Social Landscape Indicators -a participatory approach to

integrated assessment of ES

Rik DE VREESERik.De.Vreese@vub.ac.be

Human Ecology Department & Medical Sociology DepartmentVrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium)

19/05/2015 2Social Landscape Indicators

Pag.

Humans in the ES concept?

Ecosystem Services: benefits supplied to humans by natural

ecosystems

BUT ES assessments based on biophysical

mapping/modelling and economic/monetaryvaluation

-> How to include social values, humanperceptions and intangible ES in ESmapping & assessments?

19/05/2015 3Social Landscape Indicators

Pag.

Specific research questions

• Are landscape ecologyindicators suitable for describingsocial distribution of ES?

• Do social hotspots overlap withecological/biophysicalhotspots?

• Role of social ES assessmentwithin integrated ES assessment

19/05/2015 4Social Landscape Indicators

Pag.

Study area

4

LEUVEN

WAVRELOUVAIN-LA-NEUVE Credits pictures: N. Dendoncker

www.natura2000.org

19/05/2015 5Social Landscape Indicators

Pag.

39 interviews with stakeholders

Content analysis• Synergies between ES• Conflicting ES• Threats to ES

Data processing

Most frequentlymapped• aesthetical experiences (18%)• recreation (15%)• habitat provisioning (15%)Conflicting ES• urbanisation(30% of the stated conflicts)• habitat vs. recreation (7 %)

Respondents localisedmost important ES

Social landscape indicators• abundance/frequence• ES richness• diversity• rarity• risk

Overlaps

19/05/2015 6Social Landscape Indicators

Pag.

Results. Participant maps

19/05/2015 7Social Landscape Indicators

Pag.

Results. Landscape ecology indicators

Abundance/frequency: # of ES (across types) -> strong correlation to ES-types

Richness: # of ES-types-> strong correlation to ES-types

19/05/2015 8Social Landscape Indicators

Pag.

Results. Landscape ecology indicators

Rarity: rare ESRisk: norm. conflicts X normalised abundance => zones of high social relevance

19/05/2015 9Social Landscape Indicators

Pag.

Social vs.Ecological hotspot

LegendES richness hotspotEcological important

Ecological very important

19/05/2015 10Social Landscape Indicators

Pag.

Social vs.Biophysical hotspot

Legend Erosion (social map)

Soil loss (ton/ha.yr)

19/05/2015 11Social Landscape Indicators

Pag.

Role in integrated assessment

Social ES assessment adds ...– Limited overlap with biophysical and ecological

attributes– Exploratory power of zoning categories, conservation

status (Na2000, reserves) or ecological qualitymapping to predict social hotspots is limited

– Social hotspots =/= biophysical hotspots– Social hotspots =/= ecological hotspots

19/05/2015 12Social Landscape Indicators

Pag.

Conclusions (1)

Social Landscape Indicators havepotential to describe social ESdistribution– Abundance & richness: summarise ES supply– Abundance: where do most ES occur?– Richness: where does the most ES types occur?– Rarity: where do rare ES occur?– Risk: where are ES with high social importance threatened?

– Provide additional information to traditional indicators(ecological quality)

19/05/2015 13Social Landscape Indicators

Pag.

Conclusions (2)

Social ES mapping bringsadditional value to ES assessment– Brings in perceived ES supply– Brings in lay knowledge– Brings in additional sites

– Social Landscape Indicators -> locate perceptionsspatially

19/05/2015 14Social Landscape Indicators

Pag.

Relevance for management & policy

– Mapping ES important to stakeholders & communities

– Including cultural ES, difficult to map with traditionalmethods

– Integrating local/lay knowledge with expertknowledge

--Coldspot+-Warmspot++Hotspot

Ecol.SocialAlessa et al.2008

19/05/2015 15Social Landscape Indicators

Pag.

Results. Perceived ES supply mapped

1. Aesthetical experiences (18 % - Cultural ES)2. Soft recreation (15 % - CES)3. Habitat provisioning

(15 % - regulating ES)4. Food production (8 %)5. Conservation of local

species (5 % - reg. ES) Intangible, cultural ES

Lay knowledge