Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Applying the Ecosystem Approach to Select Priority Areas for Forest Landscape Restoration in the Yungas, Northwestern Argentina

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper proposes a method to select forest restoration priority areas consistently with the key principles of the Ecosystem Approach (EA) and the Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) framework. The methodology is based on the principles shared by the two approaches: acting at ecosystem scale, involving stakeholders, and evaluating alternatives. It proposes the involvement of social actors which have a stake in forest management through multicriteria analysis sessions aimed at identifying the most suitable forest restoration intervention. The method was applied to a study area in the native forests of Northern Argentina (the Yungas). Stakeholders were asked to identify alternative restoration actions, i.e. potential areas implementing FLR. Ten alternative fincas—estates derived from the Spanish land tenure system—differing in relation to ownership, management, land use, land tenure, and size were evaluated. Twenty criteria were selected and classified into four groups: biophysical, social, economic and political. Finca Ledesma was the closest to the economic, social, environmental and political goals, according to the values and views of the actors involved in the decision. This study represented the first attempt to apply EA principles to forest restoration at landscape scale in the Yungas region. The benefits obtained by the application of the method were twofold: on one hand, researchers and local actors were forced to conceive the Yungas as a complex net of rights rather than as a sum of personal interests. On the other hand, the participatory multicriteria approach provided a structured process for collective decision-making in an area where it has never been implemented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ananda J, Herath G (2003) The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. Forest Policy and Economics 5:13–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrow E, Timmer D, White S, Maginnis S (2002) Forest Landscape Restoration: building assets for people and nature—experience from East Africa. World Conservation Union (IUCN), Cambridge

  • Brockington D, Igoe J, Schmidt-Soltau K (2006) Conservation, human rights and poverty reduction. Conservation Biology 20:250–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell B, Sayer JA, Frost P, Vermeulen S, Ruiz-Perez M, Cunningham A, Ravi P (2001) Assessing the performance of natural resource systems. Conservation Ecology 5(2) (online). http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art22/index.html

  • Chazdon RL (2008) Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Science 320(5882):1458–1460

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, Wainger L, Folke C, Mäler KG (1993) Modeling complex ecological economic systems. BioScience 43(8):545–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado LE, Marín VH, Bachmann PL, Torres-Gomez M (2009) Conceptual models for ecosystem management through the participation of local social actors: the Río Cruces wetland conflict. Ecology and Society 14(1):50 (online). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art50/

  • Ecott T (2002) Forest Landscape Restoration: working examples from 5 ecoregions. Doveton Press, Bristol

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (2004) Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector. European Journal of Operational Research 152:615–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feoli E, Zuccarello V (1994) Naïveté of fuzzy system space in vegetation dynamics? Coenoses 9:25–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis RA, Goodman MK (2010) Post normal science and the art of nature conservation. Journal for Nature Conservation 18:89–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1994) The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecological Economics 10:197–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamboa G (2006) Social multi-criteria evaluation of different development scenarios of the Aysén region, Chile. Ecological Economics 59:157–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Fernández C, Ruíz-Pérez M, Wunder S (2008) Is multiple-use forest management widely implementable in the tropics? Forest Ecology and Management 256:1468–1476

    Google Scholar 

  • Geneletti D (2005) Formalising expert’s opinion through multi-attribute value functions. An application in landscape ecology. Journal of Environmental Management 76:255–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geneletti D (2008) Incorporating biodiversity assets in spatial planning: methodological proposal and development of a planning support system. Landscape and Urban Planning 84:252–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grau A, Brown AD (2000) Development threats to biodiversity and opportunities for conservation in the mountain ranges of the upper Bermejo river basin, NW Argentina and SW Bolivia. Ambio 29:450–455

    Google Scholar 

  • Grau R, Aide M, Gaspari I (2005) Globalization and soybean expansion into semiarid ecosystem of Argentina. Ambio 34:267–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimble R, Wellard K (1997) Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems 55(2):173–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haag D, Kaupenjohann M (2001) Parameters, prediction, post-normal science and the precautionary principle—a roadmap for modelling for decision-making. Ecological Modelling 144:45–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierlan EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 57:209–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holl KD, Crone EE, Schultz CB (2003) Landscape restoration: moving from generalities to methodologies. BioScience 53(5):491–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ianni E, Mattenet M, Geneletti D, Malizia LR (2010) Community-based forest management in the Yungas biosphere reserve, Northern Argentina. Environment Development and Sustainability. doi:10.1007/s10668-009-9216-1

  • Janssen R, van Herwijnen M, Beinat E (2001) DEFINITE. Case studies and user manual. Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

  • Jørgensen SE, Patten BC, Milan Strakraba (1992) Ecosystems emerging: toward an ecology of complex systems in a complex future. Ecological Modelling 62(1–3):1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kangas J, Kangas A (2005) Multiple criteria decision support in forest management—the approach, methods applied, and experiences gained. Forest Ecology and Management 207:133–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lackey RY (2001) Values, policy, and ecosystem health. BioScience 51:437–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Zhang J, Ge W, Liu X (2004) Complex systems and multi-scale methodology. Chemical Engineering Science 59(8–9):1687–1700

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lynam T, De Jong W, Sheil D, Kusumanto T, Evans K (2007) A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management. Ecology and Society 12(1):5 (online). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art5/

  • Maass JP, Balvanera A, Castillo GC, Daily HA, Mooney P, Ehrlich M, Quesada A, Miranda VJ, Jaramillo F, García-Oliva A, Martínez-Yrizar H, Cotler J, López-Blanco A, Pérez- Jiménez A, Búrquez C, Tinoco G, Ceballos L, Barraza R, Sarukhán J (2005) Ecosystem services of tropical dry forests: insights from long-term ecological and social research on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. Ecology and Society 10(1):17 (online). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art17/

  • Maginnis S, Jackson W (2005) What is FLR and how does it differ from current approaches? In IUCN (ed) Restoring forest landscape: an introduction to the art and science of forest landscape restoration. ITTO Technical series 23

  • Mansourian S, Vallauri D, Dudley N (eds) (in cooperation with WWF International) (2005) Forest Restoration in Landscapes: beyond planting trees. Springer, New York

  • Margerum RD (2008) A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management. Environmental Management 41:487–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin WE, Wise Bender H, Shields DJ (2000) Stakeholder objectives for public lands: rankings of forest management alternatives. Journal of Environmental Management 58:21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Report of the Conceptual Framework Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Özesmi U, Özesmi S (2004) A participatory approach to ecosystem conservation: fuzzy cognitive maps and stakeholders groups analysis in Uluabat Lake, Turkey. Environmental Management 31:518–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacheco S, Gonzalez J, Meitner MJ (2005) Land use planning in the Yungas biosphere reserve in Argentina (online). http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc05/papers/pap2039.pdf

  • Pokharel B, Nurse M (2004) Forest and peoples’ livelihoods: benefiting the poor from community forestry. Journal of Forestry and Livelihoods 4(1):19–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Purnomo H, Mendoza GA, Prabhu R, Yasmi Y (2005) Developing multi-stakeholder forest management scenarios: a multi-agent system simulation approach applied in Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics 7:475–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quaddus MA, Siddique MBA (2001) Modelling sustainable development planning: a multicriteria decision conferencing approach. Environment International 27:89–95

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Renard Y (2004) Guidelines for stakeholder identification and analysis: a manual for Caribbean natural resource managers and planners. Caribbean Natural Resources Institute, Trinidad

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey Benayas JM, Newton AC, Diaz A, Bullock JM (2009) Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science 325:1121–1124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarr DA, Puettmann KJ (2008) Forest management, restoration, and designer ecosystems: integrating strategies for a crowded planet. Ecoscience 15(1):17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharifi MA, Boerboom L, Shamsudin K (2004) Evaluating rail network options using multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA): case study Klang Valley, Malaysia. In: Abdullah A, Shamsuddin K, Abdullah MF (eds) Applications of planning and decision support systems. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheil D, Liswanti N (2006) Scoring the importance of tropical forest landscapes with local people: patterns and insight. Environmental Management 38:126–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd G (2004) The ecosystem approach: five steps to implementation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard SRJ, Meitner M (2005) Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. Forest Ecology and Management 207:171–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunderlin WD, Dewi S, Puntodewo A, Müller D, Angelsen A, Epprecht M (2008) Why forests are important for global poverty alleviation: a spatial explanation. Ecology and Society 13(2): 24. [online]: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art24/

  • Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCED (1992) Convention on biological diversity. United Nations Commission on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Hove S (2006) Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy 23:10–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WWF (2004) Integrating forest protection, management and restoration at a landscape scale. WWF International, Gland

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to ProYungas staff for their support during field work; in particular we thank dr Lucio Malizia. This work has been carried out within the framework of the ReForLan project (http://www.reforlan.bournemouth.ac.uk/index.html). The project has received research funding from the European Community’s Sixth Framework Programme (FP6), contract number 032132. The views presented do not necessarily represent the opinion of the European Community, and the Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. The comments of three anonymous referees helped improving the quality of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Ianni.

Appendices

Annex 1

Forest Landscape Restoration principles, as described by Mansourian and others (2005) are synthesized hereafter:

  1. I.

    It is implemented at a landscape scale. Planning for forest restoration is done in the context of other elements: social, economic, and biological in the landscape.

  2. II.

    It has a socioeconomic dimension. It is argued that people who have a stake in the state of the landscape are more likely to engage positively in its restoration.

  3. III.

    It addresses the root causes of forest loss and degradation.

  4. IV.

    It opts for a package of solutions, including improving the quality of existing forests.

  5. V.

    It involves a range of stakeholders in planning and decision making to achieve a solution that is acceptable.

  6. VI.

    It involves identifying and negotiating trade-offs.

  7. VII.

    It places the emphasis not only on forest quantity but also on forest quality.

  8. VIII.

    It aims to restore a range of forest goods, services, and processes, rather than forest cover per se.

Annex 2

The EA principles:

  • Principle 1: The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of societal choice.

  • Principle 2: Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level.

  • Principle 3: Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems.

  • Principle 4: Recognizing potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Any such ecosystem-management programme should:

    1. (a)

      Reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity;

    2. (b)

      Align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use;

    3. (c)

      Internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible.

     

  • Principle 5: Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem services, should be a priority target of the EA.

  • Principle 6: Ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their functioning.

  • Principle 7: The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.

  • Principle 8: Recognizing the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterize ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long term.

  • Principle 9: Management must recognize that change is inevitable.

  • Principle 10: The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity.

  • Principle 11: The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices.

  • Principle 12: The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ianni, E., Geneletti, D. Applying the Ecosystem Approach to Select Priority Areas for Forest Landscape Restoration in the Yungas, Northwestern Argentina. Environmental Management 46, 748–760 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9553-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9553-8

Keywords

Navigation