Application of an ecosystem function framework to perceptions of community woodlands
Introduction
In the UK, woodlands have been defined as land with trees where the mature trees would cover more than 20% by area (Forestry Commission, 2004). Woodland types range from large areas, generally called forests, to smaller areas known by terms such as woods, copses and shelterbelts. Since 1988 the government in the UK, as in other countries in the European Union, has provided grant schemes to support landowners who plant new woodlands. The aims of such schemes have included reducing agricultural surpluses, enhancing the landscape, creating new wildlife habitats, encouraging recreational use, supporting farm income and rural employment, and supplying timber (Rollinson, 1999). Between 1996 and 1998, one particular grant was the “Community Woodland Supplement” which supported the planting of new community woodlands within 8 km of a village, town, or city, where there are few other types of woodland available for recreation (Forestry Commission, 1998). The typical additional grant available for such woodlands was £950 per hectare (1996–1998 prices). Hence in the context of this paper, community woodlands are defined as areas of trees with free public access close to a significant population centre.
This paper has three main objectives: (i) to determine the applicability of an ecosystem functions approach to classifying the diverse array of functions and services generated by semi-natural ecosystems such as community woodlands, (ii) to link these multiple functions and services with particular stakeholder interests and preferences, and (iii) to explore potential synergies and tensions. Following a brief review of the principles of ecosystem and stakeholder analyses, the paper explains the methods used to meet the research objectives, and presents the results of a pilot and main stakeholder survey. The results are discussed in terms of the applicability of the framework, the responses of individual stakeholders, and a consideration of how the framework can be used to identify and address potential areas of synergy and tension.
Section snippets
Ecosystems framework
The ecosystems framework adopts an anthropogenic viewpoint in that it links the stock of natural assets found in land, water, air and living systems, with an associated flow of services that provide benefits to people and communities. The assets are often termed “natural capital”, which are associated with a range of processes or “functions”, which can provide goods and services (items that confer benefit and advantage) to meet human needs, directly or indirectly (Turner et al., 2000, De Groot
Stakeholder interests and preferences
The anthropocentric focus of the ecosystem function approach requires an appreciation of the distribution of the flows of actual or potential goods and services amongst different stakeholder groups (Turner et al., 2000). Stakeholders are individuals, groups or organisations with an interest in a particular phenomenon, further distinguished according to the degree to which they can influence the phenomenon of concern (Friedman and Miles, 2006). In this context, it can be useful to understand the
Materials and methods
The method was based on a case study strategy involving three community woodlands. The sites, all in Bedfordshire in Eastern England, were selected because they had contrasting forms of woodland ownership, each was open to the public, and each had received governmental support to encourage public access. The woodlands comprised one of mainly poplar (Populus spp.) species (Pegnut Wood, 52°7′N; 0°13′W; 35 m above sea level); and two of mixed-broadleaf species (Clapham Park Wood, 52°10′N; 0°28′W; 60
Results
The results are described in terms of the relative weighting of importance given to the five categories of ecosystem services, and then in terms of the specific services within each category.
Discussion
This section first discusses the general applicability of the ecosystem function framework to community woodlands. It then discusses the responses of the individual stakeholders and lastly considers how the framework can be used to identify and address potential areas of synergy or tension.
Conclusions
The ecosystem function framework was applied in this paper to explore the stakeholder perceptions on the relative value of the different functions and services associated with community woodlands. By starting from a consideration of the capacity of natural processes and components in the woodland (e.g. the functions of the woodland) to provide goods and services, it provides a systematic structure for comparing the importance of a range of goods and services in a non-monetarised way. After an
Acknowledgements
We wish to acknowledge the contributions of all the stakeholders who were contacted. Olivia Agbenyega was in receipt of a research studentship from the Government of Ghana whilst she undertook this research.
References (39)
Recreation use of urban forests: an inter-area comparison
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
(2006)- et al.
Landowner responses to financial incentive schemes for recreational access to woodlands in South East England
Land Use Policy
(2008) Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable multi-functional landscapes
Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning
(2006)- et al.
A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services
Ecological Economics
(2002) - et al.
Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services
Ecological Economics
(2002) - et al.
Untying a Lancastrian bundle: valuing ecosystems and ecosystem services for wetland mitigation
Journal of Environmental Management
(2003) - et al.
Knowledge and recognition of ecosystem services among the general public in a drainage basin in Scania, Southern Sweden
Ecological Economics
(2002) - et al.
A model for quantifying and predicting urban pressure on woodland
Landscape and Urban Planning
(2006) - et al.
Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy
Ecological Economics
(2000) - et al.
Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research direction
Ecological Economics
(2003)
Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation
Ecological Economics
Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture
Ecological Economics
Environment and Economy. Property Rights and Public Policy
National inventories of terrestrial carbon sources and sinks: the U.K. experience
Climatic Change
Recreational congestion: some hypotheses tested in the Forest of Dean
Journal of Rural Studies
The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital
Nature
Cited by (110)
The benefits and disbenefits associated with cultural ecosystem services of urban green spaces
2024, Science of the Total EnvironmentSpatially targeting national-scale afforestation for multiple ecosystem services
2023, Applied GeographyPerceptions about mangrove restoration and ecosystem services to inform ecosystem-based restoration in Large Xiamen Bay, China
2023, Landscape and Urban PlanningHeterogeneous preference for biodiversity in Japanese urban blue spaces based on people's nature experiences: Analysis using eDNA and satisfaction data
2023, City and Environment Interactions