Beef and Beyond: Paying for Ecosystem Services on Western US
                        Rangelands

Goldstein, Joshua; Presnall, Carrie; López‐Hoffman, Laura

doi:10.2458/azu_rangelands_v33i5_goldstein

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For over a decade, science and policy efforts have increasingly focused on valuing and preserving ecosystem services—the collective benefits humanity obtains from the environment [ 1 ]. Globally, ecosystem service payments and investment programs are seeing tremendous growth [ 2 – 4 ], and receiving increasing support from a diversity of scientists, environmental groups, land managers, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations [ 2 , 5 – 8 ]. Of course, considerable challenges—including climate change, increasing resource needs driven by growing human population, changing fire regimes and land use conversion—remain for delivering ecosystem services [ 8 – 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple ecosystem services in a working landscape

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policy makers and practitioners are in need of useful tools and models for assessing ecosystem service outcomes and the potential risks and opportunities of ecosystem management options. We utilize a state-and-transition model framework integrating dynamic soil and vegetation properties to examine multiple ecosystem services—specifically agricultural production, biodiversity and habitat, and soil health—across human created vegetation states in a managed oak woodland landscape in a Mediterranean climate. We found clear tradeoffs and synergies in management outcomes. Grassland states maximized agricultural productivity at a loss of soil health, biodiversity, and other ecosystem services. Synergies existed among multiple ecosystem services in savanna and woodland states with significantly larger nutrient pools, more diversity and native plant richness, and less invasive species. This integrative approach can be adapted to a diversity of working landscapes to provide useful information for science-based ecosystem service valuations, conservation decision making, and management effectiveness assessments.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple ecosystem services in a working landscape

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Across Eastern and Southern Africa, wildlife tourism is a core product of the tourism industry and contributes significantly to national economies by providing millions of jobs (Christie and Crompton, 2001). Although traditionally highly dependent on protected areas, wildlife tourism is now rapidly expanding on private and communal lands outside protected areas (Carter et al, 2008); some commercial tourism enterprises are incorporating payments for ecosystem services (PES) as an incentive or reward for landowners' provision of ecosystem services that support wildlife tourism (Greiner et al, 2009;Goldstein et al, 2011). PES has been defined as "(1) a voluntary transaction in which (2) a well-defined environmental service (or land use likely to generate that service) (3) is 'bought' by a (minimum of one) buyer (4) from a (minimum of one) provider (5) if and only if the provider continuously secures the provision of the service (conditionality)" (Wunder, 2005:3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why keep lions instead of livestock? Assessing wildlife tourism‐based payment for ecosystem services involving herders in the Maasai Mara, Kenya

Osano

Said

Leeuw

et al. 2013

Natural Resources Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the effects of wildlife tourism-based payments for ecosystem services (PES) on poverty, wealth inequality and the livelihoods of herders in the Maasai Mara Ecosystem in south-western Kenya. It uses the case of Olare Orok Conservancy PES programme in which pastoral landowners have agreed to voluntary resettlement and exclusion of livestock grazing from their sub-divided lands. These lands are set aside for wildlife tourism, in return for direct monetary payments by a coalition of five commercial tourism operators. Results show that, on the positive side, PES is the most equitable income source that promotes income diversification and buffers households from the livestock income declines during periods of severe drought, such as in 2008-2009. Without accounting for the opportunity costs, the magnitude of the PES cash transfer to households is, on average, sufficient to close the poverty gap. The co-benefits of PES implementation include the creation of employment opportunities in the conservancy and provision of social services. There is however a need to mitigate the negative effects of PES, including the widening inequality in income between PES and non-PES households and the leakages resulting from the displacement of settlements and livestock to currently un-subdivided pastoral commons.

show abstract

“…For the majority of Great Plains landowners, however, including Indian tribes, traditional and nontraditional private owners, nonprofit organizations and government agencies, the importance of livestock profitability varies widely relative to other biodiversity-dependent, monetary and non-monetary values of the land. Increasingly, landowners can generate revenues from ecotourism, fee hunting, conservation easements, green labeling, habitat conservation, carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services, revenues that can compensate for reduced income from livestock (Havstad et al 2007, Goldstein et al 2011. Moreover, aesthetic, spiritual and other nonmonetary motivations based on conservation interests and "doing the right thing" strongly influence landowner management decisions (Chouinard et al 2008).…”

Section: Economic Trade-offs Between Lcm and Bcmmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…M anagement for biodiversity and other ecosystem services from North America's rangelands has received increasing attention as recognition of the societal value of those services and payment mechanisms for them have grown (Havstad et al 2007, Goldstein et al 2011). Predictions of a warmer and drier climate across most of the continent's rangelands raise concerns about the sustainability of current livestock production practices (Mader et al 2009, National Global Change Research Program 2014.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Management Framework for the Transition from Livestock Production toward Biodiversity Conservation on Great Plains Rangelands

Freese

Fuhlendorf

Kunkel

2014

Ecological Restoration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Management for biodiversity and other ecosystem services from North America's rangelands has received increasing attention as recognition of the societal value of those services and payment mechanisms for them have grown. This, combined with adverse effects of livestock management on North American rangeland biodiversity and predictions of a warmer and drier climate reducing rangeland productivity, has led some rangeland scientists to call for a paradigm shift from utilitarian-driven management to biodiversity conservation management. A challenge for rangeland science is to describe management changes required for this shift and to elucidate consequent ecological and economic tradeoffs. On the basis of two criteria, direct alteration of biodiversity and alteration of one or more drivers of biodiversity, a framework of ten ecological conditions is proposed for making the transition from livestock-centered management toward biodiversity-centered management on Great Plains rangelands: (1) composition and productivity of plant communities;(2) herbivory patterns; (3) fire regimes; (4) habitat contiguity; (5) stream hydrology; (6) temporal ecological variability; (7) herbivorous mammal communities; (8) fate of ungulate production; (9) apex predators; and (10) size of management units. Reflecting trends in rangelands elsewhere around the world, a shift toward management for biodiversity on the Great Plains may be facilitated by changes underway in land ownership and by a potentially increasing number of landowners for whom livestock production is of secondary importance to lifestyle and natural amenity benefits from the land.

show abstract

Beef and Beyond: Paying for Ecosystem Services on Western US Rangelands

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Multiple ecosystem services in a working landscape

Multiple ecosystem services in a working landscape

Why keep lions instead of livestock? Assessing wildlife tourism‐based payment for ecosystem services involving herders in the Maasai Mara, Kenya

A Management Framework for the Transition from Livestock Production toward Biodiversity Conservation on Great Plains Rangelands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About