Priority Ecosystem Services Research Articles

Linking ecosystem services and human-values theory.

Understanding why people make the decisions they do remains a fundamental challenge facing conservation science. Ecosystem service (ES) (a benefit people derive from an ecosystem) approaches to conservation reflect efforts to anticipate people's preferences and influence their environmental behavior. Yet, the design of ES approaches seldom includes psychological theories of human behavior. We sought to alleviate this omission by applying a psychological theory of human values to a cross-cultural ES assessment. We used interviews and focus groups with fish workers from 28 coral reef fishing communities in 4 countries to qualitatively identify the motivations (i.e., human values) underlying preferences for ES; quantitatively evaluate resource user ES priorities; and identify common patterns among ES motivations and ES priorities (i.e., trade-offs and synergies). Three key findings are evident that align with human values theory. First, motivations underlying preferences for individual ESs reflected multiple human values within the same value domain (e.g., self-enhancement). Second, when averaged at community or country scales, the order of ES priorities was consistent. However, the order belied significant variation that existed among individuals. Third, in line with human values theory, ESs related to one another in a consistent pattern; certain service pairs reflected trade-off relationships (e.g., supporting and provisioning), whereas other service pairs reflected synergistic relationships (e.g., supporting and regulating). Together, these findings help improve understanding of when and why convergence and trade-offs in people's preferences for ESs occur, and this knowledge can inform the development of suitable conservation actions.

Identifying and managing priority ecosystem services in Peru

Identifying and managing priority ecosystem services in Peru

Participatory assessment and mapping of ecosystem services in a data-poor region: Case study of community-managed forests in central Nepal

Community-managed forests (CMF) provide vital ecosystem services (ES) for local communities. However, the status and trend of ES in CMF have not been assessed in many developing countries because of a lack of appropriate data, tools, appropriate policy or management framework. Using a case study of community-managed forested landscape in central Nepal, this paper aims to identify and map priority ES and assess the temporal change in the provision of ES between 1990 and 2013. Semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, transect walks and participatory mapping were used to identify and assess priority ES. The results indicated that community forestry has resulted in the substantial restoration of forests on degraded lands over the period of 1990–2013. Local community members and experts consider that this restoration has resulted in a positive impact on various ES beneficial for local, regional, national and international users. Priority ES identified in the study included timber, firewood, freshwater, carbon sequestration, water regulation, soil protection, landscape beauty as well as biodiversity. There were strong variations in the valuation of different ES between local people and experts, between genders and between different status and income classes in the local communities. In general, whereas CMF provide considerable benefits at larger scales, local people have yet to perceive the real value of these different ES provided by their forest management efforts. The study demonstrated that participatory tools, combined with free-access satellite images and repeat photography are suitable approaches to engage local communities in discussions regarding ES and to map and prioritise ES values.

Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value coral reef ecosystem services

Managing ecosystems in a changing environment faces the challenge of balancing diverse competing perspectives on which ecosystem services – nature's benefits – to prioritize. Consequently, we measured and compared how different stakeholders (managers, scientists and fishers) prioritize specific coral reef ecosystem services. Managers’ priorities were more aligned with scientists’ priorities but all stakeholder groups agreed that fishery, education, and habitat were high priorities. However, stakeholder groups differed in the extent to which they prioritized certain services. Fishers tended to assigned greater estimates to fishery and education, managers to culture, and scientists to coastal protection. Furthermore, using network analysis to map the interactions between stakeholders’ priorities, we found distinct synergies and trade-offs in how ecosystem services were prioritized, representing areas of agreement and conflict. In the fishers’ network, trade-offs emerged between two services, both of a higher priority, such as fishery and habitat. Conversely, in the scientists’ network, trade-offs emerged between services of a higher and lower priority, such as habitat and culture. The trade-offs and synergies that emerged in the managers’ network overlap with both fishers’ and scientists’ suggesting a potential brokering role that managers can play in balancing both priorities and conflicts. We suggest that measuring ecosystem service priorities can highlight key areas of agreement and conflict, both within and across stakeholder groups, to be addressed when communicating and prioritizing decisions.

Using Nonmarket Valuation to Target Conservation Payments: An Example Involving Georgia's Private Forests

Using landscape analysis and economic valuation, this article shows how valuation techniques can inform prioritization of private forestland for ecosystem service conservation and highlights the methodological challenges in doing so. We classify forests according to six ecological and social characteristics. If ecosystem service priorities are known a priori, this landscape analysis might be sufficient for targeting conservation efforts. However, if priorities are not known or there are multiple priorities, economic valuation techniques can be used to estimate preference weights to prioritize forests based on the benefits of the ecosystem service provided. We create priority conservation maps using two different valuation methods: benefit transfer and an original stated choice experiment. The two approaches result in significantly different priority maps, largely due to how the two methods operationalize value. These differences underscore the importance of carefully evaluating the methodological implications of using a particular valuation technique

Multi-functional landscapes in semi arid environments: implications for biodiversity and ecosystem services

Synergies between biodiversity conservation objectives and ecosystem service management were investigated in the Succulent Karoo biome (83,000 km2) of South Africa, a recognised biodiversity hotspot. Our study complemented a previous biodiversity assessment with an ecosystem service assessment. Stakeholder engagement and expert consultation focussed our investigations on surface water, ground water, grazing and tourism as the key services in this region. The key ecosystem services and service hotspots were modelled and mapped. The congruence between these services, and between biodiversity priorities and ecosystem service priorities, were assessed and considered in relation to known threats. Generally low levels of overlap were found between these ecosystem services, with the exception of surface and ground water which had an 80% overlap. The overlap between ecosystem service hotspots and individual biodiversity priority areas was generally low. Four of the seven priority areas assessed have more than 20% of their areas classified as important for services. In specific cases, particular service levels could be used to justify the management of a specific biodiversity priority area for conservation. Adopting a biome scale hotspot approach to assessing service supply highlighted key management areas. However, it underplayed local level dependence on particular services, not effectively capturing the welfare implications associated with diminishing and limited service provision. We conclude that regional scale (biome level) approaches need to be combined with local level investigations (municipal level). Given the regional heterogeneity and varied nature of the impacts of drivers and threats, diverse approaches are required to steer land management towards sustainable multifunctional landscape strategies.

Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities

Summary 1. Ecosystems support biodiversity and also provide goods and services that are beneficial to humans. The extent to which the locations that are most valuable for ecosystem services coincide with those that support the most biodiversity is of critical importance when designing conservation and land management strategies. There are, however, few studies on which to base any kind of conclusion about possible spatial patterns of association between ecosystem services and biodiversity. Moreover, little is known about the sensitivity of the conclusions to the quality of the data available, or to the choice and size of the region used for analysis. 2. Here, we first present national‐scale estimates of the spatial covariance in areas important for ecosystem services and biodiversity (richness of species of conservation concern), using Britain as a case study. We then explore how these associations are sensitive to the spatial resolution of the available data, the spatial extent of our study region and to regional variation across the study area. 3. Our analyses reveal a mixture of negative and positive associations. In particular, the regionalization analysis shows that one can arrive at diametrically opposing conclusions about relationships between ecosystem services and biodiversity by studying the same question within different areas, even within a moderately small island. 4. Synthesis and applications. In a policy context, the location‐specific nature of relationships between ecosystem services and biodiversity underscores the importance of multi‐scale environmental decision‐making, so as to reflect both local conditions and broader‐scale priorities. The results also suggest that efforts to establish general patterns of congruence in ecosystem services and biodiversity may offer a less constructive way forward than do more regional approaches.

EVALUATING THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE (E-QOL) FOR STUDENTS IN THE URBAN AREAS

Rapid and continuous urbanization is inevitable in the very near future. This phenomenon is the cause of many problems that could adversely affect the quality of life (QOL) of urban area inhabitants. Urban green spaces could address these problems by providing various benefits, which are known as ecosystem services (ES). This research focuses on the ES-related QOL or E-QOL, which is defined as “the satisfaction with ES weighed by the scale of importance”. The Kanto region was chosen as the study site due to its importance to Japan economically and socially. Survey was conducted among students from three universities within Kanto region. Action Grid Analysis shows that the priority ES in the urban area are: air pollution control, greenhouse gas reduction, heat island mitigation, and water pollution control. The sources of these four ES as well as their quantity and quality should be improved to increase E-QOL. Simultaneous multiple regression result shows that importance of water pollution control and satisfaction with air pollution control could be used to predict the E-QOL. Other factors such as urbanization promotion area and land-use changes were used to differentiate the importance and satisfaction with each of the ES.

Scale and conservation planning in the real world

Conservation planning is carried out on a variety of geopolitical and biogeographical scales. Whereas considerable consensus is emerging about the most appropriate procedures for identifying conservation areas, the spatial implications of conducting conservation planning at divergent scales have received little attention. Here we explore the consequences of planning at different geopolitical scales, using a database of the mammalian fauna from the Northern Provinces of South Africa. The conservation network resulting from treating the region as one unit is compared with networks generated separately for the provinces nested in that region. These outcomes are evaluated in terms of (i) their land use efficiencies, (ii) their spatial overlap, and (iii) the impact of algorithm attributes. Although land use efficiencies are greater on broader scales, on average the spatial congruence between the broad-scale regional network and fine-scale provincial networks was less than 14%. Algorithms using different selection rules fail to improve this disturbing outcome. Consequently, scale has an overwhelming influence on areas identified as conservation networks in geopolitical units. This should be recognized in conservation planning.