Ecosystem service coproduction across the zones of biosphere reserves in Europe

Abstract

Biosphere reserves (BR) balance biodiversity protection and sustainable use through different management restrictions in three zones: core areas, buffer zones, and transition areas. Information about the links between zoning and ecosystem services (ES) is lacking, particularly in terms of the relative roles of natural contributions (ecosystem properties and functions) and anthropogenic contributions (human inputs such as technology and infrastructure) in coproducing ES. This study aimed to: (1) analyse how coproduction of four ES (crop production, grazing, timber production, recreation) differs across the three zones of BRs; and (2) understand which predictors (zoning, natural and anthropogenic contributions, other environmental characteristics) best explain ES provision within BRs. To do this, we collected spatial data on 137 terrestrial BRs in the European Union and on 16 indicators of ES coproduction. We used non-parametric pairwise Wilcoxon rank sum tests to calculate differences in indicators between zones. We used model selection and multiple linear regression to identify predictors of ES provision patterns. Anthropogenic contributions showed most differences between zones, with contributions generally increasing from buffer zones to transition areas. Natural contributions did not, on average, differ between zones, however, for recreation and crop production they decreased from buffer zones to transition areas. ES provision differed between zones only for crop production and grazing, which increased from buffer zones to transition areas. Regression analysis showed that natural contributions are the best predictors of ES provision for all four services. Our results indicate that zoning of BRs has implications for ES coproduction.

Integration matters: Combining socio-cultural and biophysical methods for mapping ecosystem service bundles

“…Biosphere Reserves are explicitly recognised as both sources and stewards of ES (UNESCO 2017) emphasised by recent requirements to report on the state of ES in periodic reviews. ES assessments can therefore be an important tool for monitoring success of BR objectives (Vasseur and Siron 2019;Palliwoda et al 2021). Secondly, BRs are divided into three distinct zones; core, buffer, and transition/development (Fig.…”

“…Zonation provides the basis for achieving the three primary BR functions of (i) biocultural diversity conservation, (ii) sustainable development, and (iii) logistic support for research, monitoring, education and training (Fig. 1), and thus we can expect that zones provide different ES (Palliwoda et al 2021). We use biocultural diversity as defined by Maffi (2005, p. 602) as the ''diversity of life in all its manifestations-biological, cultural, and linguistic-which are interrelated within a complex socio-ecological adaptive system''.…”

“…Plieninger et al 2013;Cusens et al 2022). However, few studies have the BR zonation explicitly in their analyses (but see Castillo-Eguskitza et al 2019;Palliwoda et al 2021;Cusens et al 2022). Palliwoda et al (2021) explicitly mapped and analysed the differences in ES co-production across the zones of 137 European BRs finding that ES co-production does not always match with the objectives of zonation within BRs.…”

“…However, few studies have the BR zonation explicitly in their analyses (but see Castillo-Eguskitza et al 2019;Palliwoda et al 2021;Cusens et al 2022). Palliwoda et al (2021) explicitly mapped and analysed the differences in ES co-production across the zones of 137 European BRs finding that ES co-production does not always match with the objectives of zonation within BRs. Castillo-Eguskitza et al (2019) mapped biophysical and monetary ES values in Urdaibai BR, Spain, and assessed the coincidence between the two value types within the BR zones.…”

Zoning of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves: A Comprehensive Set of Geodata for Europe

“…The dataset comprises spatial information on the extent as well as on the zones for the majority of European BRs and can be used for a variety of trans-European analyses. Such analyses could encompass an assessment of the state or the monitoring of biodiversity and ecosystem services, either between BRs, between BR zones or to compare protected areas within BRs with unprotected areas or with protected areas with a different management (Palliwoda et al, 2021). Furthermore, the dataset can be useful as a complement to the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) for analyses on protected areas in Europe.…”