Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: the TEEB initiative

Ring, Irene; Hansjürgens, Bernd; Elmqvist, Thomas; Wittmer, Heidi; Sukhdev, Pavan

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2010.03.005

Cited by 181 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Spatial trade-offs could be simply recognized as benefits here while cost there (Ring et al, 2010), it occurs spatially between different landscapes, ecosystems, communities and even countries. For example, the improvement in water productivity with more agricultural inputs in the upstream will consequentially impact the water quality regulation services and incur costs in the downstream (Pattanayak, 2004).…”

Section: Trade-offs Of Ecosystem Services At Different Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Agroecosystem is a good example in this case (Bennett and Balvanera, 2007;Nelson et al, 2008;Ring et al, 2010;TEEB, 2010;Elmqvist et al, 2013).…”

Section: Trade-offs In Ecosystemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is commonly acknowledged that ecosystem services trade-offs occur at different spatial and temporal scale (Rodríguez et al, 2006;Power, 2010) and vary across both space and time (Holland et al, 2011), which increase more uncertainty to be managed. In addition, trade-off analysis from other perspectives are also proposed to be of great significance to land-use management and decision making, such as trade-offs among different stakeholders (Ring et al, 2010) and the reversibility of ecosystem services (Rodríguez et al, 2006).…”

Section: Trade-offs Of Ecosystem Services At Different Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When a system crosses a threshold due to persistent or strong environmental or socioeconomic drivers, it will trigger great costs to society due to the irreversible loss in critical natural capital (Farley, 2012). Ring et al (2010) interpreted the thresholds as resilience, which stands for a system's ability to adapt to the perturbations and stay persistent without changes. Further, considering the thresholds, they put forward four types of non-linear dynamics in ecosystems.…”

Section: Trade-offs Of Ecosystem Services At Different Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Over time, in spite of the great progress and success in the assessment of ecosystem services trade-offs, the practical application in land-use management decision is limited (Daily et al, 2009). The underlying reason is that most studies have been focused on one or a few services without considering the interdependence and highly non-linear relationships among the ecosystem services (Ring et al, 2010). Land-use management and decision makings with focus only on one type of ecosystem services without considering others will result in policy failure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A review on trade-off analysis of ecosystem services for sustainable land-use management

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem services are substantial elements for human society. The central challenge to meet the human needs from ecosystems while sustain the Earth's life support systems makes it urgent to enhance efficient natural resource management for sustainable ecological and socioeconomic development. Trade-off analysis of ecosystem services can help to identify optimal decision points to balance the costs and benefits of the diverse human uses of ecosystems. In this sense, the aim of this paper is to provide key insights into ecosystem services trade-off analysis at different scales from a land use perspective, by comprehensively reviewing the trade-offs analysis tools and approaches that addressed in ecology, economics and other fields. The review will significantly contribute to future research on trade-off analysis to avoid inferior management options and offer a win-win solution based on comprehensive and efficient planning for interacting multiple ecosystem services.

show abstract

Section: Trade-offs Of Ecosystem Services At Different Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Agroecosystem is a good example in this case (Bennett and Balvanera, 2007;Nelson et al, 2008;Ring et al, 2010;TEEB, 2010;Elmqvist et al, 2013).…”

Section: Trade-offs In Ecosystemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Trade-offs Of Ecosystem Services At Different Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Trade-offs Of Ecosystem Services At Different Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A review on trade-off analysis of ecosystem services for sustainable land-use management

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Ecosystem Services

Dempsey

2017

International Encyclopedia of Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem services, commonly defined as the benefits provided by ecosystems to humans, are an increasingly dominant approach to ordering and organizing human and nonhuman (or ecosystemic) relations, setting norms for the management and governance of socioecologies. The ecosystem services revolution aims to make visible and ideally quantifiable the often underappreciated and undervalued ecological structures and processes necessary for human life on earth. While the concept is becoming central to environmental governance, some academics (including geographers and ecologists) contest this turn, along with some environmental, indigenous, and social justice activists.

show abstract

Quality as a Driver of Sustainable Agricultural Value Chains: The Case of the Relationship Coffee Model

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Specialty coffee markets that recognize coffee‐quality price premiums can improve business conditions for smallholders and promote agro‐ecological practices. We studied the Relationship Coffee Model (RCM), a business model that supports long‐term partnerships between coffee buyers and smallholders based on product quality. We examined how biophysical conditions and production practices affect smallholders’ ability to participate in this model. Furthermore, we considered common unobservable variables driving growers’ participation such as farm soil quality and connection to social networks. In turn, we evaluated key environmental, socio‐economic and technological outcomes, including tree and bird population diversity. Our estimations indicated that RCM participants employed more sustainable resource management practices, had better access to credit and were more informed and optimistic about the coffee business. However, we did not find significant farm‐gate price differences. Increased adoption of organic farming and shade‐grown systems to elevate coffee quality can stimulate sustainable business strategies. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

show abstract

Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: the TEEB initiative

Cited by 181 publications

References 62 publications

A review on trade-off analysis of ecosystem services for sustainable land-use management

A review on trade-off analysis of ecosystem services for sustainable land-use management

Ecosystem Services

Quality as a Driver of Sustainable Agricultural Value Chains: The Case of the Relationship Coffee Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About