Assessing linkages between ecosystem services,land-use and well-being in an agroforestry landscape using public participation GIS |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Fredriksberg C, Denmark;2. Department of Geography and Geology, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland;3. Social and Participatory Action Research Group, Department of Anthropology, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain;4. Environment and Sustainability Institute, School of Geography, University of Exeter, UK;5. Forestry School, University of Extremadura, Plasencia 10600, Spain;1. Department of Animal Production and Food Science, Faculty of Agriculture – University of Extremadura. Avda. Adolfo Suarez, s/n, 06007 Badajoz, Spain;2. Department of Animal Production and Food Science, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine – University of Extremadura, Avda. Universidad, s/n, 10003 Caceres, Spain;3. Department of Economics, Faculty of Agriculture – University of Extremadura. Avda. Adolfo Suarez, s/n, 06007 Badajoz, Spain;4. Research Institute of Agricultural Resources (INURA), Avda. de Elvas s/n, Campus Universitario, 06006 Badajoz, Spain;1. United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability, 5-53-70 Jingumae, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 150-8925, Japan;2. Center for Global Environmental Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Onogawa 16-2, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan;1. School of Geography, Planning, and Environmental Management, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia;2. Barbara Hardy Institute, School of NBE, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, SA 5085, Australia;3. School of Botany, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia;4. Parks Victoria, 535 Bourke St, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia;1. Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark;2. Chair of Societal Transition and Agriculture, University of Hohenheim, Schloss Museumsflügel Ost, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany;3. Department of Geography and Geology, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland;4. Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Group, The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, United Kingdom;5. Department of Environmental Studies, Sapientia Hungarian University of Transylvania, Calea Turzii No. 4, 400193 Cluj-Napoca, Romania;6. Department of Environmental Studies, Ursinus College, P.O. Box 1000, Collegeville, PA 19426, USA;7. Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco s/n, 28049 Madrid, Spain;8. Institute for Water, Environment and Health, United Nations University (UNU-INWEH), 175 Longwood Road, Hamilton, ON L8P 0A1, Canada;9. Barbara Hardy Institute and School of Commerce, University of South Australia, P.O. Box 190, Stirling, SA 5152, Australia;10. School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Drummond Street, Edinburgh EH8 9XP, United Kingdom;11. Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, 130 Mulford Hall MC 3110, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA;1. Department of Planning, Policy and Design, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA;2. School of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA;3. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA;1. School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia;2. Department of Arctic and Marine Biology, Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway |
| |
| Abstract: | While a number of studies have applied public participation GIS (PPGIS) approaches to the spatial assessment of ecosystem services, few have considered the associations between the spatial distribution of ecosystem services and the context-specific nature of self-reported well-being. In this study, we engage the general public to identify and map a range of ecosystem services that originate in place-based, local knowledge and explore the context-dependent nature of subjective well-being. We conducted a PPGIS survey with 219 local residents in a Spanish agroforestry (dehesa) landscapes and analysed the spatial patterns of mapped ecosystem services, their relation to land cover, protected area and common land patterns. In addition, we explored the landscape values contributing to people’s well-being; and the relationships between ecosystem services in different land covers, landscape values and socio-demographic characteristics. A mosaic of landscape types (i.e., the landscape) provided more ecosystem services (especially cultural and provisioning) to people compared with the individual land system of agroforestry. However, land tenure and public access significantly guided the spatial practices and values of the people beyond the preferred landscape types. The contribution of the landscape to well-being is largely related to values based on interactions among people and the landscape, as tranquillity/relaxation and people-people interactions such as being with family and friends. We discuss the specific contribution of agroforestry landscapes to the provision of ecosystem services and human well-being. We conclude that the integration of the applied methods of social-cultural assessment on the one hand links to ecosystem services frameworks but on the other hand represents a more holistic conceptualisation of people’s benefits from landscapes. |
| |
| Keywords: | Dehesa Landscape management Landscape values Public participation GIS (PPGIS) Participatory mapping Silvopastoral |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
