Situation analysis and Baseline Data to assess key ecosystem services for agriculture
production in Humidtropic landscapes
A report for SRT 2.3
Natalia Estrada Carmona, estr8389@vandals.uidaho.edu
Fabrice DeClerck, Bioversity International, f.declerck@cgiar.org
[share with Roseline Remans for comment and additions]
[Share with Edmundo Barrios for input, and integration]
[Share with Fred Atieno for input and integration]
Draft: November 15, 2013
1. Introduction
The main goal of this methodology is to facilitate the rapid assessment of the current state
of agroecosystems and their interaction or dependence to natural resources. We propose a
systematic collection of information and action site assessment that allows for comparison
across sites partially based on the Vital Signs (VS) monitoring system which aims to provide a
multiscale, and multidisciplinary assessment of agricultural landscapes (Sachs et al, 2011;
Scholes et al., 2013). We propose similar sampling units and methods for consistency and
future collaborations or comparisons, however, have adapted the methodology to
Humidtropics and its rapid assessment goals. Here, we focus on transformed agricultural
landscapes (agroecosystems) rather than natural and semi-natural ecosystems and at the
landscape scale which is referenced as Tier 4 in Vital Signs terminology. We place greater
emphasis on assessing on-farm practices and farmer choice to better understand intervention
options to promote sustainable agriculture intensification (Garnett et al 2013) to increase food
production, agriculture related ecosystem services and farmers livelihoods.
The sample units are similar to used by the Vital Signs project and follows a
hierarchically (at different scales), sparse (small portion of the total area) and partially-nested
(not all samples follow the hierarchical principle) sampling framework suggested by Scholes et
al. (2013). We proposed thatinformation of the following components is particularly relevant to
1
the Humidtropics work: 1) agroecosystem characteristics, 2) institutions, human demography
and wellbeing, 3)ecosystem services provided to agriculture, and 4) landscape management
components (Table 1). This document explains the rationale for the proposed components and
sample units and the sampling units’ methods, the information that should be collected at the
different units and sources of information. We then use the Nicaragua action site as a
preliminary example of the sampling framework.
2
Table 1. Expected outcomes for each of the four highlighted components by sample unit
Sampling
units
Agroecosystems
characteristics
Action site
Productive systems,
level of intensification,
yield gaps.
Vulnerability and risks
Land cover
Random sampling
design stratified by
land cover types and
productive systems
Plot
Field data
measurement /
collection to assess the
health of the
agroecosystem
Detailed image
classification of
landscapes facing
different trade-offs
levels between
agriculture and
conservation.
Farm typology in
terms of management
and productive
systems
Landscape
and
watershed
Farms
Farmers
Farmers knowledge
about sustainable
productive systems,
current practices and
limitations to
implement new or
more sustainable
practices
Components
Institutions, human
Agricultural
demography ecosystems services
wellbeing
Norms, policies,
Most relevant ES at
programs, strategies
coarse and medium
related to sustainable
resolution. Current
(or not) agriculture
incentives or
intensification,
disincentives. Past
population dynamicsexperiences and
configuration, social
lessons learned.
structures.
Landscape
management
Landscape
configuration and
composition
assessment at coarse
and medium
resolution. Hotspots of
required critical
support (agriculture
production) and ES
provisioning.
Large, medium or
small land holders
identification (land
tenure rights). Land
cover-use regulation /
protection
Field data
measurement /
collection to assess the
provision of ES
Clear picture of key
stakeholders,
governance and
institutions related to
agriculture and
agriculture ecosystem
services provision.
Farm typology in
terms of markets
accessibility: self
consumption, local or
international markets
Farmer typology.
Farmers access to
financial aid,
technology, health,
education,
governance,
knowledge and
training
Assessment of the
current experiences
and the stage of
pollination,
hydrological and soil
related ecosystem
services
Farm elements
facilitating or
constraining the
provisioning of ES
Farmer knowledge
about the sources of
ES, the management
that provide ES, and
awareness of the need
of the ES for ag.
Production.
Field data
measurement /
collection to validate
models and landscape
analysis
Landscape
configuration and
composition
assessment at fine
resolution. Hotspots of
key ES.
Field data
measurement /
collection to validate
models and landscape
analysis
Farmer identification
of priority areas for
most important ES in
the landscape/action
site
3
2. Methodology description
Natural and built capitals are first assessed to elucidate system limits including system potential
(i.e. soil quality), limits (i.e. accessibility, rainfall, infrastructure) and vulnerabilities (i.e. extreme
events) to produce goods and services. Human, cultural, social, political, financial are assessed
second to document the levels of poverty, access to technology, social structures or conflicts,
knowledge, and norms and institutions, population trends, of local communities amongst
others. These criteria influence how farmers make decisions and the range of interventions
options that are practical. This type of situation analysis information will help the action site
team to discuss available and required support for each action site according to its landscape
context. The goal of the agroecosystem services and landscape management components is to
assess available mechanisms to improve agroecosystem health, human wellbeing, and
landscape sustainability.
2.1. Brief description of the analysis components
2.1.1. Agroecosystem characteristics
This component describes land quality in terms of is potential and limitations for food
production and ecosystem services provisioning. A clear understanding of the natural and built
capital at the different scales will help the action site team to define the most appropriate
interventions from an agronomic and ecological perspective (sustainable or agroecological
intensification).
Box 1: Definitions of “sustainable agricultural intensification” and “agroecological
intensification”.
2.1.2. Institutions, human demography - wellbeing
4
The social-economical-political characterization depicts the constraints or potential for
promoting agroecological intensification. Local knowledge, education and population dynamics
are also key components.
2.1.3. Agricultural ecosystem services
The agricultural ecosystem service component is at the core of SRT 2.3 and focuses on the
relationship between natural resources, agricultural productivity, and human well-being. This
component gathers information in terms of those ecosystem services required to support
sustainable agricultural production and human wellbeing. The situation analysis should use
rapid survey methodologies, such as Focal Group Discussions (FGD) identify which ecosystem
services are recognized by institutions, what past experiences the community has with
ecosystem services management, and the existing institutions supporting ecosystem service
conservation. This information is intended to facilitate dialogue and discussion regarding
interventions needed to conserve, restore, or enhance the provisioning of prioritized ecosystem
services. There is recent growth in capacity to model and map the flow of ecosystem services in
agricultural landscape (InVEST, ARIES and (Mulligans) with the aim of guiding effective natural
resource based interventions to secure ecosystem services. One example is the payments for
soil conservation practices financed by hydropower plant operators in Costa Rica as a means of
reducing reservoir sedimentation rates (Estrada-Carmona and DeClerck, 2010).
Box 2: Ecosystem Services to and from agriculture
2.1.4. Landscape management
Ecosystem services are provided as a function of the composition and configuration of land
uses within the landscape. The capacity of a specific land use to provide these services in turn is
a function of species composition and configuration (citation). The landscape management
component provides information regarding landscape structure, configuration, composition
5
and functioning in order to identify key production, conservation, and ecosystem service
production areas also known as hotspots. For example provisioning of ecosystem services
related to soil, hydrology, provisioning, pest control and pollination. Soil and hydrological
services can be assessed by using modeling tools such as InVEST1, NSPECT2, or Co$ting Nature3
amongst a growing family of tools. Considering that quality and data availability can be an issue
in several action sites, we encourage action site teams to research for the most appropriate
methodology to assess those services according to site context and information availability.
Provisioning services can be mapped first at the landscape scale using the collected information
on agroecosystem characteristics component, particularly highlighting the potential areas for
agriculture expansion/intensification, yield gaps, infrastructure limitations, and
conservation/protection areas, conflict areas. This information can later be scaled up to the
entire action site.
Landscape metrics help to explore and describe the landscape patterns and to generate
hypotheses regarding ecological process across action sites and landscapes. They also serve to
establish an action area baseline that is used to in adaptive management with the local
community by monitoring change in landscape structure and composition and evaluating the
influence of this change on desired development trajectories. Fundamental landscape
characteristics are associated with landscape composition, (what landuses) and configuration
(how are these land uses arranged). Land use maps derived from remote sensing can be used to
derive multiple measures for example those suggested by Cushman, et al., (2008) at the land
use scale: 1) edge contrast, 2) patch shape complexity, 3) aggregation, 4) nearest neighbor
distance, 5) patch dispersion, 6) large patch dominance and 7) neighborhood similarity. And at
landscape scale 1) contagion/diversity, 2) large patch dominance, 3)
interspersion/juxtaposition, 4) edge contrast, 5) patch shape variability, 6) proximity and 7)
nearest neighbor distance. The final list of metrics to be used should be be in agreement with
1
InVEST Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs:
http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/InVEST.html
2
NSPECT Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool:
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/opennspect
3
Costing Nature: http://ebmtoolsdatabase.org/tool/costing-nature-coting-nature
6
the action site context and the ecological processes to be studied. We strongly recommend
performing a correlation analysis among class and landscape scale metrics since some metrics
can be correlated and do add noise rather than information (i.e. Ode, 2011). We suggest using
FRAGSTAT4 software.
2.2. Sampling units
Information should be systematically collected at the 1) farmer (social and management issues)
and farm (land use and biophysical properties), 2) landscape, 3) 1) action site, 2) plot, 3)
landscape, 4) watershed, 5) farm, and 6) farmer scales.
Action Site: Information collected at this scale should provide a first approximation to the area
with an international, national and regional scale perspective. The action site scale provides
information regarding agricultural potential, infrastructure for agriculture including policies and
programs that define how natural resources and agriculture are regulated and managed. It
includes a list of key stakeholders in the area that affect how agriculture and natural resources
are managed. A list of instruments (i.e. payments, certification, tax reliefs) to promote
sustainable agriculture production and the learned lessons from the past experiences, will also
help guide Humidtropics in addressing constraints and opportunities. It also includes a
description of the action site vulnerability to extreme climate events such as those related to
climate change and identifies current/projected development projects.
Land cover: Land cover is used to locate farms and sample plots prior to sampling or field work.
The sampling design and effort should be proportional to the percentage of each land cover
type in the action site. The variation within each land cover category should be also considered
in the sampling design (Scholes et al., 2013). The requirements of the most dominant crops in
the action site such as soil quality, soil nutrients, soil water, and pollination should be also
gathered from secondary or previous studies. Both sources of information provide spatially
4
FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps
http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html
7
explicit delineations of yields gaps, the required management changes for sustainable
agriculture by crop and land cover at the action site.
Plot scale: There are two types of plots established, detailed and rapid. Detailed plots should be
precisely georeferenced with a high precision GPS for repeat measures over time in order to
monitor and track changes (Scholes et al., 2013). The detailed plots will be used to record and
measure ecosystem service provisioning and scaling that information at landscape scale (Table
3). The purpose of the rapid plots is to validate and calibrate remotely sensed and GIS based
information at the action site and landscape scales.
Landscape scale: Ecosystem services for agriculture production (i.e. pollination or pest control)
are provided by different farmscape elements such as live fences, hedgerows, and agroforestry
systems (e.g. Harvey et al., 2008, Power et al., 2010, Avelino et al., 2012 and Ricketts 2004) and
how they are arranged in the landscape. These elements can often be identified by using high
resolutions images, however, obtaining and classifying highresolution images for the entire
action site is expensive and time consuming. Landscapes within the action site that are the
focus of CRP work however are manageable and offer suitable spatial scale at which high
resolution images should be classified and monitored through time to evaluate the interface
between agricultural development, and natural resource management. The landscape scale
often correlates to the watersheds which are important for many hydrological and soil related
ecosystems services. Watershed ecosystem services include hydrological flow regulation, water
quality, soil erosion control, flood buffering, channel filtration and sediment reduction (Fremier
et al., 2013). The provisioning of hydrological and soil related ES are particularly critical in
tropical highlands of the Humidtropics project zone. Steep mountains, young soils, tropical
storms and degraded lands are critical factors exacerbating degradation states. Lal (2001)
estimated that approximately the 21% of the land area in central America is highly affected by
soil erosion. Future climate change scenarios project potential vegetation change from humid
tropics to dry tropics in Mesoamerica, highlighting the importance of improving water use (i.e.
consumption, irrigation and hydropower) efficiency (Imbach et al., 2012).
8
The Farm Scale, which is the core focal scale of Humidtropics, comprises fields, cropping
systems and agricultural landscape features such as "hedges, fences, drainages, permanent
meadows, woodlots, farmsteads, and the wide array of buildings, linear networks and other
elements supporting production activities or connecting
agricultural fields to the environment (Rizzo et al., 2012)".
Farmer knowledge, values, and practices applied at farm
scale have on-site and off-site effects on the amount and
quality of the ES provided such as pest control, pollination,
water and soil quality (Fremier et al., 2013). However, farm
location within the landscape, also determines the
For a list of crops and its
dependence to pollinators see
FAO 2009
A methodology of a visual soil
-field assessment tool (FAO,
DATE)
Methods and materials in soil
conservation (FAO)
importance of the farm for the provisioning of spatially
explicit ecosystem services such as soil erosion control and connectivity (Estrada-Carmona and
DeClerck, 2012).
Households are embedded in the the farm scale.
Household are the major decision-making unit in
Humidtropics with farmer families deciding whether
or not to implement conservation practices.
Bacon et al. (2012) proposed a
comprehensive list of criteria to
assess social dimensions of
sustainability on diversified farming
systems
Humidtropics places particular emphasis on
collecting gender disaggregated information at this scale. Farmer choice on crop type, rotation,
inputs and management are determined by access to technology, economic resources,
organizations or institutions, and regulations or legislation (Primdahl, 1999) as well as
important cultural variables (citation). Farmer typology based on these and land tenure rights
help to i define farmer choice (Primdahl, 1999; Gravsholt, 2002). For example, in Costa Rica,
small landholders were aware of the risk of soil erosion and climate change, however, tend to
incorporate fewer soil conservation practices because of their short-term needs override longterm consequences (Vignola et al., 2010). In Denmark, differentiating farmers by owners and
producers helped to understand that owners choices are not only influenced by economics;
9
rather long-term perspective and value-oriented motivations were also important factors
explaining voluntary conservation practices (Phimdahl, 1999). In Australia, native biodiversity
conservation was driven by farmer expectations, such as monetary resources by farm business
and non-monetary by farm family (Farmar-Bowers et al., 2009).
Farmer information is collected using a semi-structured surveys (combination of open
and closed questions). Information from semi-structured surveys is easier to compare,
standardize, and analyze across landscapes and countries. Open questions are used to better
understand farmer typologies and realities. The challenge for the sociologist and the action site
team is to design a complete but short survey, which compiles the most important information.
10
Table 2. Unit sampling effort and methodology
Unit
Action site
Number
4 per action area
Size
Variable
Methodology
RS - GIS; Team discussion; Multi-criteria
method; key stakeholders validation or
consultation
Landscape
and
watershed
From 6 to 8
landscapes or
watershed per
action site
10x10km2
Watershed could be the size
of the landscape or be located
within a landscape
RS - GIS: High image (1m resolution)
classification using e-cognition approach (or
object-oriented approach) and the habitat
classification proposed by Bunce et al., (2012;
2011).
Plot (w/in
the
landscape)
Detailed
Rapid
1 per 500 km2
Farms
Farmers
1ha
Variable
At least 30 farmers
per landscape or
watershed
Ideally, at least 30 farmers per
landscape should be surveyed.
Field visit; Interview to stakeholders; Team
discussions
Detailed plots: Plot intensity 1 per 500 km2. n
=0.8*N(total no. of detailed plots)*%Area per
cover type. Constrains: n>10 points per cover
and <20% of the total
Rapid plots Plot intensity 1 per 50km2. For
calibration and should take less than 5 min.
E-sampling subplot
GIS; Field visit; Farmers should delimit their
farm in the high images according. Farmers
should also identify if there are ES services
coming from outside of the farm.
Field visit; Survey
Notes
Delimitation: HumidTropics project and action site
team criteria.
Characterization heavily based on medium and
coarse cartographic and secondary information
Landscapes and watersheds will be purposive
located in the region to cover
different trade-offs between ecosystems health and
agriculture production proposed by Jackson et al.
(2012).
Detailed: precisely geo-located
Plots locations: outside landscapes stratified clusterrandom basis along the roads at a cost-efficient
distance (1km). Randomly located and post-stratified
by land cover type; within landscapes stratified
cluster-random basis
Farmers should be randomly selected from a preexistent list, or using the high resolution image
Source: Adapted from Vital Signs (Scholes et al., 2013)
11
2.3. Variables to assess the different sampling units and the different components
There are a wide range of variables that should be assessed to capture agroecosystems,
institutional, and social components at the each sample scale. We highly recommend that action
sites discuss the listed variables and choose the most appropriate . If the action site scientiests
consider that new variables should be included, please do make sure to add them to table 3 and
explain the rationale/importance of the new variables.
Table 3. Agroecosystem, and institutional, –social wellbeing components of the different sampling
scales.
Unit
Agroecosystem characteristic (Variables,
layers or information source)
Natural and Built capital
Action site
Population density, protected areas,
precipitation, temperature, soils, elevation,
slope, road density, settlements,
vulnerability, land use change, vegetation
map, land cover map, yield and yield gap
Land cover
Land cover types (area, %), dominant and
minor crops, water, soil and pollination
requirements
Detailed: "Date, location, orientation, stem
circumferences and height profile, by
species for woody plants (trees and shrubs),
from which biomass is derived by allometry,
the canopy cover, and the biomass by
species in the herbaceous layers", crop
varieties, (including annual crops, trees,
weeds), observable management classes
(till/no-till, mechanization), soil
conservation structures (rock walls,
biological trips, trash lines), water
management structures, equipment.
Quantitative data regarding the state of the
soil surface, finger test for texture
Rapid: crop type, species dominance of
Plot
Institutions, human demography wellbeing (Variables, layers or information
source)
Cultural, human, social, political, and
financial capitals
National surveys, census-national reportspapers, poverty data, national agricultural
or international programs (payments, tax
reliefs, ag. extension, certification),
legislation (support-conflicts agroecological
production), livelihoods by agroecological
zones, extreme events, prevention and
mitigation programs to CC and extreme
events, land tenure type (% without land
title).
Protected areas, conflict zones, mining
areas, deforestation zones
Some of the plots will be located in the
selected farmer’s farm (if farmers were
randomly selected)
12
Unit
Landscape
Agroecosystem characteristic (Variables,
layers or information source)
natural vegetation, land use and soil surface
conditions, presence of weeds, whether
rivers are flowing, dry or stagnant.
High resolution image: Land cover rotation
type, cropping intensity
Detailed: same
Rapid: same
Watershed Water quality, irrigation systems, natural
and human made reservoirs delimitation,
eutriphication, sedimentation,
Farm
Farm shape, crop diversity, location, area,
land use distribution,
Agricultural field boundaries, soil
properties, tree spp diversity, sources of
resources.
Key soil variables will be measured in field,
using visual assessment techniques for soil
loss, color and surface state, finger tests for
texture and field lab test for pH, salinity,
nitrates and phosphates, labile C, potassium
and probes for soil depth and compaction;
and contamination with heavy metals /
organic pollutants
Farm infrastructure for agriculture
production
Verify interview answers by farmers.
Farmer
Planting dates, plant density, nutrient
inputs (type and amount), crop types and
varieties, date of flowering, occurrence of
pest and diseases, soil management
practices (frequency and method of
cultivation), water management, number
and type of livestock (bought, sold,
consumed, died, or was born in the survey
period), major fuels used for lighting and
cooking, how many hours spent collecting
fuel wood and the key locations where fuel
wood is harvested, sources of water for
drinking and household use, water
treatments, methods for obtaining water,
time spending collecting water, sources of
building materials, wild meat, wild fish and
insect consumption, medicinal plant
Institutions, human demography wellbeing (Variables, layers or information
source)
Cooperatives, market access, social
organizations, agroecological organizationsleaders, land tenure type (% without land
title), organic producers, organic markets,
NGOS, universities
Water management organizations and
legislation (state, national, regional,
international)
Self-consumption, local markets or
international markets, value added to
products, finances
Economical resources to invest in farm
production, bank access, cooperative
access, governmental aids, technical
assistance
Food and nutritional security, health,
gender, cultural background, and education
Which trees are important for ES
provisioning? food?
Participate in local organizations or
cooperatives?
13
Unit
Agroecosystem characteristic (Variables,
layers or information source)
Institutions, human demography wellbeing (Variables, layers or information
source)
harvest, honey cultivation and wild harvest,
wildlife conflicts, yield estimates by crop
type major crops (2-3)
Source: List of variables from Vital Signs (Scholes et al., 2013) and Jackson et al. (2010) and Bacon et al., (2012).
An additional range of variables can be assessed for agroecosystem services and landscape
management components at the different sampling units. We highly recommend to the action
site to discuss about listed variables and choose the most viable/appropriated for each action
site. If the action site scientiests consider that new variables should be included, please do make
sure to add them to table 3 and explain the rationale/importance of the new variables.
Table 4. List of variables for agroecosystem services and landscape management components at the
different sampling units.
Unit
Agroecosystem services (Variables, layers
or information source)
Mechanism
Action site Pollination: % of natural habitat, crop
dependence to pollination; Water: crops
rooting system, water storage (ponds,
dykes, subsurface dams), irrigation (rainfall,
surface or ground water), % plant cover,
architecture of plants, evaporation, periods
of water stress, water harvest
Soil: soil characteristics, cover crops, crops
cycles rotation, hedgerows, riparian
vegetation, crop residues
Land
Type of natural habitat, area, shape and
cover
distance
Plot
Landscape Pollination: % of natural habitat, distance,
or
quality, riparian forest functional traits
watershed Water: storage (ponds, dykes, subsurface
dams), irrigation (rainfall, surface or ground
water), % plant cover, plants architecture,
water harvest, tillage regime, mulching,
critical areas during the period of water
Landscape management (Variables, layers
or information source)
Mechanism
Stream flow diversion or interventions,
landscape simplification, habitat
fragmentation, agricultural policies, soil,
water and forest legislation, abandonment
areas, restoration areas, pesticide poisoning
No. cropping systems, natural habitat
patches distances, area of agricultural
intensification, length-area field margin and
type, landscape structure and composition
metrics (table XXX)
Same information
Pesticide poisoning, eutrophication, algal
bloom, surface water quality, agrochemical
pollution, increased nutrients in water,
increased dissolved salts, sedimentation,
water ways - dams, fish kills, hypoxia, dead
zones, natural habitat quality,
14
Unit
Farm
Farmer
Agroecosystem services (Variables, layers
or information source)
stress
Soil: soil characteristics, cover crops, crops
cycles rotation, hedgerows, riparian
vegetation, crop residues, point and nonpoint pollution sources and estimations,
eroded or degraded areas,
Pollination: Farm land uses diversity, home
gardens, plant diversity, bees hives,
multistory and alley cropping systems
Water: soil structure, % litter, deep rooting
spp, soil moisture, soil organic matter, soil
biotic community, architecture of plants,
tillage regime, mulching
Soil: pore structure, soil aggregation,
organic matter decomposition, macro and
micro fauna, mechanical ploughing, disking,
cultivating, harvesting, conservation tillage,
cover crops, crops cycles rotation,
hedgerows, riparian vegetation, crop
residues, contouring,
What the farmer does to guarantee the
provisioning of pollination, hydrological and
soil services? Obtaining them from or out of
the farm, bees business
Types of traps for pest control, type of
product for pest control
Landscape management (Variables, layers
or information source)
Average field size, farm level diversification,
cover cropping, intercropping, legume
diversification, diversifying rotations, timing
plant cover, biological control, access to
market, size unit.
On-farm management, if yes why and where
did he or she learn? if not, why not?
limitations?
Source: List of variables from Vital Signs (Scholes et al., 2013) and Power (2010)
15
2.4.
This methodology described her is intended to be attainable within a dedicated six month
period. First months are used to collect all possible information and to develop a coarse but
accurate action site characterization. Expected outcomes from this first two month include: 1)
action site characterization, 2) stakeholders identification, 3) landscapes, watersheds and plots
potential locations, 4) fieldwork planned and 5) instruments and gear designed and obtained.
The third and fourth months are dedicated to field work gathering, information at the different
units of analysis (farmers, farm, watershed and landscape). Expected outcomes from the
landscape visit include: 1) farmers surveyed, 2) farms and plots measured, 3) watersheds
elements measured and characterized, 4) stakeholders surveyed or interviewed and 5) RS and
GIS information verified. The final two months are for data analysis and report elaboration
according to the project standards and guidelines (Figure 1).
2.5. Action site meetings
The action site meetings during the first two months are strategic. During those meetings the
team can creates a conceptual model (see WWF, 2006) to clearly identify the most important
ecosystem services in the region for agriculture production, select the indicators to assess those
ecosystem services and agriculture production, besides, system condition, stress, shocks,
threats and opportunities in a systematic fashion.
3. Sources of information
The actions site and land cover units are heavily based on cartographic and remote sensing
information (see the accompanying case study from Nicaragua). Each one of the used layers
should be registered with its metadata following international standards (ISO standard on
geographic data quality - ISO 19113:2002 ). For a complete list of potential sources of
cartographic information see Scholes et al (2013). Sources of information for the Nicaraguan
study case and other sources available at global scale that should be used by the action site
teams can be found in Table 5.
16
Figure 1.
17
Table 5. Sources of information
EXTERNAL (International)
From
Type
Detail
Cartograp Land uses coarse resolution
hy
Thematic (Pop density, extreme events
risk, others)
Soil type
Statistics
Journals
or
Hydrology
Agroecological variables
Digital elevation model 30m resolution
Albedo
Burned area
Socio economic data
Near surface air temperature, wind
speed relative humidity
Population and other
Diverse thematic
FAPAR
Climatic and land use (Mesoamerican
region)
Irrigation and water consumption data
General statistics at country level
General statistics at the different
administrative levels
Current projects on agriculture
Other source of general statistics at
country level and with projections until
2100
General statistics at country level
Projects or previous experiences on
agriculture and conservation
Format
raster
Source
Glove Cover
raster
Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC)
raster and
tabular
raster
raster
raster
raster
raster
raster
raster
Harmonized World Soil Database v1.1 - FAO
raster
raster
raster
raster
CESIN
Data basin
MISR, SPOT Vegetation
SERVIR
database
database
database
AquaSTAT
FAOSTAT
Country STAT
database
database
Field Programme Activities FAO
UN DATA
database
&
document
document
Worldbank Micro Data Catalog
FAO/GEONetwork
GAEZ- FAO
SRTM-ASTER
MISR-HR, Modis
Modis
SEDAC
NCEP
18
EXTERNAL (National)
Reports
Methodol
ogies
A methodology of a visual soil -field
assessment tool
Methods and materials in soil
conservation
Irrigation guidelines and spread sheets
Rapid assessment of drinking-water
quality
Others
International NGOS, research centers
or regional organizations may have a
compilation of diverse information
Cartograp National cartographic institute
hy
Statistics National Statistics Center
Agriculture and Cattle ministries
Forest Ministry
Natural resources ministry
Legislatio Agriculture and Natural Resources
n
Regulations
Other
Land management
national
institutio
ns
Other
National NGOS, Universities, Institutes
FAO
FAO
British Columbia government
World Health Organization
diverse
Centro Agrónomico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE),
Comisión Centroaméricana de Ambiente y Desarrollo (CCAD),
CATHALAC
Instituto Nicaragüense de Estudios Territoriales (INETER)
Instituto National de Información del Desarrollo (INIDE)
Ministerio Agropecuario y Forestal (MAGFOR)
MAGFOR
Ministerio del Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (MARENA)
Asamblea Nacional de Nicaragua
INAFOR, INIFOM, INFOCOOP
Asociación de Nicaragüense de Productores y Exportadores de
Productos No Tradicionales (PENN) (To see more:
http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/nicaragua/enlaces.shtml)
19
Definitions
Agriculture sustainability: “Considers the effects of farm activities on social, economic, and
environmental conditions at local and regional scale” (Dale et al., 2012).
Agroecosystem: "ecological and socioeconomic systems and communities of plants and/or
animals interacting with their physical and chemical environments that has been modified
by people to produce food, fiber, or other agricultural products for human consumption and
processing" (Zhu et al., 2012).
Built capital: “includes the infrastructure supporting these activities” (Flora et al., 2004)."
(Emery and Flora, 2006).
Cultural capital: “reflects the way people "know the world" and how they act within it, as well
as their traditions and language. Cultural capital influences what voices are heard and
listened to, which voices have influence in what areas, and how creativity, innovation, and
influence emerge and are nurtured. Hegemony privileges the cultural capital of dominant
groups” (Bourdieu, 1986; Flora et al, 2004; Bebbington, 1999)." (Emery and Flora, 2006).
Ecological intensification: "the use of biological regulation in agroecosystems to achieve both
the high level of food production and ecosystem service provision (Doré et al., 2011)
Ecosystem health: " the system’s ability to realize its functions desired by society and to
maintain its structure needed both by its functions and by society over a long time " (Xu and
Mage, 2001)
Financial capital: “refers to the financial resources available to invest in community capacitybuilding, to underwrite the development of businesses, to support civic and social
entrepreneurship, and to accumulate wealth for future community development” (Lorenz,
1999)." (Emery and Flora, 2006).
Human capital: “is understood to include the skills and abilities of people to develop and
enhance their resources and to access outside resources and bodies of knowledge in order
to increase their understanding, identify promising practices, and to access data for
community-building. Human capital addresses the leadership's ability to "lead across
differences," to focus on assets, to be inclusive and participatory, and to act proactively in
20
shaping the future of the community or group (Becker, 1964; Flora et al, 2004)." (Emery and
Flora, 2006).
Land quality: “the condition and capacity of land, including its soil, climate, topography and
biological properties, for purpose of production, conservation, and environmental
management” (Pieri et al., 1995)
Landscape sustainability: "the capacity of a landscape to consistently provide long-term,
landscape-specific ecosystem services essential for maintaining and improving human wellbeing in a regional context and despite environmental and sociocultural changes sustainable
agriculture intensification" (Wu, 2013).
Natural capital: “refers to those assets that abide in a particular location, including weather,
geographic isolation, natural resources, amenities, and natural beauty Natural capital
shapes the cultural capital connected to place” (Pretty, 1998; Constanza, et al., 1997)."
(Emery and Flora, 2006).
Political capital: “reflects access to power, organizations, connection to resources and power
brokers (Flora et al., 2004). Political capital also refers to the ability of people to find their
own voice and to engage in actions that contribute to the wellbeing of their community”
(Aigner et al., 2001 )." (Emery and Flora, 2006).
Social capital: “reflects the connections among people and organizations or the social "glue" to
make things, positive or negative, happen. Bonding social capital refers to those close
redundant ties that build community cohesion. Bridging social capital involves loose ties
that bridge among organizations and communities (Narayan, 1999; Granovetter, 1973 &
1985). A specific configuration of social capital—entrepreneurial social capital (ES1)—is
related to community economic development (Flora & Flora, 1993; Flora et al., 1997). ESI
includes inclusive internal and external networks, local mobilization of resources, and
willingness to consider alternative ways of reaching goals” (Emery and Flora, 2006).
21
Bibliography
Avelino, J., Romero-Guardián, A., Cruz-Cuellar, H., & DeClerck, F. (2012). Landscape context and
scale differentially impact coffee leaf rust , coffee berry borer , and coffee root-knot
nematodes. Ecological Applications, 22(2), 584–596.
Bacon, C. M., Getz, C., Kraus, S., Montenegro, M., & Holland, K. (2012). The Social Dimensions of
Sustainability and Change in Diversified Farming Systems. Ecology And Society, 17(4), 41.
Busck, A. G. (2002). Farmers’ Landscape Decisions: Relationships between Farmers' Values and
Landscape Practices. Sociologia Ruralis, 42(3), 233–249. doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00213
Cushman, S., Mcgarigal, K., & Neel, M. (2008). Parsimony in landscape metrics: Strength,
universality, and consistency. Ecological Indicators, 8(5), 691–703.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.12.002
Dale, V. H., Kline, K. L., Kaffka, S. R., & Langeveld, J. W. a. (2012). A landscape perspective on
sustainability of agricultural systems. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 1111–1123.
doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9814-4
Doré, T., Makowski, D., Malézieux, E., Munier-Jolain, N., Tchamitchian, M., & Tittonell, P.
(2011). Facing up to the paradigm of ecological intensification in agronomy: Revisiting
methods, concepts and knowledge. European Journal of Agronomy, 34(4), 197–210.
doi:10.1016/j.eja.2011.02.006
Emery, M., & Flora, C. (2006). Spiraling-Up : Mapping Community Transformation with
Community Capitals Framework S. Community development, 37(1), 19–35.
Estrada-Carmona, N., & Declerck, F. (2012). Payment for Ecosystem Services for Energy ,
Biodiversity Conservation , and Poverty Reduction in Costa Rica. In J. C. Ingram, F. Declerck,
& C. Rumbaitis-del Rio (Eds.), Integrating Ecology and Poverty Reduction: The application
of Ecology in Development Solutions (pp. 191–210). New York, USA: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0186-5
Farmar-Bowers, Q., & Lane, R. (2009). Understanding farmers’ strategic decision-making
processes and the implications for biodiversity conservation policy. Journal of
environmental management, 90(2), 1135–44. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.05.002
Fremier, A. K., Declerck, F., Bosque-Pérez, N., Estrada-Carmona, N., Hill, R., Joyal, T., …
Wulfhorst, J. D. (2013). Understanding Spatiotemporal Lags in Ecosystem Services to
Improve Incentives. BioScience, 63(6), 472–482. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.6.9
Harvey, C. a, Komar, O., Chazdon, R., Ferguson, B. G., Finegan, B., Griffith, D. M., … Wishnie, M.
(2008). Integrating agricultural landscapes with biodiversity conservation in the
Mesoamerican hotspot. Conservation Biology, 22(1), 8–15. doi:10.1111/j.15231739.2007.00863.x
Imbach, P., Molina, L., Locatelli, B., Roupsard, O., Mahé, G., Neilson, R., … Ciais, P. (2012).
Modeling Potential Equilibrium States of Vegetation and Terrestrial Water Cycle of
Mesoamerica under Climate Change Scenarios*. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 13(2), 665–
680. doi:10.1175/JHM-D-11-023.1
Jackson, L. E. E., Pulleman, M. M. M., Brussaard, L., Bawa, K. S. S., Brown, G. G. G., Cardoso, I.
M. M., … Van Noordwijk, M. (2012). Social-ecological and regional adaptation of
agrobiodiversity management across a global set of research regions. Global
Environmental Change, 22(3), 623–639. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.002
22
Lal, R. (2001). Soil degradation by erosion. Land Degradation & Development, 12(6), 519–539.
doi:10.1002/ldr.472
MPO. (2006). Resources for Implementing the WWF Project & Programme Standards. (F. of
Success, Ed.) (p. 15). Washington, D.C.: WWF. Retrieved from
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/1_4_situation_analysis_02_19_07.pdf
Power, A. G. (2010). Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical
transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 365(1554), 2959–
71. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0143
Primdahl, J. (1999). Agricultural landscapes as places of production and for living in owner’s
versus producer’s decision making and the implications for planning. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 46(1-3), 143–150. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00038-9
Ricketts, T. H., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R., & Michener, C. D. (2004). Economic value of tropical
forest to coffee production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 101(34), 12579–82. doi:10.1073/pnas.0405147101
Rizzo, D., Marraccini, E., Lardon, S., Rapey, H., Debolini, M., Thenail, C., … Métafort, U. M. R.
(2012). How can landscape management be enhanced by farming systems ? A landscape
agronomy perspective. In The 10th European IFSA Symposium (pp. 1–9). Aarhus, Denmark.
Scholes, B., Palm, C., & Andelman, S. (2013). Sampling Frame for the Vital Signs Global
Monitoring System Acknowledgments.
Vignola, R., Koellner, T., Scholz, R. W., & McDaniels, T. L. (2010). Decision-making by farmers
regarding ecosystem services: Factors affecting soil conservation efforts in Costa Rica. Land
Use Policy, 27(4), 1132–1142. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.03.003
Wu, J. (2013). Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in
changing landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 28, 999–1023. doi:10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9
Xu, W., & Mage, J. a. (2001). A review of concepts and criteria for assessing agroecosystem
health including a preliminary case study of southern Ontario. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment, 83(3), 215–233. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00159-6
Zhu, W., Wang, S., & Caldwell, C. D. (2012). Pathways of assessing agroecosystem health and
agroecosystem management. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 32(1), 9–17.
doi:10.1016/j.chnaes.2011.11.001
23