Towards a Threat Assessment Framework for Ecosystem Services

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 240-248

  Maron, Martine ^a   Mitchell, Matthew G E ^a,b   Runting, Rebecca K ^a   Rhodes, Jonathan R ^a   Mace, Georgina M ^c   Keith, David A ^d,e   Watson, James E M ^a,f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^e OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE   (Australia)

^f WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY   (United States)

Author keywords

assessment; ecosystem service demand; ecosystem service supply; ecosystem services; extinction; restoration; sustainability

Indexed keywords

DEMAND ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; EXTINCTION; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SERVICE PROVISION; SUSTAINABILITY;

ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM;

EID: 85012879582     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.12.011     Document Type: Review

References (63)

1. 1 Rockström, J., Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc., 14, 2009, 32.
2. 2 Costanza, R., Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change 26 (2014), 152–158.
3. 3 Díaz, S., Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS Biol., 4, 2006, e277.
4. 4 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. 2005, Island Press.
5. 5 Cardinale, B.J., Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486 (2012), 59–67.
6. 6 Díaz, S., The IPBES conceptual framework – connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14 (2015), 1–16.
7. 7 Naidoo, R., Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 105 (2008), 9495–9500.
8. 8 Bagstad, K.J., Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosyst. Serv. 4 (2013), 117–125.
9. 9 Baró, F., Mismatches between ecosystem services supply and demand in urban areas: a quantitative assessment in five European cities. Ecol. Indic. 55 (2015), 146–158.
10. 10 Boumans, R., The multiscale integrated model of ecosystem services (MIMES): simulating the interactions of coupled human and natural systems. Ecosyst. Serv. 12 (2015), 30–41.
11. 11 Brauman, K.A., The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 32 (2007), 67–98.
12. 12 Burkhard, B., Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 21 (2012), 17–29.
13. 13 Mace, G.M., REVIEW: Towards a risk register for natural capital. J. Appl. Ecol. 52 (2015), 641–653.
14. 14 Maes, J., An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosyst. Serv. 17 (2016), 14–23.
15. 15 Mitchell, M.G., Reframing landscape fragmentation's effects on ecosystem services. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30 (2015), 190–198.
16. 16 Stürck, J., Mapping ecosystem services: the supply and demand of flood regulation services in Europe. Ecol. Indic. 38 (2014), 198–211.
17. 17 Tallis, H., A global system for monitoring ecosystem service change. BioScience 62 (2012), 977–986.
18. 18 Fischer, J., et al. Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social–ecological systems perspective. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14 (2015), 144–149.
19. 19 Luck, G.W., et al. Protecting ecosystem services and biodiversity in the world's watersheds. Conserv. Lett. 2 (2009), 179–188.
20. 20 Villamagna, A.M., Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: a conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecol. Complex. 15 (2013), 114–121.
21. 21 Rey Benayas, J.M., Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science 325 (2009), 1121–1124.
22. 22 Bullock, J.M., Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26 (2011), 541–549.
23. 23 Ehrlich, P.R., Mooney, H.A., Extinction, substitution, and ecosystem services. BioScience 33 (1983), 248–254.
24. 24 Fitter, A.H., Are ecosystem services replaceable by technology?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 55 (2013), 513–524.
25. 25 Seitzinger, S.P., Planetary stewardship in an urbanizing world: beyond city limits. Ambio 41 (2012), 787–794.
26. 26 Bennett, E.M., Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14 (2015), 76–85.
27. 27 Kroll, F., et al. Rural–urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics. Land Use Policy 29 (2012), 521–535.
28. 28 Decker, E.H., Energy and material flow through the urban ecosystem. Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 25 (2000), 685–740.
29. 29 Erb, K.H., Embodied HANPP: mapping the spatial disconnect between global biomass production and consumption. Ecol. Econ. 69 (2009), 328–334.
30. 30 Tallis, H., Mitigation for one & all: an integrated framework for mitigation of development impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 55 (2015), 21–34.
31. 31 Wu, J., Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 28 (2013), 999–1023.
32. 32 Scholes, R.J., et al. Multi-scale and cross-scale assessments of social–ecological systems and their ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5 (2013), 16–25.
33. 33 Carpenter, S.R., et al. Plausible futures of a social-ecological system: Yahara watershed, Wisconsin, USA. Ecol. Soc., 20, 2015, 10.
34. 34 Martín-López, B., Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One, 7, 2012, e38970.
35. 35 Wegner, G., Pascual, U., Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: a multidisciplinary critique. Glob. Environ. Change 21 (2011), 492–504.
36. 36 Reed, M.S., Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manage. 90 (2009), 1933–1949.
37. 37 Daw, T.M., et al. To fish or not to fish: factors at multiple scales affecting artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery. PLoS One, 7, 2012, e31460.
38. 38 Cash, D.W., Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100 (2003), 8086–8091.
39. 39 Lambin, E.F., Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Glob. Environ. Change 28 (2014), 129–140.
40. 40 Pascual, U., Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience 64 (2014), 1027–1036.
41. 41 Yahdjian, L., Rangeland ecosystem services: shifting focus from supply to reconciling supply and demand. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13 (2015), 44–51.
42. 42 Burkle, L.A., Plant-pollinator interactions over 120 years: loss of species, co-occurrence, and function. Science 339 (2013), 1611–1615.
43. 43 Lautenbach, S., Analysis of historic changes in regional ecosystem service provisioning using land use data. Ecol. Indic. 11 (2011), 676–687.
44. 44 Renard, D., Historical dynamics in ecosystem service bundles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112 (2015), 13411–13416.
45. 45 Bateman, I.J., Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341 (2013), 45–50.
46. 46 Mitchell, M.G., The Montérégie Connection: linking landscapes, biodiversity, and ecosystem services to improve decision making. Ecol. Soc., 20, 2015, 15.
47. 47 National Ecosystem Services Partnership, Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook. 2nd edn, 2016, National Ecosystem Services Partnership, Duke University.
48. 48 Martin, T.G., Eliciting expert knowledge in conservation science. Conserv. Biol. 26 (2012), 29–38.
49. 49 Joseph, L.N., Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. Conserv. Biol. 23 (2009), 328–338.
50. 50 Nahlik, A.M., Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice. Ecol. Econ. 77 (2012), 27–35.
51. 51 Keith, D.A., The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems: motivations, challenges, and applications. Conserv. Lett. 8 (2015), 214–226.
52. 52 Keith, D.A., Scientific foundations for an IUCN red list of ecosystems. PLoS One, 8, 2013, e62111.
53. 53 Forman, R.T.T., Godron, M., Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology. BioScience 31 (1981), 733–740.
54. 54 IUCN Species Survival Commission, IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (Version 3.1). 2012, International Union for Conservation of Nature.
55. 55 Bland, L.M., et al. (eds.) Guidelines for the Application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria (Version 1), 2016, International Union for Conservation of Nature.
56. 56 International Union for Conservation of Nature, The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Version 2013.2). 2013, International Union for Conservation of Nature.
57. 57 Micklin, P., et al. (eds.) The Aral Sea: The Devastation and Partial Rehabilitation of a Great Lake, 2014, Springer.
58. 58 Kim, D.H., Market and consumption of walleye pollock in Korea. Fish. Sci. 80 (2014), 213–218.
59. 59 Gittman, R.K., Engineering away our natural defenses: an analysis of shoreline hardening in the US. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13 (2015), 301–307.
60. 60 Hall, T., Goodbye to the backyard? – The minimisation of private open space in the Australian outer-suburban estate. Urban Policy Res. 28 (2010), 411–433.
61. 61 Maitland, C., The dynamic family home: a qualitative exploration of physical environmental influences on children's sedentary behaviour and physical activity within the home space. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 11 (2014), 1–12.
62. 62 Ahlgren, I., Rising oceans, climate change, food aid, and human rights in the Marshall Islands. Health Hum. Rights 16 (2014), 69–81.
63. 63 Gittelsohn, J., et al. Macro- and microlevel processes affect food choice and nutritional status in The Republic of the Marshall Islands. J. Nutr. 133 (2003), 310S–313S.