Mon, Aug 02, 2021:On Demand
Background/Question/Methods
Adequate consideration of the complexity in management and conservation of dryland socio-ecological systems demands a transdisciplinary approach. However, taking into account the diverse interests and needs of local stakeholders presents unprecedented challenges for collective and inclusive actions in research, management, conservation, and adaptation to climate change. Hence, we asked: Is the ecosystem services framework suitable for co-generating knowledge about diverse stakeholder preferences and notions of human wellbeing ?
We designed and applied a participatory methodology in the dryland socio-ecological system of the Biosphere Reserve of Mapimí (Chihuahuan desert), where we linked ecosystem services with locally defined indicators of human wellbeing considering different stakeholder perspectives. We conducted three in-person and four virtual multisectoral participatory workshops, incorporating a total of 77 participants from local communities, NGOs, government, and scientists. Each sector had to 1) identify the priority of ecosystem services and associated human wellbeing dimensions, and 2) reassess how these preferences might change under climate change scenarios considering drought, forage loss, among others. Differences in perception were statistically compared, while the relationships between ecosystem services and human wellbeing dimensions were analyzed and represented through networks.
Results/Conclusions Results showed significative differences in prioritization and valuation of ecosystem services between local inhabitants and other stakeholders (P<0.05, R2=0.31). Locals prioritized provisioning and regulating services, while, researchers, NGOs, and government representatives considered supporting and cultural services as most important. Priority wellbeing dimensions differed significantly among stakeholders (P<0.05, R2=0.19). Researchers, government representatives, and NGOs selected different wellbeing dimensions compared to locals (social security, partnerships, and innovation); however, their choices also varied from each other. Stakeholders did not change their prioritized wellbeing dimensions under a climate change scenario, assuming that different ecosystem services would support human wellbeing, or that highly relevant ecosystem services (provisioning) will suffer high demand. Furthermore, the multistakeholder network analysis revealed an increase in the importance of cultural services (i.e. recreation and ecotourism) as a mechanism to secure financial security and social cohesion under climate change. Hence, locals seemed rather adaptive, by shifting their interest to alternative ecosystem services suggesting potentially innovative climate change adaptation projects in the Reserve. We conclude that this participatory approach was effective in co-generating knowledge for decision-making, favoring a cross-sectoral dialogue and mutual learning to collectively understand important differences in preferences and relationships between ecosystem services and diverse definitions of human wellbeing.
Results/Conclusions Results showed significative differences in prioritization and valuation of ecosystem services between local inhabitants and other stakeholders (P<0.05, R2=0.31). Locals prioritized provisioning and regulating services, while, researchers, NGOs, and government representatives considered supporting and cultural services as most important. Priority wellbeing dimensions differed significantly among stakeholders (P<0.05, R2=0.19). Researchers, government representatives, and NGOs selected different wellbeing dimensions compared to locals (social security, partnerships, and innovation); however, their choices also varied from each other. Stakeholders did not change their prioritized wellbeing dimensions under a climate change scenario, assuming that different ecosystem services would support human wellbeing, or that highly relevant ecosystem services (provisioning) will suffer high demand. Furthermore, the multistakeholder network analysis revealed an increase in the importance of cultural services (i.e. recreation and ecotourism) as a mechanism to secure financial security and social cohesion under climate change. Hence, locals seemed rather adaptive, by shifting their interest to alternative ecosystem services suggesting potentially innovative climate change adaptation projects in the Reserve. We conclude that this participatory approach was effective in co-generating knowledge for decision-making, favoring a cross-sectoral dialogue and mutual learning to collectively understand important differences in preferences and relationships between ecosystem services and diverse definitions of human wellbeing.