Graham, N.A.J., McClanahan, T.R., MacNeil, M.A., Wilson, S.K., Polunin, N.V.C.,

Jennings, S., Chabanet, P., Clark, S., Spalding, M.D., Letourneur, Y., Bigot, L.,Galzin, R., Ohman, M.C., Garpe, K.C., Edwards, A.J., Sheppard, C.R.C., 2008.Climate warming, marine protected areas and the ocean-scale integrity of coralreef ecosystems. PLoS ONE 3, e3039.

Henry, G.T., 1990. Practical Sampling. Sage Publications, London.Hicks, C.C., McClanahan, T.R., Cinner, J.E., Hills, J.M., 2009. Trade-offs in values

assigned to ecological goods and services associated with different coral reefmanagement strategies. Ecol. Soc. 14 (10) , http://www. ecologyandsociety. org/vol14/iss1/art10/.

Hicks, C.C., Fitzsimmons, C., Polunin, N.V.C., 2010. Interdisciplinarity in the envi-ronmental sciences: barriers and frontiers. Environ. Conserv. 37, 464477.

Hill, R., Cullen-Unsworth, L.C., Talbot, L.D., McIntyre-Tamwoy, S., 2011. EmpoweringIndigenous peoples biocultural diversity through World Heritage culturallandscapes: a case study from the Australian humid tropical forests. Int. J.Herit. Stud. 17, 571591.

Howell, S.E., Laska, L.B., 1992. The changing face of the environmental coalition: aresearch note. Environ. Behav. 24, 134144.

Kaplan, R., 1985. The analysis of perception via preference: a strategy for studyinghow the environment is experienced. Landscape Plann. 12, 161176.

Kennedy, E.H., Beckley, T.M., McFarlane, B.L., Nadeau, S., 2009. Why we dont walkthe talk: understanding the environmental values/behaviour gap in Canada.Hum. Ecol. Rev. 16, 151160.

Krutilla, J., 1967. Conservation reconsidered. Am. Econ. Rev. 57, 777786.Kumar, P. (Ed.), 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological

and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London.Larson, S., 2009. Communicating stakeholder priorities in the Great Barrier Reef

Region. Soc. Nat. Resour. 22, 650664.Larson, S., De Freitas, D.M., Hicks, C.C., 2013. Sense of place as a determinant of

peoples attitudes towards the environment: implications for natural resourcesmanagement and planning in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. J. Environ.Manage. 117, 226234.

Leach, M., Mearns, R., Scoones, I., 1999. Environmental entitlements: dynamics andinstitutions in community-based natural resource management. World Dev. 27,225247.

Legendre, P., Legendre, L., 1998. Numerical Ecology, 2nd ed. Elsevier Science,Amsterdam.

Leopold, A., Schwartz, C.W., 1989. A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here andThere. Oxford University Press, New York.

Martin-Lopez, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Garcia-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casaado-Arzuaga, I., Garcia Del Amo, D., Gomez-Baggethum, E., Oteros-Rozas, E., Pala-


cios-Agundez, I., Willaarts, B., Gonzalez, J.A., Santos-Martin, F., Onaindia, M.,Lopez-Santiago, C., Montes, C., 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundlesthrough social preferences. PLoS ONE 7 (6) e38970, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970.

McRae, D., Whittington, D., 1997. Expert Advice for Policy Choice: Analysis andDiscourse. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp. 430.

McShane, T.O., Hirsch, P.D., Trung, T.C., Songorwa, A.N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B.,Mutekanga, D., Thang, H.V., Dammert, J.L., Pulgar-Vidal, M., Welch-Devine, M.,Brosius, J.P., Coppolillo, P., OConnor, S., 2011. Hard choices: making trade-offsbetween biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol. Conserv. 144,966972.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: OurHuman Planet: Summary for Decision-makers. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Montgomery, C.A., 2002. Ranking the benefits of biodiversity: an exploration ofrelative values. J. Environ. Manage. 65, 313326.

Nord, M., Luloff, A.E., Bridger, J.C., 1998. The association of forest recreation withenvironmentalism. Environ. Behav. 30, 235246.

Ostmann, A., 1998. External control may destroy the commons. Ration Soc. 10, 103122.

Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions forCollective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Platt, J., 1973. Social traps. Am. Psychol. 28, 642651.Pressey, R.L., Cabeza, M., Watts, M.E., Cowling, R.M., Wilson, K.A., 2007. Conserva-

tion planning in a changing world. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 583592.Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D., Bennett, E.M., 2010. Ecosystem service bundles

for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107,52425247.

Ribot, J.C., Peluso, N.L., 2003. A theory of access. Rural Soc. 68, 153181.Schwartz, S.H., 1996. Value priorities and behavior: applying a theory of integrated

value systems. In: Seligman, C., Olson, J.M., Zanna, M.P. (Eds.), The Psychologyof Values: The Ontario Symposium 8, 124. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Sutton, S.G., Tobin, R.C., 2009. Recreational fishers attitudes towards the2004 rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Environ. Conserv. 36(245) e252.

Tetlock, P.E., 1986. A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. J. Pers. Soc.Psychol. 50, 819827.

Turner, R.K., Morse-Jones, S., Fisher, B., 2010. Ecosystem valuation. Ann. N. Y. Acad.Sci. 1185, 79101.

Verweij, M., Douglas, M., Ellis, R., Engel, C., Hendriks, F., Lohmann, S., Ney, S., Rayner,S., Thompson, M., 2006. Clumsy solutions for a complex world: the case ofclimate change. Public Admin. 84, 817843.

Vira, B., Adams, W.M., 2009. Ecosystem services and conservation strategy: bewarethe silver bullet. Conserv. Lett. 2, 158162.

Wasserman, S., Faust, K., 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Yoe, C.E., 2011. Principles of Risk Analysis: Decision Making Under Uncertainty. CRCPress, Boca Raton.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0185http://www.%20ecologyandsociety.%20org/vol14/iss1/art10/http://www.%20ecologyandsociety.%20org/vol14/iss1/art10/http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0250http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0260http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0260http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0280http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0280http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0285http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0285http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0290http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0290http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0295http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0300http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0300http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0305http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0305http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0305http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0310http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0320http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0320http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0320http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0325http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0325http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0330http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0330http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0335http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0335http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0340http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0340http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0345http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0345http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0350http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0959-3780(13)00134-9/sbref0350http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028

Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value coral reef ecosystem servicesIntroductionMethodsSamplingEcosystem service definitionsExpert elicitationStakeholder elicitation

Ecosystem service prioritizationDifferences in ecosystem service prioritization, across stakeholder groupsAnalysis

Differences in ecosystem service prioritization, within stakeholder groupsAnalysisSynergies and trade-offsMapping synergies and trade-offs

ResultsDifferences in ecosystem service prioritization, across stakeholder groupsDifferences in ecosystem service prioritization, within stakeholder groupSynergies and tradeoffs

Ecosystem service influence

DiscussionConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences

global environmental change - center for ocean … · diverse and often competing values and...

Documents