Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services

Rau, Anna-Lena; Wehrden, Henrik von; Abson, David J.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.009

Cited by 62 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, some ES indicators, such as plant and bee species richness, are more influenced by landscape structure than by management practices. This is also true for the assessment of multiple ES, as existing research suggests that there is considerable influence of spatial levels and dynamics over time on the assessment of trade-offs and synergies among ES (Qiu et al, 2018;Rau et al, 2018;Sun and Li, 2017). Our results exemplify that spatial characteristics in combination with different management regimes amplifies the variabilities in the provision of multiple ES.…”

Section: Spatial Variability In Es Provisionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Assessment of spatial variability of multiple ecosystem services in grasslands of different intensities

Clec’h

Finger

Buchmann

et al. 2019

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grasslands provide multiple Ecosystem Services (ES) such as forage provision, carbon sequestration or habitat provision. Knowledge about the trade-offs between these ES is of great importance for grassland management. Yet, the outcome of different management strategies on ES provision is highly uncertain due to spatial variability. We aim to characterize the provision (level and spatial variability) of grassland ES under various management strategies. To do so, we combine empirical data for multiple ES with spatially explicit census data on land use intensities. We analyzed the variations of five ES (forage provision, climate regulation, pollination, biodiversity conservation and outdoor recreation) using data from biodiversity fieldwork, experimental plots for carbon as well as social network data from Flickr. These data were used to calculate the distribution of modelled individual and multiple ES values from different grassland management types in a Swiss case study region using spatial explicit information for 17,383 grassland parcels. Our results show that (1) management regime and intensity levels play an important role in ES provision but their impact depends on the ES. In general, extensive management, especially in pastures, favors all ES but forage provision, whereas intensive management favors only forage provision and outdoor recreation; (2) ES potential provision varies between parcels under the same management due to the influence of environmental drivers, related to topography and landscape structure; (3) there is a trade-offs between forage provision and other ES at the cantonal level but a synergy between forage provision and biodiversity conservation within the grassland categories, due to the negative impact of elevation on both ES. Information about multiple ES provision is key to support effective agri-environmental measures and information about the spatial variability can prevent uncertain outputs of decision-making processes.

show abstract

Section: Spatial Variability In Es Provisionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Assessment of spatial variability of multiple ecosystem services in grasslands of different intensities

Clec’h

Finger

Buchmann

et al. 2019

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, studies often do not consider the changes in ES over time. It has been suggested that ES assessments consider temporal dynamics in addition to spatial patterns [8] and distinguish between supply and demand, among other factors [9]. Even when local people manage to adapt their use to a lower ES supply, their demand may remain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape in Myanmar

Feurer

Heinimann

Schneider

et al. 2019

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extensive land use changes in forest frontier landscapes are leading to trade-offs in the supply of ecosystem services (ES) with, in many cases, as yet unknown effects on human well-being. In the Tanintharyi Region of Myanmar, a forest frontier landscape facing oil palm and rubber expansion, little is known about local perspectives on ES and the direct impact of trade-offs from land use change. This study assessed the trade-offs experienced with respect to 10 locally important ES from land user perspectives using social valuation techniques. The results show that while intact forests provide the most highly valued ES bundle, the conversion to rubber plantations entails fewer negative trade-offs than that to oil palm. Rubber plantations offer income, fuelwood, a good microclimate, and even new cultural identities. By contrast, oil palm concessions have caused environmental pollution, and, most decisively, have restricted local people’s access to the respective lands. The ES water flow regulation is seen as the most critical if more forest is converted; other ES, such as non-timber forest products, can be more easily substituted. We conclude that, from local perspectives, the impact of ES trade-offs highly depends on access to land and opportunities to adapt to change.

show abstract

“…According our study, the magnitude and direction of ES trade-offs and synergies may also vary, responding to changes in both natural and anthropogenic drivers. Our results suggest that more adaptive approaches for ecosystem management are required [47]. For example, revegetation in arid areas creates potentially conflicting demands for water between the ecosystem and humans [48]; these processes, although enhancing biomass storage or carbon sequestration, may decrease water availability [10,49].…”

Section: Es 1 Es 2 Esmentioning

confidence: 91%

How Do Trade-Offs and Synergies between Ecosystem Services Change in the Long Period? The Case Study of Uxin, Inner Mongolia, China

Zhang

Buyantuev

et al. 2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem services management should often expect to deal with non-linearities due to trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services (ES). Therefore, it is important to analyze long-term trends in ES development and utilization to understand their responses to climate change and intensification of human activities. In this paper, the region of Uxin in Inner Mongolia, China, was chosen as a case study area to describe the spatial distribution and trends of 5 ES indicators. Changes in relationships between ES and driving forces of dynamics of ES relationships were analyzed for the period 1979–2016 using a stepwise regression. We found that: the magnitude and directions in ES relationships changed during this extended period; those changes are influenced by climate factors, land use change, technological progress, and population growth.

show abstract

Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services

Cited by 62 publications

References 76 publications

Assessment of spatial variability of multiple ecosystem services in grasslands of different intensities

Assessment of spatial variability of multiple ecosystem services in grasslands of different intensities

Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape in Myanmar

How Do Trade-Offs and Synergies between Ecosystem Services Change in the Long Period? The Case Study of Uxin, Inner Mongolia, China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About