Landscapes generate a wide range of valuable ecosystem services, yet land use decisions often ignore the value of these services. Using the example of the UK, we show the significance of land use change not only for agricultural production but also for emissions and sequestration of greenhouse gases, open-access recreational visits, urban green space and wild species diversity. We use spatially explicit models in conjunction with valuation methods to estimate comparable economic values for these services, taking account of climate change impacts. We show that, while decisions which focus solely upon agriculture reduce overall ecosystem service values, highly significant value increases can be obtained from targeted planning incorporating all potential services and their values, and that this approach also conserves wild species diversity.One Sentence Summary: Valuation of ecosystem services within land-use planning creates significant gains relative to current, market-dominated, decision making. Main Text:The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (1) provided important evidence of the ongoing global degradation of ecosystem services and highlighted the need to incorporate their value into the economic analyses which underpin real-world decision-making. Previous studies have shown that the overall values of unconverted natural habitats can exceed the private benefits following conversion (2, 3), that knowledge of landscape heterogeneity and ecological processes can support cost effective land planning (4-7), that trade-offs in land-use decisions affect values from ecosystem services and biodiversity at local level (8, 9), and that current land use is vulnerable to the impacts of global change (10, 11). In the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) (12), a comprehensive assessment of the UK's ecosystems was linked to a systematic, environmental and economic analysis of the benefits they generate. Here we show how taking account of multiple objectives in a changing environment (including, but not restricted to, climate change) fundamentally alters decisions regarding optimal land use. The NEA analyses are based upon highly detailed, spatially-referenced environmental data covering all of Great Britain. These data supported the design and parameterization of models of both the drivers and consequences of land use decisions, incorporating the complexity of the natural environment and its variation across space and time (13). Model outputs provide inputs to economic analyses which assess the value of both marketed and non-marketed goods (Table 1).The NEA specifically addressed the consequences of land use change driven by either just agricultural or a wider set of values, all within the context of ongoing climate change. To assess this, raw data on land use and its determinants were drawn from multiple sources to compile a 40 year dataset, spatially disaggregated at a resolution of 2km grid squares (400ha) or finer across all of Great Britain, forming more than ½ million sets of spatially referenced, time specific...
Wild bee declines have been ascribed in part to neonicotinoid insecticides. While short-term laboratory studies on commercially bred species (principally honeybees and bumblebees) have identified sub-lethal effects, there is no strong evidence linking these insecticides to losses of the majority of wild bee species. We relate 18 years of UK national wild bee distribution data for 62 species to amounts of neonicotinoid use in oilseed rape. Using a multi-species dynamic Bayesian occupancy analysis, we find evidence of increased population extinction rates in response to neonicotinoid seed treatment use on oilseed rape. Species foraging on oilseed rape benefit from the cover of this crop, but were on average three times more negatively affected by exposure to neonicotinoids than non-crop foragers. Our results suggest that sub-lethal effects of neonicotinoids could scale up to cause losses of bee biodiversity. Restrictions on neonicotinoid use may reduce population declines.
Increasing pressure on natural resources driven by population growth and higher levels of individual resource consumption have led to the need to measure and ultimately place values on the diversity of ecosystem services supported by land in order to manage it appropriately. The complexity underlying the provision of many seemingly simple ecosystem services, e.g. drinking water, make the process of identifying and making appropriate measures far from simple. Cultural services, defined as the nonmaterial benefits that people obtain from ecosystems, comprise a range of experiences of nature which enhance human well-being in a variety of ways. Measurement of the experiential benefits of ecosystems has proved difficult, despite their acknowledged importance. This paper describes a novel approach for providing measures of cultural services at national scale (England). The interdisciplinary approach described combines data from a national survey of the biophysical components of the UK countryside with data collected from regional assessments of experiential qualities of landscape in England. The paper discusses the results, merits and limitations of the datasets and approaches used.
Summary1. Understanding and quantifying constraints to multiple ecosystem service delivery and biodiversity is vital for developing management strategies for current and future human well-being. A particular challenge is to reconcile demand for increased food production with provision of other ecosystem services and biodiversity. 2. Using a spatially extensive data base (covering Great Britain) of co-located biophysical measurements (collected in the Countryside Survey), we explore the relationships between ecosystem service indicators and biodiversity across a temperate ecosystem productivity gradient. 3. Each service indicator has an individual response curve demonstrating that simultaneous analysis of multiple ecosystem services is essential for optimal service management. The shape of the response curve can be used to indicate whether 'land sharing' (provision of multiple services from the same land parcel) or 'land sparing' (single service prioritization) is the most appropriate option. 4. Soil carbon storage and above-ground net primary production indicators were found to define opposing ends of a primary gradient in service provision. Biodiversity and water quality indicators were highest at intermediate levels of both factors, consistent with a unimodal relationship along a productivity gradient. 5. Positive relationships occurred between multiple components of biodiversity, measured as taxon richness of all plants, bee and butterfly nectar plants, soil invertebrates and freshwater macroinvertebrates, indicating potential for management measures directed at one aspect of biodiversity to deliver wider ecosystem biodiversity. 6. We demonstrate that in temperate, human-dominated landscapes, ecosystem services are highly constrained by a fundamental productivity gradient. There are immediate trade-offs between productivity and soil carbon storage but potential synergies with services with different shaped relationships to production. 7. Synthesis and applications. Using techniques such as response curves to analyse multiple service interactions can inform the development of Spatial Decision Support tools and landscapescale ecosystem service management options. At intermediate productivity, 'land-sharing' would optimize multiple services, however, to deliver significant soil carbon storage 'land-sparing' is required, that is, resources focused in low productivity areas with high carbon to maximize investment return. This study emphasizes that targets for services per unit area need to be set within the context of the national gradients reported here to ensure best use of limited resources.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.