Abstract
Ecosystems services are at the base of the pyramid, strategy, and survival of rural communities in many developing countries such as Mozambique. Its massive decline has been widely announced and the future of rural communities is severely threatened. However, directing policies or decision-making to protect the local ecosystems services will involve deeply understanding the way and lifestyle of communities, understanding their needs, exploring perceptions about the values and importance of services as well as recognising pro and cons attitudes the implementation of sustainable actions. Thus, these perceptions can illuminate paths to redefine new paradigms for the protection and sustainability of local ecosystem services. Our research examines the perception of the different ways of use, exploitation, importance, and attitude of the rural communities of northern Mozambique on the local ecosystems services as a way of contributing to sustainable strategies. We favoured the application of questionnaires as the quantitative assessment procedure of respondents (N = 1000). Pearson’s chi-square test (χ2) was applied to assess the association between variables. However, the Person test revealed positive correspondences or associations between the variables tested. We have found limitations to the recognition and attribution of the importance and value of local ecosystem services by communities. The considerable reduction in provisioning services is pointed out as the main threats to the reduction of local ecosystem services by communities. Nevertheless, ways to protect and sustain local ecosystem services have been identified and discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Barbier EB, Hacker SD, Koch EW, Stier AC, Silliman BR (2011) Estuarine and coastal ecosystems and their services. In: Treatise on estuarine and coastal science, pp 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-374711-2.01206-7
Blasiak R, Yagi N, Kurokura H, Ichikawa K, Wakita K, Mori A (2015) Marine ecosystem services: perceptions of indispensability and pathways to engaging citizens in their sustainable use. Mar Policy 61:155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.08.005
Blythe J, Armitage D, Alonso G, Campbell D, Esteves Dias AC, Epstein G, Marschke M, Nayak P (2020) Frontiers in coastal well-being and ecosystem services research: a systematic review. Ocean Coast Manage:105028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105028
Boerema A, Meire P (2017) Management for estuarine ecosystem services: a review. Ecol Eng 98:172–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.10.051
Cabana D, Ryfield F, Crowe T, Brannigan J (2020) Evaluating and communicating cultural ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 42:101085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101085
Campbell E, Marks R, Conn C (2020) Spatial modeling of the biophysical and economic values of ecosystem services in Maryland, USA. Ecosyst Serv 43: 101093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101093
Cárcamo PF, Garay-Flühmann R, Gaymer CF (2014) Collaboration and knowledge networks in coastal resources management: how critical stakeholders interact for multiple-use marine protected area implementation. Ocean Coast Manag 91:5–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.01.007
Chakraborty S, Gasparatos A (2019) Community values and traditional knowledge for coastal ecosystem services management in the “satoumi” seascape of Himeshima island, Japan. Ecosyst Serv 37: 100940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100940
Depellegrin D, Menegon S, Gusatu L, Roy S, Misiunė I (2020) Assessing marine ecosystem services richness and exposure to anthropogenic threats in small sea areas: a case study for the Lithuanian sea space. Ecol Ind 108: 105730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105730
Ellis EC, Pascual U, Mertz O (2019) Ecosystem services and nature’s contribution to people: negotiating diverse values and trade-offs in land systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 38:86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.05.001
Filho WL, Barbir J, Nagy GJ, Sima M, Kalbus A, Paletta A, Nikolova M, Bonoli A (2020) Reviewing the role of ecosystems services in the sustainability of the urban environment: a multi-country analysis. J Cleaner Prod:121338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121338
Grima N, Singh SJ (2020) The self-(in)sufficiency of the Caribbean: ecosystem services potential Index (ESPI) as a measure for sustainability. Ecosyst Serv 42: 101087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101087
Hardaker A, Pagella T, Rayment M (2020) Integrated assessment, valuation and mapping of ecosystem services and dis-services from upland land use in Wales. Ecosyst Serv 43: 101098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101098
Hasan SS, Zhen L, Miah MG, Ahamed T, Samie A (2020) Impact of land use change on ecosystem services: a review. Environ Dev:100527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100527
Havinga I, Bogaart PW, Hein L, Tuia D (2020) Defining and spatially modelling cultural ecosystem services using crowdsourced data. Ecosyst Serv 43: 101091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101091
He S, Gallagher L, Su Y, Wang L, Cheng H (2018) Identification and assessment of ecosystem services for protected area planning: a case in rural communities of Wuyishan national park pilot. Ecosyst Serv 31:169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.04.001
Hugé J, Rochette AJ, de Béthune S, Parra Paitan CC, Vanderhaegen K, Vandervelden T, Janssens I, Janssens de Bisthoven L (2020) Ecosystem services assessment tools for African Biosphere Reserves: a review and user-informed classification. Ecosys Serv 42: 101079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101079
Instituto Nacional de Estatística—INE (2017) Recenseamento Geral da População e Habitação-Divulgação de Resultados Preliminares do IV RGPH 2017. Maputo, Mozambique. http://www.ine.gov.mz/operacoes-estatisticas/censos/censo-2007/censo-2017/divulgacao-de-resultados-preliminares-do-iv-rgph-2017.pdf/view
IPBES (2018) The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Africa. In: Archer E, Dziba L, Mulongoy KJ, Maoela MA, Walters M (eds) Secretariat of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bonn, Germany, pp 492
IPBES (2019a) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In: Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio ES, Ngo HT, Guèze M, Agard J, Arneth A, Balvanera P, Brauman KA, Butchart SHM, Chan KMA, Garibaldi LA, Ichii K, Liu J, Subramanian SM, Midgley GF, Miloslavich P, Molnár Z, Obura D, Pfaff A, Polasky S, Purvis A, Razzaque J, Reyers B, Roy Chowdhury R, Shin YJ, Visseren-Hamakers IJ, Willis KJ, Zayas CN (eds) IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany, pp 56. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579
IPBES (2019b) Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In: Brondizio ES, Settele J, Díaz S, Ngo HT (eds) IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany
Johnson MK, Lien AM, Sherman NR, López-Hoffman L (2018) Barriers to PES programs in Indigenous communities: a lesson in land tenure insecurity from the Hopi Indian reservation. Ecosyst Serv 32:62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.05.009
Kabisch N (2015) Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space planning—the case of Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy 42:557–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.09.005
Keenan RJ, Pozza G, Fitzsimons JA (2019) Ecosystem services in environmental policy: barriers and opportunities for increased adoption. Ecosyst Serv 38: 100943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100943
Li J, Bai Y, Alatalo JM (2020) Impacts of rural tourism-driven land use change on ecosystems services provision in Erhai Lake Basin, China. Ecosyst Serv 42: 101081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101081
Liu L, Wang Z, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Shen J, Qin D, Li S (2019) Trade-off analyses of multiple mountain ecosystem services along elevation, vegetation cover and precipitation gradients: a case study in the Taihang Mountains. Ecol Ind 103:94–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.03.034
Martin CL, Momtaz S, Gaston T, Moltschaniwskyj NA (2020) Estuarine cultural ecosystem services valued by local people in New South Wales, Australia, and attributes important for continued supply. Ocean Coast Manag 190: 105160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105160
Martinez-Harms MJ, Bryan BA, Balvanera P, Law EA, Rhodes JR, Possingham HP, Wilson KA (2015) Making decisions for managing ecosystem services. Biol Cons 184:229–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.024
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC
Morea JP (2019) A framework for improving the management of protected areas from a social perspective: the case of Bahía de San Antonio Protected Natural Area, Argentina. Land Use Policy 87: 104044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104044
Mucova SAR, Filho WL, Azeiteiro UM, Pereira MJ (2018) Assessment of land use and land cover changes from 1979 to 2017 and biodiversity and land management approach Quirimbas National Park, Northern Mozambique, Africa. Glob Ecol Conserv:16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00447
Müller F, Bicking S, Ahrendt K, Kinh Bac D, Blindow I, Fürst C, Schubert H, Zeleny J (2020) Assessing ecosystem service potentials to evaluate terrestrial, coastal, and marine ecosystem types in Northern Germany—an expert-based matrix approach. Ecol Ind 112: 106116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106116
Nahuelhual L, Vergara X, Bozzeda F, Campos G, Subida MD, Outeiro L, Villasante S, Fernández M (2020) Exploring gaps in mapping marine ecosystem services: a benchmark analysis. Ocean Coast Manag 192: 105193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105193
Obeng EA, Oduro KA, Obiri BD, Abukari H, Guuroh RT, Djagbletey GD, Appiah-Korang J, Appiah M (2019) Impact of illegal mining activities on forest ecosystem services: local communities’ attitudes and willingness to participate in restoration activities in Ghana. Heliyon 5(10): e02617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02617
Pogue SJ, Kröbel R, Janzen HH, Beauchemin KA, Legesse G, de Souza DM, Byrne J, McAllister TA (2017) Beef production and ecosystem services in Canada’s prairie provinces: a review. Agric Syst 166:152–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.06.011
Quevedo JM, Uchiyama Y, Kohsaka R (2020) Perceptions of the seagrass ecosystems for the local communities of Eastern Samar, Philippines: preliminary results and prospects of blue carbon services. Ocean Coast Manag 191: 105181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105181
Reynolds C, Venter N, Cowie BW, Marlin D, Mayonde S, Tocco C, Byrne MJ (2020) Mapping the socio-ecological impacts of invasive plants in South Africa: are poorer households with high ecosystem service use most at risk? Ecosyst Serv 42: 101075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101075
Riegels N, Lynggaard-Jensen A, Jensen JK, Gerner NV, Anzaldua G, Mark O, Butts M, Birk S (2020) Making the ecosystem services approach operational: a case study application to the Aarhus River, Denmark. Sci Environ:135836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135836
Sangha KK, Russell-Smith J, Costanza R (2019) Mainstreaming indigenous and local communities’ connections with nature for policy decision-making. Glob Ecol Conserv:e00668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00668
Schirpke U, Leitinger G, Tasser E, Rüdisser J, Fontana V, Tappeiner U (2020) Functional spatial units are fundamental for modelling ecosystem services in mountain regions. Appl Geogr 118: 102200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102200
Shi Y, Shi D, Zhou L, Fang R (2020) Identification of ecosystem services supply and demand areas and simulation of ecosystem service flows in Shanghai. Ecol Ind 115: 106418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106418
TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations (TEEB). In: Pushpam Kumar (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London and Washington, DC
Thompson BS, Primavera JH, Friess DA (2016) Governance and implementation challenges for mangrove forest Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): empirical evidence from the Philippines. Ecosyst Serv 23:146–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.007
Tusznio J, Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska A, Rechciński M, Olszańska A, Grodzińska-Jurczak M (2020) Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level—challenges, opportunities, and limitations. Ecosyst Serv 42: 101077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101077
Van Teijlingen E, Hundley V (2002) The importance of pilot studies. Nursing Standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain): 1987). 16:33–6. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns2002.06.16.40.33.c3214
Verburg R, Selnes T, Verweij P (2016) Governing ecosystem services: national and local lessons from policy appraisal and implementation. Ecosyst Serv 18:186–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.03.006
Xu C, Jiang W, Huang Q, Wang Y (2020) Ecosystem services response to rural-urban transitions in coastal and island cities: a comparison between Shenzhen and Hong Kong, China. J Cleaner Prod:121033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121033
Xu X, Chen M, Yang G, Jiang B, Zhang J (2020b) Wetland ecosystem services research: a critical review. Glob Ecol Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01027
Yang Q, Liu G, Hao Y, Zhang L, Giannetti BF, Wang J, Casazza M (2019) Donor-side evaluation of coastal and marine ecosystem services. Water Res 166: 115028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.115028
Zhang W, Kato E, Bhandary P, Nkonya E, Ibrahim HI, Agbonlahor M, Ibrahim HY, Cox C (2016) Awareness and perceptions of ecosystem services in relation to land use types: evidence from rural communities in Nigeria. Ecosyst Serv 22:150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.011
Zhou L, Guan D, Huang X, Yuan X, Zhang M (2020) Evaluation of the cultural ecosystem services of wetland park. Ecol Ind 114: 106286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106286
Acknowledgements
First and corresponding author would like to deeply thank WWF Russell E. Train Education for Nature Program (EFN) for support and fellowship granted.
Thanks are due for the financial support to CESAM (UID/AMB/50017/2019), to FCT/MCTES through national funds, and the co-funding by the FEDER, within the PT2020 Partnership Agreement and Compete 2020.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Supplementary Material: Pearson’s chi-squared test tables.
See Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mucova, S.A.R., Azeiteiro, U.M., Vinuesa, A.G., Filho, W.L., Pereira, M.J.V. (2021). Understanding and Defining Pathways for Ecosystems Services Decision Making, Sustainability and Livelihoods of Rural Communities of the Mozambique. In: Leal Filho, W., Azeiteiro, U.M., Setti, A.F.F. (eds) Sustainability in Natural Resources Management and Land Planning. World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76624-5_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76624-5_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-76623-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-76624-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)