Search

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Sutherland, W.J., Alvarez‐Castaneda, S.T., Amano, T., Ambrosini, R., Atkinson, P., Baxter, J.M., Bond, A.L., Boon, P.J., Buchanan, K.L., Barlow, J., Bogliani, G., Bragg, O.M., Burgman, M., Cadotte, M.W., Calver, M., Cooke, S.J., Corlett, R.T., Devictor, V., Ewen, J.G., Fisher, M., Freeman, G., Game, E., Godley, B.J., Gortazar, C., Hartley, I.R., Hawksworth, D.L., Hobson, K.A., Lu, M.‐L., Martin‐Lopez, B., Ma, K., Machado, A., Maes, D., Mangiacotti, M., McCafferty, D.J., Melfi, V., Molur, S., Moore, A.J., Murphy, S.D., Norris, D., van Oudenhoven, A.P., Powers, J., Rees, E.C., Schwartz, M.W., Storch, I. and Wordley, C. (2020), Ensuring tests of conservation interventions build on existing literature. Conservation Biology, 34: 781-783, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13555. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. The attached file is the final approved author manuscript version, you are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it.

Relational values are values of desirable relationships between people and nature and among people (through nature). We report on the approach to capture relational values of nature s contributions to people in the regional assessment for Europe and Central Asia of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We present a framework considering indicators along four relational value dimensions about people s relationships with nature: security and sovereignty; health; equity and justice; and heritage, social identity and stewardship. The framework has been operationalized for three nature s contributions to people (NCP): regulation of freshwater quality and quantity, food and feed, and physical and psychological experiences derived from nature. We identify ways to empirically assess relational values of nature s contributions to people at regional and continental scales with social-ecological indicators and proxies, ranging from biophysical indicators to indicators that intersect socio-economic with biophysical data. We conclude that many of the identified indicators can be considered as useful proxies of relational values in a quantitative way. The analysis shows that relational values are essential to consider at the science-policy interface as they are an important set of values that people hold about nature and that go beyond instrumental relations. © 2020, © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor and Francis Group.

Decision makers are increasingly interested in information from ecosystem services (ES) assessments. Scientists have for long recognised the importance of selecting appropriate indicators. Yet, while the amount and variety of indicators developed by scientists seems to increase continuously, the extent to which the indicators truly inform decision makers is often unknown and questioned. In this viewpoint paper, we reflect and provide guidance on how to develop appropriate ES indicators for informing decision making, building on scientific literature and practical experience collected from researchers involved in seven case studies. We synthesized 16 criteria for ES indicator selection and organized them according to the widely used categories of credibility, salience, legitimacy (CSL). We propose to consider additional criteria related to feasibility (F), as CSL criteria alone often seem to produce indicators which are unachievable in practice. Considering CSLF together requires a combination of scientific knowledge, communication skills, policy and governance insights and on-field experience. In conclusion, we present a checklist to evaluate CSLF of your ES indicators. This checklist helps to detect and mitigate critical shortcomings in an early phase of the development process, and aids the development of effective indicators to inform actual policy decisions. Fil: van Oudenhoven, Alexander P.E.. Leiden University; Países Bajos Fil: Schröter, Matthias. Helmholtz Zentrum Für Umweltforschung; Alemania. German Centre For Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania Fil: Drakou, Evangelia G.. Faculty Of Geo-information Science And Earth Observation; Países Bajos Fil: Geijzendorffer, Ilse R.. Research Institute for the Conservation of Mediterranean Wetlands; Francia Fil: Jacobs, Sander. Belgian Biodiversity Platform; Bélgica. Research Institute for Nature and Forest; Bélgica Fil: van Bodegom, Peter M.. Leiden University; Países Bajos Fil: Chazee, Laurent. Research Institute for the Conservation of Mediterranean Wetlands; Francia Fil: Czúcz, Bálint. Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle; Francia. Hungarian Academy Of Sciences. Institute of Ecology and Botany; Argentina Fil: Grunewald, Karsten. Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development; Alemania Fil: Lillebø, Ana I.. Universidade de Aveiro; Portugal Fil: Mononen, Laura. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia. Itä-suomen Yliopisto; Finlandia Fil: Nogueira, António J.A.. Universidade de Aveiro; Portugal Fil: Pacheco Romero, Manuel. Universidad de Almeria; España Fil: Perennou, Christian. Research Institute for the Conservation of Mediterranean Wetlands; Francia Fil: Remme, Roy P.. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment; Países Bajos Fil: Rova, Silvia. Universita' Ca' Foscari Di Venezia; Italia Fil: Syrbe, Ralf-Uwe. Leibniz Institute Of Ecological Urban And Regional Development; Alemania Fil: Tratalos, Jamie A.. University College Dublin; Irlanda Fil: Vallejos, María. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina Fil: Albert, Christian. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität; Alemania

As part of a set of ongoing changes to the Journal, in this Editorial we would like to announce its new name: Ecosystems and People. In 2010, the term ‘Ecosystem Services’ was added to the Internat...

This Editorial of the International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management (IJBESM) marks the end of this Journal’s publications under Rudolf de Groot. He has been instrumental in bringing the concept of ecosystem services to the fore, through seminal publications, books, lectures, through founding and chairing the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP); and finally, through ‘adding the ecosystem services to IJBESM’. After almost 8 years as Editor-in-Chief, he has decided to step down and hand over to a next generation.In the final part of this co-written Editorial, Rudolf de Groot will look back one last time at some highlights of the past years, partly together with his editorial team. The first part of this Editorial introduces the new co-Editors in Chief and how they envision the future of the Journal. Berta Martín-López (Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany) and Alexander van Oudenhoven (Leiden University, Netherlands) have gladly accepted to take over as co-Editors in Chief of IJBESM. They are interdisciplinary scientists at the forefront of research on social-ecological systems, ecosystem services, ecosystem management and sustainability transformation. Both are heavily involved in the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and both have been actively involved with this Journal for several years. While acknowledging and building on the achievements of the last couple of years, they suggest a way forward for publishing research on human–nature relationships.

Over one billion people's livelihoods depend on dry rangelands through livestock grazing and agriculture. Livestock grazing and other management activities can cause soil erosion, increase surface runoff and reduce water availability. We studied the effects of different management regimes on soil erosion and surface runoff in semi-arid to sub-humid rangelands. Eleven management regimes were assessed, which reflected different livestock grazing intensities and rangeland conservation strategies. Our review yielded key indicators for quantifying soil erosion and surface runoff. The values of these indicators were compared between management regimes. Mean annual soil loss values in the ‘natural ungrazed’, ‘low intensity grazed’, ‘high intensity grazed rangelands’ and ‘man-made pastures’ regimes were, respectively, 717 (SE = 388), 1370 (648), 4048 (1517) and 4249 (1529) kg ha−1 yr−1. Mean surface runoff values for the same regimes were 98 (42), 170 (43), 505 (113) and 919 (267) m3 ha−1 yr−1, respectively. Soil loss and runoff decreased with decreasing canopy cover and increased with increasing slope. Further analyses suggest that livestock grazing abandonment and ‘exotic plantations’ reduce soil loss and runoff. Our findings show that soil erosion and surface runoff differ per management regime, and that conserving and restoring vulnerable semi-arid and sub-humid rangelands can reduce the risks of degradation.

We compared and contrasted 11 European case studies to identify challenges and opportunities toward the operationalization of marine and coastal ecosystem service (MCES) assessments in Europe. This work is the output of a panel convened by the Marine Working Group of the Ecosystem Services Partnership in September 2016. The MCES assessments were used to (1) address multiple policy objectives simultaneously, (2) interpret EU-wide policies to smaller scales and (3) inform local decision-making. Most of the studies did inform decision makers, but only in a few cases, the outputs were applied or informed decision-making. Significant limitations among the 11 assessments were the absence of shared understanding of the ES concept, data and knowledge gaps, difficulties in accounting for marine social–ecological systems complexity and partial stakeholder involvement. The findings of the expert panel call for continuous involvement of MCES ‘end users’, integrated knowledge on marine social–ecological systems, defining thresholds to MCES use and raising awareness to the general public. Such improvements at the intersection of science, policy and practice are essential starting points toward building a stronger science foundation supporting management of European marine ecosystems.EDITED BY Sebastian Villasante

We describe and reflect on seven recurring critiques of the concept of ecosystem services and respective counter-arguments. First, the concept is criticized for being anthropocentric, whereas others argue that it goes beyond instrumental values. Second, some argue that the concept promotes an exploitative human-nature relationship, whereas others state that it reconnects society to ecosystems, emphasizing humanity's dependence on nature. Third, concerns exist that the concept may conflict with biodiversity conservation objectives, whereas others emphasize complementarity. Fourth, the concept is questioned because of its supposed focus on economic valuation, whereas others argue that ecosystem services science includes many values. Fifth, the concept is criticized for promoting commodification of nature, whereas others point out that most ecosystem services are not connected to market-based instruments. Sixth, vagueness of definitions and classifications are stated to be a weakness, whereas others argue that vagueness enhances transdisciplinary collaboration. Seventh, some criticize the normative nature of the concept, implying that all outcomes of ecosystem processes are desirable. The normative nature is indeed typical for the concept, but should not be problematic when acknowledged. By disentangling and contrasting different arguments we hope to contribute to a more structured debate between opponents and proponents of the ecosystem services concept.

In this editorial to the second Issue of volume 10 (2014), we provide insight into the Journal’s statistics of 2013, announce several interesting Special Issues coming up in 2014 and 2015 and provide a short overview of the papers that make up Issue 10(2). In the previous editorial, we presented several new Editorial Board members of the International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management (IJBESM). We are happy to announce that John Parrotta (US Forest Service) has recently agreed to join the team of Associate Editors. Previously, he was already active as a member of our Editorial Board. He specializes in biodiversity and climate-change mitigation, medicinal plants, forest management, traditional knowledge and forests and human health. In addition, Antonio Lara (Universidad Austral de Chile) has agreed to join the Editorial Board. Antonio Lara specializes in ecological restoration, temperate forests, forest ecology and conservation. Finally, Matthias Schröter (PhD student at Wageningen University) has kindly agreed to join Alexander van Oudenhoven as managing editor, to handle the increasing number of submissions and Special Issues. He specializes in spatial modelling of ecosystem services and also studies conceptual and methodological aspects of ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation.

In this Editorial to Issue 11-4 (2015) of IJBESM, we elaborate on the slightly broadened and modified scope of the Journal and provide a short introduction to the articles of this Issue.The slightl...

The International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management (IJBESM) will be moved to full open access from 26 September 2016 onwards. This means that the research it publish...

In this Editorial to Issue 12–3 (2016) of International Journal of Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services & Management (IJBESM), we introduce this Issue’s articles, which can be of relevance to a wide range of stakeholders, such as local and (inter)national decision-makers, large international firms, farmers, fishery managers and protected area managers. We discuss how various stakeholders could use the findings and, if applicable, how researchers can optimise dissemination and utilisation of their findings. Finally, we welcome a new Editorial Board member and look ahead at the publication of a Special Issue that will address the use of ecosystem services in planning at different scales.

Silvertown [1] provides an outspoken critique on the concept of ecosystem services (ES), feeding a longstanding debate about how to express and conserve the value of nature for humans [2–4]. The paper raises valid concerns about ES monetization, its failure to ‘capture the multifaceted sense in which people value nature’, and market shortcomings in halting biodiversity loss. However, it also points to a supposed ‘dominant neoliberal ideology’ behind the ES concept and characterizes the problem of biodiversity loss as lying ‘deeper in anthropocentrism’.

In this editorial to the first Issue of Volume 10 (2014), we look back on last year’s contributions to the International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management (IJBSEM), summarize changes to the team of Associate Editors and the Editorial Board, and provide a short overview of the papers that make up Issue 10(1). One year ago, we reported that the recent shift in scope had resulted in increased visibility and quality of the Journal’s papers. Although the number of submissions was similar in 2013 compared to 2012, the number of citations and downloads continued to increase, with 14 of the top 20 most-cited papers published since the Journal’s shift in scope (Issue 6, mid-2010), and this is also true for 17 of the top 20 most-read papers. You can find more information on citations and downloads on our website www.tandfonline.com\tbsm. We attribute this progress to the increased focus on management implications of research into biodiversity and ecosystem services. Authors are being encouraged to focus more strongly on the context and consequences of their research for management, as biodiversity or ecosystem services assessments per se generally lack sound problem descriptions and practical recommendations on how results can be interpreted and used. Increased communication between our editors, reviewers and authors has resulted in more high-quality papers and an excellent turnaround time of less than 2 months (mean number of days between submission and first decision). At the time of writing this editorial, the annual report had not been completed yet, which contains detailed statistics on the Journal and a summary of feedback from authors, reviewers, and readers. We expect to be able to inform you on our progress in the next issue of IJBSEM.