Mapping of ecosystem services flow in Mida Creek, Kenya

被引:42
作者
Awuor Owuor, Margaret [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Icely, John [4 ]
Newton, Alice [4 ,5 ]
Nyunja, Judith [6 ]
Otieno, Philip [7 ]
Omondi Tuda, Arthur [1 ,2 ,4 ,6 ]
Oduor, Nancy [8 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cadiz, Campus Puerto Real, Cadiz 11519, Spain
[2] Univ Empresa Prov Cadiz, FUECA La Fdn, Cadiz 11003, Spain
[3] South Eastern Kenya Univ, Dept Appl Limnol & Marine Sci, POB 170-90200, Kitui, Kenya
[4] Univ Algarve, CIMA Gambelas Campus, P-8005139 Faro, Portugal
[5] NILU IMPEC, Box 100, N-2027 Kjeller, Norway
[6] Kenya Wildlife Serv, Coast Conservat Area, POB 82144-80100, Mombasa, Kenya
[7] Univ Nairobi, Ctr Adv Studies Environm Law & Policy, POB 30197-00100, Nairobi, Kenya
[8] Kenya Marine & Fisheries Res Inst, Mombasa Stn, POB 81657-80100, Mombasa, Kenya
关键词
Marine protected areas; Management effectiveness; Ecosystem services; Stakeholder participation; Mida Creek; Kenya; DECISION-MAKING; FRAMEWORK; CHALLENGES; MANGROVES; PROVISION; KNOWLEDGE; NEED;
D O I
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.02.013
中图分类号
P7 [海洋学];
学科分类号
0707 ;
摘要
The concept of ecosystem services (ES) and its application in natural resources management decision making is a new conservation paradigm. A better understanding of ES in resource-rich developing countries can contribute to poverty alleviation and sustainable development, while at the same time conserving natural resources. This study assessed the flow of ES in Mida Creek, a marine reserve in Kenya, with the aim of characterizing land use/land cover (LULC) classes, spatially mapping distribution of ES, identifying important ES, and establishing the opinions of experts on ES flow. A qualitative and quantitative assessment was carried out coupling expert scores and LULC maps in a matrix structure. A participatory approach was used to engage and raise awareness with the community groups who actively participate in conservation activities in the creek, together with researchers/academics/managers who also are involved with the management of the reserve. The study was carried out between July and October 2015 and a total of 65 participants were involved. Datasets were collected using questionnaires in which ecosystem service flow was scored based on expert estimates per LULC class against the selected ES. Data were assessed using statistical and spatial analysis techniques. Results for the flow of provisioning services showed that, while palm trees were the main source of firewood (68%), other vegetation types were also an important source for wood products, including charcoal (46%), construction poles (54%) and fishing gear (68%). There was also a high flow of provisioning services (sea food and bait organisms) from water bodies (82%) and mangroves (80%). Flow for regulating services was mainly from mangroves, and for cultural services from beaches, mangroves and water bodies. Saline bare areas and sand flats scored least for all the ES. There were statistically significant differences in the scoring of the LULC against the different categories of provisioning, regulating and cultural services between the local communities and the other stakeholders. The method shows both the location of the resources utilized by the communities and, also, facilitates communication between these communities and the decision makers, thereby providing an example of a Management strategy at the local scale for other coastal regions of Kenya and elsewhere. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:11 / 21
页数:11
相关论文
共 65 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2005, Ecosystems and Human Well being synthesis
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2006, PERS, V77, P858
  • [3] Embedding ecosystem services in coastal planning leads to better outcomes for people and nature
    Arkema, Katie K.
    Verutes, Gregory M.
    Wood, Spencer A.
    Clarke-Samuels, Chantalle
    Rosado, Samir
    Canto, Maritza
    Rosenthal, Amy
    Ruckelshaus, Mary
    Guannel, Gregory
    Toft, Jodie
    Faries, Joe
    Silver, Jessica M.
    Griffin, Robert
    Guerry, Anne D.
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2015, 112 (24) : 7390 - 7395
  • [4] Ashmore J., 2009, GUIDE PLANNING USE P, P30
  • [5] Ecology - Economic reasons for conserving wild nature
    Balmford, A
    Bruner, A
    Cooper, P
    Costanza, R
    Farber, S
    Green, RE
    Jenkins, M
    Jefferiss, P
    Jessamy, V
    Madden, J
    Munro, K
    Myers, N
    Naeem, S
    Paavola, J
    Rayment, M
    Rosendo, S
    Roughgarden, J
    Trumper, K
    Turner, RK
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2002, 297 (5583) : 950 - 953
  • [6] Bhattachary D. K., 2005, ECOSYSTEMS HUMAN WEL, V3, P401
  • [7] Brown J.D., 2011, SHIKEN: JALT Testing Evaluation SIG Newsletter, V15, P10
  • [8] Burkhard B., 2009, Landscape Online
  • [9] Burkhard B., 2014, LANDSC ONLINE, V34, P1, DOI [DOI 10.3097/LO.201434, 10.3097/LO.201434]
  • [10] Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets
    Burkhard, Benjamin
    Kroll, Franziska
    Nedkov, Stoyan
    Mueller, Felix
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2012, 21 : 17 - 29