Abstract
When assessing ecosystem services, it is essential to identify which services are relevant to different stakeholders as well as their perception of those services, in order to make informed decisions about land use management. Divergent social interests may lead to conflicts over the use of a territory, stressing the tension between conservation needs and economic activities, which may be productive but nevertheless threatening the achievement of conservation goals. In this chapter, we present an assessment of social preferences for ecosystem services in a globally relevant biosphere reserve in South America; a region that requires more research on how to conserve ecosystems while incorporating human needs and values. Using a semi-structured approach, we found differences among stakeholders about the importance they attribute to different ecosystem services. On one side, local farmers and members of local organizations give higher value to provisioning services and cultural services of symbolic plants. On the other, scientists, environmentally concerned people, teachers, NGOs, and employees of the local government lend more importance to regulating and cultural services, revealing contrasting preferences for ecosystem services.
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
References
Alfonso A, Zorondo-Rodríguez F, Simonetti J (2017) Perceived changes in environmental degradation and loss of ecosystem services, and their implications in human well-being. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol 24:561–574
Asah ST, Guerry AD, Blahna DJ et al (2014) Perception, acquisition and use of ecosystem services: human behavior, and ecosystem management and policy implications. Ecosyst Serv 10:180–186
Balvanera P, Uriarte M, Almeida-Leñero L et al (2012) Ecosystem services research in Latin America: the state of the art. Ecosyst Serv 2:56–70
Bidegain I, Cerda C, Catalán E et al (2019) Social preferences for ecosystem services in a biodiversity hotspot in South America. PLoS One 14(4):e0215715
Blondel M, Fernández I (2012) Efectos de la fragmentación del paisaje en el tamaño y frecuencia de incendios forestales en la zona central de Chile. Revista de Conservación Ambiental 2(1):7–16
Carmona A, Nahuelhual L, Echeverría C et al (2010) Linking farming systems to landscape change: an empirical and spatially explicit study in southern Chile. Agric Ecosyst Environ 139:40–50
Carrasco LR, Papworth SK, Reed J et al (2016) Five challenges to reconcile agricultural land use and forest ecosystem services in Southeast Asia. Conserv Biol 30:962–971
Catalán E (2015) Relaciones humano-ambiente en el Parque Nacional La Campana. Una trayectoria de encuentros y desencuentros entre Comunidades Locales y el Área Protegida. Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Memoria
Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR (2006) Global mammal distributions, biodiversity hotspots, and conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:19374–19379
Cerda C, Ponce A, Zappi M (2013) Using choice experiments to understand public demand for the conservation of nature: a case study in Central Chile. J Nat Conserv 21:143–153
Cerda C, Losada T (2013) Assessing the value of species: a case study on the willingness to pay for species protection in Chile. Environ Monit Assess 185:10479–10493
Chan KM, Shaw MR, Cameron DR et al (2012) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol 4:E379
Crouzat E, Martín-López B, Lavorel S (2016) Disentangling trade-offs and synergies around ecosystem services with the influence network framework: illustration from a consultative process over the French Alps. Ecol Soc 21(2):32
Daw T, Brown K, Rosendo S, Pomeroy R (2011) Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ Conserv 38(4):370–379
Delgado L, Sepúlveda MB, Marín VH (2013) Provision of ecosystem services by the Aysén watershed, Chilean Patagonia, to rural households. Ecosyst Serv 5:102–109
Díaz S, Quétier F, Cáceres D et al (2011) Linking functional diversity and social actor strategies in a framework for interdisciplinary analysis of nature’s benefits to society. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:895–902
Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M et al (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359:270–272
Estévez R, Martínez P, Sepúlveda M et al (2019) Gobernanza y participación en la gestión de las áreas silvestres protegidas del Estado de Chile. In: Cerda C, Silva-Rodríguez E, Briceño C (eds) Naturaleza en Sociedad: Una mirada a la dimensión humana de la conservación de la biodiversidad. Ocho Libros, Santiago, pp 381–403
Fisher B, Turner RK (2008) Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biol Conserv 141(5):1167–1169
García-Llorente M, Iniesta-Arandia I, Willaarts BA et al (2015) Biophysical and sociocultural factors underlying spatial trade-offs of ecosystem services in semiarid watersheds. Ecol Soc 20:39
Hevia V, Martín-López B, Palomo S et al (2017) Trait-based approaches to analyze links between the drivers of change and ecosystem services: synthesizing existing evidence and future challenges. Ecol Evol 7:831–844
Howe C, Vira B, Switch H et al (2014) 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. Global Environ Chang 28:263–275
Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Aguilera PA et al (2014) Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecol Econ 108:36–48
IPBES (2018) Summary for policymakers of the assessment report on the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services on regional assessment for the Americas. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn
Jacobs S, Dendoncker N, Martín-López B et al (2016) A new valuation school: integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosyst Serv 22:213–220
Kok MTJ, Kok K, Peterson GD et al (2017) Biodiversity and ecosystem services require IPBES to take novel approach to scenarios. Sustain Sci 426:177–181
Laterra P, Martin-López B, Mastrangelo M, Garibaldi L (2017) Servicios Ecosistémicos en Latinoamérica. De la investigación a la acción. Ecol Austral 27:94–98
López-Santiago C, Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B et al (2014) Using visual stimuli to explore the social perceptions of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes: the case of transhumance in mediterranean Spain. Ecol Soc 19
López-Santiago C, Aguado M, González-Novoa JA et al (2019) Evaluación sociocultural del paisaje: Una necesidad para la planificación y gestión sostenible de los sistemas socioecológicos. Aportaciones y utilidad de los métodos visuales. In: Cerda C, Silva-Rodríguez E, Briceño C (eds) Naturaleza en Sociedad: Una mirada a la dimensión humana de la conservación de la biodiversidad. Ocho Libros, Santiago, pp 107–141
Martínez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P (2012) Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 8:17–25
Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, Garcia-Llorente M et al (2012) Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One 7:E38970
Mastrangelo ME, Weyland F, Herrera LP et al (2015) Ecosystem services research in contrasting socio-ecological contexts of Argentina: critical assessment and future directions. Ecosyst Serv 16:63–73
Menzel S, Teng J (2010) Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept for conservation science. Conserv Biol 24:907–909
Mittermeier R, Gil P, Hoffman M et al (2005) Hotspots revisited: Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. Conservation International and Agrupation Sierra Madre, Monterrey
Moreira A, Barsdorf A (2014) Reservas de la Biósfera de Chile: Laboratorios para la Sustentabilidad. Academia de Ciencias Austríaca, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Instituto de Geografía, Santiago de Chile. Serie Geolibros N° 17
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG et al (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858
O’Brien K, Leichenko R (2003) Winners and losers in the context of global change. Ann Am Assoc Geogr 93:99–113
Razeto J, Skewes JC, Catalán E (2019) Prácticas de conservación, sistemas naturales y procesos culturales: apuntes para una reflexión crítica desde la etnografía. In: Cerda C, Silva-Rodríguez E, Briceño C (eds) Naturaleza en Sociedad: Una mirada a la dimensión humana de la conservación de la biodiversidad. Ocho Libros, Santiago, Chile, pp 75–106
Ramírez-Gómez S, Torres-Vitolas C, Schreckenberg K et al (2015) Analysis of ecosystem services provision in the Colombian Amazon using participatory research and mapping techniques. Ecosyst Serv 13:93–107
Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV et al (2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol 48:630–636
Sepúlveda M, Estévez RA, Silva-Rodríguez E (2015) Manual para la planificación del manejo de las áreas silvestres protegidas del SNASPE. Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD), Santiago
Smith-Ramírez C, Armesto JJ, Valdovinos C (2005) Historia, Biodiversidad y Ecología de los Bosques Costeros de Chile. Editorial Universitaria, Santiago
Stoll-Kleemann S, O’Riordan T (2017) The challenges of the anthropocene for biosphere reserves. Parks 23(1):89–100
Tallis H, Kareiva P, Marvier M et al (2008) An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105(28):9457–9464
United Nations General Assembly (UN) (2015) Resolution 70/1. https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E. Accessed 26 Feb 2019
Villamor GB, Palomo I, López-Santiago C et al (2014) Assessing stakeholders’ perceptions and values towards social-ecological systems using participatory methods. Ecol Process 3:22
Wilson MA, Howarth RB (2002) Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecol Econ 41:431–443
Zorondo-Rodríguez F, Carrasco-Oliva G, Alfonso A et al (2019) Vinculando bienestar humano y servicios ecosistémicos: Ganancias y pérdidas de bienestar de comunidades rurales por cambios ecosistémicos. In: Cerda C, Silva-Rodríguez E, Briceño C (eds) Naturaleza en Sociedad: Una mirada a la dimensión humana de la conservación de la biodiversidad. Ocho Libros, Santiago, pp 207–239
Acknowledgements
We thank Sebastián Saa for contributing to editing the manuscript. Funding was provided by Fondecyt Grant N° 1151063 (CONICYT-Chile).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Annex I
Ranking of ecosystem services according to importance score, mean vulnerability value, and importance-vulnerability index. The order of ecosystem services in the first column follows the importance-vulnerability index value from highest to lowest (Bidegain et al. 2019).
Ecosystem service | Importance value | Mean vulnerability | Importance-vulnerability index |
|---|---|---|---|
Drinking water | 124.0 | 4.0 | 498.7 |
Fresh air and climate change control | 90.0 | 3.9 | 352.1 |
Conservation activities motivated by iconic endangered animal and plants species | 79.0 | 4.4 | 349.3 |
Genetic pool of the plant communities in Central Chile with global relevance | 89.0 | 3.7 | 332.1 |
Water regulation and retention | 74.0 | 4.3 | 321.4 |
Educational value: possibilities of developing educational programs about local wildlife | 89.0 | 2.7 | 240.0 |
Water for agriculture | 49.0 | 3.6 | 176.4 |
Food derived from traditional agriculture | 36.0 | 4.1 | 145.8 |
Medicinal plants (leaves, bark, roots) | 39.0 | 3.5 | 136.5 |
Symbolic plants | 32.0 | 3.6 | 116.5 |
Beekeeping | 33.0 | 3.5 | 113.9 |
Mean | 108.2 | ||
Identity and sense of place | 38.0 | 2.7 | 100.7 |
Food derived from organic agriculture | 36.0 | 2.8 | 100.2 |
Local ecological knowledge | 24.0 | 3.8 | 90.4 |
Erosion control | 31.0 | 2.7 | 84.2 |
Food from cattle (milk, meat) | 24.0 | 3.4 | 80.4 |
Forage (trees and shrubs that are useful for cattle/browse) | 18.0 | 3.4 | 61.2 |
Nature tourism | 34.0 | 1.8 | 60.7 |
Possibilities to develop research | 21.0 | 2.2 | 46.2 |
Spiritual and religious value | 14.0 | 2.0 | 28.0 |
Rural tourism | 19.0 | 1.3 | 25.3 |
Wild fruits (for human and animal consumption) | 14.0 | 1.5 | 21.0 |
Soil fertility for agricultural crops and pasture | 8.0 | 1.7 | 13.7 |
Seeds | 9.0 | 1.4 | 12.6 |
Symbolic animals | 7.0 | 1.8 | 12.6 |
Organic compost | 8.0 | 1.5 | 12.0 |
Pest and disease control | 9.0 | 1.3 | 11.7 |
Pollination | 5.0 | 1.6 | 8.0 |
Genetic resources (e.g., wild species used in breeding programs) | 3.0 | 1.8 | 5.4 |
Water for industrial use | 5.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 |
Cultural tourism | 5.0 | 0.8 | 4.0 |
Wood fuel | 4.0 | 0.6 | 2.4 |
Industrial use of animals and plants | 5.0 | 0.4 | 2.0 |
Plants for fibers/handcrafts | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Food from hunting | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Sport hunting | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Coal | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Wood for building | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Resort tourism | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Mushroom hunting for human consumption | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Soil litter extraction | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Annex II
Resulting Factor Scores from RDA Eigenvalues and variance explained by the analysis. Biplots were created using these data (Bidegain et al. 2019)
F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eigenvalue | 1.1848 | 0.6521 | 0.5248 | 0.3582 | 0.3321 |
Variance explained | 32.3132 | 17.7860 | 14.3137 | 9.7684 | 9.0579 |
Cumulative % | 32.3132 | 50.0992 | 64.4128 | 74.1813 | 83.2391 |
Ecosystem services | |||||
Food from traditional agriculture | 0.8107 | 0.1215 | −0.1225 | 0.1268 | 0.2686 |
Symbolic plants | 0.1845 | 0.2637 | 0.9502 | 0.0380 | 0.2586 |
Drinking water | 0.6418 | 0.1419 | 0.3256 | −0.3149 | −0.5759 |
Water for agriculture | 0.9353 | −0.2668 | −0.1897 | −0.0946 | 0.1714 |
Conservation activities motivated by iconic endangered species | −0.1748 | 0.5939 | 0.2854 | −0.2653 | 0.2822 |
Fresh air and climate change control | −0.5265 | −0.1262 | 0.3017 | 0.6479 | −0.2602 |
Water regulation and retention | −0.6316 | 0.8070 | −0.3941 | −0.1554 | 0.0149 |
Beekeeping | 0.4279 | 0.3556 | −0.1597 | 0.5196 | 0.2805 |
Educational value | −0.6016 | −0.6751 | 0.1320 | −0.2576 | 0.4231 |
Stakeholder sociodemographic characteristics (occupation) | |||||
Scientists | −0.2248 | 0.0846 | −0.1922 | −0.1017 | −0.0622 |
Employees of the Chilean National Forestry Corporation (CONAF) | −0.1428 | −0.0339 | −0.0815 | −0.3130 | 0.0066 |
Business managers/owners | 0.1284 | 0.2622 | 0.1959 | 0.0596 | 0.2710 |
Educators in schools and colleges | −0.0376 | −0.2354 | 0.3878 | −0.0017 | −0.0309 |
Employees of the local government | −0.1272 | −0.0867 | 0.0720 | 0.1731 | −0.0838 |
NGO members | −0.3064 | −0.2345 | −0.0573 | 0.0999 | 0.0245 |
Members of local organizations | 0.2588 | 0.0720 | 0.0063 | 0.0472 | −0.1835 |
Small farmers | 0.4303 | 0.1052 | −0.2064 | 0.0977 | 0.0203 |
Tourism workers | −0.1031 | 0.0746 | −0.0843 | −0.1435 | 0.0250 |
Other sociodemographic and cultural characteristics independent of occupation | |||||
Knowledge about protection figures | −0.3401 | 0.0822 | 0.0846 | −0.1387 | 0.0842 |
Rural | 0.3255 | −0.0801 | 0.0536 | 0.0641 | 0.0963 |
Urban | −0.2469 | −0.0217 | 0.0404 | 0.0747 | −0.1136 |
Environmental organization membership | −0.0044 | −0.0512 | 0.1283 | −0.0289 | −0.0467 |
Protected areas visitor | −0.5553 | −0.0396 | 0.0307 | 0.0129 | 0.1122 |
Recycling habits | −0.3425 | 0.1701 | 0.1351 | 0.1060 | 0.0434 |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cerda, C., Bidegain, I. (2019). Ecosystem Services from a Multi-Stakeholder Perspective: A Case Study of a Biosphere Reserve in Central Chile. In: Delgado, L., Marín, V. (eds) Social-ecological Systems of Latin America: Complexities and Challenges. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28452-7_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28452-7_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28451-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28452-7
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)