Ecosystem services as an argument for biodiversity preservation: Why its strength is its Problem – Reply to Cimon-Morin et al.

Deliège, Glenn; Neuteleers, Stijn

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.02.008

Cited by 16 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, ecosystems or values are difficult to assess as most of them are outside the markets, despite their non-tractable benefits (de Groot et al 2012 ). A common criticism of the concept of ecosystem services is that its anthropocentric focus excludes the idea of ecosystems and biodiversity as inherently valuable beyond human needs (Deliège and Neuteleers 2014 ; Schröter et al 2014 ) although it is more recently being acknowledged in the IPBES framework. The other challenge is that most current management practices and policies use a reductionist approach where only one component (e.g., water, land, or food) is addressed at a time, despite the interconnection at the system level (Liu et al 2015 ).…”

Section: Ecosystem In Ecosystem Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Complex problems and unchallenged solutions: Bringing ecosystem governance to the forefront of the UN sustainable development goals

Vasseur

Horning

Thornbush

et al. 2017

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainable development aims at addressing economic, social, and environmental concerns, but the current lack of responsive environmental governance hinders progress. Short-term economic development has led to limited actions, unsustainable resource management, and degraded ecosystems. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) may continue to fall short of achieving significant progress without a better understanding of how ecosystems contribute to achieving sustainability for all people. Ecosystem governance is an approach that integrates the social and ecological components for improved sustainability and includes principles such as adaptive ecosystem co-management, subsidiarity, and telecoupling framework, as well as principles of democracy and accountability. We explain the importance of ecosystem governance in achieving the SDGs, and suggest some ways to ensure that ecosystem services are meaningfully considered. This paper reflects on how integration of these approaches into policies can enhance the current agenda of sustainability.

show abstract

Section: Ecosystem In Ecosystem Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Complex problems and unchallenged solutions: Bringing ecosystem governance to the forefront of the UN sustainable development goals

Vasseur

Horning

Thornbush

et al. 2017

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast to non‐utilitarian (e.g. ecocentric) approaches to biodiversity conservation, some perspectives consider that an ES approach ignores the intrinsic value of nature (that is nature's value even if it does not directly or indirectly benefit humans), because biodiversity and ecosystems only matter in an ES approach to the extent that they benefit humans (McCauley, ; Reyers et al., ; Raymond et al., ; Deliège and Neuteleers, ; Schröter et al., ; Silvertown, ). The concern is that by maximising only those aspects of ecosystems that provide benefits to humans, biodiversity may not necessarily be protected (Carrasco et al., ; SEP, ; Pascual et al., ).…”

Section: Challenges For Es‐based Erasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying ecosystem services for pre‐market environmental risk assessments of regulated stressors

Devos

Munns

Forbes

et al. 2019

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem services (ES) are the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems. Investigating the environment through an ES framework has gained wide acceptance in the international scientific community and is applied by policymakers to protect biodiversity and safeguard the sustainability of ecosystems. This approach can enhance the ecological and societal relevance of pre-market/ prospective environmental risk assessments (ERAs) of regulated stressors by: (1) informing the derivation of operational protection goals; (2) enabling the integration of environmental and human health risk assessments; (3) facilitating horizontal integration of policies and regulations; (4) leading to more comprehensive and consistent environmental protection; (5) articulating the utility of, and tradeoffs involved in, environmental decisions; and (6) enhancing the transparency of risk assessment results and the decisions based upon them. Realisation of these advantages will require challenges that impede acceptance of an ES approach to be overcome. Particularly, there is concern that, if biodiversity only matters to the extent that it benefits humans, the intrinsic value of nature is ignored. Moreover, our understanding of linkages among ecological components and the processes that ultimately deliver ES is incomplete, valuing ES is complex, and there is no standard ES lexicon and limited familiarity with the approach. To help overcome these challenges, we encourage: (1) further research to establish biodiversity-ES relationships; (2) the development of approaches that (i) quantitatively translate responses to chemical stressors by organisms and groups of organisms to ES delivery across different spatial and temporal scales, (ii) measure cultural ES and ease their integration into ES valuations, and (iii) appropriately value changes in ES delivery so that trade-offs among different management options can be assessed; (3) the establishment of a standard ES lexicon; and (4) building capacity in ES science and how to apply ES to ERAs. These development needs should not prevent movement towards implementation of an ES approach in ERAs, as the advantages we perceive of using this approach render it more than worthwhile to tackle those challenges. Society and the environment stand to benefit from this shift in how we conduct the ERA of regulated stressors.

show abstract

“…While this perspective has demonstrated certain effectiveness, an exclusive focus on ecosystem services and the absence of other strategies could generate some problems. These include the fact that there are no universal assessments of ES, since a service which is beneficial for one human group might not be relevant to another, or perhaps not even for the integrity of ecosystem itself; moreover, there are biases towards ecosystems that provide a larger number/better quality of services, leaving aside those with less value from this utilitarian perspective (normally those with less biomass) (Keith et al 2013;Deliège & Neuteleers, 2014). The RLE should be considered complementary to the classic view of ES, allowing the development of universal criteria to assess risks of collapse for each ecosystem (Sutherland et al 2014;Keith et al 2015).…”

Section: Land-use Planning and Public Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

IUCN Red List of Ecosystems: Implications for Public Policy

Alaniz¹,

Jf²,

Galleguillos³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Threats to natural ecosystems are closely linked to human development, and the lack, insufficiency or inefficiency of public policies are some of the most important drivers of negative effects on the environment. The contribution of the IUCN's Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) to conservation topics has been discussed in previous studies; however, to date its implications for conservation in public policies have not been addressed. This perspective discusses how the RLE may support the improvement and development of these policies, specifically through the implications for public policy of each of the criteria that substantiate the threat status of ecosystems. We aim to provide a plausible baseline to the operationalization of RLE in public and conservation policy, facilitating the work of governments, practitioners and decision makers. Finally, we provide recommendations and examples as to how to proceed in creating and modifying different public policy instruments, such as land-use planning, spatial zoning, tax reduction, compensation schemes, climate change adaptation plans, management of introduced species, development offsets and restoration investment. This perspective contributes to implement RLE into public policy and to improve ecosystem conservation by expanding the current scope of RLE into practical and political dimensions through plausible actions, policies and strategies.Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 12 December 2018 Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted:

show abstract

Ecosystem services as an argument for biodiversity preservation: Why its strength is its Problem – Reply to Cimon-Morin et al.

Cited by 16 publications

References 2 publications

Complex problems and unchallenged solutions: Bringing ecosystem governance to the forefront of the UN sustainable development goals

Complex problems and unchallenged solutions: Bringing ecosystem governance to the forefront of the UN sustainable development goals

Applying ecosystem services for pre‐market environmental risk assessments of regulated stressors

IUCN Red List of Ecosystems: Implications for Public Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About