Spatial ecosystem service analysis for environmental impact assessment of projects

Handbook on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 15-40

  Mandle, Lisa ^a   Tallis, Heather ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85009988769     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781783478996.00007     Document Type: Chapter

References (58)

1. Arkema, K.K., G. Guannel and G. Verutes et al. 2013, Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms, Nature Climate Change, 310, 913-18.
2. Bagstad, K.J., D.J. Semmens and S. Waage et al. 2013, A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation, Ecosystem Services, 5, 27-39.
3. Baker, J., W.R. Sheate and P. Phillips et al. 2013, Ecosystem services in environmental assessment-help or hindrance?, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, 3-13.
4. Barbier, E.B., E.W. Koch and B.R. Silliman et al. 2008, Coastal ecosystem-based management with nonlinear ecological functions and values, Science, 3195861, 321-3.
5. BenDor, T., N. Brozovic and V.G. Pallathucheril 2007, Assessing the socioeconomic impacts of wetland mitigation in the Chicago region, Journal of the American Planning Association, 733, 263-82.
6. Bhagabati, N.K., T. Ricketts and T.B.S. Sulistyawan et al. 2014, Ecosystem services reinforce Sumatran tiger conservation in land use plans, Biological Conservation, 169, 147-56.
7. Boyd, J.M. and L. Wainger 2003, Measuring Ecosystem Service Benefits: The Use of Landscape Analysis to Evaluate Environmental Trades and Compensation, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
8. Cabrera, E., J. Rodriguez and J. Otero et al. 2009, Portafolio de áreas prioritarias de conservación en la zona central del Cesar; producto 16, convenio de asociación No. 09 de 2008 Portfolio of Priority Conservation Areas in the Central Region of Cesar; Product 16, Partnership Agreement No. 09 2008, Bogotá, Colombia: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, The Nature Conservancy, Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial, World Wildlife Fund and Conservación Internacional.
9. Carroll, C., L. Merton and P. Burger 2000, Impact of vegetative cover and slope on runoff, erosion, and water quality for field plots on a range of soil and spoil materials on Central Queensland coal mines, Soil Research, 382, 313-28.
10. Chan, K.M.A., M.R. Shaw and D.R. Cameron et al. 2006, Conservation planning for ecosystem services, PLoS Biology, 411, 2138-52.
11. Clarke, C., M. Canto and S. Rosado 2013, Belize Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan, Belize City: Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute.
12. Equator Principles Association 2013, Equator Principles III, London: Equator Principles Association.
13. Geneletti, D. 2002, Ecological Evaluation for Environmental Impact Assessment, Utrecht: Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap.
14. Geneletti, D. 2014, Integrating Ecosystem Services in Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Guide for Practitioners, Nairobi: UNEP.
15. Groves, C.R., D.B. Jensen and L.L. Valutis et al. 2002, Planning for biodiversity conservation: Putting conservation science into practice, Bioscience, 526, 499-512.
16. Hanson, C., J. Ranganathan and C. Iceland et al. 2012, The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review: Guidelines for Identifying Business Risks and Opportunities Arising from Ecosystem Change Version 2.0, Washington, DC, World Resources Institute.
17. Honrado, J.O.P., C. Vieira and C. Soares et al. 2013, Can we infer about ecosystem services from EIA and SEA practice? A framework for analysis and examples from Portugal, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 401, 14-24.
18. Hopkins, A., A. Malky and M. Glave et al. 2014, Infraestructura y conservación: El caso Pucallpa-Cruzeiro do Sul Infrastructure and Conservation: The Case of Pucallpa-Cruzeiro do Sul, Conservation Strategy Fund CSF, Consorcio Paisajes Indígenas de la Iniciativa para la Conservación en la Amazonia Andina ICAA and The Nature Conservancy TNC.
19. Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America IIRSA 2009, Indicative Territorial Planning, Project Portfolio, accessed 14 January 2016 at http://www10.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2009/04494en.pdf.
20. Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America IIRSA 2013, Project sheet: Pucallpa-Cruzeiro do Sul land interconnection, accessed 23 January 2015 at http://www.iirsa.org/proyectos/detalle_proyecto.aspx?h=29.
21. International Finance Corporation IFC 2012, Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources, Washington, DC: IFC, World Bank Group.
22. IPIECA/OGP 2011, Ecosystem Services Guidance: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Guide and Checklist, London: International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association and International Association of Oil and Gas Producers.
23. Jackson, R.B., E.G. Jobbágy and R. Avissar et al. 2005, Trading water for carbon with biological carbon sequestration, Science, 3105756, 1944-7.
24. King, D.M. and L.W. Herbert 1997, The fungibility of wetlands, National Wetlands Newsletter, 195, 10-13.
25. Koch, E.W., E.B. Barbier and B.R. Silliman et al. 2009, Non-linearity in ecosystem services: Temporal and spatial variability in coastal protection, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 71, 29-37.
26. Landis, W.G. 2003, Twenty years before and hence: ecological risk assessment at multiple scales with multiple stressors and multiple endpoints, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 95, 1317-26.
27. Landis, W.G. and J.K. Wiegers 2007, Ten years of the relative risk model and regional scale ecological risk assessment, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 131, 25-38.
28. Landsberg, F., J. Treweek and M.M. Stickler et al. 2013, Weaving Ecosystem Services into Impact Assessment: A Step-by-step Method Version 1.0, Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
29. Landsberg, F., J. Treweek and M.M. Stickler et al. 2014, Weaving Ecosystem Services into Impact Assessment: Technical Appendix Version 1.0, Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
30. Laurance, W.F., M. Goosem and S.G.W. Laurance 2009, Impacts of roads and linear clearings on tropical forests, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2412, 659-69.
31. Mandle, L., H. Tallis and A.L. Vogl et al. 2013, Can the Pucallpa-Cruzeiro do Sul Road be Developed With No Net Loss of Natural Capital in Peru? A Framework for Including Natural Capital in Mitigation, Stanford, CA: Natural Capital Project.
32. Margules, C.R. and R.L. Pressey 2000, Systematic conservation planning, Nature, 4056783, 243-53.
33. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment MA 2005, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Washington, DC: Island Press.
34. Morgan, R.K. 2012, Environmental impact assessment: The state of the art, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 301, 5-14.
35. Nahlik, A.M., M.E. Kentula and M.S. Fennessy et al. 2012, Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice, Ecological Economics, 77, 27-35.
36. National Research Council 2005, Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision Making, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
37. Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt and W.H. Schlesinger et al. 2010, Mountaintop mining consequences, Science, 3275962, 148-9.
38. Quetier, F. and S. Lavorel 2011, Assessing ecological equivalence in biodiversity offset schemes: Key issues and solutions, Biological Conservation, 14412, 2991-9.
39. Ricketts, T.H., J. Regetz and I. Steffan-Dewenter et al. 2008, Landscape effects on crop pollination services: Are there general patterns?, Ecology Letters, 115, 499-515.
40. Robertson, M., T.K. BenDor and R. Lave et al. 2014, Stacking ecosystem services, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 123, 186-93.
41. Ruckelshaus, M., E. McKenzie and H. Tallis et al. 2015, Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions, Ecological Economics, 115, 11-21.
42. Ruhl, J.B. and J. Salzman 2006, The effects of wetland mitigation banking on people, National Wetlands Newsletter, 282, 1.
43. Salisbury, D.S., M.C. Sanchez-Moreno and L.D. Torres et al. 2013, Border integrations: The fusion of political ecology and land change science to inform and contest transboundary integration in Amazonia, in C. Brannstrom and J.M. Vadjune eds, Land Change Science, Political Ecology, and Sustainability: Synergies and Divergences, New York: Routledge.
44. Tallis, H. and S. Polasky 2009, Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural-resource management, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 11621, 265-83.
45. Tallis, H. and S. Wolny 2010, Including Ecosystem Services in Mitigation: Report to the Colombian Ministry of the Environment, Mines and Territorial Development, Stanford, CA: The Natural Capital Project.
46. Tallis, H., C.M. Kennedy and M. Ruckelshaus et al. 2015, Mitigation for one and all: An integrated framework for mitigation of impacts to biodiversity and ecosystem services, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 55, 21-34.
47. Tallis, H., H. Mooney and S. Andelman et al. 2012, A global system for monitoring ecosystem service change, Bioscience, 6211, 977-86.
48. Tallis, H., S. Polasky and J.S. Lozano et al. 2012, Inclusive wealth accounting for regulating ecosystem services, in United Nations University International Human Dimensions Program and United Nations Environment Program eds, Inclusive Wealth Report 2012. Measuring Progress Toward Sustainability, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
49. Tallis, H.T., T. Ricketts and A.D. Guerry et al. 2011, InVEST2.4.4. Users Guide, Stanford, CA: Natural Capital Project.
50. Tallis, H.T., T. Ricketts and A.D. Guerry et al. 2012, InVEST 2.3 Beta Users Guide, Stanford, CA: Natural Capital Project.
51. Tallis, H., S. Wolny and J.S. Lozano et al. 2012, Servicesheds Enable Mitigation of Development Impacts on Ecosystem Services, Stanford, CA: Natural Capital Project.
52. The Biodiversity Consultancy 2013, Government Policies on Biodiversity Offsets, Cambridge, UK: The Biodiversity Consultancy.
53. The Biodiversity Consultancy 2014, Ecosystem Services and IFC Performance Standard 6, Cambridge, UK: The Biodiversity Consultancy.
54. Touval, J., A. Jarvis and L. Reymondin et al. 2011, Terra-i: An Eye on Habitat Change, Cali, Colombia: International Center for Tropical Agriculture CIAT.
55. Vigerstol, K.L. and J.E. Aukema 2011, A comparison of tools for modeling freshwater ecosystem services, Journal of Environmental Management, 9210, 2403-9.
56. Vogl, A.L., S. Wolny and P. Hamel et al. 2014, Valuation of Hydropower Services. Final Report Submitted to the World Bank for Contract 7167223, Stanford, CA: Natural Capital Project.
57. Waage, S. and C. Kester 2014, Making the Invisible Visible: Analytical Tools for Assessing Business Impacts and Dependencies Upon Ecosystem Services, San Francisco, CA: Business for Social Responsibility.
58. World Bank 2013, OP 4.03-Performance Standards for Private Sector Activities, Washington, DC: World Bank.