Application of an ecosystem function framework to perceptions of community woodlands

Abstract

a b s t r a c tOwners, local residents, government, and conservation organisations can express divergent preferences in the development and management of local woodlands. The perceptions of these four groups were examined, in the context of three community woodlands in Eastern England, using an ecosystem function framework. In a pilot study, residents were able to allocate a relative importance to woodland ecosystem services which were then related to "regulation", "habitat", and "production" or "information" functions. However residents also placed importance on negative services or "dis-services" associated with the woodland ecosystem. Therefore a fifth category of "dis-services" was included in the main survey which included 84 local residents, three woodland owners, three government institutions, and six representatives from conservation groups. Each of the four groups placed greatest importance on services associated with habitat (16-39% of the total importance) and information (30-50%) functions suggesting, in this example, mutual interest in the use of woodlands as a habitat or recreational resource. By contrast a potential area of difference was the particularly high importance placed by one owner on dis-services such as fly tipping. In addition the woodland owners placed higher importance (10-20%), than local residents and conservation groups (7-9%), on the productive services of the wood. This suggests a need for communication when production-related operations affect recreation. The ecosystem function framework appears to be a useful approach for highlighting potential tensions and areas of mutual interest in the management of semi-natural ecosystems.

The importance of ecosystem services for rural inhabitants in a changing cultural landscape in Romania

“…Our finding regarding the importance of ecosystem services is in line with other studies showing that rural communities show high appreciation toward provisioning ecosystem services (Iftekhar and Takama 2008, Agbenyega et al 2009, Martín-López et al 2012, in contrast to urbanized communities who mostly appreciate the aesthetic and recreational values of landscapes (Martín-López et al 2012, Plieninger et al 2013. Industrial activity and opportunities for stable jobs in the study region are poor; therefore the majority of people still largely depend on provisioning ecosystem services in their everyday lives (Fischer et al 2012, Mikulcak et al 2013.…”

Public Support for Wetland Restoration: What is the Link With Ecosystem Service Values?

“…Agbenyega et al (2009) suggested that regulating ESs may be overlooked because of the invisible character of these services. People may need better understanding of such services in order to appreciate them.…”

Integrating ecosystem services and disservices: insights from plant invasions

“…Agbenyega et al, 2009;Bennett et al, 2010;Escobedo et al, 2011;Escobedo et al, 2011;Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013;Limburg et al, 2010;Lyytimäki, 2014;Lyytimäki and Sipilä, 2009;Lyytimäki et al, 2008;Ma et al, 2015;Roy et al, 2012;Zhang et al, 2007. Ango et al, 2014;Escobedo et al, 2011;Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013;Lyytimäki, 2014;Lyytimäki and Sipilä, 2009;Lyytimäki et al, 2008;Roy et al, 2012;.…”