Local assessment of changes in water-related ecosystem services and their management: DPASER conceptual model and its application in Taita Hills, Kenya

Abstract

Fresh water provisioning is a crucial ecosystem service (ES) in the agrarian societies of East Africa. Water resources are highly dependent on several other ES such as the water retention capacity of vegetation and the purification properties of soil. However, ES are constantly challenged by dynamic changes within water-land-vegetation-human relations. Environmental policies usually address immediate anthropic pressures but overlook multiple historical stressors, or 'drivers'. This article presents a local assessment of changes in the water-related ES in the Taita Hills, Kenya, applying the Drivers, Pressures, Actions, State, Ecosystem services, Responses (DPASER) model, adapted from the Drivers, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses (DPSIR) framework, boosted with ecosystem services and human actions and combined into a historical perspective. A review of the legislation, interviews, participatory mapping, timelines and focus group discussions were used in data gathering. The results indicate that land demarcation in the 1960s and consequent land privatization have been the main drivers of change in water-related ES, since these determined the prioritization of agricultural production over conservation of forests, wetlands and rivers. This case study shows that the degradation of water-related ES is strongly linked to historical development of land ownership and loss of commonality, and suggests enhancement of inter-sectoral management.

Dynamic Changes of Water Conservation Service of Typical Ecosystems in China within a Year Based on Data from CERN

“…Concern by scholars, governmental agencies, and community groups have devoted themselves to water conservation services in regard to ecosystems and to the protection and maintainability of these ecosystems [6]. Some concerned the change and protective measures of water-related ecosystem service [7][8][9], some concerned the amount and value of water service Sustainability 2015, 7,[16513][16514][16515][16516][16517][16518][16519][16520][16521][16522][16523][16524][16525][16526][16527][16528][16529][16530][16531] The aim of this paper is to illustrate and compare the dynamic change processes of water conservation service and its value of different typical ecosystems based on the model of water conservation service by ecosystems, to aid in our knowledge of ecosystem services evolution and the efficient management of ecosystems. The assessment and valuation of ecosystem services demand researchers not only to consider the situation and formation of ecosystems, but should also take into account the internal mechanism and evolution of ecosystem function [25].…”

Characterization of Water Source Types and Uses in Kirisia Forest Watershed, Samburu County, Kenya

“…This difference may be attributed to the high water provision capacity of the the Chyulu Hills watershed compared to Kirisia Forest. Documentation of water source types in other dry-land catchments in the country such as Mt, Kulal Forest watershed in Marsabit (Watkins & Imbuni, 2007) and Taita Hills watershed (Eduardo et al, 2011;Johanna, Emmah, Paola & Pellikkaa, 2015) have shown they are also characterized by a low variety of source types like Kirisia Forest.…”

Ecosystem services: building informed policies to orient landscape dynamics

“…Moreover, under this second approach, stakeholder engagement and participation are considered from the ES perspective, integrating the perspectives of beneficiaries and end users, ES managers, and decision-makers with their perceptions and preferences with respect to natural resources. Under this wider perspective, different decisionmaking contexts can be informed by the ES approach (well demonstrated in this Issue by Rosenthal et al 2015), from natural resources management (Badola et al 2015;Greenhalgh & Hart 2015), to water management (Bark et al 2015;Hohenthal et al 2015), agricultural policies (Logsdon et al 2015) and urban planning (Beichler 2015). The Special Issue addresses some common challenges, such as the operationalization of the ES approach at different levels.…”

“…The first is a more traditional one, that is, ES can be envisaged as the object of the decision-making process. This approach reflects on natural resource management considering not only environmental protection, conservation and restoration per se, but demonstrating benefits and values of nature/ecosystems to human well-being through ES (Badola et al 2015;Beichler 2015;Hohenthal et al 2015). On the other hand, the ES concept can be adopted to inform decision-making as an approach to reformulate the way decisions are formulated, elaborated and taken (Bark et al 2015;Beichler 2015;Greenhalgh & Hart 2015;Logsdon et al 2015;Rosenthal et al 2015).…”

“…Rosenthal et al (2015) propose a general reflection on the entire experimental design of ES assessments, while Greenhalgh and Hart (2015) and Badola et al (2015) discuss how policymaking responds in its evolution to the ES concept. Hohenthal et al (2015) reflect on changes in water-related ES, underlining the importance of the management history and of social ecological conditions at once, while Beichler (2015) reflect on the importance of mapping ES demand and supply in vulnerability assessments.…”