TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparing the social values of ecosystem services in US and Australian marine protected areas
AU - Johnson, Dana N.
AU - van Riper, Carena J.
AU - Chu, Maria
AU - Winkler-Schor, Sophia
N1 - The first author completed this research as part of her honor’s thesis in the College of Agriculture, Consumer, and Environmental Science’s (ACES) James Scholar program at the University of Illinois, and was supported by funding from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch program (accession #1012211). Funding for the initial phases of this research was provided by Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Laboratory at Texas A&M University, the Fishing and Fisheries Research Centre at James Cook University, and the James Villo Fellowship for Marine Recreation Research. Thanks are extended to Gerard Kyle (Texas A&M), Stephen Sutton (Atlantic Salmon Federation), Renae Tobin (James Cook University), Russel Galipeau (National Park Service), Ken Bagstad (US Geological Survey), and Ben Sherrouse (US Geological Survey) for their conceptual guidance and assistance with various phases of the research process.
The first author completed this research as part of her honor's thesis in the College of Agriculture, Consumer, and Environmental Science's (ACES) James Scholar program at the University of Illinois, and was supported by funding from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch program (accession #1012211). Funding for the initial phases of this research was provided by Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Laboratory at Texas A&M University, the Fishing and Fisheries Research Centre at James Cook University, and the James Villo Fellowship for Marine Recreation Research. Thanks are extended to Gerard Kyle (Texas A&M), Stephen Sutton (Atlantic Salmon Federation), Renae Tobin (James Cook University), Russel Galipeau (National Park Service), Ken Bagstad (US Geological Survey), and Ben Sherrouse (US Geological Survey) for their conceptual guidance and assistance with various phases of the research process.
PY - 2019/6
Y1 - 2019/6
N2 - Spatially explicit models for conservation planning often rely on environmental and economic indicators to prioritize management decisions. Consideration of social values in relation to landscape metrics is less common, especially across different biophysical contexts. In this paper, we compare social values mapped by outdoor recreationists who visited Santa Cruz Island within Channel Islands National Park, USA, and Hinchinbrook Island National Park, Australia using a Social Values for Ecosystem Services mapping tool that interfaced with Maximum Entropy modeling. Specifically, we determine the relative importance of 12 social values and evaluate how the relationship between three highly rated social values (Aesthetic, Biological Diversity, and Recreation) and four biophysical metrics (distance to the coast, distance to management infrastructure, slope, and elevation) differed between two marine protected areas. Our results provide insight into the spatial dynamics of social-ecological data to identify high and low priority locations in protected areas as well as enable resource management agencies to make more informed decisions about how best to engage with stakeholders. This research also supports public involvement in policy-making about land and seascapes in the USA and Australia.
AB - Spatially explicit models for conservation planning often rely on environmental and economic indicators to prioritize management decisions. Consideration of social values in relation to landscape metrics is less common, especially across different biophysical contexts. In this paper, we compare social values mapped by outdoor recreationists who visited Santa Cruz Island within Channel Islands National Park, USA, and Hinchinbrook Island National Park, Australia using a Social Values for Ecosystem Services mapping tool that interfaced with Maximum Entropy modeling. Specifically, we determine the relative importance of 12 social values and evaluate how the relationship between three highly rated social values (Aesthetic, Biological Diversity, and Recreation) and four biophysical metrics (distance to the coast, distance to management infrastructure, slope, and elevation) differed between two marine protected areas. Our results provide insight into the spatial dynamics of social-ecological data to identify high and low priority locations in protected areas as well as enable resource management agencies to make more informed decisions about how best to engage with stakeholders. This research also supports public involvement in policy-making about land and seascapes in the USA and Australia.
KW - Ecosystem services
KW - Marine spatial planning
KW - PPGIS
KW - Recreation
KW - Social values
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063536400&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85063536400&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100919
DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100919
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85063536400
SN - 2212-0416
VL - 37
JO - Ecosystem Services
JF - Ecosystem Services
M1 - 100919
ER -