Search

Made available in DSpace on 2018-12-11T17:15:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2018-02-01 The ecosystem service (ES) concept is becoming mainstream in policy and planning, but operational influence on practice is seldom reported. Here, we report the practitioners’ perspectives on the practical implementation of the ES concept in 27 case studies. A standardised anonymous survey (n = 246), was used, focusing on the science-practice interaction process, perceived impact and expected use of the case study assessments. Operationalisation of the concept was shown to achieve a gradual change in practices: 13% of the case studies reported a change in action (e.g. management or policy change), and a further 40% anticipated that a change would result from the work. To a large extent the impact was attributed to a well conducted science-practice interaction process (>70%). The main reported advantages of the concept included: increased concept awareness and communication; enhanced participation and collaboration; production of comprehensive science-based knowledge; and production of spatially referenced knowledge for input to planning (91% indicated they had acquired new knowledge). The limitations were mostly case-specific and centred on methodology, data, and challenges with result implementation. The survey highlighted the crucial role of communication, participation and collaboration across different stakeholders, to implement the ES concept and enhance the democratisation of nature and landscape planning. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bush Estate Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25 Social-ecological Systems Lab Department of Ecology Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Calle Darwin no. 2, Campus de Cantoblanco Finnish Environment Institute, P.O. Box 140 Institute of Landscape Ecology Slovak Academy of Sciences, Akademická 2 Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University, Trieda A. Hlinku 1 Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG Ltd.), Rómer Flóris u. 38. Department of Decision Sciences Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8. Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Permoserstraße 15 CoKnow Consulting – Coproducing Knowledge for Sustainability, Jesewitz CENSE – Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2829-516 Caparica Institute of Ecology and Botany MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Alkotmány u. 2-4. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) Edifici Z (ICTA-ICP), Carrer de les Columnes s/n, Campus de la UAB Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Gaustadalléen 21 Environmental Change Institute, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road Wageningen University and Research Environmental Research (Alterra), P.O. Box 47 European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, FR-75231 Paris Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford Urban Environment and Territorial Sustainability Area Energy and Environment Dividision Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia C/Geldo, Edificio 700 University of Bucharest - Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability, Splaiul Independentei 91-95 European Commission – Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via E. Fermi 2749 Institute of Landscape Ecology Slovak Academy of Sciences, Štefánikova 3 UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av. 24-A, 1515 CEP: 13506-900, Rio Claro IRSTEA National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture UMR TETIS, 500 rue JF BRETON Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC CONICET), Houssay 200 Leuphana University of Lüneburg Faculty of Sustainability Institute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Scharnhorststraβe 1 IBRAD (Indian Institute of Bio Social Research and Development), VIP Road, Kestopur, Prafulla Kanan Department of Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014 University of Helsinki Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), P.O. Box 20412-0200 Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), CC 332 (9400), Río Gallegos Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral (UNPA) Río Gallegos Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) INCLINE – Interdisciplinary Climate Change Research Group Instituto de Astronomia e Geofísica USP – Universidade de São Paulo, R. do Matão, 1226 - Butantã Wageningen University & Research – Marine (WUR), P.O. Box 57 National Institute for Research and Development in Forestry “Marin Dracea”, Eroilor Blvd 128 Institute of Nature Conservation and Landscape Management Szent István University, Páter Károly u. 1. Norwegian University of Life Science (NMBU), Universitetstunet 3 Department of Applied Research and Agricultural Extension Madrid Institute for Rural Agricultural and Food Research and Development (IMIDRA), Ctra. Madrid-Barcelona (N-II), KM. 38.200, 28802 Alcalá De Henares Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric) Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), P.O. Box 5003 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Fakkelgården VISTA Analyse A/S, Meltzers gate 4 University of Girona, Plaça de Sant Domènec, 3 Basque Centre for Climate Change, Alameda de Urquijo 4 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Postboks 5685 Sluppen De Økonomiske Råd, Amaliegade 44 UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av. 24-A, 1515 CEP: 13506-900, Rio Claro

This paper provides an analysis of the spectrum of arguments associated with the term biodiversity, as expressed in the literature. Through sampling of the grey and peer-review literature, and testing of results through semi-structured interviews, this review presents a total of 31 different instrumental and non-instrumental premises used in arguments for biodiversity. Based on the identified premise statements, this review offers a simple classification by which to understand the complex public discourse associated with arguments for biodiversity, and outlines the current frequency of use of arguments in the literature. Although a wide range of premise statements were identified, the majority of arguments were instrumental with the most frequently used ones putting forward economic perspectives as well as emphasising the role of biodiversity in underpinning ecosystem services. Results from interviews with decision-makers emphasise the need to combine arguments in order to strengthen biodiversity conservation generally, and minimise possible risks associated with individual arguments.

This Editorial to the BESAFE special issue introduces the project and its approach and case studies. The BESAFE (EC 7th Framework programme) project investigated how the effectiveness of different types of arguments for biodiversity conservation depends on the context in which they are used. Our results show that tailoring of argumentation to audience within the course of decision processes is the main factor determining effectiveness. We consistently found arguments linked to intrinsic value (e.g. moral or ethical obligation arguments) as shared and supported widely, and thus offering common ground between parties. Economic arguments are effective as additional ones, but not as replacements. Next generation biodiversity conservation strategies can probably improve their effectiveness by emphasizing and better explaining the synergies between traditional conservation and especially regulating and cultural services.

Heathlands are considered biodiversity hotspots of high conservation interest. However, they are at risk of degradation and disappearance in most parts of Europe mainly due to land abandonment, degradation, and conversion to other land uses. Heathlands are semi-natural systems: their maintenance and survival depends on specific practices such as extensive grazing or burning. Traditionally they provide a wide range of goods and services to societies. In this study we used the ecosystem services (ES) framework to analyze the changes in the demand for and delivery of ES for the heathland landscapes of the Cantabrian Mountains (NW Spain), since the 1950s. Particularly, we analyzed how the social changes since the 1950s have determined changes in stakeholders' demand for provisioning, cultural and regulating services and how these changes have influenced the vegetation dynamics and conservation status of these systems. We identified a general shift from the provisioning of grazing facilities and local products for the local-regional market to the provisioning of conservation services to satisfy national-international demand. For the present situation we found a clear mismatch between the conservation demand, management practices, and land-use forms. This mismatch threatens to lead to further landscape changes and loss of biodiversity. The results of our multi-scale and -services study can help to increase awareness of the value of currently obtainable benefits from heathlands among stakeholders and managers. The ES approach can improve understanding of the functioning of the socio-ecological heathland system, and inform the development of new management strategies for heathland protection.

For the Dutch provinces it is especially a challenge to lift the contribution of private persons andbusinesses to Nature from margin to mainstream. There is interest from private parties to invest inNature, but this interest is turned into actual implementation far too little. Commissioned by theMinistry of Economic Affairs (EZ) we explored the possibilities for applying the habitat bankinginstrument, originally devised to facilitate the offset of damages to Nature, in three possible pilotareas. This explorative study was carried out between November 2015 and May 2016. Knowledgetransfer to the commissioner has meanwhile occurred, before publication date. In het kader van de uitvoering van de Rijksnatuurvisie is het met name een uitdaging om de bijdragevan particulieren en het bedrijfsleven aan natuur van marge naar mainstream te tillen. Er is bijbedrijven en particulieren wel interesse om te investeren in natuur, maar die interesse wordt nog veelte weinig omgezet in uitvoering. In opdracht van het ministerie van Economische Zaken is in driegebieden een verkenning uitgevoerd naar de mogelijke toepassing van het voor compensatie vannatuurschade ontworpen instrument habitatbanking in het bredere kader van natuurinvesteringen.Deze verkenning heeft plaatsgevonden tussen november 2015 en mei 2016. Kennisoverdracht naar deopdrachtgever heeft wel voor de publicatiedatum plaatsgevonden.

International audience; The impacts of agricultural practices and landscape composition on bee communities were investigated in 14 sites located in four Western European countries Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland). Standardized interviews with farmers assessed agricultural practices in terms of agricultural inputs (nitrogen fertilization and pesticides), livestock density and crop types. The proportion of semi-natural habitats was calculated for each site. We showed negative effects of agricultural intensification on species richness, abundance and diversity of wild bees. By contrast, bee species richness increased with the amount of semi-natural habitats in the landscape. Using a co-inertia analysis, we found an opposition between two types of agricultural specialization: towards crop production or towards animal husbandry. Species richness, abundance and diversity of wild bees were greater in sites turned towards crop production. In these sites, flowering crops provided abundant food resources for bees whereas, in the other group of sites, intensive animal husbandry led to landscapes dominated by forage crops rather than flower-rich permanent grasslands. We also showed that bumblebees seemed to be less sensitive to agricultural intensification than solitary bees.

Ecosystems are multifunctional and provide humanity with a broad array of vital services. Effective management of services requires an improved evidence base, identifying the role of ecosystems in delivering multiple services, which can assist policy-makers in maintaining them. Here, information from the literature and scientific experts was used to systematically document the importance of services and identify trends in their use and status over time for the main terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems in Europe. The results from this review show that intensively managed ecosystems contribute mostly to vital provisioning services (e.g. agro-ecosystems provide food via crops and livestock, and forests provide wood), while semi-natural ecosystems (e.g. grasslands and mountains) are key contributors of genetic resources and cultural services (e.g. aesthetic values and sense of place). The most recent European trends in human use of services show increases in demand for crops from agro-ecosystems, timber from forests, water flow regulation from rivers, wetlands and mountains, and recreation and ecotourism in most ecosystems, but decreases in livestock production, freshwater capture fisheries, wild foods and virtually all services associated with ecosystems which have considerably decreased in area (e.g. semi-natural grasslands). The condition of the majority of services show either a degraded or mixed status across Europe with the exception of recent enhancements in timber production in forests and mountains, freshwater provision, water/erosion/natural hazard regulation and recreation/ecotourism in mountains, and climate regulation in forests. Key gaps in knowledge were evident for certain services across all ecosystems, including the provision of biochemicals and natural medicines, genetic resources and the regulating services of seed dispersal, pest/disease regulation and invasion resistance.

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, common indicators are needed to monitor the loss of biodiversity and the implications for the sustainable provision of ecosystem services. However, a variety of indicators are already being used resulting in many, mostly incompatible, monitoring systems. In order to synthesise the different indicator approaches and to detect gaps in the development of common indicator systems, we examined 531 indicators that have been reported in 617 peer-reviewed journal articles between 1997 and 2007. Special emphasis was placed on comparing indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services across ecosystems (forests, grass- and shrublands, wetlands, rivers, lakes, soils and agro-ecosystems) and spatial scales (from patch to global scale). The application of biological indicators was found most often focused on regional and finer spatial scales with few indicators applied across ecosystem types. Abiotic indicators, such as physico-chemical parameters and measures of area and fragmentation, are most frequently used at broader (regional to continental) scales. Despite its multiple dimensions, biodiversity is usually equated with species richness only. The functional, structural and genetic components of biodiversity are poorly addressed despite their potential value across habitats and scales. Ecosystem service indicators are mostly used to estimate regulating and supporting services but generally differ between ecosystem types as they reflect ecosystem-specific services. Despite great effort to develop indicator systems over the past decade, there is still a considerable gap in the widespread use of indicators for many of the multiple components of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and a need to develop common monitoring schemes within and across habitats. Filling these gaps is a prerequisite for linking biodiversity dynamics with ecosystem service delivery and to achieving the goals of global and sub-global initiatives to halt the loss of biodiversity.

Biodiversity conservation policies justified with science and intrinsic value arguments have produced disappointing outcomes, and the need for conservation is now being additionally justified with the concept of ecosystem services. However, little, if any empirical attention is paid to ways in which different types of ecosystem service decisions are made, to what arguments are effective in turning policy into practice and further into conservation outcomes and, in general, to how ecosystem services are governed. To close this gap, this paper identifies the different modes of governance in policy implementation from biodiversity and environmental conservation literature and incorporates them in a conceptual model of ecosystem services commonly utilised at present, the cascade model. The resulting conceptual framework encompasses: (1) hierarchical governance; (2) scientific-technical governance; (3) adaptive collaborative governance; and; (4) governing strategic behaviour. This comprehensive framework provides a structure for empirical analysis of ecosystem services governance, which takes into account the people and organisations making decisions, and, in particular, the different arguments that are used when implementing policies. The framework will facilitate holistic ecosystem service analyses and support policies in generating conservation and sustainability impact. Ecosystem services; Biodiversity conservation; Governance; Policy implementation; Arguments http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Research on ecosystem services has grown rapidly over the last decade. Two conceptual frameworks have been published to guide ecological assessments of organisms that deliver services?the concepts of service-providing units (SPUs) and ecosystem service providers (ESPs). Here, we unite these frameworks and present an SPU-ESP continuum that offers a coherent conceptual approach for synthesizing the latest developments in ecosystem service research, and can direct future studies at all levels of organization. In particular, we show how the service-provider concept can be applied at the population, functional group, and community levels. We strongly emphasize the need to identify and quantify the organisms and their characteristics (e.g., functional traits) that provide services, and to assess service provision relative to the demands of human beneficiaries. We use key examples from the literature to illustrate the new approach and to highlight gaps in knowledge, particularly in relation to the impact of species interactions and ecosystem dynamics on service provision. Fil: Luck, Gary. Charles Sturt University; Australia Fil: Harrington, Richard. Rothamsted Research. Department of Plant and Invertebrate Ecology. Centre for Bioenergy and Climate Change; Reino Unido Fil: Harrison, Paula A.. Oxford University Centre for the Environment. Environmental Change Institute; Reino Unido Fil: Kremen, Claire. University of California. Environmental Sciences Policy and Management; Reino Unido Fil: Berry, Pam M.. Oxford University Centre for the Environment. Environmental Change Institute; Reino Unido Fil: Bugter, Rob. Wageningen University and Research Centre; Países Bajos Fil: Dawson, Terence P.. University of Southampton. School of Geography; Reino Unido Fil: de Bello, Francesco. Université Joseph Fourier. Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine; Francia Fil: Diaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina Fil: Feld, Christian K.. University of Duisburg-Essen. Department of Applied Zoology/Hydrobiology; Alemania Fil: Haslett, John R.. University of Salzburg. Department of Organismal Biology. Division of Zoology and Functional Anatomy; Austria Fil: Hering, Daniel. University of Duisburg-Essen. Department of Applied Zoology/Hydrobiology; Alemania Fil: Kontogianni, Areti. University of the Aegean. Department of Environmental Studies and the Department of Marine Sciences; Grecia Fil: Lavorel, Sandra. Université Joseph Fourier. Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine; Francia Fil: Ronsevell, Mark. University of Edinburgh. Centre for Environmental Change and Sustainability; Reino Unido Fil: Samways, Michael J.. University of Stellenbosch. Faculty of AgriSciences. Centre for Agricultural Biodiversity. Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology; Sudáfrica Fil: Sandin, Leonard. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Department of Environmental Assessment; Suecia Fil: Settele, Josef. Department of Community Ecology. UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; Alemania Fil: Sykes, Martin T.. Lund University. Department of Physical Geography and Eco-systems Analysis; Suecia Fil: van den Hove, Sybille. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Median SCP and the Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals; España Fil: Wandewalle, Marie. Lund University. Department of Physical Geography and Eco-systems Analysis; Suecia Fil: Zobel, Martin. University of Tartu. Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences; Estonia

The intensity of agricultural production was assessed in 25 landscape test sites across temperate Europe using a standardised farmer questionnaire. The intensity indicators, nitrogen input (to arable crops and to permanent grassland), density of livestock units and number of pesticide applications (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and retardants), were recorded and integrated into an overall intensity index. All three components were needed to appropriately characterise the intensity of agricultural management. Four hypotheses were tested. (i) A low diversity of crops is related to higher intensity. The contrary was observed, namely because diverse crop rotations contained a higher share of crops which are more demanding in terms of nitrogen and of plant protection. (ii) Intensity decreases when there is more permanent grassland. This was confirmed by our study. (iii) Large farms are managed more intensively. There was no relation between farm size and intensity. (iv) Large fields are managed more intensively. There was a tendency towards higher nitrogen input and livestock density in landscapes with larger fields but only a few of the results were statistically significant. The aggregated overall intensity index was of limited usefulness mainly because of limitations in interpretability.