Integrating forest products with ecosystem services: A global perspective

Deal, Robert L.; White, Rachel L.

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2012.02.014

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ecosystem markets. In some jurisdictions ecosystem markets are developing (Costanza et al, 1997;Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005;Engel et al, 2008;Deal & White, 2012;W€ unscher & Engel, 2012) and these allow valuation of various components of land-use changes, in addition to carbon mitigation (Mayrand & Paquin, 2004;Barbier, 2007). Different approaches are used; in some cases the individual components (both synergies and trade-offs) are considered singly (bundled), in other situations they are considered in toto (stacked).…”

Section: Assessing the Overall Costs And Benefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How much land‐based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals?

Smith

Haberl²,

Popp

et al. 2013

Global Change Biology

553

448

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feeding nine to ten billion people by 2050 and preventing dangerous climate change are two of the greatest challenges facing humanity. Both challenges must be met whilst reducing the impact of land management on ecosystem services that deliver vital goods and services, and support human health and well-being. Few studies to date have considered the interactions between these challenges. In this study we briefly, outline the challenges, review the supplyand demand-side climate mitigation potential available in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFLOU) sector, and options for delivering food security. We briefly outline some of the synergies and trade-offs afforded by mitigation practices, before presenting an assessment of the mitigation potential possible in the AFOLU sector under possible future scenarios in which demand-side measures co-delivery to aid food security.We conclude that whilst supply-side mitigation measures, such as changes in land management, might either enhance or negatively impact food security, demand-side mitigation measures, such as reduced waste or demand for livestock products, should benefit both food security and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. Demand-side measures offer a greater potential (1.5-15.6 Gt CO 2 -eq. yr -1 ) in meeting both challenges than do supply-side measures (1.5-4.3 Gt CO 2 -eq. yr -1 at carbon prices between 20 and 100 US$ tCO 2 -eq.given the enormity of challenges, all options need to be considered. Supply-side measures should be implemented immediately, focussing on those that allow the production of more agricultural product per unit of input. For demand-side measures, given the difficulties in their implementation and lag in their effectiveness, policy should be introduced quickly, and should aim to co-deliver to other policy agendas, such as improving environmental quality, or

show abstract

Section: Assessing the Overall Costs And Benefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How much land‐based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals?

Smith

Haberl²,

Popp

et al. 2013

Global Change Biology

553

448

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Forest ecosystems generate a variety of important goods and services for human well-being such as timber production, carbon storage, habitat for plants and animals, provision of scenic beauty, recreation opportunities, water regulation, and protection against natural hazards, collectively called ecosystem services (e.g., Constanza et al 1997, Busch et al 2012, Deal and White 2012. Although production services have traditionally been prioritized in forest management strategies, the objectives of silviculture have moved within the last 30 years toward fostering multifunctional forest ecosystems supporting different ecosystem services (e.g., Führer 2000, Schönenberger 2001, Fürst et al 2007.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Expert Knowledge into Mapping Ecosystem Services Trade-offs for Sustainable Forest Management

Grêt‐Regamey¹,

Brunner²,

Altwegg³

et al. 2013

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Mountain ecosystems are highly sensitive to global change. In fact, the continued capacity of mountain regions to provide goods and services to society is threatened by the impact of environmental changes on ecosystems. Although mapping ecosystem services values is known to support sustainable resource management, the integration of spatially explicit local expert knowledge on ecosystem dynamics and social responses to global changes has not yet been integrated in the modeling process. This contribution demonstrates the importance of integrating local knowledge into the spatially explicit valuation of ecosystem services. Knowledge acquired by expert surveys flows into a GIS-based Bayesian Network for valuing forest ecosystem services under a land-use and a climate change scenario in a case study in the Swiss Alps. Results show that including expert knowledge in ecosystem services mapping not only reduces uncertainties considerably, but also has an important effect on the ecosystem services values. Particularly the iterative process between integrating expert knowledge into the modeling process and mapping ecosystem services guarantees a continuous improvement of ecosystem services values maps while opening a new way for mutual learning between scientists and stakeholders which might support adaptive resource management.

show abstract

“…As a response, in some jurisdictions emerging ecosystem markets are developing (MEA, 2005;Engel et al, 2008;Deal & White, 2012;W€ unscher & Engel, 2012) and including valuation of various components of land-use changes, in addition to climate change mitigation (Mayrand & Paquin, 2004;Barbier, 2007). Different quantification approaches are used; in some cases the individual components are considered singly (bundled), in other situations they are considered together (stacked; Deal & White, 2012). Ecosystem market approaches provide one framework to value the overall merits of mitigation actions at various scales (Farley & Costanza, 2010).…”

Section: Public Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co‐benefits, trade‐offs, barriers and policies for greenhouse gas mitigation in the agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sector

Bustamante

Robledo-Abad

Harper

et al. 2014

Global Change Biology

159

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accepted ArticleThis article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1111/gcb.12591 This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. Accepted ArticleThis article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. Running head: AFOLU GHG mitigation barriers and policiesKeywords: agriculture, forestry, AFOLU, GHG, mitigation, climate, food security, ecosystem service Accepted ArticleThis article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.forestry toward global sharing of innovative technologies for the efficient use of land resources. Different policy instruments, especially economic incentives and regulatory approaches, are currently being applied however for its successful implementation it is critical to understand how land use decisions are made and how new social, political and economic forces in the future will influence this process.

show abstract

Integrating forest products with ecosystem services: A global perspective

Cited by 16 publications

References 16 publications

How much land‐based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals?

How much land‐based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals?

Integrating Expert Knowledge into Mapping Ecosystem Services Trade-offs for Sustainable Forest Management

Co‐benefits, trade‐offs, barriers and policies for greenhouse gas mitigation in the agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sector

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About