“Farmers' preferences towards water hyacinth control : a contingent valuation study”. Van Oijstaeijen W, Van Passel S, Cools J, Janssens de Bisthoven L, Huge J, Berihun D, Ejigu N, Nyssen J, Journal Of Great Lakes Research 46, 1459 (2020). http://doi.org/10.1016/J.JGLR.2020.06.009
Abstract: Lake Tana is the most important freshwater lake in Ethiopia. Besides pressures on water quality resulting from urbanization and deforestation, the invasion of the exotic water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) poses new threats to the ecosystem. Water hyacinth, endemic to South America, is widely considered as the world's worst aquatic invasive weed. In 2011, the weed appeared on the northern shores of Lake Tana, expanding in south-eastern direction. The lake area affected by water hyacinth was last estimated in 2015 at 34,500 ha, which equals 16% of the total lake surface. In this research, the benefits of water hyacinth control and eradication for the rural population inhabiting the northern and northeastern villages bordering Lake Tana, are investigated. In the area, the population largely depends on farming and fishing. An assessment of the total economic benefit of eradication was conducted. The stakeholder-centered approach led to measuring the willingness to contribute in labor and cash terms. Results showed smallholders in the study are willing to contribute over half-a-million euros annually. Costs of management actions can be weighed to the benefits, where further research is needed on the impact on other stakeholder groups. Moreover, wetland management should advance to explore multiple pathways in an integrated approach: water hyacinth control, water hyacinth utilization and sustainable waste water management. (C) 2020 International Association for Great Lakes Research. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Engineering Management (ENM)
Impact Factor: 2.2
DOI: 10.1016/J.JGLR.2020.06.009
|
“Ecosystem services assessment tools for African Biosphere Reserves: A review and user-informed classification”. Hugé, J, Rochette Aj, de Béthune S, Parra Paitan Cc, Vanderhaegen K, Vandervelden T, Van Passel S, Vanhove Mpm, Verbist B, Verheyen D, Waas T, Janssens I, Janssens de Bisthoven L, Ecosystem Services 42, 101079 (2020). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101079
Abstract: While the concept of ecosystem services which links biodiversity to human wellbeing, is by now well-known, its translation into actual management decisions is still uneven. African Biosphere Reserves, which are to be living labs for sustainable development, embody the idea of synergies between people and nature. Gaining knowledge about the provision, the use and the trends of ecosystem services in these reserves is essential to ensure their global change-proof management. The diversity of rapidly evolving ecosystem services assessment tools requires a systematic and informed selection, in order to ensure that prospective tool users select the most adequate tool, aligned to their needs and context. Based on a Delphi survey of future tool users, and on a review of ecosystem services assessment tools, we propose guidance to users to select the most suited tool based on the context of African Biosphere Reserves, and on tool requirements regarding data input, necessary skills, outputs and types of ecosystem services addressed. The use of the Delphi survey and the focus on African Biosphere Reserves are new elements that contribute to the theory and practice of ecosystem services assessment.
Keywords: A1 Journal Article; Engineering Management (ENM) ;
Impact Factor: 7.6
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101079
|
“Conserving African biosphere reserves : a workshop on the valuation of ecosystem services in Man and the Biosphere Reserves”. Janssens de Bisthoven L, Rochette A-J, Verheyen E, Akpona TJ-D, Verbist B, Vanderhaegen K, Naturinda Z, Van Passel S, Berihun D, Munishi L, Hugé, J, Oryx 53, 609 (2019). http://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531900070X
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Engineering Management (ENM); Evolutionary ecology group (EVECO)
Impact Factor: 2.191
DOI: 10.1017/S003060531900070X
|