IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v8y2019i3p45-d213227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape in Myanmar

Author

Listed:
  • Melanie Feurer

    (BFH-HAFL—School for Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Länggasse 85, 3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland
    GIUB—Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Hallerstrasse 12, 3012 Bern, Switzerland)

  • Andreas Heinimann

    (GIUB—Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Hallerstrasse 12, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
    CDE—Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012 Bern, Switzerland)

  • Flurina Schneider

    (GIUB—Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Hallerstrasse 12, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
    CDE—Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012 Bern, Switzerland)

  • Christine Jurt

    (BFH-HAFL—School for Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Länggasse 85, 3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland)

  • Win Myint

    (ECCSI—Environmental Care and Community Security Institute, Yangon 11011, Myanmar)

  • Julie Gwendolin Zaehringer

    (CDE—Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012 Bern, Switzerland)

Abstract

Extensive land use changes in forest frontier landscapes are leading to trade-offs in the supply of ecosystem services (ES) with, in many cases, as yet unknown effects on human well-being. In the Tanintharyi Region of Myanmar, a forest frontier landscape facing oil palm and rubber expansion, little is known about local perspectives on ES and the direct impact of trade-offs from land use change. This study assessed the trade-offs experienced with respect to 10 locally important ES from land user perspectives using social valuation techniques. The results show that while intact forests provide the most highly valued ES bundle, the conversion to rubber plantations entails fewer negative trade-offs than that to oil palm. Rubber plantations offer income, fuelwood, a good microclimate, and even new cultural identities. By contrast, oil palm concessions have caused environmental pollution, and, most decisively, have restricted local people’s access to the respective lands. The ES water flow regulation is seen as the most critical if more forest is converted; other ES, such as non-timber forest products, can be more easily substituted. We conclude that, from local perspectives, the impact of ES trade-offs highly depends on access to land and opportunities to adapt to change.

Suggested Citation

  • Melanie Feurer & Andreas Heinimann & Flurina Schneider & Christine Jurt & Win Myint & Julie Gwendolin Zaehringer, 2019. "Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape in Myanmar," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-19, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:8:y:2019:i:3:p:45-:d:213227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/3/45/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/3/45/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lara M. Lundsgaard-Hansen & Flurina Schneider & Julie G. Zaehringer & Christoph Oberlack & Win Myint & Peter Messerli, 2018. "Whose Agency Counts in Land Use Decision-Making in Myanmar? A Comparative Analysis of Three Cases in Tanintharyi Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-30, October.
    2. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    3. Rana, Kartika & Goyal, Neha & Prakash Sharma, Gyan, 2018. "Staging stewards of agro-ecosystems in the ecosystem services framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 89-101.
    4. Abson, D.J. & von Wehrden, H. & Baumgärtner, S. & Fischer, J. & Hanspach, J. & Härdtle, W. & Heinrichs, H. & Klein, A.M. & Lang, D.J. & Martens, P. & Walmsley, D., 2014. "Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 29-37.
    5. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    6. Shi Min & Jikun Huang & Hermann Waibel, 2017. "Rubber specialization vs crop diversification: the roles of perceived risks," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 9(2), pages 188-210, May.
    7. Christie, Mike & Fazey, Ioan & Cooper, Rob & Hyde, Tony & Kenter, Jasper O., 2012. "An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 67-78.
    8. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    9. Jose Don T. De Alban & Graham W. Prescott & Kevin M. Woods & Johanness Jamaludin & Kyaw Thinn Latt & Cheng Ling Lim & Aye Chan Maung & Edward L. Webb, 2019. "Integrating Analytical Frameworks to Investigate Land-Cover Regime Shifts in Dynamic Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-23, February.
    10. Pandit, Ram & Bevilacqua, Eddie, 2011. "Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 345-352, June.
    11. Wolff, S. & Schulp, C.J.E. & Kastner, T & Verburg, P.H., 2017. "Quantifying Spatial Variation in Ecosystem Services Demand: A Global Mapping Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 14-29.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Feurer, Melanie & Rueff, Henri & Celio, Enrico & Heinimann, Andreas & Blaser, Juergen & Htun, Aung Myin & Zaehringer, Julie Gwendolin, 2021. "Regional scale mapping of ecosystem services supply, demand, flow and mismatches in Southern Myanmar," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    3. Juan F. Velasco-Muñoz & José A. Aznar-Sánchez & Marina Schoenemann & Belén López-Felices, 2022. "An Analysis of the Worldwide Research on the Socio-Cultural Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-22, February.
    4. Jiangjun Wan & Yi Su & Huanglin Zan & Yutong Zhao & Lingqing Zhang & Shaoyao Zhang & Xiangyu Dong & Wei Deng, 2020. "Land Functions, Rural Space Governance, and Farmers’ Environmental Perceptions: A Case Study from the Huanjiang Karst Mountain Area, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-19, April.
    5. Flurina Schneider & Mélanie Feurer & Lara Maria Lundsgaard-Hansen & Win Myint & Cing Don Nuam & Katharina Nydegger & Christoph Oberlack & Nwe Nwe Tun & Julie Gwendolin Zähringer & Aung Myin Tun & Pete, 2020. "Sustainable Development Under Competing Claims on Land: Three Pathways Between Land-Use Changes, Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 32(2), pages 316-337, April.
    6. Dang, Anh Nguyet & Jackson, Bethanna Marie & Benavidez, Rubianca & Tomscha, Stephanie Anne, 2021. "Review of ecosystem service assessments: Pathways for policy integration in Southeast Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2017. "Ecosystem Service Arguments Enhance Public Support for Environmental Protection - But Beware of the Numbers!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 213-221.
    2. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    3. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    4. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    5. Kenter, Jasper O. & Jobstvogt, Niels & Watson, Verity & Irvine, Katherine N. & Christie, Michael & Bryce, Ros, 2016. "The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services: Integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 270-290.
    6. Brück, Maria & Abson, David J. & Fischer, Joern & Schultner, Jannik, 2022. "Broadening the scope of ecosystem services research: Disaggregation as a powerful concept for sustainable natural resource management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    7. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    8. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chr, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    9. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    10. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    11. Peck, Megan & Khirfan, Luna, 2021. "Improving the validity and credibility of the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services in Amman, Jordan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    12. Dehghani Pour, Milad & Barati, Ali Akbar & Azadi, Hossein & Scheffran, Jürgen & Shirkhani, Mehdi, 2023. "Analyzing forest residents' perception and knowledge of forest ecosystem services to guide forest management and biodiversity conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    13. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Krause, T. & Marbà , N., 2018. "The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 158-167.
    14. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    15. Wisely, Samantha M. & Alexander, Kathleen & Mahlaba, Themb'a & Cassidy, Lin, 2018. "Linking ecosystem services to livelihoods in southern Africa," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PC), pages 339-341.
    16. De Valck, Jeremy & Beames, Alistair & Liekens, Inge & Bettens, Maarten & Seuntjens, Piet & Broekx, Steven, 2019. "Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 139-149.
    17. Balaine, Lorraine & Gallai, Nicola & Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos, 2020. "Trading off environmental goods for compensations: Insights from traditional and deliberative valuation methods in the Ecuadorian Amazon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    18. Schmidt, Stefan & Seppelt, Ralf, 2018. "Information content of global ecosystem service databases and their suitability for decision advice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 22-40.
    19. Shrestha, Kripa & Shakya, Bandana & Adhikari, Biraj & Nepal, Mani & Shaoliang, Yi, 2023. "Ecosystem services valuation for conservation and development decisions: A review of valuation studies and tools in the Far Eastern Himalaya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    20. Verburg, René & Selnes, Trond & Verweij, Pita, 2016. "Governing ecosystem services: National and local lessons from policy appraisal and implementation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 186-197.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:8:y:2019:i:3:p:45-:d:213227. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.