Understanding multifunctional landscapes and their change to inform intensification efforts
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•400 views
Presentation held by Hanna Sinare, Stockholm Resilience Centre - at the young researchers meeting on multifunctional landscapes, Gothenburg June 7-8, 2016.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Understanding multifunctional landscapes and their change to inform intensification efforts
Similar to Understanding multifunctional landscapes and their change to inform intensification efforts (20)
More from SIANI
More from SIANI (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Understanding multifunctional landscapes and their change to inform intensification efforts
- 1. Understanding multifunctional landscapes and their change to inform intensification efforts Hanna Sinare Multifunctional landscapes for food security, livelihoods and the environment 7-8 June 2016
- 3. Outline • Entry point to these landscapes • Approach to study these landscapes • Changes in landscape units and ecosystem services 1950-2013 • Implications for sustainable intensification
- 4. Entry point: Large scale studies show a greener Sahel Herrmann et al. (2005) Trends in residual NDVI, 1982-2003
- 5. What does it mean for people? Change in ecosystem services The benefits people obtain from ecosystems Co-produced by humans in ecosystems
- 6. Study area NDVI-data from S. Herrmann
- 7. Provisioning ecosystem services Cereals Legumes Vegetables Leaf vegetables from herbs Leaf vegetables from trees Fruits Medicine Firewood Construction material Livestock
- 8. Identified social-ecological patches Depression HomesteadsFields ShrublandFallow Forest Bare soil WoodlandAreas around public buildings Irrigated vegetables
- 9. Multiple ecosystem services from almost all patches Sinare et al. in revision
- 10. Change in social-ecological patches • Increase of fields, decrease of shrubland and woodland – 3 villages: Fields covered 40 % in 1950’s, increased to 60-70 % 2010’s – 2 villages 30 % 1950’s, increase to 40 % and 60 % – 1 village almost 70 % Fields 1952, increse to almost 80 % in mid-1980’s 1952/1955 1967/1968 1983/1984 1996 2006/2010 2013/2016
- 11. 1952 1967 1984 1996 2006 2013 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1952 1968 1984 1996 2006 2013 Public building areas Bare Soil Shrubland Forest Woodland Depression Homesteads Fields1967
- 12. What does area mean for benefit?
- 13. Messages and questions for intensification efforts • Multiple benefits from each patch – assess changes in all of them to understand livelihood effects of intensification • Model effects – how can intensification change patches? • How can intensification be sustainable and attract new generations of farmers?
- 14. Line Gordon, Elin Enfors Kautsky, Lowe Börjeson Katja Malmborg Korodjouma Ouattara, Souleymane Paré, Issa Ouedraogo INERA Burkina Faso Funded by Sida Thank you!
- 15. Change in social-ecological patches over time • 100 x 100 m squares with point 5 m radius in the middle – Social-ecological patch • Systematic or random changes between social-ecological patches? • Change in role of the landscape for livelihoods?
- 16. Time series of images
Editor's Notes
- Bilder på landskap det handlar om, outline kommer in som ta fram
- Counter narrative to the dominant narrative of human induced degradation and desertification
- NDVI x 10^4 eller NDVI x 10^2 In six villages (three greening up more, three less) Verified in these larger zones
- Participatory field methods identified provisioning ecosystem services of key importance Including food sources, materials and livestock
- Also with participatory field methods identified landscape units corresponding to the way people talk about their landscapes. Call them social-ecological patches. New patches added after verification on provincial scale and over time
- Change in s-ep over time to say something about change in potential for ecosystem services I will present general trends and then show one village as example. Different when largest increase, to mid-80’s (2) or 2006 (1) 3. Intensification a long time as population density has increased 46 inahb/km2 1960 to 80 inhab/km2 2006 Depression 4-10 %, Zarin almost nothing Yields are highly variable. Have increased in general, but not so much per capita. Soil: inluence, but no clear relations.
- Glömde byta bakgrundsbild
- What does a certian change in area covered by a social-ecological patch mean for ecosystem services and benefits? Sketches example for three patches based on qualitative data To produce maps of ecosystem services potential As I said – coproduction: therefore work on how to relate this to qualitative data from focus groups and secondary data on population and occupation from secondary data. Relate this to intensification
- Agricultural land in these agroforestry systems generate multiple beneftits that needs to be assessed together to understand full effect of efforts on livelihood contributions. Change in patch structure e.g. tree density Open up more space for e.g. Shrubland? Tried to set aside shrubland in one of the municipalities wher 3 villages are located – did not work.
- + 2013 from Google earth pro S-e patch – set of ES – decrease/increase – does that match change in need/use? Systematic or random changes in s-e patches Need to look at context to identify s-e patch