1. Ecosystem Services in Rangelands: Paradigm Change from Supply to Reconciling Supply & Demand
Osvaldo Sala

2. Ecosystem Services: benefits people obtain from ecosystems

3. Jornada LTER VI Project
Objective 6 a: Broad-scale patterns and trends in drivers in socio-ecological states
Specific objective of quantifying trends in socio-economic drivers

4. Ecosystem Services Supplied by the Chihuahuan Desert Rangelands
Spaceport America
Cattle Production
Recreation
Cattle (criollo) of Spanish descent are well-adapted to aridlands.
“How do these cattle perceive and use the landscape, and interact with native animals?”
Residential/business
Agriculture
NMSU

6. Number of scientific publications related to Ecosystem Services over 1963-2012
References to Ecosystem services
The concept of ecosystem services has been developed in the scientific literature since the end of the 1970s.
Scopus in 2012 (Modified from Rositano et al )

7. Shift in emphasis from supply to reconciling supply and demand
Supply of ES
Demand for ES
Use
of ES
Ecosystem service research has focused on the supply and the economic value of ES, while substantial knowledge gaps remain concerning the demand.
The SUPPLY is related with the biophysical assessments of the capacity of ecosystems to deliver services. It is usually described by Ecological Production Functions, connected with the spatial extent, ecosystem structure, and ecosystem functioning (Daily et al., 2011).
The USE of ES by people is the the wood harvested per hectare, the amount of clean water used for irrigation or the amount of crop production increased by the pollination services.
However, we don’t know how to estimate the demand
The level of supply of an ecosystem service in a region (green) actually demanded by people (orange) determines the use of the service of interest (violet).

8. Demand for Ecosystem Services in United States Drylands

9. Yahdjian, Sala, Havstad, Frontiers 2015 13: 44-51
Figure 2
Visitors BLM land
(Millions/year)
Hunters BLM land
1,4
1,5
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
1994
1996
1998
2012
Wildlife viewers
Visitors onto National Parks A C 2 4 6 8 12 14 50 60
1980
1985
1990
1995
2005 B D
Yahdjian, Sala, Havstad, Frontiers : 44-51

10. Figure 4
Yahdjian, Sala, Havstad, Frontiers : 44-51

11. Population in 10 arid US States(Millions)- 5 10 15 20 25
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
TOTAL
Metro
Non
Rural

12. Demand for Ecosystem Services in Other Areas of the World

13. The demand for ES in different regions of the world
Provisioning
Suporting
Regulating
Cultural
Urban area
National Parks
Urban area
Developing regions
Agricultural area
Resorts
Rural area
Agricultural area
Resorts
National Parks
Rural area
Developed regions
Modified from data in Martín-López 2012, PLoS ONE; Castro 2011, J. Arid Env; Zhen 2010, Environ. Res. Lett

14. LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION IS A MAJOR PROVISIONING ECOSYSTEM SERVICE FROM RANGELANDS
Effects of woody-plant encroachment
A comparison of North and South America

15. Hypotheses
LP = B0 + B1 NPP + B2 Tree Cover + Error

16. Anadon, Sala, Turner, Bennett PNAS 2014, 111: 12948-53

17. Anadon, Sala, Turner, Bennett PNAS 2014, 111: 12948-53

18. Relative importance of ecological drivers on livestock production in woody encroached grasslands of two contrasting countries
Estimate
p-value
Intercept
0.8424
-22.75
0.6015
NPP
0.133
<0.0001
Tree cover
0.0005
1.1360
0.0006
NPP*Tree cover -
n.s.
-0.003
0.0001 R2
24.01
50.26
Anadon, Sala, Turner, Bennett PNAS 2014, 111:

19. Anadon, Sala, Turner, Bennett PNAS 2014, 111: 12948-53

20. Number of cattle and the agricultural population decreased during in grasslands of the US while it remains constant in Argentinean grasslands
Number of cattle
Agricultural population
Anadon, Sala, Turner, Bennett PNAS 2014, 111:

21. Conclusion
Land use = ʄ ∑jn [(ESj supply), (∑in(ESj Demand stakeholder i * Political Power stakeholder i ))]

22. Future Demand for other ecosystem services
Demand for ecosystem services in diverse socio-economic setting
Use managed relocation heuristic tool to assess brush control practices

23. Thank you

24. Ecosystem Services Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
Ecosystem service assessments have increasingly been used to support environmental management policies, mainly based
on biophysical and economic indicators. However, few studies have coped with the social-cultural dimension of ecosystem
services, despite being considered a research priority.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
Ecosystems & Human Well-being: Synthesis Report, Island Press

25. Demand for Ecosystem Services
How can we quantify the demand for ES?
Which kind of ES are more demanded?
How does demand change among stakeholders and regions?
Which are the main drivers of ES demand?

26. Approaches to estimate the demand of ES
People preferences by collation of responses to questionnaires and interviews
Social surveys: Services are identified spontaneously
More ‘visible’ services, such as recreation, aesthetic, natural hazards regulation are commonly identified
Ranking exercise: A list of services are presented and people has to rank them
More ‘invisible’ services such as pollination and soil fertility emerged during these exercises
Identification of drivers of ES demand
Collection and analysis of statistics

27. Stakeholders in arid-semiarid regions and the main ES valued
Main service valued
Farmers
Forage supply for livestock production
Regulating services to sustain forage production
Service providers
Cultural services provided by landscape
Recreational hunters
Supply of game species
Recreation and aesthetic enjoyment
Conservationists
Habitat for endangered and rare wildlife species
Regulating services to sustain habitat quality
Passive Nature tourists
Active Nature tourists
Habitat for wildlife species
Castro et al. 2010, J Arid Environ 75:1201; Schefer et al. 2000, Ecosystems 5:451

28. Supply and Demand for different ES
Provisioning
(Food production)
Supporting
(Biodiversity )
Regulating
(Carbon sequestration)
Cultural
(Recreation )
Supply of ES
Use of ES
Demand of ES
Ecosystem service classes
Modified from data in Carpenter et al PNAS 106:1305

29. Drivers of Ecosystem Services Demand
Monthly income
Level of formal education
Urban vs. rural setting
Geographic location
Environmental awareness
Cultural values
Age
Gender
Available technologies to replace ecosystem services

30. Supply & Demand through Time
Supply of ES
Supply & Demand through Time
Use of ES
Demand of ES ?
Pre-settlement:
the supply of ES surpassed the demand
Present:
the demand for ES is not fully satisfied by the supply
Future:
the demand for ES will surpassed the supply
Modified from data in Carpenter et al PNAS 106:1305

31. The per capita demand for crops has been a similarly increasing function of per capita real income since 1960
Global relationship between per capita GDP and per capita demand for crop calories among seven economic groups (Tilman et al. 2011, PNAS 108:20260)

32. Arid ecosystems are among the less valued regarding their capacity to provide ES
Perception of stakeholders regarding an ecosystem capacity to provide services. Ecosystem classification based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (From Martín-López et al, 2012)

33. Demand for Ecosystem Services by different stakeholders
PS: Provisioning
services
SS: Supporting services
RS: Regulating services
CS: Cultural services

34. for ecosystem services (%)
Hypothesized Trends in Demand in Ecosystem Services
Provisioning
Regulating
Supporting
Cultural
for ecosystem services (%)
Relative demand
Yahdjian, Sala, Havstad, Frontiers : 44-51