IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v56y2022ics2212041622000328.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uncovering spatial patterns of ecosystem services and biodiversity through local communities' preferences and perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Pingarroni, Aline
  • Castro, Antonio J.
  • Gambi, Marcos
  • Bongers, Frans
  • Kolb, Melanie
  • García-Frapolli, Eduardo
  • Balvanera, Patricia

Abstract

Tropical agricultural frontiers are rapidly changing and present unique opportunities to reconcile ecosystem services (ES) provision, biodiversity conservation, and livelihood maintenance of rural communities. To understand the dynamics of these frontiers, we analyzed preferences, reasons associated with importance, and spatial perceptions of ES and biodiversity in Mexico at two scales. In seven workshops and 42 interviews, participants ranked preferred ES and expressed reasons for their importance. They identified the relevant areas for ES and biodiversity. We used this data to create an index to obtain maps of perceived spatial patterns and perform a cluster analysis to identify ES bundles. A redundancy analysis highlighted the factors that help explain the spatial patterns and qualitative and quantitative methods were used to explore the reasons behind participants’ rankings of relative importance. We found two contrasting bundles at the regional scale: the natural protected area, where biodiversity is highest, and the agricultural frontier, where agricultural services were highest. At the ejido scale, ejidos whose livelihoods are mainly centered on agriculture and those that develop diverse activities were grouped. Socio-ecological factors (e.g., ejido area, PES program, and indigenous population) further distinguished ejidos focused on agricultural expansion, those dominated by marginalized local inhabitants, and those focused on forest management. The most dominant reasons underlying ES rankings include having sufficient nutritious food and economic support linked to agricultural services. We discuss the role of conservation strategies, historical government decisions, and biophysical characteristics in shaping strong trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and agriculture—and the role of voluntary local conservation initiatives and a national PES scheme in supporting opportunities to reconcile some of these trade-offs. This study demonstrates the importance of integrating local community preferences and perceptions into spatially explicit products that can be used in inclusive conservation and landscape planning approaches for tropical landscapes worldwide.

Suggested Citation

  • Pingarroni, Aline & Castro, Antonio J. & Gambi, Marcos & Bongers, Frans & Kolb, Melanie & García-Frapolli, Eduardo & Balvanera, Patricia, 2022. "Uncovering spatial patterns of ecosystem services and biodiversity through local communities' preferences and perceptions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:56:y:2022:i:c:s2212041622000328
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101436
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041622000328
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101436?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. Víctor M. Toledo & Narciso Barrera-Bassols, 2017. "Political Agroecology in Mexico: A Path toward Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-13, February.
    2. Carolina Berget & Gerard Verschoor & Eduardo García-Frapolli & Edith Mondragón-Vázquez & Frans Bongers, 2021. "Landscapes on the Move: Land-Use Change History in a Mexican Agroforest Frontier," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-24, October.
    3. Brown, Greg & Fagerholm, Nora, 2015. "Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 119-133.
    4. Cifuentes-Espinosa, Jaime Andrés & Feintrenie, Laurène & Gutiérrez-Montes, Isabel & Sibelet, Nicole, 2021. "Ecosystem services and gender in rural areas of Nicaragua: Different perceptions about the landscape," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    5. Yang, Y.C. Ethan & Passarelli, Simone & Lovell, Robin J. & Ringler, Claudia, 2018. "Gendered perspectives of ecosystem services: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 58-67.
    6. Jos Barlow & Filipe França & Toby A. Gardner & Christina C. Hicks & Gareth D. Lennox & Erika Berenguer & Leandro Castello & Evan P. Economo & Joice Ferreira & Benoit Guénard & Cecília Gontijo Leal & V, 2018. "The future of hyperdiverse tropical ecosystems," Nature, Nature, vol. 559(7715), pages 517-526, July.
    7. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, C.S.A. (Kris) & van Ierland, Ekko C. & Leidekker, Jakob, 2016. "Temporal scales, ecosystem dynamics, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystems services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 109-119.
    8. Jonathan A. Foley & Navin Ramankutty & Kate A. Brauman & Emily S. Cassidy & James S. Gerber & Matt Johnston & Nathaniel D. Mueller & Christine O’Connell & Deepak K. Ray & Paul C. West & Christian Balz, 2011. "Solutions for a cultivated planet," Nature, Nature, vol. 478(7369), pages 337-342, October.
    9. Roshan Sharma & Bhagawat Rimal & Himlal Baral & Udo Nehren & Kiran Paudyal & Sunil Sharma & Sushila Rijal & Surendra Ranpal & Ram Prasad Acharya & Amer A. Alenazy & Prashid Kandel, 2019. "Impact of Land Cover Change on Ecosystem Services in a Tropical Forested Landscape," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-13, January.
    10. Iniesta-Arandia, Irene & García-Llorente, Marina & Aguilera, Pedro A. & Montes, Carlos & Martín-López, Berta, 2014. "Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 36-48.
    11. 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.
    12. García-Nieto, Ana P. & García-Llorente, Marina & Iniesta-Arandia, Irene & Martín-López, Berta, 2013. "Mapping forest ecosystem services: From providing units to beneficiaries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 126-138.
    13. 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.
    14. Zoderer, Brenda Maria & Tasser, Erich & Carver, Steve & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2019. "Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem service supply and ecosystem service demand bundles," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Fortnam, M. & Brown, K. & Chaigneau, T. & Crona, B. & Daw, T.M. & Gonçalves, D. & Hicks, C. & Revmatas, M. & Sandbrook, C. & Schulte-Herbruggen, B., 2019. "The Gendered Nature of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 312-325.
    16. Karimi, Azadeh & Yazdandad, Hossein & Fagerholm, Nora, 2020. "Evaluating social perceptions of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and land management: Trade-offs, synergies and implications for landscape planning and management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    17. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    18. Rebecca Witter & Terre Satterfield, 2019. "The Ebb and Flow of Indigenous Rights Recognitions in Conservation Policy," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 50(4), pages 1083-1108, July.
    19. Martínez-Harms, María José & Quijas, Sandra & Merenlender, Adina M. & Balvanera, Patricia, 2016. "Enhancing ecosystem services maps combining field and environmental data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 32-40.
    20. Klain, Sarah C. & Chan, Kai M.A., 2012. "Navigating coastal values: Participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 104-113.
    21. Rocío Aguilar-Fernández & Mayra E. Gavito & Marielos Peña-Claros & Mirjam Pulleman & Thomas W. Kuyper, 2020. "Exploring Linkages between Supporting, Regulating, and Provisioning Ecosystem Services in Rangelands in a Tropical Agro-Forest Frontier," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.
    22. Lhoest, Simon & Dufrêne, Marc & Vermeulen, Cédric & Oszwald, Johan & Doucet, Jean-Louis & Fayolle, Adeline, 2019. "Perceptions of ecosystem services provided by tropical forests to local populations in Cameroon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    23. Yankuic Galvan-Miyoshi & Robert Walker & Barney Warf, 2015. "Land Change Regimes and the Evolution of the Maize-Cattle Complex in Neoliberal Mexico," Land, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-24, August.
    24. Muhamad, Dendi & Okubo, Satoru & Harashina, Koji & Parikesit, & Gunawan, Budhi & Takeuchi, Kazuhiko, 2014. "Living close to forests enhances people׳s perception of ecosystem services in a forest–agricultural landscape of West Java, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 197-206.
    25. Rafael Melo de Brito & Valente José Matlaba & Vera Lúcia Imperatriz-Fonseca & Tereza Cristina Giannini, 2020. "Perception of Nature’s Contributions to People in Rural Communities in the Eastern Amazon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-21, September.
    26. Ana D. Maldonado & Darío Ramos-López & Pedro A. Aguilera, 2019. "The Role of Cultural Landscapes in the Delivery of Provisioning Ecosystem Services in Protected Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-18, April.
    27. Uddin, Mohammad Nizam & Hossain, Mohammad Mosharraf & Chen, Yong & Siriwong, Wapakorn & Boonyanuphap, Jaruntorn, 2019. "Stakeholders' perception on indigenous community-based management of village common forests in Chittagong hill tracts, Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 102-112.
    28. Raymond, Christopher M. & Bryan, Brett A. & MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Cast, Andrea & Strathearn, Sarah & Grandgirard, Agnes & Kalivas, Tina, 2009. "Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1301-1315, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. Paudyal, Kiran & Baral, Himlal & Keenan, Rodney John, 2018. "Assessing social values of ecosystem services in the Phewa Lake Watershed, Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 67-81.
    4. 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).
    5. Garcia, Xavier & Benages-Albert, Marta & Vall-Casas, Pere, 2018. "Landscape conflict assessment based on a mixed methods analysis of qualitative PPGIS data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 112-124.
    6. Schröter, Matthias & Kraemer, Roland & Mantel, Martin & Kabisch, Nadja & Hecker, Susanne & Richter, Anett & Neumeier, Veronika & Bonn, Aletta, 2017. "Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 80-94.
    7. 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).
    8. Hanna, Dalal E.L. & Roux, Dirk J. & Currie, Bianca & Bennett, Elena M., 2020. "Identifying pathways to reduce discrepancies between desired and provided ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    11. Burdon, D. & Potts, T. & McKinley, E. & Lew, S. & Shilland, R. & Gormley, K. & Thomson, S. & Forster, R., 2019. "Expanding the role of participatory mapping to assess ecosystem service provision in local coastal environments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    12. Schmitt, Thomas M. & Martín-López, Berta & Kaim, Andrea & Früh-Müller, Andrea & Koellner, Thomas, 2021. "Ecosystem services from (pre-)Alpine grasslands: Matches and mismatches between citizens’ perceived suitability and farmers’ management considerations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    13. 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.
    14. Raymond, Christopher M. & Kenter, Jasper O. & Plieninger, Tobias & Turner, Nancy J. & Alexander, Karen A., 2014. "Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 145-156.
    15. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis E. & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2022. "Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    16. Teixeira, Heitor Mancini & Vermue, Ardjan J. & Cardoso, Irene Maria & Peña Claros, Marielos & Bianchi, Felix J.J.A., 2018. "Farmers show complex and contrasting perceptions on ecosystem services and their management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 44-58.
    17. Vieira, Felipe A.S. & Bragagnolo, Chiara & Correia, Ricardo A. & Malhado, Ana C.M. & Ladle, Richard J., 2018. "A salience index for integrating multiple user perspectives in cultural ecosystem service assessments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PB), pages 182-192.
    18. Ingrid Nesheim & Line Barkved, 2019. "The Suitability of the Ecosystem Services Framework for Guiding Benefit Assessments in Human-Modified Landscapes Exemplified by Regulated Watersheds—Implications for a Sustainable Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, March.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:56:y:2022:i:c:s2212041622000328. 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.