Ocean and Coastal Management 185 (2020) 105028

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean and Coastal Management

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Frontiers in coastal well-being and ecosystem services research: A

systematic review
Jessica Blythe a, *, Derek Armitage b, Georgina Alonso c, Donovan Campbell d,
Ana Carolina Esteves Dias b, Graham Epstein b, Melissa Marschke c, Prateep Nayak e
a
Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada
b
School of Environment, Resources, and Sustainability, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
c
School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
d
Department of Geography, University of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica
e
School of Environment, Enterprise and Development, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Integrated approaches to engage coastal communities in management are urgently needed to address coastal
Coastal change and associated uncertainty. Towards this aim, understanding the complex relationships between coastal
Ecosystem services well-being and ecosystem services provides a foundation for a range of management and governance in­
Well-being
terventions. While these relationships are considered in a growing number of case-based studies, the complexity
Interdisciplinary
Systematic review
of these linkages has not been comprehensively assessed. We use a systematic review protocol of 50 articles
published between 2008 and 2018 to assess the evidence about the interplay among coastal well-being and
ecosystem services. We find that empirical research has fallen behind theoretical development in five key areas:
1) geographic diversity; 2) disaggregated data; 3) temporal dynamics; 4) co-production, and; 5) uncertainty of
outcomes. We highlight these gaps as frontiers for interdisciplinary coastal well-being and ecosystem service
research. Together, the five frontiers chart a potential new research agenda for coastal well-being and ecosystem
services research, namely one that involves more cases and authors from the Global South, that explicitly ex­
plores social differentiation and changes overtime, that is collaborative from the start, and that engages
empirically with the complexity and uncertainty of well-being-ecosystem service interactions and their impli­
cations for enhancing management. Our proposed agenda is vital to inform management that effectively supports
the health and sustainability of coastal social-ecological systems.

1. Introduction sustainability (Jacquet and Jackson, 2018).

Oceans cover more than 70% of the Earth’s surface. They regulate
our climate and provide us with food, energy, transportation, sense of
identity, spiritual and cultural values (Barbier, 2017). Oceans and coasts
support the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people and contribute
more than 60% of the total economic value of the biosphere (Martinez
et al., 2007). Yet, oceans are some of the most heavily impacted systems
on the planet (Nicholls and Cazenave, 2010). Once vast and remote
spaces, marine ecosystems are now under extraordinary anthropogenic
pressure (Hughes et al., 2017). More than 40% of the world’s 7.5 billion
people live within 200 km of the coast and this number is expected to
rise (Neumann et al., 2015). Climate change, land-based pollution, un­
sustainable resource extraction, and habitat degradation threaten ocean
Interdisciplinary approaches and methods to engage coastal com­
munities in management are urgently needed to address coastal change
and associated uncertainty. Ecosystem services and well-being concepts
are increasingly promoted as approaches for integrated coastal man­
agement in response to these challenges (Abunge et al., 2013; Kittinger
et al., 2014). Indeed, the United Nations’ Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), including SDG 14 Life Below Water, aim to realize uni­
versal social well-being (UN, 2015; Costanza et al., 2016). The proposed
Decade for Ocean Science for Sustainable Development “will provide a
unifying framework across the UN system to enable countries to achieve
all of their ocean-related Agenda 2030 priorities …. [and] will have a
significant impact on helping many countries to achieve the Sustainable
Development Goals needed to support the health and well-being of their

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jblythe2@brocku.ca (J. Blythe).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105028
Received 3 June 2019; Received in revised form 25 September 2019; Accepted 15 October 2019
Available online 6 November 2019
0964-5691/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Blythe et al.
communities and to achieve food security” (UN, 2018: 7). Well-being
and ecosystem services approaches are also important for the practical
implementation of conservation policies and initiatives such as the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (Berbes-Blazquez et al., 2016; Diaz et al., 2018;
Pascual et al., 2017). The field of coastal well-being and ecosystem
research is thus growing rapidly, through increasing publications,
practical applications, and substantial influence achieved with govern­
ment and non-government organizations.
The relationships among well-being and ecosystem services are
considered in a growing number of case-based research studies, but the
complexity of these linkages has not been comprehensively assessed.
Previous reviews have focused on indicators for assessing coastal
ecosystem services (Liquete et al., 2013; Piroddie et al., 2013; Hattam
et al., 2015) and the importance of cultural coastal ecosystem services
(Martin et al., 2016). These analyses are useful in clarifying specific
elements of the rapidly expanding field, yet they do not provide a
comprehensive overview of the state of knowledge on coastal well-being
and ecosystem services in combination. This information is crucial for
coastal policy-makers, practitioners, and researchers alike.
To address this knowledge gap, we conduct a systematic review of
the interdisciplinary literature in which coastal well-being and
ecosystem service constructs are explicitly linked. Our review aims to
answer three research questions:
1) What characterizes coastal well-being and ecosystem services
research? Specifically, where is this relationship studied and which
aspects of well-being and ecosystem services are measured?
2) What methodological trends shape current research on coastal well-
being and ecosystem services?
3) How do different coastal groups derive well-being benefits from
different coastal ecosystem services?
In section 2, we outline the conceptual foundations of our work. We
describe our systematic literature search and coding methodology in
section 3. In section 4, following our central research questions, we
describe the distribution of aspects of well-being and ecosystem services,
present the methodological trends and characterize the coastal well-
being and ecosystem service linkage reflected in our sample. Based on
these results, we articulate five frontiers in linked well-being and
ecosystem services research in section 5. These include geographic di­
versity, disaggregated data, temporal dynamics, co-production, and
uncertainty of outcomes. Importantly, the frontiers we identify are not
reflective of gaps in well-being and ecosystems theory. Rather, our re­
view highlights that much of the empirical research is falling behind
theoretical developments in the field. In section 6, we conclude with a
summary of how these insights might usefully inform current and future
coastal research and management.
2. Conceptual overview
Ecosystem services are defined as the flows of benefits that people
derive from nature through provisioning, regulating, supporting and
cultural functions (MA, 2005; Daw et al., 2016; Ha €yha
€ and Franzese,
2014; Reyers et al., 2013). In turn, social well-being is an approach to
understand three related dimensions of a life well-lived: 1) a material
dimension; 2) a relational dimension; and 3) a subjective dimension
(Armitage et al., 2017; Coulthard et al., 2011; Marschke and Berkes,
2006; Weeratunge et al., 2014). Together, well-being and ecosystem
service concepts can offer linked social-ecological insights on how best
to craft and implement management interventions and processes (e.g.,
resource rights allocations, zoning for protection and use, flexible in­
stitutions) appropriate in rapidly changing coastal systems (Ban et al.,
2013; Kittinger et al., 2014; MA, 2005; Tallis and Polasky, 2009).
Interest in the ecosystem services concept has increased significantly
since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005). A wide range
2
Ocean and Coastal Management 185 (2020) 105028
of interdisciplinary studies have sought to examine ecosystem services
and their interactions across scales (Howe et al., 2014); to develop
strategies to better value and measure ecosystem services (Martin-Lopez
et al., 2012; Balvanera et al., 2017); and to use ecosystem service con­
cepts as a basis for policy, governance and decision-making (Goldstein
et al., 2012; Lau et al., 2018; Turner and Schaafsma, 2015). Even so, the
ecosystem service concept has been critiqued for its emphasis on eco­
nomic production and for assigning economic values to goods and/or
ecosystem processes that may have intrinsic meaning, like sense of place
which is not easily monetized (see Klain et al., 2014; Raymond et al.,
2013; Turnhout et al., 2013). Individual perceptions of ecosystem ser­
vices are also increasingly recognized as context-dependent, spatially
contingent, identity-bound, gendered, age specific and influenced by the
social and cultural worlds in which they are embedded (Chan et al.,
2012; Martin-Lopez et al., 2012; Reyers et al., 2013).
Well-being has emerged as one way to understand the importance of
people’s connections to ecosystems, emphasizing their relational and
subjective importance, in addition to their individual/material contri­
butions to a life well lived (Coulthard et al. 2011, 2017; Deneulin and
McGregor, 2010). Recent literature on well-being goes beyond the ma­
terial (assets) and basic needs conception and reflects the importance of
social, psychological, and cultural needs required to thrive (McGregor
et al., 2009). Importantly, interactions between well-being and
ecosystem services often involve trade-offs, non-linear feedback across
scales, and differential access to ecosystem benefits through time and
space (Armitage et al., 2017; Bennett et al., 2009; Daw et al., 2011;
Howe et al., 2014; MA, 2005; Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2010Ba). The
negative impacts of the use of some ecosystem services, for example,
may only be experienced at some point in the future or at local scales, as
in the case with climate change.
The relationship between ecosystems and well-being is still framed
largely in terms of material benefits (e.g., harvesting fish to generate
income) (MA, 2005). There is a need to examine more systematically the
interplay among ecosystem service bundles (Bennett et al., 2009) and a
conception of well-being that also includes relational and subjective
dimensions. This requires a move beyond a few selected indicators or
proxies that emphasize material outcomes and economic valuations of
primarily the provisioning benefits we derive from nature (Raymond
et al., 2013). Understanding what ecosystem services are crucial for
what dimensions of well-being of coastal communities is not
well-understood, nor are the ways in which communities produce
ecosystem services through choices of certain resources to use. We turn
now to a systematic review and examination of a defined literature in
which these concepts are meant to be integrated.
3. Materials and methods
Despite the rapidly expanding body of literature that identifies the
importance of coastal and marine ecosystem services to support human
well-being, the complexity of this relationship means that generaliza­
tions are difficult to draw from case studies alone. A systematic litera­
ture review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of
knowledge on a given topic whilst limiting biases and ensuring trans­
parency and consistency (Ford et al., 2011; Pullin and Stewart, 2006). In
particular, systematic reviews place an emphasis on a priori protocols,
comprehensive search strategies, clear article inclusion/exclusion
criteria, and transparency throughout the review process (Suri and
Clarke, 2009). Systematic reviews have been widely utilised in the
health sciences, and they are now used in a variety of environmental
contexts (Biesbroek et al., 2013; Ford and Pearce, 2010). We employ a
systematic review protocol here to assess the existing evidence on the
interplay between well-being and ecosystem services in coastal
social-ecological systems.
This review follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) system (Moher et al., 2009). In
Phase 1, we performed a keyword query in the search engine Scopus
J. Blythe et al.
using all possible combinations of the terms in Table 1. We employed the
key search terms “ecosystem service” and “well-being” within coastal
and marine systems to generate a well-defined population of case studies
that use those terms explicitly. This approach necessarily excludes
literature that engages with components of well-being more broadly
defined, using terms such as welfare, social welfare, or benefits for
example. Scopus was purposefully selected for its broad coverage of
environmental studies, social sciences, and natural sciences. The review
focused on peer-reviewed literature published between 2008 and 2018.
This timeframe was designed to collate the rapid uptake of the terms
ecosystem services and well-being in the literature following the pub­
lication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005). Searches
were finalised on March 31, 2018. This process resulted in the retrieval
of 220 articles.
In Phase 2, the 220 articles were assessed for suitability based on the
inclusion and exclusion criteria presented in Table 2. We reviewed
document titles, abstracts, and keywords. Papers were subject to a full-
text read through when necessary to confirm their alignment with our
inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included documents when they
reported the results of an empirical study and focused on both ecosystem
services and well-being (Table 2). After this round of screening, 50 ar­
ticles were retained for full analysis (Fig. 1, Supplementary Materials 1).
Phase 3 involved reading the entire paper and coding. To standardize
our analysis of the articles, we developed a codebook and a coding sheet
in Excel following the coding scheme for meta-analysis (Brown, 2003).
The codes were guided by three central research questions: 1) What
characterizes coastal well-being and ecosystem services research? Spe­
cifically, where is this relationship studied and which aspects of
well-being and ecosystem services are measured? 2) What methodo­
logical trends shape current research on coastal well-being and
ecosystem services? 3) How do different coastal groups derive
well-being benefits from different coastal ecosystem services? The
codebook included the name of each variable (e.g., temporal scale of
ES), a guiding question and/or description of each variable (e.g., over
what time period are ES being studied?), and potential categories for
that variable where appropriate (e.g., snapshot, historical, longitudinal,
other). Given the nature of the data, particularly the propensity of in­
dividual articles to include vague reference to multiple categories for
numerous variables, qualitative analysis is considered most appropriate
for our analysis (Pawson et al., 2005).
4. Results
4.1. Characterising the coastal well-being and ecosystem services
literature
Once trailing research on terrestrial ecosystem services (Liquete
et al., 2013), our review reveals an increase in research and publication
on coastal well-being and ecosystem services with over 220 papers
found in the primary literature over the last ten years. After screening for
our inclusion criteria, a total of 50 papers were included in the analysis.
The elimination of 170 papers based on content screening demonstrates
that while many papers use the language of well-being and ecosystems
services to frame their papers conceptually, these concepts are less
commonly operationalized in empirical research.
Table 1
Search terms used in the systematic review.
Ecosystem services Well-being Coastal
Ecosystem service* Well-being Marine
Environment service* AND AND Coast*
Ecosystem good* Ocean
Environmental good* Sea*
Seascape*
Note: each search term was enclosed by double quotes “ …”
3
Ocean and Coastal Management 185 (2020) 105028
Table 2
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for article selection.
Inclusion Exclusion
Phase 1. Keyword search (see Table 1)
English Non-English
Indexed in Scopus Not available via Scopus
1 January 2008–March 31, 2018 Pre-2008 or after March 31, 2018
Article, book chapter, article in Other (e.g., abstracts only, erratum, etc.)
press
Phase 2. Title & abstract review (full text review when necessary)
Empirical study Conceptual, theoretical, or perspective studies
Analytical focus is on the Analytical focus on only one of ES or WB; ES
relationship among ES and WB and/or WB mentioned but not the focus of the
research
Exploration of the geographic coverage of coastal well-being and
ecosystem services studies indicates that more than half (54%) of
empirical cases were based within Europe. European based articles
focused most commonly on the United Kingdom, followed by Spain and
Portugal. Oceania accounted for 20% of the case studies, while Asia
represented 7%. Central and South America, North America and Africa
represented 5% of the empirical case studies each. The remainder were
global (3%) in scope.
The ecosystem services measured in the reviewed papers are illus­
trated in Fig. 2. Provisioning services were considered most frequently
(n ¼ 51), followed by regulating & maintenance services (n ¼ 48) and
cultural services (n ¼ 37). Food provisioning was measured by 33 of 50
articles. Following food, the most commonly measured individual
ecosystem services included recreation and tourism (n ¼ 20), symbolic
and aesthetic value (n ¼ 15), coastal protection (n ¼ 10) and life cycle
maintenance (n ¼ 10).
Employment was the most commonly considered aspect of well-
being (Fig. 3). Following employment (n ¼ 24), the reviewed papers
considered health (n ¼ 15), food security (n ¼ 10), social capital (n ¼ 9),
and place attachment (n ¼ 8).
4.2. Methodological trends
Our review focuses on linked well-being and ecosystem services.
However, the majority of empirical research in our sample considers
ecosystem services and well-being separately, and our analysis of
methodological trends is subsequently organized by ecosystem services
and well-being.
Approximately two thirds (64%) of the empirical cases that we
reviewed drew on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment to define the
ecosystem services (Fig. 4). This finding suggests that much of the
ongoing research is not engaging with theoretical developments in the
field. In 2010 the MA framework was given a significant update in what
is often referred to as the cascade model (De Groot et al., 2010). This
model emphasizes that ecosystem structure and function underpin
ecosystem services, and further illustrates how humans are critical in the
production of ecosystem services. As an example, people can increase
provisioning services through the use of fertilizers, irrigation, pest
control, and labour (De Groot et al., 2010). Furthermore, in 2013, a
social-ecological perspective on ecosystem services emerged (see Reyers
et al., 2013) emphasizing: i) the inherent coupling of nature and people;
ii) that multiple services are often produced together in ‘bundles’; iii)
and that well-being is not a homogenous outcome, but rather highly
differentiated. These two seminal papers provide examples that are not
yet accounted for in much of the empirical studies we reviewed (Bennett
and Chaplin-Kramer, 2016; Costanza et al., 2017).
Almost three quarters (71%) of papers measured ecosystem services
at a single point in time (Fig. 4). While is it generally acknowledged that
well-being and ecosystem services are dynamic over space and time, the
‘snapshot’ approach remains common. Analysis of how these relation­
ships change over time has been identified as an important frontier in
J. Blythe et al.
Fig. 1. Summary of selection and screening process.
Note: Many articles can be classified within multiple exclusion criteria. Documents were allocated based on assessment of primary reason for exclusion.
the field (Bennett and Chaplin-Kramer, 2016; Peterson et al., 2018). For
example, Peterson et al. (2018: 1) argue that dynamic notions of
well-being and ecosystem services embodied in the nature’s contribu­
tion to people approach, “connects nature to people’s capacity to navi­
gate the future, providing a better fit to planning processes, which deal
with variation and surprise more than the relative static concept of
ecosystem services”.
Data on ecosystem services was collected through a variety of
methods, including surveys (26%), focus groups (22%), and interviews
(15%) among others (Fig. 4). Analysis at the local and regional scales
was most common (43% and 40%, respectively). Cases reviewed ranged
across a wide variety of coastal habitat types, such as beaches, man­
groves, estuaries, and coral reefs.
In contrast to the fairly ubiquitous definition of ecosystem services,
nearly half (44%) of the articles we reviewed did not explicitly refer to a
framework to define well-being in the context of ecosystem services
(Fig. 5). This lack of clarity is surprising. Our review reveals that while
most studies we assessed drew attention to the connection between well-
being and ecosystem services, key terms are not always adequately
defined and the relationships between them rarely measured.
In addition, the distinction between ecosystem services and di­
mensions of well-being was often unclear in the reviewed papers. For
example, recreation and aesthetic values were classified both as cultural
ecosystem services as well as dimensions of well-being (see Figs. 3 and
4). In such cases, it is difficult for readers to discern how ecosystem
services, benefits and well-being are classified for analytical purposes.
This lack of clarity appears especially prevalent for cultural services,
which was the least studied category of ecosystem services in the papers
reviewed.
In the manuscripts we assessed, well-being data was collected using a
range of tools, including surveys (28%), focus groups (15%), and in­
terviews (12%) among others (Fig. 5). We are not able to draw particular
conclusions from this but would expect a tendency toward qualitative
4
Ocean and Coastal Management 185 (2020) 105028
approaches given the social science foundations of well-being. Most
articles analysed well-being at the local scale (46%), followed by the
regional scale (20%). Unexpectedly, the spatial scale of analysis was not
specified in nearly a quarter (24%) of the articles reviewed. Like the
trend for ecosystem services, well-being was measured at a single point
in time in almost two thirds (61%) of the articles.
Of the papers we reviewed, only six (12%) were co-designed (Fig. 5).
Of the six co-designed research projects, only two reported on rigorous
participatory approaches where local stakeholders contributed to the
formulation of the research design as well as to the results. For example,
employ a collaborative scoping approach to explore multiple values of
ecosystem services in Portugal. Through this three-stage process,
stakeholders are involved in the problem framing, the development of a
shared understanding of how various decisions will affect ecosystem
services, and the articulation of different values assigned to ecosystem
services. Nicholls et al. (2016) also employed a participatory approach
for assessing the relationship between ecosystem services and liveli­
hoods in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna Delta in Bangladesh “to
ensure that the project was able to respond to stakeholder priorities and
knowledge, and that stakeholder expectations were realistic” (Nicholls
et al., 2016, p. 374). The other four studies involved consultation with
stakeholder groups largely to inform the evaluation process.
Less than half (34%) of the articles reviewed employed disaggregate
measures for well-being (Fig. 5). Of the articles that did disaggregate
well-being, 12 papers disaggregated their data by stakeholder group (e.
g., fishers vs. tourists), 4 papers disaggregated their data by geographic
location (e.g., urban vs. rural), 2 papers disaggregated their data by
education level, and 2 papers (or 4% of the total papers reviewed)
disaggregate by gender. However, even within the papers that collected
gender disaggregated data, the gendered dimensions of ecosystem ser­
vice access and differentiated well-being was largely absent from the
results and discussion.
J. Blythe et al.
Fig. 2. Coastal ecosystem services considered in reviewed papers (frequency). Classification based on the typology for marine and coastal ecosystem services
developed by Liquete et al. (2013).
Note: Many publications measured more than one ecosystem service, therefore the total here is higher than the 50 papers reviewed.
4.3. Dynamic relationship between coastal well-being and ecosystem
services
With regard to our third research question, forty-one (82%) of the
fifty articles we reviewed considered the influence of ecosystem services
on well-being. In general, the articles document cases where increased
ecosystem services lead to higher well-being. For example, in Spain
restoration of beaches contributed to improved experiences among
visitors (Pouso et al., 2018). Some of the articles demonstrated that the
flow of benefits from ecosystem services to individuals is not always
homogenous. For example, through the case of First Nations’ use of
shellfish on Canada’s Pacific Coast, Wieland et al. (2016) demonstrate
that access mediates the distribution of benefits from coastal ecosystem
services.
In contrast, only seven (14%) of the articles we reviewed considered
the influence of well-being on ecosystem services. Through research in
northern Australian, Robinson et al. (2016) highlight the revitalization
of Indigenous knowledge and practices (such as landscape burning) as a
critical process for increasing community well-being, which can in turn
improve ecological integrity.
5. Discussion
Understanding the complex relationship between coastal well-being
and ecosystem services provides a foundation for a range of manage­
ment and governance interventions, including integrated management,
5
Ocean and Coastal Management 185 (2020) 105028
marine protected areas, and economic development efforts. Here, we
highlight five important insights that have emerged from our results,
further situating the findings of this systematic review. Specifically, we
discuss the importance of: 1) geographic diversity, 2) disaggregated
data, 3) temporal dynamics, 4) co-production, and 5) uncertainty of
outcomes. We argue that these five areas represent critical frontiers for
coastal well-being and ecosystem services research.
First, inclusion of the diverse range of ways humans interact with
coastal systems in geographies around the world is vital to effectively
support the health and sustainability of coastal well-being and
ecosystem services (Diaz et al., 2018). As our review demonstrates there
remains a strong European bias in the empirical literature. Even as un­
derstanding the diverse ways that people derive benefits from coastal
environments globally was previously been identified as a research
frontier for ecosystem service research (Peterson et al., 2018), our re­
view found that the bulk of published studies report on European cases
(consistent to what Liquete al. 2013 found). This European bias suggests
that perspectives and lessons from the Global South are missing from the
literature and are, therefore, unable to inform policy debate and de­
cisions. This uneven geographic representation may contribute to what
has been referred to as “notable scepticism […] about the concept of
ecosystem services among researchers and governments in developing
countries” (Masood, 2018: 425). Moreover, given the rapid transitions
occurring along coasts across the Global South (Blythe et al., 2015,
2017a), these perspectives are critical.
In contrast to Liquete et al. (2013), who found North American
J. Blythe et al. Ocean and Coastal Management 185 (2020) 105028

Fig. 3. Dimensions of well-being considered in reviewed articles (frequency).

Note: Many publications measured more than one dimension of well-being, therefore the total here is higher than the 50 papers reviewed.

Fig. 4. Overview of the methodological trends for studying coastal ecosystem services. Each bar represents a question that was applied to reviewed articles and
depicts the proportion of articles that engage in that method (including scale and habitat type).

6
J. Blythe et al.
Fig. 5. Overview of the methodological trends for studying coastal well-being. Each bar represents a question that was applied to reviewed articles and depicts the
proportion of articles that engage in that method.
studies to be the second most common, our review indicates that the
second most prolific place for empirical research was Oceania. This
trend is encouraging since Oceania has many small island states that are
on the front line of climate and development shifts. Safeguarding coastal
systems necessitates a rigorous understanding of how people derive
benefit from nature across geographic locations and particularly where
poverty and dependence on marine resources is high (Blasiak et al.,
2017). For example, Jenkins and Jupiter (2015) describe the intimate
coupling between coastal wetlands and health in the Pacific and make
the case for closer consideration of complex and geographically specific
relationships, such as the interface between wetland ecology and natural
disaster epidemiology.
Second, our review highlights the disaggregation of coastal
ecosystem services and well-being data as a critical frontier. Daw et al.
(2016) ecosystems services-well-being (ES-WB) heuristic offers a
promising framework that illustrates some of the processes through
which coastal ecosystems differentially provide benefits to diverse in­
dividuals and groups. One of the characteristics of ecosystem services
and well-being approaches that makes them valuable for research is that
they are uniquely positioned to inform decision-making by eliciting the
diverse values people assign to coastal ecosystems (Lau et al., 2018) and
the diverse pathways through which people can meaningfully meet their
needs and enjoy a satisfactory quality of life (Coulthard et al., 2011).
Indeed, the concepts put forward in the Millennium Ecosystem Assess­
ment were motivated by the critique that “the pattern of ‘winners’ and
‘losers’ associated with ecosystem change – and in particular the impact
of ecosystem changes on poor people, women and indigenous peoples –
has not been adequately taken into account in management decisions”
(MA, 2005: 13).
As our review shows most research conducts aggregate assessments
of coastal well-being and ecosystem services. This result is surprising
since we know that distribution matters. Coastal researchers have long
established that individuals and groups perceive, and benefit from,
7
Ocean and Coastal Management 185 (2020) 105028
ecosystem services differently (Daw et al., 2011). Ecosystem scholars
have demonstrated that access to potential benefits from nature is sha­
ped by power and gender dynamics that are difficult to capture through
aggregated data (Brown and Fortnam, 2018; Lau et al., 2018). Aggregate
data are less likely to reflect, for example, the geographic, technical or
managerial barriers that prevent First Nations communities from
accessing coastal shellfish (Wieland et al., 2016). Moreover, aggregate
data cannot account for the gendered nature of coastal livelihood ac­
tivities (Fortnam et al., 2019). For example, in Papua New Guinea
women are commonly responsible for firewood collection and therefore
place a higher importance on provisioning services (fuelwood) that are
considered destructive by men (Lau et al., 2019).
Disaggregated data are, therefore, fundamental to evaluating the
implications of management options, such as potential conflicts and
inequalities that may arise (Bennett et al., 2015) and do not preclude
opportunities to aggregate data for certain empirical analyses. The need
for disaggregated data is particularly acute in the coastal contexts,
where much fisheries policy and research has been shaped by Malthu­
sian narratives of overfishing that tend to exclude marginalized stake­
holders from decision-making processes (Blythe et al., 2013; Lau et al.,
2018). For example, in Solomon Islands members of non-reef owning
clans were excluded from marine management decision-making and
harvesting rights afforded to members of reef-owning clans (Blythe
et al., 2017b). Going forward, closer examination of the distribution of
ecosystem services and well-being, with particularly close analysis of
gender dynamics, will be an important frontier for coastal well-being
and ecosystem services research (Yang et al., 2018). While disaggrega­
tion is an important first step, analyses will need to go beyond disag­
gregation and include deeper qualitative studies in order to understand
how and why the well-being derived from ecosystem services differs
based on gender and other differences.
Third, rapid changes in many coastal systems highlight an urgent
need for time-sensitive data to better understand how well-being of
J. Blythe et al.
coastal communities is related to ecosystem services that shift over time.
In Mozambique, for example, intensive shrimp farming provided
important livelihood benefits to several hundred rural people in 2010
(Blythe et al., 2015). Yet several months after the data collection, an
outbreak of the white spot syndrome virus (WSSV) forced the shrimp
farm to close for over a year and most employees lost their jobs with
virtually no safety nets. Our review pointed to a diverse range of
methods to collect data. However, in the context of significant changes,
there is a need to link information and action. Specifically, our review
shows that much coastal well-being and ecosystem services research is
collected at a single point in time, with implications for relevance,
legitimacy and impact of the information collected. This result is
reflective of a broader emerging concern in well-being and ecosystem
services literature, namely the limitations of narrow approaches for
studying and managing ecosystem services (Bennett and
Chaplin-Kramer, 2016). Longitudinal studies of change are time
consuming and research intensive, few have been carried out in coastal
contexts to date (for notable exceptions see Marschke et al., 2016).
Fourth, ecosystem service and well-being scholars are making
important intellectual advances on the co-production of knowledge
between academic and non-academic communities and this space re­
mains a frontier (Tengo € et al., 2014). Researchers have begun advo­
cating for collaborative or co-designed research that is inclusive of the
diverse perceptions, experiences, and uses of ecosystem services across
different individuals and groups (Costanza et al., 2017). Bennett and
Chaplin-Kramer (2016:9) argue, for example, that “the science needs to
be co-developed with practitioners and decision-makers, to be measured
in a way that matters to people and that resonates for decisions, and to
be tracked over time so we can continue to learn together and adapt our
future questions and research.” They go on to point out that science will
be more relevant to decision-makers and more readily adopted when
stakeholders are involved from the start (Bennett and Chaplin-Kramer,
2016).
The emerging nature’s contribution to people (NCP) approach is
based on the premise that co-design enables a wide range of people to
make creative contributions in the formation and solution of a problem,
which can increase the effectiveness and social legitimacy of research
recommendations and resulting policies (Diaz et al., 2018). Specifically,
Diaz et al. (2018: 272) proposed that “providing space for
context-specific perspectives recognizes that there are multiple ways of
understanding and categorizing relationships between people and na­
ture and avoids leaving these perspectives out of the picture” and
conclude that “interweaving of epistemologically diverse lines of evi­
dence about specific subjects can result in richer solutions for people and
nature”. Ultimately, for scientific knowledge about well-being and
ecosystem services to influence policy and decisions, it must “engage
meaningfully with decision-makers and stakeholders in processes of
knowledge coproduction that incorporate diverse perspectives trans­
parently” (Posner et al., 2016: 1760). Moreover, recognition of the
inevitable well-being trade-offs associated with rapid and unexpected
shifts in biophysical conditions (Hicks et al., 2014) must be reflected in
the design and implementation of coastal management interventions.
Fifth, empirical research on the outcomes, benefits and trade-offs of
well-being-ecosystem service interactions and their implications for
enhancing the ‘fit’ between management (e.g., property rights, pro­
tected areas, spatial planning processes) and rapidly changing coastal
systems remains an important frontier. Indeed, participatory models of
environmental governance that foster collective action, learning and,
knowledge sharing are often recommended as a general strategy for
achieving “successful outcomes” (Cox et al., 2010; Ostrom, 1990) and
yet there is limited empirical evidence linking particular management
institutions to different bundles of ecosystem services and well-being. As
well-being and ecosystem services approaches are increasingly being
recognized as vital for securing sustainable and equitable oceans (Daw
et al., 2016; Liquete et al., 2013; Peterson et al., 2018); they may offer
invaluable insights on how best to craft and implement effective ocean
8
Ocean and Coastal Management 185 (2020) 105028
governance and prioritize ocean management interventions (Armitage
et al., 2017; Peterson et al., 2018).
Numerous protected areas, especially marine protected areas, in
which people do not live within, but still depend on for sustaining their
livelihoods, fail to adequately consider well-being-ecosystem service
interactions. This situation has, among other reasons, culminated with
the creation of protected areas that lack active management (Gill et al.,
2017), ineffective management, and conflict between environmental
managers and coastal communities (Bavinck et al., 2017). Visconti et al.
(2019) suggest ecosystem and biodiversity outcome-based targets for
the Aichi Target 11 related to effective networks of protected areas,
highlighting the need to integrate outcomes related to human use and
dependence on protected areas for satisfying their basic, cultural and
relational needs.
Responses to rapid change in coastal systems will not be effective if
they are ‘fixed’ to a particular spatial or temporal scale, or a predisposed
idea about what ecosystem services contribute to what attributes of
well-being. Our review points out that a more fluid and integrated
perspective on well-being-ecosystem service interactions is crucial to
design adaptive coastal institutions and policy interventions. For
example, the coastal ecosystem in Newfoundland has changed dramat­
ically over the past thirty years with a precipitous decline in Atlantic Cod
in the early 1990’s, resulting in a shift to a shellfish-dominated
ecosystem (i.e. crab and shrimp) and fishery, followed by a gradual
decline of these species (Templeman, 2010; Mather, 2013; Mullowney
et al., 2014; Epstein et al., 2018). These changes have had important
implications for the types and distribution of ecosystem service and
well-being bundles that actors experience and has generated a range of
conflicts and management challenges over access to those bundles
(Epstein et al., 2018). Adaptive management systems designed to detect
and respond to change at multiple overlapping spatial scales may be
better equipped than conventional approaches may be more effective on
mediating the impacts of such changes on ecosystem services and the
well-being of people.
Importantly, our review suggests a disconnect between theoretical
developments and empirical research in the fields of ecosystem services
and well-being. The frontiers we identify, therefore, might be usefully
characterized as empirical frontiers. Bennett and Chaplin-Kramer
(2016) have noted that frameworks are dynamic and reflect our
thinking at a particular time (and often with reference to particular
places). Theoretical advances are being made in well-being and
ecosystem scholarship more generally, but the manner in which those
advances are reflected in the literature we reviewed is less clear. For
example, two thirds of the papers we reviewed refer to the original
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework (see Costanza et al.,
2017). Yet, there have been several advances over the past decade (the
time period over which our systematic review covers) that are not
consistently evident in our sample. For instance, the cascade model (De
Groot et al., 2010) introduced that idea of feedbacks and the idea that
humans are critical in the provisioning of ecosystem services. Several
others have emphasised a social-ecological systems perspective, made
the coupled nature of environment and people more explicit, introduced
the notion that multiple services are often produced together in ‘bun­
dles’, and identified that well-being is socially differentiated (Daw et al.,
2011; Reyer et al., 2013). More recently, the current Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
recognizes the differentiated nature of well-being and ecosystem ser­
vices and aims to integrate multiple worldviews and knowledge.
A gap remains in applying some of these theoretical developments in
empirical research more consistently. Specifically, there is a need for
more integration of theoretical advances in coastal systems where the
ecosystem service (and to some extent well-being) concepts and metrics
are less developed, and where interests in relationships among these
concepts has focused mainly on material concerns (e.g., food produc­
tion, fisheries). In results consistent with other reviews of coastal
ecosystem services, we found that food provisioning was the most
J. Blythe et al.
commonly measured ecosystem service (see Liquete et al., 2013).
However, several notable exceptions are worth highlighting. Several
papers in our review operationalized theoretical developments into their
empirical research. Mahajan et al. (2016), for example, unpack the
differentiated benefits of community-based marine protected areas,
referred to locally as tengefus, in Kenya through a qualitative compara­
tive case study. They find that individuals who participated more
frequently in tengefus perceived higher benefits, such as income and
other aspects of well-being including education, housing and a sense of
pride.
Finally, our review has several caveats that highlight areas for future
research. First, due to the specific nature of our key search terms our
results do not extend to the vast literature that encompasses ecosystem
services and well-being indirectly. Disciplinary scholarship, from eco­
nomics or psychology for example, and more narrowly defined problem-
oriented research (e.g. specific dimensions of health or climate mitiga­
tion) are not covered here. While this literature does not use the terms
‘ecosystem services’ or ‘well-being’ explicitly, it often engages indirectly
with components of ecosystem services or well-being and may provide a
useful starting point for future reviews. Second, we intended to map the
relationships between coastal well-being and ecosystem services in a
matrix to summarize which coastal ecosystem services were contrib­
uting to which aspects of well-being, and vice versa. However, through
our review we found those data to be absent in most cases. Articles
tended to refer to this relationship, rather than to measure it explicitly.
Similarly, Daw et al. (2016: 4) have noted, studies “… that explicitly
relate well-being to ecological change are often correlational and lack a
specific theory of causation or experimental evidence of how particular
ecosystem services actually contribute to well-being”. The lack of
empirical data on how ecosystems services enhance human well-being
limits our capacity to inform evidence-based decisions for coastal sus­
tainability. Second, our review provides a current synthesis of existing
evidence to inform coastal planning decisions, yet we acknowledge that
within this rapidly developing field our review will become dated within
several years. This means that future reviews will be required to reflect
new developments in the field of coastal well-being and ecosystem
services. Third, our search strategy, which consisted of peer-reviewed
articles in Scopus, excluded examination of diverse literatures outside
of peer-reviewed literature. Yet much of the rich long-term data,
generated for example by non-governmental organizations, is only
published in the grey literature as project reports or working papers
(Blythe et al., 2017b). Extending future searches beyond peer-reviewed
literature will enable researchers to conduct more comprehensive re­
views going forward.
6. Conclusions
Effectively managing coastal systems is essential for halting biodi­
versity loss, alleviating poverty and achieving the Sustainable Devel­
opment Goals. Ecosystem service and well-being approaches can offer
valuable insights on how best to craft and implement management in­
terventions appropriate for rapidly changing coastal systems. Our re­
view highlights that the literature on the benefits that people derive
from coastal systems is growing exponentially, yet several gaps remain.
First, we find that much of the empirical research focuses on European
countries, while developing coastal nations remain underrepresented.
Second, despite a growing appreciation of the diverse cultural and
gendered nature of coastal well-being and ecosystem services and of the
unequal distribution of costs and benefits, empirical data is rarely dis­
aggregated in the reviewed papers. Third, the majority of data in the
reviewed papers is collected as a single point in time, thus missing po­
tential rapid and non-linear changes. Fourth, while the necessity of co-
produced science is increasingly recognized, analyses in our review re­
mains dominated by academics, rather than designed in collaboration
with coastal stakeholders. Fifth, empirical research on the outcomes,
benefits and trade-offs of well-being-ecosystem service interactions
9
Ocean and Coastal Management 185 (2020) 105028
remains an important frontier. We characterize these gaps as frontiers in
the field. Our review, therefore, charts the foundation for a new coastal
well-being and ecosystem services strategic research agenda with the
potential to inform integrated coastal communities in management and
sustainable oceans more broadly.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Acknowledgements
This work was support by the Social Science and Humanities
Research Council (SSHRC).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105028.
References
Abunge, C., Coulthard, S., Daw, T.M., 2013. Connecting marine ecosystem services to
human well-being: insights from participatory well-being assessment in Kenya.
Ambio 42 (8), 1010–1021.
Armitage, D., Charles, T., Berkes, F. (Eds.), 2017. Governing the Coastal Commons:
Communities, Resilience and Transformations. Routledge/Earthscan, London.
Balvanera, P., Quijas, S., Karp, D.S., Ash, N., Bennett, E.M., Boumans, R., et al., 2017.
Ecosystem services. In: The GEO Handbook on Biodiversity Observation Networks.
Springer, Cham, pp. 39–78.
Ban, N.C., Mills, M., Tam, J., Hicks, C.C., Klain, S., Stoeckl, N., et al., 2013.
A social–ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social
considerations. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11 (4), 194–202.
Barbier, E.B., 2017. Marine ecosystem services. Curr. Biol. 27 (11), R507–R510.
Bavinck, M., Berkes, F., Charles, A., Dias, A.C.E., Doubleday, N., Nayak, P., Sowman, M.,
2017. The impact of coastal grabbing on community conservation–a global
reconnaissance. Marit. Stud. 16 (1), 8.
Bennett, E.M., Chaplin-Kramer, R., 2016. Science for the sustainable use of ecosystem
services. F1000Research 5, 2622.
Bennett, E.M., Cramer, W., Begossi, A., Cundill, G., Díaz, S., Egoh, B.N., et al., 2015.
Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for
designing research for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 76–85.
Bennett, E.M., Peterson, G.D., Gordon, L.J., 2009. Understanding relationships among
multiple ecosystem services. Ecol. Lett. 12 (12), 1394–1404.
Berb�es-Bl�azquez, M., Gonz� alez, J.A., Pascual, U., 2016. Towards an ecosystem services
approach that addresses social power relations. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 19,
134–143.
Biesbroek, G.R., Klostermann, J.E., Termeer, C.J., Kabat, P., 2013. On the nature of
barriers to climate change adaptation. Reg. Environ. Chang. 13 (5), 1119–1129.
Blasiak, R., Spijkers, J., Tokunaga, K., Pittman, J., Yagi, N., Osterblom,
€ H., 2017. Climate
change and marine fisheries: least developed countries top global index of
vulnerability. PLoS One 12 (6), e0179632.
Blythe, J.L., Murray, G., Flaherty, M.S., 2013. Historical perspectives and recent trends in
the coastal Mozambican fishery. Ecol. Soc. 18 (4).
Blythe, J., Cohen, P., Abernethy, K., Evans, L., 2017a. Navigating the transformation to
community-based resource management. In: Governing the Coastal Commons.
Routledge, pp. 141–156.
Blythe, J., Cohen, P., Eriksson, H., Cinner, J., Boso, D., Schwarz, A.M., Andrew, N.,
2017b. Strengthening post-hoc analysis of community-based fisheries management
through the social-ecological systems framework. Mar. Policy 82, 50–58.
Blythe, J., Flaherty, M., Murray, G., 2015. Vulnerability of coastal livelihoods to shrimp
farming: insights from Mozambique. Ambio 44 (4), 275–284.
Brown, K., Fortnam, M., 2018. Gender and ecosystem services: a blind spot. In:
Schreckenberg, K., Mace, G., Poudyal, M. (Eds.), Ecosystem Services and Poverty
Alleviation: Trade-Offs and Governance. Routledge, Oxon, UK, 2018.
Brown, S.A., Upchurch, S.L., Acton, G.J., 2003. A framework for developing a coding
scheme for meta-analysis. West. J. Nurs. Res. 25 (2), 205–222.
Chan, K.M., Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to better
address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74, 8–18.
Costanza, R., Daly, L., Fioramonti, L., Giovannini, E., Kubiszewski, I., Mortensen, L.F.,
et al., 2016. Modelling and measuring sustainable well-being in connection with the
UN Sustainable Development Goals. Ecol. Econ. 130, 350–355.
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., et al.,
2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we
still need to go? Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 1–16.
Coulthard, S., Johnson, D., McGregor, J.A., 2011. Poverty, sustainability and human
well-being: a social well-being approach to the global fisheries crisis. Glob. Environ.
Chang. 21 (2), 453–463.
J. Blythe et al.
Coulthard, S., Evans, L., Turner, R., Mills, D., Foale, S., Abernethy, K., et al., 2017.
Exploring ‘islandness’ and the impacts of nature conservation through the lens of
wellbeing. Environ. Conserv. 44 (3), 298–309.
Cox, M., Arnold, G., Tom� as, S.V., 2010. A Review of Design Principles for Community-
Based Natural Resource Management.
Daw, T.I.M., Brown, K., Rosendo, S., Pomeroy, R., 2011. Applying the ecosystem services
concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ.
Conserv. 38 (4), 370–379.
Daw, T.M., Hicks, C.C., Brown, K., Chaigneau, T., Januchowski-Hartley, F.A., Cheung, W.
W., et al., 2016. Elasticity in ecosystem services: exploring the variable relationship
between ecosystems and human well-being. Ecol. Soc. 21 (2).
De Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in
integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning,
management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7 (3), 260–272.
Deneulin, S., McGregor, J.A., 2010. The capability approach and the politics of a social
conception of wellbeing. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 13 (4), 501–519.
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-L� opez, B., Watson, R.T., Moln� ar, Z., et al.,
2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359 (6373), 270–272.
Epstein, G., Andrews, E., Armitage, D., Foley, P., Pittman, J., Brushett, R., 2018. Human
dimensions of ecosystem-based management: lessons in managing trade-offs from
the northern shrimp fishery in northern peninsula, Newfoundland. Mar. Policy 97,
10–17.
Ford, J.D., Pearce, T., 2010. What we know, do not know, and need to know about
climate change vulnerability in the western Canadian Arctic: a systematic literature
review. Environ. Res. Lett. 5 (1), 014008.
Ford, J.D., Berrang-Ford, L., Paterson, J., 2011. A systematic review of observed climate
change adaptation in developed nations. Clim. Change 106 (2), 327–336.
Fortnam, M., Brown, K., Chaigneau, T., Crona, B., Daw, T.M., Gonçalves, D., et al., 2019.
The gendered nature of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 159, 312–325.
Gill, D.A., Mascia, M.B., Ahmadia, G.N., Glew, L., Lester, S.E., Barnes, M., et al., 2017.
Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally.
Nature 543 (7647), 665.
Goldstein, J.H., Caldarone, G., Duarte, T.K., Ennaanay, D., Hannahs, N., Mendoza, G.,
et al., 2012. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 (19), 7565–7570.
Hattam, C., Atkins, J.P., Beaumont, N., Bӧrger, T., Bӧhnke-Henrichs, A., Burdon, D.,
et al., 2015. Marine ecosystem services: linking indicators to their classification.
Ecol. Indicat. 49, 61–75.
H€ayh€a, T., Franzese, P., 2014. Ecosystem services assessment: a review under an
ecological-economic and systems perspective. Ecol. Model. 289, 124–132.
Hicks, C.C., Stoeckl, N., Cinner, J.E., Robinson, J., 2014. Fishery benefits and stakeholder
priorities associated with a coral reef fishery and their implications for management.
Environ. Sci. Policy 44, 258–270.
Howe, C., Suich, H., Vira, B., Mace, G.M., 2014. Creating win-wins from trade-offs?
Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service
trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Glob. Environ. Chang. 28, 263–275.
Hughes, T.P., Barnes, M.L., Bellwood, D.R., Cinner, J.E., Cumming, G.S., Jackson, J.B.,
et al., 2017. Coral reefs in the anthropocene. Nature 546 (7656), 82.
Jacquet, J., Jackson, J.B., 2018. High stakes on the high seas. Sci. Adv. 4 (8), eaau8235.
Jenkins, A.P., Jupiter, S., 2015. Natural disasters, health and wetlands: a Pacific small
island developing state perspective. In: Wetlands and Human Health. Springer,
Dordrecht, pp. 169–191.
Kittinger, J.N., Koehn, J.Z., Le Cornu, E., Ban, N.C., Gopnik, M., Armsby, M., et al., 2014.
A practical approach for putting people in ecosystem-based ocean planning. Front.
Ecol. Environ. 12 (8), 448–456.
Klain, Sarah C., Satterfield, Terre A., Kai, MA Chan, 2014. What matters and why?
Ecosystem services and their bundled qualities. Ecol. Econ. 107, 310–320.
Lau, J.D., Hicks, C.C., Gurney, G.G., Cinner, J.E., 2018. Disaggregating ecosystem service
values and priorities by wealth, age, and education. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 91–98.
Lau, J.D., Hicks, C.C., Gurney, G.G., Cinner, J.E., 2019. What matters to whom and why?
Understanding the importance of coastal ecosystem services in developing coastal
communities. Ecosyst. Serv. 35, 219–230.
Liquete, C., Piroddi, C., Drakou, E.G., Gurney, L., Katsanevakis, S., et al., 2013. Current
status and future prospects for the assessment of marine and coastal ecosystem
services: a systematic review. PLoS One 8 (7), e67737.
Mahajan, S.L., Daw, T., 2016. Perceptions of ecosystem services and benefits to human
well-being from community-based marine protected areas in Kenya. Mar. Policy 74,
108–119.
Marschke, M., Berkes, F., 2006. Exploring strategies that build livelihood resilience: a
casefrom Cambodia. Ecol. Soc. 11 (1).
Marschke, M., Brickell, K., Simon, Springer, 2016. Exploring Rural Livelihoods Through
The Lens Of Coastal Fishers. Handbook of Contemporary Cambodia, pp. 101–110.
Martin, C.L., Momtaz, S., Gaston, T., Moltschaniwskyj, N.A., 2016. A systematic
quantitative review of coastal and marine cultural ecosystem services: current status
and future research. Mar. Policy 74, 25–32.
Martínez, M.L., Intralawan, A., V� azquez, G., P�
erez-Maqueo, O., Sutton, P., Landgrave, R.,
2007. The coasts of our world: ecological, economic and social importance. Ecol.
Econ. 63 (2–3), 254–272.
Martín-L� opez, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I.,
Del Amo, D.G., et al., 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social
preferences. PLoS One 7 (6), e38970.
10
Ocean and Coastal Management 185 (2020) 105028
Masood, E., 2018. The battle for the soul of biodiversity. Nature 560, 423–425.
Mather, C., 2013. From cod to shellfish and back again? The new resource geography and
Newfoundland’s fish economy. Appl. Geogr. 45, 402–409.
McGregor, J.A., Camfield, L., Woodcock, A., 2009. Needs, wants and goals: wellbeing,
quality of life and public policy. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 4 (2), 135–154.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), 2005. Island Press, Washington, DC, 2005.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., 2009. Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151
(4), 264–269.
Mullowney, D.R., Dawe, E.G., Colbourne, E.B., Rose, G.A., 2014. A review of factors
contributing to the decline of Newfoundland and Labrador snow crab (Chionoecetes
opilio). Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 24, 639–657.
Neumann, B., Vafeidis, A.T., Zimmermann, J., Nicholls, R.J., 2015. Future coastal
population growth and exposure to sea-level rise and coastal flooding-a global
assessment. PLoS One 10 (3), e0118571.
Nicholls, R.J., Cazenave, A., 2010. Sea-level rise and its impact on coastal zones. Science
328 (5985), 1517–1520.
Nicholls, R.J., Hutton, C.W., L� az�ar, A.N., Allan, A., Adger, W.N., Adams, H., et al., 2016.
Integrated assessment of social and environmental sustainability dynamics in the
Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna delta, Bangladesh. Estuarine. Coastal Shelf Sci. 183,
370–381.
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press.
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., et al., 2017.
Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ.
Sustain. 26, 7–16.
Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., Walshe, K., 2005. Realist review-a new method
of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J. Health Serv. Res.
Policy 10 (1_Suppl. l), 21–34.
Peterson, G., Harm� a�ckov�
a, Z., Meacham, M., Queiroz, C., Jim�enez-Aceituno, A.,
Kuiper, J., et al., 2018. Welcoming different perspectives in IPBES: “Nature’s
contributions to people” and “Ecosystem services”. Ecol. Soc. 23 (1).
Piroddi, C., Drakou, E.G., Gurney, L., Katsanevakis, S., Charef, A., Egoh, B., 2013.
Current status and future prospects for the assessment of marine and coastal
ecosystem services: a systematic review. PLoS One 8 (7), e67737.
Posner, S.M., McKenzie, E., Ricketts, T.H., 2016. Policy impacts of ecosystem services
knowledge. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113 (7), 1760–1765.
Pouso, S., Uyarra, M.C., Borja, A.,� 2018. The recovery of estuarine quality and the
perceived increase of cultural ecosystem services by beach users: a case study from
northern Spain. J. Environ. Manag. 212, 450–461.
Pullin, A.S., Stewart, G.B., 2006. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and
environmental management. Conserv. Biol. 20 (6), 1647–1656.
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D., Bennett, E.M., 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for
analyzing trade-offs in diverse landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107 (11),
5242–5247.
Raymond, C.M., Singh, G.G., Benessaiah, K., Bernhardt, J.R., Levine, J., Nelson, H., et al.,
2013. Ecosystem services and beyond: using multiple metaphors to understand
human–environment relationships. Bioscience 63 (7), 536–546.
Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Cumming, G.S., Elmqvist, T., Hejnowicz, A.P., Polasky, S., 2013.
Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological approach. Front. Ecol.
Environ. 11 (5), 268–273.
Robinson, C.J., James, G., Whitehead, P.J., 2016. Negotiating Indigenous benefits from
payment for ecosystem service (PES) schemes. Glob. Environ. Chang. 38, 21–29.
Suri, H., Clarke, D., 2009. Advancements in research synthesis methods: from a
methodologically inclusive perspective. Rev. Educ. Res. 79 (1), 395–430.
Tallis, H., Polasky, S., 2009. Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for
conservation and natural-resource management. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1162 (1),
265–283.
Templeman, N.D., 2010. Ecosystem Status and Trends Report for the Newfoundland and
Labrador Shelf. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Research Document 2010/
026.
Teng€ o, M., Brondizio, E.S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., Spierenburg, M., 2014. Connecting
diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple
evidence base approach. Ambio 43 (5), 579–591.
Turnhout, E., Waterton, C., Neves, K., Buizer, M., 2013. Rethinking biodiversity: from
goods and services to “living with”. Conserv. Lett. 6 (3), 154–161.
Turner, R.K., Schaafsma, M., 2015. Coastal Zones Ecosystem Services: from Science to
Values and Decision Making. Springer, Switzerland.
United Nations, 2015. Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. United Nations, Rome.
United Nations, 2018. The Science We Need for the Ocean We Want: the United Nations
Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030). Programme and
Meeting Document IOC/BRO/2018/7.
Visconti, P., Butchart, S.H., Brooks, T.M., Langhammer, P.F., Marnewick, D., Vergara, S.,
et al., 2019. Protected area targets post-2020. Science 364 (6437), 239–241.
Weeratunge, N., B�en�e, C., Siriwardane, R., Charles, A., Johnson, D., Allison, E.H., et al.,
2014. Small-scale fisheries through the wellbeing lens. Fish Fish. 15 (2), 255–279.
Wieland, R., Ravensbergen, S., Gregr, E.J., Satterfield, T., Chan, K.M., 2016. Debunking
trickle-down ecosystem services: the fallacy of omnipotent, homogeneous
beneficiaries. Ecol. Econ. 121, 175–180.
Yang, Y.E., Passarelli, S., Lovell, R.J., Ringler, C., 2018. Gendered perspectives of
ecosystem services: a systematic review. Ecosyst. Serv. 31, 58–67.