IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v28y2017ipbp238-250.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Protected areas as outdoor classrooms and global laboratories: Intellectual ecosystem services flowing to-and-from a National Park

Author

Listed:
  • Smit, Izak P.J.
  • Roux, Dirk J.
  • Swemmer, Louise K.
  • Boshoff, Nelius
  • Novellie, Peter

Abstract

Education opportunities, capacity building and scientific knowledge are poorly studied intellectual ecosystem services (IES), especially as generated by protected areas (PAs). Based on the cascade model of ecosystem services, we use simple indicators to quantify IES generated in the Kruger National Park (KNP), South Africa. IES are potentially valuable in guiding and capacitating conservation management and policy. We consider measures and conditions to enhance this important role. Benefits from IES are valued by external researchers and educators, as is evident from their willingness to engage and collaborate in the production and dispersal of benefits. Collaboration was enhanced by measures (subsidized accommodation for visiting scientists, sites for the development of education facilities, administrative support, a culture of shared learning) designed to attract and maintain partnerships between KNP staff and external researchers and educators. These measures enabled the dispersal of IES benefits across scales, and helped to ensure that benefits fed back to park management. Collaborative planning to mainstream ecosystems services is needed to improve alignment between IES production and PA management needs. There is also evidence of wide disparities between individual PAs in the generation of IES, resulting from features that are attractive to researchers. Such disparities can be mitigated by measures to attract research collaboration.

Suggested Citation

  • Smit, Izak P.J. & Roux, Dirk J. & Swemmer, Louise K. & Boshoff, Nelius & Novellie, Peter, 2017. "Protected areas as outdoor classrooms and global laboratories: Intellectual ecosystem services flowing to-and-from a National Park," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 238-250.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:28:y:2017:i:pb:p:238-250
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041616302479
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brian W. Wilgen & Nelius Boshoff & Izak P. J. Smit & Sofia Solano-Fernandez & Luanita Walt, 2016. "A bibliometric analysis to illustrate the role of an embedded research capability in South African National Parks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(1), pages 185-212, April.
    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. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    4. Palomo, Ignacio & Martín-López, Berta & Potschin, Marion & Haines-Young, Roy & Montes, Carlos, 2013. "National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem service flows," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 104-116.
    5. Leisher, Craig & Mangubhai, Sangeeta & Hess, Sebastiaan & Widodo, Hesti & Soekirman, Tri & Tjoe, Salomina & Wawiyai, Stevanus & Neil Larsen, S. & Rumetna, Lukas & Halim, A. & Sanjayan, M., 2012. "Measuring the benefits and costs of community education and outreach in marine protected areas," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 1005-1011.
    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. Khodani Matshusa & Llewellyn Leonard & Peta Thomas, 2021. "Challenges of Geotourism in South Africa: A Case Study of the Kruger National Park," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-23, October.
    2. Roux, Dirk J. & Smith, M. Kyle S. & Smit, Izak P.J. & Freitag, Stefanie & Slabbert, Liandi & Mokhatla, Mohlamatsane M. & Hayes, Jessica & Mpapane, Nelsiwe P., 2020. "Cultural ecosystem services as complex outcomes of people–nature interactions in protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    3. Yang Zou & Dehua Mao, 2022. "Simulation of Freshwater Ecosystem Service Flows under Land-Use Change: A Case Study of Lianshui River Basin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Shakya, Bandana & Uddin, Kabir & Yi, Shaoliang & Bhatta, Laxmi Dutt & Lodhi, Mahendra Singh & Htun, Naing Zaw & Yang, Yongping, 2021. "Mapping of the ecosystem services flow from three protected areas in the far-eastern Himalayan Landscape: An impetus to regional cooperation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    5. De Vos, A. & Cumming, G.S. & Roux, D.J., 2017. "The relevance of cross-scale connections and spatial interactions for ecosystem service delivery by protected areas: Insights from southern Africa," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 133-139.

    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. Xiao, Lan & Haiping, Tang & Haoguang, Liang, 2017. "A theoretical framework for researching cultural ecosystem service flows in urban agglomerations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 95-104.
    2. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    3. Cumming, Graeme S. & Maciejewski, Kristine, 2017. "Reconciling community ecology and ecosystem services: Cultural services and benefits from birds in South African National Parks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 219-227.
    4. Sarkki, Simo & Karjalainen, Timo P., 2015. "Ecosystem service valuation in a governance debate: Practitioners' strategic argumentation on forestry in northern Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 13-22.
    5. Jacobs, Sander & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David N. & Dunford, Robert & Harrison, Paula A. & Kelemen, Eszter & Saarikoski, Heli & Termansen, Mette & García-Llorente, Marina & Gómez-Baggethun, , 2018. "The means determine the end – Pursuing integrated valuation in practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 515-528.
    6. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    7. Clements, Hayley S. & Cumming, Graeme S., 2017. "Manager strategies and user demands: Determinants of cultural ecosystem service bundles on private protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 228-237.
    8. Darvill, Rachel & Lindo, Zoë, 2015. "Quantifying and mapping ecosystem service use across stakeholder groups: Implications for conservation with priorities for cultural values," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 153-161.
    9. Roux, Dirk J. & Smith, M. Kyle S. & Smit, Izak P.J. & Freitag, Stefanie & Slabbert, Liandi & Mokhatla, Mohlamatsane M. & Hayes, Jessica & Mpapane, Nelsiwe P., 2020. "Cultural ecosystem services as complex outcomes of people–nature interactions in protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    10. Havinga, Ilan & Bogaart, Patrick W. & Hein, Lars & Tuia, Devis, 2020. "Defining and spatially modelling cultural ecosystem services using crowdsourced data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    11. Turkelboom, Francis & Leone, Michael & Jacobs, Sander & Kelemen, Eszter & García-Llorente, Marina & Baró, Francesc & Termansen, Mette & Barton, David N. & Berry, Pam & Stange, Erik & Thoonen, Marijk, 2018. "When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 566-578.
    12. Washbourne, Carla-Leanne & Goddard, Mark A. & Le Provost, Gaëtane & Manning, David A.C. & Manning, Peter, 2020. "Trade-offs and synergies in the ecosystem service demand of urban brownfield stakeholders," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    13. Schirpke, Uta & Scolozzi, Rocco & De Marco, Claudio & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2014. "Mapping beneficiaries of ecosystem services flows from Natura 2000 sites," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 170-179.
    14. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    15. Ebner, Manuel & Fontana, Veronika & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services of mountain lakes in the European Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    16. Langemeyer, Johannes & Baró, Francesc & Roebeling, Peter & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2015. "Contrasting values of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas: The case of park Montjuïc in Barcelona," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 178-186.
    17. Armatas, Christopher A. & Campbell, Robert M. & Watson, Alan E. & Borrie, William T. & Christensen, Neal & Venn, Tyron J., 2018. "An integrated approach to valuation and tradeoff analysis of ecosystem services for national forest decision-making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 1-18.
    18. Blayac, Thierry & Mathé, Syndhia & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Fontaine, Pascal, 2014. "Perceptions of the services provided by pond fish farming in Lorraine (France)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 115-123.
    19. García-Nieto, Ana P. & Quintas-Soriano, Cristina & García-Llorente, Marina & Palomo, Ignacio & Montes, Carlos & Martín-López, Berta, 2015. "Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: The role of stakeholders׳ profiles," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 141-152.
    20. Ciftcioglu, Gulay Cetinkaya, 2017. "Social preference-based valuation of the links between home gardens, ecosystem services, and human well-being in Lefke Region of North Cyprus," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 227-236.

    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:eee:ecoser:v:28:y:2017:i:pb:p:238-250. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.