Benjamin Burkhard

Landscapes' Capacities to Provide Ecosystem Services - a Concept for Land-Cover Based Assessments

Landscapes differ in their capacities to provide ecosystem goods and services, which are the benefits humans obtain from nature. Structures and functions of ecosystems needed to sustain the provision of ecosystem services are altered by various human activities. In this paper, a concept for the assessment of multiple ecosystem services is proposed as a basis for discussion and further development of a respective evaluation instrument. Using quantitative and qualitative assessment data in combination with land cover and land use information originated from remote sensing and GIS, impacts of human activities can be evaluated. The results reveal typical patterns of different ecosystems‘ capacities to provide ecosystem services. The proposed approach thus delivers useful integrative information for environmental management and landscape planning, aiming at a sustainable use of services provided by nature. The research concept and methodological framework presented here for discussion have initially been applied in different case studies and shall be developed further to provide a useful tool for the quantification and spatial modelling of multiple ecosystem services in different landscapes. An exemplary application of the approach dealing with food provision in the Halle-Leipzig region in Germany is presented. It shows typical patterns of ecosystem service distribution around urban areas. As the approach is new and still rather general, there is great potential for improvement, especially with regard to a data-based quantification of the numerous hypotheses, which were formulated as base for the assessment. Moreover, the integration of more detailed landscape information on different scales will be needed in future in order to take the heterogeneous distribution of landscape properties and values into account. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to foster critical discussions on the methodological development presented here.

Ecosystem Service Potentials, Flows and Demands – Concepts for Spatial Localisation, Indication and Quantification

The high variety of ecosystem service categorisation systems, assessment frameworks, indicators, quantification methods and spatial localisation approaches allows scientists and decision makers to harness experience, data, methods and tools. On the other hand, this variety of concepts and disagreements among scientists hamper an integration of ecosystem services into contemporary environmental management and decision making. In this article, the current state of the art of ecosystem service science regarding spatial localisation, indication and quantification of multiple ecosystem service supply and demand is reviewed and discussed. Concepts and tables for regulating, provisioning and cultural ecosystem service definitions, distinguishing between ecosystem service potential supply (stocks), flows (real supply) and demands as well as related indicators for quantification are provided. Furthermore, spatial concepts of service providing units, benefitting areas, spatial relations, rivalry, spatial and temporal scales are elaborated. Finally, matrices linking CORINE land cover types to ecosystem service potentials, flows, demands and budget estimates are provided. The matrices show that ecosystem service potentials of landscapes differ from flows, especially for provisioning ecosystem services.

Uncertainties in Ecosystem Service Maps: A Comparison on the European Scale

Safeguarding the benefits that ecosystems provide to society is increasingly included as a target in international policies. To support such policies, ecosystem service maps are made. However, there is little attention for the accuracy of these maps. We made a systematic review and quantitative comparison of ecosystem service maps on the European scale to generate insights in the uncertainty of ecosystem service maps and discuss the possibilities for quantitative validation. Maps of climate regulation and recreation were reasonably similar while large uncertainties among maps of erosion protection and flood regulation were observed. Pollination maps had a moderate similarity. Differences among the maps were caused by differences in indicator definition, level of process understanding, mapping aim, data sources and methodology. Absence of suitable observed data on ecosystem services provisioning hampers independent validation of the maps. Consequently, there are, so far, no accurate measures for ecosystem service map quality. Policy makers and other users need to be cautious when applying ecosystem service maps for decision-making. The results illustrate the need for better process understanding and data acquisition to advance ecosystem service mapping, modelling and validation.

Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services

Since the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’s outcomes in 2005 (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005), there has been rapid growth in the science and policy of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity for natural resource management decision making. Most prominent at the global scale is The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2010), and at the national scale is the United Kingdom National Ecosystem Assessment (Bateman et al. 2011). New initiatives, such as the World Bank’s Global Partnership for Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services1 and the Global Environment Facility (GEF)-funded Project for Ecosystem Services2 aim to get ecosystem service values into mainstream national accounting. Other recent global developments such as the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services3 and the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–20204 aim to recognise, protect and enhance the values provided to society by biodiversity and ecosystem services. The biodiversity strategy of the European Union (EU) to 20205 demands improving the knowledge of ecosystem services and commissions its member states to map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services in their national territories by 2014. The integration of ecosystem service values into accounting and reporting systems at EU and national levels is expected be completed by 2020. All such efforts to better value ecosystem services demand robust quantification and mapping methods. Furthermore, the commodification of ecosystem service production, such as payments for ecosystem services, biodiversity and wetland banking, carbon offsets and trading and conservation auctions, depends on robust measurement of the stocks and flow of services to provide surety to participants in these markets. At a broader level of sustainability policy, there needs to be better understanding of where and what services are provided by a given piece of land, landscape, region, state, continent and globally, so that the level of provision of services can be monitored and managed. There also needs to be better understanding of conditions and threats to the natural capital that supplies ecosystem services so that finite resources can be targeted to where the enhancement of services is needed most. Maps are a very powerful tool to process complex data and information from ecosystem service quantification on different spatial and temporal scales and thereby support resource and environmental management as well as landscape planning. This special issue on ‘Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services’ contains a collection of papers that present the state of the art in ecosystem service quantification and mapping methodologies. The collection of papers in this special issue covers a broad spectrum of ecosystem service quantification and mapping, from the theoretical (Bastian et al. 2012) and review (Martinez-Harms and Balvanera 2012) style, to those of a more applied nature (Ericksen et al. 2012; Klug et al. 2012). Several papers focus on the single ecosystem service of water quality (Bastian et al. 2012; Klug et al. 2012; La Notte et al. 2012; Lautenbach et al. 2012) or habitat (La Notte 2012; Rolf et al. 2012), while other papers focus on the supply of multiple (or bundles of) ecosystem services (Ericksen et al. 2012; Guerry et al. 2012; Petz and van Oudenhoven 2012; Schulp et al. 2012; Vihervaara et al. 2012). The major characteristics of the papers that appear in this special issue are summarised in Table 1. The scale, resolution, input data sources and case study locations presented in these special issue papers are many and varied, from the local to the global and the fine-grained to the coarse-grained (Table 1). However, of most interest to readers are the major findings of the papers in this collection and how they contribute to the state of the art for quantifying and mapping ecosystem services. For example, using biophysical models (La Notte et al. 2012) or detailed species (Rolf et al. 2012) or biodiversity data (Vihervaara et al. 2012) to supplement land-cover/landuse data-based assessments will more accurately quantify ecosystem services than if using land-cover/land-use data alone. The selection of relevant ecosystem services and respective indicators is also important and careful selection will arguably result in more relevant and accurate maps for valuation (La Notte 2012) and decision making (Petz and van Oudenhoven 2012). A number of papers offer some insights into cases where lack of data makes quantifying and mapping ecosystem services more difficult. For example, Lautenbach et al. (2012) suggest a hierarchical approach across multiple scales could be used where high-resolution data are fragmented, while Ericksen et al. (2012) demonstrate that simple and relatively coarse land-use data are still very useful for mapping bundles of ecosystem services to aid decision making in developing countries that are traditionally data poor. Furthermore, Klug et al. (2012) demonstrate the potential of open source methods for collecting data and modelling ecosystem services that are complex in space and time.

An ecosystem based framework to link landscape structures, functions and services

Sustainable development is a holistic principle which requires an interdisciplinary, systems-based framework to consider social, economic, cultural and ecological features on various interacting spatio-temporal scales (Hauff 1987). These comprehensive demands can only be met if indirect, chronic and de-localised effects are used as focal elements of the respective investigations and management optimisations (Costanza 2000, Daily 1997, Joergensen 1996, Patten 1992). Thus, besides the broad-spectral spatial and temporal extents, sustainable development also demands for deep “substantial extents”, considering multiple subsystems and elements as well as the interrelations between them.

Conceptualizing the link between marine ecosystem services and human well-being: the case of offshore wind farming

Although the concept of ecosystem services has drawn a prolific amount of recent research, little work has been done on the links between marine ecosystem services and coastal human well-being at a regional scale. Key questions in this context are that of appropriate categories for assessing human well-being and how to link different determinants of human well-being to specific ecosystem services supplied in adjacent marine areas. This paper presents the results of a case study that links tangible and intangible ecosystem benefits to a range of material and immaterial factors constituting human well-being. Determinants of human well-being were defined and indicators selected to make these linkages traceable. Ecosystem services were assessed for the offshore environment along the west coast of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, based on the assumption of strong future development of offshore wind farming and considering the environmental and socio-economic impacts of such developments on the coastal region. This paper illustrates some conceptual problems in linking ecosystem benefits to human well-being. Based on an economic analysis and a questionnaire survey, two examples are presented where an evidence-based link could be demonstrated between an ecosystem service impacted by offshore wind farming and change in human well-being. The results presented should be understood as an analytic framework and precondition for gathering empirical data.

The next generation of site-based long-term ecological monitoring: Linking essential biodiversity variables and ecosystem integrity

Global change effects on biodiversity and human wellbeing call for improved long-term environmental data as a basis for science, policy and decision making, including increased interoperability, multifunctionality, and harmonization. Based on the example of two global initiatives, the International Long-Term Ecological Research (ILTER) network and the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON), we propose merging the frameworks behind these initiatives, namely ecosystem integrity and essential biodiversity variables, to serve as an improved guideline for future site-based long-term research and monitoring in terrestrial, freshwater and coastal ecosystems. We derive a list of specific recommendations of what and how to measure at a monitoring site and call for an integration of sites into co-located site networks across individual monitoring initiatives, and centered on ecosystems. This facilitates the generation of linked comprehensive ecosystem monitoring data, supports synergies in the use of costly infrastructures, fosters cross-initiative research and provides a template for collaboration beyond the ILTER and GEO BON communities.

Engaging Local Knowledge in Biodiversity Research: Experiences from Large Inter- and Transdisciplinary Projects

Abstract The management of biodiversity represents a research topic that needs to involve not only several (sub-) disciplines from the natural sciences but, in particular, also the social sciences and humanities. Furthermore, over the last couple of years, the need for the integration of other kinds of knowledge (experience based or indigenous knowledge) is increasingly acknowledged. For instance, the incorporation of such knowledge is indispensable for place-based approaches to sustainable land management, which require that the specific ecological and social context is addressed. However, desirable as it may be, such an engagement of the holders of tacit knowledge is not easy to achieve. It demands reconciling well-established scientific procedural standards with the implicit or explicit criteria of relevance that apply in civil society — a process that typically causes severe tensions and comes up against both habitual as well as institutional constraints. The difficulty of managing such tensions is amplified particularly in large integrated projects and represents a major challenge to project management. At the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research — UFZ, several integrated research projects have been conducted over the past years in which experience has been gained with these specific challenges. This paper presents some of the lessons learned from large integrated projects, with an emphasis on project design and management structure. At the centre of the present contribution are experiences gained in the coordination and management of LEGATO (LEGATO stands for Land-use intensity and Ecological EnGineering — Assessment Tools for risks and Opportunities in irrigated rice based production systems, see www.legato-project.net), an ongoing, large-scale, inter- and transdisciplinary research project dealing with the management of irrigated rice landscapes in Southeast Asia. In this project, local expertise on traditional production systems is absolutely crucial but needs to be integrated with natural and social science research to identify future-proof land management systems.

Assessing Agricultural Sustainable Development Based on the DPSIR Approach: Case Study in Jiangsu, China

Abstract According to the contemporary ecosystem approach, the linkages of human actions with their environment have to be assessed in an integrative manner. The Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model is applied to identify and describe processes and interactions in human-environmental systems. An example application from a research project dealing with the development of sustainable management strategies for the agriculture in Jiangsu, China, illustrates the potentials and limitations of its sustainable development. The concept and indicators of ecological integrity are used to assess the indicators in the dimensions of DPSIR between 2003 and 2006. The main drivers included population growth which caused increasing demand for food, growing environmental demands, and rapidly decreasing of land and other natural resources. The main environmental problem was water pollution. The results show that in the dimension of driver, total grain output and agricultural land productivity both increased. Labor intensive agriculture has been promoted to increase agricultural land productivity. In the dimension of pressure, on the positive side, infrastructure got greatly improved, the input level such as total power of machinery, and level of fertilizer use increased, and level of pesticides use decreased, but on the negative side, cultivated land per capita and irrigation rate decreased, natural resources keep decreased. Environmental pollution indicators such as industrial wastewater discharge and acid rain rate increased in Jiangsu Province. In the aspect of state, ecosystem state was improved, plant coverage index increased, biological abundance index increased, fertilizer productivity increased, eco-environmental quality index increased, but land degradation index also increased. In the aspect of impact, output level increased, output efficiency enhanced, farmers social economic benefit improved. In the aspect of response, social support was greatly improved, input for environmental governance increased. To assess the effects of environmental governance, Jiangsu government was successful to increase compliance rate of sulfur dioxide emissions, but not so efficient in compliance rate of industrial wastewater discharge.

Driver–Pressure–State–Impact–Response

The driver–pressure–state–impact–response model is a conceptual framework consisting of a feedback system of drivers, pressures, states, impacts, and responses. It is widely used as a tool to model human–environmental systems. It can be applied to link various environmental and socioeconomic factors by illustrating causal relationships. In combination with appropriate indicators, the particular components and their developments can be assessed. The DPSIR model illustrates the effects of human actions on the environment in a simplified manner. Hence, it can be used as a valuable tool in environmental management and decision making.