Ecosystem Services

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leon C. Braat
Keyword(s):  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Nature Management ◽  
Human Society ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Policy And Planning

The concept of ecosystem services considers the usefulness of nature for human society. The economic importance of nature was described and analyzed in the 18th century, but the term ecosystem services was introduced only in 1981. Since then it has spurred an increasing number of academic publications, international research projects, and policy studies. Now a subject of intense debate in the global scientific community, from the natural to social science domains, it is also used, developed, and customized in policy arenas and considered, if in a still somewhat skeptical and apprehensive way, in the “practice” domain—by nature management agencies, farmers, foresters, and corporate business. This process of bridging evident gaps between ecology and economics, and between nature conservation and economic development, has also been felt in the political arena, including in the United Nations and the European Union (which have placed it at the center of their nature conservation and sustainable use strategies). The concept involves the utilitarian framing of those functions of nature that are used by humans and considered beneficial to society as economic and social services. In this light, for example, the disappearance of biodiversity directly affects ecosystem functions that underpin critical services for human well-being. More generally, the concept can be defined in this manner: Ecosystem services are the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems, in interaction with contributions from human society, to human well-being. The concept underpins four major discussions: (1) Academic: the ecological versus the economic dimensions of the goods and services that flow from ecosystems to the human economy; the challenge of integrating concepts and models across this paradigmatic divide; (2) Social: the risks versus benefits of bringing the utilitarian argument into political debates about nature conservation (Are ecosystem services good or bad for biodiversity and vice versa?); (3) Policy and planning: how to value the benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services (Will this improve decision-making on topics ranging from poverty alleviation via subsidies to farmers to planning of grey with green infrastructure to combining economic growth with nature conservation?); and (4) Practice: Can revenue come from smart management and sustainable use of ecosystems? Are there markets to be discovered and can businesses be created? How do taxes figure in an ecosystem-based economy? The outcomes of these discussions will both help to shape policy and planning of economies at global, national, and regional scales and contribute to the long-term survival and well-being of humanity.

scholarly journals Biophysical Accounting of Forests’ Value Under Different Management Regimes: Conservation vs Exploitation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Vassallo ◽  
Claudia Turcato ◽  
Rigo Ilaria ◽  
Claudia Scopesi ◽  
Andrea Costa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Forest Ecosystems ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Radical Change ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Cultural Ecosystem Services ◽  
Production Flow ◽  
Common Beech ◽  
Stocks And Flows

Forest ecosystems are important providers of ecosystem functions and services belonging to four categories: supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services. Forest management, generally focused on timber production, has consequences on the ability of the system to keep providing services. Silviculture, in fact, may affect ecological structures and processes from which services arise. In particular, the removal of biomass causes a radical change in the stocks and flows of energy characterizing the system. Aiming at the assessment of differences in stored natural capital and ecosystem functions and services provision, three differently managed temperate forests of common beech (Fagus sylvatica) were considered: (1) a forest in semi-natural condition, (2) a forest carefully managed to get timber in a sustainable way and (3) a forest exploited without management. Natural capital and ecosystem functions and services are here accounted in biophysical terms. Specifically, all the resources used up to create the biomass (stock) and maintain the production (flow) of the different components of the forest system were calculated. Both stored emergy and empower decrease at increasing human pressure on the forest, resulting in a loss of natural capital and a diminished ability of the natural system to contribute to human well-being in terms of ecosystem services provision.

scholarly journals Biophysical Accounting of Forests’ Value under Different Management Regimes: Conservation vs. Exploitation

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 4638
Author(s):  
Paolo Vassallo ◽  
Claudia Turcato ◽  
Ilaria Rigo ◽  
Claudia Scopesi ◽  
Andrea Costa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Forest Ecosystems ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Radical Change ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Cultural Ecosystem Services ◽  
Production Flow ◽  
Common Beech ◽  
Stocks And Flows

Forest ecosystems are important providers of ecosystem functions and services belonging to four categories: supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services. Forest management, generally focused on timber production, has consequences on the ability of the system to keep providing services. Silviculture, in fact, may affect the ecological structures and processes from which services arise. In particular, the removal of biomass causes a radical change in the stocks and flows of energy characterizing the system. Aiming at the assessment of differences in stored natural capital and ecosystem functions and services provision, three differently managed temperate forests of common beech (Fagus sylvatica) were considered: (1) a forest in semi-natural condition, (2) a forest carefully managed to get timber in a sustainable way and (3) a forest exploited without management. Natural capital and ecosystem functions and services are here accounted in biophysical terms. Specifically, all the resources used up to create the biomass (stock) and maintain the production (flow) of the different components of the forest system were calculated. Both stored emergy and empower decrease with increasing human pressure on the forest, resulting in a loss of natural capital and a diminished ability of the natural system to contribute to human well-being in terms of ecosystem services provision.

Ecotoxicology and sustainable use of the planet

2002 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 162-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Cairns
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Support System ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Spatial Scales ◽  
Critical Mass ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Human Society ◽  
Life Support System ◽  
Natural Systems

The goal of sustainable use is indefinite use of the planet by humankind. This objective, in turn, requires that the planet’s ecological life support system, consisting of natural capital and ecosystem services, remains healthy for an indefinite period. Achieving sustainability will require a new view of the responsibilities of professionals, such as ecotoxicologists, to ensure a healthy ecological life support system. Because both human society and natural systems are complex and multivariate, a high degree of uncertainty will remain. Therefore, sound judgment will be needed in determining what, if any, precautionary measures should be taken until more robust information has been gathered. The role of ecotoxicologists in the quest for sustainable use of the planet is quite varied: 1) shifting goals and endpoints from an absence of harm to persuasive evidence of health; 2) increasing both temporal and spatial scales of ecotoxicological studies; 3) achieving a critical mass of qualified personnel; 4) including demographic change in ecotoxicological analysis and judgment; 5) developing new ecological thresholds; 6) being prepared for environmental surprises; 7) focusing on design for a quality environment; 8) developing ecosystem services as endpoints in ecotoxicological studies, and 9) being prepared for climate change and other events that might destabilize the biosphere and require major adjustments in the process of ecotoxicological testing. Both sustainable use of the planet and the field of ecotoxicology are rapidly developing fields that are mostly evolving in isolation from each other. To be successful, they must co-evolve.

scholarly journals Nexus between Indigenous Ecological Knowledge and Ecosystem Services: A Socio-Ecological Analysis for Sustainable Ecosystem Management

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manob Das ◽  
Arijit Das ◽  
Selim Seikh ◽  
Rajiv Pandey
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Management ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Belief Systems ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Ecological Knowledge ◽  
Human Society ◽  
Indigenous Ecological Knowledge ◽  
Demographic Attributes ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The well-being of the human society cannot be ensured and sustainable unless the flow of Ecosystem Services (ESs) would be matching with their consistent demand. The consistent flow of ESs required sustainable management of ecological resources of the ecosystem. The management of ecosystem can be ensured with variety of approaches. Integration of indigenous ecological knowledge (IEK) in management prescription with the view that IEK based extraction of ESs ensures removal of resources from the ecosystem within the limit thereby ensuring the sustainability of ecosystem. Present study is an evaluation to understand the nexus between ESs and IEK for sustainable environmental management. The focus of the study was a tribal dominated socio-ecological patch of Barind Region of Malda district, Eastern India. The assessment of ESs and IEK was based on the data collected from the randomly selected tribal households following the pre-tested questionnaire containing questions on ESs as per millennium ecosystem assessment. The data were analyzed following social preference approach, and statistical tests (Krushkal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney). General linear model (GLM) has also been used to examine the impact of socio-demographic attributes on the perceived valuation of ESs. The results revealed that the provisioning ESs (such as water, fuel wood, medical plants) was most preferred followed by cultural and regulating ESs by tribal. Differential importance of ESs was observed among tribal and accounted by gender, education as well as age of the tribe. A gap between the actual accessibility and evaluation of ESs by the tribal communities was also apparent. The socio-demographic attributes have an immense impact on the valuation of ecosystem services and also governed based on the IEK. Various types of indigenous ecological belief systems were closely linked with conservation of ecosystem and sustainable supply of ESs. Present study can contribute to understand socio-ecological nexus with the lens of IEK in tribal dominated ecological landscapes for improved ecosystem and environmental management besides ensuring sustainability of flow of ecosystem services.

Challenges in the development of the geodiversity concept

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Brilha
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Well Being ◽  
University Education ◽  
Conservation Areas ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Environmental Impact Assessments ◽  
Conservation Actions ◽  
Nature Play ◽  
Development Goals

<p>The concept of geodiversity, despite being in use for almost 30 years, still has little impact on society. It is not easy to explain the reason for this dissociation, considering that the elements that constitute geodiversity are intrinsically part of nature, play an essential role in ecosystem services and, consequently, in human well-being.</p><p>During the last decade we have seen a great development in the interest of the geoscientific community in this subject, represented by the increase in the publication of papers and doctoral and master theses all over the world. One of the main challenges is now to transpose all this scientific knowledge into society. Obviously, theoretical and conceptual discussions about geodiversity are an integral part of science and must continue, but if we want that society recognizes the importance and value of geodiversity, we must be able to demonstrate clearly how geodiversity can help to solve some of the problems we face today.</p><p>Among other priorities, the geoscientific community has to be able to demonstrate in an structured way:</p><ul><li>The importance of geodiversity in implementing nature conservation actions and its direct relationship with biodiversity;</li> <li><span>The contribution of geodiversity for ecosystems restoration and its accounting as part of natural capital;</span></li> <li><span>The need to quantify the role of geodiversity in ecosystem services;</span></li> <li><span>The urgency of make environmental impact assessments including all possible effects that may affect geodiversity elements and processes;</span></li> <li><span>The importance of integrate the concept of geodiversity in pre-university education curricula;</span></li> <li><span>That the information and environmental interpretation provided to visitors of protected areas and other conservation areas should always include geodiversity.</span></li> </ul><p>Once the importance of geodiversity is fully recognized by policy-makers, managers, and the society in general, the fulfilment of the UN Sustainable Development Goals will be for sure closer than it is today.</p>

Ecosystem services

2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 575-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion B. Potschin ◽  
Roy H. Haines-Young
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Ecosystem Service ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Physical Geography ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Puzzle Solving ◽  
Emerging Issues ◽  
Stocks And Flows ◽  
Change Impact

The ‘ecosystem service’ debate has taken on many features of a classic Kuhnian paradigm. It challenges conventional wisdoms about conservation and the value of nature, and is driven as much by political agendas as scientific ones. In this paper we review some current and emerging issues arising in relation to the analysis and assessment of ecosystem services, and in particular emphasize the need for physical geographers to find new ways of characterizing the structure and dynamics of service providing units. If robust and relevant valuations are to be made of the contribution that natural capital makes to human well-being, then we need a deeper understanding of the way in which the drivers of change impact on the marginal outputs of ecosystem services. A better understanding of the trade-offs that need to be considered when dealing with multifunctional ecosystems is also required. Future developments must include methods for describing and tracking the stocks and flows that characterize natural capital. This will support valuation of the benefits estimation of the level of reinvestment that society must make in this natural capital base if it is to be sustained. We argue that if the ecosystem service concept is to be used seriously as a framework for policy and management then the biophysical sciences generally, and physical geography in particular, must go beyond the uncritical ‘puzzle solving’ that characterizes recent work. A geographical perspective can provide important new, critical insights into the place-based approaches to ecosystem assessment that are now emerging.

scholarly journals Realities and prospects of using green technologies in Kazakhstan

2020 ◽  
Vol 159 ◽  
pp. 07002
Author(s):  
Galiya Sansyzbayeva ◽  
Laura Ashirbekova ◽  
Kuralay Nurgaliyeva ◽  
Zhuldyz Ametova ◽  
Arailym Asanova
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Green Economy ◽  
Stages Of Development ◽  
Green Technologies ◽  
Minimal Impact ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Innovative Approaches

The particular relevance of the study of issues related to global crises is determined by the fact that although they affect the whole of humanity as a whole, the least economically and socially protected layers of the population in the whole world suffer from their consequences. That is why the key concepts of a green economy are natural capital and the ecosystem services it provides. The main priorities of the green economy concept are to increase the well-being of society with minimal impact on the environment. The article discusses the theoretical aspects of the implementation of the concept of “green” economy in Kazakhstan. The main directions of the “green” economy are highlighted and the results of the transition to a green economy are analyzed. The main stages of development of green economy in Kazakhstan are described. The problems of Kazakhstan’s transition to a “green” course of economic development are studied and the need for innovative approaches in the development of green technologies in the country is substantiated.

scholarly journals Science for the sustainable use of ecosystem services

F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 2622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena M. Bennett ◽  
Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Ecosystem Service ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Service Science ◽  
Human Wellbeing ◽  
History Of ◽  
Value Of Nature

Sustainability is a key challenge for humanity in the 21st century. Ecosystem services—the benefits that people derive from nature and natural capital—is a concept often used to help explain human reliance on nature and frame the decisions we make in terms of the ongoing value of nature to human wellbeing. Yet ecosystem service science has not always lived up to the promise of its potential. Despite advances in the scientific literature, ecosystem service science has not yet answered some of the most critical questions posed by decision-makers in the realm of sustainability. Here, we explore the history of ecosystem service science, discuss advances in conceptualization and measurement, and point toward further work needed to improve the use of ecosystem service in decisions about sustainable development.

Enhancing ecosystem services with no-till

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 102-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Lal
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Soil Depth ◽  
Arable Land ◽  
Economic Incentives ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Water Retention Capacity ◽  
No Till ◽  
Trade Offs

AbstractEcosystem functions and services provided by soils depend on land use and management. The objective of this article is to review and synthesize relevant information on the impacts of no-till (NT) management of croplands on ecosystem functions and services. Sustainable management of soil through NT involves: (i) replacing what is removed, (ii) restoring what has been degraded, and (iii) minimizing on-site and off-site effects. Despite its merits, NT is adopted on merely ∼9% of the 1.5 billion ha of global arable land area. Soil's ecosystem services depend on the natural capital (soil organic matter and clay contents, soil depth and water retention capacity) and its management. Soil management in various agro-ecosystems to enhance food production has some trade-offs/disservices (i.e., decline in biodiversity, accelerated erosion and non-point source pollution), which must be minimized by further developing agricultural complexity to mimic natural ecosystems. However, adoption of NT accentuates many ecosystem services: carbon sequestration, biodiversity, elemental cycling, and resilience to natural and anthropogenic perturbations, all of which can affect food security. Links exist among diverse ecosystem services, such that managing one can adversely impact others. For example, increasing agronomic production can reduce biodiversity and deplete soil organic carbon (SOC), harvesting crop residues for cellulosic ethanol can reduce SOC, etc. Undervaluing ecosystem services can jeopardize finite soil resources and aggravate disservices. Adoption of recommended management practices can be promoted through payments for ecosystem services by a market-based approach so that risks of disservices and negative costs can be reduced either through direct economic incentives or as performance payments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document