Prioritization of Ecosystem Services Research: Tampa Bay Demonstration Project

2011 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 647-658 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Russell ◽  
John Rogers ◽  
Stephen Jordan ◽  
Darrin Dantin ◽  
James Harvey ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachelle Gould ◽  
Noa Lincoln

Cultural ecosystem services (CES) are a crucial but relatively understudied component of the ecosystem services framework. While the number and diversity of categories of other types of ES have steadily increased, CES categories are still largely defined by a few existing typologies. Based on our empirical data, we suggest that those typologies need updating. We analyzed data from interviews conducted in adjacent Hawaiian ecosystems — one agricultural and one forested. We found that current categories of CES do not capture the diversity and nuance of the nonmaterial benefits that people described receiving from ecosystems. We propose three new CES categories: ingenuity, life teaching, and perspective. We discuss issues of lumping and splitting CES categories, and advocate that creating categories for these emerging themes will help us to more fully capture nonmaterial benefits in ecosystem services research and policy.


2015 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 149-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peleg Kremer ◽  
Erik Andersson ◽  
Timon McPhearson ◽  
Thomas Elmqvist

Water ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 1518 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Walter Milon ◽  
Sergio Alvarez

Coastal and marine ecosystem (CME) services provide benefits to people through direct goods and services that may be harvested or enjoyed in situ and indirect services that regulate and support biological and geophysical processes now and in the future. In the past two decades, there has been an increase in the number of studies and journal articles designed to measure the economic value of the world’s CME services, although there is significantly less published research than for terrestrial ecosystems. This article provides a review of the literature on valuation of CME services along with a discussion of the theoretical and practical challenges that must be overcome to utilize valuation results in CME policy and planning at local, regional, and global scales. The review reveals that significant gaps exist in research and understanding of the broad range of CME services and their economic values. It also raises questions about the validity of aggregating ecosystem services as independent components to determine the value of a biome when there is little understanding of the relationships and feedbacks between ecosystems and the services they produce. Finally, the review indicates that economic valuation of CME services has had a negligible impact on the policy process in four main regions around the world. An alternative direction for CME services research would focus on valuing the world’s CME services in a wealth accounting framework.


2017 ◽  
Vol 149 ◽  
pp. 107-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Ruiz-Frau ◽  
S. Gelcich ◽  
I.E. Hendriks ◽  
C.M. Duarte ◽  
N. Marbà

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Haiying Tang ◽  
Guoqin Huang

Agricultural ecosystem is one of the most important ecosystems in the world, which provides multiple ecosystem services such as grain production, climate regulation, water conservation and biodiversity. The degradation of ecosystem services has become an important factor that severely restricts the sustainable development of agriculture. Agroecosystem services have become the core and hot topic of ecological research. In recent years, countries and related institutions have been increasing their research on agricultural ecosystem service. Based on Web of Science(WoS) and China Knowledge Resource Integrated (CNKI) databases, the development characteristics and trends of agroecosystem services research were analyzed by bibliometric methods. The results show that: (1) The number of papers on agroecosystem services is increasing, which shows that the research on it is developing. (2) Developed countries are the main research forces in the field of ecosystem services, and the developed countries in Europe and the United States occupy the absolute leading position; China Agricultural University and the University of California in the United States are the main research institutions. (3) At present, eight research hotspots in this field are the study of ecosystem services mechanism, protection management and sustainability, sustainable development, biodiversity, land use and landscape change, value assessment, climate change, sustainable development of agriculture, ecological compensation. From the overall distribution of research hotspots in each period, the international research focuses more on the interdependence between ecosystem services and ecosystem services and human well-being, while the research in China focuses more on ecosystem services assessment. (4) In recent years, there is a big gap between China and foreign countries in the field of ecosystem services research. It is necessary to strengthen cooperation with research institutions in developed countries in Europe and the United States, and further improve the research content, research vision and research methods


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document