Ecosystem Services 40 (2019) 101000 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecosystem Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser The importance of livelihood strategy and ethnicity in forest ecosystem T services’ perceptions by local communities in north-western Cameroon ⁎ Aida Cuni-Sancheza,b, , Alain Senghor K. Ngutec, Bonaventure Sonkéd, Moses Nsanyi Saingee, Neil D. Burgessf,g, Julia A. Kleinb, Rob Marchanta a York Institute for Tropical Ecosystems, Department of Environment and Geography, Wentworth Way, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5NG, UK b Department of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 1476, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA c Applied Biology and Ecology Research Unit, Dschang School of Sciences and Technology, University of Dschang, Cameroon d Plant Systematic and Ecology Laboratory, Department of Biology, Higher Teachers’ Training College, University of Yaoundé I, Yaoundé, Cameroon e Tropical Plant Exploration Group (TroPEG) Cameroon, P.O. Box 18, Mundemba, Cameroon f Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, Copenhagen DK-2100, Denmark g UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP-WCMC), 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, UK ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Human culture has an important influence on how forests are utilised, yet its influence on ecosystem service(ES) Socio-cultural assessment use and valuation remains underexplored. We address this gap by investigating how livelihood strategy and Montane forests ethnicity affect local peoples’ perceptions of forest ES in Cameroon. Data were collected through 20focus-group Place attachment discussions in villages of farmers (Oku and Banso) and pastoralists (Fulani) in two mountains. Forest use Pastoralists identified fewer ES than farmers, and used some ES differently (e.g. wildlife was only valuedfor Forest management aesthetics instead of as food). Some differences were also observed between farmer groups (e.g. identity link with the forest unique to Oku farmers). While water availability was perceived as the most important forest ES for all groups, the second most important was fodder for pastoralists and medicine resources for farmers. Pastoralists also identified fewer useful forest species, most likely related to their origin in the lowlands. Our findings help highlight trade-offs in important ES for different groups (fodder vs. medicine resources), and in access to certain ES (e.g. Fulani pastoralists’ unequitable access to tourism and forest income). We show that locals dependent on provisioning ES are not a homogenous group and that the wider socio-cultural context has to be taken into account for conservation and development projects to be successful. 1. Introduction provide legitimacy of the ES assessment process, and (d) strengthen the policy relevance of the assessment (Orenstein and Groner, 2014). For There is an increasing recognition of the importance of including instance, Tilahun et al. (2016) estimated the economic value of Ankasa socio-cultural evaluation criteria on the assessment of ecosystem ser- Forest (Ghana) in terms of e.g. carbon storage, timber, non-timber vices (ES) (Scholte et al., 2015), particularly, as a strategy for sustain- forest products and soil nutrients ($379.5 million, $19.1 million, $2.8 able development (Chan et al., 2012; Martín-López et al., 2012; Cáceres million, $0.63 million, respectively), but did not consider cultural ser- et al., 2015) and for conservation projects to be successful (Kari and vices. Korhonen-Kurki, 2013; Kovács et al., 2015). Socio-cultural approaches Socio-cultural ES valuation can also help identify differences in apply research methods from the social sciences (e.g. interviews), value perceptions within and between stakeholder groups, e.g. local farmers ES in non-monetary terms (e.g. perceptions) and explicitly make sta- and conservationists (Cebrián-Piqueras et al., 2017). Exploring the keholders the focal point of the research (Orenstein and Groner, 2014). trade-offs between ES and linking them with stakeholders can help These socio-cultural approaches can complement and increase the value reveal the potential losers/winners of land use changes or conservation of traditional economic and ecological approaches, as they have ad- interventions (Kari and Korhonen-Kurki 2013; Kovács et al., 2015). For vantages that can help: (a) value cultural services, (b) understand example, Kari and Korhonen-Kurki (2013) showed that if regulating complex socio-ecological systems, (c) assure social relevance and services (e.g. habitat services) are given higher importance for ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Cuni-Sanchez). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101000 Received 27 September 2018; Received in revised form 17 August 2019; Accepted 22 August 2019 2212-0416/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. A. Cuni-Sanchez, et al. Ecosystem Services 40 (2019) 101000 conservation purposes, conflicts might occur between conservation regard to certain provisioning ES (e.g. medicine resources, wild fruits) bodies and local farmers dependent on provisioning ES. can help complement ES assessments, as they help identify potential Several factors affect stakeholders’ values of ES, related to: (i) social alternative livelihood strategies for communities living near protected context (e.g. cultural background, social network), (ii) their personal areas (e.g. honey production) and which species could be used in future characteristics (e.g. income, age, gender, education, location of re- reforestation programs (e.g. Cuni-Sanchez et al., 2016). sidence), and (iii) the interactions between stakeholders and ES, which Understanding forest ES perceptions and use among locals depen- are associated with use, perception and information of ES (see Scholte dent on provisioning ES is particularly important in the Bamenda et al., 2015 for details). For instance, in several Southeast Asian Highlands of Cameroon, a region known internationally for its rich flora countries poor people, educated people and communities living in close and fauna (including numerous endemics), both highly threatened by vicinity to forests tend to identify a greater number of forest ES than human activities (Myers et al., 2000; Onana and Cheek, 2011). An younger, non-educated and people living far from the forest (Sodhi analysis of forest ES perceptions by the different ethnic groups co-ex- et al., 2010). Similarly, in Rwanda, long-term residents identify more iting here could provide useful insights for the design of conservation forest ES than newcomers (Dawson and Martin, 2015). and development projects so that they are successful and can contribute One important stakeholder group in ES assessments is locals de- to the wellbeing of all, farmers and pastoralists. The main objectives of pendent on provisioning ES such as residents of a study area whose jobs this study, focused on the Bamenda Highlands of Cameroon, were: (i) to and livelihoods are strongly related to small-scale farming, herding or investigate how local communities perceive and utilize forest ES, and if forestry (Iniesta-Arandia et al., 2014). Often, studies on stakeholders’ these differ according to livelihood and ethnic differences; and (ii)to perceptions of ES consider locals dependent on provisioning ES as a assess if livelihood and ethnic differences affect the selection of most homogenous group (e.g. Kari and Korhonen-Kurki, 2013), although this important plant species used for different provisioning ES. Given the group can best be seen as an assembly of subcultures, all with distinct greater dependency of pastoralists on forest products reported else- livelihood practices, social institutions, values, identities and inter- where (Heubach et al., 2011; Worku et al., 2014), we hypothesise that relationships (Lakerveld et al., 2015). Recent work from India and pastoralists would identify more forest ES, and a greater number of Nepal has highlighted the importance of considering ethnicity and cast plant species for provisioning ES, than local farmers. We also hy- when assessing the differences in ES identification and use among this pothesise that fodder would be the most important ES for pastoralists. stakeholder group (Lakerveld et al., 2015; Chaudhary et al., 2018). However, as the Fulani pastoralists moved to these mountains in the Different ethnic groups can have very distinct livelihood strategies past three to six decades (Mbih et al., 2018), we hypothesise that their (e.g. farming, herding, fishing, hunter-gathering), which on its own sense of place identity would be lower than that of local farmers. might explain some differences in ES perceptions and use. Livelihood strategy is known to play a significant role in determining natural re- 2. Materials and methods source use patterns and the economic relevance of different income sources. For example, in northern Benin, pastoralists depend more on 2.1. The case study area wild foods than farmers (Heubach et al., 2011); and in Ethiopia, pas- toralists are more dependent on forest products for income than agro- This study focused on the communities living adjacent to two pastoralists (Worku et al., 2014). Pastoralists and farmers also use dif- montane forests of the Bamenda Highlands located in north-western ferent climate change adaptation strategies (e.g. Cuni-Sanchez et al., Cameroon: Mt Oku (3011 m) and Mt Mbam (2335 m) (located about 2012, 2018). A growing