Stakeholder Perceptions of Changing Ecosystem Services Consumption in the Jinghe Watershed: a Household Survey and PRA

December, 2011 Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.2 No.4

J. Resour. Ecol. 2011 2(4) 345-352 Article DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-764x.2011.04.008 www.jorae.cn

Stakeholder Perceptions of Changing Ecosystem Services Consumption in the Jinghe Watershed: A Household Survey and PRA

CAO Xiaochang1,2, ZHEN Lin1*, YANG Li1,2, LONG Xin1,2, DU Bingzhen3, WEI Yunjie1,2 and LI Fen4

1 Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing 100101, China; 2 Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China; 3 Wageningen UR, P.O. Box 9101, 6700 HB Wageningen, the Netherlands; 4 Beijing R & D Centre, Shenzhen Institute of Building Research Co. Ltd., Beijing 100044, China

Abstract: This paper presents cognitive awareness levels of ecosystem services and their consumption by farmers in Guyuan City, which lies in the Jinghe watershed. Household Surveys and Participatory Rural Assessment (PRA) were used to determine differences in farmers cognitive awareness levels. The household survey results showed that farmers have a cognitive awareness of 11 ecosystem services: food supply, air purification, environmental purification, soil and water conservation, clean water supply, natural disaster minimization, increasing income, fuel wood supply, aesthetic recreation, fodder supply and sand stabilization. The job-related requirements of a farmers’ daily life, their direct consumption of ecosystem services and the importance of ecosystem services to them all influence their cognitive awareness of ecosystem services. Through group interviews the PRA method can provide the opportunity for information exchange and discussion. The process can help farmers to gain more cognitive awareness of ecosystem services. Large changes in ecosystem services have been observed in the study area. Food production and fuel wood supply have decreased markedly, yet incomes have increased. Spatial and temporal variables, changes in ecosystem services and the level of income all have an impact on farmers’ food supply and resource consumption. Overall, the total consumption of food (cereal and potato) and fuel wood declines for most farmers and consumption of vegetables, meat, coals and gas have increased.

Key words:ecosystem service consumption; ecosystem service cognitive level; household surveys; Participatory Rural Assessment (PRA)

1997; Groot et al. 2002). Research on the consumption 1 Introduction of, and cognitive awareness of, ecosystem services forms The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) is a the basis of an effective method that can bring results into comprehensive and integrated synthesis of the results of practice for good ecosystem management. It also plays ecosystem services research. It has four classifications an important role in describing the relationship between for ecosystem services: provisioning services, regulating ecosystem services and human well-being. The public, services, supporting services, and cultural services. MEA especially in rural households, is a direct user and manager has studied ecosystem services and human well-being of ecosystem services. Their day-to-day lives and their on a large scale, broadening the field of research into work lives are heavily dependent on ecosystem services. ecosystem services. MEA has focused on the interaction Their consumption and cognitive awareness of ecosystem between human activities and ecosystem services, services will impact the protection and management of basing its conclusions on thorough examination of past those ecosystem services. For this reason, research into research (MEA 2003, 2005). Recently, more scientists the consumption and cognitive awareness of ecosystem have recognized that the old theory and valuation of services is fundamental to management, and to other ecosystem services is too theoretical (Costanza et al. related research.

Received: 2011-06-21 Accepted: 2011-10-12 Foundation: National Basic Research Program of China (2009CB421106), the Knowledge Innovation Program of CAS (KZCX2-EW-306), Special Funds for Sino-EU Cooperation of MOST (0813) and National Key Project of Science and Technical Supporting Programs of China (2008BAK50B05). * Corresponding author: ZHEN Lin. Email: [email protected]. 346 Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.2 No.4, 2011 Consumption describes an economic behavior of human and consumption of ecosystem services has become beings to meet their needs and desires. Consumption of increasingly apparent. This seriously restricts social, ecosystem services is about human consumption that economic and ecologically sustainable development in this utilizes ecosystem services for living and production region (Liang et al. 2005; Zhen et al. 2010b). This study (Zhen et al. 2008). Cognition is the process of attaining chose Guyuan City, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, and applying knowledge by human beings and includes: located upstream on the Jing River, to be the study area perception, attention, memory, learning, thinking, at the farm scale. It investigated the cognitive awareness decision making, problem solving, understanding and of ecosystem services and the main motivating factors the generation of language and other psychological of typical village farmers using a one-on-one Household activities (China Encyclopedia 2009). This study identifies Survey and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) method. ecosystem services cognition as “human cognitive level Analysis of differences in cognitive awareness between and understanding of productions and services obtained farmers obtained using the two methods is expected to from ecosystem as well as their changes”. Studying give a more accurate and comprehensive understanding cognitive awareness and consumption of ecosystem of the changes to, and cognitive awareness of ecosystem services at the farm scale is an important entry point to the services, and provides reference points for further research. study of the relationship between ecosystem services and human well-being. Researches on ecosystem services and 2 Study area and methodology human well-being have recently been undertaken (Yang 2.1 Study area et al. 2010; Wegner and Pascua 2011; Gasparatos et al. Guyuan is situated in a typical Loess Plateau area 2011). However, the study of consumption and cognitive (Fig. 1). The ecological damage to this environment is awareness of ecosystem services is in its infancy and significant. Annual average rainfall is 372 mm and the requires in-depth studies (Zhen et al. 2010a). annual evaporation rate is between 1250–2000 mm. Soil The region of the Jing River is typical of the arid and erosion is serious; the annual soil erosion modulus is semiarid zones in the ecologically fragile area of northwest 2000–10000 t km-2 y-1. The land area of the city is 35.6 × China. For example, scarce precipitation and a low natural 104 ha, which includes more than 90% sloping land. The productivity of land results in a low level of supply of soil reclamation index is as high as 30% to 40%. Its agro- ecosystem services in this region (Liu 2009). However, ecological environment is fragile. Agriculture and animal with the increasing in ecosystem services consumption husbandry are the main industries in this region, and the caused by the population growth and economic and proportion of the population involved in agricultural is as social development, the imbalance between the supply high as 87.2%. However, agricultural productivity is low;

0 1000 2000 4000

Legend

Farmland Guyuan Woodland Village Grassland High:8792 Water area Construction land km Low: -277 0 25 50 100 Unused land Data source: 90-meter resolution DEM of China (2000), provided by Shuttle Radar Topography Mission Fig. 1 Location of Guyuan City and the villages surveyed. (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/) CAO Xiaochang, et al.: Stakeholder Perceptions of Changing Ecosystem Services Consumption in the Jinghe Watershed: A Household Survey and PRA 347 the average annual production of grain crops is less than you obtain from the surroundings (such as farmland, 2250 kg per hectare. The per-capita income of farmers woodland and grassland)? What changes have happened is only 2613.94 CNY (Manual of economic situation in to them recently? What are four most important things to Guyuan City, 2008). As a typical impoverished area it can you? (iii) Interviewees responded in their own words on quickly reflect the impact of ecosystem services changes the questions mentioned above. Coordinators recorded all on the well-being of farmers. This study involved four the answers and the numbers of people who agreed on the villages (Xiakou, Sanshilipu, Wu Zhuang, Shimo) in answers. (iv) Coordinators organized a discussion on all Yuanzhou District and three villages (Nanzhuang, Shengli the answers, until all participants reached consensus. (v) and Hongqi) in Jingyuan County (Fig. 1). Interviewees were asked about the changes of ecosystem products and services. (vi) Influences of these changes 2.2 Methodology on the interviewees and their responses to them were 2.2.1 Farmer household survey discussed. And (vii) coordinators read out the results after Questionnaires obtain information from individuals and collating the outcomes. The final results were achieved infer the real situation of a study area from small samples when consensus was reached. (Liu and Zhen 2007). The design of the questionnaire 2.2.3 Data analysis in this study adopted a semi-open structure. According Open questions were used in the household surveys to the topic, the questions either required subject self- and the PRA and similar answers are classified and fill answers or to make a choice between alternative collated. For example, cereal supply, vegetation planting answers. Data collection was carried out at Jingyuan and oil crops are classified as food supply; air quality County and Yuanzhou District, Guyuan City, Ningxia improvement and air humidification are classified as Hui Autonomous Region in the upper reaches of Jinghe air purification; and out-migration of surplus-labor is River Basin during 19 June to 3 July 2008 and 10–20 classified as income improvement. After understanding and August 2009, respectively. Three rural villages in Jingyuan sorting all types of ecosystem services, the survey results County were selected: Nanzhuang, Shengli and Hongqi. were then sorted according to the level of awareness of The four villages in Yuanzhou District were: Xiakou, Wu each specific service, compared to the total amount of Zhuang, Sanshilipu and Shimo. Using random sampling services recognized by the farmers. The PRA data was 205 households in Jingyuan County were surveyed: 63 analyzed and sorted based on the importance of services as from Nanzhuang, 66 from Shengli, and 76 from Hongqi. recognized by farmers. We used Microsoft Excel 2003 and Two hundred and thirty-four farmers in Yuanzhou District SPSS 16 to conduct relativity analyses. were surveyed: 34 from Xiakou, 103 from Wu Zhuang, 62 from Shilipu and 35 from Shimo. The survey was 3 Results carried out face-to-face and conducted one-to-one. The 3.1 Analysis of cognitive levels regarding ecosystem questions related to the basic family situation of farmers, services their cognitive awareness of ecosystem services, their 3.1.1 Perspective analysis based on questionnaire consumption structure of ecosystem services, changes Results of the questionnaire (Table 1) showed that in ecosystem and ecosystem services, and personal life farmers can identify 11 ecosystem services: food supply, satisfaction. air purification, environmental purification, soil and 2.2.2 Participatory Rural Assessment (PRA) water conservation, clean water supply, natural disaster Participatory Rural Assessment is a new and rapid minimization, increase in revenue, fuel wood supply, approach for collecting information about resource aesthetic recreation, fodder supply and sand stabilization conditions and dominance, farmer desires and pathways (Fig. 2). of development in the countrysides (Zhen et al. 2007). The highest levels of cognitive awareness of A semi-structured interview was the specific PRA tool ecosystem services are in food supply, air purification used in this research. This means that the feedback, and environmental purification. The percentages of preferences and attitudes on incidents from interviewees farmers who have awareness of these three services are are not based on formulaic or limited questions (Lian et 46%, 37%, and 22% respectively. The high cognitive al. 2005). Eighteen of the farmers who had participated awareness of food supply is influenced by knowledge in the Household Survey were randomly selected to carry of cereal supplements. Nearly half of surveyed farmers out a PRA on 15 August 2009 at Xiakou. The sex and have an awareness of this service. Because of the low age composition of these 18 farmers is as follow: seven level of economic development in the study area, food males, 11 females; three from age 18–35, 15 from age supply is dependent on the amount of farming land and 35–60. PRA was conducted by three coordinators, and its productivity. However, the practice of Sloping Land consisted of seven steps. (i) Introduction of the purpose Conversion Program (SLCP) has reduced the area of of PRA by the coordinators. (ii) Questioning: What can arable land and this has had a direct impact on local food 348 Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.2 No.4, 2011

Table 1 Questions of farmer household survey. Questions Answers Area of farmland/SLCP land of last year/ten years before Consumption of cereals/vegetables/meat of last year/ten years before Changing of consumption of cereals /vegetables/meat in last ten years Increase; Decrease; No change Are you worried about food supply now/ten years before Cultivate method in last year/ten years before Confinement feeding; Pasture; Confinement feeding and pasture Total revenue in last year/ten years before Amount and sources of water in daily life Tap water; Well water; River water; Rainwater; Cistern water; Others Kinds and amount of fuel in last year/ten years before Fuel wood; Hay; Crop straw; Livestock dry dung; Coal; Liquefied gas What are the surroundings supplying for you? Changes in water quantity/water quality/rain/air quality/temperature/wild Better/Higher; No change; Worse/Lower animals and plants species and amount

Table 2 Questions of PRA. 9.4% 9.2% Questions Answers 5.8% 12.6% 2.9% What can you obtain from the surroundings 4.3% (farmland, woodland and grassland) ? 2.4% What changes are happening on these services +++; ++; +; /; –; – –; 11.6% in last ten years ? – – – 2.7% What are four most important services to you ?

21.0% 3.6% Note: / means no change; +, better or higher; –, worse or lower; and number of – or + presents degree of changing. 26.1%

Food supply Air purification Environmental purification Soil and water conservation may lead to waste or unexpected damage to this service. Clena water supply Natural disaster minimization Low cognitive awareness on sand stabilization reflects a Increasing income Fuel wood supply Aesthetic recreation Fodder supply decline in the frequency of sandstorms in this area. As the Sand stabilization occurrence of high winds declines so does farmer attention Fig. 2 Household cognitive of ecosystem services. to sand stabilization. 3.1.2 Cognitive awareness analysis based on PRA provision capacity (Li et al. 2007). PRA results (Table 2) showed that farmers have awareness Over one third of farmers recognized the notion of “air of 12 ecosystem services: food supply, increasing income, is wet, air is cleaned”. This suggests that the ecosystem air purification, clean water supply, sand stabilization, soil service of air purification has registered in many farmers’ and water protection, environment purification, aesthetic cognitive awareness levels on environmental purification. recreation, fuel wood supply, natural disaster minimization, Farmers acknowledged the benefit of environment fodder supply and biodiversity (Table 3). Due to the group changes: they accepted that the policy of SLCP has of farmers reached a consensus on the PRA results, the obviously changed the environment for the better (Lian et ratio of cognition to these 12 services is 100%. al. 2007; Sun et al. 2007). PRA results indicated four ecosystem services as having The lowest levels of cognitive awareness are on fodder high importance: food supply, increasing income, air supply, aesthetic recreation and sand stabilization: only purification, and clean water supply. Cognitive awareness 5%, 5% and 4% of farmers had cognitive awareness levels of food supply is reflected by the farmers’ perceptions on on these three services. The low cognitive level on fodder cereal and sesame supply. As forest rehabilitation has been supply is mainly due to the changes in animal husbandry at the expense of farmland, there has been a decrease in in the past 10 years, from pasture grazing then (61%) to food supply. As the food supply system is fundamental confinement feeding now (99%). The importance of fodder to daily life in this area, it is perceived to be the most has been supplanted by the importance of feeds. Cognitive important. Cognitive awareness on increasing income awareness of aesthetic recreation is reflected by farmers’ focused on the redeployment of surplus labor due to forest perceptions that “the view of landscape is changing for the rehabilitation. There has been the opportunity for surplus better”. However, the local farmers’ cognitive awareness laborers to migrate to other cities for work, undertake part- on aesthetic recreation is still at a very low level. This time jobs, or work on forest rehabilitation. Profit can also CAO Xiaochang, et al.: Stakeholder Perceptions of Changing Ecosystem Services Consumption in the Jinghe Watershed: A Household Survey and PRA 349 Table 3 Farmer cognition of ecosystem services changes. in wild animals. Although this ecosystem service has Questionnaire Changes PRA Changes increased in recent years, the value on biodiversity is still Food supply –95% Food supply – – – not high due to perceived deficiency in utility. Increasing income 95% Increasing income +++ 3.2 Analysis on ecosystem services and changes in Air purification 90% Air purification ++ consumption Clean water supply –80% Clean water supply – – 3.2.1 Ecosystem services changes Sand stabilization 65% Sand stabilization ++ Through the influence of SLCP and other factors, Soil and water 68% Soil and water ++ ecosystem services in this area have changed noticeably in conservation conservation the last 10 years. Environmental 52% Environmental ++ The questionnaire results show that food supply, purification purification Aesthetic fecreation 82% Aesthetic recreation ++ clean water supply and fuel wood supply have declined (agreement level ≥80%). Three services: income increase, Fuel wood supply –80% Fuel wood wupply – – – air purification and recreation amenity have obviously Natural disaster 54% Natural disaster ++ improved (agreement level ≥80%). The PRA results minimization minimization Fodder supply –20.90% Fodder supply – – – showed three services: food supply, fuel wood supply and fodder supply have decreased, and increasing income has Biodiversity ++ increased. Both methods indicated that sand stabilization,

Note: / means no change; +, better or higher; –, worse or lower; and number soil and water conservation, environmental purification of – or + presents degree of changing. and minimizing natural disasters have increased. be made by selling nuts. Farm incomes are increased by The main factors causing ecosystem changes are SLCP these means and this plays an important role in improving and the resulting changes in land use, land cover, and the the living standards of farmers. Cognitive awareness on air income structure of the farmers. Reduction in farmland has purification is reflected in the acceptance that more humid led to a reduction in food supply; increased forest coverage air leads to cleaner air. Farmers thought that SLCP has has improved local environment, and air humidity has improved the surrounding environment and made a better increased; and nature views have change for the better. life for them. Cognitive awareness on clean water supply The increase in land coverage has decreased soil and water reflected by the perceptions on the quality of drinking degradation and led to a reduction in the incidence of water supply from tap water, well water and river water. flooding and other natural disasters. Protection of the forest Although over 70% farmers are using tap water, however, rehabilitation areas has caused a decline in accessibility to the clean water supply has decreased in recent years, so it fodder and fuel wood. is still highly rated by farmers. 3.2.2 Changes in the consumption of ecosystem services PRA results showed that the three services that rated From the results of questionnaires, farmer consumption of lowest in importance are: disaster minimization, fodder ecosystem services before and after SLCP was compared. supply and biodiversity. The low level of cognitive After forest rehabilitation the consumption of cereals, awareness on natural disaster minimization reflects the potatoes and straw decreased, and the consumption of low impact of natural disasters in the study area. This is vegetables, meat, coal and gas increased (Table 4). Based because the study area is close to cities and the incidence on the results of the questionnaire and PRA, the policy of flooding is diminishing. Cognitive awareness on fodder of forest rehabilitation led to a reduction in farmland and supply reflects the knowledge of the clover blossom a noticeable decline in the food supply service of cereal supplement. This service has declined in recent years with and potato production. The supply and consumption changes in animal raising methods. With the replacement of crop straw also declined. At the same time, due to of pasture feeding by confinement feeding, the importance a redeployment of surplus agricultural labor, incomes of fodder has declined. Cognitive awareness on increased, and this led to an increase in the consumption of biodiversity results from the perception of an increase vegetables, meat, coal and gas.

Table 4 Spatial and temporal differences in houshold’s food and fuel consumption (kg). Year Cereals Potato Vegetables Meat Wood Dry Straw Coal Liquefied fuel grass gas 1998 2116 1108 408 70 1355 1128 1440 120 0 Yuanzhou 2008 1887 895 529 77 2096 1322 864 1211 361 District Temporal difference –10.80% –19.30% 29.70% 10.00% 54.70% 17.20% –40.00% 909.20% –* Jingyuan 2007 2011 1896 524 136 1481 995 1049 294 73 County Spatial difference 7% 112% –1% 77% –29% –25% 21% –76% –80% *: “–” implies liquefied gas was not consumed 10 years before. 350 Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.2 No.4, 2011 Farmer consumption of ecosystem services was structure and results of personal interviews (questionnaire) spatially and temporal diverse. Based on the results of the and group interviews (PRA) are rare (He et al. 2010). questionnaire, the consumption of potatoes and meat by From the one-to-one questionnaire method, farmers farmers is higher in Jingyuan County compared to farmers indicated a high cognitive awareness level of ecosystem in Yuanzhou District. However, in the consumption of fuel services that influenced their life directly (e.g. food supply wood, hay and gas, the situation is reversed. This is related and clean water supply) and the ecosystem services to the capacity to provide ecosystem services. Livestock that had noticeably improved in recent years (e.g. air breeding in Jingyuan is flourishing, with a meat processing purification and environment purification). There is a enterprise established there. The capacity to supply low cognitive awareness level of the ecosystem services meat is higher there than in Yuanzhou. On one hand, that are losing their functions (e.g. fuel wood and fodder Jingyuan County is a model for forest rehabilitation. The supply) or services of low salience (e.g. sand stabilization). rehabilitation area is large, and its management is highly The results of this research reflect the cognitive awareness monitored. This decreases accessibility to fuel wood of individual farmers on ecosystem services, and the and hay supplements. On the other hand, consumption influence of the background of the farmer (e.g. education is also related to income. Yuanzhou District is the most level, income level, livestock breeding methods, energy economically developed area in Guyuan, farmers’ incomes structure) to the cognitive awareness of ecosystem are higher than in Jingyuan County and, as a result, more services. coal and gas are used there. PRA data is influenced by group effects. Once a From farmers’ cognitive awareness, 90% of farmers farmer expresses cognitive awareness of some ecosystem indicated that consumption of vegetables, meat, coal services, other farmers will consider if they agree or and gas had increased, 60% of farmers indicated that not with this cognitive awareness and if there are any consumption of cereals and potatoes had increased, and other services to take into account. Farmers can discuss that fuel wood, hay and straw consumption had decreased. issues at some length and generate a unique response. A discrepancy appeared between quantity changes in Our PRA results reflect group opinion on the cognitive household consumption and the cognitive awareness of awareness of ecosystem services and the importance of the farmers. This indicates that, although consumption of particular ecosystem services to their community. This cereals and potatoes has decreased, there is still an overall process of group discussion is helpful for developing new increase in consumption of food supply. Total fuel wood perspectives and for information exchange. It is a good and hay consumption had increased, but the consumption way to stimulate the thinking of participants and generate had decreased for the majority of farmers. new ideas through interaction. In this research, 11 ecosystem services were identified 3.3 Comparison of questionnaire and PRA results by questionnaire and 12 by PRA. Apart from the service Questionnaires and PRA are two important methods for of biodiversity, these two methods recognized the same research into farmer cognitive understanding of ecosystem ecosystem services. They also gave the same importance services. The questionnaire is a one-on-one method using ranking to the cognitive awareness of food supply, air personal interviews. PRA is a method that quantifies purification, clean water supply, soil and water protection, results after a group discussion. Most researches use recreation views, fuel wood supply and fodder supply personal interviews. Studies that compare and analyze the (Table 5). This means that the cognitive awareness level Table 5 Cognition of ecosystem services from questionnaires and PRA. Range Questionnaire Cognitive decryptions PRA Cognitive decryptions 1 Food supply Food, oil, fruits Food supply Food, oil 2 Air purification Air wetting and cleaner Increasing income More labor working 3 Environmental purification Better environment and less sick Air purification Air wetting and cleaner 4 Clean water supply Well water and river water Clean water supply Well water 5 Soil and water conservation Less soil erosion Sand stabilization Less wind and dust 6 Increasing income More labor working, medicinal Soil and water conservation Less soil erosion, more water materials, apricot conservation 7 Natural disaster minimization Less flood Environmental purification Ecological forest 8 Aesthetic recreation Nice landscape Aesthetic recreation Nice landscape 9 Fuel wood supply Fuel wood Fuel wood supply Fuel wood 10 Fodder supply Pasture Natural disaster minimization Less flood 11 Sand stabilization Less wind and dust Fodder supply Alfalfa 12 Biodiversity More wild animals CAO Xiaochang, et al.: Stakeholder Perceptions of Changing Ecosystem Services Consumption in the Jinghe Watershed: A Household Survey and PRA 351 was influenced by the importance of the ecosystem and importance of increased revenue and sand stabilization services. services are contrary with lower level of importance but There are some differences in the ratio and importance higher cognitive awareness; three services (supply of fuel rank of other ecosystem services. Increasing income and wood, fodder supply, aesthetic recreation) had the lowest sand stabilization have a higher ranking on importance cognitive awareness level and degree of importance. than cognitive awareness level; but environmental There are obvious discrepancies in household purification and minimizing the effects of natural disasters consumption of ecosystem services in both of time and have a lower ranking than the cognitive awareness. This space. After implementation of SLCP, ecosystem services means in the process of group information exchange and have changed dramatically in the study area. Food supply discussion, individual farmers may have re-considered and firewood supply services have significantly decreased, their original opinion and this caused some changes to yet increasing income services have significantly risen. their ideas. These changes have a great impact on the consumption The questionnaire indicated the level of cognitive of ecosystem services in the study area, which reflects awareness of ecosystem services of the farmers and PRA on the decline in food consumption and reduce of most results indicated the importance of ecosystem services to farmers’ fuel wood consumption. Higher income has led to the farmers. These two methods can help to understand an increase in the household consumption of vegetables, personal perception. It is helpful to determine the variables, meat, coal and natural gas. This study also found that issues and assumptions through quantitative analysis. energy consumption in Yuanzhou District was significantly The results of questionnaire can be used during the PRA higher than Jingyuan County but that food consumption in to analyze group effects. The results of PRA can explain Yuanzhou District was significantly lower than Jingyuan and support the results gathered via questionnaires. Both County. Household consumption was highly influenced by methods have advantages and disadvantages and cannot be the local capacity to provide major food and energy supply substituted for each other (Kaplowitz 2001). services, and also by the income level of farmers. Farmers can present their ideas freely in the Household surveys and PRA are two important questionnaire. It is helpful in gaining an understanding primary data collection methods, which can be used to of the perspective of the farmers, but the perspective of assist in the process of carrying out PRA, and PRA can farmers is always constrained by their education level, explain and support survey results. Both methods have customs, and the limitations of an individual’s cognitive advantages and disadvantages and cannot be substituted awareness. for the other. Group interviews should focus on ideas and In the processing of PRA, farmers can exchange information sharing, and resource management processes information. However, the group usually focuses on to find a breakthrough in public education, and individual common information. Some minority groups, like women, qualitative interviews should mainly be used to reveal may easily be ignored by the group and deterred from details. giving their ideas. In PRA processing, some farmers presented two income increase services of selling nuts and References wooden baskets, but as these were not generally shared by China Encyclopedia (Second Edition). 2009. Beijing: China Encyclopedia the majority, in the end these were ignored. Press. (in Chinese) Costanza R, R d’Arge, R D Groot, et al. 1997. The value of the worlds 4 Conclusions ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387:253–260. Gasparatos A, P Stromberg, K Takeuchi. 2011. Biofuels, ecosystem services The results of the household surveys indicated cognitive and human wellbeing: Putting biofuels in the ecosystem services narrative. awareness of 11 ecosystem services: food supply, air Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. DOI:10.1016/j.agee.2011.04.020 Groot D, M A Wilson, R M J Boumans. 2002. A typology for the classification, purification, environmental purification, soil and water description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. conservation, clean water supply, natural disaster Ecological Economics, 41(3): 393–408. minimization, increased revenue, fuel wood supply, He J, Shu X B, Yu X B. 2010. Surveys and Analysis of Farmers’ Perception about Wetland Ecosystem Services in Poyang Lake. Resources Science, aesthetic recreation, fodder supply and sand stabilization. 32(4): 776–781. (in Chinese) PRA revealed a wider cognitive awareness of ecosystem Kaplowitz M D, J P Hoehn. 2001. Do focus groups and individual interviews services, with the addition of biodiversity services. The reveal the same information for natural resource valuation? Ecological ecosystem services identified by the two methods were Economics, 36:237–247. Li R, Mi W B. 2007. Analysis on Returning Land for Farming to Forestry different in quantity and rank. The household survey and Grass Planting and Food Security in Guyuan District, Ningxia Hui reflects the cognitive level of the ecosystem services Autonomous Region. Arid Zone Research, 24(1): 126–130. (in Chinese) while the PRA reflects the importance of these services to Lian G, Guo X D, Fu B J, Wang J, He T. 2005. Farmer’s perception and response towards grain-for-green program and eco-environment based on farmers. The results showed that farmers have the highest participatory rural appraisal. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 25(7): 1741–1747. (in level of cognitive awareness of food supply, clean air and Chinese) clean water supply services. The cognitive awareness level Liang Y, Min Q W, Cheng S K. 2005. Concerted development t in the eco- environment and economy of the region covered by the headwaters of the 352 Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.2 No.4, 2011

Jinghe river. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 23(2): 148–153. (in Environmental Change, 21(2): 492–504. Chinese) Yang L, Zhen L, Li F, Wei Y J, Jiang L G, Cao X C, Long X. 2010. Impacts Liu X L, Zhen L. 2007. Stakeholders’ Consumption of Ecosystem Services of Ecosystem Services Change on Human Well-Being in the Loess Plateau. and Willingness to Accept: A Case Study in Jinghe Watershed. Resource Resources Science, 32(5): 849-855. (in Chinese) Science, 29(4): 103–108. (in Chinese) Zhen L, B Ochirbat, Lv Y, Wei Y J, Liu X L, Chen J Q, Yao Z J, Li F. 2010a. Liu X L. 2009. Consumption of Ecosystem Goods and Services: with a Case Comparing patterns of ecosystem service consumption and perceptions Study in Jinghe Watershed of Northwestern China. Chinese Academy of of range management between ethnic herders in Inner Mongolia and Sciences. (in Chinese) Mongolia. Environmental Research Letters, 5:1–11. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2003. Ecosystems and human Zhen L, Cao S Y, Cheng S K, Xie G D, Wei Y J, Liu X L, Li F. 2010b. Arable well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Washington, D.C., USA: Island land requirements based on food consumption patterns: Case study in rural Press. Guyuan District, Western China. Ecological Economics, 69: 1443–1453. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Zhen L, Liu X L, Wei Y J. 2008. Consumption of Ecosystem Services: Assessment Synthesis Report. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA Models, Measurement and Management Framework. Resources Science, Sun X Z, Xie G D, Zhen L. 2007. Effects of Converting Arable Land into 30(1): 100–106. (in Chinese) Forest (Grassland) and Eco-Compensation: A Case Study in Yuanzhou Zhen L, Xie G D, Yang L, Cheng S K. 2007. Challenges Facing Landscape County, Guyuan City of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. Resource Management in the Jinghe Watershed of Northwestern China by Using Science, 29(3): 194–200. (in Chinese) Participatory Rural Appraisal. China Population, Resources and Wegner G, U Pascua. 2011. Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem Environment, 17(3): 129–133. (in Chinese) services for human well-being: A multidisciplinary critique. Global

泾河流域生态系统服务消耗及变化认知分析：基于农户问卷调查和参与式社区评估

曹晓昌1,2，甄霖1，杨莉1,2，龙鑫1,2，杜秉贞3，魏云洁1,2，李芬4

1 中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所，北京 100101； 2 中国科学院研究生院，北京 100049； 3 瓦格宁根大学, 瓦格宁根 6700 HB, 荷兰； 4 深圳市建筑科学研究院有限公司北京研创中心, 北京 100044

摘要：本文以黄土高原泾河流域上游固原市为例，采用农户问卷调查和参与式社区评估方法，研究农户对生态系统服务认知及消费，并对两种方法认知结果进行比较分析。研究发现，农户问卷调查方法农户认知到食物供给、净化空气、净化环境、水土保持、供给洁净水、减少自然灾害、提高收入、薪柴供给、景观愉悦、牧草供给和防风固沙11项生态系统服务，农户日常对生态系统服务的占有和消耗及生态系统服务对农户的重要性程度影响农户对生态系统服务的认知；参与式社区评估（PRA）方法农户可以充分进行信息交流与讨论，与农户问卷调查法相比对生物多样性服务有了认知。研究区生态系统服务发生很大变化，食物供给和薪柴供给服务明显减弱，收入增加；受生态系统服务变化及收入水平的影响，农户食物和能源消费存在明显时空差异，总体而言，农户食物消费总量下降，大部分农户薪柴消费数量减少，农户对蔬菜、肉类、煤炭、天然气等的消费量增加。

关键词：生态系统服务消费；生态系统服务认知；农户问卷调查；参与式社区评估（PRA）