• No results found

Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2020

Share "Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services"

Copied!
6
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatSciVerseScienceDirect

Ecological

Indicators

j ou rn a l h o m e pa g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l i n d

Editorial

Solutions

for

sustaining

natural

capital

and

ecosystem

services

The topic of ecosystem services has attracted significant attention in the last decades. This has involved the develop-ment of new analytical methods and models, substantial data collection, and major initiatives such as the MA (Millennium EcosystemAssessment1),TEEB(TheEconomicsofEcosystemsand Biodiversity2)andIPBES(IntergovernmentalPlatformon Biodiver-sityandEcosystemServices3).Itisevenmoreurgentthatwemeet thechallengeidentified byDailyetal.(2009)thatit is‘timeto deliverandtomakeecosystemservicesoperational’.Onthebasis ofthesignificantinterestthatthenotionsofecosystemserviceshas attractedinthemanagementandpolicycommunities,itis essen-tialthatweusetheresearchresultstofindsolutionsforsustaining naturalcapitalandecosystemservices.

Aspartoftheevolvingecosystemservicesdiscussion,aseries ofconferenceshasbeenorganizedbytheEcosystemServices Part-nership(ESP4).Theseriesbeganin2008withaconferenceentitled “EcosystemServices– Solutionfor problemsor a problemthat needssolution?”.ItresultedinaSpecialIssueofthejournal

Ecolog-icalComplexity(Burkhardetal.,2010).Theseriesofconferences

continuedin 2009,with“ModelingEcosystemServices” (focus-ingonmodelingandquantificationapproaches),and2010,with “SolutionsforSustainingNaturalCapitalandEcosystemServices” (thefocusherewasonsolutionsfortheproblemsidentifiedinthe priorconferences).Themostrecentconferencewasheldin2011. Itdealtwith“EcosystemServices:integrating Scienceand Prac-tice”.Lookingforwardto2012,themeetingwillbededicatedto “EcosystemServicesComeof Age–Linking Science,Policy,and ParticipationforSustainableHumanWell-Being”.Thetitlesofthese fiveworkshopsalreadysuggestthecontinuousdynamicandsteady maturationoftheecosystemserviceidea–fromproblems,via mod-elstosolutions,whichcanbeappliedbythescienceandpractice communitiesforsustaininghumanwell-being.Thus,anemerging needforscientific development,aswellasfostering of applica-tionsandenvironmentalmanagementbasedonoftheecosystem serviceconcept(Seppeltetal.,2011),hasbeenidentified.Given thisbackground,amajorachievementisthe“SalzauMessage”(see

Box1),signedbytheparticipants,whichsummarizestherequired next steps in research and application for sustaining natural capital.

1http://www.maweb.org. 2http://www.teebweb.org. 3http://ipbes.net.

4http://www.es-partnership.org.

Itisinthisdevelopingcontextthatthecontributionstothis spe-cialissueofEcologicalIndicators,thatoriginatedfromthe2010ESP conferenceheldinSalzauinnorthernGermany,5mustbeviewed. Theyareespeciallyfocusedonresearchaimedatfindingsolutions forenvironmentalmanagementproblemsbasedontheecosystem serviceconcept.Whenlookingattheindividualpapersofthis Spe-cialIssue,thesolution-orientedfocusisdemonstratedbythefact that:

(i) Mostofthearticlesarerelatedtobroadbundlesofecosystem functionsandservices(e.g.Koschkeetal.,2012;Scolozzietal., 2012;Burkhardetal.,2012)insteadoffocusingonselected serviceslikemanyformerstudies;

(ii)Articlesfocusingonselectedecosystemservicesapply meth-ods,dataandmodels,whicharecharacterizedbyahigherlevel ofcomplexityandareembeddedinbroaderecosystemservice contexts(e.g.Haines-Youngetal.,2012;Franketal.,2012;van Oudenhovenetal.,2012;NedkovandBurkhard,2012); (iii) Severalarticlesapplyand/orpresentcomprehensive

assess-ment approaches or ecosystem service frameworks (e.g.

Bastianetal.,2012;SyrbeandWalz,2012;Seppeltetal.,2012; Buschetal.,2012);and

(iv)Demonstrateaclearlinktopracticalapplicationsand decision-making(e.g.,Schneidersetal.,2012;JørgensenandNielsen, 2012).

This demonstrates that the ecosystem service research has moved forward substantially and made progress in addressing research questions which moved fromintroductions and ques-tioningtheconceptstofarmorespecificdetailedquestionsabout methodsandapplications.Thediscussionaroundthesethemescan beseenastakingtheecosystemserviceresearchagendaforward inrelationtotwobroadtopics:

First,under thetopic“Characterizing and MeasuringNatural Capitaland EcosystemServices”, twodifferent issueswere dis-cussed:

1.Integratedquantification,modeling,andvaluingof ecosys-temservices: Howcanwe measure andevaluateecosystem services? Howcanwe linkecosystemfunctions,servicesand benefits? Howcanecosystem servicesbeexplicitly linkedto humanwell-being?

5http://www.uni-kiel.de/ecology/projects/salzau.

(2)

Box1

“Salzau Message’’ on Sustaining Ecosystem Services andNaturalCapital

Thehumanpopulationofearthislikelytoincreaseto9billion peoplebytheendofthecentury,theglobalclimateisbeing transformed, biodiversityloss continues, and conventional, fossil-basedeconomiesarenolongeraviableoption.Business asusualisautopianfantasy.Ifwearetoimprovethe sustain-ablewell-beingofhumanity,weneedtosustainandrestore ecosystemservicesandnaturalcapital.Stakesarehigh.The potentialforirreversible,negative,outcomesisalarming,and aprecautionaryapproachtodecision-makingshouldtherefore beadopted.

We, the undersigned,believe that solutionsto providing a sustainableanddesirablefuturerequirebroadrecognitionof thebasicfactsaboutecosystemservicesandnaturalcapital, andadvancesintwokeyareas:(1)integratedmeasurement, modeling,valuationanddecisionscience;(2)adaptive man-agementandnewinstitutions,includingthenewEcosystem ServicesPartnershipdiscussedbelow.

Basic Facts about Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital

Inrecentdecades,asharedunderstandinghasemergedabout ecosystemservicesandnaturalcapital,including:

•Ecosystemservices(ES)arethecontributionsofecosystem structureandfunction–incombinationwithotherinputs– tohumanwell-being.

•ES, and the natural capital assets that produce them, represent asignificant contribution to sustainable human well-being,acontributionthatisincreasinglybeing recog-nized.

•Ecosystems,ecosystemfunctioning,andESarebeing threat-enedanddegradedbyhumanactivities,andthesituationwill beexacerbatedbyclimatechangeandbiodiversityloss.At thesametime,knowledgeabouthowtostewardandrestore ecosystemsisrapidlygrowing.

•AnESapproachhelpstoidentifyandquantifythe ecolog-icalandsocio-economictrade-offsandsynergiesonwhich decision-makingshouldbebased.

•Manyecosystemservicescannot(orshouldnot)beprivately owned.Therefore,theyareforthemostpartignoredby con-ventionalmarkets.

•ManyESaresuchthatprovidingbenefitstoonepersondoes notreducetheamountofbenefitsavailableforothers.They are “non-rival”and “non-excludable”.Theyare therefore besttreatedas“publicgoods”.

•Whiletremendousprogresshasbeenmadeinimprovingour understandingofhowecosystemsfunctionandhowhumans benefitfromthem,therewillremainenormousuncertainties abouthowESareprovided,themagnitudeoftheirbenefits, andhowhumanactivitiesaffecttheirprovision.

•Adaptivemanagementisausefulapproachthatallowsone tolearnfromthesystemdynamicsandmanageunderthis uncertainty.

1. Integrated Measurement, Modeling, Valuation and DecisionScienceinSupportofEcosystemServices: Thescientificcommunityneedstocontinuetodevelop bet-ter methods to measure, monitor, map, model, and value ecosystemservicesatmultiplescales.Moreover,this informa-tionmustbeprovidedtodecisionmakersinanappropriate, transparent,andviableway,toclearlyidentifydifferencesin outcomesamongchoices.Atthesametime,wecannotwaitfor highlevelsofcertaintyandprecisiontoact.Wemust synergis-ticallycontinuetheprocessofimprovementofmeasurements withevolvinginstitutionsandapproachesthatcaneffectively utilizethesemeasurements.

a.Trade-offs

Ecologicalconflicts arisefromtwo sources:(1)scarcityand restrictionsintheamountofESthatcanbeprovidedand(2)the

distributionofthecostsandbenefitsoftheprovisioningofthe ES.ESsciencemakestrade-offsexplicitand,thus,facilitates managementandplanningdiscourse.Itenablesstakeholders tomakesoundvaluejudgments.ESsciencethusgenerates rel-evantsocial-ecologicalknowledgeforstakeholdersandpolicy decisionmakersandsetsofplanningoptionsthatcanhelp resolvesocialconflicts.

b.AccountingandAssessment

Accountinglooks atthe flowof processes ormaterialsand isrelativelyobjective,whileassessmentevaluatesasystem orprocesswithagoalinmindandismorenormative.Both areintegratingframeworksthathave distinctiveroles.Both ecosystem service accounting and assessment need to be establishedandpursuedinabroadersocio-ecologicalcontext. Wealsoneedtobalanceexpertandlocalknowledgeacross scales.

c.Modeling

We need modeling to synthesize and quantify our under-standingofESandtounderstanddynamic,spatiallyexplicit trade-offs as part of the larger socio-ecological systems. Furtherparticipatorydevelopmentofintegrated,dynamic, spa-tiallyexplicitmodelsthatincludeESareneeded.Thesemodels canincorporateandaidaccountingandassessmentexercises andlinkdirectlywiththepolicyprocessatmultipletimeand spacescales.

d.Bundling

MostES are produced asjoint products (or bundles)from intact ecosystems.The relative ratesof production of each servicevaryfromsystem-to-system,site-to-site,and time-to-time,butwemustconsiderthefullrangeofservicesandthe characteristicsoftheirbundlinginordertopreventcreating dysfunctionalincentivesandtomaximizethebenefitsto soci-ety.Forexample,focusingonlyonthecarbonsequestration serviceofecosystemsmayinsomeinstancesreducethe over-allvalueofthefullrangeofES.

e.Scaling

ESarerelevantoverabroadrangeofscalesinspace,time, and complexity. We needmeasurement, models, accounts, assessmentsandpolicydiscussionsthataddressthese multi-plescales,aswellasinteractionsandhierarchiesamongthem.

2. Adaptive Management and New Institutions for EcosystemServices:

Given that significant levelsof uncertainty always exist in ecosystemservicemeasurement,monitoring,modeling, val-uation,andmanagement,weshouldcontinuouslygatherand integrateappropriateinformationregardingES,withthegoal oflearningandadaptiveimprovement.Todothisweshould constantlyevaluatetheimpactsofexistingsystemsanddesign newsystems withstakeholder participationasexperiments fromwhichwecanmoreeffectivelyquantifyperformanceand learn.

a.PropertyRights

Given the public goods nature of most ecosystem ser-vices, we need institutions that can effectively deal with this characteristic using a more sophisticated suite of property rights regimes. We need institutions that use a balanced combination of existing private property rights systems,and newproperty rightssystems that can proper-tizeecosystemsandtheirserviceswithoutprivatizingthem. Systems of payment for ecosystem services (PES) and common asset trusts can be effective elements in these institutions.

b.Scale-matching

(3)

ownershipregimes,cultures,andactorsintoaccount,andto fullyinternalizecostsandbenefits.

c.DistributionIssues

Systemsshouldbedesignedtoensureinclusionofthepoor, sincetheyaremoredependentoncommon propertyassets likeecosystemservices.Free-ridingshouldbepreventedand beneficiariesshouldpayfortheservicestheyreceivefrom bio-diverseandproductiveecosystems.

d.InformationDissemination

Onekeylimitingfactorinsustainingnaturalcapitalisshared knowledgeofhowecosystemsfunctionandhowtheysupport humanwell-being.Thiscanbeovercomewithtargeted educa-tionalcampaigns,cleardisseminationofsuccessandfailures directedatboththegeneralpublicand electedofficialsand throughtruecollaborationamongpublic,privateand govern-mententities.

e.Participation

Relevantstakeholders (local, regional,national, andglobal) shouldbeengagedintheformulationandimplementationof managementdecisions.Fullstakeholderawarenessand par-ticipationcontributestocredible,acceptedrulesthatidentify andassignthecorrespondingresponsibilitiesappropriately, andthatcanbeeffectivelyenforced.

f.Science/PolicyInterface

ES concepts can be an effective link between science and policy by making the trade-offs more transparent. An ES frameworkcan thereforebe abeneficial addition to policy-makinginstitutionsandframeworksandtointegratingscience andpolicy.

ECOSYSTEMSERVICEPARTNERSHIP

ThenewEcosystemServicesPartnership(ESP– http://www.es-partnership.org/)seekstoenhancethisintegrationbyuniting the ecosystem services scienceand policy community and coordinatingcollaborative efforts ona global,nationaland locallevel.It aimstoenhanceandencourageadiversityof approaches,whereneeded,whilereducingunnecessary dupli-cation of effort in the conceptualization and application of ecosystemservices.Byincreasingefficiency,andpromoting betterpractice,theESPaimstoincreasetheeffectivenessof ESscience,policy,andapplications.

Signedby:

JanBarkmann(Göttingen),OlafBastian(Dresden),PamBerry (Oxford), Benjamin Burkhard (Kiel), Robert Costanza (Port-land),RudolfdeGroot(Wageningen),NoraFagerholm(Turku), BrianFath (Towson),JudithFisher(Floreat), Susanne Frank (Dresden), KiraGee(Geesthacht),Davide Geneletti(Trento), LeenGorissen(Mol),AdrienneGrêt-Regamey(Zürich),Karsten Grunewald (Dresden), Dagmar Haase (Berlin), Roy Haines-Young(Nottingham),KatharinaHelming(Müncheberg), Sven-Erik Joergensen (Copenhagen), Lars Koschke (Dresden), Franziska Kroll(Kiel),Ida Kubiszewski(Burlington), Bai-Lian Li(Riverside), LasseLoft (Fankfurt),Carsten Lorz(Dresden), BettinaMatzdorf(Müncheberg),SimoneMaynard(Brisbane), FelixMüller(Kiel),Klaus Müller(Müncheberg), Stoyan Ned-kov (Sofia), Petina Pert (Cairns), Irene Petrosillo (Lecce), TobiasPlieninger(Berlin),MarionPotschin(Nottingham), Pra-jal Prahan (Potsdam),Harpinder Sandhu(Adelaide), Harald Schaich(Freiburg),ChristianSchleyer(Berlin),Annik Schnei-ders(Brussel),RalfSeppelt(Leipzig),Gabriella Silfwerbrand (Nottingham),FrancisTurkelboom(Brussels),Dietervanden Broek (Wageningen), Sander van der Ploeg (Wageningen), Peter Verburg (Amsterdam), Ulrich Walz (Dresden), Hubert Wiggering (Müncheberg), Wilhelm Windhorst (Kiel), Tian XianYue(Beijing),NicolaZaccarelli(Lecce),GiovanniZurlini (Lecce).

2.Accounting forecosystem servicesat the landscape level: How can the ecosystem service approach be applied in landscapeanalysis,landscapeplanningandlandscape manage-ment?

Second,underthetopic“DesigningSocio-Ecological Institu-tions”,thefollowingaspectswerestudiedindetail:

3.Adaptivemanagementofecosystemservices:What support-ingtoolshavetobedevelopedtoenhancetheapplicabilityof theecosystemserviceapproachinadaptivemanagement?How cantheapproachbeimplementedinmanagementstrategiesand institutions?

4.Environmental, social and economic trade-offs: How can ecosystem services be evaluated from social and economic points-of-view?Whichinstrumentsshouldbedevelopedto fos-tertheseevaluationstrategies?

These topics and related questions illustrate that, one the one hand, solutions are needed for a proper assessment and valuation of ecosystem services and, on the other hand, for the applicability and implementation of the ecosystem service approach.

1. Integratedquantification,modeling,andvaluingof ecosystemservices

For integrated assessments we have to be aware that each ecosystem service approach contains uncertainties and gener-alizations related to scale issues, methodological issues, vague classifications and definitions (Scolozzi et al., 2012). Several ideas were proposed for a better taxonomy and classification of ecosystem services,becausethere is still noconsensus ona common strategy (Seppelt et al., 2012; Burkhard et al., 2012).

Bastianetal.(2012)emphasizetheneedfora clear differentia-tionbetweenlandscape/ecosystemfunctions,ecosystemservices and landscape potentials, for which van Oudenhoven et al. (2012)provideaclassificationandindicatorscheme.Thedifferent approachesillustratethatthedefinitionofacommon classifica-tion framework remains a majorchallenge, becauseecosystem servicestudiesaretoosingular,question-dependentand context-related.However,maybethedefinitionofacommonclassification framework is neither feasible nor really necessary (Costanza, 2008).

The inherent complexity of the topic itself, spatio-temporal dynamicsandvaryingvaluedefinitionsneedtobeconsideredwhen derivingcommonconcepts(Scolozzietal.,2012).Oneclearsolution istodevelopaproperdocumentationofthestudiesandthe ecosys-temserviceconceptsbehindthem,likeinthe“blueprint”approach presentedbySeppeltetal.(2012).The“blueprint”wassuccessfully appliedtoseveralcasestudies,twoofthemincludedinthisSpecial Issue(Franketal.,2012;Bastianetal.,2012).Suchstrategieshelpto makedifferentecosystemservicestudiescomparableandprovide animportantmeansofcommunication.

(4)

generallyneededforthesupply ofa specificserviceand which areasareavailable(Koschkeetal.,2012)?Whatistheminimum amountof biodiversity neededfor a sustainableuse of ecosys-temservices,avoidingimports(Schneidersetal.,2012)thatwould avoidecosystem servicefootprintsin distantregions (Burkhard etal.,2012)?

ThearticlesinthisSpecialIssuepresentcomprehensivetools andapplications,providinganswerstothesehighlyrelevant ques-tions as well as suggesting solutions. For example, ecological modelsandrelatedholisticindicatorshavebecomeverypowerful (Jørgensenand Nielsen,2012)andareusefulforecosystem ser-viceassessmentsand environmentalmanagement (Nedkov and Burkhard, 2012). Expert-driven or literature-based approaches supportecosystemservicemodeling,providingareasonable solu-tionincaseswhereappropriate dataarelacking(Haines-Young etal.,2012;Koschkeetal.,2012;Scolozzietal.,2012;Franketal., 2012;vanOudenhovenetal.,2012;Burkhardetal.,2012).Busch etal.(2012)comparequalitativeandquantitativeecosystem ser-viceassessmentapproaches (quantitative referringtomonetary valuationsintheircase).

Comprehensive sets of indicators are needed for integrated assessments,andtheyneedtobeselectedsystematicallyandto reflectecosystemproperties,ecosystemfunctionsandecosystem services,aswellastorepresentlandmanagementasamaindriving forceforlandusechange(vanOudenhovenetal.,2012;Syrbeand Walz,2012;Burkhardetal.,2012).Moreover,theindicatorsshould beclearand understandable, enabling communicationbetween scientistsandotherstakeholders.Therefore,robustproceduresand guidelinesareneededforindicatorselection,assuggestedinvan Oudenhovenetal.(2012).Koschkeetal.(2012)andHaines-Young etal.(2012).Theyshouldmakeuseofmulti-criteriaapproachesto findweightingsystemsandbundlesofecosystemservicesthatare suitabletoreflectdifferentstakeholders’preferencesandregional peculiarities.

SyrbeandWalz(2012)emphasizetheimportanceofthe spa-tialcharacteristicsofecosystemservicesandthatindicatorsmust bedevelopedaccordingly.Landscapemetricsareasuitable solu-tiontoassesslandscapestructuresandtoaccountfortheirimpact onecosystem service supply. Frank et al. (2012) present land-scapemetricsasanecessaryimprovementofonlylandcover-based approaches.Acomprehensivelistofecosystemservicesthatare suitableforlandscapemetricsanalysesispresentedinSyrbeand Walz(2012).

2. Accountingforecosystemservicesatthelandscapelevel

Theapplicationpotentialsinlandscapeanalysis,planningand management is the second key themeof this Special Issue. In regional planning, whole landscapes with multiple needs and demands,forexamplefordifferentformsoflanduse,havetobe considered(Koschkeetal.,2012;Burkhardetal.,2012).Hence,tools for assessmentsof wholelandscapes’ ecosystem service poten-tials are needed (Busch et al., 2012) to bridge gaps between sectoralmanagementlandscapeapproachesandregional develop-mentplanning(Franketal.,2012).Scenarioshavebeenshownto beusefultoolstoassessfuturedevelopment(Haines-Youngetal., 2012).

Inthiscontext,acleardifferentiationbetweenecosystem ser-vicecapacitiesand ecosystemserviceorlandscapepotentials is essentialinfindingsolutionsinlanduseplanningand“landuse governance”(Bastianetal.,2012).Quiteoften,stocksof ecosys-temservicesarequantifiedinsteadofactualflows(Haines-Young etal.,2012).Ecosystemfunction,serviceorlandscapepotentials refertopotentialsupply,whereascapacitiesarerelatedtocurrently usedecosystemservices(Burkhardetal.,2012;vanOudenhoven

etal.,2012).Informationofecosystemserviceflowsandrespective awarenessofecosystemservicesingeneralareneededby deci-sionmakers(Scolozzietal.,2012;NedkovandBurkhard,2012). Ecosystemserviceflowsarecloselyrelatedtodemandsfor ecosys-temgoodsandservices(SyrbeandWalz,2012).Regionaldemands forecosystemservicesareespeciallyrelevantinlandscape plan-ning(Koschkeetal.,2012;NedkovandBurkhard,2012;Burkhard etal.,2012).Additionally,“service-connectingareas”,transferring matter,energyandorganismsalsohavetobeconsidered(Syrbe andWalz,2012).

Franketal.(2012)pointoutthateasilyapplicableandintegrated ecosystemserviceapproachesareneededforlandscapeplanning. Theseeasilyappliedapproaches,basedonarelativescoringsystem toassessecosystemservicesupply anddemand,linkedto vari-ouslandcoverunitsweresuggestedandappliedinBurkhardetal. (2012)andinNedkovandBurkhard(2012).Schneidersetal.(2012),

Koschkeetal.(2012)andHaines-Youngetal.(2012)applied sim-ilarmethods inspatially explicitquantificationand comparison ofecosystem functionsand servicesupply capacities indistinct landscapeunits.Schneiders et al.(2012),Koschkeet al.(2012),

NedkovandBurkhard(2012),andBurkhardetal.(2012)highlight theimportanceofconsideringalllandcoverclassespresentinthe studyareainrespectivelandcover-basedassessments.The com-municationoflandcoverchangeeffectsonecosystemservicesis veryimportantforregionalplanning,whichcanbecarriedoutwith illustrativeapproachessuchas“PimpYourLandscape/GISCAME” (Koschke et al., 2012; Frank et al., 2012).Expert knowledge is usefulforassessmentsoflandscapecapacities andpotentialsto supplyecosystemservices,toevaluateimpactsoflandusechanges (Haines-Younget al.,2012;Burkhard etal., 2012)and toadapt thetoolstolocalconditions(“expert-basedspatialadjustment”;

Scolozzi et al., 2012). Scaling rules are suggested when trans-ferring local data to largerscales and vice versa (Busch et al., 2012).

3. Adaptivemanagementofecosystemservices

Tools,strategiesandinstitutionsareurgentlyneeded,because thedemandofecosystemservice-basedinstrumentshascurrently beenhigher thanscientists wereable todeliver(Seppelt etal., 2012).Ecosystemservicesareverysignificantforadaptive manage-ment(SyrbeandWalz,2012),buttheyhaveoftenbeenappliednot appropriatelyorinconsistently.Onereasoncouldbethat ecosys-temservicestudiesareoftentoocomplexfordirectuseinpractical assessments(Koschkeetal.,2012).Scolozzietal.(2012)notethat itisthedecisionmakingprocesswhichhastobeaddressedthat determinesthelevelofprecisionoftheecosystemservice assess-mentandrespectivedatatobeused.SyrbeandWalz(2012)point outthatspatialconsiderationsareimportantforthemaintenance ofecosystemservices,notonlyfortheassessments.The“blueprint” suggestedbySeppeltetal.(2012)supportsdecisionmakingby pro-vidingsystematicdocumentationsofmethods,data,resultsand recommendationsofecosystemservicestudies.Thereforeitcould beusedtoguidehowecosystemserviceassessmentsarestructured forpractitioners.

Landusechange,andassociatedgainsorlossesofecosystem services,wereidentifiedand analyzedbyScolozzi etal.(2012),

(5)

acceptablelevelofbiodiversityand ecosystemservicesmustbe reachedbysocietyandpolicy,referringto“safeminimum stan-dardsofconservation”whichshouldbelinkedto“safeminimum use” for land use intensities (Schneiders et al., 2012). Lookup tablesor“rapidassessments”assuggestedbyHaines-Youngetal. (2012)andBurkhardetal.(2012)aresuitablesolutionsthatshow statesandtrendsofecosystemservices,andhelpdecision mak-erstoprioritizeareasforfurtheranalyzesandmeasuresforthe managementofnaturalcapital(“screeningtools”;Scolozzietal., 2012).

Integratedecological-environmentalmanagementthatfollows thefunctional principlesof ecosystems is necessaryto identify measuresandtofindsolutionsforthecurrentproblemsrelatedto ecosystemmanagement(JørgensenandNielsen,2012).Mosttools forenvironmentalmanagementhavebeendevelopedasreactions toenvironmentalproblems.Today,abetterunderstandingof com-plexecosystemfunctionalitiesandevenpredictionsofecosystem behavior are possible, for example based on ecological model-ing,ecologicalindicatorsandecosystemservices(Jørgensenand Nielsen,2012).Predictionsofecosystembehavior,togetherwith plausiblefuturescenariosoflandandecosystemserviceuse,are suitableoptionsfor“proactivemanagement”,whichcanbeabasis foradaptivemanagement(NedkovandBurkhard,2012; Haines-Youngetal.,2012).

4. Environmental,socialandeconomictrade-offs

Theevaluationofenvironmental,socialand economic trade-offsrequiresacombinedviewofhow thevariousecosystemor landscapefunction approaches arelinked(Bastianet al.,2012). Trade-offs normally occur when the maximization or increase of one ecosystem service results in reduction of other ecosys-temservices(Buschet al.,2012);this situationregularlyarises inmultifunctionallandscapes(Haines-Youngetal.,2012;Scolozzi etal.,2012).Approachesforstrategicenvironmentalassessments (Scolozzietal.,2012)needtobedevelopedtofindanoptimal bal-ancemeetingpeople’sneeds(Seppeltetal.,2012;SyrbeandWalz, 2012;Haines-Youngetal.,2012).

Proper ecosystem service classification and valuation are neededtoevaluatetrade-offs(Koschkeetal.,2012),takinginto account scale peculiarities, synergies and non-accountable ser-vices(Buschetal.,2012).Spatiallyexplicitassessmentsofmultiple ecosystemservicesupplyanddemandareasprovideappropriate informationfortrade-offevaluation(SyrbeandWalz,2012;Bastian etal.,2012;NedkovandBurkhard,2012;Burkhardetal.,2012). Monitoringschemesespeciallydedicatedtoecosystemservicesare suggestedasasolutionforthelackofdata,whichoftenhampers appropriateassessments(Burkhardetal.,2012).Benefittransfer andexpertevaluationarefurtherpossiblewaysofacquiringdata for land cover-related ecosystem service assessments (Koschke etal.,2012).Scolozzietal.(2012)deriveda“surrogatemarket”for ecosystemservicesbasedonacollectionofeconomicvaluesfrom aliteraturereview,in combinationwithaDelphiexpertsurvey onecosystemservicestoproducespatialecosystemservice rep-resentationsandassesschangesof“potentialeconomicecosystem servicevalues”.

Biodiversityconservation,aswellasselectedecosystemservice restorationmeasures,needtoconsiderthepotentialemergence ofecosystemdisservices,causingforexampleeconomiclossesfor farmers(Schneidersetal.,2012).Ecosystemdisservicesare ecosys-temserviceswithnegativesocialoreconomiceffects onhuman well-being(Bastianetal.,2012),suchashazardousfloodsassessed inNedkovandBurkhard(2012).

5. Conclusion“SalzauMessage”

Finally,asasynthesisofthepresentationsanddiscussionsatthe “SolutionsforSustainingNaturalCapitalandEcosystemServices” conference,the“SalzauMessageonSustainingEcosystemServices andNaturalCapital”hasbeendistilledandsignedbytheworkshop participants(seeBox1).Ecosystemservicesaretrulycomingofage, andwhilethereisstillmuchtobedone,thepossibilitiesforusing thisconcepttoimproveandsustainhumanwell-beingare enor-mous.TheEcosystemServicesPartnership(ESP)anditsgrowing numberofmembers,willcontinuetofacilitatethismovement.

References

Bastian,O.,Haase,D.,Grunewald,K.,2012.Ecosystemproperties,potentialsand services–theEPPSconceptualframeworkandanurbanapplicationexample. EcologicalIndicators21,7–16.

Burkhard,B.,Kroll,F.,Nedkov,S.,Müller,F.,2012.Mappingecosystemservicesupply, demandandbudgets.EcologicalIndicators21,17–29.

Burkhard,B.,Petrosillo,I.,Costanza,R.,2010.Ecosystemservices–bridgingecology, economyandsocialsciences.EcologicalComplexity7(3),257–259.

Busch,M.,LaNotte,A.,Laporte,V.,Erhard,M.,2012.Potentialsofquantitativeand qualitativeapproachestoassessingecosystemservices.EcologicalIndicators21, 89–103.

Costanza,R.,2008.Ecosystemservices:multipleclassificationsystemsareneeded. BiologicalConservation141,350–352.

Daily,G.C.,Polasky,S.,Goldstein,J.,Kareiva,P.M.,Mooney,H.A.,Pejchar,L., Rick-etts,T.H.,Salzman,T.,Shallenberger,R.,2009.Ecosystemservicesindecision making–timetodeliver.FrontiersinEcologyandtheEnvironment7(1),21– 28.

Frank,S.,Fürst,C.,Koschke,L.,Makeschin,F.,2012.Acontributiontowardsatransfer oftheecosystemserviceconcepttolandscapeplanningusinglandscapemetrics. EcologicalIndicators21,30–38.

Haines-Young,R.,Potschin,M.,Kienast,F.,2012.Indicatorsofecosystemservice potentialatEuropeanscales:mappingmarginalchangesandtrade-offs. Ecolog-icalIndicators21,39–53.

Jørgensen,S.E.,Nielsen,S.N.,2012.Toolboxesforanintegratedecologicaland envi-ronmentalmanagement.EcologicalIndicators21,104–109.

Koschke,L.,Fürst,C.,Frank,S.,Makeschin,F.,2012.Amulti-criteriaapproachfor anintegratedland-cover-basedassessmentofecosystemservicesprovisionto supportlandscapeplanning.EcologicalIndicators21,54–66.

Nedkov,S.,Burkhard,B.,2012.Floodregulatingecosystemservices–mapping sup-plyanddemand,intheEtropolemunicipality,Bulgaria.EcologicalIndicators21, 67–79.

Scolozzi,R.,Morri,E.,Santolini,R.,2012.Delphi-basedchangeassessmentin ecosys-temservicevaluestosupportstrategicspatialplanninginItalianlandscapes. EcologicalIndicators21,134–144.

Schneiders,A.,vanDaele,T.,vanLanduyt,W.,vanReeth,W.,2012.Biodiversityand ecosystemservices:complementaryapproachesforecosystemmanagement? EcologicalIndicators21,123–133.

Seppelt,R.,Dormann,C.F.,Eppink,F.V.,Lautenbach,S.,Schmidt,S.,2011.A quanti-tativereviewofecosystemservicestudies:approaches,shortcomingsandthe roadahead.JournalofAppliedEcology48,630–636.

Seppelt,R.,Fath,B.,Burkhard,B.,Fisher,J.L.,Grêt-Regamey,A.,Lautenbach,S.,Pert,P., Hotes,S.,Spangenberg,J.,Verburg,P.H.,vanOudenhoven,A.P.E.,2012.Form fol-lowsfunction?Proposingablueprintforecosystemserviceassessmentsbased onreviewsandcasestudies.EcologicalIndicators21,145–154.

Syrbe,R.-U.,Walz,U.,2012.Spatialindicatorsfortheassessmentofecosystem services:providing,benefitingandconnectingareasandlandscapemetrics. EcologicalIndicators21,80–88.

vanOudenhoven,A.P.E.,Petz,K.,Alkemade,R.,Hein,L.,deGroot,R.S.,2012. Frame-workforsystematicindicatorselectiontoassesseffectsoflandmanagementon ecosystemservices.EcologicalIndicators21,110–122.

BenjaminBurkharda,∗

RudolfdeGrootb RobertCostanzac RalfSeppeltd SvenErikJørgensene MarionPotschinf

aInstituteforNaturalResourceConservation,

ChristianAlbrechtsUniversityKiel,Olshausenstr.40,

24098Kiel,Germany

bEnvironmentalSystemsAnalysisGroup,

WageningenUniversity&ResearchCentre,P.O.Box

(6)

cInstituteforSustainableSolutions,PortlandState

University,P.O.Box751,Portland,OR97201,USA

dHelmholtzCentreforEnvironmentalResearch

UFZ,DepartmentofComputationalLandscape

Ecology,Permoserstr.15,04318Leipzig,Germany

eFacultyofPharmacy,UniversityofCopenhagen,

Universitetsparken2,2100Copenhagen,Denmark

fCentreforEnvironmentalManagement,Schoolof

Geography,UniversityofNottingham,University

Park,NG72RD,Nottingham,UK

Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+494318801230;

fax:+494318804083.

E-mailaddress:bburkhard@ecology.uni-kiel.de(B.

References

Related documents

The main goal of this study was to explore the attributes, consequences and underlying personal values that drive consumer purchases of Quorn for three different groups of

Boys expressed a greater well- being (environmental mastery and self-acceptance) than girls and late adolescents showed a greater well-being (personal growth and purpose in life)

The five schools were significantly different on distributed leadership practice particularly of the mission, vision, and goals, school culture and leadership

* This exhibit contains data reported in Laurence Clement Roca and Cory Searcy, “An Analysis of Indicators Disclosed in Corporate Sustainability Reports,” Journal of

arises by reason of any act of negligence/ omission/ default or non-compliance with any of the Terms & Conditions or statutory regulations or rules and regulations applicable

The B-Society is working for differentiated hours at school, which can support the different circadian rhythms of the pupils, and we are working for a flexible workplace where

Prebiotics are not digested in the upper gastrointestinal tract and reach the colon intact, where they are selectively fermented by residential microbiota into short chain fatty

In the workshops, practical ideas were presented for enhancing the preparation and performance of inspections, and to change the Advisory Committee on Own Resources (ACOR) more into