Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: The role of stakeholders' profiles Articles uri icon

authors

  • GARCÍA NIETO, ANA P.
  • QUINTAS SORIANO, CRISTINA
  • GARCIA LLORENTE, MARINA
  • PALOMO, IGNACIO
  • MONTES DEL OLMO, CARLOS
  • MARTIN LOPEZ, BERTA

publication date

  • June 2015

start page

  • 141

end page

  • 152

volume

  • 13

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)

  • 2212-0416

abstract

  • Assuming the huge progress achieved in public participatory geographic information system (PPGIS) techniques and its current research gaps, this study aims to explore differences in the perception of spatial distribution of ecosystem services supply and demand between different stakeholders through collaborative mapping. The stakeholders selected included high influence stakeholder (with a high degree of interest on the ecosystem services' stare and with an important influence into the environmental decision making process) and low influence stakeholders (with a high degree of interest on the ecosystem services' state and with a low influence in environmental management). Workshops took place in June 2013 in two regions of Andalusia; overall 29 participants were involved. Water provision, food from agriculture, livestock, erosion control, climate regulation, water purification, nature tourism, recreational hunting and tranquility were collaboratively mapped. Agriculture land-use and the protected area surface were also assessed in order to Find patterns in ecosystem services supply, meanwhile the role of urban areas was assessed for ecosystem services demand. The results show that low and high influence stakeholders have different perceptions of the spatial distribution of ecosystem services and the scale of their demand. We call for the recognition of these knowledge differences (experiential and technical) and their inclusion in decision making processes regarding landscape planning. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

keywords

  • public-participation gis; sociocultural valuation; planning process; social values; national-park; management; landscape; knowledge; ppgis; biodiversity