|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 MAPPING SOCIAL VALUES OF ECO SYSTEM SERVICES IN S ARASOTA BAY FLORIDA: E DELPHI APPLICATION, TYPOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND GEO SPATIAL MODELING By ZACHARY DOUGLAS COLE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012
2 2012 Zachary Douglas Cole
3 To my beautiful wife, your support has never wavered. T o my loving family, without you I would not be here today. And to all my wonderful teacher s and mentors over the years, your inspiration has sustained me.
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. In particular my dissertation committee, study collaborators, project participants, and family have served a role in the successful completion of this research. First, I would like to recognize the support of my dissertation committee chair, mentor, and friend, Dr. St ephen Holland, for his help in seeing this to the end and always having confidence in my work. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Holly Donohoe, Dr. Brijesh Thapa, and Dr. Bob Swett, for their encouragement, assistance, and insight. This study would not have been possible without the collaboration established by Dr. Bob Swett at Florida Sea Grant and Dr. Alisa Coffin at US Geological Survey Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center. Dr. Coffin has been instrumental in her assistance and mentorship with supporting this project. I would also like to thank Jarrod Loerzel at the College of Charleston, for his committed assistance and partnership on the project. Without our teaming up, there is no way this project could have been completed. Without the involvement of willing participants this study would not have been possible. I wish to thank each of my study participants for their time and contribution to the project. The additional involvement of local managers, notably the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program, Manatee County and Sarasota County governments, and Florida Sea Grant, really drove broad involvement and interest in the project. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge my family for their constant support on this long journey. First, I ha ve to thank my wife, Brittany, for her unrelenting encouragement and love. Second, I owe a debt of gratitude to my family, especially my mom and dad,
5 Rhonda and Dave, for always believing in me and teaching me that I could do anything My brother, Shawn, thank you for balancing my mind and reminding me that life is indeed meant to be enjoyed And my grandparents, their unending pride and support for all the decisions I made along the way has been a blessing. Lastly, to my Aunt Cynthia, your inspiration started me on this path, thank you for being the person that you are and showing me long ago to question the status quo and challenge the world.
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 LIST OF ABBR EVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 13 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ 18 Research Objectives ................................ ................................ ............................... 19 Objective 1: Typology of social values of ecosystem services ......................... 22 Objective 2: Apply SolVES to a coastal ecosystem ................................ .......... 24 Objective 3: SolVES analysis and modeling ................................ ..................... 25 2 INTERNET BASED DELPHI RESEARCH: A CASE BASED TUTORIAL ............... 28 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 28 The Delphi Technique ................................ ................................ ............................. 30 An e Del phi Example ................................ ................................ .............................. 33 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 40 Convenience ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 41 Administration ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 41 Control ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 42 Technology ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 43 Recommendations for Avoiding Potential Pitfalls ................................ ............. 44 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 46 3 A SOCIAL VALUES TYPOLOGY FOR COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE COASTAL ZONE ................................ ............. 51 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 51 Social values of ecosystem services ................................ ................................ ....... 54 Study methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 58 Study Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 62 Typology: Social values of ecosystem services ................................ ................ 62 Relating coastal social values to past typologies ................................ .................... 64 Integrating social values of ecosystem services into coastal resource management: opportunities and barriers ................................ ............................. 67 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 69
7 4 SOCIAL VALUES OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICE S IN THE COASTAL ZONE: AN ADAPTATION AND EXTENSION OF sOLVES GIS MODELING ........................... 77 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 77 Ecosystem Management: Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning ............................. 79 Expanding value definitions ................................ ................................ .............. 80 Social values of ecosystem services in coastal and marine spatial pl anning ... 82 Stakeholder value mapping ................................ ................................ .................... 83 SolVES 2.0 Application in the Coastal Zone ................................ ........................... 84 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 85 Study Context ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 85 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ 87 Spatial Database Development ................................ ................................ ........ 89 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 93 Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 94 Spatial Clustering ................................ ................................ ............................. 94 Value Maps and Landscape Metrics ................................ ................................ 94 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 98 Case Study Lessons ................................ ................................ ........................ 98 Adapting Terrestrial SolVES to a Coastal Environment ................................ .. 100 Future Directions ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 101 Model Impr ovement ................................ ................................ ........................ 101 Manager Involvement ................................ ................................ ..................... 103 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 104 5 OUTCOMES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 112 Findings across Social Values and Spatial Modeling ................................ ............ 112 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 115 Theoretical Contributions ................................ ................................ ................ 115 Methodological Contributions ................................ ................................ ......... 120 Delphi methodologies ................................ ................................ .............. 121 Participatory mapping ................................ ................................ .............. 124 Substantive Contributions ................................ ................................ ............... 126 Future Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 133 e Delphi Met hodologies ................................ ................................ .................. 133 Understanding the social values of ecosystem services .......................... 134 e Delphi in outdoor recreation and social impact research ...................... 135 Developing and Extending Spatial Social Values Modeling ........................... 137 Value transfer modeling ................................ ................................ ........... 138 Leveraging sense of place and management perceptions within SolVES 139 Integrating SolVES with management planning and policy ...................... 139 Building SolVES tool application ................................ .............................. 14 1 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 142
8 APPENDIX A ESSAY: DELPHI AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ......................... 144 B DELPHI SCOPING CONTACTS ................................ ................................ ........... 146 C PROJECT DELIVERABLES ................................ ................................ ................. 148 D PROJECT PRESENTATIONS ................................ ................................ .............. 149 E MAPPING SURVEY (PRINT VERSION) ................................ .............................. 151 F DELPHI SUMMARY REPORTS ................................ ................................ ........... 170 G SUPPLEMENTAL DELPHI SUMMARY FINDINGS ................................ .............. 188 H BIODIVERSITY VALUE MAP ................................ ................................ ............... 189 I AESTHETIC VALUE MAP ................................ ................................ .................... 190 J RECREATION VALUE MAP ................................ ................................ ................. 191 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 192 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 207
9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Delphi advantages and benefits for natural resource and environmental management researchers ................................ ................................ ................... 48 2 2 e Delphi panel composition, response rates and convergence measures .......... 49 3 1 The social value typologies used in related studies. ................................ ........... 73 3 2 Delphi attributes and advantages ................................ ................................ ....... 74 3 3 Social values typology for coastal contexts (alphabetical order) ......................... 75 4 1 Resource use perception items. ................................ ................................ ....... 107 4 2 Summary of value mapping and allocation. ................................ ...................... 108 4 3 Average nearest neighbor statistics and Value Indices. ................................ ... 108
10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Delphi study methodology. ................................ ................................ ................. 50 3 1 Three pronged structure of comprehensive ecosystem management. ............... 76 4 1 Study area Greater Sarasota Bay. ................................ ................................ 109 4 2 Greater Sarasota Bay study area with value mapping points. .......................... 110 4 3 Recreation, Aesthetic, and Biodiversity value maps with corresponding landscape metrics. ................................ ................................ ............................ 111 5 1 Global capital sources. ................................ ................................ ..................... 143
11 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S CBD Council on Biological Diversity CESU Cooperative ecosystem services unit CMSP Coastal and marine spatial planning CSR Completely spatially random CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act GIS Geographic information systems GOMA Gulf of Mexico Alliance IP Internet protocol ITU International Telecommunications Union MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NREM Natural resources and environmental management PPGIS pub lic participation geographic information systems SAMP Special Area Management Plans SBEP Sarasota Bay Estuary Program SBF Sarasota Bay, Florida SES Social ecological systems SolVES Social values of ecosystem services (tool) SPSS Statistical Packag e for the Social Sciences SVT Social values typology USGS United States Geological Survey
12 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy MAPPING SOCIAL VALUES OF ECO SYSTEM SERVICES IN S ARASOTA BAY FLORIDA: E DELPHI APPLICATION, TYPOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND GEOSPATIAL MODELING By Zachary Douglas Cole August 2012 Chair: Stephen Holland Major: Health and Human Performance This study represents a three phase project that sought to delineate social values of ecosystem services specific to the coastal zone, apply the resultant social value typology to a spatial data collection effort within Sarasota Bay, Florida, and analyze the data generated through a geographic information system tool called the Social Values of Ecosystem Services (SolVES). Phase one employed an e Delphi methodology to engage a panel of coastal management experts in determining what social valu es exist in coastal and marine environments as related to ecosystem services. A detailed description of the e Delphi process undertaken appears in chapter two and substantive findings resulting from the exercise are summarized in chapter three. Phase two through the development and application of an online, interactive mapping survey that used the typology generated in phase one, gathered spatially explicit social value data from a variety of Sarasota Bay, Florida stakeholders. Initial analysis of that data within SolVES (phase three) are presented in chapter four. Chapter five describes the connection between social values of ecosystem services and spatial modeling, explores avenues for future research, and summarizes the project as a whole.
13 CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW Effective spatial planning and management of coastal zones is essential for resolving conflicts and adapting to changes in environmental conditions as human use s of coastal regions increases. Research and planning applications developed for terre strial systems are likely useful and adaptable to coastal and marine environments as a means of evaluating critical factors in coastal systems. Assessment of comprehensive coastal and marine ecosystem services stands to benefit from research integrating so cial values information into natural and ecosystem interactions occurring across landscapes. Natural resource decision making can be broadly characterized as a complex web of biophysical elements and context specific social interests and trade offs. The concept of coupled social ecological systems (SES) links human and biophysical systems to examine and explain variations in landscape values perceived by people in their region (Alessa, Kliskey, and Brown, 2008). Ecological structures and the natural proce sses underlying ecosystem services have been studied extensively while stakeholder level social and cultural values have recently garnered attention within environmental research and policy. An understanding of relevant social ecological dynamics and the coupling of social and natural systems understanding is critical to long term conservation success (Eadens, Jacobson, Stein, Confer, Gape, and Sweeting 2009) and valuable across environmental decision making contexts; the proposed research addresses this n eed by integrating social and ecological values through the use of geographic information technologies.
14 environment have led to increasing investment in comprehensive coastal an d marine spatial planning at the landscape scale. Agencies at all levels of government, from local to international, see inclusive evaluation of ecosystem services as crucial to robust decision making regarding relevant resources R ecognition of widespre ad marine resource decline has additionally triggered a need to change the way coastal resources are managed. The benefits derived from coastal and marine resources, or ecosystem services, can range from tangible products (food and minerals ) to cultural a menities (recreation and esthetics). As the utilization of these benefits continues to increase, particularly in the coastal zone, additional pressures are placed on the natural ecosystems providing them. Aggregating increased resource use with issues o f community resiliency to environmental change and response to hazards makes it all the more important, when assessing possible tradeoffs among ecosystem services, to consider human attitudes and preferences which express underlying social values associate d with benefits. Even though some of these values can be measured using economic indicators, other social values can be much more difficult to quantify; attaching dollar amounts may not be very useful in all cases. Regardless of the processes or units ch osen to quantify such values, the ability to map indicators across the landscape and therefore relate them to the ecosystem services to which they are attributed is necessary for effective, comprehensive assessments. In addition, development of strategies for identifying and including diverse stakeholders in planning and decision making processes is critical to responsible
15 resource policy. Reactive and sectorial management has begun to give way to proactive and integrated approaches reliant on partnerships and citizen participation, science based approaches to social data collection and integration, and the institution of comprehensive, long term goal setting. The primary aim of this research project is to assess and improve the usefulness of ecosystem ser vices valuation for coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) by evaluating and integrating place based social values across a marine landscape through the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders. This project seeks to extend ecosystem services valu ation, primarily conducted in terrestrial environments, to a coastal and marine setting by expanding the functionality of a geographic information system (GIS) application, S ocial V alues for E cosystem S ervices (SolVES; http://solves.cr.usgs.gov ), to a region of the Gulf of Mexico with important environmental and social attributes. To address the needs associated with social values inclusion in ecosystem service assessments, SolVES was created as a GIS application de signed to use public attitude and preference data to assess, map, and quantify social values across landscapes. SolVES calculates and maps a Value Index representing the relative perceived social values of ecosystem services, such as recreation and biodiv ersity, for various groups of ecosystem stakeholders; the potential exists to produce predicted Value Index maps for areas where social value data are not available. Currently, the SolVES tool has been developed and tested in terrestrial, specifically for est, environments; this project seeks to continue development of a more robust SolVES version by pursuing an opportunity in a coastal and marine environment, namely Sarasota Bay. Initial use of the SolVES tool (Sherrouse, Clement, and Semmens, 2011) has p roven valid and reliable in a forest
16 ecosystem; application in a coastal and marine environment is a logical next step in the development of its extension and overall usefulness. Ecosystem services are understood as the conditions, processes, and compone nts of the natural environment that provide both tangible and intangible benefits for sustaining and fulfilling human life (Daily, 1997). A framework for understanding the connections between ecosystem services and human well being was established by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), an integrated ecosystem assessment established with the involvement of government, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and scientists (2003). The MA framework is organized around four categories of ecos ystem services that correspond to 21 distinct benefits, ecological variables, it requires for analysis a broad range of natural and social science information. Suggested elements of ecosystem service analysis include the measurement of their flows and underlying processes, the dependence of human well being on these flows, valuation, and provisioning (Brown, Bergstrom, and Loomis, 2007). Complementary to Sherrouse et al. this study will build on previous efforts by applying SolVES in a coastal/marine environment. The diversity of stakeholder attitudes, preferences, and behaviors associated with such values and uses are a source of ongoing conflict for resource managers as they are addressed through various approaches within the decision making process (Zendehdel, Rademaker, De Baets, and Van Huylenbroeck, 2009). SolVES provide a tangible model for incorporating and representing so cial values
17 equitably amongst the layers of data available regarding ecological processes and environmental conditions. Sarasota Bay, the research site, is a coastal lagoon of many small embayments and one large bay segment, each with a diverse natural an d human dynamic. The bay system is home to diverse wildlife and provides sustenance and abundant beauty to local populations as it has for millennia. The health and vitality of Sarasota Bay is essential to local quality of life while contributing signifi cantly to the region's economy and international reputation as a desirable destination. In building from the original SolVES model, the proposed research project will focus first on modification of terrestrial social value typologies to fit a coastal mari ne environment, second on mapping of social values attributed to ecosystem services by stakeholders of Sarasota Bay determined to be of importance among user subgroups (differentiated according to attitudes about human uses of coastal regions in the Gulf o f Mexico), and lastly on exploration of the usefulness of ecosystem valuation frameworks for modeling social values across marine landscapes using SolVES. The adaptation and application of the SolVES tool to Sarasota Bay reflects a process whereby social v alues represent measureable ecological end products or endpoints of ecosystem services at the interface of human well being (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007), with potential for broad use in similar coastal environments. The application has proven potential to pro these social value endpoints to both their physical and social contexts in a manner that goal of the proposed researc h is to assess and improve the usefulness of ecosystem
18 service valuation tools for CMSP by integrating social science information into a spatial modeling framework (e.g. SolVES). The research questions guiding this study correspond to objectives and project structure as outlined in the following two sections, respectively. Each research question builds upon the data collected from a previous study phase, beginning with a place specific value typology and priority resourc e use listing created in phase one. The research questions are: RQ1 What social values and resource uses exist in and around Sarasota Bay? RQ2 How are the social values and resource uses spatially situated across the land and seascape and differentiated according to user subgroup? RQ3 How can the spatial assessment of social values be utilized (modeled) to the benefit of citizens, decision makers, and policy? Problem Statement Coastal areas provide a wealth of natural and economic resourc es and represent some of the most developed areas in the United States and elsewhere. For instance, over half its population (NOAA, 2005). As pressure on coastal and mar ine resources increase in concert with increases in population and development, managers and policy makers increasingly require practical tools that allow for comprehensive valuation of ecosystem services. Coupled with the challenges of sea level rise and climate change, the issue becomes finding a way to represent all values, across a given spatial extent, in a way that makes comparison possible. The CMSP process currently lacks standardized methods to collect and interpret beliefs about the social value s held by the general public toward various coastal and marine ecosystem services in a way that can equalize the individual and organized group interests ever present in the planning
19 process. Spatially explicit social values alongside stakeholder subgroup s use preferences analyzed through programs such as SolVES have the potential to enhance the CMSP process by both increasing public engagement and providing place based information to aid in making planning decisions. Effective, sustainable CMSP requires managers to seek methods for integrated analyses of social and environmental data in a variety of contexts. This research seeks to further develop the SolVES tool for generating maps that illustrate the distribution of a quantitative, non monetary value metric, or Value Index, across Sarasota Bay along with graphical and tabular reports containing metrics characterizing the physical environment at locations across the value range Additionally, both the map and table outputs can be analyzed for different social value types as calculated for various stakeholder subgroups. These factors will be addressed in three research stages. First, a social value typology and evaluation of which resource uses are most important and/or controversial will be established within the study context. Second, spatial data collection will occur through stakeholder mapping of social values and evaluation of use perceptions across the Sarasota Bay region. Third, spatially referenced values assigned to ecosystem services differe ntiated by user subgroups will be modeled using the SolVES mapping tool, ultimately providing a comprehensive evaluation and possible predictability of ecosystem service valuation across the landscape. Research Objectives The objectives for the dissertat ion are dually derived from relevant policy and management directives and theoretical development of applicable concepts. Pertinent issues identified through United States Geological Survey (USGS) research themes and
20 strategic themes for the Gulf Coast Coo perative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU) along with needs identified by regional and local management bodies, such as the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program (SBEP) and Gulf of Mexico Alliance (GOMA), represent the policy and management edicts that underscore the d issertation objectives Recent USGS science strategy has laid out six broad science themes: climate and land use change; core science systems; ecosystems; energy and minerals, and environmental health; natural hazards; and water. The 2008 2010 Strategic Plan includes three themes for the Gulf Coast CESU specifically: 1. research related to landscape ecology and habitat diversity, natural and cultural resources heritage, and data and information exchange; 2. critical issues for the management of coastal landsc apes, including the overexploitation of natural resources, and biodiversity and habitat loss; and 3. understanding ecosystem change related to a wide variety of coastal uses including the impact of waterways, tourism, and offshore energy development. Additio nally, GOMA priority issues mirror these and include: water quality; habitat conservation and restoration; ecosystem integration and assessment; nutrient and nutrient impacts; coastal community resilience; and environmental education. Lastly, the current SBEP Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan provides direction on actions to be implemented by the community along with recommendations for improved management. Four critical problems facing the estuary are identified: declines in sediment and water q uality; loss of freshwater and saltwater wetlands; declines in living resources and fisheries; and increase in recreational use. Numerous studies have been conducted that focus on the keystone ecological issues, mainly nutrient loading and sediment loss; applying the SolVES tool will complement these
21 efforts by providing the missing social link and with it a more holistic understanding of the bay system (St. Martin and Hall Arber, 2008). From a theoretical perspective there are a number of concepts which f orm the basis of this research. Relevant theories include ecosystem services valuation, sense of place dynamics, coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP), participatory natural resource management, carrying capacity in the coastal zone, and public perce ption of resource use appropriateness. Ecosystem services have been recently forwarded as a concept which links the biophysical attributes of the environment to their benefit with regard to human well being (MA, 2003). Current methods of ecosystem servic e valuation, in order to become more efficient and effective, require incorporation of values as perceived by those who benefit from the services. Most contemporary processes fail to produce a comprehensive assessment of social value by focusing almost ex clusively on the economic utility (and monetization) derived from ecosystem services as a base measurement. The values perceived by ecosystem stakeholders are inadequately captured by these conventional utilitarian valuation methods due to neglect of the p sychological well nature (Kumar and Kumar, 2008) that cannot easily be assigned a monetary worth. Centering valuation on utilitarian benefits avoids much of what ecosystem services provide: public goods and their benefits which are outside the money economy (Constanza, et al., 1997). As a result, the value of incorporating place based meanings into natural resource management and policy has received increasing attention within academe (Williams and Stew art, 1998) policy, and management By recognizing the variable nature and effect of sense of place dynamics across landscapes to the
22 planning process which underpins management and policy initiatives, efforts are made more robust by aiding resource manag ers in identifying and deciding on desired future conditions in both ecological and human terms. Further, incorporation of place based conceptions lends itself to public participation in decision processes, a desired goal within natural resource managemen t in the coastal zone and elsewhere. As the pressure on coastal and marine environments has increased there has been wide spread acknowledgement of the need for more comprehensive planning efforts. Similar to terrestrial ecosystems which has been the f ocus of most traditional efforts, marine environments can be viewed as places with heterogeneous biophysical and social attributes that must be considered in planning. Ecosystem based management has been posited by managers and researchers alike as a way to address this heterogeneity with CMSP described as an essential step in achieving the relevant goals within coastal and marine environments (Douvere, 2008). The guiding principle in research design, therefore, is to respond to management needs within the constraints of available staff time and resources by developing a set of simple but informative tools for collecting and evaluating the social values of ecosystem services in the coastal zone, specifically Sarasota Bay. It is a premise of this study t o explicitly link data collection, analysis, and outcomes to management needs and actions for immediate use and adaptive implementation (Plummer, 2006). Study objectives are organized around a three phase research process that corresponds to the research questions outlined above. Objective 1: Typology of social values of ecosystem services Modify the terrestrial based ecosystem service typology to fit a coastal and marine environment with the Sarasota Bay, Florida region as a demonstration
23 area. Two va riables act as priority inputs to SolVES: 1) social values and 2) resources uses. First, in order for SolVES to quantify and map relative social values across the seascape an initial understanding of which social values exist in Sarasota Bay is needed. T he social value typology originally used by SolVES (Sherrouse et al. 2011) was based on a forest ecosystem and represented a framework originally created by Rolston and Coufal (1991). This typology was later applied by Clement (2006) in collecting the sur vey data used in application development. The first study objective was to modify existing frameworks to fit the social values of ecosystem services service typology modif ication that uses the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2003) and other alternative ecosystem service typologies (see also Wallace, 2007) as a baseline. Collection of representative attributes of the Sarasota Bay ecosystem that are valued by stakeholde rs will be used as valid and reliable variables of social value for use within SolVES. In a similar fashion, the second part of phase one assembled a priority listing of important (and possibly conflicting) resource uses and users of coastal ecosystems. T he functionality of SolVES relies on representation of social values across the landscape as differentiated by user subgroups determined by perceptions of use, reaching its potential when it can not only compare social values and ecological conditions acro ss the landscape but when it can additionally do so amongst and across user subgroups. For instance, it may be useful to represent the distribution of social values amongst fishermen but the application becomes more valuable and robust in understanding th e similarities and difference of commercial versus recreational
24 fishermen. By establishing the relevant uses of the ecosystem services provided by Sarasota Bay, differentiating user subgroups becomes increasingly valid and the resultant data much more pra ctical to managers. Objective 2: Apply SolVES to a coastal ecosystem Apply, extend, and expand SolVES by collecting spatially explicit social values, resource uses, and perceptions of resource use from stakeholders via online interactive mapping and s urvey assessment. Using the value typology and resource uses established in phase one, the second phase will ask stakeholders to specify social value locations across Sarasota Bay through a participatory mapping process. To supplement this information, p erceptions of acceptability regarding various uses of the relevant resources, along with demographic data and use patterns, were collected. In this way, the spatial locating of values by study participants were linked to their individual and aggregate att itudes about various uses and actual use patterns of Sarasota Bay resources; as noted above, an essential component for taking full advantage of SolVES functionality. As managers seek to more robustly manage opposing resource uses while satisfying consti tuency demands and stakeholder participation policy requirements, it is imperative to gather, understand, and integrate both place based values and perceptions regarding the range of resource uses. This process of comparing spatially explicit values to pe rceptions of appropriate use and use patterns helps develop the capacity to identify areas of conflict, cooperation, and potential threat between user subgroups. There are a number of examples where public value and attitude data have been used to map va lues perceived by stakeholders, or social values. A forest value typology
25 validated by Brown and Reed (2000) has been used extensively in social value mapping studies, alternatively referred to as ecosystem values (Reed and Brown, 2003), environmental val ues (Brown, Reed, and Harris, 2002; Brown, Smith, Alessa, and Kliskey, 2004), landscape values (Alessa et al. 2008), and wilderness values (Brown and Alessa, 2005). The development of ecosystem service valuation has been dominated by research conducted in terrestrial environments; the objective of phase two was to apply this existing body of knowledge to a marine environment, namely Sarasota Bay, using the social value typology and priority resources uses established in phase one. Objective 3: SolVES analysis and modeling Validate the applicability and usefulness of the SolVES tool in a coastal and marine environment by modeling spatial value data within Sarasota Bay Following the initial two phases of research (value typology modification and resourc e use establishment; spatial value mapping and use perception analysis), the third step is spatial database and application development using the SolVES tool as developed by Sherrouse et al. (2011) and currently being expanded to include capacity of user i ntroduced place based value types, public uses, and environmental layers (personal communication, Sherrouse, 2011). Spatially explicit value data derived from phase two was loaded into a geodatabase as a point feature class; similarly the supplementary us e perception survey data was loaded into separate database tables. Each spatial data point and any other data record includes a unique identifier so all information from each individual can be related. Ancillary datasets of appropriate spatial resolution were loaded into the database to generally characterize the physical environment of Sarasota Bay. Environmental data layers of importance included bathymetry, seagrass
26 distribution, species habitat, and maps depicting the location of important use resour ces such as waterways and marinas. The objective for the third phase was to utilize the SolVES functionality to generate maps that illustrate the distribution of a quantitative, non monetary value metric, called the Value Index, across the landscape. These social value maps are complemented with graphical and tabular reports containing metrics characterizing the physical environment at locations across the range of the Value Index for different social value types as calculated for various subgroups of study participants. To review, the research is organized around a t hree phase process whereby each step builds upon the previous. In completing these phases the overarching goal was to combine quantitative and qualitative data through landscape based results, providing multi scale spatial tools for planning efforts. Th e component process provides a method their desires and concerns for it, and possible solutions, shoulder to shoulder, rather than face to face. The process and outcome s reveal the many connections the community has with the land and seascapes, both similarities and differences, and the values underlying those connections; information and data likely invaluable to managers when making resource decisions. A series of thre e manuscripts is presented to capture study methods, results, and conclusions : 1. a methods article covering the use of an e Delphi in study phase one (objective 1) 2. a chapter outlining the results from the e Delphi (objectives 1 and 2) and 3. a summar y of initial findings from stakeholder data collection and SolVES analysis (objectives 2 and 3) A concluding chapter brings together the three study
27 components by describing how they work together to synthesize and produce theoretical methodological, and substantive contributions
28 CHAPTER 2 INTERNET BASED DELPHI RESEARC H: A CASE BASED TUTO RIAL Introduction The availability and adoption of Internet technology has increased phenomenally since its introduction in the late 1980s and has transformed the ma nagement and decision making that surrounds natural resources and the environment. The United Nations International Telecommunication Union (ITU) reports that the number of Internet users surpassed 2 billion in 2010, with projections indicating that half o f the Nations, 2010). While the United States has historically maintained the most users on a per capita basis, growth is not limited to developed nations. In fact, the spatial reach or China, for example, surpassed the United States in 2006 with the most Internet users 160 million, as a result of their rapidly improving infrastructure and growing economy (China Internet Network Information Centre, 2007; ITU News, 2011). In the realm of natural resource and environmental management (NREM), these technological advances have given rise to online collaborative communities virtual spaces that contain a wide range of new tools and services that facilitate local, regional, and global interactions between and amongst relevant stakeholders around the world. Suffice to say, the Internet has changed the way that environmental data and information is shared, which has clear implications for the evolution of NREM research methodology. The Internet promises the potential for increased sample size and diversity, reduced administration costs and time investments, innovative data management and analysis to ols, and a number of other appealing benefits (Donohoe
29 and Needham, 2008). In the NREM context, Dalcanale, Fontane, and Csapo (2011); and Mahler and Regan (2011) report that advances in environmental management have paralleled the evolution of information technology, most notably the prevalence and integration of geographic information technologies in research and decision making. More information publicly available through digital mediums has resulted in a shift from centralized decision making to increa sing movement toward participatory processes about as a result of the increased complexity of the available hardware and software, and the development of the World Wide We b, has resulted in a change from centralized mainframes, to the wide popularity of personal computers, collaborative sites, and come at a cost. Benfield and Szlemko ( 2006) warn that the growing use of Internet based research methods, techniques and tools is misleading because e research remains marginal in size and scope, especially when compared to the wealth of existing traditional research (e.g., paper and pencil su rvey research, face to face interviews, focus groups, etc.) published over similar time periods. Internet based NREM research has yet to undergo critical methodological review, thus refinement to procedural and analytical practice is lean. The majority of peer analysis of Internet based data collection methods report little evidence supporting the appropriateness of the Internet as a tool for scientific inquiry. Dalcanale, et al. (2011) agree, arg uing that despite efforts to capitalize on the potential of information technology for NREM research and practice, inadequate attention has been paid to how newly emerging e
30 research methods are being utilized. In the absence of such conversation, Roztocki amelioration of unique methodological issues confronting researchers operating in an increasingly electronic and interconnected world. Understanding how e research methods have been applied in NREM studies may offer scholars unique insights on how to incorporate these burgeoning techniques into future studies. Therefore, this study m akes a contribution to the literature by critically examining the e Delphi technique and offers a tutorial on its use for NREM researchers. The Delphi Technique One traditional research method now being operationalized via the Internet is the Delphi techni que. The Delphi technique is used to systematically combine expert opinion in order to arrive at an informed group consensus on a complex problem (Linstone and Turoff, 1975). In principle, the Delphi is a group method that is administered by a researcher o r research team which assembles a panel of experts, poses questions, synthesizes feedback, and guides the group towards its goal consensus. The Delphi is a technique for organizing conflicting values and judgments through facilitating the incorporation of multiple opinions into consensus (Powell, 2003). The payoff of a Delphi study is typically observed through expert concurrence in a given area where none existed previously (Sackman, 1974). This is achieved using iterative rounds of sequential surveys i nterspersed with controlled feedback reports and the continued until convergence of opinion reaches some point of diminishing returns, which suggests agreement. In light of this, Delphi toolkits and meta analyses are available in a
31 breadth of fields including health education and behavior (de Meyrick, 2003), nursing and health services (Cantrill, Sibbald, and Buetow, 1996; Powell, 2003; Keeney, McKenna, and Hasson, 2011), tou rism management (Donohoe, 2011; Green, Hunter, and Moore, 1990), information and management systems (Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004), and business administration (Day and Bobeva, 2005; Duboff, 2007; Hayes, 2007). In the NREM domain, the technique has been used to investigate a variety of research topics and issues. Representative examples published in Environmental Management include but are not limited to: mediation of environmental disputes (Miller and Cuff, 1986); citizen participation in decision making (Ju dge and Podgor, 1983); environmental initiative prioritization (Gokhale, 2001); exploration of diversity in contemporary ecological thinking (Moore, et al., 2009); and adaptation options in the face of climate change (Lemieux and Scott, 2011). The techniqu in T able 2 1 (adapted from Donohoe and Needham, 2009); like other research tools, the Delphi is not without limitations, however. The Delphi is highly sensitive to design and administrative decisions (e.g., panel design and survey architecture) which can affect the research outcome (Donohoe and Needham, 2009). Additionally, participants generally do not meet or discuss issues face to face, as they are often geographically remote from one another both circumstance s which can cause threats to the internal validity of a study. The risk of specious consensus and participants simply conforming to the median judgment for compliance sake is also a reality that must be addressed and stands as a common limitation within gr oup techniques generally. There is also debate about how to
32 appropriate point in time to terminate the consensus building exercise. Empirically, consensus has been determined b responses over rounds, with reduction in variance indicating greater consensus. Results from Delphi studies seem to suggest that variance reduction is typical, although claims tend to be simply reported and no t analyzed (e.g., Dalkey and Helmer, 1963). Indeed, the trend of reduced variance is so typical that the phenomenon of increased Wright, 1999). Difficulty determining adequate consensus aside, the considerable time commitment required is identified as the most significant limitation for both the researcher and participant (Wagner, 1997). For the researcher, the amount of time required to develop an expert panel, deliver commun ications, administer multiple survey rounds, and prepare interim reports is quite noteworthy and often underestimated. Traditional Delphi studies are paper based with communications, surveys, and reports distributed by regular postal mail (Green et al., 19 90). MacEachren et al. (2006) report that a significant managerial burden is placed on the traditional Delphi administrator who must devote a substantial amount of time gathering, organizing, compiling, and synthesizing participant responses. For Delphi pa rticipants, the iterative, paper based survey completion exercise is demanding by nature and can be a deterrent to participation acceptance and continuance. The time required to complete several rounds of surveys is further complicated by the traditionally long waits between survey rounds which can produce diminishing interest and frustration (Donohoe and Needham,
33 2009). For these reasons, high attrition has been widely reported in the literature (Sinha, Smyth, and Williamson, 2011). Given these limitatio ns and others, Donohoe and Needham (2009) recognized that using the Internet for Delphi research presents a new and exciting research frontier. They ascertain ed that the e Delphi could provide a promising alternative that may reduce time, costs, communicat ion difficulties, consensus monitoring challenges, and participant attrition. But, having said this, they point out that Internet based technology based communications are pre must be cautioned that the deficiencies in methodological discourse are certainly putting at risk the design, implementation, success, and evolution of e Delphi research. Therefore, through a critical analysis of an e Delphi case study, this paper contributes to the evolution of best practice methods in e Delphi research and provides sage guidance for NREM Delphi researchers. An e Delphi Example An e Delphi was initiated to facilitate the development o f a social values typology of ecosystem services and a listing of important resource uses in coastal environments among international experts in coastal and marine management. The reason for this research focus is directly related to a critical gap in NREM research: the lack of consensus regarding theory and measurable variables of social values derived from ecosystem services, particularly in the coastal zone. A widely accepted social values typology that contributes to ecosystem services discourse and man agement guidelines is important when describing the foundational elements of the human environment relationship. In addition, such a typology aids in identifying facilitators and obstacles to
34 more readily establishing those connections globally. The devel opment of a unique typology is judged to be the fundamental basis or starting point for a paradigm shift in NREM practice; one that is traditionally defined by ecosystem specific parameters but plagued by non inclusive knowledge and management systems. Wh ile much work has been done to establish such a typology in terrestrial environments (see Rolston and Coufal, 1991; Reed and Brown, 2003; Brown and Reed, 2000; Brown, Smith, Aleesa, and Kliskey, 2004 ), the effort outlined here has been made to extend or mo dify this existing typology fit coastal and marine ecosystems. To propose a unified vision for what represents the social values of ecosystem services in coastal environments, the Delphi technique was selected over more traditional methods (i.e., surveys, group 2 1) and its congruency with the above mentioned study objectives. A three stage e Delphi exercise (Figure 2 1) was adapted afte (2005) Generic Delphi Toolkit. In the preparation stage a panel of international experts was assembled. The panel was comprised of two relevant expert groups: professionals from government, private industry, and non governmental organi zations; and academics engaged in related research and education. The inclusion of both professional and academic experts is substantiated by Briedenhann and Butts (2006), and Sunstein (2006) as a means for achieving a balance between differing perspective s on communities with regard to knowledge sharing, communications, priorities, and epistemology A geographically diverse expert panel was also essential for capturing a
35 d iversity of perspectives on the issue at hand. In this vein, the e Delphi endeavour achieves a more inclusive and relevant consensus. Through a review of peer reviewed publications and investigation into several membership based international companies and organi zations, an initial set of 1,024 potential participants was identified (see Appendix B) Given the global nature of the study and the conventional constraints imposed on Delphi methodology, the use of the Internet for communications and data collect ion (i.e., e Delphi) was appealing due to the time and cost savings it provides (Hung and Law, 2011). To pilot test the utility of this e technique, the Internet comprised the primary communication medium throughout the preparation stage. Before contactin g potential participants, an Internet based research portal was created to share information with research participants, supporters, and other stakeholders. A research problem statement was prepared and a research description including human subjects pr otections (e.g., description of study purpose, informed consent, etc.), was posted to the research portal. A profile of the researchers including contact information as well as research institution information was also posted. Once the research portal wa s established, e Delphi invitations were disseminated to potential participants by email. The invitation contained a description of the research including ethics compliance statements, a link to the research portal for more information, and a link to an ex pert screening e survey. The survey requested that potential participants identify which, if any, of the pre determined selection criteria they satisfied. Inclusion criteria mandated that study participants possess a minimum of five years of experience in the public, governmental, or private sectors, and/or exhibit evidence of professional productivity in
36 terms of peer reviewed or professional publications and research, participation in academic or industry symposia, and/or a related teaching portfolio in a specific domain. based survey provider that offers a user friendly interface for survey design and administration as well as for survey completion. This service provider was selected over others on the grounds that little to no training was required of users and there was no cost or obligation associated with the subscription due to institutional access for the researchers. Once the screening survey was developed, a unique URL or web address was cr eated and included within the e Delphi invitation. When the potential participant clicked the link, they were directed to the initial survey; the internet based survey software, Qualtrics TM tracks unique user internet protocol ( IP ) addresses to ensure that each respondent only fills out one survey (for security and experimental control purposes). The screening survey proved to be simple to design and administer with only one technological difficulty reported (the inability to comple te the survey if the link was received in a forwarded email) that was corrected within a half hour of sending the initial invitation email. From the initial email invite to 1,024 unique addresses, 154 potential part icipants completed the survey (r esponse r ate = 15.04%), and a review of the responses revealed a broad geographical distribution (14 countries were represented) as well as a range of expertise across the desired expertise spectrum (both academics and professionals). Those satisfying the selectio n criteria (127) were sent an email message requesting their participation for the duration of the e Delphi exercise. A total of 27 individuals that did not satisfy the expert criterion were given an additional opportunity to clarify their answers to the scoping questionnaire. Two participants who had completed
37 the initial survey and were excluded based on their responses answered that message with clarification of their qualifications and were subsequently chosen as panel participants (bringing the exper t panel total to 129 individuals). At this point, an interactive Internet based map was created for the purpose of sharing information about professional background (acad emic, commercial/private, government agency, non governmental agency, or a combination) were marked on a Google map (all personal identifiers being excluded), with a link to the map posted on the research portal. Though portal visits were not tracked, seve ral of the research participants reported via email that they returned to the website frequently during the preparation stage and found it to be an important source of information about the research project and its participants. In light of the relative ad the study as it allowed the research team to: (a) access a geographically diverse expert panel; (b) communicate and share information conveniently and securely; and (c) collect data effic iently, in a timely manner, and at a low cost. In the convergence stage, the 129 experts were invited to complete the Round one survey. Again, an email invitation with instructions and a link to the e survey was included. The survey was designed as a scopi ng exercise to encourage participants to elaborate on the research problem and the task at hand (i.e., developing a typology of social values of ecosystem services and identifying priority issues of management in the coastal zone). An initial, working defi nition for social values of ecosystem services was provided to the panellists (based on a comprehensive review of the literature); it was purposefully broad and loosely structured so as to allow the group to inform the shape
38 and content of the typology ove r the course of the e Delphi exercise. Participants were provided with a two week period in which to respond. A response rate of 45% was achieved (n = 58). As was expected, Round one resulted in the submission of hundreds of valuable comments, suggestions, and critiques. In Round two, a Round one summary report that included pooled data and r epresentative commentary was sent to participants by email and posted on the research portal for download. The expert contributions and Round one results were used as a baseline and a second survey was circulated to solicit feedback regarding the appropriateness of the initial typology and listing of resource uses, along with ecosystem se week period in which to respond and several reminder emails were dispatched as the deadline approached. The same procedure was followed for Round three. In order to assess the level of convergence betw een rounds, simple mean scores and associated standard deviations were calculated across all three rounds. Table 2 2 describes the e Delphi panel composition, response rates and convergence measures. Between Rounds two and three, the typology enhancements were minimal, no significant change in the mean scores was observed, but the increase in convergence (reduction in standard deviation value) was noteworthy. Scheibe, Skutsch, and Schofer (1975) state that measuring the stability of participant responses i n successive iterations is a reliable method of assessing consensus. In addition, the dispersion measures in the present study satisfied the guidelines for establishing consensus in the Delphi literature (Day and Bobeva, 2005; Donohoe and Needham, 2009). T hus, it was decided that optimal
39 consensus had been reached and that further rounds would not produce additional convergence of opinion. It is important to note that the design of the data collection instrument evolved between rounds. This was informed b y difficulties reported by participants when completing the e surveys and by the challenges encountered by the administrator when compiling and analyzing the data. For example, in Round one, several participants reported a need to review answers made on pr evious pages to inform those later in the survey and could not go back to do so. The Delphi administrator worked with the participants (by email) to identify the source of the technical problems, and minor survey formatting alterations successfully elimin ated existing technical problems (i.e. adding in a back button). Changes were also informed by the recommendations of Day and Bobeva (2005) who suggest that the key to formulating Delphi surveys, and to mitigating attrition, is to ensure that the survey i s technically unchallenging, that questions are clear, concise and unambiguous, and that they are complimented with clear instructions for the panelists. The e Delphi approach used in the study of social values of ecosystem services attempted to operationa lize these recommendations by employing a combination of open and closed ended questions. As well, the majority of consensus building activities and measures were based on a 5 point Likert type scale where panelists judged the appropriateness of the typolo survey platform provided a simple interface for organizing questions, designing question sequences, and for pilot testing the surveys. It also allowed the administrator the ability to monitor response rates and progress
40 reported that the e survey interface allowed them to jump easily between questions, modify their answers, quit and return to the survey at a later time (a function added between the expert qualifications survey and Round one), access technical support (through help functions), and respond to the survey when and where it was most convenient. In the consensus stage a draft final report was prepared and circulated by email the report and its content were requested. Panellists submi tted their recommendations and the administrator integrated them into a final consensus statement. This process ensured that the typology and resource use listing had undergone sufficient testing and that a consensus judgement had been rendered regarding i ts value and appropriateness. A final Delphi report was then prepared and disseminated by email to the panellists, supporting organizations, an d other interested stakeholders, and also posted to the research portal. The total time to complete the e Delphi exercise was just over two months. Discussion Using the e Delphi presents a new and exciting NREM research frontier, but caution is warranted as methodological guidance has yet to emerge in the literature (Donohoe and Needham, 2009). Clearly, this is an important and evolving contribution area for Delphi research specifically, and e research generally. While many of the issues can be considered characteristic of computers and the Internet, problems associated with traditional methods can be intensified by the conditions of the virtual landscape (Hung and Law, 2011). These include perceived anonymity, respondent
41 identity (real or perceived), and data accuracy (response selection control and transmission errors) (Baym and Markham, 2009; Jones, 1999; Roztocki, 2001). Because of the problems associated with e research and complimented by the issues revealed during the aforementioned research process, select issues convenience, administration, control, and technology are brought forward for discussion. Convenience The e and research was a pragmatic feature of the data collection process, given that the e Delphi administrator and participants could ac cess the research portal and surveys anytime and anywhere that Internet access was available. Participants could choose to respond when it was most convenient to do so, and the administrator could monitor response rates and respond to technical difficulti es without being physically tied to the research center. Convenience was also revealed by the familiar interface offered by the personal computer via the e survey provider. As e surveys have become ubiquitously distributed to millions of people around the world, the standard format and user interface reduced the amount of training and/or instruction required for participants to complete the surveys. By extension, Internet technology made the collecting and sharing of group level information accessible and convenient across national boundaries and time zones a result of the global web phenomenon that has been brought to light elsewhere (Hung and Law, 2011). Administration dur ation of the active research phase was provided to the researchers through institutional licensing. This level of access allowed participants the ability to view the
42 statistical summary reports thereby improving knowledge exchange and research transparen cy by providing direct, fast access It is important to note that other e survey management services are available at no cost or for minimal fees, making use of these technologies easily accessible and rarely cost prohibi tive. As such, the use of an e De lphi reduces the research costs of the traditional mail out Delphi surveys. In this case, the Internet expedited communications and expert recruitment so that the total amount of time between recruitment and consensus was just over two months. The time com mitment would have been much greater if traditional communication methods were used; the literature indicates that a traditional Delphi can take anywhere from 45 days to six months (Delbecq, Van de Ven, and Gustafson, 1975) or longer. The data management a dvantages of the e Delphi technique were also confirmed. The e survey provider made available a large database for gathering and storing data electronically. The format also made it possible to easily move the data into Microsoft Excel (or other formats su ch as SPSS) for analysis. Survey software also monitored response rates and attrition, and where numerical data was captured, simple statistical reports were provided. To facilitate transparency, participants and other interested parties could access the s tatistical reports throughout the course of the e Delphi through the established research web portal or via email request to the researchers (for instance, individuals not selected as expert panelists and participants lost to attrition could opt to receive summary reports between rounds). Control The issue of experimental control did not present itself as a concern during the e Delphi exercise. However, where control did appear to be an issue was in reducing participant distractions. While distractions can never be completely avoided, the
43 researche r made efforts to identify and avoid known distractions (as recommended by Briedenhann and Butts, 2006). The surveys were dispatched so as to capture the maximum availability of the panellists and to achieve the best possible response rate. For the e Delp hi, care was afforded to the timing of the e surveys so that they did not coincide with traditional periods of occupation leave (in this case initiation of the Delphi exercise was delayed to the first of the calendar year to avoid the typical holiday seaso n of November and December). Although attrition did occur, the response rate improved and attrition rates decreased as the rounds progressed. This may be evidence of the o avoid distractions through calculated timing may be an effective strategy. Representation, however was identified as a potential issue given that p. 5). To mitigate threats to sampling an ecologically valid and representative sample, efforts to corroborate participant expertise areas (self identified experts) were completed in the early stages of expert identification (e.g., peer reviewed portals, seco ndary verification, and the use of the screening survey). To control misrepresentation in survey responses, panellists were limited to one response per unique IP address. This provided some measure of control over identity but the researcher acknowledges that representation remains an unresolved issue in Internet survey research in tourism and hospitality, for example. Technology Technological complications presented a chall enge to participant recruitment and data collection. Several participants reported other technological difficulties such as an
44 inability to open survey links, download the e survey, or submit their responses. In most cases, difficulty was the result of us er error and administrator assistance resolved the issue. In other cases, computer hardware such as operating systems, Internet connections, security filters, and technical failures were the source of difficulty. As an example, the initial invitation to fi ll out the expert screening survey link was forwarded by potential participants to interested colleagues. However, those links were limited to the IP address they were sent to causing them to fail when forwarded. In a positive reflection of the use of In ternet technologies, researchers were informed of the issue immediately via email and the problem was corrected within an hour of the initial message. Finally, some email addresses were inactive and this resulted in approximately 25 returned emails in the preparation stage. Recommendations for Avoiding Potential Pitfalls On the basis of the practical limitations and issues revealed by the e Delphi case study, a set of recommendations are introduced for assisting the e Delphi NREM researcher. First it i s strongly suggested that NREM researchers critically assess the advantages and limitations of Internet before making research design decisions. The Delphi and Internet based research literature should b e consulted for guidance. Second before initiating participant recruitment, it is recommended that a website be established for sharing information about the research project. This both legitimizes the research and it serves as a central communication por tal between the researchers, the research participants, and other stakeholders throughout the study (and beyond). It is suggested that the researcher surveys and participating in an e
45 Delphi exercise, researcher and institutional information, relevant publications and reports, and contact information. Third make use of Internet based databases and online mailing l ists (listservs) for recruiting potential participants and select participants with high interest to reduce potential attrition. Fourth invest in strategies to mitigate misrepresentation. The use of a screening tool (e survey) to capture and winnow out t he most appropriate experts for the study is recommended as is validation of self identified experts through membership organizations, academic or professional institutions, publications or secondary confirmation. It is also highly recommended that e surve y access be protected by using unique IP addresses to limit responses (other strategies could include password protection or use of unique survey hyperlinks), which in this case was provided as a function of the Qualtrics TM data management service used. Fifth, select an e survey software or service provider that is going to allow the greatest flexibility in survey design, reliable technological support (for both the researcher and respondent), data processing and analysis options, attrition monitoring and response tracking features, data sharing capabilities, security, and ease of use. In software packages and e survey services that are commonly used for academic research provide a good starting point for investigating relevant programs to use. Sixth researchers are strongly urged to pilot test all communications (including email and hyperlin ks) and e surveys to avoid interpretation and technological difficulties. In this respect, make sure to test communications in all the ways participants would be expected to use the software by, for instance, utilizing a communication test group of
46 immedi ate colleagues for assistance. Seventh maintain copies of all documents, data, and reports in case of hardware failure or software failure (worst case survey provider problems and data loss). Finally, identify known or possible distractions and time a dministration threats and plan accordingly. The literature indicates distractions such as vacations, holiday periods, and disciplinary conferences, as events that have led to low response rates during a Delphi exercise (e.g. Briedenhann and Butts, 2006; Donohoe, 2011). While external distractions cannot be controlled and the Internet itself can be considered a distraction, careful design and planning can help to alleviate the potential for attrition due to distraction. Conclusion The adoption of the Inter net as a tool for conducting research is now common in a variety of disciplines including NREM. Given its increasing popularity, it is expected that a growing proportion of future studies will be conducted online. While it is unlikely that e research will replace traditional research methods, it is certainly a viable alternative for the right research topic and target audience (Palmquist and Stueve, 1996). However, e research is still in its infancy and NREM researchers must be critical and calculated when adopting Internet based tools and techniques. Importantly, however, in light of the practical advantages that the e Delphi offers, and because of the evolving set of recommendations and best practices coming forth about the technique, analysis of this ca se study suggests that the benefits far outweigh the costs. The e Delphi is effective and efficient in terms of overcoming geographical barriers, saving time and money, and building group consensus. In this regard, the authors support Deshpande, Shiffman the e
47 acceptable alternative to the traditional paper would add that the e Delphi offers more than just an alternative to the traditional me thod. The interactive capacity of the Internet offers a range of benefits that are inextricably linked with contemporary Internet based innovation and its growing popularity in the research domain. Despite its value, it must be emphasized that without car eful consideration of the advantages and limitations associated with e Delphi administration specifically, and Internet based research generally, NREM researchers are likely to face challenges that could potentially compromise research findings and their p ublication in peer reviewed journals. Since methodological quality is a major assessment criterion for publication, an understanding of emerging e understanding of how the Internet can be utilized for NREM research. The critical analysis prese nted here may help researchers make informed decisions when planning and designing their studies while keeping the advantages and disadvantages of e research in mind. Given the increasing awareness and emerging critica l discourse regarding e research, this tutorial is a timely methodological contribution to the NREM literature. Clearly, there are opportunities here worthy of further exploration, which necessitates appropriate investments in methodological applications, reporting, and evaluation of the e Delphi method within and beyond the boundaries of NREM research.
48 Table 2 1. Delphi advantages and benefits for natural resource and environmental management researchers Advantages Benefits for Natural Resource and En vironmental Management Researchers It is well suited for forecasting uncertain factors It is well suited for forecasting uncertain factors that may affect natural resource and environmental management. It is anonymous It provides opportunity for participants to express their opinions without being influenced by others and without It is dependent on expert judgment It is particularly compatible with natural resource and environmental management experts a s they are often in a position to be affected by or to operationalize the research product. Thus, they may be more willing to participate. It is not limited by narrow expert definitions It facilitates capacity building for expert interaction in an indus try characterized by fragmentation and limited opportunities for interaction and knowledge exchange (i.e. increases interdisciplinary interaction and understanding). It is effective and efficient It is a low cost technique that is easily administered by natural resource and environmental management researchers and/or practitioners. It is reliable and outcomes can be generalized It is a legitimate technique for natural resource and environmental management research. The generalizability of research outc omes is well suited for management forecasting. It is non linear by design It offers an alternative research approach for addressing emergent and/or complex environmental management problems that do not benefit from the traditional linear approach. It is insightful It facilitates progress. Through iterative feedback, participants are part of the process, and the sum is much more than its parts. This is particularly complementary to natural resource and environmental management research where participa nts (managers, local stakeholders, etc.) are increasingly key/mandatory contributors to the research process and outcomes. Community based natural resource research and collaborative stakeholder environmental management research are just a few examples. Adapted from: Donohoe & Needham, 2009, P. 420
49 Table 2 2. e Delphi panel composition, response rates and convergence measures Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Surveys delivered 129 58 38 Survey completed 58 38 37 Government panelists 36 25 24 Academic panelists 39 14 14 Non governmental panelists 25 10 10 Commercial/Private panelists 29 9 9 Response rate 45% 66% 97% Convergence Measures Mean Score* n/a 4.3 4.4 Standard Deviation n/a 0.85 0.71 Typology consensus measured on a five point Likert type scale: 5= strongly agree 4= agree 3=somewhat agree, 2=disagree, 1=strongly disagree
50 Figure 2 1. Delphi study methodology (adapted from Donohoe, 2011) Problem Statement Define the problem and prepare purpose statement Develop internet based research portal Expert Panel Development Define expert selection criteria Identify e portals through which experts may be identified Compile potential participants list (direct/assisted strategies) Recruit potential participants (email invitation/Internet based screening survey) Filter responses and identify participan ts Evaluate panel composition (congruent with research needs) Update research portal with relevant information Delphi Round One : Scoping Dispatch Round one survey link and instructions by email Collect Round one internet based survey responses Analyze responses and produce a summary report Integrate the responses into the next round and develop Round two survey Update research portal with relevant information Delphi Round Two Circulate Round two survey link by email Circulate Round one summary report by email and post to research portal Monitor attrition rate on internet based survey platform Analyze responses and assess convergence Prepare Round two summary report (pooled data and convergence status) Integrate the responses into the next round and dev elop Round three survey Update research portal with relevant information Delphi Round Three Circulate Round three survey link and Rou nd two summary report by email Monitor attrition rate on internet based survey platform Analyze responses and assess convergence T erminate Delphi and prepare final report (integrate responses) Update research portal with relevant content Analysis and Final Report Analysi s of results (simple statistics ) Prepare Delphi results summary and final consensus statement Distri bute final report to participants and collect final comments by email Apply consensus judgment to initial problem Update research portal with relevant content PREPARAT ION CONVERGENCE CONSENSUS
51 CHAPTER 3 A SOCIAL VALUES TYPOLO GY FOR COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES I N THE COASTAL ZONE Introduction Coastal areas provide a wealth of resources and represent some of the most developed areas in the United States and elsewhere. The coastal fringe, representing (NOAA, 2005) Globally, th e same proportion reside on 12% of the available landmass referred to as the coastal interaction zone (Crossland et al., 2005) As pressures on coasta l and marine resources increase in concert with growth in population and development, managers and policy makers increasingly require understanding that facilitates the comprehensive valuation of ecosystem services. While the ecology of natural processes underlying ecosystem services has been studied extensively, along with large advances in economic based assessment and valuation, stakeholder level social and cultural values have only recently garnered increased attention within environmental research and policy. An understanding of relevant social ecological dynamics and the coupling of social and natural systems is critical for environmental decision making. The emergence and proliferation of ecosystem management approaches have created a need to increase knowledge of social systems commensurate to baseline ecological understanding; i.e. managers can be nefit from integrating stakeholder values and perceptions into decision making processe s Many contemporary ecosystem management processes, despite the emerging utilization of ecosystem service discourse, fail to produce comprehensive environmental assessm ents because they focus primarily on economic utilities and ecological structures while overlooking the social va lue perceptions of stakeholders. These
52 stakeholder social values are in essence overshadowed by conventional utilitarian and ecological assess ment methods in large part due to neglected recognition of the psychological well Kumar, 2008) and the subsequent role, or lack thereof, of such consideration within dominant natural resource management paradigms Focusing predominantly on economic and ecological aspects of natural resource management at the cost of equitable social considerations avoids much of what ecosystem services provide: public goods and their benefits which are outside the money economy (Constanza, et al., 1997) and traditional ecological assessment. By recognizing the variable nature and effect of place based social dynam ics (e.g. consideration of the stakeholder perceptions and social impacts derivative of resource decisions) to planning processes, decision making efforts become more robust. Identification of desired future conditions with consideration of complementary ecological, economic, and human (e.g. social) variables defines a truly comprehensive assessment within ecosystem approaches to management. Indeed, one need not look far across natural resource and environmental policy in the US to find mention of the n eed to assess social variables relative to ecological and economic measurement across contexts (e.g. National Environmental Protection Act, National Trails System Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and Sustainable Fisheries Act). This article advances th e human social aspects of ecosystem management by establishing a social values typology (SVT) of ecosystem services specific to a coastal resource context Identifying these variables provides for potential future development of indicator based measuremen t and assessment to capture the social side of
53 ecosystem management alongside traditional metrics. Social values, in reference to landscapes or in this case coastal zones are collective perceptions about places and locations that reflect resource use a spirations and potential conflict (Brown and Brabyn, in review). We hypothesize that while existing ecosystem value typologies have been validated (Brown and Reed, 2000) in terrestrial ecosystems (e.g. Brown and Reed, 2000; Brown, 2005; Raymond and Brown 2006; Alessa, Kliskey, and Brown, 2008), there is a need to develop a typology specific to coastal ecosystems. With the exception of one known application in coastal area management (Alessa et al., 2008), social value typologies have been uniformly devel oped and implemented in terrestrial resource management contexts; e.g. forest management (Beverly, Uto, Wilkes, and Bothwell, 2008; Brown and Reed, 2000; Brown and Reed, 2009; Clement and Chang, 2009 ; Rolston and Coufal (1991 ), tourism development (Raymon d and Brown, 2007; Brown, 2006), rural development (Nielsen Pincus, 2007), and protected area management (Pfueller, Xuan, Whitelaw, and Winter, 2009; Brown and Weber, 2011). We posit that a large enough distinction exists between terrestrial and coastal e cosystems, with regard to ecological, economic, and social drivers; system dynamics; and subsequent resource issues, to warrant the development of a separate, but inevitably related, typology of social values of ecosystem services specific to coastal conte xts. For our purposes we alternative names including ecosystem values (Reed and Brown, 2003), environmental values (Brown et al., 2002, 2004), landscape values (Brown and Raymond, 2007; Alessa et al., 2008), and wilderness values (Brown and Alessa, 2005) (see Table 3 1). In this paper, we present the results of an e Delphi exercise that sought expert consensus
54 on a social value typology of ecosystem services specific to coas tal (and ma rine) contexts (ecosystems). In presenting this typology, which delineates sixteen distinct ecosystem services, we outline the progression toward consensus, via the e Delphi method (see Cole, Donohoe, and Stellefson, in review, for a complete d iscussion) It is important to note that although our operational focus is coastal contexts specifically, our work builds off the seminal work of Rolfston and Coufal (1991) and other researchers and policy makers (e.g. Brown and Reed, 2000; Brown, 2005; Reed and Brown, 2003) to address gap s in the literature. The purpose of this study is to develop a SVT of ecosystem services in coastal contexts The Delphi technique is employed in order to capture and synthesize expert judgment on social values as it re late s to coastal ecosystem services. In doing so, the results provide a management tool framework that enhances : (1) coastal resource management and its sensitiv ity to stakeholder value s and perceptions ; and by extension, (2) the sustainability of ecosystem management (i.e. social, economic, and environmental). The research increases our understanding of the links between culture, sustainable policy, social pressures and perceptions, and nature resource management by advancing consideration of soc ial values within the framework of ecosystem management and engaging the environmental community in the social complexities of contemporary natural resource management paradigms. Social values of ecosystem services Natural resource decision making can be broadly characterized as a complex web of biophysical elements and context specific social interests and trade offs; a reality heightened in the coastal zone due to high (and increasing) populations and associated resource pressures. The ecosystem approach to natural resource management
55 requires that decisions integrate human and non human factors through equitable application of appropriate scientific methods focused dually on biological organization and the recognition that humans, with their inh erent social diversity, are integral to ecosystems (Council on Biological Diversity, 2008). Such an approach is not expected to be, nor can it be, the same in all contexts. On the contrary, every environmental p olicy, planning, and management situation r equires a different strategy determined by local, provincial, national, regional, and global conditions (MA, 2003) In a departure from the traditional pillar structure of environmental and resource management based on collections of disciplinary expertis e, e cosystem management at its core seeks to be adaptable to each context by taking into account social, ecological, political, and market realities in attempts to improve practice. Within these adaptive, ecosystem based approaches, e cosystem services has ecosystem approach to management, providing the unifying discourse for relating natural processes and human development and well being. The idea of ecosystem services has been developed by a number of scholar s (see definition to help frame the study: ecosystem services are the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sust ecologists, who have long recognized the many benefits derived from well functioning ecosystem s It appeals to resource economists, who endeavor to measure the value to humans of natural resources. And it appeals to a host of other public land managers and many private landholders included who see opportunities for a more efficient and effective provision of bas ic environmental service flows. (p. 329 330)
56 While the ecosystem service construct is not new, with its first use occurring in the 1960s (see King, 1996; Helliwell 1969), there has been a recent surge in its development and application in ecosystem valuation research (see Constanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; Daily et al. 2000; de Groot, Wilson, and Boumans, 2002). The advent of ecosystem management has required ne w ways of valuing relevant natural resources (Manzo, 2003) and processes that acco unt for values people associate with places or landscapes (Brown, 2005; Williams and Patterson, 1996) within decision making. Following the development of the ecosystems con cept as a unit of understanding and analysis in the 1930s and 1940s ( see Tansley, 1935; and Lindeman, 1942), scholars and practitioners began to investigate the valuation of the multiple benefits provided by ecosystems (Hein, et al., 2006). During the for mative years of ecosystem service theory development, Helliwell (1969) and Odum and Odum (1972) point out that the benefits derived from ecosystems are often underestimated in decision making Concomitantly, attempts to more precisely assign value to ecosy stem services have increased consistently. Most of these efforts have focused heavily on the economic (utilitarian) and ecologic al values of ecosystem services with the most recent development centering on monetary valuation for its potential for comparin g trade offs in a way that is universally understandable. As Costanza et al. (1997) note in their study estimating the total economic value of global ecosystem goods and services, most of what ecosystem services provide exist s as public goods with ben efits that bypass the money economy. While the absence of market data has not precluded development of estimation techniques to indirectly derive monetary value (see travel cost method, Hein et al. 2006; and value transfer method,
57 Troy and Wilson, 2006) t he valuation methods have, by design, focused on economic utility. While these assessments produce tangible results that provide a method for weighing alternati ves, they miss the inclusive nature of ecosystem service understandings that include values out side monetary, utilitarian valuation and traditional ecologically based assessment. The goal of this study and others (see Sherrouse et al., 2011; Brown and Reed, 2000; Brown, Reed, and Harris, 2002; Brown, 2005; Brown and Alessa, 2005) is to turn the his torically economic and ecological assessment lens toward social and human capital spheres as a way to expand value definitions regarding ecosystem services thereby creating a more comprehensive picture of the true value (benefit) of ecosystems. Social valu es, as we conceive them, are the perceived attributes of a given ecosystem that are thought to result from a transactional concept of human landscape relationships (Brown, 2005; Zube, 1987). As active participants within an ecosystem the transactional mo thinking, feeling, and acting as leading to the attribution of meaning and the placement of value onto specific landscapes and places (Brown and Brabyn, in review). While social values of ecosystem services have been show n to exist, the application of rigorous methodologies to capture and ultimately integrate these values into resource decisions remains relatively elusive. Generally accepted value categories, as they pertain to ecosystem services, parallel the three pronge d structure of sustainability: environmental (ecological), economic, and social. The three value framework of total ecosystem service value by de Groot et al. (2002) helps to situate these categories withi n the larger framework (Figure 3 1 ).
58 All three value segments ecological, social, and economic must be equitably accounted for in order to attain a c omprehensive aggregate value of a given ecosystem. The study presented here focuses on how to better measure the social values of ecosystem services, which we argue remain vague within natural resource decision making structures, specific to a coastal ecosystem. Research aimed at developing models for mainstreaming ecosystem service assessment into policy and management has noted the need to include i nformation resulting from both social and biophysical assessments (Cowling et al. 2008). Consideration of the former as a psychosocial concept (Nijkamp, Vindigni, and Nunes, 2008) underscores the development of various social value typologies and theories related to the environment in general and ecosystems in particular. Study methods T his study selected the Delphi technique over traditional survey methods (surveys, group interviews, and focus groups) to elicit knowledge and opinion s from a group of inter national coastal experts. Using iterative rounds of sequential questionnaires interspersed with feedback reports, the technique relies on the interpretation of expert opinion. It provides a mechanism for organizing conflicting perspectives and experience s, and facilitates the incorporation of multiple opinions into an informed group consensus ( Donohoe and Needham, 2009; Briedenhann and Butts, 2006; Linstone and Turoff, 1975). The method was selected due to its suitability for research topics in which litt le or no knowledge exists ( i.e no typology has yet been developed to frame social values of ecosystem services in coastal contexts), there are no correct answers or hard facts, and /or consensus of expert opinion is considered a valid alternative ( Dono hoe and
59 Needham, 2009). Table 3 2 (Donohoe, 2011) outlines a set of key attributes and advantages tha t are consistent with the study objectives. Since natural resource management, particularly in coastal contexts, has historically been advanced by non inclu sive, entrenched knowledge systems (predominantly biological and utilitarian in nature), as represented by the Delphi method was chosen to support the achievement of consensus ( Donohoe, 2011; Habermas, 1990) The result o f the Delphi is agreement regarding study variables while at the same time reflecting multiple interests, values, and expertise. A three stage Delphi exercise, with three survey iterations, comprises the methodological framework (Figure 2 1; Donohoe, 2011 ) generic Delphi toolkit as a guide, an expert panel was developed as the foundational step in the research design. Guidelines suggest that panel size, characteristics, and composition should be based on the purpose of the investig ation, the scope of the problem, and the resources available (Cantrill, Sibbald, and Buetow, 1996; Linstone, 2002). For this study, international coastal resource management experts were sought to create a panel with a diversity of knowledge, experience, skills, and social perspective s Four relevant expert groups we re identified: natural resource professionals from governmental organizations; academics engaged in coastal or marine research and /or education; professi onals actively working in non governmental organizations whose focus centers on coastal and/or marine resource issues; and commercial enterprise representatives whose interests revolve around coastal and marine ecosystems. The inclusion of this expertise spectrum provides a means for
60 for mitigating the existent divide between research and professional communities, while ensuring a more inclusive and relevant Delphi conse nsus (Donohoe, 2011 ). Through a review of peer reviewed publications, membership listings of environmentally oriented non governmental organizations and commercial groups, participant manifests at conferences of relevance, and extensive internet based sea rching for coastal management experts an initial set of 1,025 potential participants were identified. The target p anel size was between 50 and 150 individuals from a range of socio cultural perspectives, professional experiences, and geographic locations Considerations of optimal panel size in the literature represent s a wide range of opinions with little evidence of the effect of size on validity, efficacy, and reliability (Donohoe, 2009) ; therefore the number of experts was capped at 150 due to consid erations of communication coordination between participants and researchers along with clarity of analysis concerns An e xpert panel of 129 individuals 36 government employees, 39 academics, 25 non governmental workers, and 29 commercial representatives were selected on the basis that they satisfied two participant survey). Selection criteria included : current or previous experience in the public, governmental, or private sectors related to coastal resources (minimum 5 years), or evidence of professional productivity in terms of peer reviewed or professional publications and research and/or participation in academic or industry symposia ; and English language pro ficiency. Additionally, as noted by Donohoe (2011), t he geographic dispers ion of the expert panel provided a secondary mea sure of richness
61 To represent this, a map ( http://g.co/maps/n7ebd ) showing the expert paneli was created, with different colored markers used to differentiate between expert type (governmental, nongovernmental, private, and academic). Global participation was achieved in terms of the geographical distribution of expert panelists, wi th North America (90.0% of participants), Europe (5.4%), Asia (1.5%), and Australia (2.3%) represented. Once the expert panel was established, the Delphi surveys were administered sequentially over a two month period using an online interface. A full de scription of the e Delphi methodology can be found in Cole, Donohoe, and Stellefson (in review), including an outline of the survey software used (Qualtrics TM ), the benefits of using an online project portal ( http://www.flseagrant.org/boating/projects/solves/solves phase 1 edelphi/ ) to disseminate summary reports between questionnaire rounds, and a thorough discussion of the advantages, disadvantages, and lessons learn ed in facilitating the Delphi exclusively via electronic communication. The first Delphi round was a scoping exercise design ed to define the study variables and stimulate participants reflections about the relationship between social values, ecosystem s ervices, and coastal resource management. Round one asked three question s : 1. List and describe the four most important issues or controversial resource uses facing contemporary coastal a nd marine management and policy; 2. How important is it for ecosystem service valuation to be inclusive of social values alongside traditional metrics of economic and ecological values? ; and 3. List and describe up to four social values of ecosystem services specific to coastal and marine contexts.
62 Participants we re provided with a two week period in which to respond. A response rate of 45% was achieved (Table 2 2 ). As the iterative process progressed through rounds two and three a consensus list of social values began to emerge. In both rounds a chance for ope n ended comments was provided, resul ting in hundreds of participant comments and suggestions used for enhancing the Delphi process and products In order to measure the level of convergence between rounds, simple mean scores and standard deviation were ca lculated. This approach is validated throughout Delphi literature regarding data analysis in determining consensus ( Green et al. 1990; Moeller and Shafer 1994) and As the typology was enhanced and refined, a c onvergence of group opinion between rounds was observed. Between rounds two and three, the enhancements were agreeable across expert panelists and remained stable, evidenced by a reduction in standard deviation (signaling increased convergence) and no sig nificant change in mean scores (signaling stability of opinion) (Table 2 2) It was therefore decided that consensus had been reached and further rounds would not produce additional convergence of opinion. Study Findings Typology: Social values of ecosyst em services Round one prompts to identify (list and describe) social values of ecosystem services specific to coastal and marine contexts produced an initial list of 19, based on content and frequency analysis with t heir rank importance established by th e frequency in w hich they appeared in open ended survey responses. Frequency tabulation (number of references to each issue) was independently completed by two researchers with
63 resulting inter coder reliability, that is, the congruency between the two inde pendent tabulations, at 93% (satisfying the most stringent measure of reliability). The initial social values list was 74% congru ent with antecedent social values typologies (e.g. fourteen of nineteen ; see Table 3 1 ), with five emergent values: identity, access, symbolic, novel experience, and transportation. While these nascent values are not exclusive to the coastal zone, it is interesting to note their application relative to terrestrial environments, as many would not translate very well to, say, for est ecosystems from which previous typologies have been developed. In round two, the initial typology of 19 social values was presented and expert panelists were asked to reflect on their relevance within coastal resource management. A request was made fo r respondents to rank the values based on relevance (most relevant to least relevant) and to comment on the salience of each A response average measure was generated for each value to measure consensus amongst the group. Using mean stability and decreas ing standard deviation as measures of c onsensus, a final typology of 16 social values was presented in the final (round three) summary. The concluding SVT was also inclusive of respondent comments from each round regarding the definitions of each value; t he se definitions were presented in the fina l SVT summary (Table 3 3 ). It is important to mention some specifics of how particular values developed through the iterative rounds. There were three predominant suggestions regarding ways to refine the typology by collapsing some of the social values listed. Those recommendations included: Nat ural/Wilderness Biodiversity; Spiritual Novel Experience; and Identity Symbolic. While the latter two merged within the final
64 typology, a majority of respondents (59.4%) vehemently resisted the suggestion of combining Natural/Wilderness with Biodiversity. These values were therefore separated in the final SVT along with dropping Wilderness for two reasons: 1. its redundancy with respect to the definition of Natural; and 2. Natural being more relevant within a coastal context relative to Wilderness In addition, it was stressed by multiple experts that Transportation (an identified value in round one) would be inherently captured within other values, such as Economic and Recreation, and therefore could be, and was, removed from the typology. There wer e a number of other suggestions for modifying the social value descriptions. For example, a representative suggestion for the Future value was used to refine the description: experience coastal ecosyst ecosystem service values should not be lost when As a final typology validity check, including definitions of each value, experts were asked to to review and provide judgment on the appropriateness of the SVT. No additional critiques or comments were su bmitted signaling an adequate degree of consensus. Relating coastal social values to past typologies Within the ecosystem services community, the need for better integration of social and ecological science has mostly been framed in terms of cooperation b etween ecologists and econ the cooperation must be extended to broader domains of in press) Broad based recognition of the need to consider social environment connections, within and external to the ecosys tem service community, is a crucial next step to
65 sustainable resource management. Drawing clear connections between ecological knowledge, economic data, and emerging social value understandings must be undertaken if ecosystem service discourse is to serve as the salve to viable, sustainable ecosystem based management applications. As an approach that claims adaptability across contexts with underpinnings of integrative thinking between disciplinary expertise, the idea of ecosystem services and their value as treatise for comprehensive assessment must continually undergo scrutiny. As evidenced by the variety in social value typologies used in previous studies (see Table 3 1), there remains a need to further solidify comprehensive lists that work within cer tain contexts and eventually across them. The effort put forth in this study is an extension of that terrestrial ecosystems work and offers a corollary typology for use in marine and coastal ecosystems. The wide range of references to the values derived from ecosystem services, i.e. ecosystem values (Reed and Brown, 2003), environmental values (Brown et al., 2002, 2004), landscape values (Brown and Raymond, 2007; Alessa et al., 2008), and wilderness values (Brown and Alessa, 2005) shows the range of un derstandings that currently exist and also reinforces the need for increased universal understanding of what is meant by the social values of ecosystem services. By falling back on the foundation of ecosystem service theory it is possible to situate socia l values alongside others ecosystem values. Indeed, the very definition of ecosystem services calls for the integration of human and non human factors through dual application of scientific methods on biophysical aspects and human dynamics (Council on Bio logical Diversity, 2008). Through that understanding of ecosystem services, their value within resource
66 management hinges on concurrent response to complex biological, cultural, and political scenarios (MA, 2003) and it becomes vital to drill deeper into the value connections through the use of typologies such as the one offered here. In doing so it becomes possible to capture the full range of benefits and in essence, true ecosystem services, provided by the environment. Ecosystem management requires va luation of natural resources (Manzo, 2003) traditionally based on utility, that must be extended to account for place in the form of social values (Williams and Patterson, 1996). It has been argued since the inception of ecosystem services discourse, that these human assigned values have often gone underestimated (Odum and Odum, 1972) within decision making processes. If we are to aim for more comprehensive consideration of ecosystem service value within natural resource management broadly, and we perceiv e the social value attributes of a given ecosystem to result from transactional human landscape relationships (Brown, 2005; Zube, 1987), then typologies of social values must be used to capture the range found within each ecosystem of relevance, in this in stance coastal and marine contexts. One model that utilizes this type of social value information and has been proven effective in terrestrial environments is the Social Values of Ecosystem Services (SolVES) geographic information system tool developed by the United States Geologic Survey (Sherrouse, et al., 2011). An application of the typology presented here, through SolVES modeling, is being conducted in Sarasota Bay, Florida. While previous applications of typologies outlined in Table 3 1 have found success in modeling social values of terrestrial landscapes, the application of the coastal specific typology of social values is the first of its kind. Data and conclusions from that study will not only highlight
67 the similarities and differences between the typologies but will also aid in refining the typology to a more manageable number of values, an important step in making it viable to managers and other decision makers. This is the necessary next step after typology development. Integrating soci al values of ecosystem services into coastal resource management: opportunities and barriers Throughout the Delphi exercise, experts alluded to opportunities and barriers that could potentially affect the integration of social values as a natural resource imperative alongside traditional metrics of economy and ecology within ecosystem management approaches. We expand now on the opportunities and barriers that were noted throughout the Delphi exercise. These opportunities and barriers emerged openly and directly in participant comments throughout the three survey iterations. In order to better understand the c omplexity of using social values alongside economic and ecological measures, content of open ended responses was analyzed and a discussion of findings follows. The range of human understandings regarding the environment, both individual and collective, a re observed through examination of perceptions, attitudes, and values directed at relevant resources and their management. Linked to human behavior and decision making, these variables can vary and change across time and space while not being immediately available or considered important to managers. Barriers as it pertains to the integration of social values of ecosystem services into management include misunderstanding, insensitivity, lack of knowledge, and conflicting values (often defined by professio nal expertise) amongst managers (as represented by our expert panelists in this case). Key concerns raised were related to the difficulty in considering
68 the emerging importance of social values alongside long understood economic and ecological variables, one respondent noted: Ecosystem valuation is important, but a difficult concept for the general public to grasp. Having accurate assessments of ecosystem values helps decision makers wi th funding allocations and decisions regarding use patterns. Social values estimation must be done as well. But the quantitative methods used must provide for comparable estimates and must be done in a manner that does not enco urage bias and overestimati While there was general agreement that ecosystem services valuation should incorporate social values, many acknowledged the difficulty in doing so as evidenced by the lack of this type of measurement in most contemporary assessments: e an important consideration with ecosystem valuation, particularly during project planning, however social values are difficult to use in project ranking. Therefore social values become qualitative considerations rather than quantitative economic conside rations or ecological values that often are reduced to quantitative values. If social values can be defined and then normalized in some manner to economic As this participant expressed, the need to n ormalize these social values in a quantitative manner, rather than traditionally qualitative, is the crux of true integration into contemporary measurements. The move toward social value standardization within a coastal context represents one of the key o pportunities identified by this study. Accepting the equitable consideration of social values was also judged to be a barrier to its true assimilation into relevant planning and evaluation.. A number of respondents saw that integrating social value measur e into the existing decision making milieu of natural resources management is simply not effectual relative to traditional considerations or is adequately captured by existing assessments. To the former point, re much harder to quantify, and enter
69 into the decision making process with much less impact. That is, decision makers, regardless of the strength or time spent discussing social issues, tend to make decisions based largely on perceived or real cost benef assumption: While social values can be important, ultimately I think the ecological values to a degree, but more importantly, the economic values will adequately capture this. If coastal resources are valued for aesthetic reason and represent a social value of entert ainment or enjoyment, then society will place more value on more enjoyable resources and the economic indicators rela ted to how people choose to use those resources will reflect that. Restated simply, I believe the social values are inputs to the ecologic accounting for social values can destroy resources vital to community and resident Conclusion Agencies at all levels of government, from local to international, see inclusive evaluation of ecosystem services as critical to robust decision ma king regarding rele vant resources. Specific to this study, recognition of the widespread coastal and marine resource decline has additionally triggered a need to change the way these resources are managed. The diversity of stakeholder attitudes, preferen ces, and behaviors associated with such values and uses are a source of ongoing conflict for resource managers as they are addressed through various approaches within the decision making process (Zendehdel, Rademaker, De Baets, and Van Huylenbroeck, 2009). The purpose of this study was to build on the increasingly universal language of
70 ecosystem services by presenting a social values typology that when applied in concert with traditional measures, provides a more comprehensive understanding of the human be nefits derived from the coastal environment. As a conception from which managers can understand and assess the trade offs inherent to landscapes /seascapes and their management, typologies such as the one advanced here, will facilitate more robust and equi table decision making. The Delphi method was used and proved to be a valuable and inclusive forum for the generation of ideas and debate. It produced a rich data set that contributed to an evolving understanding of social values of ecosystem services in t he coastal zone. The research captured and interpreted expert opinion related to the importance of considering social values alongside traditional metrics (economic and ecological) within natural resource management, including barriers and opportunities f or its integration into relevant decision making. While little doubt remains that social values of ecosystem services is an issue of import, the study also reveals that investments are required to put the results presented here into action. Through the D elphi approach, this study accomplished its central objective of moving the group toward consensus on a comprehensive social values typology. Participants expressed much hope (apparent in comments) that the results of this work can serve as an important f irst step towards making management of coastal resources more comprehensive and responsive to societal interests. Additionally, researchers were encouraged by the positive feedback regarding the methodology of the study, particularly the ease of communica tion with which the e Delphi created.
71 Although somewhat enigmatic in its complexity and necessity, this study identifies the consideration of social values within perceptions of ecosystem services as a contemporary coastal planning and management imperati ve. While use of ecosystem service discourse as the basis for resource decision making continues its maturation within existing policy structures and our understanding of the social values of ecosystem gs will provide guidance for coastal resource stakeholders in both the academic, professional, and general public domains who are contributing to relevant management plans, policy initiatives, research agendas, or other ecosystem management related advance ments related to social values, their evaluation, and use in decision making. From a theoretical perspective, the typology emergent from this study contributes to a growing body of knowledge concerned with defining and measuring the human side of ecosystem services. The nature of ecosystem services, and the parent concept of ecosystem based management, is based on flexibility and context specific understanding of the relationship between variables acting in a given environment. The findings reported here advance that understanding by providing a conceptual basis for digging into that connection, specifically in the coastal zone. Methodologically, this study advances movement toward information technology based techniques for social research, in this case the use of an e Delphi, that appear to be gaining momentum within academic and professional realms. The logical next step in future use of the findings presented here is application of the social values typology in resource assessment initiatives, within both research and practical based efforts. This will require the development of a set of frameworks,
72 techniques, tools, methods, and policies for social values assessment that are supported by this study. While participants expressed concern about the p rocess and resources required to integrate social values assessment into existing measures, there was agreement about its importance and contribution to more comprehensive natural resource decision making.
73 Table 3 1. The social value typologies used in related studies. Social Values Research Source life sustaining economic s cientific/learning recreation aesthetic wildlife biodiversity historic spiritual intrinsic future subsistence therapeutic cultural wilderness Rolston and Coufal (1991) x x x x x x x x x x Brown and Reed (2000); Reed and Brown (2003) x x x x x x x x x x x x x Brown (2005); Alessa et al. (2008) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Sherrouse et al. (2011) x x x x x x x x x x x x
74 Table 3 2. Delphi attributes and advantages Legitimacy : The Delphi is considered an established research technique. Suitability : The Delphi is well suited to complex problems where exact knowledge is not available and the contributions of experts would contribute to advancing understanding and know ledge about the problem. Proximity : Given the potential difficulties involved with bringing participants together for face to are not required. Reflexivity : By design (iterations), the Delphi allows for participants to really think through the concepts and questions so that resulting data is very rich, and by extension, valid research findings result (and statistical presentation of results is possible). Flexibility : The Delphi is flexible, allowing for a variety of design decisions to be made. Flexibility permits methodological adaptation in order to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the research problem. Repetition : The Delphi is designed to move a group towards convergence of opinion. The process requires multiple iterations where surveys are distributed and feedback (summary reports) is provided to participants. The product is an informed judgment about a complex problem. Anonymity : By design, t he Delphi reduces the risk(s) for group dynamics to influence outcomes. Experts are free to express their opinions without fear of losing face among their peers.
75 Table 3 3 Social values typology for coastal contexts (alphabetical order) Value Definition Access Places of common property free from access restrictions or exclusive ownership/control. Aesthetic Enjoyable scenery, sights, sounds, smells, etc. Biodiversity Provision of a variety and abundance of fish, wildlife, and plant life. Cultural Place for passing down wisdom, knowledge, and traditions. Economic Provision of fishery (commercial/recreational), minerals, and tourism industry that support livelihoods. Future Allowance for future generation to know and experience healthy, productive, and sustainable coastal ecosystems. Historic Place of natural and human history that matter to individuals, communities, societies, and nations. Identity/ Symbolic Places that engender a sense of place, community, and belonging; represent a d Intrinsic Right to exist regardless of presence; value based on existence (being rather than place). Learning Place of educational value through scientific exploration, observation, discovery, and experimentation. Life Sustaining Provision of macro environmental processes (i.e. climate regulation, hydrologic cycle, etc.) that support life, human and non human. Recreation Place for favorite/enjoyable outdoor recreation activities. Spiritual/Novel Experience Places of s acred, religious, unique, deep, and/or profound experience where reverence/respect for nature is felt. Subsistence Provision of basic human needs, emphasis on reliable, regular food/protein source from seafood. Therapeutic Place that enhances feelings of well being (e.g. Wilderness Place of minimal human impact and/or intrusion into natural environment.
76 Figure 3 1. Three pronged structure of comprehensive ecosystem management. Ecosystem Structure and Process Ecosystem Function Ecosystem Goods and Services Ecological Structures Social Values Economic Utilities Comprehensive Ecosystem Management Approach to Assessment and Planning
77 CHAPTER 4 SOCIAL VALUES OF ECO SYSTEM SERVICES IN THE COAS TAL ZONE: AN ADAPTATION AND EXTEN SION OF SOLVES GIS M ODELING Introduction As the use of and pressures on natural resources continues to rise, particularly in the coastal zone, there is a critical need for research to quantify tradeoffs amongst relevant ecosystem services (Carpenter et al., 2009). Ecosystem services discourse provides a structure in which to view and weigh the inherent tradeoffs of environmental decision making. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2003 ), an integrated ecosystem assessment established with the involvement of the private sector, government, nongovernmental organization s scientist s and other stakeholders, provides the formative framework for making connections between ecosystem services an d human well being within this study. As a social ecological framework, further analysis requires information drawn from both natural and social sciences (Carpenter et al., 2009; Sherrouse et al., 2011). This study extends initial Social Values of Ecosys tem Services (SolVES) model development, which focused on spatial quantification of social values across a terrestrial landscape, to a coastal and marine environment. The SolVES model (Sherrouse et al., 2011) combines social and ecological data by creatin g a Value Index of spatially explicit social values across a given landscape as a method for spatial quantification and relative value comparison while linking those values to underlying environmental characteristics of the corresponding ecosystem. The mo del addresses a source of continued difficulty for land and resource managers using ecosystem services concepts in decision making: the challenge of comprehensively including a full range and diversity of stakeholder attitudes and preferences associated
78 wi th such values when accounting for and trying to resolve the resulting value conflicts inherent to decision making processes (Zendehdel et al., 2009). Responding to calls for additional research into refinement of the social value typology use d within the original SolVES modeling tool (Sherrouse et al, 2011), we began this research with a Delphi exercise to engage coastal resource experts in creating a comprehensive list (typology) of relevant values specific to our context, the coastal ecosyst em of Sarasota Bay, Florida (see chapters two and three above for a full review). This typology ( Table 3 3 ) was used in the data collection and modeling reported here. The second iteration of the modeling tool (SolVES 2.0) represents a framework in which user entered social values represent measureable ecological end products or endpoints of ecosystem services at their interface with human well being (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007) that are specific to the context of interest. The value of ecological endpoints, within this framework, are accounted for distinctly from the elements and processes of the ecosystems that produce them while retaining acknowledgement of the dependency of these endpoints on the condition of the ecosystem (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007). From a practical perspective, the functionality of the model allows quantification of the relationship between these social value endpoints and both their social and physical contexts in a way that is informative and useful to decision makers and scientists. A dditionally, the model supports potential for incorporation into broader ecosystem services assessments and valuation studies while remaining specific to the needs and dynamics of the ecosystem of interest. The results presented here summarize the collect ion and modeling of social value data related to coastal ecosystem services in Sarasota Bay, Florida (SBF).
79 Ecosystem Management: Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning The conceptual foundation of ecosystem services stems from the ecosystem approach to nat ural resource management and explicitly provides the impetus for coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) efforts which are the purview of this study. The ecosystem approach, including the idea of ecosystem services, has developed in response to inheren t uncertainty in environmental management, planning, and policy. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) defines an ecosystem approach to management as a bridge between the environment and human well being; parallel and related concepts include the deve lopment of coupled socio ecological systems (SES) (Alessa et al., 2008) and the advent of participatory, stakeholder inclusive management efforts within natural resource management. The Council on Biological Diversity (CBD) provides the most widely used a nd arguably most comprehensive description of the ecosystem approach: A strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. Application of the ecosystem approach wi ll help to reach a balance of the three objectives of the Convention [conservation; sustainable use, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources]. It is based on the application of appropriate sci entific methodologies focused on levels of biological organization, which encompass the essential structure, processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment. It recognizes that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an inte gral component of many ecosystems (CBD, 2008). Such an approach is not expected to be, nor can it be, the same in all contexts. On the contrary, every situation involving environmental policy, planning, and management requires a different implementation strategy as determined by local, provincial, national, regional, and global conditions (MA, 2003) in terms of political climate, social conditions, and ecological foundations. Ecosystem management at its
80 core seeks to be adaptable to each context by takin g into account the existing social, ecological, political, and market realities in attempts to improve practice. Expanding value definitions A major focus of the ecosystem approach to natural resource management is to gain a more comprehensive, context specific, and equitable understanding of all the factors environmental, economic, and social from which decisions are purportedly based. As both the language and currency of such approaches, ecosystem services and their valuation have begun to dominate the relevant discourse when developing tradeoff models and deciding between management alternatives. Generally accepted value categories, as they pertain to ecosystem services valuation in resource decision making contexts can be seen to parallel the three pronged structure of sustainability considerations: environmental (ecological), economic, and social. All three value segments must be accounted for in order to attain a true aggregate (to tal) value of a given ecosystem ; however, most traditional management emphasis (including valuation efforts) have focused on the ecological and economic variables to the detriment of social consideration. In response to this reality, a common theme emergent from a broad range of res earch perspectives is the need for valuation of ecosystem services to more effectively incorporate social values as perceived by those who benefit from the services (Sherrouse et al., 2011) and which tend to fall outside of traditional ecological and econo mic assessments. As Costanza et al. (1997) noted in their study estimating the total economic value of global ecosystem goods and services, most of what e cosystem services provide exist as public goods with benefits that bypass the money economy. While th e absence of market data has not precluded development of
81 estimation techniques to indirectly derive monetary value (see travel cost method, Hein et al. 2006; value transfer method, Troy and Wilson, 2006) the valuation methods have, by design, focused lar gely on economic utility derived from the provision of ecosystem goods (e.g. timber, fish, minerals, etc.) along with quantification of the resulting ecological impact. While these assessments produce tangible results that can provide a method for weighi ng alternatives, they miss the inclusive nature inherent to conceptions of ecosystem services that include values outside monetary, utilitarian valuation (i.e. social values). Robust ecosystem management and policy must include a full range of ecosyste m values including the socio cultural, the ecological, and the intrinsic in addition to utilitarian values (MA, 2003) while being informed by the analysis of integrated socioeconomic and biophysical data (de Lange, Wise, Forsyth, and Nahman, 2010). As Ca rpenter et al. (2006) note, greater management emphasis should be placed on the linkages between ongoing social and ecosystem change dynamics including more indirect drivers such as demographic and cultural factors. Research aimed at developing models for mainstreaming ecosystem service assessment into policy and management have also noted the need to include information resulting from both social and biophysical assessments (Cowling et al. 2008). Consideration of the former as a psychosocial concept (Nij kamp, Vindigni, and Nunes, 2008) underscores the development of various social value typologies and theories related to the environment in general and ecosystems in particular, such as the one used here ( Table 3 3 ). Concurrent to calls for the inclusion of these social values, the assessment of ecosystem services has become an increasingly spatial affair within ecosystem
82 management of coastal and marine resources (e.g. CMSP), with researchers and practitioners finding traction in models that allow for s patial quantification of all relevant variables simultaneously across space as demonstrated by the SolVES model utilized here. Social values of ecosystem services in coastal and marine spatial planning Since the mid 1990s, there has been growing recogn ition that natural resource management benefits from spatial assessment of landscape characteristics that underpin policy decision making within ecosystem management approaches. In the coastal zone, specific calls for spatial planning within resource mana gement structures, CMSP, is found in contemporary national and international policy initiatives such as the Coastal Zon e Management Act (United States ), Marine Strategy and Maritime Policy (European Union), and Convention of the Law of the Sea (United Nati ons). The idea of CMSP was initially stimulated by global interest in development of marine protected areas (Douvere, 2008), with those early efforts since extended to mul tiple use conflicts, arising as a result of the current expansion of offshore wind energy, fishing and aquaculture, dredging, mineral extraction, shipping, and the need to nd Ehler, 2009; p. 77). As a method within broader efforts at ecosystem based management, CMSP scholars have identified various steps and key concepts to consider in its implementation (see Gilliland and Laffoley, 2008; Maes, 2008; Plasman, 2008) along wi th lessons learned in the decade since its first inception (see Douvere and Ehler, 2009; Ehler, 2008). The study presented here extends this discussion by exploring the use of a social values typologies of ecosystem services, specific to coastal
83 contexts ( chapter three ), through spatial quantification and modeling in SBF using SolVES 2.0 ; establishing what St. Martin and Hall Arber (2008) call the missing social data layer. Indeed, as a process and framework, CMSP is most beneficial as an integrating plat form of relevant objectives; information about pressures and use; and environmental status of proximally significant ecosystems. The spatial planning process aims to assess the spatial interactions and cumulative impacts among these different ecosystem va riables while analyzing a range of alternative measures for managing 788). Stakeh older value mapping The literature is replete with examples where public value and attitude survey results have been used to quantify and map social values perceived by stakeholders. Variations of a forest values typology created by Rolston and Coufal (19 91) and validated by Brown and Reed (2000) has dominated social value mapping studies where values of interest are alternatively referred to as ecosystem values (Reed and Brown, 2003), environmental values (Brown et al., 2002, 2004), landscape values (Bro wn and Raymond, 2007; Alessa et al., 2008), and wilderness values (Brown and Alessa, 2005) (see Table 3 1 ). This study utilizes a typology specific to coastal ecosystems, albeit closely related to others, developed through the Delphi exercise with coastal experts conducted and outlined in previous chapters ( Table 3 3 ). In general, there are two approaches for mapping social values, both of which fall under the umbrella of public participation geographic information systems (P PGIS) (Sieber, 2006). One approach relies on mapping results according to predefined
84 planning and management units (Tyrvinen, Mkinen, and Schipperihn, 2007), while the other, used in this study, is more flexible and scalable by relying on calculation of the weighted density of points marked on maps by stakeholders (Brown et al., 2004; Brown, 2005; Alessa et al. 2008; and Sherrouse et al., 2011). The latter method allows results to be expressed in a manner that is similar to monetary expressions of econo mic value (Brown, 2005) making the outcomes more practical to decision makers. SolVES 2.0 Application in the Coastal Zone The use of a GIS for con ducting analyses that integrate social and environmental data in a number of contexts is well established (e.g. Snyder et al., 2008; Saqalli et al., 2009; Silberman and Rees, 2010; Wyman and Stein, 2010; Sherrouse, et al., 2011). Using SolVES model analysis, this paper presents findings from a similar effort which examined the attitudes and preferences of st akeholders regarding their perceived social values of SBF alongside spatial data characterizing the physical environment of the ecosystem. Survey design and ensuing results analysis were based on the procedures and methods described by Brown et al. (2002) and later used by Sherrouse et al. (2011). SolVES provides a tool for generating maps that illustrate the distribution of a quantitative, non monetary value metric (Value Index) across the landscape along with graphical and tabular reports containing met rics characterizing the physical environment at locations across the range of the Value Index for different social value types as calculated for subgroups of survey respondents (Sherrouse, et al., 2011). A case study is presented to demonstrate existing S olVES functionality, explore adaptation and application of the model in a coastal context, and discuss enhancement s for future versions. As noted in initial development of the SolVES tool, its intent is to serve as a model for the continued development of more robust tools useful to decision makers,
85 stakeholders, and resea rchers (Sherrouse et al., 2011). T his study contributes by further extending its applicability ac ross a range of environments and associated decision making contexts. Methods Study Context Sarasota Bay is a coastal lagoon system formed by barrier islands to the west, mainland Florida to the east, and Anna Maria Sound and Venice Inlet to its north an d south, respectively. The geographic scope of the study, which was is an area that extends from the southern tip of Fort De Soto Park (Pinellas County) in the north to the northern shore of Siesta Key in the south nine nau tical miles offshore (state waters boundary) and landward to the watershed boundaries for Sarasota Bay and Palma Sola Bay (Figure 4 1) The analysis was limit ed to this area for two reasons: 1. to strike a balance between robust data analysis and adequat e respondent understanding, and 2. to incorporate resource use factors and relevant policy/management boundaries. As such, we used boating data to determine that Sarasota Bay proper, including the associated barrier islands, represented a concentration of boating departure and destination points. While boating was not the specific focus of this study, the amount and degree of data available made it a viable contributor in determining the final study area. Additionally, setting the southern boundary at th e northern shoreline of Siesta Key allowed incorporation of the popular Big P ass a popular access point to Gulf waters from the southern portion of Sarasota Bay and adjacent to the highly developed area of downtown Sarasota The decision to extend seawar d nine nautical miles corresponded to the state waters line for
86 the Gulf of Mexico For the purpose of clarity to respondents of the mapping and survey area includes the w atershed, bay, barrier islands and nearshore Gulf waters ( extending out to 9 nautical miles offshore) extending from Anna Maria Sound in the north to Siesta developed areas or those not considered natural (i.e., buildings, transportation infrastructure), within the study boundary on the included barrier islands and landward terrestrial environments were excluded as the model operates on natural spaces. The ecological landscape of the bay provides an abundant store of natural capital upon which the quality of life and economic success of the region is built. The embayment endows a rich diversity of ecosystem services including environmental regulating pr ocesses, social and cultural heritage, high quality water supply, abundant habitat, educational opportunities, commercial assets, and recreational activities, making it the most important resource base and number one economic driver of the area (Sarasota E stuary Program, 2012) Serving as a nursery of over 1,400 plant and animal species the bay system was designated an estuary of national significance in 1987, allowing for cooperative management and goal setting over the past 20 years Greater Sarasota B ay includes two small embayments (Palm Sola and Sarasota) along with two main tributaries (Whitaker Bayou and Hudson Bayou). Average bay depth is 6.5 feet with both embayment s having unique size, depth, shoreline characteristics, habitat, and sediment pro file. This variability creates unique ecosystem processes (water circulation, freshwater input, nutrient load, etc.) that require both individual and network understanding for their management. Around 15% of the total
87 bay bottom, or roughly 4,800 acres, was altered in the 1950s and 1960s to create home sites and boat channels. It is hypothesized that coastline and marine ecosystem diversity is indicative of the potential variability of social values assigned to those environments by the 600,000 residents of the area. Data Collection A mail invitation to complete an online, interactive mapping survey was sent in mid 2012 to a random sample of 2,172 households located within the two counties (Sarasota and Manatee) adjacent to the study area. Initial respo nse rate in the first two week period was 5.75 %, with 125 surveys completed. In addition to the random mailing, representatives of identified local stakeholder groups were contacted and asked to send a similar invitation to their memberships, producing 77 more completed surveys in that same period The 125 completed surveys from the random sample were used in the initial analysis reported here Figure 4 2 provides a map of the study area depicting the spatial dispersion of mapped points used in analysis In addition to the dual sampling strategy, a workshop was held prior to survey distribution with local managers in order to pilot test and discuss critically the advantages and disadvantages of the online interface in collecting data so as to refine th e tool and make subsequent results more attune to their needs. The goal of this refinement was to respond to management needs by developing a simple informative tool for collecting and evaluating the social values of ecosystem services while explicitly li nking data collection, analysis, and outcomes to management needs and actions for immediate use. The survey, which can be found at sarasotabaysurvey.org, was divided into two sections. Section 1 queried individuals regarding Sarasota Bay specifically, including
88 their perceptions of policy and management within the area over the next 10 15 years, the role of the public in management decisions, the degree of public access to bay resources, observations of environmental condition indicators, and personal connections to the bay as a special place. This section included the first half of what is required for SolVES modeling, i.e. the value allocation and value mapping exercises. ng 16 different social value types associated with SBF. While dollar units were used for convenience to express value denominations (e.g. points could have been used instead of dollars), it was explained in the instructions that this was not a reference to Also, while the SolVES application requires allocation amounts be scaled between 0 100, the workshop participants recommended $1000 be used as it was a more approp riate amount for the area. As such, allocation amounts were rescaled as part of preparing the data for SolVES model input. Following the allocation exercise, respondents were instructed in the next step, value mapping, to mark points on a map of the stud y area corresponding to the social value types to which they had allocated dollars. For example, if the respondent had allocated dollars to Spiritual value they were to place a mark at up to four locations on the map indicating Spiritual value, and label each mark accordingly. Section two requested that respondents take a broader look at similar ecosystems occurring outside the study area including the entirety of the Gulf of Mexico, and indicate whether they favored or opposed each of 45 public uses, divided into three use categories recreational activities; commercial, industrial, and residential uses; and
89 ecological and environmental opportunities (Table 4 1 ) which represents the second half of what is required for SolVES modeling The last par t of section two asked a variety of socio demographic information; however, that information was not used in the initial analysis presented here. Spatial Database Development The online survey we created and used for data collection produces a digital da tabase of survey responses with mapped locations recorded as latitude/longitude markers and other survey responses logged as tabular data. The aggregated result is a seamless database spreadsheet where each column represents a separate variable (geographi c point or tabular notation) and each row a unique respondent, identified by an alpha numeric code, so all data from a single survey can be related while remaining anonymous. Also loaded were 30 meter resolution rasters to characterize the physical enviro nment of SBF: distance to shoreline, distance to roads and channels, and bathymetry The geodatabase schema within SolVES 2.0 is generalized so that survey and landscape data from any study area can be input into the modeling tool with minimal effort as such, additional data layers for future analysis could include terrain elevation (to be merged with bathymetry) and land cover For exploration into modeling specific values, such as aesthetics and recreation, it will also be possible to examine the effec tiveness of the model using alternative data layers like distance to reefs, distance to boat ramps and access points, and shoreline tenure (i.e. public vs. private). SolVES is a series of models using ESRI ModelBuilder, augmented with VB.NET. SolVES 2.0 uses geospatial and tabular data to parameterize three separate models: the Ecosystem Services Social Values Model, the Value Mapping Model, and the Value Transfer Mapping Model. D ata can be entered into the model describing
90 particular management actions public uses, and other relevant variables alongside These provide the criteria for selecting the value allocation amounts and the related mapping points for a specified subgroup. Users of the tool can compare values either by survey subgroup (determined alternatively by management attitude, use preference, or perceived attachment) across social value types or by social value type across survey subgroups. To produce weig hted density surfaces depicting relative value amongst and between survey subgroups the amounts allocated to each social value type along with their associated points are used. Points with higher value allocations obtain a greater weighting and hence res ult in higher density values. As kernel density surfaces, they are generated following a methodology similar to Alessa et al. (2008) and later used by Sherrouse et al. (2011) in model development. The kernel density function represents a smoothly curved surface fit over each point and extends out to a defined search radius (defined by the user). The assigned weight is defined by the volume below each point. As determined by the spatial extent of t he study area, the kernel density search radius parameter was set at 1500 meters. The kernel density output cell size parameter was correspondingly set to 150 meters the closest standard size based on the scale of the maximum extent used in the survey ma ps 1:288,880 Survey respondents could zoom in on the study area as much as desired, however, using the maximum extent in initial analysis assured an adequate and uniform parameter. For a selected survey subgroup and each of the 16 social value types, SolVES generates a weighted density surface. Of those surfaces, the one containing the cell
91 having the maximum overall weighted density value is identified, and this value is then used to normalize each of the 16 density surfaces. The result of this norm alization is that the value of every cell on every weighted density surface is scaled relative to the most highly valued geographic location and to the most highly valued social value type as rated by the selected survey subgroup. A Value Index is then cr eated by standardizing the normalized values, through production of an integer surface, into a consistent 10 point scale. Measurement and comparison regarding the magnitude of value differences within, between, and amongst survey subgroups can be made usi ng this Value Index, along with production of social value maps and associated landscape metrics. The higher the value attained on the Value Index by a particular social value type within a subgroup, the more highly it is valued by that subgroup. Within a single subgroup, a social value type that attains a 10 on the Value Index corresponds to one or more locations within the study area where that survey subgroup values that social value type more highly than at any other location and more highly than any o f the other social value types regardless of location. For social value types that attain less than a 10 on the Value Index, the maximum index value that they do attain (9, 8, 7, etc.) corresponds to locations where that value type is valued more highly th an at any other location within the study area. Among different survey subgroups, the maximum attained index value can be used to make some general comparisons regarding the relative value each subgroup places on a social value type. The Value Index is fur ther supported by the calculation of spatial statistics describing relative dispersion, clustering, or randomness of the mapped points, aiding
92 the SolVES user in selecting social value types for further analysis. Point data is subjected to Complete Spatia l Random ness (CSR) hypothesis testing through the calculation of average nearest neighbor statistics. Statistically significant clustering is identified through the ratio of the observed distance between points to the expected distance between points (R v deviations from the mean (Z score). Hence, R values less than one with highly negative Z scores indicate clustering. By referring to these statistics, SolVES users can limit their focus to social value types occupying locations with specific levels of significance on the landscape. For a specific social value type SolVES then generates a corresponding Value Index surface, displays it on a map, and uses Maxent to calculate landscape metrics. The integra tion of Maxent maximum entropy modeling software into the model represents an additional enhancement with SolVES 2.0. As a species distribution mapping social values. In this context, the logistic output Maxent produces represents the relative intensity that survey respondents attribute to a social value type (analogous to a species) at a location given the underlying environmental characteristics and the ntification of such locations as representing a particular social value type. This output, together with the kernel density method already used by SolVES, provides more complete maps within study areas where survey attitude and preference data are availab le, such as in this case. In addition, Maxent also enhances functionality of SolVES 2.0 by producing statistical model output that describes the relationship between environmental variables and survey mapping points. This text does not attempt to provide an exhaustive account of the enhancements provided to SolVES 2.0
93 via Maxent methodologies, for additional technical information refer to the Maxent website at www.cs.princeton.edu/~schapire/maxent/ ; for additional information about its use within SolVES 2.0 refer to the associated user manual at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1023/contents/OF 12 1023.pdf Data Analysis A SolVES output was produced for all survey responses collectively across three social values to demonstrate the utility of the tool and begin to explore its application in a coastal context Three values, Recreation, Aesthetics and Biodiversity, were chosen as they represent the most common ly mapped values within the sample ; s imilar to findings from previous SolVES applications (Sherrouse et al., 2011; van Riper, in press). Table 4 2 summarizes the s urvey responses in terms of the frequen cy of mapped points and allocations alongside average and total allocation for each value. The social value t ypes used in analysis represent a reduction from the 16 total values in the typology to three testing later used by Sherrouse et al. (2011), which identified them as more likely to be clustered than the remaining twelve After determining which values would be used through CSR analysis spatial value maps were created using an initial set of environmental data layers that included bathymetry distance to roads and channels and distance to shore These value maps were then compared amongst each other to validate the use of those layers in future analysis This comparison, as given in the exa mple below, is supplemented by the researchers general understandings of physical characteristics and use patterns in the area The discussion that ensues provides an example that demonstrates how SolVES output is designed and can be used to communicate and analyze information
94 describing the relationship of social values and the underlying landscape for managers and the general public. Findings Spatial Clustering Statistically significant (p < 0.01) spatial clustering of point locations was found for al l three social value types. Amongst the social values, Recreation tended to be the most clustered, with the remaining two relatively equal. The number of points for each value used in spatial clustering analysis is represented alongside R ratio and Z sco re statistics in Table 4 3 ; R ratios below one indicate clustering (along with large negative Z scores), equal to one indicate randomness, and greater than one indicate dispersion. It is important to note that this type of spatial clustering analysis can be influenced by number of points and not just distribution; however, in the case of these three values the statistical findings support a conclusion that all appear grouped, respectively, across the study area. Value Maps and Landscape Metrics SolVES g enerates a geographic representation of the index values calculated for each social value type ( and survey subgroup if queued) through value maps. By relating a specified social value type and the amount of value perceived by stakeholders the dimensions of space and place can be evaluated. Metrics characterizing the physical environments are also calculated from the range and extent of the Value Index zones these maps indicate. The analysis and outcomes outlined below demonstrate SolVES output capability for communicating information about the relationship between social value points (intensity and location) and the underlying
95 landscape by comparing the value maps generated for Recreation Aesthetic, and Biodivers ity across all survey res ponses The example presented in F igure 4 3 looks at the social value map s for the southern portion of the study area adjacent to and north of downtown Sarasota from Longboat Pass in the north to Big Pass in the south (see Appendices G I for larger value maps) This area is considered the busiest portion of the bay and home to a large number of public and private marinas, boat ramps, and moorages ; waterfront restaurants; and a number of natural areas such as parks and greenways. First, the spatial extent and Value Index scores will be discussed for each map in the context of the local area dynamics followed by a brief comparison of the corresponding landscape metric graphs. Looking first at the Recreation map, it is apparent that higher values (relative to the other value maps) as determined by the Value Index, are spread throughout this section with concentrations at the north and south near the passes (maximum value attained: 9; see Table 4 3 ) This generally correspond s to boating patterns, i.e. trip s to the Gulf waters originating from these areas, and shore based recreation related to the predominance of public beaches and other coastline access concentrated in these locations. In terms of the former, it is worthy of noting that recreation val ues, although lower on the Value Index, appear to extend into the Gulf from those passes, particularly on the furthest southern extent of the study area boundary which also corresponds to boating behavior With respect to the latter, the shoreline betwee n these areas of high Recreation value along the inner barrier island and mainland coasts is generally developed, predominantly by private residences, which restricts access to the coast
96 and would therefore cause less recreation value along that reach fro m a large portion of the local population If we turn attention to the Aesthetic value map, the first thing to note is that those values scored lower across the area of focus on the Value Index, attaining a maximum value of 7, relative to Recreation. Co mpared to Recreation value, the higher Aesthetic values appears to be even more concentrated along the shoreline, which would logically follow the idea that most views deemed aesthetically valuable would originate from those places as one can immediately i magine standing on a beach and admiring the view of the open ocean or city skyline, for instance. This conclusion is also corollary to previous findings that concluded aesthetic value in mountainous terrain originates from high elevation viewpoints (Sherr ouse et al., 2011), again where one could easily conceive taking in a dramatic view. There is a general alignment between Aesthetic and Recreation values in their concentrations in the northern and southern ends of this area of focus, which could be accou nted for in the close relationship between those values, particularly in a coastal context. Lastly, looking at the Biodiversity value map there appears a general concentration of higher values in the northern portion of the presented extent. As noted abov e, the southern portion of the map is adjacent to the city of Sarasota and represented the most highly developed area depicted here. This circumstance could indeed account for the disparity in higher Biodiversity value as one moves from the north, with le ss development and possibly more naturally undisturbed environments, to the south, which is highly developed and urbanized. Another interesting dynamic represented is the line of lowest value oriented vertically in the middle of the bay segment. This cou ld be due
97 to that portion of the waterway being maintained through dredging as the main boating channel used to traverse the bay, which would indeed cause that specific area to have lower biodiversity. Moving away from the value maps and examining the as sociated landscape metric graphs we see general trend line agreement respective to the underlying environmental characteristics that they represent. The first row of graphs, depicting the bathymetry (depth) of the waterway generally shows that values in crease as water depth decreases, reinforcing above mentioned findings that show all values concentrated along the shoreline (i.e. water depth of zero). Looking at the second row of graphs, depicting the distance to shore, again we see a general trend of values decreasing the further one moves from the shoreline. Lastly, the third row of graphs representing distance to roads and channels, while trending similarly across the values, shows the biggest amount of disparity respective of the other environmenta l characteristics represented. While Recreation and Biodiversity are nearly identical, it appears that Aesthetic value is more influenced by this variable. This could potentially indicate that distance to channel and roads has an effect on some individua Aesthetic value and no effect on others. The se landscape metrics provide a baseline characterization of the underlying physical environment associated with each index value. With this particular case, it is apparent that relationship b etween the environmental data used in this model (bathymetry, distance to shore, and distance to roads and channels) to the represented values ( Recreation Aesthetic, and Biodiversity) is consistent with regard to the general physical and social dynamics o f the area It is worth noting that additional variables
98 should be explored and used to improve the effectiveness of the model, potentially uncovering more influential factors in the dispersion and weight of these, and other, values. Discussion Case Stud y Lessons systematically, interactively, and defensibly operationalize human dimensions of 2011, p 756 ). This pilot adaptation of the SolVES model to a coastal and marine ecosystem has provided an opportunity to explore the robustness of social biophysical integration in disparate environments. In forwarding the idea of social ecological space, SolVES analysis is founded on spatial quantification describing the social values relationship with underlying environmental variables. This research case, i n using a newly created typology of social values of ecosystem services s pecific to the coastal zone, also advances the refinement of that typology for use in future similar applications By applying these social value variables, or an iteration of them, in sub sequent coastal applications it is possible to fetter out which values, of the 16 total that represent the typology, are most important in relation to underlying environmental characteristics and can be best predicted across the land and sea scape s Resu lts from the adaptation of the SolVES model to SBF demonstrate its capabilities and potential for further extension and applicability in a variety of contexts. It is important to note that advances within SolVES version 2.0, particularly the allowance of user generated parameter entry, allow for extreme flexibility in its
99 application. Integr ation of the Maxent technology provides an advanced systematic means for identifying statistically significant spatial patterns of social values that warrant further i nvestigation. Overall, the spatial distribution of the three values analyzed was consistent on its face with what is understood about how people perceive and behave in coastal environments (i.e. activity and value concentrated along the coastline). Sim ilarly, the underlying zonal statistics used in this initial model run reiterated these findings and trended analogously amongst each other. It is vital to model improvement, in the context of SBF and in other coastal environments, to explore the use of a dditional relationship between social values and the environment. As a standardized, quantitative indicator with which to express relative value across geographic extents and within or across survey subgroups, the calculation of the Value Index provides a metric for the perceived, non monetized social value of ecosystem services without relying on dollar value terms. This allows index values to be potentially analyzed in some form of tradeoff analysis, in a relative sense, within a geographic context where various conflicting or compatible value layers are overlain to allow for spatial and quantitative optimization a mong management alternatives. A major advance within SolVES development resulting from this application is the development and implementation of an online, interactive data collection process. Previous SolVES data collection has relied on either traditional mail surveys (Clement and Chang, Sherrouse et al., 2011) or intercept, paper based surveys (van Riper, in press ). Methodologically related to those prior studies this research developed and
100 utilized a web accessible survey platform that integ rated traditional research questions with Google map functionality to gather geographically specific value points from respondents This combination creates a continuous user interface while producing a digitized, page separated data base of survey respons es, including latitude and longitude records (with necessary attributes). The generated digital database of spatial records and corresponding tabular data reduces drastically the time needed for input into the SolVES model, one of the biggest hurdles in c onducting any PPGIS research. Adapting Terrestrial SolVES to a Coastal Environment One of the biggest challenges in this study was adapting the SolVES modeling tool, originally created and developed for use in terrestrial ecosystems, to fit and work in a coastal context. Producing viable model outcomes hinged on adapting three essential elements of data collection and subsequent analysis: creation and use of an a priori list of management issues in the coastal zone (dependent variable) for determining use preference to subgroup respondents (Table 4 1) ; establishment of a social values typology specific to a coastal ecosystem (dependent variable) to provide relevant parameters for value measurement (Table 3 3) ; and determination of the appropriate underlying environmental data layers that best characterize the study area ecology and geography (independent variable) in relation to spatially explicit values. The chosen zonal data layers (distance to shoreline, distance to roads and c hannels, and bathymetry) proved useful and effective in initial modeling as demonstrated above. The biggest functional improvement in SolVES 2.0 is the ability to include any data layers deemed appropriate for pragmatic purposes specific to given contexts In our case, future analysis will include alternative layers, such as distance to reefs and/or shoreline tenure, in the model to explore their effectiveness in extending to
101 a coastal ecosystem. The main challenge in the exploratory extension of SolVES into the coastal zone, particularly greater Sarasota Bay, was the inherent complexity of the landscape being dealt with. The area of interest is home to over 600,000 residents and highly developed As a model based on natural area s (i.e. undeveloped), i t was difficult to drill down when it came to data collection and guide respondents to focus on those spaces of interest. Encouragingly, a vast majority of the spatial data collected (over 98%) was indeed in areas of relevance to the model (i.e. placed i n natural areas). While much remains in fine tuning the extension of the model, t he application of SolVES 2.0 in greater Sarasota Bay, Florida, provided an opportunity to explore the adaptation of the tool, developed in a terrestrial ecosystem, to a coast al context and by all measures was successful Future Directions Model Improvement T he most immediate step in further data development is using alternative subgrouping parameters ( examples: place attachment or management attitudes) and data layers (such as access points, socioeconomic variables [e.g. population, income, education, occupation], and ancillary spatial measurements [e.g. boating routes, activities mapping] ) for analysis capability will contribute to substantive improvements in its effectiveness of describing the relationship between social values and underlying environmental characteristics. While initial applications of S olVES (Sherrouse et al., 2011) focused solely on resource use preferences in comparing and contrasting respondent subgroups, constructs such as place attachment or management attitudes could potentially serve as alternative
102 baselines in examining within gr oup, across group, and across values comparisons in the spatial extent and density of social values for SBF and elsewhere In modeling the spatial relationship s between landscape characteristics and social values, the original development of SolVES describ ed the underlying ecosystem through data layers representing elevation, slope, distance to roads, and distance to water (Sherrouse et al., 2011). For our purposes in adapting that modeling structure to a coastal context, we utilized corollary data layers representing elevation, bathymetry, distance to shore, and distance to roads. While this gave us tangible results in the initial analysis presented here, the introduction of additional data layers could improve the robustness of the model outputs. This c an be especially important to the values transfer functionality of SolVES, a process whereby primary data (survey respondent points and underlying environmental characteristics) are used to establish landscape metrics that can be used to produce predicted social value maps through multiple regression analysis in areas where survey data is unavailable. In further developing the viable application of the SolVES tool to other environments, notably those that span terrestrial and marine ecosystems, it will be important to penetrate to those data layers that give us the most statistically significant relationships between social values and environmental characteristics. In a coastal context specifically, workable data layers describing the environment (and larg er context) could include recreation or commercial access points, socioeconomic variables (population, income, education, etc.), boating and other recreational dispersion patterns land cover/benthic substrate, coastal form, distance to channels, viewshed s and coastline tenure/ownership (public vs. private).
103 Manager Involvement Much as Sherrouse et al. (2011) indicate effectiveness can be advanced by engaging important stakeholders (managers, politicians, local ci tizens ) in its application and outcomes, specifically within the context of ongoing ma nagement and planning processes The feedback they could provide would undoubtedly drive future development of additional, more refined functionalities and with them inf ormation products that better inform relevant decision making processes. Often managers are faced with decisions between a number of alternative scenarios and by modeling social values across a given landscape for each of those alternatives a more inform ed decision about how to move forward can be made Ongoing involvement from managers and local stakeholders that leads to a greater frequency of data collection along with the increasing feasibility of near real time collection of required data, as demonstrated by our online mapping survey (additionally enabled by future integration of GPS, wireless, cell phone applications, and other participatory technologies) could be valuable for change analysis and scenario development (Sherrouse, et al., 2011). The involvement of managers with specific expertise in various elements of the ecosystem of concern (e.g. marine biologists, hydrologists, etc.) could lead to the identification of additional data at appropriate scales and resolutions that would provide improved measures and descriptions of relevant environmental characteristics and related ecosystem services. Overall, future study and increased stakeholder involve ment could aid in refining the design of public attitude and preference surveys needed for SolVES modeling statistically significant relationships with environmental data and assist with the cross
104 walk between social v p. 759). Conclusion While the guiding principles of CMSP are entrenched in ecological variables (see Foley, Halper, et al., 2010), the need for equitable focus on the human dimensions of land and sea scape s is gaining traction amongst ecosystem service scholars and practitioners (see St. Martin and Hall Arber, 2008; Goodhead and Aygen, 2007; Rees, Rodwell, et al., 2010). The challenge in development of social data layers for use in CMS P is representation of human processes and practices in ways similar to mapped biophysical processes (and values) so that the complex, integrated, and multi scalar dimensions are properly accounted for (St. Martin and Hall Arber, 2008) and can be compared relative to each other. This shift toward spatial understandings, planning, and management has required a shift in technical methods, namely the increased reliance on geographic information systems (GIS) (Meaden and Chi, 1996; Meaden, 1999). SolVES prov ides a method for uniting concepts from ecosystem services assessment and social values mapping through a GIS application. Within the use of GIS, there exists a need for multiple data layers to be used in CMSP for its rightful claim as an ecosystem based, equitable, and sustainable approach to resource management. The advancement of remote sensing, tracking technologies, global positioning systems, and spatial modeling are rapidly creating a platform for merging and analyzing these variable data sources (e .g. living and mineral resources; marine habitats; environmental conditions; sea bottom morphology; hydrologic regimes; species range and interaction; and social values). As this case study suggests, SolVES has value as
105 a tool for making decisions based on explicit quantification and illustration of the connections between social values, attitudes and preferences that produce such values, and the environmental characteristics, associated ecosystem services, and locations that invoke such values. The coastal and marine environment, as a collection of habitats, natural processes, multi stakeholder practices, and use rights that are tied to specific places, presents a context ripe for integration of these elements in dec ision making surrounding planning, management, and the role of CMSP within each. Specifically, this application of the SolVES model answers St. Martin and Hall Arber assertion that integrate a diversity of ecosystem processes over a v ariety of collection initiatives, the 2008, p. 779; citing St. Martin, McCay, Murray, Johnson, and Oles, 2007 ). A dditionally we argue that while neither the complexity of human communities nor their relationship to locations and resources in relevant ecosystems are represented in current data collection initiatives this application serves that purpose and is the start of a bigger process of refinement and integration into environmental decision making While it is agreed that there remains room to grow, this effort contributes a foundation for future efforts by quantifying social value spatially alongside ecological characteristics making them relatable within relevant processes (i.e. management and policy) This case analysis represents continued development, refinement, and validation of a robust application for linking social and biophysical variables of concern. Future improvements w ill be informed by continued insight from
106 both social and environmental perspectives alongside input from managers and have significant implications for ecosystem asse ssment, planning, and valuation
107 Table 4 1. Resource use perception items. RECREATIONAL AC TIVITIES COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND RESIDENTIAL USES ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES Sight seeing Agricultural land use (e.g. crops, orchards, nurseries,) Conservation easements Shore/Pier fishing Aquaculture (fish farming) Manatee protection zones Recreational boat fishing Commercial fishing (including shellfish) Artificial reef development Scallop/shellfish harvesting Commercial forestry Fish/wildlife habitat expansion Scuba diving/snorkeling Shore development that hardens natur al shoreline Commercial fisheries regulations Motorized recreational boating Shore development that retains natural shorelines Recreational fisheries regulations Non motorized recreational boating Beach nourishment Development setbacks for natural shoreline Personal watercrafts (i.e. jet skis) Canal /navigational dredging Birdwatching Commercial marine port Walking/Jogging along shorelines Commercial shipping (e.g. cargo ships, tankers) Picnicking Marinas and boat ramps Swimming Mooring fields Golfing and golf courses Charter Boat fishing Hiking Private dock development On shore beach activities Tour Boats (sightseeing) Waterborne passenger transportation (e.g. ferries) Off shore oil/gas exploration/drilling Offshore alternative energy (e.g. wind, solar) Power generation plant and energy infrastructure High rise condominium construction Transportation infrastructure Desalinization plant/water treatment Industrial manufacturing/processing (e.g. refinery )
108 Table 4 2. Summary of value mapping and allocation. Value Map point frequency Average allocation Allocation frequency Total allocation Count Rank Amount Rank Count Rank Amount Rank Recreation 165 1 23.06 2 74 1 1707 1 Aesthetics 116 2 16.04 8 55 5 882 7 Biodiversity 86 3 21.29 5 65 3 1384 3 Future 66 4 22.62 3 53 6 1199 4 Wilderness 63 5 19.96 6 57 4 1138 5 Life Sustaining 61 6 23.15 1 66 2 1528 2 Learning 52 7 15.05 9 44 8 662 9 Access 48 8 21.75 4 45 7 979 6 Economic 41 9 17.54 7 43 10 754 8 Intrinsic 35 10 14.28 10 33 11 471 11 Therapeutic 31 11 13.60 11 44 9 599 10 Historic 24 12 13.35 12 23 12 307 12 Subsistence 15 13 10.48 15 20 13 209 13 Cultural 12 14 10.86 14 14 16 152 16 Spiritual 11 15 10.90 13 19 14 207 14 Symbolic 5 16 9.39 16 17 15 160 15 Table 4 3 A verage nearest neighbor statistics and Value Indices. Spatial cluster statistics Social value N R value Z score Value index attained (maximum) Recreation 155 0.301 16.650 9 Aesthetic 113 0.235 15.562 7 Biodiversity 79 0.287 12.130 6
109 Figure 4 1. Study area Greater Sarasota Bay.
110 Figure 4 2. Greater Sarasota Bay study area with value mapping points.
111 Figure 4 3 Recreation, Aesthetic, and B iodiversity value maps with corresponding landscape metrics (bathymetry, distance to shore, and distance to channels and roads).
112 CHAPTER 5 OUTCOMES Findings across Social Values and Spatial Modeling Contemporary stakeholder management clashes have emerged in the coastal zone as a result of increasing pressure on resources, revealing a need for better understanding of how people value their landscape across space. Understanding the social, cultural, a nd political constructs of human environment interactions is vital for comprehensive consideration and assessment regarding issues of resource use. As these dynamics are becoming increasingly multifarious due to the range of demands on natural resources, the idea of spatially based resource management and planning has been put forward as a method for addressing this complexity in the coastal and marine context this approach is known as coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) Through CMSP efforts, in this case the spatially explicit modeling of social values of ecosystem services through SolVES, social dimensions of concern find an avenue for equitable consideration alongside more traditional metrics of economy and ecology. In the context of coastal ma nagement and policy generally, social dimensions (values) hold relevance in a number of initiatives, most notably the goal of increased stakeholder representation in decision making processes and more equitable illustration of such within traditional resou rce management structures Federal and state agencies generally manage marine and coastal resources using the predominate paradigm of the Progressive Era, in which management decision making is conducted primarily by well meaning and well trained discipli nary experts in the biophysical sciences. However, marine and coastal managers and planners develop and implement coastal management plans on behalf of society, who have a diversity of preferences and
113 desires regarding ecosystem condition s and function s Adherence to the antiquated approach often d ominated by economic and ecologic concerns to the detriment of social considerations, has created a situation wherein coastal management and research are not reflective of the diversity of social values express ed in enabling legislation, which has in turn set the stage for stakeholder management conflict. The importance to society of marine and coastal resources, as conveyed in legislation and policies that are developed to manage them, typically reflect the s ocial benefits derived from conserving, using, consuming, or preserving those resources. In the United States, resource legislation and policies are products of a representative economic, and ecological preferences. Because of this, a broad array of values from biocentric to anthropocentric may be expressed in any given piece of resource management legislation. For example, every major U.S. marine and coastal resource act articulates not just the ecological values associated with enacting that law, but also values that pertain to commerce, industry, access, recreation, subsistence, culture, and aesthetics (e.g. Coastal Zone Management Act). Therefore, resource policy and legislation can be seen as providing social values guidance to managers who develop and implement marine and coastal resource management plans. With this relationship in mind, the research presented here sought to fill the social value consideration gap w ithin coastal and marine spatial planning by modeling ecosystem services as perceived by stakeholders There are at least two practical implications of accepting social values as a driving force within coastal marine resource management, represented here through SolVES
114 modeling. One is that managers are civil servants, engaged primarily in a task of stewarding resources on behalf of a public that, largely, pays for that stewardship and owns the resources being managed. They are therefore not free to impose their own ma nagement preferences on society, despite their good intentions or their expertise (Hobbs, 2004). A second, and related, implication is that resource managers must seek to balance what is good for the natural environment with what is good for society. In rare cases, those two goals are harmonious. However, as Lackey (2006) points out, selecting an environmental policy choice almost always results in winners and losers, accepting trade offs, and dealing with a clash of values. It is within the context of deciding on appropriate trade offs that tools such as SolVES can advance societal values as a determining factor in management actions. The results of this study revealed conclusive validity for the consideration of coastal specific, spatially explicit s ocial values of ecosystem services alongside traditional resource management metrics including quantitative modeling describing the relationship between social values and underlying environmental characteristics. A discussion of research implications, di vided into theoretical, methodological, and subst antive (practical) contribution categories follows N oted t heoretical contributions center on the advancement and refinement of ecosystem services conceptions par ticularly related social values and a disc ussion of these concepts within coastal and marine spatial planning. Following that h ighlighted methodological contributions explore the development of online, interactive tools for gathering necessary data from a wide array of stakeholders and the role of such in developing a more holistic understanding and integration of manager and citizen perceptions surrounding
115 ecosystem services. While chapter two above provides a detailed description of the eDelphi process as a methodological advancement into cons ensus building utilizing relevant concepts (i.e. social values of ecosystem services), the development of an easily accessible platform for gathering relevant information on social values across a particular land or sea scape s in this case SBF is discu ssed below It also draws attention to the difficulties in participatory mapping methods and how these type s of interfaces can ease the burden for both the stakeholders providing input and the managers or researchers tasked with analyzing requisite data a nd produ cing results that are practical, applicable and valuable The implications section is completed with a dialog of the substantive research contributions, notably how the data generated from this study and others like it can find practical applicat ion for coastal resource managers. Implications Theoretical Contributions The concept of ecosystem services as used in this examination of social values, is largely an extension of the ecosystem based management approach in that it seeks to consider and understand the link s between all facets of the environment, notably the biophysical and social. While a pragmatic ecosystem approach to environmental deci sions and actions is relatively new, the concept of ecosystem itself has been around since the 1930s and 1940s (see Tansley, 1935; and Lindeman, 1942) and became solidified in the environmental studies discourse through the seminal text in its conceptual d Fundamental s of Ecology Within t he ecosystem approach, we utilized its deliberately adaptive nature by avoiding preclusion of existing management or conservation approaches, instead producing data to act as a f orce in integrating and supplement ing grounded decision making
116 frameworks. In order for this to take place, a set of umbrella concepts along with a was produced (i.e. coastal specifi c social values of ecosystem services typology) The ecosystem services discourse, dually utilized in this research for the development of the social values typology and its application to SolVES modeling, provide s a structure to view and weigh the inhe rent trade offs of environmental decision viable framework for understanding ecosystem services, this research cuts across spatial dimensions; is inclusive of the accessib ility and sustainability of natural resources, systems, and their products for the benefit of human societies as well as for the maintenance of these systems in their own right (i.e. the essence of the ecosystem service concept); and examines all resources simultaneously and in an integrated manner, taking into account past and potential tra de offs and their consequences. With regard to the coastal specific social values typology, t hree values emerged as unique constructs, discrete from past research: access, spiritual/ novel experience, and identity/symbolic. While the ecosystem service construct is not new, with its first use occurring in the 1960s (see King, 1996; Helliwell, 1969) there has been a recent surge in its development and application in ecosystem valuation research (see Constanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; Daily et al. 2000; de Groot, Wilson, and Boumans, 2002). As this vein of research continues and is extended into n ew, complex resource contexts, the ongoing refinement of the definition of social values of ecosystem services along with an appropriate typology for its measurement as represented within this research will be invaluable to moving forward.
117 While past val ua tions of ecosystem services have succeeded in assigning tangible values to ecosystem services occurring in the sphere of natural and manufactured capital (MA, 2003) (see Dixon and Hufschmidt, 1986; Pearce and Turner, 1990; Freeman, 1993; Hanley and Spash 1993; Ruitenbeek, 1994; Kramer, Sharma, and Munisinghe, 1995; and Van Beukering, Cesara, and Janssen, 2003), this study turned the figurative assessment lens toward social and human capital spheres to expand value definitions and provide a more comprehe nsive picture (Figure 5 1 ). While assigning tangible values to ecosystem services allows them to be accounted for in traditional land and resource decision making, it is not always possible or necessary to express the economic value of an ecosystem service in monetary terms (Sherrouse et al., 2011) and by doing so can miss a large part of its value that may fall outside the money economy (Constanza, et al., 1997). In response to this and related recommendation s from a broad range of research perspectives specifically regarding ecosystem services valuation effectiveness in incorporating values as perceived by those who benefit from the services (Sherrouse et al., 2011) this research extends the idea of their social value and specifically how those values relate to underlying environmental characteristics. In essence, this study and others like it, through explicit, spatial linkage between social and environmental variables, increase s the robustness of ecosystem management and policy by including a full ra nge of ecosystem values. Full bodied ecosystem management must include socio cultural, ecologic, and intrinsic values in addition to utilitarian values (MA, 2003) while being informed by the analysis of integrated socioeconomic and biophysical data (de La nge, Wise, Forsyth, and Nahman, 2010); the research represented here contributes directly to those efforts.
118 Corresponding to the standards of ecosystem management, as alluded to above through the need for a holistic conception and utilization of ecosystem services understandings coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) also seeks comprehensive consideration of social, ecological, and economic factors at work in an ecosystem while adding the lens of spatial relationships between variables. As noted by Do uvere (2008) the evolution of CMSP has become a crucial step in making ecosystem based sea use management a reality. Originally borne of the marine protected area (MPA) movement and early applications of terrestrial zoning practices in marine ecosystems, its application has reached the level of international, national, and regional environmental policy support as evidenced by the large number of CMSP initiatives (alternatively referred to as marine spatial planning; ocean zoning, Douvere, 2008; and ecosys tem based zoning, Day, Paxinos, Emmett, Wright, and Goecker, 2008) being put forth all over the world Prominent examples include the Marine and Coastal Access Act (United States); Marine Strategy and Maritime Policy (European Union); Bergren Declaration of the North Sea (Belguim, The Netherlands, and Germany); Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (Australia); and Convention on the Law of the Sea (United Nations). While the guiding principles of CMSP are entrenched in ecological variables (see Foley, Halper, et al., 2010), the need for equitable focus on the human dimensions of the land and sea scape, indeed the focus of this study, is gaining traction amongst ecosy stem service scholars and practitioners (see St. Martin and Hall Arber, 2008; Goodhead and Aygen, 2007; Rees, Rodwell, et al., 2010). Developing and applying the coastal specific social value typology through SolVES modeling in SBF is a response to
119 the ch allenge of developing relevant social data l ayers for use in CMSP generally: representing human processes and practices in ways similar to mapped biophysical processes (and values) so that the complex, integrated, and multi scalar dimensions are properly a ccounted for (St. Martin and Hall Arber, 2008). The shift toward spatial understandings, planning, and management has required a shift in technical methods, namely the increased reliance on geographic information systems (GIS) (Meaden and Chi, 1996; Mead en, 1999) as exemplified by the application of SolVES in this case. As the forum where coastal and marine spatial data is aggregated, planning options are visualized, impact analyses are performed, and regulatory zones are established and mapped according to established methods, social data must fit into the mold in order to be considered, a reality brought to life within this project. As Eastman, Jin, Kyem, and Toledano (1995) note, the layer approach to data used to query and combine variables, within G IS, structures analyses and decision making; in order for social values to gain traction amongst other ecosystem service values they must be presented as a layer, given a weight for comparison to other layers, and aggregated through algorithm that account s for trade off and risk relative to the objectives at hand; SolVES does just this by presenting a weighted layer of spatial data that accounts for stakeholder derived social values tied to underlying land and sea scape metrics (e.g. bathymetry, ground co ver, etc.). In essence, the degree of comprehensive consideration of important factors within a GIS based system for environmental decision making is limited by the layers of data er greater
120 Arber, 2008), a concern addressed and advanced through this study. While information concerning the social value s assigned by stakeholders across landscapes is, traditionally, only vaguely known relative to ecologic and economic spatial data, the modeling produced here represents a starting point and example for integrating those three variables equitably. Me thodological Contributions The major methodological contributions from this study are two fold: advancement of electronic Delphi (e Delphi) methods and application of an online interface within a public participation geographic information system (PPGIS; B rown and Reed, 2009) data collection effort. Using phase one of this project as a case study, chapter two above gives a detailed account of applying the e Delphi method to efforts aimed at creating an a priori list of coastal management issues along with a typology of social values of ecosystem services and corresponding working definition s Similarly, an online interface was developed and utilized in phase two of the study with initial results presented in chapter four, to collect spatially explicit soc ial values throughout the study area along with corresponding tabular data (i.e. management perceptions, value allocations, place attachment, and socio demographic information) used in SolVES modeling This process is briefly described in the methods sec tion of chapter four and discussed in more detail below. Both processes benefitted from the wide availability and adoption of Internet technology mainly through the ease and speed of communication between researchers and participants that facilitates a decrease in the burden of data collection, input, and analysis typical of paper based survey and mapping approaches
121 Delphi m ethodologies The Delphi method, over traditional survey, was judged to be a stronger methodology for rigorous query of experts a nd stakeholders of contexts representative of Sarasota Bay. This process facilitated organization of divergent values based on varied experience and sought the integration of multiple opinions into an informed group consensus, which in this study focused o n social values of ecosystem services and relevant resource issues. In comparing traditional survey to Delphi methodology, the latter was chosen to reach data goals for the following reasons (Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004): This stage of the study seeks to ca pture social value and use factors potentially important to Sarasota Bay stakeholders. This complex issue requires knowledge from the people who understand the different economic, social, political, and environmental issues there, thus, a Delphi study ans wers the study question most appropriately. Delphi, as an appropriate group method, provides a panel study that most response. The Delphi study consists of a flexible design that is amenable to follow up inquiry. The first stage of the research requires modification of existing typologies, a task requiring an allowance of emergent data uniquely suited to this malleable structure. The Delphi procedure selected for conducting this study is taken from Schmidt (1997) because it serve s the dual purpose of soliciting opinion from the experts along with ranking in terms of their relative importance. The Delphi method aids in the identification of important stakeholders eligible for engagement in phase two of the project. Identifying key stakeholders and their interests at that stage helps ensure the comprehensive representation of study participants and provides insight into other relevant stakeholders to be offered inclusion in the process. Given that natural resource management is traditionally advanced by non inclusive knowledge systems the Delphi method advances the principle of universalizability and
122 the achievement of inclusive consensus. Additionally, SolVES initial developme nt (Sherousse et al. 2011) noted discrepancies between the social value variables used and current ecosystem service typologies (see MA, 2003) and recommended addressing that gap to strengthen model validity which was done through the e Delphi conducted fo r this study. Without going into the detail covered in chapter two above, the major hurdle of traditional Delphi exercises addressed through the digital based communication utilized within the e Delphi conducted in this research includes the relatively lo opinions using traditional mail procedures and the high attrition rate prevalence as a result of the effort required from participants and researchers to mail and return questionn aires (Chou, 2002). The e Delphi provided a decrease in the time period required for sequential rounds and an increase in the level of questionnaire return. The use of digital technologies, such as the email correspondence and web posting of relevant info rmation used in this study aided in reducing the duration between rounds via more immediate communication and decreased analysis time requirements due to the relevant data being sent and received digitally ( i.e. saving the effort needed to translate into a format that could be aggregated for analysis). The use of electronic communication also decreased the efforts required by both parties, researchers and experts, in conveying the questionnaires and responses (Hatcher and Colton, 2007). In other words, it seemed much easier to send and respond to relevant research topics using email and web applications than the more traditional use of physical mail processes. Chou (2002) provides a comprehensive list of basic
123 requirements for an e Delphi that were modi fied and adopted for this phase of the resea rch process, they include: Provision of a use r friendly interface that allowed the project leader (researcher) to develop and distribute sequential questionnaires to the expert panel while allowing for easy input of data by participants. Near immediate calculations on expe were already digitized through online survey software (Qualtrics TM ) that provided that functionality. Aid to the project leader (researcher) in determining the stability of each questionnaire item. Allow ance for the project leader (researcher) to monitor the execution of the study and to commun icate with panel members easily; done via email and an online portal where results from each round were posted (http ://www.flseagrant.org/boating/projects/solves/solves phase 1 edelphi/) Aid to the project leader (researcher) in measuring progress (or lack thereof) toward group consensus in real time The use of an e Delphi process relative to traditional procedures using mail systems reduced the duration, including the usual three iterative questionnaire rounds, follow up letters, and data analysis (Chou, 2002), to a period that lasted around two month s ; traditional mail based Delphi exercises can take anywhere from six months to a year Turoff (1991) claims that by utilizing computer mediated communication, the Delphi process and results can be strengthened over traditional procedures using paper and pen. Further, the use of the e Delphi maintained the validity claims of traditional forms of the methodology while decreasing the duration of the study and minimizing the effort by both researcher and participants. The foundational and most important step in Delphi research design, and often the most neglected (Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004), is development of the expert panel. The guidelines provided by Dalbecq, Van de Ven, and Gustafson (1975) were modified to
124 direct the solicitation of qualified experts a nd stakeholders for involvement in this study. These guidelines provided a rigorous procedure that ensured the identification of relevant experts while providing an opportunity for participation in the study. An additional benefit provided by the use of Internet technology with respect to panel establishment was the ease in which potential experts could be identified (i.e. via websites) and reached (i.e. via email ) Through a combination of web based searches and listserv access, outreach to individuals with some noted familiarity with study topic areas could be contacted and asked to fill out an expert screening survey that establish ed their level of expertise and subsequent potential as a participant. This process led to the initial identification of over a thousand individual emails, an amount that would be difficult (and costly) to reach t hrough traditional mail methods. Participatory mapping Beginning in t he 1990s, PPGIS has seen wide application ranging from community planning to mapping indigenous knowledge systems (Seiber, 2006; Kalibo and Medley, 2007). The most seminal development of PPGIS comes from Brown and others (2000, 2004, 2005, 2006; see also Reed and Brown, 2003; and Farnum and Reed, 2008). Mapping values in relation to spatial attributes can be achieved using a number of different data collection methods. Mail surveys with map components are the most common method while online mapping appl ications are in development (see Beverly, Uto, Wilkes, and Bothwell, 2008); this research contributed to the latter by creating and utilizing a web based interactive mapping workbook that combined a traditional survey question format with Google map functi onality to collect spatially explicit value responses. Similar to the advantages and ease of communication noted above for the
125 phase on e e Delphi, this online mapping workbook allows for easy access to participants and ease of response for those individua ls. A large methodological, and indeed structural, trend of natural resource management and CMSP specifically is the call for increased involvement within decision making processes of local stakeholders. For instance, Pomeroy and Douvere (2008) point ou t that within a variety of initiatives it is increasingly apparent that documentation of and engagement with local communities and resource users are vital if CMSP is to be effective Advocates of ecosystem based approaches in a variety of environmental sectors have suggested the need for local participation through the gathering local ecological knowledge, participation in policy writing and management planning, and action administration (see Neis, Schneider, Felt, Haedrich, Fischer, and Hutchings, 1999; Hanna, 1998; Wilson, 2006; National Research Council, 2001). Consideration at the stakeholder level is increasing in coastal and marine sector impact analyses to document the possible effects on and transformations of local economies and communities r elative to development and management initiatives; indeed at a broader level efforts are being made to link ecosystem services to human well being (MA, 2003). While these considerations are an important part of the environmental decision making process, t individual developments or management plans and do not represent a comprehensive (St. Martin and Hall Arber, 2008; p. 781) often times due to the difficulty and cost of comprehensive outreach and collection of stakeholder perspectives on issues of relevance
126 Participatory research methods, of which the online mapping workbook e of critical reflection and analysis Slayter, 1995, p. 11; quoted in Kalibo and Medley, 2007). Employing participatory outreach such as this shifts involvement by local stakeholders from passive to interactive, promoting a sense of collaboration and stewardship regarding conservation of the natural resources that are important to them (Pimbert and Pretty, 1997; Tuxill and Nabhan, 2001). The working assumption of PPGIS, in this case achieved thro ugh completion of an online mapping workbook, as a tool for all inclusive CMSP, is that coastal landscapes should be managed for compatibility with the values the public holds for relevant resources and uses (Brown and Reed, 2009). Lacking within CMSP ar e standardized methods to collect and interpret social values of ecosystem services that the public holds toward relevant land and sea scapes in ways that can equalize the stakeholder interests with ever present ecological data of traditional environmental planning. While data collection in phase two through the online mapping workbook does not necessarily establish a standard collection method, it does represent a n effective community mapping effort with the potential to enhance coastal and marine spatial plans Through increased public participation in a way that is relatively cheap and easy to implement, using web based data collection methodologies like the one utilized here can reach a large number of people on a platform (digital, web based) that is increasingly familiar to a growing segment of the population Substantive Contributions With most academic research there exists a tension between concept or theory development and practica l application of study outcomes; this project is no different.
127 W hile a number of theoretical and methodological contributions have been noted in previous chapters and sections above, there are additionally a few notable substantive contributions that can be derived from this study. The social variable assessment at the heart of this project, specifically the collection and modeling of spatially specific and weighted social values, reveals relevant human processes in concert with biophysical process models that ultimately allows more accurate trade off analysis a nee d identified across a wide range of management contexts and natural resource policy initiatives The layer approach to data used to query and combine variables within the SolVES model and predominant within CMSP generally, structur es analyses and contri butes to decision making in a way that allows for social values to gain traction amongst other ecosystem service values When these social values are presented as a layer, given a weight for comparison to other layers, and aggregated through algorithm tha t accounts for tradeoff and risk relative to the objectives at hand (Eastman, Jin, Kyem, and Toledano, 1995) they have the potential to gain equal footing alongside other spatial data layers, for instance land cover or bathymetry, commonly used amongst ma nagers and policy makers In essence, the degree of comprehensive consideration of important factors within a GIS based system for environmental decision making is limited by the layers of data that are available As St. Martin and Hall Arber (2008) note while the biophysical environment is being mapped in ever 780 ) ; it is this gap that is directly addressed in this study
128 In addin g a (missing) social data layer to the spatially based milieu of information available to coastal resource managers, the SolVES model as applied here also answers the call within a number of coastal policies, both nationally and internationally for conside ration of social impacts and benefits One does not need to look far within relevant legislation to find instructions to decision makers for consider ation of the social (and cultural) aspects of resource decisions including guidance on using that informa tion to aid in decision making and determine actions T hroughout this dissertation it has been suggested that coastal resource management be substantially founded, alongside traditional considerations of economy and ecology, on current information about the attitudes, values, and preferences of relevant stakeholders and, in some cases, those held by society at large. However, this is not a universally recognized or shared take home message whether based on policy requirements or continued adherence to antiquated management paradigms For example, Sharp and Lach (2003) found divergent o pinions among fishery managers in the Northwest U.S. regarding the need for and management utility of understanding social values, with one respondent stating, "Resource agencies are not trained nor charged with the sociological implications...this is the job of human resource agencies and politicians" (p. 14). This perspective indicates a startling lack of understanding about both the role of the social system in the management of public resources (as well as what human resource agencies do) and the polic y mandate for its integral consideration It is probable that ignoring the se for creating or adding to conflicts between resource managers and the publics they
129 serve and has undoubtedly contributed to the persistence of many marine and coastal resource management challenges (Wei nstein et al., 2007 ). The primacy of the ecological and biophysical disciplines within management agencies (Degnbol, 2006) can be traced back to the Progressivism of the late 18 00s (Fairfax, 2001). This means the management paradigm in place today is the child of a 100 year old approach that generally has eschewed a broad, interdisciplinary structure. Progressivism is grounded in a (often superficial) belief that scientists are objective and neutral, meaning that understanding the biological and physical oceanography of marine and coastal environments is sufficient to address the policy issues inherent in the management of public trust resources (Pisani 2006; Fairfax, 2001; Beng ston 1995). Thus, the main difference between the Kennedy and Thomas (1995) model of resource management, which claims social consideration should be equal to traditional biophysical understandings and models based on Progressive ideals is that the latte r generally emphasizes a narrow ecological, expert based approach to decision making, while the former emphasizes a broader societal values approach. Progressive style natural resource management was adequate for a period defined by a smaller, less environmentally involved population with relatively few use conflicts. However, these conditions no longer exist. More than fifty percent of the U.S. contiguous land area (N OAA, 2005) If we look at global populations, around 50% of the total landmass (Crossland, Kremer, et al., 2005). Additionally, t he technology revolution along with i ncreases in leisure time following World War II particularly in the
130 US, have resulted in new, and often conflicting, ways in which to enjoy and benefit from coastal and marine ecosystems (Jennings, 2007) Progressivism in resource management is now tru ly untenable: agencies must adapt to managing for a broad range of social values, preferences, and desires (Bengston 1995; Degnbol et al. 2006; Lackey, 1998; Meine 1995; Smith 1995). By speaking the language of ecological and biophysical discipline expert s through CMSP, specifically developing and integrating data layers modeling that depict s social values as quantifiably connected to underlying environmental characteristics (i.e. SolVES), it is possible for sociological implications to gain an equitable position alongside traditional decision variables. That agencies must adapt to new realities was inevitable, given increases in population and the diversity of resource use observed today which is only intensified within coastal and marine ecosystems. The re are now simply too few management scenarios wherein solutions to ecological problems do not concurrently violate social or economic constraints (the reverse is also true). Thus, marine and coastal resources can no longer be managed for historic condit ions (Weinstein and Reed 2005) or narrowly defined as the preservation of the environment; we have fully entered the age of determining how to allow the current generation to use and enjoy resources while simultaneously conserving some acceptable level of maritime ecological function (Roe and van Eeten 2002). Since there is no divine guidance regarding acceptable function, and since ecosystems can be with what trade of preferences (Lackey, 1998; 2004). One place we can look, and indeed should, is
131 relevant legislation that provides the baseline for how to begin to integrate this new data. While there ar e a number of policies to be highlighted, what follows is an outline of legislation which is specifically relevant to the context of this study (i.e. Sarasota Bay) and directed explicitly at coastal as opposed to general environmental resource management (i.e. broader environmental legislation such as the National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Water Act are not covered albeit having relevance to coastal contexts) Beginning at the local regional scale, the most immediate policy requirements relevant to this particular study area are derived from a portion of it falling within the Sarasota Bay National Estuary, a designation made through the National Estuary Program (a 1987 amendment to the Clean Water Act). Through development of the Comprehensive C onservation Management Plan that the legislation requires, administrators of the estuary must manage not only the biophysical health and sustainability of the estuary but also socially important attributes of the resource such as its economic, recreational and aesthetic values held by the public. S imilar mandates can be found in related and similar types of coastal and marine management designations, for instance the National Marine Sanctuary Program that seeks to identify marine environment areas of nati onal significance as determined by their resources and human use value. Beach access is also an issue for local policy and regulation directly tied to the social values of coastal communities and a predominant quality of life issue that drives migratio n toward the coastline the focus of this study This issue is especially important in contexts such as Sarasota Bay where there is a high level of development and
132 corresponding population density, including large amounts of private (and therefore restric ted) shoreline. Many states, including Florida, address problems of public access, which represents an important social value, through a wide range of regulatory, statutory, and legal systems (Beatley, Brower, and Schwab, 2002) that can benefit from spati ally explicit social value data On the Federal level the Coastal Zone Management Act is the cornerstone in protecting and managing the coastline in the US This legislation incentivizes state governments to create coastal management programs with on e of the primary goal of the planning process being protection of and access to public beaches (Section 306 (d)(2)) In addition, coastal management objectives as defined by Congress include the call to preserve and protect areas valued for recreational an d aesthetic purposes, both of which can firmly be considered social values of ecosystem services. Lastly, a 1990 Congressional expansion of the CZMA called the Coastal Zone Enhancement Program included a number of socially oriented objective s such as expa nding beach access opportunities and formulating and implementing Special Area Management Plans (SAMP). The SAMP program specifically seeks to establish a balanced management framework to protect public or socially important resources while allowing for a ppropriate continued use of these resources In closing the substantive contributions to related policy responsibilities that focus on the need to consider social variables in coastal management, it would be remiss to not mention the myriad of different local government, grass roots, and non profit based initiatives aimed at ensuring social and cultural sustainability within these environments. Many of the daily planning and management decisions affecting coastal resources are
133 made at the local level amo ngst county, city, and town governments alongside a large number of locally oriented grass roots organizations (Beatley, Brower, and Schwab, 2002 ). It has been argued that local level resource use and comprehensive planning can be most responsive to the d esires (interests and needs) of relevant stakeholders and special management issues of local concern. It stands to reason that further development of research such as that presented here (i.e. SolVES modeling) will greatly benefit local involvement with resource decisions through integration of stakeholder social values into management processes. Future Research In summarizing future research derivative of this study there are two distinct paths to be highlighted: extension of e Delphi methodologies within natural resource and environmental management contexts particularly within social value assessment and outdoor recreation management, respectively ; and development, refinement, and extension of SolVES modeling within coastal ecosystems and beyond (i.e. across the terrestrial marine divide). For clarity each is addressed separately below. There are indeed far more avenues for extending this research than could be included here, however, this abridges some of the more immediate efforts to be under taken and looks ahead to potential additional possibilities. e Delphi Methodologies With the use of and success with the e Delphi method in this study I am encouraged to use it in looking further into the topic of social value s of ecosystem services and extend it to investigate other topics of interest, mostly related to outdoor recreation. In regard to the former, a simultaneous inquiry was made during development of the social value typology, as reported above in chapter four, about an a
134 priori list of topics an immediate avenue for future research would be to study them in more detail. The incre asing prevalence of ecosystem service discourse in combination with initiatives for more comprehensive CMSP signifies that future development is needed. Separately, the attainment of quality results from the Delphi exercise in this study has caused me to envision additional avenues for its use within my personal area of expertise, outdoor recreation management and policy. Understanding the social v alues of ecosystem services As alluded to throughout the above text, there remains a gap in this regard wh en it comes to viable social data related to ecosystem services, particularly linking that data to the underlying biophysical systems that produce them. With that one of the first questions that arises, alongside how to adequately measure (i.e. spatiall y quantify) relevant variables, is one of universally defining what is meant by the social values of ecosystem services At the conclusion of the e Delphi a working definition was put forth: the human importance of places, landscapes, and the resource s or services they provide, defined by individual and/or group perceptions and attitudes toward a given ecosystem. Through further refinement of that definition there is potential to gain more widespread consensus of what is meant when referencing SVT m aking it possible to turn the lens back on the typology that was created (which included 16 distinct values) to improve its effectiveness in measuring social values. Throughout the development and use of the SVT, it was repeatedly noted that there was a large amount of overlap between variables. As such, it is important to revisit the typology an d analyze where some values could be combined, eliminated, or
135 modified. One way of doing that if we look again to the discussion of relevant policy above, would be to limit inquiry in a future case study to only those values explicitly called for in relevant policy. T here are a few distinct values across a number of relevant pieces of legislation specifically noted as i mportant for managers and officials to consider in decision making (most commonly recreation, culture, and aesthetic ; coinciding with findings reported in chapter four and in other SolVES applications, see Sherrouse et al., 2011, and van Riper, in press ) Alongside the working definition of social values of ecosystem services, the e Delphi also generated an a priori list of issues of importance to coastal management and policy. Similar to discussion of overlap within the SVES typology, many expert paneli sts noted the same within the issues that were listed. Much like reaching a broader consensus on the definition of social values of ecosystem services further inquiry through an e Delphi could be made to refine and update the list of resource issues movi ng forward. As it appears that the trend of coastal migration shows no signs of slowing, it will be important for there to be widespread understanding and agreement on the most important issues to address as populations rise in these areas and climate cha nge affects coastlines, and bring with them increasing resource pressures and associated social conflicts. e Delphi in outdoor recreation and social impact research Applying the e Delphi methodology used in this study to issues of outdoor recreation management and policy is ripe with potential. As a method that fits best for working toward consensus where none exists or forecasting trends where baseline historical data is absent, there are a number of immediate possibilities for its appli cation. There are two distinct topic areas that are of interest to me in applying the e Delphi
136 method : planning and management of emerging recreation usage on public and private lands; and assessment of social impacts (such as recreation or culture) resul ting from large scale landscape change, particularly dam removal/construction and other alternative energy development projects (e.g. wind farms, solar arrays, tidal energy). With regard to the former, there are a number of emerging forms of recreation that appear to be trending upward in popularity and as such will become of increasing concern to public and private land managers. A good example, derived from new legislation, is the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act that provides an upda ted list and official Federal definition of appropriate recreational use of Federally leased ski area property: zip lines, ropes courses, Frisbee golf courses, and mountain bike terrain parks and trails. With the emergence and increase in these and other activities there are a number of questions that need to be answered in order for managers to safely and effectively integrate them into the current usage milieu; the e Delphi offers an ideal methodology for gaining consensus amongst managers on how to do so When it comes to the latter (i.e. social impacts of large scale landscape change related to dam deconstruction and alternative energy development ), the increase in such projects provides ample opportunity for inquiry using the e Delphi method Simila r to above discussion s about the missing social side of CMSP, these types of projects have produced abundant data on the biophysical and economic impacts to the detriment of social value considerations. This is a case, like issues of emergent forms of rec reation, where there appears a dearth of information on what exactly the social impacts will be and is therefore an inquisitive situation perfectly suited for an e Delphi
137 ( 2011) Delphi inquiry into defining cultural sensitivity in ecotourism to one of ecological restoration. Similar to that study, pertinent inquiry, into say a large dam removal project, would include defining social value sensitivity within ecological resto ration, its role within the relevant planning process, and the development of tools for evaluating its application. C orollary studies could be conducted via an e Delphi, within a number of alternative energy development proje cts. Large scale projects, such as offshore wind farms and tidal energy projects, will undoubtedly have wide ranging societal impacts to culture, recreation, and aesthetics, to name a few, that must be considered in planning and management. In these instances not a lot of data has been generated, nor processes defined, for considering these social impacts and are therefore suited to the Delphi method. Developing and Extending Spatial Social Values Modeling A n even more immediate extension of this research, relative to the above section, will be development, extension, and refinement of the SolVES model within coastal contexts and across terrestrial marine ecosystems. While chapter four indicates initial efforts into model refinement s specific to this project (i.e. environ mental data layer determination and improvement to model efficiency), this section focuses on five areas of immediate future development and extension of the SolVES tool: 1. Application of the value transfer model to other coastal zones 2. Leveraging of data from survey sections no t currently used by SolVES 3. Integration of findings with management planning and relevant policy 4. Development of robust data collection processes, analysis methods, and outcome usefulness (e.g. creating a SolVES module, conducting a l ongitudinal study)
138 Value transfer modeling As a geospatial model that seeks to explicitly link social values to underlying environmental characteristics, the ultimate goal of SolVES is to predict spatial ly based social values across landscapes based on bi ophysical variables where primary data is not available. As a pilot study in a coastal context, testing this predictability is the next step in it s application. To do this, immediate application will be in transferring the landscape metrics derived from the primary data collected that link s the social values and biophysical variables to the adjacent section s of Sarasota Bay extending south to predictive capability a nd hopefully reveal points for improvement. In combination with further development leading to the most efficient mix of environmental data layers (see chapter four), it will be possible to further test the predictability in other, similar coastal contexts. As an urban, highly developed using Sarasota Bay data, in similar ecological contexts that are rural and less developed. Fortunately, there are a number of ongoing studies generating primary data for these types of places that provide a number of opportunities to cross compare value predictions. For instance, model metrics derived from this study could be used to predict the spatial values in the ACE Basi n in South Carolina where primary data is currently being generated, and vice versa with the application of that data into social value prediction across Sarasota Bay. In this way, it will be possible to further refine the landscape metrics (i.e. what data layers are most efficient in predicting spatial distribution and density) by testing the predicted value maps against the maps generated from primary data.
139 Leveraging sense of place and management perceptions within SolVES Data from survey s ections in the current study particularly place attachment and management perception variables, which are not currently used by SolVES, could also be leveraged in the future. As noted by Sherrouse et al. (2011), analysis of the survey data describing res of management decisions could prove useful in identifying selection bias that might influence the weights and locations of values marked across the landscape. Additionally, information about the social, economic, and demographic status of survey respondents could assist in matching the socio cultural contexts of ecosystem services to provide a stronger basis when applying the value transfer functionality in land and sea scapes for which primary survey data is not available. relies on favoring versus opposing a particular resource use when subgrouping respondents and displaying respective social value dispersion, managers could also be interested, for instan ce, in the difference s between people who agree versus disagree with a particular management action or policy. Similarly, there is a building body of literature regarding the impact of place attachment on perceptions of value across landscapes; using the sense of place data generated through this study within SolVES analysis could provide additional insight and advancement for that emerging body of knowledge. Integrating SolVES with management planning and policy Up to this point not much has been done to directly address the influence or use of outcomes from the SolVES model to decision making within management and policy processes. Once model refinement and database development takes place via the above strategies it will be prudent to explore how manag ers can use the information
140 generated when making decisions and deciding between management alternatives. Fostering relationships forged with local managers in the Sarasota Bay area through out the project will be the logical place to start. As the area w ith primary data, engaging relevant managers, showing and explaining findings, and seeking their assistance in tying model outcomes to existing and future management issues will be critical to the applicability of the model within Sarasota Bay and elsewher e. In a related manner, it will be important to share the information with interested parties, particularly those who have contributed to the research through participation, by way of public education and outreach. SolVES output in the form of social va lue maps provide an ideal visual medium from which to convey results in ways that are understandable to layman and experts alike. As a form of PPGIS, it is crucial to share this data, potentially even using it as a way to spur on further discussion betwee n stakeholders and resource managers. An immediate avenue to explore in integrating the data generated with management specific to the coastal zone is seal level rise. Wit h the advances in spatial modeling that depicts potential scenarios from sea level rise it would take minimal effort to apply the social value maps and related landscape metrics generated from this project to various likelihoods in terms of coastline impacts. Sarasota Bay in particular has been proactive in this regard and a large amo unt of related data is currently being generated with potential for use in this regard. Another avenue, related to an idea originally put forth by Alessa et al. (2009), is using the aggregated social value maps that are generated to identify hotspots across the landscape that may be important for managers to consider. These hotspots could
141 be areas of value conflict or value congruence, both important when making management and policy decisions. Building SolVES tool applic ation One of the biggest achievements of this study is the development of an online, interactive mapping survey used to collect the data necessary for SolVES analysis. Working to advance this interface could lead to large advances in the widespread appli cation of the tool across contexts and in a variety of ecosystems. While the online survey currently produces a digital database of mapped points and corresponding tabular data, eliminating the need for both heads up digitizing and paper to digital data c onversion (which greatly reduces workload ) a major improvement could be made by creating a sort of SolVES module to more closely tie the survey and model data formats. This SolVES module would take the responses entered by stakeholders through the onli ne mapping survey, convert them into the format required for SolVES and input them into the model automatically. With this type of functionality, it would then be possible to further create an interface where participants could see model outcomes in real time, compare their entries next to all others, and even query SolVES for information that is important to them. From a management perspective, this would allow individuals the opportunity to conduct a SolVES analysis by simply add ing a map of their par ticular area of interest along with questions of concern to them specifically (i.e. relevant resource use or management perception questions for respondent subgrouping) into the module with minimal burden in terms of time and effort. For example, if a ma nager in Alaska responsible for the management of a particular area, say Prudhoe Bay, wanted to do a SolVES analysis, all that would be required is delineation and input of a study area map
142 and corresponding questions of local concern (e.g. controversial resource uses or management action issues) into the module. From there, that individual would reach out to local stakeholders, indicate the web address where the mapping survey could be completed (similar to what was done in this study), and retrieve mod el results once responses were generated and the model was run By making it this seamless, there is widespread potential for its application in both marine and terrestrial environments, along with the possibility for conducting ongoing or longitudinal st udies of a particular area over time and through various ecosystem changes. Conclusion This dissertation research project extended a comprehensive understanding of social values as they relate to ecosystem services and applied that consideration to spat ial modeling within the coastal zone. Initial focus was placed on advancing Delphi methodologies through the use of internet technologies to develop a social values typology of ecosystem services specific to the coastal zone. After establishing an inclus ive list of 16 social values through an e Delphi exercise, that typology was applied to a coastal and marine spatial planning effort in Sarasota Bay, Florida through the utilization of a geographic information system modeling tool called Social Values of E cosystem Services. As with all good doctoral research, I can honestly say that the project created a great many more questions than it answered. As such, research dealing with the social values typology and its application in planning and management of co astal resources will continue. I am encouraged and excited about the avenues that this endeavor has opened for me and hope that the theoretical, substantive, and practical contributions resulting from this research will find wide spread application across disciplines.
143 Figure 5 1 Global capital sources
144 APPENDIX A ESSAY: DELPHI AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT The Delphi method has been used extensively in the context of natural resource management (NRM), ranging from issues of air pollution (de Steiguer and Pye, 1990) to environmental agency effectiveness (Yasamis, 2006). Bunting (2010) describes the Delphi me thod to be particularly useful in facilitating the interactive participation of varied and conceivably hierarchical, and often antagonistic, stakeholder groups that are inherent to most NRM processes. Issues in NRM, especially in reference to the coastal zone with its high stakeholder heterogeneity and increasing resource pressure via population and development, can be distorted by groups with markedly different agendas and relationships to the relevant resources. As such, an approach that reaches out to the stakeholders explicitly, what Bunting (2010) calls a stakeholder Delphi, is an improvement in NRM contexts over traditional Delphi methods more commonly used. Delphi processes provide information not accessible from either conventional questionnaire o r interview methodologies common in NRM assessment (Egan, Jones, Luloff, and Finley, 1995) and can contribute to a more refined joint analysis consensus in complex social and institutional settings. These attributes are especially valuable in coastal zone management and planning where multiple demands of stakeholders must be reconciled in the development of co management strategies and environmental protection of land, wetland, and marine ecosystems In addition, the Delphi technique applies due to the un certainty and lack of general consensus regarding understanding and mitigation of human impacts on and perceptions of the environment in the coastal zone.
145 Natural resource management regimes in the United States, both generally and in coastal management and planning specifically, are well rooted in traditional ways of doing business (i.e. command and control manage ment [Holling and Meffe, 1996]). T he Delphi offers opportunities for stakeholders, whether they be managers or members of society, the chance to step outside the status quo considerations and understandings of natural resource use and explore alternatives which may not fit into applicable institutions (i.e. agency mandates, laws, regulations, etc.). Research literature is replete with example s of the disparity in conceptions of natural resource management between managers themselves and the public they purport to serve; the Delphi represents the ability for disparate parties to reach a consensus on issues that undoubtedly reach across lines. C ommon efforts to garner public opinion regarding natural resources, such as survey s or public comment on proposed plans, has fallen short of gathering a diversity of relevant opinion. The freedom of anonymity offered by the method allows participants to c hallenge entrenched, disciplinary assumptions that are often inherent to agencies, stakeholder groups, or even accepted scientific understandings (Donohoe and Needham, 2009).
146 APPENDIX B DELPHI SCOPING CONTACTS Company, Organization, and Government Contacts American Academy of Environmental Engineers GOBI American Sportfishing Association GoM Fishery Management Council American Wind Wildlife Institute Groupe d'Etude des Mammiferes Marins America's Wetland Foundation Gulf of Mexico Alliance Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative ARCTUROS Haribon Foundation Assoc of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Instituto de Conservacion de Ballenas Australian Marine Conservation Society International Collective in Support of Fishworkers Bay of Islands Marine Park International Game Fish Association Bellona International International Ocean Institute Bloom Association Inter Tribal Environmental Council Blue Frontier Campaign Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Blue Wedges Coalition Living Oceans Society Californa Coastal Coalition Manatee County Audubon Society California State Coastal Conservancy Manatee Sarasota Group of the Sierra Club Central California Council of Diving Clubs Inc. Mangrove Coast Fly Fishers Centro de Conservacion Cetacea Mar Brasil Clean Ocean Foundation Marine Conservation Institute Coalition Clean Baltic MarViva Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana National Marine Manufacturers Association Coast Fish Club (CA) National Registry of Environmental Professionals Coast Watch Society Nature Canada Coastal America North Coast Land Conservancy Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation Northwest Florida Environmental Conservancy Coastal Conservation Associ ation Florida Ocean Conservancy Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation Ocean Futures Society Coastal Habitat Alliance Ocean Trust Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team Oceana Coastal States Organization Oregon League of Conservation Voters Coastal Watershed Institute Oregon Surfrider Foundation Coastwalk California Orissa Marine Resources Conservation Consortium Coastwatch Europe PacMARA Conservancy of Southwest Florida PEMSEA Conservation Foundation of the Gulf Coast Raincoast Research Society Consortium for Ocean Leadership Reef Ball Foundation, Inc. Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education Republicans for Environmental Protection CRAG Law Center Salem Sound Coastwatch Cuban and Caribbean Studies Institute Saras ota Audubon Society Deep Wave Save Our Seas
147 Company, Organization, and Government Contacts Earth Island Institute Save the Bay (San Francisco) Eastern Bay of Islands Preservation Society Inc Sea Turtle Protection Society of Greece (ARCHELON) ECOP Marine Seas at Risk Florida Center for Environmental Studies Seasearch Florida Local Environmental Resource Agencies SeaWeb Florida Marine Science Educators Association Sharklife Conservation Group Florida Oceanographic Society Society for Dolphin Conservation Germany Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association Society for Ecological Restoration Florida Shorebird Alliance Surfrider FLOW The Coastal Society Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay Inc. The Fisheries Secretariat Friends of the Bahamas The Oceanographic Society Friends of the Harbour (Hong Kong) The Pembina Institute Friends of the Legacy Trail The Waterfront Center Fundacion Cethus Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society GEOTA Zeitz Foundation Global Water Policy Project Journals Reviewed Coastal Management Journal of Coastal Research Environmental Management Ocean and Coastal Management Estuaries and Coasts Society and Natural Resources
148 APPENDIX C PROJECT DELIVERABLES Topic Authorship* Type Completed, Ongoing, or Planned Project overview: Valuation of ecosystem services using SolVES in the Gulf of Mexico Coffin, Swett, Cole, Sherrouse, and others USGS Fact Sheet Completed Internet based Delphi Research: A case based tutorial Cole, Donohoe, and Stellefson Journal article Completed Environmental Management Ecosystem services in the coastal zone: A social values typology for comprehensive assessment Cole, Holland, and Donohoe Journal article Completed Coastal Management Social value orientation of ecosystem services in Sarasota Bay, FL: Findings from SolVES modeling Cole, Coffin, Swett, and Holland Journal article Completed Stakeholder inventory Cole Text file (.txt/.csv) Completed Sarasota Bay survey data Cole Text fi le (.txt/.csv) Ongoing SolVES 2.0 geodatabase (coastal) Coffin, Cole, and Swett USGS data series (.gdb) Ongoing Environmental datasets Coffin, Cole, and Swett USGS data series (.shp, .img, .grd) Ongoing Social value orientation of ecosystem services: Adaptation of SolVES for a coastal environment Cole, Swett, Coffin and others Journal article Planned Applying the SolVES ecosystem service valuation tool for coastal planning in Sarasota Bay Swett, Cole, Coffin and others Journal article Planned Social values transfer mapping of coastal ecosystem services Coffin, Swett, Cole and others Journal article or USGS publication Planned Ecosystem service valuation mapping in Sarasota Bay, FL Coffin, Cole, and Swett Joint USGS/FSG fact sheet Planned The Sarasota Bay ecosystem services valuation pilot study Cole, Swett, and Coffin Joint USGS/FSG Scientific Investigations Report Planned Spatial links between place attachment and social values of ecosystem services Cole Journal article Planned *Authorship is tentative
149 APPENDIX D PROJECT PRESENTATIONS Conference presentations: Hindsley, P. and Cole, Z.D. (2012) Panel Discussion: Economic valuation of Sarasota Bay. Sarasota Bay Watershed Symposium, Sarasota, FL, USA. Cole, Z.D. Holland, S., and Coffin, A. (2012) Social values and ecosystem services in coastal environments: The case of Sarasota Bay, FL. 4 th International Eco Columbus, OH, USA. Coffin, A.W., Cole, Z.D., Swett, R. A., and Sherrouse, B.C. (2012) Coastal SolVES: Adapting a terrestrial based GIS tool for the non monetary, spatial evaluation of ecosystem services in a coastal environment. 4 th International Eco Summit, cosystem Services, Columbus, OH, USA. Cole, Z.D. (2012) Mapping the human coast: Shaping natural resource management through stakeholder collaboration. 18th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management (ISSRM) Edmonton, Alberta, CA. Cole, Z .D. (2012) The human side of sustainability: Developing a typology of social values of ecosystem services in the coastal zone. 18th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management (ISSRM) Edmonton, AB, CA. Cole, Z.D. (2012) Modeling social val ues of ecosystem services: Non monetary, spatial evaluation in a coastal environment. 32 nd Annual National Recreation Resource Planning Conference, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. Cole, Z.D., Donohoe, H., and Holland, S. (2012) Going online: Advancing e Delphi metho dologies within coastal resource management. Inaugural College of Health and Human Performance Student Poster Session, Gainesville, FL, USA. Cole, Z.D., Coffin, A.W., and Swett, R. (2012) Mapping social values of coastal use relative to ecosystem services in Sarasota Bay. Sarasota Bay Watershed Symposium, Sarasota Bay, FL, USA. Cole, Z.D., Donohoe, H., Coffin, A., and Swett, R.S. (2012) Social value and resource use in Sarasota Bay: Using e Delphi to uncover spatial variables. Social Coast Forum, Charlest on, SC, USA. Cole, Z.D. (2012) Ecosystem services of rivers: Exploring the potential for quantifying and mapping social values. 11 th Biennial River Management Society Symposium: From Intimate Creeks to the Infinite Sea, Asheville, NC, USA.
150 Lovelace, S., Se mmens, D., Sherrouse, B., Coffin, A., DiDonato, E., van Riper, C.J., Cole, Z.D., and Loerzel, J. (2012) Problem SoLVE ing: Understanding Social Valuation of Ecosystem Services (SolVES) for better Coastal Management. The rd International Conference Our Coasts, Our Heritage: Ecosystem Services for the Common Good, Miami, FL, USA. Cole, Z.D., Coffin, A.W., Swett, R.S., Sherrouse, B.C., and Semmens, D.J. (2011) Mapping social values of coastal use relative to ecosystem services in Sarasota Bay. Emerging Management of Enclosed Coastal Seas: Managing for Results in our Coastal Seas, Baltimore, MD, USA. Community presentations: Cole, Z.D., and Moore, R. (2012) Interview with Zachary Cole, University of Florida: http://sarasotabaytoday.com/2012/03/interview with zachary cole university of florida/ ( Sarasota Bay Today). Sarasota Bay Estuary Program: Citizens Advisor y Committee Project Overview (January 2012) FL Sea Grant: Manatee County Project discussion w/ John Stevely (December 2011) Sarasota County Planning Department Project overview w/ JP Gellerman (November 2011) Sarasota Bay Estuary Program: Public Out reach coordination w/ Sara Kane (November/December 2011; February/March 2012) Sarasota Bay Estuary Program: Technical Advisory Committee Initial Findings (June 2012)
151 APPENDIX E MAPPING SURVEY (PRINT VERSION) Mapping the Social Value of Coastal Uses in Greater Sarasota Bay Linking Public Knowledge with Coastal Planning Sarasota Bay is an estuary of local and national significance. As a resident of the Greater Sarasota Bay area, you have a voice in how these important resources are managed. We hop e you will take advantage of this opportunity to make your voice heard by completing this survey. The information you provide may be useful in the future to inform management decisions and help establish the goals and priorities relevant to Greater Saraso vital resources. This data collection effort supports dissertation research being conducted at the University of Florida in partnership with Florida Sea Grant and the United States Geologic Survey. Area of Interest : We seek your help to determine the importance (or value) you place on natural spaces in and around Sarasota Bay. This area includes the watershed, bay, barrier islands and nearshore Gulf waters (ranging out to 9 nautical miles offshore) extending from Anna Maria Sound in the n orth to Siesta Greater Sarasota Bay purposes of this survey. A reference map is included below to orient you to the area of focus for this study. Please answer all the questions if possible. Average time to complete the questionnaire is 20 minutes, including identifying important places on the maps. Your responses will be kept confidential. We very much appreciate your participation and thank you in advance for your thoughtful responses. T he purpose of this survey is to: Understand your beliefs about important topics regarding Greater Sarasota Bay in the next 10 15 years (Part 1) Understand what uses of Greater Sarasota Bay you favor or oppose (Part 2) Explore your familiarity with Greater Sarasota Bay (Part 3) Discover in what ways you use Greater Sarasota Bay and where those uses occur (Part 4) Discover in what ways you value Greater Sarasota Bay and where in the area those values are represented (Part 5) Learn about you and your community (Part 6)
152 Part 1: Policy/Management This section asks your opinion about important topics regarding natural resources and publicly accessible areas of Greater Sarasota Bay For questions 1 4 indicate your level of ag reement/disagreement with each statement. (Please circle one response for each) Q1: I am interested in what happens in Greater Sarasota Bay over the next 10 15 years. (Please circle one response) Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 5 4 3 2 1 Q2: The natural environment of Greater Sarasota Bay has improved over the last 20 years. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 5 4 3 2 1 Q3: There are more opportunities to recreate and enjoy Greater Sarasota Bay than there were 20 years ago. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 5 4 3 2 1 Q4: Private waterfront residential, condominium, and hotel development has reduced my access to and enjoyment of Greater Sarasota Bay Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 5 4 3 2 1 Q5: In your opinion, what role should the public play in the management of Greater natural and cultural resources? (Please circle one response) 1 None. 2 The public should provide suggestions for public officials and resource managers to consider. 3 The public should be full and equal partners with public officials and resource managers in planning and management decisions. 4 Planning and management decisions should be based solely on public opinion. 5 D
153 Q6: Public access to coastal waters and waterways is a priority management issue. From your perspective, how adequate is existing public access to Greater Sarasota Bay via the following facilities? (One response per line) Access Types Very Adequate Adequate Neutral Inadequate Very Inadequate Public boat ramps 5 4 3 2 1 Public marina berths 5 4 3 2 1 Public dry storage berths 5 4 3 2 1 Restaurants with boat dockage 5 4 3 2 1 Public beaches 5 4 3 2 1 Beach access points (dune walkovers) 5 4 3 2 1 Beach access parking spots 5 4 3 2 1 Waterway nature trails 5 4 3 2 1 Scenic view points 5 4 3 2 1 Nature trails adjacent to water 5 4 3 2 1 Public, natural swimming areas 5 4 3 2 1 Boardwalks 5 4 3 2 1
154 Q7: Please indicate your level of agreement with each statement as it relates to the current state of Greater Sarasota Bay (One response per line) Statements Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Increasing amounts of debris/trash in the water 5 4 3 2 1 Seagrass acreage is decreasing 5 4 3 2 1 Too few fish to catch 5 4 3 2 1 Mangrove habitat is disappearing 5 4 3 2 1 Too many derelict vessels 5 4 3 2 1 Shoreline erosion is a problem 5 4 3 2 1 Birds and wildlife populations are in decline 5 4 3 2 1 Inadequate public access to water/beaches 5 4 3 2 1 Too much congestion at water/beach access sites 5 4 3 2 1 Not enough parking spaces at water/beach access sites 5 4 3 2 1 Too many boats 5 4 3 2 1 Too many boaters not practicing safe navigation 5 4 3 2 1 Loss of restaurants and other shoreline recreational opportunities is a problem 5 4 3 2 1 Wildlife habitat is decreasing 5 4 3 2 1 Increasing frequency of red tide 5 4 3 2 1 Natural shoreline is decreasing due to development 5 4 3 2 1 Inadequate channel marking 5 4 3 2 1 Inadequate waterway maintenance (canals, channels, passes) for boating 5 4 3 2 1 Inadequate boater education 5 4 3 2 1
155 Q8: Local communities have identified goals to guide management decisions that affect Greater Sarasota Bay Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the goals listed below. (One response per line) Goals for the Future Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Improve Sarasota Bay water quality. 5 4 3 2 1 Manage the quantity and improve the quality of stormwater runoff to Sarasota Bay. 5 4 3 2 1 Restore wetlands and natural shoreline habitats. 5 4 3 2 1 Eliminate further loss of shoreline and wetland habitats. 5 4 3 2 1 Restore and sustain fish stocks and other living marine resources in Greater Sarasota Bay 5 4 3 2 1 Provide increased levels of public access to Greater Sarasota Bay and its resources. 5 4 3 2 1 Increase the resilience of coastal communities to natural and human induced disasters (e.g. hurricanes, rising seas). 5 4 3 2 1 Incorporate local social and cultural heritage into management of Greater Sarasota Bay resources (e.g. public input, community advisory boards). 5 4 3 2 1 Increase understanding of human use patterns that influence resource sustainability (e.g. commercial development, recreation). 5 4 3 2 1 Integrate understanding of human uses with knowledge of natural processes. 5 4 3 2 1 Purchase additional non wetland areas to add to publically owned lands adjacent to or close to Sarasota Bay. 5 4 3 2 1
156 Goals for the Future Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Greater Sarasota Bay where no fishing would be allowed. 5 4 3 2 1 Create limited to no wake zones for motorized craft to encourage non motorized craft use. 5 4 3 2 1
157 Part 2: Resource Use Perceptions This section asks your opinion about various uses or activities that occur or could occur within, on, or near Greater Sarasota Bay as well as activities that occur in other Gulf of Mexico coastal communities and nearshore environments. Q9: Please indicate whether you favor or oppose the uses and activities listed below occurring within, on, or near Greater Sarasota Bay (One response per line) RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES Strongly Favor Favor Neutral Oppose Strongly Oppose Sight seeing (viewing the Bay and Gulf waters from an automobile) 5 4 3 2 1 Shore/Pier fishing 5 4 3 2 1 Recreational boat fishing 5 4 3 2 1 Scallop/shellfish harvesting 5 4 3 2 1 Scuba diving/snorkeling 5 4 3 2 1 Motorized recreational boating 5 4 3 2 1 Non motorized recreational boating (e.g. canoes, kayaks, SUPs) 5 4 3 2 1 Personal watercrafts (i.e. jet skis) 5 4 3 2 1 Birdwatching 5 4 3 2 1 Walking/Jogging along shorelines 5 4 3 2 1 Picnicking 5 4 3 2 1 Swimming 5 4 3 2 1 Golfing and golf courses 5 4 3 2 1 Hiking 5 4 3 2 1 On shore beach activities 5 4 3 2 1 COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND RESIDENTIAL USES Strongly Favor Favor Neutral Oppose Strongly Oppose Agricultural land use (e.g. crops, orchards, nurseries, ranching) 5 4 3 2 1 Aquaculture (fish farming) 5 4 3 2 1 Commercial fishing (including shellfish) 5 4 3 2 1 Commercial forestry 5 4 3 2 1 Shore development that hardens natural shoreline (e.g. building concrete seawalls to protect property from erosion) 5 4 3 2 1 Shore development that retains natural shorelines (beach, mangroves) 5 4 3 2 1 Beach nourishment 5 4 3 2 1
158 Canal /navigational dredging 5 4 3 2 1 Commercial marine port 5 4 3 2 1 Commercial shipping (e.g. cargo ships, tankers) 5 4 3 2 1 Marinas and boat ramps 5 4 3 2 1 Mooring fields 5 4 3 2 1 Charter Boat fishing 5 4 3 2 1 Private dock development 5 4 3 2 1 Tour Boats (sightseeing) 5 4 3 2 1 Waterborne passenger transportation (e.g. ferries, water taxis) 5 4 3 2 1 Off shore oil/gas exploration/drilling 5 4 3 2 1 Offshore alternative energy development (e.g. wind, solar) 5 4 3 2 1 Power generation plant and energy infrastructure (e.g. power lines) 5 4 3 2 1 High rise condominium construction 5 4 3 2 1 Transportation infrastructure (e.g. roads, railways, bridges, causeways) 5 4 3 2 1 Desalinization plant/water treatment 5 4 3 2 1 Industrial manufacturing or processing (e.g. refinery, pulp mill) 5 4 3 2 1 ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES Strongly Favor Favor Neutral Oppose Strongly Oppose Conservation easements 5 4 3 2 1 Manatee protection zones 5 4 3 2 1 Artificial reef development 5 4 3 2 1 Fish/wildlife habitat expansion 5 4 3 2 1 Commercial fisheries regulations 5 4 3 2 1 Recreational fisheries regulations 5 4 3 2 1 Development setbacks to sustain natural shoreline vegetation for protection from storm damage and erosion. 5 4 3 2 1
159 Part 3: Familiarity with Greater Sarasota Bay This section asks about your connections to, experience with, and knowledge of Greater Sarasota Bay Q10: What are your connections to Greater Sarasota Bay ? (One response per line) My connection to Greater Sarasota Bay Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree depends on Greater Sarasota Bay 5 4 3 2 1 Greater Sarasota Bay is important in protecting air quality. 5 4 3 2 1 The tourism dollars that Greater Sarasota Bay attracts are essential 5 4 3 2 1 I identify strongly with the Greater Sarasota Bay area 5 4 3 2 1 My community takes great pride in Greater Sarasota Bay 5 4 3 2 1 Greater Sarasota Bay is the best place to satisfy my outdoor recreation needs. 5 4 3 2 1 Greater Sarasota Bay means a lot to me. 5 4 3 2 1 Greater Sarasota Bay represents a way of life in my community. 5 4 3 2 1 Many important memories of my family are tied to Greater Sarasota Bay 5 4 3 2 1 Greater Sarasota Bay is important for providing habitat for fish and other wildlife. 5 4 3 2 1 Greater Sarasota Bay is very special to me. 5 4 3 2 1 Greater Sarasota Bay is the best for what I like to do. 5 4 3 2 1 Greater Sarasota Bay is a special place for my family. 5 4 3 2 1 I am very attached to Greater Sarasota Bay 5 4 3 2 1 Greater Sarasota Bay has helped put my community on the map. 5 4 3 2 1 I get more satisfaction out of visiting Greater Sarasota Bay than any other place. 5 4 3 2 1
160 Few people know Greater Sarasota Bay like my family does. 5 4 3 2 1 What I do in/around Greater Sarasota Bay is more important to me than doing it in any other place. 5 4 3 2 1 No other place can compare to Greater Sarasota Bay 5 4 3 2 1 In any development plan, it is important to consider protecting the environment of Greater Sarasota Bay 5 4 3 2 1 I depend on Greater Sarasota Bay for income or livelihood. 5 4 3 2 1 Visiting Greater Sarasota Bay says a lot about who I am. 5 4 3 2 1 on the natural resources of Greater Sarasota Bay 5 4 3 2 1 I feel a sense of pride in my heritage when I am in Greater Sarasota Bay 5 4 3 2 1 I enjoy what I do in/around Greater Sarasota Bay more than any other place. 5 4 3 2 1 tied to Greater Sarasota Bay 5 4 3 2 1 Greater Sarasota Bay ties the generations of my family together. 5 4 3 2 1 Greater Sarasota Bay contributes to the character of my community. 5 4 3 2 1 Greater Sarasota Bay is a special place for my community to be located. 5 4 3 2 1 Greater Sarasota Bay is important to preserve/conserve various natural and unique ecosystems. 5 4 3 2 1 I feel Greater Sarasota Bay is a part of me. 5 4 3 2 1 Greater Sarasota Bay is important in protecting water quality. 5 4 3 2 1
161 Q11: What is your level of knowledge regarding different elements of the Greater Sarasota Bay area? (One response per line) My knowledge of Greater Sarasota Bay Excellent Good Fair Poor N/A Policy 5 4 3 2 1 Ecology 5 4 3 2 1 History/Culture 5 4 3 2 1 Recreational Opportunities 5 4 3 2 1 Q12: What is your experience with Greater Sarasota Bay ? My experience with Greater Sarasota Bay How many years have you lived in the Sarasota Bay area (including the entirety of Manatee and/or Sarasota Counties)? __________ years I am a seasonal / permanent resident (circle one). Do you consider yourself an advocate for the Greater Sarasota Bay environment? Yes No Somewhat Did you grow up in/around Sarasota Bay? Yes No
162 Part 5: How You Value Greater Sarasota Bay Q15: Each person values Greater Sarasota Bay resources differently. We would like to know how you value Greater Sarasota Bay Greater Sarasota Bay is preserved or enhanced. You may spend or allocate the $100 in any way you lik e (but the total must not exceed $100). For example, you might spend all $100 on one value (and $0 on all others), or you might spend $50 on one $100 is up to you. Please note that our reference to money is made solely for the purposes of this exercise and does not relate to any proposed or actual expenditures. Amount Value (abbrev.) Definition of the value. $ Aesthetic Value (A) I value Greater Sarasota Bay because I enjoy the sights, sounds, and smells. $ Recreation Value (R) I value Greater Sarasota Bay because it provides a place for my favorite outdoor recreation activities. $ Cultural Value (C) I value Greater Sarasota Bay because it represents a place for passing down wisdom, knowledge, and traditions $ Spiritual/Novel Experience Value (SN) I value Greater Sarasota Bay because it represents a sacred, religious, unique, deep, and profound place where reverence/respect fo r nature is felt/experienced. $ Life Sustaining Value (LS) I value Greater Sarasota Bay because it supports life, human and non human, through the production, preservation, cleansing, and renewal of air, soil, and water. $ Learning Value (L) I value Greater Sarasota Bay because we can learn about the environment through scientific exploration, observation, discovery, and experimentation. $ Biodiversity Value (B) I value Greater Sarasota Bay because it provides a variety and abundance of fish, wildlife, and plant life. $ Wilderness Value (W) I value Greater Sarasota Bay because it represents minimal human impact and/or intrusion into natural environment. $ Subsistence Value (S) I value Greater Sarasota Bay for its provision of basic human needs, such as reliable, regular food supply from seafood. $ Historic Value (H) I value Greater Sarasota Bay because it provides places and things of natural and human history that matter to me.
163 $ Identity/Symbolic Value (IS) I value Greater Sarasota Bay because I identify a sense of community and belonging symbolic of $ Future Value (F) I value Greater Sarasota Bay because it allows future generations to know and experience healthy, productive, and sustainable coastal environments. $ Therapeutic Value (T) I value Greater Sarasota Bay because it makes me feel better, physically and/or mentally. $ Economic Value ( E) I value Greater Sarasota Bay because it provides fisheries (commercial), minerals, and tourism resources that support livelihoods. $ Intrinsic (I) I value Greater Sarasota Bay in and of itself, whether people are present or not. $ Access (AC) I value Greater Sarasota Bay as a place of common property free from access restrictions or exclusive ownership/control. Total: $100 Additional comments:
164 Mapping Greater Sarasota Bay Social Values Q16: In this mapping exercise, you will locate places in the natural environment of Greater Sarasota Bay that have special meaning to you. While built environments (for example museums, restaurants, and city streets) can indeed be valuable to you, the focus o f this project is to identify locations of value within the natural environments of Greater Sarasota Bay (for example parks, beaches, and waterways). To identify the places that are important to you, follow these two steps: Instructions: What places wi thin Greater Sarasota Bay do you think of when you reflect on each of the values to which you allocated money in question 15? We want you to mark these places on a map. For each value, we ask that you mark no more than four places on the map using the fo llowing procedure: Using a pen, mark on the map a place that represents one of your important values (those you allocated money to in question 15). After placing a dot, mark what Value each place represents by using the value abbreviations that followed the name of that Value in question 15 or by referring to the same Value abbreviations listed on the map. Then give each place you marked a number of 1 through 4. This is now the Value Mark. Example: You indicated Aesthetic Value (A) in question 15 as o ne of your important values related to Sarasota Bay. When you think of Aesthetic Value, you think of two places: Thompson Pass and Mirror Shore (imaginary places). You make two dots on the map: one where you think Thompson Pass is located, and you Value Aesthetic Value, Place number 1. You make another dot where you think Mirror Shore is Step 1 for each Value you allocated money to in question 15. Step 2: Please list in the table on the next page each Value Mark you made along with Bays You only need to mark dots for the values for which you allocated money in question 15, up to four for each. It is not necessary for you to have visited or used the location(s) where you place your dots. Some Values may be related to bay use while others may not. If you allocated to more than 8 values in Question 15, please add them to the list on the last page in this packet.
165 List of Values Value Mark Place Name/Description Value Mark Place Name/Description Value 1: Value 5: __1 __1 __2 __2 __3 __3 __4 __4 Value 2: Value 6: __1 __1 __2 __2 __3 __3 __4 __4 Value 3: Value 7: __1 __1 __2 __2 __3 __3 __4 __4 Value 4: Value 8: __1 __1 __2 __2 __3 __3 __4 __4
167 Part 6: Participant Demographics Your identity will be kept confidential and your answers below will not be associated with your name or any other personal identifiers. We are collecting this information to ensure our sample reaches a diverse enough audience to be representative of all s takeholders. Q17: Do you or anyone in your household earn income from the sale of Greater Sarasota Bay products or from commercial services (including hospitality) that depend on access to those resources? 1 Yes. Please describe the source of the income:_ __________________________ 2 No 3 Unsure Q18: comes from use of or access to Greater Sarasota Bay resources? 1 1 25% 2 26 50% 3 51 75% 4 76 100% Q19: Greater Sarasota Bay resources, does your business or income vary based on the number of tourists attracted to Greater Sarasota Bay 1 Yes 2 No 3 Unsure Q20: Were you or any of your immed iate family economically affected by the 2010 BP Gulf oil spill? 1 Yes 2 No Q21: Did you or any of your immediate family change Gulf vacation or Greater Sarasota Bay water related recreational activities due to the 2010 BP Gulf oil spill? 1 Yes 2 No Q22: Year of b irth? Q23 : Are you? Male Female
168 Q24 : What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Please check one response). ___Less than high school diploma ___High school diploma or GED ___Vocational/technical degree ___4 year college degree ___Some graduate work ___One or more graduate degrees Q25 : What is your approximate annual household income before taxes? (check one response). ___Less than $10,000 ___$25,000 $49,999 ___$75,000 $99,999 ___$10,000 $24,999 ___$125,000 $149,999 ___$50,000 $74,999 ___$150,000 or more ___$100,000 $124,999 Q2 6 : What is your occupation?______________________________________________ Q27 : In what ethnic group (A) and race (B) would you put yourself? A. Ethnicity ___Hispanic/Latino ___NOT Hispanic/Latino B. Race ___Asian American ___Black/African American ___Native American ___Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander ___White ___Other______________________ Q28 : What is your address? (This information will only be used to ensure adequate distribution of the survey and your street address will not be shared with anyone outside of this research project if you prefer not to give us your street address, you can jus t tell us your ZIP code) Street: City/State: Zip Code: Q29 : Can you see the waters of Sarasota Bay or the Gulf from your residence? Yes No Q30 : Does your daily commute allow you to view Sarasota Bay or the coast for some duration of your commute? 1 Ye s (if yes, about how many minutes per round trip) __________ 2 No
169 List of Values (continued) Value Mark Place Name/Description Value Mark Place Name/Description Value 9: Value 13: __1 __1 __2 __2 __3 __3 __4 __4 Value 10: Value 14: __1 __1 __2 __2 __3 __3 __4 __4 Value 11: Value 15: __1 __1 __2 __2 __3 __3 __4 __4 Value 12: Value 16: __1 __1 __2 __2 __3 __3 __4 __4
170 APPENDIX F DELPHI SUMMARY REPORTS ROUND 1 SUMMARY Social Values of Ecosystem Services and Resource Uses in the Coastal Zone Title of the study: Mapping Social Values of Coastal Use relative to Ecosystem Services This report contains the Round 1 survey results summary. For each of the three survey questions, results are described and the key messages are presented. In total, fifty eight coastal ecosystem service experts from over a dozen countries completed the survey (45% response rate). QUESTION 1: List and describe the four most important issue s or controversial resource uses facing contemporary coastal and marine management and policy. Results: Through content analysis thirty six contemporary coastal management and policy issues were identified. Their importance is established by the frequenc y in which they appear in the survey response data. The frequency tabulation (number of references to each issue) was independently completed by two researchers. The inter coder reliability, that is, the congruency between the two independent tabulations, was 87% (satisfying the most stringent measure of reliability). On the basis of this tabulation, the issues are ranked and the top twenty two issues (60%) are identified (Table 1). Key concerns regarding each issue are also described. The remaining fou rteen identified issues are also listed. Table 1 Question 1 Summary: Contemporary Coastal Issues (in rank order) 1. Fisheries Overharvesting: Rate/method of harvest considered unsustainable; issues include: uncertain stock assessment, tragedy of the commons, regulation enforcement, and habitat loss/degradation. 2. Coastal Development: Global migration toward coastlines coupled with population growth has increased building and associated infrastructure expansion; issues include: stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces, settlement in hazard prone areas, loss in ecological resilience, and habitat destruction. 3. Pollution: Proliferation of co astal development (see issue #2) has caused increases in point and non point source pollution; noted sources include: fertilizer, trash/litter (marine debris), oil spills, sediment, sewage, industrial waste, and pesticides. 4. Competing Interests/Resource Uses: Competition for finite resources from industry, government, and local stakeholders; issues include: public vs. private interest, conflicting uses (i.e. commercial vs. recreational fishery), and the ongoing debate between conservat ion and development. 5. Sea Level Rise: Advances in the understanding of the potential impacts has outpaced adaptation to predicted changes of consequence to natural and built environments along the coastline; issues include: property rights, public ac cess, coastal erosion, habitat shifts, and lack of mitigation investment.
171 6. Sectoral Management: Outdated laws and regulations coupled with the influence of political climates on the integration of science based ecosystem management/policy has created a n environment of disparate operating frames in coastal and marine decision making; issues include: lack of international cooperation, and competing national vs. local mandates. 7. Habitat Loss: Occurring as a result of both natural (i.e. erosion) and a nthropogenic (i.e. shore development, boating) factors; issues include: sea level rise (see issue #5), loss of ecosystem resiliency, ecological alteration (natural and human induced), and pollution (see issue #3). 8. Oil/Gas Exploration: Continually expa nding efforts into increasingly difficult and fragile environments (i.e. deep sea drilling, arctic expansion); issues include: enhanced subsidence, increased dredging, and pipeline construction (along with other transport infrastructure). 9. Climate Change: Impacts beyond those resultant of sea level rise (see issue #5); issues include: increasing frequency/strength of hazard events (i.e. storms), changing hydrologic cycles, and altered habitat/biodiversity structures. 10. Public Education: The incr easing investment and need to educate stakeholders at all levels of society regarding coastal science and management/policy practices; issues include: conveying scientific uncertainty, enhancing public trust, and translation of technical knowledge. 11. Alternative Energy: Increasing development/expansion (wind, tidal, solar, etc.) in the coastal zone requires better understanding of associated benefits and costs; issues include: aesthetic impacts, adverse habitat/species effects, regulatory hurdles, and public education (see issue #10) 12. Freshwater Inflow: Overexploitation of ground and surface water due to development in coastal areas (see issue #2); issues include: saltwater intrusion, changes in freshwater delivery regimes to wetland/estuarine ecosy stems, and subsequent alteration to species composition. 13. Biodiversity: Large scale ecosystem change in coastal areas (natural and anthropogenic) leading to significant declines in species variety and abundance; issues include: overexploitation, develo pment, habitat loss, and climate change. 14. Shore Hardening: Increasing coastal development (see issue #2) resulting in property protection via elimination of natural buffers (i.e. mangroves, accretion/erosion); issues include: species impacts (e.g. s ea turtle nesting), habitat loss/ degradation, and high cost of artificial nourishment (and lack of effectiveness). 15. MPA Management: Disparate strategies/frameworks, lack of enforcement, and issues of jurisdiction causing variable effectiveness; issu es include: public misconceptions, tragedy of the commons, and absent consideration of associated socio economic impacts. 16. Water Quality: Increasing degradation of upland inflow coupled with development (see issue #2) and pollution (see issue #3) with wide ranging negative effects on coastal ecosystems; issues include: high cost of pollution control, nutrient over enrichment, and unsustainable growth strategies. 17. Public Access: Shifts in natural coastal environments coupled with expanding
172 private shoreline ownership/development has served to limit customary access points to general population; issues include: need for public/private planning, assurance/regulation of shoreline access, and control of restrictive development. 18. Wetland Los s: Development pressure (see issue #2), pollution (see issue #3), sea level rise (see issue #5), and decreasing freshwater inflow (see issue #12) all contributing to accelerating loss rates. 19. Beach Nourishment: Concerns over cost, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of practice; issues include: who should pay, economic/ecological feasibility, and frequency of nourishment. 20. Enforcement Efficacy: Existence of laws and regulations does not assure adherence, seen at all levels of policy from international to local; issue include: deficient personnel, minimal prosecution, and unsustainable harvest designations. 21. Resource Capture: Business interes t driving coastal politics and decision making resulting in unsustainable practices and large scale negative ecological impacts; issue include: tragedy of the commons, overharvesting (see issue #1), and lack of enforcement (see issue #20). 22. Unsustainable Management/Policy: Decisions making based on short term gain without consideration of long term implications; issues include: resource capture (see issue #21), lack of enforcement (see issue #20), and reactive vs. proactive planning. Other Identified Issues: Erosion; Eutrophication; Lack of Consistency in Shoreline Designation; Lack of Funding for Coastal Management; Loss of Cultural Resources; Mariculture Impacts; Ecosystem Service Valuation; Hazard Mitigation; Lack of International Coopera tion; Lack of Social Science in Coastal Management/Policy; Issues of Management/Policy Scale; Nutrient Loading; Population Growth; and Sedimentation In reviewing these issues, a set of issue categories naturally emerge: Category A issues related to coas tal/marine development, Category B issues related to coastal ecology, and Category C issues related to coastal management. Though the categories, and indeed the issues within each, are not mutually exclusive, they allow us to consider the issues from a different perspective.
173 Table 2 Contemporary coastal issues by Category (see Table 1 for issue definitions) Issue Rank Order Category A Issues related to coastal/marine development Coastal Development 2 Habitat Loss 7 Oil/Gas Exploration 8 Alternative Energy 11 Shore Hardening 14 Public Access 17 Lack of Consistency in Shoreline Designation 25 Loss of Cultural Resources 27 Population Growth 35 Category B Issues related to coastal ecology Fisheries Overharvesting 1 Pollution 3 Sea Level Rise 5 Climate Change 9 Freshwater Inflow 12 Biodiversity 13 Water Quality 16 Wetland Loss 18 Beach Nourishment 19 Erosion 23 Eutrophication 24 Mariculture 28 Nutrient Loading 34 Sedimentation 36 Category C Issues related to coastal management Competing Interests/Uses 4 Sectoral Management 6 Public Education 10 MPA Management 15 Enforcement Efficacy 20 Resource Capture 21 Unsustainable Management/Policy 22 Lack of Funding in Coastal Management/Policy 26 Ecosystem Service Valuation 29 Hazard Mitigation 30 Lack of International Cooperation 31 Lack of Social Science in Coastal Management/Policy 32 Management Scale 33
174 QUESTION 2: How important is it for ecosystem service valuation to be inclusive of social values alongside traditional metrics of economic and ecological values? Results: Figure 1 Question 2 Summary: Importance of Social Value Assessment A majority agree that it is very important for ecosystem service valuation to be inclusive of inherent social values alongside economic and ecologic value metrics (Table 3). However, the analysis also reveals that social values of ecosystem services are still cloaked in conceptual vagueness; ther e appears a lack of clarity about what social values are with regard to contemporary conceptions of ecosystem services. Pertinent questions include: how to measure the social values of ecosystem services, what it means for assessment to be inclusive of in herent social values, who is required to consider them in decision making, and when to do so. On one end of the response spectrum, some contend that valuation of ecosystem services is a futile practice without equitable inclusion of all the value types economic, ecological, and social. Others argue that social values are indeed the most important factor to consider within decision making frameworks and stand as the least developed in terms of their ability to be quantified (relative to economic and ecol ogic valuation paradigms). And at the other end of the spectrum, participants make clear that while social values are an important element in valuing ecosystem services they are either not as important or serve as an input to economic and ecologic assessm ents. This spectrum confirms the need to defined and measured in coastal management and policy. Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Very Important Not Important 42 12 2 1 1 Answer Response Very Important 42 Important 12 Somewhat Important 2 Not Very Important 1 Not Important 1 Statistic Value Mean 1.43 Variance 0.66 Standard Deviation 0.81
175 Table 3 Question 2 Summary: Representative Comments Very Important 72% driven, economic values for ecosystem services and the associated social values handicaps policy and funding discussions at local, state, national and to attach a monetary value to the benefits nature provides us with. However, it is even more difficult to explain the social values attached to each ecosystem service. These are necessary for several reasons. First and foremost, we need to inform our stak eholders of the importance of ecosystem services and to do that we need to make them understand what the social values are. Also, social values would be of utmost importance for natural resource managers in their decision making issues impacting on ecosystem services stem ultimately from human behaviour and social values. Any 'solutions' that ignore this element are leaving out an important part of the picture social values need to be considered as (i) a potential part of the so lution to issues we face, and (ii) as a root cause of the problem too. It is also unethical to ignore social concerns while prioritizing ecological and economic dimensions of ecosystem services is rooted in social values so to leave them out makes the measurement of ecosystem services using only economic and ecological values less comprehensive and thereby, less meaningful. In fact, if all value is reduced to economic, there are a number of critical services that may be lost entirely. Moreoever, if we are actually interested in the values humans place on ecosystems, then we actually need to take an inclusive approach to how humans value things. While social values are certain ly more complex to quantify, this is no reason to reduce all human value to economic. People and society, as a whole, is far more complex. Our valuation should reflect this on economic worth. It is very important to develop social metrics so that these resources can be assessed in a way that includes in isolation. Whenever ecosystem services are discussed, we have to be cognizant to one of the most important part that is the social values. Though economic and science are great, if the Important 21% assessments of ecosystem values helps decision makers with funding allocations and decisions regarding use patterns. Social values estimation must be done as well. But the quantitative methods used must provide for comparable estimates and must be done in a manner that does not encourage mak ing in directions that are counter to best solutions. Lack of accounting for social values can destroy resources vital to community and resident functions in favor of iving either an economic or environmental planning, however social values are di fficult to use in project ranking. Therefore social values become
176 qualitative considerations rather than quantitative economic considerations or ecological values that often are reduced to quantitative values. If social values can be defined and then nor malized in some Somewhat Important 3% harder to quantify, and enter into the decision making process with much less impact. That is, decision makers, regardless of the strength or time spent discussing social issues, tend to make decisions based largely on perceived or real cost Not Very Important < 2% importantly, the economic values will adequately capture this. If coastal resources are valued for aesthetic reason and represent a socia l value of entertainment or enjoyment, then society will place more value on more enjoyable resources and the economic indicators realted to how people choose to use those resources will reflect that. Restated simply, I believe the social values are input s to the Not Important < 2% computing them at least no method accepted by the public or managers outside of the "valuation" community. So we can't even agree on metrics for relatively objective things, how can we possibly agree on soft, social value metrics and valuations. Therefore, we should remove the social value issue completely from the ecosystem services valuation process and have a separate system, such as
177 QUEST ION 3: List and describe up to four social values of ecosystem services specific to coastal and marine contexts. Results: Through content analysis nineteen social values of ecosystem services in the coastal zone were identified. Their importance is establ ished by the frequency in which they appear in the survey response data. The frequency tabulation (number of references to each issue) was independently completed by two researchers. The inter coder reliability, that is, the congruency between the two ind ependent tabulations, was 93% (satisfying the most stringent measure of reliability). On the basis of this tabulation, the issues are ranked and defined using an aggregate of response descriptions (Table 3). Table 3 Question 3 Summary: Emergent Typolo gy of Social Values of Ecosystem Services 1. Recreation: Provision/context of favorite/enjoyable outdoor recreation activities. 2. Aesthetic: Provision/context of enjoyable scenery, sights, sounds, smells, etc. 3. Cultural: Place for passing down the wisdom, knowledge, traditions, and way of life of my ancestors. 4. Spiritual: Sacred, religious, or spiritually special place where reverence and respect for nature is experienced. 5. Economic: Provision of fishery (comme rcial/recreational), minerals, and tourism industry that supports livelihoods. 6. Identity: Spaces that engender a sense of place, community, and belonging representing shared values, goals, and pride that contribute to individual and group identity. 7. Intrinsic: Right to exist regardless of human presence, value based on existence (being rather than place). 8. Life Sustaining: Macro environmental processes (i.e. climate regulation, hydrologic cycle, etc.) that support life, human and non human. 9. Therapeutic: Place that enhances feelings of well being (e.g. 10. Learning: Provision/context of educational value through scientific exploration, observation, discovery, and experimentation. 11. Natural/Wilderness: Spaces that are preserved in a state representative of minimal human impact, related to intrinsic (see value #7) and future (see value #12). 12. Subsistence: Provision of basic human needs, emphasis on reliable, regular food/protein source from seafood. 13. Future: Allowance for future generations to know and experience coastal ecosystems as they are now. 14. Access: Places of common property free from access restrictions or exclusive ownership/control. 15. Biodiversity: Provision/context of a variety and abundance of fish, wildlife, plant life, etc. 16. Symbolic: to cultural (see value #3) and identity (see value #6). 17. Historic: Places of natural and human history that matter to individuals, communities, societies, and nations.
178 18. Novel Experience: Provision/context of unique, deep, and profound human experience unable to be replicated. 19. Transportation: Ease of personal, re creational, military, and commercial transport of people and goods. In comparing the typology presented here to those formerly developed we find that fourteen (74%) have been previously noted. The five emergent concepts include: identity, access, symbolic, novel experience, and transportation. While these are not necessarily unique values found only in the coastal zone it is interesting to note their definitions relative to terrestrial environments as many would not translate very well to, say, fo rest environments from which most previous typologies have been developed.
179 ROUND 2 SUMMARY Social Values of Ecosystem Services and Resource Uses in the Coastal Zone Title of the study: Mapping Social Values of Coastal Use relative to Ecosystem Service s This report contains the Round 2 survey results summary. For each of the four survey questions, results are described and the key messages are presented. In total, thirty eight coastal ecosystem service experts completed this survey round (66% response rate). QUESTION 1: A) The top 22 issues identified in Round 1 are listed in accordance with the group's rank order (beginning with the most important as determined by frequency). In order to provide us with additional information and to move the group tow ards a consensus set of issues, please rank the issues from most important to least important by clicking and dragging to rearrange the order. (1 = most important / 22 = least important) B) Please provide any additional insight into the issues, their rank im portance, or other. Also, in your opinion do any of the following issues, identified in round one, deserve to be in the list above and if so, why? Results: Table 1 provides a summary of the issue reordering (1A; numbers in parenthesis represent the mean r ank order and rank order change from Round 1 to Round 2, respectively). As pointed out by a number of participants, the value in this exercise derives not from a concrete consensus on the rank order of these issues but instead an acknowledgement of these being a priori issues for coastal resource management. The researcher acknowledges that after Round 1 it was clear that many of the issues initially listed did indeed have a sizable amount of overlap (lacked mutual exclusivity); Round 2 respondents provid ed a number of interesting insights into which could be reasonably combined for clarity. In order of mentioned frequency, issues to be combined included: sea level rise/climate change, habitat loss/wetland loss, pollution/water quality, and unsustainable management/sectoral management. Table 1 Question 1 Summary: Reorder of Coastal Issues (parenthesis indicate response average and direction/degree of change, respectively; #@ *^ indicates combined issue recommendations) 1. Coastal Development (3.62; +1) 11. Public Education (11.71; 1) 2. Habitat Loss (5.26; +4) # 12. Sectoral Management (12.24; 6) ^ 3. Pollution (5.91, 0) @ 13. Freshwater Inflow (12.32; 1) 4. Fisheries Overharvesting (6; 3) 14. Unsustainable Management/Policy (12.38; +8) ^ 5. Competing Interests/Resource Uses (6.35; 1) 15. Oil/Gas Exploration (13.91; 7) 6. Sea Level Rise (8.74; 1)* 16. Shore Hardening (14.85; 2) 7. Water Quality (9.15; +9) @ 17. Alternative Energy (15.47; 6) 8. Climate Change (9.85; +1)* 18. Public Access (15.56; 1) 9. Decreasing Biodiversity (10.94; +4) 19. Enforcement Efficacy (16; +1) 10. Wetland Loss (11; +8) # 20. Beach Nourishment (16.38; 1)
180 In addition to calls for combining some of these issue categories, as outlined above and in Table 1, there were three notable observations regarding supplements to listed topics and divergence of opinion concerning the level of importance certain issues have (see Table 2 for example comments). First, a large number of comments focused on the role popula tion growth plays in driving most the issues listed, most notably the role of coastal development and its corresponding impacts. Second, there were two additional issues which received prominent attention: 1) a general lack of funding for research and man agement aimed at dealing with coastal management issues; and 2) the loss of cultural resources, particularly its lacking consideration as a priority issue in coastal policy. Lastly, there were distinct divergent opinions regarding the fit of public access and public education issues in this priority listing. Some respondents noted them as the ly, as issues on par with the others.
1 81 Table 2 Question 1 Summary: Representative Comments scientists, it behooves us to at least acknowledge it as a potential root cause for many (all) of the issues listed above. In many, if not most conversations, any discussions along these lines are oft considered taboo. Why? Likely, because it is 1 major driver in n an overarching issues that affects many of the currently listed especially everyone owns...no one respons ible which is an issue as far as it is an often overlooked aspect of coastal management. I had some trouble with some issues in the list which to be either overlap (e.g. habitat lo ss/decreasing biodiversity) or which are not necessarily 'problems' (such as public education). Indeed, my top two ranked issues (unsustainable management/sectoral management) are very intertwined part of the problem with management being unsustainable i s that is focused too much on sectors and not move public education to the top of the list. If the public does not know there is a problem or understand the ramifications of it or their role in it, then improvements are not likely to be implemented. Also note that in my mind some of these issues as listed ced unsustainable management policy and public education (scientific knowledge and awareness) as #1 and # 2 respectively because they are the foundation for how society understands the issues and then responds to issues with policy solutions and public act and how these are changing with time or policies. The social science component in management policy is vital in making more informed policy decisions. Population growth and associated anthropogenic effects are major factors in the equation regarding 100% non renewable. Once they are destro
182 QUESTION 2: A) ranging from instrumental value (e.g. places that provide sustenance) to symbolic value (places that represent ideas) and which fall outside utilitarian, market based assessment of the monetary value derived from ecosystem services; not the economic value an ecosystem provides but instead the values which are present intrinsically (regardless of humans) and instrumentally (as human resources) in a given B) Please provide additional comments or suggestions to improve this definition. Results: Figure 1 shows that a majority of participants felt the definition used was either appropriate or very appropriate. It also shows that nearly as many respondents felt neutral or less about its appropriateness, meaning that there exists a need to further refine what is meant by accepted understanding and differentiation from other value types. Figure 1 The predominant criti que of the definition was its advanced complexity, i.e. a need for simp lification of the definition, broad enough to capture all social values inherent to ecosystem services while being succinct and agreeable to layman understanding that differentiates it from other value types. Many of the comments drew attention to the exc lusionary aspects of the definition as being a limiting factor in its application. For instance, one respondent noted the following: as utilitarian and monetary, but for some, i f not many (most), this is exactly what they equate to the term. The definition should capture these, BUT ALSO include the various other aspects you have provided. Exclusion seems contradictory, self defeating, elitist, secular, alienating, etc.
183 whereas in clusion of the utilitarian and monetary aspects would/should result in the greatest coverage of all peoples. It doesn't seem appropriate or relevant to alienate some portion or segment of the 'target' population by excluding 'their values' even if it is so lely based on utilitarian needs or value element of ecosystem services may want to talk about both economic valuation and social valuation as two sides social values from other values (e.g., biodiversity). All values have their foundation in From this, the noted challeng e is creating a definition that is simultaneously inclusionary, succinct, and basic enough for broad understanding and clarity of focus. In forecasting this level of ambiguity and a need for definitional refinement, the question that followed presented fo ur variables/attributes to provide the discussion with direction and points from which to build consensus about necessary elements to be included. QUESTION 3: To ensure that resource management and environmental policy includes social values assessment a long economic and ecologic measures of ecosystem services, what variables or attributes need to find expression in the definition? As a starting point for discussion, please review the variables listed below and comment on their appropriateness. A) HUMAN ECO LOGICAL LANDSCAPE: Noteworthy human activities, artifacts and impacts, and biophysical environments. B) PERCEPTIONS, ATTITUDES, AND VALUES: Societal and individual understanding of social relations and cultural norms. Understanding determined by experiential knowledge. C) STRATEGIES AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT: Decision making infrastructure composed of customs, laws, policies, management practices, and the agencies and actors needed to plan and manage relevant resources/landscapes. D) TECHNOLOGY: The ways, means and tools used by individuals/societies to develop and adapt to changing conditions in the state of the natural and human environments. Hard (alternative engineering/assessment instruments) and soft (alternative behaviors or ways of coping and/or adapti ng) technologies are needed. Results: The following figures (Figures 2 and 3) show perceptions of appropriateness for each of the above variables/attributes for finding expression within a refined ted in the Question 2 summary, the main critique of the definition used in Round 1 was its advanced complexity, need for simplification, and a desire for it to be more inclusionary while remaining succinct and understandable to a broad audience of stakehol ders. These variables/attributes were chosen to provide direction in reaching a more widely
184 Figure 2 Question 3 Summary: Level of Appropriateness for each Variable/Attribute By aggreg ating the positive perceptions categories (very appropriate and appropriate) and the negative perceptions categories (inappropriate and very inappropriate), val variables/attributes are most important to include in a modified definition in light of the recommendations from Question 2. Figure 3 shows that Perceptions, Attitudes, and Values have the highest importance for inclusion, followed by Technology and Human Ecological Landscape (whose priority order is interchangeable), and lastly Strategies and Institutional Arrangement. It is also important to note the predominance of the Pe rceptions, Attitudes, and Values variable/attribute over the other three as their appropriateness versus inappropriateness are relatively analogous to one another. defined Figure 3 Question 3 Summary: Appropriateness versus Inappropriateness of Variabl es/Attributes 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Human Ecological Landscape Perceptions, Attitudes, and Values Strategies and Institutional Arrangement Technology Very Appropriate Appropriate Neutral Inappropriate Very Inappropriate 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Human Ecological Landscape Perceptions, Attitudes, and Values Strategies and Institutional Arrangement Technology Very Appropriate/Approriate Very Inappropriate/Inappropriate
185 QUESTION 4: A) The top 19 social values of ecosystem services identified in Round 1 are listed in order to provide us with additional information and to move the group towards a consensus typology of social values, please rate the relevance of each related to ecosystem service valuation. B) The social values of ecosystem services in the coastal zone listed above are not mutually exclusive of one another. Ple ase note any that could be combined and provide justification for doing so. Also, the explanations given for each value represents an aggregate of Round 1 response descriptions, if desired please comment and provide suggestions for clarification regarding the provided definitions. Results: Table 3 represents the order of social values per mean relevancy scores (5 Very Relevant to 1 Very Irrelevant) for each value that emerged in Round 1. It is clear that all held a relatively high relevance with regar d to ecosystem service valuation in coastal environments. However, it should be noted that four of the five newly emergent concepts, highlighted by asterisks, have the lowest mean scores in terms of relevancy. What materialized in the comments regarding this typology (Question 4B) was that a number of these could/should be combined with previously existing/other social values. Table 3 Question 4 Summary: Relevancy of Social Values to Ecosystem Service Valuation 1. Aesthetic (4.79) 11. Identity* (4.35) 2. Recreation (4.71) 12. Future (4.32) 3. Cultural (4.65) 13. Therapeutic (4.21) 4. Spiritual (4.56) 14. Economic (4.18) 5. Life Sustaining (4.53) 15. Intrinsic (4.15) 6. Learning (4.47) 16. Access*(4.09) 7. Natural/Wilderness (4.41) 17. Symbolic* (4.09) 8. Subsistence (4.41) 18. Novel Experience* (3.97) 9. Biodiversity (4.41) 19. Transportation* (3.58) 10. Historic (4.38) There were three predominant suggestions regarding ways to refine the typology by collapsing social values categories. Those recommendations included: Natural/Wilderness Biodiversity; Spiritual Novel Experience; and Identity Symbolic. In addition, it was stressed by multiple experts that Transportation would be inherently captured within other values, such as Economic and Recreation, and could therefore be removed from the typology. There were a number of other suggestions regarding modifications of the descriptions Allowance for future generations to know and experience coastal ecosystems as they ions to know importance for restoration of natural ecosystem service values should not be lost when
186 FINAL SUMMARY Social Values of Ecosyst em Services and Resource Uses in the Coastal Zone Title of the study: Mapping Social Values of Coastal Use relative to Ecosystem Services This report contains the final results summary from three iterative Delphi rounds. These sequential questionnaire r ounds have focused on developing three themes specific to the coastal zone: 1) a typology of social values of ecosystem services, 2) a priority listing of resource management issues, and 3) a workable definition of social values of ecosystem services. Re sults and key messages are presented below. In total, thirty seven coastal ecosystem service experts completed the final survey round (97% response rate). THEME 1: Social Values of Ecosystem Services Table 1 Social Values Typology (alphabetical order) Access Places of common property free from access restrictions or exclusive ownership/control. Aesthetic Enjoyable scenery, sights, sounds, smells, etc. Biodiversity Provision of a variety and abundance of fish, wildlife, and plant life. Cultural Place for passing down wisdom, knowledge, and traditions. Economic Provision of fishery (commercial/recreational), minerals, and tourism industry that support livelihoods. Future Allowance for future generation to know and experience healthy, productive and sustainable coastal ecosystems. Historic Place of natural and human history that matter to individuals, communities, societies, and nations. Identity/Symbolic Places that engender a sense of place, community, and belonging; represent a distinctive Intrinsic Right to exist regardless of presence; value based on existence (being rather than place). Learning Place of educational value through scientific exploration, observation, discovery, and experimentation. Life Sustaining P rovision of macro environmental processes (i.e. climate regulation, hydrologic cycle, etc.) that support life, human and non human. Recreation Place for favorite/enjoyable outdoor recreation activities. Spiritual/Novel Experience Places of sacred, relig ious, unique, deep, and/or profound experience where reverence/respect for nature is felt. Subsistence Provision of basic human needs, emphasis on reliable, regular food/protein source from seafood. Therapeutic Place that enhances feelings of well being (e.g. Wilderness Place of minimal human impact and/or intrusion into natural environment.
187 THEME 2: Important Resource Management Issues Table 2 Coastal Zone Issues (rank order) 1. Coastal Development 11. Public Education 2. Habitat Loss 12. Sectoral Management 3. Pollution 13. Freshwater Inflow 4. Fisheries Overharvesting 14. Unsustainable Management/Policy 5. Competing Interests/Resource Uses 15. Oil/Gas Exploration 6. Sea Level Rise 16. Shore Hardening 7. Water Quality 17. Alternative Energy 8. Climate Change 18. Public Access 9. Decreasing Biodiversity 19. Enforcement Efficacy 10. Wetland Loss 20. Beach Nourishment THEME 3: Workable Definition of Social Values of Ecosystem Services Working Definition Presented: "The ways in which humans value landscapes and the places therein for reasons ranging from instrumental (e.g. places that provide sustenance) to emblematic (e.g. pla ces that represent ideas) and intrinsic (regardless of humans) to contributory (as human resources), with consideration of the human ecological landscape as defined by individual and group perceptions, attitudes, and values toward a given ecosystem." Figu re 1 Appropriateness of Working Definition Key Critiques: Too academic/obtuse/complex/wordy Jargon falls outside understanding of general public Circular (i.e. using value in the definition) Limiting terminology (e.g. landscape, human ecologi cal landscape) Final Working Definition: provide, defined by individual and/or group perceptions and attitudes toward a given
188 APPENDIX G SUPPLEMENTAL DELPHI SUMMARY FINDINGS A priori list of coastal resource management and policy issues (average rank; direction and degree of change between round one and round two) (#@*^ indicates respective respondent noted issue combinations) 1 Coastal Development (3.62; +1) 11. Public Education (11.71; 1) 2. Habitat Loss # (5.26; +4) 12. Sectoral Management ^ (12.24; 6) 3. Pollution @ (5.91, 0) 13. Freshwater Inflow (12.32; 1) 4. Fisheries Overharvesting (6; 3) 14. Unsustainable Management/Policy ^ (12.38; +8) 5. Competing Interests/Resource Uses (6.35; 1) 15. Oil/Gas Exploration (13.91; 7) 6. Sea Level Rise* (8.74; 1) 16. Shore Hardening (14.85; 2) 7. Water Quality @ (9.15; +9) 17. Alternative Energy (15.47; 6) 8. Climate Change* (9.85; +1) 18. Public Access (15.56; 1) 9. Decreasing Biodiversity (10.94; +4) 19. Enforcement Efficacy (16; +1) 10. Wetland Loss # (11; +8) 20. Beach Nourishment (16.38; 1) Definitional appropriateness measured on a 5 point Likert scale. % Very appropriate % Appropriate % Neutral % Inappropriate % Very Inappropriate Round (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Mean score Standard deviation Two 12.1 42.2 33.3 9.1 3.0 2.5 .92 Three 23.7 52.6 10.5 13.16 0.0 3.9 .92
189 APPENDIX H BIODIVERSITY VALUE MAP
190 APPENDIX I AESTHETIC VALUE MAP
191 APPENDIX J RECREATION VALUE MAP
192 LIST OF REFERENCES Aalen, F. H. A. (2001) Landscape development and change, in: B. Green and W. Vos (Eds) Threatened Landscapes Conserving Cultural Environments pp. 3 20 (London and New York: Spon Press). Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 179 211. Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding att itudes and predicting social behavior Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall. Alessa, L., Kliskey, A., & Brown, G. (2008). Social ecological hotspots mapping: a spatial approach for identifying coupled social ecological space. Landscape and Urban Planning, 8 5 27 39. Altman, I. & Low, S. M. (1992). Place attachment New York: Plenum Press. Brandenburg, A. Anderies, J.M., Janssen, M.A., & Ostrom, E. (2004). A framework to analyze the robustness of social ecological systems from an institutional perspective. E cology and Society, 9 (1): 18 34. Bailey, N., Lee, J.T., & Thompson, S. (2006). Maximising the natural capital benefits of habitat creation: Spatially targeting native woodland using GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75 : 227 243. Beger, M., Grantham, H.S., Pressey, R.L., Wilson, K.A., Peterson, E.L., Dorfman, D., Mumby, P.J., Lourival, R., Brumbaugh, D.R., & Possingham H.P. (2010) Conservation planning for connectivity across marine, freshwater, and terrestrial realms. Biological Conservation, 143 (3, 565 575. Bender, B. (1999) Subverting the Western gaze: mapping alternative worlds, in: P. J. Ucko and R. Layton (Eds) The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape: Shaping Your Landscape pp. 31 45 (Londonand New York: Routledge). Beverly, J.L., Uto, K., Wil kes, J.J., & Bothwell, P. (2008). Assessing spatial attributes of forest landscape values: an internet based participatory mapping approach. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research, 38 (2), 289 303. Black, A. & Liljeblad, A. (2006). Integrating social values in vegetation models via GIS: The Missing Link for the Bitterroot National Forest. Final report JFSP project no. 04 2 1 114. Missoula, MT: Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute. Blashke, T. (2005). The role of the spatial dimension within the framework for sustainable landscapes and natural capital. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75 (3 4): 198 226.
193 Boyd, J. & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63 616 62 6. Brandenburg, A.M. & Carroll, M.S. (1995). Your place or mine?: The effect of place creation on environmental values and landscape meanings. Society and Natural Resources, 8 (5), 381 398. Bricker, K. & Kerstetter, D. (2002). An interpretation of special p lace meanings whitewater recreationists attach to the South Fork of the American River. Tourism Geographies, 4 396 425. Brown, G. (2003). A method for assessing highway qualities to integrate values in highway planning. Journal of Transportation Geography 11 (4), 271 283. Brown, G. (2005). Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management: Methods and applications. Society and Natural Resources, 18 (1): 17 39. Brown, G. (2006). Mapping landscape values and development preferences : A method for tourism and residential development planning. International Journal of Tourism Research, 8 (2), 101 113. Brown, G. & Alessa, L. (2005). A GIS based inductive study of wilderness values. International Journal of Wilderness, 11 (1), 14 18. Brow n, G. & Raymond, C. (2007). The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography, 27 : 89 111. Brown, G. & Reed, P. (2000). Validation of a forest values typology for use in national forest planning. Forest Science, 46 (2), 240 247. Brown, G. & Reed, P. (2009). Public participation GIS: a new method for use in national forest planning. Forest Science 55 (2), 166 182. Brown, G., Reed, P., & Harris, C.C. (2002). Testing a place based theory for environmental evaluation: an Alaska case study. Applied Geography, 22 (1), 49 76. Brown, G., Smith, C., Aleesa, L., & Kliskey, A. (2004). A comparison of perceptions of biological value with scientific assessment of biological importance. Applied Geography, 24 (2), 161 180. Brown, J., Mitchell, N., & Beresford, M. (Eds.). (2005). The Protected Landscape Approach: Linking Nature, Culture and Community IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Brown, T.C., Berg strom, J.C., & Loomis, J.B. (2007). Defining, valuing, and providing ecosystem goods and services. Natural Resources Journal, 47, 329 376.
194 Bunting, S.W. (2010). Assessing the stakeholder Delphi for facilitating interactive participation and consensus build ing for sustainable aquaculture development. Society and Natural Resources, 23 (8), 758 775. Bustam, T. (2009). Place attachment, power mechanisms, landscape valuation, and attitudes toward protected area management of Everglades National Park, Florida Un published dissertation, University of Florida. Buttimer, A. & Seamon, D. (1980). The human experience of space and place. London: Croom Helm. Cantrill, J. G & in context of environmen tal policy making and landscape planning. Environmental Science & Policy 4: 185 203. Cantrill, J.A., Sibbald, B., & Buetow, S. (1996). The Delphi and nominal group techniques in health services research. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 4 (2), 6 7 74. Carpenter, S.R., DeFries, R., Dietz, T., Mooney, H.A., Polasky, S., Reid, W.V., & Scholes, R.J. (2006). Millennium ecosystem assessment: research needs. Science, 314, 257 258. Casey, E. S. (1993). Getting back into place: Toward a renewed understand ing of the place world Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Casey, E. S. (1998). The fate of place: A philosophical history Berkeley: University of California Press. Casey, E. S. (2002). Representing place: Landscape painting & maps Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Chawla, L. (1992). Childhood place attachments. In I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place Attachment (pp. 63 86). NY: Plenum Press. Chou, C. (2002). Developing the e Delphi system: A web based forecasting tool for educational research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33 (2), 233 236. Clement, J.M. (2006). Spatially explicit values on the Pike and San Isabel National Forests in Colorado. Doctoral Dissertation. Colorado State University. ProQuest/UMI, AAT 3246268. Const & van den Belt, Nature, 387, 253 260.
195 Cosgrove, D. (1998). Social formation and symbolic landscape Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Council on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2008). Decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its ninth meeting. IX/7: Ecosystem approach. Retrieved from http://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop 09/cop 09 dec 07 en.pdf Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knight, A.T., Roux, D.J., Welz, A., & Wilhelm Rechman, A. (2008). An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. PNAS 105 28: 9483 9488. Crang, M (2001). Rhythms of the city: T emporalised space a nd motion. In: May, J., Thrift, N. (Eds.), TimeSpace: Geographies of Temporality Routledge, London, New York, pp. 187 207. Crumley, C. & Marquardt, W. (1990). Landscape: a unifying concept in regional analysis. In: Allen, K., Green, S., Zubrow, E.B. (Eds. ), Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology Taylor & Francis: London, New York, pp. 73 79. Daily, G.C. (1997). Introduction: what are ecosystem service? In: Daily, G.C. Editor. Washington, D.C : Island Press, pp. 1 10. Daily G.C., Sderqvist, T., Aniyar, S., Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., Ehrlich, P.R., Folke, C., Jansson, A.M., Jansson B.O., Kautsky, N., Levin S., Lubchenco, J., Mler, K.G., Simpson, D., Starrett, D., Tilman, D., & Walker, B. (2000) The value of nature and the nature of value. Science 289 : 395 396. landscape assessment in resource and environmental management. Canadian Geographer, 47 (2), pp. 185 200. Dalbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A.H., & Gustafson, D.H. (1975). Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal and Delphi Processes Scott, Foresman and Co.: Glenview, IL. Daniels, S. (1989). Marxism, culture, and the duplicity of landscape. In: Peet R., Thrift, N. (Eds.), New Models in Geography. Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 196 220. Darvill, T. (1999) The historic environment, historic landscapes, and space time action models in landscape archaeology, in: P. J. Ucko & R. Layton (Eds) The Archaeology an d Anthropology of Landscape: Shaping Your Landscape pp. 104 118 (London and New York: Routledge).
196 Davenport, M. A. & Anderson D. H (2005). Getting from sense of place to place based management: An interpretative investigation of place meanings and perce ptions of landscape change. Society and Natural Resources 16: 625 641. Day, J., and Bobeva, M. (2005). A generic toolkit for the successful management of Delphi studies. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 3 (2), 103 116. Day, V. Paxinos, R., Emmett, J., Wright, A., & Goecker, M. (2008). The Marine Planning Framework for South Australia: A new ecosystem based zoning policy for marine management. Marine Policy, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2007.10.009 de Groot R.S., Wilson, M., & Boumans, R. (2002). A typology for the description, classification, and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41 (3) 393 408. de Lange, W.J., Wise, R.M., Forsyth, G.G., & Nahman, A. (2010). Integrating socio economic and biophysical data to support water allocations within river basins: an example from the Inkomati Water Management Area in South Africa. Environmental Modelling and Software 25 de Steiguer, J.E. & Pye, J.M. (1990). Air pollution damage to U.S. forests. Journal of Forestry, 8 8 (8), 17 22. Donohoe, H.M. (2011). Defining culturally sensitive ecotourism: A Delphi consensus. Current Issues in Touri s m, 14 (1), 27 45. Donohoe, H.M. & Needham, R.D. (2009). Moving best practice forward: Delphi characteristics, advantages, potential problems, and solutions. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11, 415 437. Douvere, F. (2008). "The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem based sea use management." Marine Policy 32 (5): 762 771. Douvere, F. & Ehler, C.N. (2009 ). New perspectives on sea use management: Initial findings from European experience with marine spatial planning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90 (1), 77 88. Eadens, L. M., Jacobson, S. K., Stein, T. V., Confer, J. J., Gape, L., & Sweeting, M. (200 9). Stakeholder mapping for recreation planning of a Bahamian National Park. Society & Natural Resources, 22 (2), 111 127. Eastman, J.R., Jin, W., Kyem, P.A.K., & Toledano, J. (1995). Raster procedures for multi criteria/multi objective decisions. PE&RS 61 (5): 539 547. Egans, W.F., Jones, S.B., Luloff, A.E., & Finley, J.C. (1995). The value of using multiple methods: An illustration using survey, focus group, and Delphi techniques. Society and Natural Resources, 8 (5), 457 465.
197 Ehler, C. (2008). Conclusions: Benefits, lessons learned, and future challenges of marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 32 (5), 840 843. Ericson, J.A. (2006). A participatory approach to conservation in the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, Campeche, Mexico. Landscape and Urban Planning, 7 4 242 266. Farnum, J.O. & Reed, P. (2008). The Chugach National Forest, in: Farnum, J.O. and Kruger, L.E. (eds.), Place based Planning: Innovations and Applications from Four Western Forests General Technical Report PNW GTR 741. US Department of Agricult ure, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Field, A. (2000). Discovering Statistics using SPSS for Windows 2000. London: Sage Publications. Foley, M.M, Halpern, B.S., et al. (2010). Guiding ecological principles for marine spat ial planning. Marine Policy, 34 (5), 955 966. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16 : 253 267. Freeman, A.M. (1993). The Measurement of Environmental Values and Resources: Theories and Models. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Fried, M. (1963). Grieving for a lost home. In The Urban Condition ed. L. J. Duhl. New York: Basic Books, 151 171. Fried, M. (1982). Resi dential attachment: Sources of residential and community satisfaction. Journal of Social Issues 38 107 120. Gilliland, P.M. & Laffoley, D. (2008). Key elements and steps in the process of developing ecosystem based marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 32 (5), 787 796. Goodhead, T. & Aygen, Z. (2007). Heritage management plans and integrated coastal management. Marine Policy, 31 (5), 607 610. Greider, T. & Garkovich, L. (1994). Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the environment. Rural Sociology, 59 1 24. Gupta, U.G. & Clarke, R.E. (1996). Theory and applications of the Delphi technique: A bibliography (1975 1994). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 53 (2), 185 211. Hall, D.M., Gilbertz, S. J., Horton, C.C., & Peterson, T.R. (n .d.). Integrating Divergent Representations of Place into Decision Contexts. Retrieved from http://www.parklab.uiuc.edu/chapterdrafts/hall.pdf
198 Hammitt, W. E., E. A. Backlund, & R. D. Bixler. (2006). Place bonding for recreation places: Conceptual and empir ical development. Leisure Studies 25: 17 41. Hanley, N. & Spash, C.L. (1993). Cost Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Vermont: Edward Elgar. Hanna, S.S. (1998). Institutions for marine ecosystems: economic incentives and fishery management. Ecological Applications, 8: S170 S174. Hatcher, T. & Colton, S. (2007). Using the internet to improve HRD research: The case of the web based Delphi research technique to achieve content validity of an HRD oriented measurement. Journal of European Industrial Training 31 (7), 570 587. Hayden, D. (1995). The Power of Place. Cambridge, MA : The MIT Press Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R.S., & van Ierland, E.C. (2006). Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 57 : 209 228. Helliwell D.R. (1969). Valuation of wildlife resources. Regional Studies 3 : 41 49. Herlin, I. (2004). New challenges in the field of spatial planning: landscapes. Landscape Res. 29 (4), 399 411. Herting, J. R. & Guest, A. M. (1983). Components of satisfaction with local areas in the metropolis. Sociological Quarterly 26 99 115. Holey, E.A., Feeley, J.L., Dixon, J., & Whittaker, V.J. (2007). An exploration of the use of simple statistics to measure consensus and stability in Delphi studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7 (52). Holling, C.S. & Meffe, G.K. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology, 10 (2), 328 337. Hufschmidt, M.M., James, D.E., Meister, A.D., Bower, B.T., & Dixon, J.A. (1 983). Environment, Natural Systems and Development, An Economic Valuation Guide. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Hummon, D. M. (1992). Community attachment: Local sentiment and sense of place. In I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place Attachment (pp. 253 278). New York: Plenum Press. Ingold, T. (1993). The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeol ogy 25 (2), 152 174. Ingold, T. (2000). The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill London: Routledge
199 Janssen, M.A. & Aneries, J.M. (2007). Robustness trade offs in social ecological systems. International Journal of the Commons, 1 (1): 43 65. Jennings, G. (2007). Water based tourism, sport, leisure and recreation experiences Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 260 p. Jorgen sen, B. S. & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21 233 248. Kalibo, H.W. & Medley, K.E. (2007). Participatory resource mapping for adaptive collabo rative management at Mt. Kasigau, Kenya. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82 (3), 145 158. Kaltenborn, B. P. (1998). Effects of sense of place on responses to environmental impacts. Applied Geography 18, 169 189. Kaltenborn, B. P. & Williams, D. R. (2002). The meaning of place: Attachments to Femundsmarka National Park, Norway, among tourists and locals, Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift Norwegian Journal of Geography, 56, 189 198. King R.T., 1966: Wildlife and man. NY Conservationist 20 (6) 8 11. Kramer, R.A., Sharma, N., & Munasinghe, M. (1995). Valuing tropical forests. Methodology and case study for Madagascar. World Bank Env ironment Paper, vol. 13. World B ank, Washington, D.C. Kumar, M. & Kumar, P. (2008). Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho cultural perspective. Ecological Economics, 64, 808 819. Kyle, G. T., Graefe, A. R., & Manning, R. E. (2005). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment in recreational settings. Environment and Behavior, 37 153 177. Kyle, G. T., Graefe, A. R. Manning, R. E., & Bacon, J. (2003). An examination of the relationship between leisure activity involvement and place attachment among hikers along the Appalachian Trail. Journal of Leisure Research, 35 249 273. Lindeman, R.L. (1942). The trophic dynami c aspect of ecology. Ecology, 23 : 399 417. Linstone, H.A. & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. London: Addison Wesley. Lockie, S. (2007). Conversion or co producer and consumer agency within fair trade networks. In Creating food futures: Trade, ethics and the environment ed. C. Farnworth, J. Jiggins, and E. Thomas. Aldershot: Gower.
200 Lockie, S. (2007). Deliberation and actor theor y for the assessment of large dams and other interventions. Society and Natural Resources, 20 785 799. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mackinder, H. (1887). On the scope and methods of geography. Proc. Roy. Geogr. Soc. 9 141 160. Maes, F. (2008). The international legal framework for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 32 (5), 797 810. Manzo, L.C. (2003). Beyond house and haven. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 : 47 61. Marcucci, D. J. (2000) Landscape history a s a planning tool, Landscape and Urban Planning, 49 pp. 67 81. May, J. & Thrift, N. (Eds.). (2001). TimeSpace: Geographies of Temporality Routledge, London, New York. McGlade, J. (1999) Archaeology and the evolution of cultural landscapes: towards an int erdisciplinary research agenda, in: P. J. Ucko & R. Layton (Eds) The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape: Shaping Your Landscape pp. 458 482 (London and New York: Routledge). Meaden, G.J. (1999). Applications of GIS to fisheries management. In: Wrig ht D, Bartlett D, Editors. Marine and coastal geographical information systems London: Taylor and Francis; p. 205 226. Mea den, G.J. & Chi, T.D. (1996). Geographical information systems: Applications to marine fisheries Rome: FAO. Medley, K.E. & Kalibo, H .W. (2005). An ecological framework for participatory ethnobotanical research at Mt. Kasigau, Kenya. Field Methods, 17 (2), 302 314. Meinig, D. W. (1979). The interpretation of ordinary landscapes New York: Oxford University Press. Mesch, G. S. & Manor, O. (1998). Social ties, environmental perception, and local attachment, Environment and Behavior, 30 504 519. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. (2003). Ecosystems and Human Well Being: A Framework for Assessment. Washington, D.C : Island Press. Mitc hell, M. Y., Force, J. E., Carroll, M. S., & McLaughlin, W. J. (1993). Forest places of the heart: Incorporating special spaces into public management. Journal of Forestry 4 32 37.
201 Moore, R. L., & Scott, D. (2003). Place attachment and context: Comparin g a park and a trail within. Forest Science, 49 877 884. Moore, R., & Graefe, A. (1994). Attachments to recreation settings: The case of rail trail users. Leisure Sciences, 16, 17 31. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2005). Populati on trends along the coastal United State: 1980 2008. Coastal Trends Report Series. Retrieved at http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/programs/mb/pdfs/coastal_pop_trends_complete.pdf National Research Council (2001). Marine protected areas: Tools for sustaining oc ean ecosystems Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Needham, R.D., & de Lo, R.C. (1990). The policy Delphi: purpose, structure, and application. Canadian Geographer, 34 (2), 133 142. Neis, B., Schneider, D.C., Felt, L., Haedrich, R.L., Fischer, J., & Hutchings, J.A. (1999). Fisheries assessment: What can be learned from interviewing resource users. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 56: 1949 1963. Nijkamp, P., Vindigni G., & Nunes, P.A.L.D. (2008). Economic valuation of biodiversity : A comparative study. Ecological Economics 67 : 217 231. Odum, E.P. (1953) Fundamental of Ecology. Philadelphia: Saunders. Odum, E.P., & Odum, H.T. (1972). Natural areas as necessary components of man's total environment. In: Transactions of the 37th North Am erican Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, March 12 15, 1972. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC, vol. 37, pp. 178 189. Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S.D. (200 4) The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and appl ications. Information and Management Systems 42 : 15 29. Olwig, K. (2002) Landscape, Nature and the Body Politic Madison : University of Wisconsin Press Patterson, M. E. & Williams D. R. (2005). Maintaining research traditions on place: Diversity of thought and scientific progress. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25: 361 380. Pearce, D.W., & Turner, R.K. (1990). Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. Exeter, UK: BPCC Wheatsons Ltd.
202 Pimbert, M.P., & Pretty, J.N. (1997). Parks, people and professionals: putting (Eds .), Social Change and Conservation. Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas London: Earthscan Publications Li mited, pp. 297 330. Plasman, I.C. (2008). Implementing marine spatial planning: A policy perspective. Marine Policy, 32 (5), 811 815. Plummer, R. (2006). Sharing the management of a river corridor: A case study of the comanagement process. Society and Natu ral Resources, 19 709 721. Pomeroy, R., & Douvere, F. (2008). The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process. Marine Policy, 32 (5), 816 822. Powell, C. (2003). The Delphi technique: myths and realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41 (4), 376 382. Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self identity. Environment and Behavior, 10 147 169. Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place identity: Physical world and socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psy chology, 3 57 83. Raymond, C.M., & Brown, G. (2007). A spatial method for assessing resident and visitor attitudes toward tourism growth and development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15 (5), 520 540. Raymond, C.M., Bryan, B.A., MacDonald, D.H., Cast, A ., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., & Kalivas, T. (2009). Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 68, 1301 1315. Reed, P., & Brown, G. (2003). Values suitability analysis: a methodology for identifying and integrating public perception of forest ecosystem values in national forest planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46 (5), 643 658. Rees, S.E., Rodwell, L.D., Attrill, M.J., Austen, M.C., & Mangi, S.C. (2010). The value of marine biodi versity to the leisure and recreation industry and its application to marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 34 (5), 868 875. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion Limited. Rocheleau, D. (1995). Maps, numbers, text, and context: Mixing me thods in feminist political ecology. Professional Geographer, 47 458 466. Rolston, H., & Coufal, J. (1991). A forest ethic and multivalue forest management. Journal of Forestry, 89, 35 40.
203 Rowntree, L. (1996). The cultural landscape concept in American hu man geography. In: Earle, C., Mathewson, K., Kenzer, M. (Eds.), Concepts in Human Geography Rowman and Littlefield, Langham, MD, pp. 52 74. Ruitenbeek, J.H. (1994). Valuation and distribution of ecological entitlements in the forest zone of Cameroon: Impl ications for economic and environmental security Paper presented at the Third International Meeting of the International Society for Ecological Economics, Costa Rica, October 24 28, 1994. Schmidt, R.C. (1997). Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric s tatistical techniques. Decision Sciences, 28 (3), 763 774. Selman, P. (2004) Community participation in the planning and management of cultural landscapes, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47 (3), pp. 365 392. Sherrouse, B.C., Clement, J.M., & Semmens, D.J. (2011). A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Applied Geography, 31 (2): 748 760. Shumaker, S. A., & Taylor, R. B. (1983). Toward a clarification of people place relationships: A model of attachment to place. In N. R. Feimer & E. S. Geller (Eds.), Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives (p. 219 251). New York: Praeger. Sieber R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: a literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96 (3), 491 507. Silberman, J.A., & Rees, P.W. (2010). Reinventing mountain settlements: A GIS model for identifying possible ski towns in the U.S. Rocky Mountains. Applied Geography, 30 (1), 36 49. Silverman, B.W. (1986). Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. Chapman and Hall:New York. Snyder, S.A., Whitmore, J.H., Schneider, I.E., & Becker, D. R. (2008). Ecological criteria, participant preferences and location models: A GIS approach toward ATV trail planning. Applied Geography, 28 (4), 248 258. Soini, K. (2001) Exploring human dimensions of multifunctional landscapes through mapping and mapmakin g, Landscape and Urban Planning, 57 pp. 225 239. Spirn, A. W. (1998). The language of landscape New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
204 St. Martin, K., & Hall Arber, M. (2008). The missing layer: Geo technologies, communities, and implications for marine s patial planning. Marine Policy, 32 (5): 779 786. St. Martin, K., McCay, B., Murray, G., Johnson, T., & Oles, B. (2007). Communities, knowledge, and fisheries of the future. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 7 (2/3), 221 239. Stedman, R. C (2000). Up North: A social psychology of place Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin Madison. Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Envir onment and Behavior, 34 561 581. Stedman, R. C. (2003). Is it really just a social construction?: The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Society and Natural Resources, 16 671 685. Steele, F. (1981). The sense of place. Boston, MA : CBI. Stephenson, J. (2008) The Cultural Values Model: an integrated approach to values in landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning, 84 pp. 127 139. Stephenson, J. (2010). The dimensional landscape model: Exploring differences in expressing and locating landscape qualities. Landscape Research, 35 (3), 299 318. Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in places: A transactional view of settings. In D. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment (pp. 441 488). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. T ansley, A.G. (1935). The use an abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology, 16 : 284 307. Taylor, R.E., & Judd, L.L. (1994). Delphi Forecasting. In Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook, 2 nd Edition Witt and Moutinho (eds.). New York/London: Pre ntice Hall, 535 543. Terkenli, T. (2001). Towards a theory of the landscape: the Aegean landscape as a cultural image. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57 197 208. Thomas Slayter, B. (1995). A brief history of participatory methodologie s. In: Slocum, R., Wic hart, L., Rocheleau, D., Thomas Slayter, B. (Eds.), Power, Process and Participation: Tools for Change London: Intermediate Technology Publications, pp. 9 17.
205 Tress, B., & Tress, G. (2001). Capitalising on multiplicity: a transdisciplinary systems approac h to landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57 143 157. Troy, A., & Wilson, M.A. (2006). Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics, 60 : 435 449. Tuan, Y. (1991). L anguage and the making of place: A narrative descriptive approach. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 81: 684 696. Tuan, Y. F. (1974). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes and values Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hal l. Tuan, Y. F. (1975). Place: An experiential perspective. Geographical Review, 65 151 165. Tuan, Y.F. (1977) Space and Place Minneapolis and London : University of Minnesota Press Tuan,Y. F. (1980). Rootedness verses sense of place. Landscape, 24 (1), 3 8. Turoff, M. (1991). Computer mediated communication requirements for group support. Organizational Computing, 1 (1), 85 113. Tyldesley, D., & Hunt, B. (2003). Review of how the Land use Planning System could influence the development of a Marine Spatial Planning System for England. English Nature Research Reports No. 566. Tyrvinnen, L., Mkinen, K., & Schipperijn, J. (2007). Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79 (1): 5 19. United Nati ons (UN) (2002). Johannesburg Declaration of Sustainable Development. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD POI PD/English/POIPD.htm (Accessed February 23, 2010, online). United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2002). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide05 en.pdf (accessed February 15, 2011, online). United State Geological Survey (USGS) (2007). Facing tomorrow's challenges: U.S. Ge ological Survey Science in the decade 2007 2017: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1039. Retrieved at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2007/1309/ on June 21 st 2010.
206 United States Forest Service (USFS) (2008). Understanding concepts of place in recreation research and management. Recreation & Tourism Initiative General Technical Report PNW GTR 744. van Beukering, P.J.H., Cesara, H.S.J., & Janssen, M.A. (2003). Economic valuation of the Leuser National Park on Sumatra, Indonesia. Ecological Economics, 44 : 43 62. Wal lace, K.J. (2007). Classifications of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biological Conservation, 139, 235 246. Warzecha, C., & Lime, D. (2001). Place attachment in Canyonlands National Park: rado and Green Rivers. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 19 59 78. Williams, D. R., & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1989). Measuring place attachment: some preliminary results. In L. H. McAvoy, & D. Howard (Eds.), Abstracts 1989 leisure research symposi um (pp. 32). Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association. Williams, D. R., & Stewart, S. I. (1998). Sense of place: An elusive concept that is finding a home in ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry, 96 18 23. Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49 830 840. Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining em otional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences 14: 29 46. Wilson, J.A. (2006). Matching social and ecological systems in complex ocean fisheries. Ecology and Society, 11(1): 9. Yasamis, F.D. (2006). Assessing the institutional effectiveness of state environmental agencies in Turkey. Environmental Assessment, 38 (5), 823 836. Yoskowitz, D., Santos, C., Allee, B., Carollo, C., Henderson, J., Jordan, S., & Ritchie, J. (2010). Proceedings of the Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Services Workshop: Bay St. Lo uis, Mississippi, June 16 18, 2010. October. 16 pages. Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies. Texas A&M University Corpus Christi. Zendehdel, K., Rademaker, M., de Baets, B., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2009). Improving tractability of group deci sion making on environmental problems through the use of social intensities preferences. Environmental Modelling and Software, 24 (12): 1457 1466. Zube, E.H. (1987). Perceived land use patterns and landscape values. Landscape Ecology, 1 (1): 37 45.
207 BIOGRAPHI CAL SKETCH Zachary Cole is a native of Washington State. He attended the University of Florida, where he received a Bachelor of Science in parks, recreation, and tourism in 2005, and Arizona State Universit y where he received a Master of Science degree in recreation and tourism studies in 2009. Over 10 years of experience working in parks and recreation concurrent to academic studies has provided Zac a strong professional foundation. This coupled with a profound affinity for natural places and an ambition to Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree from the University of Florida in the Depart ment of Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management. He began his Ph.D. program in August 2009 and completed August 2012. He intends on continuing his work on stakeholder mapping and spatial quantification of social values within ecosystem management.