21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Spatial and temporal dynamics of multidimensional well-being, livelihoods and ecosystem services in coastal Bangladesh

      data-paper

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Populations in resource dependent economies gain well-being from the natural environment, in highly spatially and temporally variable patterns. To collect information on this, we designed and implemented a 1586-household quantitative survey in the southwest coastal zone of Bangladesh. Data were collected on material, subjective and health dimensions of well-being in the context of natural resource use, particularly agriculture, aquaculture, mangroves and fisheries. The questionnaire included questions on factors that mediate poverty outcomes: mobility and remittances; loans and micro-credit; environmental perceptions; shocks; and women’s empowerment. The data are stratified by social-ecological system to take into account spatial dynamics and the survey was repeated with the same respondents three times within a year to incorporate seasonal dynamics. The dataset includes blood pressure measurements and height and weight of men, women and children. In addition, the household listing includes basic data on livelihoods and income for approximately 10,000 households. The dataset facilitates interdisciplinary research on spatial and temporal dynamics of well-being in the context of natural resource dependence in low income countries.

          Related collections

          Most cited references3

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes.

          A key challenge of ecosystem management is determining how to manage multiple ecosystem services across landscapes. Enhancing important provisioning ecosystem services, such as food and timber, often leads to tradeoffs between regulating and cultural ecosystem services, such as nutrient cycling, flood protection, and tourism. We developed a framework for analyzing the provision of multiple ecosystem services across landscapes and present an empirical demonstration of ecosystem service bundles, sets of services that appear together repeatedly. Ecosystem service bundles were identified by analyzing the spatial patterns of 12 ecosystem services in a mixed-use landscape consisting of 137 municipalities in Quebec, Canada. We identified six types of ecosystem service bundles and were able to link these bundles to areas on the landscape characterized by distinct social-ecological dynamics. Our results show landscape-scale tradeoffs between provisioning and almost all regulating and cultural ecosystem services, and they show that a greater diversity of ecosystem services is positively correlated with the provision of regulating ecosystem services. Ecosystem service-bundle analysis can identify areas on a landscape where ecosystem management has produced exceptionally desirable or undesirable sets of ecosystem services.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Bringing Ecosystem Services into Economic Decision-Making: Land Use in the United Kingdom

            Land-use decisions are based largely on agricultural market values. However, such decisions can lead to losses of ecosystem services, such as the provision of wildlife habitat or recreational space, the magnitude of which may overwhelm any market agricultural benefits. In a research project forming part of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, Bateman et al. (p. [Related article:] 45 ) estimate the value of these net losses. Policies that recognize the diversity and complexity of the natural environment can target changes to different areas so as to radically improve land use in terms of agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions, recreation, and wild species habitat and diversity. The value of using land for recreation and wildlife, not just for agriculture, can usefully factor into planning decisions. Landscapes generate a wide range of valuable ecosystem services, yet land-use decisions often ignore the value of these services. Using the example of the United Kingdom, we show the significance of land-use change not only for agricultural production but also for emissions and sequestration of greenhouse gases, open-access recreational visits, urban green space, and wild-species diversity. We use spatially explicit models in conjunction with valuation methods to estimate comparable economic values for these services, taking account of climate change impacts. We show that, although decisions that focus solely on agriculture reduce overall ecosystem service values, highly significant value increases can be obtained from targeted planning by incorporating all potential services and their values and that this approach also conserves wild-species diversity.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Social, institutional, and knowledge mechanisms mediate diverse ecosystem service benefits from coral reefs

              Ecosystem services are supplied by nature but, by definition, are received by people. Ecosystem service assessments, intended to influence the decisions people make regarding their interactions with nature, need to understand how people benefit from different ecosystem services. A critical question is therefore, What determines the distribution of ecosystem service benefits between different sections of society? Here, we use an entitlements approach to examine how people perceive ecosystem service benefits across 28 coral reef fishing communities in four countries. In doing so, we quantitatively show that bundles of benefits are mediated by key access mechanisms (e.g., rights-based, economic, knowledge, social, and institutional). We find that specific access mechanisms influence which ecosystem services people prioritize. Social, institutional, and knowledge mechanisms are associated with the largest number and diversity of benefits. However, local context strongly determines whether specific access mechanisms enable or constrain benefits. Local ecological knowledge enabled people to prioritize a habitat benefit in Kenya, but constrained people from prioritizing the same benefit in Madagascar. Ecosystem service assessments, and their resultant policies, need to include the broad suite of access mechanisms that enable different people to benefit from a supply of ecosystem services.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Sci Data
                Sci Data
                Scientific Data
                Nature Publishing Group
                2052-4463
                08 November 2016
                2016
                : 3
                : 160094
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Geography, King’s College London, Strand Campus , London WC2R 2LS, UK
                [2 ]Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Rennes Drive , Exeter EX4 4RJ, UK
                [3 ]Initiative for Climate Change and Health, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research Bangladesh , GPO Box 128, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh
                [4 ]Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton , Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
                [5 ]Social Statistics & Demography, University of Southampton, 58 Salisbury Rd , Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
                Author notes
                [a ] H.A. (email: helen.j.adams@ 123456kcl.ac.uk ).
                []

                H.A.: qualitative research, design of the social-ecological system sampling strategy, questionnaire design, co-management of the survey, led in writing article; N.A.: qualitative research, social-ecological system sampling strategy and questionnaire; S.A.: designed and implemented the social-ecological system sampling strategy, designed the questionnaire; A.A. contributed to the design of the survey instrument, oversaw the implementation of the survey, carried out data checks; D.B. designed the social-ecological system sampling strategy, designed the questionnaire, carried out systematic random sampling, oversaw the implementation of the survey; Z.M. contributed to design of qualitative research, social-ecological system sampling strategy and questionnaire; M.M.R. contributed to management of the survey, carried out quality control checks in the field; P.K.S. contributed to design of qualitative research, social-ecological system sampling strategy and questionnaire, Principal Investigator of the survey. All authors contributed to writing the article.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1732-9833
                Article
                sdata201694
                10.1038/sdata.2016.94
                5100685
                27824340
                e1eb29a5-0dab-4575-ad8c-48b0e214d0b0
                Copyright © 2016, The Author(s)

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 Metadata associated with this Data Descriptor is available at http://www.nature.com/sdata/ and is released under the CC0 waiver to maximize reuse.

                History
                : 22 March 2016
                : 30 September 2016
                Categories
                Data Descriptor

                developing world,environmental social sciences
                developing world, environmental social sciences

                Comments

                Comment on this article