Ecosystem service variation and its importance to the wellbeing of smallholder farmers in contrasting agro‐ecological zones of East African Rift

Abstract

Abstract Smallholder farmers lead their lives using multiple ecosystem services (ESs). Understanding the contribution of these services to smallholder farmers' wellbeing is essential for addressing ecosystem‐related problems. While the economic valuation of ESs has received major emphasis, smallholder farmer perceptions of ESs, ecosystem disservices (EDs), and the importance of their wellbeing are repeatedly overlooked. We analyzed variations in ES values (ESVs) in response to land use land cover (LULC) change, perceptions of ES/ED and the importance of these ecosystems to wellbeing in contrasting agro‐ecological zones (AEZs). To obtain datasets, we used geospatial technology, focus group discussion, and face‐to‐face cross‐sectional surveys in a highly populated area of the Southeastern escarpment of the Ethiopian Rift Valley. The research was carried out between October 1 and December 30, 2018. The results revealed the following. (1) Total area of 75,246.98 ha (34%) was changed to various LULC classes across AEZs. Woodland decreased at annual rates of 5.28% while agroforestry increased at annual rates of 1.03%, respectively. (2) ESV was estimated to be approximately $164 million and declined by approximately $24 million between 1988 and 2018, owing to the expansion of cultivated land. (3) More than 55% of smallholder farmers consistently identified benefits from food‐cereal and vegetables, food‐meat, and erosion control, problems associated with human disease vectors, as of very high importance for their wellbeing. ESs are the positive benefits while ecosystem functions that are perceived as negative for human wellbeing are termed as EDs. ESs were perceived as positively contributing to wellbeing, while EDs detracted from health and material wellbeing. The assigned values varied significantly with AEZs and socioeconomic groups, highlighting the need for careful consideration of site‐specific ecosystem management strategies that improve smallholder farmers' wellbeing and sustainable development. Moreover, the cost incurred due to ESV loss may not be covered by economic gains resulting from the expansion of cultivated land and thus, implementing appropriate land‐use policies at the local level would recuperate ES values.

Keywords

• agro‐ecological zone
• ecosystem disservice
• ecosystem service
• smallholder farmers' wellbeing