- Email: [email protected]
Land science contributions to ecosystem services
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Land science contributions to ecosystem services Neville D Crossman1, Brett A Bryan2, Rudolf S de Groot3, Yu-Pin Lin4 and Peter A Minang5 We provide an overview of the contribution of land science to improving ecosystem service quantification, valuation and management. We briefly review the impacts of land use and land management change on ecosystem services, the complexity of relationships between the land system and the supply and use of ecosystem services, and the latest developments in the science and policy of quantifying and valuing ecosystem services provided by land. We suggest a number of areas where land science can contribute to improving the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services. First and foremost are better assessments of the changes that occur to ecosystem service supply from changes to land use and management and subsequent biophysical processes. Also needed are new high spatial and temporal resolution integrated assessment models developed at global to local scales that include the biophysical and socio-economic drivers of land use change and ecosystem service supply and demand impacts. Finally, tools and models that follow standards and use consistent approaches are needed to provide certainty to end users and decision makers. A way forward is to strengthen international cross-disciplinary collaborations; the land science and ecosystem service communities are well placed to do this. Addresses 1 CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences and Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, PMB 2, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064, Australia 2 CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences and Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, PMB 2, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064, Australia 3 Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands 4 Department of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan 5 World Agroforestry Centre, United Nations Avenue, Nairobi, Kenya Corresponding author: Crossman, Neville D ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:509–514 This review comes from a themed issue on Human settlements and industrial systems Edited by Peter H Verburg, Ole Mertz, Karl-Heinz Erb and Giovana Espindola For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial Available online 6th July 2013 1877-3435/$ – see front matter, Crown Copyright # 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.003
Introduction Natural capital and the services it provides contributes directly to human well-being through the supply of www.sciencedirect.com
benefits such as food and fiber, fresh water, clean air, productive soil, stable climate, and recreation opportunities [1]. Ecosystem services are supplied directly by the main components of ecosystems: soil [2], water [3], vegetation [4] and biota [5], or indirectly through their interactions. Land use and management decisions have a strong bearing on the condition and integrity of ecosystems and their components which in turn have a substantial impact on the supply of ecosystem services [6,7]. Despite the importance of ecosystem services to human well-being, their integrity continues to erode apace due to inappropriate land use and management [8]. There is substantial effort underway to better quantify and value ecosystem services and understand their contribution to human well-being so that ecosystem service values can be included in land use decision-making. There is rapid growth in the science and data of modeling and mapping [9] and valuing [10,11] ecosystem services, in understanding tradeoffs and synergies in the supply of ecosystem services in land systems [12,13], and in how improved land management supplies bundles of services [14] or provides multiple functions [15]. The public and private sectors have developed many policies and mechanisms to encourage land management that improves ecosystem services [16,17]. However, impediments to the widespread uptake of ecosystem services arise from the diversity of measures and approaches for linking biophysical changes in the land system to changes in supply and value of ecosystem services. Another barrier is the relatively poor understanding of the social dimensions of change [18], including the socio-economic drivers of land use change and the impacts of complex global-scale geo-political phenomena such as land grabbing. Land science, being the multi-disciplinary study of the spatial and temporal dynamics of land use, land cover and land use change, has a critical role to play in overcoming these impediments to the mainstreaming of ecosystem services. This paper provides a short overview of current knowledge and latest developments in the fast growing science of ecosystem services and the land system and identifies gaps where the land science community can contribute. We argue for increased use of high spatial and temporal resolution integrated modeling and assessments, and we encourage the land system and ecosystem service sciences to mature toward standardized, consistent and collaborative approaches for quantifying and valuing impacts to ecosystem services from land use and management decisions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:509–514
510 Human settlements and industrial systems
Land science and the quantification of ecosystem services Biophysical dimensions
Changes to land systems have direct effects on the supply of ecosystem services. For example, clearing or restoring perennial vegetation impacts on the ability of land systems to provide a range of ecosystem services including: maintaining soil health and mediating erosion; storing carbon; filtering both particulate matter from air and pollutants from water; retaining water; regulating climate; and providing shelter, food and fiber, and amenity, recreational, scientific and cultural values and opportunities. Land system architecture influences hydrological, ecological and physical processes in different ways [19]. For example, land use changes involving deforestation increase runoff, reduce infiltration and increase flow peaks, all of which are highly dependent on the spatial distribution of land use patterns [20]. The impacts are especially acute in urban areas [21]. Recent advances have been made in understanding how different mosaics of land cover and use affect the supply of services [4], in particular the trade-offs between carbon sequestration and biodiversity [22,23] and the carbon– water–biodiversity nexus [24]. Moreover, the interaction between different land uses may affect ecosystem service supply in unexpected and counterintuitive ways, resulting in unintended outcomes (Chiang L-C, Lin Y-P, Huang T, Liu Y-L, Ding T-S, Schmeller D, Verburg PH: Cumulative effects of a major earthquake and typhoons on ecosystem services. Landscape Urban Plann, submitted for publication) [13]. Maximizing the supply of ecosystem services and minimizing trade-offs and perverse outcomes from land management requires robust quantification of services. Recent reviews [25–27], special issues of journals [28,29] and books [9] on ecosystem services quantification, modeling and mapping conclude that ecosystem service supply is quantified in one of two ways: first, mapping land use and land cover as a surrogate for supply of ecosystem services; or second, modeling the underlying ecosystem functions and biophysical processes, and linking the results to mapped ecosystem properties. The former approach makes the assumption that unique ecosystem service types and values are supplied by land cover/use types, that is, ecosystem services are mapped directly from land use/cover maps [30]. The latter approach aims to incorporate more realism by modeling the processes underlying the supply of services, for example using a vegetation process model, stand management parameters and spatially explicit climate and soil parameter to simulating carbon sequestration [31], or a hydrological process model that links changes in land cover to changes in quantities of fresh water supply and other ecosystem services [32]. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:509–514
Modeling biophysical processes has the advantage of being able to map potential outcomes of policy and land management decisions on ecosystem service supply, and explore trade-offs among services under different policy and land management scenarios [13,33]. But the multitude of methods for modeling and mapping [27] creates inconsistency both in what is being quantified and in the impacts of land management on integrity of natural capital and supply of ecosystem services. Inconsistency occurs when non-standard and very different metrics and indicators are used to quantify the services supplied by the land system and the impacts on supply from land use change [26]. Although there have been advances in the collection of spatially explicit and temporally explicit high resolution data for surrogate quantification of ecosystem services [19], we call for closer collaboration between the land science and biophysical process modeling communities to develop more consistent and standardized quantification approaches which incorporate increased realism and rely less on potentially erroneous [34] surrogate approaches. There needs to be better assessments of the changes that occur to ecosystem service supply from changes to land use and management and subsequent biophysical processes [35]. Therefore we suggest research focus on improvements in linking ecosystem process models to spatially explicit high resolution data as well as improvements in linking biophysical process models to ecosystem service supply. Social dimensions
Despite humanity’s dependence on the benefits provided by nature [36], the human use of land has resulted in substantial changes to biophysical conditions [6] with subsequent impacts on natural capital and its ability to supply ecosystem services. Central to land science is the understanding of the impact of human decisions on land systems and their ability to supply ecosystem services, and the interplay between different social actors and ecosystem service beneficiaries in space and time [37]. Despite their critical importance to assessments of ecosystem services, the socio-economic drivers and impacts of land use and management decisions are the most uncertain parameters. This lack of certainty and knowledge is highly relevant to global scale problems such as land and water grabbing [38] and the impacts on ecosystem service beneficiaries. Under land grabbing, complex political drivers cause the benefits of increased food and/or biofuel production to flow to geographically distant communities, while the impacts to ecosystem services are felt by local communities, creating global-scale geo-political challenges. There are now better data, knowledge and models that integrate knowledge and resources from biophysical and www.sciencedirect.com
Land science and ecosystem services Crossman et al. 511
social sciences to analyze and interpret coupled human– earth system dynamics, such as the Human Appropriation of Net Primary Productivity [39,40]. And there are other approaches for quantifying both past [41] and future [42] human interactions with land, as well as modeling individual decision-making impacts on land [43]. However, the social dimension of land change science needs to know a lot more about decision-making processes, such as aspects of individual utility, risk and uncertainty, and the multi-scale drivers of change as a consequence of global economies and changing demographics. The social sciences (e.g. behavioral economics, demography, environmental psychology) should have a bigger role in the land science’s efforts to understand the causal linkages between land change impacts on the supply and demand of ecosystem services [36,44]. Land use change and impacts on ecosystem services is inherently difficult to predict because it is a complex social–ecological system and therefore contains an element of unpredictability. We call for new high spatial and temporal resolution integrated assessment models developed at global to local scales that include the biophysical and socio-economic drivers of land use change and ecosystem service impacts. Global-scale models are especially important for understanding the socio-economic (i.e. beneficiary) trade-offs between ecosystem service supply resulting from global scale phenomena.
Land science and the valuation of ecosystem services The land science community’s contribution to improving the quantification of ecosystem services will directly benefit efforts to better value ecosystem services. The economic or non-economic values associated with supply of ecosystem services has been shown to be substantial [45] yet are rarely factored into decision-making because natural capital is predominantly a common-pool resource and its value is external to traditional market transactions [46]. There are many methods for valuing ecosystem services provided by the land system [47], and land science has a critical role to play because robust valuation of natural capital and ecosystem services depends on high spatial and temporal resolution data and models for describing units of quantity [48]. Examples exist where ecosystem service values have been internalized by setting up formal contracts with landowners to protect and enhance ecosystem service supply. These market-based approaches typically aim to robustly quantify and value changes to natural capital from specific land management actions and compensate land owners accordingly. Various market mechanisms are now operating. For example, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and more recently the Reduced Emission for Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) motivated by global climate change policy, provide various incentives for land owners to sequester carbon by www.sciencedirect.com
planting trees, or protect existing forest by halting land clearing. If well designed, including the use of third-party certification and verification, REDD+ can provide multiple benefits of avoiding emissions and protecting biodiversity [49]. CDM and REDD+ are two examples of the growing number of programs in developed and less developed countries that fall under the broad class of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes which directly compensate for specific ecosystem service outcomes [44,50]. PES markets in water and biodiversity have grown in many parts of the developed world, for example endangered species conservation [51] and wetland mitigation banking in the USA [52] and water trade in Australia and the USA [53], which have direct effects on land by encouraging the sustainable use of land and water resources. However, PES programs need to be carefully designed to avoid unintended outcomes such as tree-based carbon plantings that reduce freshwater supply and provide little biodiversity benefit [54]. PES approaches also need certainty about the good being traded [55], and the myriad approaches for modeling the land system and ecosystem service supply may reduce market confidence. There should also be a strong participatory component to PES schemes to ensure land owners and professionals beyond academia are included in decision making and benefit sharing [49]. Re-iterating previous recommendations in this paper, we suggest land science can improve valuation results, and PES schemes more broadly, through better integration of process models and better understanding of the socio-economic dimensions of land.
Conclusion The global-scale studies quantifying ecosystem services and society’s impacts on services [1], and the economic value of services [10] have spawned a number of initiatives at global, continental and national scales, demonstrating a clear move toward improved approaches to capturing ecosystem service values in decision-making. For example: The United Nations Statistical Division developed the System of Economic Environmental Accounts as a common framework for national governments to collect ecosystem service accounts [56]; The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was formed to provide an interface between science and policy for better use of ecosystem service science in policy making [57]; The European Union 2020 Biodiversity Strategy requires member states to map ecosystem services by 2015 and conduct a full economic valuation by 2020 [58]; and Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:509–514
512 Human settlements and industrial systems
The United Kingdom Government recently quantified and valued ecosystem services [59] and the UK Treasury produces a Green Book1 that provides guidance in ecosystem service valuation in cost benefit analysis.
The private sector is responding to the growth of consumer interest in sustainable land management practices. For example, the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCS) has published guidelines for corporations to include impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services in corporate accounts. A number of large global corporations are quantifying their impacts on land and water resources and incorporating them into triplebottom-line reporting. For example, the mining giant, Rio Tinto, is striving for a net positive impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services from its global mining activities [60]. In agricultural systems, Yang et al. [61] envisage a mature conservation industry that includes investors from all economic sectors, such as landowner producers and service providers, who produce conservation products and services exchanged via market transactions. But there is still a long way to go before ecosystem services are mainstream and land use and land management is sustainable [62]. This paper articulates for the first time in one place the need to fill the major knowledge gaps in the understanding of linkages between land use, biophysical process models, ecosystem service supply and the socio-economic drivers of land use decisions. Decision making that impacts on the land will require improved understanding of the relationships between humans, the economy and the environment, and a consistency of methods to quantify this relationship [6]. The land science community has a critical role to play here. A way forward is to strengthen both international and cross-disciplinary and cross-profession collaborations [8,63,64]. Multi-disciplinary global science networks such as the joint IHDP-IGBP Global Land Project2 and science-policy practitioner networks such as the Ecosystem Services Partnership3 provide a template for increasing connections among researchers and practitioners. Once connections are made, multi-disciplinary collaborations and networks should focus on developing: 1. Sophisticated models and tools that provide standard and consistent approaches to quantifying and valuing ecosystem services supplied by land systems and demanded by land managers [27]. Guidelines and standards should be followed to provide certainty to end users outside academia; 2. Improved biophysical and socio-economic system understanding to underpin integrated models and 1 2 3
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/data_greenbook_index.htm. http://www.globallandproject.org/. http://www.es-partnership.org/esp.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:509–514
assessments of the land system and ecosystem service supply and demand; and 3. Better incentives and improved institutions and land system governance to capture the full suite of ecosystem service costs and benefits so that tradeoffs from alternative land management decisions can be made with complete knowledge.
Acknowledgements The CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country and Sustainable Agriculture National Research Flagships are thanked for their support. This paper was substantially improved by the comments of two anonymous reviewers and the Guest Editors.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest of outstanding interest 1.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human WellBeing: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005, .
2.
Breure AM, De Deyn GB, Dominati E, Eglin T, Hedlund K, Van Orshoven J, Posthuma L: Ecosystem services: a useful concept for soil policy making! Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2012, 4:578585.
3.
Keeler BL, Polasky S, Brauman KA, Johnson KA, Finlay JC, O’Neill A, Kovacs K, Dalzell B: Linking water quality and wellbeing for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012, 109:18619-18624. Provides a framework for linking management decisions to changes in water quality to changes in ecosystem service provision to changes in human benefits and economic value.
4.
Yapp G, Walker J, Thackway R: Linking vegetation type and condition to ecosystem goods and services. Ecol Complexity 2010, 7:292-301.
5.
Balvanera P, Pfisterer AB, Buchmann N, He JS, Nakashizuka T, Raffaelli D, Schmid B: Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol Lett 2006, 9:1146-1156.
6.
Rounsevell MDA, Pedroli B, Erb K-H, Gramberger M, Busck AG, Haberl H, Kristensen S, Kuemmerle T, Lavorel S, Lindner M et al.: Challenges for land system science. Land Use Policy 2012, 29:899-910. Thorough review of the major research gaps for land system science. 7.
Petz K, van Oudenhoven APE: Modelling land management effect on ecosystem functions and services: a study in the Netherlands. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage 2012, 8:1-21.
8.
Ehrlich PR, Kareiva PM, Daily GC: Securing natural capital and expanding equity to rescale civilization. Nature 2012, 486: 68-73.
9.
Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S (Eds): Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2011.
10. TEEB: In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited by Kumar P. London and Washington: Earthscan; 2010. 11. Gomez-Baggethun E, de Groot R, Lomas PL, Montes C: The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol Econ 2010, 69:1209-1218. 12. Power AG: Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 2010, 365:2959-2971. 13. Bryan BA, Crossman ND: Exploring the impacts of multiple interacting financial incentives on the supply of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 2013, 4:60-72. www.sciencedirect.com
Land science and ecosystem services Crossman et al. 513
Integrates economic values and biophysical process models to identify synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply that may result following implementation of group of policies that provide financial incentives to change land use.
32. Le Maitre DC, Milton SJ, Jarmain C, Colvin CA, Saayman I, Vlok JHJ: Linking ecosystem services and water resources: landscape-scale hydrology of the Little Karoo. Front Ecol Environ 2007, 5:261-270.
14. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM: Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010, 107:5242-5247. Demonstrates that many different ecosystem services are provided by land systems and intelligent management of land can lead to multiple benefits to society.
33. Bryan BA, Crossman ND, King D, Meyer WS: Landscape futures analysis: assessing the impacts of environmental targets under alternative spatial policy options and future scenarios. Environ Modell Softw 2011, 26:83-91.
15. Willemen L, Hein L, van Mensvoort MEF, Verburg PH: Space for people, plants, and livestock? Quantifying interactions among multiple landscape functions in a Dutch rural region. Ecol Indicators 2010, 10:62-73. 16. Kinzig AP, Perrings C, Chapin FS, Polasky S, Smith VK, Tilman D, Turner BL: Paying for ecosystem services — promise and peril. Science 2011, 334:603-604. 17. World Business Council for Sustainable Development: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Scaling Up Business Solutions. Company Case Studies That Help Achieve Global Biodiversity Targets. Geneva, Switzerland: World Business Council for Sustainable Development; 2012, . 18. Reyers B, Biggs R, Cumming GS, Elmqvist T, Hejnowicz AP, Polasky S: Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological approach. Front Ecol Environ 2013, 11: 268-273. 19. Turner BL II, Janetos AC, Verburg PH, Murray AT: Land system architecture: using land systems to adapt and mitigate global environmental change. Global Environ Change 2013, 23:395-397. 20. Chu H-J, Lin Y-P, Huang C-W, Hsu C-Y, Chen H-Y: Modelling the hydrologic effects of dynamic land-use change using a distributed hydrologic model and a spatial land-use allocation model. Hydrol Process 2010, 24:2538-2554. 21. Lin Y-P, Hong N-M, Wu P-J, Wu C-F, Verburg PH: Impacts of land use change scenarios on hydrology and land use patterns in the Wu-Tu watershed in Northern Taiwan. Landscape Urban Plann 2007, 80:111-126. 22. Venter O, Laurance WF, Iwamura T, Wilson KA, Fuller RA, Possingham HP: Harnessing carbon payments to protect biodiversity. Science 2009, 326:1368-1370. 23. Crossman ND, Bryan BA, Summers DM: Carbon payments and low-cost conservation. Conserv Biol 2011, 25:835-845.
34. Eigenbrod F, Armsworth PR, Anderson BJ, Heinemeyer A, Gillings S, Roy DB, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ: The impact of proxybased methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. J Appl Ecol 2010, 47:377-385. Demonstrates the danger of relying on land cover/use to quantify ecosystem services. Potentially erroneous results may arise if using proxybased methods to quantify supply of services. 35. Zhao G, Bryan BA, King D, Luo Z, Wang E, Bende-Michl U, Song X, Yu Q: Large-scale, high-resolution agricultural systems modeling using a hybrid approach combining grid computing and parallel processing. Environ Modell Softw 2013, 41:231-238. 36. Honey-Rose´s J, Pendleton LH: A demand driven research agenda for ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 2013, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.007. 37. Bastian O, Grunewald K, Syrbe R-U: Space and time aspects of ecosystemservices,usingtheexampleoftheEUWaterFramework Directive. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage 2012, 8:1-12. 38. Rulli MC, Saviori A, D’Odorico P: Global land and water grabbing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.1213163110. 39. Erb K-H, Krausmann F, Gaube V, Gingrich S, Bondeau A, FischerKowalski M, Haberl H: Analyzing the global human appropriation of net primary production — processes, trajectories, implications. An introduction. Ecol Econ 2009, 69:250-259. 40. Haberl H, Erb KH, Krausmann F, Gaube V, Bondeau A, Plutzar C, Gingrich S, Lucht W, Fischer-Kowalski M: Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007, 104:12942-12947. 41. Costanza R, van der Leeuw S, Hibbard K, Aulenbach S, Brewer S, Burek M, Cornell S, Crumley C, Dearing J, Folke C et al.: Developing an Integrated History and future of People on Earth (IHOPE). Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2012, 4:106-114.
24. Chisholm RA: Trade-offs between ecosystem services: water and carbon in a biodiversity hotspot. Ecol Econ 2010, 69:19731987.
42. Briner S, Elkin C, Huber R, Greˆt-Regamey A: Assessing the impacts of economic and climate changes on land-use in mountain regions: a spatial dynamic modeling approach. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2012, 149:50-63.
25. Martı´nez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P: Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage 2012, 8:17-25.
43. Edwards-Jones G: Modelling farmer decision-making: concepts, progress and challenges. Anim Sci 2006, 82:783-790.
26. Egoh B, Drakou EG, Dunbar MB, Maes J, Willemen L: Indicators for mapping ecosystem services: a review. Report EUR 25456 EN. Edited by Union POotE (Series Editor). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2012.
44. van Noordwijk M, Leimona B, Jindal R, Villamor GB, Vardhan M, Namirembe S, Catacutan D, Kerr J, Minang PA, Tomich TP: Payments for environmental services: evolution toward efficient and fair incentives for multifunctional landscapes. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2012, 37:389-420.
27. Crossman ND, Burkhard B, Nedkov S, Willemen L, Petz K, Palomo I, Drakou EG, Martı´n-Lopez B, McPhearson T, Boyanova K et al.: A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 2013, 4:4-14. 28. Burkhard B, de Groot R, Costanza R, Seppelt R, Jørgensen SE, Potschin M: Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Indicators 2012, 21:1-6. 29. Crossman ND, Burkhard B, Nedkov S: Editorial: quantifying and mapping ecosystem services. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage 2012, 8:1-4. 30. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Muller F: Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Indicators 2012, 21:17-29. 31. Paul KI, Reeson A, Polglase P, Crossman N, Freudenberger D, Hawkins C: Economic and employment implications of a carbon market for integrated farm forestry and biodiverse environmental plantings. Land Use Policy 2013, 30:496-506. www.sciencedirect.com
45. de Groot R, Brander L, van der Ploeg S, Costanza R, Bernard F, Braat L, Christie M, Crossman N, Ghermandi A, Hein L et al.: Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst Serv 2012, 1:50-61. Describes a database of ecosystem service values and demonstrates that many ecosystem services have substantial monetary value in all the world’s biomes. 46. Lant CL, Ruhl JB, Kraft SE: The tragedy of ecosystem services. Bioscience 2008, 58:969-974. 47. Turner BL, Lambin EF, Reenberg A: The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007, 104:20666-20671. 48. Boyd J: Nonmarket benefits of nature: what should be counted in green GDP? Ecol Econ 2007, 61:716-723. 49. Hoang MH, Do TH, Pham MT, van Noordwijk M, Minang PA: Benefit distribution across scales to reduce emissions from Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:509–514
514 Human settlements and industrial systems
deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) in Vietnam. Land Use Policy 2013, 31:48-60.
moving a step closer to an IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2010, 2:9-14.
50. Jack BK, Kousky C, Sims KRE: Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008, 105:9465-9470.
58. Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Scha¨gner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, Notte AL, Zulian G et al.: Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst Serv 2012, 1:31-39.
51. Fox J, Nino-Murcia A: Status of species conservation banking in the United States. Conserv Biol 2005, 19:996-1007.
59. UK National Ecosystem Assessment: In The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings. Edited by UNEP-WCMC (Series Editor). Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC; 2011.
52. Reiss KC, Hernandez E, Brown MT: Evaluation of permit success in wetland mitigation banking: a Florida case study. Wetlands 2009, 29:907-918. 53. Garrick D, Siebentritt MA, Aylward B, Bauer CJ, Purkey A: Water markets and freshwater ecosystem services: policy reform and implementation in the Columbia and Murray-Darling Basins. Ecol Econ 2009, 69:366-379. 54. Bryan BA: Incentives, land use, and ecosystem services: synthesizing complex linkages. Environ Sci Policy 2013, 27:124-134. 55. Murtough G, Aretino B, Matysek A: In Creating Markets for Ecosystem Services, Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper. Edited by Commission P (Series Editor). Canberra: Productivity Commission; 2002.
60. Rio Tinto: Rio Tinto and Biodiversity: Achieving Results on the Ground. London: Rio Tinto Limited; 2008, . 61. Yang WH, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH, Ward JR, Wells G, Crossman ND, Connor JD: A conservation industry for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Econ 2010, 69:680-689. Presents an operational framework for developing a self-sustaining industry that enhances the supply of ecosystem services from agricultural systems. 62. Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Johnston M, Mueller ND, O/’Connell C, Ray DK, West PC et al.: Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 2011, 478:337-342.
56. United Nations Statistical Division: In System of EnvironmentalEconomic Accounting: Central Framework. Edited by Division UNS (Series Editor); 2012.
63. Adams J: Collaborations: the fourth age of research. Nature 2013, 497:557-560.
57. Larigauderie A, Mooney HA: The intergovernmental sciencepolicy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services:
64. Adams J: Collaborations: the rise of research networks. Nature 2012, 490:335-336.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:509–514
www.sciencedirect.com
Land science contributions to ecosystem services Neville D Crossman1, Brett A Bryan2, Rudolf S de Groot3, Yu-Pin Lin4 and Peter A Minang5 We provide an overview of the contribution of land science to improving ecosystem service quantification, valuation and management. We briefly review the impacts of land use and land management change on ecosystem services, the complexity of relationships between the land system and the supply and use of ecosystem services, and the latest developments in the science and policy of quantifying and valuing ecosystem services provided by land. We suggest a number of areas where land science can contribute to improving the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services. First and foremost are better assessments of the changes that occur to ecosystem service supply from changes to land use and management and subsequent biophysical processes. Also needed are new high spatial and temporal resolution integrated assessment models developed at global to local scales that include the biophysical and socio-economic drivers of land use change and ecosystem service supply and demand impacts. Finally, tools and models that follow standards and use consistent approaches are needed to provide certainty to end users and decision makers. A way forward is to strengthen international cross-disciplinary collaborations; the land science and ecosystem service communities are well placed to do this. Addresses 1 CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences and Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, PMB 2, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064, Australia 2 CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences and Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, PMB 2, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064, Australia 3 Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands 4 Department of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan 5 World Agroforestry Centre, United Nations Avenue, Nairobi, Kenya Corresponding author: Crossman, Neville D ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:509–514 This review comes from a themed issue on Human settlements and industrial systems Edited by Peter H Verburg, Ole Mertz, Karl-Heinz Erb and Giovana Espindola For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial Available online 6th July 2013 1877-3435/$ – see front matter, Crown Copyright # 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.003
Introduction Natural capital and the services it provides contributes directly to human well-being through the supply of www.sciencedirect.com
benefits such as food and fiber, fresh water, clean air, productive soil, stable climate, and recreation opportunities [1]. Ecosystem services are supplied directly by the main components of ecosystems: soil [2], water [3], vegetation [4] and biota [5], or indirectly through their interactions. Land use and management decisions have a strong bearing on the condition and integrity of ecosystems and their components which in turn have a substantial impact on the supply of ecosystem services [6,7]. Despite the importance of ecosystem services to human well-being, their integrity continues to erode apace due to inappropriate land use and management [8]. There is substantial effort underway to better quantify and value ecosystem services and understand their contribution to human well-being so that ecosystem service values can be included in land use decision-making. There is rapid growth in the science and data of modeling and mapping [9] and valuing [10,11] ecosystem services, in understanding tradeoffs and synergies in the supply of ecosystem services in land systems [12,13], and in how improved land management supplies bundles of services [14] or provides multiple functions [15]. The public and private sectors have developed many policies and mechanisms to encourage land management that improves ecosystem services [16,17]. However, impediments to the widespread uptake of ecosystem services arise from the diversity of measures and approaches for linking biophysical changes in the land system to changes in supply and value of ecosystem services. Another barrier is the relatively poor understanding of the social dimensions of change [18], including the socio-economic drivers of land use change and the impacts of complex global-scale geo-political phenomena such as land grabbing. Land science, being the multi-disciplinary study of the spatial and temporal dynamics of land use, land cover and land use change, has a critical role to play in overcoming these impediments to the mainstreaming of ecosystem services. This paper provides a short overview of current knowledge and latest developments in the fast growing science of ecosystem services and the land system and identifies gaps where the land science community can contribute. We argue for increased use of high spatial and temporal resolution integrated modeling and assessments, and we encourage the land system and ecosystem service sciences to mature toward standardized, consistent and collaborative approaches for quantifying and valuing impacts to ecosystem services from land use and management decisions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:509–514
510 Human settlements and industrial systems
Land science and the quantification of ecosystem services Biophysical dimensions
Changes to land systems have direct effects on the supply of ecosystem services. For example, clearing or restoring perennial vegetation impacts on the ability of land systems to provide a range of ecosystem services including: maintaining soil health and mediating erosion; storing carbon; filtering both particulate matter from air and pollutants from water; retaining water; regulating climate; and providing shelter, food and fiber, and amenity, recreational, scientific and cultural values and opportunities. Land system architecture influences hydrological, ecological and physical processes in different ways [19]. For example, land use changes involving deforestation increase runoff, reduce infiltration and increase flow peaks, all of which are highly dependent on the spatial distribution of land use patterns [20]. The impacts are especially acute in urban areas [21]. Recent advances have been made in understanding how different mosaics of land cover and use affect the supply of services [4], in particular the trade-offs between carbon sequestration and biodiversity [22,23] and the carbon– water–biodiversity nexus [24]. Moreover, the interaction between different land uses may affect ecosystem service supply in unexpected and counterintuitive ways, resulting in unintended outcomes (Chiang L-C, Lin Y-P, Huang T, Liu Y-L, Ding T-S, Schmeller D, Verburg PH: Cumulative effects of a major earthquake and typhoons on ecosystem services. Landscape Urban Plann, submitted for publication) [13]. Maximizing the supply of ecosystem services and minimizing trade-offs and perverse outcomes from land management requires robust quantification of services. Recent reviews [25–27], special issues of journals [28,29] and books [9] on ecosystem services quantification, modeling and mapping conclude that ecosystem service supply is quantified in one of two ways: first, mapping land use and land cover as a surrogate for supply of ecosystem services; or second, modeling the underlying ecosystem functions and biophysical processes, and linking the results to mapped ecosystem properties. The former approach makes the assumption that unique ecosystem service types and values are supplied by land cover/use types, that is, ecosystem services are mapped directly from land use/cover maps [30]. The latter approach aims to incorporate more realism by modeling the processes underlying the supply of services, for example using a vegetation process model, stand management parameters and spatially explicit climate and soil parameter to simulating carbon sequestration [31], or a hydrological process model that links changes in land cover to changes in quantities of fresh water supply and other ecosystem services [32]. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:509–514
Modeling biophysical processes has the advantage of being able to map potential outcomes of policy and land management decisions on ecosystem service supply, and explore trade-offs among services under different policy and land management scenarios [13,33]. But the multitude of methods for modeling and mapping [27] creates inconsistency both in what is being quantified and in the impacts of land management on integrity of natural capital and supply of ecosystem services. Inconsistency occurs when non-standard and very different metrics and indicators are used to quantify the services supplied by the land system and the impacts on supply from land use change [26]. Although there have been advances in the collection of spatially explicit and temporally explicit high resolution data for surrogate quantification of ecosystem services [19], we call for closer collaboration between the land science and biophysical process modeling communities to develop more consistent and standardized quantification approaches which incorporate increased realism and rely less on potentially erroneous [34] surrogate approaches. There needs to be better assessments of the changes that occur to ecosystem service supply from changes to land use and management and subsequent biophysical processes [35]. Therefore we suggest research focus on improvements in linking ecosystem process models to spatially explicit high resolution data as well as improvements in linking biophysical process models to ecosystem service supply. Social dimensions
Despite humanity’s dependence on the benefits provided by nature [36], the human use of land has resulted in substantial changes to biophysical conditions [6] with subsequent impacts on natural capital and its ability to supply ecosystem services. Central to land science is the understanding of the impact of human decisions on land systems and their ability to supply ecosystem services, and the interplay between different social actors and ecosystem service beneficiaries in space and time [37]. Despite their critical importance to assessments of ecosystem services, the socio-economic drivers and impacts of land use and management decisions are the most uncertain parameters. This lack of certainty and knowledge is highly relevant to global scale problems such as land and water grabbing [38] and the impacts on ecosystem service beneficiaries. Under land grabbing, complex political drivers cause the benefits of increased food and/or biofuel production to flow to geographically distant communities, while the impacts to ecosystem services are felt by local communities, creating global-scale geo-political challenges. There are now better data, knowledge and models that integrate knowledge and resources from biophysical and www.sciencedirect.com
Land science and ecosystem services Crossman et al. 511
social sciences to analyze and interpret coupled human– earth system dynamics, such as the Human Appropriation of Net Primary Productivity [39,40]. And there are other approaches for quantifying both past [41] and future [42] human interactions with land, as well as modeling individual decision-making impacts on land [43]. However, the social dimension of land change science needs to know a lot more about decision-making processes, such as aspects of individual utility, risk and uncertainty, and the multi-scale drivers of change as a consequence of global economies and changing demographics. The social sciences (e.g. behavioral economics, demography, environmental psychology) should have a bigger role in the land science’s efforts to understand the causal linkages between land change impacts on the supply and demand of ecosystem services [36,44]. Land use change and impacts on ecosystem services is inherently difficult to predict because it is a complex social–ecological system and therefore contains an element of unpredictability. We call for new high spatial and temporal resolution integrated assessment models developed at global to local scales that include the biophysical and socio-economic drivers of land use change and ecosystem service impacts. Global-scale models are especially important for understanding the socio-economic (i.e. beneficiary) trade-offs between ecosystem service supply resulting from global scale phenomena.
Land science and the valuation of ecosystem services The land science community’s contribution to improving the quantification of ecosystem services will directly benefit efforts to better value ecosystem services. The economic or non-economic values associated with supply of ecosystem services has been shown to be substantial [45] yet are rarely factored into decision-making because natural capital is predominantly a common-pool resource and its value is external to traditional market transactions [46]. There are many methods for valuing ecosystem services provided by the land system [47], and land science has a critical role to play because robust valuation of natural capital and ecosystem services depends on high spatial and temporal resolution data and models for describing units of quantity [48]. Examples exist where ecosystem service values have been internalized by setting up formal contracts with landowners to protect and enhance ecosystem service supply. These market-based approaches typically aim to robustly quantify and value changes to natural capital from specific land management actions and compensate land owners accordingly. Various market mechanisms are now operating. For example, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and more recently the Reduced Emission for Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) motivated by global climate change policy, provide various incentives for land owners to sequester carbon by www.sciencedirect.com
planting trees, or protect existing forest by halting land clearing. If well designed, including the use of third-party certification and verification, REDD+ can provide multiple benefits of avoiding emissions and protecting biodiversity [49]. CDM and REDD+ are two examples of the growing number of programs in developed and less developed countries that fall under the broad class of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes which directly compensate for specific ecosystem service outcomes [44,50]. PES markets in water and biodiversity have grown in many parts of the developed world, for example endangered species conservation [51] and wetland mitigation banking in the USA [52] and water trade in Australia and the USA [53], which have direct effects on land by encouraging the sustainable use of land and water resources. However, PES programs need to be carefully designed to avoid unintended outcomes such as tree-based carbon plantings that reduce freshwater supply and provide little biodiversity benefit [54]. PES approaches also need certainty about the good being traded [55], and the myriad approaches for modeling the land system and ecosystem service supply may reduce market confidence. There should also be a strong participatory component to PES schemes to ensure land owners and professionals beyond academia are included in decision making and benefit sharing [49]. Re-iterating previous recommendations in this paper, we suggest land science can improve valuation results, and PES schemes more broadly, through better integration of process models and better understanding of the socio-economic dimensions of land.
Conclusion The global-scale studies quantifying ecosystem services and society’s impacts on services [1], and the economic value of services [10] have spawned a number of initiatives at global, continental and national scales, demonstrating a clear move toward improved approaches to capturing ecosystem service values in decision-making. For example: The United Nations Statistical Division developed the System of Economic Environmental Accounts as a common framework for national governments to collect ecosystem service accounts [56]; The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was formed to provide an interface between science and policy for better use of ecosystem service science in policy making [57]; The European Union 2020 Biodiversity Strategy requires member states to map ecosystem services by 2015 and conduct a full economic valuation by 2020 [58]; and Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:509–514
512 Human settlements and industrial systems
The United Kingdom Government recently quantified and valued ecosystem services [59] and the UK Treasury produces a Green Book1 that provides guidance in ecosystem service valuation in cost benefit analysis.
The private sector is responding to the growth of consumer interest in sustainable land management practices. For example, the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCS) has published guidelines for corporations to include impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services in corporate accounts. A number of large global corporations are quantifying their impacts on land and water resources and incorporating them into triplebottom-line reporting. For example, the mining giant, Rio Tinto, is striving for a net positive impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services from its global mining activities [60]. In agricultural systems, Yang et al. [61] envisage a mature conservation industry that includes investors from all economic sectors, such as landowner producers and service providers, who produce conservation products and services exchanged via market transactions. But there is still a long way to go before ecosystem services are mainstream and land use and land management is sustainable [62]. This paper articulates for the first time in one place the need to fill the major knowledge gaps in the understanding of linkages between land use, biophysical process models, ecosystem service supply and the socio-economic drivers of land use decisions. Decision making that impacts on the land will require improved understanding of the relationships between humans, the economy and the environment, and a consistency of methods to quantify this relationship [6]. The land science community has a critical role to play here. A way forward is to strengthen both international and cross-disciplinary and cross-profession collaborations [8,63,64]. Multi-disciplinary global science networks such as the joint IHDP-IGBP Global Land Project2 and science-policy practitioner networks such as the Ecosystem Services Partnership3 provide a template for increasing connections among researchers and practitioners. Once connections are made, multi-disciplinary collaborations and networks should focus on developing: 1. Sophisticated models and tools that provide standard and consistent approaches to quantifying and valuing ecosystem services supplied by land systems and demanded by land managers [27]. Guidelines and standards should be followed to provide certainty to end users outside academia; 2. Improved biophysical and socio-economic system understanding to underpin integrated models and 1 2 3
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/data_greenbook_index.htm. http://www.globallandproject.org/. http://www.es-partnership.org/esp.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:509–514
assessments of the land system and ecosystem service supply and demand; and 3. Better incentives and improved institutions and land system governance to capture the full suite of ecosystem service costs and benefits so that tradeoffs from alternative land management decisions can be made with complete knowledge.
Acknowledgements The CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country and Sustainable Agriculture National Research Flagships are thanked for their support. This paper was substantially improved by the comments of two anonymous reviewers and the Guest Editors.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest of outstanding interest 1.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human WellBeing: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005, .
2.
Breure AM, De Deyn GB, Dominati E, Eglin T, Hedlund K, Van Orshoven J, Posthuma L: Ecosystem services: a useful concept for soil policy making! Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2012, 4:578585.
3.
Keeler BL, Polasky S, Brauman KA, Johnson KA, Finlay JC, O’Neill A, Kovacs K, Dalzell B: Linking water quality and wellbeing for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012, 109:18619-18624. Provides a framework for linking management decisions to changes in water quality to changes in ecosystem service provision to changes in human benefits and economic value.
4.
Yapp G, Walker J, Thackway R: Linking vegetation type and condition to ecosystem goods and services. Ecol Complexity 2010, 7:292-301.
5.
Balvanera P, Pfisterer AB, Buchmann N, He JS, Nakashizuka T, Raffaelli D, Schmid B: Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol Lett 2006, 9:1146-1156.
6.
Rounsevell MDA, Pedroli B, Erb K-H, Gramberger M, Busck AG, Haberl H, Kristensen S, Kuemmerle T, Lavorel S, Lindner M et al.: Challenges for land system science. Land Use Policy 2012, 29:899-910. Thorough review of the major research gaps for land system science. 7.
Petz K, van Oudenhoven APE: Modelling land management effect on ecosystem functions and services: a study in the Netherlands. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage 2012, 8:1-21.
8.
Ehrlich PR, Kareiva PM, Daily GC: Securing natural capital and expanding equity to rescale civilization. Nature 2012, 486: 68-73.
9.
Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S (Eds): Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2011.
10. TEEB: In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited by Kumar P. London and Washington: Earthscan; 2010. 11. Gomez-Baggethun E, de Groot R, Lomas PL, Montes C: The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol Econ 2010, 69:1209-1218. 12. Power AG: Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 2010, 365:2959-2971. 13. Bryan BA, Crossman ND: Exploring the impacts of multiple interacting financial incentives on the supply of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 2013, 4:60-72. www.sciencedirect.com
Land science and ecosystem services Crossman et al. 513
Integrates economic values and biophysical process models to identify synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply that may result following implementation of group of policies that provide financial incentives to change land use.
32. Le Maitre DC, Milton SJ, Jarmain C, Colvin CA, Saayman I, Vlok JHJ: Linking ecosystem services and water resources: landscape-scale hydrology of the Little Karoo. Front Ecol Environ 2007, 5:261-270.
14. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM: Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010, 107:5242-5247. Demonstrates that many different ecosystem services are provided by land systems and intelligent management of land can lead to multiple benefits to society.
33. Bryan BA, Crossman ND, King D, Meyer WS: Landscape futures analysis: assessing the impacts of environmental targets under alternative spatial policy options and future scenarios. Environ Modell Softw 2011, 26:83-91.
15. Willemen L, Hein L, van Mensvoort MEF, Verburg PH: Space for people, plants, and livestock? Quantifying interactions among multiple landscape functions in a Dutch rural region. Ecol Indicators 2010, 10:62-73. 16. Kinzig AP, Perrings C, Chapin FS, Polasky S, Smith VK, Tilman D, Turner BL: Paying for ecosystem services — promise and peril. Science 2011, 334:603-604. 17. World Business Council for Sustainable Development: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Scaling Up Business Solutions. Company Case Studies That Help Achieve Global Biodiversity Targets. Geneva, Switzerland: World Business Council for Sustainable Development; 2012, . 18. Reyers B, Biggs R, Cumming GS, Elmqvist T, Hejnowicz AP, Polasky S: Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological approach. Front Ecol Environ 2013, 11: 268-273. 19. Turner BL II, Janetos AC, Verburg PH, Murray AT: Land system architecture: using land systems to adapt and mitigate global environmental change. Global Environ Change 2013, 23:395-397. 20. Chu H-J, Lin Y-P, Huang C-W, Hsu C-Y, Chen H-Y: Modelling the hydrologic effects of dynamic land-use change using a distributed hydrologic model and a spatial land-use allocation model. Hydrol Process 2010, 24:2538-2554. 21. Lin Y-P, Hong N-M, Wu P-J, Wu C-F, Verburg PH: Impacts of land use change scenarios on hydrology and land use patterns in the Wu-Tu watershed in Northern Taiwan. Landscape Urban Plann 2007, 80:111-126. 22. Venter O, Laurance WF, Iwamura T, Wilson KA, Fuller RA, Possingham HP: Harnessing carbon payments to protect biodiversity. Science 2009, 326:1368-1370. 23. Crossman ND, Bryan BA, Summers DM: Carbon payments and low-cost conservation. Conserv Biol 2011, 25:835-845.
34. Eigenbrod F, Armsworth PR, Anderson BJ, Heinemeyer A, Gillings S, Roy DB, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ: The impact of proxybased methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. J Appl Ecol 2010, 47:377-385. Demonstrates the danger of relying on land cover/use to quantify ecosystem services. Potentially erroneous results may arise if using proxybased methods to quantify supply of services. 35. Zhao G, Bryan BA, King D, Luo Z, Wang E, Bende-Michl U, Song X, Yu Q: Large-scale, high-resolution agricultural systems modeling using a hybrid approach combining grid computing and parallel processing. Environ Modell Softw 2013, 41:231-238. 36. Honey-Rose´s J, Pendleton LH: A demand driven research agenda for ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 2013, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.007. 37. Bastian O, Grunewald K, Syrbe R-U: Space and time aspects of ecosystemservices,usingtheexampleoftheEUWaterFramework Directive. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage 2012, 8:1-12. 38. Rulli MC, Saviori A, D’Odorico P: Global land and water grabbing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.1213163110. 39. Erb K-H, Krausmann F, Gaube V, Gingrich S, Bondeau A, FischerKowalski M, Haberl H: Analyzing the global human appropriation of net primary production — processes, trajectories, implications. An introduction. Ecol Econ 2009, 69:250-259. 40. Haberl H, Erb KH, Krausmann F, Gaube V, Bondeau A, Plutzar C, Gingrich S, Lucht W, Fischer-Kowalski M: Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007, 104:12942-12947. 41. Costanza R, van der Leeuw S, Hibbard K, Aulenbach S, Brewer S, Burek M, Cornell S, Crumley C, Dearing J, Folke C et al.: Developing an Integrated History and future of People on Earth (IHOPE). Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2012, 4:106-114.
24. Chisholm RA: Trade-offs between ecosystem services: water and carbon in a biodiversity hotspot. Ecol Econ 2010, 69:19731987.
42. Briner S, Elkin C, Huber R, Greˆt-Regamey A: Assessing the impacts of economic and climate changes on land-use in mountain regions: a spatial dynamic modeling approach. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2012, 149:50-63.
25. Martı´nez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P: Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage 2012, 8:17-25.
43. Edwards-Jones G: Modelling farmer decision-making: concepts, progress and challenges. Anim Sci 2006, 82:783-790.
26. Egoh B, Drakou EG, Dunbar MB, Maes J, Willemen L: Indicators for mapping ecosystem services: a review. Report EUR 25456 EN. Edited by Union POotE (Series Editor). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2012.
44. van Noordwijk M, Leimona B, Jindal R, Villamor GB, Vardhan M, Namirembe S, Catacutan D, Kerr J, Minang PA, Tomich TP: Payments for environmental services: evolution toward efficient and fair incentives for multifunctional landscapes. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2012, 37:389-420.
27. Crossman ND, Burkhard B, Nedkov S, Willemen L, Petz K, Palomo I, Drakou EG, Martı´n-Lopez B, McPhearson T, Boyanova K et al.: A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 2013, 4:4-14. 28. Burkhard B, de Groot R, Costanza R, Seppelt R, Jørgensen SE, Potschin M: Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Indicators 2012, 21:1-6. 29. Crossman ND, Burkhard B, Nedkov S: Editorial: quantifying and mapping ecosystem services. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage 2012, 8:1-4. 30. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Muller F: Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Indicators 2012, 21:17-29. 31. Paul KI, Reeson A, Polglase P, Crossman N, Freudenberger D, Hawkins C: Economic and employment implications of a carbon market for integrated farm forestry and biodiverse environmental plantings. Land Use Policy 2013, 30:496-506. www.sciencedirect.com
45. de Groot R, Brander L, van der Ploeg S, Costanza R, Bernard F, Braat L, Christie M, Crossman N, Ghermandi A, Hein L et al.: Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst Serv 2012, 1:50-61. Describes a database of ecosystem service values and demonstrates that many ecosystem services have substantial monetary value in all the world’s biomes. 46. Lant CL, Ruhl JB, Kraft SE: The tragedy of ecosystem services. Bioscience 2008, 58:969-974. 47. Turner BL, Lambin EF, Reenberg A: The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007, 104:20666-20671. 48. Boyd J: Nonmarket benefits of nature: what should be counted in green GDP? Ecol Econ 2007, 61:716-723. 49. Hoang MH, Do TH, Pham MT, van Noordwijk M, Minang PA: Benefit distribution across scales to reduce emissions from Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:509–514
514 Human settlements and industrial systems
deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) in Vietnam. Land Use Policy 2013, 31:48-60.
moving a step closer to an IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2010, 2:9-14.
50. Jack BK, Kousky C, Sims KRE: Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008, 105:9465-9470.
58. Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Scha¨gner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, Notte AL, Zulian G et al.: Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst Serv 2012, 1:31-39.
51. Fox J, Nino-Murcia A: Status of species conservation banking in the United States. Conserv Biol 2005, 19:996-1007.
59. UK National Ecosystem Assessment: In The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings. Edited by UNEP-WCMC (Series Editor). Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC; 2011.
52. Reiss KC, Hernandez E, Brown MT: Evaluation of permit success in wetland mitigation banking: a Florida case study. Wetlands 2009, 29:907-918. 53. Garrick D, Siebentritt MA, Aylward B, Bauer CJ, Purkey A: Water markets and freshwater ecosystem services: policy reform and implementation in the Columbia and Murray-Darling Basins. Ecol Econ 2009, 69:366-379. 54. Bryan BA: Incentives, land use, and ecosystem services: synthesizing complex linkages. Environ Sci Policy 2013, 27:124-134. 55. Murtough G, Aretino B, Matysek A: In Creating Markets for Ecosystem Services, Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper. Edited by Commission P (Series Editor). Canberra: Productivity Commission; 2002.
60. Rio Tinto: Rio Tinto and Biodiversity: Achieving Results on the Ground. London: Rio Tinto Limited; 2008, . 61. Yang WH, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH, Ward JR, Wells G, Crossman ND, Connor JD: A conservation industry for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Econ 2010, 69:680-689. Presents an operational framework for developing a self-sustaining industry that enhances the supply of ecosystem services from agricultural systems. 62. Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Johnston M, Mueller ND, O/’Connell C, Ray DK, West PC et al.: Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 2011, 478:337-342.
56. United Nations Statistical Division: In System of EnvironmentalEconomic Accounting: Central Framework. Edited by Division UNS (Series Editor); 2012.
63. Adams J: Collaborations: the fourth age of research. Nature 2013, 497:557-560.
57. Larigauderie A, Mooney HA: The intergovernmental sciencepolicy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services:
64. Adams J: Collaborations: the rise of research networks. Nature 2012, 490:335-336.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:509–514
www.sciencedirect.com