Magaliesberg Biosphere - Democratization of …...Despite the theoretical value of this concept, its current applications have been challenged on a number of fronts. There is a plethora

REVIEW

Democratization of ecosystem servicesmdasha radical approach for assessingnaturersquos benefits in the face of urbanization

Melissa R McHaleabcd Scott M Becka Steward T A Pickette Daniel L Childersf Mary L CadenassogLouie Rivers IIIh Louise Swemmeri Liesel Ebersohnj Wayne Twineb and David N Bunncdk

aDepartment of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability Colorado State University Fort Collins CO USA bSchool of Animal Plant andEnvironmental Sciences University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa cNatural Resource Ecology Lab Colorado StateUniversity Fort Collins CO USA dWits City Institute University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa eCary Institute ofEcosystem Studies Millbrook NY USA fSchool of Sustainability Arizona State University Tempe AZ USA gDepartment of Plant SciencesUniversity of California Davis CA USA hDepartment of Forestry and Environmental Resources North Carolina State University RaleighNC USA iSouth African National Parks Kruger National Park Phalaborwa South Africa jCentre for the Study of Resilience University ofPretoria Pretoria South Africa kGeography amp Environmental Management amp Energy Studies University of Johannesburg

ABSTRACT

Objectives (1) To evaluate how ecosystem services may be utilized to either reinforce orfracture the planning and development practices that emerged from segregation and eco-nomic exclusion (2) To survey the current state of ecosystem service assessments andsynthesize a growing number of recommendations from the literature for renovating ecosys-tem service analysesMethods Utilizing current maps of ecosystem service distribution in Bushbuckridge LocalMunicipality South Africa we considered how a democratized process of assessing ecosys-tem services will produce a more nuanced representation of diverse values in society andcapture heterogeneity in ecosystem structure and functionResults We propose interventions for assessing ecosystem services that are inclusive of abroad range of stakeholdersrsquo values and result in actual quantification of social and ecologicalprocesses We demonstrate how to operationalize a pluralistic framework for ecosystemservice assessmentsConclusion A democratized approach to ecosystem service assessments is a reimaginedpath to rescuing a poorly implemented concept and designing and managing future social-ecological systems that benefit people and support ecosystem integrity It is the responsi-bility of scientists who do ecosystem services research to embrace more complex pluralisticframeworks so that sound and inclusive scientific information is utilized in decision-making

ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 16 February 2018Revised 18 May 2018Accepted 22 May 2018

KEYWORDS

Ecosystem services social-ecological systemsheterogeneity landcoverpluralistic deliberative

Introduction

From its recent revitalization in the 1990s the ecosys-tem services concept has been promoted as a powerfulagent for expressing a wide range of direct and indirectbenefits that humans derive from nature (Costanzaet al 1997 Daily 1997 Millennium EcosystemAssessment 2005 Fisher Turner and Morling 2009Braat and De Groot 2012 Costanza et al 2014)Despite the theoretical value of this concept its currentapplications have been challenged on a number offronts There is a plethora of literature providing in-depth critiques of ecosystem service assessments(Cooper et al 2016) Key studies have shown thatsuch assessments are plagued by the use of erroneousindicators of ecosystem function a focus on ecosystemservices that are easily quantified simplistic assump-tions employed in economic evaluations and resultsbiased toward the values of experts (Cowling et al2008 Raymond et al 2009 Peterson et al 2010 Braat

and De Groot 2012 Lele et al 2013 Hernaacutendez-Morcillo Plieninger and Bieling 2013 Verkerk et al2014 Kenter et al 2016) In reviewing these critiquesone might conclude that the concept of ecosystem ser-vices has failed to become a useful instrument to linkhuman and natural systems for planning managementand policy

In fact in Costanza et alrsquos (2017) latest review ofecosystem services they conclude that practical appli-cations of ecosystem services are still limited Theyfurther elaborate on how scientists need to employmethods that overcome four main barriers to theeffective implementation of ecosystem service assess-ments in management and policy We need to (1)establish consistent approaches to evaluating ecosys-tem services and (2) apply methods that adequatelyanswer questions Furthermore bridging the scienceand policy gap will entail (3) accounting for theappropriate institutional frameworks and (4)

CONTACT Melissa R McHale melissamchalecolostateedu Department of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability Colorado State UniversityFort Collins CO USA

ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND SUSTAINABILITY

2018 VOL 4 NO 5 115ndash131

httpsdoiorg1010802096412920181480905

copy 2018 The Author(s) Published by Informa UK Limited trading as Taylor amp Francis Group on behalf of the Ecological Society of ChinaThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (httpcreativecommonsorglicensesby40) which permitsunrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited

building trust among scientists and a broader com-munity of stakeholders

Transdisciplinary science is obviously needed totranscend these barriers Transdisciplinary scientistscan craft assessments of ecosystem services that pro-vide a sound foundation for the development of con-servation policies planning and decision-making(Cowling et al 2008 Daily et al 2009 De Grootet al 2010) There is little doubt that a pluralisticmodel is urgently needed to improve the inclusive-ness of ecosystem service assessments (Nahlik et al2012 Reyers et al 2013 Costanza et al 2017) Yetthis more inclusive approach is only a starting pointand a paradigm shift is needed so ecosystem serviceassessments will be relevant in a highly urbanizingworld Take Africa for instance where urbanizationis a predominant force and where a 12-fold increasein urban land area is expected in the next 50 years(Angel et al 2011) Of all the studies on ecosystemservices globally only a small fraction are conductedin Africa meanwhile across the continent there arenot enough resources to support current livelihoodsand the distribution of valuable resources is con-strained and the availability of benefits from theavailable resources is highly heterogeneous (WangaiBurkhard and Muumlller 2016)

In a literature review of ecosystem service assess-ments in Africa Wangai Burkhard and Muumlller(2016) found that most studies occurred at theregional scale and did not address more local tra-deoffs and synergies in ecosystem service provi-sioning This may be consistent with Costanzaet alrsquos (2017) conclusions that we need better eco-system service assessments that address questionsrelevant to management and policy however withurbanization pressure across the continent theimportant question is ldquohow do scientists producebetter ecosystem service assessments in the face ofthis massive changerdquo For example analyses shouldnot only focus on multiple scales and particularly alocal scale if they aim to guide management andpolicy but they must measure monitor map andvalue ecosystem services at the relevant spatialresolution Moreover while it may be true thatecosystem analyses need to address the right insti-tutional spaces but they must also confront thehistorical injustices that are still strongly a part ofinstitutional infrastructure (eg colonial influencesthe legacy of apartheid in South Africa and so on)

Our goal is to consider a way forward and weposit that the field of urban ecology in particularmay serve as a guide for a paradigm shift in scien-tific analysis of ecosystem services as it is throughthe study of cities as complex social-ecological sys-tems that a nuanced scientific understanding ofheterogeneity relevant to ecosystem services hasevolved (Cadenasso Pickett and Schwarz 2007

McHale et al 2013 Pickett et al 2017) We con-tend that acknowledging social and ecological het-erogeneity in both science and practice isnecessary to produce ecosystem service analysesthat are both accurate and useful Further strategicadaptive management (SAM) can provide a modelfor long-term evaluation of ecosystem serviceassessments and the effects of decision-making onpeople and the environment

In this paper we first focus on BushbuckridgeSouth Africa a region where urbanization threatensto perpetuate historical social and environmentalinjustices We evaluate how ecosystem services maybe utilized to either reinforce or fracture the planningand development practices that emerged from segre-gation and economic exclusion In the context of ourcase study we evaluate the current state of ecosystemservice assessments Rather than contributing to thegrowing collection of critiques we synthesize a num-ber of adroit recommendations from the literature forrenovating ecosystem service analyses (ie Cowlinget al 2008 De Groot et al 2010 Nahlik et al 2012Reyers et al 2013 Andersson et al 2015 Reyers et al2015) From these we propose interventions forcreating a more pluralistic framework for assessingecosystem services Although there are a plethora ofecosystem service frameworks available in the litera-ture (eg Tallis et al 2008 Fisher et al 2014) theyroutinely lack an implementation plan and thereforeremain purely informative or theoretical (Nahlik et al2012) In contrast we describe the steps needed tooperationalize this democratized approach to ecosys-tem service assessments to enhance its utility inpolicy planning and decision-making based onexperience in an actual dynamic urbanizinglandscape

Learning from current practices ecosystem

service assessments in Bushbuckridge Local

Municipality (BLM) Mpumalanga Province

South Africa

BLMmdasha hot spot for biodiversity population

growth tourism and contentious land ownership

debates

Bushbuckridge Local Municipality (BLM) is in theMpumalanga Province of South Africa This10250 km2 area is nestled against Kruger NationalPark one of the worldrsquos signature conservation areas(Figure 1) The BLM is a matrix of state forestry andconservation areas communal lands rural villagesand urbanizing centers surrounded by private gamereserves and tourism facilities More than 500000people live in the municipality but only 11 ofhouseholds have piped water (httpwwwlocalgovernmentcozalocalsview142bushbuckridge-local-

116 M R MCHALE ET AL

municipality) In fact a majority of the householdsare still dependent on local natural resources to sup-port their livelihoods (Twine et al 2003 KirklandHunter and Twine 2007)

As a hot spot for biodiversity human populationgrowth and tourism BLMrsquos municipal government isfeeling pressure to manage natural resources and landuse change BLM is in the heart of the worldrsquos thirdlargest biosphere reserve (designated by the UnitedNations Education Scientific and CulturalOrganizationrsquos Man and Biosphere Program) and anarea with animals and plants of unique interest Thegoal of designating a biosphere reserve is to promotesustainable use of natural resources however thisideal is not easily achieved in BLM For instancecommunal land in the area (ie state land undercommunal tenure) is managed by traditional leaderswho are responsible for allocating areas for cultiva-tion grazing and housing and for regulating the useof communal natural resources However politicalsocio-economic and cultural transitions exacerbatedby burgeoning human populations are eroding thistraditional power structure and its effectiveness(Twine 2005 Kirkland Hunter and Twine 2007)At the same time the municipal government is pri-marily concerned with the delivery of basic essentialservices to people and the provincial conservationauthorities who are responsible for environmentalprotection in the region are underresourced

Further household dynamics can play a significantrole in determining the nature and flow of ecosystemservices (Shackleton Paumgarten and Cocks 2008)There is a tendency in BLM toward decreasing num-ber of people in each household As socio-economicstatus rises with increasing urbanization there is evi-dence that houses are getting larger and the numberof people living in them all year is decreasing leadingto disorganized and uncontainable growth of villagesin the region The changes in household size andconfiguration affect land cover and land use naturaland commodity resource use waste generation anddisposal the type and management of domestic ani-mals and a host of other environmentally relevantprocesses and structures

Making matters of land management more com-plex are ongoing land claims Essentially localcommunities are fighting legal battles for propertythat they claim was theirs historically before apart-heid and its land management policies forced peo-ple off of their land For the most part the landthat is being disputed is dedicated to large farmingoperations private game reserves or conservationareas owned by the government (Kepe 2008)Contentious debates over land ownership and landuse underlie almost every development and conser-vation effort in BLM Its location along the westernborder of Kruger National Park only complicatesthe situation

Figure 1 Bushbuckridge Local Municipality (BLM) is a highly urbanizing region of the Mpumalanga Province South Africa BLMis nestled against the border of Kruger National Park and surrounded by a host of other private game reserves in the region

ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND SUSTAINABILITY 117

The wildlife economy and conservation planning

in BLM

The BLM and the other municipalities along the wes-tern edge of the Kruger National Park also struggle withan exceptionally high unemployment rate (over 50 inBLM) (Bushbuckridge Local Municipality 2016) Someconservationists and environment-focused organiza-tions contend that building a strong ecotourism-basedldquowildlife economyrdquo will create jobs and preserve biodi-versity (Hackel 1999 Hulme and Murphree 2001)Fundamentally if the region were to fully invest inthis wildlife economy model much of the land that iscurrently held by local communities (ie communallands) and managed in traditional ways would likelybe incorporated into private game reserves and otherconservation easements with nebulous forms of bene-fit-sharing between the reserves and the local commu-nities These land-for-conservation schemes howeverare quite controversial since they are largely justified onthe erroneous assumption that communal lands aredegraded and provide few if any ecosystem services(Bushbuckridge Local Municipality 2016)

Converting these degraded lands into restoredconservation areas that provide wildlife habitat andeffectively increase the size of Kruger National Parkseems enticing to some In fact though residents ofthese communal lands use their land in many waysand derive numerous ecosystem services from theirland that support their livelihoods (Shackleton andShackleton 2004) Further a wildlife-economy-drivenland management strategy may return to the colonialand Apartheid model where land is largely under theownership or management of wealthy whites leavingmany in the black settlement communities vying forlow paying jobs with unreasonable hours and subparliving conditions Initiatives aimed at sharing thetourism profits from the incorporated communallands run a high risk of being captured by local elites(Child and Barnes 2010) Ironically those that havethe most to lose in such deals such as poor house-holds heavily dependent on their communal land-scapes for fuelwood medicinal plants wild foodsand animal husbandry have the least power innegotiations

Although there is little evidence that the wildlife econ-omy is capable of being a win-win solution that balanceshuman needs with conservation priorities promotingconservation in BLM to support the health and well-being of both communities and the environment remainsa utopian goal Recently the government (ie theDepartment of Environmental Affairs DEA) hired aconsulting company to create a Master Plan that wassupposed to be an ldquointegrated multi-stakeholder sustain-able development strategy for the Bushbuckridge areardquoNotably the plan is titled ldquoGrowing a wildlife economy in

Bushbuckridgerdquo and is focused on identifying areas

worthy of future conservation efforts The developmentstrategies outlined in this BLM master plan are thenlegally implemented through the IntegratedDevelopment Plan for the municipality (ieBushbuckridge Local Municipality 2016)

How maps guide future development in the BLM

master plan

A series of maps are incorporated into the BLM masterplan to help guide future development All maps werecreated by a consulting firm external to the communityThe first set of maps aremostly descriptive in nature andprimarily show the location of traditional authoritiesconservation areas basic vegetation types and topogra-phy in the region (Figure 2) However the final mapsthat present recommendations for creating corridors thatsupport local conservation efforts (Figure 3) areinformed by a map that shows the distribution of eco-system services across the BLM (Figure 2)

A closer look at this ecosystem services map showsthat areas providing ldquoessentialrdquo or ldquovery importantrdquoecosystem services are conservation areas and parks(eg Kruger National Park the Blyde River Canyonand Bushbuckridge Nature Reserve) and privatelyowned game reserves (eg Sabi Sands) The areasdesignated as ldquootherrdquo on the map are the communallands where local people are living We were unableto locate any documentation of how the maps in themaster plan representing ecosystem services werecreated what ecosystem services were consideredldquoessentialrdquo or how the various grades of ecosystemservices were valuated quantified or comparedHowever this distribution of services suggests thatthe image was created from a land use map andperhaps primary vegetation land cover types asproxies for ecosystem service provisioning(Figure 2) In short it rates areas that are currentlywildlife habitat or might be in the future as high inecosystem service provision while it rates areas wherethe landscape supports the local human populationthrough provision of a diversity of benefits as low inecosystem service provision

The results are unsurprising Simply stated themain recommendations that emanate from thisplan and its maps are to focus human density andurban development in the four main regions orldquourban nodesrdquo that currently have higher densitydevelopment and to keep certain higher qualitylands from development with the main goal beingto connect conservation areas with wildlife habitatcorridors One such corridor is called the ldquoSabiSand Game Reserve Corridorrdquo which as suggestedby the name would link the Sabi Sands consortiumof private of game reserves with several other pri-vately-owned wildlife operations and theBushbuckridge Nature Reserve (Figure 3)

Logical conclusionsirresponsible planning

serious consequences

Creating corridors among already existing conserva-tion areas and other wildlife-focused land uses is afundamental philosophy in conservation planning(Bennett 1999) Numerous studies have supportedcorridors and demonstrated how more connectivityand less fragmentation is ldquogoodrdquo for the environment(Wikramanayake et al 2004 Damschen et al 2006

Bailey 2007) However justifying these corridors withmaps that suggest the only high-quality ecosystemservices in this region are provided by the conserva-tion areas is irresponsible Furthermore we arguethat management strategies and land use decisionsthat are based on these kinds of maps are misguided

First and foremost land use does not equate toecosystem service provisioning Just because land iscurrently designated a conservation area does not

Figure 2 Ecosystem Services in the BLM This figure provides a visual example of how ecosystem service maps in the MasterPlan may have evolved Land use maps are reclassified to produce a biodiversity assessment and then reclassified to produce anecosystem services map Townships and villages and their surrounding communal lands are classified as ldquoNo Natural HabitatrdquoldquoLeast Concernrdquo ldquoDegradedrdquo and ldquoOtherrdquo

Figure 3 The Sabi Sands Game Reserve Corridor as recommended in the BLM master plan (This map was recreated to representa similar map utilized in the Bushbuckridge Master Plan)

mean that it is providing essential ecosystem servicesmdashexcept perhaps to a small number of ecotouristsSome privately owned conservation areas are notmanaged wellmdashthe land is overgrazed by wildlifefire is underutilized as a management tool and eco-system functions have been compromised Howevereven if a landscape is maintained in a semipristinestate there are a number of presumed ecosystemservices that it does not provide (eg we still cannotconfirm with any confidence that savanna ecosystemsserve as long-term carbon sinks (Pellegrini et al2017)) At the same time the heavily utilized savan-nas in the communal lands continue to harbor a widerange of biodiversity (Shackleton 2000 SmartWhiting and Twine 2005) and locally valued indi-genous tree species such as marula (Sclerocarya bir-

rea) are protected in homestead yards and cultivatedfields (Paumgarten Shackleton and Cocks 2005Anthony and Bellinger 2007)

Frequently for security reasons or for the sake ofan enhanced eco-tourism experience protected areasare restricted from use by locals This constrains theirability to support their livelihoods The wildlife econ-omy is premised on the assumption that conservationareas are providing jobs to local people (LinkdEnvironmental 2013) presuming that local commu-nities benefit despite restricted access Yet it is easy toimagine that many of the low-paying jobs associatedwith the wildlife economy are not benefiting commu-nities as much as land owners or their well-off clien-tele Even accounting for the increased economicactivity stimulated by attracting tourists to the regionthese changes are not necessarily a big advantage tolocal businesses In fact this part of the world stilltends toward segregation with white people drivingnorth out of BLM to shop at white-owned businessesin Hoedspruit and black communities inhabiting thebusiness district of near-by Acornhoek

Finally the idea that communal lands do not pro-vide ecosystem services is entirely erroneous The eco-system services concept at its very foundation ishuman-centric (Costanza et al 1997) If services arenot directly received by people they simply cannot bevalued The communal lands or developed land iswhere most people in BLM live and scientists havedocumented numerous ecosystem services that theselands are providing to them (Cousins 1999 Shackletonand Shackleton 2004 Paumgarten Shackleton andCocks 2005 Shackleton et al 2007) In terms of eco-system services communal lands serve far more peo-ple than do the conservation areas and people livingin these communal areas are more likely to perceivethese locally produced and realized benefits than tour-ists or those in the tourism industry

It could be argued that the conservation goals inthe BLM master plan are not primarily driven byaccurate evaluations of ecosystem services Rather

the plan seems to have the overarching goal ofusing new corridors to preserve biodiversity in aUNESCO biosphere reserve (Linkd Environmental2013) It is too often the case that biodiversity andecosystem services are confused and deemed inter-connected despite the lack of evidence for this out-side of a few small scale and controlled experiments(Brose and Hillebrand 2016) Further the assumptionthat the developed areas have less biodiversity is oftennot true In many instances places with people haveincreased biodiversity especially in low-densitydevelopments such as these communal lands andvillages (Shackleton 2000 Maestas Knight andGilgert 2003)

Bridging the divide between theory and

practice

The case study described earlier is a beacon indicat-ing a growing and potentially dangerous dividebetween theory underpinning ecosystem services asconcept and practical implementation of ecosystemservice assessments This is not the first example of ahighly regarded ecologically oriented concept beingused in practice to reinforce injustices that alienatealready marginalized communities A dramatic earlyinstance of this is the history of Clemensian succes-sional theory as it was applied to racial segregationpolicies and their implementation leading to apart-heid through the agency of South African PrimeMinister Jan Smuts (See Anker 2009) Nonethelessscientists and managers must directly address thechallenges of implementing ecosystem serviceassessments head on if the concept is ever to play apositive role in conservation policy In the next sec-tion of this article we conceptualize how specifickey features of current ecosystem service assess-ments like the analyses utilized in planning forBLM are an obstacle to bridging the divide betweentheory and practice Then we identify interventionsand operationalize a pluralistic framework for eco-system service assessments

The current state of ecosystem service

assessments

The ecosystem services literature is replete with stu-dies that have attempted to quantify the benefitsprovided by ecosystems or ecosystem service supply(Cimon-Morin Darveau and Poulin 2013 Burkhardet al 2015) peoplersquos perceptions and values of thosebenefits or ecosystem service demand (Raymondet al 2009 Gould et al 2014) the flows of servicesor who receives the benefits (Gaston Avila-Jimenezand Edmondson 2013 Bagstad et al 2014) and thetradeoffs among multiple ecosystem services (Tallisand Polasky 2009 Wegner and Pascual 2011) The

science behind these assessments usually begins witha focus on quantifying potential benefits provided byan ecosystem (supply) or the benefits people value(demand) but rarely fully captures both standpoints(Figure 1) The studies that do try to analyze bothsupply and demand for instance usually capturedemand as the ldquoamount of a resource usedrdquo whichis easily quantified ecologically or economically butthis is not necessarily how people actually value orperceive the benefit of a particular service On theother hand studies that begin with an emphasis onhuman values typically focus on the notoriouslyunquantifiable services such as esthetic culturaland spiritual values (eg Plieninger et al 2013Pascua et al 2017)

Often methodological differences among disci-plines are the reasons for one-sided approaches toassessing ecosystem services (Bunse Rendon andLuque 2015 Pascua et al 2017) For example manysuch assessments of carbon sequestrationmdasha classicfocus in the ecosystem services literaturemdashare basedon disciplinary approaches that quantify benefits pro-vided by plants removing carbon from the atmo-sphere while ignoring the conundrum that mostpeople benefitting from this ecosystem process donot perceive it as a benefit making the service effec-tively invisible (Figure 4) Meanwhile the researchthat aspires to fully capture a wide range of peoplersquosvalues often steers away from quantification techni-ques and especially avoids monetary quantification(Milcu et al 2013)

Similarly the extent to which services are visible orinvisible can simply be a function of the people thatare a part of the assessment process (Turner et al2008) Ecologists consultants planners policymakers or people in positions of power often

conduct these analyses Although their decisions onwhat services to measure may simply be a function oftheir ability to quantify certain services in a repeata-ble way (Pascua et al 2017) this distinction of whatthen becomes a visible versus invisible service oftenbiases the perception measurement and manage-ment of the environmental structure and function(Figure 4) In this way many ecosystem serviceassessments are guided by a narrow overly technicaland systematically biased agenda and can thus easilybe misused to promote the interests of a select groupof people

Interventions for pluralistic ecosystem service

assessments

Since the idea of ecosystem services is by definition ahuman-centric concept many have argued that theprocess of assessing them in any given locationshould begin with the people actually receiving thebenefits and with an in-depth understanding of theirperceptions and values (Cowling et al 2008 Turneret al 2008 Carpenter et al 2009 Maynard Jamesand Davidson 2010 Nahlik et al 2012 Pascua et al2017) Chan Satterfield and Goldstein (2012) build aframework for engagement and provide an extensivelist of methods that can be used to involve the publicin ecosystem service evaluation There are scientistswho propose that ecosystem service assessmentsbegin with a focus on cultural services in particularsince these services are at the epicenter of human andenvironment relationships (Asah Blahna and Ryan2012 Goacutemez-Baggethun et al 2013 Milcu et al 2013Plieninger et al 2013 Asah et al 2014 Pascua et al2017) however cultural-based assessments usuallydo not make their way into decision-making (Daniel

Figure 4 Current State of Ecosystem Service Assessments The values of a select group of people (left) are the basis for mostecosystem service assessments and these results lead to the biased measurement management and use of the environment(top) For this reason the focus then continues to be on the purveyance of only a few ecosystem services that are visible to aminority of people (purple box) while many actual services and benefits remain invisible (blue box)

et al 2012 Milcu et al 2013 Pascua et al 2017) Forthis reason Scholte Van Teeffelen and Verburg(2015) suggest that when engaging with stakeholdersthe discussion on services should not necessarily belimited to cultural ecosystem services alone insteadit should address a broad suite of socio-culturalvalues that can be linked to a variety of ecosystemservices

When an assessment process begins with survey-ing the local perceptions and values of the peoplewho will be affected by the planning and policiesthat result from the assessments the measurementand management of the local environment will bebetter focused (ie the upper arrow in Figure 4)(Turner et al 2008 Chan Satterfield andGoldstein 2012 Pascua et al 2017 Pascual et al2017) Therefore with this new starting point wepropose more services will be visibly perceived andreceived by a variety of different stakeholders (iethe box representing perceived and received valuesin Figure 4)

The importance of directly addressing percep-tions of landscapes the services they provide andhow those services are differentially valued is speci-fically addressed by Scholte Van Teeffelen andVerburg (2015) who provide an overview of theavailable literature on perceptions research (egZube Sell and Taylor 1982 Ulrich 1986 Nassauer1995 Daniel 2001 Tveit Ode and Fry 2006 Bell2012) An important part of this process is an opendiscussion of conflicts and synergies in perceptionsand values between stakeholders including scientistsand policy makers In fact participatory governancecollaborative planning and decision-making basedon coproduction of knowledge has been shown toresult in novel interventions and long-term engage-ment of a variety of participants in achieving sus-tainable solutions to natural resources challenges(Turner et al 2008 Bunse Rendon and Luque2015 Reyers et al 2015)

Overall because the connections and tradeoffsamong benefits values and ecosystem services arecomplex pluralistic approaches are well supportedby the literature (Norton and Noonan 2007 Kumarand Kumar 2008 Spangenberg and Settele 2010Chan Satterfield and Goldstein 2012) nonethelesseven when these approaches are embraced there isstill difficulty in linking ecosystem service to specificlandscape characteristics (Scholte Van Teeffelenand Verburg 2015) This is where the field ofurban ecology and its focus on accounting for het-erogeneity can provide some valuable insights into arevised process for evaluating ecosystem servicesWe contend that a refined concept of heterogeneityone that takes into account the nuances of scaletime and complex interactions among differentscales and times will be necessary (eg Andersson

et al 2015 Pickett et al 2017) For example urbanecologists have long known that capturing environ-mental variability at a 30-meter resolution oftenavailable from satellite imagery is inadequate It isnot possible to measure biophysical heterogeneitylet alone social-ecological heterogeneity in human-dominated systems at these low resolutions(Cadenasso Pickett and Schwarz 2007) Yet ecosys-tem service assessments have often begun with ana-lyses of the biophysical landscape using such coarsescales and low resolutions (Burkhard et al 2012Zhao and Sander 2015) including the analysis pre-sented in the most often cited ecosystem servicespaper (ie Costanza et al 1997)

Coarse-scale and coarse-resolution ecosystem ser-vice assessments are useful for a ldquobig picturerdquo view ofthe concept and for raising awareness (Costanzaet al 2014) but this is not a useful approach forassessing and then managing ecosystem servicesthat are being provided by particular social-ecologicallandscapes (Costanza et al 2017) Furthermore thesecoarse-scale and resolution assessments of services inurban and other human-dominated landscapes oftenlead to the conclusion that no services are beingprovided at all even though these are the very placeswhere people regularly and routinely interact with theenvironment and thus receive a multitude of benefits(ie Cimon-Morin Darveau and Poulin 2013)Finally as we have demonstrated in the BLM casestudy the use of these kinds of partial assessments ofecosystem services for planning and policy in theGlobal Southmdashwhere a majority of urbanization isoccurring todaymdashfurther entrench historic systemsof oppression exacerbating current social and envir-onmental injustices (Simone 2004)

Finally we propose that ecosystem service assess-ments not only begin by accounting for socio-culturalperceptions and values of stakeholders but that theseassessments also frame the ecological analysis and inan iterative way An iterative procedure where resultsare presented back to the stakeholders will facilitate aprocess where perceptions and values of actual bene-fits are continually reassessed (following the lowerloop in Figure 4) This process will capture a widerarray of community values in ecosystem serviceassessments and therefore should lead to a placewhere stakeholdersrsquo knowledge is incorporated intomanagement and planning We call this new modelthe ldquodemocratizationrdquo of ecosystem services becausethe ldquobenefits before functionsrdquo approach focuses ongiving a voice to stakeholders about their perceptionsand values regarding the ecosystem services theyderive from their immediate environment

In this model the definition of ldquostakeholdersrdquo isimportant We place particular emphasis on thosewho live in and are part of the social-ecological sys-tem being assessed Identifying and capturing place-

based perspectives from the broader community isessential to effective long-term natural resource man-agement (Turner et al 2008 Chan Satterfield andGoldstein 2012 Pascua et al 2017)

We are not suggesting that everyone will perceiveor value the same services as that will likely never bethe case Instead we are suggesting that all of theparticipants will have an opportunity to provideknowledge about benefits In this way various groupsof stakeholders can at least be made aware of thevalues of others decreasing invisibility and increasingtransparency in decision making (Turner et al 2008Davies et al 2015) This should lead to a broaderacknowledgement that some benefits are importantto some peoplemdasheven if those people do not perceivethemselves receiving those benefits

In this process of colearning (ie Berkes 2009Davies et al 2015) recognizing multiple and attimes conflicting values and perceptions provides aplatform for the later discussion of tradeoffs in eco-system services planning Any planning and manage-ment of the environment that is based on such ademocratized assessment should lead to the purvey-ance of more net benefits to local communities(Turner et al 2008 Plieninger et al 2013 Reyerset al 2015) Finally this inclusive process will feedback and influence the measurement managementand use of ecosystem services and thus contribute tohealthier ecosystems and the enhanced well-being ofthe communities that depend on them (Figure 4) Inthe following text we detail the specific stepsinvolved in a democratized approach to ecosystemservice assessments

Steps for operationalizing a democratized

approach to ecosystem service assessments

The case for democratizing ecosystem services isessentially a synthesis of many perspectives and lit-eratures (eg Turner et al 2008 Berkes 2009Carpenter et al 2009 Chan Satterfield andGoldstein 2012 Nahlik et al 2012 Reyers et al2015 Bunse Rendon and Luque 2015 Scholte VanTeeffelen and Verburg 2015 Pascua et al 2017) Wesuspect that scientists working on evaluation of eco-system services may be interested in an interdisciplin-ary and inclusive approach and there is every reasonthat a pluralistic worldview should advance in the-ory science and practice In reality however opera-tionalizing the framework may be more challengingthan it first seems In order to ease these challengeswe provide a roadmap of the stages necessary to thedevelopment of a more democratized approach toecosystem service assessments

Stage 1mdasha wholistic assessment of values

As stated earlier a democratized approach forassessing ecosystem services starts by evaluatingthe perceptions and values of people living in thelandscape the human system capturing a broadpicture of knowledge and interests In this phaseit should be acknowledged that neither biophysicalnor social scientists can be presumed to be neutralparticipants Working on the question of bias iscentral to this process of engagement because pre-vious studies on ldquostakeholder processesrdquo havestrongly recommended that a neutral party leadthese kinds of activities (Cooper et al 2016)Although achieving neutrality may be challengingin some circumstances inclusiveness in the initialengagement process should also help move towardreducing biases (Reed 2008) There are also frame-works for achieving neutrality that depend onincorporating the humanities and the arts (Cooperet al 2016 Edwards Collins and Goto 2016) Forinstance Kester (2004) describes how art can beused to create an open and accepting space forquestions that are usually not tolerated in therealm of science-based decision-making

Regardless of the method used any framework forachieving inclusivity and neutrality should ensure thatall participants have a chance to describe their under-standing of the system and everyone can then workjointly to reveal values underlying each understandingSome participants may feel intimidated or alienated bythe involvement of scientific expertise (Reed 2008)whereas other participants may be suspicious of indi-genous and local knowledge However diverse stake-holders often share core values that can help easeconflicts in perceptions and preferred knowledge bases(Shirk et al 2012 Haywood and Besley 2014) and thesechallenges can potentially be overcome by bridging andother deliberative methodologies that have been devel-oped to engage citizens in decision making processes(Cowling et al 2008 Turner et al 2008 Bunse Rendonand Luque 2015 Pascual et al 2017)

Research on deliberative methodologies is gainingmomentum and provides some insights on how toovercome the challenges of inclusive governance(Abelson et al 2003 Spash 2007 Kenter et al 2011Christie et al 2012 Shirk et al 2012 Haywood andBesley 2014 Pascual et al 2017) Although none ofthese methodologies are problem free one criticalaspect of this democratized process for ecosystemassessments can be the implementation and study ofmultiple deliberative methodologies This kind ofhonest and repetitive ldquoself-evaluationrdquo will advancethe theoretical science as well as increase the value ofthe assessment outcomes

In these initial phases of engagement it is impor-tant to determine the scales at which the ecosystemservice assessments should be approached Not every-one ldquoseesrdquo a landscape the same way (Johnson et al2004 Buijs Elands and Langers 2009) Some willthink about broad-scale social or ecological processeswhile others will be very focused on the parts of thelandscape with which they directly interact and thatinfluence them or their household Similarly differ-ent individuals and groups will have differing bound-aries of concern For example if a main interest is thelong-term acquisition of clean water the boundariesthat influence values and perceptions would likelybest align with watersheds while local governmentofficials maybe be more interested in influencing thehealth and wellbeing of their constituency so theirboundaries of concern would likely follow existingpolitical boundaries

Furthermore although land use and land covermaps can play a major role in the engagement pro-cess like they have in participatory mapping exercises(eg Raymond et al 2009 Sherrouse Clement andSemmens 2011 Plieninger et al 2013) overdepen-dence on these could alienate some participantsSuch formal maps embody many conventions andassumptions Hence they are not necessarily repre-sentations of reality for every person The scale reso-lution or boundaries represented in any particularmap could quickly become a sensitive issue amongpeople with diverging interests (Kitchen and Blades2002 Lewis and Sheppard 2006) This is especially aconcern if participants are not experienced with read-ing these kinds of maps Something as simple as

esthetic decisions by the map maker regarding colorchoice or complexity level may keep even the mostexperienced spatial analyst from interpreting a mapeffectively An engagement process that includesmap-interpreting exercises along with other partici-patory methods that enable stakeholders to discoverand express the relevant spatial extent for their ownperceptions and values would serve as a foundationalstep in ecological and social value assessments

Stage 2mdashintegrate human and natural systems

The values identified in Stage 1 will guide the searchfor data at the proper resolution needed to compre-hensively represent the social-ecological system(Figure 5) In many cases useful datasets will alreadyexist but on other occasions some creative investiga-tion will reveal new sources of data and knowledgeFor instance it is often assumed that national-scaledatasets such as census offer the highest resolutioninformation available on demographics but localgovernment agencies may have even more detaileddata at the household or parcel scale

Information from stakeholders on how they valueenvironmental and social uses may also help biophy-sical scientists improve the ways in which they iden-tify and quantify landscape heterogeneity and criticalecosystem functions (Ritzema et al 2010 Fagerholmet al 2012) Land use and land cover data will play animportant role in the quantification of structure andfunction (De Groot et al 2010) but not in the sameways that these data have been applied in ecosystemservice assessments to date Frequently land uses are

Figure 5 Operationalizing a Pluralistic Ecosystem Services Frameworkmdasha democratized approach for assessing ecosystemservices starts by evaluating the perceptions and values of people living in the landscape the human system capturing a broadscope of knowledge and interests Input from a broader community will produce some different and unexpected outcomesSimilar to strategic adaptive management subsequent analyses on the outcomes and feedbacks are necessary

assumed to uniformly provide predetermined bene-fits However our knowledge of peoplersquos perceptionsand values may reveal that particular land cover typeshave a variety of previously unknown and unexpectedbenefits depending on where they are located in aheterogeneous landscape (Stephenson 2008) Forexample trees in peoplersquos yards may be valued dif-ferently than trees in parks or other common areas(Dwyer Schroeder and Gobster 1991 Boone et al2010) Using this alternative approach familiar landuse categories become a modifier of the valuesattached to particular environmental attributesrather than a true indicator of received benefits Inother words not all trees or other features of a systemprovide the same services rather the services arecontextmdashdetailed land usemdashdependent Similarlynot all instances of a land use class will provide thesame uniform service This complexity suggests shift-ing to a view of actual land covers in place of landuse with the assumed benefits in a democratizedecosystem service assessment

This shift to using land cover data rather than landuse data in democratized ecosystem service assess-ments has important advantages High-resolutionland cover data better aligns with values and percep-tions of environmental benefits including at the scaleof individual parcels or even individual trees(Cadenasso Pickett and Schwarz 2007) This enablesus to capture values and benefits at spatial scales thatare relevant to the people living in and using thelandscape Notably these high resolution data canalways be aggregated to coarser scales if necessarymdashfor example to capture larger-scale processes andtheir potential benefits Finally iterative engagementwith stakeholder beneficiaries will better inform theprocess of identifying and mapping the fine scalesources of ecosystem services (Sherrouse Clementand Semmens 2011 Fagerholm et al 2012 Palacios-Agundez et al 2014) Thus genuine investment bystakeholder participants is enabled when they see thattheir ideas opinions concerns and places are beingaddressed and incorporated directly into the processof ecosystem service assessment

Stage 3mdashcreate multidimensional ecosystem

service assessments

While this democratized approach may producesome standard spatial outcomes that are familiar toecologists we posit that input from a broader com-munity will also produce some different and unex-pected outcomes (Figure 5) For instance oneproduct might be a series of maps that draw attentionto the location of certain ecosystem services enablinga more representative quantification of benefits andvalues Such maps are likely to look significantlydifferent from ecosystem service maps developed by

only one type of input and expertise This may espe-cially be the case in circumstances where the range ofbeneficiaries are subject to cultural norms that do notembrace spatial representations of information com-mon to landscape ecologists and natural resourcemanagers A potentially innovative outcome wouldbe one that takes into account different perspectivesand leads to new forms of visualization not yet uti-lized in ecosystem service analyses or in the planningand policy sphere Case-studies utilizing participatorymethodologies have shown how the co-production ofknowledge leads to the development of novel scenar-ios and evaluation of their environmental effects thatwould not have been addressed otherwise and estab-lishes new long-term collaborations to address social-ecological challenges (Reyers et al 2015) In fact theidea that the process may produce many different andunanticipated outcomes is a hypothesis worth testingby carefully documenting the steps of the democra-tized process and all of its outcomes

Stage 4mdash assess outcomes and feedbacks using

strategic adaptive management

Decisions are not discrete events and are a functionof procedures habits and norms (Cowling et al2008 Simon 1997) A discourse that addresses histor-ical foundations and institutional processes that influ-ence decision-making is currently missing from theliterature on ecosystem services (Cooper et al 2016)Yet our ultimate goal is more informed decision-making that leads to a progressively sophisticatedmanagement of social-ecological systems The goalis that a democratized approach for ecosystem serviceassessments will lead to increased integrity of ecosys-tems and a larger number of people receiving morebenefits from the environment however these antici-pated outcomes should be evaluated Communityassessments of successes and failures will allow allstakeholders involved to document any unexpectedfeedbacks (Figure 5) We need to fully understandwhether the process has led to an increased awarenessof ecosystem services has identified those servicesthat remain stubbornly unquantifiable or invisibleand has led to design and management decisionsthat have resulted in improved ecosystem functionand integrity

Engagement in a colearning process often leads toadaptive management where new learning is valuedand incorporated into future management strategies(Berkes 2009 Reyers et al 2015) In fact utilizingongoing assessments of social-ecological systems toreform management strategies over time has alsobeen fundamental to the SAM approach (Rogersand Biggs 1999 Biggs and Rogers 2003 Roux andFoxcroft 2011) This ldquolearning by-doing philosophyrdquooriginally developed by Holling (1978) was adapted

by scientists and managers working in South AfricanNational Parks and is receiving increased interna-tional attention (Freitag Biggs and Breen 2014)The SAM process is predicated on the fact that themanagement of natural resources is imperfect andecosystems are complex it acknowledges an immedi-ate need for action and is based on a strategy whereall the players are committed to a process of experi-ential learning (Freitag Biggs and Breen 2014) Weargue that democratizing the process of ecosystemservice assessments is effectively a SAM-like evolu-tion a strategy where colearning and adaptive man-agement merge to become adaptive comanagement(Berkes 2009)

Discussion implementing the

democratization of ecosystem services

framework in BLM

What if a democratized ecosystem services frame-work was implemented in BLM before such impor-tant land use and management decisions were madeWe have ample evidence that there are many moreareas in the BLM that provide numerous and impor-tant ecosystem services to local people (Twine et al2003 Shackleton and Shackleton 2004 Shackletonet al 2007 Twine 2013) For instance the communallands denoted as ldquootherrdquo (Figure 2) are used to grazelivestock and provide a wide range of wild foodsfuelwood medicinal plants as well as culturallyimportant benefits such as burial recreation andmale initiation sites Large trees such as the marulaare protected and nurtured in yards and fieldsbecause they provide fruit that is eaten or used tomake beer and shade under which family membersgather in the heat of the day

Furthermore despite being substantially modi-fied by human use and management communallands continue to yield classic ecosystem servicessuch as carbon sequestration and soil protection(Kakembo and Rowntree 2003 Egoh et al 2008)and habitat and food for a range of animal speciesincluding pollinators (Hulme and Murphree 1999Shackleton 2000) Yet the land use and corridormaps as part of the BLM master plan classifythese developed areas as ldquodegradedrdquo (Figure 2)This assumption continues to be reinforced byclaims that people may be overharvesting biomassin communal areas (Banks et al 1996 Wessels et al2013) In several studies in fact humans are oftencompared to local elephants and are considered tobe contributing to widespread degradation of eco-systems (Mograbi et al 2017) Research does notnecessarily support the idea that humans are con-tributing to an overall decrease in available biomass(Mograbi et al 2015) Twine and Holdo (2016)demonstrate that prolific coppicing (resprouting)

by savanna trees that are cut for fuelwood maycompensate for the wood removed providing anexplanation for why the anticipated ldquofuelwood cri-sisrdquo and total denudation predicted to occur in suchareas has seldom materialized

In reality while local communities might harvestwood on the communal lands there is evidence thatwithin their villages they can contribute to plantingand maintaining significant forest cover (PaumgartenShackleton and Cocks 2005 Shackleton et al 2007)We hypothesize that with increasing urbanizationlocal communities might become more dependenton their local residential homesteads to support theirlivelihoods (Anthony and Bellinger 2007) Focusingon residential management practices could thereforelead to increased biodiversity in the region KrugerNational Park scientists and managers are trying insome ways to fill this void distributing highly valuedand threatened tree species such as pepper bark(Warburgia salutaris) to communities so local peoplecan contribute to the maintenance of diversity in thearea (Swemmer et al 2014) Otherwise ignoring thevalue added by humans in some landscapes is amissed opportunity for supporting management prac-tices that really are a win-win for people and nature

Future development plans should integratehuman-valued land uses and ecosystem services intoplans for conservation and growth management Thepotential feedbacks of the democratized approach toecosystem services are only speculative at this pointhowever one can imagine how this process mightlead to changes in perceptions and behaviors thatare good for people and the environmentIncreasing investment in the local health and well-being of these communities and the places where theylive could empower people which would be a wel-comed change for a region currently considered apoverty node Perhaps this approach would relievepressure on corridor lands dedicated to wildlife man-agement and ecotourism as peoplersquos quality of lifeincreases over time We acknowledge too that therecould be some unintended negative consequences toimplementing this approach (Agarwal 2001Mikalsen Hernes and Jentoft 2007 Berkes 2009)For example there are many arguments that suggestinclusivity is too time consuming and does not pro-vide enough benefits (Olsson et al 2006 Roux et al2006) These are all hypotheses worth testing whileimplementing the democratization of ecosystem ser-vices framework

Conclusion

A democratized approach to ecosystem serviceassessments is a reimagined path to rescuing apoorly implemented concept and designing andmanaging future social-ecological systems that

benefit people and support ecosystem integrity Itgives a voice to local people to express the multipleoften invisible values and benefits that they receivefrom their environment in a way that challenges thevery power asymmetries that so often characterizeecosystem assessments conducted by experts aloneAn iterative process of ecosystem service assess-ments where the human values inform measure-ment and evaluation of ecosystem structure andfunction and vice versa is needed to guide plan-ning and management of natural resources andaddress tradeoffs and synergies among a multitudeof benefits and costs during the decision-makingprocess Assessments must take into accountsocial-environmental heterogeneity and not ignorethe places where people live as that may be theexact location of where they perceive and receivethe most benefits We outline one path of operatio-nalizing this process but do not deny there arelikely many other ways to work toward democrati-zation of ecosystem services Implementing SAMwhere the effects of decision-making on peopleand environment continue to be evaluated andrevised over time will ensure a democratized pro-cess for evaluating ecosystem services provides themost benefits to people over the long-termAlthough many scientists have called for includingecosystem services in the planning and policyrealm we believe that it is the responsibility ofscientists who do ecosystem services research toembrace complex pluralistic frameworks like thisone so sound and inclusive scientific information isutilized to make management decisions

Acknowledgments

The University of the Witwatersrand The WitsKnowledge Hub for Rural Development and NorthCarolina State University funded a workshop at WitsRural Research Facility where the concept of democra-tizing ecosystem services was formulated The Kruger toCanyons Biosphere Reserve and South African NationalParks have been valuable partners for our work on theground in South Africa Bushbuckridgersquos community andplanning office has given us valuable insights into thesocio-demographics of the region as well as importantGIS layers for our analyses STAP and DLC are eachgrateful for a Fulbright Specialist Grant (6330 2090520822) and for hospitality shown by DNB and thefaculty and staff of the University of theWitwatersrandrsquos Rural Facility This material is basedupon work supported by the National ScienceFoundation under Grant No RCN 1140070

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Funding

This work was supported by The National ScienceFoundation USA [No RCN 1140070] FulbrightSpecialist Grant [208226330 20905]

References

Abelson J P-G Forest J Eyles P Smith E Martin andF-P Gauvin 2003 ldquoDeliberations about DeliberativeMethods Issues in the Design and Evaluation of PublicParticipation Processesrdquo Social Science amp Medicine 57239ndash251 doi101016S0277-9536(02)00343-X

Agarwal B 2001 ldquoParticipatory Exclusions CommunityForestry and Gender An Analysis for South Asia anda Conceptual Frameworkrdquo World Development 291623ndash1648 doi101016S0305-750X(01)00066-3

Andersson E T McPhearson P Kremer E Gomez-Baggethun D Haase M Tuvendal and D Wurster2015 ldquoScale and Context Dependence of EcosystemService Providing Unitsrdquo Ecosystem Services 12 157ndash164 doi101016jecoser201408001

Angel S J Parent D L Civco A Blei and D Potere 2011ldquoThe Dimensions of Global Urban Expansion Estimatesand Projections for All Countries 2000ndash2050rdquo Progress inPlanning 75 53ndash107 doi101016jprogress201104001

Anker P 2009 Imperial Ecology Environmental Order inthe British Empire 1895ndash1945 Cambridge MA HarvardUniversity Press

Anthony B P and E G Bellinger 2007 ldquoImportanceValue of Landscapes Flora and Fauna to TsongaCommunities in the Rural Areas of LimpopoProvince South Africardquo South African Journal ofScience 103 (3ndash4) 148ndash154

Asah S T D J Blahna and C M Ryan 2012 ldquoInvolvingForest Communities in Identifying and ConstructingEcosystem Services Millennium Assessment and PlaceSpecificityrdquo Journal of Forestry 110 (3) 149ndash156doi105849jof11-054

Asah S T A D Guerry D J Blahna and J J Lawler 2014ldquoPerception Acquisition and Use of Ecosystem ServicesHuman Behavior and Ecosystem Management and PolicyImplicationsrdquo Ecosystem Services 10 180ndash186 doi101016jecoser201408003

Bagstad K J F Villa D Batker J Harrison-Cox B Voigtand G W Johnson 2014 ldquoFrom Theoretical to ActualEcosystem Services Mapping Beneficiaries and SpatialFlows in Ecosystem Service Assessmentsrdquo Ecology andSociety 19 (2) 64 doi105751ES-06523-190264

Bailey S 2007 ldquoIncreasing Connectivity in FragmentedLandscapes An Investigation of Evidence for BiodiversityGain in Woodlandsrdquo Forest Ecology and Management 238(1ndash3) 7ndash23 doi101016jforeco200609049

Banks D I N J Griffin C M Shackleton S E Shackletonand J M Mavrandonis 1996 ldquoWood Supply and Demandaround Two Rural Settlements in a Semi-Arid SavannaSouth Africardquo Biomass and Bioenergy 11 319ndash331doi1010160961-9534(96)00031-1

Bell S 2012 Landscape Pattern Perception and Process348 London and New York Taylor and Francis

Bennett A F 1999 Linkages in the Landscape The Role ofCorridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation 254Switzerland and Cambridge UK Iucn Gland

Berkes F 2009 ldquoEvolution of Co-Management Role ofKnowledge Generation Bridging Organizations and

Social Learningrdquo Journal of Environmental Management90 (5) 1692ndash1702 doi101016jjenvman200812001

Biggs H C and K H Rogers 2003 ldquoAn Adaptive Systemto Link Science Monitoring and Management inPracticerdquo In The Kruger Experience Ecology and theManagement of Savanna Heterogeneity edited by J TDu Toit K H Rogers and H C Biggs WashingtonIsland Press

Boone C G M L Cadenasso J M Grove K Schwarz andG L Buckley 2010 ldquoLandscape Vegetation Characteristicsand Group Identity in an Urban and Suburban WatershedWhy the 60s Matterrdquo Urban Ecosystems 13 (3) 255ndash271doi101007s11252-009-0118-7

Braat L and R de Groot 2012 ldquoThe Ecosystem ServicesAgenda Bridging the Worlds of Natural Science andEconomics Conservation and Development and Publicand Private Policyrdquo Ecosystem Services 1 4ndash15doi101016jecoser201207011

Brose U and H Hillebrand 2016 ldquoBiodiversity andEcosystem Functioning in Dynamic LandscapesrdquoPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society BBiological Sciences 371 1694 doi101098rstb20150267

Buijs A E B H M Elands and F Langers 2009 ldquoNoWilderness for Immigrants Cultural Differences inImages of Nature and Landscape Preferencesrdquo Landscapeand Urban Planning 91 (3) 113ndash123 doi101016jlandurbplan200812003

Bunse L O Rendon and S Luque 2015 ldquoWhat CanDeliberative Approaches Bring to the Monetary Valuationof Ecosystem Services A Literature Reviewrdquo EcosystemServices 14 88ndash97 doi101016jecoser201505004

Burkhard B F Kroll S Nedkov and F Muumlller 2012ldquoMapping Ecosystem Service Supply Demand andBudgetsrdquo Ecological Indicators 21 17ndash29 doi101016jecolind201106019

Burkhard B A Muumlller F Muumlller V Grescho Q Anh GArida J V ( Bustamante et al 2015 ldquoLand Cover-Based Ecosystem Service Assessment of Irrigated RiceCropping Systems in Southeast Asia ndash An ExplorativeStudyrdquo Ecosystem Services 14 76ndash87 doi101016jecoser201505005

Bushbuckridge Local Municipality 2016 Final IntegratedDevelopment Plan Retrieved From httpbushbuckridgegovzawp-contentuploads201606FINAL20IDP20BLM202016-17-1pdf

Cadenasso M L S T A Pickett and K Schwarz 2007ldquoSpatial Heterogeneity in Urban EcosystemsReconceptualizing Land Cover and a Framework forClassificationrdquo Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment5 (2) 80ndash88 doi1018901540-9295(2007)5[80SHIUER]20CO2

Carpenter S R H A Mooney J Agard D Capistrano RS DeFries S Diaz T Dietz et al 2009 ldquoScience forManaging Ecosystem Services Beyond the MillenniumEcosystem Assessmentrdquo Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 106 (5) 1305ndash1312 doi101073pnas0808772106

Chan K M A T Satterfield and J Goldstein 2012ldquoRethinking Ecosystem Services to Better Address andNavigate Cultural Valuesrdquo Ecological Economics 74 8ndash18 doi101016jecolecon201111011

Child B and G Barnes 2010 ldquoThe Conceptual Evolutionand Practice of Community-Based Natural ResourceManagement in Southern Africa Past Present andFuturerdquo Environmental Conservation 37 (3) 283ndash295doi101017S0376892910000512

Christie M I Fazey R Cooper T Hyde and J O Kenter2012 ldquoAn Evaluation of Monetary and Non-MonetaryTechniques for Assessing the Importance of Biodiversityand Eco- System Services to People in Countries withDeveloping Economiesrdquo Ecological Economics 83 67ndash78doi101016jecolecon201208012

Cimon-Morin J M Darveau and M Poulin 2013ldquoFostering Synergies between Ecosystem Services andBiodiversity in Conservation Planning A ReviewrdquoBiological Conservation 166 144ndash154 doi101016jbiocon201306023

Cooper N E Brady H Steen and R Bryce 2016ldquoAesthetic and Spiritual Values of EcosystemsRecognising the Ontological and Axiological Pluralityof Cultural Ecosystem lsquoServicesrsquordquo Ecosystem Services 21218ndash229 doi101016jecoser201607014

Costanza R R drsquoArge R de Groot S Farber M GrassoB Hannon K Limburg et al 1997 ldquoThe Value of theWorldrsquos Ecosystem Services and Natural CapitalrdquoNature 387 253ndash260 doi101038387253a0

Costanza R R de Groot L Braat I Kubiszewski LFioramonti P Sutton S Farber and M Grasso 2017ldquoTwenty Years of Ecosystem Services How Far Have WeCome and How Far Do We Still Need to Gordquo EcosystemServices 28 (A) 1ndash16 doi101016jecoser201709008

Costanza R R de Groot P Sutton S van Der Ploeg S JAnderson I Kubiszewski S Farber and R K Turner2014 ldquoChanges in the Global Value of EcosystemServicesrdquo Global Environmental Change 26 (1) 152ndash158 doi101016jgloenvcha201404002

Cousins B 1999 ldquoInvisible Capital The Contribution ofCommunal Rangelands to Rural Livelihoods in SouthAfricardquo Development Southern Africa 16 (2) 299ndash318doi10108003768359908440079

Cowling R M B Egoh A T Knight P J OrsquoFarrell B ReyersM Rouget D J Roux A Welz and A Wilhelm-Rechman2008 ldquoAnOperationalModel forMainstreaming EcosystemServices for Implementationrdquo Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 105 (28) 9483ndash9488 doi101073pnas0706559105

Daily G C 1997 Naturersquos Services Societal Dependence onNatural Ecosystems Washington DC Island Press

Daily G C S Polasky J Goldstein P M Kareiva H AMooney L Pejchar T H Ricketts J Salzman and RShallenberger 2009 ldquoEcosystem Services in DecisionMaking Time to Deliverrdquo Frontiers in Ecology and theEnvironment 7 (1) 21ndash28 doi101890080025

Damschen E I N M Haddad J L Orrock J JTewsbury and D J Levey 2006 ldquoCorridors IncreasePlant Species Richness at Large Scalesrdquo Science 3131284ndash1286 doi101126science1130098

Daniel T C 2001 ldquoWhither Scenic Beauty VisualLandscape Quality Assessment in the 21st CenturyrdquoLandscape and Urban Planning 54 267ndash281doi101016S0169-2046(01)00141-4

Daniel T C A Muhar A Arnberger O Aznar J W BoydK M A Chan R Costanza et al 2012 ldquoContributions ofCultural Services to the Ecosystem Services AgendardquoProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (23)8812ndash8819 doi101073pnas1114773109

Davies K K K T Fisher M E Dickson S F Thrush andR Le Heron 2015 ldquoImproving Ecosystem ServiceFrameworks to Address Wicked Problemsrdquo Ecologyand Society 20 (2) 37 doi105751ES-07581-200237

De Groot R S R Alkemade L Braat L Hein and LWillemen 2010 ldquoChallenges in Integrating the Concept

of Ecosystem Services and Values in LandscapePlanning Management and Decision MakingrdquoEcological Complexity 7 (3) 260ndash272 doi101016jecocom200910006

Dwyer J F H W Schroeder and P H Gobster 1991ldquoThe Significance of Urban Trees and Forests Toward aDeeper Understanding of Valuesrdquo Journal ofArboriculture 17 (10) 276ndash284

Edwards D M T M Collins and R Goto 2016 ldquoAnArts-Led Dialogue to Elicit Shared Plural and CulturalValues of Ecosystemsrdquo Ecosystem Services 21 319ndash328doi101016jecoser201609018

Egoh B B Reyers M Rouget D M Richardson D C LeMaitre and A S van Jaarsveld 2008 ldquoMappingEcosystem Services for Planning and ManagementAgriculturerdquo Ecosystems amp Environment 127 (1ndash2)135ndash140 doi101016jagee200803013

Fagerholm N N Kaumlyhkouml F Ndumbaro and M Khamis2012 ldquoCommunity Stakeholdersrsquo Knowledge in LandscapeAssessments ndash Mapping Indicators for LandscapeServicesrdquo Ecological Indicators 18 421ndash433 doi101016jecolind201112004

Fisher B R K Turner and P Morling 2009 ldquoDefiningand Classifying Ecosystem Services for DecisionMakingrdquo Ecological Economics 68 (3) 643ndash653doi101016jecolecon200809014

Fisher J A G Patenaude K Giri K Lewis P Meir PPinho M D A Rounsevell and M Williams 2014ldquoUnderstanding the Relationships between EcosystemServices and Poverty Alleviation A ConceptualFrameworkrdquo Ecosystem Services 7 34ndash45 doi101016jecoser201308002

Freitag S H Biggs and C Breen 2014 ldquoThe Spread andMaturation of Strategic Adaptive Management withinand beyond South African National Parksrdquo Ecologyand Society 19 (3) 25 doi105751ES-06338-190325

Gaston K J M L Avila-Jimenez and J L Edmondson2013 ldquoManaging Urban Ecosystems for Goods andServicesrdquo Journal of Applied Ecology 50 (4) 830ndash840doi1011111365-266412087

Goacutemez-Baggethun E Aring Gren D N Barton JLangemeyer T McPhearson P OrsquoFarrell EAndersson Z Hamstead and P Kremer 2013 ldquoUrbanEcosystem Servicesrdquo In Urbanization Biodiversity andEcosystem Services Challenges and Opportunities editedby T Elmqvist M Fragkias J Goodness B Guumlneralp PJ Marcotullio R I McDonald S Parnell et alDordrecht Springer

Gould R K S C Klain N M Ardoin T Satterfield UWoodside N Hannahs G C Daily and KM Chan 2014ldquoA Protocol for Eliciting Nonmaterial Values through ACultural Ecosystem Services Framerdquo Conservation Biology29 (2) 575ndash586 doi101111cobi12407

Hackel J D 1999 ldquoCommunity Conservation and theFuture of Africarsquos Wildliferdquo Conservation Biology 13(4) 726ndash734 doi101046j1523-1739199998210x

Haywood B K and J C Besley 2014 ldquoEducationOutreach and Inclusive Engagement TowardsIntegrated Indicators of Successful Program Outcomesin Participatory Sciencerdquo Public Understanding ofScience 23 (1) 92ndash106 doi1011770963662513494560

Hernaacutendez-Morcillo M T Plieninger and C Bieling2013 ldquoAn Empirical Review of Cultural EcosystemService Indicatorsrdquo Ecological Indicators 29 434ndash444doi101016jecolind201301013

Holling C S 1978 Adaptive Environmental Assessmentand Management Wiley IIASA International Series on

Applied Systems Analysis 3 New York New York JohnWiley amp Sons

Hulme D and M Murphree 1999 ldquoCommunitiesWildlife and the lsquoNew Conservationrsquo in Africardquo Journalof International Development 11 (2) 277 doi101002(SICI)1099-1328(19990304)112lt277AID-JID582gt30CO2-T

Hulme D and M Murphree 2001 African Wildlife andLivelihoods The Promise and Performance of CommunityConservation Oxford England James Curry

Johnson C Y J M Bowker J C Bergstrom and H KCordell 2004 ldquoWilderness Values in America DoesImmigrant Status or Ethnicity Matterrdquo Society ampNatural Resources 17 (7) 611ndash628 doi10108008941920490466585

Kakembo V and K M Rowntree 2003 ldquoThe Relationshipbetween Land Use and Soil Erosion in the CommunalLands near Peddie Townrdquo Eastern Cape South AfricaLand Degradation amp Development 14 (1) 32ndash49

Kenter J O T Hyde M Christie and I Fazey 2011 ldquoTheImportance of Deliberation in Valuing EcosystemServices in Developing CountriesmdashEvidence from theSolomon Islandsrdquo Global Environmental Change 21505ndash521 doi101016jgloenvcha201101001

Kenter J O N Jobstvogt V Watson K N Irvine MChristie and R Bryce 2016 ldquoThe Impact ofInformation Value-Deliberation and Group-BasedDecision-Making on Values for Ecosystem ServicesIntegrating Deliberative Monetary Valuation andStorytellingrdquo Ecosystem Services 21 270ndash290doi101016jecoser201606006

Kepe T 2008 ldquoLand Claims and Comanagement ofProtected Areas in South Africa Exploring theChallengesrdquo Environmental Management 41 (3) 311ndash321 doi101007s00267-007-9034-x

Kester G H 2004 Conversation Pieces Community +Communication in Modern Art Berkley Los AngelesLondon University of California Press 239 ISBN970ndash0ndash520ndash23839ndash8

Kirkland T L M Hunter and W Twine 2007 ldquoldquoTheBush Is No Morerdquo Insights on Institutional Changeand Natural Resource Availability in Rural SouthAfricardquo Society amp Natural Resources 20 (4) 337ndash350doi10108008941920601161353

Kitchen R and M Blades 2002 The Cognition ofGeographic Space London IB Tauris amp Co

Kumar M and P Kumar 2008 ldquoValuation of theEcosystem Services A Psycho-Cultural PerspectiverdquoEcological Economics 64 808ndash819 doi101016jecolecon200705008

Lele S O Springate-Baginski R Lakerveld D Deb and PDash 2013 ldquoEcosystem Services Origins ContributionsPitfalls and Alternativesrdquo Conservation and Society 11(4) 343ndash358 doi1041030972-4923125752

Lewis J L and S R J Sheppard 2006 ldquoCulture andCommunication Can Landscape Visualization ImproveForest Management Consultation with IndigenousCommunitiesrdquo Landscape and Urban Planning 77291ndash313 doi101016jlandurbplan200504004

Linkd Environmental 2013 Growing the WildlifeEconomy in Bushbuckridge Retrieved from httpwwwpostharvestinnovationorgzawp-contentuploads201504BBR-Master-Plan-2013pdf

Maestas J D R L Knight and W C Gilgert 2003ldquoBiodiversity across a Rural Land-Use GradientrdquoConservation Biology 17 (5) 1425ndash1434 doi101046j1523-1739200302371x

Maynard S D James and A Davidson 2010 ldquoTheDevelopment of an Ecosystem Services Framework forSouth East Queenslandrdquo Environmental Management 45(5) 881ndash895 doi101007s00267-010-9428-z

McHale M R D N Bunn S T A Pickett and W Twine2013 ldquoUrban Ecology in a Developing World WhyAdvanced Socioecological Theory Needs AfricardquoFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11 (10) 556ndash564 doi101890120157

Mikalsen K H H-K Hernes and S Jentoft 2007ldquoLeaning on User-Groups The Role of Civil Society inFisheries Governancerdquo Marine Policy 31 201ndash209doi101016jmarpol200607001

Milcu A I J Hanspach D Abson and J Fischer 2013ldquoCultural Ecosystem Services A Literature Review andProspects for Future Researchrdquo Ecology amp Society 18 (3)44ndash88 doi105751ES-05790-180344

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Ecosystemsand Human Well-Being Synthesis Washington DCIsland Press

Mograbi P J G P Asner E T F Witkowski B F NErasmus K J Wessels R Mathieu and N R Vaughn2017 ldquoHumans and Elephants as Treefall Drivers inAfrican Savannasrdquo Ecography 40 1274ndash1284 doi101111ecog2017v40i11

Mograbi P J B F N Erasmus E T F Witkowski G PAsner K J Wessels R Mathieu D E Knapp R EMartin R Main and B Boldgiv 2015 ldquoBiomassIncreases Go under Cover Woody VegetationDynamics in South African Rangelandsrdquo PLoS ONE 10(5) e0127903 doi101371journalpone0127093

Nahlik A M M E Kentula M S Fennessy and D HLanders 2012 ldquoWhere Is the Consensus A ProposedFoundation for Moving Ecosystem Service Conceptsinto Practicerdquo Ecological Economics 77 27ndash35doi101016jecolecon201201001

Nassauer J 1995 ldquoCulture and Changing LandscapeStructurerdquo Landscape Ecology 10 (4) 229ndash237doi101007BF00129257

Norton B G and D Noonan 2007 ldquoEcology andValuation Big Changes Neededrdquo Ecological Economics63 664ndash675 doi101016jecolecon200702013

Olsson P L Gunderson S Carpenter P Ryan L LebelC Folke and C S Holling 2006 ldquoShooting the RapidsNavigating Transitions to Adaptive Governance ofSocial-Ecological Systemsrdquo Ecology and Society 11 (1)18 doi105751ES-01595-110118

Palacios-Agundez I B F de Manuel G Rodriacuteguez-Loinaz L Pentildea I Ametzaga-Arregi J G Alday ICasado-Arzuaga I Madariaga X Arana and MOnaindia 2014 ldquoIntegrating Stakeholdersrsquo Demandsand Scientific Knowledge on Ecosystem Services inLandscape Planningrdquo Landscape Ecology 29 1423ndash1433 doi101007s10980-014-9994-1

Pascua P H McMillen T Ticktin M Vaughan and K BWinter 2017 Beyond Services A Process andFramework to Incorporate Cultural GenealogicalPlace-Based and Indigenous Relationships inEcosystem Service Assessments Ecosystem Services 26(17) 465ndash475

Pascual U P Balvanera S Diacuteaz G Pataki E Roth MStenseke R T Watson et al 2017 ldquoValuing NaturersquosContributions to People The IPBES Approachrdquo CurrentOpinion in Environmental Sustainability 26ndash27 7ndash16doi101016jcosust201612006

Paumgarten F C Shackleton and M Cocks 2005ldquoGrowing of Trees in Home-Gardens by RuralHouseholds in the Eastern Cape and LimpopoProvinces South Africardquo International Journal ofSustainable Development amp World Ecology 12 365ndash383doi10108013504500509469647

Pellegrini A F A R M Pringle N Govender L OHedin and D Wardle 2017 ldquoWoody Plant Biomassand Carbon Exchange Depend on Elephant-FireInteractions across a Productivity Gradient in AfricanSavannardquo J Ecol 105 111ndash121 doi1011111365-274512668

Peterson M J D M Hall A M Feldpausch-Parker andT R Peterson 2010 ldquoObscuring Ecosystem Functionwith Application of the Ecosystem Services ConceptrdquoConservation Biology 24 (1) 113ndash119 doi101111cbi201024issue-1

Pickett S T A M L Cadenasso E J Rosi-Marshall K TBelt P M Groffman J M Grove E G Irwin et al2017 ldquoDynamic Heterogeneity A Framework toPromote Ecological Integration and HypothesisGeneration in Urban Systemsrdquo Urban Ecosystems 20(1) 1ndash14 doi101007s11252-016-0574-9

Plieninger T S Dijks E Oteros-Rozas and C Bieling2013 ldquoAssessing Mapping and Quantifying CulturalEcosystem Services at Community Levelrdquo Land UsePolicy 33 118ndash129 doi101016jlandusepol201212013

Raymond C M B A Bryan D H MacDonald A CastS Strathearn A Grandgirard and T Kalivas 2009ldquoMapping Community Values for Natural Capital andEcosystem Servicesrdquo Ecological Economics 68 (5) 1301ndash1315 doi101016jecolecon200812006

Reed M S 2008 ldquoStakeholder Participation forEnvironmental Management A Literature ReviewrdquoBiological Conservation 141 (10) 2417ndash2431 doi101016jbiocon200807014

Reyers B R Biggs G S Cumming T Elmqvist A PHejnowicz and S Polasky 2013 ldquoGetting the Measureof Ecosystem Services A SocialndashEcological ApproachrdquoFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11 (5) 268ndash273 doi101890120144

Reyers B J L Nel P J OrsquoFarrell N Sitas and D C Nel2015 ldquoNavigating Complexity through KnowledgeCoproduction Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services intoDisaster Risk Reductionrdquo Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 112 (24) 7362ndash7368 doi101073pnas1414374112

Ritzema H J Froebrich R Raju C Sreenivas and RKselik 2010 ldquoUsing Participatory Modelling toCompensate for Data Scarcity in EnvironmentalPlanning A Case Study from Indiardquo EnvironmentalModelling amp Software 25 1450ndash1458 doi101016jenvsoft201003010

Rogers K H and H Biggs 1999 ldquoIntegrating IndicatorsEndpoints and Value Systems in Strategic Management ofthe Rivers of the Kruger National Parkrdquo Freshwater Biology41 439ndash451 doi101046j1365-2427199900441x

Roux D J and L C Foxcroft 2011 ldquoThe Development andApplication of Strategic Adaptive Management withinSouth African National Parksrdquo Koedoe 52 (2) 01ndash05

Roux D J K H Rogers H C Biggs P J Ashton and ASergeant 2006 ldquoBridging the SciencendashManagementDivide Moving from Unidirectional Knowledge Transferto Knowledge Interfacing and Sharingrdquo Ecology andSociety 11 (1) 4 doi105751ES-01643-110104

Scholte S S K A J A van Teeffelen and P H Verburg2015 ldquoIntegrating Socio-Cultural Perspectives intoEcosystem Service Valuation A Review of Conceptsand Methodsrdquo Ecological Economics 114 67ndash78doi101016jecolecon201503007

Shackleton C M 2000 ldquoComparison of Plant Diversity inProtected and Communal Lands in the BushbuckridgeLowveld Savanna South Africardquo Southern AfricaBiological Conservation 94 (3) 273ndash285 doi101016S0006-3207(00)00001-X

Shackleton C M F Paumgarten and M L Cocks 2008ldquoHousehold Attributes Promote Diversity of TreeHoldings in Rural Areas South Africardquo AgroforestrySystems 72 221ndash230 doi101007s10457-007-9066-5

Shackleton C M and S E Shackleton 2004 ldquoTheImportance of Non-Timber Forest Products in RuralLivelihood Security and as Safety Nets A Review ofEvidence from South Africardquo South African Journal ofScience 100 658ndash664

Shackleton C M S E Shackleton E Buiten and N Bird2007 ldquoThe Importance of Dry Woodlands and Forestsin Rural Livelihoods and Poverty Alleviation in SouthAfricardquo Forest Policy and Economics 9 (5) 558ndash577doi101016jforpol200603004

Sherrouse B C J M Clement and D J Semmens 2011 ldquoAGIS Application for Assessing Mapping and Quantifyingthe Social Values of Ecosystem Servicesrdquo AppliedGeography 31 748ndash760 doi101016japgeog201008002

Shirk J L H L Ballard C C Wilderman T Phillips AWiggins R Jordan E McCallie et al 2012 ldquoPublicParticipation in Scientific Research A Framework forDeliberate Designrdquo Ecology and Society 17 (2) 29doi105751ES-04705-170229

Simon H A 1997 ldquoBehavioral Economics and BoundedRationalityrdquo In Models of Bounded Rationality ed H ASimon 267ndash433 Cambridge MA MIT Press

Simone A 2004 For the City yet to Come Urban Life inFour African Cities Durham NC London DukeUniversity Press

Smart R M J Whiting and W Twine 2005 ldquoLizards andLandscapes Integrating Field Surveys and Interviews toAssess the Impact of Human Disturbance on LizardAssemblages and Selected Reptiles in a Savanna inSouth Africardquo Biological Conservation 122 23ndash31doi101016jbiocon200406016

Spangenberg J H and J Settele 2010 ldquoPreciselyIncorrect Monetising the Value of EcosystemServicesrdquo Ecological Complexity 7 327ndash337doi101016jecocom201004007

Spash C L 2007 ldquoDeliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV)Issues in Combining Economic and Political Processes toValue Environmental Changerdquo Ecological Economics 63690ndash699 doi101016jecolecon200702014

Stephenson J 2008 ldquoThe Cultural Values Model AnIntegrated Approach to Values in LandscapesrdquoLandscape and Urban Planning 84 127ndash139doi101016jlandurbplan200707003

Swemmer L R Grant W Annecke and S Freitag-Ronaldson 2014 ldquoToward More Effective BenefitSharing in South African National Parksrdquo Society andNatural Resources 28 (1) 4ndash20 doi101080089419202014945055

Tallis H P Kareiva M Marvier and A Chang 2008 ldquoAnEcosystem Services Framework to Support BothPractical Conservation and Economic DevelopmentrdquoProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(28) 9457ndash9464 doi101073pnas0705797105

Tallis H and S Polasky 2009 ldquoMapping and ValuingEcosystem Services as an Approach for Conservationand Natural-Resource Managementrdquo Annals of theNew York Academy of Sciences 1162 265ndash283doi101111j1749-6632200904152x

Turner N J R Gregory C Brooks L Failing and TSatterfield 2008 ldquoFrom Invisibility to TransparencyIdentifying the Implicationsrdquo Ecology and Society 13(2) 14 doi105751ES-02405-130207

Tveit M Aring Ode and G Fry 2006 ldquoKey Concepts in aFramework for Analysing Visual Landscape CharacterrdquoLandscape Research 31 (3) 229ndash255 doi10108001426390600783269

Twine W 2005 ldquoSocio-Economic Transitions InfluenceVegetation Change in the Communal Rangelands ofthe South African Lowveldrdquo African Journal of Rangeamp Forage Science 22 (2) 93ndash99 doi10298910220110509485866

Twine W D Moshe T Netshiluvhi and V Siphugu2003 ldquoConsumption and Direct-Use Values of SavannaBio-Resources Used by Rural Households in Mametja aSemi-Arid Area of Limpopo Province South AfricardquoSouth African Journal of Science 99 (10) 467ndash473

Twine W C 2013 ldquoMultiple Strategies for ResilientLivelihoods in Communal Areas of South AfricardquoAfrican Journal of Range amp Forage Science 30 (1ndash2)39ndash43 doi102989102201192013768703

Twine W C and R M Holdo 2016 ldquoFuelwoodSustainability Revisited Integrating Size Structure andResprouting into a Spatially Realistic Fuelshed ModelrdquoJournal of Applied Ecology 53 (6) 1766ndash1776doi1011111365-266412713

Ulrich R S 1986 ldquoHuman Responses to Vegetation andLandscapesrdquo Landscape and Urban Planning 13 29ndash44doi1010160169-2046(86)90005-8

Verkerk P J R Mavsar M Giergiczny M Lindner DEdwards and M J Schelhaas 2014 ldquoAssessing Impactsof Intensified Biomass Production and BiodiversityProtection on Ecosystem Services Provided byEuropean Forestsrdquo Ecosystem Services 9 155ndash165doi101016jecoser201406004

Wangai P W B Burkhard and F Muumlller 2016 ldquoAReview of Studies on Ecosystem Services in AfricardquoInternational Journal of Sustainable Built Environment5 (2) 225ndash245 doi101016jijsbe201608005

Wegner G andU Pascual 2011 ldquoCost-Benefit Analysis in theContext of Ecosystem Services for Human Well-Being AMultidisciplinary Critiquerdquo Global Environmental Change21 (2) 492ndash504 doi101016jgloenvcha201012008

Wessels K J M S Colgan B F N Erasmus G P Asner WC Twine R Mathieu J A N van Aardt J T Fisher and IP J Smit 2013 ldquoUnsustainable Fuelwood Extraction fromSouth African Savannasrdquo Environmental Research Letters 8(1) 10 doi1010881748-932681014007

Wikramanayake E M McKnight E Dinerstein A JoshiB Gurung and D Smith 2004 ldquoDesigning aConservation Landscape for Tigers in Human-Dominated Environmentsrdquo Conservation Biology 18(3) 839ndash844 doi101111cbi200418issue-3

Zhao C and H A Sander 2015 ldquoQuantifying andMapping the Supply of and Demand for CarbonStorage and Sequestration Services from Urban TreesrdquoPLoS ONE 10 (8) 31

Zube E H J L Sell and J G Taylor 1982 ldquoLandscapePerception Research Application and TheoryrdquoLandscape Planning 9 (1) 1ndash33 doi1010160304-3924(82)90009-0

View publication statsView publication stats

Abstract

Introduction

Learning from current practices ecosystem service assessments in Bushbuckridge Local Municipality (BLM) Mpumalanga Province South Africa

BLMmdasha hot spot for biodiversity population growth tourism and contentious land ownership debates

The wildlife economy and conservation planning in BLM

How maps guide future development in the BLM master plan

Logical conclusionsirresponsible planningserious consequences

Bridging the divide between theory and practice

The current state of ecosystem service assessments

Interventions for pluralistic ecosystem service assessments

Steps for operationalizing a democratized approach to ecosystem service assessments



Stage 3mdashcreate multidimensional ecosystem service assessments

Stage 4mdash assess outcomes and feedbacks using strategic adaptive management

Discussion implementing the democratization of ecosystem services framework in BLM

Conclusion

Acknowledgments


Funding

References

building trust among scientists and a broader com-munity of stakeholders

Transdisciplinary science is obviously needed totranscend these barriers Transdisciplinary scientistscan craft assessments of ecosystem services that pro-vide a sound foundation for the development of con-servation policies planning and decision-making(Cowling et al 2008 Daily et al 2009 De Grootet al 2010) There is little doubt that a pluralisticmodel is urgently needed to improve the inclusive-ness of ecosystem service assessments (Nahlik et al2012 Reyers et al 2013 Costanza et al 2017) Yetthis more inclusive approach is only a starting pointand a paradigm shift is needed so ecosystem serviceassessments will be relevant in a highly urbanizingworld Take Africa for instance where urbanizationis a predominant force and where a 12-fold increasein urban land area is expected in the next 50 years(Angel et al 2011) Of all the studies on ecosystemservices globally only a small fraction are conductedin Africa meanwhile across the continent there arenot enough resources to support current livelihoodsand the distribution of valuable resources is con-strained and the availability of benefits from theavailable resources is highly heterogeneous (WangaiBurkhard and Muumlller 2016)

In a literature review of ecosystem service assess-ments in Africa Wangai Burkhard and Muumlller(2016) found that most studies occurred at theregional scale and did not address more local tra-deoffs and synergies in ecosystem service provi-sioning This may be consistent with Costanzaet alrsquos (2017) conclusions that we need better eco-system service assessments that address questionsrelevant to management and policy however withurbanization pressure across the continent theimportant question is ldquohow do scientists producebetter ecosystem service assessments in the face ofthis massive changerdquo For example analyses shouldnot only focus on multiple scales and particularly alocal scale if they aim to guide management andpolicy but they must measure monitor map andvalue ecosystem services at the relevant spatialresolution Moreover while it may be true thatecosystem analyses need to address the right insti-tutional spaces but they must also confront thehistorical injustices that are still strongly a part ofinstitutional infrastructure (eg colonial influencesthe legacy of apartheid in South Africa and so on)

Our goal is to consider a way forward and weposit that the field of urban ecology in particularmay serve as a guide for a paradigm shift in scien-tific analysis of ecosystem services as it is throughthe study of cities as complex social-ecological sys-tems that a nuanced scientific understanding ofheterogeneity relevant to ecosystem services hasevolved (Cadenasso Pickett and Schwarz 2007

McHale et al 2013 Pickett et al 2017) We con-tend that acknowledging social and ecological het-erogeneity in both science and practice isnecessary to produce ecosystem service analysesthat are both accurate and useful Further strategicadaptive management (SAM) can provide a modelfor long-term evaluation of ecosystem serviceassessments and the effects of decision-making onpeople and the environment

In this paper we first focus on BushbuckridgeSouth Africa a region where urbanization threatensto perpetuate historical social and environmentalinjustices We evaluate how ecosystem services maybe utilized to either reinforce or fracture the planningand development practices that emerged from segre-gation and economic exclusion In the context of ourcase study we evaluate the current state of ecosystemservice assessments Rather than contributing to thegrowing collection of critiques we synthesize a num-ber of adroit recommendations from the literature forrenovating ecosystem service analyses (ie Cowlinget al 2008 De Groot et al 2010 Nahlik et al 2012Reyers et al 2013 Andersson et al 2015 Reyers et al2015) From these we propose interventions forcreating a more pluralistic framework for assessingecosystem services Although there are a plethora ofecosystem service frameworks available in the litera-ture (eg Tallis et al 2008 Fisher et al 2014) theyroutinely lack an implementation plan and thereforeremain purely informative or theoretical (Nahlik et al2012) In contrast we describe the steps needed tooperationalize this democratized approach to ecosys-tem service assessments to enhance its utility inpolicy planning and decision-making based onexperience in an actual dynamic urbanizinglandscape

Learning from current practices ecosystem

service assessments in Bushbuckridge Local

Municipality (BLM) Mpumalanga Province

South Africa

BLMmdasha hot spot for biodiversity population

growth tourism and contentious land ownership

debates

Bushbuckridge Local Municipality (BLM) is in theMpumalanga Province of South Africa This10250 km2 area is nestled against Kruger NationalPark one of the worldrsquos signature conservation areas(Figure 1) The BLM is a matrix of state forestry andconservation areas communal lands rural villagesand urbanizing centers surrounded by private gamereserves and tourism facilities More than 500000people live in the municipality but only 11 ofhouseholds have piped water (httpwwwlocalgovernmentcozalocalsview142bushbuckridge-local-

in BLM

master plan

practice

assessments

service assessments

framework in BLM

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Funding

References

Abstract

Introduction














Conclusion

Acknowledgments


Funding

References

in BLM

master plan

practice

assessments

service assessments

framework in BLM

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Funding

References

Abstract

Introduction














Conclusion

Acknowledgments


Funding

References

in BLM

master plan

practice

assessments

service assessments

framework in BLM

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Funding

References

Abstract

Introduction














Conclusion

Acknowledgments


Funding

References

practice

assessments

service assessments

framework in BLM

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Funding

References

Abstract

Introduction














Conclusion

Acknowledgments


Funding

References

practice

assessments

service assessments

framework in BLM

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Funding

References

Abstract

Introduction














Conclusion

Acknowledgments


Funding

References

assessments

service assessments

framework in BLM

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Funding

References

Abstract

Introduction














Conclusion

Acknowledgments


Funding

References

service assessments

framework in BLM

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Funding

References

Abstract

Introduction














Conclusion

Acknowledgments


Funding

References

service assessments

framework in BLM

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Funding

References

Abstract

Introduction














Conclusion

Acknowledgments


Funding

References

service assessments

framework in BLM

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Funding

References

Abstract

Introduction














Conclusion

Acknowledgments


Funding

References

service assessments

framework in BLM

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Funding

References

Abstract

Introduction














Conclusion

Acknowledgments


Funding

References

framework in BLM

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Funding

References

Abstract

Introduction














Conclusion

Acknowledgments


Funding

References

Acknowledgments

Funding

References

Abstract

Introduction














Conclusion

Acknowledgments


Funding

References

Abstract

Introduction














Conclusion

Acknowledgments


Funding

References

Abstract

Introduction














Conclusion

Acknowledgments


Funding

References

Abstract

Introduction














Conclusion

Acknowledgments


Funding

References

Abstract

Introduction














Conclusion

Acknowledgments


Funding

References

Documents

Magaliesberg Biosphere - Democratization of …...Despite the theoretical value of this concept, its current applications have been challenged on a number of fronts. There is a plethora