104097

Master Thesis ǀ Tesis de Maestría submitted within the UNIGIS MSc programme presentada para el Programa UNIGIS MSc at/en Interfaculty Department of Geoinformatics- Z_GIS Departamento de Geomática – Z_GIS University of Salzburg ǀ Universidad de Salzburg

Biocultural Ecosystem Services Provided by Landscapes: Assessment of Heritage Values and Identity at the El Collay Territorial Association (Azuay, Ecuador) Estefanía Palacios Tamayo 01423645 A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Science (Geographical Information Science & Systems) – MSc (GIS)

Cuenca - Ecuador, July 7, 2019

Acknowledges To my grandmother Martha for her immense love, which surpasses the time and death barriers.

To my husband and daughter because they understood my absences and encouraged my ideas. Many thanks to my parents, brothers and brothers-in-law for always being a great support in my human and academic formation.

This research could not have been possible without the constant support of many people and organizations. I thank all the local actors and municipalities that make up the El Collay territorial association, especially Gloria Aguilar from the Environmental Department of the Gualaceo Municipality and Alexandra Vรกsquez, coordinator of the Futuro Latinoamericano Foundation. They provided me their time, information and they always believed in this investigation. In addition, I would like to thank in a special way my professor advisor, Dr. Pablo Cabrera Barona, for his guidance and patience. Finally, I extend my thanks to Carolina Sampedro, Gabriela Ramรณn and Laure Collet for guiding me in this process as academic coordinators of the UNIGIS master's program.

1

RESUMEN La Mancomunidad de El Collay (Azuay, Ecuador) satisface una creciente demanda de paisajes agradables, con el fin de ofrecer varios servicios ecosistémicos culturales a sus residentes y turistas. Debido a la dinámica globalizante, los administradores de la tierra y los gobiernos locales necesitan técnicas de evaluación integral y eficientes para hacer un seguimiento de sus servicios ecosistémicos naturales y culturales. Esta investigación es importante porque incluye por primera vez en este territorio, un análisis conceptual y participativo de los servicios ecosistémicos culturales y la forma en la que están vinculados a los conceptos y perspectivas locales de paisaje, cambio en el paisaje y patrimonio. Por lo tanto, este estudio entrega insumos de evaluación de los ecosistemas bioculturales y algunas ideas para incluirlos dentro de la planificación espacial y física de la Mancomunidad de El Collay. El presente trabajo tiene como objetivo principal estudiar los servicios ecosistémicos culturales y conocer cómo se relacionan con el paisaje, el patrimonio y la identidad del área de El Collay, mediante la aplicación de análisis espaciales basados en Sistemas de Información Geográficos Comunitarios Participativos. Entre estos la metodología DIVE y herramientas de mapeo comunitario participativo para identificar servicios ecosistémicos de interés comunitario.

Las metodologías de análisis DIVE (Describir, Interpretar, Validar y Habilitar) y Mapeo Participativo abordan algunos de los desafíos que se encuentran al visualizar los entornos históricos y culturales como recursos cualitativos y funcionales. El análisis se centra en identificar las cualidades del patrimonio semiurbano y rural como activos de desarrollo y utiliza términos y técnicas como matrices de tiempo / espacio, legibilidad histórica, integridad del patrimonio y capacidad de cambio. Mediante el análisis, se clarifican cuáles características sociales, económicas, culturales y físicas han sido y son importantes. Del desarrollo del área, cuáles rasgos físicos han desempeñado y juegan un papel clave funcional y simbólico, y cuáles son de importancia secundaria, todo esto por medio de la perspectiva y participación activa de los actores locales de El Collay.

Los resultados de este estudio revelaron que los actores locales de El Collay clasificaron los servicios ecosistémicos desde su memoria histórica e identidad cultural. Por lo tanto, las prioridades sobre conservación y protección de la mancomunidad se centraron en sus activos naturales de carácter simbólico y sagrado (cultural), definiendo unidades de paisaje estratégicas que contrastan con las establecidas por los municipios en sus planes de ordenamiento territorial.

Palabras clave: biocultural, ecosistemas, territorio, paisaje, identidad cultural.

2

ABSTRACT El Collay Territorial Association has an increasing demand for pleasant landscapes, offering many cultural ecosystem services to their residents and tourists. Because of global change, land managers and policy makers deal with changes in this landscape and need integral and efficient evaluation techniques to assess cultural ecosystem services. This research is important because it includes for the first time in El Collay history, a conceptual and participatory analysis of cultural ecosystem services and how they are linked to local concepts and perspectives of landscape, landscape changes and heritage. Therefore, this work discusses how these cultural ecosystem services can be assessed and integrated into spatial and physical planning at El Collay Territorial Association.

The main objective of this work is to study cultural ecosystem services and how they are linked with El Collay landscape, heritage and identity, by applying community participatory GIS-based spatial analysis. In this way, DIVE (Describe, Interpret, Valuate and Enable) and participatory community mapping tools were applied in order to identify community interest cultural ecosystem services. Both methodologies address some of the challenges which are encountered when analyzing historic and cultural environments from a qualitative and functional resources approach. The analysis considers semi-urban and rural heritage characteristics as development factors and applies concepts and techniques such as time/space matrices, historic legibility, heritage integrity, and capacity for change. This study identifies the cultural and physical features that are important for the study area’s development, as well as which areas play a key functional and symbolic role, and which are of secondary importance from stakeholder’s local perspectives.

Finally, this study revealed important outcomes. First, El Collay local actors classified their ecosystem services since their historical memory and cultural identity.

Secondly, the conservation and protection priorities of this territorial association focused on symbolic and sacred biocultural assets, defining strategic landscape units that contrast with those established by the municipalities in their territorial planning plans.

Keywords: biocultural, ecosystems, territory, landscape, cultural identity.

3

Contents 1.

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 7 1.1.

Background ....................................................................................................................... 7

1.2.

Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 8

1.2.1.

Sub Objectives: ................................................................................................................. 8

1.3.

Research Question ............................................................................................................ 8

1.4.

Justification ....................................................................................................................... 8

1.5.

Scope of the Investigation ................................................................................................ 9

2.

Literature review ................................................................................................................ 10 2.1.

Conceptual Background ................................................................................................ 10

2.2.

Cultural ecosystem services ........................................................................................... 10

2.3.

Cultural landscapes ........................................................................................................ 11

2.4.

Cultural Identity............................................................................................................. 13

2.5.

Cultural Ecosystem Services represent the cultural heritage of peoples .................. 14

2.6.

New Paradigm in Ecosystem Services .......................................................................... 16

2.7.

The DIVE Methodology ................................................................................................. 17

2.8.

Participatory Mapping .................................................................................................. 19

3.

Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 21 3.1.

Study site ......................................................................................................................... 21

3.3.

Justification of Methodology ......................................................................................... 24

3.3.1.

DIVE Methodology ........................................................................................................ 24

4.

Results of the investigation ................................................................................................ 28 4.1.

About origin of local actors ........................................................................................... 28

4.2.

About local actors’ perceptions ..................................................................................... 29

4.3.

About local actors´ perceptions of Biocultural Ecosystem Services .......................... 34

4.4.

Biocultural ecosystem services Categories defined by local actors ............................ 35

4.5.

Biocultural Ecosystem Services at El Collay Territorial Association. ....................... 35

4.6.

Providers of Biocultural Ecosystem Services at El Collay Territorial Association .. 37

4.7.

Significant Changes in the Area .................................................................................... 39

4.8.

Reasons for changes at El Collay .................................................................................. 40

4.9.

Biocultural Ecosystem Services Risk ............................................................................ 41

4.10. Actions to Mitigate ......................................................................................................... 43 4.11. Proposal for the Protection of the Biocultural Territory El Collay ........................... 44 5.Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 47 5.1. About the analysis of the CES and their relationship with landscape, heritage and identity......................................................................................................................................... 47

4

5.2. About how the cultural ecosystem services can be spatially assessed and integrated to support decision making in the study area. ......................................................................... 48 5.3.

About Future Projections and Methodology ............................................................... 52

5.4.

Research Question and its responses. ........................................................................... 54

6.

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 56

7.

Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 57

Appendices section ......................................................................................................................... 62

5

Glossary: Corporación Eléctrica del Ecuador (CELEC) Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) Decentralized Autonomous Governments (DAG) DIVE (Describe, Interpret, Valuate and Enable) Ecosystems Services (ES) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Fundación Futuro Latinoamericano (FFLA) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos (INEC) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) Nature Contributions to People (NCP) Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) United Nations University (UNU)

6

Table of Figures FIGURE 1 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR CULTURAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES. ....................... 15 FIGURE 2 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA .................................................................................. 22 FIGURE 3 METHODOLOGICAL WORKFLOW .................................................................................. 23 FIGURE 4 DIVE METHODOLOGY PHASES .................................................................................... 25 FIGURE 5 BUFFER PROCESS EXPLANATION……………………………………………………27 FIGURE 6 PARTICIPATORY MAPPING FLOWCHART ...................................................................... 27 FIGURE 7 LOCAL ACTOR'S ORGANIZATION ................................................................................ 28 FIGURE 8 LOCAL ACTORS PERCEPTIONS OF EL COLLAY TERRITORIAL ASSOCIATION. .............. 34 FIGURE 9 BIOCULTURAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES BY LOCAL ACTORS OF EL COLLAY TERRITORIAL ASSOCIATION ...................................................................................................................... 35 FIGURE 10 MAP OF BIOCULTURAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AT EL COLLAY .............................. 36 FIGURE 11 MAP OF PROVIDERS OF BIOCULTURAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ................................. 38 FIGURE 12 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE AREA ........................................................................ 39 FIGURE 13 BIOCULTURAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ...................................................................... 40 FIGURE 14 RISK MAP OF EL COLLAY .......................................................................................... 42 FIGURE 15 MAP OF BIOCULTURAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES BY LOCAL ACTORS OF EL COLLAY TERRITORIAL ASSOCIATION ................................................................................................ 43 FIGURE 16 MAP OF PROPOSAL BIOCULTURAL TERRITORY....................................................... 45

Tables Table 1: Community Time-space matrix………………………………………………….…….29 Table 2: Projects Proposal according to Biocultural Ecosystem Services at El Collay …...….…43

7

1. Introduction 1.1.

Background

Ecosystems provide Humanity a whole series of benefits, known as ecosystem goods and services, which are vital for wellbeing economic and social development both in the present and the future. In short, they are services that nature provides to people and are responsible for sustaining all the activities and lives of human beings. Since many of these goods and services have always been freely available, without being subject to markets or prices, their true long-term value is not included as economic estimates.

If natural ecosystems stop providing their services, the alternatives will be costly. Investing in our natural capital will mean long-term savings, as well as being important for our wellbeing and survival for current and future generations. The study conducted by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB, 2008) finds that the loss of ecosystems and biodiversity is closely interrelated with poverty, and estimated that if no action is taken, the loss of terrestrial biodiversity, by itself, can cost 7% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)1 in 2050, a figure that can be much higher if one also takes into account the loss of services provided by marine ecosystems. However, nature and society complex relationship have been building up series of ecosystem services outcomes that include different categories of them. Such as for instance, “culture”. Beyond western approach, ecosystem services are also part of people’s cultural identities however, they are underestimate by the eyes of national and local governments.

According to Milcu, Ioana, Hanspach, Abson, and Fischer (2013), cultural ecosystem services are usually included under non-consumptive direct use values and suffer from poor quantification and integration in management plans. Except for recreational and aesthetic values (Chan and Ruckelshaus, 2010) and cultural heritage and educational values (Kumar 2010), cultural ecosystem services are seldom reflected by economic indicators (e.g., real estate prices) and are rarely marketable. In South America and specifically in Ecuador, the valuation of ecosystem services is recent, even in the Ecuadorian legislation (Constitución de la República del Ecuador, 2008) the concept and management of them is not clear.

However, in national programs such as Socio Bosque under the responsibility of the Ecuadorian Ministry of the Environment, environmental actions have been created that

1 Gross domestic product (GDP) is the monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country's borders in a specific time period

8

integrate ecosystem services into their lines. However, these are understood as natural assets and totally disconnected from the cultural heritage of their peoples.

Finally, it is worth to say that there are very few studies about El Collay Commonwealth ecosystem services. In fact, these studies are more focused on the environmental issue and have been made by municipal technicians or external consultants who are dedicated to making land use planning. In other words, the few reports that exists on the subject are empirical and lacks research with academic support.

1.2.

Objectives

This research’s aim is to asses biocultural ecosystem services and how they are linked with landscape, heritage and identity in El Collay (Azuay, Ecuador).

1.2.1. Sub Objectives: •

To provide an analysis of the cultural ecosystem services and their link to the structure concepts of landscape, heritage and identity.

•

To discuss how the cultural ecosystem services can be spatially assessed and integrated to support decision making in the study area.

•

To provide some recommendations on the way forward with respect to integration of cultural heritage values and identity in ecosystem services assessments that form the basis for conservation planning and implementation, as well as policy making.

1.3.

Research Question

How are biocultural ecosystem services related to the landscape structure and cultural identity El Collay Territorial Association’s inhabitants?

1.4.

Justification

For terrestrial ecosystems, the most important direct drivers of changes in ecosystem services in the past 50 years have been land-use and land cover changes. Landscape-scale approaches to asses loss of ecosystem services and biodiversity have therefore become increasingly important (Sarukhán and White, 2003). For instance, some European countries have introduced specific forms of payments for the maintenance of grasslands with high cultural and natural heritage values (Fish et al., 2016). However, local and traditional

9

knowledge are often under-used in decision-making about landscape and ecosystem management, which may contribute to loss of heritage values and cultural landscapes (Wu and Petriello, 2011).

El Collay Protected Forest and Vegetation is a significant natural and cultural area in Southern Ecuador, since it encompasses three main aspects that are considered key for the development of policy on environment protection and ecosystem services:

First, the

important natural, fragile conditions that need to be preserved. Second, the long history of human environment relationship at El Collay and third, its important cultural heritage (Palacios,2017).

Despite El Collay has different important biocultural assets, this Territorial Association has not a map of cultural ecosystem services to asses these services within a landscape scale.

In addition, the limited information about the cultural and natural resources of the Territorial Association has not strengthened the cultural identity of the local communities. This problem also affects local governments decisions making because it makes these ecosystem services invisibles, triggering even partial or total loss of the biocultural heritage of the area (Ranaboldo and Schejtm, 2009). For this reason, the present work seeks to include in its analysis the cultural ecosystem services and their relationship with the perspectives of culture, landscape and heritage.

1.5.

Scope of the Investigation

This research aims to provide a cultural ecosystem services updated database defined by El Collay Territorial Association’s local actors. In addition, it will provide comprehensive information of spaces and places with high biocultural value by El Collay inhabitants.

Therefore, these outcomes will be an important input for territorial planning plans and other documents related to the land-use and management, heritage management and so on. This investigation will be useful for local actors and authorities of Decentralized Autonomous Governments (DAG) and Parochial Boards. This study will cover a sub-regional scale analysis, which includes two southeastern Ecuadorian provinces, Azuay and Morona Santiago. It will include 6 DAG: Paute, Gualaceo, El Pan, Sevilla de Oro, GuachapĂĄla and Santiago de MĂŠndez.

10

2. Literature review 2.1.

Conceptual Background

The non-material benefits that people obtain from ecosystems are called "cultural services". These services include aesthetic inspiration, cultural identity, territory feelings and the spiritual experience related to the natural environment (Fish et al., 2016:4). Normally, this classification also includes opportunities for tourism and recreational activities. In many cases, cultural services are the most important values that people associate with nature.

Cultural ecosystem services (CES) are using as a new capital way for natural resources exploitation (FAO, 2009). In this sense, it is important to propone working with other key concepts such as cultural heritage, cultural identity and biocultural landscape. These concepts support the understanding of biocultural heritage from the perspective of indigenous and local communities.

2.2.

Cultural ecosystem services

The human being complexity expressing through human cultures, knowledge systems, religions, heritage values, social interactions and the linked amenity services, always have been influenced and shaped by the nature of the ecosystems and ecosystem conditions in which culture is based (Argumedo and Swiderska, 2008) At the same time, people have always influenced and shaped the environment to enhance the availability of certain valued services (Tengberg et al.,2012). Cultural ecosystem services are the nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences (SarukhĂĄn and White, 2003). An important body of literature has emerged seeking to develop the concept of cultural ecosystem services in different policy, practice and geographical contexts. However, some of them has been criticized because they do not clearly separate notions of services, benefits, and values (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; Wallace, 2007; Chan et al., 2011). Encompassing a broad symbolic, experiential and virtuous realm of human interactions and understandings of the natural environment, cultural ecosystem services are considered by Chan et al. (2011) to inspire “deep attachmentâ€? in communities (p.206). These services are thought by some to act as important entry points for public engagement and concern in environmental matters, accordingly building wider public support for ecosystem protection (Daniel et al., 2012).

11

Cultural ecosystem services are important in a wide range of settings. Indeed, some industrialized societies often value cultural ecosystem services ahead of other services because it represents a plus in relation with other regular landscape (Palomo and Montes, 2011). On the other hand, in traditional communities, cultural ecosystem services mean cultural identity and even survival in a globalizing system. Although cultural ecosystem services are greatly valued by diverse stakeholders and score highly in assessments of public perceptions, they are sometimes sacrificed by decision makers for economic and ecological reasons (Chan et al., 2011).

According to Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) report (2005), heritage values and cultural identity are two of the six categories of cultural ecosystem services recognized.

Other services are not recognized yet, such as for instance, spiritual (sacred, religious, or other forms of spiritual inspiration derived from ecosystems); inspiration (use of natural motives or artefacts in art folklore, etc.); aesthetic appreciation of natural and cultivated landscapes and, recreation and tourism. The ongoing loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services is one of the greatest global challenges faced by decision-makers and society. In addition, along with growing urbanization and agricultural intensification, the demand for enjoyable environments is rising. Therefore, recent international polices by many countries have included the concept of ecosystem services as tools for better policies and management that counter degradation of ecological systems (Tengberd et al., 2012).

2.3.

Cultural landscapes

Cultural landscapes are the example of human adaptation onto the physical settings (Sauer, 1925). Although the cultural landscape discipline has been traditionally linked to archaeology and history, assessing and protecting cultural values in the landscape need to be associated with protecting natural issues. Therefore, the biocultural landscape definition includes the hybridity of both nature and culture dimensions (Fisher and Feinman, 2005).

Compared to previous studies on physical landscapes, which emphasized measuring tangible benefits such as biodiversity and clean water supply, studies on cultural values and intangible benefits have just recently received attention in conservation policy (Milcu et al., 2013) Recently, several international organizations (e.g. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), International Union for Conservative of Nature (IUCN), United Nations (UN) as well as global non-governmental organizations (e.g.

Conservation International, Nature Conservancy, among others) have declared a new

12

category of protected areas, named ‘protected landscape/seascape (category V)’, which describes the anthropogenic landscape as a result of active interaction between human and nature. Furthermore, protected landscapes have received attention as Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS) that are now threatened by climate change and overall environmental transformation (Sarmiento, 2016) Recently, academic discourses on ecosystem services have instigated to include cultural ecosystem services as well as various tangible ecosystem services in order to achieve comprehensive conservation of natural integrity and human wellbeing (Plieninger, van der Horst, Schleyer, and Bieling, 2014) Although these could be understood as a traditional discussion of urban/regional planning about aesthetics and recreational opportunities, the new political ecology discourse on cultural ecosystem services aims to include more diverse values of human perception of nature and cultural landscapes characteristics, such as spatial identity, landscape memory, nation building, educational value, cultural heritage , sacred sites, scenic beauty and recreational activities (Milcu et al., 2013) The incorporation of cultural values and cultural ecosystem services in conservation practice have been limited due to several reasons. First, cultural ecosystem services (CES) are hard to measure due to their subjectivity. Based on personal experience or emotional status, people perceive CES in different angles and degrees that limit consistent results to be represented objectively. Sometimes people do not appreciate cultural values since they are considered axiomatic and self-evident. Second, intangible values have been regarded as capricious, making it a major obstacle to quantify those values. Quantifiable results are preferred in decision-making processes as an easily understandable information.

Descriptive analysis of social and cultural values, however, have recently been highlighted in a new light of non-commodity or utilitarian classification. This newer narrative promoted lately by Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2016) oved to assume Nature Contributions to People (NCP) as the true integrative approach will values intangibles of the biocultural landscape. Lastly, identifying cultural values requires site-specific, locally engaged work to conduct the comprehensive study.

13

2.4.

Cultural Identity

Cultural Identity beyond a static concept is a flexible approach that adapts into news social and cultural expressions. According to Kuper (2009) this term has its origin in intellectual discussions during the eighteenth century in Europe. On the other hand, in countries such as France and Great Britain, the origin is related to the word civilization that denotes order and administrative wisdom, being the opposite of this, barbarism and savagery.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2001) through the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, defends the cause of the individuality of culture and development, understood not only in terms of economic growth, but also as a means of accessing a satisfactory intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual existence.

Undoubtedly, there is a wide variety of concepts about culture, however there are several authors that coincides in that the culture incentivize life to the human being. In this sense, Molano (2013) points out that we can name four dimensions and social functions that culture possesses: a way of life, social cohesion, creation of wealth/ employment, and territorial balance. The same author approaches the concept of cultural identity, as complex and broad as that of culture, the same that contains a sense of belonging to a social group with which cultural features are shared, that is, customs, values and beliefs. Identity is not a fixed concept but is recreated individually, collectively and continuously feeds from outside influence.

One way to analyze people identity is through cultural heritage, where, society as an active agent that shapes its cultural heritage by establishing and identifying valuable elements that become the reference of identity (Båkula, 2000). Identity is also linked to local history, local actor’s memory, the ability to recognize the past or the symbols that are fundamental pillars for the continuous construction of the people’s historical process.

Many towns and cities in Europe and Latin America have opted for the revaluation of culture, identity and heritage as crucial tools to generate territorial development. To generate processes of cultural and patrimonial activation, a collective action is necessary, including political, communal, entrepreneurial, and associative actors, as well as a recognition of important historical processes and social struggles.

The empowerment of cultural identity arouses social cohesion, generate economic activities improve the income and quality of life of the community. Cultural heritage values are within the MA as important factors to consider in ecosystem management, since many

14

societies place high value on the maintenance of either historically important landscapes (cultural landscapes) or culturally significant species. MA refers to heritage values mainly as special or historic features within a landscape that remind collective and individual cultural roots, providing a sense of continuity and understanding of our place in our natural and cultural environment. Heritage is conceptualized as landscape-related ‘‘memories’’ from past cultural ties, mainly expressed through characteristics within cultural landscapes (MA, 2005).

2.5.

Cultural Ecosystem Services represent the cultural heritage of

peoples According to Fish et al. (2016), it is possible to incorporate the distinctive aspects of culture into an ecosystems approach in a way that supports the conceptual complexity required to analyze culture whilst enabling decision-makers to address cultural services in policy processes in varying geographical contexts. This framework is summarized graphically in Figure 1 and focuses on ontological dimensions of culture, that is, on how culture might be conceptualized as a category within the ecosystem services framework.

This product is distinguished by its emphasis on the co-production and reciprocity of culturenature relationships that some suggest is required to understand the unpredictable relationality between non-humans and humans (Whatmore, 2002)

15

Figure 1. A conceptual framework for cultural ecosystem services. Source: Fish et al.

2016:4.

The components of the framework in Figure 1 are described down below (Fish et al., 2016): •Environmental spaces - the places, localities, landscapes and seascapes in which people interact with each other and the natural environment; •Cultural practices –expressive, symbolic and interpretive interactions between people and the natural environment; •Cultural benefits - dimensions of human well-being that can be associated with these interactions between people and the natural environment.

•Cultural goods - the interactions between values, services and benefits will sometimes be amenable to market transactions, creating cultural goods that can be exchanged, sometimes but not always, in monetary terms.

In this sense, Fish et al. (2016) define cultural ecosystem services as part of subjectobject ontology - as a priori products of nature that people utilize for a benefit to well-being - and as relational processes and entities that people actively create and express through interactions with ecosystems. This logic is close of what Chan et al. (2011) argues about

16

cultural ecosystem services. They say that cultural ecosystem is the “ecosystems’ contribution to the non-material benefits (capabilities and experiences) that derive from human–ecosystem relationships. Many reconstructions of the ecosystem services framework have considered linear representations of ecosystem services and well-being with diverse human ‘feedback’ loops (De Groot et al., 2005) In this sense, cultural - ecosystem services are co-determined and co-produced through human and non-human relationships (Jones et al., 2016). A general theoretical point conveyed by Figure 1 is that an understanding of cultural ecosystem services reflects and creates a wider set of cultural values about ecosystems. By cultural values, is referring to collective principles and life goals, and the associated norms and expectations that influence how ecosystems accrue meaning and significance for people. Researchers have argued that cultural ecosystem services are both a product of the way these values are applied and a context in which they can be understood (Pereira et al., 2005; Chan et al., 2011; Kenter et al., 2015). These cultural values interacting with cultural ecosystem services. Therefore, they are wide-ranging from a philosophical perspective and are acknowledged as highly complex. The IPBES conceptual framework, for instance, refers generally to the need for ecosystem assessments to address intrinsic and anthropocentric values that include instrumental and relational values. It has identified eight types of shared/social values interacting with cultural ecosystem services: ‘transcendental’, ‘cultural’, ‘societal’, ‘communal’, ‘group’, ‘deliberated’, ‘other regarding’ and ‘value to society’ (Kenter et al. 2015). It is important to highlight that these categories are flexibles and can change according to the territory and population. Indeed, in this study we explore different ways to categorize cultural ecosystem services by different stakeholders’ perspectives at El Collay.

2.6.

New Paradigm in Ecosystem Services

In the last ten years, the new paradigm for environmental conservation has included cultural elements as an important engine to generate territorial development process.

According to indigenous ancestral cosmology, the natural elements are not indivisible with the culture. Natural elements are part of their cultural identity and therefore are considered biocultural assets (MA, 2005). This new approach of biocultural heritage has been included in the studies on ecosystem services, which has represented a significant contribution for local governments through their territorial planning plans because it links culture as an engine for local rural territorial development.

17

The main biocultural ecosystem services principles and procedures are based on the recognition of cultural significance, the associations between places and people, the importance of the meaning of places to people and the need to respect the co-existence of various cultural values, involving conflicts of interests and the co-management of cultural and natural significance of the same place. The distinction between the cultural and natural values is often separated for management purposes but has proven inseparable especially within the context of indigenous/aboriginal issues. The approach thus has similarities both with the concept of cultural landscape management and the MA notion that ecosystems provides cultural ecosystem services together with more production-oriented services, such as food and water, as well as climate and water regulation (Tengberg et al 2012).

2.7.

The DIVE Methodology

The DIVE methodology proposes a time/scale matrix as an initial state of reference for further discussions with relevant stakeholders about aspects of the cultural heritage that needs to be addressed within future developments. The time-scale matrix is used not only to organize collected data, but also to analyze how societal changes have affected the structures and functions (landscape and local level) and expressions (detailed/object level) at the site.

Aerial photographs, historic and contemporary maps, historical records, semi-structured interviews with key informants or local actors (living in the area, part of the local historic society and working within the planning department of the municipality) and quantitative inventories of the built environment were systemized and analyzed within the matrix (Karlsson, 2008). The aim was to put historical features and contemporary values of the site in its societal context, to highlight qualities and identify resources for future development, and to draw attention to the cultural heritage values of the area, identified by stakeholders and expert analysis. The four steps of the DIVE methodology are described down below. All these steps follow DIVE Handbook by Riksantikvaren Organization (2009) The name DIVE is derived from the four English words, describe, interpret, valuate and enable, describing the four key steps in the analysis process. At the same time the name conveys how the analysis builds a knowledge base through research and “dives� into the history and past development of a town or study area (Zancheti, 1999) The four-step DIVE-analysis methodology (Describe, Interpret, Valuate and Enable) addresses some of the challenges which are encountered when viewing historic and cultural environments as both qualitative and functional resources (Whatmore, 2002). The analysis

18

focused on semi-urban and rural heritage qualities as development assets and uses concepts and techniques such as time/space matrices, historic legibility, heritage integrity, and capacity for change. By means of this analysis one clarifies which social, economic, cultural and physical features are important for the area’s development, which physical traits have played and play a key functional and symbolic role, and which are of secondary importance.

The DIVE methodology was created and applied by the Ministry of Culture of the Government of Norway. At first, the government applied only to urban spaces, however, and due to the success that this methodology has with respect to identifying heritage elements through GIS, it was possible to expand throughout the country. Currently, there is a range of test material from Sweden and Finland, of different applications of the DIVE method.

It is important to highlight that this methodology made by Norway Cultural Ministry was able to develop methodologies for cultural-historical analysis that could be applied practically in any municipality planning. Then, there were other European countries that followed this methodology. For example, Cooperation with Sweden on the DIVE handbook has been linked to two Swedish governmental commissions, supporting the development of planning bases for local authorities and capacity building amongst public authorities for conservation and development of culturally valuable built environments. In Finland the work with DIVE is connected with the development of guidelines for building documentation, evaluation and sustainable use of the cultural heritage. Area analyses are a widely used tool amongst Norwegian planners, but as of 1999 there was no study of the dynamics of such processes or their practical results. The results were published in a report, Area analyses in local planning. The Directorate then collected documentation from various analyses for comparison and discussion together with state and local planners. The material was published in 2002 on the Directorate’s internet site “. (The Internet Place for Placemaking).

The site launched methodologies as well as practical examples and discussions about the process (Riksantikvaren Organization, 2009).

The DIVE methodology was born as a local municipalities’ heritage protection necessity.

However, during the last 10 years, this methodology has become a useful tool for cultural heritage management scholars in different parts of the world. Tengberg et al. (2012) pointed out that the contextual and integrated approaches to site management developed in Scandinavia are also based on the need to understand the entire landscape rather than separate fragments. The four-step DIVE-analysis (Describe, Interpret, Valuate and Enable) addresses some of the challenges which are encountered when viewing historic and cultural

19

environments as both qualitative and functional resources (Riksantikvaren Organization, 2009). This methodology, in addition to working on issues of urban cultural heritage, was used by Tengberg et al. (2012) as a tool for the study and analysis of biocultural ecosystem services. In the last ten years, cultural heritage studies turned around integrative and participative methodologies. A values-based approach is most using systematic analysis of the values and significance attributed to cultural resources and places great importance on the consultation of stakeholders (De la Torre, 2005). There are not projects in South America that have worked with DIVE methodology. However, this is not a problem because, this methodology has been launched in order to open spaces for dialogue with local communities, and to create links between people and cultural heritage, using GIS as a tool to study landscape change.

2.8.

Participatory Mapping

Participatory mapping, also called community-based mapping, is a general term used to define a set of approaches and techniques that combines the tools of modern cartography with participatory methods to represent the spatial knowledge of local communities (Sieber, 2008) It is based on the premise that local inhabitants possess expert knowledge of their local environments which can be expressed in a geographical framework which is easily understandable and universally recognized (Brovelli, Minghini and Zamboni, 2014).

Participatory maps often represent a socially or culturally distinct understanding of landscape and include information that is excluded from mainstream or official maps.

(McCall, 2008). Maps created by local communities represent the place in which they live, showing those elements that communities, themselves perceive as important such as customary land boundaries, traditional natural resource management practices, sacred areas, and so on.

Participatory mapping is shifting rapidly from being the purview of North American and European scholars and development practitioners to a set of tools and epistemologies of spatial production that is increasingly driven by indigenous people, on their own terms, embedded within their own community-driven social processes, and oriented toward their own ends. In the process, indigenous practitioners and intellectuals and their collaborators have brought participatory mapping from a prescriptive set of Western-driven tools to a fulcrum for creative thinking and intellectual exploration (Sletto, 2009:14)

20

The participatory mapping methodology is a tool that has been strengthened in South American scenarios. This region has important socio-environmental conflicts such as largescale mining and the oil exploitation. All of them in indigenous territories or peasant communities, where GIS have allowed communities to protect their biocultural heritage through maps. In indigenous lands throughout Latin America and beyond, indigenous communities and organizations are forming alliances with scholars, activists, and NGOs. Due of the potential participatory mapping projects to bring forth indigenous knowledge and perspectives, they are increasingly becoming central to participatory approaches to biodiversity conservation and land-use planning in areas populated by indigenous people (Sletto, 2009:12) Some universities, such as the University of Texas, have managed to create constant links with communities in South America through community mapping. Several projects where GIS and community are involved are being developed in countries such as Colombia, Brazil, Peru and Panama under Professor Bjørn Sletto. For example, in the Cauca region of Colombia, the Fundación Minga has developed innovative mapping projects resulting in “mapas parlantes” or living maps that serve to facilitate critical conversations and endogenous documentation of local knowledge among residents in Afro-Colombian communities (Joe, 2012). In Venezuela, Professor Sletto has worked for the past five years with the Yukpa to develop an interactive web-based map that includes video, photos, and drawings, and that is intended for preservation of culture as well as territorial claims-making (Sletto, 2009) In Ecuador, some projects related to participatory mapping have been generated. Very few of these have worked with indigenous communities and their cultural aspect. Among the main exponents is Professor Richard Resl. Among its first works is a process of participatory mapping with Shuar communities. Another important contribution was the social geoweb platform (the GeoCitizen platform) that combines geo-web technologies and social media in one single tool. This has allowed citizens to collaboratively report observations, discuss ideas, solve, and monitor problems in their living environment at a local level (Atzmanstorfer, Resl, Eitzinger and Zurieta, 2014).

21

3. Methodology 3.1.

Study site

El Collay Territorial Association is a political and administrative entity formed by six local municipalities. All six are autonomous, decentralized governments: Paute, Gualaceo, El Pan, Chordeleg, Sevilla de Oro and Santiago de Méndez (see figure 2) This Territorial Association is in the northeastern corner of the Azuay Province in Southern Ecuador. The Paute-Collay basin crosses these territories, and what unites them is the presence of the El Collay Protected Forest and Vegetation Area. It comprises different bioclimatic zones from heights nearing the 4000 m above sea level to the Amazonian lowlands at 1000 m.a.s.l.

(FFLA, 2014). ‘El Collay’ ridge follows a South-North trajectory, from the ‘El Pan’ hill towards the limits of Sangay National Park. Along with the provision of energy, the potential for many ecosystem services associated to the Paute basin cannot be underscored, including not only biophysical environmental services, but also cultural landscape service.

22

Figure 2. Map about location reference of El Collay (Azuay, Ecuador)

23

3.2.

Methodology Flow Chart

The following flow chart (see figure 3) explains the methodological steps used by accomplishes this investigation.

The first step was explaining the purpose of this

investigation to all stakeholders. Then during workshops with several stakeholders, the project was described and interpreted by local actor's through the identification of important biocultural ecosystem services, using participatory mapping. Afterwards, they classified and validated them. Besides, local actors’ participation, other essential tools have been used, such as previously geolocated data, aerial photographs, diagrams, interviews, etc.

Figure 3. Flow Chart of Used Methodology

24

3.3.

Justification of Methodology

The methods used were DIVE and Participatory Mapping. In the last 10 years, DIVE methodology has been widely used in European countries that have built tangible cultural heritage successful conservation and management plans through geographic information system techniques (Reinar, 2007). However, as a complement to the qualitative analysis, it was used community mapping methodology. This methodology focuses on the biocultural asset’s identification by local actors’ participation. Participatory mapping has been widely used in territories with a high socio-economic and cultural vulnerability (Parker, 2006).

Therefore, these methodologies were successfully adapted to the objectives of this study.

Since they identify and comprehensively connect cultural ecosystem services concepts and local perspectives.

3.3.1. DIVE Methodology The DIVE methodology has been applied, in order to provide an analysis of the cultural ecosystem services and their link to the structure concepts of landscape, heritage, and identity. Each step of this methodology (see figure 4) strives to achieve the first research objective. The first step was identifying the perception of the community about changes in the landscape. Therefore, it was used old photography’s that showed how the rural landscape of El Collay has changed through time. These ideas were captured in the space-time scheme through workshops and interviews. The interviews were made to elder people because they were able to comment and describe past and present changes. Base maps were gotten from Instituto Nacional de Estadisticas y Censos (INEC) and old maps from different bibliographic resources.

25

Figure 4. Dive Methodology Phases. Source: Zancheti et al 2004:16

Participatory Mapping On the other hand, in order to learn how the cultural ecosystems services can be spatially evaluated and integrated to support decision making in the study area, the methodology of participatory mapping was applied (see figure 6). What was done is to map the ecosystem services from the biocultural approach, that is, from the conception of local actors. In Paute, Gualaceo, El Pan and Santiago de MĂŠndez urban areas (managed by Municipalities), an agenda was organized with the peasant and indigenous communities. The agenda considered the participants time availability. Some interviews were made (see appendices section B, meeting or visit in each one of the houses) to organize the displacements; this process was also accompanied by several technicians of the Municipalities.

This study received collaboration from many people, from different interests: 60% of municipal technicians, 30% represented community leaders and 10% constituted civil society (housewives, youth, senior citizens, etc) The work in some cases could be applied in groups, which allowed obtaining the landscape perceptions by men and women with different roles in the community (facilitators, farmers, mothers, etc) who contributed more information to the process. In most cases the definitions of Biocultural Ecosystem Services were avoided since the people could get confused and limiting the conversation about the uses of the sites. The participatory process applied can be divided in two steps:

26

First Step: Socialization Workshops The first step was getting some meetings with local actors before working on the field in order to explain them about the objectives of this Project and how the DIVE and Participatory Mapping methodology work.

Second Step: Drawing the territory We asked to the community leaders to make a sketch of their nearest territory, that is, neighborhood or Canton (territory of the Municipality). They had drawn their territory as they understand it and we asked them to identify important cultural and natural sites. Finally, they explained why they are meaningful to them. We used different colors, pins and stickers to identify the different types of assets in the community. We identified the categories for important values for the people (i.e. arts, crafts and sacred sites). We listed those important sites that are unique to specific individuals, as they may provide special opportunities for developing relationships in the community.

In another workshop (see Appendices section A), the objective was to locate conflict points, that is, environmental, social and cultural problems are affecting their territory and changing the landscape. Finally, in another map we jointly create possible solutions to the identified problems. In this opportunity, we do not work directly with maps of the locality, but through a general assembly, specifying possible proposals to protect and preserve the territory of El Collay.

Third Step: Mapping, Geocoding and Spatial Analysis A map containing the boundaries of the selected study area was obtained for this, administrative boundaries provided by the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (INEC) were used. Consecutively, points of important sites were geocoded in ArcGIS 10.5.

Additional points already georeferenced by the Municipalities were also incorporated. Then, specific symbols were applied according to the various biocultural assets. Using the biocultural assets map base, maps about ecosystem services were made. So, characteristics of each small community and made ecosystem services landscape were grouped. However, each category can overlap each other, since each village could have all biocultural category in its territory. After geo-referenced biocultural ecosystems, it was created a dot set of each asset. The spatial analysis process was also applied to create groups of biocultural ecosystem services and the possible dangers for what those assets are going through. Buffers (5km10km) (see figure 5) were used to analyze the distance of possible effects or damages against

27

a specific space or place. This process was used mainly for petroglyphs or archaeological sites.

Figure 5. Buffer process explanation.

Figure 6. Participatory Mapping Flowchart. Source: Holifield et al Geospatial Technologies, GIScience, Citizen Science & Environmental Information. (2016)

28

Finally, in order to achieve the last research goal, the DIVE methodology and the community mapping were merged. These spatial proposals were combined to protect the biocultural heritage of the El Collay community. Either in the DIVE results as Community Mapping outcomes, there are many recommendations and proposals to take into consideration.

4. Results of the investigation 4.1.

About origin of local actors

According to the data obtained from the workshops and meetings held in the different sectors of the El Collay, we work with a total of 30 participants that are divided into: 60% municipal technicians, 30% community leaders and 10% civil society (housewives, youth, senior citizens, etc).

Graph on figure 7 indicates the percentages of local actors that participated in this study.

In addition, it indicates the space or organization to which they belong.

Local Actors' organizations

10%

technicians for local goverments community leaders

30% 60%

Figure 7 Place where Local Actors' participants come from

General population

29

4.2.

About local actors’ perceptions

In this phase, the time-space matrix (see table 1) applied to the local actors of the El Collay Territorial Association indicated several local perceptions about heritage, cultural landscapes and ecosystem services and their relationship between theirs. As an overview, local people generally relate landscape changes with the Paute hydroelectric construction or the Natural Disaster La Josefina (1993).

Community Time-space matrix Table 1: Community Time-space matrix

Time 1990: before The Paute Reservoir construction

2000: After The Paute Reservoir construction

Change in the Paute River Landscape (Space)

30

2010: After The Paute Reservoir Construction

Local People Perspective: Many residents of the El Collay Territorial Association think the construction of the dam represented an advance for local towns and for the entyre country because it brought power energy. However, since the construction of the dam, the water of the Paute river has been contaminated.Therefore, humans and animals have been affected. One of the main species that have had to change their mobility patterns is the Andean bear. According to Hernán Delgado, Corporación Eléctrica del Ecuador (CELEC) worker and originally from the El Pan canton, several years ago before the dam construction, sighting of species such as birds and bears were very common, however very little is currently known about these species.

Note. El Collay Local Actors Perspectives

31

Year

Daniel Palacios Dam

1977

During Daniel Palacios Dam construction

1983 After Daniel Palacios Dam construction

1999

Current Daniel Palacios Dam

Local Perspective:

32

The construction of the “Daniel Palacios” Dam in the year of 1976, represented an important Ecuadorian historic moment. This mega project that currently is the largest hydroelectric complex in the country, has generated changes not only in the landscape but in the memory of the inhabitants. The main memories that the residents have is the opportunity to work in this mega construction. On the other hand, people remember the access to electrical light to the development and progress of the small towns around. From the decade of the 80s with the execution of Phase C for the construction of the Paute Molino Hydroelectric Power Plant, it was possible to strengthen important processes of citizen participation that unfolded in territorial development actions for the northeastern towns of the province of Azuay. Among these we can mention the Pan y Trabajo Association that arises under the need to include the inhabitants of the surrounding communities within this megaproject, as workers and direct beneficiaries of the Plant. Felix Torres, a local leader, pointed out that an organization was structured to get people working, since phase C of the Paute Project, for the construction of the “Daniel Palacios” dam. This company needed qualified labor. Thus, it was possible for the people of Sevilla de Oro, El Pan, Guachapala and Paute to get work, they were organized, and leaders were formed in each of the sectors; this was important because these leaders not only took the iniciative of a collaborative work but also the initiative to achieve the development on their communities.

Year

The Josefina Natural Disaster

1993: Paute city during The

Josefina

Natural Disaster

33

1998: Paute

city

after

the

Josefina Natural Disaster

2016: Current Paute city

Local Opinion: An important Puate’s historic moment, was the Disaster of the Josefina. When a large landslide blocked the course of the Paute and Jadán rivers on March 29, 1993, causing a reservoir to flood extensive areas of the valleys of the Tomebamba, Burgay and Déleg Rivers, to the outskirts of the city of Cuenca. The landslide caused the death of more than 200 people and affected more than 4000 settlers from Paute, Gualaceo, Santiago de Méndez and Cañar. The population considers the Josefina disaster as the most impressive historical moment that this territory has faced. Alexandra Vásquez, inhabitant of Paute canton says that this disaster generated human, economic losses and changes in the biocultural landscape of the area. For many of those interviewed, these photographs represent a very hard time for their villages, but they also understand it as the opportunity that generated cooperation and social cohesion among local and national inhabitants.

Note. El Collay Local Actors Perspectives

34

4.3.

About local actors´ perceptions of Biocultural Ecosystem

Services Figure 8 indicates (percentages) the first impressions about perceptions and sensations locals had in relation to El Collay territory. Local ecosystem services have been divided between places as: 39% Food Heritage, 29% Ancestral knowledge, 29% Forbidden areas 3% Sense of territorial belonging.

Figure 8. Local actors´ perceptions of Biocultural Ecosystem Services

35

4.4.Biocultural ecosystem services Categories defined by local actors Figure 9 shows the different biocultural ecosystem services categories defined by local actor participating in the territory of El Collay. When, community mapping workshops took place, it was found that the population identified the following cultural ecosystem services (in percentage): 37% Ancestral Knowledge, 23% Recreation, 16% Sense of Place, 9% Inspiration, 9% Spiritual, Cultural Heritage and 3% Stetic.

Figure 9. Biocultural Ecosystem Services by local actors of El Collay Territorial Association

4.5.Biocultural Ecosystem Services at El Collay Territorial Association.

The map in Figure 10 identifies the main biocultural assets existing in the Collay Territorial Association current land use base map. With the information obtained from the DAG and from cultural ecosystem services georeferenced for this research purpose, a concentration of gastronomic heritage activities was found on the west side and a presence of archaeological heritage on the east site of El Collay.

36

Figure 10 Map of Biocultural Services at El Collay

37

4.6.

Providers of Biocultural Ecosystem Services at El Collay

Territorial Association Figure 11 depicts the local actors’ perceptions regarding the biocultural ecosystem services offered by the El Collay. This map is part of participatory community mapping process. This map shows the information obtained from the local actors’ outcomes, that was explained in figure 6.

38

Figure 11. Map of Providers of Biocultural Ecosystem Services

39

4.7.

Significant Changes in the Area

Figure 12 represents the population percentage that consider the landscape of El Collay has had a significant change. This question is more inclined to negative changes for the population and natural resources. 90% of local people answered that this territory has been significantly modified and only 10% of local people said that there is no significant change.

SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE AREA

10%

yes no

90%

Figure 12 Significant Changes in the Area

40

4.8.

Reasons for changes at El Collay

Figure 13 indicates the reasons why the significant changes that have affected the Collay biocultural landscape from the perspective of the locals. 50% of local people believe that El Collay landscape has been modified due to mining activity, 30% think that it has been modified for agricultural activities and 20% due to bad political decisions.

Reasons for changes at El Collay

30%

Minning activities

50%

Bad Political decisions Agricultural and cattle raising frontier advance

20%

Figure 13. Biocultural Ecosystem Services

41

4.9.

Biocultural Ecosystem Services Risk

Figure 14 indicates the places where the main risks against the natural and cultural heritage are found, which is currently the territory of El Collay. This map was prepared through a participatory community mapping. The main risks are focused on areas with a high presence of tangible heritage as well as archaeological heritage such as gastronomy and crafts

42

Figure 14. Risk Map of El Collay

43

4.10.

Actions to Mitigate

Figure 15 shows the inclinations of the local actors before possible solutions of the previously selected problems. 46% of local people indicate, it is important to make better territorial plans, 36% believe that the important thing is to strengthen social cohesion and 18% of local people consider that it important to include El Collay as a Geopark.

Actions to Mitigate

18% Better territorial planning plans

46%

36%

Figure 15 Biocultural Ecosystem Services by local actors of El Collay

Strengthen citizen participation and governance Climb of category to the El Collay forest into GeoPark

44

4.11.

Proposal for the Protection of the Biocultural Territory El

Collay Figure 16 graphs the possible solutions by local actors through a community mapping exercise. In addition, table 2 explains these proposals. Local people consider important to protect areas with a high presence of cultural heritage and also to establish academic research on them.

45

1

Figure 16. Proposal Biocultural Territory

46

Table 1: Projects Proposal according to Biocultural Ecosystem Services at El Collay

Selection Criteria Territory Name

Biocultural

Ecosystem Project Proposal

Services Chordeleg

Ancestral

Knowledge: Promote artisanal tourism

Handicrafts.

Creative

city

named by UNESCO. Gualaceo

Ancestral

Knowledge: Promote material and non-

Handicrafts.

Intangible material tourism

Heritage

city

named

Nacional

Cultural

by

Heritage

Institute Paute

Ancestral

Knowledge:

Food Promote

Heritage.

Gastronomic

Tourism

Archeological Sites: Vestiges of the first uses of cotton in Ecuador El Pan

Scenic

Beauty,

Recreation, Conservation

Heritage and legacy.

and

Investigation at El Collay Protect Forest. Promote the route of El Padre Albino del Curto.

Sevilla de Oro

Scenic

Beauty,

Recreation, Conservation

Heritage and legacy.

and

Investigation at El Collay Protect Forest. Promote El Padre Albino del Curto touristic route.

Santiago de MĂŠndez

Heritage and legacy. Identity Archeological and belonging.

and

Anthropological research.

Note. Projects Proposal according to Biocultural Ecosystem Services at El Collay by local people.

47

5.Discussion 5.1.

About the analysis of the CES and their relationship with landscape,

heritage and identity.

There are a variety of cultural ecosystem services concepts, however, the most acceptable concept is that used by Millennium Ecosystem Services (Fish et al., 2016).

Therefore, cultural ecosystem services thus encompass the “nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences” (MA, 2005, p.4). Consideration of the cultural benefits and values associated with ecosystems is a distinguishing feature of ecosystem service-based approaches to natural resource management. As a paradigmatic class of service, 'cultural ecosystem services' has emerged as a concept around which researchers and decision makers can understand ecosystems in terms of their life-enriching and life-affirming contributions to human well-being and represents one salient example of the way culture is more generally embraced as an important “variable” in the work of environmental managers and planners (Satterfield et al., 2013). Encompassing a broad symbolic, experiential and virtuous realm of human interactions and understandings of the natural environment, cultural ecosystem services are considered by Chan et al. (2011) to inspire “deep attachment” in communities, and as such, are thought by some to act as important entry points for public engagement and concern in environmental matters, thus helping build wider public support for ecosystem protection (Crouch, 1998).

The first result obtained from this research is that both peasants and indigenous people from El Collay, conceive ecosystem services as something that encompasses cultural and natural approach. They believe that nature as well as providing water and clean air services, it does from its position as a sacred (cultural) element. On the other hand, for local Shuars indigenous actors, in addition to existing services that can enjoy nature, there are also places of absolute protection. This new understanding perspective and way of map senses, places and local people's believes represents a novel contribution to community mapping processes and cultural ecosystem services.

Including a comprehensive analysis of ecosystem services is not a new approach. The position of understanding the landscape as a biocultural, interdependent and integral element is an ancestral vision, set up by our local indigenous, thousands of years ago. For the inhabitants of the El Collay, the natural and cultural elements represent part of their historical

48

memory and their cultural identity. Applying the time - space matrix, several biocultural elements were identified that corresponded to historical moments for the population. For example, the local actors consider that the Paute and Collay rivers, represent a new era of development, because they generated electricity to the country. But the rivers also meant "tragedy", for what happened in 1992, in the La Josefina natural disaster, where several people died, and thousands lost their homes, land, animals and other goods.

On the other hand, biocultural diversity is not conceived as a definite concept providing prescriptions of what to see and study, but as a reflexive and sensitizing concept that can be used to assess the different values and knowledge of people that reflect how they live with biodiversity. With the aim to embed ecology more forcefully into decision-making, the concept of Ecosystems Services (ES) has gained significant ground among policy-makers and researchers. The increasing recognition of the importance of urban green areas for the quality of life in growing cities has led proponents of ES approaches to argue for an uptake of the approach in urban environmental decision-making (Seto, Parnell, and Elmqvist, 2013).

However, the ES approach has been criticized for standing too much at a distance from local communities and their day-to-day practices and for insufficiently considering the potential trade-offs between different qualities or preferences. In this study, it was argued that other concepts, doing other work, need to be added to the debate about futures of urban governance and research. Biocultural diversity is suggested as one such alternative concept.

By its emphasis on diversity, biocultural diversity can account for the many ways in which people live with green areas in the urban landscape, acknowledges the different knowledges this involves, and can reveal conflicts and ambivalence that may be at stake. This sets up for a reflexive, transdisciplinary research process that questions and contextualizes knowledge and worldviews including those of researchers. A reflexive, transdisciplinary research, then, is a productive catalyst for forms of reflexive local governance that recognize and respond to this diversity and provide platforms for contestation.

5.2.

About how the cultural ecosystem services can be spatially assessed

and integrated to support decision making in the study area.

To know the local actors’ first impressions, the time-scape tool was applied as a first step of DIVE methodology, allowing to identify local actors’ perspectives about El Collay landscape changes and to know how these changes affected society and nature. The population generally considers that many of the significant changes have represented an

49

improvement for the population such as the construction of the hydroelectric dam. However other changes such as the advance of agriculture and livestock has affected the lives of animals and plants of the forest of El Collay.

In general, it can be observed that, regardless of the high or low number of benefits exploited in different important sites, the cultural ecosystem service that has the most relevance (by local people) is the one related to tourism and recreation (fishing, hiking, gastronomy) with 39% of use.

On second place, there is the service associated with the sacred places (29%). In most of the cases because these spaces are shared by several communities and are of vital importance for their recognition as peasant and indigenous people. The perception of the communities and the important sites classification are directly linked to their adaptive strategies to the environment (ME, 2005). The main types of benefits were all those associated with learning in ancestral techniques and material collection for housing was the highest (37%), followed by those associated with recreation (23%) and sense of place (16%). In addition, activities related to aesthetics and heritage (3%) had a low percentage, apparently because these topics are not representing important elements, especially for local governments.

Two maps were obtained. The first map represents the El Collay biocultural assets. Local actors considered as essential five biocultural elements in this territory. Archeological sites or sacred sites, traditional skills, food heritage, immovable heritage and forest (natural elements).

From the base of the biocultural assets identified by the local actors, a map of the ecosystem services according to the villagers was made. For the inhabitants of El Collay, there are five landscape units: El Collay Forest, Ancestral Knowledge, Sense of Territory, Forbidden Place and the Heritage Food Place.

El Collay Forest. - This area represents an important element for the El Collay inhabitants, since in addition to be a zone of protection, it is considered a sacred space, Ancestral Knowledge. - It refers to all the knowledge that has been acquired from generation to generation. As for example, the elaboration of crafts, textiles, food preparation, among others.

Sense of Territory. - Refers to the importance that the community gives to the protection of the territory.

Forbidden Places. - They are sacred places and therefore forbidden to carry out any human activity against natural resources.

50

Heritage Food. - They are characteristic places at local and national level for their gastronomy.

The population have defined these areas because each canton has singular cultural elements. For example, Gualaceo is denominated as a territory of ancestral knowledge for its famous crafts. Paute is considered a territory of food heritage by his unique gastronomy.

In addition, it is important to indicate that the El Collay forest remains a transversal axis in the life of its inhabitants, that is why they give it a special category. For the Shuar communities of Santiago de MĂŠndez municipality, El Collay forests represents a sacred place.

The local actors’ perceptions regarding the change in the biocultural landscape of the El Collay Territorial Association represent a constant theme in the discussions both within the municipalities and social groups. The El Collay forest is currently threatened by two specific anthropic actions. The illegal mining exploitation at the El Collay protective forest and the accelerated expansion of agricultural and livestock activities in protected areas. For 90% of the interviewees, the changes affected landscape significantly and 10% do not consider significant changes in this territory.

50% of the population think that the illegal mining activities take place in the heart of El Collay, representing the main reason for the accelerated change of the biocultural landscape of the area. This is undoubtedly since communities with a large number of inhabitants are located near illegal mining camps. A 30% of local actors think these changes are linked to the bad decisions of local governments, which are reflected in fuzzy territorial planning plans. Finally, 20% consider that the changes in the landscape are due to the advance of the agricultural and livestock frontier, which unfortunately is gaining space within protected territories.

For the community, agriculture and livestock are important activities for their daily life.

They consider important a good territory management. In this sense, illegal mining and the advance of the agricultural frontier represent serious threats to the biocultural heritage of El Collay forest. On the other hand, El Collay is considered a high-risk territory for cultural heritage elements. In recent years churches, heritage houses, movable property and intangible heritage have quickly disappeared due to mismanagement by local governments.

Finally, and due to the few studies and cultural management plans, the archaeological heritage such as petroglyphs and archaeological sites are in risk, because there are roads and mining activity closely to these important archeological structures (Fig.9).

51

Local actors think that there are three principal problems related with bad territorial management. These responses are linked to political decision making, from local governments to the level of national government. The 46% of the population related this problem to the weak territorial planning plans that do not control these activities. Also, the 36% of interviewed indicated that work should be done to strengthen social cohesion in the area. Finally, an 18% of people think that it is necessary to involve local governments, ministries and international organizations for recognition El Collay as a Biopark.

One of the most important results obtained after identifying the potential problems of El Collay forest was to know the population's tendency regarding possible solutions to mitigate and protect the degradation of the El Collay Territorial Association. They bet for rural local community stewardship for protect the El Collay forest. Several strategies that will potentiate, protect and value the territory's biocultural assets can be formulated. For instance, this study proposes three types of tourist routes: Route of the churches. - The towns that constitute the El Collay, are characterized by conserving several patrimonial churches. Each church built by the Salesians has a cross with the date of its creation. This continuity of churches forms a route that reaches the provinces of Morona Santiago and Zamora Chinchipe.

Route “del Padre Albino del Curto”. - Albino del Curto was a Salesian priest who evangelized several communities in the Ecuadorian south east in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This missionary rebuilt several ancient bridleways and even some preColumbian chaquiñanes (Kañaris roads). This route recreates historical moments of great importance for the inhabitants.

Route of the petroglyphs. - The petroglyphs that are scattered among the forest of El Collay, specifically in the Santiago de Méndez canton, turn out to be a very attractive archaeological asset and is very little studied.

The study also proposes the following touristic areas: Gastronomic tourism area. - Before arriving to Paute, the first mandatory stop to taste the typical cuisine is El Cabo town. A settlement along the road where several stalls of traditional food and drinks have been established.

Artisanal tourism area. - Gualaceo and Chordeleg are two municipalities that are characterized as artisanal territories. In 2012 the Ikiat (ancestral technique of hand weaving) was recognized as an intangible national heritage. Also, in 2017, the city of Chordeleg was named a UNESCO creative city.

52

Biocultural research area. - The El Collay protective forest and the Shuar territory are two areas considered of high academic-research potential, both for their natural elements and heritage. In addition, they are restricted zones (investigation and protection) to represent sacred places for the natives and peasants.

Locatelli, Evans, Wardell, Andrade and Vignola (2011) applied the same methodology of community mapping to identify cultural ecosystem services in MariĂąo basin, Peru. They obtained similar results, like El Collay study outcomes. They prioritized sacred places, sense of belonging and places of biocultural heritage. Different analyzes identify important sites for recreation, scenic beauty and spiritual values in the MariĂąo basin, such as Ampay, Pachachaca River and Rontoccocha. Not only natural spaces bring cultural benefits, but also rural spaces (traditions, identity, etc.).

5.3.

About Future Projections and Methodology

Ten years ago, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) pointed out that ecosystem services are resources or natural ecosystems process such as clean drinking water and the decomposition of waste. However, years later, the MA considered important to include social or cultural elements within the list of ecosystem services.

Once the cultural approach was included on ecosystem services, academics imposed the idea that tourism is the best way to representing the culture in the Ecosystem Services. In this sense, this research shows that ecosystem services are flexible, unique and variable according each territory. In addition, we can indicate that contrary to what Ecuadorian National Government think about the one-dimensional nature of ecosystem services., both natural and cultural elements cannot be understood as divisible (Balvanera, et al., 2001).

Therefore, for the peasant and indigenous communities, nature is part of their cultural identity and vice versa. Scientific advances in the understanding of ecosystem services are indispensable to be able to transfer them towards society in such a way that it has consequences in decision-making and in the generation of policies that ensure their maintenance. It is essential to devote more time to identify methodologies or tools that allow the identification of biocultural ecosystem services jointly with local communities.

On the other hand, the incorporation of cultural values and cultural ecosystem services in conservation practice have been limited due to several reasons. First, cultural ecosystem services (CES) are hard to measure due to their subjectivity. Based on personal experience or emotional status, people perceive CES in different angles and degrees that limit consistent

53

results to be objectively represented. Sometimes people do not appreciate cultural values since they are considered axiomatic and self-evident. Second, intangible values have been regarded as capricious, making it a major obstacle to quantify those values. Quantifiable results are preferred in decision-making processes as an easily understandable information.

Local values, customs, taboos, social practices, are also key as that would mark specific actions to be enforced, as well as will be key to understand how those actions need to be enforced to get the best results. For instance, we can only work on the climate change issue if local populations are conscious about the way their actions do influence climate change, and thus, an understanding how are their actions on regard to the use of their nearby environment needs to be approached. Thus, a methodology to study and generate any plan or model will have necessarily to understand the ecosystem as conformed by a natural realm and a cultural realm, none of which has any supremacy over the other.

To optimize the process of spatial analysis of ecosystem services, raster data should be a priority when initiating this process. Another important aspect that should be considered for future work is to perform a change analysis of land use or landscape modification, with the objective of comparing and knowing the changes in ecosystem services and the reasons for these changes. For this, other processes such as landscape fragility analysis should be applied based on Arc toolbox tools, which will help us generate zones of influence. Despite, DIVE embracing different aspects of ecosystem services, this methodology has previously been worked in urban territories, therefore, its approach avoids discourses and rural complexities.

In addition, this methodology limits the relationship between the community and geographic techniques. Therefore, participatory mapping was used as a complement. This allowed to broaden the perception of local actors in relation to cultural ecosystem services and to connect this concept with their identity and cultural and natural heritage. It is recommended, in addition to activating community participation in the territorial decision making. It is important that the database stored by local governments fulfills a function of spatial analysis.

On the other hand, in Ecuador, during the patrimonial emergency program in 2008, the technicians of the National Institute of Cultural Heritage georeferenced the national cultural heritage assets. However, years later, during the validating process, some registered sites did not represent importance for local people and many others with important historical and social connotations were not registered (Palacios, 2017). Therefore, it is important to apply

54

participatory processes such as community mapping or DIVE methodology because that would allow local actors to identify from their cosmology and wisdom the truly significant biocultural sites and assets. This research gives the El Collay communities a first approach of biocultural ecosystem services identification through a process of participatory and community mapping and other GIS tools. In this sense, this work represents a significant contribution to strengthen processes of conservation, protection and enhancement of the El Collay Territorial Association biocultural assets through inclusion in territorial planning plans and local legal regulations.

5.4.

Research Question and its responses.

How are biocultural ecosystem services related to the landscape structure and

cultural identity of the inhabitants of the El Collay Territorial Association?

For a long time, it has been thought that ecosystem services are mainly related to the resources offered by nature. However, in recent years a new approach has been launched that includes culture as those non-material benefits that people obtain from the ecosystems.

For the peasant and indigenous communities, nature and culture represent an indivisible and interdependent element. Therefore, the perspectives held by El Collay local actors about ecosystem services differ from what the Western vision proposes.

First, biocultural ecosystem services have been identified and classified in El Collay landscape as paramount because they represent local people cultural identity (historical moments, crafts, gastronomy, material and immaterial heritage). So, under bioculture ancestral approach, the local community has divided El Collay landscape into categories, such as sacred spaces, protection and conservation of its natural resources, among others.

This indicates that, although the landscapes structures maintain changing biological patterns due human activity over the years, it also acquires a plus (cultural identity) value, which represents the wisdom of the native peoples. Local people understand and therefore live and modify the landscape according to their millenary philosophy of life.

On the other hand, it is important to mention that there were few problems during the development of this research. The concept of Biocultural, ecosystem services and other academic terms were difficult to understand without explanation to local actors, especially for Shuars indigenous people. For example, during some community mapping workshops (especially at the very beginning), ecosystem services were introduced as a process that people can benefit from some services offered by nature. However, from the peasant and indigenous world view, nature provides protection and not benefits. Either way, once

55

explained, it was easy for them assimilate this terminology. On the other hand, some people did not give importance to this study, but most people were really interested in discussing about cultural and touristic topics of their communities. The good people mood helped out to get a very complete brainstorm and broad point of views.

56

6. Conclusion The El Collay Protected Forest is a particular and significant natural and cultural area in Southern Ecuador. From the historical and cultural perspective, the El Collay Territorial Association contains a series of cultural and heritage assets that make it unique. For instance, it has several Shuar and Kanari archeological sites and other intangible cultural heritage assets. On the other hand, the institutionalization of the El Collay Territorial Association is the product of a historical process and social cohesion that were reinforced after natural and sociocultural events that changed the configuration and local perspective of the biocultural landscape of this association.

The main objective of this research was to study biocultural ecosystem services and how they relate to the landscape, heritage, and identity of the El Collay area through the application of spatial analysis based on GIS. To achieve this objective, we used the DIVE and community mapping methodologies.

This research has brought an important contribution to ES studies. Because it has been identified more than one biocultural ecosystem services classes using local comunity cosmovision. In this sense, El Collay's local communities recognized as essential territorial elements the sacred sites, ancestral knowledge, and local tourism. Therefore, these outcomes have allowed to fully cover the research objectives.

Finally, the statistical tables, graphs, and maps have been elaborated to facilitate the administrative governments the identification and management of these resources in the territory, from a joint vision. This work has facilitated the local actors of El Collay, to recognize and generate a proposal for the protection of their ecosystem services through maps and graphs, for which it is recommended that the peasants themselves continue to increase biocultural ecosystem services and ideas for conservation of these. In addition, the use of these maps is recommended to create ecosystem service projects that can directly benefit the local population from a conservationist perspective.

57

7. Bibliography Argumedo A. and Swiderska K. (2014). Biocultural heritage territories. Land use mosaics encompassing indigenous and traditional land tenure, production and exchange systems, cultural identity, community organization and simultaneous goals of endogenous development and biodiversity conservation. Peru: IIED. Atzmanstorfer, K., Resl R., Eitzinger A and Izurieta X., (2014). The GeoCitizen-approach: community-based spatial planning an Ecuadorian case study, Cartography and Geographic Information Science, Taylor & Francis. http://bit.ly/1qd0QDW. Bákula, C. (2000). Reflexiones en torno al patrimonio cultural. Revista Turismo y Patrimonio, no. 1 (2000),167-174.

Balvanera, P., G.C. Daily, P.R Ehrlich, T.H Ricketts, S.A. Bailey, S. Kark, C. Kremen y H. Preire. (2001). Conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services. Science, 291, 2,047.

Boyd, J., and S. Banzhaf. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics no.63,616-626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002 Brovelli, M.A., Minghini, M., Zamboni, G. (2014). Public participation GIS: a FOSS architecture enabling field-data collection. Int. J. Digital Earth, 1–19. Saved from http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2014.887150.

Chan, K. M. A., and M. Ruckelshaus. (2010). Characterizing changes in marine ecosystem Services. F1000 Biology Reports 2:54 Chan, K.M.A., Goldstein, J., Satterfield, T., Hannahs, N., Kikiloi, K, Naidoo, R., and Woodside, U. (2011). Cultural Services and non-use values. In: Karieva, P., Daily, G. Ricketts, T., Tallis, H., Polasky, S. (Eds.), Natural Capital: Theory & Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Oxford University Press Inc., New York.

Constitución de la República del Ecuador (2008). Ciudad Alfaro: Asamblea Constituyente.

Crouch. D. 1998. The Allotment, landscape and locality: ways of seeing landscape and culture. Area No.21 (1998), pp. 261-267.

Daniel, T. C., A. Muhar, A. Arnberger, O. Aznar, J. W. Boyd, K. M. A. Chan, R.Costanza, T. Elmqvist, C. G. Flint, P. H. Gobster, A. Grêt-Regamey, R. Lave, S. Muhar, M. Penker, R. G. Ribe, T. Schauppenlehner, T. Sikor, I. Soloviy, M. Spierenburg, K. Taczanowska, J. Tam, and A. von der Dunk (2012). Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United State of America 109(23),8812-8819.

58

De Groot, R., P. S. Ramakrishnan, A. V. D. Berg, T. Kulenthran, S. Muller, D. Pitt, andA. Wascher (2005). Cultural and Amenity Services (Chapter 17). Pages 455-476 in Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends Assessment.

Findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA. De la Torre, M. (2005). Part Three: Issues Raised by the Case Studies. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute: 215–27.

FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). FAO and traditional knowledge: the linkages with sustainability, food security and climate change Impacts.

Rome, FAO. FFLA, Fundación Futuro Latinoamericano. (2014). Mancomunidad de El Collay: Sistema innovador y participativo de Gobernanza Ambiental. Sistematización del proceso de conformación, fortalecimiento y consolidación de la Mancomunidad de El Collay.

Quito-Ecuador.

Fisher, C. & Feinman, G. (2005) Introduction to “landscape over time”. American Anthropologist, 107 (1), 62-69.

Fish, R., Church, A., Willis, C., Winter, D.M., Tratalos, J., Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., (2016). Making space for cultural ecosystem services: insights from a study Of the UK Nature Improvement Initiative. Ecosyst. Serv. 21, 329–343.

IPBES (2016) Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’ Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating ’Retrieved from https://www.ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment.

Joe, B., (2012). Rethinking Territory: Social Justice and Neoliberalism in Latin America's Territorial Turn. Geography Compass 6 (4): 215-226.

Jones, L., Norton, L., Austin, Z., Browne, A.L., Donovan, D., Emmett, B.A., Grabowski, Z.J., Howard, D.C., Jones, J.P.G., Kenter, J.O., Manley, W., Morris, C., Robinson, D.A., Short, C., Siriwardena, G.M., Stevens, C.J., Storkey, J., Waters, R.D., Willis,G.F., (2016). Stocks and flows of natural and human-derived capital in ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 52, 151–162.

Karlsson, S. (2008). Top reserve qualities in the built environment an analysis of cultural heritage values following the DIVE-methodology. University of Gothenburg, Department of conservation, Gothenburg.

Kenter, J. O., O'Brien, L., Hockley, N., Ravenscroft, N., Fazey, I., Irvine, K. N., ... and Church, A. (2015). What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecological Economics, 111, 86-99.

59

Kumar, P., (Ed.) (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity.

Kuper A., (2009). “Culture”: The Anthropologists Account, Incest and Influence: The Private Life of Bourgeois England. USA. Locatelli B., Evans V., Wardell A., Andrade A., Vignola R. (2011). Forests and climate change in LatinAmerica: Linking adaptation and mitigation. Open Access Forest.

France.

MA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends: Findings of the Conditions and Trends Working Group. In: Hassan., R., Scholes, R., Ash, N. (Eds.), Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). Island. Press, Washington.

McCall, M.K. (2008), Participatory Mapping, & Participatory GIS for DRR, Community Risk & Hazard Assessment, ITC, Netherlands.

Milcu, A. Ioana, J. Hanspach, D. Abson, and J. Fischer (2013). Cultural ecosystem services: A literature review and prospects for future research. Ecology and Society.

Molano, O. (2013). Identidad Cultural un Concepto que evoluciona. Perú: RIMISIP. Palacios, E.P. (2017). ’La mancomunidad como estrategia para un ordenamiento territorial con pertinencia biocultural: estudio de caso de la mancomunidad de El Collay’, Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Cuenca.

Palomo, I., and C. Montes. (2011). Participatory Scenario Planning for Protected Areas Management under the Ecosystem Services Framework: the Doñana Social-Ecological System in Southwestern Spain. Ecology and Society 16:23.

Parker, B. (2006). Constructing community through maps? Power and praxis in community mapping. The Professional Geographer 58 (4):470–84.

Pereira, E., Queiroz, C., Pereira, H.M., Vicente, L., (2005). Ecosystem services and human well-being: a participatory study in a mountain community in Portugal. Ecol.

Soc. 10, 14–28.

Plieninger, T., D., van der Horst, C. Schleyer, and C. Bieling. (2014). Sustaining ecosystem services in cultural landscapes. Ecology and Society 19(2): 59.

Ranaboldo C., Schejtm A. (eds.) (2009) El valor del patrimonio cultural: territorios rurales, experiencias y proyecciones latinoamericanas. Lima: RIMISP, IEP. Reinar, Dag Arne. «The DIVE Approach.Tool for activating the Development Potential of Cultural Heritage Resources in Urban Planning and Development». Conference

60

Paper: Urban Heritage: Research, Interpretation, Education, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, 2007 Riksantikvaren Organization (2009). Urban Heritage Analysis: DIVE. Communicating Heritage in Urban Development Processes. (Ed. Dag Arne Reinar et al), 2009.

Sarmiento F. (2016). Identidad, Imaginarios e idealidad: entendiendo el paisaje biocultural andino a través del icónico tero serrano (VANELLUS RESPLENDENS). Revista Chilena de Ornitología 22(1), 38-50.

Sarukhán, J., and A. Whyte, editors. (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series. A report of the Conceptual Framework Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Working Group. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Satterfield, T., R. Gregory, S. Klain, M. Roberts, K.M.A. Chan (2013). Culture, intangibles and metrics in environmental management J. Environ. Manag., 117, 103-114.

Sauer, C. O. (1925). The Morphology of Landscape. University of California Publications in Geography, 1925, vol. 2, nº. 2, p. 19-53. October 12.

Seto, K.C., Parnell, S., Elmqvist, T. (2013). A Global Outlook on Urbanization. En: Elmqvist, T. (Ed.), Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities. A Global Assessment. SpringerOpen, pp. 1–12.

Sieber R. (2008) Public participation Geographic Information Systems: A literature review and framework, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 96, no.3, pp. 491–507, 2008.

Sletto, B. (2009). `Indigenous People don’t Have Boundaries’: Reborderings, fire management, and productions of authenticities in indigenous landscapes. Cultural Geographies, 16(2), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474008101519.

TEEB, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2008). Interim Report, European Commission, Brussels Tengberg, A., Fredholm S, Eliasson I, Knez I, Saltzman K, Wetterberg O. (2012). Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosystem Services 2 (2012) 14–26.

UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2001).

Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity.

Wallace, K. J. (2007). Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions.

Biological Conservation. No 39:235-246

61

Whatmore, S., (2002). Hybrid geographies: natures, cultures, spaces. Sage, London.

Wu, T., and Petriello, M.A., (2011). Culture and biodiversity losses linked. Letters to Science. No.331, 30.

Zancheti, S. M. (ed. and organizer) (1999). Conservation and Urban Sustainable Development. A Theoretical Framework. Report from CECI Conference 1999.

62

Appendices section A. Participants photoshop

Photo 1: Conversation during community mapping meeting at El Pan municipality

63

Photo 2: Shuar indigenous people on mapping workshop.

64

B. Questioner and answers by local people (an example) Nombre: Alexandra Vásquez Edad: 45 ¿Qué significa para usted El bosque de El Collay, y por qué?

El bosque del Collay significa AGUA, un patrimonio natural biodiverso que provee de agua como principal recurso de su riqueza.

Describa brevemente como era El Bosque de El Collay hace unos 15 años ¿Qué elementos físicos y culturales han cambiado?

Hace 15 años había disminuido de alguna manera la presión para ampliación de la frontera agrícola debido a los altos índices de migración de la población de Azuay principalmente Gualaceo. Aunque esta problemática continua, la migración la relativizó mucho. De otro lado, aunque había la preocupación por organizarse y cuidar el bosque, principalmente desde Gualaceo y por parte de sus actores políticos y grupos conservacionistas, no existía una articulación con los otros cantones, ni claridad en cómo hacerlo. ¿Qué es lo que más extraña de El Collay de antes? ¿Qué actividades solía hacer antes, que ahora ya no las puede hacer?

Las caminatas y recorridos por diferentes zonas del bosque. Esto debido a que ya no tengo un proyecto directo en la zona y por otro lado la desarticulación que se ha dado entre la actual presidencia de la Mancomunidad y la fundación, pero sobre todo porque no hay una Unidad Técnica que permita tal articulación. ¿Por qué piensa que los recursos naturales y culturales de El Collay han cambiado?

Los recursos del Collay siguen teniendo una presión atrópica pero más aún los efectos del cambio climático ponen en peligro su potencial y el recurso hídrico, también otras problemáticas como la minería ilegal.

El Bosque de El Collay brindaba muchos beneficios a la población, como por ejemplo aire y agua limpia. ¿Cuáles beneficios ya no están y cuáles son los que han permanecido?

Permanece su principal potencial que es el agua y el paisaje. Disminuyó notoriamente el oro y otros minerales que fueron explotados en épocas anteriores. ¿Qué actividades de esparcimiento brindaba el bosque de El Collay que ahora se han perdido?, ¿Cuáles son y que cree usted que se puede hacer para recuperarlas?

El intercambio entre las comunidades del área de influencia para sensibilización, sobre todo a poblaciones jóvenes sobre la importancia del bosque. La articuación de actividades de conservación con actividades de turismo.

¿Cuáles son las principales amenazas hoy en día para El Collay?

65

La falta de voluntad política es una gran amenaza frente a las acciones emprendidas en años anteriores.

La terminación del proyecto de guardianía forestal.

El manejo inadecuado de procesos técnicos y recursos otorgados por instituciones como CELEC. ¿Si usted fuera alcalde de algunos de los cantones en donde se encuentra el Bosque de El Collay, que acciones tomaría para proteger este lugar?

Potenciaría la articulación y el turismo comunitario en toda el área del bosque.

Impulsaría el trabajo conjunto de las unidades técnicas municipales de los diferentes cantones para elaborar y gestionar proyectos en procesos participativos, en beneficio de la conservación y protección del bosque y de la mejora de la calidad de vida de la población de su área de influencia.

Impulsaría proyectos de protección de fuentes hídricas a partir de la experiencia de Gualaceo, en los demás cantones, vía ordenanza y vía articulación con las comunidades, con acuerdos de compensación ambiental vs cuidado y recuperación de recursos hídricos. ¿Qué beneficios cree que se podría obtener del bosque de El Collay para generar desarrollo en la comunidad?

Se podría generar alternativas económicas relacionadas con el turismo, la artesanía, y emprendimientos productivos con el sello del Collay.

¿Cree usted que el turismo es un medio para generar desarrollo en la comunidad, de ser el caso que tipo de turismo propusiera usted?

Si. Eco turismo comunitario