Defining ecosystem assets for natural capital accounting

PLoS ONE

Volumn 11, Issue 11, 2016, Pages

  Hein, Lars ^a   Bagstad, Ken ^b,c   Edens, Bram ^d   Obst, Carl ^e   De Jong, Rixt ^d   Lesschen, Jan Peter ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b WORLD BANK   (United States)

^c DENVER FEDERAL CENTER   (United States)

^d STATISTICS NETHERLANDS   (Netherlands)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; EUROPE; HUMAN; NORTH AMERICA; ACCOUNTING; CHEMISTRY; ECONOMICS; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FORESTRY; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; HOUSING; METABOLISM; PINE; PROCEDURES; SOIL;

CARBON DIOXIDE; SOIL;

ACCOUNTING; CARBON DIOXIDE; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; EUROPE; FORESTRY; HOUSING; HUMANS; NORTH AMERICA; PINUS; SOIL;

EID: 84994750408     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164460     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L et al. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ. 2009; 7: 21-28.
2. Guerry AD, Polasky S, Lubchencof J, Chaplin-Kramer R, Daily GC, Griffin R, et al. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice. PNAS. 2015; 6: 7348-7355.
3. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island press, Washington, DC, 2005.
4. TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of nature: a Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB. 2010. Available: http://www.teebweb.org/our-publications/teeb-study-reports/synthesis-report/
5. Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, et al. The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2015; 14: 1-16.
6. United Nations. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting, Experimental Ecosystem Accounting. United Nations: New York, USA, 2014a
7. United Nations. SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting: Technical Recommendations. 2016. UN, New York
8. Edens B, Hein L. Towards a consistent approach for ecosystem accounting. Ecol Econ. 2013; 90: 41-52.
9. Obst C, Vardon M. Recording environmental assets in the national accounts. Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 2014; 30: 126-144
10. Hein L, Obst C, Edens B, Remme RP. Progress and challenges in the development of ecosystem accounting as a tool to analyse ecosystem capital. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2015; 14: 86-92.
11. Boyd J, Banzhaf S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 2007, 63; 616-626.
12. Turner KR, Van den Bergh JCMC, Söderqvistd T, Barendregte A, Van der Straaten J, Maltby E, et al. Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy. Ecological Economics 2000; 1: 7-23
13. Haines-Young RH, Potschin M. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli D, Frid C, editors. Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. BES Ecological Reviews, Cambridge University Press 2010, 110-139.
14. Burkhard B, Kandziora M, Hou Y, Müller F. Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands-concepts for spatial localization, indication and quantification. Landscape Online 2014; 34: 1-32.
15. Schröter M, Barton DN, Remme RP, Hein L. Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway. Ecol Indic. 2014; 36: 539-551.
16. Zank B, Bagstad KJ, Voigt B, Villa F. Modelling the effects of urban expansion on natural capital stocks and ecosystem service flows: A case study in the Puget Sound, Washington, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 2016; 149:31-42.
17. Villamagna AM, Angermeier PL, Bennett EM. Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecological Complexity, 2013; 15: 114-121
18. Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K. Ecosystem properties, potentials and services-The EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecol. Indic., 2012; 21: 7-16.
19. Bagstad KJ, Johnson GW, Voigt B, Villa F. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosystem Services. 2013; 4: 117-125.
20. United Nations. System of National Accounts, United Nations: New York, USA, 2009.
21. De Groot RS. Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision making. 1992. Wolters Kluwer, Netherlands.
22. Schröter M, Remme RP, Sumarga E, Barton DN, Hein L. Lessons learned for spatial modelling of ecosystem services in support of ecosystem accounting. Ecosyst Serv 2015; 13: 64-69
23. Remme RP, Edens B, Schröter M, Hein L. Monetary accounting of ecosystem services: A test case for Limburg province, the Netherlands. Ecol Econ. 2015; 112: 116-128.
24. Remme RP, Hein L. Ecosystem Accounting Limburg Province, the Netherlands. Part II: Monetary supply and use accounts. Report, 2015, 18 p.
25. Statistics Netherlands and Wageningen University. Ecosystem Accounting Limburg Province, the Netherlands. Part I: Physical supply and condition accounts. Report, 2015; 26 p.
26. Daly E, Farley J. Ecological Economics, Principles and Applications. Second edition, Island Press, Washington DC, 2010.
27. Bagstad KJ, Villa F, Batker D, Harrison-Cox J, Voigt B, Johnson GW. From theoretical to actual ecosystem services: Mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows in ecosystem service assessments. Ecol Soc. 2014; 19: 64.
28. Weber J-L. Implementation of land and ecosystem accounts at the European Environment Agency. Ecol Econ. 2007; 61: 695-707.
29. Weber J-L. Ecosystem natural capital accounts: a quick start package. In: Technical Series No. 77. Secretariat of the CDB: Montreal, 2014.
30. Hein L. The Economics of Ecosystems: Efficiency, Sustainability and Equity in Ecosystem Management. Edgar Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham, UK. 2010.
31. Jackson RB, Jobbágy EG, Avissar R, Baidya Roy S, Barrett DJ, Cook CW, et al. Trading Water for Carbon with Biological Carbon Sequestration. Science. 2005; 310: 1944-1947. doi: 10.1126/science.1119282 PMID: 16373572
32. Manning RE. Studies in outdoor recreation, search and Research for Satisfaction. Oregon State University Press; 3rd edition, 2010.
33. Maes, J, Fabrega N, Zulian G, Barbosa A, Vizcaino P, Ivits E, et al. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services; Trends in ecosystems and ecosystem services in the European Union between 2000 and 2010. Joint Research Center, Ispra, Italy
34. Lilly GR, 2008. The decline, recovery, and collapse of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) off Labrador and Eastern Newfoundland. In: Kruse GH, Drinkwater K, Ianelli JN, Link JS, Stram DL, Wespestad V, Woodby D (eds). Resiliency of gadid stocks to fishing and climate change. Alaska Sea Grant Coll Program, AK-SG-08-01, Fairbanks, AK, p 67-88
35. Obst C, Hein L, Edens B. National Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Assets and Their Services. Environment and Resource Economics, 2016; 64: 1-23.
36. Remme RP, Schröter M, Hein L. Developing spatial biophysical accounting for multiple ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services. 2014; 10: 6-18.
37. Lesschen JP, Heesmans H, Mol J, van Doorn EM, Verkaik E, van den Wyngaert I, et al. Possibilities for carbon sequestration in the Dutch agriculture and nature. Alterra-report 2396, Alterra, Wageningen; 2012.
38. IPCC, IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, editors. Published: IGES, Japan; 2006.
39. Finke PA, de Gruijter JJ, Visschers R. Status 2001 Landelijke steekproef Kaarteenheden en toepassingen, gestructureerde bemonstering en karakterisering Nederlandse bodems. Alterra Report 389, Alterra, Wageningen, 2001
40. Coleman K, Jenkinson DS. RothC-26.3 - A Model for the turnover of carbon in soil: Model description and windows users guide. Lawes Agricultural Trust Harpenden. 1999; 11: 44p.
41. SSB, 2012b. Statistical Yearbook 2012. SSB, Oslo, Kongsvinger.
42. Granhus A, Hylen G, Nilsen J-E. 2012. Skogen i Norge (Forests in Norway). Statistikk over skogforholdog skogressurser i Norge registrert i perioden 2005-2009. Ressursoversikt fra Skog og landskap, Ås, Norway.
43. Sumarga E, Hein L. Mapping Ecosystem Services for Land Use Planning, the Case of Central Kalimantan. Environ Manage. 2014; 54: 84-97. doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0282-2 PMID: 24794194
44. Bourassa SC, Hoesli M, Sun J. What's in a view? Environ. Plan A. 2004; 36: 1427-1450.
45. Villa F, Bagstad KJ, Voigt B, Johnson GW, Portela R, Honzak M et al. A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PloS one, 2014; 9: e91001. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091001 PMID: 24625496
46. Scheffer M, Carpenter SR. Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: linking theory to observation. Trends Ecol Evolution, 2003; 18: 648-656.
47. Walker BH, Abel NA. Resilient rangelands: adaptation in complex systems. Pages 293-314 in Gunderson L., and Holling C.S., editors. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press 2002, Washington
48. Convertino M, Valverde LJ Jr. Portfolio Decision Analysis Framework for Value-Focused Ecosystem Management. PLoS ONE 2013; 8(6): e65056. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065056 PMID: 23823331
49. Poff NL, Zimmerman JKH. Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshwater Biol, 2010; 55: 194-205
50. Harrison A. The Draft Handbook and the UNSTAT Framework: Comments. In: Lutz E. (Ed.), Toward Improved Accounting for the Environment. The World Bank, Washington DC. 1993.
51. Vanoli A. Reflections on environmental accounting issues. Review of income and wealth 1995; 41: 113-137.
52. Edens B. Depletion: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice. Environmental and Resource Economics. 2013; 54: 419-441.
53. Lambin EF, Turner BL, Geist HJ, Agbolac SB, Angelsend A, Brucee JW, et al. The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Glob Environ Change, 2001; 11: 261-269.
54. Edens B, de Haan M. How the SEEA Contributes to Environmental Sustainability Policies. Paper presented at the IARIW 2010 Conference, 2010. Available: http://www.iariw.org/papers/2010/6aEdens.pdf.
55. Levin SA. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 1992; 73:1943-1967.
56. Brookhuis BJ, Hein L. The value of the flood control service of tropical forests: A case study for Trinidad, Forest Policy and Economics, 2016; 62: 118-124
57. Holling CS, Gunderson LH, Peterson GD. Sustainability and Panarchies. In: Gunderson L.H. and Holling C.S. (eds.), 2002: Panarchy, Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, London, 2002, pp. 63-103.
58. Costanza R, Voinov A., Boumans R, Maxwell T, Villa F, Wainger L, et al. Integrated ecological economic modeling of the patuxent river watershed, maryland. Ecological Monographs, 2002; 72: 203-231
59. Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. PNAS, 2009; 106: 1305-1312 doi: 10.1073/pnas.0808772106 PMID: 19179280
60. Carpenter SR, Walker B, Anderies JM, Abel N. From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 2001; 4: 765-781.
61. Convertino M, Muñoz-Carpena R, Chu-Agor ML, Kiker GA, Linkov I. Untangling drivers of species distributions: Global sensitivity and uncertainty analyses of MaxEnt. Environmental Modelling & Software 2014, 51, 296-309.
62. European Commission. Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 244. COM, Brussels (3.5.2011), 2011
63. OMB, Office of Management and Budget, Council on Environmental Quality, and Office of Science and Technology Policy. Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Federal Decision Making, Memorandum M-16-01. Executive Office of the President of the United States: Washington, DC, 2015.
64. OMB, Office of Management and Budget, Council on Environmental Quality, and Office of Science and Technology Policy. Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Federal Decision Making, Memorandum M-16-01. Executive Office of the President of the United States: Washington, DC, 2015.