Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Conceptualizing Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Ecosystem Services: A Participatory Systems Mapping Approach Cover

Conceptualizing Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Ecosystem Services: A Participatory Systems Mapping Approach

Environmental and Climate Technologies
Volume 16 (2015): Issue 1 (December 2015)
By: Rita Lopes and  Nuno Videira  
Open Access
|Feb 2016

References

  1. [1] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being, Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 155.
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. [2] TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited by Pushpam Kumar. Earthscan, London and Washington, 2010.
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. [3] Gómez-Baggethun E., de Groot R., Lomas L. P., Montes C. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payments schemes. Ecological Economics 2010:69(6):1209–1218. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007
    Search in Google Scholar
  4. [4] EU FP7 OpenNESS Project Deliverable 4.1., Gómez-Baggethun E., Martín-López B., Barton D., Braat L., Saarikoski H., Kelemen E., García-Llorente M., van den Bergh J., Arias P., Berry P., L., Potschin M., Keene H., Dunford R., Schröter-Schlaack C., Harrison P. State-of-the-art report on integrated valuation of ecosystem services. European Commission FP7, 2014.
    Search in Google Scholar
  5. [5] Lopes R., Videira N. Valuing marine and coastal ecosystem services: An integrated participatory framework. Ocean & Coastal Management 2013:84:153–162. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.08.001
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. [6] Martín-López B., Gómez-Baggethun E., García-Llorente M. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecological Indicators 2014:37:220–228. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. [7] Hisschemöller M., Hoppe R. Coping with Intractable Controversies: The Case for Problem Structuring in Policy Design and Analysis. In: Knowledge, Power, and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick and London, 2001, pp. 47–72.
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. [8] Funtowicz S., Ravetz J. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 1993:25:739–755. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. [9] Antunes P., Stave K., Videira N., Santos R. Using participatory system dynamics in environmental and sustainability dialogues. In: Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Environmental Studies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, 2015, pp. 346–374. doi:10.4337/9781783474646
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. [10] Videira N., Antunes P., Santos R. Scoping river basin management issues with participatory modeling: the Baixo Guadiana experience. Ecological Economics 2009:68:965–978. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.11.008
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. [11] Sedlacko M., Martinuzzi A., Ropke I., Videira N., Antunes P. Participatory systems mapping for sustainable consumption: Discussion of a method promoting systemic insights. Ecological Economics 2014:106:33–43. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.002
    Search in Google Scholar
  12. [12] Videira N., Lopes R., Antunes P., Santos R., Casanova J. Mapping maritime sustainability issues with stakeholders groups. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 2012:29:596–619. doi:10.1002/sres.2141
    Search in Google Scholar
  13. [13] Videira N., Schneider F., Sekulova F., Kallis G. Improving understanding on degrowth pathways: An exploratory study study using collaborative causal models. Futures 2014:55:58–77. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2013.11.001
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. [14] Forrester J. W. World Dynamics. Productivity Press, Portland, 1971.
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. [15] Lane D. C. The Emergence and Use of Diagramming in System Dynamics: A Critical Account. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 2008:25:3–23. doi:10.1002/sres.826
    Search in Google Scholar
  16. [16] Sterman J. D. Business Dynamics. Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Irwin McGraw-Hill: New York, 2010.
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. [17] Polasky S., Carpenter S., Folke C., et al. Decision-making under great uncertainty: environmental management in an era of global change. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2011:26(8):398–404. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.04.007
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. [18] Lal R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 2004:304(5677):1623–1627. doi:10.1126/science.1097396
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. [19] Lopes R., Videira N. Collaborative scoping of ecosystem services in marine and coastal protected areas: The case of Arrábida Natural Park. Presentation at European Society for Ecological Economics, University of Leeds, UK, 30 June – 3 July, 2015.
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. [20] Vennix J. Group Model-Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, 1996.
    Search in Google Scholar
  21. [21] Hovmand P. S., Rouwette E. A. J. A., Andersen D. F., Richardson G. P., Kraus A. Scriptapedia 4.0.6, 2013.
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. [22] Fumega P. R. Arrábida and its natural hazards. Master’s Thesis, Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Coimbra, 2014.
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. [23] EEA. Coring Land Cover 2006. European Environment Agency, 2006.
    Search in Google Scholar
  24. [24] EC. European Union Transation Log, Verified Emissions. European Commission, Climate Action. [Online]. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ets/
    Search in Google Scholar
  25. [25] The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings. UNEP-WCMC, LWEC, UK, 2014.
    Search in Google Scholar
  26. [26] APA. National emissions Inventory – Common report format. Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente, 2015.
    Search in Google Scholar
  27. [27] Otto P., Struben J. The “standard method”: Scripts for a group model building intervention. Proceedings of the 21st International System Dynamics Conference, New York, July 2003.
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. [28] Schröter D., et al. Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science 2005:310:1333–1337. doi:10.1126/science.1115233
    Search in Google Scholar
  29. [29] Maani K. Decision-making for climate change adaptation: a systems thinking approach. National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast, 2013, pp. 66.
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. [30] Seixas J., Fortes P., Dias L., Dinis R., Alves B., Gouveia J. P. Simões S. Low Carbon RoadMap: Portugal 2050 – Energy and Waste Greenhouse emissions. Study for the Executive Committee of the Climate Change Commission. E-value, SA and FCT-UNL of New University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, 2012.
    Search in Google Scholar
  31. [31] Gouveia J. P., Seixas J., Labriet M., Fortes P., Gargiulo M. Prospective Scenarios for the Adoption of CCS Technologies in the Iberian Peninsula. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 2013:2:31–41. doi:10.1016/j.seta.2013.02.002
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. [32] Seixas J., Fortes P., Dias L., Carneiro J., Mesquita P., Boavida D, Aguiar R., Marques F., Fernandes V., Helseth J., Ciesielska J., Whiriskey K. CO2 Capture and storage in Portugal: a bridge to a low carbon economy. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Lisboa, 2015.
    Search in Google Scholar
  33. [33] Lehmann J., Joseph S. Biochar for Environmental Management: An Introduction. [Online]. Available: http://www.biochar-international.org/images/Biochar_book_Chapter_1.pdf.
    Search in Google Scholar
  34. [34] ICN. Management Plan of Arrábida Natural Park. Instituto de Conservação da Natureza, February 2003.
    Search in Google Scholar
  35. [35] Layke C. Measuring Nature’s Benefits: A Preliminary Roadmap for Improving Ecosystem Service Indicators. WRI Working Paper. World Resources Institute, Washington DC [Online]. Available: http://www.wri.org/project/ecosystem-service-indicators
    Search in Google Scholar
  36. [36] Hernández-Morcillo M., Plieninger T., Bieling, C. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators 2013:29:434–444. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013
    Search in Google Scholar
  37. [37] Villamagna A. M., Mogollón B. Angermeier P. L. A multi-indicator framework for mapping cultural ecosystem services: The case of freshwater recreational fishing. Ecological Indicators 2014:45:255–265. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.001
    Search in Google Scholar
  38. [38] Vugteveen P., Rouwette E., Stouten H., van Katwijk M., Hanssen L. Developing socio-ecological system indicators using group model building. Ocean & Coastal Management 2015:109:29–39. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.02.011
    Search in Google Scholar
  39. [39] Van den Belt M. Mediated modeling: a collaborative approach for the development of shared understanding and evaluation of environmental policy scenarios. With case studies in the Fox River Basin, Wisconsin and the Ria Formosa, Portugal. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Maryland, 2000.
    Search in Google Scholar
  40. [40] Van den Belt M. Mediated Modeling: A System Dynamics Approach to Environmental Consensus Building, Island Press: Washington DC, 2004.
    Search in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/rtuect-2015-0011 | Journal eISSN: 2255-8837 | Journal ISSN: 1691-5208
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 36 - 53
Published on: Feb 12, 2016
Published by: Riga Technical University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Keywords:
Participatory systems mapping,
ecosystem services/climate regulation,
stakeholders’ perceptions,
causal loop diagrams
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Life sciences, other

© 2016 Rita Lopes, Nuno Videira, published by Riga Technical University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 16 (2015): Issue 1 (December 2015)Next article