The document discusses the integration of ecosystem services and disservices in cultural landscapes of southwest Ethiopia, highlighting the need to balance benefits and problems created by ecosystems. It presents a case study involving different household groups that experience varying levels of ecosystem benefits and disservices, particularly in relation to forest resources. Findings reveal that households near forests suffer more costs compared to their benefits, while those farther away face less severe disservices, emphasizing the importance of understanding these dynamics for effective ecosystem management.

1. Integrating ecosystem services & disservices
in cultural landscapes of SW Ethiopia
Ine Dorresteijn, Jannik Schultner, Neil Collier, Kristoffer Hylander,
Feyera Senbeta, Joern Fischer

2. CULTURAL LANDSCAPES: SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Source: The Resilience Alliance

3. CULTURAL LANDSCAPES: THE ‘GOODS’
Source: The Resilience Alliance

4. CULTURAL LANDSCAPES: THE ‘BADS’
Source: The Resilience Alliance
Ecosystem
disservices
Direct & indirect

5. THE NEED FOR SERVICE/DISSERVICE INTEGRATION
• Ecosystem service research is usually focused on benefits
• However, ecosystems provide both benefits AND cause
problems
• This balance is likely to influence local people’s perceptions
of ecosystems
• Therefore, we need to disaggregate both services and
disservices and study their balance and distribution

6. AIMS
To integrate ecosystem services and disservices with a case-study
from southwest Ethiopia
1. Disaggregate forest ecosystem services and disservices
through grouping of households (profiles)
2. Link these profiles to biophysical, socio-economic, and
attitudes of people to the forest

7. METHODS

8. 20KMSOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS
• Coffee-growing area of Southwest Ethiopia
• 3 Woredas, 6 kebeles
• 25 Households in each kebele
STUDY AREA

9. 20KM
STUDY AREA
• Kebeles: gradients in forest cover & altitude
• Households randomly selected
• Questionnaires

11. Provisioning forest ecosystem services
• Bee hives
• Coffee
• Spices
• Medicinal plants
• Trees for house construction
• Lianas
• Trees for utensils
• Ploughs
• Firewood
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

12. ECOSYSTEM DISSERVICES
Direct Disservices
• Crop loss
• Livestock predation
Indirect Disservices
• Social relationships
• Health
• Education
• Farming opportunities
• Cash income opportunities
• Food security

13. RESULTS

14. CULPRITS AND VICTIMS
Field crops (maize, teff, sorghum) often destroyed by baboons,
bush pigs, warthogs; other crops/animals less important
Larger livestock (cattle, horses) predated by hyena, leopard, lion
Smaller livestock (goats, sheep) and chickens predated by
baboons, civet cats

15. Group 1Group 2Group 3
3 DISTINCT GROUPS OF HOUSEHOLDS

16. 3 DISTINCT GROUPS OF HOUSEHOLDS
High benefits
and high costs
Average benefits
and high costs
Low benefits
and low costs
Group 1; 28 hh Group 2; 75 hh Group 3; 47 hh

17. 3 DISTINCT GROUPS OF HOUSEHOLDS
High benefits
and high costs
Average benefits
and high costs
Low benefits
and low costs
Group 1; 28 hh Group 2; 75 hh Group 3; 47 hh

18. 3 DISTINCT GROUPS OF HOUSEHOLDS
High benefits
and high costs
Average benefits
and high costs
Low benefits
and low costs
Group 1; 28 hh Group 2; 75 hh Group 3; 47 hh

19. 3 DISTINCT GROUPS OF HOUSEHOLDS
High benefits
and high costs
Average benefits
and high costs
Low benefits
and low costs
Group 1; 28 hh Group 2; 75 hh Group 3; 47 hh

20. 3 DISTINCT GROUPS OF HOUSEHOLDS
High benefits
and high costs
Average benefits
and high costs
Low benefits
and low costs
Group 1; 28 hh Group 2; 75 hh Group 3; 47 hh

21. BIOPHYSICAL FACTORS
Forest cover (500 m radius)
Altitude
2 groups close to forest - most people have relatively less
benefits than costs
} Groups 1 and 2 similar, 3 differs
1600
1800
2000
2200
1 2 3
Household profile
Altitude(m)
0
10
20
30
40
50
1 2 3
Household profile
Forestcover(%)

22. SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
• Group 1: more metal roof houses, cash-crop based income
• Group 3: holds less land than group 1
• No difference: education level, household size, household
head, number of livestock
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
1 2 3
Household profile
Proportionofhouseholds
Roof type
Grass
Metal
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
1 2 3
Household profile
Proportionofhouseholds
Income
sources
Cash crops
Dairy
Homegarden
Labour
Livestock
Poultry
Migration
Staple crops
Trees
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3
Household profileLandsize(oxen)

23. ATTITUDE TOWARDS FOREST
• No difference on attitudes towards cost/benefit of the forest
• Group 1 used own forest plot more often
• Only 10 households unhappy about access to forest services
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
1 2 3
Household profile
Proportionofhouseholds
Attitudes
More costs
Neutral
More benefits
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
1 2 3
Household profile
Proportionofhouseholds
Ownership
Not own
Own

24. DISCUSSION

25. DISCUSSION
Current challenges for local people
• Disservices contribute to difficult livelihood situation overall
• But costs/benefits are not equally distributed among population
• Most people close to forest have relatively higher costs than
benefits
• People far from the forest only bit lower benefits, without high
costs
• Group 1: ‘richer’ - easier to mitigate costs like health problems,
food insecurity, loss of cash income opportunities
But forests also heavily support livelihoods
• Attitudes not affected by service/disservice profiles

26. DISCUSSION
Knowledge of service/disservice balance can help to facilitate
successful ecosystem management
• Strategies to alleviate the differences between households
Future challenges
• Increasing coffee focus promises economic gains but may also
worsen disservices
• Increasing coffee focus may worsen the balance between
services/disservices between people close to the forest

27. `THANKS TO:
Dadi Feyisa, Tolani Asirat, Shiferaw Diriba
All the participants for their cooperation
ERC-council for funding the project
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION