Agroforestry for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services - Science and Practice

10.5772/2100 ◽  
2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
JB Ruhl ◽  
James Salzman ◽  
Craig Anthony Arnold ◽  
Robin Craig ◽  
Keith Hirokawa ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 369 (1639) ◽  
pp. 20120286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ferdinando Villa ◽  
Brian Voigt ◽  
Jon D. Erickson

As societal demand for food, water and other life-sustaining resources grows, the science of ecosystem services (ES) is seen as a promising tool to improve our understanding, and ultimately the management, of increasingly uncertain supplies of critical goods provided or supported by natural ecosystems. This promise, however, is tempered by a relatively primitive understanding of the complex systems supporting ES, which as a result are often quantified as static resources rather than as the dynamic expression of human–natural systems. This article attempts to pinpoint the minimum level of detail that ES science needs to achieve in order to usefully inform the debate on environmental securities, and discusses both the state of the art and recent methodological developments in ES in this light. We briefly review the field of ES accounting methods and list some desiderata that we deem necessary, reachable and relevant to address environmental securities through an improved science of ES. We then discuss a methodological innovation that, while only addressing these needs partially, can improve our understanding of ES dynamics in data-scarce situations. The methodology is illustrated and discussed through an application related to water security in the semi-arid landscape of the Great Ruaha river of Tanzania.


AMBIO ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emilie Crouzat ◽  
Isabelle Arpin ◽  
Lucas Brunet ◽  
Matthew J. Colloff ◽  
Francis Turkelboom ◽  
...  

Science ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 331 (6021) ◽  
pp. 1139-1140 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Perrings ◽  
A. Duraiappah ◽  
A. Larigauderie ◽  
H. Mooney

2015 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 1-2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl Shapiro ◽  
Greg Arthaud ◽  
Frank Casey ◽  
Dianna Hogan

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 45-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian R. Pickard ◽  
Jessica Daniel ◽  
Megan Mehaffey ◽  
Laura E. Jackson ◽  
Anne Neale

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (20) ◽  
pp. 5760 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo Jiang ◽  
Yuanyuan Chen ◽  
Yang Bai ◽  
Xibao Xu

Ecosystem services are important for sustaining human survival and sustainable socio-economic development. For the past two decades, ecosystem services studies have greatly promoted the application of ecosystem services science in conservation. As a scientific method to integrate multi-regional and multi-scale ecosystem service providers and beneficiaries, ecosystem service supply and demand coupling mechanisms and payments for ecosystem services programs are closely linked. In this paper, we first provide an overview of the payments for ecosystem services concept and an evaluation of its effectiveness in implementation. We then analyze the correlation between payments for ecosystem services and supply–demand coupling mechanisms and propose a framework to link these two ideas. China’s practice in implementing ecological redline policy and institutional reforms for protected area management will provide a good experimental platform for comprehensive payments for ecosystem service design and effectiveness evaluation within China and beyond.


2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (6) ◽  
pp. 866-875 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas Brunet ◽  
Isabelle Arpin ◽  
Taru Peltola

AbstractDespite the abundant literature on transformation of research and the affective dimension of research practice, affective governing of research has not been documented to the same extent. To address this gap, we examine how scientific research can be affectively governed by research institutions. We focus on the case of ecosystem services science, an interdisciplinary field of research expected to lead to decisions capable of halting environmental degradation. Drawing on theoretical discussions bridging the concept of affect and the Foucauldian concept of government, we argue that affects can be mobilised as a technology of government in governing scientific practice. We identify three affective techniques used to govern ecosystem service research and discuss the limits of governing research through affects. Our analysis deepens the understanding of how academic work is transformed in the context of redefined relations between science and society.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document