Reprint of "Ecosystem services concepts and approaches in conservation: Just a rhetorical tool?"

Fisher, Janet; Brown, Katrina

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.12.009

Cited by 23 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Integrating EF into land‐use decisions is an important challenge to secure the provisioning of ES (Daily et al, ; Defries, Foley, & Asner, ; Foley et al, ; Goldstein et al, ; Nelson et al, ; Schößer, Helming, & Wiggering, ). ES result from EF that support human well‐being (Fisher, Turner, & Morling, ) and have become an important utilitarian argument to justify nature conservation (Balmford et al, ; European Union, ; Fisher & Brown, ; MEA, ; Polasky et al, ). Payments for ES are seen as an innovative means to curb deforestation and to reduce the global loss of biodiversity (Wunder et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for multiple ecosystem services in a simulation of land‐use decisions: Does it reduce tropical deforestation?

Knoke

Paul

Rammig

et al. 2020

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conversion of tropical forests is among the primary causes of global environmental change. The loss of their important environmental services has prompted calls to integrate ecosystem services (ES) in addition to socio‐economic objectives in decision‐making. To test the effect of accounting for both ES and socio‐economic objectives in land‐use decisions, we develop a new dynamic approach to model deforestation scenarios for tropical mountain forests. We integrate multi‐objective optimization of land allocation with an innovative approach to consider uncertainty spaces for each objective. These uncertainty spaces account for potential variability among decision‐makers, who may have different expectations about the future. When optimizing only socio‐economic objectives, the model continues the past trend in deforestation (1975–2015) in the projected land‐use allocation (2015–2070). Based on indicators for biomass production, carbon storage, climate and water regulation, and soil quality, we show that considering multiple ES in addition to the socio‐economic objectives has heterogeneous effects on land‐use allocation. It saves some natural forest if the natural forest share is below 38%, and can stop deforestation once the natural forest share drops below 10%. For landscapes with high shares of forest (38%–80% in our study), accounting for multiple ES under high uncertainty of their indicators may, however, accelerate deforestation. For such multifunctional landscapes, two main effects prevail: (a) accelerated expansion of diversified non‐natural areas to elevate the levels of the indicators and (b) increased landscape diversification to maintain multiple ES, reducing the proportion of natural forest. Only when accounting for vascular plant species richness as an explicit objective in the optimization, deforestation was consistently reduced. Aiming for multifunctional landscapes may therefore conflict with the aim of reducing deforestation, which we can quantify here for the first time. Our findings are relevant for identifying types of landscapes where this conflict may arise and to better align respective policies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for multiple ecosystem services in a simulation of land‐use decisions: Does it reduce tropical deforestation?

Knoke

Paul

Rammig

et al. 2020

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Literature's different methods used for ES classification and mapping limit the comparability of outcomes and call for a more consistent but flexible approach (Crossman et al, 2013;Mascarenhas et al, 2015;Fisher and Brown, 2015;Maes et al, 2018). Overall, the interactional affordances for CES received from the landscape and UGSs are underdeveloped in the literature and participatory mapping; traditional PGIS studies are only able to capture perceptions, opinions, or comparative analysis (Viirret et al, 2019;Jones et al, 2020).…”

Section: Cultural Ecosystem Services Participatory Mapping and Urban ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking human wellbeing and urban greenspaces: Applying the SoftGIS tool for analyzing human wellbeing interaction in Helsinki, Finland

leBrasseur

2022

Front. Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews a study into the relationships between greenspaces and the benefits to psychological, social, and physical aspects of human wellbeing achieved through interaction in the Helsinki urban region in Finland. This relationship is theorized, analyzed, and measured through the transactional paradigm of affordance theory and is operationalized through the use of a public participation geographic information system (PPGIS) questionnaire, SoftGIS, which activated the urban greenspace–human wellbeing interaction through its map-based data collection. Over 1800 unique place–based relationships were statistically analyzed. Findings revealed that Helsinki’s greenspaces provided, overall, mostly physical and social wellbeing benefits; the psychological benefits such as reduction in stress and mental relaxation were not as frequent in these urban greenspace interactions. The results indicate multiple aspects of human wellbeing are supported by interaction with urban greenspaces of varying characteristics within the region but the urban greenspaces which provided the most human wellbeing benefits included large size, woodland typology, moderately maintained with loose or ‘wild’ vegetation, and few amenities such as benches and structures. The study’s implications include urban planning, public policy, and human health as well as insight into the multifunctional design and strategic management of greenspaces in urbanizing regions to provide continued and improved ecosystem services and benefits to humans and nature.

show abstract

“…regarding ignoring indigenous knowledge) and has strong conceptual foundations in philosophy (Muraca, 2011;Neuteleers, 2020;O'Neill et al, 2008). Underlying these pleas for inclusiveness is a worry that an ecosystem services-based approach might be overly focused on instrumental values of nature and might hence leave little room for non-utilitarian considerations (Deliège and Neuteleers, 2015;Fisher and Brown, 2015).…”

Section: Inroductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Value pluralism in ecosystem services assessments: Closing the gap between academia and conservation practitioners

Neuteleers

Hugé

2021

Ecosystem Services

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reprint of "Ecosystem services concepts and approaches in conservation: Just a rhetorical tool?"

Cited by 23 publications

References 44 publications

Accounting for multiple ecosystem services in a simulation of land‐use decisions: Does it reduce tropical deforestation?

Accounting for multiple ecosystem services in a simulation of land‐use decisions: Does it reduce tropical deforestation?

Linking human wellbeing and urban greenspaces: Applying the SoftGIS tool for analyzing human wellbeing interaction in Helsinki, Finland

Value pluralism in ecosystem services assessments: Closing the gap between academia and conservation practitioners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About