IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i6p1707-d148655.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contrasting Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Pine Plantations in the Páramo Ecosystem of Ecuador

Author

Listed:
  • Carlos Quiroz Dahik

    (Departamento de Recursos Hídricos y Ciencias Ambientales, Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Cuenca, Av.12 de abril s/n, Cuenca 0101168, Ecuador
    Institute of Silviculture, Center of Life and Food Sciences Weihenstephan, Technische Universität München, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany)

  • Patricio Crespo

    (Departamento de Recursos Hídricos y Ciencias Ambientales, Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Cuenca, Av.12 de abril s/n, Cuenca 0101168, Ecuador)

  • Bernd Stimm

    (Institute of Silviculture, Center of Life and Food Sciences Weihenstephan, Technische Universität München, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany)

  • Felipe Murtinho

    (International Studies and Institute of Public Service, Seattle University, 901 12th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98122-1090, USA)

  • Michael Weber

    (Institute of Silviculture, Center of Life and Food Sciences Weihenstephan, Technische Universität München, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany)

  • Patrick Hildebrandt

    (Institute of Silviculture, Center of Life and Food Sciences Weihenstephan, Technische Universität München, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany
    Institute of Forest Management, Center of Life and Food Sciences Weihenstephan, Technische Universität München, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany)

Abstract

The páramo , a collection of Neotropical alpine ecosystems, plays a prominent role in ecosystem services (ESs), providing water supply and regulation, conservation of biodiversity, and carbon storage in soil. The establishment of pine plantations for carbon sequestration and wood production has recently raised questions concerning the possible impact on the páramo’s ES. This study identifies the main stakeholders in this field and compares and contrasts their perceptions of the impact of pine plantations on the páramo’s ES, because the disparity among stakeholders’ perceptions must be addressed to achieve sustainable management. The data were gathered using 56 semi-structured interviews and were qualitatively analyzed. The results show that the main stakeholder groups (landowners, local government officials, foresters, and nature conservationists) acknowledge the important ES of the plantations. The perception of plantation impact varies among and within stakeholder groups, however, on specific functions, such as water provision, carbon storage, erosion prevention, and habitat function for wildlife and natural vegetation. Consideration and integration of these perceptions can help policy makers and organizations develop sustainable policies for the future management of the páramo ecosystem.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlos Quiroz Dahik & Patricio Crespo & Bernd Stimm & Felipe Murtinho & Michael Weber & Patrick Hildebrandt, 2018. "Contrasting Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Pine Plantations in the Páramo Ecosystem of Ecuador," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-23, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:1707-:d:148655
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1707/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1707/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wunder, Sven & Albán, Montserrat, 2008. "Decentralized payments for environmental services: The cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 685-698, May.
    2. Syndhia Mathé & Hélène Rey-Valette, 2015. "Local Knowledge of Pond Fish-Farming Ecosystem Services: Management Implications of Stakeholders’ Perceptions in Three Different Contexts (Brazil, France and Indonesia)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-23, June.
    3. Calder, Ian R., 2002. "Forests and Hydrological Services: Reconciling public and science perceptions," Land Use and Water Resources Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Centre for Land Use and Water Resources Research, vol. 2, pages 1-12.
    4. Balvanera, Patricia & Uriarte, María & Almeida-Leñero, Lucía & Altesor, Alice & DeClerck, Fabrice & Gardner, Toby & Hall, Jefferson & Lara, Antonio & Laterra, Pedro & Peña-Claros, Marielos & Silva Mat, 2012. "Ecosystem services research in Latin America: The state of the art," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 56-70.
    5. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    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. María Cristina Torres & Efraín Naranjo & Vanessa Fierro, 2023. "Challenges Facing Andean Communities in the Protection of the Páramo in the Central Highlands of Ecuador," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-21, August.

    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. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2020. "The montane multifunctional landscape: How stakeholders in a biosphere reserve derive benefits and address trade-offs in ecosystem service supply," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Brownson, Katherine & Fowler, Laurie, 2020. "Evaluating how we evaluate success: Monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management in Payments for Watershed Services programs," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    5. Aguilar-Gómez, Carlos R. & Arteaga-Reyes, Tizbe T. & Gómez-Demetrio, William & Ávila-Akerberg, Víctor D. & Pérez-Campuzano, Enrique, 2020. "Differentiated payments for environmental services: A review of the literature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    6. Da Ponte, Emmanuel & Kuenzer, Claudia & Parker, Amanda & Rodas, Oscar & Oppelt, Natascha & Fleckenstein, Martina, 2017. "Forest cover loss in Paraguay and perception of ecosystem services: A case study of the Upper Parana Forest," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 200-212.
    7. Kemkes, Robin J. & Farley, Joshua & Koliba, Christopher J., 2010. "Determining when payments are an effective policy approach to ecosystem service provision," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2069-2074, September.
    8. Hao Wang & Sander Meijerink & Erwin van der Krabben, 2020. "Institutional Design and Performance of Markets for Watershed Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    9. van den Belt, Marjan & Blake, Daniella, 2014. "Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 115-132.
    10. Weyland, Federico & Mastrangelo, Matías Enrique & Auer, Alejandra Denise & Barral, María Paula & Nahuelhual, Laura & Larrazábal, Alejandra & Parera, Aníbal Francisco & Berrouet Cadavid, Lina María & L, 2019. "Ecosystem services approach in Latin America: From theoretical promises to real applications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 280-293.
    11. Raes, Leander & Loft, Lasse & Le Coq, Jean François & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido & Van Damme, Patrick, 2016. "Towards market- or command-based governance? The evolution of payments for environmental service schemes in Andean and Mesoamerican countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 20-32.
    12. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer & Wolff, Hendrik, 2014. "Payment for Ecosystem Services from Forests," IZA Discussion Papers 8179, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Mastrangelo, Matías Enrique & Weyland, Federico & Herrera, Lorena Paola & Villarino, Sebastián Horacio & Barral, María Paula & Auer, Alejandra Denise, 2015. "Ecosystem services research in contrasting socio-ecological contexts of Argentina: Critical assessment and future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 63-73.
    14. Cornelis Leeuwen & Jos Frijns & Annemarie Wezel & Frans Ven, 2012. "City Blueprints: 24 Indicators to Assess the Sustainability of the Urban Water Cycle," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(8), pages 2177-2197, June.
    15. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    16. Patrick Bottazzi & David Crespo & Harry Soria & Hy Dao & Marcelo Serrudo & Jean Paul Benavides & Stefan Schwarzer & Stephan Rist, 2014. "Carbon Sequestration in Community Forests: Trade-offs, Multiple Outcomes and Institutional Diversity in the Bolivian Amazon," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 45(1), pages 105-131, January.
    17. Brunet, Lucas & Tuomisaari, Johanna & Lavorel, Sandra & Crouzat, Emilie & Bierry, Adeline & Peltola, Taru & Arpin, Isabelle, 2018. "Actionable knowledge for land use planning: Making ecosystem services operational," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-34.
    18. Gerd Lupp & Bernhard Förster & Valerie Kantelberg & Tim Markmann & Johannes Naumann & Carolina Honert & Marc Koch & Stephan Pauleit, 2016. "Assessing the Recreation Value of Urban Woodland Using the Ecosystem Service Approach in Two Forests in the Munich Metropolitan Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-14, November.
    19. Ping Shen & Lijuan Wu & Ziwen Huo & Jiaying Zhang, 2023. "A Study on the Spatial Pattern of the Ecological Product Value of China’s County-Level Regions Based on GEP Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-18, February.
    20. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:1707-:d:148655. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.