Search

Green infrastructure (GI) is increasingly addressed in urban planning and research to enhance urban sustainability and resilience through the provisioning of ecosystem services (ES). Yet, few applications exist of planning models for multifunctional GI in high spatial and thematic detail that simultaneously align with stakeholder interests. We address these gaps by developing and presenting a spatially explicit model to inform urban planners on priority areas for multifunctional GI development. This model was made possible by spatial analyses on multiple scales, enabling us to assess ES in sufficient detail, while simultaneously matching the preferences for scale and ES-indicators of decision makers and urban planners. The model involves a novel weighting scheme based upon the local capacity of GI to mitigate problems. We applied our model to the city of The Hague using a set of three policy-relevant problems: air pollution, the urban heat island effect and storm water flooding. Our results show that the capacity of GI to mitigate these problems varies spatially, both within and between ES, and depends on local characteristics of GI and the environmental context. We illustrate the relevance of using a multiscale approach in spatial ES analysis, and underline that GI planning measures should be assessed in high spatial detail due to their often locally distinct ES capacity. Our approach makes important strides towards the deployment of nature-based solutions for urban challenges in the light of demands for increasing resilience and sustainability.

In the face of uncertainties around coastal management and climate change, coastal engineering interventions need to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Nature-based solutions and other non-traditional, integrated interventions are gaining traction. However, system-based views are not yet embedded into coastal management strategies. Moreover, the differences in coastal interventions, ranging from hard (‘grey’) to nature-based (‘green’) infrastructure remain understudied. In coastal management it is therefore challenging to work with the grey-green spectrum of interventions with clarity and focus, and to produce results that can be evaluated. The objective of this paper was to examine whether there is a common understanding of: the characteristics and differences between grey and green infrastructure, where interventions sit on this spectrum, and the resilience of grey versus green infrastructure. We conducted an integrative literature review of the grey-green spectrum of coastal infrastructure. We examined 105 coastal protection case studies and expanded the double-insurance framework to ensure an integrative approach, looking at both external and internal factors of resilience. Our review showed that external factors are typically used to characterise the grey-green spectrum. However, although useful, they do not facilitate a holistic comparison of alternative interventions. The additional consideration of internal factors (response diversity, multifunctionality, modularity and adaptive, participatory governance) bridges this gap. The review showed that dikes, reefs, saltmarshes, sand nourishment and dunes span a wider segment of the grey-green spectrum than they are generally categorised in. Furthermore, resilient solutions for adaptation are unlikely to be exclusively engineered or natural, but tend to be a mix of the two at different spatial scales (micro, meso, macro and mega). Our review therefore suggests that coastal planners benefit from a more diverse range of options when they consider the incorporation of grey and green interventions in the context of each spatial scale. We propose that internal resilience should be accounted for when infrastructure options are comparatively evaluated. This consideration brings attention to the ways in which the grey-hybrid-green spectrum of infrastructure enhances value for people.

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.

Ecosystem services (ES) are increasingly embedded in policy agendas, but if and how policy actors are considering them is not often reported. This study assesses the extent to which ES were considered by key policy actors involved in the strategic decision-making process leading to an innovative large-scale Dutch coastal management project. We analysed retrospective interviews to ascertain which ES were considered and how they were described by policy actors. Over half of the quotes (118/228) and 16 out of the 17 interviewees referred to three broad ES categories, with high degrees of adoption: coastal safety, recreation and cognitive development (learning by doing). The broad terms ‘nature’ and ‘spatial quality’ were also referenced often (36 times). Our findings suggest that broad, unspecified ecosystem services were adopted highly by the policy actors, while specific ecosystem service categories were rarely considered. Relatable and comprehensible cultural ecosystem services also constituted critical arguments for policy actors in their strategic decision making. We reflect that ambiguous, broad terms can help to garner support and unite efforts across disciplinary and institutional boundaries. For ES to align with relevant aspects of decision making, a ‘translation step’ between ES research and decision making might be required and ambiguity should be acknowledged.

A major challenge today and into the future is to maintain or enhance beneficial contributions of nature to a good quality of life for all people. This is among the key motivations of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a joint global effort by governments, academia, and civil society to assess and promote knowledge of Earth's biodiversity and ecosystems and their contribution to human societies in order to inform policy formulation. One of the more recent key elements of the IPBES conceptual framework (1) is the notion of nature's contributions to people (NCP), which builds on the ecosystem service concept popularized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2). But as we detail below, NCP as defined and put into practice in IPBES differs from earlier work in several important ways. First, the NCP approach recognizes the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining all links between people and nature. Second, use of NCP elevates, emphasizes, and operationalizes the role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding nature's contribution to people.

Ecosystem service assessments rarely consider flows between distant regions. Hence, telecoupling effects such as conservation burdens in distant ecosystems are ignored. We identified service-providing species for two cultural ecosystem services (existence and bequest, and birdwatching) and two receiving, i.e. benefitting, regions (Germany, the Netherlands). We delineated and analysed sending, i.e. service-providing, regions on a global scale. The proportion of service-providing species with distant habitats was higher for birdwatching (Germany: 58.6%, Netherlands: 59.4%), than for existence and bequest (Germany: 49.3%, Netherlands: 57.1%). Hotspots of sending regions were predominantly situated in tropical and subtropical grasslands, savannas and shrublands and were significantly more threatened and poorer than the global mean. Hotspot protection levels for flows to Germany were higher than the global mean, and lower for the Dutch hotspots. Our findings increase understanding on how distant regions underpin ecosystem services and necessitate interregional assessment as well as conservation efforts. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s13280-019-01261-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Ecosystem services and sustainability have become prominent concepts in international policy and research agendas. However, a common conceptual ground between these concepts is currently underdeveloped. In particular, a vision is missing on how to align ecosystem services with overarching sustainability goals. Originally, the ecosystem service concept focused on sustaining human well-being through biodiversity conservation. Nevertheless, studies within the field also consider appropriation beyond carrying capacities, and natural resource management that involves environmentally damaging inputs as ecosystem service provision. This brings the ecosystem service concept into conflict with the core goal of sustainability, i.e. achieving justice within ecological limits over the long term. Here, we link the ecosystem service concept to sustainability outcomes operationalized in terms of justice. Our framing positions sustainability as an overarching goal which can be achieved through seven key strategies: equitable (1) intergenerational and (2) intragenerational distribution, (3) interspecies distribution, (4) fair procedures, recognition and participation, (5) sufficiency, (6) efficiency, and (7) persistence. Applying these strategies has the potential to re-focus the ecosystem service concept towards the normative goal of sustainability. We identify research needs for each strategy and further discuss questions regarding operationalization of the strategies. (C) 2017 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

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.