Alexander P.E. van Oudenhoven

Assessing nature’s contributions to people

Recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments A major challenge today and into the future is to maintain or enhance beneficial contributions of nature to a good quality of life for all people. This is among the key motivations of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a joint global effort by governments, academia, and civil society to assess and promote knowledge of Earths biodiversity and ecosystems and their contribution to human societies in order to inform policy formulation. One of the more recent key elements of the IPBES conceptual framework (1) is the notion of natures contributions to people (NCP), which builds on the ecosystem service concept popularized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2). But as we detail below, NCP as defined and put into practice in IPBES differs from earlier work in several important ways. First, the NCP approach recognizes the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining all links between people and nature. Second, use of NCP elevates, emphasizes, and operationalizes the role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding natures contribution to people.

Ecosystem Services Go Beyond Money and Markets: Reply to Silvertown

Silvertown [1] provides an outspoken critique on the concept of ecosystem services (ES), feeding a longstanding debate about how to express and conserve the value of nature for humans [2–4]. The paper raises valid concerns about ES monetization, its failure to ‘capture the multifaceted sense in which people value nature’, and market shortcomings in halting biodiversity loss. However, it also points to a supposed ‘dominant neoliberal ideology’ behind the ES concept and characterizes the problem of biodiversity loss as lying ‘deeper in anthropocentrism’.

Identifying future research directions for biodiversity, ecosystem services and sustainability: perspectives from early-career researchers

ABSTRACT We aimed to identify priority research questions in the field of biodiversity, ecosystem services and sustainability (BESS), based on a workshop held during the NRG BESS Conference for Early Career Researchers on BESS, and to compare these to existing horizon scanning exercises. This work highlights the need for improved data availability through collaboration and knowledge exchange, which, in turn, can support the integrated valuation and sustainable management of ecosystems in response to global change. In addition, clear connectivity among different research themes in this field further emphasizes the need to consider a wider range of topics simultaneously to ensure the sustainable management of ecosystems for human wellbeing. In contrast to other horizon scanning exercises, our focus was more interdisciplinary and more concerned with the limits of sustainability and dynamic relationships between social and ecological systems. The identified questions could provide a framework for researchers, policy makers, funding agencies and the private sector to advance knowledge in biodiversity and ES research and to develop and implement policies to enable sustainable future development.

Marine and coastal ecosystem services on the science–policy–practice nexus: challenges and opportunities from 11 European case studies

ABSTRACT We compared and contrasted 11 European case studies to identify challenges and opportunities toward the operationalization of marine and coastal ecosystem service (MCES) assessments in Europe. This work is the output of a panel convened by the Marine Working Group of the Ecosystem Services Partnership in September 2016. The MCES assessments were used to (1) address multiple policy objectives simultaneously, (2) interpret EU-wide policies to smaller scales and (3) inform local decision-making. Most of the studies did inform decision makers, but only in a few cases, the outputs were applied or informed decision-making. Significant limitations among the 11 assessments were the absence of shared understanding of the ES concept, data and knowledge gaps, difficulties in accounting for marine social–ecological systems complexity and partial stakeholder involvement. The findings of the expert panel call for continuous involvement of MCES ‘end users’, integrated knowledge on marine social–ecological systems, defining thresholds to MCES use and raising awareness to the general public. Such improvements at the intersection of science, policy and practice are essential starting points toward building a stronger science foundation supporting management of European marine ecosystems. EDITED BY Sebastian Villasante

Editorial: The management relevance of biodiversity science : Recommendations for conservation

The slightly broadened scope of IJBESM puts more emphasis on the management and policy relevance of findings published in the Journal. Papers should address biodiversity and/or ecosystem services, and be of relevance to problem solving in the context of sustainable land and water management, land-use planning or conservation. Relevance of findings for decision-making and management is considered a crucial aspect for all papers published in IJBESM. We also interpret management in a broader way than just ecosystem management. We furthermore highlight that we in particular welcome more interdisciplinary contributions. This reflects recent trends in papers published in the journal and in the emerging field of ecosystem services. We broadened and clarified the topics that papers should address. We suggest that submissions should preferably address the links between biodiversity and ecosystem services, between ecosystem services and management and/or between biodiversity and management. Many papers in IJBESM have recently reflected on the management relevance of biodiversity or ecosystem service research. To date, relatively few contributions address the link between biodiversity and ecosystem services. Of special interest to the Journal are contributions that address the relevance of the ecosystem service concept for conservation. The concept has its origins in (biodiversity) conservation (see Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1981) for early mentioning the concept and GómezBaggethun et al. (2010) for an overview). However, the concept is also increasingly contested for capturing different forms of resource use that might conflict with conservation issues (Schröter et al. 2014). It is therefore of high importance to increase knowledge on conservation-compatible services (Chan et al. 2011), functional links between biodiversity and ecosystem services (Harrison et al. 2014) or local co-occurrence between protected areas, biodiversity and ecosystem services (Hodder et al. 2014). A special issue on the conservation relevance of ecosystem services is currently under review for this journal and we look forward to receive more such contributions, for instance from the Ecosystem Service Partnership (ESP), which has recently held its 8 international conference in Stellenbosch, South Africa (www.es-partnership.org). One final clarification to the scope of the Journal is that we explicitly welcome contributions that develop and improve methods and tools to assess the above-mentioned questions in a management context, such as mapping, modelling, valuation (socio-cultural, economic etc.), stakeholder involvement, in situ and ex situ experiments etc. Several papers in the journal are already method-oriented (Guerry et al. 2012; Martínez-Harms & Balvanera 2012; Schulp et al. 2012; Beichler 2015; Duru et al. 2015) and at the same time do provide relevant insights for decision making.

Assessing nature's contributions to people: recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments

Recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments A major challenge today and into the future is to maintain or enhance beneficial contributions of nature to a good quality of life for all people. This is among the key motivations of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a joint global effort by governments, academia, and civil society to assess and promote knowledge of Earths biodiversity and ecosystems and their contribution to human societies in order to inform policy formulation. One of the more recent key elements of the IPBES conceptual framework (1) is the notion of natures contributions to people (NCP), which builds on the ecosystem service concept popularized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2). But as we detail below, NCP as defined and put into practice in IPBES differs from earlier work in several important ways. First, the NCP approach recognizes the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining all links between people and nature. Second, use of NCP elevates, emphasizes, and operationalizes the role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding natures contribution to people.

Open access to science on ecosystem services and biodiversity

The International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management (IJBESM) will be moved to full open access from 26 September 2016 onwards. This means that the research it publishes will be available for anyone to read, anywhere, at any time, providing they have an internet connection. We have elected to make this change in consultation with our five Associate Editors, who all supported the move wholeheartedly. As editorial team, we see many advantages of this step. There is currently a trend towards publishing open access and funders increasingly acknowledge the need for results being publicly available. Additionally, funders also increasingly make money available for open access publication. Open access will, of course, increase the visibility and discoverability of research published in IJBESM. We consider this aspect important for at least two reasons. First, as we aim to publish results with high relevance for management, easy access of studies to managers and decision-makers is crucial. Second, a considerable part of research published in IJBESM is from nonwestern countries. Knowledge from these regions will hence be more easily available to researchers, students and managers from these regions. Authors from developing countries will be able to easily share and spread their results. Overall, we expect a strong growth in usage and, subsequently, citations. We are confident that the Journal will have a more secure future and will be more influential as an open access journal as compared to a journal continuing to rely on subscriptions. Submitted papers to IJBESM will still be subject to double-blind peer review, as before. The Journal will retain rigorous quality control such that only meaningful and important new results are accepted for publication. The article publishing charge (APC) for IJBESM will be £470 (

Linking biodiversity and ecosystem service science to societal actors

750/€625), which is in line with current funding and other journals in the field. Taylor & Francis, our publisher, has also negotiated APC discounts with some institutions that will cover their authors’ APCs at a discounted rate. In addition, our publisher will support a waiver programme for scholars in emerging regions (no fee, or

Effects of different management regimes on soil erosion and surface runoff in semi-arid to sub-humid rangelands

250, depending on country). Taylor & Francis are continuously working to complete more of these arrangements, so more authors can benefit. More information can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/open access/members. Finally, in order to strengthen the ties with the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP) (www.espartnership.org), full members of the ESP will receive a discount of 15% on their APC.

Refocusing ecosystem services towards sustainability

In this Editorial to Issue 12–3 (2016) of International Journal of Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services & Management (IJBESM), we introduce this Issue’s articles, which can be of relevance to a wide range of stakeholders, such as local and (inter)national decision-makers, large international firms, farmers, fishery managers and protected area managers. We discuss how various stakeholders could use the findings and, if applicable, how researchers can optimise dissemination and utilisation of their findings. Finally, we welcome a new Editorial Board member and look ahead at the publication of a Special Issue that will address the use of ecosystem services in planning at different scales.