Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Disaggregating ecosystem services and disservices in the cultural landscapes of southwestern Ethiopia: a study of rural perceptions
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Ecology, Environment and Plant Sciences.
Show others and affiliations
Number of Authors: 62017 (English)In: Landscape Ecology, ISSN 0921-2973, E-ISSN 1572-9761, Vol. 32, no 11, p. 2151-2165Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Cultural landscapes provide essential ecosystem services to local communities, especially in poor rural settings. However, potentially negative impacts of ecosystems-or disservices-remain inadequately understood. Similarly, how benefit-cost outcomes differ within communities is unclear, but potentially important for cultural landscape management. Here we investigated whether distinct forest ecosystem service-disservice outcomes emerge within local communities. We aimed to characterize groups of community members according to service-disservice outcomes, and assessed their attitudes towards the forest. We interviewed 150 rural households in southwestern Ethiopia about locally relevant ecosystem services (provisioning services) and disservices (wildlife impacts). Households were grouped based on their ecosystem service-disservice profiles through hierarchical clustering. We used linear models to assess differences between groups in geographic and socioeconomic characteristics, as well as attitudes toward the forest. We identified three groups with distinct ecosystem service-disservice profiles. Half of the households fell into a lose-lose profile (low benefits, high costs), while fewer had lose-escape (low benefits, low costs) and win-lose (high benefits, high costs) profiles. Location relative to forest and altitude explained differences between the lose-escape profile and other households. Socioeconomic factors were also important. Win-lose households appeared to be wealthier and had better forest use rights compared to lose-lose households. Attitudes towards the forest did not differ between profiles. Our study demonstrates the importance of disaggregating both ecosystem services and disservices, instead of assuming that communities receive benefits and costs homogenously. To manage cultural landscapes sustainably, such heterogeneity must be acknowledged and better understood.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 32, no 11, p. 2151-2165
Keywords [en]
Agriculture-forest mosaic, Benefit distribution, Ecosystem service-disservice framework, Human-wildlife conflict, Poverty
National Category
Biological Sciences Earth and Related Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-150016DOI: 10.1007/s10980-017-0552-5ISI: 000414975000006OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-150016DiVA, id: diva2:1167663
Available from: 2017-12-19 Created: 2017-12-19 Last updated: 2017-12-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hylander, Kristoffer
By organisation
Department of Ecology, Environment and Plant Sciences
In the same journal
Landscape Ecology
Biological SciencesEarth and Related Environmental Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 6 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf