A watershed-based adaptive knowledge system for developing ecosystem stakeholder partnerships -- Journal of Oceanology and Limnology,2015,33(6):1476-1488

	Cite this paper:
	Hebin LIN, Jeffrey A. THORNTON, Nickolai SHADRIN. A watershed-based adaptive knowledge system for developing ecosystem stakeholder partnerships[J]. Journal of Oceanology and Limnology, 2015, 33(6): 1476-1488

A watershed-based adaptive knowledge system for developing ecosystem stakeholder partnerships

Hebin LIN¹, Jeffrey A. THORNTON^1,2,3, Nickolai SHADRIN^4,5

1 International Environmental Management Services Ltd., P O Box5 10373, New Berlin, WI5 3151, USA;
2 The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment, Texas State University, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA;
3 Graduate School of Human Development and Environment, Kobe University, 3-11 Tsurukabuto, Nada-ku, Kobe, Hyogo 657-8501, Japan;
4 Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas, Sevastopol 299011, Russia;
5 Key Laboratory of Saline Lake Resources and Environments, Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences (GAGS), Beijing 100037, China

Abstract:

This study proposes a Watershed-based Adaptive Knowledge System (WAKES) to consistently coordinate multiple stakeholders in developing sustainable partnerships for ecosystem management. WAKES is extended from the institutional mechanism of Payments for Improving Ecosystem Services at the Watershed-scale (PIES-W). PIES-W is designed relating to the governance of ecosystem services flows focused on a lake as a resource stock connecting its inflowing and outflowing rivers within its watershed. It explicitly realizes the values of conservation services provided by private land managers and incorporates their activities into the public organizing framework for ecosystem management. It implicitly extends the "upstream-to-downstream" organizing perspective to a broader vision of viewing the ecosystems as comprised of both "watershed landscapes" and "marine landscapes". Extended from PIES-W, WAKES specifies two corresponding feedback: Framework I and II. Framework I is a relationship matrix comprised of three input-output structures of primary governance factors intersecting three subsystems of a watershed with regard to ecosystem services and human stakeholders. Framework II is the Stakeholder-and-Information structure channeling five types of information among four stakeholder groups in order to enable the feedbacks mechanism of Framework I. WAKES identifies the rationales behind three fundamental information transformations, illustrated with the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and the Strategic Action Program of the Bermejo River Binational Basin. These include (1) translating scientific knowledge into public information within the Function-and-Service structure corresponding to the ecological subsystem, (2) incorporating public perceptions into political will within the Serviceand-Value structure corresponding to the economic subsystem, and (3) integrating scientific knowledge, public perceptions and political will into management options within the Value-and-Stakeholder structure corresponding to the social subsystem. This study seeks to share a vision of social adaptation for a global sustainable future through developing a network to adopt contributions from and forming partnerships among all ecosystem stakeholders.

Received: 2014-12-11 Revised: 2015-03-20

Tools

PDF ( KB) Free

Print this page

Add to favorites

Email this article to others

Authors

Articles by Hebin LIN

Articles by Jeffrey A. THORNTON

Articles by Nickolai SHADRIN

References:
Agarwal C, Tiwari S, Borgoyary M, Acharya M, Morrison E. 2007. Fair Deals for Watershed Services in India. Natural Resource Issues. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London.
Arocena-Francisco H. 2003. Environmental Service "Payments": Experiences, Constraints and Potential in the Philippines. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Bogor, Indonesia.
Asquith N, Vargas M T, 2007. Fair Deals for Watershed Services in Bolivia. IIED, London.
Blignaut J. 2008. South Africa: An Inventory of Current and Potential Projects and Markets for Payments for Ecosystem Services. Forest Trends, Washington DC.
Bracer C, Scherr S, Molnar A, Sekher M, Ochieng B O, Sriskanthan G. 2007. Organization and Governance for Fostering Pro-Poor Compensation for Environmental Services: CES scoping study. World Agroforestry Center(ICRAF), Nairobi.
Bulte E H, Lipper L, Stringer R, Zilberman D. 2008. Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction: concepts, issues, and empirical perspectives. Environ. Dev. Econ., 13 (3): 245-254.
Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI). 2002. Who Pays for Water? http://www.canari.org/who-pays-forwater/.Accessed on 2015-04-18.
China Committee for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED). 2006. Ecocompensation Mechanisms and Policies in China. http://www.caep.org.cn/english/paper/CCICED-TF-Summary-Report-on-Eco-compensation-Policy-in-China.pdf. Accessed on 2015-04-18.
Chiotha D, Kayambazinthu D. 2008. Potential Payment for Ecosystem Service (PES) in Malawi. Forest Trends, Washington DC.
Cranford M, Mourato S. 2011. Community conservation and a two-stage approach to payments for ecosystem services.Ecol. Econ., 71: 89-98.
Das R, Ali M E, Hamid S B A, Ramakrishna S, Chowdhury Z Z. 2014. Carbon nanotube membranes for water purification: a bright future in water desalination.Desalination, 336: 97-109.
Davis L E, North D C. 1971. Institutional Change and American Economic Growth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S. 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ., 65 (4): 663-674.
FAO. 2004. Payment Schemes for Environmental Services in Watersheds-Land and Water Discussion Paper 3. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome.
Farley J, Costanza R. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services:from local to global. Ecol. Econ., 69 (11): 2 060-2 068.
Ferraro P J. 2008. Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ., 65 (4): 810-821.
Forest Trends. 2007. Getting Started: An Introductory Primer to Assessing & Developing Payments for Ecosystem Service Deals. Forest Trends, Washington DC.
Gutman P. 2003. From Goodwill to Payments for Environmental Services: A Survey of Financing Options for Sustainable Natural Resource Management in Developing Countries.World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Gland.
Habron G. 2003. Role of adaptive management for watershed councils. Environ. Manag., 31 (1): 29-41.
Hartmann J, Peterson L. 2004. "Marketing" Environmental Services: Lessons Learned in German Development Cooperation. http://www.mekonginfo.org/document/0003404-inland-waters-marketing-environmental-serviceslessons-learned-in-german-development-cooperation.Accessed on 2015-04-18.
Holling C S. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Wiley, London.
Huang M, Upadhyaya S K. 2007. Watershed-based Payment for Environmental Services in Asia. SANREM CRSP, VPISU, Blacksburg. http://www.oired.vt.edu/sanremcrsp/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Sept.2007.PESAsia.pdf. Accessed on 2015-04-18.
Jack B K, Kousky C, Sims K R E. 2008. Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. P roceedings of the N ational A cademy of S ciences of the Unites Stated of America, 105 (28): 9 465-9 467.
Jin S M, Yang L M, Danielson P, Homer C, Fry J, Xian G. 2013. A comprehensive change detection method for updating the national land cover database to circa 2011.Remote Sensing of Environment, 132: 159-175.
Kemkes R J, Farley J, Koliba C J. 2010. Determining when payments are an effective policy approach to ecosystem service provision. Ecol. Econ., 69 (11): 2 069-2 074.
King N, Wise R, Bond I. 2008. Fair Deals for Watershed Services in South Africa. IIED, London.
Klein P G. 1999. New institutional economics. In: Bouckaert B R A, De Geest G eds. Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. p.456-489.
Kosoy N, Corbera E, Brown K. 2008. Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum, 39 (6): 2 073-2 083.
Kosoy N, Corbera E. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol. Econ., 69 (6): 1 228-1 236.
Landell-Mills N, Porras I. 2002. Silver Bullet or Fool's Gold:A Global Review of Markets for Forest Environmental Services and Their Impacts on the Poor. Instruments for Sustainable Private Sector Forestry Series. IIED, London.
Leimona B, Van Noordwijk M, De Groot R, Leemans R. 2015.Fairly efficient, efficiently fair: lessons from designing and testing payment schemes for ecosystem services in Asia. Ecosystem Services, 12: 16-28.
Lin H, Nakamura M. 2012. Payments for watershed services:directing incentives for improving lake basin governance.Lake Reserv. Res. Manag., 17 (3): 191-206.
Lin H, Thornton J A, Slawski T M, Rast W. 2013b. Partnerships of payments for ecosystem services on the watershed scale. Aquat. Sci. Technol., 1 (1): 119-142.
Lin H, Thornton J A, Slawski T M. 2013a. Participatory and evolutionary integrated lake basin management. Lake Reserv. Res. Manag., 18 (1): 81-87.
Lin H, Thornton J A. 2014. Integrated payments for ecosystem services: a governance path from lakes and rivers to coastal areas in China. In: Mohammed E Y ed. Economic Incentives for Marine and Coastal Conservation:Prospects, Challenges and Policy Implication. Routledge, Oxon, UK. p.69-92.
Lin H, Ueta K. 2012. Lake watershed management: services, monitoring, funding and governance. Lake Reserv. Res.Manag., 17 (3): 207-223.
Lin H. 2012. The global science of integrated water governance.J. Environ. Sci. Engin. B, 1 (10): 1 167-1 174.
Mayrand K, Paquin M. 2004. Payments for Environmental Services: A Survey and Assessment of Current Schemes.
http://www3.cec.org/islandora/en/item/2171-paymentsenvironmental-services-survey-and-assessment-currentschemes-en.pdf. Accessed on 2015-04-18.
McAfee M, Shapiro E N. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services in Mexico: nature, neoliberalism, social movements, and the state. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 100 (3): 579-599.
McIntosh S, Leotaud N. 2007. Fair Deals for Watershed Services in the Caribbean. IIED, London.MEA. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Island Press, Washington DC.Mwangi S. 2008. Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in East and Southern Africa: Assessing Prospects & Pathways Forward. Forest Trends, Washington DC.
OAS. 2000. Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis of the Binational Basin of the Bermejo River. Organization of American States (OAS), Washington DC.
OAS. 2010. Strategic Action Program for the Binational Basin of the Bermejo River (SAP-Bermejo): Implementation Phase. OAS, Washington DC.
Randimby N A, Razafintsalama N, Andriamampianina L, Reed E, Raheliarisoa S, Andriamahenina F, Andrianavalomanampy T, Andriamalala H. 2008. An Inventory of Initiatives/Activities and Legislation Pertaining to Ecosystem Service Payment Schemes (PES)in Madagascar. Forest Trends, Washington DC.
Redford K H, Adams W M. 2009. Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conserv.Biol., 23 (2): 785-787.
Reed M S, Stringer L C, Dougill A J, Perkins J S, Atlhopheng J R, Mulale K, Favretto N. 2015. Reorienting land degradation towards sustainable land management:linking sustainable livelihoods with ecosystem services in rangeland systems. J. Environ. Manage., 151: 472-485.
Ruhweza A, Biryahwaho B, Kalanzi C. 2008. An Inventory of PES Schemes in Uganda. Forest Trends, Washington DC.
Scurrah-Ehrhart C. 2006. Tanzania: Inventory of Payments for Ecosystem Services. Forest Trends, Washington DC.
Simley J D, Carswell W J Jr. 2009. The National Map-Hydrography. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3054/. Accessed on 2015-04-18.
Southgate D, Wunder S. 2009. Paying for Watershed Services in Latin America: A Review of Current Initiatives. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 28 (3-5): 497-524.
Swallow B, Leimona B, Yatich T, Velarde S J, Puttaswamaiah S. 2007. The Conditions for Effective Mechanisms of Compensation and Rewards for Environmental Services.CES Scoping Study, ICRAF, Nairobi, KE.
U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2012. Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset(WBD). 3 rd edn. http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm11a3/.Accessed on 2015-04-18.
UNEP. 2004. Global International Waters Assessment-Patagonian Shelf. University of Kalmar on behalf of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi.
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 2007. Lessons and Best Practices for Pro-poor Payment for Ecosystem Services. SANREM CRSP, VPISU, Blacksburg. http://www.oired.vt.edu/sanremcrsp/wpcontent/uploads/2013/11/PES.Sourcebook.pdf. Accessed on 2015-04-18.
Van Noordwijk M, Leimona B. 2010. CES/COS/CIS Paradigms for Compensation and Rewards to Enhance Environmental Services. ICRAF, Bogor, Indonesia.
Williamson O E. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Eq.al Contracting. Free Press, New York.
Williamson O E. 1998. Transaction cost economics: how it works; where it is headed. De Economist, 146 (1): 23-58.
Wunder S. 2005. Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts. Center for International Forestry Research(CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.
Wunder S. 2008. Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence. Environ. Dev.Econ., 13 (3): 279-297.
Wunscher T, Engel S, Wunder S. 2008. Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecol. Econ., 65(4): 822-833.