Broader perspective on ecosystem sustainability: Consequences for decision making

Abstract

Although the concept of ecosystem sustainability has a long-term focus, it is often viewed from a static system perspective. Because most ecosystems are dynamic, we explore sustainability assessments from three additional perspectives: resilient systems; systems where tipping points occur; and systems subject to episodic resetting. Whereas foundations of ecosystem resilience originated in ecology, recent discussions have focused on geophysical attributes, and it is recognized that dynamic system components may not return to their former state following perturbations. Tipping points emerge when chronic changes (typically anthropogenic, but sometimes natural) push ecosystems to thresholds that cause collapse of process and function and may become permanent. Ecosystem resetting occurs when episodic natural disasters breach thresholds with little or no warning, resulting in long-term changes to environmental attributes or ecosystem function. An example of sustainability assessment of ecosystem goods and services along the Gulf Coast (USA) demonstrates the need to include both the resilient and dynamic nature of biogeomorphic components. Mountain road development in northwest Yunnan, China, makes rivers and related habitat vulnerable to tipping points. Ecosystems reset by natural disasters are also presented, emphasizing the need to understand the magnitude frequency and interrelationships among major disturbances, as shown by (i) the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and resulting tsunami, including how unsustainable urban development exacerbates geodisaster propagation, and (ii) repeated major earthquakes and associated geomorphic and vegetation disturbances in Papua New Guinea. Although all of these ecosystem perturbations and shifts are individually recognized, they are not embraced in contemporary sustainable decision making.ecosystem stressors | complex system behavior | sustainability analysis | cascading effects | coastal zone management

Invasive species triggers a massive loss of ecosystem services through a trophic cascade

“…Valuation of these services is critical for public policy (10,11), but many of the services provided by freshwater ecosystems are not monetized (12,13), leaving them overlooked and poorly integrated into decision frameworks (1,3). Water quality of lakes and reservoirs has been degraded by phosphorus (P) pollution, leading to loss of recreation and aesthetic value, decreased lakeshore property values, beach closures, fish kills, harmful blooms of cyanobacteria, and loss of water clarity (14).…”

“…invasive species | ecosystem service | eutrophication | Bythotrephes | Daphnia D espite growing recognition of the importance of ecosystem services (1) and the harm caused to ecosystems by invasive species (2,3), linkages between species invasions and ecosystem services are rarely made (4)(5)(6). Investments in the prevention of species invasions may sustain ecosystem services.…”

Ecosystem approach for natural hazard mitigation of volcanic tephra in Iceland: building resilience and sustainability

“…The assessment here of the tephra-fall problem has shown that vulnerability exists due to current land use in Iceland and that the underlying risk factors could be reduced. Prevention of tephra-fall events is impossible, but improved ecosystem health could prevent further degradation and move systems away from negative ecosystem tipping points (Sidle et al 2013). Mitigation has been shown to improve ecosystem resilience.…”

“…Mitigation has been shown to improve ecosystem resilience. Monitoring improves knowledge on ecosystem status, detects subtle signs of resilience loss (Sidle et al 2013), and suggests improvements. Such monitoring is important to set up in Iceland.…”

Risk forewarning of regional development sustainability based on a natural resources and environmental carrying index in China

“…Other researchers have started to establish their own methodologies with a focus more on environmental impacts than resource availability, among which are Mwalyosi [1991], McConnell [1995], Graymore [2005], and Graymore et al [2010]. NRECC methodologies form a different perspective regarding resources and environment which so far includes various organizational elements, such as the carrying capacity of land resources [Cohen, 1995;Gutteridge, 2006;Fairlie, 2007], the carrying capacity of water resources [Falkenmark and Lundqvist, 1998;Peters et al, 2009;Song et al, 2011], the carrying capacity of the environment or environmental capacity [Van Den Bergh, 1993;McConnell, 1995;Graymore et al, 2010], the ecological sustainability index or ecological footprint [Rees, 1992;Barrett and Odum, 2000;Sidle et al, 2013]. These current methodologies are often based on single factor assessment.…”