International Journal of Sustainable Development &

World Ecology

ISSN: 1350-4509 (Print) 1745-2627 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tsdw20

Identifying forest ecosystem services through

socio-ecological bundles: a case study from
northern Jordan

Amani Al-assaf, Oraib Nawash & Mohammad Omari

To cite this article: Amani Al-assaf, Oraib Nawash & Mohammad Omari (2014) Identifying
forest ecosystem services through socio-ecological bundles: a case study from northern
Jordan, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 21:4, 314-321, DOI:
10.1080/13504509.2014.919968

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2014.919968

Published online: 19 Jun 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 837

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsdw20
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 2014
Vol. 21, No. 4, 314–321, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2014.919968

Identifying forest ecosystem services through socio-ecological bundles: a case study from
northern Jordan
Amani Al-assafa*, Oraib Nawashb and Mohammad Omaric
a
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Faculty of Agriculture, The University of Jordan, P.O. BOX 791, Amman
11910, Jordan; bThe Royal Botanic Garden, P.O. Box 99, Amman 11910, Jordan; cDepartment of Horticulture and Crop Science, Faculty
of Agriculture, The University of Jordan, Amman 11948, Jordan
(Received 13 January 2014; final version received 24 April 2014)

This study aims to identify services provided by forest ecosystems based on locals’ perceptions in the northern part of
Jordan. By better understanding preferences of locals and by understanding why they value certain services more heavily,
policy-makers and planning managers can make more effective decisions regarding development and conservation. Three
hundred respondents were interviewed in order to collect information about forest ecosystem services (ES). Data collection
was conducted using a structured questionnaire regarding ES provided by three forest types situated in northern Jordan. ES
trade-offs and socio-ecological bundles were identified by analyzing respondents’ socioeconomic demographics and
preferences of forest ES through multivariate canonical corresponding analysis (CCA). The statistical analysis indicated
that the socioeconomic factors and forest type have an effect on social preferences toward ES. Results displayed a clear
trade-off between provisioning services and regulating and cultural services. CCA demonstrated that 73% of the variation in
ES value is explained by social factors (i.e. education level, income level, and gender), while 26% of perception variation
was attributable to categories of ES supplied by each forest ecosystem. These findings imply that involving people in the
place-specific management of public forests using the ES approach gives managers a clearer understanding of the benefits
people recognize and value, as well as those they either are not aware of or do not value. Such information is useful in forest
management and in public outreach. Although direct policy applications are limited by the research’s nature, the paper
provides a starting point for incorporating forest users’ voices into policy discussions and management design.
Keywords: socio-ecological bundles; forests; ecosystem services; policy; Jordan

1. Introduction understanding how external pressures may impact ecolo-

Ecosystem services (ESs) can be defined as the conditions,
processes, and components of the natural environment that
provide both tangible and intangible benefits for sustaining
and fulfilling human life (Daily 1997; MA 2005).
Recently, some scientists have claimed that ES should be
strictly defined as ecological phenomena, and thus, cul-
tural values should be excluded from the classification
system for ES (Boyd & Banzhaf 2007; Fisher et al.
2009). Wallace (2007) has suggested that in order to
incorporate ESs into decision-making, it is essential to
classify ES in ways that both allow effective comparisons
to be made and which enable evaluation of the conse-
quences of different management or policy strategies. In
this way, the millennium ecosystem assessment (MA) and
these scientists’ definitions of ES are limiting, as services
are constrained to things that are consumed or experienced
by people. Other effects are simply part of the ecological
structures and processes that give rise to this anthropolo-
gical benefit.
If the ES approach is to be integrated into decision-
making, it is important to understand the links between
biodiversity and services. Awareness of the limits of eco-
logical functioning – coupled with knowledge of the limits
of nonrenewable resource usage – is critical in
gical structures and processes (Potschin & Haines-Young
2006). The design of environmental management strate-
gies or policies for future development often involves a
weighing of the consequences of proposed environmental
actions, so it is essential to consider impacts upon ecosys-
tems as well as the social and economic systems to which
they are linked. This can be best achieved when the
decisions that the society makes are as well informed as
possible (Potschin & Haines-Young 2006). The framework
used in such management strategies represents a socio-
ecological system that requires information for analyzing
this information drawn from the broad range of natural and
social sciences (Carpenter et al. 2009).
Furthermore, in order to optimize the benefits of such
management plans and policies, sustainability should be
considered during design, validation, and implementation
processes. This concept of sustainability is based upon
locals’ perspectives, which, when planning development
and management, ensures a mutually beneficial relation-
ship between locals and different ecosystems (i.e. pro-
tected areas) and services (i.e. ecotourism) (Xu et al.
2009; Cheung & Jim 2013). Boström (2012) investigated
the incorporation of the social dimension into environmen-
tal sustainability by involving community-based forestry

*Corresponding author. Email: amani.alassaf@ju.edu.jo; amanialassaf@yahoo.com

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology
in sustainability projects, the aim of which was to reduce
poverty and ensure that benefits (services) were derived
from forest ecosystems in a sustainable manner. The socio-
economic factors of local people influenced the interven-
tions that were made for natural resource management; the
variation is based on locals’ natural and socio-economic
conditions (Cheung & Jim 2013). Thondhlana et al. (2012)
concluded that different types of services would require
varying sustainable management plans and emphasized the
consideration of disparities in patterns of natural resource
dependence among different locals’ income groups (Negi
et al. 2013).
This research focuses on a Mediterranean forest eco-
system. This forest type has evolved under continuous
pressure from the natural environment and human society,
which has affected the types of services essential for
human well-being (Maass et al. 2005).
Despite the low share of forest area out of the total area
(around 1%), the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) observed the stability of forest area in Jordan in
the period of 2000–2005 (FAO 2010), which reflects the
national efforts in preserving forests. Forests in Jordan are
a key component in providing environmental services:
provisioning services (i.e. grazing, wood products, and
nonwood products), regulating services (i.e. land stabiliza-
tion and watershed management), supporting services (i.e.
carbon sequestration), and cultural services (i.e. recreation
and tourism).
Few researchers have demonstrated the importance of
cultural and provision services for the Mediterranean for-
ests in Jordan. Alrababah et al. (2007) investigated the
arboreal species composition, diversity, and aboveground
biomass productivity for forests in Jordan, while a second
study conducted by Jabarin and Damhoureyeh (2006)
examined the recreational pattern of Dibeen National
Park whose integration has been suggested in multiple-
use decision-making. Comprehensive research regarding
different forest types has not been performed in Jordan
yet, especially in areas where stakeholders are involved in
the prioritization of management decisions regarding the
needs of the public and provision of effective policies.
Folke et al. (2005) debated on the importance of exploring
social dimensions that enable adaptive ecosystem-based
management, since framing a resilient social–ecological
system may capitalize on a crisis as an opportunity for
improvement.
1.1. Objectives
This research paper aims to:
(1) Distinguish and identify the current services pro-
vided by the Mediterranean forest ecosystems in
the northern part of Jordan – where forest ecosys-
tem services (FESs) have experienced dynamic
changes during the last decades and where urba-
nization and climate change have affected the
variations and quantities of services provided by
315
forests. This new classification scheme is expected
to provide a fundamental basis for forest manage-
ment plans derived from community knowledge.
(2) Identify socio-ecological bundles for the
Mediterranean forest ecosystems. The socio-eco-
logical bundle is a classification for services
gained from different forest ecosystems based on
social preferences by the surrounding commu-
nities; such identification reflects the social–
ecological dimension in proposed forest manage-
ment plans.
2. Ecology of the Mediterranean forests types in
northern Jordan
Forests worldwide are known to be critically important
habitats both for the biological diversity they contain and
for the ecological functions they serve. Forests in Jordan
are considered as an extension of Mediterranean forests,
which cover an area estimated 8700 km2. The forested
region is limited in Jordan, extending from Irbid in the
north to Ras En-Naqab in the south. The altitude ranges
from 100 to 1250 m above sea level, while rainfall ranges
from 200 to 700 mm. The region with the highest rainfall
is the most fertile and exhibits the best climate for this
forest ecosystem.
Sylvan land produces large amounts of forage from
both annual and perennial plants. In 2000, nearly 2.5 km2
of forested land was opened for grazing from more than
300,000 head of livestock for periods between 15 and
30 days; the value of grazed forage was around 840,000
JD (General Corporation for Environmental Protection
(GCEP) 2001; Mo 2003).
2.1. Deciduous oak forests
Jordan’s deciduous oak forests are mostly located at alti-
tudes of 100–750 m, and 419.4 km2 of forest can be
classified as deciduous oak at the lower borders of the
evergreen oak forests; they mix together within a limited
area between the pure stands of each type. Deciduous oak
forest is mostly found in areas around Yarmuk River,
Ishtafaina area in Ajloun, Al-Alouk area near Jarash, and
near King Talal Dam northwest of Amman. The rainfall
range is about 200–500 mm (GCEP 2001).
2.2. Pine forests
Found only in the northern parts at 550–1000 m above sea
level, pine forest covers 190 km2, which accounts for the
southernmost native Pinus halepensis forest in the world
(GCEP 2001; MoA 2003). This ecosystem is located in
Ajloun, along the road between Sakib and Jarash,
Dibbeen, Zie, and Salt districts. Royal Society for
Conservation of Nature has established Dibbeen reserve
to protect the last remaining stand of old pine forest in
316 A. Al-assaf et al.

Jordan from fires, urbanization, overgrazing, and the other
threats (MoE 2000).
2.3. Evergreen oak forests
Evergreen forests are characterized by Quercus callipri-
nos. This type of northern Jordanian forest ecosystem is
located at 500–1250 m above sea level and covers about
1912 km2 with a rainfall range of 500–700 mm, located up
north in Ammani, Irbid, and Ajloun, as well as in the
southern parts of Tafila and Shobak. Evergreen forest
comprises a major portion of the forest vegetation in
Jordan and occurs in both northern and southern areas
(Al-Eisawi 1996).
3. Methodology
This research applied a multiphase approach based on
three phases for achieving the targeted objectives.
First: Identifying FESs based on the MA (2005) fra-
mework; it is necessary to establish a basic assessment of
ESs in order to examine ES variation and existence
according to forest type within the study area. This
would be the first assessment of forest ES in Jordan.
Second: Determining the demographics that influence
social preferences of the people in the vicinity of FESs
(such as age, monthly income, education, and gender).
Third: Discovering socio-ecological bundles that
represent relationships between perceived ES and charac-
teristics of the surrounding community.
3.1. Study area and data collection
A household survey1 was conducted over the course of
4 months, from August to November 2012. This included
the pre-survey testing and formal investigation with dif-
ferent stakeholders. The pre-survey used an open-ended
questionnaire, in which 15 interviews were conducted with
local communities and experts in forestry. A stratified
random sampling technique was used, since the sampled
villages were randomly selected out of all those surround-
ing the forest (Figure 1). For each forest type, 100 house-
holds were randomly selected (total sample size is 300
households) and a face-to-face interviewing method was
used. The interviewees were directly asked about forest
services presented in Table 1. On some occasions, inter-
viewees needed elaboration for describing some services –
this was carefully done in a way that would not affect the
identification and valuation process.
A detailed household questionnaire was designed to
include two parts. The first part covered information about
households, such as age, education, occupation, income,
and household size. The second part was a survey on
household interaction activities with the surrounding for-
est: frequency of visits and periods and household activ-
ities at the forests. The respondents ranked the importance
of the forest for their households – this was discussed
deeply with respondents to inform the respondents of the
degree of importance of forests services to them. The
ranks were measured according to the following scale: 1:
not important, 2: somewhat important, 3: important, 4:
very important, and 5: extremely important.

35° 0′ E 36° 0′ E 37° 0′ E 38° 0′ E 39° 0′ E

35° 40′ E 35° 45′ E 35° 50′ E 35° 55′ E 36° 0′ E

35° 0′ N 35° 0′ N
32° 45′ N 32° 45′ N

34° 0′ N 34° 0′ N
32° 40′ N 32° 40′ N

33° 0′ N 33° 0′ N
32° 35′ N 32° 35′ N

32° 0′ N 32° 0′ N
32° 30′ N 32° 30′ N

31° 0′ N 31° 0′ N
32° 25′ N 32° 25′ N

30° 0′ N 30° 0′ N
32° 20′ N 32° 20′ N

29° 0′ N 29° 0′ N
32° 15′ N 32° 15′ N

Questionaire
Forest
28° 0′ N 0 60 120 240 km 28° 0′ N 0 4.5 9 18 km
Governorate 32° 10′ N 32° 10′ N

35° 40′ E 35° 45′ E 35° 50′ E 35° 55′ E 36° 0′ E

35° 0′ E 36° 0′ E 37° 0′ E 38° 0′ E 39° 0′ E

Figure 1. Map of the study area and sampling sites.

 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 317

3.2. Statistical analysis
Several data sets were combined to produce a map for FESs.
Thresholds of importance and significance of services were
set for the range of services distributed all over the study area.
Data were entered and analyzed using Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (version 17) and Xlstat (version 15.2.01).
Quantitative techniques were used to assess forest services’
types and utilities according to respondents’ perceptions and
valuations. The Chi-squared test was conducted to analyze
the relative importance of different service categories for
respondents’ well-being, comparing the number of ESs iden-
tified by the respondents in each of the service categories (i.e.
provisioning, regulating, and cultural). Recently, researchers
have adopted canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) in
studying environmental variables in the context with society
interactions (Feoli et al. 2002; Greenacre 2007; García-
Llorente et al. 2008; Greenacre 2010). CCA is used to
explore the relationships in stakeholders’ perceptions toward
ESs, which helps in finding a solution directly related to the
concomitant variables (Greenacre 2007; Greenacre 2010).
CCA was used to investigate the relative importance of
particular ESs by relating them to socioeconomic character-
istics of respondents with environmental behavior variables,
as well as by ecosystem types. This investigation is expected
to help in visualizing beneficial policies and planning
approaches to ensure national consistency and sustainability
of forest ecosystems in an extended range of ES outcomes.
4. Results
4.1. The identification and assessment of the forest
ecosystem services (FESs)
The communities surrounding the northern forest differed
in identifying the ESs derived from forests. Interviews
with these communities revealed specific services attached
to semiarid forest ecosystem (Table 1).
The questionnaire focused on specific provisioning ser-
vices that were considered to be the most familiar services
to a public audience: edible plant collection, firewood col-
lection, sheep and goat herding, and medicinal plant collec-
tion. Communities living around deciduous oak forest
considered collection of edible and medicinal plants as the
most important and significant services (p < 0.00). While
residents living near the pine forest area considered collec-
tion of firewood to be the most important service gained
from this forest, restrictions and policies that prevent this
practice explain the insignificant results among the three
forest types (p < 0.17). On the other hand, residents living
near evergreen forest considered herding of sheep and goats
to be the most important service among the other forest
types (p < 0.00). Evergreen oak forest is located in an area
of high precipitation and moderate weather – these meteor-
ological features have great influence on maintaining the
rich biodiversity and long-lasting green cover.
The communities living near the three forest types
indicated a consensus that cultural services are the most
important services (p < 0.00). Services that were recog-
nized as significantly important are bird protection, scien-
tific research, bird watching, environmental education, and
nature appreciation. Nature appreciation (p < 0.00) is
ranked as the most major of the cultural services for the
three types of forest. Bird watching and scientific research
services received the lowest valuation levels given by
residents living near these forests (p < 0.00).
According to residents’ perceptions, forests were
highly recognized for their regulating services
(p < 0.00); forests are essential in reducing the effect of
climate change, protecting the soil from erosion and deser-
tification, and protecting the green cover. Perceptions by

Table 1. Respondents’ assessment for ecosystems services assessment.

Ecosystem services Deciduous oak forests Pine forests Evergreen oak forests Sig

Cultural services Mean (SD)* Mean (SD)* Mean (SD)*

Camping 1.24 (±0.78) 1.03 (±0.17) 1.05 (±0.30) 0.004
Bird protection 1.5 (±0.93) 1.06 (±0.42) 1.19 (±0.39) 0.000
Scientific research 1.22 (±0.77) 1.04 (±0.40) 1.01(±0.1) 0.007
Bird watching 1.36 (±0.98) 1.13 (±0.61) 1.0 (±0.00) 0.001
Recreation 3.81(±0.54) 3.79 (±0.41) 3.78 (±0.42) 0.896
Environmental education 1.57 (±1.01) 1.73 (±0.89) 1.31(±0.66) 0.003
Nature appreciation 3.32 (±0.66) 3.68 (±0.47) 3.52 (±0.58) 0.000
Provisioning services
Collecting food plants 3.22 (±0.79) 2.83 (±0.93) 2.98 (±0.74) 0.004
Collecting fire wood 2.75 (±1.22) 3.03 (±1.1) 2.98 (±1.1) 0.170
Bee keeping 2.66 (±1.23) 1.52 (±0.97) 1.92 (±0.86) 0.000
Herding sheep and goats 2.9 (±1.18) 2.83 (±1.1) 3.15 (±0.85) 0.078
Collecting medicinal plants 3.12 (±0.84) 2.82 (±0.9) 2.83 (±0.78) 0.019
Regulating services
Reducing the effect of climate change 3.64 (±0.61) 3.3 (±0.46) 3.65 (±0.52) 0.000
Protect the soil from erosion desertification 3.59 (±0.70) 3.34 (±0.50) 3.64 (±0.48) 0.000
Protection of green cover 3.65 (±0.54) 3.36 (0.50) 3.56 (±0.56) 0.001
Notes: Ranks: 1 = not important, 2 = moderately important, 3 = very important, 4 = extremely important.
*Denotes standard deviation.
318 A. Al-assaf et al.

residents of regulating services ranked between very
important and extremely important. Residents valued
these services according to forest ecosystem’s role in cli-
mate change adaptation and resilience at the same level for
the three forest types (p < 0.00). Reduction of the effect of
climate change and protection of green cover are consid-
ered the most important regulating services gained from
these forest ecosystems.
Residents living nearby different forest types varied in
their assessments of perceived services. They weighted
services with different priorities. Residents of the decid-
uous oak and pine forests ranked protection of green cover
as a highly important service obtained from these forests
(p < 0.00), while residents of the evergreen oak forest
ranked reduction of climate change effects as the most
important service (p < 0.00). This assessment reflects
residents’ awareness of the types of hazards facing forests
in this type of semiarid region.
4.2. Factors influencing the relative importance people
give to particular ecosystem services
Social preferences over specific ESs may vary among
respondents due to a complex set of factors including
individual needs, cultural traditions, access to ESs, and
levels of household income. The Chi-squared analysis
revealed that the importance of different ES categories
varied among respondents depending on their level of
formal education, gender, monthly income, and the place
of residence (i.e. the type of nearest forest to the house-
hold) (Table 2).
Interviewed residents expressed varying levels of
value with regard to ESs. The results demonstrated sig-
nificantly high perceived value of cultural services
(p < 0.05) despite the fact that they were the least impor-
tant service type among others. Gender had an insignif-
icant effect on the valuation of services provided by the
forests; both males and females valued regulating services
higher than other services.
Education and income demographics affected the
valuation of provisioning services by communities living
near forests in northern Jordan. Formal education level
ranged from primary (Edu-1) to postgraduate (Edu-5)
levels. This was considered a significant factor
(p < 0.05) in identification and valuation of provisioning
services. The valuation ranged from moderately important
(2) to important (3). Residents’ monthly income affected
the valuation of FESs, particularly with regard to provi-
sioning services (p < 0.05). Response averages for these
services fell between the values of moderately important to
important for all levels of households’ monthly income.
CCA was applied in order to identify socioeconomic
bundles that affect the valuation of ESs. The CCA indi-
cates a statistically significant association between the

Table 2. Factors influencing people’s perception of different ecosystem services categories.

Cultural services Provisioning services Regulating services

Factors 1: Forest types

Deciduous oak forest 2.204 (0.41) 2.819 (0.75) 3.289 (0.46)
Pine forest 2.072 (0.22) 2.784 (0.51) 3.263(0.34)
Evergreen oak forest 2.188(0.36) 2.658(0.75) 3.064(0.37)
Chi-square 59.13 65.8 64.72
Sig 0.04 0.08 0.06
Factor 2: Gender
Male 2.16 (0.42) 2.67 (0.69) 3.18 (0.38)
Female 2.15 (0.33) 2.77 (0.68) 3.21 (0.41)
Chi-square 26.71 19.91 22.59
Sig 0.06 0.13 0.67
Factor 3: Education
Primary (Edu-1) 2.15 (0.40) 2.81(0.71) 3.2 (0.41)
Secondary (Edu-2) 2.14 (0.23) 2.64 (0.57) 3.17 (0.41)
Diploma (Edu-3) 2.14(0.23) 2.61 (0.65) 3.22 (0.35)
Bachelor (Edu-4) 2.21 (0.37) 2.84(0.77) 3.28 (0.38)
Postgraduate (Edu-5) 2.26 (0.26) 2.66(0.65) 3.32 (0.44)
Chi-square 68.12 58.38 36.17
Sig 0.09 0.02 0.08
Factor 4: Monthly income
<200 JD (Income-1) 2.12 (0.32) 2.76 (0.72) 3.22 (0.44)
200–300 JD (Income-2) 2.18 (0.41) 2.77 (0.67) 3.19 (0.42)
301–400 JD (Income-3) 2.14 (0.31) 2.79 (0.69) 3.19 (0.35)
401–500 JD (Income-4) 2.06 (0.15) 2.68 (0.51) 3.30 (0.37)
501–600 JD (Income-5) 2.31 (0.32) 2.55 (0.80) 3.27 (0.43)
>600 JD (Income-6) 2.21 (0.22) 2.65 (0.70) 3.18 (0.41)
Chi-square 90.37 61.95 57
Sig 0.07 0.04 0.06

Notes: Ranks: 1 = not important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 = important, 4 = very important, 5 = extremely important.
*Denotes standard deviation.
 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 319

Table 3. Results of the redundancy analysis.
Eigenvalues and percentages of inertia (CCA)
Axis 1 (F1)
Eigenvalue 0.225
Percentage variance explained 73.936
Cumulative % variance explained 73.936
Total inertia 2.179
relative importance of ESs and respondents’ characteristics
according to forest types (p < 0.05, from 500 permuta-
tions). The first axis displayed 73.9% of the total variance
(Table 3). The low eigenvalues could be explained by the
weak gradient along the axes.
Figure 1 represents the biplot of the CCA. The first
axis of the CCA (73.94% of the variance) revealed a trade-
off between provisioning and other ESs (i.e. regulating
and cultural services). CCA also revealed differing stake-
holder perceptions regarding ESs – mainly explained by
gender factors, as males with primary education (Edu-1)
and low-income levels (Income-1) positively valued reg-
ulating services and provisioning services, while educated
female respondents most often valued provisioning ser-
vices most highly (i.e. medicinal and food plants).
Educated and well-off respondents reported a high demand
for cultural services, including nature tourism, aesthetic
values, and environmental utilities for education and
research.
The second axis of the CCA (26.0% of the variance)
displayed variability between FESs by forest type (i.e.
deciduous oak forest, pine forest, and evergreen oak for-
est) The CCA highlights the respondents’ recognition of
particular ESs associated with specific ecosystem types
(Figure 2). Positive scores were associated with regulating
Axis 2 (F2)
and provisioning services for the evergreen oak forest. In
0.138 this portion of the analysis, regulating services were reor-
26.064 ganized from specific services into the following groups:
100.000 floral and faunal protection, bird protection, soil formation
0.768 and protection, resilience against climate change, environ-
mental protection, and medicinal plants and food.
Negative scores were associated with cultural services
provided by both deciduous oak and pine forest ecosys-
tems, mainly due to limited accessibility and tourism
investments in these forests.
5. Discussion
This study highlighted the importance of personal perspec-
tives in the identification of prominent ESs. Previous
studies have concluded that personal priorities for ESs
focus first on provisioning services, followed by regulat-
ing services and cultural services (Iftekhar & Takama
2008; Agbenyega et al. 2009; Hartter 2010). This study
showed that provisioning services can be easily identified
for their tangible and physical characteristics. Among pro-
visioning services, food collection and medicinal plant
collection were perceived to be the most important by
locals; it is common to depend on wild plants for food
and medicinal plants as part of the traditional knowledge
in Jordan (Nawash et al. 2013). Nevertheless, forests were
highly recognized for their regulating services. Forests are

CCA Map / Objects

(axes F1 and F2: 100.00%)
0.64

Income-5
0.48
Edu--1
Ev.Oak forest-3 Income-1
0.32

Provisioning services Male

0.16
F2 (26.06%)

Regulating services
Income-2
0
Edu--4 Cultural services
Edu--2
Dec.Oak forest-1 Edu--3
–0.16 Income-4
Female

Pine forest-2
–0.32 Edu--5

Income-3
–0.48
–1.12 –0.96 –0.8 –0.64 –0.48 –0.32 –0.16 0 0.16 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.8 0.96
F1 (73.94%)

Objects Variables Categories

Figure 2. Canonical Correspondence Analysis biplot. The biplot shows the relationships between respondents’ perceptions toward
forest ecosystem services and variables related to respondents’ characteristics by each of the ecosystem service categories (cultural,
provisioning, and regulating). The gray squares represent the explanatory variables, displaying higher standardized canonical coefficients
for axis 1 and axis 2 toward the average means of forest ecosystem service values within each service category (cultural, provisioning,
and regulating).
320 A. Al-assaf et al.
essential in reducing the effect of climate change, protect-
ing the soil from erosion and desertification. This can be
explained by the intensive governmental and nongovern-
mental efforts in environmental communications and edu-
cation programs (Hartter 2010).
Recognition of forest services varied among respon-
dents and within different forest ecosystems. The variation
is explained by complex social factors as both Hartter
(2010) and Martín-López et al. (2012) explained. Factors
such as gender, level of household monthly income, and
level of education played a significant role in explaining
variation in ES recognition. People characterized with
better-off income and education are less likely to benefit
and thus perceive specific ESs such as firewood collection,
grazing, and food and medicinal plant collection from
forests (Grimm et al. 2008). Rural people, those living
on the outskirts of the forest, highly valued the flow of
forest services (Figure 1). Since antiquity, these forests
have provided multiple resources (i.e. foodstuffs, fodder
and grazing, firewood, etc.) not only for the local rural
populations but also for the cities to trade and use in
industry (FAO 2010).
Results of the CCA allowed for the identification of
how demographics influence perception and use of FESs
(Martín-López et al. 2012). ES bundles can be identified
from people’s social characteristics and perceptions of forest
FESs. These social–ecological bundles represent systemic
interrelationships between ecosystem identification and
locals’ social characteristics. As Martín-López et al.
(2012), Agbenyega et al. (2009), Hartter (2010), and
Iftekhar and Takama (2008) indicated, the identification,
classification, and valuation of different ESs are based on
beneficiaries’ social characteristics as well as the ecological
features of ecosystems. This is mostly observed through the
high variation in ES recognition due to respondents’ social
factors (73%), as displayed in Figure 1.
6. Conclusion
The fortitude of ecosystems is fundamental to human well-
being. Yet, facilitate this resilience, there is a need to
understand the links between biodiversity and the benefits
that people enjoy from nature – this requires investigation
and description of the general social background for peo-
ple benefiting from such ecosystems. The approach fol-
lowed in this study is based on society’s needs and
benefits derived from the ecosystem; this approach is
recommended for use in decision-making. Although dif-
ferent studies have recognized that ES assessments should
incorporate ecological, sociocultural, and monetary values,
few had conducted the assessment of the sociocultural
values of ESs, as most studies had restricted their analysis
to biophysical and monetary factors. This study has added
input in the socio-ecological context of ESs. This research
has provided a new tool for the identification of the impact
of different management options and policies on forest
ecosystems in Jordan. This tool results from the identifica-
tion of the trade-offs between ES based on social
preferences, which will, in turn, affect forest capacity to
deliver services to people based on actual needs and pre-
ferences. This study concludes that involving people in the
management of public forests, using the ES approach,
gives decision-makers a clearer understanding of the ben-
efits people recognize and value. Such information is
useful in forest management and sustainability planning.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank HRH Princess Basma Bint Ali,
the founder of the Royal Botanic Garden in Jordan, for her
continuous support for the conservation of plant biodiversity
and related research. Thanks to Abdul Hameed Shoman Fund
for Supporting Scientific Research in Jordan for their kind finan-
cial support of the study. We are also grateful to the University of
Jordan, scientific research fund [grant number 1441] for provid-
ing the support of field trips. Thanks are also extended to Yolla
Alasmar and Marwan Alraqqad for preparing the map using the
GIS tools. We are very grateful for the informants of the villages
surrounding the three forest types who provided us time and
information.
Note
1. This paper is one of a series of papers produced by a joined
funded project by the University of Jordan and the Abdul
Hameed Shoman Fund for Supporting Scientific Research.
References
Agbenyega O, Burgess PJ, Cook M, Morris J. 2009. Application
of an ecosystem function framework to perceptions of com-
munity woodlands. Land Use Policy. 26:551–557.
Al-Eisawi DM. 1996. Vegetation of Jordan. Cairo: UNESCO—
Regional Office for Science and Technology for the Arab
States; p. 266.
Alrababah M, Alhamad M, Bataineh M, Suwaileh A, Al-Horani
A. 2007. Arboreal diversity and aboveground biomass in a
semi-arid Mediterranean. Forest ecosystem: case of Kufur-
Khal natural reserve. Jordan J Agric Sci. 3:363–375.
Boström M. 2012. The problematic social dimension of sustain-
able development: the case of the forest stewardship council.
Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 19:3–15. doi:10.1080/
13504509.2011.582891
Boyd J, Banzhaf S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The
need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol
Econ. 63:616–626. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002
Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS,
Diaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira
HM, et al. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services:
beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA. 106:1305–1312. doi:10.1073/
pnas.0808772106
Cheung LTO, Jim CY. 2013. Ecotourism service preference and
management in Hong Kong. Int J Sustainable Dev World
Ecol. 20:182–194. doi:10.1080/13504509.2013.775192
Daily GC. 1997. Introduction: what are ecosystem services? In:
Daily GC, editor. Nature’s services: societal dependence on
natural ecosystems. Washington (DC): Island Press.
[FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization. 2010. State of
Mediterranean forests. Rome: FAO.
Feoli E, Vuerich L, Zerihun W. 2002. Evaluation of environmen-
tal degradation in Northern Ethiopia using GIS to integrate
vegetation, geomorphological, erosion and socio-economic
factors. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 91:313–325. doi:10.1016/
S0167-8809(01)00236-5
 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology
Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. 2009. Defining and classifying
ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ. 68:643–
653. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014
Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J. 2005. Adaptive governance
of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour.
30:441–473. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
García-Llorente M, Martín-López B, González JA, Alcorlo P,
Montes C. 2008. Social perceptions of the impacts and
benefits of invasive alien species: implications for manage-
ment. Biol Conserv. 141:2969–2983. doi:10.1016/j.
biocon.2008.09.003
[GCEP] General Corporation for Environmental Protection.
2001. First National Report. Amman: GCEP.
Greenacre M. 2007. Correspondence analysis in practice. 2nd ed.
London (UK): Chapman & Hall/CRC Press. (Published in
Spanish translation as La Práctica del Análisis de
Correspondencias, Fundación BBVA, Madrid, 2008).
Greenacre M. 2010. Canonical correspondence analysis in social
science research. In: A chapter in a book “Classification as a
Tool for Research.” Proceedings of the 11th IFCS Biennial
Conference and 33rd Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft
für Klassifikation e.V.; 2009 Mar 13–18; Dresden. Berlin:
Springer; p. 279–286.
Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai
X, Briggs JM. 2008. Global change and the ecology of cities.
Science. 319:756–760. doi:10.1126/science.1150195
Hartter J. 2010. Resource use and ecosystem services in a forest
park landscape. Soc Natur Resour. 23:207–223. doi:10.1080/
08941920903360372
Iftekhar MS, Takama T. 2008. Perceptions of biodiversity, envir-
onmental services, and conservation of planted mangroves: a
case study on Nijhum Dwip Island, Bangladesh. Wetlands
Ecol Manag. 16:119–137. doi:10.1007/s11273-007-9060-8
Jabarin A, Damhoureyeh S. 2006. Estimating the recreational
benefits of Dibeen National Park in Jordan using contingent
valuation and travel cost methods. Pakistan J Biol Sci.
9:2198–2206. doi:10.3923/pjbs.2006.2198.2206
Maass J, Balvanera P, Castillo A, Daily GC, Mooney HA,
Ehrlich P, Quesada M, Miranda A, Jaramillo VJ, García-
Oliva F, et al. 2005. Ecosystem services of tropical dry
forests: insights from long-term ecological and social
research on the Pacific coast of Mexico [Internet]. Ecol
321
Soc. 10:17 [cited 2013 Oct 30]. Available from: http://
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art17/
Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I,
Casado-Arzuaga I, Amo DGD, Gómez-Baggethun E, Oteros-
Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B, et al. 2012.
Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social prefer-
ences. PLoS ONE. 7:e38970. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0038970
[MA] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and
human well-being: synthesis. Washington (DC): Island Press.
[Mo] Ministry of Environment: National Biodiversity Strategy
and Action Plan (NBSAP). 2003. Convention on biological
diversity. Amman: Ministry of Environment.
[MoA] Ministry of Agriculture. 2003. Forests, rangelands and
climate change in Jordan near east region, country reports.
Amman: Ministry of Agriculture.
[MoE] Ministry of Environment. 2000. Jordan biodiversity-first
national report. Convention on biological diversity. Amman:
Ministry of Environment.
Nawash O, Shudiefat M, Al-Tabini R, Al-Khalidi K. 2013.
Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants commonly used by
local Bedouins in the Badia region of Jordan. J
Ethnopharmacol. 148:921–925. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2013.05.044
Negi VS, Maikhuri RK, Rawat LS. 2013. Ecological assessment
and energy budget of fodder consumption in Govind Wildlife
Sanctuary, India. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 20:75–82.
doi:10.1080/13504509.2012.747993
Potschin M, Haines-Young RH. 2006. Rio + 10, sustainabil-
ity science and landscape ecology. Landsc Urban Plan.
75:3–4.
Thondhlana G, Vedeld P, Shackleton S. 2012. Natural resource
use, income and dependence among San and Mier commu-
nities bordering Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, southern
Kalahari, South Africa. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol.
19:460–470. doi:10.1080/13504509.2012.708908
Wallace K. 2007. Classification of ecosystem services: problems
and solutions. Biol Conserv. 139:235–246. doi:10.1016/j.
biocon.2007.07.015
Xu J, Lü Y, Chen L, Liu Y. 2009. Contribution of tourism
development to protected area management: local stake-
holder perspectives. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 16:30–
36. doi:10.1080/13504500902757189