Perceived ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem disservices (EDS) from trees: insights from three case studies in Brazil and France

  • Fernanda Zimmermann TeixeiraEmail author
  • Laura Bachi
  • Julien Blanco
  • Ilaine Zimmermann
  • Iara Welle
  • Sónia M. Carvalho-Ribeiro
Research Article



The landscape approach and the ecosystem services (ES) framework have been widely used to investigate human-nature relationships and orient landscape planning and management. However, ecosystem disservices (EDS) and their influence on how people interact with ecosystems have received less attention.


We aimed at assessing people’s preferences and perceptions of forest ES and EDS in three contrasted case studies. In the meantime, it aims at discussing the potential of considering both ES and EDS in landscape preference and sociocultural valuation studies.


Interviews with stakeholders were conducted in an agroforestry landscape (France), in the Atlantic Forest and in the Pampa grasslands (Brazil). Identified ES and EDS were classified into a common typology and analyzed through discourse analysis and quantitative methods to assess the variability in ES/EDS perceptions among respondents and among forest types.


Respondents cited 19 ES classes and 11 EDS classes, with strong variability among case studies. Contrasted perceptions and preferences among respondents were revealed. In the agroforestry landscape, EDS were particularly emphasized by people and contributed to the variability in people’s perceptions. In the Atlantic forest landscape, forested areas tended to contrast based on cultural ecosystem services. In the Pampa case study, EDS were particularly salient in people’s preferences concerning exotic forest plantations.


This study suggests that different types of forested areas produce specific ES/EDS, suggesting their complementarity at the landscape scale. The combination of ES and EDS therefore offers a promising research avenue for more consistent ES sociocultural valuations and for improving management recommendations.


Sociocultural valuation Preferences Perceptions Place-based research Forest ecosystems Landscape values 



From the Agroforestry case study, we would like to thank the Grants from the ‘Fondation de France’ that supported this work. We are grateful to the farmers and inhabitants of the Canton of Aurignac, to the tourists, entrepreneurs and local residents of Monte Verde district, and to the local inhabitants of the Pampa biome who participated in these interviews for their willingness to participate in our research. We also appreciate the collaborators of the Atlantic Forest and the Pampa case studies for data collection. FZT received a postdoctoral fellowship from the ‘Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Ensino Superior’ (PNPD/CAPES).

Supplementary material

10980_2019_778_MOESM1_ESM.docx (242 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 242 kb)


  1. Agbenyega O, Burgess PJ, Cook M, Morris J (2009) Application of an ecosystem function framework to perceptions of community woodlands. Land Use Policy 26:551–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal A, Ostrom E (2006) Political science and conservation biology: a dialog of the deaf. Conserv Biol 20:681–682CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Almeida M, Loupa-Ramos I, Menezes H, Carvalho-Ribeiro S, Guiomar N, Pinto-Correia T (2016) Urban population looking for rural landscapes: different appreciation patterns identified in Southern Europe. Land Use Policy 53:44–55. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ango TG, Börjeson L, Senbeta F (2016) Crop raiding by wild mammals in Ethiopia: impacts on the livelihoods of smallholders in an agriculture–forest mosaic landscape. Oryx 51:1–11Google Scholar
  5. Ango TG, Börjeson L, Senbeta F, Hylander K (2014) Balancing ecosystem services and disservices: smallholder farmers’ use and management of forest and trees in an agricultural landscape in southwestern Ethiopia. Ecol Soc. Google Scholar
  6. Antrop M (2000) Background concepts for integrated landscape analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 77:17–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arts B, Buizer M, Horlings L, Ingram V, Van Oosten C, Opdam, P (2017) Landscape approaches: a state-of-the-art review. Annu Rev Environ Resour 42:439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baró F, Haase D, Gómez-Baggethun E, Frantzeskaki N (2015) Mismatches between ecosystem services supply and demand in urban areas: a quantitative assessment in five European cities. Ecol Indic 55:146–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bellard C, Leclerc C, Leroy B, Bakkenes, M, Veloz S, Thuiller W, Courchamp F (2014) Vulnerability of biodiversity hotspots to global change. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23:1376–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blanco J, Sourdril A, Deconchat M, Ladet S, Andrieu E (2018) Social drivers of rural forest dynamics: A multi-scale approach combining ethnography, geomatic and mental model analysis. Landsc Urban Plan.
  11. Campagne CS, Roche PK, Salles JM (2018) Looking into Pandora’s Box: ecosystem disservices assessment and correlations with ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 30:126–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carvalho-Ribeiro SM, Lovett A (2011) Is an attractive forest also considered well managed? Public preferences for forest cover and stand structure across a rural/urban gradient in northern Portugal. For Policy Econ 13:46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carvalho-Ribeiro S, Paracchini ML, Schüpbach B, Ode Sang A, Vanderheyden V, Southern A, Jones P, Contreras B, O′Riordan T (2016) Assessing the ability of rural agrarian areas to provide cultural ecosystem services (CES): a multi scale social indicator framework (MSIF). Land Use Policy 53:8–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carvalho-Ribeiro S, Ramos IL, Madeira L, Barroso F, Menezes H, Pinto Correia T (2013) Is land cover an important asset for addressing the subjective landscape dimensions? Land Use Policy 35:50–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conway TM, Yip V (2016) Assessing residents’ reactions to urban forest disservices: a case study of a major storm event. Landsc Urban Plan 153:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Da Ponte E, Kuenzer C, Parker A, Rodas O, Oppelt N, Fleckenstein M (2017) Forest cover loss in Paraguay and perception of ecosystem services: a case study of the Upper Parana Forest. Ecosyst Serv 24:200–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Siqueira E De (2012) A floresta de Araucária em Monte Verde (MG): História sedimentológica, palinológica e isotópica desde o último máximo glacialGoogle Scholar
  18. Elands BHM, O’Leary TN, Boerwinkel HWJ, Freerk Wiersum K (2004) Forests as a mirror of rural conditions; local views on the role of forests across Europe. For Policy Econ 6:469–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Farley J (2012) Ecosystem services: the economics debate. Ecosyst Serv 1:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. FEPAM (2010) Zonemanento Ambiental da Silvicultura (ZAS) - Diretrizes da silvicultura por unidade de paisagem e bacia hidrográfica. Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Available at: Accessed 27 Mar 2018
  21. Friess D (2016) Ecosystem services and disservices of mangrove forests: insights from historical colonial observations. Forests 7:183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. García de Jalón S, Burgess PJ, Graves A, Moreno G, McAdam J, Pottier E, Novak S, Bondesan V, Mosquera-Losada R, Crous-Durán J, Palma JHN, Paulo JA, Oliveira TS, Cirou E, Hannachi Y, Pantera A, Wartelle R, Kay S, Malignier N, Van Lerberghe P, Tsonkova P, Mirck J, Rois M, Kongsted AG, Thenail C, Luske B, Berg S, Gosme M, Vityi A (2017) How is agroforestry perceived in Europe? An assessment of positive and negative aspects by stakeholders. Agrofor Syst. Google Scholar
  23. Garrido P, Elbakidze M, Angelstam P (2017) Stakeholders’ perceptions on ecosystem services in Östergötland’s (Sweden) threatened oak wood-pasture landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 158:96–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gautreau P, Vélez E (2011) Strategies of environmental knowledge production facing land use changes: insights from the Silvicultural Zoning Plan conflict in the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul. Cybergeo Eur J Geogr. Google Scholar
  25. Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC, Fry G (2007) The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecol 22:959–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307:550–555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Haines-Young R, Potschin MB (2018) Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. 27Google Scholar
  28. Hansen WD (2014) Generalizable principles for ecosystem stewardship-based management of social-ecological systems: lessons learned from Alaska. Ecol Soc 19:art13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Henderson KA, Reis M, Blanco CC, Pillar VD, Printes RC, Bauch CT, Anand M (2016) Landowner perceptions of the value of natural forest and natural grassland in a mosaic ecosystem in southern Brazil. Sustain Sci 11:321–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Aguilera PA, Montes C, Martín-López B (2014) Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecol Econ 108:36–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krieger D (2001) Economic value of forest ecosystem services : a review. The Wilderness Society, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P, Rueda X, Blackman A, Börner J, Cerutti P, Dietsch T, Jungmann L, Lamarque P, Lister J, Walker NF, Wunder S (2014) Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Glob Environ Chang 28:129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Landers DH, Nahlik AM (2013) Final ecosystem goods and services classification system (FEGS-CS). Report Number: EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914Google Scholar
  34. Lapola DM, Martinelli LA, Peres CA, Ometto JPHB, Ferreira ME, Nobre CA, Aguiar APD, Bustamante MMC, Cardoso MF, Costa MH, Joly CA, Leite CC, Moutinho P, Sampaio G, Strassburg BBN, Vieira ICG (2014) Pervasive transition of the Brazilian land-use system. Nat Clim Chang 4:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Limburg KE, Luzadis VA, Ramsey M, Schulz, KL, Mayer CM (2010) The good, the bad, and the algae: perceiving ecosystem services and disservices generated by zebra and quagga mussels. J Great Lakes Res 36:86–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lyytimäki J (2014) Bad nature: newspaper representations of ecosystem disservices. Urban For Urban Green 13:418–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lyytimäki J, Petersen LK, Normander B, Bezák P (2008) Nature as a nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environ Sci 5:161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Del Amo DG, Gómez- Baggethun E, Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B, González JA, Santos-Martín F, Onaindia M, López-Santiago C, Montes C (2012) Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE.
  39. Nenadic O, Greenacre M (2007) Correspondence analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: the ca package. J Stat Softw 20:1–13Google Scholar
  40. Ní Dhubháin Á, Fléchard M-C, Moloney R, O’Connor D (2009) Stakeholders’ perceptions of forestry in rural areas—two case studies in Ireland. Land Use Policy 26:695–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ninan KN, Kontoleon A (2016) Valuing forest ecosystem services and disservices—case study of a protected area in India. Ecosyst Serv 20:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Olson DM, Dinerstein E (2002) The global 200: priority ecoregions for global conservation. Ann Missouri Bot Gard 89:199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oreszczyn S (2000) A systems approach to the research of people’s relationships with English hedgerows. Landsc Urban Plan 50:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ovaskainen V, Kniivila M (2005) Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing*. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 49:379–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Overbeck GE, Müller SC, Fidelis A, Pfadenhauer J, Pillar VD, Blanco CC, Boldrini II, Both R, Forneck ED (2007) Brazil’s neglected biome: the South Brazilian Campos. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 9:101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ramos IL, Bernardo F, Ribeiro SC, Van Eetvelde V (2016) Landscape identity: implications for policy making. Land Use Policy 53:36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schaubroeck T (2017) A need for equal consideration of ecosystem disservices and services when valuing nature; countering arguments against disservices. Ecosyst Serv 26:95–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schirpke U, Timmermann F, Tappeiner U, Tasser E (2016) Cultural ecosystem services of mountain regions: modelling theaesthetic value. Ecol Indic 69:78–90CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Scholte SSK, van Teeffelen AJA, Verburg PH (2015) Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: a review of concepts and methods. Ecol Econ 114:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sell J, Koellner T, Weber O, Proctor W, Pedroni L, Scholz RW (2007) Ecosystem services from tropical forestry projects—the choice of international market actors. For Policy Econ 9:496–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shackleton CM, Ruwanza S, Sinasson Sanni GK, Bennett S, De Lacy P, Modipa R, Mtati N, Sachikonye M, Thondhlana G (2016) Unpacking Pandora’s box: understanding and categorising ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing. Ecosystems 19:587–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sheppard SRJ, Meitner M (2005) Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. For Ecol Manage 207:171–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simensen T, Halvorsen R, Erikstad L (2018) Methods for landscape characterisation and mapping: a systematic review. Land Use Policy 75:557–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sourdril A, Andrieu E, Cabanettes A, Elyakime B, Ladet S (2012) How to maintain domesticity of usages in small rural forests? Lessons from forest management continuity through a french case study. Ecol Soc 17:art6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Team RC (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical ComputingGoogle Scholar
  56. Torralba M, Fagerholm N, Burgess PJ, Moreno G, Plieninger T (2016) Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 230:150–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tsonkova P, Mirck J, Böhm C, Fütz B (2018) Addressing farmer-perceptions and legal constraints to promote agroforestry in Germany. Agrofor Syst. Google Scholar
  58. van der Zanden EH, Carvalho-Ribeiro SM, Verburg PH (2018) Abandonment landscapes: user attitudes, alternative futures and land management in Castro Laboreiro, Portugal. Reg Environ Chang. Google Scholar
  59. Willemen L, Hein L, Verburg PH (2010) Evaluating the impact of regional development policies on future landscape services. Ecol Econ 69(11):2244–2254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Willemen L, Veldkamp A, Verburg PH, Hein L, Leemans R (2012) A multi-scale modelling approach for analysing landscape service dynamics. J Environ Manag 100:86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wolff S, Schulp CJE, Verburg PH (2015) Mapping ecosystem services demand: a review of current research and future perspectives. Ecol Indic 55:159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wood SLR, Jones SK, Johnson JA, Brauman KA, Chaplin-Kramer R, Fremier A, Girvetz E, Gordon LJ, Kappel CV, Mandle L, Mulligan M, O’Farrell P, Smith WK, Willemen L, Zhang W, DeClerck FA (2018) Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the sustainable development goals. Ecosyst Serv 29:70–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Análise e Modelagem de Sistemas Ambientais, Universidade Federal Minas Gerais, Instituto Geociências, Departamento de CartografiaBelo HorizonteBrazil
  2. 2.Dynafor, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, INPT – EI PURPANCastanet-TolosanFrance
  3. 3.Foco Estudos SocioambientaisPorto AlegreBrazil
  4. 4.UMR CNRS 6554 LETG-Angers, UFR Sciences, Université d’AngersAngersFrance

Personalised recommendations