Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Coastal Community Values for Marsh-Dependent Socioecological Services Revealed through a Systematic Qualitative Approach

  • Lisa Wainger, Anna McMurray, Michael Paolisso, Katherine J. Johnson and Brian Needelman...
Abstract

A qualitative ranking method, Q methodology, was used to assess stakeholder priorities for socioecological services derived from coastal marshes and communities. The goal was to reveal strength of concerns for and tradeoffs among effects of coastal resilience strategies. Factor analysis identified three perspectives that formed a spectrum from high to low priorities on intangible services. Academic and government stakeholders were more likely than local residents to prioritize intangible services, but stakeholder views were diverse. A collaborative learning process promoted some alignment of views and academics showed the most movement – towards residents’ perspectives. Q-sort appeared effective at efficiently synthesizing broad concerns.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Coastal Community Values for Marsh-Dependent Socioecological Services Revealed through a Systematic Qualitative Approach
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Coastal Community Values for Marsh-Dependent Socioecological Services Revealed through a Systematic Qualitative Approach
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Coastal Community Values for Marsh-Dependent Socioecological Services Revealed through a Systematic Qualitative Approach
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Corresponding author
Correspondence: Lisa A. Wainger ■ University of Maryland Center for Environmental ScienceChesapeake Biological LabP.O. Box 38Solomons, MD 20688 USA ■ Phone: 410-326-7401 ■ Email wainger@umces.edu
Footnotes
Hide All

We are grateful to Natallia (Natasha) Leuchanka and Robert Tjaden for assisting in developing and conducting the Q set and Q sort exercises. We also thank project co-lead Sasha Land for supporting the process in a multitude of ways and are indebted to Chris Feurt for valuable early discussions on social science approaches. Finally, we are thankful for the time and commitment of the entire group who developed and participated in the collaborative learning process.

This work was supported by funding from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), National Estuarine Research Reserve Science Collaborative under NOAA Grant Number NA09NOS4190153. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or the National Estuarine Research Reserve Program.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Boesch, D.F., and Turner, R.E.. 1984. “Dependence of Fishery Species on Salt Marshes: The Role of Food and Refuge.” Estuaries 7(4): 460468.
Brown, L.R. 2003. “Will Tidal Wetland Restoration Enhance Populations of Native Fishes?San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 1(1). jmie_sfews_10953.
Daniels, S.E., and Walker, G.B.. 2001. Working through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach. Westport CT: Praeger Publishers.
Feurt, C.B. 2008. “Collaborative Learning Guide for Ecosystem Management.” University of New England Faculty Publication. http://dune.une.edu/env_facpubs. (Accessed April 2017).
Gedan, K.B., Silliman, B.R., and Bertness, M.D.. 2009. “Centuries of Human-Driven Change in Salt Marsh Ecosystems.” Annual Review of Marine Science 1(1): 117141.
Gregory, R., and Slovic, P.. 1997. “A Constructive Approach to Environmental Valuation.” Ecological Economics 21(3): 175181.
Guest, G. 2014. “Sampling and Selecting Participants in Field Research.” In Bernard, H.R. and Gravelee, C.C., eds., Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology. 215249. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Hunter, W.C. 2013. “Understanding Resident Subjectivities toward Tourism Using Q Method: Orchid Island, Taiwan.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21(2): 331354.
Johnson, K, Needelman, B., and Paolisso, M.. 2017. “Vulnerability and Resilience to Climate Change in a Rural Coastal Community.” In Companion, M. and Chaiken, M., eds., Responses to Disasters and Climate Change: Understanding Vulnerability and Fostering Resilience. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Johnson, K. 2016. “Resilience to Climate Change: An Ethnographic Approach.” Doctoral Dissertation, College Park, MD: Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland.
Johnston, R.J., Magnusson, G., Mazzotta, M.J., and Opaluch, J.J.. 2002. “Combining Economic and Ecological Indicators to Prioritize Salt Marsh Restoration Actions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(5): 13621370.
Kaplowitz, M.D., and Hoehn, J.P.. 2001. “Do Focus Groups and Personal Interviews Cast the Same Light on Natural Resource Valuation?Ecological Economics 36(2): 237247.
List, J.A., and Gallet, C.A.. 2001. “What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?Environmental and Resource Economics 20(3): 241254.
Lo, A.Y., and Spash, C.L.. 2013. “Deliberative Monetary Valuation: In Search of a Democratic and Value Plural Approach to Environmental Policy.” Journal of Economic Surveys 27(4): 768789.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. “Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis.” Washington, DC: Island Press. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf. (Accessed April 2017).
National Research Council. 2005. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision-Making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Needelman, B., Paolisso, M., Land, S., Leisnham, P., Baldwin, A., Johnson, K., Wainger, L., McMurray, A., and Dindinger, J.. 2015. “Integrating Socio-Ecological Research and Collaborative Learning to Promote Marsh and Community Resilience: A Final Report Submitted to the National Estuarine Research Reserve System Science Collaborative.” http://www.nerra.org/projects/enhancing-resilience-on-marylands-deal-island/. (Accessed April 2017).
Niemeyer, S. 2004. “Deliberation in the Wilderness: Displacing Symbolic Politics.” Environmental Politics 13(2): 347372.
Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C.B., Norgaard, R.B., and Policansky, D.. 1999. “Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges.” Science 284(5412): 278282.
Paolisso, M. 2002. “Blue Crabs and Controversy on the Chesapeake Bay: A Cultural Model for Understanding Watermen's Reasoning about Blue Crab Management.” Human Organization 61(3): 226239.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C.M., and Ormston, R.. 2014. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Los Angeles: SAGE Publishing, Inc.
Robinson, L.A., and Hammitt, J.K.. 2011. “Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards.” Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 2(02): 151.
Schmolck, P., and Atkinson, J.. 2014. PQ Method (Software, Version 2.35). http://schmolck.userweb.mwn.de/qmethod. (Accessed April 2017).
Starr, M.A. 2014. “Qualitative and Mixed-Methods Research in Economics: Surprising Growth, Promising Future.” Journal of Economic Surveys 28(2): 238264.
Steelman, T.A., and Maguire, L.A.. 1999. “Understanding Participant Perspectives: Q-Methodology in National Forest Management.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18(3): 361388.
Turner, R.K., Georgiou, S.G., and Fisher, B.. 2008. Valuing Ecosystem Services: The Case of Multi-Functional Wetlands. London: Earthscan.
US Census Bureau. 2010. “American FactFinder.” http://factfinder2.census.gov. (Tabulated by K. Johnson in 2014).
Van Exel, J., and de Graaf, G.. 2005. “Q Methodology: A Sneak Preview.” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228574836_Q_Methodology_A_Sneak_Preview. (Accessed April 2017).
Van Exel, J., Baker, R., Mason, H., Donaldson, C., and Brouwer, W.. 2015. “Public Views on Principles for Health Care Priority Setting: Findings of a European Cross-Country Study Using Q Methodology.” Social Science & Medicine 126(February): 128137.
Wainger, L., and Mazzotta, M.. 2011. “Realizing the Potential of Ecosystem Services: A Framework for Relating Ecological Changes to Economic Benefits.” Environmental Management 48(4): 710733.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Agricultural and Resource Economics Review
  • ISSN: 1068-2805
  • EISSN: 2372-2614
  • URL: /core/journals/agricultural-and-resource-economics-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed