Next Article in Journal
Object- Versus Pixel-Based Unsupervised Fire Burn Scar Mapping under Different Biogeographical Conditions in Europe
Previous Article in Journal
Coupling and Coordination Relationship between Urbanization Quality and Ecosystem Services in the Upper Yellow River: A Case Study of the Lanzhou–Xining Urban Agglomeration, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/land12051086
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Social Perception of the Ecosystem Services of Prunus serotina subsp. capuli in the Andes of Ecuador

by
Juan Carlos Carrasco Baquero
1,
Luis Felipe Lema Palaquibay
2,
Carlos Renato Chávez Velásquez
1,*,
Verónica Caballero-Serrano
1,
Rachel Itle
3 and
Dario J. Chavez
3,4
1
Faculty of Natural Resources, Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo (ESPOCH), Riobamba 060155, Ecuador
2
CAPULI—Investigation Project, Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo, Ecuador & Investigation Institute, Riobamba 060155, Ecuador
3
Department of Horticulture, University of Georgia, Griffin, GA 30229, USA
4
Institute of Plant Breeding, Genetics and Genomics, University of Georgia, Griffin, GA 30229, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2023, 12(5), 1086; https://doi.org/10.3390/land12051086
Submission received: 5 April 2023 / Revised: 28 April 2023 / Accepted: 5 May 2023 / Published: 18 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Landscape Ecology)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Ecosystem services (ES) refer to the benefits that people obtain from the ecosystem. In this sense, Prunus serotina is associated with the provision of ES; however, these services have been scarcely studied. The objective of this research was to determine the knowledge and perceptions of individuals in rural areas regarding the importance of ES, as well as the factors that influence them. Surveys were applied in three study areas (Chimborazo, Tungurahua, and Cotopaxi) of the central Andes of Ecuador that detailed the sociodemographic and perception characteristics of ES based on the predefined ES of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). In the assessment, the interview data were analyzed to obtain the relationships between the variables using Spearman’s correlation in the R-studio software. The results showed that individuals’ level of education, age, and gender play an important role in variations in peoples’ knowledge of ES. A total of 21 ES were identified; the most representative services, according to their ecosystem category, were support (shelter for birds and insects and soil formation), provisioning (food, insecticide, wood, and firewood), regulation (improvement in the quality of air and climate regulation), and culture (scenic beauty and the maintenance of traditions). This analysis of the social perception of ES works as a strategy for the maintenance of Prunus serotina in the orchards and plots of families in the central Andes of Ecuador. The identification of ES through the social perception of their existence facilitates an understanding of the importance of ES in rural localities, which lays the foundation for strategies to be developed in the future for their conservation.

1. Introduction

Ecosystem services (ES) allow for an analysis of the existing links between ecosystems and human well-being [1]. The degradation of ecosystems has drawn the attention of the international scientific community, giving rise to studies such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), which revolves around provisioning, regulating, and supporting ES, as well as their cultural impact. The objective of this assessment is to evaluate the functions of ecosystems in human well-being; additionally, it aims to generate a scientific basis for the conservation and sustainable use of these systems [2]. Its importance lies in the conditions, processes, and functions that characterize natural ecosystems and their biodiversity [3,4]. The loss of these will bring with them economic and social costs due to the problems caused in the production of goods and services, thus affecting or decreasing the impact of so-called ES. On the other hand, Robertson and Swinton [5] highlighted that active management of the provision of multiple ES could substantially reduce the environmental footprint of agriculture.
Popenoe and Pachano [6] highlighted that capuli is a species that has been distributed throughout the American continent, from Canada to southern Bolivia. In South America, this species is characterized by the large size of its fruit (2.0 to 3.5 cm) and its pleasant flavor. It is likely that varieties of capuli with large fruit were the result of domestication processes. Based on the selection of this species by the flavor, size, and quality of its fruit [7], it is of special interest since these species have a great antioxidant capacity [8] and a high content of minerals and proteins, such as hyperoxide, which generates antioxidant, vasodilator, and antihypertensive effects, characteristics that could potentially be useful in the prevention and treatment of hypertension [9].
Ecuador is a “mega diverse” country both biologically and culturally due to the significant variety of its ecosystems [10]. This is thanks to the particular geographical conditions of the country’s location, relief, and climate [11]. The conjunction of these diversities has resulted in numerous useful flora based on the practice and management of agroecosystems, which are one of the main components that allow us to analyze rural territories with the aim of accelerating the conservation and development effort [12].
In Ecuador, capuli is distributed in dry areas along the inter-Andean alley, from 1800 to 3400 m.a.s.l. from the province Carchi, located in the northern limit, to the province Loja in the south of the country. However, there is a greater concentration in the provinces of the central Andes (Chimborazo, Tungurahua, and Cotopaxi) [13,14], where the ideal territory for the optimal development of this species is considered to be located [15].
Capuli is a tree whose existence is declining to a great extent. There are areas where the species is about to disappear [16] due to the poor use of land, for example, by turning land into public parking lots; in addition, many capuli trees have been cut down to make way for pastures. Above all, the species have been neglected by society due to phasing out, due to the rise of crops such as kidney tomato [17]. In terms of its population, productivity, yield, and product quality, Avendaño et al. [18], Tamayo et al. [16], Chisaguano [19], and Central Ecuatoriana de Servicios Agrícolas (CESA) [20] stated that in recent years, the population of trees of the Prunus serotina species in Ecuador has declined its presence by up to 57%.
Another factor that affects the reduction of the Prunus serotina species is the low viability of its seeds, since without any previous germination treatment, the germination percentage is less than 33.3% [21]. Germination occurs in the first or second year; there are times when germination is delayed up to 3 years, and on many occasions, these seeds lose their germination capacity because they do not find the appropriate environmental conditions [22].
Focusing on development species that have intrinsic value to the population is an effective way of conserving nature [23,24,25]. Primack [26] mentions that species of flora or fauna that have striking characteristics, such as the beauty of their flowers, and the specific use of some part of a plant or large mammals are frequently used to get people’s attention and thus raise economic capital to save endangered species [27]. Sometimes it does not necessarily have to be an endangered species; many times they focus on the utility that a social group gives it, turning it into a symbolic species, which sometimes contributes to reinforcing the cultural associations of people with nature [28,29] that can encourage conservation interest in local natural environments [30].
Identifying the dependence of the local population on ES can become a baseline for the community management of the landscape [31]. In a study in the city of Sukuragawa, Japan, on the perception of the ES provided by wild cherry trees, the authors mention that for the conservation of such landscapes, it is important to disseminate knowledge about the perception of ES; in addition, they indicate that these sites should be prioritized for designation as protected areas and sites for community forest management [32].
According to Mouchet et al. [33] and Cord et al. [34], ES have proven to be useful for determining management decisions and environmental policies by means of analyzing their impacts on the provision of ES. Data about the perception of ES by local residents are assets to develop strategies for the conservation and sustainable management of biodiversity in urban and peri-urban forests [35].
The main justification for this research lies in the fact that there are information gaps related to the ES provided by the Prunus serotina species in the central Andes of Ecuador. From this perspective, the social perception of the ecosystem services of Prunus serotina subsp. capuli in the Andes of Ecuador will be based on surveys and databases obtained in the field, for which the study aims to answer the following research questions: (1) How does the rural population of the central Andes of Ecuador identify and perceive the ES of the Prunus serotina species? (2) What are the importance and individuals’ perceptions of changes in ES? (3) What sociodemographic factors determine the identification of ES? Finally, it is important to understand the possible implications of the results obtained from this research for the sustainable management of forests, as well as the design and implementation of conservation education in order to improve the attitudes of the population toward the management of natural resources.

2. Materials and Methods

This research was carried out in a location where Prunus serotina has a high distribution density, i.e., the Cotopaxi (CO), Tungurahua (TU), and Chimborazo (CH) provinces (Figure 1c) which are located in the mountainous systems of the central Andes of Ecuador (Figure 1b).
The data for this research were obtained from a face-to-face survey consisting of 7 questions (Appendix A) which were administered in December 2019 to a social group that comprised the population of the rural sector where Prunus serotina is distributed in the CO, TU, and CH provinces. The population was restricted to individuals older than 15 years of age because it is the population group that has the greatest amount of contact with the use and management of natural resources in the study area.
The population of this study was determined by considering the projection of the Ecuadorian population for the year 2019 from the 2010 census of the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses of Ecuador; for this, the population of the provinces of the central Andes of Ecuador where the species Prunus serotina is distributed was considered rural. There were 95,546 people in CO, 190,390 people in TU, and 157,459 people in CH [36].
The sample size of the population of the study for each province was calculated using the formula for finite populations (Table 1) [37].
The interviews were conducted orally; Spanish and colloquial language were used to explain the ES to the respondents. A total of 588 people completed the survey and were included in this study (response rate = 100%). Once the sociodemographic characteristics and perception of the ES were identified, the participants were asked to rate the importance of each service on a scale of 1 to 3 (with 1 being unimportant and 3 being very important) [38]. In addition, the trend of the supply of each of the ES was identified.
The relationship between the sociodemographic variables and the identified ES was determined by Spearman’s rank correlation analysis [39], using R-Studio version 4.1.1 software [40].

3. Results

Of those who were interviewed, 60% were women, more than 33% of them were middle-aged (31–45 years old), and only 15% were over 60 years old. In addition, 91% of all those surveyed had attained at least one type of education level (Figure 2). Some of the interviewees were unaware of what ES are; however, after explaining what the term refers to, the residents were able to identify the services. Additionally, the participants mentioned the importance of the Prunus serotina species and the well-being it generates for human beings.
In the study area, through the application of the surveys, 21 ecosystem services were identified, which are distributed as supporting ES (14.3%), provisioning ES (28.6%), regulating ES (28.6%), and cultural ES (28.6%) (Figure 3). There are no differences between the number of ES identified in the provinces because they share similar uses and ancestral traditions among the Andean peoples.

3.1. Cultural Services

Six cultural ES were identified. The most frequently identified ES corresponded to the beauty of the landscape, with an occurrence of 16% in CO, 19% in TU, and 22% in CH, and the maintenance of traditions, corresponding to 51% in CO, 48% in TU, and 33% in CH, respectively (Figure 4); the latter showed significant differences between the localities studied. These results are in agreement with those reported by Calvet et al. [41] and Bernués et al. [42] who, in a study conducted in the central highlands of Mexico, determined that the beauty of the landscape, relaxation, rest, and the maintenance of traditions were the ES most frequently identified. However, these differ from the study conducted by Martín et al. [43], who presented that the ES most frequently identified in their study were rituality and tranquility, which are frequently recognized and obtained higher values in the rural area, while other cultural services, such as scenic beauty and environmental education, were perceived more frequently in the urban area.

3.2. Regulating Services

The regulating ES that prevailed in the provinces under study were an improvement in the air quality, with an occurrence of 31% in CO, 21% in TU, and 27% in CH, and climate regulation, corresponding to 31% in CO, 32% in TU, and 32% in CH (Figure 4). The level of education (Figure 2) had a positive influence on the identification of the regulating ES, as mentioned by Sodhi et al. [44]. According to Gouwakinnou et al. [38], the higher the education level, the higher the identification rate. Martin et al. [43] mentioned that rural populations more frequently identified provisioning ES, while urban populations mostly reported regulating services, since they contribute directly to the quality of life in an urban context (air purification and regulation of the microclimate). De Groot et al. [45] determined that cities, as opposed to rural areas, are the most demanding of regulating services; this is because, in general, regulating services decrease with an increase in the intensive use of land. The difference in the results of the research carried out, compared to Martín and De Groot, is believed to be due to the accessibility to education and communication technologies, which the population of Ecuador has had in recent years as a national development objective [46].

3.3. Provisioning Services

In the CO, TU, and CH provinces, the provision of food, which corresponded to 49%, 40%, and 46%, respectively (Figure 4), ranked first in the prioritization of the environmental service of provisioning. The main utility the interviewees allocated to Prunus serotina fruit was the preparation of a typical drink known as “Jucho”, which is a beverage that contains P. serotina fruit and peaches boiled together plus other seasonings. Palacios [47] mentioned that the native peasants of the inter-Andean region harvest capuli fruits for family consumption and commercialization at the local level; this is done only in the production season, corresponding to the months from December to March. According to Raya et al. [48], in their studies carried out in Mexico, they mention that capuli is part of the Mexican diet, and its fruits are popularly consumed when fresh, dried, or as ingredients in other dishes (such as in jellies, tamales, or liqueurs).
The interviewees also identified the ES of firewood and wood supply as representative; this is because firewood is used for cooking food, which is very common in the rural area of the Andes, and wood is used for carpentry because it is of good quality and is easy to handle [49]. According to Niembro et al. [50], the wood of Prunus serotina is used as a source of energy (firewood) or as a raw material to carry out various joinery works. According to Jiménez et al. [51], Prunus serotina wood has an important economic potential, characterized by its hardness, ease of handling, ability to acquire an attractive polish, and ability to be incorporated into the wood industry. As a forest species, this is a good species to obtain high-quality wood from [52].
For the identification of ES, the influence of the socioeconomic characteristics of the household also comes into play. This is generally known as the social “zone of influence” [53]. According to Gouwakinnou et al. [38], poor households tend to be more dependent on forest resources and may consider provisioning services to be the most important compared to rich households.

3.4. Supporting Services

The people interviewed identified three supporting ES; shelter for birds and insects was considered the most important because these are breeding, nesting, and feeding sites for various species of birds and insects, with an occurrence of 31% in CO, 52% in TU, and 43% in CH, respectively, for each province. In addition, the ES of soil formation and photosynthesis also occurred but less frequently (Figure 4). In this sense, the maintenance of high levels of biological diversity allows for a better performance of other ES, such as soil formation [54]. According to Englund et al. [55], support services are essential to maintain life conditions on earth and include services such as soil formation and photosynthesis. Therefore, the flow of ES determines the level of human well-being, which is linked to the composition and function of the ecosystem [56].

3.5. Perception of the Importance of ES and Their Trends

The population of the rural area of the three localities (CO, TU, and CH) of the central Andes of Ecuador identified the ES of soil formation (45%), food (43%), firewood (63%), and maintenance of the traditions (49%) as very important (Figure 5a). Camacho et al. [57] and Kimpouni et al. [35] mention that when local people are dependent on the natural environment for goods and income, their perception of ES tends to focus on provisioning services. The participants identified the ES of myths and legends (71%) and recreation (66%) as not very important (Figure 5b), and they identified the ES of dyes (47%) and genetic resources (44%) as do not know (Figure 5c).
In relation to the trends (improving, declining, no change, and do not know) of the ES, in the three study areas, the participants reported trends toward the reduction in ES, especially in services such as shelter for birds and insects (43%), food (57%), wood (53%), firewood (63%), the maintenance of traditions (61%), and water regulation (45%) (Figure 5e). The latter service may be due to periods of drought that have been periodic in Ecuador, the most prone areas being the inter-Andean region, which spans from the Carchi province to the Loja province [58].
The inadequate use of ecosystems to obtain one or more services generates an imbalance of these services [59]. An example of this is the intensification of agriculture in the inter-Andean region, which seeks to satisfy the needs of the population but, in exchange, means reducing forest remnants in order to expand cultivated areas, thereby causing the loss of forests and biodiversity [60].
Identifying the priorities of society in terms of the identification, importance, and trend of ES contributes to the application of actions for its conservation, passive and active restoration, and responsible use for sustainable management by area. The perspective of rural inhabitants on ES should be considered in debates and decisions on policies related to the causes of environmental degradation due to land use change and the strategies to address them [59], which are key to maintaining the supply of ES [61] because changes in land use influence the supply of ES [45]. These results should contribute to decision making and planning on land use, aimed at improving human well-being and preserving ecosystem function, not only at the regional but also at the local level [62].
However, this study was conducted on a regional scale; on a local scale, there may certainly be differences in the strength of the relationships between the Prunus serotina species and ES. Therefore, all services may not be similarly maximized within the landscapes throughout the sample region. In addition, the present investigation focused on the current distribution of the highest concentration of the species Prunus serotina, but future changes in the environment may affect ES both directly and indirectly [63]. Therefore, global change may mean that society does not have all the ecosystem service management options currently available. The scenario of changes in the composition and richness of the Prunus serotina species due to global change must be considered in analyses of the future provision of ES [64].

3.6. Correlation Analysis

Some of the ES were positively correlated to each other (Figure 6), but some notable trade-offs could also be identified. Trade-offs between water regulation and climate regulation, bird sanctuary, and scenic beauty were first noted. Second, photosynthesis and firewood generation were negatively correlated.
The relationship of the sociodemographic variables with ES showed a positive correlation between a higher education level and the identification rate of ES (soil formation, insecticide, air quality improvement, pest regulation, and recreation), concatenating with the above. According to Villamagua [65], people with a higher educational level more closely value the ecosystem service of provisioning. Knowledge influences behavioral attitudes and individual intentions [38]. For example, a farmer who has extensive knowledge of the consequences of insecticide use on insect populations (pollinators) [66] will develop behaviors to minimize their adverse effects [67].
People who do not have a higher level of education showed a positive correlation with the ES of food supply, firewood, water regulation, and handicraft production. Sodhi et al. [44] highlighted that people with a lower educational level, as well as poor people, value more the services (food, firewood, and wood) of forest ecosystems; this is related to what was described by Villamagua [65], where it was indicated that the highest percentage of interviewees mentioned that they were supplied with forest species for the construction of homes and for use as firewood. From a socioeconomic point of view, several studies have revealed that poor people value forest ES more, although they sometimes value them in different ways [44,68].
In relation to gender, there is a positive correlation between the male gender and regulation ES (erosion and pests) and cultural services (myths and legends); the female gender has a positive correlation with support services (photosynthesis) and provisioning (food and wood). Moutouama et al. [69] stated that gender affects the perception of ES; considering provisioning services, a higher percentage of women identified food and firewood, whereas in a study conducted by Villamagua [65], it was mentioned that men perceive provision services more frequently, while women perceive regulation services more often.
In relation to age, people between 15 and 30 years of age were positively correlated with the regulation of erosion and handicrafts; people aged 31 to 45 correlated well with myths and legends; people aged 46 to 60 were correlated with the maintenance of traditions and medicinal use; and those older than 60 years of age correlated positively with wood and firewood services. In relation to age, Briceño et al. [70] and Martin et al. [43] highlighted that younger people prioritize cultural services which deal with the regulation of the ecosystem and cultural ES more. According to Villamagua [65], those over 60 years of age value provisioning services more. These results coincide with those obtained in this study.

4. Discussion

Human beings constitute an integral part of ecosystems, but most of the time, they are not taken into account when conducting ES assessments [71]. In past years, understanding ES concepts related to user needs and the respective classification has not been adequately taken into account [72], improving such understanding can contribute to improving conservation efforts focused on ES [73]. The determination of the ES provided by the species Prunus serotina from a social perception (identification, importance, and tendency of the ES) can be constituted as a tool or a planning input for decision makers, who seek to identify priorities in planning processes for conservation in a territory [43,72]. Martín-López et al. [43] mention that in order to formulate successful policies for sustainable ecosystems, it is essential to understand the preferences, attitudes, and perceptions of the user toward ES. In addition, studies involving understanding and data on the local social component of ES contribute to complementing national statistics on ES [74].
The implementation of ES-based research, both in policy and planning, demands the contribution of direct users, that is, local populations and other interested parties. This incorporation and input can contribute to improving the practical application and political relevance of SE concepts in management and decision making [71]. Individual and community preferences can coevolve with land management and land use change, but there is difficulty in demonstrating how a region’s values, attitudes, and cultural norms contribute to ES preferences [75].
Societal preferences for ES vary across societies [38,76]. However, the most important services can be identified by taking into account the perspectives of stakeholders from different social groups [77]. These priority ES can be used for land planning and local development [78]. The provisioning and regulation ES were identified in a greater number and with a higher degree of importance in the three sites studied, which indicates that households depend especially on the provisioning services of the Prunus serotina species [79].
The importance of Prunus serotina as a provider of genetic resources was not identified, which suggests a lack of community participation in the conservation of the genetic material of fruit species in the central Andes of Ecuador. The soil formation ecosystem service was identified as relevant, which provides fundamental support for agricultural production; the opposite happened with the identification of the soil erosion regulation service, which was not very important for the studied localities, despite the predominance of the interviewed farmers.
The decrease in provisioning services, as reported by the residents of Chimborazo, Tungurahua, and Cotopaxi, was attributed to the misuse (construction of housing, highways, and whereabouts and areas of intensive cultivation) of the land, which causes the degradation or destruction of the habitat of this species, which does not allow for the sustainable management of this resource; therefore, it is important to implement awareness policies on good practices for the sustainable management of subsistence agroforestry resources in the local communities.
Cultural services, such as the maintenance of traditions and scenic beauty, were considered important in the three locations studied. According to Ahammad et al. [80], forests have a high cultural importance, which is reflected in the positive attitudes of the local population toward their protection. The perception of the population of the three locations under study regarding the value of ES should be considered when making management decisions for the Prunus serotina species.
Due to the diversity of ES identified by locals in the three study areas of the CO, CH, and TU provinces, there are opportunities to conserve specific sites in the central Andes of Ecuador in order to optimize the supply of ES for provisioning, regulating, supporting, and, above all, cultural services which focus on a cultural re-evaluation. This is because Prunus serotina plays an important role in the life of Ecuadorian people [81].
Most biodiversity conservation and restoration policies are based on the protection of species and habitats, which has led to the development of protection policies for certain geographical areas and the definition of protected areas (PA). These areas, with a special biodiversity value, are a very important base for conservation, yet most of the territory is unprotected, and much of the biodiversity is located outside the limits of these PA.
This implies that biodiversity conservation must encompass a broader territory than the protected areas and must be integrated into all aspects of human society. The protection of areas of high natural value, despite being necessary, is not enough to reduce the loss of biodiversity. In turn, conservation policies and the management of natural resources have been based on strategies aimed at planning in a given area without considering the possible global consequences of an activity on the environment and society [82].
If the aim is to minimize the loss of biodiversity worldwide in the coming decades, structural changes must be made in production and consumption patterns. In addition, an integrated approach from different sectors is needed by combining different conservation measures [83]. Sustainable territorial planning implies integrating environmental, social, economic, and institutional aspects based on the recognition of the great interdependence between them [84]. This ecosystem-based management approach assumes a complete relationship between human well-being and the environment; sustainable development is only possible in both areas at the same time. This approach allows managers to gain a broad understanding of the many consequences of particular decisions [85]. Along with this idea, a renewed interest in biodiversity conservation strategies and policies must be developed in relation to the need to maintain a sustainable supply of ES.
The use of land to produce goods and services represents the most substantial human alteration of the Earth’s natural systems [38]. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [2], in its evaluation report, determined that local ecological knowledge is relevant to address the problems of managing ES. Several authors have highlighted the fundamental importance of taking into account local knowledge and perceptions as a basic tool in decision-making policies for the protection of ecosystems and the sustainable management of resources and livelihoods [79,86,87,88].
The results obtained suggest that different types of knowledge may be required to identify the range of ES, such as experiential knowledge (comprises a set of non-scientific beliefs, knowledge, and practices corresponding to local ecosystems, and their management is based on the acquired local experience) and technical knowledge (constituted by a set of strict and universally accepted rules shaped by academic disciplines and scientific methods) [72,89,90,91]. Previous studies have shown that these two types of knowledge are complementary and that their combination can play an active role in the perception and maintenance of multiple ecosystem services provision [43,92,93]. According to Miller [94], identifying, evaluating, and employing multiple knowledge and learning mechanisms are the key tenets of sustainability science.

5. Conclusions

This study contributes to the understanding of the social perception of the ecosystem services of Prunus serotina in the central Andes of Ecuador. There is little research on the social perception of the ecosystem services of symbolic species; this is because most studies on the perception of ecosystem services focus on large-scale areas such as protected areas. In our study, factors such as the level of education, related to the level of both experiential and technical knowledge were essential in the identification of provisioning and support services. The three localities most frequently identified the importance and decline of provisioning services, mainly firewood because in the rural areas of the Andes of Ecuador, it is used as an ecological fuel for cooking food. Ecosystem service trade-offs occur as people modify landscapes due to their different perceptions, values, and interests. This study facilitates the understanding of the importance of ES in rural localities; this information should become an instrument for land use planning and the preservation of ecosystem functioning, in addition to establishing the basis for the design of future strategies focused on the conservation of the Prunus serotina species.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.C.C.B., L.F.L.P. and V.C.-S.; formal analysis, J.C.C.B. and D.J.C.; investigation, J.C.C.B., D.J.C., R.I., C.R.C.V., L.F.L.P. and V.C.-S.; resources, J.C.C.B. and L.F.L.P.; writing—original draft preparation, J.C.C.B., D.J.C., R.I., C.R.C.V. and L.F.L.P.; writing—review and editing, J.C.C.B., D.J.C. and V.C.-S.; supervision, D.J.C.; funding acquisition, D.J.C. and J.C.C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research in Ecuador was funded by Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo (ESPOCH). The research in the US was funded by the University of Georgia through an inter-institutional collaborative research agreement.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank our collaborators at ESPOCH, as well as the technical assistance of the Department of Horticulture at the University of Georgia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Land 12 01086 g0a1 550
Figure A1. Interview format to determine the social perception of the ES provided by the species Prunus serotina.
Figure A1. Interview format to determine the social perception of the ES provided by the species Prunus serotina.
Land 12 01086 g0a1

References

  1. Balvanera, P.; Cotler, H. Origin and Definition of the Ecosystem Concept. In Approaches to the Study of Ecosystem Services; National Institute of Ecology, SERMARNAT: Mexico city, Mexico, 2007; Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/html/539/53908502/ (accessed on 18 November 2022).
  2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis of Biodiversity. Word Resources Institute. Washington. 2005. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Figura-1-Clasificacion-de-tipos-de-Servicios-Ecosistemicos-Tomado-de-MEA-2005-Chapin_fig1_271205520 (accessed on 18 November 2022).
  3. Díaz, S.; Fargione, J.; Chapin, F.; Tilman, D. Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-Being. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4, e227. Available online: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277 (accessed on 10 November 2022). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Mertz, O.; Ravnborg, H.M.; Lövei, G.L.; Nielsen, I.; Konijnendijk, C.C. Ecosystem services and biodiversity in developing countries. Biodivers. Conserv. 2007, 16, 2729–2737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Robertson, G.P.; Swinton, S.M. Reconciling agricultural productivity and environmental integrity: A grand challenge for agriculture. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2005, 3, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Popenoe, W.; Pachano, A. The Capulín Cherry. J. Hered. 1922, 13, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Downey, L.; Iezzoni, F. Polymorphic DNA Markers in Black Cherry (Prunus serotina) Are Identified Using Sequences from Sweet Cherry, Peach, and Sour Cherry. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2000, 125, 76–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vasco, C.; Ruales, J.; Kamal, A. Total phenolic compounds and antioxidant capacities of major fruits from Ecuador. Food Chem. 2008, 111, 816–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vázquez, F.; Ibarra, C.; Rojas, A. Nutraceutical Value of Black Cherry Prunus serotina Ehrh. Fruits: Antioxidant and Antihypertensive Properties. Molecules 2013, 18, 14597–14612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Galeas, R.; Guevara, J. Ecosystem Classification System of Continental Ecuador, Ecuador Vegetation Map Project. Quito: MAE, Forest Directorate. Undersecretary of Natural Heritage. 2012. Available online: http://www.ambiente.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/09/LEYENDA-ECOSISTEMAS_ECUADOR_2.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  11. Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador. Fifth National Report for the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2015. Available online: http://www.ambiente.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2015/06/QUINTOINFORME-BAJA-FINAL-19.06.2015.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2022).
  12. FAO. Informe Nacional Sobre el Estado de la Biodiversidad Para la Alimentación y la Agricultura en el Ecuador; FAO: Quito, Ecuador, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  13. Mille, L. El capulí. Instituto de Ciencias Naturales del Ecuador. Quito 1942, 2, 50–51. [Google Scholar]
  14. Urcuango, P. Evaluación de Medios de cultivo para la micropropagación “in vitro” de Capulí (Prunus serotina ssp capuli Cav) a partir de segmentos nodales. Master’s Thesis ingeniería, Repositorio Digital-Universidad Central del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  15. Borja, E.; Guara, M.; Delgado, A. Caracterización Ecogeográfica de Prunus Serotina Ehrh subsp. Capuli (Cav.) McVaugh (Capulí) en la Región Andina de Ecuador; Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIAP): Quito, Ecuador, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  16. Tamayo, C.V.; Mena, L.E.; Dilas, J.O. Usos y conocimientos tradicionales asociados al capulí (Prunus serotina) en una zona interandina de Ecuador. Llamkasun 2022, 3, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chucuri, J.; Monteros, A.; Tapia, C.; Borja, E. Colecta y Caracterización Morfoagronómica in situ y Molecular de Capulí (Prunus sertoina Ehrh) del Banco Nacional de Germoplasma del INIAP-Ecuador. Instituto Nacional Autónomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarias [INIAP]. 2013. Available online: https://repositorio.iniap.gob.ec/handle/41000/928 (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  18. Avendaño, A.; Lira, R.; Madrigal, B.; García, E.; Soto, H.; Romo, A. Management and domestication syndromes of capulin (Prunus serotina Ehrh ssp. capuli (Cav.) Mc Vaugh) in communities of the state of Tlaxcala. Agrociencia 2015, 49, 6–15. Available online: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S1405-31952015000200007&script=sci_arttext (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  19. Chisaguano, L. Evaluation of the Application of Three Sprouting Inducing Products in Capulí; Quilajaló Community: Salcedo, Ecuador, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  20. Central Ecuatoriana de Servicios Agrícolas [CESA]. Usos Tradicionales de las Especies Forestales Nativas en el Ecuador; Tomo 1, Informe de Investigación, Intercoperation; CESA: Calgary, AL, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  21. Baéz, V.H. Evaluación Del Porcentaje de Germinación de Una Selección de Capulí Criollo (Prumus Capulí Cav), em La Región de Cd Serdán Pue. Cuatitlán México. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico, 1986; p. 178. [Google Scholar]
  22. Smith, M.; Wang, B.; Msanga, H. Dormancia y Germinación; Programa Naciones Unidas de Semillas de Árboles: Durban, Tanzania, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  23. Bowen, E.; Entwistle, A. Identifying appropriate flagship species: The importance of culture and local contexts. Oryx 2002, 36, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Home, R.; Keller, C.; Nagel, P.; Bauer, N.; Hunziker, M. Selection criteria for flagship species by conservation organizations. Environ. Conserv. 2009, 36, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jepson, P.; Barua, M. A theory of flagship species action. Conserv. Soc. 2015, 13, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Primack, R.B. Foundations of Conservation Biology; Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  27. Bennett, J.R.; Maloney, R.; Possingham, H.P. Biodiversity gains from efficient use of private sponsorship for flagship species conservation. Proc. R. Soc. 2015, 282, 20142693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Schirpke, U.; Meisch, C.; Tappeiner, U. Symbolic species as a cultural ecosystem service in the European Alps: Insights and open issues. Landsc. Ecol. 2018, 33, 711–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rüdisser, J.; Schirpke, U.; Tappeiner, U. Symbolic entities in the European Alps: Perception and use of a cultural ecosystem service. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 39, 100980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Garibaldi, A.; Turner, N. Cultural keystone species: Implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Plieninger, T.; Bieling, C.; Fagerholm, N.; Byg, A.; Hartel, T.; Hurley, P.; Huntsinger, L. The role of cultural ecosystem services in landscape management and planning. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kakeru, K.; Ikuyo, S.; Kikuko, S.; Takashi, K. Local perception of ecosystem services provided by symbolic wild cherry blossoms: Toward community-based management of traditional forest landscapes in Japan. Ecosyst. People 2022, 18, 275–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mouchet, M.A.; Lamarque, P.; Martín-López, B.; Crouzat, E.; Gos, P.; Byczek, C.; Lavorel, S. An interdisciplinary methodological guide for quantifying associations between ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change 2014, 28, 298–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cord, A.F.; Bartkowski, B.; Beckmann, M.; Dittrich, A.; Herman, K.; Kaim, A.; Lienhoop, N.; Locher, K.; Priess, J.; Schröter, C.; et al. Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: Main concepts, methods and the road ahead. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kimpouni, V.; Nzila, J.D.; Watha, N.; Madzella, M.I.; Yallo, S.; Kampe, J.P. Exploring local people’s perception of ecosystem services in Djoumouna Periurban Forest, Brazzaville, Congo. Int. J. For. Res. 2021, 2021, 6612649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. National Institute of Statistics and Censuses Ecuador. Projection of the Ecuadorian Population, by Calendar Years, According to Cantons 2010–2020. 2018. Available online: https://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/proyecciones-poblacionales/ (accessed on 18 November 2022).
  37. Lubov, A. Basic Statistics: A Modern Approach. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing: Boston, MA, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  38. Gouwakinnou, G.N.; Biaou, S.; Vodouhe, F.G. Local perceptions and factors determining ecosystem services identification around two forest reserves in Northern Benin. J. Etnobiol. Etnomed. 2019, 15, 15–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Borda, M.; Tuesta, R.; Navarro, E. Quantitative Methods, 4th ed.; Tools for Health Research; Northern University: Barranquilla, Colombia, 2013; p. 379. [Google Scholar]
  40. Core R Development Team. R: Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2017; Available online: http://www.R-project.org (accessed on 18 November 2022).
  41. Calvet, L.; Gómez, E.; Reyes, V. Beyond food production: Ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 74, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bernués, A.; Rodríguez, T.; Ripoll, R.; Alfnes, F. SocioCultural and Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services Provided by Mediterranean Mountain Agroecosystems. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e102479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Martín, B.; Iniesta, I.; García, M.; Palomo, I.; Casado, I.; García del Amo, D.; Gómez, E.; Oteros, E.; Palacios, I.; Willaarts, B.; et al. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e38970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sodhi, N.S.; Ming Lee, T.; Sekercioglu, C.H.; Webb, E.L.; Prawiradilaga, D.M.; Lohman, D.J.; Pierce, N.E.; Diesmos, A.C.; Rao, M.; Ehrlich, P.R. Local people value environmental services provided by forested parks. Biodivers. Conserv. 2009, 19, 1175–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. De Groot, R.S.; Alkemade, R.; Braat, L.; Hein, L.; Willemen, L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 260–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Secretaría Nacional de Planificación y Desarrollo–Senplades. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2017–2021. Toda una Vida. Quito–Ecuador. 2017. Available online: https://www.gob.ec/sites/default/files/regulations/2018-10/Plan%20Nacional%20de%20Desarrollo%20Toda%20Una%20Vida%202017%20-%202021.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2022).
  47. Palacios, W. Trees of Ecuador, 1st ed.; Ministry of the Environment of the National Government of the Republic of Ecuador, Communicational Group Efigie: Quito, Ecuador, 2011; p. 923.
  48. Raya, J.C.; Aguirre, C.L.; Tapia, R.; Ramírez, J.G.; Covarrubias, J. Storage proteins characterization and mineral composition of black cherry seed (Prunus serotina). Polibotánica 2012, 34, 203–215. Available online: http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/polib/n34/n34a11.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2022).
  49. Guzmán, F.A.; Segura, S.; Fresnedo, J. Morphological variation in black cherry (Prunus serotina Ehrh.) associated with environmental conditions in Mexico and the United States. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2018, 65, 2151–2168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Niembro, A.; Vázquez, M.; Sánchez, O. Árboles de Veracruz: 100 Especies Para la Reforestación Estratégica. Gobierno del Estado de Veracruz: Veracruz, México, 2010. Available online: https://www.sev.gob.mx/servicios/publicaciones/colec_veracruzsigloXXI/ArbolesVeracruz100especies.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2022).
  51. Jiménez, M.; Castillo, I.; Azuara, E.; Beristain, C.I. Antioxidant and antimicrobial activity of capulin (Prunus serotina subsp capuli) extracts. Rev. Mex. De Ing. Química 2011, 10, 29–37. Available online: http://www.rmiq.org/iqfvp/Pdfs/Vol.%2010,%20No.%201/4.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2022).
  52. Wang, Y.; Pijut, P.M. Can Prunus serotina be genetically engineered for reproductive sterility and insect pest resistance? Sci. Rev. 2014, 2, 75–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kinzer, A. Zonas de Influencia: Uso de Recursos Forestales, Proximidad y Medios de Vida en el Bosque de Kijabe; Universidad de Michigan—Escuela de Medio Ambiente y Sostenibilidad: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  54. Jackson, L.; Pascual, U.; Hodgkin, T. Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agriculture landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 121, 196–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Englund, O.; Berndes, G.; Cederberg, C. How to analyse ecosystem services in landscapes—A systematic review. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 73, 492–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rodríguez, L.; Curetti, G.; Garegnani, G.; Grilli, G.; Pastorella, F.; Paletto, A. La valoración de los servicios ecosistémicos en los ecosistemas forestales: Un caso de estudio en Los Alpes Italianos. Bosque (Valdivia) 2016, 37, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Camacho, V.; Saenz, A.; Ghermandi, A.; Navarrete, D.A.; Rodiles, R. Spatial analysis, local people’s perception and economic valuation of wetland ecosystem services in the Usumacinta floodplain, Southern Mexico. PeerJ 2020, 8, e8395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Instituto Nacional de Meteorología e Hidrología (INAMHI). Anuario Meteorológico, N° 51-2011; INAMHI: Quito, Ecuador, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  59. Montes, C.; Sala, O. La Evaluación de los Ecosistemas del Milenio. Las relaciones entre el funcionamiento de los ecosistemas y el bienestar humano. Ecosistemas 2007, 16, 137–147. [Google Scholar]
  60. García, H. Deforestación en Colombia: Retos y Perspectivas; Fedesarrollo: Bogota, Colombia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  61. Domínguez, J. Biodiversidad Caribe y Servicios Ecosistémicos; Universidad del Norte: Puerto Colombia, Colombia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  62. García-Llorente, M.J.; Castro, A.; Quintas-Soriano, C.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Iniesta-Arandia, I.; González, J.A.; García del Amo, D.; Hernández-Arroyo, M.; Casado-Arzuaga, I.; Palomo, I.; et al. Local Perceptions of Ecosystem Services Across Multiple Ecosystem Types in Spain. Land 2020, 9, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bulling, M.; Hicks, N.; Murray, L.; Paterson, D.; Raffaelli, D.; White, P.; Solan, M. Funciones del ecosistema de la biodiversidad marina bajo futuros ambientales inciertos. Fil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2010, 365, 2107–2116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hickler, T.; Vohland, K.; Feehan, J.; Miller, P.A.; Smith, B.; Costa, L.; Giesecke, T.; Fronzek, S.; Carter, T.R.; Cramer, W.; et al. Proyectar la distribución futura de las zonas de vegetación natural potencial europeas con un modelo de vegetación dinámico generalizado basado en especies arbóreas. Ecol. Y Biogeogr. Glob. 2012, 21, 50–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Villamagua, G. Social Perception of Ecosystem Services in the El Padmi Watershed, Ecuador. Loja, Ecuador. 2017. Available online: https://www.raco.cat/index.php/Revibec/article/view/335096/425790 (accessed on 18 November 2022).
  66. Zhang, W.; Kato, E.; Bhandary, P.; Nkonya, E.; Ibrahim, H.; Agbonlahor, M. Percepciones y conocimientos de las comunidades sobre los servicios de los ecosistemas: Evidencia de las comunidades rurales de Nigeria. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 22, 56. [Google Scholar]
  67. Willock, J.; Deary, I.; Edwards, G.; Gibson, G.; McGregor, M.; Sutherland, A. El papel de las actitudes y los objetivos en la toma de decisiones de los agricultores: Comportamiento empresarial y medioambiental en Escocia. J. Agric. Econ. 1999, 50, 286–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ouko, C.; Mulwa, R.; Kibugi, R.; Owuor, M.; Zähringer, J.; Oguge, N. Percepciones comunitarias de los servicios ecosistémicos y la gestión del bosque del monte Marsabit en el norte de Kenia. Ambientes 2018, 5, 121. [Google Scholar]
  69. Moutouama, F.; Biaou, S.; Kyereh, B.; Asante, W.; Natta, A. Factores que dan forma a la percepción de la población local sobre los servicios de los ecosistemas en la cadena montañosa de Atacora, un punto clave de biodiversidad en el norte de Benin. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2019, 15, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Briceño, J.; Iñiguez, V.; Ravera, F. Factors influencing the perception of ecosystem services in Ecuadorian tropical dry forests. Ecosistemas 2016, 25, 46–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Adeyemi, O.; Chirwa, P.; Babalola, F. Assessing local people’s perceptions and preference for ecosystem services to support management plan in Omo Biosphere Reserve, Nigeria. Environ. Dev. 2022, 43, 100738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lamarque, P.; Quétier, F.; Lavorel, S. The diversity of the ecosystem services concept and its implications for their assessment and management. C. R. Biol. 2011, 334, 441–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sodhi, N.; Koh, L.; Clements, R.; Wanger, T.; Hill, J.; Hamer, K.; Lee, T. Conserving Southeast Asian forest biodiversity in human-modified landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 2375–2384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Tallis, H.; Mooney, H.; Andelman, S.; Balvanera, P.; Cramer, W.; Karp, D.; Walz, A. A global system for monitoring ecosystem service change. Bioscience 2012, 62, 977–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Observatorio de la Sostenibilidad en España. Sostenibilidad en España 2010; Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino, Fundación Biodiversidad, FG Universidad de Alcalá: Madrid, Spain, 2011; p. 479. [Google Scholar]
  76. Bateman, I.; Turner, R. Valoración del entorno, métodos y técnicas: Métodos de preferencia revelada. En: Anónimo (Ed.), Economía y Gestión Ambiental Sostenible: Principios y Práctica. Prensa De Belhaven 1993, 120–191. [Google Scholar]
  77. Agbenyega, O.; Burgess, P.J.; Cook, M.; Morris, J. Application of an ecosystem function framework to perceptions of community woodlands. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 551–557. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837708000872 (accessed on 18 November 2022). [CrossRef]
  78. Houdanon, R.; Mensah, S.; Gnanglè, C.; Yorou, N.; Houinato, M. Servicios ecosistémicos y existencias de biomasa de rodales de bambú en el centro y sur de Benin, África occidental. Ecol. Y Medio Ambiente Energía 2018, 3, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Boafo, Y.; Saito, O.; Kato, S.; Kamiyama, C.; Takeuchi, K.; Nakahara, M. El papel del conocimiento ecológico tradicional en la gestión de servicios de los ecosistemas: El caso de cuatro comunidades rurales en el norte de Ghana. Revista Internacional de Ciencias de la Biodiversidad. In Servicios y Gestión de Ecosistemas; Taylor y Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2016; Volume 12, pp. 24–38. [Google Scholar]
  80. Ahammad, R.; Stacey, N.; Sunderland, T. Uso e importancia percibida de los servicios de los ecosistemas forestales en los medios de vida rurales de Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. Serv. De Ecosistema 2019, 35, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Patania, S.; Itle, R.; Chávez, C.; Lema, L.; Caballero, V.; Carrasco, J.C.; Chavez, D.J. Fruit Caracterización de Prunus serotina subsp. capuli. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Tallis, H.; Polask, S. Mapping and Valuing Services as an Approach for Conservation and Natural-Resource Management. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2009, 1162, 265–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Rethinking Global Biodiversity Strategies: Exploring Structural Changes in Production and Concumption to Reduce Biodiversity Loss. 2010. Available online: www.pbl.nl/en (accessed on 18 November 2022).
  84. Pikitch, E.K. Ecosystem-based fisheries management. Science 2004, 305, 346–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Christensen, N.; Bartuska, A.; Brown, J.; Carpenter, S.; D’Antonio, C.; Francis, R.; Franklin, J.; MacMahon, J.; Noss, R.; Parsons, D.; et al. The Report of the Ecologycal Society of America Commitee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management. Ecol. Appl. 1996, 6, 665–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Asah, S.T.; Guerry, A.D.; Blahna, D.J.; Lawler, J.J. Percepción, adquisición y uso de los servicios de los ecosistemas: Comportamiento humano y gestión de los ecosistemas y sus implicaciones en las políticas. Ecosyst Serv. 2014, 10, 180–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. De Freitas, C.T.; Shepard, G.H.; Piedade, M. El bosque flotante: Conocimiento tradicional y uso de las islas de vegetación matupá por los pueblos ribereños de la Amazonía central. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0122542. [Google Scholar]
  88. Cummings, A.R.; Lea, J.M. Aprovechar el conocimiento tradicional para identificar y describir los servicios ecosistémicos asociados con las plantas de uso múltiple del norte de la Amazonía. In Revista Internacional de Ciencias de la Biodiversidad, Servicios y Gestión de Ecosistemas; Taylor y Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2016; Volume 12, pp. 39–56. [Google Scholar]
  89. Berkes, F. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management; Taylor & Francis: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  90. Raymond, C.M.; Fazey, I.; Reed, M.S.; Stringer, L.C.; Robinson, G.M.; Evely, A.C. Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 1766–1777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lewan, L.; Söderqvist, T. Knowledge and recognition of ecosystem services among the general public in a drainage basin in Scania, Southern Sweden. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 42, 459–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Gonzalez, C.; Clemente, A.; Nielsen, K.; Branquinho, C.; Dos Santos, R. Human-Nature Relationship in Mediterranean Streams: Integrating Different Types of Knowledge to Improve Water Management. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Tengö, M.; Belfrage, K. Local Management Practices for Dealing with Change and Uncertainty? A Cross-scale Comparison of Cases in Sweden and Tanzania. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Miller, T.R. Constructing sustainability science: Emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustain. Sci. 2013, 8, 279–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 12 01086 g001 550
Figure 1. Map of the study area. (A) Location in relation to South America; (B) location in relation to Ecuador; (C) location of the Chimborazo, Tungurahua, and Cotopaxi provinces.
Figure 1. Map of the study area. (A) Location in relation to South America; (B) location in relation to Ecuador; (C) location of the Chimborazo, Tungurahua, and Cotopaxi provinces.
Land 12 01086 g001
Land 12 01086 g002 550
Figure 2. Sociodemographic characteristics. (A) Gender; (B) education; (C) age ranges. In the graph, the green (Chimborazo), orange (Tungurahua), and blue (Cotopaxi) colors correspond to the provinces under study.
Figure 2. Sociodemographic characteristics. (A) Gender; (B) education; (C) age ranges. In the graph, the green (Chimborazo), orange (Tungurahua), and blue (Cotopaxi) colors correspond to the provinces under study.
Land 12 01086 g002
Land 12 01086 g003 550
Figure 3. Identification of ecosystem services grouped by category.
Figure 3. Identification of ecosystem services grouped by category.
Land 12 01086 g003
Land 12 01086 g004 550
Figure 4. Identification rate of the ES provided by the species Prunus serotina, identified by the rural population of the localities (Chimborazo—green, Tungurahua—orange, and Cotopaxi—blue) located in the central Andes of Ecuador. Cultural ES: M: Medicinal; R: Recreation; Ml: Myths and legends; H: Handicrafts; Mt: Maintenance of traditions; Sb: Scenic beauty. Regulating ES: Wb: Windbreaker barrier; Pr: Pest regulation; Er: Erosion regulation; Wr: Water regulation; Cr: Climate regulation; Aqi: Air quality improvement. Provisioning ES: Gr: Genetic resources; D: Dyes; Fi: Firewood; W: Wood; I: Insecticide; F: Food. Supporting ES: Ph: Photosynthesis; Sf: Soil formation; Sfdi: Shelter for birds and insects.
Figure 4. Identification rate of the ES provided by the species Prunus serotina, identified by the rural population of the localities (Chimborazo—green, Tungurahua—orange, and Cotopaxi—blue) located in the central Andes of Ecuador. Cultural ES: M: Medicinal; R: Recreation; Ml: Myths and legends; H: Handicrafts; Mt: Maintenance of traditions; Sb: Scenic beauty. Regulating ES: Wb: Windbreaker barrier; Pr: Pest regulation; Er: Erosion regulation; Wr: Water regulation; Cr: Climate regulation; Aqi: Air quality improvement. Provisioning ES: Gr: Genetic resources; D: Dyes; Fi: Firewood; W: Wood; I: Insecticide; F: Food. Supporting ES: Ph: Photosynthesis; Sf: Soil formation; Sfdi: Shelter for birds and insects.
Land 12 01086 g004
Land 12 01086 g005 550
Figure 5. Perceived importance of ES: (A) very important, (B) not important, (C) do not know. ES trend: (D) improving, (E) declining, (F) no change, (G) do not know. Cultural ES: M: Medicinal; R: Recreation; Ml: Myths and legends; H: Handicrafts; Mt: Maintenance of traditions; Sb: Scenic beauty. Regulating ES: Wb: Windbreaker barrier; Pr: Pest regulation; Er: Erosion regulation; Wr: Water regulation; Cr: Climate regulation; Aqi: Air quality improvement. Provisioning ES: Gr: Genetic resources; D: Dyes; Fi: Firewood; W: Wood; I: Insecticide; F: Food. Supporting ES: Ph: Photosynthesis; Sf: Soil formation; Sfdi: Shelter for birds and insects.
Figure 5. Perceived importance of ES: (A) very important, (B) not important, (C) do not know. ES trend: (D) improving, (E) declining, (F) no change, (G) do not know. Cultural ES: M: Medicinal; R: Recreation; Ml: Myths and legends; H: Handicrafts; Mt: Maintenance of traditions; Sb: Scenic beauty. Regulating ES: Wb: Windbreaker barrier; Pr: Pest regulation; Er: Erosion regulation; Wr: Water regulation; Cr: Climate regulation; Aqi: Air quality improvement. Provisioning ES: Gr: Genetic resources; D: Dyes; Fi: Firewood; W: Wood; I: Insecticide; F: Food. Supporting ES: Ph: Photosynthesis; Sf: Soil formation; Sfdi: Shelter for birds and insects.
Land 12 01086 g005
Land 12 01086 g006 550
Figure 6. Correlation coefficient and its significance between sociodemographic variables (M: Male; F: Female; Na: None of the above; U: University; Hs: High school; P: Primary; 15–30 years; 31–45 years; 46–60 years; > 61 years) and cultural ES (M: Medicinal; R: Recreation; Ml: Myths and legends; H: Handicrafts; Mt: Maintenance of traditions; Sb: Scenic beauty), regulating ES (Wb: Windbreaker barrier; Pr: Pest regulation; Er: Erosion regulation; Wr: Water regulation; Cr: Climate regulation; Aqi: Air quality improvement), provisioning ES (Gr: Genetic resources; D: Dyes; Fi: Firewood; W: Wood; I: Insecticide; F: Food), and supporting ES (Ph: Photosynthesis; Sf: Soil formation; Sfdi: Shelter for birds and insects). Values close to 1 represent a higher correlation, values close to 0 indicate a lower correlation, and values close to −1 represent a negative correlation.
Figure 6. Correlation coefficient and its significance between sociodemographic variables (M: Male; F: Female; Na: None of the above; U: University; Hs: High school; P: Primary; 15–30 years; 31–45 years; 46–60 years; > 61 years) and cultural ES (M: Medicinal; R: Recreation; Ml: Myths and legends; H: Handicrafts; Mt: Maintenance of traditions; Sb: Scenic beauty), regulating ES (Wb: Windbreaker barrier; Pr: Pest regulation; Er: Erosion regulation; Wr: Water regulation; Cr: Climate regulation; Aqi: Air quality improvement), provisioning ES (Gr: Genetic resources; D: Dyes; Fi: Firewood; W: Wood; I: Insecticide; F: Food), and supporting ES (Ph: Photosynthesis; Sf: Soil formation; Sfdi: Shelter for birds and insects). Values close to 1 represent a higher correlation, values close to 0 indicate a lower correlation, and values close to −1 represent a negative correlation.
Land 12 01086 g006
Table
Table 1. Values for the calculation of the sample.
Table 1. Values for the calculation of the sample.
FormulaVariableCotopaxiTungurahuaChimborazo
n = N 1 + e 2 ( N − 1 ) z 2 . p q N = universe95,546190,390157,459
p = probability of occurrence0.50.50.5
q = probability of non-occurrence0.50.50.5
e = margin of error7%7%7%
z = confidence level1.961.961.96
n = sample size196196196
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Carrasco Baquero, J.C.; Lema Palaquibay, L.F.; Chávez Velásquez, C.R.; Caballero-Serrano, V.; Itle, R.; Chavez, D.J. Social Perception of the Ecosystem Services of Prunus serotina subsp. capuli in the Andes of Ecuador. Land 2023, 12, 1086. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12051086

AMA Style

Carrasco Baquero JC, Lema Palaquibay LF, Chávez Velásquez CR, Caballero-Serrano V, Itle R, Chavez DJ. Social Perception of the Ecosystem Services of Prunus serotina subsp. capuli in the Andes of Ecuador. Land. 2023; 12(5):1086. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12051086

Chicago/Turabian Style

Carrasco Baquero, Juan Carlos, Luis Felipe Lema Palaquibay, Carlos Renato Chávez Velásquez, Verónica Caballero-Serrano, Rachel Itle, and Dario J. Chavez. 2023. "Social Perception of the Ecosystem Services of Prunus serotina subsp. capuli in the Andes of Ecuador" Land 12, no. 5: 1086. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12051086

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop