Issue

Vol. 8 No. 1 (2024): JUNE

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Mapping the Demand for Ecosystem Services in Human-Dominated Topical Forest of Sabah, Malaysia

https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v8i1.31485
Kamlisa Uni Kamlun
Faculty of Tropical Forestry, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kinabalu, Malaysia
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3107-5729
Renate Bürger-Arndt
Department of Nature Conservation and Landscape Management, Faculty of Forest Sciences and Forest Ecology, Georg August University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4778-4936
Fazleen Abdul Fatah
Faculty of Plantation and Agrotechnology, Universiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan Melaka, Melaka, Malaysia
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9318-8011

Corresponding Author(s) : Kamlisa Uni Kamlun

kamlisa@ums.edu.my

Forest and Society, Vol. 8 No. 1 (2024): JUNE

Abstract

Mapping the demand for ecosystem services (ES) is a profoundly debated research topic that needs to be investigated further to overcome spatial discrepancies between supply and demand in the literature. This study proposes a holistic approach to valuing ES, which is demanded by local people living adjacent to Sabah’s protected area in the southwestern part of Sabah, Malaysia. To assess the local people's demand for ecosystem services, we applied the 'ES Matrix Assessment' method. Timber, global climate regulation, recreation, and ecotourism are selected to illustrate the changes in ES demand patterns reported in the Klias Peninsula region. To identify the ES required by local people based on land-cover type, we used a weighted arithmetic mean approach. Then, using multiple regressions, we identified socio-demographic characteristics that influence demand for ES obtained from the Klias Peninsula's tropical forest. The 6-point Likert scale results showed that timber received medium (3) to highly relevant demand (4) among local people in the forest ecosystem, while climate regulation demand was the most highly relevant demand (5) in the forest ecosystem, and recreation and ecotourism are highly demanded in the forest ecosystem and water-based area. Overall, ethnicity, source(s) of income, distance from the protected area, length of residence, and education level have influenced the population's perception of ecosystem service demand in peat swamp forest, mangrove, and forest land, and these factors are statistically significant at the 1% to 5% levels. Our approach possesses the advantage of being intuitively straightforward, making it easy to convey to stakeholders and decision-makers across various ecosystem service (ES) applications. Therefore, our approach, while relatively simple, remains realistic and easy to apply, effectively raising awareness about the utility of the ecosystem services concept for stakeholders and policymakers.

Keywords

Ecosystem Management Ecosystem Services Indicators Ecosystem Services Social Demand Socio-demographic Factors Wetland Ecosystem
Kamlun, K. U., Bürger-Arndt , R. ., & Fatah , F. A. (2024). Mapping the Demand for Ecosystem Services in Human-Dominated Topical Forest of Sabah, Malaysia. Forest and Society, 8(1), 218-248. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v8i1.31485
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. Albert, C., Bonn, A., Burkhard, B., Daube, S., Dietrich, K., Engels, B., … & Wüstemann, H. (2016). Towards a national set of ecosystem service indicators: Insights from Germany. Ecological Indicators, 61, 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind. 2015.08.050
  2. Bai, Y., Wong, C. P., Jiang, B., Hughes, A. C., Wang, M., & Wang, Q. (2018). Developing China’s Ecological Redline Policy using ecosystem services assessments for land use planning. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-018-05306-1
  3. Bastian, O., Syrbe, R.-U., Rosenberg, M., Rahe, D., & Grunewald, K. (2013). The five pillar EPPS framework for quantifying, mapping and managing ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 4, 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.003
  4. Baumgardner, D., Varela, S., Escobedo, F. J., Chacalo, A., & Ochoa, C. (2012). The role of a peri-urban forest on air quality improvement in the Mexico City megalopolis. Environmental Pollution, 163, 174–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011. 12.016
  5. Bernard, H., Matsuda, I., Hanya, G., & Ahmad, A. H. (2011). Characteristics of Night Sleeping Trees of Proboscis Monkeys (Nasalis larvatus) in Sabah, Malaysia. International Journal of Primatology, 32(1), 259–267. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10764-010-9465-8
  6. Biswal, B. K., Bolan, N., Zhu, Y.-G., & Balasubramanian, R. (2022). Nature-based Systems (NbS) for mitigation of stormwater and air pollution in urban areas: A review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 186, 106578. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.resconrec.2022.106578
  7. Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29(2), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0
  8. Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L., Knight, T. M., & Pullin, A. S. (2010). Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(3), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010. 05.006
  9. Braat, L. C., & de Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser. 2012.07.011
  10. Bürger-Arndt, R., Meyer, K., & Holterman, A. (2016). Ökosystemdienstleistungen von Wäldern. In AFZ-DerWald (Issue 02).
  11. Burkhard, B., Kandziora, M., Hou, Y., & Müller, F. (2014). Ecosystem Service Potentials, Flows and Demands – Concepts for Spatial Localisation, Indication and Quantification. Landscape Online, 32, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201434
  12. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., & Müller, F. (2012). Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21, 17–29. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019
  13. Burkhard, B., Petrosillo, I., & Costanza, R. (2010). Ecosystem services – Bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 257–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.07.001
  14. Campagne, C. S., Roche, P., Müller, F., & Burkhard, B. (2020). Ten years of ecosystem services matrix: Review of a (r)evolution. One Ecosystem, 5. https://doi.org/ 10.3897/oneeco.5.e51103
  15. Chen, T., Zhao, Y., Yang, H., Wang, G., & Mi, F. (2021). Recreational services from green space in beijing: Where supply and demand meet? Forests, 12(12), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12121625
  16. Cheng, X., Van Damme, S., Li, L., & Uyttenhove, P. (2019). Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods. Ecosystem Services, 37, 100925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100925
  17. Chew, Y. J., Ooi, S. Y., & Pang, Y. H. (2022). A Review of Forest Fire Combating Efforts , Challenges and Future Directions in Peninsular Malaysia , Sabah , and Sarawak. Forests, 13(1405), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13091405
  18. Chu, T. Van, Thoai, T. Q., An, C. Q., Toai, P. M., Camacho, L. D., & Sam, H. Van. (2019). Contribution of forest to rural households’ livelihood: Evidences from da river basin in the northwest mountainous region of Vietnam. Forest and Society, 3(2), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v3i2.7050
  19. Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2001). Social taboos: “Invisible” systems of local resource management and biological conservation. Ecological Applications, 11(2), 584–600. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0584:STISOL]2.0.CO;2
  20. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., … & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
  21. Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Ali, S., Beer, C., Bond, L., Boumans, R., … & Snapp, R. (2007). Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being. Ecological Economics, 61(2), 267–276. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.023
  22. Costanza, R., & Kubiszewski, I. (2012). The authorship structure of ‘“ ecosystem services ”’ as a transdisciplinary field of scholarship. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.002
  23. Crossman, N. D., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., Willemen, L., Petz, K., Palomo, I., … & Maes, J. (2013). A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 4, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001
  24. Czúcz, B., Arany, I., Potschin-Young, M., Bereczki, K., Kertész, M., Kiss, M., Aszalós, R., & Haines-Young, R. (2018). Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES. Ecosystem Services, 29, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017. 11.018
  25. Czúcz, B., Haines-Young, R., Kiss, M., Bereczki, K., Kertész, M., Vári, Á., Potschin-Young, M., & Arany, I. (2020). Ecosystem service indicators along the cascade: How do assessment and mapping studies position their indicators? Ecological Indicators, 118, 106729. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106729
  26. Daily, G. C. (1997). Introduction: What Are Ecosystem Services? In Daily, G. C. (Ed.), Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (pp. 1–10). Island Press.
  27. David, R. M., Rosser, N. J., & Donoghue, D. N. M. (2022). Remote sensing for monitoring tropical dryland forests: A review of current research, knowledge gaps and future directions for Southern Africa. Environmental Research Communications, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ac5b84
  28. de Bivar Marquese, R. (2022). A Tale of Two Coffee Colonies: Environment and Slavery in Suriname and Saint-Domingue, ca. 1750–1790. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 64(3), 722–755. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417522 000147
  29. de Groot, R., Brander, L., van der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., … & van Beukering, P. (2012). Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005
  30. Delgado-Aguilar, M. J., Konold, W., & Schmitt, C. B. (2017). Community mapping of ecosystem services in tropical rainforest of Ecuador. Ecological Indicators, 73, 460-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.10.020
  31. Dutta Gupta, S., Mukherjee, A., Bhattacharya, J., & Bhattacharya, A. (2018). An Overview of Agricultural Pollutants and Organic Contaminants in Groundwater of India. In A. Mukherjee (Ed.), Groundwater of South Asia (pp. 247–255). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3889-1_15
  32. Felix, M., Louise, W., & Rudolf, D. G. (2011). Ecosystem Services at the Landscape Scale: the Need for Integrative Approaches. Landscape Online, 1–11. https://doi.org/ 10.3097/LO.201023
  33. Feng, Q., Zhao, W., Duan, B., Hu, X., & Cherubini, F. (2021). Coupling trade-offs and supply-demand of ecosystem services (ES): A new opportunity for ES management. Geography and Sustainability, 2(4), 275–280. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.geosus.2021.11.002
  34. Fisher, J. a., Patenaude, G., Giri, K., Lewis, K., Meir, P., Pinho, P., Rounsevell, M. D. a., & Williams, M. (2014). Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A conceptual framework. Ecosystem Services, 7, 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.08.002
  35. Foo, C. H. (2016). Linking forest naturalness and human wellbeing-A study on public’s experiential connection to remnant forests within a highly urbanized region in Malaysia. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 16, 13–24. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ufug.2016.01.005
  36. Gill, S. E., Handley, J. F., Ennos, A. R., & Pauleit, S. (2007). Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. Built environment, 33(1), 115-133. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.33.1.115
  37. González De Molina, M., & Lopez-Garcia, D. (2021). Principles for designing Agroecology-based Local (territorial) Agri-food Systems: a critical revision. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 45(7), 1050–1082. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/21683565.2021.1913690
  38. Hasan, S. S., Zhen, L., Miah, M. G., Ahamed, T., & Samie, A. (2020). Impact of land use change on ecosystem services: A review. Environmental Development, 34(April), 100527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100527
  39. Hashim, R., & Ismail, N. F. (2015). Fish Biomass in Relation to Water Quality Index as an Indication of Fisheries Productivity of Four Selected Fish Species Along the Galas River, Kelantan, Malaysia. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 30, 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2015.10.007
  40. Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T., & Bieling, C. (2013). An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators, 29, 434–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013
  41. Ho, S. C. (1996). Vision 2020: Towards an environmentally sound and sustainable development of freshwater resources in Malaysia. GeoJournal, 40(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00222534
  42. Hoang, N. T., & Kanemoto, K. (2021). Mapping the deforestation footprint of nations reveals growing threat to tropical forests. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 5(6), 845–853. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01417-z
  43. Honey-Rosés, J., & Pendleton, L. H. (2013). A demand driven research agenda for ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 5, 160–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecoser.2013.04.007
  44. Hooijer, a., Page, S., Canadell, J. G., Silvius, M., Kwadijk, J., Wösten, H., & Jauhiainen, J. (2010). Current and future CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia. Biogeosciences, 7(5), 1505–1514. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-1505-2010
  45. Husain, M., Vishwakarma, D. K., Rathore, J. P., Rasool, A., Parrey, A. A., & Mahendar, K. (2018). Local people strategies in biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. The Pharma Innovation Journal, 7(1), 444–450.
  46. Jaworek-Jakubska, J., Filipiak, M., & Napierała-Filipiak, A. (2020). Understanding of forest cover dynamics in traditional landscapes: Mapping trajectories of changes in mountain territories (1824-2016), on the example of Jeleniogorska Basin, Poland. Forests, 11(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/f11080867
  47. Jo, J. H., Choi, M., Lee, C. B., Lee, K. H., & Kim, O. (2021). Comparing strengths and weaknesses of three approaches in estimating social demands for local forest ecosystem services in South Korea. Forests, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/ f12040497
  48. Kamlun, K. U., & Bürger Arndt, R. (2016). A Conceptual Framework Approach on Mapping Multiple Ecosystem Services in Tropical Wetland Areas On A Local Scale. Asia- Pacific Journal of Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism, 5(3), 183–202.
  49. Kamlun, K. U., & Bürger Arndt, R. (2019). Expert-Based Approach on Mapping Ecosystem Services Potential Supply Incircling a Protected Areas by Integrating Matrix Model Assessment. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1358(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1358/1/012032
  50. Kamlun, K. U., Bürger Arndt, R., & Phua, M. H. (2016). Monitoring deforestation in Malaysia between 1985 and 2013: Insight from South-Western Sabah and its protected peat swamp area. Land Use Policy, 57, 418–430. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.011
  51. Kamlun, U. K., & Phua, M.-H. (2024). Anthropogenic influences on deforestation of a peat swamp forest in Northern Borneo using remote sensing and GIS. Forest Systems, 33(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-010-9465-8
  52. Kardooni, R., Kari, F. B., Yahaya, S. R. B., & Yusup, S. H. (2014). Traditional knowledge of Orang Asli on forests in peninsular Malaysia. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 13(2), 283–291.
  53. Kenea, S. T., Labzovskii, L. D., Goo, T. Y., Li, S., Oh, Y. S., & Byun, Y. H. (2020). Comparison of Regional Simulation of Biospheric CO2 Flux from the Updated Version of CarbonTracker Asia with FLUXCOM and Other Inversions over Asia. Remote Sensing, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12010145
  54. Krasny, M. E., Russ, A., Tidball, K. G., & Elmqvist, T. (2014). Civic ecology practices: Participatory approaches to generating and measuring ecosystem services in cities. Ecosystem Services, 7, 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013. 11.002
  55. Kubilay, A., Allegrini, J., Strebel, D., Zhao, Y., Derome, D., & Carmeliet, J. (2020). Advancement in urban climate modelling at local scale: Urban heat island mitigation and building cooling demand. Atmosphere, 11(12), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11121313
  56. Lampert, A. (2019). Over-exploitation of natural resources is followed by inevitable declines in economic growth and discount rate. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09246-2
  57. Landau, S., & Everitt, B. S. (2004). A Handbook of Statistical Analyses using SPSS. Cahpman& Hall/CRC Press LLC.
  58. Larondelle, N., Haase, D., & Kabisch, N. (2014). Mapping the diversity of regulating ecosystem services in European cities. Global Environmental Change, 26, 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.008
  59. Lhoest, S., Vermeulen, C., Fayolle, A., Jamar, P., Hette, S., Nkodo, A., Maréchal, K., Dufrêne, M., & Meyfroidt, P. (2020). Quantifying the use of forest ecosystem services by local populations in southeastern Cameroon. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062505
  60. Li, F., Guo, S., Li, D., Li, X., Li, J., & Xie, S. (2020). A multi-criteria spatial approach for mapping urban ecosystem services demand. Ecological Indicators, 112, 106119. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106119
  61. Li, L., Tang, H., Lei, J., & Song, X. (2022). Spatial autocorrelation in land use type and ecosystem service value in Hainan Tropical Rain Forest National Park. Ecological Indicators, 137, 108727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108727
  62. Liu, C., Xu, L., Li, D., Huang, Y., Kang, J., Peng, B., & Huang, X. (2023). Spatiotemporal Variations and Determinants of Supply – Demand Balance of Ecosystem Service in Saihanba. Forests, 14(1100). https://doi.org/10.3390/f14061100
  63. Lüttge, U., & Buckeridge, M. (2020). Trees: structure and function and the challenges of urbanization. Trees - Structure and Function, 0123456789. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00468-020-01964-1
  64. Lyu, R., Clarke, K. C., Zhang, J., Feng, J., Jia, X., & Li, J. (2019). Spatial correlations among ecosystem services and their socio-ecological driving factors: A case study in the city belt along the Yellow River in Ningxia, China. Applied Geography, 108, 64–73. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.05.003
  65. Machlis, G. E., Force, J. E., & Burch Jr, W. R. (1997). The human ecosystem part I: the human ecosystem as an organizing concept in ecosystem management. Society & Natural Resources, 10(4), 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/089419297093 81034
  66. Maes, J., Hauck, J., Paracchini, M. L., Ratamäki, O., Hutchins, M., Termansen, M., Furman, E., Pérez-Soba, M., Braat, L., & Bidoglio, G. (2013). Mainstreaming ecosystem services into EU policy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(1), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.01.002
  67. Martin, D. A., Osen, K., Grass, I., Hölscher, D., Tscharntke, T., Wurz, A., & Kreft, H. (2020). Land-use history determines ecosystem services and conservation value in tropical agroforestry. Conservation Letters, 13(5), 1–12. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/conl.12740
  68. Meijaard, E., Abram, N. K., Wells, J. a, Pellier, A.-S., Ancrenaz, M., Gaveau, … & Mengersen, K. (2013). People’s perceptions about the importance of forests on Borneo. PloS One, 8(9), e73008. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0073008
  69. Miller, D., Raftery, P., Nakajima, M., Salo, S., Graham, L. T., Peffer, T., … & Brooks, A. (2021). Cooling energy savings and occupant feedback in a two year retrofit evaluation of 99 automated ceiling fans staged with air conditioning. Energy and Buildings, 251, 111319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111319
  70. Müller, F., & Burkhard, B. (2012). The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.001
  71. Mwangi, E., Meinzen-Dick, R., & Sun, Y. (2011). Gender and sustainable forest management in East Africa and Latin America. Ecology and Society, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03873-160117
  72. Nainar, A., Mahali, M., Kamlun, K. U., Besar, N. A., Majuakim, L., Justine, V. T., Cleophas, F., Bidin, K., & Kuraji, K. (2022). Higher Water Yield but No Evidence of Higher Flashiness in Tropical Montane Cloud Forest (TMCF) Headwater Streams. Hydrology, 9(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology9100162
  73. Namkhan, M., Gale, G. A., & Savini, T. (2020). Loss and vulnerability of lowland forests in mainland Southeast Asia Conservation Ecology Program, School of Bioresources and Technology, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, 10150 Thailand Conservation Ecology Program, Pilot. Biological Conservation, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13538
  74. Osman, R., Phua, M. H., Ling, Z. Y., & Kamlun, K. U. (2012). Monitoring of deforestation rate and trend in Sabah between 1990 and 2008 using multitemporal landsat data. Journal of Forest and Environmental Science, 28(3), 144-151. https://doi.org/10.7747/JFS.2012.28.3.144
  75. Phillips, V. D. (1998). Peatswamp ecology and sustainable development in Borneo. Biodiversity & Conservation, 7(5), 651–671. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008808 519096
  76. Power, A. G. (2010). Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 2959–2971. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0143
  77. Prouty, C., Mohebbi, S., & Zhang, Q. (2020). Extreme weather events and wastewater infrastructure: A system dynamics model of a multi-level, socio-technical transition. Science of The Total Environment, 714, 136685. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136685
  78. Rahaman, Z. A., Kafy, A.- Al, Saha, M., Rahim, A. A., Almulhim, A. I., Rahaman, S. N., … & Al Rakib, A. (2022). Assessing the impacts of vegetation cover loss on surface temperature, urban heat island and carbon emission in Penang city, Malaysia. Building and Environment, 222, 109335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv. 2022.109335
  79. Rahman, M. K., Rana, M. S., & Hassan, A. (2021). Development and investment in core niche tourism products and services in Bangladesh. In Hassan, A. (Ed.), Tourism in Bangladesh: Investment and Development Perspectives (pp. 127-139). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1858-1_9
  80. Reid, W. V., Mooney, H. A., Cropper, A., Capistrano, D., Carpenter, S. R., Chopra, K., ... & Zurek, M. B. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being-Synthesis: A report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press.
  81. Sachs, J. D., & Warner, A. M. (2001). The curse of natural resources. European Economic Review, 45(4–6), 827–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00125-8
  82. Sahani, N., Goswami, S. K., & Saha, A. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 induced lockdown on the changes of air quality and land surface temperature in Kolkata city, India. Spatial Information Research, 29(4), 519–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41324-020-00372-4
  83. Sarbatly, R., Abd Lahin, F., & Chiam, C.-K. (2023). the Outlook of Rural Water Supply in Developing Country: Review on Sabah, Malaysia. Borneo Science | The Journal of Science and Technology, 41(1). https://doi.org/10.51200/bsj.v41i1.4442
  84. Sayer, J., Ghazoul, J., Nelson, P., & Klintuni Boedhihartono, A. (2012). Oil palm expansion transforms tropical landscapes and livelihoods. Global Food Security, 1(2), 114–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2012.10.003
  85. Scherr, S. J., & McNeely, J. A. (2008). Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: Towards a new paradigm of “ecoagriculture” landscapes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1491), 477–494. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2165
  86. Schirpke, U., Ebner, M., Pritsch, H., Fontana, V., & Kurmayer, R. (2021). Quantifying ecosystem services of high mountain lakes across different socio-ecological contexts. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(11), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su 13116051
  87. Schoneveld, G. C., Ekowati, D., Andrianto, A., & Van Der Haar, S. (2019). Erratum: Modeling peat- And forestland conversion by oil palm smallholders in Indonesian Borneo. Environmental Research Letters, 14(11). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4870
  88. Schröter, M., Crouzat, E., Hölting, L., Massenberg, J., Rode, J., Hanisch, M., … & Beckmann, M. (2021). Assumptions in ecosystem service assessments: Increasing transparency for conservation. Ambio, 50(2), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01379-9
  89. Schulp, C. J. E., Lautenbach, S., & Verburg, P. H. (2014). Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services: Demand and supply of pollination in the European Union. Ecological Indicators, 36, 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013. 07.014
  90. Schwartz, C., Shaaban, M., Bellingrath-Kimura, S. D., & Piorr, A. (2021). Participatory mapping of demand for ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture (Switzerland), 11(12), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture111 21193
  91. Sha, J. C. M., Bernard, H., & Nathan, S. (2008). Status and Conservation of Proboscis Monkeys ( Nasalis larvatus ) in Sabah , East Malaysia. Primate Conservation, 23(1), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1896/052.023.0112
  92. Shaad, K., Souter, N. J., Vollmer, D., Regan, H. M., & Bezerra, M. O. (2022). Integrating Ecosystem Services Into Water Resource Management: An Indicator-Based Approach. Environmental Management, 69(4), 752–767. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00267-021-01559-7
  93. Stone, B., Hess, J. J., & Frumkin, H. (2010). Urban form and extreme heat events: Are sprawling cities more vulnerable to climate change than compact cities? Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(10), 1425–1428. https://doi.org/ 10.1289/ehp.0901879
  94. Stürck, J., Poortinga, A., & Verburg, P. H. (2014). Mapping ecosystem services: The supply and demand of flood regulation services in Europe. Ecological Indicators, 38, 198–211. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.010
  95. Sunderland, T., Achdiawan, R., Angelsen, A., Babigumira, R., Ickowitz, A., Paumgarten, F., Reyes-García, V., & Shively, G. (2014). Challenging Perceptions about Men, Women, and Forest Product Use: A Global Comparative Study. World Development, 64(S1), S56–S66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014. 03.003
  96. Tanaka, Y., Minggat, E., & Roseli, W. (2021). The impact of tropical land-use change on downstream riverine and estuarine water properties and biogeochemical cycles: a review. Ecological Processes, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-021-00315-3
  97. Tasca, F. A., Goerl, R. F., Michel, G. P., Leite, N. K., Sérgio, D. Z., Belizário, S., Caprario, J., & Finotti, A. R. (2020). Application of Systems Thinking to the assessment of an institutional development project of river restoration at a campus university in Southern Brazil. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(13), 14299–14317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06693-8
  98. Thuy, P. T., Phuoc, D. N., & Thuy, L. T. T. (2022). Impacts of Payment for Forest Ecosystem Services on Local livelihoods in A Luoi District, Thua Thien Hue Province, Viet Nam. Forest and Society, 6(2), 590–608. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v6i2.18808
  99. UNDP/GEF. (2006). Malaysia’s Peat Swamp Forests: Conservation and Sustainable. UNDP, Malaysia.
  100. Vallecillo, S., La Notte, A., Zulian, G., Ferrini, S., & Maes, J. (2019). Ecosystem services accounts: Valuing the actual flow of nature-based recreation from ecosystems to people. Ecological Modelling, 392, 196–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecolmodel.2018.09.023
  101. Van Der Werf, G. R., Dempewolf, J., Trigg, S. N., Randerson, J. T., Kasibhatla, P. S., Giglio, L., … & DeFries, R. S. (2008). Climate regulation of fire emissions and deforestation in equatorial Asia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(51), 20350–20355. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0803375105
  102. van Noordwijk, M. (2021). Agroforestry-based ecosystem services: Reconciling values of humans and nature in sustainable development. Land, 10(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/land10070699
  103. Vári, Á., Arany, I., Kalóczkai, Á., Kelemen, K., Papp, J., & Czúcz, B. (2020). Berries, greens, and medicinal herbs - Mapping and assessing wild plants as an ecosystem service in Transylvania (Romania). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 16(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-020-0360-x
  104. Vitousek, P. M., Naylor, R., Crews, T., David, M. B., Drinkwater, L. E., Holland, E., … & Zhang, F. S. (2009). Nutrient imbalances in agricultural development. Science, 324(5934), 1519–1520. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1170261
  105. Wang, B., Tang, H., Zhang, Q., & Cui, F. (2020). Exploring connections among ecosystem services supply, demand and human well-being in a mountain-basin system, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(15), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155309
  106. Wei, H., Fan, W., Wang, X., Lu, N., Dong, X., Zhao, Y., Ya, X., & Zhao, Y. (2017). Integrating supply and social demand in ecosystem services assessment: A review. Ecosystem Services, 25, 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.017
  107. Wen, Z., Wang, R., Li, Q., Liu, J., Ma, X., Xu, W., … & Liu, X. (2022). Spatiotemporal variations of nitrogen and phosphorus deposition across China. Science of The Total Environment, 830, 154740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022. 154740
  108. Wolff, S., Schulp, C. J. E., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Mapping ecosystem services demand: A review of current research and future perspectives. Ecological Indicators, 55, 159–171. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.016
  109. Xu, Z., Peng, J., Dong, J., Liu, Y., Liu, Q., Lyu, D., Qiao, R., & Zhang, Z. (2022). Spatial correlation between the changes of ecosystem service supply and demand: An ecological zoning approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 217, 104258. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104258
  110. Zhang, Z., Peng, J., Xu, Z., Wang, X., & Meersmans, J. (2021). Ecosystem services supply and demand response to urbanization: A case study of the Pearl River Delta, China. Ecosystem Services, 49, 101274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser. 2021.101274
Read More

Author Biographies

Kamlisa Uni Kamlun, Faculty of Tropical Forestry, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kinabalu, Malaysia
Dr Kamlisa Uni Kamlun is a landscape ecologist and nature conservationist working as a lecturer and researcher in Universiti Malaysia Sabah. She is an an expert in mapping multiple ecosystem services in tropical protected forest area. Dr Kamlisa recent project in focusing in bringing societal context to mapping. The main focus of the research is to assess holistic overview of ecosystem services potential supply, flows and demand indicators for tropical protected forest area on a local scale. This research is expected to identify a number of important aspects in mapping forest ecosystem services particularly to compare both matrices of supply and demand of ecosystem services and finally allows to generate the overall balance to support sustainable management and link with human well-being in forest ecosystem. Kamlisa Uni Kamlun currently works at the Faculty of Tropical Forestry, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia. Currently holding a post as the Deputy Dean of Academic and International. 
Renate Bürger-Arndt , Department of Nature Conservation and Landscape Management, Faculty of Forest Sciences and Forest Ecology, Georg August University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
Renate Bürger-Arndt studied biology at the Free University of Berlin and at the Albert Ludwig University in Freiburg, where she received her doctorate in 1983 with a vegetation science thesis on “The brome grass (Brometalia) in the Kaiserstuhl”. rer. nat. earned a doctorate. While she was still completing her doctoral thesis, she moved to the Institute for Land Management at the Faculty of Forestry in Freiburg as a research assistant, later a university assistant. In 1995 she took over the newly created professorship for nature conservation and landscape conservation at the then Institute for Forest Policy, Forest History and Nature Conservation at the Georg-August University in Göttingen, from which the Department of Nature Conservation and Landscape Conservation emerged in 2007. Her work focuses on the areas of: forest functions, forest nature conservation, forest recreation and landscape aesthetics.
Download this PDF file
PDF