In this paper, we consider the problem of how to quantitatively characterise the degree to which a study object exhibits a generalised response. By generalised response, we mean a multivariate response where numerous individual properties change in concerted fashion due to some internal integration. In latent variable structural equation modelling (LVSEM), we would typically approach this situation using a latent variable to represent a general property of interest (e.g. performance) and multiple observed indicator variables that reflect the specific features associated with that general property. While ecologists have used LVSEM in a number of cases, there is substantial potential for its wider application. One obstacle is that LV models can be complex and easily over-specified, degrading their value as a means of generalisation. It can also be challenging to diagnose causes of misspecification and understand which model modifications are sensible. In this paper, we present a protocol, consisting of a series of questions, designed to guide the researchers through the evaluation process. These questions address: (1) theoretical development, (2) data requirements, (3) whether responses to perturbation are general, (4) unique reactions by individual measures and (5) how far generality can be extended. For this illustration, we reference a recent study considering the potential consequences of maintaining biodiversity as part of agricultural management on the overall quality of grapes used for wine-making. We extend our presentation to include the complexities that occur when there are multiple species with unique reactions.
{"title":"A protocol for modelling generalised biological responses using latent variables in structural equation models","authors":"J. Grace, M. Steiner","doi":"10.3897/ONEECO.6.E67320","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ONEECO.6.E67320","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we consider the problem of how to quantitatively characterise the degree to which a study object exhibits a generalised response. By generalised response, we mean a multivariate response where numerous individual properties change in concerted fashion due to some internal integration. In latent variable structural equation modelling (LVSEM), we would typically approach this situation using a latent variable to represent a general property of interest (e.g. performance) and multiple observed indicator variables that reflect the specific features associated with that general property. While ecologists have used LVSEM in a number of cases, there is substantial potential for its wider application. One obstacle is that LV models can be complex and easily over-specified, degrading their value as a means of generalisation. It can also be challenging to diagnose causes of misspecification and understand which model modifications are sensible. In this paper, we present a protocol, consisting of a series of questions, designed to guide the researchers through the evaluation process. These questions address: (1) theoretical development, (2) data requirements, (3) whether responses to perturbation are general, (4) unique reactions by individual measures and (5) how far generality can be extended. For this illustration, we reference a recent study considering the potential consequences of maintaining biodiversity as part of agricultural management on the overall quality of grapes used for wine-making. We extend our presentation to include the complexities that occur when there are multiple species with unique reactions.","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44513736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Environmental research addresses ecosystems of various hierarchical levels. One of the ecosystem types is the river basin. The basin approach has been applied in the research. We consider the river basin as a single ecosystem of complex landscape structure. The research objective was to assess the biological processes in various landscapes within a holistic natural geosystem – a catchment area. The Klyazma River Basin (a part of the Volga River of 40 thousand km2 area) was the research object. It is a complex combination of different landscapes, each marked by a diverse composition of geomorphological and soil-vegetation structures. According to the geomorphological structure and soil and vegetation cover, four landscape provinces and eight key sites have been identified in the studied catchment area where the ecosystem parameter have been measured. The study is based on remote sensing data and the Trends. Earth Land Degradation Monitoring. The calculation of productivity indicators (GPP, NPP) in carbon units and the land use structure analysis are based on Modis data. The soil organic carbon pool was determined by the UN FAO’s data, based on Trends. Earth and QGIS 2.18. The two-factor variance analysis ANOVA has been used for the data statistic processing. The cartographic analysis of the land use structure dynamics of the entire Klyazma Basin resulted in revealing the areas where various land transitions from one category to another have been identified. They are basically associated with the agricultural land overgrowth. The forest area increased by 9% during the period from 2001 to 2017. Considerable increase in the waterlogged, wetlands areas was observed in the eastern part of the Basin, in the Volga-Klyazma Province. The landscapes react differently to changes in climatic parameters and land use. Thus, the active revegetation of farmland by forests gives the increased rate of carbon accumulation in the soil. Landscapes covered with grasses and shrubs are more productive those covered with forest. On the other hand, woody biotopes are more stable in their development over time. Statistical analysis using the two-factor variation analysis ANOVA method resulted in demonstrating that phytoproductivity dynamics of the key sites does not depend on their productivity parameters nor on the site landscape structure, but is mainly determined by a time factor. In different landscapes the biological processes, characterising the organic matter dynamics in the form of plant production, organic matter accumulation and others are shown to differ both in rate and intensity and ambiguously respond to changes in climate parameters and land use. The river basin, as a single ecosystem, showed sufficient stability of the dynamic processes. This suggests that holistic natural ecosystems, such as catchment areas, have internal compensatory mechanisms that maintain the development stability for a long time, while unplanned land use remains the main damaging facto
{"title":"Organic matter temporal dynamics in the river ecosystem basin using remote sensing","authors":"T. Trifonova, N. Mishchenko, P. Shutov","doi":"10.3897/ONEECO.6.E61357","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ONEECO.6.E61357","url":null,"abstract":"Environmental research addresses ecosystems of various hierarchical levels. One of the ecosystem types is the river basin. The basin approach has been applied in the research. We consider the river basin as a single ecosystem of complex landscape structure. The research objective was to assess the biological processes in various landscapes within a holistic natural geosystem – a catchment area. The Klyazma River Basin (a part of the Volga River of 40 thousand km2 area) was the research object. It is a complex combination of different landscapes, each marked by a diverse composition of geomorphological and soil-vegetation structures. According to the geomorphological structure and soil and vegetation cover, four landscape provinces and eight key sites have been identified in the studied catchment area where the ecosystem parameter have been measured. The study is based on remote sensing data and the Trends. Earth Land Degradation Monitoring. The calculation of productivity indicators (GPP, NPP) in carbon units and the land use structure analysis are based on Modis data. The soil organic carbon pool was determined by the UN FAO’s data, based on Trends. Earth and QGIS 2.18. The two-factor variance analysis ANOVA has been used for the data statistic processing. The cartographic analysis of the land use structure dynamics of the entire Klyazma Basin resulted in revealing the areas where various land transitions from one category to another have been identified. They are basically associated with the agricultural land overgrowth. The forest area increased by 9% during the period from 2001 to 2017. Considerable increase in the waterlogged, wetlands areas was observed in the eastern part of the Basin, in the Volga-Klyazma Province. The landscapes react differently to changes in climatic parameters and land use. Thus, the active revegetation of farmland by forests gives the increased rate of carbon accumulation in the soil. Landscapes covered with grasses and shrubs are more productive those covered with forest. On the other hand, woody biotopes are more stable in their development over time. Statistical analysis using the two-factor variation analysis ANOVA method resulted in demonstrating that phytoproductivity dynamics of the key sites does not depend on their productivity parameters nor on the site landscape structure, but is mainly determined by a time factor. In different landscapes the biological processes, characterising the organic matter dynamics in the form of plant production, organic matter accumulation and others are shown to differ both in rate and intensity and ambiguously respond to changes in climate parameters and land use. The river basin, as a single ecosystem, showed sufficient stability of the dynamic processes. This suggests that holistic natural ecosystems, such as catchment areas, have internal compensatory mechanisms that maintain the development stability for a long time, while unplanned land use remains the main damaging facto","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48091299","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cristina Seijo, H. Calado, Will McClintock, A. Gil, C. Fonseca
Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) in Europe’s Outermost Regions (ORs) and Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) is still underdeveloped compared to the European mainland. Most of those territories are small islands for which Marine and Coastal Ecosystems (MCE) constitute a significant resource and provide important provisioning, regulating and cultural Ecosystem Services (ES). Understanding the cultural dimension of ecosystems and considering the cultural benefits and values associated with them, demands methodological plurality, flexibility and creativity. This study focused on two activities related to recreational ES (recreational fishing and recreational SCUBA diving) that are particularly relevant to São Miguel Island (Archipelago of the Azores, Portugal). Stakeholders were interviewed using SeaSketch, a participatory mapping tool in which they indicated where they conduct recreational fishing and scuba diving, the relative value of those areas, in terms of preference over other areas and their willingness to relinquish them for the purpose of conservation. Responses were aggregated and represented in maps showing key areas for the provision of recreational ES around São Miguel. This approach can be used in the Azorean Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) process and other on-going conservation initiatives, to better understand the trade-offs between relevant socio-economic activities and to support negotiations between the government and groups of stakeholders.
{"title":"Mapping recreational ecosystem services from stakeholders' perspective in the Azores","authors":"Cristina Seijo, H. Calado, Will McClintock, A. Gil, C. Fonseca","doi":"10.3897/ONEECO.6.E65751","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ONEECO.6.E65751","url":null,"abstract":"Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) in Europe’s Outermost Regions (ORs) and Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) is still underdeveloped compared to the European mainland. Most of those territories are small islands for which Marine and Coastal Ecosystems (MCE) constitute a significant resource and provide important provisioning, regulating and cultural Ecosystem Services (ES). Understanding the cultural dimension of ecosystems and considering the cultural benefits and values associated with them, demands methodological plurality, flexibility and creativity. This study focused on two activities related to recreational ES (recreational fishing and recreational SCUBA diving) that are particularly relevant to São Miguel Island (Archipelago of the Azores, Portugal). Stakeholders were interviewed using SeaSketch, a participatory mapping tool in which they indicated where they conduct recreational fishing and scuba diving, the relative value of those areas, in terms of preference over other areas and their willingness to relinquish them for the purpose of conservation. Responses were aggregated and represented in maps showing key areas for the provision of recreational ES around São Miguel. This approach can be used in the Azorean Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) process and other on-going conservation initiatives, to better understand the trade-offs between relevant socio-economic activities and to support negotiations between the government and groups of stakeholders.","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46129973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
D. Geneletti, Blal Adem Esmail, Chiara Cortinovis, Ildikó Arany, M. Balzan, P. van Beukering, Sabine Bicking, P. Borges, Bilyana Borisova, S. Broekx, Benjamin Burkhard, A. Gil, O. Inghe, L. Kopperoinen, M. Kruse, I. Liekens, Damian Lowicki, A. Mizgajski, S. Mulder, S. Nedkov, H. Ostergård, Ana Picanço, Anda Ruskule, F. Santos-Martín, I. Sieber, J. Svensson, Dava Vačkářů, K. Veidemane
This paper analyses and compares a set of case studies on ecosystem services (ES) mapping and assessment with the purpose of formulating lessons learned and recommendations. Fourteen case studies were selected during the EU Horizon 2020 “Coordination and Support Action” ESMERALDA to represent different policy- and decision-making processes throughout the European Union, across a wide range of themes, biomes and scales. The analysis is based on a framework that addresses the key steps of an ES mapping and assessment process, namely policy questions, stakeholder identification and involvement, application of mapping and assessment methods, dissemination and communication and implementation. The analysis revealed that most case studies were policy-orientated or gave explicit suggestions for policy implementation in different contexts, including urban, rural and natural areas. Amongst the findings, the importance of starting stakeholder engagement early in the process was confirmed in order to generate interest and confidence in the project and to increase their willingness to cooperate. Concerning mapping and assessment methods, it was found that the integration of methods and results is essential for providing a comprehensive overview from different perspectives (e.g. social, economic). Finally, lessons learned for effective implementation of ES mapping and assessment results are presented and discussed. Graphical Abstarcat in Fig. 1.
{"title":"Ecosystem services mapping and assessment for policy- and decision-making: Lessons learned from a comparative analysis of European case studies","authors":"D. Geneletti, Blal Adem Esmail, Chiara Cortinovis, Ildikó Arany, M. Balzan, P. van Beukering, Sabine Bicking, P. Borges, Bilyana Borisova, S. Broekx, Benjamin Burkhard, A. Gil, O. Inghe, L. Kopperoinen, M. Kruse, I. Liekens, Damian Lowicki, A. Mizgajski, S. Mulder, S. Nedkov, H. Ostergård, Ana Picanço, Anda Ruskule, F. Santos-Martín, I. Sieber, J. Svensson, Dava Vačkářů, K. Veidemane","doi":"10.3897/oneeco.5.e53111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.5.e53111","url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyses and compares a set of case studies on ecosystem services (ES) mapping and assessment with the purpose of formulating lessons learned and recommendations. Fourteen case studies were selected during the EU Horizon 2020 “Coordination and Support Action” ESMERALDA to represent different policy- and decision-making processes throughout the European Union, across a wide range of themes, biomes and scales. The analysis is based on a framework that addresses the key steps of an ES mapping and assessment process, namely policy questions, stakeholder identification and involvement, application of mapping and assessment methods, dissemination and communication and implementation. The analysis revealed that most case studies were policy-orientated or gave explicit suggestions for policy implementation in different contexts, including urban, rural and natural areas. Amongst the findings, the importance of starting stakeholder engagement early in the process was confirmed in order to generate interest and confidence in the project and to increase their willingness to cooperate. Concerning mapping and assessment methods, it was found that the integration of methods and results is essential for providing a comprehensive overview from different perspectives (e.g. social, economic). Finally, lessons learned for effective implementation of ES mapping and assessment results are presented and discussed.\u0000 Graphical Abstarcat in Fig. 1.","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46750865","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
C. S. Campagne, P. Roche, F. Müller, Benjamin Burkhard
With the Ecosystem Service (ES) concept's popularisation, the need for robust and practical methodologies for ES assessments has increased. The ES matrix approach, linking ecosystem types or other geospatial units with ES in easy-to-apply lookup tables, was first developed ten years ago and, since then, has been broadly used. Whereas detailed methodological guidelines can be found in literature, the ES matrix approach seems to be often used in a quick (and maybe even "quick and dirty”) way. Based on a review of scientific publications, in which the ES matrix approach was used, we present the diversity of application contexts, highlight trends of uses and propose future recommendations for improved applications of the ES matrix. A total of 109 studies applying the ES matrix approach and one methodological study without concrete applications were considered for the review. Amongst the main patterns observed, the ES matrix approach allows the assessment of a higher number of ES than other ES assessment methods. ES can be jointly assessed with indicators for ecosystem condition and biodiversity in the ES matrix. Although the ES matrix allows us consider many data sources to achieve the assessment scores for the individual ES, in the reviewed studies, these were mainly used together with expert-based scoring (73%) and/or ES scores that were based on an already-published ES matrix or deduced by information found in related scientific publications (51%). We must acknowledge that 27% of the studies did not clearly explain their methodology. This points out a lack of method elucidation on how the data had been used and where the scores came from. Although some studies addressed the need to consider variabilities and uncertainties in ES assessments, only a minority of studies (15%) did so. Our review shows that, in 29% of the studies, an already-existing matrix was used as an initial matrix for the assessment (mainly the same matrix from one of the Burkhard et al. papers). In 16% of the reviewed studies, no other data were used for the matrix scores or no adaptation of the existing matrix used was made. However, the actual idea of the ES scores, included in the Burkhard et al.'s matrices published 10 years ago, was to provide some examples and give inspiration for one's own studies. Therefore, we recommend to use only scores assessed for a specific study or, if one wishes to use pre-existing scores from another study, to revise them in depth, taking into account the local context of the new assessment. We also recommend to systematically report and consider variabilities and uncertainties in each ES assessment. We emphasise the need for all scientific studies to describe clearly and extensively the whole methodology used to score or evaluate ES in order to be able to rate the quality of the scores obtained. In conclusion, the application of the ES matrix has to become more transparent and integrate more variability analyses. The increasing number of studi
{"title":"Ten years of ecosystem services matrix: Review of a (r)evolution","authors":"C. S. Campagne, P. Roche, F. Müller, Benjamin Burkhard","doi":"10.3897/oneeco.5.e51103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.5.e51103","url":null,"abstract":"With the Ecosystem Service (ES) concept's popularisation, the need for robust and practical methodologies for ES assessments has increased. The ES matrix approach, linking ecosystem types or other geospatial units with ES in easy-to-apply lookup tables, was first developed ten years ago and, since then, has been broadly used. Whereas detailed methodological guidelines can be found in literature, the ES matrix approach seems to be often used in a quick (and maybe even \"quick and dirty”) way. Based on a review of scientific publications, in which the ES matrix approach was used, we present the diversity of application contexts, highlight trends of uses and propose future recommendations for improved applications of the ES matrix.\u0000 A total of 109 studies applying the ES matrix approach and one methodological study without concrete applications were considered for the review. Amongst the main patterns observed, the ES matrix approach allows the assessment of a higher number of ES than other ES assessment methods. ES can be jointly assessed with indicators for ecosystem condition and biodiversity in the ES matrix. Although the ES matrix allows us consider many data sources to achieve the assessment scores for the individual ES, in the reviewed studies, these were mainly used together with expert-based scoring (73%) and/or ES scores that were based on an already-published ES matrix or deduced by information found in related scientific publications (51%). We must acknowledge that 27% of the studies did not clearly explain their methodology. This points out a lack of method elucidation on how the data had been used and where the scores came from. Although some studies addressed the need to consider variabilities and uncertainties in ES assessments, only a minority of studies (15%) did so. Our review shows that, in 29% of the studies, an already-existing matrix was used as an initial matrix for the assessment (mainly the same matrix from one of the Burkhard et al. papers). In 16% of the reviewed studies, no other data were used for the matrix scores or no adaptation of the existing matrix used was made. However, the actual idea of the ES scores, included in the Burkhard et al.'s matrices published 10 years ago, was to provide some examples and give inspiration for one's own studies. Therefore, we recommend to use only scores assessed for a specific study or, if one wishes to use pre-existing scores from another study, to revise them in depth, taking into account the local context of the new assessment. We also recommend to systematically report and consider variabilities and uncertainties in each ES assessment. We emphasise the need for all scientific studies to describe clearly and extensively the whole methodology used to score or evaluate ES in order to be able to rate the quality of the scores obtained. In conclusion, the application of the ES matrix has to become more transparent and integrate more variability analyses. The increasing number of studi","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43607162","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In wet temperate regions, human activity has played an important role in shaping the size and distribution of grasslands. We examined change in land cover type and grassland area in a 9.2 × 22.3 km area of northern Chiba Prefecture, based on historical maps and documents for four time periods (1880s, 1950s, 1980s and 2000s). In the 1880s, conifer forests occupied the largest area (43.1%) amongst land cover types and grasslands accounted for 4.2% of the total area. However, literature available from the 1880s suggests that the understorey of conifer forests may have served as additional habitat for grasses. Thus, the habitat of grassland species is suggested to have covered up to 54% of the study area during this time period. By the 1950s, much of the grassland present in the 1880s had been changed to agricultural fields and paddies and grassland area had reduced to 2.9%. Residential development prior to and during the 1980s led to the conversion of forests and agricultural fields to grassland, increasing the grassland area to 11.6% of the study area. Finally, in the 2000s, grasslands had declined to 6.0% of the study area, likely due to conversion to residential areas. Despite these changes over time, 1.5% of the study area has remained as native forest or grassland for over 120 years. The spatial data presented herein are useful for conservation planning and studying the effect of historical land use change on biodiversity.
{"title":"Changes in land cover and grassland area over the past 120 years in a rapidly urbanised area in Japan","authors":"A. Noda, A. Kondoh, J. Nishihiro","doi":"10.3897/oneeco.4.e37669","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.4.e37669","url":null,"abstract":"In wet temperate regions, human activity has played an important role in shaping the size and distribution of grasslands. We examined change in land cover type and grassland area in a 9.2 × 22.3 km area of northern Chiba Prefecture, based on historical maps and documents for four time periods (1880s, 1950s, 1980s and 2000s). In the 1880s, conifer forests occupied the largest area (43.1%) amongst land cover types and grasslands accounted for 4.2% of the total area. However, literature available from the 1880s suggests that the understorey of conifer forests may have served as additional habitat for grasses. Thus, the habitat of grassland species is suggested to have covered up to 54% of the study area during this time period. By the 1950s, much of the grassland present in the 1880s had been changed to agricultural fields and paddies and grassland area had reduced to 2.9%. Residential development prior to and during the 1980s led to the conversion of forests and agricultural fields to grassland, increasing the grassland area to 11.6% of the study area. Finally, in the 2000s, grasslands had declined to 6.0% of the study area, likely due to conversion to residential areas. Despite these changes over time, 1.5% of the study area has remained as native forest or grassland for over 120 years. The spatial data presented herein are useful for conservation planning and studying the effect of historical land use change on biodiversity.","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46338801","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A better understanding of Ecosystem Services (ES) contributes to sustainable use while conserving the ecosystems mainly in resource-rich developing regions. This paper explores multilevel stakeholder perceptions on the most important ES provided by Aberdare Forest Ecosystem (AFE). The importance rank matrix model was employed to establish the ES preferences of 15 selected key organisations involved in AFE co-management. A two-way ANOVA inferential analysis was used to compare the differences in ES type importance. The results revealed statistically significant differences between provisioning, regulating and cultural ES. Regulating ES were identified as the most important compared to provisioning and cultural ES; a gradual stakeholder preference shift from forest tangible goods. Water, wildlife habitat, flood regulation, carbon intake and climate regulation were identified as the most important ES by all the stakeholders. Therefore, it is important to understand the gradual changes in ES preferences by various stakeholders involved in the co-management of natural resources. This knowledge could be important to the decision-makers in sustainable co-management planning for natural resources and to enhance sustainable utiliation of ES.
{"title":"Ecosystem service preferences across multilevel stakeholders in co-managed forests: Case of Aberdare protected forest ecosystem in Kenya","authors":"F. Kilonzi, Takahiro Ota","doi":"10.3897/ONEECO.4.E36768","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ONEECO.4.E36768","url":null,"abstract":"A better understanding of Ecosystem Services (ES) contributes to sustainable use while conserving the ecosystems mainly in resource-rich developing regions. This paper explores multilevel stakeholder perceptions on the most important ES provided by Aberdare Forest Ecosystem (AFE). The importance rank matrix model was employed to establish the ES preferences of 15 selected key organisations involved in AFE co-management. A two-way ANOVA inferential analysis was used to compare the differences in ES type importance. The results revealed statistically significant differences between provisioning, regulating and cultural ES. Regulating ES were identified as the most important compared to provisioning and cultural ES; a gradual stakeholder preference shift from forest tangible goods. Water, wildlife habitat, flood regulation, carbon intake and climate regulation were identified as the most important ES by all the stakeholders. Therefore, it is important to understand the gradual changes in ES preferences by various stakeholders involved in the co-management of natural resources.\u0000 This knowledge could be important to the decision-makers in sustainable co-management planning for natural resources and to enhance sustainable utiliation of ES.","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43355238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
L. Hatziiordanou, E. Fitoka, E. Hadjicharalampous, Nefta-Eleftheria Votsi, D. Palaskas, D. Malak
A systematic approach to map and assess the “maintenance of nursery populations and habitats” ecosystem service (ES) (hereinafter called “habitat maintenance”) has not yet emerged. In this article, we present an ecosystem service framework implementation at landscape level, by proposing an approach for calculating and combining a series of indicators with spatial modelling techniques. Necessary conceptual elements for this approach are: a) ecosystem condition, b) supply and demand of the targeted ecosystem service and c) spatial relationships between the Service Providing Units (SPU) and the Service Connecting Units (SCU). Ecosystem condition is quantified and mapped based on two indicators, the Biodiversity State and the Anthropogenic Impact. Quantification and mapping of supply and demand are based on the hypothesis that high supply can be activated in strictly protected areas and that a demand is localised in the Natura 2000 sites (N2K), considering them as the Service Benefit Areas (SBA). Wetlands are assessed as SCU between the SBA and the landscape areas where the habitat maintenance ES is supplied. By assessing wetlands as SCU, we intent to highlight their role as biodiversity stepping stones and as green infrastructures. Overall, we conclude that the EU biodiversity policy demand for no net loss and for a coherent N2K network can be met by enhancing the delivery of the habitat maintenance ES. This approach can assist policy-makers in prioritisation of conservation and restoration targets, in line with the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 and the preparation of the post-2020 Strategy.
{"title":"Indicators for mapping and assessment of ecosystem condition and of the ecosystem service habitat maintenance in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020","authors":"L. Hatziiordanou, E. Fitoka, E. Hadjicharalampous, Nefta-Eleftheria Votsi, D. Palaskas, D. Malak","doi":"10.3897/ONEECO.4.E32704","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ONEECO.4.E32704","url":null,"abstract":"A systematic approach to map and assess the “maintenance of nursery populations and habitats” ecosystem service (ES) (hereinafter called “habitat maintenance”) has not yet emerged. In this article, we present an ecosystem service framework implementation at landscape level, by proposing an approach for calculating and combining a series of indicators with spatial modelling techniques. Necessary conceptual elements for this approach are: a) ecosystem condition, b) supply and demand of the targeted ecosystem service and c) spatial relationships between the Service Providing Units (SPU) and the Service Connecting Units (SCU). Ecosystem condition is quantified and mapped based on two indicators, the Biodiversity State and the Anthropogenic Impact. Quantification and mapping of supply and demand are based on the hypothesis that high supply can be activated in strictly protected areas and that a demand is localised in the Natura 2000 sites (N2K), considering them as the Service Benefit Areas (SBA). Wetlands are assessed as SCU between the SBA and the landscape areas where the habitat maintenance ES is supplied. By assessing wetlands as SCU, we intent to highlight their role as biodiversity stepping stones and as green infrastructures. Overall, we conclude that the EU biodiversity policy demand for no net loss and for a coherent N2K network can be met by enhancing the delivery of the habitat maintenance ES. This approach can assist policy-makers in prioritisation of conservation and restoration targets, in line with the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 and the preparation of the post-2020 Strategy.","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47580835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
P. Vihervaara, A. Viinikka, L. Brander, F. Santos-Martín, Laura Poikolainen, S. Nedkov
A broad array of methods have been developed and applied to map ecosystem services and their values at various geographic scales. For example, the ESMERALDA project developed methods for ecosystem service mapping across Europe. This paper describes how different methodological interlinkages can be used in ecosystem service mapping and assessment and how the integration of information can be facilitated to assist in decision-making processes related to sustainable use and protection of ecosystem services. This paper is based on a literature review and expert consultations throughout the project. The accumulation of knowledge in ecosystem assessment processes will be described through multiple steps: 1) data compilation, 2) analyses run via independent or linked methods applications and tools, 3) integration of information from multiple analyses and 4) finally, feeding into the decision-support frameworks. The challenges and possibilities of using combinations of various datasets and methods will be discussed. This workflow is demonstrated with real-world applications. In addition, technical pitfalls and challenges, as well as linkages to overall ecosystem assessments and policy questions, are analysed and discussed.
{"title":"Methodological interlinkages for mapping ecosystem services – from data to analysis and decision-support","authors":"P. Vihervaara, A. Viinikka, L. Brander, F. Santos-Martín, Laura Poikolainen, S. Nedkov","doi":"10.3897/ONEECO.4.E26368","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ONEECO.4.E26368","url":null,"abstract":"A broad array of methods have been developed and applied to map ecosystem services and their values at various geographic scales. For example, the ESMERALDA project developed methods for ecosystem service mapping across Europe. This paper describes how different methodological interlinkages can be used in ecosystem service mapping and assessment and how the integration of information can be facilitated to assist in decision-making processes related to sustainable use and protection of ecosystem services. This paper is based on a literature review and expert consultations throughout the project. The accumulation of knowledge in ecosystem assessment processes will be described through multiple steps: 1) data compilation, 2) analyses run via independent or linked methods applications and tools, 3) integration of information from multiple analyses and 4) finally, feeding into the decision-support frameworks. The challenges and possibilities of using combinations of various datasets and methods will be discussed. This workflow is demonstrated with real-world applications. In addition, technical pitfalls and challenges, as well as linkages to overall ecosystem assessments and policy questions, are analysed and discussed.","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42002648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, ecosystem science domain has made tremendous progress in the study of ecosystem services, but debates on neglected cultural ecosystem services (CES) have persisted. A recent approach established by the Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) identifies and advocates incorporation of the CES through the role of local knowledge across other ecosystem services. However, approaches and tools that enable engagement of CES are limited. In this study, we examine how cultural contexts influence the appreciation of different CES, by identifying the behavioural aspects and the indigenous knowledge that has evolved on the basis of Social Network Analysis (SNA). SNA measures the network of relations between people and groups developed traditionally for a long time and their relational values with natural resources and ecosystem services. Through a comprehensive literature review of scholarly research published in Scopus data base, this study explicitly illustrates the interrelationship between SNA and CES. Keywords associated with SNA and cultural ecosystem services including forests, fisheries and agriculture (farming) were used. It was found that various aspects of social network uphold relational values of cultural importance and enhance resilience in groups amidst the social changes and times as societies progress. For instance, in the case of homophily, actors who are attracted to one another chose to interact in their defined network (e.g. fishing network) forming a strong social capital. Consequently, they shared similar beliefs and values that were eventually handed to the next generation of the network which shaped their heritage and identity. Social learning networks in various communities were also found to play a key role in information exchange and knowledge sharing among members compared to information from foreign technical experts. To fully integrate CES into sustainable decision making, this review suggests incorporation of the analysis of social networks formed in different cultural contexts globally.
{"title":"Influence of cultural contexts on the appreciation of different cultural ecosystem services based on social network analysis","authors":"F. Kilonzi, Takahiro Ota","doi":"10.3897/ONEECO.4.E33368","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ONEECO.4.E33368","url":null,"abstract":"Since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, ecosystem science domain has made tremendous progress in the study of ecosystem services, but debates on neglected cultural ecosystem services (CES) have persisted. A recent approach established by the Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) identifies and advocates incorporation of the CES through the role of local knowledge across other ecosystem services. However, approaches and tools that enable engagement of CES are limited. In this study, we examine how cultural contexts influence the appreciation of different CES, by identifying the behavioural aspects and the indigenous knowledge that has evolved on the basis of Social Network Analysis (SNA). SNA measures the network of relations between people and groups developed traditionally for a long time and their relational values with natural resources and ecosystem services. Through a comprehensive literature review of scholarly research published in Scopus data base, this study explicitly illustrates the interrelationship between SNA and CES. Keywords associated with SNA and cultural ecosystem services including forests, fisheries and agriculture (farming) were used. It was found that various aspects of social network uphold relational values of cultural importance and enhance resilience in groups amidst the social changes and times as societies progress. For instance, in the case of homophily, actors who are attracted to one another chose to interact in their defined network (e.g. fishing network) forming a strong social capital. Consequently, they shared similar beliefs and values that were eventually handed to the next generation of the network which shaped their heritage and identity. Social learning networks in various communities were also found to play a key role in information exchange and knowledge sharing among members compared to information from foreign technical experts. To fully integrate CES into sustainable decision making, this review suggests incorporation of the analysis of social networks formed in different cultural contexts globally.","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41653760","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：