Felipe Benra , Manuel Pacheco-Romero , Joern Fischer
{"title":"Ecosystem service supply and (in)equality archetypes","authors":"Felipe Benra , Manuel Pacheco-Romero , Joern Fischer","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101683","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Overall patterns of ecosystem services (ES) supplied by a landscape often hide distributional (in)equalities that condition how the benefits from nature are provided and used by people. This is evident in landscapes dominated by private ownership and composed of a mosaic of property sizes, across which ES supply can vary substantially. So far, the distributional inequalities in ES supply have been assessed only implicitly through the identification of ES bundles that yield hotspots and coldspots, whereas explicit analyses of how ES supply is shaped by distributional (in)equalities are lacking. Taking southern Chile as a case study, we applied a clustering approach at the municipality scale (n = 177), using data at the property level to identify archetypes in (i) the supply of eight ES and (ii) the (in)equalities of that supply using the Gini coefficient. We then analyzed the spatial co-occurrence between ES supply and (in)equality archetypes, to identify which patterns of (in)equality intersect with the supply of ES. We obtained six ES supply archetypes and ten (in)equality archetypes that showed characteristic spatial patterns. Supply archetypes were spatially dominated by a single archetype, which had below average values in the supply of all ES. Contrarily, (in)equality archetypes presented a more heterogeneous distribution across the study area. ES supply archetypes were defined by regulating and cultural ES, whereas (in)equality archetypes were shaped by provisioning and regulating ES. Spatial co-occurrence analysis showed that the dominant ES supply archetype encompassed all (in)equality archetypes – suggesting that property structure can modulate the (in)equality at which ES are supplied. We discuss the policy and management implications arising from the different co-occurring levels of ES supply and (in)equalities. Understanding the linkages between ES supply and distributional (in)equalities at large spatial scales and high resolution can help to prioritize spatial interventions seeking to improve equitable and sustainable ES supply.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51312,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystem Services","volume":"71 ","pages":"Article 101683"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecosystem Services","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000901","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Overall patterns of ecosystem services (ES) supplied by a landscape often hide distributional (in)equalities that condition how the benefits from nature are provided and used by people. This is evident in landscapes dominated by private ownership and composed of a mosaic of property sizes, across which ES supply can vary substantially. So far, the distributional inequalities in ES supply have been assessed only implicitly through the identification of ES bundles that yield hotspots and coldspots, whereas explicit analyses of how ES supply is shaped by distributional (in)equalities are lacking. Taking southern Chile as a case study, we applied a clustering approach at the municipality scale (n = 177), using data at the property level to identify archetypes in (i) the supply of eight ES and (ii) the (in)equalities of that supply using the Gini coefficient. We then analyzed the spatial co-occurrence between ES supply and (in)equality archetypes, to identify which patterns of (in)equality intersect with the supply of ES. We obtained six ES supply archetypes and ten (in)equality archetypes that showed characteristic spatial patterns. Supply archetypes were spatially dominated by a single archetype, which had below average values in the supply of all ES. Contrarily, (in)equality archetypes presented a more heterogeneous distribution across the study area. ES supply archetypes were defined by regulating and cultural ES, whereas (in)equality archetypes were shaped by provisioning and regulating ES. Spatial co-occurrence analysis showed that the dominant ES supply archetype encompassed all (in)equality archetypes – suggesting that property structure can modulate the (in)equality at which ES are supplied. We discuss the policy and management implications arising from the different co-occurring levels of ES supply and (in)equalities. Understanding the linkages between ES supply and distributional (in)equalities at large spatial scales and high resolution can help to prioritize spatial interventions seeking to improve equitable and sustainable ES supply.
景观所提供的生态系统服务(ES)的整体模式往往隐藏着分配(不)平等的问题,这就决定了人们如何提供和使用来自大自然的益处。这一点在以私人所有权为主、由各种规模的地产组成的景观中非常明显,在这些景观中,生态系统服务的供应可能会有很大的不同。迄今为止,人们只是通过识别产生热点和冷点的环境服务包来隐含地评估环境服务供应的分配不平等,而缺乏对环境服务供应如何受分配(不)平等影响的明确分析。以智利南部为例,我们在市镇范围内(n = 177)采用了聚类方法,利用物业层面的数据确定了(i)八种环境服务供应的原型,以及(ii)利用基尼系数确定的供应(不)均衡性。然后,我们分析了 ES 供应和(不)平等原型之间的空间共存性,以确定哪些(不)平等模式与 ES 供应相交。我们获得了 6 个 ES 供应原型和 10 个(不)平等原型,它们都显示出特征性的空间模式。供应原型在空间上由单一原型主导,其所有 ES 的供应量均低于平均值。与此相反,(不)平等原型在整个研究区域的分布则更为分散。环境服务供给原型是由调节性和文化性环境服务确定的,而(不)平等原型则是由供给性和调节性环境服务形成的。空间共现分析表明,主要的环境服务供应原型涵盖了所有(不)平等原型--这表明物业结构可以调节环境服务供应的(不)平等程度。我们讨论了不同程度的环境服务供应和(不)平等并存对政策和管理的影响。在大空间尺度和高分辨率下理解生态系统服务供给与分布(不)平等之间的联系,有助于确定空间干预措施的优先次序,以改善公平和可持续的生态系统服务供给。
期刊介绍:
Ecosystem Services is an international, interdisciplinary journal that is associated with the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP). The journal is dedicated to exploring the science, policy, and practice related to ecosystem services, which are the various ways in which ecosystems contribute to human well-being, both directly and indirectly.
Ecosystem Services contributes to the broader goal of ensuring that the benefits of ecosystems are recognized, valued, and sustainably managed for the well-being of current and future generations. The journal serves as a platform for scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders to share their findings and insights, fostering collaboration and innovation in the field of ecosystem services.