Ecosystem Services Framework Research Articles

Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain: Insights for policy and planning

In many European cities, urban gardens are seen as increasingly important components of urban green space networks. We adopt an ecosystem services framework to assess contributions of urban gardens to the quality of of their users. First, we identify and characterize ecosystem services provided by urban gardens. Secondly, we assess the demographic and socioeconomic profile of its beneficiaries and the relative importance they attribute to different ecosystem services. Next we discuss the relevance of our results in relation to critical policy challenges, such as the promotion of societal cohesion and healthy lifestyles. Data were collected through 44 semi-structured interviews and a survey among 201 users of 27 urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain, as well as from consultation meetings with local planners. We identified 20 ecosystem services, ranging from food production over pollination to social cohesion and environmental learning. Among them, cultural ecosystem services (non-material benefits people derive from their interaction with nature) ​ stand out as the most widely perceived and as the most highly valued. The main beneficiaries of ecosystem services from urban gardens are elder, low-middle income, and migrant people. Our results about the societal importance of urban gardens ​were deemed highly relevant by the interviewed green space planners in Barcelona, who noted that our data can provide basis to support or expand existing gardening programs in the city. Our research further suggests that ecosystem services from urban gardens can play an important role in addressing several urban policy challenges in cities, such as promoting stewardship of urban ecosystems, providing opportunities for recreation and healthy lifestyles, and promoting social cohesion. We conclude that urban gardens and associated ecosystem services can play an important ​ in urban policies aimed at enhancing quality of life in cities, particularly if access to their benefits is expanded to larger segments of the population.

Designing a knowledge co-production operating space for urban environmental governance—Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany

Challenges for a sustainable urban development are increasingly important in cities because urbanization and related land take come up with negative challenges for the environment and for city residents. Searching for successful solutions to environmental problems requires combined efforts of different scientific disciplines and an active dialogue between stakeholders from policy and society. In this paper, we present a comparative assessment of the way policy-science dialogues have achieved knowledge co-production about strategic urban environmental governance action using the cities of Berlin in Germany and Rotterdam in the Netherlands as case studies. The ecosystem services framework is applied as a lens for policy–science interaction and a ‘knowledge co-production operating space’ is introduced. We show how policy officers, urban planners, practitioners and scientists learned from each other, and highlight the impact of this knowledge co-production for governance practice. We found that the concerted collaboration and co-creation between researchers and policy officers have led to mutual learning and establishment of relationships and trust in both cities. Not only the policy-relevance of research and its policy uptake were achieved but also new insights for research blind spots were created. In our conclusions we reflect on co-production processes with two types of conditions that we introduced to be most influential in the way knowledge can be co-created. These are conditions that relate to the way knowledge co-production processes are set-up and, conditions that relate to the expected value or benefit that the co-produced knowledge will bring across society, policy and practice.

Meeting local economic decision-maker's demand for environmental evidence: The Local Environment and Economic Development (LEED) toolkit

This paper reports on the Local Environment and Economic Development (LEED) toolkit—a process designed to include evidence about environmental change into local economic development decision-making. The toolkit organises evidence using an Ecosystem Services Framework and the economy's use of energy and material. It uses this evidence to discover threats and opportunities to local economic growth plans, which stem from the relationship of the local economy to the environment, and to recommend responses to them. LEED was promoted to the 39 Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) in England, of which 15 made use of it. Experts have conducted a Red/Amber/Green status review of the LEP's Strategic Economic Plans. Their review shows that the proportion of the LEPs using the toolkit that moved from red, or amber, to a green, was almost double (19%) that of the LEPs that did not use the toolkit (10%). The research shows that an Ecosystem Services Framework can be used to make environmental evidence relevant to economic development planning, even if all the evidence cannot be fully proven or quantified. To be successful evidence must be presented in a way which connects with the decision-making framework in use.

Crowdsourcing indicators for cultural ecosystem services: A geographically weighted approach for mountain landscapes

Integrating cultural dimensions into the ecosystem service framework is essential for appraising non-material benefits stemming from different human–environment interactions. This study investigates how the actual provision of cultural services is distributed across the landscape according to spatially varying relationships. The final aim was to analyse how landscape settings are associated to people's preferences and perceptions related to cultural ecosystem services in mountain landscapes. We demonstrated a spatially explicit method based on geo-tagged images from popular social media to assess revealed preferences. A spatially weighted regression showed that specific variables correspond to prominent drivers of cultural ecosystem services at the local scale. The results of this explanatory approach can be used to integrate the cultural service dimension into land planning by taking into account specific benefiting areas and by setting priorities on the ecosystems and landscape characteristics which affect the service supply. We finally concluded that the use of crowdsourced data allows identifying spatial patterns of cultural ecosystem service preferences and their association with landscape settings.

Using ecosystem services in decision-making to support sustainable development: Critiques, model development, a case study, and perspectives

In this paper, I propose a general, consistent, and operational approach that accounts for ecosystem services in a decision-making context: I link ecosystem services to sustainable development criteria; adopt multi-criteria analysis to measure ecosystem services, with weights provided by stakeholders used to account for equity issues; apply both temporal and spatial discount rates; and adopt a technique to order performance of the possible solutions based on their similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS) to account for uncertainty about the parameters and functions. Applying this approach in a case study of an offshore research platform in Italy (CNR Acqua Alta) revealed that decisions depend non-linearly on the degree of loss aversion, to a smaller extent on a global focus (as opposed to a local focus), and to the smallest extent on social concerns (as opposed to economic or environmental concerns). Application of the general model to the case study leads to the conclusion that the ecosystem services framework is likely to be less useful in supporting decisions than in identifying the crucial features on which decisions depend, unless experts from different disciplines are involved, stakeholders are represented, and experts and stakeholders achieve mutual understanding.

Cultural valuation and biodiversity conservation in the Upper Guinea forest, West Africa

The cultural valuation of biodiversity has taken on renewed importance over the last two decades as the ecosystem services framework has become widely adopted. Conservation initiatives increasingly use ecosystem service frameworks to render tropical forest landscapes and their peoples legible to market-oriented initiatives such as REDD+ and biodiversity offsetting schemes. Ecosystem service approaches have been widely criticized by scholars in the social sciences and humanities for their narrow focus on a small number of easily quantifiable and marketable services and a reductionist and sometimes simplistic approach to culture. We address the need to combine methods from each of the “three cultures” of natural science, quantitative social science, and qualitative social science/humanities in conceptualizing the relationship between cultural valuation and biodiversity conservation. We combine qualitative data with forest inventories and a quantitative index of cultural value to evaluate the relationship between cultural valuation and biodiversity conservation in Upper Guinea forest in Liberia, West Africa. Our study focuses on “sacred agroforests,” spaces that are associated with Mande macro-language speaking groups such as the Loma. We demonstrate that sacred agroforests are associated with different cultural values compared with secondary forests. Although biodiversity and biomass are similar, sacred agroforests exhibit a different species composition, especially of culturally salient species, increasing overall landscape agro-biodiversity. Sacred agroforests are also shaped and conserved by local cultural institutions revolving around ancestor worship, ritual, and the metaphysical conceptual category “salɛ.” We conclude that to understand the relationship between cultural valuation and biodiversity conservation, interpretivist approaches such as phenomenology should be employed alongside positivist ecosystem service frameworks.

Key insights for the future of urban ecosystem services research

Kremer, P., Z. Hamstead, D. Haase, T. McPhearson, N. Frantzeskaki, E. Andersson, N. Kabisch, N. Larondelle, E. Lorance Rall, A. Voigt, F. Baró, C. Bertram, E. Gómez-Baggethun, R. Hansen, A. Kaczorowska, J.-H. Kain, J. Kronenberg, J. Langemeyer, S. Pauleit, K. Rehdanz, M. Schewenius, C. van Ham, D. Wurster, and T. Elmqvist. 2016. Key insights for the future of urban ecosystem services research. Ecology and Society 21(2):29.http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08445-210229

Building scenarios for ecosystem services tools: Developing a methodology for efficient engagement with expert stakeholders

The ecosystem services framework provides a holistic perspective for planning on local, national, and global scales. Often, scenarios are utilized to quantify and contrast the potential impacts of anthropocentric or climatic drivers of change on ecosystem services. One freely available modeling suite, Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST), from the Natural Capital Project, aims to aid in decision making and planning processes by quantifying ecosystem services in spatially explicit context. Several of their modeling tools require land cover data layers, and the user can generate future land cover data layers through the scenario generator tool, released in 2014. The tool’s associated literature emphasizes the integration of stakeholders into the scenario generating process to help create plausible and relevant scenarios, often through workshops. Our study reviews the tool and presents an alternative methodology for engaging expert stakeholders in the scenario generation process through a less time intensive format than the recommended workshops—a detailed questionnaire. We find that there is a need for systematic decision making analysis of stakeholder input before scenarios can be created, and we used cumulative percent frequency analysis of questionnaire responses to dictate scenario generation transition tables, when appropriate. We conclude that using a questionnaire to elicit input from expert stakeholders to develop land cover scenarios may be a time and cost effective alternative that still provides realistic and usable inputs when compared to workshops.

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats: A SWOT analysis of the ecosystem services framework

The ecosystem services concept (ES) is becoming a cornerstone of contemporary sustainability thought. Challenges with this concept and its applications are well documented, but have not yet been systematically assessed alongside strengths and external factors that influence uptake. Such an assessment could form the basis for improving ES thinking, further embedding it into environmental decisions and management.The Young Ecosystem Services Specialists (YESS) completed a Strengths–Weaknesses–Opportunities–Threats (SWOT) analysis of ES through YESS member surveys. Strengths include the approach being interdisciplinary, and a useful communication tool. Weaknesses include an incomplete scientific basis, frameworks being inconsistently applied, and accounting for nature's intrinsic value. Opportunities include alignment with existing policies and established methodologies, and increasing environmental awareness. Threats include resistance to change, and difficulty with interdisciplinary collaboration. Consideration of SWOT themes suggested five strategic areas for developing and implementing ES.The ES concept could improve decision-making related to natural resource use, and interpretation of the complexities of human-nature interactions. It is contradictory – valued as a simple means of communicating the importance of conservation, whilst also considered an oversimplification characterised by ambiguous language. Nonetheless, given sufficient funding and political will, the ES framework could facilitate interdisciplinary research, ensuring decision-making that supports sustainable development.

Soil stewardship as a nexus between Ecosystem Services and One Health

We highlight the overlap in Ecosystem Services frameworks and the developing One Health approach, and assert that better integration and communication between these could provide a platform for synergistic research with greater benefits for resilience and health in socioecological systems. Furthermore, we propose that soil stewardship could act as the nexus for such integration and present potential research avenues with existing positive examples.

The total costs of soil degradation in England and Wales

There is growing concern that the way that soils are used often results in their degradation, giving rise to significant costs, both to direct users of soils and to society as a whole. This paper develops and uses an approach to derive the total economic cost of soil degradation in England and Wales. An estimate was made of degradation costs at the national scale for dominant combinations of land cover and soils, defined as ‘soilscapes’. An ecosystem services framework was used to assess how degradation affects the capacity of soils to support a range of ‘final goods’, distinguishing between on-site and off-site costs, and market and non-market effects. Quantifiable soil degradation costs ranged between £0.9 bn and £1.4 bn per year, with a central estimate of £1.2 bn, mainly linked to loss of organic content of soils (47% of total cost), compaction (39%) and erosion (12%). Eighty percent of costs occur off-site and, as such, are often of limited concern to those whose actions may be causing soil degradation. The findings confirm that control of soil degradation has implications for a number of key policy areas such as flood risk management and climate change mitigation.

Integrating Human and Ecosystem Health Through Ecosystem Services Frameworks.

The pace and scale of environmental change is undermining the conditions for human health. Yet the environment and human health remain poorly integrated within research, policy and practice. The ecosystem services (ES) approach provides a way of promoting integration via the frameworks used to represent relationships between environment and society in simple visual forms. To assess this potential, we undertook a scoping review of ES frameworks and assessed how each represented seven key dimensions, including ecosystem and human health. Of the 84 ES frameworks identified, the majority did not include human health (62%) or include feedback mechanisms between ecosystems and human health (75%). While ecosystem drivers of human health are included in some ES frameworks, more comprehensive frameworks are required to drive forward research and policy on environmental change and human health.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10393-015-1041-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Critical Assessment

This paper is about the practice of evaluating ecosystems on the basis of the cultural services they provide. My first aim is to assess the various objections that have been made to this practice. My second is to argue that when particular places are integral to people’s lives, their value cannot be adequately conceived in terms of the provision of cultural ecosystem services. It follows, I conclude, that the ecosystem services framework can provide only a very limited account of the value of places.

Ecosystem services or services to ecosystems? Valuing cultivation and reciprocal relationships between humans and ecosystems

The concept of Ecosystem Services (ES), widely understood as the “benefits that humans receive from the natural functioning of healthy ecosystems” (Jeffers et al., 2015), depicts a one-way flow of services from ecosystems to people. We argue that this conceptualisation is overly simplistic and largely inaccurate, neglecting the reality that humans often contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of ecosystems, as often evidenced (but not exclusively) in many traditional and Indigenous societies. Management interventions arising from Ecosystem Services research are thus potentially damaging to both ecosystems and indigenous rights. We present the concept of ‘Services to Ecosystems’ (S2E) to address this, closing the loop of the reciprocal relationship between humans and ecosystems. Case studies from the biocultural ecosystems of Amazonia and the Pacific Northwest of North America (Cascadia) are used to illustrate the concept and provide examples of Services to Ecosystems in past and current societies. Finally, an alternative framework is presented, advancing the existing framework for Ecosystem Services by incorporating this reconceptualization and the loop of reciprocity. The framework aims to facilitate the inclusion of Services to Ecosystems in management strategies based upon Ecosystem Services, and highlights the need for ethnographic research in Ecosystem Service-based interventions.

The application of an ecosystem services framework to estimate the economic value of dung beetles to theU.K.cattle industry

1. TheDEFRAecosystem services framework was implemented in an entomological context to provide preliminary estimates of the economic value of four key ecosystem service benefits delivered by dung beetles (Coleoptera:Scarabaeidae,Geotrupidae) to theU.K.cattle industry and individual cattle farmers. These benefits included (i) reduced pest flies; (ii) reduced gastrointestinal parasites; (iii) reduced pasture fouling and (iv) increased soil nutrients.2. A mesocosm experiment was carried out to quantify the impacts of anthelmintic treatment on dung removal by dung beetles when (i) cattle were excreting anthelmintics (which affect dung beetles) in a sufficient concentration to impact dung beetles and (ii) when cattle were not excreting dung containing anthelmintics (which affect dung beetles) in a sufficient concentration to impact dung beetles.3. Inferring from our mesocosm experiment and existing data, the value of the benefits of dung beetles under current farming practices (and current anthelmintic usage) was estimated. We estimated the potential economic benefits if dung beetles were protected (i) under all entry‐level agri‐environment schemes; (ii) under organic schemes; or (iii) if farmers stopped treating adult cattle with anthelmintics during the grazing season.4. While these estimates are preliminary, and should not be treated as definitive values, we suggest that dung beetles may be currently saving theU.K.cattle industryc.£367 million each year:c. £354 million in conventional systems andc.£13 million in organic systems. Annual benefits per cow are greater in organic systems (£43.47) compared with conventional systems (£37.42).5. Protecting dung beetles under agri‐environment schemes could save theU.K.cattle industry an additional £40.2 million year−1(£4.36 per cow), while protecting dung beetles under organic schemes could save £378 k year−1(£1.26 per cow). The cessation of, largely unnecessary, treatment of adult cattle with anthelmintics could save theU.K.cattle industry an additional £6.2 million year−1(£1.40 per cow) in addition to savings on the anthelmintics themselves.6. These estimates are based on a large number of underlying assumptions and, thus, may be overestimating or underestimating the economic value of ecosystem services delivered by dung beetles.7. The potential for using theDEFRAecosystem services framework in an entomological context is highlighted. These estimates emphasise the contribution of dung beetles as keyEcosystemServiceProviders (ESP's) within theU.K.cattle sector and, by extension, emphasise the importance of valuing supporting ecosystem services derived from invertebrates.

A comparison of ecosystem services mapping tools for their potential to support planning and decision-making on a local scale

The inclusion of an ecosystem services framework into planning and decision-making processes is increasingly being seen as a means to further a better implementation of the Ecosystem Approach and to achieve a more sustainable allocation of resources. Tools are slowly emerging to help scientists and practitioners with mapping ecosystem services. This study reviewed three tools with regard to their potential use as standard tools to be employed in local planning. To this end, an email survey was conducted first to identify the most important criteria practitioners require in an ecosystem services mapping tool. InVEST and EcoServ-GIS were then applied to produce several ecosystem services maps for a small catchment in the Scottish Borders. These maps were compared to already existing maps produced with another method, SENCE. We showed that there can be substantial variations in maps produced with different tools. These reflect the differences between the tools, especially in their requirements for data, their user friendliness and their accuracy. Our comparison highlights that tools so far have had to make a compromise between usability and scientific accuracy, which means that practitioners need to carefully weigh the requirements for a specific project before deciding on the appropriate tool.

Mapping value plurality towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: A Q analysis

For many deep-rooted resource conflicts where the cultural component of ecosystem services (ES) is strong, standard monetary valuation may be methodologically difficult and not always meaningful. A deeper understanding of the value plurality of key stakeholders may be called for to develop acceptable policies. We use the Q method to analyse the perceived and actual trade-offs related to Norwegian wildlife management, a source of prominent conflict in Norway. We identify and classify distinct arguments in the wildlife management debate following the ES framework, and use the Q method to explore extant/prominent narratives characterising stakeholders' perceptions of the importance of arguments about biodiversity and ES. Finally, we reflect on whether and to what extent the Q method can contribute to our understanding of resource conflicts, underlying values, and ES trade-offs. Three clear narratives appeared: Pro-sheep grazing (cultural), pro-carnivore conservation (intrinsic) and a middle position emphasising recreational hunting (utilitarian). Despite considerable disagreement among narratives, the Q analysis also revealed areas of common ground useful for developing acceptable policies. Given the inherent complexity of socio-ecological systems, it is useful to draw from a diverse toolbox of methods, including the Q method for ES analysis.

Revealing ecological processes or imposing social rationalities? The politics of bounding and measuring ecosystem services

Ecosystem service (ES) frameworks have been developed to characterize and model the relationships between ecological processes and human benefits. Some argue that these relationships should be specified through expert-derived analytical (i.e., top-down) frameworks, in order to organize accumulated knowledge and create ready-made framings for communities on the ground. In contrast, arguments for the participatory construction of ES assessments emphasize the need for place-sensitive and deliberative (i.e., bottom-up) approaches. In this paper, we draw on a novel water planning exercise in New Zealand to examine the tensions that arise when expert-produced categories intersect with diverse stakeholder worldviews and aspirations. Expert-derived ES categories and analyses intervene in local valuation contexts in a range of ways, narrowing the scope of which ecological processes might be considered as relevant or legitimate (bounding), as well as affecting how these processes are described and compared (measuring). The practices of bounding and measuring ES in scientific and planning assessments should thus be conceptualized as involving political work and not just scientific judgment. This reframes the role of ecological science and scientists in ES debates, and this presents cautions as well as opportunities for future ES work relating to policy.

Ecosystem Services Flows: Why Stakeholders' Power Relationships Matter.

The ecosystem services framework has enabled the broader public to acknowledge the benefits nature provides to different stakeholders. However, not all stakeholders benefit equally from these services. Rather, power relationships are a key factor influencing the access of individuals or groups to ecosystem services. In this paper, we propose an adaptation of the “cascade” framework for ecosystem services to integrate the analysis of ecological interactions among ecosystem services and stakeholders’ interactions, reflecting power relationships that mediate ecosystem services flows. We illustrate its application using the floodplain of the River Piedra (Spain) as a case study. First, we used structural equation modelling (SEM) to model the dependence relationships among ecosystem services. Second, we performed semi-structured interviews to identify formal power relationships among stakeholders. Third, we depicted ecosystem services according to stakeholders’ ability to use, manage or impair ecosystem services in order to expose how power relationships mediate access to ecosystem services. Our results revealed that the strongest power was held by those stakeholders who managed (although did not use) those keystone ecosystem properties and services that determine the provision of other services (i.e., intermediate regulating and final services). In contrast, non-empowered stakeholders were only able to access the remaining non-excludable and non-rival ecosystem services (i.e., some of the cultural services, freshwater supply, water quality, and biological control). In addition, land stewardship, access rights, and governance appeared as critical factors determining the status of ecosystem services. Finally, we stress the need to analyse the role of stakeholders and their relationships to foster equal access to ecosystem services.

Analysis of ecosystem services trade-offs to design agroecosystems with perennial crops

Agroecosystems represent 38 % of global land use. Agroecosystems are located close to human settlements and are managed to produce food and fibers, traded in markets. Agroecosystems also produce other goods and services essential to human beings, such as climate regulation, flood mitigation, and landscape amenity. Economists and ecologists have developed the ecosystem services framework to foster the provision of these non-commercial services. Scientists can therefore help decision makers to develop sustainable ecosystems by studying ecosystem services. Here, we analyze the trade-offs of ecosystem services of farming systems. We discuss case studies of mixed perennial crops. The set of ecosystem services provided by these agroecosystems depends on their composition, structure, and management. Complex rule-based management will be required if winegrowers are to maintain an adequate set of ecosystem services across contrasting climatic years. Innovations including cover crops in banana systems can fulfill most of the objective set but will rely on increased farm labor. We then discuss the advantages, challenges, and opportunities to include the description of relations between ecosystem services in cropping system design. We propose to extend the yield gap analysis to ecosystem services, as a service gap analysis. This extension faces methodological questions about the potential provision of a service in a region. We conclude on the challenges that need to be faced if we want to use ecosystem services trade-offs to improve the contribution of agricultural systems to human well-being.