Valuation of Provisioning Ecosystem Services and Utilization in Three Rural Communities of Ghana

George Asamoah; Edward D. Wiafe

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13

| Peer-Reviewed

Valuation of Provisioning Ecosystem Services and Utilization in Three Rural Communities of Ghana

George Asamoah, Edward D. Wiafe

Published in International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management (Volume 1, Issue 3)

Received: 5 July 2016 Accepted: 15 July 2016 Published: 6 August 2016

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Benefits to ecosystem services may be identified and achieved through their quantification and valuation. The objectives of this study were to map the provisioning ecosystem services and determine the values of these services to the local community members. The study took place at Ejisu-Juaben district of Ghana which is endowed with forests, water bodies, minerals, plants and animals. The study used Participatory Geographic information systems (PGIS) as a tool in valuing ecosystem services in Ejisu-Juaben districts of Ghana. The valuation was carried out based on the construction preference method that sought to assign values to ecosystem services and places where they collect these services. It was indicated that forest holds lots of the key ecosystem services followed by fallow, farmland and grass. The most important ecosystem services listed by both low and high income groups in all study communities were mushroom, medicinal plants, bush meat, snails, honey, food (fruits), fuel wood, water and cane. Low income group use the ecosystem services more for commercial purposes and less for domestic usage across the study communities in contrast to the high income group, who use more for domestic purposes than for commercial purposes. The results mean that the low income groups’ livelihoods depend more on income generated from selling the ecosystem services whilst the high income group may have other alternative sources of income in addition to the ecosystem services provision.

Published in	International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management (Volume 1, Issue 3)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13
Page(s)	79-87
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2016. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Ecosystem Services, Participatory GIS, Valuation, Communities

References

[1]	Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. (2003). Ecosystem and Human Well Being: A framework for Assessment. Washington, Island press. 245 pp.
[2]	IUCN. (2004). How Much IS an Ecosystem Worth? - Assessing the Economic Value of Conservation: Washington, DC.
[3]	WHO. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: health synthesis: a report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; Geneva, Switzerland.
[4]	Novacek, M. J. (2008). Engaging the public in biodiversity issues: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105, 11571-11578.
[5]	Jones-Walters, L., & Mulder, I. (2009). Valuing nature: The economics of biodiversity. Journal for Nature Conservation, 17 (4), 245-247.
[6]	Kumar, M., & Kumar, P. (2008). Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective. Ecological Economics, 64 (4), 808-819.
[7]	Tacconi, L. (Ed.). (2000). Biodiversity and Ecological Economics. Participation, Values, and Resource Management. London Earthscan.
[8]	Costanza, R., R. dArge, R. deGroot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, et al. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387 (6630), 253-260.
[9]	Lars Hein, Kris van Koppen, Rudolf S. de Groot, & Ekko C. van Ierland. (2006). Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 57, 209-228.
[10]	Barkmann, J., Glenk, K., Keil, A., Leemhuis, C., Dietrich, N., Gerold, G., et al. (2008). Confronting unfamiliarity with ecosystem functions: The case for an ecosystem service approach to environmental valuation with stated preference methods. Ecological Economics, 65 (1), 48-62.
[11]	Richard M. Cowling, Benis Egoh, Andrew T. Knight, Patrick J. O'Farrell, Belinda Reyers, Mathieu Rouget, et al. (2008). An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. PNAS, 105 (28), 9483-9488.
[12]	Paulo A. L. D. Nunes, & Bergh, J. C. J. M. v. d. (2001). Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense? Ecological Economics, 39, 203-222.
[13]	Ministry of Food and Agriculture. (2011). Ejisu-Juaben Municipal Assembly, Ghana. Retrieved on 6th November, 2012 from http://www.mofa.gov.gh/site/?page_id=855
[14]	Benefo, D. T. (2008). Assessing the effects of land-use/cover change on ecosystem services in Ejisu-Juaben District, Ghana: The case study of carbon sequenstration. The International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth observation, Enschede, Netherlands..
[15]	Ministry of Local Government. (2006). Ejisu-Juaben Municipal Assembly, Ghana. Retrived on 6th November, 2012 from http://www.ghanadistricts.com/districts/?r=2&=21&sa4538
[16]	Ghana Statistical Service. (2012). 2010 Population and Housing Census, Accra.
[17]	Ojedaa, M. I., Mayer, A. S., & Solomon, B. D. (2007). Economic Valuation of Environmental Services Sustained by Water Flows in the Yaqui River Delta. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.006.
[18]	Raymond, C. M., Bryan, B. A., MacDonald, D. H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., et al. (2009). Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 68 (5), 1301-1315.
[19]	Shapansky, B., Adamowicz, W., & Boxall, P. (2002). Measuring Forest Resource Values: An Assessment of Choice Experiments and Preference Construction Methods as Public Involvement Tools; Edmonton, Canada Pp 1-41.
[20]	Raymond, C. M. (2008). Mapping landscape values and perceived climate change risk for natural resources management: a study of the Southern Fleurieu Peninsula region, SA, DWLBC Report 2008/07. Government of South Australia through Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, Adelaide.
[21]	Raymond, C. M., & Brown, G. (2006). A method for assessing protected area allocations using a typology of landscape values. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49 (6), 797-812.
[22]	Jobe, R. T., & White, P. S. (2009). A new cost-distance model for human accessibility and an evaluation ofaccessibility bias in permanent vegetation plots in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Journal of Vegetation Science 20, USA, 1099-1109.
[23]	Newton, P., Watkinson, A. R., & Peres, C. A. (2011). Spatio, Temporal and Economic Constraints to the Commercial Extraction of a Non-timber Forest Product: Copaiba (Copaifera spp.) Oleoresin in Amazonian Reserves. Economic Botany, 66 (2) New York, USA 165-177.
[24]	Thomas, E., Vandebroek, I., Van Damme, P., Goetghebeur, P., Douterlungne, D., Sanca, S., et al. (2009). The relation between accessibility, diversity and indigenous valuation of vegetation in the Bolivian Andes. Journal of Arid Environments, 73 (9), 854-861.
[25]	Geurs, K. T., & Eck, R. v. (2001). Accessibility measures: review and applications. Evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use transport scenarios, and related social and economic impacts National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven 265.
[26]	Kim, J. H., F. Pagliara, & Preston, J. (2005). The intention to move and residentia location choice behaviour. Urban Studies, 42 (9),. 1621-1636.
[27]	Mayers, J. (2006). Poverty Reduction through Commercial Forestry. What evidence? What prospects? Research Paper A TFD Publication Number 2. The Forests Dialogue; School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University.
[28]	Sunderlin, W. D. (2005). Livelihoods, Forests and Conservation in Developing Countries: An Overview. World Development 33 (9): 1383-1402.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

George Asamoah, Edward D. Wiafe. (2016). Valuation of Provisioning Ecosystem Services and Utilization in Three Rural Communities of Ghana. International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, 1(3), 79-87. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

George Asamoah; Edward D. Wiafe. Valuation of Provisioning Ecosystem Services and Utilization in Three Rural Communities of Ghana. Int. J. Nat. Resour. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 1(3), 79-87. doi: 10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

George Asamoah, Edward D. Wiafe. Valuation of Provisioning Ecosystem Services and Utilization in Three Rural Communities of Ghana. Int J Nat Resour Ecol Manag. 2016;1(3):79-87. doi: 10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13,
  author = {George Asamoah and Edward D. Wiafe},
  title = {Valuation of Provisioning Ecosystem Services and Utilization in Three Rural Communities of Ghana},
  journal = {International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management},
  volume = {1},
  number = {3},
  pages = {79-87},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijnrem.20160103.13},
  abstract = {Benefits to ecosystem services may be identified and achieved through their quantification and valuation. The objectives of this study were to map the provisioning ecosystem services and determine the values of these services to the local community members. The study took place at Ejisu-Juaben district of Ghana which is endowed with forests, water bodies, minerals, plants and animals. The study used Participatory Geographic information systems (PGIS) as a tool in valuing ecosystem services in Ejisu-Juaben districts of Ghana. The valuation was carried out based on the construction preference method that sought to assign values to ecosystem services and places where they collect these services. It was indicated that forest holds lots of the key ecosystem services followed by fallow, farmland and grass. The most important ecosystem services listed by both low and high income groups in all study communities were mushroom, medicinal plants, bush meat, snails, honey, food (fruits), fuel wood, water and cane. Low income group use the ecosystem services more for commercial purposes and less for domestic usage across the study communities in contrast to the high income group, who use more for domestic purposes than for commercial purposes. The results mean that the low income groups’ livelihoods depend more on income generated from selling the ecosystem services whilst the high income group may have other alternative sources of income in addition to the ecosystem services provision.},
 year = {2016}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Valuation of Provisioning Ecosystem Services and Utilization in Three Rural Communities of Ghana
AU  - George Asamoah
AU  - Edward D. Wiafe
Y1  - 2016/08/06
PY  - 2016
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13
T2  - International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
JF  - International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
JO  - International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
SP  - 79
EP  - 87
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-3061
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13
AB  - Benefits to ecosystem services may be identified and achieved through their quantification and valuation. The objectives of this study were to map the provisioning ecosystem services and determine the values of these services to the local community members. The study took place at Ejisu-Juaben district of Ghana which is endowed with forests, water bodies, minerals, plants and animals. The study used Participatory Geographic information systems (PGIS) as a tool in valuing ecosystem services in Ejisu-Juaben districts of Ghana. The valuation was carried out based on the construction preference method that sought to assign values to ecosystem services and places where they collect these services. It was indicated that forest holds lots of the key ecosystem services followed by fallow, farmland and grass. The most important ecosystem services listed by both low and high income groups in all study communities were mushroom, medicinal plants, bush meat, snails, honey, food (fruits), fuel wood, water and cane. Low income group use the ecosystem services more for commercial purposes and less for domestic usage across the study communities in contrast to the high income group, who use more for domestic purposes than for commercial purposes. The results mean that the low income groups’ livelihoods depend more on income generated from selling the ecosystem services whilst the high income group may have other alternative sources of income in addition to the ecosystem services provision.
VL  - 1
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

George Asamoah

Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Marshall University College, Accra, Ghana
Edward D. Wiafe

Department of Environmental and Natural Resources Management, Presbyterian University College, Akropong - Akuapem, Ghana

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

George Asamoah, Edward D. Wiafe. (2016). Valuation of Provisioning Ecosystem Services and Utilization in Three Rural Communities of Ghana. International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, 1(3), 79-87. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

George Asamoah; Edward D. Wiafe. Valuation of Provisioning Ecosystem Services and Utilization in Three Rural Communities of Ghana. Int. J. Nat. Resour. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 1(3), 79-87. doi: 10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

George Asamoah, Edward D. Wiafe. Valuation of Provisioning Ecosystem Services and Utilization in Three Rural Communities of Ghana. Int J Nat Resour Ecol Manag. 2016;1(3):79-87. doi: 10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13,
  author = {George Asamoah and Edward D. Wiafe},
  title = {Valuation of Provisioning Ecosystem Services and Utilization in Three Rural Communities of Ghana},
  journal = {International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management},
  volume = {1},
  number = {3},
  pages = {79-87},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijnrem.20160103.13},
  abstract = {Benefits to ecosystem services may be identified and achieved through their quantification and valuation. The objectives of this study were to map the provisioning ecosystem services and determine the values of these services to the local community members. The study took place at Ejisu-Juaben district of Ghana which is endowed with forests, water bodies, minerals, plants and animals. The study used Participatory Geographic information systems (PGIS) as a tool in valuing ecosystem services in Ejisu-Juaben districts of Ghana. The valuation was carried out based on the construction preference method that sought to assign values to ecosystem services and places where they collect these services. It was indicated that forest holds lots of the key ecosystem services followed by fallow, farmland and grass. The most important ecosystem services listed by both low and high income groups in all study communities were mushroom, medicinal plants, bush meat, snails, honey, food (fruits), fuel wood, water and cane. Low income group use the ecosystem services more for commercial purposes and less for domestic usage across the study communities in contrast to the high income group, who use more for domestic purposes than for commercial purposes. The results mean that the low income groups’ livelihoods depend more on income generated from selling the ecosystem services whilst the high income group may have other alternative sources of income in addition to the ecosystem services provision.},
 year = {2016}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Valuation of Provisioning Ecosystem Services and Utilization in Three Rural Communities of Ghana
AU  - George Asamoah
AU  - Edward D. Wiafe
Y1  - 2016/08/06
PY  - 2016
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13
T2  - International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
JF  - International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
JO  - International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
SP  - 79
EP  - 87
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-3061
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnrem.20160103.13
AB  - Benefits to ecosystem services may be identified and achieved through their quantification and valuation. The objectives of this study were to map the provisioning ecosystem services and determine the values of these services to the local community members. The study took place at Ejisu-Juaben district of Ghana which is endowed with forests, water bodies, minerals, plants and animals. The study used Participatory Geographic information systems (PGIS) as a tool in valuing ecosystem services in Ejisu-Juaben districts of Ghana. The valuation was carried out based on the construction preference method that sought to assign values to ecosystem services and places where they collect these services. It was indicated that forest holds lots of the key ecosystem services followed by fallow, farmland and grass. The most important ecosystem services listed by both low and high income groups in all study communities were mushroom, medicinal plants, bush meat, snails, honey, food (fruits), fuel wood, water and cane. Low income group use the ecosystem services more for commercial purposes and less for domestic usage across the study communities in contrast to the high income group, who use more for domestic purposes than for commercial purposes. The results mean that the low income groups’ livelihoods depend more on income generated from selling the ecosystem services whilst the high income group may have other alternative sources of income in addition to the ecosystem services provision.
VL  - 1
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download