2018 ESA Annual Meeting (August 5 -- 10)

COS 10-7 - Think globally, act locally: A review of ecosystem service mapping in Africa

Monday, August 6, 2018: 3:40 PM
238-239, New Orleans Ernest N. Morial Convention Center
Scott Beck1, Melissa R. McHale1, Louie Rivers III2, Michael J. Falkowski3, Jennifer E. Cross4 and Kelly W. Jones5, (1)Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, (2)Forestry and Environmental Resources, NC State University, NC, (3)Ecosystem Science & Sustainability, Colorado State University, (4)Environmental Affairs and Sociology, Colorado State University, (5)Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
Background/Question/Methods

Ecosystem services and natural capital are essential components of human welfare, particularly amongst resource-dependent communities in Africa. However, valuing and visualizing ecosystem services in ways that are appropriate for decision-making has proven difficult. Although mapping is a popular approach, it often relies on proxies (e.g. land use) that might not be representative of actual ecosystem services, and/or carry significant error due to spatial misalignments, which makes them inappropriate for local-scale decision-making. With the emergence of the socio-cultural ES paradigm, and a shift towards participatory methodologies, an updated review of ecosystem service mapping is needed to compare approaches and identify a way forward. In this study we conduct a systematic literature review of ecosystem service mapping in Africa, and compare outcomes of mapping approaches (e.g. economic, biophysical, socio-cultural). Specifically, we ask: (1) what valuation methods have been used to map ES in Africa; (2) what scales and spatial resolutions are most often applied to ES mapping; and (3) what proxies are used to quantify ecosystem services? Ultimately, our goal is draw on lessons from the literature to begin to develop a standardized approach for mapping ecosystem services in a way that is valuable to communities, and useful for local decision-making.

Results/Conclusions

Our preliminary results reveal that economic and biophysical approaches are most often used by researchers to map ecosystem services. However, despite their small number (n=2), socio-cultural ecosystem service valuations and mapping capture a significantly more broad range of services when compared to other valuation and mapping methods. For instance, on average, socio-cultural approaches identify and map 18 different ecosystem services, while biophysical and economic approaches average six and four services, respectively. Additionally, socio-cultural mapping approaches apply participatory methodologies, so mapped services are known to be valuable/useful to communities. These results support our own socio-cultural assessment, which identifies 18 local-scale ecosystem services that are highly valued by stakeholders. Despite the utility of socio-cultural approaches, mapping them for use in decision-making remains a challenge. To address this, we present a conceptual model to map socio-cultural ecosystem services. This model requires that researchers study the social and spatial contexts of a system to engage, classify, spatialize, and map ecosystem services at local-scales using high-spatial resolution data. This approach is designed to include communities in the mapping process, and reduce errors associated with coarse resolution mapping, which will theoretically strengthen decision-making.