Community-Based Importance and Quantification of Ecosystem Services, Disservices, Drivers, and Neotropical Dry Forests in a Rural Colombian Municipality
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area and Context
2.2. Perception of Ecosystem Services, Disservices and Drivers of Change
2.3. Quantifying the Most Important ES
2.4. Quantifying Ecosystem Disservices and Drivers of Change
3. Results
3.1. Identification and Importance of Key ES, ED and Drivers of Change
3.2. Quantifying the Most Important ES
3.2.1. Air Purification
3.2.2. Food Production
3.3. Ecosystem Disservices and Drivers of Change
3.4. Governance
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Quintas-Soriano, C.; Brandt, J.; Running, K.; Baxter, C.V.; Gibson, D.M.; Narducci, J.; Castro, A.J. Social-ecological systems influence ecosystem service perception. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dobbs, C.; Escobedo, F.J.; Clerici, N.; de la Barrera, F.; Eleuterio, A.A.; MacGregor-Fors, I.; Reyes-Paecke, S.; Vásquez, A.; Zea, J.; Hernández, J. Urban ecosystem services in Latin America: Mismatch between global concepts and regional realities? Urban Ecosyst. 2019, 22, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seppelt, R.; Dormann, C.F.; Eppink, F.V.; Lautenbach, S. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: Approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48, 630–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldana, J.; Palomo, I.; Gutiérrez, J.; Arnaiz, C.; Montes, C.; Narvaez, F. Assessing the effects of past and future land cover changes in ecosystem services, disservices and biodiversity: A case study in Barranquilla Metropolitan Area (BMA), Colombia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 37, 100915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lebel, L.; Wattana, S.; Pawin, T. Assessments of ecosystem services and human well-being in Thailand build and create demand for coproductive capacity. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nahuelhual, L.; Saavedra, G.; Henríque, F.; Benra, F.; Vergara, X.; Perugache, C.; Hansen, F. Opportunities and limits to ecosystem services governance in developing countries and indigenous territories: The case of water supply in Southern Chile. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 86, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pedraza, S.; Sanchez, A.; Clerici, N.; Ospina, L.; Quintero, A.; Escobedo, F.J. Perception of conservation strategies and nature’s contributions to people around Chingaza National Natural Park, Colombia. Environ. Conserv. 2020, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rincón, A.; Echeverry, M.; Piñeros, A.M.; Tapia, C.H.; David, A.; Arias, P.; Zuluaga, P.A. Valoración Integral de la Biodiversidad y los Servicios Ecosistémicos: Aspectos Conceptuales y Metodológicos; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander Von Humboldt (IAvH): Bogotá, DC, Colombia, 2014; 151p. [Google Scholar]
- Kroll, F.; Müller, F.; Haase, D.; Fohrer, N. Rural-urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics. Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 521–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burkhard, B.; Kroll, F.; Nedkov, S.; Müller, F. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cáceres, D.M.; Tapella, E.; Quétier, F.; Díaz, S. The social value of biodiversity and ecosystem services from the perspectives of different social actors. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manrique, M.; Benjumea, S.; Rodríguez, I.; Nieto, B.; Franky, S.; Sánchez, E.; Salamanca, M. Los Pueblos Indígenas en Colombia, Derechos, Políticas y Desafíos; UNICEF, Oficina de área para Colombia y Venezuela: Bogotá, DC, Colombia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Hoffmann, C.; Márquez, J.R.G.; Krueger, T. A local perspective on drivers and measures to slow deforestation in the Andean-Amazonian foothills of Colombia. Land Use Policy 2018, 77, 379–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oteros-Rozas, E.; Martín-López, B.; González, J.A.; Plieninger, T.; López, C.A.; Montes, C. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance social-ecological network. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2014, 14, 1269–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales (IDEAM), Instituto Alexander Von Humboldt (I. Humboldt), Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi (IGAC), Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras “José Benito Vives de Andréis” (Invemar), Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. In Mapa de Ecosistemas Continentales, Costeros y Marinos de Colombia (MEC) [mapa]; Versión 2.1; escala 1:00.000; Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi: Bogotá, Colombia, 2017.
- Cortolima. Agenda Ambiental del Municipio de Coyaima. 2011. Available online: https://www.cortolima.gov.co/sites/default/files/images/stories/centro_documentos/estudios/agendas/2011_Agenda_Ambiental_del_Municipio_de_Coyaima.pdf (accessed on 17 March 2020).
- Ministerio del Interior de Colombia (MIC), Plan de salvaguarda étnica del pueblo Pijao. Etapa de validación de información del proceso de diagnóstico y formulación de líneas de acción. Documento válido Comunidad Indígena Buena Vista Meche Municipio de Coyaima. 2014. Available online: https://siic.mininterior.gov.co/sites/default/files/upload/21_comunidad_buena_vista_meche_coyaima.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2020).
- Gobernación del Tolima. Estadísticas 2011–2014. Coyaima, Tolima, 2018. Available online: www.tolima.gov.co (accessed on 23 January 2020).
- DANE. Censo General 2005. 2010. Available online: www.dane.gov.co (accessed on 15 February 2020).
- González, R.; García, H.; Isaacs, P.; Cuadros, H.; López, R.; Rodríguez, N.; Pérez, K.; Mijares, F.; Castaño-Naranjo, A.; Jurado, R. Disentangling the environmental heterogeneity, floristic distinctiveness and current threats of tropical dry forests in Colombia. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 045007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmerbeck, J.; Fiener, P. Wildfires, ecosystem services, and biodiversity in tropical dry forest in India. Environ. Manag. 2015, 56, 355–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snijders, T.A.B. Estimation on the basis of snowball samples: How to weight? Bull. Methodol. Sociol. 1992, 36, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- QSR International; NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software [Version 12]. 1999. Available online: https://qsrinternational.com/nvivo/nvivo-products (accessed on 13 May 2020).
- Eigenbrod, F.; Armsworth, P.R.; Anderson, B.J.; Heinemeyer, A.; Gillings, S.; Roy, D.; Thomas, K.; Gaston, K. The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 47, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escobedo, F.; Chacalo, A. Estimación preliminar de la descontaminación atmosférica por el arbolado urbano de la ciudad de México. Interciencia 2008, 33, 29–33. [Google Scholar]
- Escobedo, F.; Nowak, D. Spatial heterogeneity and air pollution removal by an urban forest. Landsc. Urban Plan 2009, 90, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirabayashi, S. i-Tree Canopy Air Pollutant Removal and Monetary Value Model Descriptions. 2014. Available online: https://www.itreetools.org/documents/560/i-Tree_Canopy_Air_Pollutant_Removal_and_Monetary_Value_Model_Descriptions.pdf (accessed on 17 March 2020).
- i-Tree. i-Tree Sofware Suite v5.x. 2002. Available online: www.itreetools.org (accessed on 15 February 2020).
- Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales (IDEAM). Mapas de Bosque No bosque Colombia—Área Continental (Escala Fina LANDSAT) [Mapas], Año 2005, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 & 2017, escala 1:8.500.000. 2016. Available online: www.ideam.gov.co/web/ecosistemas/superficie-cubierta-por-bosque-natural?p_p_id=110_INSTANCE_dqBGlv6hKQrD&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-2&p_p_col_pos=1&p_p_col_count=2&_110_INSTANCE_dqBGlv6hKQrD_struts_action=%2Fdocument_ (accessed on 13 May 2020).
- AGRONET. Área Sembrada, área Cosechada, Producción y Rendimiento del Cultivo Según Municipio 2007–2017. 2018. Available online: www.agronet.gov.co (accessed on 20 May 2020).
- Houska, T.R.; Johnson, A.P. GloVis (No. 137). US Geological Survey. 2012. Available online: https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/137/ (accessed on 17 March 2020).
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Martín, B.; Iniesta, I.; García, M.; Palomo, I.; Casado, I.; García, D.; Gómez, E.; Oteros, E.; Palacios, I.; Willaarts, B.; et al. Uncovering Ecosystem Service Bundles through Social Preferences. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e38970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pineda-Guerrero, A.; Escobedo, F.J.; Carriazo, F. Governance, Nature’s Contributions to People, and Investing in Conservation Influence the Valuation of Urban Green Areas. Land 2021, 10, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Depietri, Y.; Orenstein, D.E. Fire-regulating services and disservices with an application to the Haifa-Carmel region in Israel. Front. Environ. Sci. 2019, 7, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Contraloría del Tolima. Informe definitivo auditoría ambiental especial vigencia 2014. 2015. Available online: http://contraloriatolima.gov.co/webcontraloria/documentos/2015/informes/inf_ambiental_coyaima_2014.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2020).
- Cortes, A. Resguardos Indígenas en la Conservación: Territorios en Traslape. 2018. Available online: https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/bitstream/001/682/1/DHA-spa-2018-Resguardos_indigenas_en_la_conservacion_territorios_en_traslape.pdf (accessed on 13 June 2020).
- Fernandez, M.E. Efectos del Cambio ClimáTico en el Rendimiento de tres Cultivos Mediante el uso del Modelo AquaCrop. Informe Final; 2013. Available online: http://www.ideam.gov.co/documents/21021/21138/Informe+Final_+Efectos+del+CC+en+el+rendimiento+de+cultivos+agrícolas.pdf/77713cce-eef6-4eb9-9ad6-02985c72b76b (accessed on 13 June 2021).
Pollutant | Minimum (g/m2) | Average (g/m2) | Maximum (g/m2) |
---|---|---|---|
CO | 0.1+ | 0.4 | NA |
NO2 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1.5 |
O3 | 1.6 * | 4.8 * | 8.4 * |
PM10 | 2.2 * | 5.6 * | 8.7 * |
PM2.5 | NA | 0.3 + | NA |
SO2 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 1.6 |
Total | 4.8 | 12.1 | 20.2 |
Category | Characteristics | People (n) | Proportion (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Sex | Male | 167 | 46 |
Female | 194 | 54 | |
Age | <18 years | 51 | 14 |
18–30 | 104 | 29 | |
31–45 | 86 | 24 | |
45–60 | 81 | 22 | |
>60 | 39 | 11 | |
Education | None | 18 | 5 |
Preschool | 10 | 3 | |
Primary school | 88 | 24 | |
High school | 177 | 49 | |
Technician | 39 | 11 | |
Professional | 29 | 8 | |
Occupation | Agriculture | 34 | 9 |
Commerce | 85 | 23 | |
Government | 18 | 5 | |
Transport | 18 | 5 | |
Education | 12 | 3 | |
Health system | 6 | 4 | |
Household management | 83 | 23 | |
Various trades | 24 | 6 | |
Others or none | 81 | 22 | |
Affiliation with an indigenous reservation/council | Indigenous reservation | 175 | 48 |
Indigenous council | 13 | 4 | |
None | 173 | 48 | |
Place of Birth | Coyaima | 217 | 60 |
Other | 144 | 40 | |
Place of residence | Coyaima | 274 | 75 |
Other place | 87 | 25 | |
Rural or urban residence | Rural | 152 | 55 |
Urban | 122 | 45 |
Annual Air Pollution Removal (t) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | CO | NO2 | O3 | PM10 | PM2.5 | SO2 | Total |
2005 | 5.35 (1.35–n/a) | 9.36 (6.69–20) | 64 (21–112) | 74 (29–116) | 3.5 | 8.0 (5.3–21) | 164.3 |
2010 | 4.04 (1.02–n/a) | 7.07 (5.05–15) | 48 (16–84) | 56 (22–87) | 2.7 | 6.0 (4.0–16.1) | 123.8 |
2012 | 3.97 (1.00–n/a) | 6.95 (4.96–14.9) | 47.6 (15.9–83) | 55.6 (21.8–86.3) | 2.65 | 5.95 (3.97–16) | 122.7 |
2013 | 3.95 (0.99–n/a) | 6.91 (4.94–14.8) | 47.4 (15.8–82) | 55.3 (21.7–86) | 2.63 | 5.92 (3.95–15.8) | 122.1 |
2014 | 3.92 (0.99–n/a) | 6.87 (4.91–14.7) | 47.1 (15.7–82) | 54 (21.6–85) | 2.62 | 5.89 (3.92–15.7) | 120.4 |
2015 | 3.85 (0.97–n/a) | 6.74 (4.82–14.4) | 46.2 (15.4–80) | 53 (21.2–83) | 2.57 | 5.78 (3.85–15.4) | 117.8 |
2016 | 3.76 (0.95–n/a) | 6.59 (4.71–14.1) | 45.2 (15.1–79) | 52.7 (20.8–82) | 2.51 | 5.61 (3.76–15.1) | 116.4 |
2017 | 3.76 (0.94–n/a) | 6.58 (4.70–14.1) | 45.1 (15–78) | 52.6 (20.6–81) | 2.50 | 6.64 (3.76–15) | 116.1 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tovar Tique, Y.P.; Escobedo, F.J.; Clerici, N. Community-Based Importance and Quantification of Ecosystem Services, Disservices, Drivers, and Neotropical Dry Forests in a Rural Colombian Municipality. Forests 2021, 12, 919. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12070919
Tovar Tique YP, Escobedo FJ, Clerici N. Community-Based Importance and Quantification of Ecosystem Services, Disservices, Drivers, and Neotropical Dry Forests in a Rural Colombian Municipality. Forests. 2021; 12(7):919. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12070919
Chicago/Turabian StyleTovar Tique, Yuli Paola, Francisco J. Escobedo, and Nicola Clerici. 2021. "Community-Based Importance and Quantification of Ecosystem Services, Disservices, Drivers, and Neotropical Dry Forests in a Rural Colombian Municipality" Forests 12, no. 7: 919. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12070919