Exploring the impacts of woodland management on ecosystem services – a deliberative method

References

• Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G. 2006. Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures. 38(7):723–13. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CBD. 2010. Operational guidance for application of the ecosystem approach. [accessed 2022 Aug 1]. https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/operational.shtml.
   Google Scholar
• Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J. 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ. 74:8–18. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Church A, Burgess J, Ravenscroft N. 2011. Cultural services. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report, p. 633–692.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell JW. 2003. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (California): Sage Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Dick J, Maes J, Smith RI, Paracchini ML, Zulian G. 2014. Cross-scale analysis of ecosystem services identified and assessed at local and European level. Ecol Indic. 38:20–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.10.023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobson J, Dempsey N. 2019. Working out what works: the role of tacit knowledge where urban greenspace research, policy and practice intersect. Sustainability. 11(18). doi: 10.3390/su11185029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eastwood A, Fischer A, Byg A. 2017. The challenges of participatory and systemic environmental management: from aspiration to implementation. J Environ Plann Manage. 60(9):1683–1701. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2016.1249787.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eastwood A, Lorenzo-Arribas A, Juarez-Bourke A, Hague A, MacLean L, Donaldson-Selby G, Marshall K, Pakeman R, Hester A 2022. Assessing the impact of different management interviews on perceived woodland benefits. Web Resource. [accessed 2024 Feb 6]. https://sefari.scot/research/assessing-the-impact-of-different-management-interventions-on-perceived-woodland-benefits.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer A, Eastwood A. 2016. Coproduction of ecosystem services as human–nature interactions—an analytical framework. Land Use Policy. 52:41–50. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fish R, Church A, Winter M. 2016. Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: a novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosyst Serv. 21:208–217. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision-making. Ecol Econ. 68:643–653. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haines-Young R, Potschin M. 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli DG Frid CLJ, editors Ecosystems ecology: a new synthesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; p. 110–139.
   Google Scholar
• Haines-Young R, Potschin MB. 2018. Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES) V5.1 and guidance on the application of the revised structure. https://cices.eu/resources/.
   Google Scholar
• Hand KL, Freeman C, Seddon PJ, Recio MR, Stein A, van Heezik Y. 2018. Restricted home ranges reduce children’s opportunities to connect to nature: demographic, environmental and parental influences. Landsc Urban Plan. 172:69–77. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison PA, Harmackova ZV, Karabulut AA, Brotons L, Cantele M, Claudet J, Dunford RW, Guisan A, Holman IP, Jacobs S, et al. 2019. Synthesizing plausible futures for biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe and central Asia using scenario archetypes. Ecol Soc. 24(2). doi: 10.5751/es-10818-240227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IPBES. 2016. The methodological assessment report on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services: summary for policy makers. edited by S. Ferrier, … and B. Wintle. Bonn (Germany): Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
   Google Scholar
• IPBES. 2019. The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Summary for policy makers. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES); Bonn (Germany).
   Google Scholar
• Jansson M, Fors H, Lindgren T, Wistrom B. 2013. Perceived personal safety in relation to urban woodland vegetation - a review. Urban For Urban Greening. 12(2):127–133. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2013.01.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiren TS, Riechers M, Kansky R, Fischer J. 2021. Participatory scenario planning to facilitate human-wildlife coexistence. Conserv Biol. 35(6):1957–1965. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13725.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshi A, Kale S, Chandel S, Pal DK. 2015. Likert Scale: Explored and Explained. Br J Appl Sci Technol. 7(4):396–403. doi: 10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975.
   Google Scholar
• Kahane A. 2012. Transformative scenario planning: changing the future by exploring alternatives. Strategy Leadersh. 40(5):19–23. doi: 10.1108/10878571211257140.
   Google Scholar
• Kenter JO, Bryce R, Christie M, Cooper N, Hockley N, Irvine KN, Fazey I, O’Brien L, Orchard-Webb J, Ravenscroft N, et al. 2016a. Shared values and deliberative valuation: future directions. Ecosyst. Serv. 21:358–371. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenter JO, Reed MS, Fazey I. 2016b. The deliberative value formation model. Ecosyst Serv. 21:194–207. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lonsdale K, Pringle P, Turner B. 2015. Transformative adaptation: what it is, why it matters & what is needed. UK climate impacts programme. Oxford (UK): University of Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Mace GM, Bateman I, Albon S, Balmford A, Brown C, Church A, Haines-Young R, Pretty JN, Turner K, Vira B, et al. 2011. Conceptual framework and methodology. Cambridge: UK National Ecosystem Assessment, UNEP-WCMC. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report.
   Google Scholar
• Maes J, Ego B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schägner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, La Notte A, Zulian G, et al. 2012. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision-making. Ecosyst Serv. 1:31–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mavrommati G, Borsuk ME, Howarth RB. 2017. A novel deliberative multicriteria evaluation approach to ecosystem service valuation. Ecol Soc. 22(2). doi: 10.5751/es-09105-220239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mavrommati G, Borsuk ME, Kreiley AI, Larosee C, Rogers S, Burford K, Howarth RB. 2021. A methodological framework for understanding shared social values in deliberative valuation. Ecol Econ. 190. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MEA. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Washington (DC): Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mullin K, Mitchell G, Nawaz NR, Waters R. 2018. Natural capital and the poor in England: towards an environmental justice analysis of ecosystem services in a high income country. Landsc Urban Plan. 176:10–21. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.03.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NEA. 2011. The UK national ecosystem assessment: synthesis of key findings. Cambridge (UK): UNEP-WCMC.
   Google Scholar
• Nyongesa KW, Vacik H. 2019. Evaluating management strategies for Mount Kenya Forest Reserve and National Park to reduce fire danger and address interests of various stakeholders. Forests. 10(5). doi: 10.3390/f10050426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien EA. 2005. Publics* and woodlands in England: well-being, local identity, social learning, conflict and management. Forestry. 78(4):321–336. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpi042.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Neill BC, Kriegler E, Ebi KL, Kemp-Benedict E, Riahi K, Rothman DS, van Ruijven BJ, van Vuuren DP, Birkmann J, Kok K, et al. 2017. The roads ahead: narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Global Environ Change. 42:169–180. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olander LP, Johnston RJ, Tallis H, Kagan J, Maguire LA, Polasky S, Urban D, Boyd J, Wainger L, Palmer M. 2018. Benefit relevant indicators: ecosystem services measures that link ecological and social outcomes. Ecol Indic. 85:1262–1272. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oteros-Rozas E, Martin-Lopez B, Daw TM, Bohensky EL, Butler JRA, Hill R, Martin-Ortega J, Quinlan A, Ravera F, Ruiz-Mallen I, et al. 2015. Participatory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological research: insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecol Soc. 20(4): doi: 10.5751/es-07985-200432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2021. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org. R version 4.1.3.
   Google Scholar
• Reed MS. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv. 141:2417–2431. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy R. 2019. Transformative scenario planning: unpacking theory and practice. Indian J Sci Technol. 12(6):1–18. doi: 10.17485/ijst/2019/v12i6/107741.
   Google Scholar
• Saarikoski H, Mustajoki J. 2021. Valuation through deliberation- citizens’ panels on peatland ecosystem services in Finland. Ecol Econ. 183. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106955.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlosberg D. 2007. Defining environmental justice – theories, movements and nature. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shearer AW. 2005. Approaching scenario-based studies: three perceptions about the future and considerations for landscape planning. Environ Plann B Plann Des. 32(1):67–87. doi: 10.1068/b3116.
   Google Scholar
• Sing L, Metzger MJ, Paterson JS, Ray DC. 2018. A review of the effects of forest management intensity on ecosystem services for northern European temperate forests with a focus on the UK. Forestry. 91(2):151–164. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpx042.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torralba M, Fagerholm N, Hartel T, Moreno G, Plieninger T. 2018. A social-ecological analysis of ecosystem services supply and trade-offs in European wood-pastures. Sci Adv. 4(5). doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aar2176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker G. 2012. Environmental justice – concepts, evidence and politics. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Waylen KA, Martin-Ortega J, Blackstock KL, Brown I, Uribe BEA, Hernandez SB, Bertoni MB, Bustos ML, Bayer AXC, Semerena RIE, et al. 2015. Can scenario-planning support community-based natural resource management? Experiences from three countries in Latin America. Ecol Soc. 20(4). doi: 10.5751/es-07926-200428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar