It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Agrarian change affects the supply and demand of ecosystem services (ES) by reducing the extent of natural ecosystems. Agricultural intensification can lead to changes in land covers and livelihood opportunities and it remains unclear how such changes align or misalign with the desires of local communities. Using participatry mapping, we assessed ES uses and desires of Indigenous people and local communities provided by different land cover types along a gradient of agricultural intensification (forest subsistence, agroforestry mosaic, and monoculture and market-dependence) in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. We found that mapped ES use diversity was highest in the forest-dependent zone and lowest near monoculture agricultural systems. The expressed ES uses and desires varied greatly among land cover types amidst loss of old-growth forest and greater reliance on secondary forest and shrub land. The spatial analysis showed that high priority areas of ES use was related to access in the landscape, demonstrating the importance of attending to place-based social values in ES assessments. From this study, we call for a people-centric spatial modelling approach to address the divergence of social and cultural ES values associated with land covers under different intensification contexts. Participatory mapping clarifies the ES desires of local communities, which state policy often fails to address. We recommend a place specific management strategy to reduce ES trade-offs of specific land use practices, which are currently apparent with agrarian change in Indonesia and relevant for other tropical developing countries.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Institute of Terrestrial Ecosystems, Department of Environmental System Sciences, ETH Zürich Universitätstrasse, Zürich, Switzerland; Swiss Federal Institute of Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland
2 Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia
3 Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia; SOAS, University of London, London, UK
4 IRD, CNRS, Grenoble INP, IGE, Univ. GrenobleAlpes, Grenoble, France
5 Basque Centre for Climate Change, Scientific Campus of the University of the Basque, Leioa, Spain; Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain; Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
6 Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, Faculty of Forestry University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
7 Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umea, Sweden
8 Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia; Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, Faculty of Forestry University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada