Ecosystem service trade-offs at small lakes: Preferences of the public and anglers

被引:2
作者
Meyerhoff, Jurgen [1 ]
Klefoth, Thomas [2 ]
Arlinghaus, Robert [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Hsch Wirtschaft & Recht HWR, Dept Business & Econ, Badensche Str 52, D-10825 Berlin, Germany
[2] Hsch Bremen, Fac Nat & Engn, Ecol & Conservat, Neustadtswall 30, D-28199 Bremen, Germany
[3] Leibniz Inst Freshwater Ecol & Inland Fisheries, Dept Fish Biol Fisheries & Aquaculture, Muggelseedamm 310, D-12587 Berlin, Germany
[4] Humboldt Univ, Fac Life Sci, Div Integrat Fisheries Management, Philippstr 13,Haus 7, D-10115 Berlin, Germany
关键词
choice experiment; biodiversity; individual preferences; fishing; recreation; GRAVEL-PIT LAKES; CHOICE; BIODIVERSITY; SPACE;
D O I
10.14321/aehm.025.03.01
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Small lakes provide substantial ecosystem services to society, particularly recreational services. These ecosystem services are rarely quantified. It is also unclear whether expectations about desired lake attributes by various user groups and the public at large align. In many landscapes most small lakes artificially originate from sand and gravel mining along highways and close to cities. Using a choice experiment, in samples from north-western Germany we quantified the ecological services provided by these so-called gravel pit lakes and investigated potential conflicts among the preferences of the public and anglers as a specific user group. The same visual choice sets were employed to assess the preferences for different recreational services as well as biodiversity attributes. We also tested whether the presence of anglers at the small gravel pit lakes affected how people from the public valued the services provided by the lakes. Both the public and the anglers valued the presence of endangered fish species and endangered other taxa positively, suggesting that improved conservation of biodiversity would benefit all users. The public and anglers varied in relation to the recreational uses desired at gravel pit lakes. The opportunity to swim was valued positively by the public and negatively by the surveyed anglers. Yet, the presence of anglers did not significantly reduce the value assigned to gravel pit lakes by the public, suggesting the co-existence of anglers and swimmers would be possible. Co-existence could be fostered through establishing separate angling and swimming zones. Our work suggests the presence of local trade-offs in the management of small gravel pit lakes, specifically between swimmers and anglers. However, conservation of endangered species constitutes a common goal that suits the expectations of all.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 11
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Analysing the potential to restore the multi-functionality of floodplain systems by considering ecosystem service quality, quantity and trade-offs
    Funk, Andrea
    Tschikof, Martin
    Gruener, Barbara
    Boeck, Kerstin
    Hein, Thomas
    Bondar-Kunze, Elisabeth
    RIVER RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS, 2021, 37 (02) : 221 - 232
  • [22] Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services in Costa Rica
    Locatelli, Bruno
    Imbach, Pablo
    Wunder, Sven
    ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, 2014, 41 (01) : 27 - 36
  • [23] Ecosystem service trade-offs from supply to social demand: A landscape-scale spatial analysis
    Castro, Antonio J.
    Verburg, Peter H.
    Martin-Lopez, Berta
    Garcia-Llorente, Marina
    Cabello, Javier
    Vaughn, Caryn C.
    Lopez, Enrique
    LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, 2014, 132 : 102 - 110
  • [24] Are there any trade-offs between forage provision and the ecosystem service of C and N storage in arid rangelands?
    Onatibia, Gaston R.
    Aguiar, Martin R.
    Semmartin, Maria
    ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, 2015, 77 : 26 - 32
  • [25] Trade-offs between ecosystem service provision and the predisposition to disturbances: a NFI-based scenario analysis
    Temperli, Christian
    Blattert, Clemens
    Stadelmann, Golo
    Brandli, Urs-Beat
    Thurig, Esther
    FOREST ECOSYSTEMS, 2020, 7 (01)
  • [26] The power of hydropeaking: Trade-offs between flexible hydropower and river ecosystem services in Europe
    Venus, Terese E.
    Ola, Oreoluwa
    Alp, Maria
    Baetz, Nico
    Bejarano, Maria Dolores
    Boavida, Isabel
    Bruno, Maria Cristina
    Casas-Mulet, Roser
    Carolli, Mauro
    Chiogna, Gabriele
    Gosselin, Marie-Pierre
    Halleraker, Jo H.
    Noack, Markus
    Tonolla, Diego
    Vanzo, Davide
    Hayes, Daniel S.
    ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2025, 233
  • [27] Anticipating and Managing Future Trade-offs and Complementarities between Ecosystem Services
    Reed, Mark S.
    Hubacek, Klaus
    Bonn, Aletta
    Burt, Tim P.
    Holden, Joseph
    Stringer, Lindsay C.
    Beharry-Borg, Nesha
    Buckmaster, Sarah
    Chapman, Dan
    Chapman, Pippa J.
    Clay, Gareth D.
    Cornell, Stephen J.
    Dougill, Andrew J.
    Evely, Anna C.
    Fraser, Evan D. G.
    Jin, Nanlin
    Irvine, Brian J.
    Kirkby, Mike J.
    Kunin, William E.
    Prell, Christina
    Quinn, Claire H.
    Slee, Bill
    Stagl, Sigrid
    Termansen, Mette
    Thorp, Simon
    Worrall, Fred
    ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY, 2013, 18 (01):
  • [28] Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services
    Rodriguez, Jon Paul
    Beard, T. Douglas, Jr.
    Bennett, Elena M.
    Cumming, Graeme S.
    Cork, Steven J.
    Agard, John
    Dobson, Andrew P.
    Peterson, Garry D.
    ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY, 2006, 11 (01):
  • [29] Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: Trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape
    Turner, Katrine Grace
    Odgaard, Mette Vestergaard
    Bocher, Peder K.
    Dalgaard, Tommy
    Svenning, Jens-Christian
    LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, 2014, 125 : 89 - 104
  • [30] Trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem productivity and stability in temperate grasslands
    Mahaut, Lucie
    Choler, Philippe
    Denelle, Pierre
    Garnier, Eric
    Thuiller, Wilfried
    Kattge, Jens
    Lemauviel-Lavenant, Servane
    Lavorel, Sandra
    Munoz, Francois
    Renard, Delphine
    Serra-Diaz, Josep M.
    Viovy, Nicolas
    Violle, Cyrille
    GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY, 2023, 32 (04): : 561 - 572