Plural valuation in southwestern Ethiopia: Disaggregating values associated with ecosystems in a smallholder landscape

IF 4.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Maria Brück, J. Schultner, Birhanu Bekele Negash, Dadi Feyisa Damu, D. Abson
{"title":"Plural valuation in southwestern Ethiopia: Disaggregating values associated with ecosystems in a smallholder landscape","authors":"Maria Brück, J. Schultner, Birhanu Bekele Negash, Dadi Feyisa Damu, D. Abson","doi":"10.1002/pan3.10555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recognizing the diversity of preferences for, and values ascribed to, ecosystems in decision‐making can help to realize more sustainable and equitable policies for transformative change. The goal of this paper was to assess how rankings of ecosystem products (i.e. their relative importance in people's lives) relate to people's individual characteristics, their social–ecological context and the values they ascribe to each ecosystem product. In our case study in southwestern Ethiopia, we considered 11 ecosystem products and four value types (direct use, exchange, relational, intrinsic). We used descriptive statistics, hierarchical clustering and chi‐square tests of independence to analyse the data. On average, maize and teff were ranked as most important, and direct use and relational value were the most important value types. Beneficiaries often ascribed multiple values to each ecosystem product, and direct use and relational values better explained overall importance rankings than exchange or intrinsic values. Five groups of beneficiaries, who each prioritized a different set of ecosystem products, differed in their occupation, and in their social–ecological context, in terms of the villages they lived in and the ecosystem products they produced. Beneficiaries in each of the five groups ascribed different value types to their prioritized ecosystem products, and these did not always align with the value types that were generally judged most important by the group. We recommend that sustainable landscape management should reflect the diversity of people's value ascription, including non‐exchange values. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.","PeriodicalId":52850,"journal":{"name":"People and Nature","volume":"20 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"People and Nature","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10555","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recognizing the diversity of preferences for, and values ascribed to, ecosystems in decision‐making can help to realize more sustainable and equitable policies for transformative change. The goal of this paper was to assess how rankings of ecosystem products (i.e. their relative importance in people's lives) relate to people's individual characteristics, their social–ecological context and the values they ascribe to each ecosystem product. In our case study in southwestern Ethiopia, we considered 11 ecosystem products and four value types (direct use, exchange, relational, intrinsic). We used descriptive statistics, hierarchical clustering and chi‐square tests of independence to analyse the data. On average, maize and teff were ranked as most important, and direct use and relational value were the most important value types. Beneficiaries often ascribed multiple values to each ecosystem product, and direct use and relational values better explained overall importance rankings than exchange or intrinsic values. Five groups of beneficiaries, who each prioritized a different set of ecosystem products, differed in their occupation, and in their social–ecological context, in terms of the villages they lived in and the ecosystem products they produced. Beneficiaries in each of the five groups ascribed different value types to their prioritized ecosystem products, and these did not always align with the value types that were generally judged most important by the group. We recommend that sustainable landscape management should reflect the diversity of people's value ascription, including non‐exchange values. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
埃塞俄比亚西南部的多元估值:分解小农景观中与生态系统相关的价值
在决策过程中认识到人们对生态系统的偏好和赋予生态系统的价值的多样性,有助于实现更可持续、更公平的变革政策。 本文的目标是评估生态系统产品的排名(即它们在人们生活中的相对重要性)与人们的个人特征、社会生态环境以及他们赋予每种生态系统产品的价值之间的关系。 在埃塞俄比亚西南部的案例研究中,我们考虑了 11 种生态系统产品和四种价值类型(直接使用、交换、关系、内在)。我们使用了描述性统计、分层聚类和独立的卡方检验来分析数据。 平均而言,玉米和茶叶被列为最重要的价值,直接使用价值和关系价值是最重要的价值类型。受益人通常对每种生态系统产品赋予多重价值,直接使用价值和关系价值比交换价值或内在价值更能解释整体重要性排名。 五组受益人各自优先考虑一组不同的生态系统产品,他们的职业和社会生态环境各不相同,包括他们所居住的村庄和他们生产的生态系统产品。五个小组中每个小组的受益人都为其优先考虑的生态系统产品赋予了不同的价值类型,而这些价值类型并不总是与该小组普遍认为最重要的价值类型一致。 我们建议,可持续景观管理应反映人们价值归属的多样性,包括非交换价值。 在期刊博客上免费阅读本文的通俗语言摘要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
People and Nature
People and Nature Multiple-
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
9.80%
发文量
103
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信