Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
ES inventory in the absence of studying the recipients of those services. What would
be necessary to develop our understanding of the region was to simultaneously:
(a) survey the local residents with regard to their values, behaviors and opinions
regarding their ecosystem,
(b) interview local experts of all disciplines to procure expert knowledge regarding
human interaction with the local ecosystem and its services, and
(c) research the status of biodiversity and ecosystem integrity in the region.
We thereby combined social and natural science methods to provide a holistic
understanding of the socio-ecological system via the currency of ecosystem services.
Our fi nal step will be to turn these data in to policy relevant information. By including
policy makers and land use planners in the basic research (as interviewees, for
example) and bringing them close to the research in an advisory capacity, we have
cultured a conduit for uptake of our research results throughout the process.
The ES framework has been criticized for its over-reliance on economic valua-
tion and its lack of social valuation methods. The act of social-based research is a
response to the ethical dilemmas inherent in the ES concept and its over-reliance on
monetization (Kosoy and Corbera
2010
; Luck et al.
2012
). Social-based ES research
within the LTSER platform provides a powerful framework for integrating local
communities, their values and opinions, into the local research and policy agenda.
The social-based approach to ES assessment has proven itself as a catalyst for
constructive, community-level engagement in multiple venues (e.g. Bryan et al.
2010
;
Maynard et al.
2010
; Chan et al.
2012
).
Through our research in Wadi Araba, including multiple studies employing
questionnaire-based surveys and in-depth interviews with local residents, we have
established a solid foundation for the claim that the local population is strongly con-
nected to the local landscape (Sagie et al.
2013
; Orenstein and Groner
2014
) and
that despite the perception that deserts are low in ecosystem service provision due
to low primary productivity, they are extremely rich in cultural services. The popu-
lation exhibits high affi nity to the desert landscape, its mountains and open spaces.
This has led to a persistent debate about whether landscapes devoid of biological life
(or whose beauty is attributed primarily to geodiversity rather than biological features)
are providing an ecosystem service. The United Kingdom National Ecosystem
Assessment (UK-NEA) proposes that both biological and geological features
combine to provide ecosystem services. The inclusion of geology as a provider of
ES may resolve our conundrum (Gray
2011
). Others suggest that cultural value of
landscapes is a unique phenomenon that should not be considered within the rubric
of ecosystem services, but rather should be considered services unto themselves
(Brown
2013
). Other research fi ndings include:
1. Ecological knowledge of respondents was generally low; the population lacked
a holistic understanding of the ecosystem, the importance of biodiversity, and the
implications of their economic activities on ecosystem processes.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search