A.P.E. van Oudenhoven

Editorial: ecological and social factors influencing biodiversity management at different scales

Earlier this year, Volume 7 of the International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management started off with an interesting overview of how all-round contributions to our journal can be (de Groot 2011). This second issue, however, mainly deals with the third key topic of the journal, namely the link between biodiversity and management. Some years ago, Buijs et al. (2008) already illustrated that people often have excellent but starkly varying understandings of what biodiversity is and how we benefit from it. This could perhaps explain the large variety of approaches towards biodiversity conservation and management, as recent examples from China (Asai et al. 2010) and Poland (Blicharska and Angelstam 2010) have shown. The papers in this issue not only provide us with new insights from three different continents (Europe, Africa and Asia) but also illustrate at how many different scales and locations studies are being conducted. This once again underlines the versatility and large geographical range of this journal’s authors. Nagaraja et al. (2011) present results from a large-scale study into the regeneration of native woody species in the numerous tree plantations in southern India, thereby comparing the effect of nearby human settlements and natural forest. How biodiversity in western Europe can be valued is a timely, yet scarcely investigated topic. Garcia et al. (2011) present a novel method to do so. Two articles deal with more social aspects of biodiversity conservation and management, and both studies incidentally were carried out in Western Africa. Ansong and Røskaft (2011) reveal interesting determinants of why key stakeholders living near a nature reserve in Ghana would be willing to participate in forest conservation. Feka et al. (2011) provide an answer to a seemingly inappropriate, yet highly relevant question for people living in western Africa and other mangrove regions in the world. In Cameroon, a study was undertaken into the differences between mangrove wood harvesting practices by men and women, which may have a cumulative, negative impact on mangrove conservation. Next, we remain in Africa, but go south towards the Serengeti in Tanzania. Hassan and Rija (2011) conducted a study on the influence of fire history and current fire management on the grazing behaviour of large herbivores. Finally, Lohani et al. (2011) illustrate the potential of Polygonatum cirrhifolium Royle, a herb with medicinal, cultural and ethnobotanical importance in the Himalayas in India. The authors compared organic treatment methods to determine the optimal conditions and factors for the ex situ cultivation of this threatened species. Finally, we would like to announce that the next issue (Volume 7, Issue 3) will focus on challenges in ecosystem services research and trade-offs in ecosystem services management. Contributions to this thematic issue are mostly provided by participants of the Third International Conference of the Ecosystem Services Partnership on ‘Solutions for Sustaining Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services’ (www.es-partnership.org), which was held in Salzau and Kiel, Germany, in June 2010. We wish you enjoyable reading and encourage you to submit the results of your research, or your views on the linkages between biodiversity, ecosystem services and management.

Trade-offs and synergies between biodiversity conservation, land use change and ecosystem services

It is of crucial importance to understand the numerous benefits of, and threats to, the worlds biodiversity. In this issue, we present innovative research in the field of biodiversity and ecosystem services sciences as well as studies on local management of natural resources, protected areas and nature-based tourist destinations. Although all individual topics that are mentioned in this journals title are already big themes themselves, it is worth noting that almost all studies in Issue 9(2) touch upon the linkages between biodiversity, management and/or ecosystem services. This once again shows that the topics should not just be studied and considered in decision-making in isolation. A recurring theme in this Issue is the question whether biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services (potentially) conflict or whether they complement each other. In earlier Issues, we presented interesting studies on the ecological and social factors that influence biodiversity management (Van Oudenhoven & De Groot 2011a) as well as recent developments in the analysis and monitoring of human impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services (Van Oudenhoven & De Groot 2011b). Although the potential synergy between the concepts of ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation has been doubted and criticised (e.g. Ridder 2008; Vira & Adams 2009), contributions in this issue clearly highlight the importance of considering the complementarity of both concepts in local management, spatial planning and decision-making.It is of crucial importance to understand the numerous benefits of, and threats to, the world’s biodiversity. In this issue, we present innovative research in the field of biodiversity and ecosystem services sciences as well as studies on local management of natural resources, protected areas and nature-based tourist destinations. Although all individual topics that are mentioned in this journal’s title are already big themes themselves, it is worth noting that almost all studies in Issue 9(2) touch upon the linkages between biodiversity, management and/or ecosystem services. This once again shows that the topics should not just be studied and considered in decision-making in isolation. A recurring theme in this Issue is the question whether biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services (potentially) conflict or whether they complement each other. In earlier Issues, we presented interesting studies on the ecological and social factors that influence biodiversity management (Van Oudenhoven & De Groot 2011a) as well as recent developments in the analysis and monitoring of human impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services (Van Oudenhoven & De Groot 2011b). Although the potential synergy between the concepts of ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation has been doubted and criticised (e.g. Ridder 2008; Vira & Adams 2009), contributions in this issue clearly highlight the importance of considering the complementarity of both concepts in local management, spatial planning and decision-making. Urbanisation has been found to be a clear threat to biodiversity and nature conservation (McKinney 2002). Villareal et al. (2013) studied potential biodiversity losses and conservation trade-offs in relation to future urban growth scenarios. The studied ecoregions, the Sonoran desert and Apache Highlands, are characterised by only a few vegetation types that support relatively high vertebrate biodiversity. Because these vegetation types have limited spatial distributions, the impact of land use and urbanisation can have severe consequences for biodiversity in North America. Villareal and colleagues (2013) found that under the ‘Current Trends Scenario’ 45% of currently existing riparian woodland and 34% of semi-desert grassland species will be lost by the year 2050. Under the scenario that represents transnational growth corridor and openspace conservation, it was found that 44% and 24% would be lost. Moreover, under the latter scenario, avian-rich habitats were projected to decline rapidly, whereas under current trends mammal and herpetofauna habitats would be reduced and fragmentised. The outcomes not only show the potential effects of urbanisation on a large scale, but also that much depends on which indicator species would be chosen for assessing these effects and monitoring changes. The final selection of data and indicators ultimately affects the type of ecosystem services that could be assessed in line with biodiversity trends (Vihervaara et al. 2012). It has become increasingly popular to assess the biodiversity status of flora and fauna through investigating local knowledge. Linguistic and cultural factors have often been linked to biodiversity (Maffi 2005), as words and cultural practices tend to decline rapidly when biodiversity disappears. Some research has already been done on the relation between human perception, biodiversity and natural resources, for instance in Tanzania (Kideghesho & Msuya 2010; Mfunda & Røskaft 2011). In this Issue, Clamsen and Røskaft (2013) have built on these studies, by investigating local knowledge and awareness of bird species of conservation interest in the Serengeti. Apart from its exceptional biodiversity and tourism, the Serengeti is also known for being the home of the Maasai and other indigenous people. It was found that older men and Maasai were able to recognise almost all bird species of conservation interest, but in general only half of all respondents showed a good ability to recognise the birds. Considering that activities of people living around the Serengeti can impact the birds’ abundance quite strongly, the authors highlight the importance of incorporating conservation awareness raising and traditional knowledge into local resources management and biodiversity conservation. The usefulness of agroforestry schemes in terms of sustainability, biodiversity aspects and people’s participation has been studied extensively (e.g. Ramachandran Nair 2007; Russell et al. 2010). An interesting aspect of agroforestry is the large variety of local initiatives, especially in southern Asia (Islam et al. 2012; Shrestha et al. 2012). Islam et al. (2012) reported on the human component of forest conservation projects in Bangladesh, focusing on the extent to which local livelihoods were improved and participation could therefore be influenced. In this issue, Nandy and Das (2013) made a comparison between phytosociological aspects of a traditional northeast-Indian agroforestry system and a nearby situated natural forest. Interestingly enough, the agroforestry sites all had higher species richness and diversity, stand density and basal area, compared to natural forests. This research shows that careful local management of forest

Editorial: Managing ecosystem services and natural capital - trade-offs, synergies and challenges

In June 2010, over 100 scientists and policymakers participated in the Third International Conference and Workshop of the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP; www.espartnership.org), titled ‘Solutions for Sustaining Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services’. Six articles, based on presentations from the workshop on ‘Adaptive management of ecosystem services’, have been bundled in this thematic issue, which mainly deals with the applicability of the ecosystem services approach in adaptive management and spatial planning. Questions that were touched upon during this workshop included ‘Which supporting tools have to be developed to enhance the applicability of the ecosystem services approach in adaptive management?’ and ‘How can the ecosystem services approach be implemented in management strategies and institutions?’. This thematic issue deals in more detail with the issues touched upon in the previous issue of the International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, which featured papers on the ecological and social factors that influence biodiversity management (van Oudenhoven and de Groot 2011). The first two papers, by Geneletti (2012) and von Haaren and Albert (2012), illustrate how the ecosystem services approach can be integrated into spatial planning and land-use strategies that are already in place. Geneletti delivers a strong case for developing what he calls ‘ecosystem service-inclusive Strategic Environmental Assessment processes’. Spatial planning is likely to affect the spatial distribution and quality of many ecosystem services that are provided in a given region, regardless of whether this was anticipated by spatial planning strategies. Including ecosystem services into this assessment, Geneletti argues, would greatly enhance spatial planning outcomes. Von Haaren and Albert (2012) also start from the notion that spatial planning should be better connected to the international ecosystem services discussion. A systematic study was done on the theoretical and methodological differences and synergies between ‘traditional’ environmental planning and ecosystem services assessments. In addition, von Haaren and Albert illustrate their findings with an example of how better integration of the two concepts would benefit German landscape planning. ‘Participation’ is the keyword in contributions by Fürst et al. (2012) and Maynard et al. (2012). Fürst et al. describe to what extent the adaptation to and mitigation of climate change effects can be modelled. By considering more detailed land management classes, and thereby the view of regional actors, a model could be developed with much more flexibility and higher potential to be applied on a regional scale. Interestingly, the authors also illustrate how the impact of future management decisions, resulting from this model, could affect the provision of ecosystem services at landscape level. Maynard et al. (2012) also highlight the importance of involving local stakeholders in environmental planning. In a case study from South East Queensland, Australia, the authors describe a project in which an ecosystem services framework was developed in order to improve natural resource management in the region. With, especially, water resources being under much pressure in the area, a variety of stakeholders together developed an adapted version of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003), which now serves as a basis for regional management and planning. This is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that ecosystem services now feature in state planning policies and official reports on the state of the region’s environment. But how do ecosystem services ‘work’ and do they really affect human well-being? Busch et al. (2012) provide the latest insights from research on marine ecosystem services in relation to coastal human well-being. Northern Germany, like many other regions in Europe, has great potential for offshore wind-farming, but this ‘green energy’ could also impact the region’s population in both economic and environmental terms. By considering both tangible and intangible benefits that are provided through offshore wind-farming, Busch et al. (2012) illustrate how links between ecosystem services provision and human well-being could be demonstrated. In the final contribution to this thematic issue, Loft (2012) proposes the most important characteristics of successful market mechanisms for financing REDD (the reduction of emissions from deforestation and degradation). He draws on lessons learnt from payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes and, similar to Busch et al. (2012), also returns to the question ‘What specific ecosystem services are we actually talking about?’ Different forest ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration, recreation and non-timber forest products, also have different degrees of rivalry, excludability, scale and directional flow. By realising these differences, Loft illustrates to what trade-offs REDD financing mechanisms could lead, and how this could be improved. I would like to point out that in addition to the six workshop papers, two interesting papers are included in this thematic issue, which represent the ‘core-business’ of the International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management: original and relevant research that contributes directly to increasing awareness and betterIn June 2010, over 100 scientists and policymakers participated in the Third International Conference and Workshop of the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP; www.es-partnership.org), titled ‘Solut...

Editorial : Analysing and monitoring human impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services

Biodiversity, that is, plants, animals and other organisms, contribute to the provision of numerous ecosystem services, such as medicinal plants (Kala 2006; Kideghesho and Msuya 2010), agricultural products (Tweddell et al. 2006), and clean water (Adekola and Mitchell 2011). Issues 2 and 3 of volume 7 looked into the various aspects of managing biodiversity and ecosystem services (Van Oudenhoven 2011; Van Oudenhoven and de Groot 2011, respectively). In this last issue of volume 7, however, the authors provide insight into the impacts of human pressures on biodiversity, as well as on the ways of monitoring biodiversity and promoting incentives to invest in the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Deforestation and fragmentation of forests takes place at a large scale in Bangladesh, as has been shown before by Akther et al. (2010) and Rahman et al. (2009). A recent study by Muhammed et al. (2011) provides new insights into the structure and benefits of homestead forests in the country. Whereas more connected and intact forests are able to provide a more constant flow of timber products, homestead forests were found to host more horticultural species. In other words, although plant diversity might have increased, the productivity of timber products has decreased as a result of forest fragmentation. In southern India, anthropogenic disturbance was found to play a significant role in the survival and success of non-native tree species in riparian forests (Sunil et al. 2011). Since invasive tree species can impact water availability in the riparian areas (Blanchard and Holmes 2008), the study by Sunil et al. can be important for discussing appropriate biodiversity management strategies in southern India. But how can we monitor biodiversity and the associated resources in an accurate, reliable and cost-effective manner? Seak et al. (2011) analysed three systems for monitoring biodiversity and biological resources, namely, state-managed, NGO-managed and community-based monitoring. For a case study in Cambodia, the authors assessed the systems based on practical and methodological criteria, such as the ease of use and methodological rigour, respectively. Over the past years, the International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management has been an important platform for studies on medicinal plants, as recent studies in Africa (Kisangau and Herrmann 2007; Maroyi 2008; Kideghesho and Msuya 2010), South America (Soldati and de Albuquerque 2010) and Asia (Arfin Khan et al. 2009; Chowdhury et al. 2009) have shown. Rahman et al. (2011) present the results of an extensive study into the status, diversity and use of medicinal plants in a national park in Bangladesh. Although the research found an impressive diversity of species with medicinal properties, one finding was particularly worrying. The harvest of medicinal plants by local communities occurs largely in a sustainable manner, but it was the commercial extraction of a few, particularly valuable species that was found to be unsustainable. A short research paper by Tesio and Follis (2011) takes us ‘back to the future’. In an Italian study of three old local flint maize varieties, the authors proved that these old varieties are better adapted to the damage caused by mechanical weed control and herbicide treatments compared to currently preferred high-yielding hybrid maize species. Specifically when taking into account management costs and ecological durability of agricultural lands, ‘rediscovering’ traditional crops might provide an answer to ever increasing demands for agricultural production. Finally, the conservation and management of biodiversity and ecosystem services require considerable financial investments (Loft 2011). Lambooy and Levashova (2011) investigated why the private sector should and would invest in nature, and what the barriers and opportunities would be. The authors provide an overview of biodiversity and ecosystem service markets that are currently emerging. The barriers and opportunities that were identified are important for practitioners and policymakers to take into consideration. The diversity of studies, in terms of both scope and geographical distribution in this issue, once again proves the increasing popularity of the ecosystem service concept. The upcoming double issue of our journal, due to appear in the spring of 2012, will provide more insights and practical guidelines towards the integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services into local, national and international policies and markets.

Evidence and people's perceptions of the importance of biodiversity and integrated land use management for ecosystem services and local livelihoods

Pollination by bees, and other species, has been proven extremely important for the production of many agricultural crops (see Ricketts et al. (2008) and Farwig et al. (2009) for an overview). Recent studies have mapped and modelled pollination on a regional (Petz and Van Oudenhoven 2012) and larger scale (Schulp et al. 2012), but it has to be noted that most of these models are heavily dependent on secondary data and making generalised assumptions. Pollination studies have unearthed a few trends, for instance relationships between pollination rate and fruit set as well as pollinators’ distance to fields and crop yield increase (Ricketts et al. 2008). However, there is still a need for primary data on pollinators’ diversity contributions, drivers of pollinators’ population numbers and regional differences of crop yield increase as a result of pollination (Farwig et al. 2009). In this issue, Munyuli (2012) describes a study on the influence of drivers to pollinators’ abundance and diversity on different spatial scales, ranging from microscale to regional scale. By comparing primary data from 30 different coffee farms in Uganda, Munyuli was able to deduce that distance to forest and/or wetlands and intensity of farming were negatively correlated with the potential yield of coffee fields. In addition, the effects of different pollination treatments were compared to those of natural habitats. His study calls for the establishment of coffee fields in the vicinity of natural habitats as well as establishing pollinator-friendly farms. The findings of this study can help farmers to consider best practices that guarantee sufficiently high numbers of pollinators and thus stable coffee harvests. The word ‘biodiversity’ can have many different meanings to people, even if they have considerable knowledge and are aware of the phenomenon. Jalilova and Vacik (2012) studied local people’s understanding of biodiversity in a country of which the valleys and forests can be characterised as extremely rich in biodiversity: Kyrgyzstan. Fruits and nuts are especially abundant and diverse in certain areas in Kyrgyzstan, but the biodiversity of walnut fruit trees is under pressure due to anthropogenic factors. Apart from occupation, the dependence on forest biodiversity was shown to have a strong influence on how biodiversity was perceived. Although local people were willing to conserve the forest biodiversity, most people also stated that their current socio-economic situation left them with no choice but to exploit the walnut forests in a way that can only be described as unsustainable. The findings by Jalilova and Vacik are all the more interesting when compared to results that were published earlier by Gos and Lavorel (2012). The authors studied people’s perceptions and expectations of forest ecosystem services in the French Alps region and also related this to what it would mean for biodiversity hot spots. Similarly to Jalilova and Vacik (2012), the authors emphasized the importance of taking into account people’s views on ecosystem services and biodiversity. Perhaps the most studied ecosystem service is carbon sequestration. In order to provide reliable information of forests’ potential to sequester carbon, it is crucial to estimate how the carbon stocks of forests have changed over time (Bala et al. 2007). Land use practices such as logging, agro-forestry and others have a considerable effect on forest ecology and diversity and consequently on its carbon stock (Edwards et al. 2010). Asase et al. (2012) compared the long-term effect of logging on tree diversity and carbon stocks in forests in Ghana. It was found that tree diversity of both smaller and larger trees was significantly higher in unlogged forests. In addition, the carbon stock was larger in unlogged forests as well, although it has to be noted that this large difference was not significant. More longterm studies like this should be conducted in order to better quantify the impact of logging and other land use practices on forest biodiversity and carbon sequestration. Land use also has a large influence on plant density and diversity in the Ugandan savannah, as was shown by Kalema and Witkowski (2012). In a savannah ecosystem where charcoal production dominated, plant density was higher compared to areas that were used primarily for cultivation and grazing. The authors found not only that species composition and diversity was strongly influenced by land use, but also that unsustainable harvesting for charcoal and intensive land use resulted in generally low woody species diversity and richness. Considering the local people’s dependence on the ecosystem for charcoal as well as other goods and services, these findings can help in developing more sustainable land use management. A study by Akwetaireho and Getzner (2010) quantified the value of ecosystem services that naturally functioning wetlands near Lake Victoria (Uganda) provide. The fact that wetlands are vital for local households has been supported by many other studies, but it is important to realise that the contribution of services varies strongly per country and region, depending on the local socio-economic and environmental context. This is underlined by a new study by Adekola et al. (2012), who quantified the contribution

Protecting biodiversity and safeguarding ecosystem services provision in a changing world

This last Issue of the International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management of 2013 clearly shows the result of the shift in scope that the journal has undergone. The Issue includes short communications, research letters and full research papers, and the geographical spread of the contributing authors is considerable. In addition, the number and diversity of papers on ecosystem services assessments has increased over the recent years, while papers on both biodiversity and ecosystem services are characterised by having higher relevance for management and regional planning as illustrated in Van Oudenhoven and de Groot (2013). Management practices such as restoration, agroforestry, resource extraction, etc. strongly influence biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision, and recent contributions to this journal are increasingly exploring the trade-offs and synergies between them.