Abstract
In the context of global environmental changes, the endeavours to reach both natural and social sustainability become more and more debated. Speaking of regional development and realization of economic intentions, the impact on the biodiversity must be considered. The local communities, however, might disregard some interventions that affect the environment when trying to reach better socio-economic status. In this paper, we intend to explore the social demands for ecosystem services in terms of the construction of an open-pit mining project in the semi-arid Southern Arizona. By conducting qualitative assessment via survey-based investigation, we couple the preferences of the ecosystem services beneficiaries (ESBs)—local environmentalists and local residents, with natural-based parameters. The research outcomes help to identify the most important ecosystem services reliant on water resources. The generated supply/demand maps reveal a spatial understanding on the ecosystem services in regards to the hypothetical judgements of the involved participants (ecosystem services beneficiaries). In addition, the importance and the application of the ecosystem services concept in nature-based solutions are highlighted.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The demographic information is derived from the open-access public database found in http://www.city-data.com/city/Arizona3.html.
- 2.
Freshwater provision—used freshwater for drinking, domestic use, industrial use, irrigation, etc.
- 3.
Water flow regulation—maintaining the water cycle features, e.g. water storage and buffer, natural drainage.
- 4.
Recreation and tourism—outdoor activities and tourism related to the local landscape.
- 5.
Natural heritage and natural diversity—the existence value of nature beyond economic benefits.
References
Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K (2012) Ecosystem properties, potentials and services—the EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecol Indic 21:7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.03.014 Elsevier Ltd
Bastian O et al (2014) Landscape services: the concept and its practical relevance. Landsc Ecol 29(9):1463–1479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0064-5
Blayac T et al (2014) Perceptions of the services provided by pond fish farming in Lorraine (France). Ecol Econ 108:115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.007
Burkhard B et al (2012) Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets’, Ecological Indicators. Ecol Indic 21:17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019 Elsevier Ltd
Burkhard B et al (2013) Mapping and modelling ecosystem services for science, policy and practice. Ecosyst Serv 4:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.005
Castro AJ et al (2015) Social demand for ecosystem services and implications for watershed management. J Am Water Res Assoc (December):13. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12379
Cote M, Nightingale AJ (2015) Resilience thinking meets social theory: Situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Prog Hum Geogr 36(4):475–489
Fonseca J et al (1990) Unique waters final nomination report for Cienega Creek natural preserve, Pima County, Arizona. Prepared for Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Standards Unit. Pima County Department of Transportation and Flood Control District, Pima Association of Governments, and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
García-Nieto AP et al (2013) Mapping forest ecosystem services: from providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosyst Serv 4:126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.03.003 Elsevier
Grêt-Regamey A et al (2013) Integrating expert knowledge into mapping ecosystem services trade- offs for sustainable forest management. Soc Ecol 18(3):34–54. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05800-180334
Kelemen E et al (2015) Ecosystem services: a gender perspective. In: OpenNESS ecosystem service reference book, 1, pp 1–5. www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-book
Koschke L et al (2014) Do you have 5 minutes to spare? – the challenges of stakeholder processes in ecosystem services studies. Landsc Online 25(April):1–25. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201437
Polkinghorne DE (2005) Language and meaning: data collection in qualitative research. J Couns Psychol 52(2):137–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.137
Presnall C, López-Hoffman L, Miller MLM (2014) Adding ecosystem services to environmental impact analyses: more sequins on a “bloated Elvis” or rockin’idea?’. Ecol Econ 115:29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.001. Elsevier B.V.
Redpath SM et al (2013) Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol Evol 28(2):100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021
2045 RMAP land use technical report. http://www.pagnet.org/Portals/0/documents/LandUse/2016%20Land%20Use/2045%20RMAP%20Land%20Use%20Technical%20Report.pdf
Sanogo K et al (2016) ‘Farmers’ perceptions of climate change impacts on ecosystem services delivery of parklands in southern Mali’. Agrofor Syst 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9933-z
Schneier-Madanes et al (2016) Water and urban development challenges in the Tucson metropolitan area: an interdisciplinary perspective. In: Poupeau F et al (eds) Water bankruptcy in the land of plenty. CRC Press, Balkema, pp 141–157
Sherrouse BC, Semmens DJ, Clement JM (2014) An application of Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecol Ind 36:68–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.07.008
van Vliet M, Kok K, Veldkamp T (2010) Linking stakeholders and modellers in scenario studies: the use of Fuzzy Cognitive Maps as a communication and learning tool. Futures 42:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.08.005
Villamor GB et al (2014) Gender differences in land-use decisions: shaping multifunctional landscapes? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 6(1):128–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.015. Elsevier B.V.
Zoderer BM et al (2016) Exploring socio-cultural values of ecosystem service categories in the Central Alps: the influence of socio-demographic factors and landscape type. Reg Environ Change 16(7):2033–2044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0922-y
Acknowledgements
This research was realized within the research programme OHMI Pima County with UMI iGLOBES (CNRS/University of Arizona). The authors would like to thank Prof. Franck Poupeau (CNRS/UMI 3157 iGLOBES) for the support and valuable consultations throughout the development of the project. We would like to express our gratitude to Assist. Prof. Antonio J. Castro (University of Almeria/Idaho State University) for bringing useful ideas and providing valuable feedback on the development of the questionnaire and the research topic.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1: Questionnaire—Experts
Ecosystem Services Assessment
Assessment of the benefits provided by the Pantano Wash and Cienega Creek watershed (Southern Arizona) (Fig. 5) regarding different water availability scenarios.
Investigated area of the Pantano Wash watershed and Cienega Creek
Ecosystem services
All responses are anonymous. There is no ‘right’ answer, so please let us know what your opinion/perception is through this survey.
Estimated time to fill out the survey: 15 min.
Part A.
Part B.
I. Ecosystem services perceptions
Nature provides resources from which people, directly or indirectly, benefit of and the ecosystem services are the benefits people derive from the ecosystems. These include provisioning services such as freshwater, timber, fiber, etc.; regulating services that contribute to the air quality, floods, disease control, water quality, etc.; and cultural services that represent the cultural heritage, recreational activities, spiritual benefits, etc.
Which of the following do you think are the most important benefits and contributions (ecosystem services) for maintaining well-being or quality of life of people living or visiting Pantano Wash and Cienega Creek watershed (Fig. 5).
Ecosystem benefits (see Fig. 6) | Choose 4 of 11 ES and rank: (1) Least important; (2) Somewhat important; (3) Very important; (4) Most important | Why are they important? (describe with 1–2 words) | Using the four ESB you chose: In the last 10 years, would you say each has (1) Decreased; (2) Remained the same; (3) Increased; (4) Don´t know |
Freshwater provision (A) | |||
Food from agriculture and livestock (B) | |||
Mineral resources (C) | |||
Alternative energy (hydropower, windmills, etc.) (D) | |||
Local climate regulation (E) | |||
Water flow regulation (F) | |||
Water purification (G) | |||
Erosion regulation (H) | |||
Regulation of waste (I) | |||
Recreation and tourism (hiking, birdwatching, etc.) (J) | |||
Landscape aesthetic, amenity and inspiration (K) | |||
Religious and spiritual experience (L) | |||
Natural heritage and natural diversity (M) |
-
3.
From the most important for you, choose only 2 and list them in the box below. How do you think they have changed? (worse, no change, better or don’t know)
II. Water Flow Perception
Water flow | Benefits negatively affected. Choose up to 2, if any , contributions and give them a 1 (min) to 10 (max) | Benefits positively affected. Choose up to 2, if any , contributions and give them a 1 (min) to 10 (max) |
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
Appendix 2: Questionnaire—Locals
Ecosystem Services Assessment
Assessment of the natural resources provided by the Pantano Wash and Cienega Creek watershed (area southeast of Tucson).
There is no ‘right’ answer.
All responses are anonymous.
Part A.
Part B.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Yaneva, R., Cortinas Muñoz, J. (2020). Integrated Assessment and Modelling of the Spatially Explicit Perceptions of Social Demands for Ecosystem Services. In: Nedkov, S., et al. Smart Geography. Key Challenges in Geography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28191-5_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28191-5_28
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28190-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28191-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)