sh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Testing the ecosystem service cascade framework and QUICKScan software tool in the context of land use planning in Glenlivet Estate Scotland
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bush Estate, UK.
Earth Informatics, Alterra, Wageningen-UR, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6074-4616
Earth Informatics, Alterra, Wageningen-UR, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6553-3786
Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science. Laboratory of Geo-Information Science and Remote Sensing, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, ISSN 2151-3732, E-ISSN 2151-3740, Vol. 13, no 2, 12-25 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 13, no 2, 12-25 p.
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Research subject
Environmental Studies
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-31888DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2016.1268648OAI: oai:DiVA.org:sh-31888DiVA: diva2:1069295
Projects
Environmental governance in context: a study of process dynamics, contextual features and outcomes in four empirical cases
Funder
The Foundation for Baltic and East European Studies, 192/3.1.1/2013
Available from: 2017-01-27 Created: 2017-01-27 Last updated: 2017-03-03Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Verweij, PeterCarmen, EstherRodela, RominaAndrews, Christopher
By organisation
Environmental Science
In the same journal
International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
Environmental Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 21 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf