4. Results

#### 4.1. Ecosystem services identified and prioritized in each study area

In the first round of questions, both interview and survey participants were asked to state the benefits that they or other community members obtain from the protected areas studied. A total of 13 ES were identified by interview and questionnaire participants in Arenillas, whereas in Ceiba, a total of 12 ES were identified (Table 1).

For comparison purposes, we divided the table according to the protected area studied, namely Ceiba and Arenillas. The results were categorized according to the ES classification proposed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Study participants mostly identified provisioning and cultural services. Regulation services were also mentioned but to a lesser extent while supporting services were hardly mentioned by the participants from both areas.

Moreover, the results indicate that participants from both areas prioritize similar ES. However, the order in which they prioritized the services differed slightly in each area. The most prioritized ES in Ceiba were provisioning services, particularly agriculture and goat and deer husbandry. Based on these responses, we assert that participants valued the TDF mainly in terms of the services provided by agro-ecosystems. Accordingly, the most valued services included food production, irrigation water, climate regulation, and habitat provision for deer and goats. Contrasting these results, Arenillas residents prioritized mostly cultural services, which are embraced as an opportunity for recreation as well as tourism (Figure 2).

Additionally, interview data suggest that the participants from Ceiba and Arenillas appreciated ES differently. In Ceiba, participants prioritized TDF's ES as a collective benefit for agricultural purposes, whereas residents from Arenillas prioritized TDF as individual benefits such as fuel wood or poaching. Although hardly mentioned, Arenillas' residents more often cited regulation services and showed a better understanding of the indirect services provided by TDF.

#### 4.2. Provisioning services

In Ceiba, the provision of food was ranked highest in the prioritization of ES (96%), being the production of crops such as onions, corn and rice of vital importance to the economy of the families along with the husbandry of goats and deer. According to Benítez and Medina [30], agriculture and husbandry are critical for local people of Ceiba, as 70% of the territory of the province of Zapotillo where Ceiba is located is dedicated to goat grazing. It is not a surprise then that for people living within or nearby Ceiba, food provision and fodder for husbandry were the most prioritized services. In Arenillas, food provision was also prioritized but to a lesser extent than in Ceiba (54%). According to the development plan (2002–2012) [31], the main economic activities in the region are agriculture (49.6%), followed by service activities

(23.9%) and commerce (10.7%). The diversification of the economic activity in this area and the presence of urban population suggest lower levels of appreciation towards the provisioning

Spiritual experience unidentified Spiritual experience 1 Existence value unidentified Existence value 3

Specific (ES) CEIBA RESERVE ARENILLAS ECOLOGICAL

People's Perceptions of Ecosystem Services Provided by Tropical Dry Forests: A Comparative Case Study…

Raw material Fodder (Prosopis juliflora) 52 Fuel wood (Guayacán,

Apiculture (Melipona) Food hunting / gathering

Firewood(Algarrobo)

Water infiltration

Climate regulation

Pest control Pest control 1 unidentified Pollination Pollination 5 unidentified

> Gastronomy tourism (Chivo al hueco, Goat cheese, milk, and custard) Community tourism principles

Landscape, Guayacan blooming season, waterfall (Coronel)

Inspiration for culture 11 unidentified

Traditional knowledge

Research Scientific knowledge developing 6 Scientific knowledge

Timber (Hualtaco/ Guayacán) Construction (Barbasco, hualtaco)

Food Agriculture (Onion, rice and corn) 96 Lemon growing 54

Water regulation Water provision 19 Water provision 5

Climate regulation Carbon sequestration 16 Air quality 40

Erosion prevention Desertification protection 9 Desertification protection 31

RESERVE

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75081

hualtaco) for brick manufacturing.

9 Landscape, photography 5

environmental education

developing

43

101

11

Indicator % Indicator %

Habitat provision 14 Habitat provisioning 34

Air quality Protective barrier, shade 21

Nature tourism, trees blooming 8 Nature tourism, trees blooming 64

Husbandry (Goats and deer) Deer and squirrel poaching

services in comparison with the rural population of Ceiba.

Table 1. Social perception of the main ecosystem services.

Ecosystem Services (ES)

Provision services

Regulation services

Cultural services

Life cycle maintenance

Opportunity for Recreation and tourism

Aesthetical information People's Perceptions of Ecosystem Services Provided by Tropical Dry Forests: A Comparative Case Study… http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75081 101


Table 1. Social perception of the main ecosystem services.

to identify similarities and differences between survey and interview participants from both

In the first round of questions, both interview and survey participants were asked to state the benefits that they or other community members obtain from the protected areas studied. A total of 13 ES were identified by interview and questionnaire participants in Arenillas, whereas

For comparison purposes, we divided the table according to the protected area studied, namely Ceiba and Arenillas. The results were categorized according to the ES classification proposed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Study participants mostly identified provisioning and cultural services. Regulation services were also mentioned but to a lesser extent while supporting services were hardly mentioned by the participants from both areas. Moreover, the results indicate that participants from both areas prioritize similar ES. However, the order in which they prioritized the services differed slightly in each area. The most prioritized ES in Ceiba were provisioning services, particularly agriculture and goat and deer husbandry. Based on these responses, we assert that participants valued the TDF mainly in terms of the services provided by agro-ecosystems. Accordingly, the most valued services included food production, irrigation water, climate regulation, and habitat provision for deer and goats. Contrasting these results, Arenillas residents prioritized mostly cultural services,

which are embraced as an opportunity for recreation as well as tourism (Figure 2).

services and showed a better understanding of the indirect services provided by TDF.

Additionally, interview data suggest that the participants from Ceiba and Arenillas appreciated ES differently. In Ceiba, participants prioritized TDF's ES as a collective benefit for agricultural purposes, whereas residents from Arenillas prioritized TDF as individual benefits such as fuel wood or poaching. Although hardly mentioned, Arenillas' residents more often cited regulation

In Ceiba, the provision of food was ranked highest in the prioritization of ES (96%), being the production of crops such as onions, corn and rice of vital importance to the economy of the families along with the husbandry of goats and deer. According to Benítez and Medina [30], agriculture and husbandry are critical for local people of Ceiba, as 70% of the territory of the province of Zapotillo where Ceiba is located is dedicated to goat grazing. It is not a surprise then that for people living within or nearby Ceiba, food provision and fodder for husbandry were the most prioritized services. In Arenillas, food provision was also prioritized but to a lesser extent than in Ceiba (54%). According to the development plan (2002–2012) [31], the main economic activities in the region are agriculture (49.6%), followed by service activities

areas. The data were analyzed through descriptive statistics.

in Ceiba, a total of 12 ES were identified (Table 1).

4.1. Ecosystem services identified and prioritized in each study area

4. Results

100 Tropical Forests - New Edition

4.2. Provisioning services

(23.9%) and commerce (10.7%). The diversification of the economic activity in this area and the presence of urban population suggest lower levels of appreciation towards the provisioning services in comparison with the rural population of Ceiba.

goats but also look after grazing areas, an activity that makes NGO members proud. "Ceiba has the luxury of having 70 volunteers that make constant circuits around the area. We have only one

People's Perceptions of Ecosystem Services Provided by Tropical Dry Forests: A Comparative Case Study…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75081

103

Community members share this pride, who acknowledge that the NGO has improved their agricultural practices, which in turn has increased their income and has decreased the negative impact on biodiversity, as expressed by this community member "At first we thought they [NGO] came to kick us out, and that we were not going to be able to graze our animals, but it was the

In Arenillas, people seemed hesitant to express openly their use of timber, as they acknowledged the strict protection the Reserve was under. The provisioning services, indicated in Arenillas, involved poaching and fuel wood, both critical for local communities. According to Briceño et al. [14], local people used to hunt animals, particularly deer and squirrel, for subsistence. However, since this protected area is owned by the Central Government, these activities are considered 'illegal'. The conservation status held by this Reserve, however, did not prevent local people from hunting and collecting fuel wood which is used for brick manufacturing, one of the main economic activities in the area as one of the informants offered: "People generally sneak into the reserve and cut Guayacan, Palo Santo [Bursera graveolens] and Ceibo [Ceibo trichistandra] trees. These are usually used to build fences… Some people pile the trees until they have 50 logs and then they sell them to brick manufactures. We also hear about people getting into the

The regulation services prioritized in Ceiba were water regulation (19%), climate regulation (16%) and habitat provision (14%), being agriculture and husbandry the main source of maintenance for the communities living near or surrounding the reserve, it's no surprise that the regulation services mentioned were associated with inputs to production (fulfilling water requirements for agriculture, and presence of shrubs for husbandry). One of the residents

"The main benefit of the forest is mainly for animals, the refuge, the shrubs for goats, especially in winter when the mountain lush with vegetation, it attracts winter, because before this was a

Favorable climate conditions are also essential for the growth of crops and maintenance of agroecosystems. The influence of the NCI on the perception of the local community is evident

"…The forest provides a natural climate that benefits the provision of oxygen and fodder for animals. Without the forest, the sun would burn us. Where the forests are there is rain…"

As Daniel et al. [32] explains while regulation services are more complex to be perceived, they have been brought to public attention by discussions of climate change and recent natural disasters. According to Peñaranda [15], Ceiba owners promoted regulation services to gain the

ranger hired by the institution."

reserve to hunt deer to eat it."

4.3. Regulation services

dry terrain" Resident of La Manga.

expressed the regulation services in the following terms:

in the narratives expressed by the study participants.

opposite."

Figure 2. Prioritization of ecosystem services (n=196).

There are also notable differences in the use of provisioning services in both areas. Both Ceiba and Arenillas residents use timber from Guayacan trees due to its suitability for construction. While Ceiba residents use the wood for fodder, fences construction and firewood (52%), Arenillas' residents mentioned its use for brick manufacturing and sometimes the construction of fences (43%). These differences may be explained by their views on extracting natural resources. Ceiba residents seemed very much aware of the benefits that TDF provide and expressed their use of timber in sustainable narratives. As some of the interviewees expressed:

"Nowadays this area has changed since we ourselves look after it, instead of logging, we have planted. We have been even working 8 years for the palo santo project. We collect the fruits in winter time and send them later to Loja for extracting the oil" Cabeza de Toro settler.

Overall, individuals from Ceiba acknowledged that the NGO had a positive impact on their lives, indicating that their behavior and attitudes towards the forest have changed, as expressed in the following quotation:

"We thank NCI for giving us the vision and the path to look after the forest. There used to be logging including Peruvians invading to cut down Guayacan [Tabebuia chrysantha]. We are organized as a group now and keep going forward, one can see the change" Ceiba settler.

In Ceiba, the NGO owners had created a Community Organization called "2 de Febrero" with the aim of including inhabitants from neighboring areas in the management of the protected area. "This management is based on community needs," claimed an NCI member. The current management had encouraged production, enabling the establishment of small enterprises of goat dairy products such as cheese, milk and liquid toffee [natilla], as expressed by this community member "We have been trained to venture in different activities such as beekeeping and farm animal management."

The management has also reorganized a pre-existing patrol group which is accountable for enforcing the zoning established for goat grazing. Members of this group graze their own goats but also look after grazing areas, an activity that makes NGO members proud. "Ceiba has the luxury of having 70 volunteers that make constant circuits around the area. We have only one ranger hired by the institution."

Community members share this pride, who acknowledge that the NGO has improved their agricultural practices, which in turn has increased their income and has decreased the negative impact on biodiversity, as expressed by this community member "At first we thought they [NGO] came to kick us out, and that we were not going to be able to graze our animals, but it was the opposite."

In Arenillas, people seemed hesitant to express openly their use of timber, as they acknowledged the strict protection the Reserve was under. The provisioning services, indicated in Arenillas, involved poaching and fuel wood, both critical for local communities. According to Briceño et al. [14], local people used to hunt animals, particularly deer and squirrel, for subsistence. However, since this protected area is owned by the Central Government, these activities are considered 'illegal'. The conservation status held by this Reserve, however, did not prevent local people from hunting and collecting fuel wood which is used for brick manufacturing, one of the main economic activities in the area as one of the informants offered:

"People generally sneak into the reserve and cut Guayacan, Palo Santo [Bursera graveolens] and Ceibo [Ceibo trichistandra] trees. These are usually used to build fences… Some people pile the trees until they have 50 logs and then they sell them to brick manufactures. We also hear about people getting into the reserve to hunt deer to eat it."

#### 4.3. Regulation services

There are also notable differences in the use of provisioning services in both areas. Both Ceiba and Arenillas residents use timber from Guayacan trees due to its suitability for construction. While Ceiba residents use the wood for fodder, fences construction and firewood (52%), Arenillas' residents mentioned its use for brick manufacturing and sometimes the construction of fences (43%). These differences may be explained by their views on extracting natural resources. Ceiba residents seemed very much aware of the benefits that TDF provide and expressed their use of timber in sustainable narratives. As some of the interviewees expressed: "Nowadays this area has changed since we ourselves look after it, instead of logging, we have planted. We have been even working 8 years for the palo santo project. We collect the fruits in winter time and

Overall, individuals from Ceiba acknowledged that the NGO had a positive impact on their lives, indicating that their behavior and attitudes towards the forest have changed, as

"We thank NCI for giving us the vision and the path to look after the forest. There used to be logging including Peruvians invading to cut down Guayacan [Tabebuia chrysantha]. We are organized as a

In Ceiba, the NGO owners had created a Community Organization called "2 de Febrero" with the aim of including inhabitants from neighboring areas in the management of the protected area. "This management is based on community needs," claimed an NCI member. The current management had encouraged production, enabling the establishment of small enterprises of goat dairy products such as cheese, milk and liquid toffee [natilla], as expressed by this community member "We have been trained to venture in different activities such as beekeeping and

The management has also reorganized a pre-existing patrol group which is accountable for enforcing the zoning established for goat grazing. Members of this group graze their own

send them later to Loja for extracting the oil" Cabeza de Toro settler.

group now and keep going forward, one can see the change" Ceiba settler.

expressed in the following quotation:

Figure 2. Prioritization of ecosystem services (n=196).

102 Tropical Forests - New Edition

farm animal management."

The regulation services prioritized in Ceiba were water regulation (19%), climate regulation (16%) and habitat provision (14%), being agriculture and husbandry the main source of maintenance for the communities living near or surrounding the reserve, it's no surprise that the regulation services mentioned were associated with inputs to production (fulfilling water requirements for agriculture, and presence of shrubs for husbandry). One of the residents expressed the regulation services in the following terms:

"The main benefit of the forest is mainly for animals, the refuge, the shrubs for goats, especially in winter when the mountain lush with vegetation, it attracts winter, because before this was a dry terrain" Resident of La Manga.

Favorable climate conditions are also essential for the growth of crops and maintenance of agroecosystems. The influence of the NCI on the perception of the local community is evident in the narratives expressed by the study participants.

"…The forest provides a natural climate that benefits the provision of oxygen and fodder for animals. Without the forest, the sun would burn us. Where the forests are there is rain…"

As Daniel et al. [32] explains while regulation services are more complex to be perceived, they have been brought to public attention by discussions of climate change and recent natural disasters. According to Peñaranda [15], Ceiba owners promoted regulation services to gain the acceptance of community members to adhere to conservation strategies. One of the personnel of NCI expressed.

member of NCI: "our objective as NCI is not to promote tourism." Ceiba participants also expressed that this event was promoted in nearby communities but not in the Private Reserve la Ceiba. Additionally, participants around Ceiba claimed that they do not count with the equipment or the capacity to attract tourists to the area. Despite their lack of enthusiasm towards tourism activities, respondents from the Ceiba reserve expressed their appreciation towards the flowering of Guayacan as a landscape esthetic value. Moreover, participants from Ceiba perceived TDF as spaces of cultural heritage and places of local traditions, customs and legends.

People's Perceptions of Ecosystem Services Provided by Tropical Dry Forests: A Comparative Case Study…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75081

105

In Arenillas, public managers placed a greater importance on cultural services particularly on the facilities that TDF offer to conduct education and research (75%). The second most mentioned ES by these participants was the capacity of TDF to provide shade (41%) followed by medicinal uses (40%). Special importance was highlighted to the Algarrobo tree (Prosopis pallida) to heal stomach diseases. This group of participants, however, did not attribute any value to the regulation service of water provision nor the cultural services related to landscape,

On the contrary, for the private managers of Ceiba the most important services provided by TDF involve their capacity to reduce desertification (100%), to provide habitat for plants and animals (85%), and to provide water (39%). This group gave the lowest scores to the pollina-

In the Arenillas reserve, municipality members showed a better understanding of the ES provided by TDF indicating nine types of services including medicinal services and a source of Fuelwood. They described ES as a concept applied principally to agro-ecosystems whereby the main benefits are obtained from raw material (49%), and medicinal resources (60%). Water regulation (50%) was also viewed as an important ES. Contrasting the general prioritized results, this group did not

In Ceiba, municipality members were the most enthusiastic group at implementing tourism activities in the area. They ascribed a substantial level of importance to the Guayacan flowering event (100%) and to developing nature tourism (62%). The ability of TDF to regulate water cycles was also mentioned (39%). This group of social actors seemed to be less aware of

Local representatives in Arenillas assigned a greater value to spiritual experiences related to the reserve (100%), followed by air quality regulation (44%) and the ability of TDF to

the regulation services provided by TDF such as habitat provision and desertification.

tion service, the value of the landscape, and the development of scientific knowledge.

assign any value to some cultural services such as existence and spiritual values.

The results of the prioritization by type of social actor can be viewed in Table 2.

4.5. Identification of ES by type of social actor

4.5.1. Public and private managers of the protected areas

existence value, or spiritual experience.

4.5.2. Municipality members

4.5.3. Local representatives

"we worked a lot in training people about the benefits of Dry forests. People now know that if they chop trees, it will not rain. Now they understand the magnitude of the damage they commit when they act against nature."

In Arenillas, the regulation services such as air quality and habitat provisioning were related to the pristine services a protected area provides as a habitat for provision for fauna and flora, air quality and climate regulation. This intangible and indirect use of the Arenillas coupled with the limited access to the reserve helped shape this perception among residents. The following quotation reflects the grounds on which people prioritize these services:

"When I pass with my vehicle, I open the window and breathe the air of the reserve [Arenillas]. I fill my lungs with oxygen and my organs with pure air. This should be charged, give added value to what trees produce" Resident Arenillas.

Desertification barrier was more mentioned in the responses provided by Arenillas settlers. Being near the frontier of Peru and its arid coastal ecosystem, residents valued the reserve for being a barrier that diminishes the further expansion of desert. As expressed by one of the settlers.

"The Reserve creates the environmental conditions so that it rains in Arenillas. The reserve supplies water and supplies it to two populations with 90 thousand inhabitants. In addition, the Arenillas Ecological Reserve cleans the air and is slowing down the desert that comes from the north of Peru."

#### 4.4. Cultural services

As we mentioned earlier, in the Arenillas reserve it is not possible to use fodder, fuel wood, or practice any productive activity such as agriculture, only tourism and research activities are allowed. This conservation status may explain participant's prioritization of tourism in Arenillas. One of the informants offered:

"People from outside [from other regions] visit the Arenillas reserve in order to feel the tranquility that they experience there, especially during the flowering of Guayacán" Resident Arenillas.

In 2015, the Regional Division of the Ministry of Environment started promoting tourism and recreational activities in the area in response to the so-called annual flowering of the T. chrysantha (Guayacán) which was being promoted as a national tourist attraction [15]. This event awakened the interest of social actors regarding cultural ES as following quoted by a Municipal employee: "We are starting to promote tourism, but we need to strengthen it. For example, the flowering of the Guayacan is something spectacular that we must pay attention to and make it known at a cantonal and provincial level."

Notwithstanding Ceiba holds a similar ecosystem with a vast territory of Guayacan forests, participants from this area did not share the view of Arenillas residents about promoting tourism activities. Some of the reasons for this difference are explained a technical staff member of NCI: "our objective as NCI is not to promote tourism." Ceiba participants also expressed that this event was promoted in nearby communities but not in the Private Reserve la Ceiba. Additionally, participants around Ceiba claimed that they do not count with the equipment or the capacity to attract tourists to the area. Despite their lack of enthusiasm towards tourism activities, respondents from the Ceiba reserve expressed their appreciation towards the flowering of Guayacan as a landscape esthetic value. Moreover, participants from Ceiba perceived TDF as spaces of cultural heritage and places of local traditions, customs and legends.

#### 4.5. Identification of ES by type of social actor

acceptance of community members to adhere to conservation strategies. One of the personnel

"we worked a lot in training people about the benefits of Dry forests. People now know that if they chop trees, it will not rain. Now they understand the magnitude of the damage they commit when they act

In Arenillas, the regulation services such as air quality and habitat provisioning were related to the pristine services a protected area provides as a habitat for provision for fauna and flora, air quality and climate regulation. This intangible and indirect use of the Arenillas coupled with the limited access to the reserve helped shape this perception among residents. The following

"When I pass with my vehicle, I open the window and breathe the air of the reserve [Arenillas]. I fill my lungs with oxygen and my organs with pure air. This should be charged, give added value to what trees

Desertification barrier was more mentioned in the responses provided by Arenillas settlers. Being near the frontier of Peru and its arid coastal ecosystem, residents valued the reserve for being a barrier that diminishes the further expansion of desert. As expressed by one of the

"The Reserve creates the environmental conditions so that it rains in Arenillas. The reserve supplies water and supplies it to two populations with 90 thousand inhabitants. In addition, the Arenillas Ecological Reserve cleans the air and is slowing down the desert that comes from the north of Peru."

As we mentioned earlier, in the Arenillas reserve it is not possible to use fodder, fuel wood, or practice any productive activity such as agriculture, only tourism and research activities are allowed. This conservation status may explain participant's prioritization of tourism in

"People from outside [from other regions] visit the Arenillas reserve in order to feel the tranquility that they experience there, especially during the flowering of Guayacán" Resident

In 2015, the Regional Division of the Ministry of Environment started promoting tourism and recreational activities in the area in response to the so-called annual flowering of the T. chrysantha (Guayacán) which was being promoted as a national tourist attraction [15]. This event awakened the interest of social actors regarding cultural ES as following quoted by a Municipal employee: "We are starting to promote tourism, but we need to strengthen it. For example, the flowering of the Guayacan is something spectacular that we must pay attention to and make it

Notwithstanding Ceiba holds a similar ecosystem with a vast territory of Guayacan forests, participants from this area did not share the view of Arenillas residents about promoting tourism activities. Some of the reasons for this difference are explained a technical staff

quotation reflects the grounds on which people prioritize these services:

of NCI expressed.

104 Tropical Forests - New Edition

against nature."

settlers.

Arenillas.

produce" Resident Arenillas.

4.4. Cultural services

Arenillas. One of the informants offered:

known at a cantonal and provincial level."

The results of the prioritization by type of social actor can be viewed in Table 2.

#### 4.5.1. Public and private managers of the protected areas

In Arenillas, public managers placed a greater importance on cultural services particularly on the facilities that TDF offer to conduct education and research (75%). The second most mentioned ES by these participants was the capacity of TDF to provide shade (41%) followed by medicinal uses (40%). Special importance was highlighted to the Algarrobo tree (Prosopis pallida) to heal stomach diseases. This group of participants, however, did not attribute any value to the regulation service of water provision nor the cultural services related to landscape, existence value, or spiritual experience.

On the contrary, for the private managers of Ceiba the most important services provided by TDF involve their capacity to reduce desertification (100%), to provide habitat for plants and animals (85%), and to provide water (39%). This group gave the lowest scores to the pollination service, the value of the landscape, and the development of scientific knowledge.

#### 4.5.2. Municipality members

In the Arenillas reserve, municipality members showed a better understanding of the ES provided by TDF indicating nine types of services including medicinal services and a source of Fuelwood. They described ES as a concept applied principally to agro-ecosystems whereby the main benefits are obtained from raw material (49%), and medicinal resources (60%). Water regulation (50%) was also viewed as an important ES. Contrasting the general prioritized results, this group did not assign any value to some cultural services such as existence and spiritual values.

In Ceiba, municipality members were the most enthusiastic group at implementing tourism activities in the area. They ascribed a substantial level of importance to the Guayacan flowering event (100%) and to developing nature tourism (62%). The ability of TDF to regulate water cycles was also mentioned (39%). This group of social actors seemed to be less aware of the regulation services provided by TDF such as habitat provision and desertification.

#### 4.5.3. Local representatives

Local representatives in Arenillas assigned a greater value to spiritual experiences related to the reserve (100%), followed by air quality regulation (44%) and the ability of TDF to


Table 2. Perception of environmental services by social actors in the Arenillas Ecological Reserve and Ceiba Reserve.

prevent desertification processes (32%). On the contrary, Ceiba local representatives rated highly the capacity of the TDF to sequester carbon (45%). They referred to this service in

more frequently mentioned provision services such as fodder (39%) and agriculture

The participants pertaining to this group were dedicated to agricultural activities in both areas. It was therefore not a surprise that they both assigned higher values to provisioning and regulation services related to their activities. Food production was the most mentioned ES by both groups, in Arenillas (22%), and in Ceiba (27%). Water provision was also mentioned by both groups, in Arenillas (25%) and to a lesser degree in Ceiba (6%). The main difference between participants in this group is rooted in that social actors in Ceiba perceived research development as an important ES (67%), while stakeholders in Arenillas did not attribute value

Among local residents, we were able to identify substantive differences. In Arenillas, surrounding communities were more keen on the cultural services provided by TDF and mostly prioritized the existence value (100%), followed by landscape photography (75%). As we mentioned earlier, this appreciation is linked with the more urbanized population residing near Arenillas, who prefer to use the reserve for tourism purposes. Contrasting these results, populations surrounding Ceiba attributed a higher value to regulation services such as polli-

Additionally, survey results suggested that local residents not only differ in their perception of the ES provided by TDF, but also in their knowledge about the managers of the reserve. While in Arenillas, the majority of respondents declared not knowing who currently manages the reserve (68%) in Ceiba the majority of respondents knew it (65%). These results are

agement of the area. According to Briceño et al. [14], in Arenillas, the historical isolation of

and on the type of ES prioritized. In this respect, Boyd and Boyd [33], indicated that only when ES are incorporated into the production of goods and services they are valued by different social actors. Consequently, since residents of Arenillas are not allowed to use provisioning services should not be a surprise that this group of social actors prioritized

On the contrary, in Ceiba some local social groups are involved in the management of the area and prioritized more regulation services such as pollination. Again, these results should be expected since they are working closely with the reserve managers as offered by a community

"thanks to NCI we have a new vision of what is the best way to manage the forest

"

… we shifted from trees to bee boxes.

"pure air.

People's Perceptions of Ecosystem Services Provided by Tropical Dry Forests: A Comparative Case Study…

" Within this group, agriculturalists

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75081

107

' involvement with the man-

's familiarity with the area

… we have

" and

"provide oxygen

4.5.4. Agrarian cooperatives and associations

nation (60%) and habitat provision (15%).

explained by historical processes related to local communities

local communities from the reserve has influenced on resident

the following terms

to any cultural service.

4.5.5. Local residents

cultural services.

trained on working with bees

member:

(32%).

prevent desertification processes (32%). On the contrary, Ceiba local representatives rated highly the capacity of the TDF to sequester carbon (45%). They referred to this service in the following terms "provide oxygen" and "pure air." Within this group, agriculturalists more frequently mentioned provision services such as fodder (39%) and agriculture (32%).

#### 4.5.4. Agrarian cooperatives and associations

The participants pertaining to this group were dedicated to agricultural activities in both areas. It was therefore not a surprise that they both assigned higher values to provisioning and regulation services related to their activities. Food production was the most mentioned ES by both groups, in Arenillas (22%), and in Ceiba (27%). Water provision was also mentioned by both groups, in Arenillas (25%) and to a lesser degree in Ceiba (6%). The main difference between participants in this group is rooted in that social actors in Ceiba perceived research development as an important ES (67%), while stakeholders in Arenillas did not attribute value to any cultural service.

#### 4.5.5. Local residents

CEIBA

E n=120 5%

8% 22% 16% 39% 14% Fodder (Prosopis

Habitat

Carbon

Desertification

provision

sequestration

protection

juliflora)

(P)Raw material

 (R)Life cycle

(R)Climate

(R)Erosion

(R)Pollination

 (C)Aesthetical information

prevention

maintenance

regulation

0%

7%

0%

20%

100% Landscape, Guayacan blooming season,

waterfall (Coronel)

0%

45%

0%

20%

0%

0%

36%

0%

0%

0%

85%

 11%

100%

0%

0%

15%

 0%

0%

60%

0%

0% 0% 67% 17% 17% Scientific knowledge

developing

(C)Research

(C)

Inspiration

for culture

10%

30%

0%

106 Tropical Forests - New Edition

30%

30%

Cultural

Heritage

RESERVE

D n=4 C n=5 B n=6 A n=4

ES

Agriculture (Onion, rice

Indicator

Mapped

(P)Food

ecosystem

service

ARENILLAS

f n=96 3%

0%

0%

 17%

 0%

0%

0%

10%

75%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

100%

0%

 0%

 0%

 0%

 0%

 0%

 100%

ECOLOGICAL

RESERVE

e n=3 d n=2 3%

c n=2 3%

b n=4

a n=5

ES

Fuel wood

Lemon

Deer and

Algarrobo

Habitat

Pure air,

Protective

Desertification

Nature

Landscape,

Scientific

environmental

photography

knowledge

education

developing

tourism, trees

blooming

protection

barrier, shade

growing

squirrel

use for

provisioning

oxygen

poaching

stomachic

diseases,

Indicator

(Guayacán,

hualtaco) for

brick

manufacturing.

Mapped

(Provision)Raw

(Provision)Food

 (Provision)

(Regulation)

(R)Air

(Regulation)

(Regulation)

(Cultural)

(Cultural)

(Cultural)Research

(Cultural)

(Cultural)

Existence

Spiritual

experience

value

Aesthetical

information

Opportunity

Erosion

Climate

quality

Medicinal

Life cycle

resources

maintenance

regulation

regulation

prevention

for Recreation

and tourism

ecosystem

materials

service

a—municipality, b—local representatives, A—municipality, B—local representatives,

Table 2.

Perception

 of

environmental

 services by social actors in the Arenillas Ecological Reserve and Ceiba Reserve.

c—cooperatives, d—local teachers, e—ministry of the environment, f—survey.

C—association,

D—Naturaleza y Cultura Internacional (NCI), E—survey,

49%

22%

60%

 21%

 22%

35%

24%

35%

25%

0%

17%

24%

0%

 0%

44%

6%

32%

29%

0%

25%

26%

18% 13% 22%

0%

 21%

 19%

0%

12%

8%

0%

0%

0%

 13%

 16%

18%

28%

8%

0%

0%

40%

 29%

 0%

41%

4%

10%

0%

75%

and corn)

18%

32%

27%

18% Among local residents, we were able to identify substantive differences. In Arenillas, surrounding communities were more keen on the cultural services provided by TDF and mostly prioritized the existence value (100%), followed by landscape photography (75%). As we mentioned earlier, this appreciation is linked with the more urbanized population residing near Arenillas, who prefer to use the reserve for tourism purposes. Contrasting these results, populations surrounding Ceiba attributed a higher value to regulation services such as pollination (60%) and habitat provision (15%).

Additionally, survey results suggested that local residents not only differ in their perception of the ES provided by TDF, but also in their knowledge about the managers of the reserve. While in Arenillas, the majority of respondents declared not knowing who currently manages the reserve (68%) in Ceiba the majority of respondents knew it (65%). These results are explained by historical processes related to local communities' involvement with the management of the area. According to Briceño et al. [14], in Arenillas, the historical isolation of local communities from the reserve has influenced on resident's familiarity with the area and on the type of ES prioritized. In this respect, Boyd and Boyd [33], indicated that only when ES are incorporated into the production of goods and services they are valued by different social actors. Consequently, since residents of Arenillas are not allowed to use provisioning services should not be a surprise that this group of social actors prioritized cultural services.

On the contrary, in Ceiba some local social groups are involved in the management of the area and prioritized more regulation services such as pollination. Again, these results should be expected since they are working closely with the reserve managers as offered by a community member: "thanks to NCI we have a new vision of what is the best way to manage the forest… we have trained on working with bees… we shifted from trees to bee boxes."
