Inequality in access to cultural ecosystem services from protected areas in the Chilean biodiversity hotspot

Science of the Total Environment

Volumn 636, Issue , 2018, Pages 1128-1138

  Martinez Harms, Maria Jose ^a   Bryan, Brett A ^b   Wood, Spencer A ^c,d   Fisher, David M ^d   Law, Elizabeth ^a   Rhodes, Jonathan R ^a   Dobbs, Cynnamon ^e   Biggs, Duan ^a,f,g   Wilson, Kerrie A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b DEAKIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^d STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

^f GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^g STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Geotagged photographs; Human benefits; Inequality; Nature visitation; Protected areas; Social preferences

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION; ECOSYSTEMS; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; PHOTOGRAPHY;

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR; GEOTAGGED PHOTOGRAPH; HOTSPOTS; HUMAN BENEFIT; INEQUALITY; LOW INCOMES; NATURE VISITATION; PROTECTED AREAS; SOCIAL PREFERENCE;

BIODIVERSITY;

BIODIVERSITY; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; PHOTOGRAPH; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; PROTECTED AREA;

ARTICLE; BIODIVERSITY; CHILEAN; DATA BASE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM; PHOTOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOCIAL MEDIA; SOCIOECONOMICS; TRAVEL; CHILE; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; ECOSYSTEM; HUMAN; PROCEDURES;

CHILE;

BIODIVERSITY; CHILE; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; CULTURE; ECOSYSTEM; HUMANS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 85046831063     PISSN: 00489697     EISSN: 18791026     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.353     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. Agostini, C., Brown, P., Desigualdad geográfica en Chile. Revista de Analisis Econ. 22 (2007), 3–33.
2. Ala-Hulkko, T., Kotavaara, O., Alahuhta, J., Helle, P., Hjort, J., Introducing accessibility analysis in mapping cultural ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 66 (2016), 416–427.
3. Allan, J.D., Smith, S.D., McIntyre, P.B., Joseph, C.A., Dickinson, C.E., Marino, A.L., et al. Using cultural ecosystem services to inform restoration priorities in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13 (2015), 418–424.
4. Ament, J.M., Moore, C.A., Herbst, M., Cumming, G.S., Cultural ecosystem services in protected areas: understanding bundles, trade-offs, and synergies. Conserv. Lett., 2016, 1–11.
5. Arroyo, M.T.K., Marquet, P., Marticorena, C., Simonetti, J., Cavieres, L.A., Squeo, F.A., Rozzi, R., Chilean winter rainfall - Valdivian forests. Mittermeier, P., Hoffmann, M., Pilgrim, J., Brooks, T., Goettsch-Mittermeier, C., Lamoreux, J., Da Fonseca, G., (eds.) Hotspots revisited: earth's biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions, 2004, CEMEX, Mexico, 99–103.
6. Balmford, A., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., Naidoo, R., Strassburg, B., Turner, R.K., et al. Bringing ecosystem services into the real world: an operational framework for assessing the economic consequences of losing wild nature. Environ. Resour. Econ. 48 (2011), 161–175.
7. Balmford, A., Green, J.M.H., Anderson, M., Beresford, J., Huang, C., Naidoo, R., et al. Walk on the wild side: estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected areas. PLoS Biol., 13, 2015, e1002074.
8. Bannister, J., Vidal, O., Teneb, E., Sandoval, V., Latitudinal patterns and regionalization of plant diversity along a 4270-km gradient in continental Chile. Austral Ecol. 37 (2012), 500–509.
9. Barr, L.M., Pressey, R.L., Fuller, R.A., Segan, D.B., McDonald-Madden, E., Possingham, H.P., A new way to measure the World's protected area coverage. PLoS One, 6, 2011, e24707.
10. Bassolas, A., Lenormand, M., Tugores, A., Gonçalves, B., Ramasco, J.J., Touristic site attractiveness seen through Twitter. EPJ Data Sci., 5, 2016, 12.
11. Booth, J.E., Gaston, K.J., Armsworth, P.R., Who benefits from recreational use of protected areas. Ecol. Soc., 15, 2010, 19.
12. Bratman, G.N., Hamilton, J.P., Daily, G.C., The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1249 (2012), 118–136.
13. Bubeck, P., Botzen, W.J.W., Kreibich, H., Aerts, J.C.J.H., Detailed insights into the influence of flood-coping appraisals on mitigation behaviour. Glob. Environ. Chang. 23 (2013), 1327–1338.
14. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., Müller, F., Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 21 (2012), 17–29.
15. Burns, G.W., Naturally happy, naturally healthy: the role of the natural environment in well-being. The Science of Well-being, 2005, 405–431.
16. Casalegno, S., Inger, R., DeSilvey, C., Gaston, K.J., Spatial Covariance Between Aesthetic Value & Other Ecosystem Services. 2013.
17. Castañeda, L.E., Godoy, K., Manzano, M., Marquet, P.A., Barbosa, O., Comparison of soil microbial communities inhabiting vineyards and native sclerophyllous forests in central Chile. Ecol. Evol. 5 (2015), 3857–3868.
18. Chan, K.M., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., et al. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62 (2012), 744–756.
19. Chilean Government, Md, Agricultura, Sistema Nacional de Areas Silvestres Protegidas del Estado. Ley 18362, 1984, Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile, Santiago, Chile (18362).
20. CONAF-CONAMA-BIRF, Catastro y evaluación de los Recursos Vegetacionales Nativos de Chile. 2014, Universidad Austral de Chile-Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile-Universidad Católica de Temuco.
21. Cord, A.F., Brauman, K.A., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Huth, A., Ziv, G., Seppelt, R., Priorities to advance monitoring of ecosystem services using earth observation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32 (2017), 416–428.
22. Damgaard, C., Weiner, J., Describing inequality in plant size or fecundity. Ecology 81 (2000), 1139–1142.
23. Daniel, T.C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J.W., Chan, K.M.A., et al. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109:23 (2012), 8812–8819.
24. De Juan, S., Gelcich, S., Fernandez, M., Integrating stakeholder perceptions and preferences on ecosystem services in the management of coastal areas. Ocean Coast. Manag. 136 (2017), 38–48.
25. Di Minin, E., Tenkanen, H., Toivonen, T., Prospects and challenges for social media data in conservation science. Front. Environ. Sci., 3, 2015.
26. Dockemdorff, E., Rodríguez, A., Winchester, L., Santiago de Chile: metropolization, globalization and inequity. Environ. Urban. 12 (2000), 171–183.
27. Durán, A.P., Casalegno, S., Marquet, P.A., Gaston, K.J., Representation of ecosystem services by terrestrial protected areas: Chile as a case study. PLoS One, 8, 2013, e82643.
28. ESRI, ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. 2011, Environmental Systems Research Institute, CA.
29. Fisichelli, N.A., Schuurman, G.W., Monahan, W.B., Ziesler, P.S., Protected area tourism in a changing climate: will visitation at US National Parks Warm up or overheat?. PLoS One, 10, 2015, e0128226.
30. Gray, C.L., Hill, S.L.L., Newbold, T., Hudson, L.N., Börger, L., Contu, S., et al. Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat. Commun., 7, 2016, 12306.
31. Gurney, G.G., Pressey, R.L., Ban, N.C., Álvarez-Romero, J.G., Jupiter, S., Adams, V.M., Efficient and equitable design of marine protected areas in Fiji through inclusion of stakeholder-specific objectives in conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 29 (2015), 1378–1389.
32. Halpern, B.S., Klein, C.J., Brown, C.J., Beger, M., Grantham, H.S., Mangubhai, S., et al. Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110:15 (2013), 6229–6234.
33. Hausmann, A., Toivonen, T., Heikinheimo, V., Tenkanen, H., Slotow, R., Di Minin, E., Social media reveal that charismatic species are not the main attractor of ecotourists to sub-Saharan protected areas. Sci. Rep., 7, 2017, 763.
34. Hausmann, A., Toivonen, T., Slotow, R., Tenkanen, H., Moilanen, A., Heikinheimo, V., et al. Social media data can be used to understand Tourists' preferences for nature-based experiences in protected areas. Conserv. Lett., 11, 2018, 1.
35. Heagney, E.C., Kovac, M., Fountain, J., Conner, N., Socio-economic benefits from protected areas in southeastern Australia. Conserv. Biol. 29 (2015), 1647–1657.
36. Heikinheimo, V., Minin, E.D., Tenkanen, H., Hausmann, A., Erkkonen, J., Toivonen, T., User-generated geographic information for visitor monitoring in a National Park: a comparison of social media data and visitor survey. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inform., 6, 2017, 85.
37. Keeler, B.L., Wood, S.A., Polasky, S., Kling, C., Filstrup, C.T., Downing, J.A., Recreational demand for clean water: evidence from geotagged photographs by visitors to lakes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13 (2015), 76–81.
38. Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O., The Biophilia Hypothesis. 1995, Island Press.
39. Keniger, L.E., Gaston, K.J., Irvine, K.N., Fuller, R.A., What are the benefits of interacting with nature?. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 10 (2013), 913–935.
40. Klein, C., McKinnon, M.C., Wright, B.T., Possingham, H.P., Halpern, B.S., Social equity and the probability of success of biodiversity conservation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 35 (2015), 299–306.
41. Kuempel, C.D., Chauvenet, A.L.M., Possingham, H.P., Equitable representation of ecoregions is slowly improving despite strategic planning shortfalls. Conserv. Lett. 9:6 (2016), 422–428.
42. Lindsey, G., Maraj, M., Kuan, S., Access, equity, and urban greenways: an exploratory investigation. Prof. Geogr. 53 (2001), 332–346.
43. Louv, R., Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature-deficit Disorder: Algonquin Books. 2008.
44. Luebert, F., Becerra, P., Representatividad vegetacional del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Silvestres Protegidas del Estado (SNASPE) en Chile. Ambiente y Desarrollo 14 (1998), 62–69.
45. Luebert, F., Pliscoff, P., Sinopsis bioclimática y vegetacional de Chile: Editorial Universitaria. 2006.
46. Maes, J., Burkhard, B., Geneletti, D., Ecosystem services are inclusive and deliver multiple values. A comment on the concept of nature's contributions to people. One Ecosyst., 3, 2018, e24720.
47. Maller, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P., St Leger, L., Healthy nature healthy people:‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promot. Int. 21 (2006), 45–54.
48. Martinez Pastur, G., Peri, P.L., Lencinas, M.V., García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Spatial patterns of cultural ecosystem services provision in Southern Patagonia. Landsc. Ecol. 31:2 (2015), 1–17.
49. McCurdy, L.E., Winterbottom, K.E., Mehta, S.S., Roberts, J.R., Using nature and outdoor activity to improve children's health. Curr. Prob. Pediatr. Adolesc. Health Care 40 (2010), 102–117.
50. Melillo, J.M., Lu, X., Kicklighter, D.W., Reilly, J.M., Cai, Y., Sokolov, A.P., Protected areas' role in climate-change mitigation. Ambio 45 (2016), 133–145.
51. Merelender, A., Altieri, M., Barlosa, O., Munoz-Saez, A., Pino, C., Wilson, H., Chile and California: the wine is the land. Berkeley Rev. Latin Am. Stud., 2014, 29–36.
52. Milcu, A.I., Hanspach, J., Abson, D., Fischer, J., Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol. Soc., 18, 2013, 44.
53. Ministerio Desarrollo Social, Base de Datos Principal con Metodología Nueva, Encuesta Casen. 2013, Base de Datos Casen. Ministerio Desarrollo Social, Santiago, Chile, 2013.
54. Miranda, A., Altamirano, A., Cayuela, L., Lara, A., González, M., Native forest loss in the Chilean biodiversity hotspot: revealing the evidence. Reg. Environ. Chang. 17 (2017), 285–297.
55. Nicholls, S., Shafer, C.S., Measuring accessibility and equity in a local park system: the utility of geospatial technologies to park and recreation professionals. J. Park. Recreat. Adm., 19, 2001.
56. OECD, In it Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All. 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris.
57. OSM, http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright, 2016.
58. Paracchini, M.L., Zulian, G., Kopperoinen, L., Maes, J., Schägner, J.P., Termansen, M., et al. Mapping cultural ecosystem services: a framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecol. Indic. 45 (2014), 371–385.
59. Parry, T.R., Decentralization and privatization: education policy in Chile. J. Publ. Policy 17 (1997), 107–133.
60. Pauchard, A., Smith-Ramirez, C., Ortiz, J., Informe final de estudio de diagnostico del potencial de conservacion de la biodiversidad de la empresa forestal Mininco en la cordillera de Nahuelbuta CMPC. 2007, Universidad de Concepcion, Fundacion Senda Darwin, Concepcion, Chile.
61. Pizzolitto, G., Poverty and inequality in Chile: methodological issues and a literature review. Documentos de Trabajo del CEDLAS, 2005.
62. Pliscoff, P., Fuentes-Castillo, T., Representativeness of terrestrial ecosystems in Chile's protected area system. Environ. Conserv. 38 (2011), 303–311.
63. Pliscoff, P., Luebert, F., Hilger, H.H., Guisan, A., Effects of alternative sets of climatic predictors on species distribution models and associated estimates of extinction risk: a test with plants in an arid environment. Ecol. Model. 288 (2014), 166–177.
64. Pullin, A.S., Bangpan, M., Dalrymple, S., Dickson, K., Haddaway, N.R., Healey, J.R., et al. Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas. Environ. Evidence, 2(1), 2013.
65. R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2012, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna (URL: http://www. R-project. org 2015).
66. Richards, D.R., Friess, D.A., A rapid indicator of cultural ecosystem service usage at a fine spatial scale: content analysis of social media photographs. Ecol. Indic. 53 (2015), 187–195.
67. Russell, R., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Gould, R.K., Basurto, X., Chan, K.M., et al. Humans and nature: how knowing and experiencing nature affect well-being. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 38 (2013), 473–502.
68. Satz, D., Gould, R.K., Chan, K.M., Guerry, A., Norton, B., Satterfield, T., et al. The challenges of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental assessment. Ambio 42 (2013), 675–684.
69. Schuppert, F., Wallimann-Helmer, I., Social Equality: Essays on What it Means to be Equals. 2015.
70. Sessions, C., Wood, S.A., Rabotyagov, S., Fisher, D.M., Measuring recreational visitation at U.S. National Parks with crowd-sourced photographs. J. Environ. Manag. 183 (2016), 703–711.
71. Shanahan, D.F., Lin, B.B., Gaston, K.J., Bush, R., Fuller, R.A., Socio-economic inequalities in access to nature on public and private lands: a case study from Brisbane, Australia. Landsc. Urban Plan. 130 (2014), 14–23.
72. Shanahan, D.F., Bush, R., Gaston, K.J., Lin, B.B., Dean, J., Barber, E., et al. Health benefits from nature experiences depend on dose. Sci. Rep., 6, 2016, 28551.
73. Sharp, R., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T., Guerry, A., Wood, S., Chaplin-Kramer, R., et al. InVEST User's Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, University of Minnesota, the Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund. 2016.
74. Shores, K.A., Scott, D., Floyd, M.F., Constraints to outdoor recreation: a multiple hierarchy stratification perspective. Leis. Sci. 29 (2007), 227–246.
75. Spenceley, A., Kohl, J., McArthur, S., Myles, P., Notarianni, M., Paleczny, D., et al. Visitor management. Protect. Area Govern. Manage., 2015, 715–750.
76. Stierli, M., Shorrocks, A., Davies, J., Lluberas, R., Koutsoukis, A., Global Wealth Report 2014. 2014, Credit Suisse, Zurich.
77. Stolton, S., Dudley, N., The importance of forest protected areas to drinking water: running pure. World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use, 2003, 114.
78. TEEB, Kumar, Pushpam, (eds.) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations, 2010, Earthscan, London and Washington.
79. Tulloch, A.I.T., Barnes, M.D., Ringma, J., Fuller, R.A., Watson, J.E.M., Understanding the importance of small patches of habitat for conservation. J. Appl. Ecol. 53 (2016), 418–429.
80. Ulrich, R., View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224 (1984), 420–421.
81. Van Den Berg, A.E., Hartig, T., Staats, H., Preference for nature in urbanized societies: stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. J. Soc. Issues 63 (2007), 79–96.
82. Vásquez, F., Paraje, G., Estay, M., Income-related inequality in health and health care utilization in Chile, 2000–2009. Rev. Panam. Salud Publica 33 (2013), 98–106.
83. Wang, Z., Jin, Y., Liu, Y., Li, D., Zhang, B., Comparing social media data and survey data in assessing the attractiveness of Beijing Olympic Forest Park. Sustain. For., 10, 2018.
84. Willemen, L., Cottam, A.J., Drakou, E.G., Burgess, N.D., Using social media to measure the contribution of red list species to the nature-based tourism potential of African protected areas. PLoS One, 10, 2015, e0129785.
85. Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J., Newell, J.P., Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc. Urban Plan. 125 (2014), 234–244.
86. Wolff, E.N., Changing inequality of wealth. Am. Econ. Rev. 82 (1992), 552–558.
87. Wood, S.A., Guerry, A.D., Silver, J.M., Lacayo, M., Using social media to quantify nature-based tourism and recreation. Sci. Rep., 3, 2013, 2976.
88. van Zanten, B.T., Van Berkel, D.B., Meentemeyer, R.K., Smith, J.W., Tieskens, K.F., Verburg, P.H., Continental-scale quantification of landscape values using social media data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113 (2016), 12974–12979.
89. Zeileis, A., Ineq: Measuring Inequality, Concentration, and Poverty. R Package Version 0.2–13, URL http://CRAN. R-project. org/Package = Ineq. Affiliation: Sebastián Cano-Berlanga Department d'Economia Facultat d'Economia i Empresa Universitat Rovira i Virgili/GRODE. 43204, 2014.
90. Zorondo-Rodríguez, F., Reyes-García, V., Simonetti, J.A., Conservation of biodiversity in private lands: are Chilean landowners willing to keep threatened species in their lands?. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat. 87 (2014), 1–8.