for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords
help
Followed Journals
Journal you Follow: 0
 
Sign Up to follow journals, search in your chosen journals and, optionally, receive Email Alerts when new issues of your Followed Jurnals are published.
Already have an account? Sign In to see the journals you follow.
Journal Cover Ecosystem Services
   Journal TOC RSS feeds Export to Zotero [7 followers]  Follow    
   Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
     ISSN (Print) 2212-0416
     Published by Elsevier Homepage  [2570 journals]   [H-I: 1]
  • Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and poverty
           alleviation: A conceptual framework
    • Abstract: Publication date: March 2014
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 7
      Author(s): Janet A. Fisher , Genevieve Patenaude , Kalpana Giri , Kristina Lewis , Patrick Meir , Patricia Pinho , Mark D.A. Rounsevell , Mathew Williams
      As interest grows in the contribution of ecosystem services to poverty alleviation, we present a new conceptual framework, synthesizing insights from existing frameworks in social–ecological systems science and international development. People have differentiated abilities to benefit from ecosystem services, and the framework places emphasis on access to services, which may constrain the poorest more than aggregate availability. Distinctions are also made between categories of ecosystem service in their contribution to wellbeing, provisioning services and cash being comparatively easy to control. The framework gives analytical space for understanding the contribution of payments for ecosystem services to wellbeing, as distinct from direct ecosystem services. It also highlights the consumption of ecosystem services by external actors, through land appropriation or agricultural commodities. Important conceptual distinctions are made between poverty reduction and prevention, and between human response options of adaptation and mitigation in response to environmental change. The framework has applications as a thinking tool, laying out important relationships such that an analyst could identify and understand these in a particular situation. Most immediately, this has research applications, as a basis for multidisciplinary, policy-relevant research, but there are also applications to support practitioners in pursuing joint policy objectives of environmental sustainability and poverty alleviation.


      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • A review and application of the evidence for nitrogen impacts on ecosystem
           services
    • Abstract: Publication date: March 2014
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 7
      Author(s): L. Jones , A. Provins , M. Holland , G. Mills , F. Hayes , B. Emmett , J. Hall , L. Sheppard , R. Smith , M. Sutton , K. Hicks , M. Ashmore , R. Haines-Young , L. Harper-Simmonds
      Levels of reactive nitrogen (N) in the atmosphere have declined by around 25% in Europe since 1990. Ecosystem services provide a framework for valuing N impacts on the environment, and this study provides a synthesis of evidence for atmospheric N deposition effects on ecosystem services. We estimate the marginal economic value of the decline in N deposition on six ecosystem services in the UK. This decline resulted in a net benefit (Equivalent Annual Value) of £65m (£5m to £123m, 95% CI). There was a cost (loss of value) for provisioning services: timber and livestock production of −£6.2m (−£3.5m to −£9.2m, 95% CI). There was a cost for CO2 sequestration and a benefit for N2O emissions which combined amounted to a cost for greenhouse gas regulation of −£15.7m (−£4.5m to −£30.6m). However, there were benefits for the cultural services of recreational fishing and appreciation of biodiversity, which amounted to £87.7m (£13.1m to £163.0m), outweighing costs to provisioning and regulating services. Knowledge gaps in both the under-pinning science and in the value-transfer evidence prevent economic valuation of many services, particularly for cultural services, providing only a partial picture of N impacts which may underestimate the benefits of reducing N deposition.
      Graphical abstract image

      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • Civic ecology practices: Participatory approaches to generating and
           measuring ecosystem services in cities
    • Abstract: Publication date: March 2014
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 7
      Author(s): Marianne E. Krasny , Alex Russ , Keith G. Tidball , Thomas Elmqvist
      Civic ecology practices are community-based, environmental stewardship actions taken to enhance green infrastructure, ecosystem services, and human well-being in cities and other human-dominated landscapes. Examples include tree planting in post-Katrina New Orleans, oyster restoration in New York City, community gardening in Detroit, friends of parks groups in Seattle, and natural area restoration in Cape Flats, South Africa. Whereas civic ecology practices are growing in number and represent a participatory approach to management and knowledge production as called for by global sustainability initiatives, only rarely are their contributions to ecosystem services measured. In this paper, we draw on literature sources and our prior research in urban social-ecological systems to explore protocols for monitoring biodiversity, functional measures of ecosystem services, and ecosystem services valuation that can be adapted for use by practitioner-scientist partnerships in civic ecology settings. Engaging civic ecology stewards in collecting such measurements presents opportunities to gather data that can be used as feedback in an adaptive co-management process. Further, we suggest that civic ecology practices not only create green infrastructure that produces ecosystem services, but also constitute social-ecological processes that directly generate ecosystem services (e.g., recreation, education) and associated benefits to human well-being.


      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • The complexity of the institution of payment for environmental services: A
           case study of two Indonesian PES schemes
    • Abstract: Publication date: December 2013
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 6
      Author(s): Akhmad Fauzi , Zuzy Anna
      Payments for Environmental Services (PES) have been widely adopted worldwide as a new market-based initiative for conservation and environmental management. In Indonesia several PES initiatives exist ranging from watershed and terrestrial to marine ecosystem. Nevertheless, developing and managing PES programs in Indonesia are exacerbated by the complexity of institutional arrangements. Fiscal constraints are still the main obstacle of sustainable financing of PES mechanism. Rules and regulations with regard to PES fiscal mechanism are rather lacking, making it difficult for effective management of PES programs. As a consequence, efficient mechanism between users (firms) and environmental services is rather weak. This paper explores such a problem based on case studies of two existing PES programs in Indonesia. The paper analyzes the complexity of fiscal mechanism as a derivative of regulations and discusses challenges to overcome the constraints.


      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • Payments for ecosystem services in Vietnam: Market-based incentives or
           state control of resources?
    • Abstract: Publication date: September 2013
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 5
      Author(s): Diana Suhardiman , Dennis Wichelns , Guillaume Lestrelin , Chu Thai Hoanh
      Payments for ecosystem services often are viewed as an innovative approach toward improving natural resource management, while also providing opportunities for enhancing incomes and livelihoods. Yet not all PES programs are designed and implemented in ways that reflect voluntary transactions between buyers and providers of well-defined, measurable ecosystem services. When third-party interests, such as donors or governments, design PES programs to achieve goals that lie outside the conceptual scope of payments for ecosystem services, the improvements in resource management and enhancements in livelihoods can fall short of expectations. We examine this potential dissonance in PES program implementation, taking the case of PES in the forestry sector in Vietnam. We question whether PES in Vietnam has the potential to enhance forest protection and watershed management. We highlight the importance of institutions and governance (i.e., the policies, rules, and regulations) in determining program significance and we illustrate how PES programs are implemented as part of the government's subsidy scheme. We conclude that in the absence of a competitive market structure and appropriate regulations, governments can reshape PES programs to function primarily as tools for strengthening state control over natural resources.


      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • Managing natural wealth: Research and implementation of ecosystem services
           in the United States and Canada
    • Abstract: Publication date: December 2012
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 2
      Author(s): Jennifer L. Molnar , Ida Kubiszewski
      The United States and Canada have vast stores of ecological wealth that provide often unseen but critical benefits to the people and economy of each country. The close ties between ecology and the economy make it urgent that action is taken to address the risks of ecosystem degradation, but these close ties also present opportunities to develop new incentives for ecosystem conservation. To highlight the diversity of approaches being implemented in the US and Canada, we describe examples of programs seeking to maintain ecosystem services from wetlands, agricultural lands, forests, and water quality. Corporations are also beginning to account for ecosystem service values. Innovative solutions are being developed mostly within existing government and corporate policies that allow for ecosystem service accounting. To further mainstream ecosystem service values into broader economic decisions, new policies are necessary that not only allow but mandate their inclusion in decisions and reporting.
      Highlights ► United States and Canada’s ecological wealth is closely tied to their economies. ► Evidence of these connections can inform decision-making to stem ecosystem decline. ► Programs protect services in wetlands, agriculture lands, forests, water quality. ► Need government and corporate policies that drive ecosystem service mainstreaming.

      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • Ecosystem services—science, policy and practice: Introduction to the
           journal and the inaugural issue
    • Abstract: Publication date: July 2012
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 1, Issue 1
      Author(s): Leon C. Braat



      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and
           economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy
    • Abstract: Publication date: July 2012
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 1, Issue 1
      Author(s): Leon C. Braat , Rudolf de Groot
      The Ecosystem Services Journal starts in 2012 with a formidable basis in the reports and books from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and TEEB projects. Following a half-century history of growing awareness and associated scientific based policy development a bridging concept with natural and social science notions was developed and coined “ecosystem services”. The agenda for the journal Ecosystem Services, presented in this introductory paper to the Journal Ecosystem Services is aimed at scientists and policy analysts who consider contributing to better knowledge and better use of that knowledge about ecosystem services. This should include knowledge of the ecological systems that provide the services, the economic systems that benefit from them, and the institutions that need to develop effective codes for a sustainable use. The agenda is derived from the experience of the authors in science and policy analysis and extended with some of the recommendations from the TEEB book for national and international policy making emphasising the science—policy—practice linkage, which is the philosophy of the Journal.
      Highlights ► A short overview of key concepts in ecosystem services. ► A short review of the history of the concept in ecological and economic publications. ► An extensive research agenda.

      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • The authorship structure of “ecosystem services” as a
           transdisciplinary field of scholarship
    • Abstract: Publication date: July 2012
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 1, Issue 1
      Author(s): Robert Costanza , Ida Kubiszewski
      “Ecosystem Services” is now a well-defined and active enough field of scholarship to warrant its own academic journal (this paper is published in the inaugural issue). In this paper we describe the authorship structure of this rapidly emerging transdisciplinary field, which has so far generated over 2400 papers (as of January 2011) listed in ISI Web of Science journals, written by over 2000 authors since the 1990s. We describe the number of publications, the number and interconnection of co-authors, clusters of co-authors, and other variables for the top 172 authors who have authored or co-authored more than 5 papers each. These 172 authors together have written over half the total papers. This allows a coherent picture of current participants in the field and their collaborative interconnections. These methods can be applied to any topic area and represent one way to better understand and support emerging scholarship that goes beyond disciplinary boundaries.
      Highlights ► Ecosystem services is a rapidly emerging field of transdisciplinary scholarship. ► We describe the co-authorship structure of the field for the top 172 authors. ► Clusters of co-authorship reveal aspects of the social capital in the field. ► Ecosystem services is highly productive compared to other fields.

      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • The indicator side of ecosystem services
    • Abstract: Publication date: July 2012
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 1, Issue 1
      Author(s): Felix Müller , Benjamin Burkhard
      In this short welcome note for the new journal “Ecosystem Services”, the main interrelations between the ecosystem service concept and the approach of ecological indicators are briefly discussed with respect to three key issues: at first, some definitions are analyzed to answer the question if ecosystem services can be understood as ecological indicators. Due to a positive answer, the position of ecosystem services in the DPSIR indicator framework is determined as the central impact component. It is stated that different viewpoints are possible to interrelate the services; an environmental starting point focusing on the linkage to ecological processes and functions on the one side, and the relations with human well-being criteria and management obligations on the other. Finally, the actual needs for further research and application are outlined from an indicator-based aspect and the broad field of potential contributions for the new journal is summarized.
      Highlights ► Ecosystem services are comprehended as ecological indicators. ► Ecosystem services can be understood as impacts within the DPSIR framework. ► There are several qualitative demands for ecosystem service indicators referring to science as well as application. ► Several research questions can be taken as guidelines for future ecosystem service indication.

      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the
           European Union
    • Abstract: Publication date: July 2012
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 1, Issue 1
      Author(s): Joachim Maes , Benis Egoh , Louise Willemen , Camino Liquete , Petteri Vihervaara , Jan Philipp Schägner , Bruna Grizzetti , Evangelia G. Drakou , Alessandra La Notte , Grazia Zulian , Faycal Bouraoui , Maria Luisa Paracchini , Leon Braat , Giovanni Bidoglio
      Mainstreaming ecosystem services into policy and decision making is dependent on the availability of spatially explicit information on the state and trends of ecosystems and their services. In particular, the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 addresses the need to account for ecosystem services through biophysical mapping and valuation. This paper reviews current mapping methods, identifies current knowledge gaps and provides the elements for a methodological framework for mapping and assessing ecosystems and their services at European scale. Current mapping methodologies go beyond purely land cover based assessments and include the use of primary data of ecosystem services, the use of functional traits to map ecosystem services and the development of models and ecological production functions. Additional research is needed to cover marine ecosystems and to include the resilience of ecosystems to environmental change in spatially explicit assessments. The ecosystem services cascade which connects ecosystems to human wellbeing is argued to provide a suitable, stepwise framework for mapping ecosystem services in order to support EU policies in a more effective way. We demonstrate the use of this framework for mapping using the water purification service as case.
      Highlights ► Mainstreaming of ecosystem services into EU policy is dependent spatial information. ► We summarize current methods of mapping ecosystem services. ► We identify knowledge gaps in mapping ecosystem services. ► We propose a stepwise framework for mapping ecosystem services. ► We demonstrate the use of the framework for mapping using water purification.

      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • Ecosystem services: The economics debate
    • Abstract: Publication date: July 2012
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 1, Issue 1
      Author(s): Joshua Farley
      The goal of this paper is to illuminate the debate concerning the economics of ecosystem services. The sustainability debate focuses on whether or not ecosystem services are essential for human welfare and the existence of ecological thresholds. If ecosystem services are essential, then marginal analysis and monetary valuation are inappropriate tools in the vicinity of thresholds. The justice debate focuses on who is entitled to ecosystem services and the ecosystem structure that generates them. Answers to these questions have profound implications for the choice of suitable economic institutions. The efficiency debate concerns both the goals of economic activity and the mechanisms best suited to achieve those goals. Conventional economists pursue Pareto efficiency and the maximization of monetary value, achieved by integrating ecosystem services into the market framework. Ecological economists and many others pursue the less rigorously defined goal of achieving the highest possible quality of life compatible with the conservation of resilient, healthy ecosystems, achieved by adapting economic institutions to the physical characteristics of ecosystem services. The concept of ecosystem services is a valuable tool for economic analysis, and should not be discarded because of disagreements with particular economists' assumptions regarding sustainability, justice and efficiency.
      Highlights ► Ecosystem services (ES) have generated several important debates in economics. ► These debates concern sustainability, justice and efficiency (SJ&E). ► Desirability of market allocation depends on how SJ&E are defined. ► Conventional and ecological economists have different definitions of SJ&E. ► Economic assessments of ES should explicitly state their assumption concerning SJ&E.

      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary
           units
    • Abstract: Publication date: July 2012
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 1, Issue 1
      Author(s): Rudolf de Groot , Luke Brander , Sander van der Ploeg , Robert Costanza , Florence Bernard , Leon Braat , Mike Christie , Neville Crossman , Andrea Ghermandi , Lars Hein , Salman Hussain , Pushpam Kumar , Alistair McVittie , Rosimeiry Portela , Luis C. Rodriguez , Patrick ten Brink , Pieter van Beukering
      This paper gives an overview of the value of ecosystem services of 10 main biomes expressed in monetary units. In total, over 320 publications were screened covering over 300 case study locations. Approximately 1350 value estimates were coded and stored in a searchable Ecosystem Service Value Database (ESVD). A selection of 665 value estimates was used for the analysis. Acknowledging the uncertainties and contextual nature of any valuation, the analysis shows that the total value of ecosystem services is considerable and ranges between 490 int$/year for the total bundle of ecosystem services that can potentially be provided by an ‘average’ hectare of open oceans to almost 350,000 int$/year for the potential services of an ‘average’ hectare of coral reefs. More importantly, our results show that most of this value is outside the market and best considered as non-tradable public benefits. The continued over-exploitation of ecosystems thus comes at the expense of the livelihood of the poor and future generations. Given that many of the positive externalities of ecosystems are lost or strongly reduced after land use conversion better accounting for the public goods and services provided by ecosystems is crucial to improve decision making and institutions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable ecosystem management.
      Highlights ► We screened over 300 case studies on the monetary value of ecosystem services. ► The average value (market and non-market) of 10 main ecosystem types was calculated. ► The total value ranged between 490 (Open Ocean) and 350,000 (Coral Reefs) Int$/ha/yr. ► Most of the monetary value of ecosystem services is not captured in markets.

      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • Ecosystem service values for mangroves in Southeast Asia: A meta-analysis
           and value transfer application
    • Abstract: Publication date: July 2012
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 1, Issue 1
      Author(s): Luke M. Brander , Alfred J. Wagtendonk , Salman S. Hussain , Alistair McVittie , Peter H. Verburg , Rudolf S. de Groot , Sander van der Ploeg
      This paper examines the value of ecosystem services provided by mangroves. It presents a meta-analysis of the economic valuation literature and applies the estimated value function to assess the value of mangroves in Southeast Asia. We construct a database containing 130 value estimates, largely for mangroves in Southeast Asia. Values are standardised to US$ per hectare per year in 2007 prices. The mean and median values are found to be 4185 and 239 US$/ha/year respectively. The values of mangrove ecosystem services are highly variable across study sites due to, amongst other factors, the bio-physical characteristics of the site and the socio-economic characteristics of the beneficiaries of ecosystem services. We include explanatory variables in the meta-analysis to account for these influences on estimated mangrove values. A geographic information system (GIS) is used to quantify potentially important spatial variables, including the abundance of mangroves, the population of beneficiaries, and the density of roads in the vicinity of each study site. The meta-analytic value function is used to estimate the change in value of mangrove ecosystem services in Southeast Asia under a baseline scenario of mangrove loss for the period 2000–2050. The estimated foregone annual benefits in 2050 are US$ 2.2 billion, with a prediction interval of US$ 1.6–2.8 billion.
      Highlights ► We estimate the monetary value of mangrove ecosystem services in Southeast Asia. ► We conduct a meta-analysis of mangrove values to estimate a value function. ► Values are shown to be highly variable depending on biophysical and socioeconomic factors. ► GIS data is used to define a spatially explicit baseline scenario for mangrove loss 2000–2050. ► Estimated foregone annual benefits in 2050 are US$ 2.2 billion (95% prediction interval 1.6–2.8).

      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • An economic assessment of the ecosystem service benefits derived from the
           SSSI biodiversity conservation policy in England and Wales
    • Abstract: Publication date: July 2012
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 1, Issue 1
      Author(s): Mike Christie , Matt Rayment
      Despite significant conservation efforts, global biodiversity continues to decline. A key contributing factor has been a failure to fully recognise the range of ecosystem service benefits provided by biodiversity. In this paper, we use a case study relating to Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in England and Wales to demonstrate the potential ecosystem service benefits that can be derived from biodiversity conservation policies. Our approach involved three stages: (1) a choice experiment to assess the economic value of ecosystem services delivered by SSSI sites; (2) a ‘weighting matrix’ to (a) assign ecosystem services to the different SSSI habitats and (b) identify the contribution that conservation management on SSSIs has on the delivery of these services; (3) estimation of the aggregated economic value of ecosystem services directly attributable to conservation management on SSSI sites. The public are willing to pay £956m annually to secure the levels of services and benefits currently delivered by SSSI conservation activities, and a further £769 million to secure the benefits that would be delivered if SSSIs were all in favourable condition. These benefit estimates significantly exceed the annual £111 million costs of managing SSSIs, demonstrating that investing in biodiversity conservation can be cost effective.
      Highlights ► Biodiversity conservation policies deliver a range of ecosystem service benefits. ► A choice experiment and weighting matrix were used to value the benefits of SSSIs ► SSSI conservation policies provide ecosystem service benefits worth £956m/year. ► These benefits significantly exceed the annual £111m costs of managing SSSIs.

      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: Do
           measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge
           systems?
    • Abstract: Publication date: July 2012
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 1, Issue 1
      Author(s): Eeva Primmer , Eeva Furman
      The scientific community is working on ways to identify different ecosystem services and to bring them on par to allow tradeoff analysis and inform targeting of policies. However, those ultimately governing ecosystem services continue to base their decisions on traditional knowledge production segregated to specific habitats, ecosystems, geographical areas and sectors. The aim of our paper is to tackle the challenges of the transition from sector governance to a more integrated model of ecosystem service governance by building on existing governance arrangements geared towards sustainability. To examine the uptake of ecosystem service approaches, we review published material and conduct secondary analysis of how ecosystem services are identified, measured, mapped and valued in three Finnish real-world governance settings. The governance settings of voluntary biodiversity conservation, urban planning and natural resource strategies show that, at a qualitative level, identifying a broad range of ecosystem services is easy and appealing but cross-comparison and tradeoff analysis face challenges. The analysis demonstrates that measuring all services is impossible and faces difficulties where the services fall between traditional sectoral boundaries. Measuring and valuing services does not directly lead to increased use of this knowledge. We conclude that the mismatch between the governance needs and the ecosystem service paradigm can be closed only if the tools are developed so that they build on existing knowledge systems and governance arrangements but aim at communicating across ecosystem and sector boundaries.
      Highlights ► Reports ecosystem service identification, measuring, mapping and valuing in voluntary biodiversity conservation, urban planning and natural resource strategies. ► Identifying a range of ecosystem services is easy and appealing. ► Cross-comparison and tradeoff analysis face challenges.

      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem
           services
    • Abstract: Publication date: July 2012
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 1, Issue 1
      Author(s): Roldan Muradian , Laura Rival
      The spread of the ecosystem services framework has been accompanied by the promotion of market-based policy instruments for environmental governance. In this paper we clarify the rationale, policy goals and governance challenges of the ecosystem services framework. After systematizing the limitations of market-based policy tools for enhancing the provision of ecosystem services, we argue that hybrid regimes are more suitable (compared to pure markets or hierarchies) to deal with the governance challenges derived from the characteristics of ecosystem services, particularly their common good character and their intrinsic complexity. The paper pleads for an alternative conceptual underpinning of market-based instruments, in order to make them more compatible with hybrid forms of governance. We discuss the major implications of such analytical shift.
      Highlights ► Use of ecosystem services as a key concept for describing the relationship between human societies and the natural environment induces a paradigm shift in the management of natural resources. ► New governance agenda promotes the increased use of market-based policy tools. ► ES are intrinsically complex and not amenable to the commercialization of single services. ► As they tend to be common pool goods rather than private goods, ES are not best governed by markets. ► PES should be treated as incentives within the institutional analysis of social dilemmas

      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • Ineffective biodiversity policy due to five rebound effects
    • Abstract: Publication date: July 2012
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 1, Issue 1
      Author(s): Sara Maestre Andrés , Laura Calvet Mir , Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh , Irene Ring , Peter H. Verburg
      We explore the relationship between biodiversity, ecosystem services and conservation policy. A framework for studying their interdependence is proposed. We argue that a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for making a transition to a truly sustainable economy is that biodiversity conservation and its analysis take into account unwanted and avoidable indirect – i.e. rebound – effects of all kinds of biodiversity policy. We identify five types of such rebound effects and propose the terms biodiversity (two types), ecological, service and environmental rebound for these. The service rebound is associated with the problem of incongruence or conflicts, and thus the potential need for trade-offs, between ecosystem services or between such services and biodiversity conservation. Effective biodiversity policy requires the minimization of these various rebound effects.
      Highlights ► The relation between biodiversity, ecosystem services and conservation is studied. ► Analysis needs to consider unwanted, avoidable effects of biodiversity policies. ► We propose the notions biodiversity, ecological, environmental and service rebound. ► We hypothesize that this approach leads to new insights about biodiversity policy.

      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • The state of the application of ecosystems services in Australia
    • Abstract: Publication date: July 2012
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 1, Issue 1
      Author(s): J. Pittock , S. Cork , S. Maynard
      We review the environmental challenges, cultures and institutions in Australia that have allowed the concept of ecosystem services to be tested and adapted. In some instance the nation has embraced the opportunities offered with ecosystem services forming the core of several large-scale reforms and collaborations that have considered dependence of humans on ecosystems. In other ways, however, the opportunities have been overlooked as Australia lacks effective institutions to consider human–environment interactions holistically and strategically. The term “ecosystem services” appears widely but it is mostly used superficially: often with reference to only a few services. The full suite of services, benefits and beneficiaries if humans and the natural environment are to coexist in the long-term have not been systematically included in decision making and management. Insights are distilled that may be useful in the application of ecosystem services in other parts of the world. Stable and well-funded regional natural resource and river basin management institutions have vital roles. Governance reforms at the national and state (provincial scales) are also needed to apply ecosystem service frameworks and improve accountability for implementation of policy agreements.
      Highlights ► Review of the application of the ecosystem services concept in Australia. ► Numerous, innovative applications of ecosystem services in specific regions and sectors. ► Extensive conflicts between exploitation of provisioning services and conservation of biodiversity. ► No systemic application of ecosystem services frameworks at state and national scales. ► Institutional reforms are recommended for better national, state and regional governance.

      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • RIO+20 outcomes recognize the value of biodiversity and ecosystems:
           Implications for global, regional and national policy
    • Abstract: Publication date: July 2012
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 1, Issue 1
      Author(s): Ibrahim Thiaw , Richard Munang



      PubDate: 2014-10-13T10:24:59Z
       
  • The place of agricultural sciences in the literature on ecosystem services
    • Abstract: Publication date: December 2014
      Source:Ecosystem Services, Volume 10
      Author(s): Elise Tancoigne , Marc Barbier , Jean-Philippe Cointet , Guy Richard
      We performed a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the scientific literature on ecosystem services in order to help tracing a research agenda for agricultural sciences. The ecosystem services concept now lies at the heart of current developments to address global environmental change. Do agricultural sciences generate knowledge that covers this emerging theme? An analysis of scientific production allowed us to return to the ecological origins of this concept and see how little it has been appropriated by agricultural sciences until now, despite major focus on the issue of agro-ecosystems in the literature. Agricultural sciences tend to be more active in the field of environmental services, defined as services rendered by humans to ecosystems. The main studied services are those which have already been clearly identified and which act in synergy. Less attention is paid to the antagonisms between different services. These findings call for the implementation of agricultural research programmes that will consider the socio-agro-ecosystem as a whole and broaden the traditional issues addressed by agricultural sciences. We insist on three main management and operational issues that needs to be overcome if this is to be done: working at the landscape scale, increasing inter-disciplinary collaborations and take uncertainties into account.


      PubDate: 2014-09-17T12:15:10Z
       
  • Relationships between anthropogenic pressures and ecosystem functions in
           UK blanket bogs: Linking process understanding to ecosystem service
           valuation
    • Abstract: Publication date: Available online 21 August 2014
      Source:Ecosystem Services
      Author(s): Chris D. Evans , Aletta Bonn , Joseph Holden , Mark S. Reed , Martin G. Evans , Fred Worrall , John Couwenberg , Mark Parnell
      Quantification and valuation of ecosystem services are critically dependent on the quality of underpinning science. While key ecological processes may be understood, translating this understanding into quantitative relationships suitable for use in an ecosystem services context remains challenging. Using blanket bogs as a case study, we derived quantitative ‘pressure-response functions’ linking anthropogenic pressures (drainage, burning, sulphur and nitrogen deposition) with ecosystem functions underpinning key climate, water quality and flood regulating services. The analysis highlighted: i) the complex, sometimes conflicting or interactive effects of multiple anthropogenic pressures on different ecosystem functions; ii) the role of ‘biodiversity’ (primarily presence/absence of key plant functional types) as an intermediate factor determining how anthropogenic pressures translate into changes in flows of some ecosystem services; iii) challenges relating to the spatial scale and configuration of anthropogenic pressures and ecosystem service beneficiaries; and iv) uncertainties associated with the lags between anthropogenic pressures and ecosystem responses. The conceptual approach described may provide a basis for a more quantitative, multi-parameter approach to the valuation of ecosystem services and the evidence-based optimisation of policy and land-management for ecosystem services.


      PubDate: 2014-09-06T17:19:29Z
       
  • Investing in nature: Developing ecosystem service markets for peatland
           restoration
    • Abstract: Publication date: Available online 14 August 2014
      Source:Ecosystem Services
      Author(s): Aletta Bonn , Mark S. Reed , Chris D. Evans , Hans Joosten , Clifton Bain , Jenny Farmer , Igino Emmer , John Couwenberg , Andrew Moxey , Rebekka Artz , Franziska Tanneberger , Moritz von Unger , Mary-Ann Smyth , Dick Birnie
      To meet the challenge of proactive ecosystem-based climate mitigation and adaptation, new sources of funding are needed. Peatlands provide the most efficient global store of terrestrial carbon. Degraded peatlands, however, contribute disproportionally to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with approximately 25% of all CO2 emissions from the land use sector, while restoration can be cost-effective. Peatland restoration therefore provides a newopportunity for investing in ecosystem-based mitigation through the development of carbon markets. Set in the international policy and carbon market context, this paper demonstrates the necessary scientific evidence and policy frameworks needed to develop ecosystem service markets for peatland restoration. Using the UK and NE Germany as case studies, we outline the climate change mitigation potential of peatlands and how changes in GHG emissions after restoration may be measured. We report on market demand research in carbon market investments that provide sponsors with quantification and officially certified recognition of the climate and other co-benefits. Building on this, we develop the necessary requirements for developing regional carbon markets to fund peatland restoration. While this paper focuses on the UK and German context, it draws on international experience, and is likely to be directly applicable across peatlands in Europe and North America.


      PubDate: 2014-09-01T15:55:16Z
       
  • Measurement matters in managing landscape carbon
    • Abstract: Publication date: Available online 23 August 2014
      Source:Ecosystem Services
      Author(s): Elizabeth A. Law , Brett A. Bryan , Nooshin Torabi , Sarah A. Bekessy , Clive A. McAlpine , Kerrie A. Wilson
      Carbon stocks and emissions are quantified using many different measures and metrics, and these differ in their surrogacy, measurement, and incentive value. To evaluate potential policy impacts of using different carbon measures, we modeled and mapped carbon in above-ground and below-ground stocks, as well as fluxes related to sequestration, oxidation and combustion in the Ex Mega Rice Project Area in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. We identify significant financial and carbon emission mitigation consequences of proxy choice in relation to the achievement of national emissions reduction targets. We find that measures of above-ground biomass carbon stock have both high measurement and incentive value, but low surrogacy for potential emissions or the potential for emissions reductions. The inclusion of below-ground carbon increased stocks and flows by an order of magnitude, highlighting the importance of protecting and managing soil carbon and peat. Carbon loss and potential emissions reduction is highest in the areas of deep peat, which supports the use of deep peat as a legislative metric. Divergence in patterns across sub-regions and through time further emphasizes the importance of proxy choice and highlights the need to carefully consider the objectives of the application to which the measure of carbon will be applied.
      Graphical abstract image

      PubDate: 2014-09-01T15:55:16Z
       
  • Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: A
           systematic review
    • Abstract: Publication date: Available online 27 June 2014
      Source:Ecosystem Services
      Author(s): P.A. Harrison , P.M. Berry , G. Simpson , J.R. Haslett , M. Blicharska , M. Bucur , R. Dunford , B. Egoh , M. Garcia-Llorente , N. Geamănă , W. Geertsema , E. Lommelen , L. Meiresonne , F. Turkelboom
      A systematic literature review was undertaken to analyse the linkages between different biodiversity attributes and 11 ecosystem services. The majority of relationships between attributes and ecosystem services cited in the 530 studies were positive. For example, the services of water quality regulation, water flow regulation, mass flow regulation and landscape aesthetics were improved by increases in community and habitat area. Functional traits, such as richness and diversity, also displayed a predominantly positive relationship across the services, most commonly discussed for atmospheric regulation, pest regulation and pollination. A number of studies also discussed a positive correlation with stand age, particularly for atmospheric regulation. Species level traits were found to benefit a number of ecosystem services, with species abundance being particularly important for pest regulation, pollination and recreation, and species richness for timber production and freshwater fishing. Instances of biodiversity negatively affecting the examined ecosystem services were few in number for all ecosystem services, except freshwater provision. The review showed that ecosystem services are generated from numerous interactions occurring in complex systems. However, improving understanding of at least some of the key relationships between biodiversity and service provision will help guide effective management and protection strategies.


      PubDate: 2014-07-26T11:42:15Z
       
  • Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes
           using a capital asset framework
    • Abstract: Publication date: Available online 18 June 2014
      Source:Ecosystem Services
      Author(s): Adam P. Hejnowicz , David G. Raffaelli , Murray A. Rudd , Piran C.L. White
      There is a limited understanding of the conditions under which payments for ecosystem services (PES) programmes achieve improvements in ecosystem service (ES) flows, enhance natural resource sustainability or foster sustainable livelihoods. We used a capital asset framework to evaluate PES programmes in terms of their social, environmental, economic and institutional outcomes, focusing on efficiency, effectiveness and equity trade-offs. We found that PES schemes can provide positive conservation and development outcomes with respect to livelihoods, land-use change, household and community incomes, and governance. However, programmes differ with regards to contract agreements, payment modes, and compliance, and have diverse cross-sector institutional arrangements that remain primarily state-structured and external donor-financed. There is a consistent lack of focus on evaluating and fostering human, social and institutional capital. This reflects general inattention to how PES programmes consider the causal links between ES and outcomes. To enhance ES production and PES scheme accessibility and participation, we recommend strengthening the linkages between ES production and land-use practices, boosting private and voluntary sector involvement, encouraging property rights and tenure reform, improving financial viability, and adequately accounting for the distribution of programme costs and benefits among participants.


      PubDate: 2014-07-26T11:42:15Z
       
 
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
 
About JournalTOCs
API
Help
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-2014