Roy Haines-Young

Ecosystem Ecology: The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being

The degradation of ecosystem services poses a significant barrier to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and the MDG targets for 2015. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005, p. 18 Introduction: managing ecosystems for people No matter who we are, or where we live, our well-being depends on the way ecosystems work. Most obviously, ecosystems can provide us with material things that are essential for our daily lives, such as food, wood, wool and medicines. Although the other types of benefit we get from ecosystems are easily overlooked, they also play an important role in regulating the environments in which we live. They can help ensure the flow of clean water and protect us from flooding or other hazards like soil erosion, land-slips and tsunamis. They can contribute to our spiritual well-being, through their cultural or religious significance or the opportunities they provide for recreation and the enjoyment of nature. In this chapter, we will look at the goods and services that ecosystems can provide and the role that biodiversity may play in producing them, specifically the contribution that biodiversity makes to peoples livelihoods, to their security and to their health. In other words, we will concentrate mainly on the utilitarian value of biodiversity. We will also explore how these ideas link up with those of the Ecosystem Approach to environmental management and policy, and some of the implications of this for how sustainable development is defined.

Bringing Ecosystem Services into Economic Decision-Making: Land Use in the United Kingdom

Monitoring Land Use Land-use decisions are based largely on agricultural market values. However, such decisions can lead to losses of ecosystem services, such as the provision of wildlife habitat or recreational space, the magnitude of which may overwhelm any market agricultural benefits. In a research project forming part of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, Bateman et al. (p. 45) estimate the value of these net losses. Policies that recognize the diversity and complexity of the natural environment can target changes to different areas so as to radically improve land use in terms of agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions, recreation, and wild species habitat and diversity. The value of using land for recreation and wildlife, not just for agriculture, can usefully factor into planning decisions. Landscapes generate a wide range of valuable ecosystem services, yet land-use decisions often ignore the value of these services. Using the example of the United Kingdom, we show the significance of land-use change not only for agricultural production but also for emissions and sequestration of greenhouse gases, open-access recreational visits, urban green space, and wild-species diversity. We use spatially explicit models in conjunction with valuation methods to estimate comparable economic values for these services, taking account of climate change impacts. We show that, although decisions that focus solely on agriculture reduce overall ecosystem service values, highly significant value increases can be obtained from targeted planning by incorporating all potential services and their values and that this approach also conserves wild-species diversity.

Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making

Monitoring Land Use Land-use decisions are based largely on agricultural market values. However, such decisions can lead to losses of ecosystem services, such as the provision of wildlife habitat or recreational space, the magnitude of which may overwhelm any market agricultural benefits. In a research project forming part of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, Bateman et al. (p. 45) estimate the value of these net losses. Policies that recognize the diversity and complexity of the natural environment can target changes to different areas so as to radically improve land use in terms of agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions, recreation, and wild species habitat and diversity. The value of using land for recreation and wildlife, not just for agriculture, can usefully factor into planning decisions. Landscapes generate a wide range of valuable ecosystem services, yet land-use decisions often ignore the value of these services. Using the example of the United Kingdom, we show the significance of land-use change not only for agricultural production but also for emissions and sequestration of greenhouse gases, open-access recreational visits, urban green space, and wild-species diversity. We use spatially explicit models in conjunction with valuation methods to estimate comparable economic values for these services, taking account of climate change impacts. We show that, although decisions that focus solely on agriculture reduce overall ecosystem service values, highly significant value increases can be obtained from targeted planning by incorporating all potential services and their values and that this approach also conserves wild-species diversity.

Quantifying landscape structure: a review of landscape indices and their application to forested landscapes

An important assumption of many environmental decisions is that some patterns or combinations of land cover are optimal or more preferable to others. Management plans fre quently seek to change the structure of a landscape to realise particular management goals, because it is recognized that the spatial arrangement of elements in a land cover mosaic control the ecological processes which operate within it. This study reviews some of the tools available to those who need to describe and understand the spatial structure of landscapes. In particular, it examines the way in which quantitative measures, or indices, can be used and what contri bution they might make to the management of forested landscapes in the UK. The paper dis cusses the way in which the different landscape indices can be used to assess the spatial impli cations of the various design guidelines that have been proposd to promote sustainable forms of forestry. It is concluded that while progress has been made in the development of a range of landscape pattern measures, and in our understanding of the factors constraining their use, there is a pressing need for further research into the relationship between landscape pattern and ecological process.

Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective

The ‘ecosystem service’ debate has taken on many features of a classic Kuhnian paradigm. It challenges conventional wisdoms about conservation and the value of nature, and is driven as much by political agendas as scientific ones. In this paper we review some current and emerging issues arising in relation to the analysis and assessment of ecosystem services, and in particular emphasize the need for physical geographers to find new ways of characterizing the structure and dynamics of service providing units. If robust and relevant valuations are to be made of the contribution that natural capital makes to human well-being, then we need a deeper understanding of the way in which the drivers of change impact on the marginal outputs of ecosystem services. A better understanding of the trade-offs that need to be considered when dealing with multifunctional ecosystems is also required. Future developments must include methods for describing and tracking the stocks and flows that characterize natural capital. This will support valuation of the benefits estimation of the level of reinvestment that society must make in this natural capital base if it is to be sustained. We argue that if the ecosystem service concept is to be used seriously as a framework for policy and management then the biophysical sciences generally, and physical geography in particular, must go beyond the uncritical ‘puzzle solving’ that characterizes recent work. A geographical perspective can provide important new, critical insights into the place-based approaches to ecosystem assessment that are now emerging.

Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation

Linking biophysical aspects of ecosystems with human benefits through the notion of ecosystem services is essential to assess the trade-offs (ecological, socio-cultural, economic and monetary) involved in the loss of ecosystems and biodiversity in a clear and consistent manner. Any ecosystem assessment should be spatially and temporally explicit at scales meaningful for policy formation or interventions, inherently acknowledging that both ecological functioning and economic values are context, space and time specific. Any ecosystem assessment should first aim to determine the service delivery in biophysical terms, to provide solid ecological underpinning to the economic valuation or measurement with alternative metrics. Clearly delineating between functions, services and benefits is important to make ecosystem assessments more accessible to economic valuation, although no consensus has yet been reached on the classification. Ecosystem assessments should be set within the context of contrasting scenarios - recognising that both the values of ecosystem services and the costs of actions can be best measured as a function of changes between alternative options. In assessing trade-offs between alternative uses of ecosystems, the total bundle of ecosystem services provided by different conversion and management states should be included. Any valuation study should be fully aware of the „cost? side of the equation, as focus on benefits only ignores important societal costs like missed opportunities of alternative uses; this also allows for a more extensive range of societal values to be considered. Ecosystem assessments should integrate an analysis of risks and uncertainties, acknowledging the limitations of knowledge on the impacts of human actions on ecosystems and their services and on their importance to human well-being. In order to improve incentive structures and institutions, the different stakeholders - i.e. the beneficiaries of ecosystem services, those who are providing the services, those involved in or affected by the use, and the actors involved at different levels of decision-making - should be clearly identified, and decision making processes need to be transparent1. Integrating the Ecological and Economic Dimensions in Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Valuation 2. Biodiversity, Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services 3. Measuring Biophysical Quantities and the Use of Indicators 4. The Socio-cultural Context of Ecosystem and Biodiversity Valuation 5. The Economics of Valuing Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity 6. Discounting, Ethics, and Options for Maintaining Biodiversity and Ecosystem Integrity 7. Lessons Learned and Linkages with National Policies Appendix 1: How the TEEB Framework Can be Applied: The Amazon Case Appendix 2: Matrix Tables for Wetland and Forest Ecosystems Appendix 3: Estimates of Monetary Values of Ecosystem ServicesAll ecosystems are shaped by people, directly or indirectly and all people, rich or poor, rural or urban, depend on the capacity of ecosystems to generate essential ecosystem services. In this sense, people and ecosystems are interdependent social-ecological systems. The ecosystem concept describes the interrelationships between living organisms (people included) and the non-living environment and provides a holistic approach to understanding the generation of services from an environment that both delivers benefits to and imposes costs on people. Variation in biological diversity relates to the operations of ecosystems in at least three ways: 1. increase in diversity often leads to an increase in productivity due to complementary traits among species for resource use, and productivity itself underpins many ecosystem services, 2. increased diversity leads to an increase in response diversity (range of traits related to how species within the same functional group respond to environmental drivers) resulting in less variability in functioning over time as environment changes, 3. idiosyncratic effects due to keystone species properties and unique trait-combinations which may result in a disproportional effect of losing one particular species compared to the effect of losing individual species at random. Ecosystems produce multiple services and these interact in complex ways, different services being interlinked, both negatively and positively. Delivery of many services will therefore vary in a correlated manner, but when an ecosystem is managed principally for the delivery of a single service (e.g. food production), other services are nearly always affected negatively. Ecosystems vary in their ability to buffer and adapt to both natural and anthropogenic changes as well as recover after changes (i.e. resilience). When subjected to severe change, ecosystems may cross thresholds and move into different and often less desirable ecological states or trajectories. A major challenge is how to design ecosystem management in ways that maintain resilience and avoids passing undesirable thresholds. There is clear evidence for a central role of biodiversity in the delivery of some – but not all - services, viewed individually. However, ecosystems need to be managed to deliver multiple services to sustain human well-being and also managed at the level of landscapes and seascapes in ways that avoid the passing of dangerous tipping-points. We can state with high certainty that maintaining functioning ecosystems capable of delivering multiple services requires a general approach to sustaining biodiversity, in the long-term also when a single service is the focus.For most resource allocation problems economists use a capital investment approach. Resources should be allocated to those investments yielding the highest rate of return, accounting for uncertainty, risk and the attitude of the investor toward risk. As illustrated in Figure 6.1, suppose an investor has a choice between letting a valuable tree grow at a rate of 5 per cent per year, or cutting the tree down, selling it and putting the money in the bank. Which decision is best depends on the rate of interest the bank pays. If the bank pays 6 per cent and the price of timber is constant the investor will earn more money by cutting the tree down and selling it, that is, by converting natural capital into financial capital. This simple example is a metaphor for the conversion of biodiversity and ecosystem services into other forms of capital. The shortcomings of this simple approach to valuing biodiversity and ecosystems include: (1) the irreversibility of biodiversity loss; (2) pure uncertainty as to the effects of such losses; (3) the difference between private investment decisions and the responsibilities of citizens of particular societies; (4) the implicit assumption.

Assessing Landscape Functions with Broad-Scale Environmental Data: Insights Gained from a Prototype Development for Europe

We examine the advantages and disadvantages of a methodological framework designed to analyze the poorly understood relationships between the ecosystem properties of large portions of land, and their capacities (stocks) to provide goods and services (flows). These capacities (stocks) are referred to as landscape functions. The core of our assessment is a set of expert- and literature-driven binary links, expressing whether specific land uses or other environmental properties have a supportive or neutral role for given landscape functions. The binary links were applied to the environmental properties of 581 administrative units of Europe with widely differing environmental conditions and this resulted in a spatially explicit landscape function assessment. To check under what circumstances the binary links are able to replace complex interrelations, we compared the landscape function maps with independently generated continent-wide assessments (maps of ecosystem services or environmental parameters/indicators). This rigorous testing revealed that for 9 out of 15 functions the straightforward binary links work satisfactorily and generate plausible geographical patterns. This conclusion holds primarily for production functions. The sensitivity of the nine landscape functions to changes in land use was assessed with four land use scenarios (IPCC SRES). It was found that most European regions maintain their capacity to provide the selected services under any of the four scenarios, although in some cases at other locations within the region. At the proposed continental scale, the selected input parameters are thus valid proxies which can be used to assess the mid-term potential of landscapes to provide goods and services.

Landscapes, sustainability and the place-based analysis of ecosystem services

There is currently, widespread interest in the assessment of ecosystem services, and the new insights that the concept provides in understanding the ecology of landscapes and the science of sustainability. Three major assessment frameworks can be identified in the contemporary literature, namely one based on habitats, one based on the identification of the system elements that delivers the service, and one based on the understanding of places. Although all are useful for supporting decision making in relation to sustainable development, different situations require different perspectives, and so it is important to understand their advantages and drawbacks. Moreover, it is important to determine how they relate to other approaches used, for example, in landscape planning, so that the contribution that ecosystem assessments can make to sustainability debates can be better understood. The aim of this paper is to describe the strengths of the place-based approach because it is more easily overlooked as an assessment option. In particular we will argue that a place-based approach can help us better understand issues of multi-functionality, the valuation of natural capital and the role of landscape in framing debates about ecosystem services and sustainability. An appreciation of these issues will enable researchers interested in landscape to key questions and priorities in relation to questions of sustainability. Although it is useful to consider different assessment perspectives separately, we conclude that in practice, the habitat and systems approaches can form part of a place-based assessment, just as a better understanding of place can enrich assessments that spring from these more natural science approaches. Nevertheless, in designing analytical strategies to take the ecosystem approach forward, we suggest that it is vital to consider these different perspectives in order to build assessments that are relevant, legitimate and credible, and which can effectively address the problems of sustainability that emerge at the landscape scale.

Exploring ecosystem service issues across diverse knowledge domains using Bayesian Belief Networks

The analysis of the relationships between people and nature is complex, because it involves bringing together insights from a range of disciplines, and, when stakeholders are involved, the perspectives and values of different interest groups. Although it has been suggested that analytical-deliberate approaches may be useful in dealing with some of this complexity, the development of methods is still at an early stage. This is particularly so in relation to debates around the concept of ecosystem services where biophysical, social and economic insights need to be integrated in ways that can be accessed by decision-makers. The paper draws on case studies to examine the use of Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs) as a means of implementing analytical-deliberative approaches in relation to mapping ecosystem services and modelling scenario outcomes. It also explores their use as a tool for representing individual and group values. It is argued that when linked with GIS techniques BBNs allow mapping and modelling approaches rapidly to be developed and tested in an efficient and transparent way, and that they are a valuable scenario-building tool. The case-study materials also show that BBNs can support multicriteria forms of deliberative analysis that can be used to capture stakeholder opinions so that different perspectives can be compared and shared social values identified.

Evolution of the international regulation of plant pests and challenges for future plant health

Plant pathogens and invertebrates harmful to plants, collectively referred to as plant pests, continue to threaten food security. International cooperation and regulatory systems to inhibit the spread of plant pests began formally in 1878. Initially seven countries worked together and agreed phytosanitary measures against grape phylloxera, Phylloxera vastatrix (=Daktulosphaira vitifoliae). There are now 172 countries that are contracting parties to the International Plant Protection Convention, a treaty that aims to prevent the introduction and spread of pests of plants and plant products, and to promote appropriate measures for their control. Apparently contradictory interests between international trade, which has facilitated the spread of plant pests, and the protection of plants are mutually recognised in global trade and phytosanitary agreements. The principle that risk management measures should provide an appropriate level of protection without undue interference in trade was established within the plant protection agreements at the beginning of the 20th Century and is still fundamental to risk management policy today. Globally ten Regional Plant Protection Organizations facilitate more local cooperation and recommend the regulation of over 1,000 named quarantine plant pests. Member States of the European Union work together and regulate imported plant material on the grounds of plant health with each Member State taking into account the plant health concerns of every other Member State. However, decision making can be slow and border inspections poorly targeted. Close relationships between regulatory scientists and policy makers, focussed on agricultural and horticultural production, are changing to take a broader stakeholder community into consideration as decisions regarding the environment seek to draw upon a wider knowledge base. Challenges that impede the success of limiting international pest movement include increased international trade and climate change. International guidelines designed to prevent pest spread present challenges of their own if they remain difficult to implement.