Ecosystem Services, Land-Cover Change, and Stakeholders: Finding a Sustainable Foothold for a Semiarid Biodiversity Hotspot

Land-cover change has been identified as one of the most important drivers of change in ecosystems and their services. However, information on the consequences of land cover change for ecosystem services and human well-being at local scales is largely absent. Where information does exist, the traditional methods used to collate and communicate this information represent a significant obstacle to sustainable ecosystem management. Embedding science in a social process and solving problems together with stakeholders are necessary elements in ensuring that new knowledge results in desired actions, behavior changes, and decisions. We have attempted to address this identified information gap, as well as the way information is gathered, by quantifying the local-scale consequences of land-cover change for ecosystem services in the Little Karoo region, a semiarid biodiversity hotspot in South Africa. Our work is part of a stakeholder-engaged process that aims to answer questions inspired by the beneficiaries and managers of ecosystem services. We mapped and quantified the potential supply of, and changes in, five ecosystem services: production of forage, carbon storage, erosion control, water flow regulation, and tourism. Our results demonstrated substantial (20%-50%) declines across ecosystem services as a result of land-cover change in the Little Karoo. We linked these changes in land-cover to the political and land-use history of the region. We found that the natural features that deliver the Little Karoo's ecosystem services, similar to other semiarid regions, are not being managed in a way that recognizes their constraints and vulnerabilities. There is a resulting decline in ecosystem services, leading to an increase in unemployment and vulnerability to shocks, and narrowing future options. We have proposed a way forward for the region that includes immediate action and restoration, mechanisms to fund this action, the development of future economic activity including tourism and carbon markets, and new ways that the science-stakeholder partnership can foster these changes. Although we acknowledge the radical shifts required, we have highlighted the opportunities provided by the resilience and adaptation potential of semiarid regions, their biodiversity, and their inhabitants.

[1]  P. O’Farrell,et al.  The Financial Costs of Ecologically Nonsustainable Farming Practices in a Semiarid System , 2009 .

[2]  R. Cowling,et al.  Mapping Grazing-Induced Degradation in a Semi-Arid Environment: A Rapid and Cost Effective Approach for Assessment and Monitoring , 2009, Environmental management.

[3]  R. Cowling,et al.  The role of private conservation areas in biodiversity representation and target achievement within the Little Karoo region, South Africa , 2009 .

[4]  D. Richardson,et al.  Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management , 2008 .

[5]  R. Cowling,et al.  An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  J. Blignaut,et al.  Investing in Natural Capital and Economic Development: South Africa’s Drakensberg Mountains , 2008, Ecological Restoration.

[7]  Richard M Cowling,et al.  Knowing But Not Doing: Selecting Priority Conservation Areas and the Research–Implementation Gap , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[8]  James Nelson Blignaut,et al.  The working for water programme Evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa , 2008 .

[9]  J. Fitzsimons,et al.  The role of multi-tenure reserve networks in improving reserve design and connectivity , 2008 .

[10]  J. Blignaut,et al.  Getting serious about maintaining biodiversity , 2008 .

[11]  G. Malanson,et al.  Spatially explicit historical land use land cover and soil organic carbon transformations in Southern Illinois , 2008 .

[12]  S. Hamilton,et al.  Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits , 2007 .

[13]  Patrick J. O’Farrell,et al.  The influence of ecosystem goods and services on livestock management practices on the Bokkeveld plateau, South Africa. , 2007 .

[14]  Peter Kareiva,et al.  Domesticated Nature: Shaping Landscapes and Ecosystems for Human Welfare , 2007, Science.

[15]  Christopher L. Lant,et al.  The Law and Policy of Ecosystem Services , 2007 .

[16]  Patricia Balvanera,et al.  The future of production systems in a globalized world , 2007 .

[17]  A. Klein,et al.  Linking deforestation scenarios to pollination services and economic returns in coffee agroforestry systems. , 2007, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[18]  Ming Dong,et al.  Quantification of the Impact of Land-Use Changes on Ecosystem Services: A Case Study in Pingbian County, China , 2007, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[19]  Andrew Balmford,et al.  Getting the biodiversity intactness index right: the importance of habitat degradation data , 2006 .

[20]  C. Pohl,et al.  Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research , 2006 .

[21]  Gretchen C Daily,et al.  Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services , 2006, PLoS biology.

[22]  Louis Lebel,et al.  Linking Knowledge and Action for Sustainable Development , 2006 .

[23]  Belinda Reyers,et al.  Future Ecosystem Services in a Southern African River Basin: a Scenario Planning Approach to Uncertainty , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[24]  Carl Folke,et al.  Incorporating Green-area User Groups in Urban Ecosystem Management , 2006, Ambio.

[25]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Trade-offs across Space, Time, and Ecosystem Services , 2006 .

[26]  E. F. Viglizzo,et al.  Land-use options for Del Plata Basin in South America: Tradeoffs analysis based on ecosystem service provision , 2006 .

[27]  R. Cowling,et al.  Rate of Carbon Sequestration at Two Thicket Restoration Sites in the Eastern Cape, South Africa , 2006 .

[28]  Erin Bohensky,et al.  Condition and trends of ecosystem services and biodiversity , 2005 .

[29]  R. Cowling,et al.  Effects of goat pastoralism on ecosystem carbon storage in semiarid thicket, Eastern Cape, South Africa , 2005 .

[30]  Trevor Wolf,et al.  Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning: Interpretation for implementation , 2005 .

[31]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Global Consequences of Land Use , 2005, Science.

[32]  Manfred A. Max-Neef.  Foundations of transdisciplinarity , 2005 .

[33]  R. Biggs,et al.  A biodiversity intactness index , 2005, Nature.

[34]  C. Cupido,et al.  Assessment of veld utilisation practices and veld condition in the Little Karoo , 2005 .

[35]  T. Lynam,et al.  Measuring conditions and trends in ecosystem services at multiple scales: the Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (SAfMA) experience , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[36]  Roland Clift,et al.  The Role of the Professional Engineer and Scientist in Sustainable Development , 2005 .

[37]  L. Bruijnzeel,et al.  Hydrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees? , 2004 .

[38]  R. DeFries,et al.  Land‐use choices: balancing human needs and ecosystem function , 2004 .

[39]  N. Nakagoshi,et al.  An ecosystem service value assessment of land-use change on Chongming Island, China. , 2004 .

[40]  Amy Luers,et al.  Illustrating the coupled human–environment system for vulnerability analysis: Three case studies , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[41]  S. Milton,et al.  Did the flora match the fauna? Acocks and historical changes in Karoo biota , 2003 .

[42]  L. Mucina,et al.  Nature Divided: Land Degradation in South Africa , 2003 .

[43]  R. D. Groot,et al.  A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services , 2002 .

[44]  Ronald E. Lacey,et al.  Change in ecosystem service values in the San Antonio area, Texas , 2001 .

[45]  T. Brooks,et al.  Hotspots Revisited: Earth's Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions , 2000 .

[46]  I. Calder.  Water use by forests, limits and controls. , 1998, Tree physiology.

[47]  Klas Sandstroem.  Can forests `provide` water: Widespread myth or scientific reality ? , 1998 .

[48]  H. Mooney,et al.  Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems , 1997, Renewable Energy.

[49]  R. O'Neill,et al.  The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital , 1997, Nature.

[50]  D. Tongway,et al.  Landscape Ecology, Function and Management: Principles from Australia's Rangelands , 1996 .

[51]  Thorsten Wiegand,et al.  A Simulation Model for Shrub Ecosystem in the Semiarid Karoo, South Africa , 1995 .

[52]  J. Lawton,et al.  Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies , 1993, Nature.

[53]  W. Dean.  Effects of animal activity on the absorption rate of soils in the southern Karoo, South Africa. , 1992 .

[54]  R. Cowling,et al.  Desertification in the lower Sundays River Valley, South Africa , 1990 .

[55]  J. Hewlett,et al.  A REVIEW OF CATCHMENT EXPERIMENTS TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF VEGETATION CHANGES ON WATER YIELD AND EVAPOTRANSPIRATION , 1982 .

[56]  James Aronson,et al.  Restoring natural capital : science, business, and practice , 2007 .

[57]  William Beinart.  The Rise of Conservation in South Africa: Settlers, Livestock, and the Environment 1770-1950 , 2003 .

[58]  R. Farvolden.  Geologic controls on ground-water storage and base flow , 1963 .