Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape in Myanmar
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Theoretical Framework
2.2. Study Area
2.3. Ecosystem Services Classification
2.4. Social Valuation
2.5. Data Collection
2.6. Data Analysis
2.7. Scoring System
- 0 = people do not use this ES directly and do not see a benefit or value
- 1 = people see a benefit or value but do not use it directly
- 2 = people use it directly or indirectly
- 3 = ES is essential for livelihoods and human well-being [46]
3. Results
3.1. The Tanintharyi Landscape and Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Services
3.2. Bundles of Ecosystem Services for Each Land Use
3.3. Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs from the Main Land Use Changes
3.4. Changing Demand
3.5. Local Adaptation Processes
4. Discussion
4.1. The Ecosystem Services Framework in Practice
4.2. Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape
4.3. Outlook for Tanintharyi Region
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- MEA. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Synthesis/A Report of the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; ISBN 1-59726-040-1. [Google Scholar]
- Potschin, M.; Haines-Young, R.; Fish, R.; Turner, R.K. (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services; Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2016; ISBN 978-1-138-02508-0. [Google Scholar]
- Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. (Eds.) Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES); Version 4.3; Report to the European Environment Agency; Centre for Environmental Management, University of Nottingham: Nottingham, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Raudsepp-Hearne, C.; Peterson, G.D.; Bennett, E.M. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 5242–5247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Howe, C.; Suich, H.; Vira, B.; Mace, G.M. Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: A meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 28, 263–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Rana, K.; Goyal, N.; Prakash Sharma, G. Staging stewards of agro-ecosystems in the ecosystem services framework. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 33, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Rau, A.-L.; von Wehrden, H.; Abson, D.J. Temporal dynamics of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 151, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Cord, A.F.; Bartkowski, B.; Beckmann, M.; Dittrich, A.; Hermans-Neumann, K.; Kaim, A.; Lienhoop, N.; Locher-Krause, K.; Priess, J.; Schröter-Schlaack, C.; et al. Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: Main concepts, methods and the road ahead. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Lee, H.; Lautenbach, S. A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 66, 340–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Burkhard, B.; Maes, J. (Eds.) Mapping Ecosystem Services; Pensoft Publishers: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2017; ISBN 978-954-642-830-1. [Google Scholar]
- Chan, K.M.A.; Guerry, A.D.; Balvanera, P.; Klain, S.; Satterfield, T.; Basurto, X.; Bostrom, A.; Chuenpagdee, R.; Gould, R.; Halpern, B.S.; et al. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience 2012, 62, 744–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Casado-Arzuaga, I.; Madariaga, I.; Onaindia, M. Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 129, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Martín-López, B.; Iniesta-Arandia, I.; García-Llorente, M.; Palomo, I.; Casado-Arzuaga, I.; Amo, D.G.D.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Palacios-Agundez, I.; Willaarts, B.; et al. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e38970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Scholte, S.S.K.; van Teeffelen, A.J.A.; Verburg, P.H. Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 114, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Pascual, U.; Balvanera, P.; Díaz, S.; Pataki, G.; Roth, E.; Stenseke, M.; Watson, R.T.; Başak Dessane, E.; Islar, M.; Kelemen, E.; et al. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 26–27, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Christie, M.; Fazey, I.; Cooper, R.; Hyde, T.; Kenter, J.O. An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 83, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Busch, M.; La Notte, A.; Laporte, V.; Erhard, M. Potentials of quantitative and qualitative approaches to assessing ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 89–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Scales, I.R. Farming at the forest frontier: Land use and landscape change in Western Madagascar, 1896–2005. Environ. Hist. 2011, 17, 499–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Brando, P.M.; Coe, M.T.; DeFries, R.; Azevedo, A.A. Ecology, economy and management of an agroindustrial frontier landscape in the southeast Amazon. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 2013, 368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Van Vliet, N.; Mertz, O.; Heinimann, A.; Langanke, T.; Pascual, U.; Schmook, B.; Adams, C.; Schmidt-Vogt, D.; Messerli, P.; Leisz, S.; et al. Trends, drivers and impacts of changes in swidden cultivation in tropical forest-agriculture frontiers: A global assessment. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2012, 22, 418–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Messerli, P.; Peeters, A.; Schoenweger, O.; Nanhthavong, V.; Heinimann, A. Marginal lands or marginal people? Analysing key processes determining the outcomes of large-scale land acquisitions in Lao PDR and Cambodia. Int. Dev. Policy 2015, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Lim, C.L.; Prescott, G.W.; de Alban, J.D.T.; Ziegler, A.D.; Webb, E.L. Untangling the proximate causes and underlying drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in Myanmar. Conserv. Biol. J. Soc. Conserv. Biol. 2017, 31, 1362–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Connette, G.; Oswald, P.; Songer, M.; Leimgruber, P. Mapping distinct forest types improves overall forest identification based on multi-spectral landsat imagery for Myanmar’s Tanintharyi Region. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- De Alban, J.; Prescott, G.; Woods, K.; Jamaludin, J.; Latt, K.; Lim, C.; Maung, A.; Webb, E. Integrating Analytical Frameworks to Investigate Land-Cover Regime Shifts in Dynamic Landscapes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Woods, K. The Political Ecology of Rubber Production in MYANMAR: An Overview. 2012. Available online: http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs20/The_Political_Ecology_of_Rubber_Production_in_Myanmar.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2019).
- Woods, K. Agribusiness and Agro-Conversion Timber in Myanmar. Drivers of Deforestation and Land Conflicts; Forest Trade and Finance. 2016. Available online: https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/agribusiness-and-agro-conversion-timber-in-myanmar-woods-ppt-for-circulation-pdf.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2017).
- Burkhard, B.; Kroll, F.; Nedkov, S.; Müller, F. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Helfenstein, J.; Kienast, F. Ecosystem service state and trends at the regional to national level: A rapid assessment. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Bhowmick, B.; Uddin, Z.; Rahman, S. Salinity changes in South West Bangladesh and its impact on rural livelihoods. Bangladesh J. Vet. Med. 2016, 14, 251–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Verburg, P.H.; Crossman, N.; Ellis, E.C.; Heinimann, A.; Hostert, P.; Mertz, O.; Nagendra, H.; Sikor, T.; Erb, K.-H.; Golubiewski, N.; et al. Land system science and sustainable development of the earth system: A global land project perspective. Anthropocene 2015, 12, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Abson, D.J.; von Wehrden, H.; Baumgärtner, S.; Fischer, J.; Hanspach, J.; Härdtle, W.; Heinrichs, H.; Klein, A.M.; Lang, D.J.; Martens, P.; et al. Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 103, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- De Groot, R.S.; Alkemade, R.; Braat, L.; Hein, L.; Willemen, L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 260–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Maes, J.; Crossman, N.; Burkhard, B. Mapping ecosystem services. In Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services; Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., Turner, R.K., Eds.; Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2016; pp. 188–204. ISBN 978-1-138-02508-0. [Google Scholar]
- FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Desk Reference; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- ESRI (Earth System Research Institute). Online Basemap. Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community; ESRI: Beijing, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- MIMU (Myanmar Information Management Unit). Tanintharyi Roads and Railway. Available online: http://geonode.themimu.info/layers/?limit=100&offset=0 (accessed on 2 August 2018).
- Dedering, U. Myanmar Location Map; Wikimedia: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- O’Neill, J.; Holland, A.; Light, A. Environmental Values; State University of New York Press: Albany, NY, USA, 2008; ISBN 0-203-49545-4. [Google Scholar]
- Felipe-Lucia, M.R.; Comín, F.A.; Escalera-Reyes, J. A framework for the social valuation of ecosystem services. Ambio 2015, 44, 308–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Bernard, H.R.; Wutich, A.; Ryan, G.W. Analyzing Qualitative Data. Systematic Approaches; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017; ISBN 9781483344386. [Google Scholar]
- Flick, U. An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 5th ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2014; ISBN 978-1-4462-6778-3. [Google Scholar]
- Bernard, H.R. Research Methods in Anthropology. Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 6th ed.; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA, 2018; ISBN 9781442268883. [Google Scholar]
- Bryan, B.A.; Raymond, C.M.; Crossman, N.D.; Macdonald, D.H. Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what, and how? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Villamagna, A.M.; Angermeier, P.L.; Bennett, E.M. Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecol. Complex. 2013, 15, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Wolff, S.; Schulp, C.J.E.; Kastner, T.; Verburg, P.H. Quantifying spatial variation in ecosystem services demand: A global mapping approach. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 136, 14–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Wolff, S.; Schulp, C.J.E.; Verburg, P.H. Mapping ecosystem services demand: A review of current research and future perspectives. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 55, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), Version 5.1. Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. 2018. Available online: https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2018/01/Guidance-V51-01012018.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2018).
- Anton, C.; Young, J.; Harrison, P.A.; Musche, M.; Bela, G.; Feld, C.K.; Harrington, R.; Haslett, J.R.; Pataki, G.; Rounsevell, M.D.A.; et al. Research needs for incorporating the ecosystem service approach into EU biodiversity conservation policy. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19, 2979–2994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Chan, K.M.A.; Satterfield, T.; Goldstein, J. Rethinking Ecosystem Services to Better Address and Navigate Cultural Values; University of British Columbia: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Barton, D.N.; Berry, P.; Dunford, R.; Harrison, P. Concepts and methods in ecosystem services valuation. In Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services; Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., Turner, R.K., Eds.; Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2016; pp. 99–111. ISBN 978-1-138-02508-0. [Google Scholar]
- Meyfroidt, P.; Carlson, K.M.; Fagan, M.E.; Gutiérrez-Vélez, V.H.; Macedo, M.N.; Curran, L.M.; DeFries, R.S.; Dyer, G.A.; Gibbs, H.K.; Lambin, E.F.; et al. Multiple pathways of commodity crop expansion in tropical forest landscapes. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 74012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Häuser, I.; Martin, K.; Germer, J.; He, P.; Blagodatskiy, S.; Liu, H.; Krauss, M.; Rajaona, A.; Shi, M.; Pelz, S.; et al. Environmental and socio-economic impacts of rubber cultivation in the Mekong region: Challenges for sustainable land use. CAB Rev. 2015, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Min, S.; Huang, J.; Waibel, H. Rubber specialization vs. crop diversification: The roles of perceived risks. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2017, 9, 188–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Urech, Z.; Zaehringer, J.; Rickenbach, O.; Sorg, J.-P.; Felber, H. Understanding deforestation and forest fragmentation from a livelihood perspective. Madag. Conserv. Dev. 2015, 10, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Lundsgaard-Hansen, L.; Schneider, F.; Zaehringer, J.; Oberlack, C.; Myint, W.; Messerli, P. Whose Agency Counts in Land Use Decision-Making in Myanmar? A Comparative Analysis of Three Cases in Tanintharyi Region. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Moreno-Peñaranda, R.; Gasparatos, A.; Stromberg, P.; Suwa, A.; Puppim de Oliveira, J.A. Stakeholder perceptions of the ecosystem services and human well-being impacts of palm oil biofuels in Indonesia and Malaysia. In Biofuels and Sustainability: Holistic Perspectives for Policy-making; Takeuchi, K., Shiroyama, H., Saito, O., Matsuura, M., Eds.; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 2018; pp. 133–173. ISBN 978-4-431-54895-9. [Google Scholar]
- Saxon, E.C.; Sheppard, S.M. Land Suitability for Oil Palm in Southern Myanmar; Working Paper No. 1. 2014. Available online: https://data.opendevelopmentmekong.net/dataset/28dce25e-6859-48d7-a067-4f609855ecd5/resource/8b16ed2f-85d2-4c5f-82dc-e6929293068c/download/Working-Paper-01-Oil-Palm-Suitability-in-South-Myanmar-July-2014-1.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2019).
- Obidzinski, K.; Andriani, R.; Komarudin, H.; Andrianto, A. Environmental and social impacts of oil palm plantations and their Implications for biofuel production in Indonesia. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Muhamad, D.; Okubo, S.; Harashina, K.; Parikesit; Gunawan, B.; Takeuchi, K. Living close to forests enhances people’s perception of ecosystem services in a forest–agricultural landscape of West Java, Indonesia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 8, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Daw, T.M.; Hicks, C.C.; Brown, K.; Chaigneau, T.; Januchowski-Hartley, F.A.; Cheung, W.W.L.; Rosendo, S.; Crona, B.; Coulthard, S.; Sandbrook, C.; et al. Elasticity in ecosystem services: Exploring the variable relationship between ecosystems and human well-being. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Gritten, D.; Greijmans, M.; Lewis, S.; Sokchea, T.; Atkinson, J.; Quang, T.; Poudyal, B.; Chapagain, B.; Sapkota, L.; Mohns, B.; et al. An uneven playing field: Regulatory barriers to communities making a living from the timber from their forests—Examples from Cambodia, Nepal and Vietnam. Forests 2015, 6, 3433–3451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Dhiaulhaq, A.; Wiset, K.; Thaworn, R.; Kane, S.; Gritten, D. Forest, water and people: The roles and limits of mediation in transforming watershed conflict in Northern Thailand. For. Soc. 2017, 1, 121–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Rodriguez, J.P.; Beard, T.D.; Bennett, E.M.; Cumming, G.S.; Cork, S.J.; Agard, J.; Dobson, A.P.; Peterson, G.D. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26267786.pdf?refreqid=excelsior:2029d80d02babf7074c903aa57b9af69 (accessed on 11 March 2019). [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Ellis, E.A.; Romero Montero, J.A.; Hernández Gómez, I.U. Deforestation processes in the State of Quintana Roo, Mexico. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2017, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Pandit, R.; Bevilacqua, E. Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal. For. Policy Econ. 2011, 13, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Porter-Bolland, L.; Ellis, E.A.; Guariguata, M.R.; Ruiz-Mallén, I.; Negrete-Yankelevich, S.; Reyes-García, V. Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 268, 6–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Feurer, M.; Gritten, D.; Than, M.M. Community forestry for livelihoods: Benefiting from Myanmar’s mangroves. Forests 2018, 9, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Fischer, J.; Brosi, B.; Daily, G.C.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Goldman, R.; Goldstein, J.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Manning, A.D.; Mooney, H.A.; Pejchar, L.; et al. Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Front. Ecol. Environ. 2008, 6, 380–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Edwards, D.P.; Gilroy, J.J.; Woodcock, P.; Edwards, F.A.; Larsen, T.H.; Andrews, D.J.R.; Derhé, M.A.; Docherty, T.D.S.; Hsu, W.W.; Mitchell, S.L.; et al. Land-sharing versus land-sparing logging: Reconciling timber extraction with biodiversity conservation. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Somboonsuke, B.; Wetayaprasit, P.; Chernchom, P.; Pacheerat, K. Diversification of smallholder rubber agroforestry system (SRAS) Thailand. Kasetsart J. 2011, 32, 327–339. [Google Scholar]
- Sujatha, S.; Bhat, R.; Kannan, C.; Balasimha, D. Impact of intercropping of medicinal and aromatic plants with organic farming approach on resource use efficiency in arecanut (Areca catechu L.) plantation in India. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2011, 33, 78–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Tohiran, K.A.; Nobilly, F.; Zulkifli, R.; Maxwell, T.; Moslim, R.; Azhar, B. Targeted cattle grazing as an alternative to herbicides for controlling weeds in bird-friendly oil palm plantations. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 37, 465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Slade, E.M.; Burhanuddin, M.I.; Caliman, J.-P.; Foster, W.A.; Naim, M.; Prawirosukarto, S.; Snaddon, J.L.; Turner, E.C.; Mann, D.J. Can Cattle Grazing in Mature Oil Palm Increase Bbiodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision?; ICOPE Conference 2014. 2014. Available online: http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/72358/1/Slade_et_al_2014_The_Planter_90_655_665.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2018).




| Place | Transect Walks | Focus Groups | Key Informant Interviews | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forest | Rubber | Mixed | Oil Palm | Rice | Lime | |||
| Village A | 2 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | - | 1 | 1 |
| Village B | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - |
| Village C | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | - |
| Regional | - | - | 2 | - | - | 1 | - | - |
| National | - | - | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Total | 4 | 16 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 2 |
| ES | Description | Scoring Criteria for ES Supply | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provisioning | Subsistence crops | Crops for subsistence include mainly rice, vegetables, and fruit. | 0 = no subsistence crops planted 1 = some subsistence crops planted intermittently 2 = some subsistence crops planted continuously 3 = subsistence crops dominate land use (LU) |
| Commercial crops | Commercial crops are sold raw or after primary processing. | 0 = no commercial crops planted 1 = some commercial crops planted 2 = medium-income commercial crops dominate 3 = high-income commercial crops dominate LU | |
| Livestock | Livestock products include meat, eggs, leather, and manure. | 0 = no livestock present 1 = sometimes livestock present (mostly chicken) 2 = livestock present (chicken or cattle) 3 = livestock dominant (cattle) | |
| Wild plants | Wild plants are for nutrition or medicine. No plant materials are discussed. | 0 = no wild plants 1 = few wild plants present 2 = wild plants present, but low diversity 3 = abundant and highly diverse wild plants | |
| Fuelwood | Fuelwood includes small trees and branches used for cooking. | 0 = no material for fuelwood present 1 = some low-quality fuelwood present 2 = much fuelwood present with different qualities 3 = abundant fuelwood of high quality | |
| Regulating | Water flow | Water is used locally (regulation of below-surface water flows). | 0 = no contribution or disturbance to water flow 1 = limited contribution to water flow 2 = improved water flow 3 = high contribution to water flow and quality |
| Biodiversity | Biodiversity refers to the maintenance of nursery populations and habitats for domestic and wild species. | 0 = destruction of biodiversity (pollution) 1 = low biodiversity 2 = good agrobiodiversity 3 = high biodiversity overall | |
| Microclimate | Regulation and improvement of the microclimate (air flow, temperature). | 0 = disturbance of a healthy microclimate 1 = common microclimate 2 = agreeable microclimate 3 = very agreeable microclimate and high C-seq. | |
| Cultural | Education | Education is the land use contribution to the knowledge base of children and adults. | 0 = not important for education 1 = part of education (parent to child) 2 = important for education and training 3 = many opportunities for continued education |
| Cultural identity | Embedment in local culture includes traditions, religion, spiritual value, and connectivity. | 0 = no cultural value, no cultural products 1 = some products used traditionally 2 = LU and products important to cultural identity 3 = LU strongly embedded in culture | |
| Past Demand | Current Demand | Future Demand | Drivers of a Changing ES Demand | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tenure | Market | Knowledge | Emotion | ||||
| Subsistence crops | High | Low | Low | - | ++ | - | + |
| Commercial crops | Medium | High | High | ++ | ++ | + | + |
| Livestock | High | Medium | Medium | + | ++ | + | ++ |
| Wild foods and medicine | High | Medium | Medium | - | ++ | + | - |
| Fuelwood | High | High | High | - | - | - | - |
| Water flow | Medium | High | High | - | - | + | - |
| Biodiversity | Low | Low | Medium | + | + | ++ | + |
| Education | Medium | Medium | Medium | - | + | ++ | - |
| Cultural identity | Medium | Medium | Low | - | + | - | ++ |
© 2019 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Feurer, M.; Heinimann, A.; Schneider, F.; Jurt, C.; Myint, W.; Zaehringer, J.G. Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape in Myanmar. Land 2019, 8, 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8030045
Feurer M, Heinimann A, Schneider F, Jurt C, Myint W, Zaehringer JG. Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape in Myanmar. Land. 2019; 8(3):45. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8030045
Chicago/Turabian StyleFeurer, Melanie, Andreas Heinimann, Flurina Schneider, Christine Jurt, Win Myint, and Julie Gwendolin Zaehringer. 2019. "Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape in Myanmar" Land 8, no. 3: 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8030045
APA StyleFeurer, M., Heinimann, A., Schneider, F., Jurt, C., Myint, W., & Zaehringer, J. G. (2019). Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape in Myanmar. Land, 8(3), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8030045

