Refocusing ecosystem services towards sustainability

Schröter, Matthias; Stumpf, Klara Helene; Loos, Jacqueline; Oudenhoven, A.P.E. van; Böhnke-Henrichs, Anne; Abson, David J.

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.019

Cited by 108 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, research shows that riverine ecosystems are both disproportionately important for livelihoods and disproportionately threatened (Tockner, Ward, Edwards, & Kollmann, ; Vörösmarty et al., ). The concept of ecosystem services provides a holistic and adaptable means to evaluate the diverse ways ecosystems contribute to human well‐being, making it a promising avenue towards informed riverine management (Schindler et al., ; Schröter et al., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of riverine ecosystem service quantification: Research gaps and recommendations

Hanna

Tomscha

Dallaire

et al. 2017

Journal of Applied Ecology

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing demand for benefits provided by riverine ecosystems threatens their sustainable provision. The ecosystem service concept is a promising avenue to inform riverine ecosystem management, but several challenges have prevented the application of this concept. We quantitatively assess the field of riverine ecosystem services’ progress in meeting these challenges. We highlight conceptual and methodological gaps, which have impeded integration of the ecosystem service concept into management. Across 89 relevant studies, 33 unique riverine ecosystem services were evaluated, for a total of 404 ecosystem service quantifications. Studies quantified between 1 and 23 ecosystem services, although the majority (55%) evaluated three or less. Among studies that quantified more than one service, 58% assessed interactions between services. Most studies (71%) did not include stakeholders in their quantification protocols, and 34% developed future scenarios of ecosystem service provision. Almost half (45%) conducted monetary valuation, using 16 methods. Only 9% did not quantify or discuss uncertainties associated with service quantification. The indicators and methods used to quantify the same type of ecosystem service varied. Only 3% of services used indicators of capacity, flow and demand in concert. Our results suggest indicators, data sources and methods for quantifying riverine ecosystem services should be more clearly defined and accurately represent the service they intend to quantify. Furthermore, more assessments of multiple services across diverse spatial extents and of riverine service interactions are needed, with better inclusion of stakeholders. Addressing these challenges will help riverine ecosystem service science inform river management. Synthesis and applications. The ecosystem service concept has great potential to inform riverine ecosystem management and decision‐making processes. However, this review of riverine ecosystem service quantification uncovers several remaining research gaps, impeding effective use of this tool to manage riverine ecosystems. We highlight these gaps and point to studies showcasing methods that can be used to address them.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of riverine ecosystem service quantification: Research gaps and recommendations

Hanna

Tomscha

Dallaire

et al. 2017

Journal of Applied Ecology

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, despite its very efficient approach to transferring environmental issues to science and society by streamlining social-ecological complexity to one dimension, that is, services for humans, the ecosystem services concept applied to soil management is limited because it does not consider other targets set by society or other valuation perspectives, such as resource use efficiency, equity, or health (Sandifer, Sutton-Grier, & Ward, 2015;Schröter et al, 2017). However, linkages to other valuation systems are possible, and the first studies have been conducted to discover these linkages, for example, as outlined by Bouma (2014) and Keesstra et al (2016).…”

Section: Ecosystem Services Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing soil functions for a sustainable bioeconomy—Assessment framework and state of the art

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioeconomy strategies have been adopted in many countries around the world. Their sustainable implementation requires a management of soils that maintains soil functions and avoids land degradation. Only then, ecosystem services can be maintained and resources used efficiently. We present an analytical framework for impact assessment that links policy and technology driving forces for soil management decisions to soil processes, soil functional changes, and their impacts on ecosystem services and resource use efficiency, both being targets that have been set by society and are anchored in bioeconomy policy strategies and sustainable development goals. Although the resource use efficiency concept has a long-term tradition, most studies of agricultural management do not address the role of soils in their efficiency assessment. The concept of ecosystem services has received increasing attention over the last years; however, its link to soil functions and soil management practices is still not well established. This study is the first to conceptually link the socioeconomic processes of external drivers for soil management with the natural processes of soil functions and connect them back to impacts on the social system. Application of the framework helps strengthen the science-policy interface and to systemically assess and compare the opportunities and threats of soil management practices from the perspective of goals set by society at different spatial and temporal scales. Insights gained in this way can be applied in stakeholder decisionmaking processes and used to inform the design of governance instruments aimed at sustainable soil management within a bioeconomy. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

“…The realized ESs should be compensated by the beneficiaries in the SBAs to make up for the loss of the ecosystem. Therefore, to address the problem of ESs' sustainability, the following issues need to be clarified firstly: (1) Who are the actual beneficiaries of ESs? (2) How many benefits do the beneficiaries get from ESs?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ecosystem services (ESs) are the foundation of sustainable development, and the relationship between ESs and human welfare has been increasingly emphasized [1,2]. However, demands for ESs are rapidly increasing due to population growth and economic development and often beyond the supply capacity of the ecosystem, which is unsustainable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Guarantee the Sustainability of the Wind Prevention and Sand Fixation Service: An Ecosystem Service Flow Perspective

Xiao

Xie

et al. 2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing ecosystem services (ESs) is essential for sustainable development. Ecosystem service flow (ESF) emphasizes the recognition of real ESs beneficiary areas from the perspective of human welfare and establishes a spatiotemporal path between service supply areas (SSAs) and service beneficiary areas (SBAs) to better reflect the relationship between ESs and human welfare, which is conducive to recognize how to guarantee the sustainable supply of ESs. This study simulated the spatiotemporal patterns and flow trajectories of the wind prevention and sand fixation (WPSF) service in Yanchi County based on the Revised Wind Erosion Equation (RWEQ) and the Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) model, respectively, and constructed an analysis framework for the sustainability of WPSF service from the perspective of ESF. The results indicated that the amount of wind erosion prevented in Yanchi County was 3.71 × 10 9 kg in 2010 and 0.08 × 10 9 kg in 2015, with average retention rates of 83.40% and 78.11% and WPSF service values of 479.46 million CNY (Chinese currency; as of 18 July 2018, 6.702 RMB = US $1) and 10.22 million CNY, respectively. The flow trajectories of the WPSF service mostly extended to East Asia, and the densities decreased as the transmission distance increased. The estimated areas of the SBAs of WPSF service in Yanchi County were 1153.2 × 10 4 km 2 in 2010 and 397.2 × 10 4 km 2 in 2015. The grid cells through which many (≥10%) of the trajectories passed were mainly situated in the central part of northern China. The spatiotemporal distribution patterns and flow rates of the physical and value flows of the WPSF service were the same. The SBAs within China accounted for 71.11% in 2010 and 91.32% in 2015, and both maximums occurred in Shaanxi Province. In this research, we identified the actual beneficiaries according to the spatiotemporal distribution of physical and value flows. There were mismatches between the value flow and eco-compensation flow, which was unsustainable. This work can serve as an effective and valid reference for the ecological compensation standard and the formulation of ecological protection measures, which is conducive to regional sustainable development and human welfare.

show abstract

Refocusing ecosystem services towards sustainability

Cited by 108 publications

References 82 publications

A review of riverine ecosystem service quantification: Research gaps and recommendations

A review of riverine ecosystem service quantification: Research gaps and recommendations

Managing soil functions for a sustainable bioeconomy—Assessment framework and state of the art

How to Guarantee the Sustainability of the Wind Prevention and Sand Fixation Service: An Ecosystem Service Flow Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About