Integrating participatory geographic information system for ecosystem services and land management in Adina Deer Park (forest) and its surroundings: A pathway to achieve Sustainable Development Goals

Q1 Social Sciences
Arijit Das, Ashis Mandal, Kalikinkar Das, Ketan Das, Md Tushar Ali
{"title":"Integrating participatory geographic information system for ecosystem services and land management in Adina Deer Park (forest) and its surroundings: A pathway to achieve Sustainable Development Goals","authors":"Arijit Das,&nbsp;Ashis Mandal,&nbsp;Kalikinkar Das,&nbsp;Ketan Das,&nbsp;Md Tushar Ali","doi":"10.1016/j.ijgeop.2026.01.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Earlier studies have highlighted the significance of the socio-economic aspects of ecosystem services (ES) and their critical role in planning and decision-making processes. However, more research is required to comprehend the variations in people's perceptions of ES and land management preferences (LMP) in various contexts. This study aims to examine the spatial distribution of ES and LMP to reveal possible trade-offs and synergies among them, particularly in relation to the Adina Deer Park (ADP) (forest) and surrounding 1-km buffer. A paper-based participatory geographic information system (PGIS) method was used to collect empirical data on ES and LMP. Results show that hotspots for regulating ecosystem services (RES) are strongly associated with conservation preferences (CP) (<em>r</em> = 0.68), and weak (<em>r</em> = 0.22) association with cultural ecosystem services (CES). Additionally, hotspots for CES and CP show a strong association (<em>r</em> = 0.72). Hotspots of LMP have a weak association with hotspots of provisioning ecosystem services (PES) (<em>r</em> = 0.36) but no association with hotspots of CP and CES (<em>r</em> = 0.10 and <em>r</em> = 0.11, respectively). Most hotspots for RES and CES (78.64% and 82.67%, respectively) are located within the forest area (FA), while 89.02% of the PES hotspot is located in the non-forest area (NFA). Additionally, 87.56% of CES and 82.87% of RES are provided by the FA (10.57% of the total area), suggesting that the FA provides a broad range of resources supporting local livelihoods and well-being. The results highlighted the relevance of integrating local values of ES and LMP in conservation planning, especially in ecologically sensitive locations such as ADP (forest). This approach increases effective, inclusive land use planning that balances development and conservation, contributing directly and indirectly toward Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and ecological resilience.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36117,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks","volume":"14 1","pages":"Pages 77-90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2577444126000043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Earlier studies have highlighted the significance of the socio-economic aspects of ecosystem services (ES) and their critical role in planning and decision-making processes. However, more research is required to comprehend the variations in people's perceptions of ES and land management preferences (LMP) in various contexts. This study aims to examine the spatial distribution of ES and LMP to reveal possible trade-offs and synergies among them, particularly in relation to the Adina Deer Park (ADP) (forest) and surrounding 1-km buffer. A paper-based participatory geographic information system (PGIS) method was used to collect empirical data on ES and LMP. Results show that hotspots for regulating ecosystem services (RES) are strongly associated with conservation preferences (CP) (r = 0.68), and weak (r = 0.22) association with cultural ecosystem services (CES). Additionally, hotspots for CES and CP show a strong association (r = 0.72). Hotspots of LMP have a weak association with hotspots of provisioning ecosystem services (PES) (r = 0.36) but no association with hotspots of CP and CES (r = 0.10 and r = 0.11, respectively). Most hotspots for RES and CES (78.64% and 82.67%, respectively) are located within the forest area (FA), while 89.02% of the PES hotspot is located in the non-forest area (NFA). Additionally, 87.56% of CES and 82.87% of RES are provided by the FA (10.57% of the total area), suggesting that the FA provides a broad range of resources supporting local livelihoods and well-being. The results highlighted the relevance of integrating local values of ES and LMP in conservation planning, especially in ecologically sensitive locations such as ADP (forest). This approach increases effective, inclusive land use planning that balances development and conservation, contributing directly and indirectly toward Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and ecological resilience.
整合Adina Deer Park(森林)及其周边生态系统服务和土地管理的参与式地理信息系统:实现可持续发展目标的途径
早期的研究强调了生态系统服务的社会经济方面的重要性及其在规划和决策过程中的关键作用。然而,需要更多的研究来理解人们在不同背景下对ES和土地管理偏好(LMP)的看法的变化。本研究旨在研究ES和LMP的空间分布,以揭示它们之间可能的权衡和协同效应,特别是与Adina Deer Park(森林)及其周围1公里缓冲区的关系。采用基于纸张的参与式地理信息系统(PGIS)方法收集了ES和LMP的经验数据。结果表明:生态系统服务调节热点与保护偏好(CP)呈显著正相关(r = 0.68),与文化生态系统服务(CES)呈弱相关(r = 0.22)。此外,CES和CP的热点显示出很强的相关性(r = 0.72)。LMP热点与提供生态系统服务热点(PES)存在弱关联(r = 0.36),而与CP热点和CES热点无关联(r = 0.10和r = 0.11)。RES和CES的大部分热点(78.64%和82.67%)位于森林区域(FA),而PES热点(89.02%)位于非森林区域(NFA)。此外,87.56%的消费能力和82.87%的可再生能源由农林区提供(占总面积的10.57%),这表明农林区提供了广泛的资源,支持当地的生计和福祉。结果强调了在保护规划中整合ES和LMP的地方价值的相关性,特别是在生态敏感地点,如ADP(森林)。这种方法增加了有效的、包容性的土地利用规划,平衡了发展和保护,直接和间接地促进了可持续发展目标(sdg)和生态弹性。
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
International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks
International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks Social Sciences-Urban Studies
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
审稿时长
72 days
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书