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

J. Dick, P. Verweij, E. Carmen, R. Rodela, C. Andrews
{"title":"Testing the ecosystem service cascade framework and QUICKScan software tool in the context of land use planning in Glenlivet Estate Scotland","authors":"J. Dick, P. Verweij, E. Carmen, R. Rodela, C. Andrews","doi":"10.1080/21513732.2016.1268648","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The concept of ecosystem services has been extensively studied in recent decades. Most studies have focused on describing the specific aspects such as production, spatial extent, valuation of services and the trade-off between services. Few studies however assess the practitioners’ views on the frameworks, models or tools developed. In this paper, we report on a multi-stakeholder workshop where two tools were tested (i) the ecosystem service cascade framework was tested as a means to frame the issues and (ii) a participatory-spatial modelling method, QUICKScan, was tested as an aid to support discussion over natural resource management and planning in a multi-use landscape. A focused group discussion was utilised to determine stakeholders’ views of the cascade framework and pre- and post-workshop questionnaires quantified the stakeholders’ views of the QUICKScan method. The stakeholders identified both positive and negative aspects of both tools. The diversity of views expressed were associated with (i) the past experience of the individual with the issues discussed, (ii) the technical aspects of the tools i.e. the ability with GIS and (iii) the level of new shared knowledge they reported acquiring on the day which was related to their initial knowledge of the issue and area studied. EDITED BY Davide Geneletti","PeriodicalId":31680,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services Management","volume":"13 1","pages":"12 - 25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21513732.2016.1268648","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2016.1268648","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

Abstract

ABSTRACT The concept of ecosystem services has been extensively studied in recent decades. Most studies have focused on describing the specific aspects such as production, spatial extent, valuation of services and the trade-off between services. Few studies however assess the practitioners’ views on the frameworks, models or tools developed. In this paper, we report on a multi-stakeholder workshop where two tools were tested (i) the ecosystem service cascade framework was tested as a means to frame the issues and (ii) a participatory-spatial modelling method, QUICKScan, was tested as an aid to support discussion over natural resource management and planning in a multi-use landscape. A focused group discussion was utilised to determine stakeholders’ views of the cascade framework and pre- and post-workshop questionnaires quantified the stakeholders’ views of the QUICKScan method. The stakeholders identified both positive and negative aspects of both tools. The diversity of views expressed were associated with (i) the past experience of the individual with the issues discussed, (ii) the technical aspects of the tools i.e. the ability with GIS and (iii) the level of new shared knowledge they reported acquiring on the day which was related to their initial knowledge of the issue and area studied. EDITED BY Davide Geneletti
生态系统服务级联框架和QUICKScan软件工具在苏格兰Glenlivet庄园土地利用规划中的测试
摘要近几十年来,生态系统服务的概念得到了广泛的研究。大多数研究都侧重于描述具体方面,如生产、空间范围、服务估价和服务之间的权衡。然而,很少有研究评估从业者对所开发的框架、模型或工具的看法。在本文中,我们报告了一个多方利益相关者研讨会,在研讨会上测试了两种工具:(i)测试了生态系统服务级联框架,作为确定问题的一种手段;(ii)测试了参与式空间建模方法QUICKScan,作为支持多用途景观中自然资源管理和规划讨论的一种辅助方法。重点小组讨论用于确定利益相关者对级联框架的看法,研讨会前后的问卷量化了利益相关者对于QUICKScan方法的看法。利益攸关方确定了这两种工具的积极和消极方面。所表达的观点的多样性与(i)个人过去对所讨论问题的经验,(ii)工具的技术方面,即地理信息系统的能力,以及(iii)他们报告当天获得的与他们对所研究问题和领域的初步知识相关的新的共享知识水平有关。编辑:Davide Geneletti
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
46 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书