The ecosystem services concept: Gaps between science and practice in river landscape management

GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 32-40

  Böck, Kerstin ^a   Muhar, Susanne ^a   Muhar, Andreas ^a   Polt, Renate ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND LIFE SCIENCES   (Austria)

Author keywords

Assessment tools; Ecosystem services; Interviews; River landscape; River management; Science; Stakeholders; Values of nature

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929166957     PISSN: 09405550     EISSN: 26255413     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14512/gaia.24.1.8     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Albert, C., J. Hauck, N. Buhr, C. Von Haaren. 2014. What ecosystem services information do users want? Investigating interests and requirements among landscape and regional planners in Germany. Landscape Ecology 29:1301-1313.
2. Ash, N. et al. (Eds). 2010. Ecosystems and human well-being: A manual for assessment practitioners. Washington, D. C.: Island.
3. Böck, K., A. Muhar, J. Oberdiek, S. Muhar. 2013. Die Wahrnehmung von fließgewässerbezogenen "Ökosystemleistungen" und Konfliktpotenzialen am Fallbeispiel "Flusslandschaft Enns". Österreichische Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft 11-12:418-428.
4. Braat, L. C., R. De Groot. 2012. The ecosystem services agenda: Bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services 1:4-15.
5. Carpenter, S. R., C. Folke. 2006. Ecology for transformation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21/6:309-315.
6. Chan, K. M. A. et al. 2012a. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience 62/8:744-756.
7. Chan, K. M. A., T. Satterfield, T. Goldstein, J. Goldstein. 2012b. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics 74:8-18.
8. Chiari, S. 2010. Raumbedarf für multifunktionale Flusslandschaften - potentielle Synergien zwischen ökologischen Erfordernissen und den Bedürfnissen der Freizeit- und Erholungsnutzung. Ph diss., BOKU University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna.
9. COWI. 2014. Support policy development for integration of ecosystem service assessments into WFD and FD implementation. Resource document (specific contract 070307/2012/637505/D1).
10. Cowling, R. M. et al. 2008. An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 105/28:9483-9488.
11. Daily, G. C. 1997. What are ecosystem services? In: Nature's services - Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Edited by G. C. Daily. Washington, D. C.: Island. 1-19.
12. Daniel, T. C. et al. 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem service agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 109/23:8812-8819.
13. De Groot, R. S. 1987. Environmental functions as a unifying concept for ecology and economics. Environmentalist 7/2:105-109.
14. De Groot, R. S., R. Alkemade, L. Braat, L. Hein, L. Willemen. 2009. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity 7/3:260-272.
15. De Groot et al. 2010. Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): Ecological and economic foundations. Edited by P. Kumar. London: Earthscan. 9-40.
16. Directive 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the EU L 327:1-73.
17. Directive 2007/60/EC (Floods Directive). Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks. Official Journal of the EU L 288:27-34.
18. Getzner, M. et al. 2011. Fließstrecken der Mur - Ermittlung der Ökosystem - leistungen. Endbericht. Klagenfurt: E. C. O. Institut für Ökologie.
19. Ghazoul, J. 2007. Recognising the complexities of ecosystem management and the ecosystem service concept. GAIA 16/3:215-221.
20. Grunewald, K., O. Bastian. 2013a. Entwicklung und Grundlagen des ÖSD-Ansatzes. In: Ökosystemleistungen. Konzept, Methoden und Fallbeispiele. Edited by K. Grunewald, O. Bastian. Berlin: Springer Spektrum. 13-36.
21. Grunewald, K., O. Bastian. 2013b. Ökosystemdienstleistungen (ÖSD) - mehr als ein Modewort? In: Ökosystemleistungen. Konzept, Methoden und Fallbeispiele. Edited by K. Grunewald, O. Bastian. Berlin: Springer Spektrum. 1-11.
22. Gutiérrez, M. R. V.-A., M. L. S. Alonso. 2013. Which are, what is their status and what can we expect from ecosystem services provided by Spanish rivers and riparian areas? Biodiversity and Conservation 22:2469-2503.
23. Haines-Young, R., M. Potschin. 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Ecosystem ecology: A new synthesis. Edited by D. G. Raffaelli, C. L. J. Frid. New York: Cambridge University Press. 110-139.
24. Hauck, J., C. Görg, R. Varjopuro, O. Ratamäki, K. Jax. 2013a. Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: Some stakeholder perspectives. Environmental Science and Policy 25:13-21.
25. Hauck, J. et al. 2013b. "Maps have an air of authority": Potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making. Ecosystem Services 4:25-32.
26. Hauck, J. et al. 2013c. The promise of the ecosystem services concept for planning and decision-making. GAIA 22/4:232-236.
27. Hering, D. et al. 2015. Managing aquatic ecosystems and water resources under multiple stress - An introduction to the MARS project. Science of the Total Environment 503-504:10-21.
28. Hohensinner, S., S. Muhar, M. Jungwirth, G. Pohl. 2008. Leitlinie Enns. Konzept für die Entwicklung des Fluss-Auen-Systems Steirische Enns (Mandling - Hieflau): Hochwasserschutz - Gewässerökologie - Flusslandschaftsentwicklung - Siedlungsentwicklung - Erholungsnutzung. Vienna: BOKU University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences/Institute of Hydrobiology and Aquatic Ecosystem Management (IHG), stadtland, DonauConsult.
29. Jax, K. et al. 2013. Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecological Economics 93:260-268.
30. Karjalainen, T. P., M. Marttunen, S. Sarkki, A.-M. Rytkönen. 2013. Integrating ecosystem services into environmental impact assessment: An analyticdeliberative approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 40:54-64.
31. Kienast, F. 2010. Landschaftsdienstleistungen: ein taugliches Konzept für Forschung und Praxis? Forum für Wissen: 7-12. www.issw.ch/dienstleistungen/publikationen/pdf/10738.pdf (accessed March 11, 2015).
32. Kosoy, N., E. Corbera. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics 69:1228-1236.
33. Lamarque, P., F. Quétier, S. Lavorel. 2011. The diversity of the ecosystem services concept and its implication for their assessment and management. Comptes Rendus Biologies 334:441-449.
34. Liu, S., R. Costanza, S. Farber, A. Troy. 2010. Valuing ecosystem services: Theory, practice, and the need for a transdisciplinary synthesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1185:54-78.
35. Luck, G. W. et al. 2012. Ethical considerations in on-ground applications of the ecosystem services concept. BioScience 62/12:1020-1029.
36. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment. Washington, D. C.: Island.
37. MA. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Wetlands and water. Washington, D. C.: Island.
38. McCauley, D. J. 2006. Selling out on nature. Nature 443:27-28.
39. Menzel, S., J. Teng. 2010. Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept for conservation science. Conservation Biology 24/3:907-909.
40. Miller, G. T., S. Spoolman. 2011. Essentials of ecology. Belmont: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.
41. Muhar, S., G. Pohl, M. Stelzhammer, M. Jungwirth, R. Hornich, S. Hohensinner. 2011. Integratives Flussgebietsmanagement: Abstimmung wasserwirtschaftlicher, gewässerökologischer und naturschutzfachlicher Anforderungen auf Basis verschiedener EU-Richtlinien (Beispiel Steirische Enns). Österreichische Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft 9-10:167-173.
42. Nedkov, S., B. Burkhard. 2012. Flood regulating ecosystem services - Mapping supply and demand, in the Etropole municipality, Bulgaria. Ecological Indicators 21:67-79.
43. Neßhöver, C. et al. 2013. Improving the science-policy interface of biodiversity research projects. GAIA 22/2:99-103.
44. ÖBF (Österreichische Bundesforste). 2014. Von den Werten der Natur. ÖBF und TU Wien starten Pionierprojekt zur Bewertung von Ökosystem-Leistungen und Biodiversität. www.bundesforste.at/service-presse/presse/pressedetail/news/von-den-werten-der-natur-bundesforste-und-tu-wien-starten-pionierprojekt-zur-bewertung-von-oekosyst.html (accessed February 28, 2015).
45. Ormerod, S. J. 2014. Rebalancing the philosophy of river conservation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 24/2:147-152.
46. Plieninger, T., C. Bieling, B. Ohnesorge, H. Schaich, C. Schleyer, F. Wolff. 2013. Exploring futures of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes through participatory scenario development in the Swabian Alb, Germany. Ecology and Society 18/3:16.
47. 3. Identifizierung und Wahrnehmung von Funktionen in Flusslandschaften und Verstehen einzugsgebietsbezogener Prozesse am Beispiel der Traisen. www.sparklingscience.at/de/projects/show.html?-typo3-neos-nodetypes-page%5Bid%5D=751 (accessed February 28, 2015).
48. Portman, M. E. 2013. Ecosystem services in practice: Challenges to real world implementation of ecosystem services across multiple landscapes. A critical review. Applied Geography 45:185-192.
49. Ranganathan, J. et al. 2008. Ecosystem services. A guide for decision makers. Washington, D. C.: World Resources Institute.
50. Raymond, C. M., J. O. Kenter, T. Plieninger, N. J. Turner, K. A. Alexander. 2014. Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 107:145-156.
51. Redford, K. H., W. M. Adams. 2009. Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature: Editorial. Conservation Biology 23/4:785-787.
52. Rewitzer, S., B. Matzdorf, S. Trampnau. 2014. Das Konzept der Ökosystemleistungen aus Sicht der deutschen Umweltverbände. Natur und Landschaft 89/2:61-65.
53. Rosenzweig, M. L. 2003. Win-win ecology. How earth's species can survive in the midst of human enterprise. New York: Oxford University Press.
54. Russi, D. et al. 2013. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for water and wetlands. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP).
55. Sanon, S., T. Hein, W. Douven, P. Winkler. 2012. Quantifying ecosystem service trade-offs: The case of an urban floodplain in Vienna, Austria. Journal of Environmental Management 111:159-172.
56. Satz, D. et al. 2013. The challenges of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental assessment. AMBIO 42/6:675-684.
57. Schaich, H., C. Bieling, T. Plieninger. 2010. Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research. GAIA 19/4:269-277.
58. Schröter, M. et al. 2014. Ecosystem services as a contested concept: A synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conservation Letters 7/6:514-523.
59. Spierenburg, M. 2012. Getting the message across: Biodiversity science and policy interfaces - A review. GAIA 21/2:125-134.
60. Tallis, H. T. et al. 2011. InVEST 2.2.0 User's guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford.
61. TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity). 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. http://doc.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/Synthesis%20report/TEEB%20Synthesis%20Report%202010.pdf (accessed September 29, 2014).
62. Termorshuizen, J. W., P. Opdam. 2009. Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecology 24/8:1037-1052.
63. Turner, R. K., J. Paavola, P. Cooper, S. Farber, V. Jessamy, S. Georgiou. 2003. Valuing nature: Lessons learned and future research directions. Ecological Economics 46:493-510.
64. Van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., K. Petz, R. Alkemade, L. Hein, R. S. De Groot. 2012. Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators 21:110-122.
65. Vermaat, J., E. Ansink, A. Wagtendonk, R. Brouwer. 2013. Valuing the ecosystem services provided by European river corridors - An analytical framework. Deliverable D2.3. Project REFORM (Restoring Rivers for Effective Catchment Management). www.reformrivers.eu/system/files/2.3%20Analytical%20 framework%20ecosystem%20services.pdf (accessed September 29, 2014).
66. Vermaat, J. et al. Submitted. Assessing the societal benefits of river restoration using the ecosystem services approach. Hydrobiologia.
67. Vlachopoulou, M., D. Coughlin, D. Forrow, S. Kirk, P. Logan, N. Voulvoulis. 2014. The potential of using the ecosystem approach in the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. Science of the Total Environment 470-471:684-694.
68. Von Haaren, C., C. Albert. 2011. Integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: Limitations and synergies. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystems Services and Management 7/3:150-167.
69. nd Water Science meets Policy event, 29/30 September 2011. Brussels, Belgium. www.onema.fr/IMG/EV/meetings/ecosystem-services.pdf (accessed September 29, 2014).
70. WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). 2013. Eco4Biz. Ecosystem services and biodiversity tools to support business decision-making. Conches-Geneva, Switzerland: WBCSD.
71. Westman, W. E. 1977. How much are nature's services worth? Measuring the social benefits of ecosystem functioning is both controversial and illuminating. Science 197/4307:960-964.
72. WRG (Wasserrechtsgesetz). Wasserrechtsgesetz 1959. idF BGBl. 54/2014.