Stakeholder Participation in Ecosystem Service Decision-Making

2016 ◽  
pp. 256-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Fish ◽  
Eirini Saratsi ◽  
Mark Reed ◽  
Hans Keune
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ecosystem Service ◽  
Stakeholder Participation

Water Management by Farmers

2018 ◽  
pp. 796-813
Author(s):  
Laurence Smith
Keyword(s):  
Water Management ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Stakeholder Participation ◽  
Coordination Mechanisms ◽  
Policy Mix ◽  
The Public ◽  
Multifunctional Land Use ◽  
Resource Managers ◽  
Policy Challenge ◽  
Communication And Coordination

Analyzing the public policy challenge of multifunctional land use, for which farmers are required to be food producers, water resource managers and environmental stewards, it is argued that a location-sensitive policy mix is required, consisting of appropriate regulation complemented by advice provision, voluntarism, and well-targeted incentive schemes. The case is further made for adaptive management, local deliberation and stakeholder participation, and hence for governance that is open, delegated, and collaborative. Assessment, planning, and decision making need to be delegated to the most appropriate governmental level and spatial scale to achieve desired outcomes, whilst effective mechanisms for vertical and horizontal coordination of the resulting multilevel and polycentric governance are essential. Hydrographic catchments have significant advantages as spatial units for analysis, planning, coordination, and policy delivery. However, catchment-based working creates further need for cross-level, sector, and scale communication and coordination. Mechanisms for this merit further attention.

scholarly journals Monetary Valuation of Flood Protection Ecosystem Service Based on Hydrological Modelling and Avoided Damage Costs. An Example from the Čierny Hron River Basin, Slovakia

Water ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 198
Author(s):  
Igor Gallay ◽  
Branislav Olah ◽  
Zuzana Gallayová ◽  
Tomáš Lepeška
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Ecosystem Service ◽  
Hydrological Modelling ◽  
Flood Protection ◽  
Medium Size ◽  
Land Uses ◽  
Monetary Valuation ◽  
Monetary Value ◽  
Damage Costs

Flood protection is considered one of the crucial regulating ecosystem services due to climate change and extreme weather events. As an ecosystem service, it combines the results of hydrological and ecosystem research and their implementation into land management and/or planning processes including several formally separated economic sectors. As managerial and economic interests often diverge, successful decision-making requires a common denominator in form of monetary valuation of competing trade-offs. In this paper, a methodical approach based on the monetary value of the ecosystem service provided by the ecosystem corresponding to its actual share in flood regulating processes and the value of the property protected by this service was developed and demonstrated based on an example of a medium size mountain basin (290 ha). Hydrological modelling methods (SWAT, HEC-RAS) were applied for assessing the extent of floods with different rainfalls and land uses. The rainfall threshold value that would cause flooding with the current land use but that would be safely drained if the basin was covered completely by forest was estimated. The cost of the flood protection ecosystem service was assessed by the method of non-market monetary value for estimating avoided damage costs of endangered infrastructure and calculated both for the current and hypothetical land use. The results identify areas that are crucial for water retention and that deserve greater attention in management. In addition, the monetary valuation of flood protection provided by the current but also by hypothetical land uses enables competent and well-formulated decision-making processes.

scholarly journals Facilitating spatially-explicit assessments of ecosystem service delivery to support land use planning

One Ecosystem ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk Vrebos ◽  
Jan Staes ◽  
Steven Broekx ◽  
Leo de Nocker ◽  
Karen Gabriels ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Ecosystem Service ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Spatially Explicit ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Time Investment ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Impact

Since the early 2000s, there have been substantial efforts to transform the concept of ecosystem services into practice. Spatial assessment tools are being developed to evaluate the impact of spatial planning on a wide range of ecosystem services. However, the actual implementation in decision-making remains limited. To improve implementation, tools that are tailored to local conditions can provide accurate, meaningful information. Instead of a generic and widely-applicable tool, we developed a regional, spatially-explicit tool (ECOPLAN-SE) to analyse the impact of changes in land use on the delivery of 18 ecosystem services in Flanders (Belgium). The tool incorporates ecosystem services relevant to policy-makers and managers and makes use of detailed local data and knowledge. By providing an easy-to-use tool, including the required spatial geodatasets, time investment and the learning curve remain limited for the user. With this tool, constraints to implement ecosystem service assessments in local decision-making are drastically reduced. We believe that region-specific decision support systems, like ECOPLAN-SE, are indispensable intermediates between the conceptual ecosystem service frameworks and the practical implementation in planning processes.

Stakeholder participation in Lopburi Old Town conservation master plan

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tritsana Sorat ◽  
Nug-Rob Rawangkarn ◽  
Wee Rawang ◽  
Kanang Kantamaturapoj
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
Stakeholder Participation ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Information Provision ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Master Plan ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Flexible Form

PurposeThis study aims to evaluate the meaningful public participation in activities relating to the master plan development and, at the same time, propose some recommendations for improvement.Design/methodology/approachThe study was carried out with in-depth interviews of 35 key-informants selected from various stakeholder groups involving in public participation activities. The evaluation frameworks for meaningful participation were developed from various scholars.FindingsThe evaluation showed that the public hearings partially met the criteria of information provision and representativeness. However, there are rooms for improvement on participation in decision-making process, social learning and influence over policy decision-making. Therefore, this study proposes two recommendations. First, more flexible form of public participation is needed to enable discussions among various groups of stakeholders. Second, the organizer should communicate with stakeholders about how their opinions influence the final master plan in order to create sense of belonging among community members.Originality/valueThis research developed the evaluation framework for public participation in old town conservation master plan in developing country.

Maximizing Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Benefits in Conservation Decision-Making

2016 ◽  
pp. 554-563
Author(s):  
Hedley S. Grantham ◽  
Rosimeiry Portela ◽  
Mahbubul Alam ◽  
Daniel Juhn ◽  
Lawrence Connell
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ecosystem Service

PP149 Features Of Accountable And Reasonable Processes For Coverage Decision-Making

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 125-125
Author(s):  
Monika Wagner ◽  
Dima Samaha ◽  
Roman Casciano ◽  
Matthew Brougham ◽  
Charles Petrie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Stakeholder Participation ◽  
Allocative Efficiency ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Decision Criteria ◽  
Accountability For Reasonableness ◽  
Coverage Decision ◽  
Explicit Consideration ◽  
Definition Of

Introduction:The Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R) framework addresses the legitimacy of coverage decision processes by defining four conditions for accountable and reasonable processes: Relevance, Publicity, Appeals, Implementation. Cost-per-quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and multicriteria-centered processes may have distinct implications for meeting A4R conditions. The aim of this study was to reflect on how the diverse features of decision-making processes can be aligned with A4R conditions to guide legitimized decision-making. Rare disease and regenerative therapies (RDRTs) pose special decision-making challenges and offer a useful case study.Methods:To support reflection on how different approaches address the A4R conditions, thirty-four features operationalizing each condition were defined and organized into a matrix. Seven experts from six countries explored and discussed these features during a panel (Chatham House Rule) and provided general and RDRT-specific recommendations for each feature. Responses were analyzed to identify converging and diverging recommendations.Results:Regarding Relevance, panelists highlighted the importance of supporting deliberation, stakeholder participation and grounding coverage decision criteria in the legal framework, goals of sustainable healthcare and population values. Among seventeen criteria, thirteen were recommended by more than half of panelists. Although the cost-effectiveness ratio was deemed sometimes useful, the validity of universal thresholds to inform allocative efficiency was challenged. Regarding Publicity, panelists recommended communicating the values underlying a decision in reference to broader societal objectives, and being transparent about value judgements in selecting evidence. For Appeals, recommendations included clear definition of new evidence and revision rules. For Implementation, one recommendation was to perform external quality reviews of decisions. While RDRTs raise issues that may warrant special consideration, rarity should be considered in interaction with other aspects (e.g. disease severity, age, budget impact).Conclusions:Improving coverage decision-making towards accountability and reasonableness involves supporting participation and deliberation, enhancing transparency, and more explicit consideration of multiple decision criteria that reflect normative and societal objectives.

scholarly journals Planning in Democratizing River Basins: The Case for a Co-Productive Model of Decision Making

Water ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 2480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tira Foran ◽  
David Penton ◽  
Tarek Ketelsen ◽  
Emily Barbour ◽  
Nicola Grigg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
River Basin ◽  
Stakeholder Participation ◽  
Effective Means ◽  
Integrated Water Resources Management ◽  
Resources Management ◽  
Process And Outcome ◽  
River Basin Planning ◽  
Multi Stakeholder ◽  
Political Economic

We reflect on methodologies to support integrated river basin planning for the Ayeyarwady Basin in Myanmar, and the Kamala Basin in Nepal, to which we contributed from 2017 to 2019. The principles of Integrated Water Resources Management have been promoted across states and regions with markedly different biophysical and political economic conditions. IWRM-based river basin planning is complex, resource intensive, and aspirational. It deserves scrutiny to improve process and outcome legitimacy. We focus on the value of co-production and deliberation in IWRM. Among our findings: (i) multi-stakeholder participation can be complicated by competition between actors for resources and legitimacy; (ii) despite such challenges, multi-stakeholder deliberative approaches can empower actors and can be an effective means for co-producing knowledge; (iii) tensions between (rational choice and co-productive) models of decision complicate participatory deliberative planning. Our experience suggests that a commitment to co-productive decision-making fosters socially legitimate IWRM outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document