Using Ecosystem Services in Community-Based Landscape Planning: Science is Not Ready to Deliver - Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture - page 86

where the locations are with bundles of services, and how these 'hotspots' could be
valued. Such maps are often acquired by linking land cover types to generic
estimates of value, often drawn from studies done elsewhere and often assuming
that the conversion from biophysical assets to value is identical across the range.
The resulting maps are too much generalized and with too little spatial detail to
serve in community-based landscape planning. Furthermore, Eigenbrod et al.
( 2010 ) showed that maps based on such course proxies may strongly deviate from
directly measured ecosystem services, and conclude that such methods are
unsuitable for identifying priority areas for multiple services. At a local scale,
Grêt-Regamey et al. ( 2008 ) came to a similar conclusion. More detailed approa-
ches are often limited because of lack of detailed land use data and landscape
services value estimates. An interesting approach to explore is how coarse grained
maps might get more detail by bringing in stakeholder knowledge.
However, most studies thus far discussed lack public involvement. Seppelt et al.
( 2011 ) reviewed 153 publications on ecosystem services over two decades, and
concluded that stakeholder involvement is in its infancy, either in identifying
relevant ecosystem services, in providing ground truthing for management options
or in assigning weights of importance to different services. Often, if stakeholders
are involved, they provide information to the scientists to incorporate into the
analytical model (for example, Vihervaara et al. 2010 ). However, if stakeholders
would actively map landscape services themselves and be supported by scientists,
they would develop much more insight into the ecological complexity of their
system. A discourse-based mapping method could help to converge the variety of
opinions among stakeholders on what is valuable, but such attempts are scare
(Wilson and Howarth 2002 ). There is a need for mapping methods which give
stakeholders a central role, which help them to define important services, locate
sites for action to improve benefits, and organize the change process. One of the
few examples is the study by Raymond et al. ( 2009 ), who developed a mapping
method in interaction with a large group of decision makers that revealed place-
specific differences in ecosystem services values. They founded their approach on
theories of social-ecological systems and sense of place. Fagerholm et al. ( 2012 )
experimented with mapping of landscape services providing sites by the inhabit-
ants of a local community in Zanzibar, Tanzania (a 61 km 2 area). The results show
that the located sites are spatially clustered and that sites provide several services
at once. A similar stakeholder-based mapping of geographic hotspots of social
value with concern for multiple objectives and related management was carried
out in Australia by Bryan et al. ( 2010 ).
A large unmet challenge is to understand how landscape services are distributed
among different groups in the local community (Tallis and Polasky 2009 ). An
important step in the planning process is a demand and supply analysis (Fig. 5.3 ).
It shows how land owners, who could optimize landscapes to provide demanded
benefits, are linked to interest groups who (may) have a demand for services; such
groups may reside outside the area. Such an analysis could show shared interests
among stakeholder groups, which may lead to coalitions in demands or even in
investments in the area. On the supply side, spatial clusters of landscape elements