A socio-cultural assessment of ecosystem services for community planning and sustainability
Date
2018
Authors
Beck, Scott Michael, author
McHale, Melissa R., advisor
Jones, Kelly, committee member
Cross, Jeni, committee member
Falkowski, Michael, committee member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Abstract
Ecosystem service (ES) mapping is a useful mechanism for measuring and communicating ES values spatially; however, most ES mapping is conducted at coarse resolutions over large spatial scales, which calls into question their practicality for local decision-making. Since policy is implemented and managed locally, mapping efforts in Europe, Australia, and the United States have shifted towards local-scale, stakeholder-driven assessments over the past several years. Despite this shift, it is unclear whether similar efforts have been undertaken in Africa, where resource management has direct impacts on impoverished, marginalized communities. The following three chapters in this dissertation represent a novel effort to assess socio-cultural ES in rural South Africa. (Chapter 1) In the first chapter, we conduct a systematic literature review of ES mapping in Africa to identify gaps and trends in research. The intent of this analysis is to: (1) identify where ES maps exist and where coverage gaps remain in ES mapping across the continent; (2) pinpoint which mapping approaches have been used to map ES in Africa and understand whether valuation methods are being integrated in maps; (3) determine whether or not trends in ES mapping in Africa follow recommendations for more localized and inclusive approaches (e.g. socio-cultural & participatory); and (4) assess the appropriateness of management recommendations stemming from these mapping analyses with support from the literature. We identified 25 ES mapping studies, most of which occur in East and South Africa. Additionally, large-scale biophysical approaches are overwhelmingly represented. The results of this review demonstrate that ES mapping research in Africa has not shifted towards local-scale, participatory approaches and that few maps represent local values for ES. Furthermore, 72% of these studies make recommendations for ES management, despite the potential scalar misalignments and lack of community participation in the mapping and valuation of ES. New local-scale ES mapping evaluations are needed to revise our understanding of the potential impacts of decision-making on vulnerable communities. (Chapter 2) In the second chapter, we implement a socio-cultural valuation approach intended to understand how services are valued by people living in rural-urban landscapes. Specifically, we ask: (1) what ecosystem services do communities value; (2) where are these services located on the landscape (parcels vs. communal lands); (3) how do these services relate to land cover; and (4) what are the social and spatial characteristics of households that determine values/demand for services? We implement our study in Bushbuckridge, South Africa using 26 walking interviews and 105 household surveys. We find that communities value an assortment of ecosystem services on both parcels and in communal lands, and roughly 80% of all ecosystem services are associated with tree cover; however, parcels provide a more diverse and sustainable array of services to individuals than communal lands. Additionally, ecosystem service values are at least partially related to how isolated communities are from more urbanized townships. This narrative is counter to previous studies and management plans that emphasize the value of communal lands at the expense of more developed areas. Furthermore, these types of participatory socio-cultural valuations are potentially more representative of community needs, making policy and management strategies based on their results more likely to succeed (or be less harmful). (Chapter 3) In the third and final chapter, our goal is to utilize stakeholder input to map community-identified, socio-cultural ES related to tree cover in urbanizing South Africa at a high spatial resolution. Our specific objectives are to: (1) quantify the probabilities that trees will be used to secure ES benefits both within villages and in communal lands; and (2) map and assess these probabilities to compare villages sampled along a gradient of urbanization. We ask whether or not differences in tree ES values among villages can be captured with high-resolution, local-scale mapping? To achieve these objectives, we link information collected from walking-interviews and social surveys to a high-spatial resolution (1m2) land-cover classification in two rural villages in the Bushbuckridge Local Municipality, South Africa. We apply an advanced HUFF model to calculate and map tree ES use probabilities among these communities within parcels and communal lands. We then compare these probability distributions using violin and boxplots to determine whether or not differences in ES use/benefits among these communities are adequately captured. We find that there are subtle differences among tree ES use probabilities in communal lands among these communities, and more substantial differences among use of ES on parcels, which are determined by community specific ES priorities. These results have important implications for community planning in this and similar regions throughout sub-Saharan Africa.
Description
Rights Access
Subject
ecosystem services
stakeholder engagement
community planning
urban ecology
geospatial analytics