Abstract
Growing concern about the loss of ecosystem services (ES) promotes their spatial representation as a key tool for the internalization of the ES framework into land use policies. Paradoxically, mapping approaches meant to inform policy decisions focus on the magnitude and spatial distribution of the biophysical supply of ES, largely ignoring the social mechanisms by which these services influence human wellbeing. If social mechanisms affecting ES demand, enhancing it or reducing it, are taken more into account, then policies are more effective. By developing and applying a new mapping routine to two distinct socio-ecological systems, we show a strong spatial uncoupling between ES supply and socio-ecological vulnerability to the loss of ES, under scenarios of land use and cover change. Public policies based on ES supply might not only fail at detecting priority conservation areas for the wellbeing of human societies, but may also increase their vulnerability by neglecting areas of currently low, but highly valued ES supply.
Highlights
Growing international concern about the loss of ecosystem services (ES), mainstreams the ES approach into public policy, strengthening the link between human wellbeing and ecosystem integrity [1, 2]
Results of this paper offer relevant directions and tool improvements for ecosystem service researchers, practitioners and policymakers
Our main conclusion is that prioritized conservation areas based only on current ES flows poorly account for the spatially and temporally changing contribution of ES to human wellbeing
Summary
Growing international concern about the loss of ecosystem services (ES), mainstreams the ES approach into public policy, strengthening the link between human wellbeing and ecosystem integrity [1, 2]. Advances in scientific knowledge and the emergence of GIS-based mapping tools set the groundwork for the exponential growth of diverse mapping methods [8,9,10,11] These methods range from simple shape algebra to complex process-based models; and from ad-hoc procedures developed for specific case studies to standardized mapping routines [12, 13]. Such a wide array of methods and resulting map outcomes, while valuable from a scientific standpoint, might confound decision makers when different procedures are proposed for similar objectives (e.g. land-use planning or ES payment design), or when distinct planning goals are analyzed with similar methods [11].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
