Managing Natural Capital Stocks for the Provision of Ecosystem Services

Maseyk, Fleur J. F.; Mackay, A. D.; Possingham, Hugh P.; Dominati, Estelle; Buckley, Yvonne M.

doi:10.1111/conl.12242

Cited by 58 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 41 publications

(66 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our typology is also consistent with the framework proposed by Maseyk et al (2017), who identify three ecological processes that underpin ecosystem services: the species-area relationship (equivalent to our group C, specific species; and B, supporting habitat); landscape ecology (group D, physical and biological diversity); and biodiversity-ecosystem function (group D, biological diversity). However our typology also identifies group A -amount of vegetation.…”

Section: Comparison With Other Studiessupporting

confidence: 86%

“…To assist with this, Maseyk et al (2017) suggested dividing the attributes of natural capital (soils and vegetation) into manageable and unmanageable attributes, so that management strategies can focus on the manageable attributes. The review of potential interactions between services (Section 3.3) can help to inform the development of management strategies to maximise synergies and minimise undesirable trade-offs.…”

Section: Informing Management Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Decision-makers in policy, practice and business are increasingly aware of the need to manage natural capital sustainably, but they lack suitable tools and evidence to enable them to assess the impact of different management decisions (Guerry et al, 2015;Maseyk et al, 2017). In particular, there is a lack of understanding on how the biotic and abiotic attributes of natural capital influence the capacity of ecosystems to supply different services (Maseyk et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How natural capital delivers ecosystem services: A typology derived from a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Comparison With Other Studiessupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Informing Management Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How natural capital delivers ecosystem services: A typology derived from a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A common goal of ecosystem services research is to understand how we can increase the overall delivery and diversity of ecosystem services produced from different landscapes (environmental spaces). In particular, for the ecosystem services framework to translate into practical land management, decision‐makers must have the tools to understand how land use affects the delivery of different ecosystem services in order to decide what to prioritise or how to achieve the best compromise (De Groot, Alkemade, Braat, Hein, & Willemen, ; Martinez‐Harms et al., ; Maseyk, Mackay, Possingham, Dominati, & Buckley, ). For cultural ecosystem services, this is complicated by the fact that they are influenced by many factors, such as natural landscape features, heritage and history, current land management practices, and how people interact with the environment (Church et al., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying cultural ecosystem services: Disentangling the effects of management from landscape features

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultural ecosystem services are undeniably important, yet are typically neglected in land management decisions due to a suite of intractable challenges: they are highly complex, localised, and inextricably associated with landscape features. However, to incorporate the ecosystem services framework into land management, decision‐makers need the tools to disentangle the effects of land use from other factors. This is a major challenge for ecosystem services research. Forestry is a widespread land use that has considerable potential to deliver a broad range of ecosystem services, although this requires careful management planning. Additionally, modern production forestry is undergoing a period of rapid change in the face of a plethora of challenges, such as climate change and disease. To increase cultural ecosystem services delivery from forests, managers need tools to understand the implications of different management options. In this paper, we directly test how land use affects cultural ecosystem services. We use a new approach that recognises the underlying complexity of cultural ecosystem services but produces easily interpretable results that are locally relevant and directly applicable to land management. By combining participatory geographic information systems (GIS) and a novel site matching technique, we relate cultural values explicitly to land management, while accounting for the influence of landscape features. Applying this new method to a major UK forest site, we conducted a large survey to gather participatory GIS data points. We showed that land management significantly affected cultural ecosystem service values and were able to make a series of practical forest management recommendations. Notably, a greater diversity of tree species would improve cultural value, and open space is important within the forest landscape. This approach is highly flexible and can be applied to any type of landscape. It allows cultural ecosystem services to be fully integrated into land management decisions to formulate the best management strategy to maximise ecosystem service delivery. A plain language summary is available for this article.

show abstract

“…In these situations the target biota to be offset would be identified through a ecosystem services lens rather than a purely conservation lens. Thus, the biodiversity elements entered into the model would be those stocks of natural capital that are known to contribute to the provision of required ecosystem services and that are also responsive to offset actions (Maseyk et al 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying ecosystem services thinking to natural resource management and conservation decision making

Maseyk¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As global consumption increases, there is a growing emphasis on the production of food and the use of other resources necessary for life. Consequently, many ecosystems are stressed because their ability to produce market goods is favoured over other critical functions and services that ecosystems provide such as energy transfer, water regulation, nutrient filtering, and carbon sequestration. Capturing these benefits using ecosystem services thinking offers decision makers a methodology for considering the multiple benefits that ecosystems provide. However, gaps in our understanding of how we can make the ecosystem services concept operational remain.Recognising the relationship between natural capital stocks and the provision of ecosystem processes and services is a crucial step in operationalising ecosystem services thinking. I advance this concept by identifying that attributes of natural capital are not uniform in their amenability to change. Hence, the central tenet of this thesis is that management actions targeted at manageable attributes of natural capital stocks is effective for influencing provision of ecosystem services and benefits.I test how management practices influence natural capital stocks that contribute to the provision of required ecosystem services, using a 'provider group' approach. Provider groups are sets of species which exhibit attributes which contribute to ecosystem services and benefits. The traditionally farmed grassland system in the Southeastern Carpathians, Romania, is a good example of a multifunctional landscape providing provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services and thus a useful case study to test this approach. I assigned grassland plant species to provider groups (quality fodder, medical and aromatic compounds, honey, pollen, nitrogen fixation, and conservation concern) based on their characteristics and tested the impact of management practices (abandonment of hay meadows, grazing, and mowing) on species diversity and abundance within each group. Over three quarters (77%) of the 210 unique species sampled during this study contributed to at least one provider group and over a third (36%) contributed to more than one group. I found that different management practices favour certain provider groups over others, and thus supply of certain ecosystem services over others. A more nuanced understanding of the influence of management practices on natural capital stocks can better inform agricultural and conservation policies targeted at sustaining multifunctional landscapes.Incorporation of social data, particularly that describing human behaviour and decision making, is critical to embed the ecosystem services concept into natural resource management policy and Preface ii practice. Riparian management is a common policy option for mitigating the externalities of land use. A riparian management programme has been running in Taranaki Region, New Zealand for over 20 years providing a useful case study to elicit farmers perceptions and experiences of the pros ...

show abstract

Managing Natural Capital Stocks for the Provision of Ecosystem Services

Cited by 58 publications

References 41 publications

How natural capital delivers ecosystem services: A typology derived from a systematic review

How natural capital delivers ecosystem services: A typology derived from a systematic review

Quantifying cultural ecosystem services: Disentangling the effects of management from landscape features

Applying ecosystem services thinking to natural resource management and conservation decision making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About