4.5 Article

Valuation of ecosystem services by stakeholders operating at different levels: insights from the Portuguese cultural montado landscape

期刊

REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
卷 19, 期 8, 页码 2173-2185

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10113-019-01527-2

关键词

Socio-cultural valuation; Agro-forest systems; Climate change; Aridity; Farm; Participatory process

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Montado is a savannah-like cultural landscape characteristic of the western Iberian Peninsula that is of high ecological and socio-economic value. Montado sites provide a multitude of services including materials (mostly valuable cork), food for free-ranging livestock, agricultural products, game, and tourism. Several stakeholders operate at various levels in these systems, all of whom must be involved in assessments of the value of these ecosystem services. We used a series of participatory workshops at local and regional levels to assess the ecosystem services most valued by these stakeholders. We also evaluated their awareness of the threats to montado and their vision for its future provision of ecosystem services. As expected, among the 12 categories of ecosystem services we assessed, stakeholders valued materials most, confirming the importance of cork in this landscape. However, regulating services were also highly valued, revealing strong awareness among stakeholders about montado ecology. Cultural services were more highly valued at the local level, demonstrating that local stakeholders have a strong attachment to their farms. All stakeholders were particularly aware of the threat of climate change, but regional stakeholders had a more negative perception for the future. The greater optimism of local stakeholders may be due to their greater realism and/or emotional connections to their farms. Our findings demonstrate that stakeholders are receptive to climate mitigation measures, but corresponding policy should consider local differences in management and land-use patterns.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据