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.

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.

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 Influence of Blue-Green and Grey Infrastructure Combinations on Natural and Human-Derived Capital in Urban Drainage Planning

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 2571
Author(s):  
Sikhululekile Ncube ◽  
Scott Arthur
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Green Infrastructure ◽  
Significant Contribution ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Urban Drainage ◽  
Cultural Ecosystem Services ◽  
Key Factors ◽  
Amenity Value ◽  
Sustainable Drainage Systems

The natural capital and ecosystem services concepts describe the multiple benefits people get from nature. Urbanisation has been identified as one of the key factors influencing the decline of natural capital globally. Urbanisation has also been associated with a recent increase in urban flooding incidents in most cities globally. While the understanding of blue-green infrastructure in urban drainage is well established, little is said about its influence on natural capital. This study utilises the Natural Capital Planning Tool, Benefits Evaluation of Sustainable Drainage Systems tool and expert stakeholder interviews to assess the influence of blue-green and grey infrastructure as adaptation pathways in urban drainage, on natural capital and ecosystem services, and to determine how these contribute to other forms of human-derived capital. Key findings show that blue-green options can enhance natural capital and ecosystem services such as amenity value while also contributing to social and human capital. Although the assessed blue-green options contribute to regulating ecosystem services such as floods regulation, their most significant contribution is in cultural ecosystem services, especially amenity value. It is concluded that incorporating blue-green infrastructure in urban drainage adaptive approaches can mitigate natural capital losses and contribute to other forms of capital crucial for human well-being.

scholarly journals Penilaian Kawasan Hutan dalam Penentuan Kelayakan Luas Areal Perkebunan Kelapa Sawit (Suatu Pendekatan Konseptual)

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 336
Author(s):  
Akhmad Yani
Keyword(s):  
Social Capital ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Forest Ecosystem ◽  
Forest Ecosystems ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Existence Value ◽  
Capital Assets ◽  
Forest Ecosystem Services ◽  
Economic Assets

Most  studies valuation that have been described previously including forest ecosystems do not see the forest ecosystem services as natual capital / natural assets and even the socio-ecological context. The implication is that forest ecosystem services are considered as an economic asset / economic capital.  the concept of value used in the valuation is the concept of the value of output.  Though the forest ecosystem services has the characteristics of a sustainable dynamic and as part of the life supporting system including the ability resilience and self-terrific capacity. So that the forest ecosystem is no longer seen as economic assets, but with the characteristics of the dynamic and sustainable forest ecosystem is seen as natural or natural capital assets. The current perspective marginalize other forest ecosystem functions, such as socio-economic functions. Whereas the concept of an insurance value of forest ecosystems is not just the case as seen from the perspective as natural capital, but the role of social values in maintaining the sustainability of forest ecosystems is crucial, as reflected by the presence of heritage value, and existence value. So that the insurance value of the forest ecosystem occurs because the forest ecosystem serves as a natural asset / natural and social capital assets / social capital.

scholarly journals A novel approach of mapping landscape aesthetic value and its validation with rural tourism data

2019 ◽  
pp. 283-301
Author(s):  
Zsuzsanna Lontai-Szilágyi ◽  
Boglárka Bertalan-Balázs ◽  
Bernadett Zsiros ◽  
Mária Vasvári ◽  
Singh Sudhir Kumar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Land Cover ◽  
Tourism Development ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Rural Tourism ◽  
Landscape Aesthetics ◽  
Cultural Ecosystem Services ◽  
Aesthetic Value ◽  
Tourism Product

Landscape aesthetic research that emerged from the second half of the 20th century has become increasingly appreciated and popular in the last few decades. There are two main reasons for this. On the one hand, it was recognized the role of landscape aesthetics in land use and environmental planning, management and conservation. On the other hand, its definition among Cultural Ecosystem Services has made it clear that landscape aesthetics has significant impact on human well-being and there is a need to examine it in the concept of Ecosystem Services and, in particular, Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES). The mapping of landscape aesthetics is mostly based on the exclusive evaluation of objective, biophysical landscape factors. The aim of the research was to create the landscape aesthetic map of Hungary with a novel method based on human perception. For this, a questionnaire survey and a GIS approach were used. In order to better understand the role of factors influencing the aesthetic value of the landscape, value maps separately for land cover and elevation that are decisive for the landscape experience were prepared. To validate the results of the maps, and contribute a better understanding of the interrelationship between CES, a certain tourism product was chosen, and the connection between landscape aesthetics and the offer of rural tourism was examined in Hungary and in the Danube Bend priority tourism development area. Our findings show that there is a difference in the results of the objective (GIS-based) and subjective (questionnaire-based) assessment of landscape aesthetic value with the more important role of elevation in the latter. According to our tourism product-based analysis, which represents a niche approach in its kind, landscape values are higher in the areas with rural accommodation. At the same time, based on the results of the Danube Bend region, it can also be concluded that elevation and land cover together are crucial factors in landscapes considered to be the most valuable in aesthetic terms. The most direct practical application of our research is to orientate further tourism development of the new Danube Bend area designated in 2017.

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>

scholarly journals Management of mountainous meadows associated with biodiversity attributes, perceived health benefits and cultural ecosystem services

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Raja Imran Hussain ◽  
Ronnie Walcher ◽  
Renate Eder ◽  
Brigitte Allex ◽  
Peter Wallner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Human Health ◽  
Forest Cover ◽  
Health Benefits ◽  
Perceived Health ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Swiss Alps ◽  
Cultural Ecosystem Services ◽  
Landscape Characteristics

Abstract Associations between biodiversity, human health and well-being have never been discussed with reference to agriculturally managed, species-rich mountainous meadows. We evaluated these associations between extensively managed (one mowing a year, no fertilization) and abandoned (no mowing since more than 80 years, no fertilization) semi-dry meadows located in the Austrian and Swiss Alps. We quantified the richness and abundance of plants, grasshoppers, true bugs, bumblebees, syrphids and landscape characteristics in the surroundings of the meadows. Associations between these biodiversity attributes and short-term psychological and physiological human health effects were assessed with 22 participants (10 males, 12 females; mean age 27 years). Participants´ pulse rate, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were not affected during visits to managed or abandoned meadows. However, perceived health benefits (e.g., stress reduction, attention restoration) were higher during their stays in managed than in abandoned meadows. Also, the attractiveness of the surrounding landscape and the recreation suitability were rated higher when visiting managed meadows. Perceived naturalness was positively correlated with plant richness and flower cover. A positive correlation was found between SBP and forest cover, but SBP was negatively correlated with the open landscape. A negative association was found between grasshoppers and recreational and landscape perceptions. We suggest to discuss biodiversity attributes not only in connection with agricultural management but also with cultural ecosystem services and health benefits to raise more awareness for multifaceted interrelationships between ecosystems and humans.

scholarly journals Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 258-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosalind Bryce ◽  
Katherine N. Irvine ◽  
Andrew Church ◽  
Robert Fish ◽  
Sue Ranger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Subjective Well Being ◽  
Cultural Ecosystem Services ◽  
Large Scale Assessment ◽  
Scale Assessment
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document