Abstract

CONTEXTThe ecosystem services (ES) concept has brought together research on ecosystems, biodiversity and human well-being, but critical challenges remain to make ES operational. ES assessments are relevant tools in multi-purpose landscapes, such as agricultural landscapes situated within natural protected areas where the challenge is to meet both local livelihoods and conservations goals. La Sepultura Biosphere Reserve in south-eastern Mexico has evidenced tensions among social actors due to territorial disputes; local farmers and conservation institutions contest the landscape’s land use and ES benefits. OBJECTIVEWe conducted an empirical study in the territory of a small mountain community within this biosphere reserve. We assessed ES in alternative land use scenarios with the aim to generate knowledge in support of local land use and management decisions. METHODSWe first characterised local land use using mixed methods research and quantified six locally relevant ES: Livelihood ES valued by farmers including forage production, firewood stocks, and resin production, and ES valued by conservation institutions including tree cover, riparian corridor, and tree diversity. Next, four alternative land use scenarios were built based on expert knowledge and stakeholder participation, with a different balance and integration of production and conservation objectives. We then estimated these ES in the four scenarios and assessed ES trade-offs at the farm and landscape level. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONSWe found that farm diversity mattered. Though farms presented similar trade-offs in each of the scenarios, the magnitude of these trade-offs varied considerably among small vs. large farms. At the landscape level, the intensive cattle ranching and forest restoration scenarios presented hard trade-offs, compared to the more moderate integrated agroforestry practices scenario. Moreover, the land use zoning scenario, a management strategy promoted by conservation institutions, did not differ from the current landscape nor offer an improvement in conservation indicators. Livestock played a key role in the land system, and trade-offs between forage production and other ES were recurrent across scenarios and spatial scales. Still, management practices that harness biodiversity and ES can improve sustainability of cattle ranching, and thus reconcile production and conservation goals. SIGNIFICANCERelevant ES assessments in agricultural landscapes support local land management decisions, integrate the social–ecological context, and scale up land use scenarios from the farm (fine scale) to the landscape level.

Highlights

  • The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) contributed greatly to bringing forward a popular and enduring field of scientific inquiry encompassing ecosystems, biodiversity, and human well-being (Mulder et al, 2015)

  • To make the ecosystem services (ES) assessment relevant and grounded in the local social–ecological context, we identified ES valued by two different stakeholder groups, farmers and conservation institutions, characterised the local land use system using mixed methods research, and built four scenarios based on stakeholder consultation

  • By comparing ES supply and trade-offs among alternative land use scenarios, we estimated: the amount of forage, firewood and pine resin, i.e., farming goods, that farmers can expect from different land man­ agement decisions; the expected change in conservation indicators, namely tree cover, riparian corridor, and tree diversity, derived from environmental programs and landscape interventions; and estimated losses in ES for each scenario, which can inform potential compensation or mitigation levels from these landscape interventions

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) contributed greatly to bringing forward a popular and enduring field of scientific inquiry encompassing ecosystems, biodiversity, and human well-being (Mulder et al, 2015). It put forth the ecosystem services (ES) concept as a decision and policy tool to promote sustainability (Abson et al, 2014; Bennett et al, 2015; Costanza et al, 2017; de Groot et al, 2010; Seppelt et al, 2011). Critical challenges remain to put ES knowledge into practice and inform real-world decision-making (Olander et al, 2017; Ruckelshaus et al, 2015; Saarikoski et al, 2018)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.