in

Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science

  • 1.

    IPBES Summary for Policymakers. In Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Díaz, S. et al.) (IPBES Secretariat, 2019).

  • 2.

    Schaefer, M., Goldman, E., Bartuska, A. M., Sutton-Grier, A. & Lubchenco, J. Nature as capital: advancing and incorporating ecosystem services in United States federal policies and programs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7383–7389 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 3.

    Mastrángelo, M. E. et al. Key knowledge gaps to achieve global sustainability goals. Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0412-1 (2019).

  • 4.

    Olander, L. et al. So you want your research to be relevant? Building the bridge between ecosystem services research and practice. Ecosyst. Serv. 26, 170–182 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 5.

    Polasky, S., Tallis, H. & Reyers, B. Setting the bar: standards for ecosystem services. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406490112 (2015).

  • 6.

    Rieb, J. et al. When, where and how nature matters for ecosystem services: challenges for the next generation of ecosystem service models. BioScience 67, 820–833 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 7.

    Natural Capital Protocol (Natural Capital Coalition, 2016).

  • 8.

    Mandle, L., Ouyang, Z., Salzman, J. & Daily, G. C. Green Growth that Works: Natural Capital Policy and Finance Mechanisms from the World (Island Press, 2019).

  • 9.

    Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015).

  • 10.

    Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people: recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments. Science 359, 270–272 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 11.

    Arkema, K. K. et al. Embedding ecosystem services in coastal planning leads to better outcomes for people and nature. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7390–7395 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 12.

    Van Wensem, J. et al. Identifying and assessing the application of ecosystem services approaches in environmental policies and decision making. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 13, 41–51 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 13.

    Ricketts, T. H. & Lonsdorf, E. Mapping the margin: comparing marginal values of tropical forest remnants for pollination services. Ecol. Appl. 23, 1113–1123 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 14.

    Mandle, L., Tallis, H., Sotomayor, L. & Vogl, A. L. Who loses? Tracking ecosystem service redistribution from road development and mitigation in the Peruvian Amazon. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13, 309–315 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 15.

    Wieland, R., Ravensbergen, S., Gregr, E. J., Satterfield, T. & Chan, K. M. A. Debunking trickle-down ecosystem services: the fallacy of omnipotent, homogeneous beneficiaries. Ecol. Econ. 121, 175–180 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 16.

    Polasky, S. & Segerson, K. Integrating ecology and economics in the study of ecosystem services: some lessons learned. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 1, 409–434 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 17.

    Keeler, B. L. et al. Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 18619–18624 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 18.

    Vogl, A. L. et al. Valuing investments in sustainable land management in the Upper Tana River basin, Kenya. J. Environ. Manag. 195, 78–91 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 19.

    Arkema, K., Guannel, G. & Verutes, G. Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 913–918 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 20.

    Plummer, M. L. Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 38–45 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 21.

    Tallis, H., Polasky, S., Lozano, J. S. & Wolny, S. in Inclusive Wealth Report 2012: Measuring Progress Toward Sustainability 195–214 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).

  • 22.

    Costanza, R. et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002 (2014).

  • 23.

    Granek, E. F. et al. Ecosystem services as a common language for coastal ecosystem-based management. Conserv. Biol. 24, 207–216 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 24.

    Ruckelshaus, M. et al. Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol. Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009 (2013).

  • 25.

    Ellis, A. M., Myers, S. S. & Ricketts, T. H. Do pollinators contribute to nutritional health? PLoS ONE 10, e114805 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 26.

    Olsson, P., Folke, C. & Hughes, T. P. Navigating the Transition to Ecosystem-Based Management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 9489–9494 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 27.

    Costanza, R. et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260 (1997).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 28.

    SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting Revision (System of Environmental Economic Accounting, 2020); https://go.nature.com/2sqGqFn

  • 29.

    Aburto-Oropeza, O. et al. Mangroves in the Gulf of California increase fishery yields. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804601105 (2008).

  • 30.

    Keeler, B. L. et al. The social costs of nitrogen. Sci. Adv. 2, e1600219 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 31.

    Kenter, J. O. et al. What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecol. Econ. 111, 86–99 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 32.

    Pascual, U. et al. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 7–16 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 33.

    Samberg, L. H., Gerber, J. S., Ramankutty, N., Herrero, M. & West, P. C. Subnational distribution of average farm size and smallholder contributions to global food production. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 124010 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 34.

    Jean, N. et al. Combining satellite imagery and machine learning to predict poverty. Science 353, 790–794 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 35.

    Wolff, S., Schulp, C. J. E. & Verburg, P. H. Mapping ecosystem services demand: a review of current research and future perspectives. Ecol. Indic. 55, 159–171 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 36.

    Dawson, N. & Martin, A. Assessing the contribution of ecosystem services to human wellbeing: a disaggregated study in western Rwanda. Ecol. Econ. 117, 62–72 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 37.

    Daw, T., Brown, K., Rosendo, S. & Pomeroy, R. Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ. Conserv. 38, 370–379 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 38.

    Ruhl, J. B. & Salzman, J. The effects of wetland mitigation banking on people. Natl Wetl. Newsl. 28, 7–13 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • 39.

    Kabisch, N. & Haase, D. Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landsc. Urban Plan. 122, 129–139 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 40.

    Farley, K. A. & Bremer, L. L. ‘Water Is Life’: local perceptions of páramo grasslands and land management strategies associated with payment for ecosystem services. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 107, 371–381 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • 41.

    Pascual, U. et al. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience 64, 1027–1036 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 42.

    Mastrangelo, M. E. & Laterra, P. From biophysical to social-ecological trade-offs: integrating biodiversity conservation and agricultural production in the Argentine Dry Chaco. Ecol. Soc. 20, 20 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 43.

    Guerry, A. D. et al. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to practice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7348–7355 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 44.

    Rieb, J. T. et al. When, where, and how nature matters for ecosystem services: challenges for the next generation of ecosystem service models. BioScience 67, 820–833 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 45.

    Villa, F., Bagstad, K. J., Voigt, B., Johnson, G. W. & Portela, R. A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PLoS ONE 9, e91001 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 46.

    Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359, 270–272 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 47.

    Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment (Island Press, 2003).

  • 48.

    Fleiss, J. L. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol. Bull. 76, 378–382 (1971).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 49.

    Gamer, M., Lemon, J., Fellows, I. & Singh, P. irr: Various Coefficients of Interrater Reliability and Agreement (2012).

  • 50.

    Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–174 (1977).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 51.

    Tallis, H. et al. A global system for monitoring ecosystem service change. BioScience 62, 977–986 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 52.

    Daily, G. C. et al. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 21–28 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 


  • Source: Ecology - nature.com

    Institute Professor Emeritus Mario Molina, environmental leader and Nobel laureate, dies at 77

    Deep amoA amplicon sequencing reveals community partitioning within ammonia-oxidizing bacteria in the environmentally dynamic estuary of the River Elbe