MAPEO DE SERVICIOS ECOSISTÉMICOS CULTURALES EN ARUBA DEL SUR DEL CARIBE

Vanessa Sofía Soberón-Forsberg

doi:10.21704/ac.v82i1.1747

Authors

Vanessa Sofía Soberón-Forsberg Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, La Molina, 15024, Lima, Perú. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5504-7549

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21704/ac.v82i1.1747

Keywords:

Servicios ecosistémicos culturales, mapeo participativo, turistas.

Abstract

The objective study was to map cultural ecosystem services (aesthetic appreciation and recreation) in Aruba, from tourists’ point of view. The Public participation Geographical Information System was used. Aruba has two types of visitors: Stay-Over visitors (who spend at least one night in Aruba) and Cruise visitors (those who do not spend the night). Data was obtained by interviewing tourists using Public Participatory Geographic Information System in October and November 2016 and March 2017. The data was used to determine tourists’ aesthetic and recreational hot spots (areas with an abundance of events) and then to compare Cruise visitors’ hot spots with Stay-Over visitors’ hot spots. Then, tourists’ hot spots were compared with the local resident’s hot spots. The residents’ data was obtained from a previous study. Tourists and local citizens indicate that the California Lighthouse was an aesthetic hotspot and that Eagle Beach was a recreational hotspot. Tourists and local citizens disagree about Palm Beach and Arikok National Park aesthetic value and about Surfside Beach recreational value. It is concluded that Eagle Beach, Palm Beach and California Lighthouse are areas of great interest and that there are similarities and differences in stakeholder perception of Aruba's aesthetic and recreational hotspots.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

• Assessment, M. E. (2006). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Ecosystems and Their Services. 22pp. Disponible en https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.300.aspx.pdf

• Bown, G., Montag, J., & Lyon, K. (2012). Public participation GIS: A method for identifying ecosystem services. Society & Natural Resources, 25(7), 633-651. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.621511

• Brown, G. (2005). Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management: methods and applications. Society and natural resources, 18(1), 17-39.

• Brown, G., & Fagerholm, N. (2015). Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosystem Services, 119-133.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j,ecoser,2014,10,007

• Brown, G., & Kyttä, M. (2014). Key issues and research priorities for public participation gIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research. Applied Geography, 46(1), 122-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j,apgeog.2013.11.004

• Brown, G., & Reed, P. (2009). Public Participation GIS: a new method for national forest planning. Forest Science, 55(2), 166-182.

• Bryan, B.A., & Crossman, N.D. (2008). Systematic regional planning for multiple objective natural resource management. Journal of environmental management, 88(4), 1175– 1189.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.003

• Bubalo, M. (2016). Capturing spatial distribution of cultural ecosystem services in Aruba. Capturing spatial distribution of cultural ecosystem services in Aruba. Amsterdam, Holanda.

• Burkhard, B., & Maes, J. (2017) Mapping Ecosystem Services. Advanced Books. https://doi.org/10.3897/ab.e12837.

• CBS. [Central Bureau of Statistics]. (2003). Cruise Survey 2002. Disponible en: http://cbs.aw/wp/index.php/2003/10/02/cruissurvey-2002/

• CBS. [Central Bureau of Statistics]. (2013). Tourist Profile-Year Report 2013. Disponible en: http://cbs,aw/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/TOURISMPROFILE-YEAR-REPORT-2013,pdf

• CBS. [Central Bureau of Statistics]. (2014). Category: General visitors statistics. Disponible

en: http://cbs,aw/wp/index,php/category/tourism/ge

neral-visitors-statistics/

• Chakraborty, S., Saha, S.K., & Selim, S.A. (2020). Recreational services in tourism dominated coastal ecosystems: Bringing the noneconomic values into focus. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2020.100279

• Daily, C.G. (2000). Management objectives for the protection of ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy, 3(6), 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462-9011(00)00102-7

• Daly, C., Fraser, G., & Snowball, J. (2015). Willingness to pay for marine-based tourism in the ponta do ouro partial marine reserve mozambique. African Journal of Marine Science, 37(1), 33-40.

• Darvill, R. & Lindo, Z. (2016). The inclusion of stakeholders and cultural ecosystem services in land management trade-off decisions using an ecosystem services approach. Landscape Ecol 31, 533–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0260-y

• Derix, R. R. (2014). Opportunities and Challenges for Environmental Statistics in Aruba. 11pp. Disponible en: https://cbs.aw/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2015/11/Opportunities-andChallenges-Environmental-Stats-2014.pdf

• García Nieto, A.; Quintas-Soriano, C.; Garcia Llorente, M.; Palomo, I.; Montes, C. & MartínLópez, B. (2015). Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: The role of stakeholders׳ profiles. Ecosystem Services, 13(2), 141-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.006

• García-Llorente, M.; Martín-López, B, B.;

Iniesta-Arandia, I.; López-Santiago, C.; Aguilera, P. & Montes, C. (2012). The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: An ecosystem service approach. Environmental Science and Policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 19-20, 136-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.006.

• Hein, L.; van Koppen, K.; de Groot, R.S. & van Ierland, E.C. (2006). Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 57: 209– 228.

• Indicator Working Group. (2018). Aruba Sustainable Development Goals Baseline Measurement 2018. 113pp. Disponible en: https://census2020.aw/wpcontent/uploads/2020/09/ARUBA-SDGBASELINE-MEASUREMENT-REPORT2018.pdf

• Milcu, A.; Hanspach, J.; Abson, D. & Fischer, J.

(2013). Ecology and Society 18(3):44. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05790-180344

• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. ISBN 1-59726-040-1. 155pp. Disponible en: https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf

• National Park Aruba. (2021). Parce National Arikok Aruba. Disponible en: http://www.arubanationalpark.org/main/parkinformation/

• Hoetink, H. (2021). Aruba. Encyclopedia Britannica. Disponible en: https://www.britannica.com/place/Aruba

• Pastur, M.; Peri, P.; Lencinas, M.; GarcíaLlorente, M. & Martín-López, B. (2016). Spatial patterns of cultural ecosystem services provision in southern patagonia. Landscape Ecology, 31(2), 383-399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0254-9.

• Peacock, J. & Peacock, P. (2011). Oxford Handbook of Medical Statistics. In J. Peacock, & P. Peacock, Oxford Handbook of Medical Statistics (pp. 56-71). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

• Plantin, J. (2014). Participatory Mapping: New Data, New Cartography. Editorial Wiley, Michigan, Estados Unidos. 160 p

• Plieninger, T.; Dijks, S.; Oteros-Rozas, E. & Bieling, C. (2013). Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level, Land use policy. Land use policy, 33, 118-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013

• Ribeiro, F. P. & Katia, T. R. (2016). Participative Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Pedra Branca State Park, Brazil. Natureza and Conservacao, 14(2), 120-127. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2016.09.004

• Rumsey, D. (2016). Statistics for dummies (Segunda ed.). New York, Estados Unidos: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

• Scholte, S.; Van Teeffelen, A. & Verburg, P. (2015). Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: a review of concepts and methods. Ecological economics, 114: 67-78.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007

• Stas, K. (2016). Post-stratification or nonresponse adjustment? Survey Practice, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2016-0014

• TEEB. [The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity]. (2010a). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations. Chapter 1. Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. 40 pp. Disponible en: http://doc.teebweb.org/wpcontent/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/Ecological%20and%20Economic%20Foundations/TEEB%20Ecological%20and%20Economic%20Foundations%20report/TEEB%20Foundations.pdf

• TEEB. [The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity]. (2010b). Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. 39pp. Disponible en:http://doc.teebweb.org/wpcontent/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/Synthesis%20report/TEEB%20Synthesis%20Report%202010.pdf

• Termansen, M., McClean, C., & Skov-Petersen, H. (2004). Recreational site choice modelling using high-resolution spatial data. Environment and Planning, 36(6): 1085-1099.

• Turnern, R. (2015). Travel and Tourism Economic Impact 2015 Aruba. Disponible en http://www,caribbeanhotelandtourism,com/wpcontent/uploads/data_center/destinations/Aruba-WTTC-EconomicImpact2015,pdf

• Van Zanten, B. T., Verburg, P., Koetse, M., & Van Beukering, P. (2014). Preferences for European agrarian landscapes: A meta-analysis of case studies. Land Urban Plan, 132: 89-101.

• World Bank. (2017). Population, female (% of total population). Disponible en: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TO TL.FE.ZS%20