Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

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.

Objective

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agbenyega O, Burgess PJ, Cook M, Morris J (2009) Application of an ecosystem function framework to perceptions of community woodlands. Land Use Policy 26:551–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Ostrom E (2006) Political science and conservation biology: a dialog of the deaf. Conserv Biol 20:681–682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2015.09.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 51:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-06279-190130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antrop M (2000) Background concepts for integrated landscape analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 77:17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00089-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 42:439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 55:146–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 23:1376–1386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.02.005

  • Campagne CS, Roche PK, Salles JM (2018) Looking into Pandora’s Box: ecosystem disservices assessment and correlations with ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 30:126–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 13:46–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 53:8–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 35:50–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway TM, Yip V (2016) Assessing residents’ reactions to urban forest disservices: a case study of a major storm event. Landsc Urban Plan 153:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 24:200–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siqueira E De (2012) A floresta de Araucária em Monte Verde (MG): História sedimentológica, palinológica e isotópica desde o último máximo glacial

  • 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 6:469–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farley J (2012) Ecosystem services: the economics debate. Ecosyst Serv 1:40–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FEPAM (2010) Zonemanento Ambiental da Silvicultura (ZAS) - Diretrizes da silvicultura por unidade de paisagem e bacia hidrográfica. Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Available at: http://www.fepam.rs.gov.br/biblioteca/silvicultura/V2_ZASAPROVADOCONSOLIDADOCORRIGIDOV-18-05-20101.pdf. Accessed 27 Mar 2018

  • Friess D (2016) Ecosystem services and disservices of mangrove forests: insights from historical colonial observations. Forests 7:183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0116-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrido P, Elbakidze M, Angelstam P (2017) Stakeholders’ perceptions on ecosystem services in Östergötland’s (Sweden) threatened oak wood-pasture landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 158:96–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.4000/cybergeo.24881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC, Fry G (2007) The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecol 22:959–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307:550–555

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R, Potschin MB (2018) Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. 27

  • Hansen WD (2014) Generalizable principles for ecosystem stewardship-based management of social-ecological systems: lessons learned from Alaska. Ecol Soc 19:art13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 11:321–330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 108:36–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krieger D (2001) Economic value of forest ecosystem services : a review. The Wilderness Society, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 28:129–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landers DH, Nahlik AM (2013) Final ecosystem goods and services classification system (FEGS-CS). Report Number: EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914

  • 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 4:27–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 36:86–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyytimäki J (2014) Bad nature: newspaper representations of ecosystem disservices. Urban For Urban Green 13:418–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyytimäki J, Petersen LK, Normander B, Bezák P (2008) Nature as a nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environ Sci 5:161–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970

  • Nenadic O, Greenacre M (2007) Correspondence analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: the ca package. J Stat Softw 20:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 26:695–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ninan KN, Kontoleon A (2016) Valuing forest ecosystem services and disservices—case study of a protected area in India. Ecosyst Serv 20:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson DM, Dinerstein E (2002) The global 200: priority ecoregions for global conservation. Ann Missouri Bot Gard 89:199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreszczyn S (2000) A systems approach to the research of people’s relationships with English hedgerows. Landsc Urban Plan 50:107–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ovaskainen V, Kniivila M (2005) Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing*. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 49:379–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 9:101–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos IL, Bernardo F, Ribeiro SC, Van Eetvelde V (2016) Landscape identity: implications for policy making. Land Use Policy 53:36–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaubroeck T (2017) A need for equal consideration of ecosystem disservices and services when valuing nature; countering arguments against disservices. Ecosyst Serv 26:95–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schirpke U, Timmermann F, Tappeiner U, Tasser E (2016) Cultural ecosystem services of mountain regions: modelling theaesthetic value. Ecol Indic 69:78–90

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Scholte SSK, van Teeffelen AJA, Verburg PH (2015) Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: a review of concepts and methods. Ecol Econ 114:67–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 9:496–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 19:587–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simensen T, Halvorsen R, Erikstad L (2018) Methods for landscape characterisation and mapping: a systematic review. Land Use Policy 75:557–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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:art6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Team RC (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

  • 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 230:150–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsonkova P, Mirck J, Böhm C, Fütz B (2018) Addressing farmer-perceptions and legal constraints to promote agroforestry in Germany. Agrofor Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-018-0228-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1294-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willemen L, Hein L, Verburg PH (2010) Evaluating the impact of regional development policies on future landscape services. Ecol Econ 69(11):2244–2254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willemen L, Veldkamp A, Verburg PH, Hein L, Leemans R (2012) A multi-scale modelling approach for analysing landscape service dynamics. J Environ Manag 100:86–95

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff S, Schulp CJE, Verburg PH (2015) Mapping ecosystem services demand: a review of current research and future perspectives. Ecol Indic 55:159–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 29:70–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Julien Blanco

    Present address: UMR CNRS 6554 LETG-Angers, UFR Sciences, Université d’Angers, Angers, France

  2. Fernanda Zimmermann Teixeira, Laura Bachi and Julien Blanco shared authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Análise e Modelagem de Sistemas Ambientais, Universidade Federal Minas Gerais, Instituto Geociências, Departamento de Cartografia, Av. Antônio Carlos, 6.627, Belo Horizonte, MG, CEP: 31270-901, Brazil

    Fernanda Zimmermann Teixeira, Laura Bachi & Sónia M. Carvalho-Ribeiro

  2. Dynafor, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, INPT – EI PURPAN, Castanet-Tolosan, France

    Julien Blanco

  3. Foco Estudos Socioambientais, Av. Pereira Passos, 162, Porto Alegre, CEP 91900-240, Brazil

    Ilaine Zimmermann & Iara Welle

Authors
  1. Fernanda Zimmermann Teixeira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Bachi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julien Blanco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ilaine Zimmermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Iara Welle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sónia M. Carvalho-Ribeiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fernanda Zimmermann Teixeira.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 242 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Teixeira, F.Z., Bachi, L., Blanco, J. et al. Perceived ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem disservices (EDS) from trees: insights from three case studies in Brazil and France. Landscape Ecol 34, 1583–1600 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00778-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00778-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation