G Model
JGEC-1161; No. of Pages 10
Global Environmental Change xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Global Environmental Change
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha
Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value
coral reef ecosystem services
Christina C. Hicks a,b,c,*, Nicholas A.J. Graham a, Joshua E. Cinner a
a
ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia
School of Business, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia
c
Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford University, Monterey, CA, United States
b
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 17 October 2012
Received in revised form 26 July 2013
Accepted 28 July 2013
Managing ecosystems in a changing environment faces the challenge of balancing diverse competing
perspectives on which ecosystem services – nature’s benefits – to prioritize. Consequently, we measured
and compared how different stakeholders (managers, scientists and fishers) prioritize specific coral reef
ecosystem services. Managers’ priorities were more aligned with scientists’ priorities but all stakeholder
groups agreed that fishery, education, and habitat were high priorities. However, stakeholder groups
differed in the extent to which they prioritized certain services. Fishers tended to assigned greater
estimates to fishery and education, managers to culture, and scientists to coastal protection.
Furthermore, using network analysis to map the interactions between stakeholders’ priorities, we
found distinct synergies and trade-offs in how ecosystem services were prioritized, representing areas of
agreement and conflict. In the fishers’ network, trade-offs emerged between two services, both of a
higher priority, such as fishery and habitat. Conversely, in the scientists’ network, trade-offs emerged
between services of a higher and lower priority, such as habitat and culture. The trade-offs and synergies
that emerged in the managers’ network overlap with both fishers’ and scientists’ suggesting a potential
brokering role that managers can play in balancing both priorities and conflicts. We suggest that
measuring ecosystem service priorities can highlight key areas of agreement and conflict, both within
and across stakeholder groups, to be addressed when communicating and prioritizing decisions.
ß 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Environmental policy
Human behaviour
Network analysis
Preferences
Stakeholders
Values
1. Introduction
Societies are composed of individuals and groups that, because
of diverse and often competing values and interests, often struggle
to reach consensus-based decisions (Costanza, 2000; Verweij et al.,
2006; Allison and Hobbs, 2010). Decision-makers are presented
with hard choices; represent the values of a few – perhaps a
dominant group – or face the task of balancing diverse values and
priorities. Conservation and natural resource managers strive to
maintain functioning landscapes, resisting or reversing environmental change. The task of managing these landscapes is
exacerbated by the challenge of balancing priorities (McShane
et al., 2011). This is in part because conservation is prioritized
where threats to biodiversity are greatest (Pressey et al., 2007); in
areas that are often inhabited by the poor, or that have significant
economic potential (Adams et al., 2004; Adams and Hutton, 2007).
Although diverse stakeholders are often engaged in decision-
* Corresponding author at: ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James
Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia. Tel.: +61 7 4781 3193;
fax: +61 7 4781 6722.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C.C. Hicks).
making processes, competing priorities are hard to resolve.
A failure to account for the diverse priorities encountered
undermines the progress made. For example, presenting only
the values of a dominant economic interest potentially marginalizes the most vulnerable sectors of society (Hicks et al., 2009),
increasing inequality, and exacerbating environmental decline
(Cinner et al., 2011). To be successful, natural resource management should integrate conservation priorities with the goals of
local resource users. Therefore, natural resource scientists and
practitioners need to engage in complex decision-making processes that can deal with multiple objectives and balance competing
priorities (Tetlock, 1986; Berkes, 2007; Ban et al., 2013).
Ecosystem services refer to the benefits humans gain from nature
(MA, 2005). As a concept, ecosystem services incorporate diverse
perspectives, balance ecological and human objectives, and have
direct application and transferability to policy (Costanza et al., 1997;
Turner et al., 2010; Atkinson et al., 2012). Furthermore, in accounting
for the full range of benefits delivered by nature, ecosystem services
research takes a holistic systems perspective capable of accounting
for multiple benefits, and their interactions, simultaneously.
Although human demand underpins ecosystem service concepts
(Vira and Adams, 2009), stakeholder’s preferences for ecosystem
services are often overlooked in decision-making and most
0959-3780/$ – see front matter ß 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028
Please cite this article in press as: Hicks, C.C., et al., Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value coral reef
ecosystem services. Global Environ. Change (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028
G Model
JGEC-1161; No. of Pages 10
2
C.C. Hicks et al. / Global Environmental Change xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
evaluations focus on obtaining objectively measurable, biophysical
(e.g. Chan et al., 2006) or economic estimates (e.g. Costanza et al.,
1997; Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; Martin-Lopez et al., 2012).
Preferences are important because they reflect people’s priorities
and, together with the interpretation of the actions of others, help
determine behaviour (Kaplan, 1985; Costanza, 2000). Slow progress
in incorporating preferences, and understanding behaviour, has
limited our ability to manage human–environment systems (Fulton
et al., 2011).
Ecosystem services that tend to occur together are referred to as
bundles, whereas services that occur at the expense of others
create trade-offs (Bennett et al., 2009; Raudsepp-Hearne et al.,
2010; Martin-Lopez et al., 2012). These differences will be reflected
in the way people value ecosystem services and, because resources
are finite (e.g. limited time or money), the way they prioritize
ecosystem services (Costanza, 2000). For example, fisherman may
value the fish they can catch off a coral reef and prioritize fishery
services, a scientist may value the knowledge they can gain from
studying a coral reef and prioritize educational services, and a
tourist may value the diverse and colourful assemblages they can
look at whilst snorkelling on a coral reef and prioritize recreational
services. When stakeholders are in agreement and assign similar
priorities to multiple ecosystem services, we would expect to see
synergies (a similar concept to bundles, but based on stakeholder
priorities) between pairs of ecosystem services. Conversely, when
stakeholders are in conflict and assign different priorities to
multiple ecosystem services, we would expect to see trade-offs
between pairs of ecosystem services. Synergies and trade-offs
occur in space and time, and within and across stakeholder groups,
creating opportunities and conflicts for natural resource management. Identifying synergies and trade-offs in stakeholder’s
preferences for ecosystem services should enable decision-makers
to target opportunities where priorities align, and navigate or
compensate for conflicts where priorities are in opposition.
Tradeoffs arise because people’s interests vary and so they value
different aspects of the same system (Hicks et al., 2009). Attempts to
identify ecosystem service trade-offs have tended to ignore the
distribution of benefits between groups and individuals within
societies, thus failing to identify who benefits from the flow of
ecosystem services and who loses out (Daw et al., 2011), and only a
few studies have considered stakeholder’s preferences for ecosystem services (Martin-Lopez et al., 2012). In order to fill this gap, we
set out to determine stakeholders’ ecosystem service priorities and
identify areas of conflict (i.e. trade-offs: where stakeholders
priorities diverge) and areas of agreement (i.e. synergies: where
stakeholders priorities align). To do this we examine the prioritization of coral reef ecosystem services within, and across, three
stakeholder groups who are likely to view the system at different
scales (scientists, managers, and fishers) in three western Indian
Ocean countries. Coral reefs in this region provide vital food and
livelihood security to some of the world’s lowest income and most
vulnerable people (Allison et al., 2009). In addition, this region has
experienced some of the worst effects of climate change on live coral
and associated fish assemblages (Graham et al., 2008). Therefore, the
need for effective management, and the juxtaposition of competing
values, provides an ideal lens through which to ask: (1) Do fishers,
managers, and scientists prioritize ecosystem services differently?
(2) What ecosystem service synergies, and trade-offs, exist within
fisher, manager and scientist stakeholder groups?
2. Methods
2.1. Sampling
We used a combination of focus groups and individual semistructured questionnaires to interview fishers, managers, and
scientists from three countries (Kenya, Tanzania, and Madagascar)
in the western Indian Ocean (WIO) region about their preferences
for the benefits they identified from coral reef ecosystems. For the
fishers, we conducted two preliminary qualitative focus groups,
and 21 subsequent focus groups in each community – 6
communities in Madagascar, 6 in Tanzania, and 9 in Kenya. We
obtained information from local fisher organizations on the age,
primary gear used and place of residence for all registered fishers.
We used this information to randomly select fishers across the age,
gear and geographic range of all involved in the coral reef fishery.
After piloting the surveys in each country, we conducted 497
individual fisher interviews from the 21 fishing communities
representing between 20% and 40% of the fishers from each
community.
We obtained information from the Western Indian Ocean
Marine Sciences Association (WIOMSA) – the regions professional
organization for marine research and management – on registered
managers and scientists in the region. We used non-probability
sampling techniques including convenience and snowball sampling (Henry, 1990) to approach scientists and managers who were
delegates at the 2009 Western Indian Ocean Marine Sciences
Association’s (WIOMSA) biannual conference in Reunion, France.
Delegates were asked where they worked and whether they
worked as a scientist or manager. Only delegates working in Kenya,
Tanzania, or Madagascar were included in this study. After piloting
our surveys with managers and scientists, we conducted individual
interviews with 17 scientists and 8 managers representing 25%,
19%, and 19% of the managers and scientists from Kenya, Tanzania,
and Madagascar attending the symposium. Many more fishers
were interviewed than managers; however, this reflects the much
larger number of fishers than managers or scientists working in the
region. The distinction between managers and scientists can be
fairly fluid (i.e. managers conduct science and some scientists
manage). Our survey had to ask respondents whether they
identified as managers or scientists rather than being able to
stratify our sampling, this resulted in a smaller sample of managers
than scientists and should be bourn in mind when interpreting the
results.
2.2. Ecosystem service definitions
2.2.1. Expert elicitation
We used the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)
classification system as a starting point to frame the key benefits
stakeholders are likely to associate with the coral reef ecosystem.
For each country we conducted individual ‘‘expert’’ interviews
with managers and scientists, to establish which of the MA
benefits were most relevant to our study. These interviews
discussed the relevance of the services, how the services were
experienced, wording to describe the services and suitable
photographs to convey the services. We then conducted a focus
group, bringing together seven expert managers and scientists,
who had experience working in Kenya, Tanzania and Madagascar. The purpose of this was to ensure the services, wording, and
photographs to be used in the three countries were as consistent
as possible.
2.2.2. Stakeholder elicitation
We conducted two initial fisher focus groups in Kenya with all
gears in the fishery represented; these contained six and seven
fishers. The fishers were first asked to discuss the benefits they
associated with the coral reef ecosystem. We then introduced the
benefits elicited from the expert interviews, and the selected
photographs, and established whether there was agreement
between fishers and experts on the services identified and whether
the photographs were appropriate. Once we had a more definite
Please cite this article in press as: Hicks, C.C., et al., Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value coral reef
ecosystem services. Global Environ. Change (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028
G Model
JGEC-1161; No. of Pages 10
C.C. Hicks et al. / Global Environmental Change xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Table 1
Ecosystem services, photographs, and descriptions used in the valuation exercises.
Service
Picture
Description
Fishery
This picture shows a fisher coming back from fishing with his catch which he may sell or
use to feed his family. This illustrates the benefit we gain from the fish we catch and sell
Habitat
This picture shows a healthy coral reef with many fish and places for the small fish to hide.
This illustrates the benefits we gain from having a healthy coral reef habitat
Coastal protection
This picture shows a rough sea and some trees washed away by the waves. The coral reef
provides a barrier against the force of these waves. This illustrates the benefit we gain
from having the reef buffer the force of the waves
Sanitation
This picture shows women gutting and washing their fish. The sea takes away a lot of
waste for us. This illustrates the benefit we gain from using the sea to wash and clean,
knowing that when we come back tomorrow the waters will be clear again
Tourism
This picture shows some tourists swimming and snorkelling, enjoying the marine
environment. This illustrates the benefits we gain from being able to relax and enjoy the
marine environment or having others come and enjoy it in this way
Education
This picture shows some children learning about the sea. There is a lot of knowledge in the
coral reef environment that school children come and learn about or scientists come and
study. This picture illustrates the benefits we gain from the knowledge we have from the
time we and our elders have spent in the marine environment
Cultural
This picture shows a spiritual or cultural place related to the sea. Some people follow
special traditions or norms involving the marine environment. This picture illustrates the
benefits we gain from having cultural connections to the marine environment
Please cite this article in press as: Hicks, C.C., et al., Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value coral reef
ecosystem services. Global Environ. Change (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028
3
G Model
JGEC-1161; No. of Pages 10
C.C. Hicks et al. / Global Environmental Change xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
4
Table 1 (Continued )
Service
Picture
Bequest
Description
This picture of children represents the future of the reefs. This illustrates the benefits we
gain from knowing we will have healthy reefs that we can pass on to our children so that
they can benefit from all the benefits that we gain today
group of benefits associated with the coral reef ecosystem we
conducted larger focus groups in each of the communities
surveyed (21). These focus groups were to ensure the benefits
we had identified through fisher and expert consultations were
appropriate and comprehensive, and that the wording and
photographs used captured locally appropriate meanings. The
final selection included eight ecosystem services, with consistent
definitions, but some different photographs were used across
countries. The final eight ecosystem services included one
provisioning service (identified as fishery), two regulating services
(identified as coastal protection and sanitation), four cultural
services (identified as culture, education, recreation, and bequest)
(Krutilla, 1967; MA, 2005; Chan et al., 2011) and one supporting
service (identified as habitat) (Kumar, 2010) (Table 1). Ecosystem
service assessments often omit supporting services, partly to avoid
double counting, or subsume them in regulating services (Kumar,
2010). However, we do not attempt to aggregate value across
services, and therefore double counting should not pose a problem.
Furthermore, we felt it important to include supporting services in
our perception based assessment because the implications of
whether people prioritize provisioning or supporting services
affect management decisions.
2.4. Differences in ecosystem service prioritization, across stakeholder
groups
2.4.1. Analysis
Broad variation in priority estimates assigned to ecosystem
services was first assessed using a hierarchical cluster analysis,
based on Euclidean distance, which found the greatest splits in the
data were among the three stakeholder groups, with little effect of
country. We therefore focus on patterns among and within
stakeholders.
We used a principal components analysis (PCA), based on
Euclidian distance, to examine the similarities and differences in
the priorities managers, scientists, and fishers assign to the 8
ecosystem services (Legendre and Legendre, 1998, CANOCO 4.5).
We then looked for differences, across stakeholder groups in the
priorities assigned to individual ecosystem services using a
MANOVA, followed by Tukey’s HSD post hoc analysis. To illustrate
these differences, we calculated an effect size on all eight
ecosystem services for each two way combination of the three
stakeholder groups (Eq. (1)).
Cohen0 s d ¼
vai va j
ðSvai þ Sva j Þ=2
(1)
2.3. Ecosystem service prioritization
We used individual semi-structured interviews to elicit
stakeholder priorities for the eight identified ecosystem services.
The interviews were piloted in each country to test the suitability
of questions, structure, timing, and to ensure research assistants
were comfortable in each setting. Respondents were provided
with a photograph and brief description of each ecosystem
service (developed in the focus groups; Table 1). The services
were discussed with the respondents to establish a common
understanding. We explained that we were interested in the
respondents ‘‘personal preferences’’. We then asked the respondents to (1) rank the services, according to how important the
services were (1–8); and (2) to rate the services, by distributing
counters according to ‘‘where they would most like to see
improvements’’ (Montgomery, 2002; Hicks et al., 2009; Larson,
2009). Managers and scientists were provided with 100 points to
distribute across the services. We had to adjust the exercise for
fishers, who were provided with 20 points in four instalments to
distribute across the services. The rating and ranking responses
of the managers, scientists, and fishers were normalized to be on
a common scale of 0–1. Data were tested for normality with Q–Q
plots of the residuals and homogeneity of variances using
Levene’s test prior to analysis (Field, 2009). We used Pearsons
correlation analysis to test for consistency between the manager,
scientist, and fishers rating and ranking scores. The relative
importance of services obtained by rating and ranking was
consistent across stakeholder group (correlation r = 0.55,
P = 0.001) so the rating responses were used for the remainder
of the analyses.
where vai = ecosystem service priority of the first stakeholder
group; vaj = ecosystem service priority of the second stakeholder
group, S = standard deviation.
2.5. Differences in ecosystem service prioritization, within stakeholder
groups
2.5.1. Analysis
We looked for differences in ecosystem service prioritization,
within stakeholder groups, using a one way ANOVA for each
stakeholder group (Field, 2009).
2.5.2. Synergies and trade-offs
A trade-off generally arises because two choices are
incompatible with each other. For example, activities that
maximize fishing yield (a provisioning service) tend to erode key
processes necessary for maintaining functioning ecosystems,
such as herbivory (a supporting service). Many approaches exist
for quantifying trade-offs e.g. cost benefit analysis (CBA), social
CBA, integrated CBA (de Groot et al., 2010) and multi-criteria
decision analysis (MCDA) (Brown et al., 2002). These are robust
approaches, effective at engaging stakeholders in discussions
over alternate options, that draw out trade-offs. However,
people do not always consider the motivations or implications of
their values and their resultant behaviour (Schwartz, 1996;
Bardi and Goodwin, 2011). This can create trade-offs that are not
obvious, are not realized until they occur, or affect a minority.
Therefore, rather than focus on the services of a high priority,
that are likely to be discussed, we were interested in drawing
Please cite this article in press as: Hicks, C.C., et al., Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value coral reef
ecosystem services. Global Environ. Change (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028
G Model
JGEC-1161; No. of Pages 10
C.C. Hicks et al. / Global Environmental Change xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Fig. 1. Heuristic illustrating (a) synergies and (b) trade-offs. Two services that are
positively correlated, create synergies; they are either both large or both small. Two
services that are negatively correlated, create a trade-off; when one is large the
other is small.
out the important relationships that exist between all ecosystem
services.
For each stakeholder group, we produced a correlation matrix
based on a Pearson’s correlation analysis looking at similarities and
dissimilarities in the way ecosystem services were prioritized. A
positive correlation between service A and B, suggests that the
estimates assigned are more similar to each other than by chance
alone (Legendre and Legendre, 1998); individuals within a
stakeholder group value these services in the same way
representing a synergy between a pair of ecosystem services
(Fig. 1a) (i.e. both services are high, or both services are low,
relative to the range of values each service receives). A negative
correlation between the values assigned to service A and B,
suggests the estimates assigned are less similar to each other than
by chance alone (Legendre and Legendre, 1998); individuals within
a stakeholder group value these services differently and a trade-off
exists (Fig. 1b) (i.e. when one service is high the other service is
low, relative to the range of values each service receives).
2.5.3. Mapping synergies and trade-offs
We used network analysis (NA) to visualize the synergies and
trade-offs in each stakeholder group and to determine key aspects
of their interrelatedness. NA is the study of groups as networks of
nodes connected by ties and provides methods to quantify the
relations between nodes and the resultant network structure
(Borgatti et al., 2009). Although network analysis is frequently
used to study relationships between individuals, or groups of
individuals (e.g. social network analysis see Ernston et al., 2009;
Wasserman and Faust, 1994), in the 1990s NA radiated into a great
number of fields including physics and biology (e.g. Bascompte,
2009), and continues to present new opportunities for interdisciplinary research (e.g. Bodin and Tengo, 2012). Consequently, the
nodes of a network can represent organizations (Cohen et al.,
2012), occupations (Cinner and Bodin, 2010), disciplines (Hicks
et al., 2010), or species (Bascompte, 2009). In the same way, the ties
between the nodes can represent similarities (e.g. attribute),
relations (e.g. kinship), interactions, or flows; and each combination of ties and nodes creates different outcomes for the network
(Borgatti et al., 2009). We use NA to examine the relationships
between ecosystem service priorities within each stakeholder
group. Therefore, for each stakeholder group, we have eight nodes,
each representing a different ecosystem service. Our nodes are
connected by ties that represent a synergy, or trade-off between a
pair of ecosystem services, established from Pearson’s correlation
analysis.
We dichotomized (converted to binary data) each stakeholder
group’s Pearson’s correlation matrix in UCINET version 6.365
(Borgatti et al., 2002). The cutoff points were selected to include
the coefficients representing 40% of the strongest negative, and
3. Results
3.1. Differences in ecosystem service prioritization, across stakeholder
groups
The first axis of the PCA (32.8% variation) distinguishes between
fishers’ priorities and managers’ and scientists’ priorities, with
fishers tending to prioritize fishery, education and habitat more
than managers or scientists, who tended to prioritize coastal
protection and culture more than fishers (Fig. 2). The second axis of
the PCA (21.3% variation) revealed a weaker distinction between
managers’ and scientists’ priorities (Fig. 2). These differences
across stakeholders in the priorities assigned to specific ecosystem
services were confirmed with a MANOVA test (Wilk’s value = 0.01,
F8,39 = 10.2, P < 0.0001) (Table 2). Post hoc pairwise tests showed
that fishers assigned significantly higher priorities to fishery than
managers or scientists and significantly higher priorities to
1.0
Service A value
Fisher
Manager
Scientist
Recreation
Habitat
C. protection
Fishery
Culture
Sanitation
Bequest
Education
-1.0
Service B value
Service B value
Service A value
40% of the strongest positive correlations for each stakeholder
group. Because the sample size of fishers, managers, and scientists
differed, we decided to use a cut off point that represents a
consistent proportion of correlations rather than a significance
level which would be biased by sample size. The network analysis
therefore gives an indication of the tendencies towards a trade-off
or synergy within groups rather than an indication of the strength
or number of connections across groups. It is worth noting that the
manager network in particular is composed of a fairly small sample
size, so although the positive and negative trends should be fairly
robust, they will inherently have greater uncertainty associated
with them. We produced two matrices for each stakeholder, one
representing trade-offs (negative) and one representing synergies
(positive). For each stakeholder group, we combined the positive
and negative matrices in NetDraw (Borgatti, 2002) to create a
network representing stakeholders’ synergies and tradeoffs in
ecosystem service priorities. For each network, we calculated two
types of centrality measures, degree and betweenness. Degree
centrality is a measure of the number of connections between a
service and all other services. Betweenness centrality is a measure
of the number of shortest paths that run through a service,
representing the importance of a service for connecting other
services that would otherwise be unconnected (Wasserman and
Faust, 1994).
PC2 = 21.3%
B)
A)
5
-1.0
1.0
PC1 = 32.8%
Fig. 2. Principle component analysis showing the variation in stakeholder groups
based on ecosystem service values. Fishery (provisioning service); education,
recreation, culture, bequest (cultural services); coastal protection, sanitation
(regulating services); habitat (supporting service).
Please cite this article in press as: Hicks, C.C., et al., Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value coral reef
ecosystem services. Global Environ. Change (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028
G Model
JGEC-1161; No. of Pages 10
C.C. Hicks et al. / Global Environmental Change xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
6
Table 2
Differences in ecosystem service priorities across stakeholder group based on a
MANOVA followed by Tukey’s HSD post hoc analysis. F = fishers, M = managers,
S = scientists.
Table 3
Ecosystem service priorities based on average weighting assigned by each
stakeholder group. Estimates are normalized and standard error of the means
shown.
Ecosystem service
P
F
Tukey’s HSD post hoc*
Ecosystem service
Fisher*
sem
Manager
sem
Scientist*
sem
Fishery
Culture
Education
Recreation
Bequest
Coastal protection
Sanitation
Habitat
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.382
0.042
18.446,2
17.846,2
7.346,2
5.146,2
9.346,2
38.346,2
1.046,2
3.446,2
F > M, S
F<S<M
F>S
F<S
F < M, S
F<M<S
NS
NS
Fishery
Culture
Education
Recreation
Bequest
C. protection
Sanitation
Habitat
0.27
0.04
0.19
0.07
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.19
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.11
0.14
0.11
0.10
0.14
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.16
0.09
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.10
0.15
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
*
*
Significant at <0.05.
education than scientists (Table 2 and Fig. 3a and b). Similarly,
managers assigned significantly higher priorities to culture than
scientists or fishers and significantly higher priorities to bequest
and coastal protection than fishers (Table 2 and Fig. 3a and c).
Finally, scientists assigned significantly higher priorities to coastal
protection than fishers or scientists, and significantly higher
priorities to bequest, recreation and culture than fishers (Table 2
and Fig. 3b and c).
Significant difference across ecosystem services at 0.001 significance.
to their higher and lower priorities (F1,7 = 0.7, P = 0.68). This is
because managers tended to distribute their counters evenly
across the range of ecosystem services.
3.1.2. Synergies and tradeoffs
The ecosystem service prioritization networks of all three
stakeholder groups were associated with proportionally more
tradeoffs than synergies (Fig. 4). Habitat and recreation formed a
synergy and coastal protection traded-off with culture for all
stakeholder groups (fishers, managers and scientists) (Fig. 4).
Fishers and scientists did not overlap on any other ties. Managers,
overlapped with scientists on an additional three trade-offs
(sanitation–recreation; sanitation–habitat; habitat–education)
and with fishers on an additional two ties (a trade-off between
recreation–education; a synergy between sanitation–coastal
protection) (Fig. 4).
In the fishers’ network, three synergies were evident: recreation–habitat; sanitation–coastal protection; and fishery–bequest.
A number of trade-offs were identified both between the synergy
clusters and to other ecosystem services. For example, there were
three trade-off ties between the fishery–bequest and the recreation–habitat synergy clusters, and both clusters had an additional
trade-off tie with education. The sanitation–coastal protection
synergy traded-off with culture and with fishery (Fig. 4a). In the
3.1.1. Differences in ecosystem service prioritization, within
stakeholder group
Fishers assigned their highest priorities to fishery, habitat, and
education, and their lowest priorities to culture and recreation
(Table 3). Fishers’ highest priorities were assigned significantly
greater estimates than their lower priorities (F1,7 = 51.8, P = 0.001).
This is because fishers would assign almost all of their counters to
one or two services, rather than distributing them more evenly.
Scientists assigned their highest priorities to fishery, habitat and
coastal protection and their lowest priorities to culture and
sanitation (Table 3). Scientists’ highest priorities were assigned
significantly greater estimates than their lower priorities, but to
less of an extent than fishers (F1,7 = 10.0, P = 0.001). Mangers
assigned their highest priorities to habitat, education, and bequest
and their lowest priorities to sanitation (Table 3). However, there
were no significant differences in the estimates managers assigned
Fisher
Manager
Scientist
C)
B)
A)
Habitat
Sanitation
C. Protection
*
Bequest
*
*
*
*
*
Recreation
*
Education
Culture
*
Fishery
manager greater
*
*
*
*
fisher greater scientist greater fisher greater
scientist greater
manager greater
Effect on stakeholders' values
Fig. 3. Differences in ecosystem service priorities between (a) managers and fishers; (b) scientists and fishers; and (c) scientists and managers. Asterisk shows where
significant differences exist based on Tukey’s HSD post hoc analysis (a = 0.05).
Please cite this article in press as: Hicks, C.C., et al., Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value coral reef
ecosystem services. Global Environ. Change (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028
G Model
JGEC-1161; No. of Pages 10
C.C. Hicks et al. / Global Environmental Change xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
A)
Fishery
Recreation
Bequest
Habitat
Culture
Table 4
Centrality measures based on the interactions between each stakeholder group’s
ecosystem service priorities. Degree and betweenness give an indication of the
influence each ecosystem service has on the whole network of ecosystem services.
Degree is the number of other services a service is connected to through a trade-off
or synergy tie. Betweenness is the extent to which a service connects two services
that would otherwise be unconnected, or brings two services closer through a
connection.
Ecosystem service
Sanitation
Education
C. protection
B)
Fishery
Recreation
7
Bequest
C. protection
Culture
Education
Fishery
Habitat
Recreation
Sanitation
Degree
Betweenness
Fisher
Manager
Scientist
Fisher
Manager
Scientist
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
0.0
3.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
1.3
13.0
1.3
1.0
10.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.0
0.0
5.3
0.0
0.0
5.3
0.3
0.0
C. protection
Sanitation
Habitat
Education
Bequest
Culture
Fishery
C)
C. protection
Sanitation
Habitat
Education
Recreation
Bequest
Culture
Fig. 4. Network diagrams showing interactions among ecosystem services
prioritized by (a) fishers, (b) managers (c) scientists, based on Pearson’s
correlation analysis. Red lines indicate tradeoffs and black lines indicate
synergies between services. Size of the node reflects average value assigned to
each ecosystem service. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)
managers’ network, two synergy clusters were evident: recreation–habitat; and sanitation–coastal protection–education, with
five trade-off ties between these two synergy clusters. The
sanitation–coastal protection–education cluster also traded-off
with culture, and fishery traded-off with bequest (Fig. 4b). In the
Scientists’ network, two synergy clusters were evident: recreation–habitat–coastal protection; and sanitation–culture. There
were five trade-off ties between these two synergy clusters. In
addition, culture traded-off with fishery, and habitat traded-off
with education (Fig. 4c). Bequest was unconnected in this network.
3.2. Ecosystem service influence
In network analysis, degree and betweeness centrality measures give an indication of the influence a node has on the network.
Degree measures the number of other nodes (in our case services)
each individual node (service) connects to. Betweeness differs
slightly by measuring the number of connections a node (service)
makes between parts of the network that are otherwise
unconnected.
Fishery was connected to the largest number of other services in
the fishers’ network (habitat, sanitation, education, and bequest
giving it a degree measure of 4). Fishery also connected the largest
number of otherwise unconnected parts of the network (betweenness: 13) (Table 4). Coastal protection, education, recreation, and
sanitation were connected to the largest number of other services
in the managers’ network (all connected to 4 other services, giving
them a degree measure of 4). Coastal protection also connected the
largest number of otherwise unconnected parts of the network
(betweenness 4) (Table 4). Culture and habitat were connected to
the largest number of other services in the scientists network
(culture was connected to recreation, habitat, coastal protection,
fishery, and sanitation, giving it a degree measure of 5; and habitat
was connected to culture, education, sanitation, coastal protection,
and recreation also giving it a degree measure of 5). Culture and
habitat were also connected the largest number of otherwise
unconnected parts of the network (betweenness 5.3 and 5.3)
(Table 4). These metrics suggest fishery is the most influential
service in the fishers’ network, coastal protection the most
influential service in the managers’ network, and culture the most
influential services in the scientists’ network.
4. Discussion
Ecosystem service values depend on human preferences and
demand, and not just the merits of the biological system, such as
diversity and productivity (Vira and Adams, 2009). Therefore,
using a multi-country case study of coral reef fisheries, we set out
to: understand fishers’, managers’, and scientists’ ecosystem
service preferences; measure their priorities; map the interactions
associated with their priorities, and; explore how this information
can be used when stakeholder groups come together to discuss the
management of complex ecosystems. There were similarities and
differences in fishers’, managers’, and scientists’ ecosystem service
priorities. Fishers were more likely to prioritize fishery values,
managers were more likely to prioritize cultural values and
scientists were more likely to prioritize coastal protection values.
Overall, fishers’ priorities were most distinct from managers and
scientists. However, when we examined the interactions associated with each stakeholder groups’ priorities, areas of agreement and
conflict emerged reflecting different trade-offs and synergies in
stakeholders’ ecosystem service priorities. Interestingly, the
synergies and trade-offs within the group of managers reflected
Please cite this article in press as: Hicks, C.C., et al., Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value coral reef
ecosystem services. Global Environ. Change (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028
G Model
JGEC-1161; No. of Pages 10
8
C.C. Hicks et al. / Global Environmental Change xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
aspects of the patterns seen in both groups of fishers and scientists.
Because the interactions that emerge between peoples’ priorities
reflect implicit rather than explicit preferences it can be
challenging to incorporate these interactions into decision-making
(McRae and Whittington, 1997). However, the synergies and tradeoffs that emerge between stakeholders’ ecosystem service priorities may be the result of differences in their social characteristics,
experiences, and conceptual understandings of the system; all
attributes that if understood can be navigated.
Although different groups of people derive benefits from
different ecosystem services (Daw et al., 2011), we found
remarkable similarities in the ecosystem services that fishers,
managers, and scientists considered a priority. All three groups
assigned their highest priorities to fishery, education, and habitat.
Differences emerged between stakeholder groups in the weights
assigned to each service. Fishers were most distinct in their
tendency to identify clear priorities, where managers and
scientists tended to distribute their counters more evenly. Areas
of agreement provide an opportunity for fishers, managers, and
scientists to come together to discuss the management of these
systems; a crucial component for successful resource management
(Sutton and Tobin, 2009). Indeed, stakeholders are more easily
engaged when data on their attitudes and preferences are collected
early on in the management process (Day et al., 2007).
Communication between stakeholders is important and serves
to build an understanding of stakeholders’ different aspirations for
management that can help in translating abstract issues such as
goals for conservation, and ultimately create a space for solutions
(Larson et al., 2013). For example, in 2004, the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority in Australia implemented a new and
ambitious conservation plan but faced a widespread belief that,
before and up to 4 years after, the majority of stakeholders’ were in
opposition to and dissatisfied by the plan. After an extensive
consultative process the majority of recreational fishers were
found to in fact support the plan and found it consistent with their
values; stakeholders attributed this largely to their involvement in
the consultation process (Sutton and Tobin, 2009). Despite the
apparent similarities we found in stakeholders priorities, the
differences that exist are likely to escalate unless explored. Thus,
when stakeholders’ values appear to conflict, it is particularly
constructive to engage the relevant stakeholders in a process that
explores their priorities. This process can build a respect for
alternative views, a trust between those involved, and highlight
areas of agreement. For example, although the relative weights
assigned to managers and scientists priorities differ, when they are
put in the context of the weights assigned to fishers priorities they
appeared very similar.
Although identifying and engaging stakeholders in a consultative process is important, the concept of ‘stakeholder’ is often
controversial (Buchy and Race, 2001), and the identified groups
are rarely homogenous (Leach et al., 1999). Furthermore, there
are often power relationships within the stakeholder group that
influences whose voice is heard and ultimately the outcome of
resource management (Buchy and Race, 2001). We therefore
examined the extent to which each stakeholder group’s priorities
were in agreement, representing synergies between services, or
in conflict, representing trade-offs between services. We found
distinct synergies and trade-offs in fishers’, managers’, and
scientists’ patterns of ecosystem service priorities that were not
evident from the stakeholder groups’ priorities alone. For
example, all stakeholder groups were in agreement that fishery,
education, and habitat services represented their highest
priorities, but this agreement across groups did not reflect
agreement within groups. Instead, fishery traded off with habitat
and education in the fishers network and habitat traded-off with
education in the manager and scientist networks. The synergies
and trade-offs associated with ecosystem services are a result of
different priorities within a stakeholder group and identify
potential conflicts or opportunities that may arise in a decisionmaking process. There is a danger that apparent similarities
across groups may mask conflicts within stakeholder groups that
if not addressed would ultimately impact how individuals
behave (Kennedy et al., 2009). For example, because fishery was
considered a priority across all stakeholder groups it would be
reasonable to expect management focusing on yield maximization to receive support. This support may exist within the group
of scientists, where fishery trades-off with culture – a service
assigned a lower priority. However, there is likely to be
conflicting support within the group of managers and fishers
where fishery trades-off with services that are assigned high
priorities – bequest for managers and habitat and education for
fishers. Investing in a dominant service has the potential to
create conflicts and even marginalize certain individuals. Yet,
decision-makers looking for consensus tend to focus on the
strongest values, neglecting potentially complex interactions
that may lead to sub-optimal outcomes (Platt, 1973; Ostrom,
1990).
Managers are likely to be better equipped to address conflicts or
take advantage of opportunities that arise in environmental
decision-making if they can understand what drives the differences in stakeholders’ priorities. It is generally accepted that
people’s preferences are influenced by their characteristics,
experiences, learning, and culture (Kaplan, 1985). Consequently,
age, gender, and income, have been used to explain differences in
environmental preferences (Nord et al., 1998; Howell and Laska,
1992). However, preferences result from conscious and subconscious motivations (Schwartz, 1996; Bardi and Schwartz, 2003),
which presents a challenge for understanding how people come to
have the preferences they do (Howell and Laska, 1992; Farber et al.,
2002). It is likely that the ability to access and make use of the
environment will influence people’s ecosystem services preferences (Leach et al., 1999). Ribot and Peluso (2003) developed a
theory of access that identified nine categories that shape the
processes and relations that enable people to benefit from their
environment. These mechanisms include for example, people’s
knowledge and skills, their social relations and identity, and the
access they have to capital and markets. In doing so, Ribot and
Peluso (2003) provide a useful framework through which
managers can understand and explore differences in stakeholders’
preferences.
Subconscious influences on people’s preferences may be
reflected in the way they perceive nature. For example, people
perceive nature at different scales of time (Leopold and Schwartz,
1989), which influences the extent to which they prefer something
today over something at a later time – or their time preferences.
People who perceive the benefits of nature on shorter time scales
are likely to prioritize immediate benefits over greater future
benefits (Gollier, 2002). The trade-off between fishery and habitat
in the fishers network suggests different fishers’ may have
different time preferences. Some fishers prioritize an immediate
return from increases in their fishery yield, whereas others see the
benefit of investing in the habitat for an improvement in the
fishery in the long term. Strong property rights are likely to lower
this trade-off because people develop a confidence in the future
benefits. Managers may therefore be wise to invest in suitable
property rights along side existing management. Similarly, when
people perceive two ecosystem services as mutually exclusive they
are unlikely to prioritize both, which creates a trade-off relationship (Yoe, 2011). For example, a synergy tie between recreation
and habitat existed in all stakeholder networks, suggesting these
services are not perceived as mutually exclusive. Indeed, reef based
tourism is widespread in the region and closely associated with
Please cite this article in press as: Hicks, C.C., et al., Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value coral reef
ecosystem services. Global Environ. Change (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028
G Model
JGEC-1161; No. of Pages 10
C.C. Hicks et al. / Global Environmental Change xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
healthy reefs for diving and snorkelling. However, in the fishers’
network, recreation traded-off with education and bequest,
suggesting these services are likely to be perceived as mutually
exclusive. This may be because tourism is seen to pose a threat to
local cultures by presenting an appealing and lucrative alternative
to learning about and maintaining local practices, knowledge, and
traditions (Brown et al., 1997). This appeal may lead to the loss of
local cultures, particularly in younger generations (Hill et al.,
2011). When differences in stakeholders’ preferences are the result
of differences in perceptions or experience rather than needs and
traits, there is some potential for values to change (Bardi and
Goodwin, 2011). Exploring the factors that influence peoples
preferences, including access and perceptions, can help managers
decide on cues to introduce that could build a common
understanding, challenge existing values, and begin a process of
value change.
Communication is important when trying to coordinate action
(Ostmann, 1998; Ostrom, 1990), and is easier when people think in
similar ways (Verweij et al., 2006). Fishers and scientists were
most distinct from one another, suggesting that they would find it
difficult to reach agreement on how to prioritize ecosystem
services. Although the smaller sample size of managers creates
greater uncertainty in the patterns for this group, managers’
priorities, trade-offs, and synergies overlapped the most with both
fishers’ and scientists’. This suggests managers may be well placed
to anticipate and understand some of the opportunities and
conflicts that fishers and scientists associate with their ecosystem
service priorities. Indeed, the nature of managers’ jobs means they
have to mediate between fishers and scientists regularly. Although
scientific research often informs management and conservation, it
is managers who in the end must balance the research findings
with local issues and priorities (Fazey et al., 2006). The ability of
managers to balance the advice coming from scientists with their
understanding of different stakeholders’ priorities is therefore
likely to make them good negotiators around the issues of
preference and associated decisions.
5. Conclusions
To enable effective and equitable resource management, policy
makers should engage with the complexities associated with
stakeholders’ preferences and priorities. We found that stakeholders’ priorities were often associated with implicit synergies
and trade-offs, potentially creating elusive opportunities and
unexpected conflicts (McShane et al., 2011). Effective and
equitable resource management needs stewards that are capable
of navigating these conflicts and capitalizing on opportunities to
reach consensus. We show that managers may be capable of
playing such a role. This role could be furthered by introducing
cues, through discussions, that address and challenge the
underlying motivations behind the observed synergies and
trade-offs in ecosystem service priorities (Bardi and Goodwin,
2011). A greater understanding of these motivations will help build
a common understanding of ecosystem service priorities and help
reduce conflicts over management decisions.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Western Indian Ocean Marine
Science Association (WIOMSA) through the Marine Science for
Management scheme (MASMA). Many thanks to the scientists,
managers, and fishers who gave up some of their time and
knowledge for this work. Earlier drafts of the manuscript were
improved through the comments of Steve Sutton, Tim McClanahan,
and Philippa Cohen and through discussions with Bob Pressey.
9
References
Adams, W.M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Jon, H., Roe, D.,
Vira, B., Wolmer, W., 2004. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of
poverty. Science 306, 1146–1149.
Adams, W.N., Hutton, J., 2007. People, parks and poverty: political ecology and
biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Soc. 5, 147–183.
Allison, E.H., Perry, A.L., Badjeck, M.C., Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Conway, D., Halls, A.S.,
Pilling, G.M., Reynolds, J.D., Andrew, N.L., Dulvy, N.K., 2009. Vulnerability of
national economies to the impacts of climate change on fisheries. Fish Fish. 10,
173–196.
Allison, H., Hobbs, R., 2010. Natural resource management at four social scales:
psychological type matters. Environ. Manage. 45, 590–602.
Atkinson, G., Bateman, I., Mourato, S., 2012. Recent advances in the valuation of
ecosystem services and biodiversity. Oxford Rev. Econ. Pol. 28, 22–47.
Ban, N.C., Mills, M., Tam, J., Hicks, C.C., Klain, S., Stoeckl, N., Bottrill, M.C., Levine, J.,
Pressey, R.L., Satterfield, T., Chan, K.M.A., 2013. Towards a social–ecological
approach for conservation planning: embedding social considerations. Front.
Ecol. Environ. 11, 194–202.
Bardi, A., Goodwin, R., 2011. The dual route to value change: individual processes
and cultural moderators. J. Cross-cult. Psychol. 42, 271–289.
Bardi, A., Schwartz, S.S., 2003. Values and behavior: strength and structure of
relations. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29, 1207–1222.
Bascompte, J., 2009. Disentangling the web of life. Science 325, 416–419.
Bennett, E.M., Peterson, G.D., Gordon, L.J., 2009. Understanding relationships among
multiple ecosystem services. Ecol. Lett. 12, 1394–1404.
Berkes, F., 2007. Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104, 15188–15193.
Bodin, O., Tengo, M., 2012. Disentangling intangible social–ecological systems.
Global Environ. Change 22, 430–439.
Borgatti, S.P., 2002. NetDraw: Graph Visualization Software. Analytic Technologies,
Harvard.
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., Freeman, L.C., 2002. Ucinet for Windows: Software for
Social Network Analysis. Analytic Technologies, Harvard, MA.
Borgatti, S.P., Mehra, A., Brass, D.J., Labianca, G., 2009. Network analysis in the social
sciences. Science 323, 892–895.
Boyd, J., Banzhaf, S., 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized
environmental accounting units. Ecol. Econ. 63, 616–626.
Brown, K., Turner, R.K., Hameed, H., Bateman, I.A.N., 1997. Environmental carrying
capacity and tourism development in the Maldives and Nepal. Environ. Conserv.
24, 316–325.
Brown, K., Adger, W.N., Tompkins, E., Bacon, P., Shim, D., Young, K., 2002. Trade-off
analysis for marine protected area management. Ecol. Econ. 37, 417–434.
Buchy, M., Race, D., 2001. The twists and turns of community participation in
natural resource management in Australia: what is missing? J. Environ. Plann.
Manage. 44, 293–308.
Chan, K.M.A., Goldstein, J., Satterfield, T., Hannahs, N., Kikiloi, K., Naidoo, R.,
Vadeboncoeur, N., Woodside, U., 2011. Cultural services and non-use values.
In: Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T.H., Daily, G.C., Polasky, S. (Eds.), Natural
Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Chan, K.M., Shaw, M.R., Cameron, D.R., Underwood, E.C., Daily, G.C., 2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol. 4 (11) e379.
Cinner, J.E., Folke, C., Daw, T., Hicks, C.C., 2011. Responding to change: using
scenarios to understand how socio-economic factors may influence amplifying
or dampening exploitation feedbacks among Tanzanian fishers. Global Environ.
Change 21, 7–12.
Cinner, J.E., Bodin, O., 2010. Livelihood diversification in tropical coastal communities: a network based approach to analyzing livelihood landscapes. PLoS ONE 5,
e11999.
Cohen, P.J., Evans, L.E., Mills, M., 2012. Social networks supporting governance of
coastal ecosystems in Solomon Islands. Conserv. Lett. 5, 376–386.
Costanza, R., 2000. Social goals and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosystems
3, 4–10.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,
Naeem, S., O’Neill, R., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997. The
value of the World’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–
260.
Daw, T., Brown, K., Rosendio, S., Pomeroy, R., 2011. Applying the ecosystem services
concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being.
Environ. Conserv. 38, 370–379.
Day, J., Tanzer, J., Chadwick, V., Fernandes, L., Jago, B., 2007. The relative roles of
science, public participation and political support in rezoning the Great Barrier
Reef. In: Day, J., Senior, J., Monk, S., Neal, N. (Eds.), First International Marine
Protected Areas Congress Conference Proceedings, IMPAC1 2005, Geelong,
Australia, pp. 559–661.
de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges
integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning,
management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7, 260–272.
Ernston, H., Sorlin, S., Elmqvist, T., 2009. Social movements and ecosystem services
– the role of social network structure in protecting and managing urban green
areas in Stockholm. Ecol. Soc. 13 (2) 39., http://www. ecologyandsociety. org/
vol13/iss2/art39/.
Fazey, I., Fazey, J.A., Salisbury, J.G., Lindenmayer, D.B., Dovers, S., 2006. The nature
and role of experiential knowledge for environmental conservation. Environ.
Conserv. 33, 1–10.
Please cite this article in press as: Hicks, C.C., et al., Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value coral reef
ecosystem services. Global Environ. Change (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028
G Model
JGEC-1161; No. of Pages 10
10
C.C. Hicks et al. / Global Environmental Change xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Farber, S.C., Costanza, R., Wilson, M.A., 2002. Economic and ecological concepts for
valuing ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 41, 375–392.
Field, A.P., 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: (And Sex and Drugs and Rock ‘n’
Roll), 3rd ed. Sage Publications, London.
Fulton, E.A., Smith, A.D.M., Smith, D.C., van Putten, I.E., 2011. Human behaviour: the
key source of uncertainty in fisheries management. Fish Fish. 12, 2–17.
Gollier, C., 2002. Time horizon and the discount rate. J. Econ. Theory 107, 463–473.
Graham, N.A.J., McClanahan, T.R., MacNeil, M.A., Wilson, S.K., Polunin, N.V.C.,
Jennings, S., Chabanet, P., Clark, S., Spalding, M.D., Letourneur, Y., Bigot, L.,
Galzin, R., Õhman, M.C., Garpe, K.C., Edwards, A.J., Sheppard, C.R.C., 2008.
Climate warming, marine protected areas and the ocean-scale integrity of coral
reef ecosystems. PLoS ONE 3, e3039.
Henry, G.T., 1990. Practical Sampling. Sage Publications, London.
Hicks, C.C., McClanahan, T.R., Cinner, J.E., Hills, J.M., 2009. Trade-offs in values
assigned to ecological goods and services associated with different coral reef
management strategies. Ecol. Soc. 14 (10) , http://www. ecologyandsociety. org/
vol14/iss1/art10/.
Hicks, C.C., Fitzsimmons, C., Polunin, N.V.C., 2010. Interdisciplinarity in the environmental sciences: barriers and frontiers. Environ. Conserv. 37, 464–477.
Hill, R., Cullen-Unsworth, L.C., Talbot, L.D., McIntyre-Tamwoy, S., 2011. Empowering
Indigenous peoples’ biocultural diversity through World Heritage cultural
landscapes: a case study from the Australian humid tropical forests. Int. J.
Herit. Stud. 17, 571–591.
Howell, S.E., Laska, L.B., 1992. The changing face of the environmental coalition: a
research note. Environ. Behav. 24, 134–144.
Kaplan, R., 1985. The analysis of perception via preference: a strategy for studying
how the environment is experienced. Landscape Plann. 12, 161–176.
Kennedy, E.H., Beckley, T.M., McFarlane, B.L., Nadeau, S., 2009. Why we don’t walk
the talk: understanding the environmental values/behaviour gap in Canada.
Hum. Ecol. Rev. 16, 151–160.
Krutilla, J., 1967. Conservation reconsidered. Am. Econ. Rev. 57, 777–786.
Kumar, P. (Ed.), 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological
and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London.
Larson, S., 2009. Communicating stakeholder priorities in the Great Barrier Reef
Region. Soc. Nat. Resour. 22, 650–664.
Larson, S., De Freitas, D.M., Hicks, C.C., 2013. Sense of place as a determinant of
people’s attitudes towards the environment: implications for natural resources
management and planning in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. J. Environ.
Manage. 117, 226–234.
Leach, M., Mearns, R., Scoones, I., 1999. Environmental entitlements: dynamics and
institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Dev. 27,
225–247.
Legendre, P., Legendre, L., 1998. Numerical Ecology, 2nd ed. Elsevier Science,
Amsterdam.
Leopold, A., Schwartz, C.W., 1989. A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and
There. Oxford University Press, New York.
Martin-Lopez, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Garcia-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., CasaadoArzuaga, I., Garcia Del Amo, D., Gomez-Baggethum, E., Oteros-Rozas, E., Pala-
cios-Agundez, I., Willaarts, B., Gonzalez, J.A., Santos-Martin, F., Onaindia, M.,
Lopez-Santiago, C., Montes, C., 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles
through social preferences. PLoS ONE 7 (6) e38970, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0038970.
McRae, D., Whittington, D., 1997. Expert Advice for Policy Choice: Analysis and
Discourse. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp. 430.
McShane, T.O., Hirsch, P.D., Trung, T.C., Songorwa, A.N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B.,
Mutekanga, D., Thang, H.V., Dammert, J.L., Pulgar-Vidal, M., Welch-Devine, M.,
Brosius, J.P., Coppolillo, P., O’Connor, S., 2011. Hard choices: making trade-offs
between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol. Conserv. 144,
966–972.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Our
Human Planet: Summary for Decision-makers. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Montgomery, C.A., 2002. Ranking the benefits of biodiversity: an exploration of
relative values. J. Environ. Manage. 65, 313–326.
Nord, M., Luloff, A.E., Bridger, J.C., 1998. The association of forest recreation with
environmentalism. Environ. Behav. 30, 235–246.
Ostmann, A., 1998. External control may destroy the commons. Ration Soc. 10, 103–
122.
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for
Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Platt, J., 1973. Social traps. Am. Psychol. 28, 642–651.
Pressey, R.L., Cabeza, M., Watts, M.E., Cowling, R.M., Wilson, K.A., 2007. Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 583–592.
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D., Bennett, E.M., 2010. Ecosystem service bundles
for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107,
5242–5247.
Ribot, J.C., Peluso, N.L., 2003. A theory of access. Rural Soc. 68, 153–181.
Schwartz, S.H., 1996. Value priorities and behavior: applying a theory of integrated
value systems. In: Seligman, C., Olson, J.M., Zanna, M.P. (Eds.), The Psychology
of Values: The Ontario Symposium 8, 1–24. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Sutton, S.G., Tobin, R.C., 2009. Recreational fishers’ attitudes towards the
2004 rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Environ. Conserv. 36
(245) e252.
Tetlock, P.E., 1986. A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 50, 819–827.
Turner, R.K., Morse-Jones, S., Fisher, B., 2010. Ecosystem valuation. Ann. N. Y. Acad.
Sci. 1185, 79–101.
Verweij, M., Douglas, M., Ellis, R., Engel, C., Hendriks, F., Lohmann, S., Ney, S., Rayner,
S., Thompson, M., 2006. Clumsy solutions for a complex world: the case of
climate change. Public Admin. 84, 817–843.
Vira, B., Adams, W.M., 2009. Ecosystem services and conservation strategy: beware
the silver bullet. Conserv. Lett. 2, 158–162.
Wasserman, S., Faust, K., 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Yoe, C.E., 2011. Principles of Risk Analysis: Decision Making Under Uncertainty. CRC
Press, Boca Raton.
Please cite this article in press as: Hicks, C.C., et al., Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value coral reef
ecosystem services. Global Environ. Change (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028