Rete Montagna Interna,onal Congress Eurac Conven,on Center -‐ Bolzano/Bozen -‐ IT November, 6th -‐ 8th 2014
Moving beyond “tradi0onal” assessments of ecosystem services: the use of social valua0on techniques
Paola Sabina Lupo Stanghellini, Brenda Zoderer, Jane,e Walde, Harald Wieser, Erich Tasser, Ulrike Tappeiner
EURAC – Is0tuto per l’Ambiente Alpino
2014
Moving beyond “traditional� assessments of ecosystem services: the use of social valuation techniques Paola Sabina Lupo Stanghellini, Brenda Zoderer, Janette Walde Harald Wieser, Erich Tasser, Ulrike Tappeiner
Summary
Ø Introduction Ø Objectives of the study Ø Phase 1 (2012): • Methodological approach • Results Ø Phase 2 (2014): • Methodological approach Ø Future developments 4
Introduction (1) Ecosystem services assessment: • Ecosystem services (ES) assessment have increasingly been used by academics and policy-makers to support and inform environmental management policies and conservation strategies. • Because ecosystem services assessments are determined by analysing the effect of ecosystems on human well-being, it is necessary to understand the way society benefits from nature.
5
Introduction (2) Focus on humans: • Humans are expected to take decisions about environmental management policies and conservation strategies in order to improve their well-being and create added value. • Humans “change” the environment to better accommodate their perception of value. • Humans, as beneficiaries of ecosystem services, should be the focal point of ecosystem services assessment. In this way it would be possible to uncover the mutable and often diverging values people hold toward different ecosystem services. 6
Introduction (3) Non-economic valuation methods: Most studies have focused either on the biophysical assessment, or on the economic valuation of ecosystem services. Few studies have addressed socio-cultural preferences toward ecosystem services from the perspective of human values, attitudes and beliefs. Non-economic valuation offers ways of understanding the motivations underlying social preferences toward ecosystem services, thereby unrevealing values that tend to be obscured by monetary languages. 7
Introduction (4) Social-valuation methods: An emerging field of scholars argue that ecosystem services should be measured using social valuation techniques, since alongside economic considerations and biophysical assessments, human beings attach different values to the environment. These techniques uses different tools, including participatory mapping, questionnaires, in-depth interviews, etc. They express ES values using qualitative measurements and ratings. These techniques are applied mainly to assess cultural ecosystem services (CES). 8
Introduction (5) The problem:
Lack of research!
9
Objectives of the study (1) Assessment of cultural ecosystem services provided by alpine landscapes using social valuation techniques:
Ecosystem service concept
Alps
Social valuation techniques
Landscape framework 10
Objectives of the study (2) Objectives - phase 1 (2012):
Ø Ranking of ES services and ES categories Ø Identification of socio-cultural values toward three ecosystem services categories Ø Identification of socio-cultural values toward four CES (in depth-analysis)
11
Objectives of the study (3) Objectives - phase 2 (2014): Ø Mapping and ranking of CES provided by all landscape types in the whole region of South Tyrol (GIS) Ø In depth analysis of the relationship between CES and traditional/modern landscape Ø Analysis of the relationship between the general appreciation of a landscape type and its perceived aesthetic beauty. Ø Identification of socio-cultural values toward each CES Ø In depth analysis of tangible vs. intangible features of CES
12
P1: Materials & Methods (1)
§ Study area: South Tyrolean Region § Method: Face-to-face interviews § Questionnaire: questionnaire + picture sheet § Languages: Italian and German § Interviewed people: tourists § Period: July-September 2012 § Data collected: 513 questionnaires, 470 valid
13
P1: Materials & Methods (2) Landscape types: § Larch meadow (traditional landscape)
§ Hay meadow (intensification)
§ Spruce forest (abandonment) 14
P1: Materials & Methods (3) Twelve ES were considered: Provisioning (LM)
Provisioning (SP)
Provisioning (HM)
Regulating (LM, SP, HM)
Cultural (LM, SP, HM)
Timber
Timber
Grazing
Carbon sequestration
Recreation
Grazing
Grazing
Fodder
Water purification
Aesthetic appreciation
Fodder
Mushrooms Mushrooms Maintenance and soft fruits and soft fruits of soil fertility
Mushrooms Biomass for and soft fruits energy production
Biomass for energy production
Biodiversity conservation
Spiritual enrichment Cultural enrichment 15
P1: Results (1) ES ranking: Regulating ES were ranked as the most important (4.17), followed by cultural (3.69) and provisioning (3.63). Fodder and grazing from hay meadow obtained the highest ranking among all ES. Grazing in spruce forests and mushrooms in hay meadows were perceived as least important. IAERE 2014
16
P1: Results (2) Frequency 20,0%
ES valuation Not important Little important Quite important Important Very important I don‘t know
ES valuation:
15,0%
10,0%
05,0%
00,0%
provisioning
regulating
cultural
ES types
17
P1: Results (3) § Provisioning ES: Hay meadows were attributed the highest value with respect to provisioning ES (3.73), followed by spruce forests (3.61) and larch meadows (3.55). Heterogeneity among PES. § Regulating ES: Larch meadows were attributed the highest value with respect to regulating ES (4.45), followed by spruce forests (4.30) and hay meadows (3.76). Homogeneity among RES. § Cultural ES: Larch meadows were attributed the highest value with respect to cultural ES (3.89), followed by hay meadows (3.63) and spruce forests (3.55). Recreation and aesthetic appreciation are clearly preferred over others. 18
P1: Results (4) § Larch meadow ES ranking: Regulating ES were ranked as the most important (mean value: 4.45), followed by cultural (3.89) and provisioning (3.55). § Spruce forest ES ranking: Regulating ES were ranked as the most important (mean value: 4.30), followed by provisioning (3.61) and cultural (3.55) ES. § Hay meadow ES raking: Regulating (3.76) and provisioning (3.73) ES were ranked as the most important, followed by cultural (3.63) ES. 19
P1: Results (5) Influence on socio-cultural perception: Landscape and ES type
Socio-demographic background of respondents
Socio-cultural perception of each ES category
The focus on a single landscapes let to an overestimation of the influence of socio-demographic factors. 20
P1: Results (6) Furthermore: • Landscapes were highly rated in relation to provision of CES. • Landscapes were rated higher in relation to recreation and aesthetic appreciation. Larch meadows: • Are the landscape type for which CES were valued higher in comparison to the other landscape types. • Are the landscape type with he most suitable structure. • Are the landscape type with the highest biodiversity. 21
P1: Results (7) Larch meadows performance
IAERE 2014
22
P2: Materials & Methods (1)
§ Study area: South Tyrolean Region § Method: Face-to-face interviews § Questionnaire: questionnaire + picture sheet § Languages: Italian and German § Interviewed people: tourists § Period: August-October 2014 (phase 2) § Data collected: 701 questionnaires, 681 valid (phase 2)
23
P2: Materials & Methods (2) Landscape types:
§ Traditional forest
§ Spruce forest
§ Broadleaf forest 24
P2: Materials & Methods (3) § Traditional meadow
§ Modern meadow
§ Traditional permanent crop
§ Modern permanent crop 25
P2: Materials & Methods (4)
§ Settlement
§ Alpine pasture
§ High mountain landscape
26
P2: Materials & Methods (5) 4 CES were considered: • Possibility of leisure activities • Aesthetic beauty • Cultural heritage • Spirituality
Data elaboration will start next month.
27
Future developments (1) CES Mapping in South Tyrol: Stakeholder Analysis
+
Social Network Analysis
Stakeholder identification and classification Participatory mapping Stakeholders‘ map
+
Tourists‘ map
Landscape CES final map (South Tyrol) 28
Future developments (2) Sustainable management of CES in South Tyrol: New CAP
CES Mapping
Agriculture
CES social valuation
Tourism
CES economic valuation Payments for CES
CES sustainable management Public participation Stakeholder involvement
Sustainable local development 29
Future developments (3) EU research funding opportunities:
Societal challanges: Horizon 2020
12. Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials 9. Food Security, Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry, Marine, Maritime and Inland Water Research and the Bioeconomy
30
Future developments (4) EU research funding opportunities: Priority 3. Liveable Alpine Space: 3.1. Sustainably valorise natural and cultural heritage Interreg Alpine Space
3.2. Enhance alpine ecosystems Example of actions: • Participation and conflict resulution models • Sustainable and innovative landscape management • Alternative valorisation of Alpine ES and integration in regional policies 31
Future developments (5) EU research funding opportunities: Axis 3. Cooperating in natural and cultural resources for sustianble growth:
Interreg Central Europe
3.1. To improve environmental management capacities for protection and sustianble use of natural heritage and resources 3.2.To improve capacities for sustainble use of cultural heritage and resources Example of actions: •  Development of strategies and policies for valorising cultural heritage and exploiting ist potentials. 32
Thank you very much for your attention! Paola Sabina Lupo Stanghellini EURAC Research Viale Druso 1 / Drususallee 1 39100 Bolzano / Bozen Phone: 0371 055 319 Fax: 0371 055 399 E-mail:
paola.lupo@eurac.edu
2014