Local perceptions and factors determining ecosystem services identification around two forest reserves in Northern Benin

Abstract

BackgroundEcosystems provide humanity with goods and services known as ecosystem services. The value of these services represents a basis for political decision-making. To be sure that these decisions are made on a valid basis, policymakers require an understanding of the biophysical processes involved. This study was carried out around two forest reserves (Alibori-Supérieur and Ouénou-Bénou) in Northern Benin. It aimed to highlight the knowledge of the surrounding communities and their perceptions about the importance of the ecosystem services provided by these forest reserves as well as the factors that influence their knowledge and perceptions.MethodsPrimary data were collected from 25 group discussions in 25 villages surrounding the forest reserves based on predefined ecosystems services of the Millennium Ecosystems Assessment (MA). Multiple linear regression models were used to examine how socio-economic characteristics of the communities influenced the ecosystem services identification rate. Perceptions of importance, levels of satisfaction, and trends of services provided were analyzed using descriptive statistics.ResultsOur results showed that education level, poverty index, household size, and proximity to forests played an important role in the variation in knowledge of ecosystem services (P < 0.05). Provisioning services (such as crops supply, fuelwood, lumber, wild food, and medicinal plants) were mostly identified by the poorest villages located very close to the forests (P < 0.05). The importance of the provided services for well-being has been unanimously recognized. The most recognized cultural services were education and knowledge facilitation (84%) and spiritual value (76%). Climate regulation (84%) and pollination (84%) were the best-known regulating services. However, supporting services (soil formation and pest regulation) that are important for improving production systems were unknown to the communities.ConclusionEducation level, poverty index, and village proximity to the forest were important predictors of regulating and supporting services identification. But use of non-tangible services by local rural communities will require more emphasis on targeted environmental education specifically designed according to the needs of each group.

Socioeconomic factors determining ecosystem services local perceptions in two ecological zones in Benin (West Africa)

“…This can be justified by the high concentration of environmental projects in the Sudano-Guinean zone than the Sudanian zone. This result corroborates those of Gouwakinnou et al (2019) who showed the critical role of environmental education sessions and the intervention of projects within the local community. For Zhang et al (2015), an environmental awareness can be explained by reforestation activities.…”

“…This suggests that education has a positive effect on knowledge of regulating and supporting services and provisioning services. These results corroborate those of Martín-López et al (2012), Mensah et al (2017), Ahammad et al (2019), Gouwakinnou et al (2019) and Moutouama et al (2019) respectively in Bangladesh, Spain and South Africa and Benin which demonstrate that education could induce the attitude of people to support conservation policies and improve the attitude towards natural resources. Also, people age significantly influences the perception of the various ecosystem services except the supply service.…”

“…Besides, provisioning services are directly involved in community well-being. This result corroborates those of Rodríguez et al (2006), Muhamad et al (2014), Ouko et al (2018, Ahammad et al (2019) and Gouwakinnou et al (2019) and suggests that tangible services directly affect the community, unlike indirect services (Fisher et al, 2011;Ouko et al, 2018). It appears that the ES as a whole were more perceived in the Sudano-Guinean zone of Benin Republic.…”

“…Local field workers were trained on the concept of ecosystem services to limit the ES misinterpretation mentioned by the respondents. The ES mentioned were associated with the list of MEA services listed by Swinton and Zhang (2005) and used by Gouwakinnou et al (2019). The services listed by Zhang are 29 grouped into three categories adapted from the MEA categories (Table 3).…”

“…Considering the importance of local perception of ES in ecosystem management, studies in Sub Saharan Africa have more focused on specific habitats including mountain ecosystems (Moutouama et al, 2019), forests reserve (Gouwakinnou et al, 2019;Ouko et al, 2018) though the landscape is in increasing degradation with the different types of land use (Biaou et al, 2019). This difference could affect strategies and policies of management if these do not take into account the different perceptions in the different zones to consider the specifications of each community.…”