Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Detecting trade-offs, synergies and bundles among ecosystem services demand using sociodemographic data in Omo Biosphere Reserve, Nigeria

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The complexity of the relationships among multiple ecosystem services (ES) is not fully understood. This could be because of the difficulty in assessing ES relationships, in general, and particularly, an uneven study of geographical distribution and the relationships among ES demand remains under-researched. Yet, understanding relationships among multiple ES can support policy and management decisions, from problem definition to interventions. This novel research focused on addressing some of the challenges, presenting relationships among ES demand undertaken in Omo Biosphere Reserve (OBR), Nigeria, to improve understanding and extend the geographical coverage of ES relationship studies. In this study, primary data were obtained using a questionnaire survey administered to 302 individuals in OBR. Multinomial regression, correlation and factor analysis were used to identify key ES, explain the influence of sociodemographic attributes on ES preferences and identify the trade-offs, synergies and bundles of ES demand, respectively. The results showed that there were 18 key ES demanded with more preference for provisioning ES such as crops than other ES. Few sociodemographic attributes were identified to influence people’s preferences for ES. Furthermore, major trade-offs occurred between provisioning ES with synergies observed among provisioning, regulating and cultural ES. Of the six bundles identified, the first three bundles explained 53% of the total variance which involved environmental, health and basic needs. Our findings not only provide valuable information that could help achieve a well-managed landscape but also support decision-making process and management strategies that could potentially strengthen rural livelihoods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bennett, E. M., Peterson, G. D., & Gordon, L. J. (2009). Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters, 12, 1394–1404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, P., Turkelboom, F., Verheyden, W., & Martín-López, B. (2016). Ecosystem services bundles. In: M. Potschin & K. Jax (Eds.), OpenNESS ecosystem services reference book. EC FP7 Grant Agreement no. 308428. www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-book.

  • Briner, S., Huber, R., Bebi, P., Elkin, C., Schmatz, D., & Grêt-Regamey, A. (2013). Trade-offs between ecosystem services in a mountain region. Ecology and Society, 18(3), 35. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05576-180335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Müller, F., & Windhorst, W. (2009). Landscapes’ capacity to provide ecosystem services: A concept for land cover based assessments. Landscape Online, 15, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casalegno, S., Bennie, J. J., Inger, R., & Gaston, K. J. (2014). Regional scale prioritisation for key ecosystem services, renewable energy production and urban development. PloS one, 9(9), e107822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chawanji, S., Masocha, M., & Dube, T. (2018). Spatial assessment of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in Zimbabwe. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 73(2), 172–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cord, A. F., Bartkowski, B., Beckmann, M., Dittrich, A., Hermans-Neumann, K., Kaim, A., et al. (2017). Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: Main concepts, methods and the road ahead. Ecosystem Services, 28, 264–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily, G. C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., et al. (2009). Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1), 21–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doss, C., Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbing, A., & Theis, S. (2018). Women in agriculture: Four myths. Global Food Security, 16, 69–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelman, R. (2010). More: Population, nature, and what women want. Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, B., Bateman, I. J., & Turner, R. K. (2011). Valuing ecosystem services: Benefits, values, space and time (p. 11). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, T. (2010). Monitoring forest biodiversity: Improving conservation through ecologically responsible management. London/Washington, DC: Earthscan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Geijzendorffer, I. R., Martín-López, B., & Roche, P. K. (2015). Improving the identification of mismatches in ecosystem services assessments. Ecological Indicators, 52, 320–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Ollauri, A., & Mickovski, S. B. (2017). Providing ecosystem services in a challenging environment by dealing with bundles, trade-offs, and synergies. Ecosystem Services. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haase, D., Schwarz, N., Strohbach, M., Kroll, F., & Seppelt, R. (2012). Synergies, trade-offs, and losses of ecosystem services in urban regions: An integrated multiscale framework applied to the Leipzig-Halle Region Germany. Ecology and Society, 17(3), 22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04853-170322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe, C., Suich, H., Vira, B., & Mace, G. M. (2014). Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: A meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Global Environmental Change, 28, 263–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iniguez-Gallardo, V., Halasa, Z., & Briceño, J. (2018). People’s perceptions of ecosystem services provided by tropical dry forests: A comparative case study in southern Ecuador Tropical Forests. New Edition, 95, 113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isichei, A. (1995). Omo biosphere reserve: Current status, utilisation of biological resources and sustainable management. South-South Co-operation on Environmentally Sound Socio-Economic Development in the Humid Tropics. UNESCO, Paris.

  • Lee, H., & Lautenbach, S. (2016). A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 66, 340–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Washington: World Resources Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouchet, M. A., Lamarque, P., Martín-López, B., Crouzat, E., Gos, P., Byczek, C., et al. (2014). An interdisciplinary methodological guide for quantifying associations between ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 28, 298–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Talli, H., Cameron, D., et al. (2009). Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1), 4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okali, D. U. U., & Ola Adams, B. A. (1987). Tree population changes in treated rainforest at Omo Forest Reserve, South Western Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Tropical Ecology, 3(291), 313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ola-Adams, B. A. (2014). GEBR project report: Biodiversity inventory of Omo Biosphere Reserve. Nigeria National MAB Committee. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/GEBR_Biodiversity_Inventory_Report.pdf.

  • Orenstein, D. E., & Groner, E. (2014). In the eye of the stakeholder: Changes in perceptions of ecosystem services across an international border. Ecosystem Services, 8, 185–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouko, C., Mulwa, R., Kibugi, R., Owuor, M., Zaehringer, J., & Oguge, N. (2018). Community perceptions of ecosystem services and the management of Mt. Marsabit Forest in Northern Kenya. Environments, 5, 121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peña, L., Onaindia, M., Fernández de Manuel, B., Ametzaga-Arregi, I., & Casado-Arzuaga, I. (2018). Analysing the synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services to reorient land use planning in metropolitan Bilbao (northern Spain). Sustainability, 10(12), 4376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Bieling, C. (2013). Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 33, 118–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D., & Bennett, E. M. (2010). Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(11), 5242–5247. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907284107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts, T. H., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R., & Michener, C. D. (2004). Economic value of tropical forest to coffee production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(34), 12579–12582. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0405147101.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ring, I., Hansjürgens, B., Elmqvis, T., Wittmer, H., & Sukhdev, P. (2010). Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: The TEEB initiative. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2, 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, J. J., Beard, T. D. J., Bennett, E. M., Cumming, G. S., Cork, S. J., et al. (2006). Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society, 11, 28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saidi, N., & Spray, C. (2018). Ecosystem services bundles: Challenges and opportunities for implementation and further research. Environmental Research Letters, 13(11), 113001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schirpke, U., Candiago, S., Vigl, L. E., Jäger, H., Labadini, A., Marsoner, T., et al. (2019). Integrating supply, flow and demand to enhance the understanding of interactions among multiple ecosystem services. Science of the Total Environment, 651, 928–941.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seppelt, R., Dormann, C. F., Eppink, F. V., Lautenbach, S., & Schmidt, S. (2011). A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: Approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(3), 630–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spake, R., Lasseur, R., Crouzat, E., Bullock, J. M., Lavorel, S., Parks, K. E., et al. (2017). Unpacking ecosystem service bundles: Towards predictive mapping of synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 47, 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tallis, H., Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., & Chang, A. (2008). An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(28), 9457–9464.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tomscha, S., & Gergel, S. (2016). Ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies misunderstood without landscape history. Ecology and Society, 21(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08345-210143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, K. G., Odgaard, M. V., Bøche, P. K., Dalgaard, T., & Svenning, J. (2014). Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: Trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 89–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN DESA. (2017). World population prospects. Retrieved May 29, 2019 from https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html.

  • UNESCO. (2001). Biosphere reserve information. Retrieved Aug 9, 2019 from http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/directory/biores.asp?code=NIR+01&mode=all.

  • UNESCO. (2015). Omo. Retrieved August 10, 2019 from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/africa/nigeria/omo/.

  • UNESCO. (2017). A new roadmap for the man and the biosphere (MAB) programme and its world network of biosphere reserves. MAB strategy (2015–2025). Lima action plan (2016–2025). Lima declaration. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France. Retrieved August 10, 2019 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002474/247418E.pdf.

  • White, F. (1983). The vegetation map of Africa. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K., Biedenweg, K., & Cerveny, L. (2017). Understanding ecosystem service preferences across residential classifications near Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest. Forests, 8(5), 157. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8050157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, S., Schulp, C., & Verburg, P. (2015). Mapping ecosystem services demand: A review of current research and future perspectives. Ecological Indicators, 55, 159–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, G., Ge, Y., Xue, H., Yang, W., Shi, Y., Peng, C., et al. (2015). Using ecosystem service bundles to detect trade-offs and synergies across urban–rural complexes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 136, 110–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the support of the Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria (FRIN). More importantly, we appreciate everyone that participated in the survey.

Funding

This research was supported by the South Africa’s National Research Foundation (NRF)-African Renaissance Doctoral Scholarship with Grant No. 11084.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

    Opeyemi Adeyemi, Paxie W Chirwa & Folaranmi Dapo Babalola

  2. Department of Forest Resources Management, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria

    Folaranmi Dapo Babalola

  3. Department of Environmental Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Pasicha Chaikaew

  4. Environment, Health and Social Data Analytics Research Group, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Pasicha Chaikaew

Authors
  1. Opeyemi Adeyemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paxie W Chirwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Folaranmi Dapo Babalola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pasicha Chaikaew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Opeyemi Adeyemi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in this research.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adeyemi, O., Chirwa, P., Babalola, F.D. et al. Detecting trade-offs, synergies and bundles among ecosystem services demand using sociodemographic data in Omo Biosphere Reserve, Nigeria. Environ Dev Sustain 23, 7310–7325 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00918-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00918-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation