See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266390402

Local Ecosystem Service Use and Assessment Vary with Socio-ecological

Conditions: A Case of Native Coffee-Forests in Southwestern Ethiopia

Article in Human Ecology · October 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s10745-014-9704-2

CITATIONS READS

55 683

4 authors:

Getachew Tadesse Erika S. Zavaleta

12 PUBLICATIONS 436 CITATIONS

University of California, Santa Cruz
131 PUBLICATIONS 19,591 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Carol Shennan Margaret Fitzsimmons

University of California, Santa Cruz University of California, Santa Cruz
143 PUBLICATIONS 6,421 CITATIONS 27 PUBLICATIONS 1,286 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Getachew Tadesse on 11 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Local Ecosystem Service Use and
Assessment Vary with Socio-ecological
Conditions: A Case of Native Coffee-Forests
in Southwestern Ethiopia

Getachew Tadesse, Erika Zavaleta, Carol

Shennan & Margaret FitzSimmons

Human Ecology
An Interdisciplinary Journal

ISSN 0300-7839

Hum Ecol
DOI 10.1007/s10745-014-9704-2

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Hum Ecol
DOI 10.1007/s10745-014-9704-2

Local Ecosystem Service Use and Assessment

Vary with Socio-ecological Conditions: A Case of Native
Coffee-Forests in Southwestern Ethiopia
Getachew Tadesse & Erika Zavaleta & Carol Shennan &
Margaret FitzSimmons

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Ecosystem-based management requires the promo- Introduction

tion and integration of locally relevant ecosystem services.
This needs an understanding of which ecosystem services Ecosystem services are the conditions and processes through
local people value and how local valuation varies with which natural ecosystems and constituent biodiversity sustain
socio-cultural and market factors. We convened ten focus human life (Daily 1997). Ecosystem service valuation (ESV)
group discussions and performed 105 household surveys from is the process of assessing the contribution of natural ecosys-
major indigenous groups and recent settlers about local values tems to meeting a particular utilitarian or intrinsic value (Liu
of various forest-based ecosystem services in changing land- et al. 2010). ESV can bridge the existing gap between con-
scapes of southwest Ethiopia. We found that the extent of servation and economic goals which in turn helps in manage-
ecosystem service use and assessment depends on socio- ment and policy decisions (Chee 2004). It motivates people to
cultural background and gender of the informants, as well as recognize the value of natural ecosystems and to mobilize in
income and cultural contributions of these services. Ecosys- reducing deforestation and land-use changes that diminish
tem service values vary in space and time where local people ecosystem services (see Godoy et al. 2000; Liu et al. 2010).
reported that they increasingly value services as they become Ecosystem service values are broadly classified as eco-
scarce or in response to increased demands due to emerging nomic, ecological, and socio-cultural (de Groot et al. 2002).
markets or changes in production systems. Local people Values associated with ecosystem services result from day-
mostly appreciated a few services of high market value while to-day interactions of people with their environment (Mil-
most ecosystem services are not traded in local markets and lennium Assessment, MA 2005). The type and contribution
hence not highly valued. Some low-rated ecosystem services of an ecosystem service depend on the scale at which it is
such as fodder and medicinal plants were nonetheless widely generated. Accordingly stakeholders involved in appreciat-
used demonstrating the need to also conserve low rated eco- ing, using, and managing ecosystem services can vary with
system services that are used universally. We suggest promot- spatial scales (Hein et al. 2006; Jose 2009). For example,
ing socio-cultural and other non-marketable ecosystem ser- many provisioning services generated at local scales are
vices to reduce the over-exploitation or exclusion of specific recognized and rated highly by local people. Since carbon
biodiversity components in conservation activities. sequestration, biodiversity conservation, or flood protection
benefits are mostly generated outside the immediate land-
scape, they are less appreciated locally (Scherr and
Keywords Forest-based ecosystem services . Local McNeely 2008; Jose 2009).
valuation . Socio-cultural services . Coffee-agroforests . Values for ecosystem services vary with demographic and
Land-use changes . Ethiopia socioeconomic variables. For instance, some ecosystem ser-
vices such as aesthetics, ecotourism, and supporting services
G. Tadesse (*) : E. Zavaleta : C. Shennan : M. FitzSimmons
become more appreciated with population growth and eco-
University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA nomic development (see Guo et al. 2010). Valuation and
e-mail: [email protected] preferences for ecosystem services can vary by gender,
 Author's personal copy
Hum Ecol

economic status, and socio-cultural background (e.g., indige- (Tadesse et al. 2014a, c). We explored the use and preferences
nous people vs. recent settlers) (Lewan and Soderqvist 2002; of locally relevant provisioning and cultural forest-based
Martın-Lopez et al. 2012). goods and services from intact forests or other converted
Local perspectives on ecosystem services are needed to landscapes that are collected, consumed and sold by indige-
accurately assess the importance ecosystem services for local nous and recently settled people. In this study, we considered
people, and to understand factors determining social prefer- all the goods and services available from wild forests and from
ences and trade-offs associated with land-use changes and modified landscapes with native tree cover as forest-based
conservation decision-making (MA 2005; Martın-Lopez et al. ecosystem services. We addressed the following three broad
2012). Incorporating local perceptions and valuation of eco- research questions: (1) Which ecosystem service types are
system services can increase local awareness and participa- appreciated by local people and what is the extent of local
tion, and the legitimacy of regional assessment and planning perceptions on services from forests and agroforests? (2) How
for management of ecosystem services (MA 2005; de Groot do demographic, cultural and market factors affect local eco-
2006; Liu et al. 2010; Cerdan et al. 2012). It helps to under- system service ratings and how do ratings and use-values vary
stand how local values are related to the ongoing land-use from place to place and through time? and (3) What are the
preferences and trajectories and to evaluate the socio- implications of local ratings in promoting biodiversity and
economic and environmental impacts of specific land-use sustainable livelihoods in the region? We expected indigenous
trajectories from the perspective of those who are directly peoples to value forest-based ecosystem services more than
affected by ecosystem change. It also promotes the sustainable settlers given their intimate and long history of interactions
use of natural ecosystems by mobilizing people in reducing with their forests and agroforests.
deforestation and land-use changes that induce detrimental
changes on ecosystems. Local ESV helps identify the social
and ecological values important in conservation, manage- Methods
ment, and restoration of ecosystem components (Martın-
Lopez et al. 2012). Local valuation will also help in under- Study Area
standing the scale at which a particular ecosystem service is
important and to link local values with national and regional We selected two districts of contrasting demographic and
policies (Kumar et al. 2013). Therefore, we need to analyze livelihood conditions, and varying degrees of forest and
the perceptions of local communities who intimately interact agroforest cover in southwest Ethiopia: Yeki (604 km2) and
with their environment and recognize ecosystem services Decha districts (1,390 km2) (Tadesse et al. 2014b; Fig. 1).
differently than other stakeholders (Meyfroidt 2013). Yeki is at 7.2° N, 35.3°E latitude and longitude respectively
Previous local assessments of ecosystem services have with a population density of about 223 persons per km2,
been based on strictly economic and ecological outcomes at comprised of various indigenous peoples (59 %) and settlers
regional and global scales (Martın-Lopez et al. 2012). Local (41 %) (CSA 2012). The settlers came from other regions with
people identify cultural and non-use values from ecosystems diverse socio-cultural backgrounds (Oromo, Amhara, Hadya,
but ecologists and economists ignore social and cultural ser- Kembata, and Tigrai in Ethiopia) mainly after the 1984/5
vices (Chan et al. 2012a). Empirical data on local assessment Ethiopian famine. The indigenous peoples include the
of ecosystem services is limited (Sodhi et al. 2009) especially Majanger, Kafficho, Shakicho, Menit and Manjos. Settlers
from multiple socio-cultural perspectives (Atkinson et al. practice small-scale coffee and intensive cereal cultivation
2012; Chan et al. 2012a; Laband 2013). whereas the indigenous peoples practice less intensive prac-
Although there is no consensus as to whether local com- tices such as forest apiculture, fishing, and collection of other
munities are actually aware of the importance ecosystem non-timber forest products in addition to their recent adoption
services (Kremen et al., 2008), local people from different of cereal and coffee cultivation (Tadesse et al. 2014b). Be-
regions in Africa and Asia recognize the multifunctional tween 1973 and 2010, forest cover of Yeki diminished by
values of forests and agroforests including income and eco- more than 50 % (Tadesse et al. 2014b). On the other hand,
system services (Pfund et al. 2011). Local use and awareness coffee agroforests, coffee plantations and annual crop fields
of ecosystem services influence the way people manage expanded during the same period. In addition to small-scale
agroecosystems by reducing tradeoffs and promoting syner- agroforests, Yeki has more than 2,200 ha of large-scale and
gies between biodiversity and livelihood practices in south- 2,000 ha of medium-scale coffee plantations (TCPE 2010;
west Ethiopian landscapes (Ango et al. 2014). Tadesse et al. 2014b).
Southwest Ethiopia is home to various indigenous peoples Decha district is at 6.15° and 7.2°N and 36.5° E latitude
and native coffee forest fragments with an intimate and long and longitude and has a population density of 77 persons per
history of human-ecosystem interdependence and use of var- km2 (CSA 2012) comprised predominantly of indigenous
ious ecosystem services of local and global importance Kaffichos (81 %) who practice cereal cultivation mixed with
 Author's personal copy
Hum Ecol

Fig. 1 Map of the study area in

Yeki (left) and Decha (right)
districts with forested areas (dark
shaded) and non-forested areas
(grey shaded) (G. Tadesse)

the production of wild and semi-forest coffee and collection of Sampling Villages, Focus Groups and Households
other non-timber forest products. The minority Manjos are
indigenous inhabitants found in both districts who were We convened ten focus group discussions (FGD) in 10 vil-
hunters and gatherers and who used to move from place to lages with varying degrees of forest cover distributed across
place in search of arable land and forest products for their both districts in 2009–11. Each focus group was composed of
livelihoods, but started sedentary cereal cultivation after 1980 10–15 key informants of varying gender, age group, socio-
(Yosinda 2009). The forest cover of Decha was reduced by economic and cultural backgrounds including settlers from
30 % between 1973 and 2010 (Tadesse et al. 2014b). The different parts of Ethiopia and indigenous groups (Table 1).
region has about 1,900 ha of tea and 700 ha of eucalyptus Focus group discussions addressed identification and ordinal
plantations and several forest fragments have recently been ranking of locally valuable ecosystem services and major
converted to coffee plantations and other agricultural fields land-use sources (from 1 being highest rank, to higher succes-
(Tadesse et al. 2014b). sive number assigned to lower ratings). Preference ratings

Table 1 Socioeconomic composition/characteristics of focus group participants (V = village, SC = socio-cultural group) (G. Tadesse)

V Focus groups Households

Age range Forest cover Major economic activity in decreasing rank Gender composition Age Dominant SC

F M

1 25–65 Low Crops, coffee, honey 12.5 87.5 43 Settlers

2 23–63 High Crops, coffee, spices 14.3 85.7 41 Kafficho
3 20–62 Medium Crops, coffee, spices 7.1 92.9 45 Kafficho
4 28–70 Medium Coffee, crops, honey 15.4 84.7 44 Mixed
5 22–67 Low Coffee, crops, honey 7.7 92.3 45 Settlers
6 27–68 High Honey, livestock, crops 7.1 92.9 42 Shakicho
7 24–65 Medium Crops, coffee, spices 9.1 90.9 44 Kafficho
8 26–67 Low Crops, coffee, fishing/hunting 10 90 39 Mixed
9 28–30 High Crops, honey, cultivated 10 90 40 Shakicho
10 35–37 Low Coffee, crops, honey 8.3 91.7 54 Mixed
 Author's personal copy
Hum Ecol

were based on the ranking of one use-value above another Field and Market Surveys
according to the informant or the focus group (see Brown
1984; Martin 1994). We documented goods and services supplied in six local
We also interviewed 105 randomly selected households markets and their prices, and assessed which household mem-
between 2009 and 2011 using semi-structured question- bers or socio-cultural groups sold these services. We carried
naires to generate data about various ecosystem services out field surveys with guided field walks and observations on
and the factors that affected local preferences and use of ecosystem service users in the forests and agroforests. In
ecosystem services at the household level (see Martin addition to the information reported by focus group partici-
1994). The number of samples was randomly selected from pants and household informants, we recorded various ecosys-
each village; the percentage of households in each socio- tem services used by people that we directly observed in the
cultural group comparably represents the total population field surveys and supplemented this with information from
size of respective socio-cultural groups varying between local field assistants.
17.9 and 18.7 % of the total sample (Table 2). The Menit
sample was very low since there were very few Menit Data Analysis
households in the study region. Individuals who participat-
ed in focus group discussions did not participate in house- We compiled a spreadsheet of the socioeconomic survey data
hold interviews. and analyzed the contribution of each ecosystem service to
The household interview generated the identity of forest- household uses and income. We used F-tests and t-tests to
based species that provide ecosystem services, purpose of compare the economic and cultural values of major ecosystem
collection, quantity collected in local units in a year, land- services between wild forests and coffee agroforests. We used
cover type where the ecosystem service was collected correlation analysis to examine the relationships between the
(mainly forest fragments and coffee agroforests), season use of various ecosystem services and household characteris-
of collection, distance travelled to collect, income due to tics, mainly age, gender, and socio-cultural background. Un-
these services, and the price of the goods and services if equal sample-size t-tests were used for comparing settlers with
sold (Gavin 2004). Local valuation was assessed based on indigenous groups. We also used chi-square tests to examine
semi-structured interviews about the direct use-value either associations between socio-cultural groups and ecosystem
in terms of sale or consumption by each surveyed house- service use from major land-use types. Direct matrix ordinal
hold during the year 2010. This was based on what people ranking was averaged to analyze the relative importance of
reported as annual income gained from their sales in local various ecosystem services across all study villages. For this,
and regional markets, as well as direct utilitarian services we calculated a universality index for each major ecosystem
(provisioning and cultural). We did not include livestock or service in terms of the percentage of focus groups or villages
managed cultivated crops in our valuation assessment ex- which rated it as one of the 11 most rated ecosystem services.
cept shade coffee and spices which are mostly forest-based We used either focus groups or households as the unit of
under wild, semi-wild or plantation production systems. analysis depending on the question we addressed. Based on
The indirect economic value of forests and working land- a unit price for each marketed good, we calculated the per-
scapes were not quantified in monetary measures for their centage of households who reported selling a particular good
role in regulating climate, water, and soil fertility. and the mean annual price of each ecosystem service per

Table 2 Livelihood ordinal ranking by households (C = Crop, L = collect ecosystem services (SC = socio-cultural, % = percentage of
Livestock, Co = Coffee, S = Spices, H = Honey, F = Fuel-wood), mean household samples from the total 105 surveys, SD = standard deviation,
income per household from selling goods, and average time needed to SE = standard error) (G. Tadesse)

SC group % Mean family size Mean land size (ha) ± SD Livelihood rankings Mean Income $ ± SE Mean time (hr) ± SD

C L Co S H F

Kafficho 18.7 7 2.3ab ±0.7 1 4 2 2 4 6 363ab ±182 2.1ab ±0.77

Majangir 18.7 6.1 2.8ab ±1.2 1 6 2 2 2 5 431ab ±64 1.6ab ±0.27
Manjo 18.7 7 1.7b ±0.9 2 5 3 4 5 1 198b ±50 1.3b ±0.21
Menit 4.1 6 1.5b ±0.8 1 5 2 2 6 2 161a ±102 2.8a ±0.43
Shakicho 17.9 7.4 2.7a ±1.0 1 5 2 4 2 6 323ab ±64 1.0b ±0.27
Settlers 22.0 5.8 2.2a ±1.5 1 3 2 3 3 6 471a ±78 1.2b ±0.32
 Author's personal copy
Hum Ecol

household in Ethiopian Birr (ETB), then converted to USD addition to the various goods and services these trees provide
based on the exchange rate in December 2010. them and how drought will occur if trees are cut.
The majority of people explained their special connections to
honey bees and wild animals in the past and were concerned that
Results landscape changes negatively affected the quality and quantity of
honey by (1) decreasing native trees that are used for bee forage
Ecosystem Services from Forests and Coffee Agroforests and bee-hive hanging sites, (2) allowing the spread of exotic
plant species such as Euphorbia cutinifolia (Caribbean copper
About 96 % of the households recognized one or more forest- plant locally named ‘Yebonga abeba’) and Jatropha crucas,
based ecosystem service. Of all ecosystem services acknowl- species that are locally perceived to be toxic to honey bees, and
edged by focus groups, 62 % were provisioning, 20 % regu- (3) agricultural intensification that decreases honeybees through
lating, 10 % cultural, and 8 % supporting services (Table 3). use of modern agricultural herbicides and other chemicals.
Forty percent of the focus groups and 30 % of the households Informants reported that wildlife populations (buffalo, ele-
appreciated forests for services such as cultural values, main- phant, gazelle, hedgehog and wild pig) have decreased in the
taining a healthy environment, pleasing natural scenery, clean area since the 1980s. They reported that some areas in the
air and water sources, and regulation of climate, erosion, lowlands used to attract tourists for game hunting and were
drought, and disease. For example, participants from one of sites of illegal elephant poaching, but that as of the mid-1980s
the focus groups stated that “Forest is life; without it there is there have been no elephants living in the region. Although
no life and we cannot improve our livelihoods. When the sun numbers of lions, buffalo, and hartebeests are declining
is very intense, we and our livestock go to the shade in the abruptly, some “pests” such as baboons, hyenas and wild pig
forest. Forests are as important as our children and families; have increased in villages and agricultural areas and become a
the values we obtain from forests are beyond what we get concern for people and livestock.
from cultivation and the benefit from forests is greater and According to informants, cultural and ritual services include
more sustainable than those obtained from expanding our (1) Kobbo forests that are protected and used for traditional
farms. In court, we testify against our brothers and children honey production, and (2) Guddo forests that are protected by
who cut trees in forests. Those Cordia trees that our forefa- communities for their spiritual role in promoting health and in
thers used to cut for fuel-wood or to make simple tools from fostering good climatic conditions (rains) for better harvest.
are now becoming more rare and expensive, and we can sell Although forests were recognized as the major providers of
one Cordia tree for up to 100 ‘dollars’. The wildlife from our cultural services, other land-cover types such as grazing lands
forests (colobus, bushbuck, buffalo, lion, leopard, wild pig) in the highlands and big trees around settlements (Adbar) were
could bring us significant income through ecotourism” also reported to provide spiritual services in addition to their
(Rimich focus group, October 15, 2010). roles as spaces for meetings and public gatherings.
Another focus group also described how they plant or About 87 % of respondents reported that they used wild and
encourage the tree species Millettia ferruginea, Albizia semi-wild forests and home-gardens for coffee production.
schimperiana, and Cordia africana in non-forested areas so Most traditional coffee farmers we interviewed reported that
that they will protect themselves from fire in the lowlands, in they encouraged or planted many multipurpose tree species to
meet their diverse ecosystem service needs, including micro-
climate regulation for coffee production, fodder, beehive sup-
Table 3 Major ecosystem services reported by local communities with port, bee forage, timber, fuel-wood, and soil fertility. The most
the percentage of services reported under each MA (2005) service cate-
gory (G. Tadesse) highly ranked multi-purpose trees included species such as
Millettia ferruginea, Albizia schimperiana, Cordia africana,
Categories Reported services (%) Ficus sur, Erythrina abyssinica, Schefflera abyssinica, and
Morus mesozygia. People perceived that some shade tree spe-
Provisioning Wild food (fruits, vegetables, meat, fish, mushroom), 62
fiber, honey, spices, medicinal, fodder, cies maintain moist conditions for coffee (e.g., Ficus spp.,
construction (lianas, tools, material culture), Milicia excelsa, Morus mesozygia, Mimusops spp.) while other
bioenergy (biomass, fuel wood, charcoal), clean species (e.g. Croton macrostachyus, Eucalyptus spp., Sapium
air, clean water
ellipticum) dry out coffee are not favored for coffee shade.
Cultural Kobbos, Guddos (cultural forests), Adbars, 10
ecotourism, recreation
Supporting Nutrient cycling, foliage/trees, capturing leached 8 Spatio-Temporal Variation in Local Ecosystem Service Values
nutrients, soil fertility, shade coffee
Regulation (Micro) climate, watershed, disease, invasive 20
We found that regional and temporal variations in the use-
species, pests, protecting landslide/erosion, flood
and drought mitigation value and ratings of ecosystem services are a function of (1)
socio-cultural background and gender of the informant, (2)
 Author's personal copy
Hum Ecol

Fig. 2 Proportion of indigenous

(dark) and settler (light grey)
households who used major
marketable ecosystem services in
2010 (G. Tadesse)

market and non-market contribution of ecosystem services, Settlers depended on a few marketable ecosystem services
and (3) emerging markets and scarcity overtime. (15 % of all ecosystem services) such as coffee, construction
materials, and spices mainly from coffee agro-forests (Table 2;
Socio-cultural Background and Gender Fig. 2). Households with small land holdings or who de-
scribed themselves as ‘poor’ depended more on selling fuel-
The reported importance for ecosystem services varied among wood, charcoal, lianas and honey mainly collected from for-
socio-cultural groups in both districts (χ294 =121, p=0.04), ests (F1,269 =3.95, p=0.05; Table 2). Additionally, about 28 %
with indigenous people reporting more dependence on a wider of indigenous households used wild meat (at least once in
range of forest-based ecosystem services (85 % of all ecosys- 2010) from hunting colobus and savanna monkeys, porcu-
tem services) such as fish, honey, lianas, material culture, pines, wild boars, and buffaloes compared to only 7.6 % of
hunting, and medicinal plants mainly from forests. Fish were settlers (F5,15 =3.6, p=0.05).
considered as forest-based ecosystem services since they are Men and women in a household used distinct categories
caught mainly from the river Beko which passes through the of goods and services (χ2 =6.7, df=1, p=0.01; Fig. 3), with
forests, agroforests, and coffee plantations in Yeki district. men travelling longer distances to collect ecosystem

Fig. 3 Roles of women (light

grey) and men (dark) in collection
and marketing (and hence ratings)
of ecosystem services (G.
Tadesse)
 Author's personal copy
Hum Ecol

services than women (t=1.29, p=0.03). Usually, men went reported that they practiced forest honey production in 2010.
far into the forest for honey production, collecting lianas or About 87 % of the honey was reported to be produced tradi-
hunting, whereas women traveled to the forest margins and tionally, with 92 % of the hives constructed from and hung
coffee farms to collect mostly wild vegetables, fodder and under native trees where the honey bees mostly forage.
fuel-wood for domestic use and sale (χ2 = 2.4, df = 2, We found that market values were not always correlated
p<0.001). Accordingly, women had more knowledge and with people’s rankings (r2 =0.58, df=9, p=0.06), indicating
appreciation for wild vegetables and domestic fuel, while that non-marketed ecosystem services such as cultural and
men valued forest honey, lianas, wildlife and construction regulating services were also valued by local communities.
materials. For instance, fodder (mean rank=5, universality=90 %) and
water clarification and erosion control (mean rank=6, univer-
Direct Market and Non-market Value sality=80 %) were ranked low, but used by people in most
villages (Table 4). Others with low market or exchange values,
Various provisioning services contributed to supplementary such as wild meat, mushrooms, medicinal plants, cultural
and major incomes for households, varying from 30 to 75 % services and soil conservation, were still highly appreciated
of total household cash income. The results show that the but had low universality, i.e., reported in only a few villages
mean (±SD) annual income from sales of all forest-based (Table 4). On the other hand, some ecosystem services such as
services per household per year was $827±$84.4. The mean pollination, dispersal, biological pest control, biodiversity
direct market income from sale of forest-based provisioning conservation, and carbon sequestration were not commonly
services from forests and coffee agroforests was $570 per perceived by local people in southwest Ethiopia.
hectare per year.
Over 50 % of all reported forest-based goods and services Emerging Markets and Ecosystem Service Scarcity Over Time
were marketable and the majority of market sales (93.7 %)
were from coffee (66 %), spices (16.5 %), and honey (11 %) According to our informants, the use-values for some forest-
(Fig. 4). Coffee and honey are usually co-produced and pro- based services such as fodder, lianas, honey, increased signif-
vide relatively higher incomes than all other forest-based icantly over the years. For example, they reported that the
services such as wild vegetables, wild meat, fodder, or medic- price for a kilo of honey has tripled since the 1980s; accord-
inal plants. Accordingly, coffee and honey were universally ingly, local appreciation for honey increased. Similarly, use-
valued across all villages (100 %, 82 %) and households values for some ecosystem services have increased with the
(81 %, 56 %), respectively (Fig. 5). About 45 % of the increased rarity of those services over time. About 80 % of our
participants within a focus group and 56 % of households informants reported an increase in the value for lianas and

Fig. 4 Contribution of major ecosystem services by total direct market value (average per household) in the year 2010 (G. Tadesse)
 Author's personal copy
Hum Ecol

Fig. 5 Mean annual household

sales from major ecosystem
services in 2010, village and
household frequencies denote the
percentage of villages and
households reported for sold
services (G. Tadesse)

fodder because they became rare due to deforestation and (2005). We found high awareness of and values placed
overharvesting. In addition, the values of fuel-wood, charcoal, upon forest-based ecosystem services similar to findings in
fish and wild vegetables are increasing with emerging markets some protected areas in southeast Asian countries (Sodhi
and growing local demand. People also reported growing et al. 2009), and coffee farmers in many other regions
value for soil fertility services as farming practices intensify, (Cerdan et al. 2012). Monetary income from ecosystem
unlike in the past when soil fertility was not an issue due to services influenced the way people in southwest Ethiopia
swidden systems and fallowing that used to regenerate soil ranked forest-based ecosystem services more than socio-
nutrients. cultural and ecological services (see Feintrenie et al.
2010). The perceived value of ecosystem services increased
with an increase in the relative contribution of these ser-
vices to household income since people’s priority is to
Discussion improve their livelihoods. Coffee and honey, for instance,
were highly ranked across all villages for their greater cash
Local people in southwest Ethiopia reported all of the four value in local and regional markets than other goods and
major categories of ecosystem services described in MA services.

Table 4 Ordinal ranking of the top rated ecosystem services by studied lowest; universality refers how widely is a particular service highly rated
villages (V1 to V10); 0 in the matrix refers that the ecosystem service was across all surveyed communities (G. Tadesse)
not among the top ten rated, and 1 is the highest rating while 10 is the

Ecosystem services V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V7 V8 V9 V10 Mean rank Universality (%)

Construction 2 3 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 1.9 100

Fodder 3 7 4 0 2 6 6 6 5 4.9 90
Honey production 1 5 2 4 4 4 0 3 4 3.4 90
Water/soil conservation 7 2 5 5 5 0 0 7 8 5.7 80
Coffee shade/production 0 4 3 3 0 2 5 1 1 2.7 80
Fuel wood 3 0 0 0 3 3 4 0 3 3.2 60
Medicinal 6 6 0 0 0 0 7 5 0 6.0 50
Climate regulation 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 8 0 3.8 50
Hunting 0 0 6 6 0 0 1 0 6 4.9 50
Wild food 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2.5 30
Cultural/Ritual services 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4.5 30
 Author's personal copy
Hum Ecol

However, the emphasis on a few marketable ecosystem under big and sacred trees (Adbar). Globally, cultural services
services neglects important socio-cultural and other associated play significant role in the conservation of forest biodiversity
services (see Chan et al. 2012a & b), in addition to the risk of and ecosystem services (Bhagwat and Rutte 2006). In addition
excessive extraction and depletion of such marketed goods to provisioning services, cultural and spiritual services recog-
and services. Overharvesting of high value forest products in nized by local people have possibly played vital roles in
wild forests, semi-wild and plantation coffee agroforests, or conserving southwestern Ethiopian forests, similar to other
other converted landscapes in southwest Ethiopia will even- parts of Africa such as Zimbabwe (Byers et al. 2001) and
tually disconnect the people from their forests if many other Mozambique (Virtanen 2002). Cultural values from forests
non-marketable services including cultural and regulating ser- have been considered more important for sustainable forest
vices are not also conserved. Overlooking non-marketed bio- conservation than many provisioning services especially for
diversity and associated ecosystem services (e. g. cultural people whose cultural identity is intimately linked to forests
services, water purification, erosion control, or drought regu- (Farber et al. 2002).
lation) is contributing to deforestation and land-use changes in In southwest Ethiopia, some low-rated ecosystem services
the region. Additionally, the risks of focusing on forest valu- such as fodder and medicinal plants were used almost univer-
ation using monetary measures alone have been described as sally by study communities. This suggests the “diamond-
cases of forest commodification and “green grabbing,” i.e., the water paradox” in people’s ratings, diamonds having high
appropriation of land and resources for environmental ends value due to their scarcity but being rarely used compared to
such as carbon offset programs while marginalizing local less valued and widely used water (Farley 2012). This paradox
stewards (Fairhead et al. 2012). We noticed similar risks in commonly occurs in ecosystem service valuation (Farber et al.
our study region where attention is being given only to high 2002) where high use-value goods essential to human well-
value non-timber forest products such as wild coffee and being such as water or fodder have low exchange values
spices, and where forests and traditional agroforests are being compared to wild meat or fish in the region. This implies the
replaced with low shade coffee and exotic Eucalyptus need to also conserve ecosystem services that are locally rated
plantations. low but used widely.
Although our results show that promoting the market Our findings show that local use-values from forest-based
values of various forest-based ecosystem services could in- ecosystem services varied with the experience and socio-
crease their contribution to alleviate poverty, Ruiz-Perez et al. cultural background of individual users. The perceptions and
(2004) found that an over-emphasis on marketable forest ratings of ecosystem services varied between the two districts
products and services drives intensified management, cultiva- in southwest Ethiopia since they have different levels of forest
tion, and production among forest peoples globally. This cover, socio-cultural composition and forest dependence. In-
implies that sustainable management and poverty alleviation digenous people interacted with more ecosystem services, and
should be based on market and non-market, use and non-use, valued cultural services more than settlers, who valued more
socio-cultural and ecological values. marketable provisioning ecosystem services. Higher aware-
In this study, not all locally valuable ecosystem services ness of socio-cultural and environmental services by people
were exchanged in local and regional markets, and many with longer residency in Southeast Asia has also been reported
could not be easily quantified (see Costanza et al. 1997; de by Sodhi et al. (2009).
Groot et al. 2012). As intimate users of ecosystem services, Women interacted with forest margins, agroforests, and
local people relate to, care for, and value ecosystems not only homegardens more than men who interacted with and recog-
based on their marketable ecosystem values but also based on nized more forest services. Hence, men and women will be
other non-market values such as socio-cultural and spiritual affected differently by the loss of forest fragments, with men
services (MA 2005). Some communities in southwest Ethio- possibly needing to travel more to continue forest-based ac-
pia also highly ranked the cultural ecosystem services from tivities, or to substitute new activities for lost forest-based
forests which implies that people’s valuation was based not livelihood options. This indicates the need to consider land-
only on direct consumptive or market values but also on other scape level approaches and involve both men and women in
non-exchange use values. Cultural ecosystem services from conserving ecosystem services.
forests were highly ranked by several indigenous groups even These patterns also vary among the poor who are more
in situations where traditional cultural practices are often dependent on ecosystem services and more vulnerable to
deemed “backward” by outsiders and recent converts to ecosystem service declines but who are often marginalized
Christianity. and excluded in decisions about the services upon which they
We found that people valued and somehow conserved depend (see MA 2005). This indicates the need to conserve
forests in the region for their provisioning and socio-cultural forest-based biodiversity to benefit the poor and indigenous
services such as traditional apiculture in forest plots (Kobbos), people (see Yang et al. 2013). Local assessment or values for
ritual services in forests (Guddos), and spiritual practices forest-based ecosystem services generally varied depending
 Author's personal copy
Hum Ecol

on the degree of interactions between the people and forests in services that are provided by total biodiversity (e.g., the
southwest Ethiopia. This pattern is similar to people living in Guddo systems, aesthetic and ecotourism benefits) can reduce
Usambara Mountains of Tanzania who give high value to their the overexploitation or neglect of particular components of
forests due to strong dependence on forest products (Rantala biodiversity. We observed that neither local nor global eco-
and Lyimo 2011). system service assessment alone is adequate for planning
Similar to the spatial variations in ecosystem values, our biodiversity conservation and promoting sustainable ecosys-
findings show that the temporal scale at which a particular tem-based livelihoods. In addition to promoting locally under-
ecosystem service is locally generated from forests and appreciated ecosystem services, integrating local ecosystem
agroforests is variable. Ecosystem service needs of local peo- values into regional and global ecosystem assessments and
ple vary with time depending on emerging markets, scarcity of environmental incentive programs will critically determine the
forests, and growing needs in quantity and quality of currently ability of these coffee agro-ecosystems to sustain biodiversity
used or new classes of services that may be needed in the and human well-being in the region.
future.
Additionally, according to local informants the use of some Acknowledgments We thank the Christensen Fund and Center for
forest-based ecosystem services such as traditional honey Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems (CASFS-UCSC) for finan-
cial support to this research project. Our thanks also go to members of the
production and fishing has declined with disappearing tradi- Zavaleta lab (UCSC) and anonymous reviewers for providing useful
tional knowledge and practices as a result of cultural transfor- comments to this manuscript.
mation or by diluting effects of resettlement in the region.
Therefore, further long-term studies are important to fully
understand the dynamics of ecosystem service values with References
detailed understanding of ethnoecological knowledge over
broader temporal and spatial scales in the region.
Ango, T. G., Borjeson, L., Senbeta, F., and Hylander, K. (2014).
Balancing Ecosystem Services and Disservices: Smallholder
Farmers’ Use and Management of Forest and Trees in an
Conclusion Agricultural Landscape in Southwestern Ethiopia. Ecology and
Society 19(1): 30.
Atkinson, G., Bateman, I., and Mourato, S. (2012). Recent Advances in
We found high local recognition and dependence on forest- the Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity. Oxford
based ecosystem services that varies with socio-economic and Review of Economic Policy 28: 22–47.
cultural background of people in southwest Ethiopia. It is Bhagwat, S. A., and Rutte, C. (2006). Sacred Groves: Potential for
essential to include preferences and knowledge of women as Biodiversity Management. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 4(10): 519–524.
well as indigenous and minority groups about managing eco- Brown, T. C. (1984). The Concept of Value in Resource Allocation. Land
system services in order to incorporate more diverse sets of Economics 60: 231–246.
ecosystem service providers and land-cover types for restora- Byers, B. A., Cunliffe, R. N., and Hudak, A. T. (2001). Linking the
tion, biodiversity conservation, and poverty alleviation. Conservation of Culture and Nature: A Case Study of Sacred
Forests in Zimbabwe. Human Ecology 29: 187–218.
Although various forest benefits reported by local infor- Central Statistic Authority, CSA. 2012. Population and housing census
mants have partly contributed to forest conservation in south- data. http://www.csa.gov.et. Retrieved 11 December 2012.
west Ethiopia, the short-term economic benefit of forests to Cerdan, C. R., Rebolledo, M. C., Soto, G., Rapidel, B., and Sinclairb, F.
local people is generally low compared to the benefits obtain- L. (2012). Local Knowledge of Impacts of Tree Cover on
Ecosystem Services in Smallholder Coffee Production Systems.
ed from converting forests into agricultural land, or compared Agricultural Systems 110: 119–130.
to global estimates of forest ecosystem values such as biodi- Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T.,
versity conservation and carbon sequestration. Since local Basurto, X., Bostrom, A., Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern,
forest-based ecosystem service value is low compared to the B. S., Hannahs, N., Levine, J., Norton, B., Ruckelshaus, M., Russell,
R., Tam, J., and Woodside, U. (2012a). Where Are ‘Cultural’ and
short-term benefit of conversion to agricultural land, people ‘Social’ in Ecosystem Services: A Framework for Constructive
continue deforesting for other land uses (see Godoy et al. Engagement. Where are Cultural and Social in Ecosystem
2000). In order to reduce deforestation, we need to promote Services? A Framework for Constructive Engagement. Bioscience
forest values beyond non-timber forest products and their 62: 744–756.
Chan, K. M., Satterfield, T., and Goldstein, J. (2012b). Rethinking
market values or other than specific biodiversity components ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values.
in order to promote more socio-economic and ecological Ecological economics 74:8–18.
benefits. While it is important to promote markets for diverse Chee, Y. E. (2004). An Ecological Perspective on the Valuation of
ecosystem services, attention should be given to those most Ecosystem Services. Biological Conservation 120: 549–565.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon,
affected by land-use changes, particularly cultural, supporting B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.
and regulating services. In addition to promoting provisioning G., Sutton, P., and van den Belt, M. (1997). The Value of the World’s
and regulation services, prioritizing socio-cultural ecosystem ES and Natural Capital. Nature 387: 253–260.
 Author's personal copy
Hum Ecol

Daily, G. C. (ed.) (1997). Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Oteros‐Rozas, E., Palacios‐Agundez, I., Willaarts, B., González, J.
Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC. A., Santos‐Martín, F., and Onaindia, M. (2012). Uncovering
de Groot, R. S. (2006). Function-Analysis and Valuation as a Tool to Ecosystem Service Bundles through Social Preferences. PLoS
Assess Land Use Conflicts in Planning for Sustainable, ONE 7(6): e38970.
Multifunctional Landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 75: Meyfroidt, P. (2013). Environmental Cognitions, Land Change and
175–186. Social-Ecological Feedbacks: Local Case Studies of Forest
de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., and Boumans, R. M. J. (2002). A Typology Transition in Vietnam. Human Ecology 41: 367–392.
for the Classification, Description and Valuation of Ecosystem Millennium Assessment, MA. (2005). Biodiversity Regulation of
Functions, Goods and Services. Ecological Economics 41: 393–408. Ecosystem Services: Current State and Trends, pp. 297–329. In
de Groot, R. S., Brander, L., van der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Ceballos, G., Lavorel, S., Orians, G., Pacala, S., and Supriatna, J.
Braat, L., Christie, M., Crossman, N., Ghermandi, A., Hein, L., (eds.), M. E. Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being.
Hussain, S., Kumar, P., McVittie, A., Portela, R., Rodriguez, L. C., Island Press.
ten Brink, P., and van Beukering, P. (2012). Global Estimates of the Pfund, J. L., Watts, J. D., Boissiere, M., Boucard, A., Bullock, R. M.,
Value of Ecosystems and Their Services in Monetary Units. Ekadinata, A., Dewi, S., Feintrenie, L., Levang, P., Rantala, S.,
Ecosystem Services 1: 50–61. Sheil, D., Sunderland, T., and Urech, Z. L. (2011). Understanding
Fairhead, J., Leach, M., and Scoones, I. (2012). Green Grabbing: A New and Integrating Local Perceptions of Trees and Forests into
Appropriation of Nature? The Journal of Peasant Studies 39: 237– Incentives for Sustainable Landscape Management. Environmental
261. Management 48: 334–349.
Farber, S. C., Costanza, R., and Wilson, M. A. (2002). Economic and Rantala, S., and Lyimo, E. (2011). Changing landscapes, transforming
Ecological Concepts for Valuing ES. Ecological Economics 41: institutions: local management of natural resources in the East
375–392. Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. In Colfer, C., and Pfund, J.-L.
Farley, J. (2012). Ecosystem Services: The Economic Debate. Ecosystem (eds.), Collaborative Governance of Tropical Landscapes.
Services 1: 40–49. Earthscan, London, pp. 107–132.
Feintrenie, L., Schwarze, S., and Levang, P. (2010). Are Local People Ruiz-Perez, M., Belcher, B., Achdiawan, R., Alexiades, M. N., Aubertin,
Conservationists? Analysis of Transition Dynamics from C., Caballero, C. J., Campbell, B. M., Clement, C., Cunningham, A.
Agroforests to Monoculture Plantations in Indonesia. Ecology and B., Fantini, A. C., De Foresta, H., Garcia-Fernandez, C., Gautam, K.
Society 15(4): 37. H., Martinez, P. H., de Jong, W., Kusters, K., Kutty, M. G., Lopez,
Gavin, M. C. (2004). Changes in Forest Use Value Through Ecological C., Fu, M., Alfaro, M. A. M., Nair, T. R., Ndoye, O., Ocampo, R.,
Succession and Their Implications for Land Management in the Rai, N., Ricker, M., Schreckenberg, K., Shackleton, S., Shanley, P.,
Peruvian Amazon. Conservation Biology 18: 1562–1570. Sunderland, T. H., and Youn, Y. (2004). Markets Drive the
Godoy, R., Wilkie, D., Overman, H., Cubas, A., Cubas, G., Demmer, J., Specialization Strategies of Forest Peoples. Ecology and Society
McSweeney, K., and Brokaw, N. (2000). Valuation of Consumption 9(2): 4.
and Sale of Forest Goods from a Central American Rainforest. Scherr, S. J., and McNeely, J. A. (2008). Biodiversity Conservation and
Nature 406: 62–63. Agricultural Sustainability: Towards a New Paradigm of
Guo, Z., Zhang, L., and Li, Y. (2010). Increased Dependence of Humans “Ecoagriculture” Landscapes. Philosophical Transactions of the
on ES and Biodiversity. PLoS ONE 5(10): e13113 doi:10.1371/ Royal Society of Biological Sciences 363: 477–494.
journal.pone.0013113. Sodhi, N. S., Lee, T. M., Sekercioglu, C. H., Webb, E. L., Prawiradilaga,
Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R. S., and van Ierland, E. C. (2006). D. M., Lohman, D. J., Pierce, N. E., Diesmos, A. C., Rao, M., and
Spatial Scales, Stakeholders and the Valuation of Ecosystem Ehrlich, P. R. (2009). Local People Value Environmental Services
Services. Ecological Economics 57: 209–228. Provided by Forested Parks. Biodiversity Conservation 19: 1175–
Jose, S. (2009). Agroforestry for Ecosystem Services and Environmental 1188.
Benefits: An Overview. Agroforestry Systems 76: 1–10. Tadesse, G., Zavaleta, E., Shennan, C., and FitzSimmons, M. (2014a).
Kremen, C., Daily, G. C., Klein, A. M., and Scofield, D. (2008). Inadequate Prospects for Forest-Based Ecosystem Services as Forest Loss
Assessment of the Ecosystem Service Rationale for Conservation: Continues in Southwest Ethiopia. Applied Geography 50: 144–151.
Reply to Ghazoul. Conservation Biology 22: 795–798. Tadesse, G., Zavaleta, E., Shennan, C., and FitzSimmons, M. (2014b).
Kumar, P., Brondizio, E., Gatzweiler, F., Gowdy, J., de Groot, D., Pascua, Policy and Demographic Factors Shape Deforestation Patterns and
U., Reyers, B., and Sukhdev, P. (2013). The Economics of Socio-ecological Processes in Southwest Ethiopian Coffee
Ecosystem Services: From Local Analysis to National Policies. Agroecosystems. Applied Geography 54: 149–159.
Current Opinions in Environmental Sustainability 5: 78–86. Tadesse, G., Zavaleta, E., and Shennan, C. (2014c). Coffee Landscapes as
Laband, D. N. (2013). The Neglected Stepchildren of Forest-Based Refugia for Native Woody Biodiversity as Forest Loss Continues in
Ecosystem Services: Cultural, Spiritual, and Aesthetic Values. Southwest Ethiopia. Biological Conservation 169: 384–391.
Forest Policy and Economics 35: 39–44. TCPE, Teppi Coffee Plantation Enterprise (2010). Annual status of Teppi
Lewan, L., and Soderqvist, T. (2002). Knowledge and Recognition of coffee plantation, Unpublished results. Teppi, Ethiopia.
Ecosystem Services Among the General Public in a Drainage Basin Virtanen, P. (2002). The Role of Customary Institutions in the
in Scania, Southern Sweden. Ecological Economics 42: 459–467. Conservation of Biodiversity: Sacred Forests in Mozambique.
Liu, S., Costanza, R., Farber, S., and Troy, A. (2010). Valuing ES Theory, Environmental Values 11: 227–241.
practice, and the need for a transdisciplinary synthesis. In Limburg, Yang, W., Dietz, T., Liu, W., Chen, X., and Liu, J. (2013). Going Beyond
K., and Costanza, R. (eds.), Ecological Economics Reviews. Wiley- the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: An Index System of
Blackwell, Malden, pp. 54–78. Human Dependence on Ecosystem Services. PLoS ONE 8(5):
Martin, G.J., 1994. Ethnobotany, a methods manual. People and plant e64581 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064581.
conservation Manuals, v. 1. Chapman & Hall. London, New York. Yosinda, S. (2009). Why did the Manjo convert to Protestant? Social
268p. discrimination and coexistence in Kafa, Southwest Ethiopia. In Ege,
Martın-Lopez, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., S., Aspen, H., Teferra, B., and Bekele, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the
Casado‐Arzuaga, I., Del Amo, D. G., Gómez‐Baggethun, E., 16th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Trondheim.

View publication stats