IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v61y2023ics2212041623000256.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A conceptual framework for understanding ecosystem trade-offs and synergies, in communal rangeland systems

Author

Listed:
  • Bennett, James
  • Marandure, Tawanda
  • Hawkins, Heidi-Jayne
  • Mapiye, Cletos
  • Palmer, Anthony
  • Lemke, Stefanie
  • Wu, Lianhai
  • Moradzadeh, Mostafa

Abstract

Communal rangelands are a global resource of significant benefit to society through the provision of critical ecosystem goods and services such as carbon sequestration, water and livestock forage. The relative importance of the ecosystem goods and services provided by communal rangelands is driven by the social and environmental priorities of a range of different stakeholders at the local, regional and national level. Understanding the potential ecosystem service trade-offs (and synergies) is vital for making informed and inclusive decisions as part of the process of stakeholder engagement, both in goal setting as well as evaluating the appropriateness of outcomes in rangelands. However, application of trade-offs approaches to communal rangelands, has frequently been limited by a lack of adequate stakeholder engagement to help define important factors such as the diverse objectives of end users and the broader institutional and policy environments that frame them. To help address this, we propose a framework that conceptualises the links between different actors and trade-offs at three key levels, using communal rangelands in South Africa as a case study. Firstly, we explore environment trade-offs between key ecosystem services, largely determined through public sector engagement in the formulation of environmental policy. Secondly, we examine the potential for environmental policies to create community-environment trade-offs between the needs of local communities and those of society more broadly. Thirdly, we consider community trade-offs reflecting the many different social and economic priorities of people living in communal systems. We suggest that the framework will find greatest application in the initial process of determining potential ecosystem service trade-offs and associated land use scenarios with key stakeholders, and then subsequently in connecting the trade-offs back to these stakeholders, following analysis, as part of a ‘discussion support’ process. We also discuss the broader applicability of this approach to rangelands systems outside of South Africa.

Suggested Citation

  • Bennett, James & Marandure, Tawanda & Hawkins, Heidi-Jayne & Mapiye, Cletos & Palmer, Anthony & Lemke, Stefanie & Wu, Lianhai & Moradzadeh, Mostafa, 2023. "A conceptual framework for understanding ecosystem trade-offs and synergies, in communal rangeland systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:61:y:2023:i:c:s2212041623000256
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101533
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041623000256
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101533?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. Kareiva, Peter & Tallis, Heather & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Daily, Gretchen C. & Polasky, Stephen (ed.), 2011. "Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199589005.
    2. Charlie Shackleton & Sheona Shackleton & Ben Cousins, 2001. "The role of land-based strategies in rural livelihoods: The contribution of arable production, animal husbandry and natural resource harvesting in communal areas in South Africa," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(5), pages 581-604.
    3. Crossman, Neville D. & Burkhard, Benjamin & Nedkov, Stoyan & Willemen, Louise & Petz, Katalin & Palomo, Ignacio & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Martín-Lopez, Berta & McPhearson, Timon & Boyanova, Kremena & A, 2013. "A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 4-14.
    4. Turkelboom, Francis & Leone, Michael & Jacobs, Sander & Kelemen, Eszter & García-Llorente, Marina & Baró, Francesc & Termansen, Mette & Barton, David N. & Berry, Pam & Stange, Erik & Thoonen, Marijke , 2018. "When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 566-578.
    5. Turpie, J.K. & Forsythe, K.J. & Knowles, A. & Blignaut, J. & Letley, G., 2017. "Mapping and valuation of South Africa's ecosystem services: A local perspective," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PB), pages 179-192.
    6. Ben Cousins, 1999. "Invisible capital: The contribution of communal rangelands to rural livelihoods in South Africa," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 299-318.
    7. Sheona Shackleton & Marty Luckert, 2015. "Changing Livelihoods and Landscapes in the Rural Eastern Cape, South Africa: Past Influences and Future Trajectories," Land, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-30, November.
    8. Leonel J. R. Nunes & Mauro A. M. Raposo & Catarina I. R. Meireles & Carlos J. Pinto Gomes & Nuno M. C. Almeida Ribeiro, 2021. "Carbon Sequestration Potential of Forest Invasive Species: A Case Study with Acacia dealbata Link," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, May.
    9. Favretto, N. & Stringer, L.C. & Dougill, A.J. & Dallimer, M. & Perkins, J.S. & Reed, M.S. & Atlhopheng, J.R. & Mulale, K., 2016. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to identify dryland ecosystem service trade-offs under different rangeland land uses," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 142-151.
    10. Colleen Carlon, 2021. "Contesting community development: grounding definitions in practice contexts," Development in Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 323-333, April.
    11. Tebboth, M.G.L. & Few, R. & Assen, M. & Degefu, M.A., 2020. "Valuing local perspectives on invasive species management: Moving beyond the ecosystem service-disservice dichotomy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    12. Måns Nilsson & Nina Weitz, 2019. "Governing Trade-Offs and Building Coherence in Policy-Making for the 2030 Agenda," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(4), pages 254-263.
    13. Turpie, J.K. & Marais, C. & Blignaut, J.N., 2008. "The working for water programme: Evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 788-798, May.
    14. Lorena Peña & Miren Onaindia & Beatriz Fernández de Manuel & Ibone Ametzaga-Arregi & Izaskun Casado-Arzuaga, 2018. "Analysing the Synergies and Trade-Offs between Ecosystem Services to Reorient Land Use Planning in Metropolitan Bilbao (Northern Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, November.
    15. Liz Alden Wily, 2018. "Collective Land Ownership in the 21st Century: Overview of Global Trends," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-26, May.
    16. Stefanie Lemke & Priscilla Claeys, 2020. "Absent Voices: Women and Youth in Communal Land Governance. Reflections on Methods and Process from Exploratory Research in West and East Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-14, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Silvia Ronchi, 2021. "Ecosystem Services for Planning: A Generic Recommendation or a Real Framework? Insights from a Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    2. Schramski, Sam & Barnes, Grenville, 2016. "Agrarian Change and Adaptive Capacity in Rural South Africa," Review of Agrarian Studies, Foundation for Agrarian Studies, vol. 6(2), December.
    3. Mugido, Worship & Shackleton, Charlie M., 2019. "The contribution of NTFPS to rural livelihoods in different agro-ecological zones of South Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. Clark, V. Ralph & Vidal, João de Deus & Grundy, Isla M. & Fakarayi, Togarasei & Childes, Susan L. & Barker, Nigel P. & Linder, H. Peter, 2019. "Bridging the divide between intuitive social-ecological value and sustainability in the Manica Highlands of southern Africa (Zimbabwe-Mozambique)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    5. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    6. Lia Laporta & Tiago Domingos & Cristina Marta-Pedroso, 2021. "Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems Services under the Proposed MAES European Common Framework: Methodological Challenges and Opportunities," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-28, October.
    7. Remme, Roy P. & Schröter, Matthias & Hein, Lars, 2014. "Developing spatial biophysical accounting for multiple ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 6-18.
    8. Madleina Gerecke & Oskar Hagen & Janine Bolliger & Anna M. Hersperger & Felix Kienast & Bronwyn Price & Loïc Pellissier, 2019. "Assessing potential landscape service trade-offs driven by urbanization in Switzerland," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    10. Schaafsma, Marije & Eigenbrod, Felix & Gasparatos, Alexandros & Gross-Camp, Nicole & Hutton, Craig & Nunan, Fiona & Schreckenberg, Kate & Turner, Kerry, 2021. "Trade-off decisions in ecosystem management for poverty alleviation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    11. Shackleton, C.M. & Mograbi, P.J. & Drimie, S. & Fay, D. & Hebinck, P. & Hoffman, M.T. & Maciejewski, K. & Twine, W., 2019. "Deactivation of field cultivation in communal areas of South Africa: Patterns, drivers and socio-economic and ecological consequences," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 686-699.
    12. Devan Allen McGranahan & Kevin P. Kirkman, 2013. "Multifunctional Rangeland in Southern Africa: Managing for Production, Conservation, and Resilience with Fire and Grazing," Land, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-18, May.
    13. Posner, Stephen & Verutes, Gregory & Koh, Insu & Denu, Doug & Ricketts, Taylor, 2016. "Global use of ecosystem service models," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 131-141.
    14. Turpie, J.K. & Forsythe, K.J. & Knowles, A. & Blignaut, J. & Letley, G., 2017. "Mapping and valuation of South Africa's ecosystem services: A local perspective," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PB), pages 179-192.
    15. La Notte, Alessandra & Maes, Joachim & Dalmazzone, Silvana & Crossman, Neville D. & Grizzetti, Bruna & Bidoglio, Giovanni, 2017. "Physical and monetary ecosystem service accounts for Europe: A case study for in-stream nitrogen retention," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 18-29.
    16. Xia, Chengqi & Liu, Zhexi & Suo, Xinhao & Cao, Shixiong, 2020. "Quantifying the net benefit of land use of fruit trees in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    17. Sunderland, Terry & Achdiawan, Ramadhani & Angelsen, Arild & Babigumira, Ronnie & Ickowitz, Amy & Paumgarten, Fiona & Reyes-García, Victoria & Shively, Gerald, 2014. "Challenging Perceptions about Men, Women, and Forest Product Use: A Global Comparative Study," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(S1), pages 56-66.
    18. Pickard, Brian R. & Daniel, Jessica & Mehaffey, Megan & Jackson, Laura E. & Neale, Anne, 2015. "EnviroAtlas: A new geospatial tool to foster ecosystem services science and resource management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 45-55.
    19. Shackleton, Ross T., 2020. "Loss of land and livelihoods from mining operations: A case in the Limpopo Province, South Africa," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    20. Angela Pilogallo & Francesco Scorza, 2022. "Ecosystem Services Multifunctionality: An Analytical Framework to Support Sustainable Spatial Planning in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-15, March.

    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:61:y:2023:i:c:s2212041623000256. 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.