Unraveling heterogeneity in the importance of ecosystem services: individual views of smallholders

Abstract

Stakeholder groups are not homogeneous across individuals and through time, especially in relation to the importance of ecosystem services. However, the approaches commonly used to characterize the average importance and values of stakeholder groups overlook the heterogeneity in the individual priorities. This heterogeneity is particularly relevant for smallholders, who play a key role in ecosystem management but are more vulnerable to globalization than owners of large plots. We analyzed the priorities differentially assigned to ecosystem services and the reasons associated with the importance attributed to those services by individual cattle ranchers on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. We interviewed 27 cattle ranchers from neighboring rural communities. The services perceived by each rancher were identified from selected regional photographs. These services were then arranged in order of importance by interviewees, who were asked to provide the reasons for their choices. We used multivariate methods to examine the relationship between priorities for services and the livelihood of the individual. Interpretative qualitative methods elicited the reasons associated with the relative importance of the prioritized services. We identified 54 different services. Overall, individuals prioritized provisioning services directly related to their ranching activity. Individuals with the highest level of education and greatest diversity of productive activities (e.g., farmer, mason, merchant) also prioritized cultural services associated with ecotourism potential. The reasons associated with the importance attributed to the prioritized services varied widely among individuals. The list of ecosystem services perceived was context-specific, strongly influenced by the salient characteristics of the ecosystem and of the ranching way of life. A generational change in livelihoods has affected priorities. The reasons behind the importance of the prioritized services were diverse among individuals. By revealing the heterogeneity among individuals, we emphasize the need to make flexible policies that integrate diverse values and contexts to accomplish smallholder inclusivity.

Integrating Key Insights of Sociological Risk Theory into the Ecosystem Services Framework

“…As shown in Figure 1, this approach can cover the entire range of the cascade model. In an SES, human demand for ES is influenced by social and economic conditions of groups and individuals [33,[65][66][67][68]. Within SES research, scientific interest focuses on temporal and spatial dynamics of current ES supply, demand, and use, as well as their interrelationships [24,60,[62][63][64]69,70].…”

Tailoring participatory action research to deal with the latent problem of an invasive alien vine on Saba, Caribbean Netherlands

“…But up until now there has been a lack of policy and of concerted control efforts, and there are no apparent stakeholder groups regarding Coralita (Vaas et al 2017;Vaas et al 2019). Ecologists claim Coralita poses an enormous risk to biodiversity, but understanding of the processes in play is largely lacking and there do not appear to be any threats to people's livelihoods (Jongman et al 2010;Smith et al 2014;Sweeney 2018). It has been documented that Coralita rapidly covers vast areas and is very tough to remove due to its tuberous roots (Burke and diTommaso 2011), which is why it is a threat to native flora and fauna, including the endangered iguana (van der Burg et al 2012).…”

Advancing the integration of ecosystem services and livelihood adaptation

“…Some regulating services like forest carbon sequestration may arise directly from ecological functions [46], many regulating, provisioning and cultural services, and all benefits and values, are co-produced by people through their decisions, abilities, and actions [47][48][49][50][51][52]. Furthermore, in SSNRD systems, ES and livelihood benefits are coproduced at local scales, by individuals, households, and communities (for brevity, household is used to refer to all three local levels hereafter), among whom decisions and capacities are heterogeneous [53,54], with inequalities arising through complex social processes and environmental feedbacks [55]. The flow of services and benefits through the ES Cascade is grossly dissimilar for different members of society.…”

“…The flow of services and benefits through the ES Cascade is grossly dissimilar for different members of society. Understanding the social heterogeneity in access, capacities, preferences, and ES co-production is critical for evaluating of how costs, benefits, and tradeoffs are distributed within a SSNRD society or more broadly [56,57], and is essential to inform policies for poverty alleviation, social justice, or reducing environmental vulnerability [52,54,58].…”

“…When services and benefits are rivalrous, or locally co-produced according to beneficiaries' capacities, or when they contribute variably to different people's livelihoods, conserving or enhancing natural capital does not necessarily enhance well-being for everyone [55,56]. This is a major source of discrepancy between well-intentioned interventions and the realities that materialize for rural poor [54,150]. Integrated, disaggregated approaches are needed to assess the connection between conserving natural capital and enhancing human well-being [50,151], and its contingencies on capacities and stages of co-production [52].…”