Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape in Myanmar
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Theoretical Framework
2.2. Study Area
2.3. Ecosystem Services Classification
2.4. Social Valuation
2.5. Data Collection
2.6. Data Analysis
2.7. Scoring System
- 0 = people do not use this ES directly and do not see a benefit or value
- 1 = people see a benefit or value but do not use it directly
- 2 = people use it directly or indirectly
- 3 = ES is essential for livelihoods and human well-being [46]
3. Results
3.1. The Tanintharyi Landscape and Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Services
3.2. Bundles of Ecosystem Services for Each Land Use
3.3. Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs from the Main Land Use Changes
3.4. Changing Demand
3.5. Local Adaptation Processes
4. Discussion
4.1. The Ecosystem Services Framework in Practice
4.2. Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape
4.3. Outlook for Tanintharyi Region
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MEA. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Synthesis/A Report of the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; ISBN 1-59726-040-1. [Google Scholar]
- Potschin, M.; Haines-Young, R.; Fish, R.; Turner, R.K. (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services; Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2016; ISBN 978-1-138-02508-0. [Google Scholar]
- Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. (Eds.) Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES); Version 4.3; Report to the European Environment Agency; Centre for Environmental Management, University of Nottingham: Nottingham, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Raudsepp-Hearne, C.; Peterson, G.D.; Bennett, E.M. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 5242–5247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Howe, C.; Suich, H.; Vira, B.; Mace, G.M. Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: A meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 28, 263–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rana, K.; Goyal, N.; Prakash Sharma, G. Staging stewards of agro-ecosystems in the ecosystem services framework. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 33, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rau, A.-L.; von Wehrden, H.; Abson, D.J. Temporal dynamics of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 151, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cord, A.F.; Bartkowski, B.; Beckmann, M.; Dittrich, A.; Hermans-Neumann, K.; Kaim, A.; Lienhoop, N.; Locher-Krause, K.; Priess, J.; Schröter-Schlaack, C.; et al. Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: Main concepts, methods and the road ahead. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, H.; Lautenbach, S. A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 66, 340–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burkhard, B.; Maes, J. (Eds.) Mapping Ecosystem Services; Pensoft Publishers: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2017; ISBN 978-954-642-830-1. [Google Scholar]
- Chan, K.M.A.; Guerry, A.D.; Balvanera, P.; Klain, S.; Satterfield, T.; Basurto, X.; Bostrom, A.; Chuenpagdee, R.; Gould, R.; Halpern, B.S.; et al. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience 2012, 62, 744–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casado-Arzuaga, I.; Madariaga, I.; Onaindia, M. Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 129, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martín-López, B.; Iniesta-Arandia, I.; García-Llorente, M.; Palomo, I.; Casado-Arzuaga, I.; Amo, D.G.D.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Palacios-Agundez, I.; Willaarts, B.; et al. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e38970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scholte, S.S.K.; van Teeffelen, A.J.A.; Verburg, P.H. Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 114, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pascual, U.; Balvanera, P.; Díaz, S.; Pataki, G.; Roth, E.; Stenseke, M.; Watson, R.T.; Başak Dessane, E.; Islar, M.; Kelemen, E.; et al. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 26–27, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christie, M.; Fazey, I.; Cooper, R.; Hyde, T.; Kenter, J.O. An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 83, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Busch, M.; La Notte, A.; Laporte, V.; Erhard, M. Potentials of quantitative and qualitative approaches to assessing ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 89–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scales, I.R. Farming at the forest frontier: Land use and landscape change in Western Madagascar, 1896–2005. Environ. Hist. 2011, 17, 499–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brando, P.M.; Coe, M.T.; DeFries, R.; Azevedo, A.A. Ecology, economy and management of an agroindustrial frontier landscape in the southeast Amazon. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 2013, 368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Vliet, N.; Mertz, O.; Heinimann, A.; Langanke, T.; Pascual, U.; Schmook, B.; Adams, C.; Schmidt-Vogt, D.; Messerli, P.; Leisz, S.; et al. Trends, drivers and impacts of changes in swidden cultivation in tropical forest-agriculture frontiers: A global assessment. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2012, 22, 418–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Messerli, P.; Peeters, A.; Schoenweger, O.; Nanhthavong, V.; Heinimann, A. Marginal lands or marginal people? Analysing key processes determining the outcomes of large-scale land acquisitions in Lao PDR and Cambodia. Int. Dev. Policy 2015, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, C.L.; Prescott, G.W.; de Alban, J.D.T.; Ziegler, A.D.; Webb, E.L. Untangling the proximate causes and underlying drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in Myanmar. Conserv. Biol. J. Soc. Conserv. Biol. 2017, 31, 1362–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Connette, G.; Oswald, P.; Songer, M.; Leimgruber, P. Mapping distinct forest types improves overall forest identification based on multi-spectral landsat imagery for Myanmar’s Tanintharyi Region. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Alban, J.; Prescott, G.; Woods, K.; Jamaludin, J.; Latt, K.; Lim, C.; Maung, A.; Webb, E. Integrating Analytical Frameworks to Investigate Land-Cover Regime Shifts in Dynamic Landscapes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woods, K. The Political Ecology of Rubber Production in MYANMAR: An Overview. 2012. Available online: http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs20/The_Political_Ecology_of_Rubber_Production_in_Myanmar.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2019).
- Woods, K. Agribusiness and Agro-Conversion Timber in Myanmar. Drivers of Deforestation and Land Conflicts; Forest Trade and Finance. 2016. Available online: https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/agribusiness-and-agro-conversion-timber-in-myanmar-woods-ppt-for-circulation-pdf.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2017).
- Burkhard, B.; Kroll, F.; Nedkov, S.; Müller, F. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helfenstein, J.; Kienast, F. Ecosystem service state and trends at the regional to national level: A rapid assessment. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhowmick, B.; Uddin, Z.; Rahman, S. Salinity changes in South West Bangladesh and its impact on rural livelihoods. Bangladesh J. Vet. Med. 2016, 14, 251–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verburg, P.H.; Crossman, N.; Ellis, E.C.; Heinimann, A.; Hostert, P.; Mertz, O.; Nagendra, H.; Sikor, T.; Erb, K.-H.; Golubiewski, N.; et al. Land system science and sustainable development of the earth system: A global land project perspective. Anthropocene 2015, 12, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abson, D.J.; von Wehrden, H.; Baumgärtner, S.; Fischer, J.; Hanspach, J.; Härdtle, W.; Heinrichs, H.; Klein, A.M.; Lang, D.J.; Martens, P.; et al. Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 103, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, R.S.; Alkemade, R.; Braat, L.; Hein, L.; Willemen, L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 260–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maes, J.; Crossman, N.; Burkhard, B. Mapping ecosystem services. In Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services; Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., Turner, R.K., Eds.; Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2016; pp. 188–204. ISBN 978-1-138-02508-0. [Google Scholar]
- FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Desk Reference; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- ESRI (Earth System Research Institute). Online Basemap. Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community; ESRI: Beijing, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- MIMU (Myanmar Information Management Unit). Tanintharyi Roads and Railway. Available online: http://geonode.themimu.info/layers/?limit=100&offset=0 (accessed on 2 August 2018).
- Dedering, U. Myanmar Location Map; Wikimedia: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- O’Neill, J.; Holland, A.; Light, A. Environmental Values; State University of New York Press: Albany, NY, USA, 2008; ISBN 0-203-49545-4. [Google Scholar]
- Felipe-Lucia, M.R.; Comín, F.A.; Escalera-Reyes, J. A framework for the social valuation of ecosystem services. Ambio 2015, 44, 308–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bernard, H.R.; Wutich, A.; Ryan, G.W. Analyzing Qualitative Data. Systematic Approaches; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017; ISBN 9781483344386. [Google Scholar]
- Flick, U. An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 5th ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2014; ISBN 978-1-4462-6778-3. [Google Scholar]
- Bernard, H.R. Research Methods in Anthropology. Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 6th ed.; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA, 2018; ISBN 9781442268883. [Google Scholar]
- Bryan, B.A.; Raymond, C.M.; Crossman, N.D.; Macdonald, D.H. Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what, and how? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villamagna, A.M.; Angermeier, P.L.; Bennett, E.M. Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecol. Complex. 2013, 15, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolff, S.; Schulp, C.J.E.; Kastner, T.; Verburg, P.H. Quantifying spatial variation in ecosystem services demand: A global mapping approach. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 136, 14–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolff, S.; Schulp, C.J.E.; Verburg, P.H. Mapping ecosystem services demand: A review of current research and future perspectives. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 55, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), Version 5.1. Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. 2018. Available online: https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2018/01/Guidance-V51-01012018.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2018).
- Anton, C.; Young, J.; Harrison, P.A.; Musche, M.; Bela, G.; Feld, C.K.; Harrington, R.; Haslett, J.R.; Pataki, G.; Rounsevell, M.D.A.; et al. Research needs for incorporating the ecosystem service approach into EU biodiversity conservation policy. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19, 2979–2994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, K.M.A.; Satterfield, T.; Goldstein, J. Rethinking Ecosystem Services to Better Address and Navigate Cultural Values; University of British Columbia: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Barton, D.N.; Berry, P.; Dunford, R.; Harrison, P. Concepts and methods in ecosystem services valuation. In Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services; Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., Turner, R.K., Eds.; Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2016; pp. 99–111. ISBN 978-1-138-02508-0. [Google Scholar]
- Meyfroidt, P.; Carlson, K.M.; Fagan, M.E.; Gutiérrez-Vélez, V.H.; Macedo, M.N.; Curran, L.M.; DeFries, R.S.; Dyer, G.A.; Gibbs, H.K.; Lambin, E.F.; et al. Multiple pathways of commodity crop expansion in tropical forest landscapes. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 74012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Häuser, I.; Martin, K.; Germer, J.; He, P.; Blagodatskiy, S.; Liu, H.; Krauss, M.; Rajaona, A.; Shi, M.; Pelz, S.; et al. Environmental and socio-economic impacts of rubber cultivation in the Mekong region: Challenges for sustainable land use. CAB Rev. 2015, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Min, S.; Huang, J.; Waibel, H. Rubber specialization vs. crop diversification: The roles of perceived risks. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2017, 9, 188–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urech, Z.; Zaehringer, J.; Rickenbach, O.; Sorg, J.-P.; Felber, H. Understanding deforestation and forest fragmentation from a livelihood perspective. Madag. Conserv. Dev. 2015, 10, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lundsgaard-Hansen, L.; Schneider, F.; Zaehringer, J.; Oberlack, C.; Myint, W.; Messerli, P. Whose Agency Counts in Land Use Decision-Making in Myanmar? A Comparative Analysis of Three Cases in Tanintharyi Region. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno-Peñaranda, R.; Gasparatos, A.; Stromberg, P.; Suwa, A.; Puppim de Oliveira, J.A. Stakeholder perceptions of the ecosystem services and human well-being impacts of palm oil biofuels in Indonesia and Malaysia. In Biofuels and Sustainability: Holistic Perspectives for Policy-making; Takeuchi, K., Shiroyama, H., Saito, O., Matsuura, M., Eds.; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 2018; pp. 133–173. ISBN 978-4-431-54895-9. [Google Scholar]
- Saxon, E.C.; Sheppard, S.M. Land Suitability for Oil Palm in Southern Myanmar; Working Paper No. 1. 2014. Available online: https://data.opendevelopmentmekong.net/dataset/28dce25e-6859-48d7-a067-4f609855ecd5/resource/8b16ed2f-85d2-4c5f-82dc-e6929293068c/download/Working-Paper-01-Oil-Palm-Suitability-in-South-Myanmar-July-2014-1.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2019).
- Obidzinski, K.; Andriani, R.; Komarudin, H.; Andrianto, A. Environmental and social impacts of oil palm plantations and their Implications for biofuel production in Indonesia. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muhamad, D.; Okubo, S.; Harashina, K.; Parikesit; Gunawan, B.; Takeuchi, K. Living close to forests enhances people’s perception of ecosystem services in a forest–agricultural landscape of West Java, Indonesia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 8, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daw, T.M.; Hicks, C.C.; Brown, K.; Chaigneau, T.; Januchowski-Hartley, F.A.; Cheung, W.W.L.; Rosendo, S.; Crona, B.; Coulthard, S.; Sandbrook, C.; et al. Elasticity in ecosystem services: Exploring the variable relationship between ecosystems and human well-being. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gritten, D.; Greijmans, M.; Lewis, S.; Sokchea, T.; Atkinson, J.; Quang, T.; Poudyal, B.; Chapagain, B.; Sapkota, L.; Mohns, B.; et al. An uneven playing field: Regulatory barriers to communities making a living from the timber from their forests—Examples from Cambodia, Nepal and Vietnam. Forests 2015, 6, 3433–3451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhiaulhaq, A.; Wiset, K.; Thaworn, R.; Kane, S.; Gritten, D. Forest, water and people: The roles and limits of mediation in transforming watershed conflict in Northern Thailand. For. Soc. 2017, 1, 121–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodriguez, J.P.; Beard, T.D.; Bennett, E.M.; Cumming, G.S.; Cork, S.J.; Agard, J.; Dobson, A.P.; Peterson, G.D. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26267786.pdf?refreqid=excelsior:2029d80d02babf7074c903aa57b9af69 (accessed on 11 March 2019). [CrossRef]
- Ellis, E.A.; Romero Montero, J.A.; Hernández Gómez, I.U. Deforestation processes in the State of Quintana Roo, Mexico. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2017, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandit, R.; Bevilacqua, E. Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal. For. Policy Econ. 2011, 13, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter-Bolland, L.; Ellis, E.A.; Guariguata, M.R.; Ruiz-Mallén, I.; Negrete-Yankelevich, S.; Reyes-García, V. Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 268, 6–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feurer, M.; Gritten, D.; Than, M.M. Community forestry for livelihoods: Benefiting from Myanmar’s mangroves. Forests 2018, 9, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, J.; Brosi, B.; Daily, G.C.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Goldman, R.; Goldstein, J.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Manning, A.D.; Mooney, H.A.; Pejchar, L.; et al. Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Front. Ecol. Environ. 2008, 6, 380–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, D.P.; Gilroy, J.J.; Woodcock, P.; Edwards, F.A.; Larsen, T.H.; Andrews, D.J.R.; Derhé, M.A.; Docherty, T.D.S.; Hsu, W.W.; Mitchell, S.L.; et al. Land-sharing versus land-sparing logging: Reconciling timber extraction with biodiversity conservation. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Somboonsuke, B.; Wetayaprasit, P.; Chernchom, P.; Pacheerat, K. Diversification of smallholder rubber agroforestry system (SRAS) Thailand. Kasetsart J. 2011, 32, 327–339. [Google Scholar]
- Sujatha, S.; Bhat, R.; Kannan, C.; Balasimha, D. Impact of intercropping of medicinal and aromatic plants with organic farming approach on resource use efficiency in arecanut (Areca catechu L.) plantation in India. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2011, 33, 78–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tohiran, K.A.; Nobilly, F.; Zulkifli, R.; Maxwell, T.; Moslim, R.; Azhar, B. Targeted cattle grazing as an alternative to herbicides for controlling weeds in bird-friendly oil palm plantations. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 37, 465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slade, E.M.; Burhanuddin, M.I.; Caliman, J.-P.; Foster, W.A.; Naim, M.; Prawirosukarto, S.; Snaddon, J.L.; Turner, E.C.; Mann, D.J. Can Cattle Grazing in Mature Oil Palm Increase Bbiodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision?; ICOPE Conference 2014. 2014. Available online: http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/72358/1/Slade_et_al_2014_The_Planter_90_655_665.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2018).
Place | Transect Walks | Focus Groups | Key Informant Interviews | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forest | Rubber | Mixed | Oil Palm | Rice | Lime | |||
Village A | 2 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | - | 1 | 1 |
Village B | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - |
Village C | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | - |
Regional | - | - | 2 | - | - | 1 | - | - |
National | - | - | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Total | 4 | 16 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 2 |
ES | Description | Scoring Criteria for ES Supply | |
---|---|---|---|
Provisioning | Subsistence crops | Crops for subsistence include mainly rice, vegetables, and fruit. | 0 = no subsistence crops planted 1 = some subsistence crops planted intermittently 2 = some subsistence crops planted continuously 3 = subsistence crops dominate land use (LU) |
Commercial crops | Commercial crops are sold raw or after primary processing. | 0 = no commercial crops planted 1 = some commercial crops planted 2 = medium-income commercial crops dominate 3 = high-income commercial crops dominate LU | |
Livestock | Livestock products include meat, eggs, leather, and manure. | 0 = no livestock present 1 = sometimes livestock present (mostly chicken) 2 = livestock present (chicken or cattle) 3 = livestock dominant (cattle) | |
Wild plants | Wild plants are for nutrition or medicine. No plant materials are discussed. | 0 = no wild plants 1 = few wild plants present 2 = wild plants present, but low diversity 3 = abundant and highly diverse wild plants | |
Fuelwood | Fuelwood includes small trees and branches used for cooking. | 0 = no material for fuelwood present 1 = some low-quality fuelwood present 2 = much fuelwood present with different qualities 3 = abundant fuelwood of high quality | |
Regulating | Water flow | Water is used locally (regulation of below-surface water flows). | 0 = no contribution or disturbance to water flow 1 = limited contribution to water flow 2 = improved water flow 3 = high contribution to water flow and quality |
Biodiversity | Biodiversity refers to the maintenance of nursery populations and habitats for domestic and wild species. | 0 = destruction of biodiversity (pollution) 1 = low biodiversity 2 = good agrobiodiversity 3 = high biodiversity overall | |
Microclimate | Regulation and improvement of the microclimate (air flow, temperature). | 0 = disturbance of a healthy microclimate 1 = common microclimate 2 = agreeable microclimate 3 = very agreeable microclimate and high C-seq. | |
Cultural | Education | Education is the land use contribution to the knowledge base of children and adults. | 0 = not important for education 1 = part of education (parent to child) 2 = important for education and training 3 = many opportunities for continued education |
Cultural identity | Embedment in local culture includes traditions, religion, spiritual value, and connectivity. | 0 = no cultural value, no cultural products 1 = some products used traditionally 2 = LU and products important to cultural identity 3 = LU strongly embedded in culture |
Past Demand | Current Demand | Future Demand | Drivers of a Changing ES Demand | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tenure | Market | Knowledge | Emotion | ||||
Subsistence crops | High | Low | Low | - | ++ | - | + |
Commercial crops | Medium | High | High | ++ | ++ | + | + |
Livestock | High | Medium | Medium | + | ++ | + | ++ |
Wild foods and medicine | High | Medium | Medium | - | ++ | + | - |
Fuelwood | High | High | High | - | - | - | - |
Water flow | Medium | High | High | - | - | + | - |
Biodiversity | Low | Low | Medium | + | + | ++ | + |
Education | Medium | Medium | Medium | - | + | ++ | - |
Cultural identity | Medium | Medium | Low | - | + | - | ++ |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Feurer, M.; Heinimann, A.; Schneider, F.; Jurt, C.; Myint, W.; Zaehringer, J.G. Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape in Myanmar. Land 2019, 8, 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8030045
Feurer M, Heinimann A, Schneider F, Jurt C, Myint W, Zaehringer JG. Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape in Myanmar. Land. 2019; 8(3):45. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8030045
Chicago/Turabian StyleFeurer, Melanie, Andreas Heinimann, Flurina Schneider, Christine Jurt, Win Myint, and Julie Gwendolin Zaehringer. 2019. "Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape in Myanmar" Land 8, no. 3: 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8030045
APA StyleFeurer, M., Heinimann, A., Schneider, F., Jurt, C., Myint, W., & Zaehringer, J. G. (2019). Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape in Myanmar. Land, 8(3), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8030045