A mapping approach to assess intangible cultural ecosystem services: The case of agriculture heritage in Southern Chile

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：L. Nahuelhual^a ; ^b ; ^c ; ^{lauranahuel@uach.cl" class="auth_mail} ; A. Carmona^a ; ^c ; P. Laterra^d ; J. Barrena^a ; ^c ; M. Aguayo^e
• 关键词：Cultural landscapes ; Mapping ecosystem services ; Knowledge systems ; Economic valuation ; Economic benefits
• 刊名：Ecological Indicators
• 出版年：May, 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：40
• 期：Complete
• 页码：90-101
• 全文大小：4406 K

文摘

Modeling and mapping of cultural ecosystem services (CES) represents a significant gap in ecosystem service research. A GIS-based methodological framework was developed and applied to map agricultural heritage (AH), understood as a non-divisible combination of three cultural services (dimensions, D): the heritage value associated to a culturally significant species (i.e. Chilo茅 native potato) (D1); the traditional systems of knowledge of AH keepers (D2); and the social relations among them (D3). The final aim of the study was to provide indicators of the 鈥渇inal鈥?service (AH_i, measured in a 0-100 point scale) and its benefits (AH_B, measured in US$/ha), capable to display areas where high value farmland was located. In essence, AH_i comprised a set of biocultural variables validated and weighted by expert opinion. The experts gave the maximum importance to 5 variables: number of native potato varieties cultivated (D1), use of own seed (D1), form in which cultivation knowledge was acquired by the keeper (D2), exchange of own seed (D3), and number of other potato keepers known (D3). In turn, AH_B reflected society's willingness to pay for the nonmaterial benefits of AH conservation. Since these benefits 鈥減ropagate鈥?across space extending from local to unknown and distant beneficiaries, and the aim was to identify the most valuable areas for their capacity to satisfy a potential demand, AH_B was spatialized following the approach of 鈥渁scribing鈥?the potential benefits to their 鈥減oint of provision鈥? Thus the highest values of AH_i coincided with the highest values of AH_B (US$10.64-8.64 ha^鈭?) a comprised 5608 ha of the landscape, and similarly the lowest values of AH_i matched the lowest values of AH_B (US$1.69-0.18 ha^鈭?) comprising 13,070 ha of the landscape.