Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mapping local participatory assessment of ecosystem services of natural resources

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Landscape and Ecological Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is important to identify and manage regional natural resources to maximize ecosystem services. Although several studies have assessed ecosystem services using natural resources, they have failed to interpret the results spatially and to present regional policies. This study used factor analysis to map the results of an assessment of natural resources made by local ecologists to identify the main ecosystem services of the target area and their distribution. Spatial patterns were analyzed in the Namyangju area of South Korea, a water source for the Han River, where ecosystem services are paid for in monetary terms. Analyses revealed that cultural services predominated in the urban area, supporting services predominated in the mountain and river areas, and regulation services were emphasized at the points where mountains meet rivers. Mapping the results of inhabitant participation in the rapid function assessment of ecosystem services complements the mapping of general ecosystem service assessment, and can facilitate practical utilization.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

(Source: Contour form “National Spatial Data Infrastructure Portal” and Water from “Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport”)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abson DJ, Dougill AJ, Stringer LC (2012) Using principal component analysis for information-rich socio-ecological vulnerability mapping in Southern Africa. App Geogr 35(1–2):515–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch JC, Thapa I, Balmford A, Bradbury RB, Brown C, Butchart SH et al (2014) What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom? A rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest. Nepal Ecosyst Serv 8:118–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown G (2012) Public participation GIS (PPGIS) for regional and environmental planning: reflections on a decade of empirical research. J Urban Region Inform Syst Assoc 24(2)

  • Brown G, Fagerholm N (2015) Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation. Ecosyst serv 13:119–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canedoli C, Bullock C, Collier MJ, Joyce D, Padoa-Schioppa E (2017) Public participatory mapping of cultural ecosystem services: citizen perception and park management in the Parco Nord of Milan (Italy). Sustainability 9:891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler M, Rullman S, Cousins J, Esmail N, Begin E, Venicx G, Eisenberg C, Studer M (2017) Contributions to publications and management plans from 7 years of citizen science: use of a novel evaluation tool on earthwatch-supported projects. Biol Conserv 208:163–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickie I, Cryle P, Maskell L (2014) UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-on. Work Package Report 1: developing the evidence base for a natural capital asset check: what characteristics should we understand in order to improve environmental appraisal and natural income accounts. United Nations Environmental Programme—World Conservation Monitoring Centre, LWEC, UK.

  • Dronova I, Gong P, Wang L, Zhong L (2015) Mapping dynamic cover types in a large seasonally flooded wetland using extended principal component analysis and object-based classification. Remote Sens Environ 158:193–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellwood ER, Crimmins TM, Miller-Rushing AJ (2017) Citizen science and conservation: recommendations for a rapidly moving field. Biol Conserv 208:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geijzendorffer IR, Roche PK (2013) Can biodiversity monitoring schemes provide indicators for ecosystem services? Ecol Indic 33:148–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfenstein J, Kienast F (2014) Ecosystem service state and trends at the regional to national level: a rapid assessment. Ecol Indic 36:11–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes FM, Adams WM, Butchart SH, Field RH, Peh KS-H, Warrington S (2016) The challenges of integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services monitoring and evaluation at a landscape-scale wetland restoration project in the UK. Ecol Soc 21:10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter WC (2013) Understanding resident subjectivities toward tourism using Q method: Orchid Island Taiwan. J Sustain Tour 21:331–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp CN, Fernandez-Gimenez M, Kachergis E, Rudeen A (2011) Using participatory workshops to integrate state-andtransition models created with local knowledge and ecological data. Rangeland Ecol Manag 64(2):158–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee JH, Choi H (2020) An analysis of public complaints to evaluate ecosystem services. Land 9(3):62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu P, Jiang S, Zhao L, Li Y, Zhang P, Zhang L (2017) What are the benefits of strictly protected nature reserves? Rapid assessment of ecosystem service values in Wanglang nature reserve, China. Ecosyst Serv 2:70–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schägner JP, Grizzettic B, Drakoua EG, LaNottea A, Zuliana G, Bouraouia F, Paracchinia ML, Braatd L, Bidoglioa G (2012) Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst Serv 1:31–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manolaki P, Vogiatzakis IN (2017) Ecosystem services in a peri-urban protected area in Cyprus: a rapid appraisal. NatConserv 22:129

    Google Scholar 

  • McInnes RJ, Everard M (2017) Rapid assessment of wetland ecosystem services (RAWES): an example from Colombo, Sri Lanka. Ecosyst Serv 25:89–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriman JC, Gurung H, Adhikari S, Butchart SH, Khatri TB, Pandit RS, Ram AK, Thomas DHL, Thapa I (2018) Rapid ecosystem service assessment of the impact of Koshi Tappu wildlife reserve on wetland benefits to local communities. Wetl Ecol Manag 26:491–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer ST, Koch C, Weisser WW (2015) Towards a standardized rapid ecosystem function assessment (REFA). Trends Ecol Evol 30(7):390–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno J, Palomo I, Escalera J, Martín-López B, Montes C (2014) Incorporating ecosystem services into ecosystem-based management to deal with complexity: a participative mental model approach. Landsc Ecol 29:1407–1421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peh KS-H, Balmford A, Bradbury RB, Brown C, Butchart SH, Hughes FM et al (2013) TESSA: a toolkit for rapid assessment of ecosystem services at sites of biodiversity conservation importance. Ecosyst Serv 5:51–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peh KSH, Balmford A, Birch JC, Brown C, Butchart SH, Daley J et al (2015) Potential impact of invasive alien species on ecosystem services provided by a tropical forested ecosystem: a case study from Montserrat. Biol Invasions 17(1):461–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peh KSH, Thapa I, Basnyat M, Balmford A, Bhattarai GP, Bradbury RB, Brown C, Butchart SHM, Dhakal M, Gurung H, Hughes FMR, Mulligan M, Pandeya B, Stattersfield AJ, Thomas DHL, Walpole M, Merriman JC (2016) Synergies between biodiversity conservation andecosystem service provision: Lessons on integrated ecosystem service valuation from a Himalayan protected area. Nepal. Ecosyst Serv 22:359–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pike K, Wright P, Wink B, Fletcher S (2015) The assessment of cultural ecosystem services in the marine environment using Q methodology. J Coast Conserv 19:667–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rey-Valette H, Mathé S, Salles JM (2017) An assessment method of ecosystem services based on stakeholders’ perceptions: the rapid ecosystem services participatory appraisal (RESPA). Ecosyst Serv 28:311–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricaurte LF, Wantzen KM, Agudelo E, Betancourt B, Jokela J (2014) Participatory rural appraisal of ecosystem services of wetlands in the Amazonian Piedmont of Colombia: elements for a sustainable management concept. Wetl Ecol Manag 22(4):343–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riechers M, Barkmann J, Tscharntke T (2016) Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green. Ecosyst Serv 17:33–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolf W, Pauleit S, Wiggering H (2019) A stakeholder approach, door opener for farmland and multifunctionality in urban green infrastructure. Urban For Urban Green 40:73–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schröter M, Kraemer R, Mantel M, Kabisch N, Hecker S, Richter A, Neumeier V, Bonn A (2017) Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: status, challenges and opportunities. Ecosyst Serv 28:80–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soe ZW, Suzuki A, Peh KSH, Gasparatos A (2019) Economic value of cultural ecosystem services from recreation in popa mountain national park, Myanmar: a comparison of two rapid valuation techniques. Land 8(12):194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uddin MN, Islam AS, Bala SK, Islam GT, Adhikary S, Saha D et al (2019) Mapping of climate vulnerability of the coastal region of Bangladesh using principal component analysis. Appl Geogr 102:47–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the Korea Environment Institute (BA2020-03).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Social Environment, Korea Environment Institute, Sejong, South Korea

    Jae-hyuck Lee

Authors
  1. Jae-hyuck Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jae-hyuck Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, Jh. Mapping local participatory assessment of ecosystem services of natural resources. Landscape Ecol Eng 17, 459–470 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-021-00461-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-021-00461-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation