The Challenge of Implementing the Marine Ecosystem Service Concept

Abstract

The concept of ecosystem services has gained traction as a means of linking societal benefits to the underlying ecology and functioning of ecosystems, and is now frequently included in decision-making and legislation. Moving the ecosystem service concept from theory into practice is now crucial. However, advancements in this area of research differ by ecosystem type, and marine systems lag significantly behind terrestrial counterparts in terms of understanding, implementation, and number of studies. In this paper we explore several reasons why ecosystem service research has been limited in marine systems and we outline the challenges that hinder progress. Marine systems suffer from a scarcity of spatial data relative to terrestrial counterparts. In terrestrial systems the spatial patterns of land-use/land-cover (LULC) are relatively straightforward to access via satellite and have been used as proxy indicators of service provisions. In contrast, remote sensing tools used to study the surface of the Earth are much less effective at capturing images of the seabed, and by extension marine habitats. Marine waters and their constituents are also frequently driven great distances by winds, tides, and currents. This creates a challenge for management as the identification and protection of areas where ecosystem services are exploited is not necessarily sufficient to ensure sustained service delivery. Further complications arise from the three-dimensional uses of marine systems, incorporating activities that use the sea surface, the water column and the benthic habitats below. Progress is being made as technological advancements are resulting in the acquisition of spatial data at faster rates and higher resolutions than previously possible. There is a growing capacity to map, model and value an increasing number of services with initiatives such as InVEST or principle-based modeling. We suggest that awareness is needed around the limited progress in marine systems as this could affect the way we value the biosphere and the relative proportion between biomes.

The role of microphytobenthos in soft‐sediment ecological networks and their contribution to the delivery of multiple ecosystem services

“…Society cannot be ignorant of the interactions and connectivity between habitats when management decisions are made for ES delivery, as the assessment and management of services in isolation leads to benefits being limited or compromised in adjacent habitats. Favouring short‐term gains over long‐term sustainable ES delivery does not promote sustainability for the future (Townsend et al, ). Rather than avoid the complexity of ecological networks, future studies supporting ES need to address the interdependency of services (Figure ) and the scaling effects on service provision.…”

The Elusive Quest for Valuation of Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Services

“…This new perspective gave greater recognition to a broader range of ecosystem services beyond traditional provisioning, and it put greater attention on nonuse values that had received little attention in the literature. This was especially challenging in light of the relative scarcity of data and limited understanding of spatial interconnectivity in coastal and marine ecosystems compared to terrestrial systems, e.g., [19].…”

“…Spatial mapping is one tool that can be used to identify linkages between ecosystem services across different geographic scales, e.g., [29]. A major limitation for spatial mapping of CME services is that, unlike terrestrial ecosystems that can be mapped with remote sensing or satellite imagery, there is a scarcity of spatial data to effectively address the dynamic nature of coastal and marine environments across both spatial and temporal dimensions [19,30]. In other words, mapping what is under the surface of the ocean is much more challenging than mapping systems that can be readily seen by the naked eye.…”

“…Economic valuation is increasingly recognized as a necessary component of CME evaluation and policy analysis because it provides a commensurate metric to compare different ecosystem services and tradeoffs between these services and other economic activities that may impact CMEs [8]. In the past two decades, there has been an increase in the number of studies and journal articles designed to measure the economic value of CMEs, although there are significantly fewer published coastal and marine articles than for terrestrial ecosystems [18,19]. Access to the results of these studies is now available through online databases such as the National Ocean Economics Program/Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory, and the Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Services Valuation Database.…”

The contributions of nature to people within the Yawuru Indigenous Protected Area

“…We believe the way IPA managers in Australia incorporate NCPs that are valuable to indigenous and nonindigenous stakeholders can serve as a template for protected area managers internationally. There are several trends in favor of this, including governments becoming increasingly interested in measuring ecosystem services (Polasky et al, 2015); the realization that indigenous perspectives can underpin management strategies in areas where research is difficult (e.g., marine protected areas) (Townsend et al, 2018); and the improved social, ecological, and economic outcomes associated with indigenous involvement in protected area governance (Oldekop, Holmes, Harris, & Evans, 2015). We acknowledge that the control exercised by indigenous Australians over IPAs contrasts with many other parts of the world (e.g., Brazil) (Gullison & Hardner, 2018;Jackson & Palmer, 2015).…”