Implementing the optimal provision of ecosystem services

Polasky, Stephen; Lewis, D. J.; Plantinga, Andrew J.; Nelson, Erik

doi:10.1073/pnas.1404484111

Cited by 124 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In Finland, approximately 60% of forests are privately owned (Finnish statistical year book of forestry 2013) and the costs of promoting collectable goods yields have to be covered by private forest owners, while all citizens benefit from the increased values of collectable goods. This is a common challenge in the management of ecosystem services: the provision of a service that can be considered a public good depends on land management by the private forest owner (Polasky et al 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing boreal forests for the simultaneous production of collectable goods and timber revenues

Peura¹,

Triviño²,

Mazziotta³

et al. 2016

Silva Fenn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights• We found a strong conflict between bilberry production and timber revenues, resulting in large losses of timber revenues when increasing bilberry production.• The conflicts between other collectables (cowberry, cep) and timber production were relatively small. • With careful forest planning, there is potential to simultaneously produce high levels of collectable goods and timber revenues in the landscape. AbstractTimber production is an economically important provisioning ecosystem service in forests, but is often in conflict with the provision of other ecosystem services. In multifunctional forestry, the production of timber and non-timber ecosystem services should coexist in the same landscape.To this end, we explored the capacity of a boreal landscape to simultaneously produce collectable goods − bilberry (Vaccimium myrtillus L.), cowberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.) and cep (Boletus edulis Bull.) − alongside timber revenues. We also identified optimal forest management plans to achieve this. Furthermore, we analyzed trade-offs between collectable good yields and timber production, as well as between their economic values. We ran forest growth simulations under seven alternative management regimes at a landscape level across 50-year planning horizons. Then, we used multi-objective optimization to explore trade-offs and identify optimal forest management plans. The results showed that the strongest trade-off was between bilberry and timber production, resulting in a large loss in timber revenues for a gain in bilberry production. However, the conflicts between other collectables and timber production were relatively small: it was possible to increase the provision of collectable goods 4-15% with small reductions (3−5%) from timber revenues. With careful forest planning, there is the potential to simultaneously produce high levels of collectable goods and timber revenues in the landscape.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing boreal forests for the simultaneous production of collectable goods and timber revenues

Peura¹,

Triviño²,

Mazziotta³

et al. 2016

Silva Fenn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…water quality). Market-based 299 approaches to stimulate desirable land-use outcomes are also increasingly 300 incorporating effects of spatial configuration [75], but currently incorporate only 301 a simple understanding of the consequences of fragmentation. Thus, 302 14 understanding the effects of fragmentation on ecosystem services is of critical 303 importance for developing effective policy mechanisms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reframing landscape fragmentation's effects on ecosystem services

Mitchell

Suárez‐Castro

Martínez‐Harms

et al. 2015

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

414

244

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

14Landscape structure and fragmentation have important effects on ecosystem 15 services, with a common assumption that fragmentation reduces service 16 provision. This is based on fragmentation's expected effects on ecosystem 17 service supply, but ignores how fragmentation influences the flow of services to 18 people. Here, we develop a new conceptual framework that explicitly considers 19 the links between landscape fragmentation, the supply of services, and the flow 20 of services to people. We argue that fragmentation's effects on ecosystem service 21 flow can actually be positive or negative and use our framework to construct 22 testable hypotheses about the effects of fragmentation on final ecosystem service 23 provision. Empirical efforts to apply and test this framework are critical to 24 improve landscape management for multiple ecosystem services. Humans continue to heavily modify natural ecosystems around the world, 31 with negative consequences for biodiversity (see Glossary) and natural capital 32 [1,2]. At the same time, demand for ecosystems to provide benefits, or services, 33 to society is growing rapidly [3]. This has significantly increased the need to 34 understand and manage landscapes simultaneously for ecosystem services and 35 biodiversity. Recently, the potential of managing landscape structure [4][5][6], and 36 in particular landscape fragmentation [7,8], for these multiple goals has been 37 highlighted. Interest in landscape fragmentation -the breaking apart of areas of 38 natural land cover into smaller pieces independent of a change in the amount of 39 natural land cover -has a long history in ecology [9]. Consequently, a well-40 developed understanding exists of its effects on biodiversity and ecosystem 41 functioning [10]. However, the shift in research interest from biodiversity 42 towards the concept of ecosystem services has recast what before were solely 43 ecological questions into social-ecological ones [11][12][13]. This recasting means 44 that predictions about the ecological effects of landscape fragmentation on 45 biodiversity and ecosystem functioning are unlikely to translate directly into 46 ecosystem service provision. This will be especially true if fragmentation has 47 contrasting effects on people and how they interact with ecosystems to produce 48 ecosystem services compared to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. It is 49 therefore critical to rethink how fragmentation alters all of the components of 50 ecosystem service provision in order to improve landscape management for 51 multiple services. 52 4 Ecosystem service provision depends on three elements: supply, demand, 53 and flow (Figure 1), each of which can respond differently to landscape 54 fragmentation. Ecosystem service supply is the potential for natural capital to 55 generate a benefit for people, irrespective of it being realized or used [14]. In 56 turn, ecosystem service demand is the level of service provision desired or 57 required by people, and is influenced by human needs, values, ...

show abstract

“…Integrating economic models of land use change with environmental models predicting consequent impacts on multiple ecosystem services has been a focus of considerable recent research 10,12,13,14,15 . By integrating novel land use and water quality models, our analysis examines how adaptation to climate change in agriculture is expected to affect aquatic ecosystems.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%