This document discusses using social landscape indicators to include human perceptions in ecosystem services assessments. It conducted interviews in an area in Belgium, analyzing responses to map important ecosystem services and conflicts. Key findings include that social hotspots of ecosystem services did not consistently overlap with ecological or biophysical hotspots. Social landscape indicators like abundance, richness, rarity and risk can describe the social distribution of ecosystem services and provide additional information to traditional ecological quality indicators. Including social mapping brings added value by incorporating perceived services, local knowledge, and additional sites of importance.

1. Social Landscape Indicators -
a participatory approach to
integrated assessment of ES
Rik DE VREESE
Rik.De.Vreese@vub.ac.be
Human Ecology Department & Medical Sociology Department
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium)

2. 19/05/2015 2
Social Landscape Indicators
Pag.
Humans in the ES concept?
Ecosystem Services:
benefits supplied to humans by natural
ecosystems
BUT
ES assessments based on biophysical
mapping/modelling and economic/monetary
valuation
-> How to include social values, human
perceptions and intangible ES in ES
mapping & assessments?

3. 19/05/2015 3
Social Landscape Indicators
Pag.
Specific research questions
• Are landscape ecology
indicators suitable for describing
social distribution of ES?
• Do social hotspots overlap with
ecological/biophysical
hotspots?
• Role of social ES assessment
within integrated ES assessment

4. 19/05/2015 4
Social Landscape Indicators
Pag.
Study area
4
LEUVEN
WAVRE
LOUVAIN-LA-NEUVE Credits pictures: N. Dendoncker
www.natura2000.org

5. 19/05/2015 5
Social Landscape Indicators
Pag.
39 interviews with stakeholders
Content analysis
• Synergies between ES
• Conflicting ES
• Threats to ES
Data processing
Most frequently
mapped
• aesthetical experiences (18%)
• recreation (15%)
• habitat provisioning (15%)
Conflicting ES
• urbanisation
(30% of the stated conflicts)
• habitat vs. recreation (7 %)
Respondents localised
most important ES
Social landscape indicators
• abundance/frequence
• ES richness
• diversity
• rarity
• risk
Overlaps

6. 19/05/2015 6
Social Landscape Indicators
Pag.
Results. Participant maps

7. 19/05/2015 7
Social Landscape Indicators
Pag.
Results. Landscape ecology indicators
Abundance/frequency: # of ES
(across types)
-> strong correlation to ES-types
Richness: # of ES-types
-> strong correlation to ES-types

8. 19/05/2015 8
Social Landscape Indicators
Pag.
Results. Landscape ecology indicators
Rarity: rare ES
Risk: norm. conflicts X normalised
abundance => zones of high
social relevance

9. 19/05/2015 9
Social Landscape Indicators
Pag.
Social vs.
Ecological hotspot
Legend
ES richness
hotspot
Ecological
important
Ecological
very important

10. 19/05/2015 10
Social Landscape Indicators
Pag.
Social vs.
Biophysical hotspot
Legend
Erosion (social map)
Soil loss (ton/ha.yr)

11. 19/05/2015 11
Social Landscape Indicators
Pag.
Role in integrated assessment
Social ES assessment adds ...
– Limited overlap with biophysical and ecological
attributes
– Exploratory power of zoning categories, conservation
status (Na2000, reserves) or ecological quality
mapping to predict social hotspots is limited
– Social hotspots =/= biophysical hotspots
– Social hotspots =/= ecological hotspots

12. 19/05/2015 12
Social Landscape Indicators
Pag.
Conclusions (1)
Social Landscape Indicators have
potential to describe social ES
distribution
– Abundance & richness: summarise ES supply
– Abundance: where do most ES occur?
– Richness: where does the most ES types occur?
– Rarity: where do rare ES occur?
– Risk: where are ES with high social importance threatened?
– Provide additional information to traditional indicators
(ecological quality)

13. 19/05/2015 13
Social Landscape Indicators
Pag.
Conclusions (2)
Social ES mapping brings
additional value to ES assessment
– Brings in perceived ES supply
– Brings in lay knowledge
– Brings in additional sites
– Social Landscape Indicators -> locate perceptions
spatially

14. 19/05/2015 14
Social Landscape Indicators
Pag.
Relevance for management & policy
– Mapping ES important to stakeholders & communities
– Including cultural ES, difficult to map with traditional
methods
– Integrating local/lay knowledge with expert
knowledge
--Coldspot
+-Warmspot
++Hotspot
Ecol.SocialAlessa et al.
2008

15. 19/05/2015 15
Social Landscape Indicators
Pag.
Results. Perceived ES supply mapped
1. Aesthetical experiences (18 % - Cultural ES)
2. Soft recreation (15 % - CES)
3. Habitat provisioning
(15 % - regulating ES)
4. Food production (8 %)
5. Conservation of local
species (5 % - reg. ES)
Intangible, cultural ES
Lay knowledge