IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v48y2021ics2212041621000036.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An enhanced analytical framework of participatory GIS for ecosystem services assessment applied to a Ramsar wetland site in the Vietnam Mekong Delta

Author

Listed:
  • Loc, Ho Huu
  • Park, Edward
  • Thu, Tran Ngoc
  • Diep, Nguyen Thi Hong
  • Can, Nguyen Trong

Abstract

Public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS), though proven valuable in ecosystem services (ES) research, is occasionally criticized for being expensive in terms of time, cost and administration efforts in case the post-hoc sophisticated spatial analytics/statistics are targeted. This study, based on the enhancement of the pre-developed PPGIS analytical framework, seeks to address these critiques by introducing an in-expensive effective data collection strategy, while substantially facilitating geo-spatial analytics. The U Minh Thuong National Park (UMTNP) in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam, a world’s renowned Ramsar site, was chosen to demonstrate the framework. The respondents participated in the participatory mapping on paper maps, using color markers to hand-draw (as polygons) their self-perceived areas associated with different categories ES. By collecting 2D data, the post-hoc spatial analyses could have utilized more meaningful statistical methods. In this study, we introduced the uses of three methods: Ordinary least squares (OLS), Geographically weighted regression (GWR) and Moran’s I to assess the spatial autocorrelation of ES across the landscape. In addition to participatory mapping, the respondents were also engaged in completing a semi-structured questionnaire, which was subsequently analyzed using principal component analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis. These two multivariate analyses serve to reveal the structured diversity of the people’s perceptions towards the importance of different ES. It was shown that Provisioning ES was the most highly regarded benefit, followed by Regulating, Supporting and Cultural. Regulating and Supporting ES, the two indirect material services share relatively similar appreciation patterns while Cultural ES was unexpectedly the least credited, a stark contrast lineagainst the government designated eco-tourism and historical functions of UMTNP. Geographically, the core areas of the national park have the most overlaps between Provisioning and Regulating services. Supporting services, on the other hand, were the most associated with Provisioning and Regulating services in peripheral areas. Cultural services were synergized with the other three types of ES in the areas reserved for eco-tourism activities. The revealed spatial synergies can determine the areas where potential conflicts between extractive and non-extractive uses could occur, contributing insights for sustainable management of UMTNP and other protected areas worldwide. In addition, this study also contributes to promoting the PPGIS method in ES research and other human geographical studies, those relying on community participation.

Suggested Citation

  • Loc, Ho Huu & Park, Edward & Thu, Tran Ngoc & Diep, Nguyen Thi Hong & Can, Nguyen Trong, 2021. "An enhanced analytical framework of participatory GIS for ecosystem services assessment applied to a Ramsar wetland site in the Vietnam Mekong Delta," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:48:y:2021:i:c:s2212041621000036
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101245
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041621000036
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101245?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claudia Canedoli & Craig Bullock & Marcus J. Collier & Deirdre Joyce & Emilio Padoa-Schioppa, 2017. "Public Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services: Citizen Perception and Park Management in the Parco Nord of Milan (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, May.
    2. Brown, Greg & Fagerholm, Nora, 2015. "Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 119-133.
    3. Lê, Sébastien & Josse, Julie & Husson, François, 2008. "FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Analysis," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 25(i01).
    4. Gregory Brown & Pat Reed, 2012. "Social Landscape Metrics: Measures for Understanding Place Values from Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS)," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 73-90.
    5. Loc, Ho Huu & Irvine, Kim N. & Thi Hong Diep, Nguyen & Thi Kim Quyen, Nguyen & Tue, Nguyen Ngoc & Shimizu, Yoshihisa, 2018. "The legal aspects of Ecosystem Services in agricultural land pricing, some implications from a case study in Vietnam's Mekong Delta," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 360-369.
    6. Loc, Ho Huu & Thi Hong Diep, Nguyen & Can, Nguyen Trong & Irvine, Kim N. & Shimizu, Yoshihisa, 2017. "Integrated evaluation of Ecosystem Services in Prawn-Rice rotational crops, Vietnam," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 377-387.
    7. Klain, Sarah C. & Chan, Kai M.A., 2012. "Navigating coastal values: Participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 104-113.
    8. Hong Quan Nguyen & Dorien Korbee & Huu Loc Ho & Jacob Weger & Phan Thi Thanh Hoa & Nguyen Thi Thanh Duyen & Pham Dang Manh Hong Luan & Thi Tang Luu & Dang Ho Phuong Thao & Ngo Thi Thu Trang & Leon Her, 2019. "Farmer adoptability for livelihood transformations in the Mekong Delta: a case in Ben Tre province," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 62(9), pages 1603-1618, July.
    9. Rocco Scolozzi & Uta Schirpke & Carlo Detassis & Sabah Abdullah & Alessandro Gretter, 2015. "Mapping Alpine Landscape Values and Related Threats as Perceived by Tourists," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 451-465, May.
    10. Raymond, Christopher M. & Bryan, Brett A. & MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Cast, Andrea & Strathearn, Sarah & Grandgirard, Agnes & Kalivas, Tina, 2009. "Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1301-1315, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yi Fan Koh & Ho Huu Loc & Edward Park, 2022. "Towards a “City in Nature”: Evaluating the Cultural Ecosystem Services Approach Using Online Public Participation GIS to Support Urban Green Space Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-19, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Burdon, D. & Potts, T. & McKinley, E. & Lew, S. & Shilland, R. & Gormley, K. & Thomson, S. & Forster, R., 2019. "Expanding the role of participatory mapping to assess ecosystem service provision in local coastal environments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    2. Ho Huu, Loc & Ballatore, Thomas J. & Irvine, Kim N. & Nguyen, Thi Hong Diep & Truong, Thi Cam Tien & Yoshihisa, Shimizu, 2018. "Socio-geographic indicators to evaluate landscape Cultural Ecosystem Services: A case of Mekong Delta, Vietnam," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 527-542.
    3. Elina Viirret & Kaisa J. Raatikainen & Nora Fagerholm & Niina Käyhkö & Petteri Vihervaara, 2019. "Ecosystem Services at the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve in Finland: A Visitor Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, January.
    4. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    5. Péter Palásti & Ágnes Gulyás & Márton Kiss, 2022. "Mapping Freshwater Aquaculture’s Diverse Ecosystem Services with Participatory Techniques: A Case Study from White Lake, Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    6. Enrica, Garau & Josep, Pueyo-Ros & Amanda, Jiménez-Aceituno & Garry, Peterson & Albert, Norström & Anna, Ribas Palom & Josep, Vila-Subirós, 2023. "Landscape features shape people’s perception of ecosystem service supply areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    7. Garcia, Xavier & Benages-Albert, Marta & Vall-Casas, Pere, 2018. "Landscape conflict assessment based on a mixed methods analysis of qualitative PPGIS data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 112-124.
    8. Depietri, Yaella & Ghermandi, Andrea & Campisi-Pinto, Salvatore & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2021. "Public participation GIS versus geolocated social media data to assess urban cultural ecosystem services: Instances of complementarity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    9. Pingarroni, Aline & Castro, Antonio J. & Gambi, Marcos & Bongers, Frans & Kolb, Melanie & García-Frapolli, Eduardo & Balvanera, Patricia, 2022. "Uncovering spatial patterns of ecosystem services and biodiversity through local communities' preferences and perceptions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    10. Raymond, Christopher M. & Kenter, Jasper O. & Plieninger, Tobias & Turner, Nancy J. & Alexander, Karen A., 2014. "Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 145-156.
    11. Amalia Vaneska Palacio Buendía & Yolanda Pérez-Albert & David Serrano Giné, 2021. "Mapping Landscape Perception: An Assessment with Public Participation Geographic Information Systems and Spatial Analysis Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
    12. Schröter, Matthias & Kraemer, Roland & Mantel, Martin & Kabisch, Nadja & Hecker, Susanne & Richter, Anett & Neumeier, Veronika & Bonn, Aletta, 2017. "Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 80-94.
    13. Márquez, Laura Andreina Matos & Rezende, Eva Caroline Nunes & Machado, Karine Borges & Nascimento, Emilly Layne Martins do & Castro, Joana D'arc Bardella & Nabout, João Carlos, 2023. "Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    14. Linjun Yu & Xiaotong Zhang & Feng He & Xiaojun Wang, 2022. "Participatory Historical Village Landscape Analysis Using a Virtual Globe-Based 3D PGIS: Guizhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-16, October.
    15. Matthew R. Sloggy & Francisco J. Escobedo & José J. Sánchez, 2022. "The Role of Spatial Information in Peri-Urban Ecosystem Service Valuation and Policy Investment Preferences," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, August.
    16. Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Weibel, Bettina & Kienast, Felix & Rabe, Sven-Erik & Zulian, Grazia, 2015. "A tiered approach for mapping ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 16-27.
    17. Nowak-Olejnik, Agnieszka & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "A systematic review on subjective well-being benefits associated with cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    18. Bélisle, Annie Claude & Wapachee, Alice & Asselin, Hugo, 2021. "From landscape practices to ecosystem services: Landscape valuation in Indigenous contexts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    19. Klain, Sarah C. & Satterfield, Terre A. & Chan, Kai M.A., 2014. "What matters and why? Ecosystem services and their bundled qualities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 310-320.
    20. Enrica Garau & Josep Vila-Subiros & Josep Pueyo-Ros & Anna Ribas Palom, 2020. "Where Do Ecosystem Services Come From? Assessing and Mapping Stakeholder Perceptions on Water Ecosystem Services in the Muga River Basin (Catalonia, Spain)," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-21, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:48:y:2021:i:c:s2212041621000036. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.