IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v67y2024ics2212041624000287.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Empirical assessments of small-scale ecosystem service flows in rural mosaic landscapes in the Ethiopian highlands

Author

Listed:
  • Molla Sitotaw, Tegegne
  • Willemen, Louise
  • Tsegaye Meshesha, Derege
  • Nelson, Andrew

Abstract

Human activities have rapidly altered natural ecosystems worldwide, resulting in fragmented ecosystems that are either culturally or formally protected. These ecosystem patches can be critical for ecosystem services (ES) that support human well-being. In the Ethiopian highlands, the remaining church forests and wetlands have a unique conservation status and are part of the global priority areas for biodiversity conservation. ES flows from these ecosystems to surrounding benefiting areas lack local-scale field evidence data and are not well-understood. Here, we empirically quantify the distance-dependent flows for four ES: grass biomass, microclimate regulation, crop pollination, and soil erosion retention since they exhibit considerable variation in spatial scales and processes of ES flows. The effect of spatial distance on each ES benefit flow was analysed using spatially explicit empirical models. The key findings are as follows: (1) The benefit of ES varies significantly with distance to the source ecosystems. (2) ES supply is determined by the extent (fragmentation) and condition of ecosystems, together with ecosystem type. (3) The quantity and number of ES provided decreases with distance from the source, and beneficiaries up to 3 km of the source only receive one type of ES (grass biomass). Approximately 80 % of the benefiting areas are within a radius of 200 m from forests and wetlands. Bundles of multiple ES types are received at the frontiers of service-providing ecosystems, where number of benefits are compared at particular locations from the source point. The investigated ecosystems (440 km2) provided benefits to 8,770 km2 for the four types of ES. Our findings imply that non-linear effects of key ecosystem variables need to be considered when mapping the distance-dependent ES flows. This study helps to understand the spatial connectivity between ecosystems and beneficiaries in the human-nature interdependency, which is useful for developing different strategies for ES conservation.

Suggested Citation

  • Molla Sitotaw, Tegegne & Willemen, Louise & Tsegaye Meshesha, Derege & Nelson, Andrew, 2024. "Empirical assessments of small-scale ecosystem service flows in rural mosaic landscapes in the Ethiopian highlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:67:y:2024:i:c:s2212041624000287
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101622
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000287
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101622?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. Yamaguchi, Rintaro & Shah, Payal, 2020. "Spatial discounting of ecosystem services," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    2. Chalkiadakis, Charis & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Kraak, Menno-Jan, 2022. "Ecosystem service flows: A systematic literature review of marine systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    3. Gallai, Nicola & Salles, Jean-Michel & Settele, Josef & Vaissière, Bernard E., 2009. "Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 810-821, January.
    4. Barbier, Edward B., 2009. "Ecosystems as Natural Assets," Foundations and Trends(R) in Microeconomics, now publishers, vol. 4(8), pages 611-681, November.
    5. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    6. Ferdinando Villa & Kenneth J Bagstad & Brian Voigt & Gary W Johnson & Rosimeiry Portela & Miroslav Honzák & David Batker, 2014. "A Methodology for Adaptable and Robust Ecosystem Services Assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, March.
    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. Costanza, Robert & Howarth, Richard B. & Kubiszewski, Ida & Liu, Shuang & Ma, Chunbo & Plumecocq, Gaël & Stern, David I., 2016. "Influential publications in ecological economics revisited," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 68-76.
    2. Breeze, T.D. & Bailey, A.P. & Potts, S.G. & Balcombe, K.G., 2015. "A stated preference valuation of the non-market benefits of pollination services in the UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 76-85.
    3. Vallecillo, Sara & La Notte, Alessandra & Zulian, Grazia & Ferrini, Silvia & Maes, Joachim, 2019. "Ecosystem services accounts: Valuing the actual flow of nature-based recreation from ecosystems to people," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 392(C), pages 196-211.
    4. Mulazzani, Luca & Manrique, Rosa & Malorgio, Giulio, 2017. "The Role of Strategic Behaviour in Ecosystem Service Modelling: Integrating Bayesian Networks With Game Theory," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 234-244.
    5. Nogué, Sandra & Long, Peter R. & Eycott, Amy E. & de Nascimento, Lea & Fernández-Palacios, José María & Petrokofsky, Gillian & Vandvik, Vigdis & Willis, Kathy J., 2016. "Pollination service delivery for European crops: Challenges and opportunities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-7.
    6. Zhichao Li & Tianqu Shao, 2019. "An Improved Ecological Services Valuation Model in Land Use Project," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-17, April.
    7. Vallecillo, Sara & Kakoulaki, Georgia & La Notte, Alessandra & Feyen, Luc & Dottori, Francesco & Maes, Joachim, 2020. "Accounting for changes in flood control delivered by ecosystems at the EU level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    8. Spangenberg, Joachim H. & Görg, Christoph & Settele, Josef, 2015. "Stakeholder involvement in ESS research and governance: Between conceptual ambition and practical experiences – risks, challenges and tested tools," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 201-211.
    9. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    10. Yamaguchi, Rintaro & Shah, Payal, 2020. "Spatial discounting of ecosystem services," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    11. Pashanejad, Ehsan & Thierry, Hugo & Robinson, Brian E. & Parrott, Lael, 2023. "The application of semantic modelling to map pollination service provisioning at large landscape scales," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 484(C).
    12. Moriah Bostian & Tommy Lundgren, 2022. "Valuing Ecosystem Services for Agricultural TFP: A Review of Best Practices, Challenges, and Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, March.
    13. Wang, Lijuan & Zheng, Hua & Chen, Yongzhe & Ouyang, Zhiyun & Hu, Xiaofei, 2022. "Systematic review of ecosystem services flow measurement: Main concepts, methods, applications and future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    14. R. David Simpson, 2019. "Conservation Incentives from an Ecosystem Service: How Much Farmland Might Be Devoted to Native Pollinators?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(2), pages 661-678, June.
    15. Bauer, Dana Marie & Johnston, Robert J., 2013. "Foreword: The Economics of Rural and Agricultural Ecosystem Services: Purism versus Practicality," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-13, April.
    16. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Balzan, Mario V & Caruana, Julio & Zammit, Annrica, 2018. "Assessing the capacity and flow of ecosystem services in multifunctional landscapes: Evidence of a rural-urban gradient in a Mediterranean small island state," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 711-725.
    18. Daniela D’Alessandro & Andrea Rebecchi & Letizia Appolloni & Andrea Brambilla & Silvio Brusaferro & Maddalena Buffoli & Maurizio Carta & Alessandra Casuccio & Liliana Coppola & Maria Vittoria Corazza , 2023. "Re-Thinking the Environment, Cities, and Living Spaces for Public Health Purposes, According with the COVID-19 Lesson: The LVII Erice Charter," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-17, September.
    19. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    20. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.

    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:67:y:2024:i:c:s2212041624000287. 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.