IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v121y2022ics0264837722003519.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How rural actors relate to nature. Perceptions of ecosystem services in the semi-arid Chaco of northern Argentina

Author

Listed:
  • Córdoba, Gisela S.
  • Zepharovich, Elena

Abstract

In drylands, rapid changes in land use have been interpreted as conflicts over the appropriation of ecosystem services (ES). A better understanding of these conflicts can lead to the formulation of sustainable management policies by capturing the value of nature. We undertake a Q-method study to identify perceptions related to ES and the main drivers of change threatening ES in the semi-arid Chaco region of northern Argentina. Our main results highlight the existence of three significant perspectives, with areas of consensus and disagreement among rural actors, namely: (1) Traditional Creole; (2) Agribusiness; and (3) Territorial Creole. The current viewpoints of rural actors are diverse but include certain unifying themes. All perspectives favor water and exotic grasses as the most important ES. As main drivers of change threatening ES, the legal framework is a very important factor as well as the availability of fodder. Our study is a significant contribution to understanding the reasons for land use decisions and the appropriation strategies that rural actors use in defining their valuation of several ES.

Suggested Citation

  • Córdoba, Gisela S. & Zepharovich, Elena, 2022. "How rural actors relate to nature. Perceptions of ecosystem services in the semi-arid Chaco of northern Argentina," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:121:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722003519
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106324
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837722003519
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106324?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. Wells, Geoff J. & Stuart, Neil & Furley, Peter A. & Ryan, Casey M., 2018. "Ecosystem service analysis in marginal agricultural lands: A case study in Belize," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 70-77.
    2. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    3. Toddi A. Steelman & Lynn A. Maguire, 1999. "Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 361-388.
    4. Tschopp, Maurice & Ceddia, M. Graziano & Inguaggiato, Carla & Bardsley, Nicholas O. & Hernández, Hernán, 2020. "Understanding the adoption of sustainable silvopastoral practices in Northern Argentina: What is the role of land tenure?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    5. Buchel, Sophie & Frantzeskaki, Niki, 2015. "Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 169-177.
    6. Bredin, Yennie K. & Lindhjem, Henrik & van Dijk, Jiska & Linnell, John D.C., 2015. "Mapping value plurality towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: A Q analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 198-206.
    7. Ceddia, Michele Graziano & Zepharovich, Elena, 2017. "Jevons paradox and the loss of natural habitat in the Argentinean Chaco: The impact of the indigenous communities’ land titling and the Forest Law in the province of Salta," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 608-617.
    8. Elena Zepharovich & Michele Graziano Ceddia & Stephan Rist, 2020. "Land-Use Conflict in the Gran Chaco: Finding Common Ground through Use of the Q Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, September.
    9. Volante, José Norberto & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2018. "Can't See the Forest for the Trees: Can Declining Deforestation Trends in the Argentinian Chaco Region be Ascribed to Efficient Law Enforcement?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 408-413.
    10. Sy, Mariam Maki & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Simier, Monique & Pasqualini, Vanina & Figuières, Charles & De Wit, Rutger, 2018. "Identifying Consensus on Coastal Lagoons Ecosystem Services and Conservation Priorities for an Effective Decision Making: A Q Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 1-13.
    11. 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.
    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. Zepharovich, Elena & Ceddia, M. Graziano & Rist, Stephan, 2020. "Perceptions of deforestation in the Argentinean Chaco: Combining Q-method and environmental justice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    2. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Merica Slišković & Katja Božić & Jelena Žanić Mikuličić & Ines Kolanović, 2024. "Addressing the Significance of the Union List with a Focus on Marine Invasive Alien Species Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-25, October.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Johann Audrain & Mateo Cordier & Sylvie Faucheux & Martin O’Connor, 2013. "Écologie territoriale et indicateurs pour un développement durable de la métropole parisienne," Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine, Armand Colin, vol. 0(3), pages 523-559.
    8. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Elena Zepharovich & Michele Graziano Ceddia & Stephan Rist, 2020. "Land-Use Conflict in the Gran Chaco: Finding Common Ground through Use of the Q Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, September.
    10. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    11. Alamanos, Angelos & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," MPRA Paper 122046, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Grilli, Gianluca & Fratini, Roberto & Marone, Enrico & Sacchelli, Sandro, 2020. "A spatial-based tool for the analysis of payments for forest ecosystem services related to hydrogeological protection," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    13. Jiayi Zhou & Kangning Xiong & Qi Wang & Jiuhan Tang & Li Lin, 2022. "A Review of Ecological Assets and Ecological Products Supply: Implications for the Karst Rocky Desertification Control," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.
    14. Posthumus, H. & Rouquette, J.R. & Morris, J. & Gowing, D.J.G. & Hess, T.M., 2010. "A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1510-1523, May.
    15. Jian Zhang & Hengxing Xiang & Shizuka Hashimoto & Toshiya Okuro, 2021. "Observational Scale Matters for Ecosystem Services Interactions and Spatial Distributions: A Case Study of the Ussuri Watershed, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-16, September.
    16. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    17. Rasmussen, Laura Vang & Mertz, Ole & Christensen, Andreas E. & Danielsen, Finn & Dawson, Neil & Xaydongvanh, Pheang, 2016. "A combination of methods needed to assess the actual use of provisioning ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 75-86.
    18. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    19. Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2009. "First-movers, non-movers, and social gains from subsidising entry in markets for nature-based recreational goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2363-2371, June.
    20. Sarkki, Simo & Karjalainen, Timo P., 2015. "Ecosystem service valuation in a governance debate: Practitioners' strategic argumentation on forestry in northern Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 13-22.

    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:lauspo:v:121:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722003519. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.