- Email: [email protected]
Biodiversity and ecosystem services: Not all positive
Ecosystem Services 12 (2015) 29
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecosystem Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser Biodiversity and ecosystem services: Not all positive Dear Sir, In a recent article in Ecosystem Services, Harrison et al. (2014) review the linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services. Their review covers the positive and negative relationships between biodiversity and 11 ecosystem services. However, the ecosystem services they selected were all positive for people, such as timber production and pollination. This means that the negative relationships presented by Harrison et al. only occurred where an increase in a particular attribute of biodiversity was associated with a reduction in the supply of a positive service, rather than a negative impact on people. We think this is a potentially misleading presentation of the interaction between ecosystems, services, and their benefits and costs for people. Recent literature seeks to broaden thinking about the relationship between ecosystems and human wellbeing by incorporating ecosystem disservices, those that have a negative impact on people, to be placed alongside positive ecosystem services (e.g. Dunn, 2010; Lyytimäki and Sipilä, 2009). Examples of ecosystem disservices derived from biodiversity attributes include human infectious disease (e.g. ebola is associated with forest dwelling species; Wilcox and Ellis, 2006), crop damage from wild animals (e.g. bush pigs and baboons that raid crops in Ethiopia are associated with tree cover; Ango et al., 2014), and the direct danger to life posed by some kinds of biodiversity such as large carnivores (e.g. bear attacks are associated with hiking in wilderness areas; Herrero, 1985, cited by Löe and Röskaft, 2004). Harrison et al. (2014) make a useful contribution to the literature, but by leaving out any analysis of disservices their finding that most relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem services are positive is vulnerable to misinterpretation. Ecosystem disservices have received considerable recent attention in this journal. Shapiro and Baldi (2014) argue that disservices are often already taken into account in decision making processes because they create costs within conventional economic systems (e.g. crop damage requiring pesticide application), justifying a focus on positive services among researchers as an effort to redress this historical imbalance. Villa et al. (2014) argue that drawing attention to disservices risks encouraging the elimination of species and ecosystems perceived to be ‘harmful’, with negative consequences for conservation. These arguments would seem to support Harrison et al. (2014)'s decision to omit disservices from their analysis. We believe that the conceptual frameworks used and data collected for ecosystem services research should incorporate both services and disservices in order to provide a full picture of how people benefit, or suffer costs, from nature. As in many aspects of decision making, whether conservation related or otherwise, there will be trade-offs between positive and negative issues that will always need to be considered and balanced (Leader-Williams et al., 2010), and this requires a full account of services and disservices. For example,
elephant or baboon crop raiding into farmland from protected areas is a disservice, but needs to be managed to maintain local support for the continued existence of the protected area, and the elephants and baboons may attract tourists that bring funding to the area and hence provide a valuable service. The disservice of African bees being a danger to farmers is also balanced by the service of honey production and pollination of certain crops. Services and disservices should be included in analyses of ecosystem services wherever possible. References Ango, T.G., Börjeson, L., Senbeta, F., Hylander, K., 2014. Balancing ecosystem services and disservices: smallholder farmers' use and management of forest and trees in an agricultural landscape in Southwestern Ethiopia. Ecol. Soc. 19, Article 30 http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06279-190130. Dunn, R.R., 2010. Global mapping of ecosystem disservices: the unspoken reality that nature sometimes kills us. Biotropica 42, 555–557. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2010.00698.x. Harrison, P.A., Berry, P.M., Simpson, G., Haslett, J.R., Blicharska, M., Bucur, M., Dunford, R., Egoh, B., Garcia-Llorente, M., Geamănă, N., Geertsema, W., Lommelen, E., Meiresonne, L., Turkelboom, F., 2014. Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: a systematic review. Ecosyst. Serv. , http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.006. Herrero, S., 1985. Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance. Nick Lyons Books, New York p. 287. Leader-Williams, N., Adams, W.M., Smith, R.J. (Eds.), 2010. Trade-offs in Conservation: Deciding What to Save. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK. Löe, J., Röskaft, E., 2004. Large carnivores and human safety: a review. AMBIO J. Hum. Environ 33, 283–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044–7447-33.6.283. Lyytimäki, J., Sipilä, M., 2009. Hopping on one leg- the challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 8, 309–315. Shapiro, J., Baldi, A., 2014. Accurate accounting: how to balance ecosystem services and disservices. Ecosyst. Serv. 7, 201–202. Villa, F., Bagstad, K.J., Voigt, B., Johnson, G.W., Athanasiadis, I.N., Balbi, S., 2014. The misconception of ecosystem disservices: how a catchy term may yield the wrong messages for science and society. Ecosyst. Serv. 10, 52–53. Wilcox, B.A., Ellis, B., 2006. Forests and emerging infectious diseases of humans. Unasylva 57, 11–18.
Chris G. Sandbrook n United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, United Kingdom Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Place, Cambridge CB2 3EN, United Kingdom E-mail address: [email protected] Neil D. Burgess United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, United Kingdom E-mail address: [email protected] Received 20 August 2014
n Corresponding author at: United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, United Kingdom. Tel.: þ 44 1223 766574, þ44 7879 688422.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.006 2212-0416/& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecosystem Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser Biodiversity and ecosystem services: Not all positive Dear Sir, In a recent article in Ecosystem Services, Harrison et al. (2014) review the linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services. Their review covers the positive and negative relationships between biodiversity and 11 ecosystem services. However, the ecosystem services they selected were all positive for people, such as timber production and pollination. This means that the negative relationships presented by Harrison et al. only occurred where an increase in a particular attribute of biodiversity was associated with a reduction in the supply of a positive service, rather than a negative impact on people. We think this is a potentially misleading presentation of the interaction between ecosystems, services, and their benefits and costs for people. Recent literature seeks to broaden thinking about the relationship between ecosystems and human wellbeing by incorporating ecosystem disservices, those that have a negative impact on people, to be placed alongside positive ecosystem services (e.g. Dunn, 2010; Lyytimäki and Sipilä, 2009). Examples of ecosystem disservices derived from biodiversity attributes include human infectious disease (e.g. ebola is associated with forest dwelling species; Wilcox and Ellis, 2006), crop damage from wild animals (e.g. bush pigs and baboons that raid crops in Ethiopia are associated with tree cover; Ango et al., 2014), and the direct danger to life posed by some kinds of biodiversity such as large carnivores (e.g. bear attacks are associated with hiking in wilderness areas; Herrero, 1985, cited by Löe and Röskaft, 2004). Harrison et al. (2014) make a useful contribution to the literature, but by leaving out any analysis of disservices their finding that most relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem services are positive is vulnerable to misinterpretation. Ecosystem disservices have received considerable recent attention in this journal. Shapiro and Baldi (2014) argue that disservices are often already taken into account in decision making processes because they create costs within conventional economic systems (e.g. crop damage requiring pesticide application), justifying a focus on positive services among researchers as an effort to redress this historical imbalance. Villa et al. (2014) argue that drawing attention to disservices risks encouraging the elimination of species and ecosystems perceived to be ‘harmful’, with negative consequences for conservation. These arguments would seem to support Harrison et al. (2014)'s decision to omit disservices from their analysis. We believe that the conceptual frameworks used and data collected for ecosystem services research should incorporate both services and disservices in order to provide a full picture of how people benefit, or suffer costs, from nature. As in many aspects of decision making, whether conservation related or otherwise, there will be trade-offs between positive and negative issues that will always need to be considered and balanced (Leader-Williams et al., 2010), and this requires a full account of services and disservices. For example,
elephant or baboon crop raiding into farmland from protected areas is a disservice, but needs to be managed to maintain local support for the continued existence of the protected area, and the elephants and baboons may attract tourists that bring funding to the area and hence provide a valuable service. The disservice of African bees being a danger to farmers is also balanced by the service of honey production and pollination of certain crops. Services and disservices should be included in analyses of ecosystem services wherever possible. References Ango, T.G., Börjeson, L., Senbeta, F., Hylander, K., 2014. Balancing ecosystem services and disservices: smallholder farmers' use and management of forest and trees in an agricultural landscape in Southwestern Ethiopia. Ecol. Soc. 19, Article 30 http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06279-190130. Dunn, R.R., 2010. Global mapping of ecosystem disservices: the unspoken reality that nature sometimes kills us. Biotropica 42, 555–557. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2010.00698.x. Harrison, P.A., Berry, P.M., Simpson, G., Haslett, J.R., Blicharska, M., Bucur, M., Dunford, R., Egoh, B., Garcia-Llorente, M., Geamănă, N., Geertsema, W., Lommelen, E., Meiresonne, L., Turkelboom, F., 2014. Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: a systematic review. Ecosyst. Serv. , http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.006. Herrero, S., 1985. Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance. Nick Lyons Books, New York p. 287. Leader-Williams, N., Adams, W.M., Smith, R.J. (Eds.), 2010. Trade-offs in Conservation: Deciding What to Save. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK. Löe, J., Röskaft, E., 2004. Large carnivores and human safety: a review. AMBIO J. Hum. Environ 33, 283–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044–7447-33.6.283. Lyytimäki, J., Sipilä, M., 2009. Hopping on one leg- the challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 8, 309–315. Shapiro, J., Baldi, A., 2014. Accurate accounting: how to balance ecosystem services and disservices. Ecosyst. Serv. 7, 201–202. Villa, F., Bagstad, K.J., Voigt, B., Johnson, G.W., Athanasiadis, I.N., Balbi, S., 2014. The misconception of ecosystem disservices: how a catchy term may yield the wrong messages for science and society. Ecosyst. Serv. 10, 52–53. Wilcox, B.A., Ellis, B., 2006. Forests and emerging infectious diseases of humans. Unasylva 57, 11–18.
Chris G. Sandbrook n United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, United Kingdom Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Place, Cambridge CB2 3EN, United Kingdom E-mail address: [email protected] Neil D. Burgess United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, United Kingdom E-mail address: [email protected] Received 20 August 2014
n Corresponding author at: United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, United Kingdom. Tel.: þ 44 1223 766574, þ44 7879 688422.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.006 2212-0416/& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.