Social Landscape Indicators - a participatory approach to integrated assessment of ecosystem services
โข
0 likesโข207 views
This document discusses using social landscape indicators to include human perceptions in ecosystem services assessments. It conducted interviews in an area in Belgium, analyzing responses to map important ecosystem services and conflicts. Key findings include that social hotspots of ecosystem services did not consistently overlap with ecological or biophysical hotspots. Social landscape indicators like abundance, richness, rarity and risk can describe the social distribution of ecosystem services and provide additional information to traditional ecological quality indicators. Including social mapping brings added value by incorporating perceived services, local knowledge, and additional sites of importance.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Social Landscape Indicators - a participatory approach to integrated assessment of ecosystem services
Similar to Social Landscape Indicators - a participatory approach to integrated assessment of ecosystem services (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Social Landscape Indicators - a participatory approach to integrated assessment of ecosystem services
- 1. Social Landscape Indicators - a participatory approach to integrated assessment of ES Rik DE VREESE Rik.De.Vreese@vub.ac.be Human Ecology Department & Medical Sociology Department Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium)
- 2. 19/05/2015 2 Social Landscape Indicators Pag. Humans in the ES concept? Ecosystem Services: benefits supplied to humans by natural ecosystems BUT ES assessments based on biophysical mapping/modelling and economic/monetary valuation -> How to include social values, human perceptions and intangible ES in ES mapping & assessments?
- 3. 19/05/2015 3 Social Landscape Indicators Pag. Specific research questions โข Are landscape ecology indicators suitable for describing social distribution of ES? โข Do social hotspots overlap with ecological/biophysical hotspots? โข Role of social ES assessment within integrated ES assessment
- 4. 19/05/2015 4 Social Landscape Indicators Pag. Study area 4 LEUVEN WAVRE LOUVAIN-LA-NEUVE Credits pictures: N. Dendoncker www.natura2000.org
- 5. 19/05/2015 5 Social Landscape Indicators Pag. 39 interviews with stakeholders Content analysis โข Synergies between ES โข Conflicting ES โข Threats to ES Data processing Most frequently mapped โข aesthetical experiences (18%) โข recreation (15%) โข habitat provisioning (15%) Conflicting ES โข urbanisation (30% of the stated conflicts) โข habitat vs. recreation (7 %) Respondents localised most important ES Social landscape indicators โข abundance/frequence โข ES richness โข diversity โข rarity โข risk Overlaps
- 6. 19/05/2015 6 Social Landscape Indicators Pag. Results. Participant maps
- 7. 19/05/2015 7 Social Landscape Indicators Pag. Results. Landscape ecology indicators Abundance/frequency: # of ES (across types) -> strong correlation to ES-types Richness: # of ES-types -> strong correlation to ES-types
- 8. 19/05/2015 8 Social Landscape Indicators Pag. Results. Landscape ecology indicators Rarity: rare ES Risk: norm. conflicts X normalised abundance => zones of high social relevance
- 9. 19/05/2015 9 Social Landscape Indicators Pag. Social vs. Ecological hotspot Legend ES richness hotspot Ecological important Ecological very important
- 10. 19/05/2015 10 Social Landscape Indicators Pag. Social vs. Biophysical hotspot Legend Erosion (social map) Soil loss (ton/ha.yr)
- 11. 19/05/2015 11 Social Landscape Indicators Pag. Role in integrated assessment Social ES assessment adds ... โ Limited overlap with biophysical and ecological attributes โ Exploratory power of zoning categories, conservation status (Na2000, reserves) or ecological quality mapping to predict social hotspots is limited โ Social hotspots =/= biophysical hotspots โ Social hotspots =/= ecological hotspots
- 12. 19/05/2015 12 Social Landscape Indicators Pag. Conclusions (1) Social Landscape Indicators have potential to describe social ES distribution โ Abundance & richness: summarise ES supply โ Abundance: where do most ES occur? โ Richness: where does the most ES types occur? โ Rarity: where do rare ES occur? โ Risk: where are ES with high social importance threatened? โ Provide additional information to traditional indicators (ecological quality)
- 13. 19/05/2015 13 Social Landscape Indicators Pag. Conclusions (2) Social ES mapping brings additional value to ES assessment โ Brings in perceived ES supply โ Brings in lay knowledge โ Brings in additional sites โ Social Landscape Indicators -> locate perceptions spatially
- 14. 19/05/2015 14 Social Landscape Indicators Pag. Relevance for management & policy โ Mapping ES important to stakeholders & communities โ Including cultural ES, difficult to map with traditional methods โ Integrating local/lay knowledge with expert knowledge --Coldspot +-Warmspot ++Hotspot Ecol.SocialAlessa et al. 2008
- 15. 19/05/2015 15 Social Landscape Indicators Pag. Results. Perceived ES supply mapped 1. Aesthetical experiences (18 % - Cultural ES) 2. Soft recreation (15 % - CES) 3. Habitat provisioning (15 % - regulating ES) 4. Food production (8 %) 5. Conservation of local species (5 % - reg. ES) Intangible, cultural ES Lay knowledge