Search

In this paper, we reflect on the implications for science, policy and practice of the recently introduced concept of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), with a focus on the European context. First, we analyse NBS in relation to similar concepts, and reflect on its relationship to sustainability as an overarching framework. From this, we derive a set of questions to be addressed and propose a general framework for how these might be addressed in NBS projects by funders, researchers, policy-makers and practitioners. We conclude that: (1) NBS need to be developed and discussed in relation to existing concepts to clarify their added value; (2) When considering and implementing NBS, the ‘relabelling’ of related concepts and the misuse of the concept have to be prevented in order to avoid misunderstanding, duplication and unintended consequences; (3) NBS as currently framed by the European Commission provides an opportunity for: a) transdisciplinary research into the design and implementation of solutions based on nature; and b) overcoming a bias towards development alternatives with narrow perspectives that focus on short-term economic gains and effectiveness; (4) The strength of the NBS concept is its integrative, systemic approach which prevents it from becoming just another “green communication tool” that provides justification for a classical model of natural resource exploitation and management measures. To realise their full potential, NBS must be developed by including the experience of all relevant stakeholders such that ‘solutions’ contribute to achieving all dimensions of sustainability. As NBS are developed, we must also moderate the expectations placed on them since the precedent provided by other initiatives whose aim was to manage nature sustainably demonstrates that we should not expect NBS to be cheap and easy, at least not in the short-term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

“Ecosystem services” is a phrase with many meanings, yet very few studies have primarily focused on comparing different definitions of the term. Ecosystem services are now generally used in identifying an appropriately wide range of environmental variables for policy and management as well as better understanding the benefits provided by those aspects of the environment. A review of the dominant definitions of ecosystem services reveals the term is comprehensive in its scope and requires further specification for most purposes. Analysis further reveals that there are four main categories of conceptual definitions. The paper concludes that ecosystem services can be identified at various points along the spectrum of nature-human interaction depending on which specific definition is chosen and that the term was not created to identify a novel set of environmental objects or processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Until present, it has been challenging to turn the concept of ecosystem services into a practical tool in the formulation of day-to-day policies on a national or regional scale. This is largely due to the overarching nature of the concept of ecosystems services (ESs) and the lack of concrete ecosystem service typologies. In this paper, we describe the foundation process of a national ecosystem service indicator framework for Finland, beginning with the selection of nationally important ESs. We also evaluate how this set of national indicators could be scaled down to regional circumstances, or integrated in the international ecosystem assessment processes. Our aim was to develop a national framework that complies both with national circumstances and with international typologies such as the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) and the cascade model. We developed indicators for 28 ecosystem services (10 provisioning, 12 regulating and maintenance, and 6 cultural services), a set of four indicators for every stage of the cascade model; altogether 112 indicators. We hope that the indicator framework draws attention to questions of resilience by providing information on the different aspects of ecosystem functioning that are crucial to the provisioning of ecosystem services. Furthermore, we hope to highlight the societal dependence on ecosystem services by providing indicators of both benefits and values. Besides higher-level decision-making processes, our attempt was to provide novel ecosystem service information for regional environmental managers and decision-makers, as well as the wider public interested in local issues. Integrating both ecological and socio-economic data into one platform may help to bridge the gap between science and practical decision-making resulting in more sustainable environmental management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing tendency to frame environmental problems as a failure to price ecosystem services has coincided with the rise of so-called “Market-Based Instruments” (MBIs). The aim of this introductory article to the special section “In markets we trust? Contrasting views on the performance and legitimacy of Market-Based Instruments in global environmental governance” is to promote critical reflection about the nature, scope and limits of MBIs in ecosystem services governance and to provide guidance on where the boundaries for the application of markets ought to be set. First, we examine the role that methodological assumptions and implicit normative positions play in shaping academic perception of the effectiveness and legitimacy of MBIs. Second, we examine MBIs in the broader ideological context and socio-political processes that have favored their development and implementation. Third, we test claims of the literature on MBIs against insights and data from case studies presented in the special section. Fourth, we discuss the scope and limits of markets in ecosystem services governance in the light of biophysical, institutional, and normative boundaries. We end with a summary of concluding remarks from the special section and by identifying critical tasks for the scientific and policy agenda on ecosystem services governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mapping the demand for ecosystem services (ES) has received increased attention in scientific research and is seen as a relevant tool to inform conservation planning, land use planning and management. Yet, there is a varying understanding of the concept of ES demand, which has implications on how and where ES demand is being mapped. In this paper we review the current conceptual understanding of ES demand, indicators to measure demand and the approaches used to quantify and map demand. We identified four distinct “ demand types” , which relate to different ecosystem service categories. These demand types include demand expressed in terms of (1) risk reduction, (2) preferences and values, (3) direct use or (4) consumption of goods and services. Each of the demand types was linked to specific methods applied in the reviewed literature. We found that operationalization of ES demand in policy, planning and management requires a more consistent understanding and definition of ES demand, its drivers and its temporal dynamics. Furthermore, the impact of demands for multiple ecosystem services on land use change needs to be investigated. This will allow for the consideration of temporal and cross-level interactions between supply and demand of ecosystem services and its impacts in land use change modelling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When multiple ecosystem services are derived from multiple ecosystems across different policy, planning or management jurisdictions, questions arise regarding the valuation of ecosystem services such as: who are the beneficiaries; how do they value ecosystem services; and who should be the valuing agent? In attempting to achieve an integrated approach to natural resource management in South East Queensland (SEQ), stakeholders have combined their knowledge to develop a framework to identify, measure and value ecosystem services provided by the region. This paper focuses on a methodology trialled to value the ecosystem services derived from the SEQ region in terms of the wellbeing of the SEQ community. The methodology allows flexibility of choice regarding whose values count and who should be the valuing agent. The methodology was trialled with community participants and scientific experts. The building blocks of the Framework can be used to construct different model variants, each of which reveals key characteristics of ecosystem services in SEQ. The approach adopted to value ecosystems and ecosystem services offers scope for decision makers to think more broadly about possible impacts of decisions on the wellbeing of the community and has facilitated the inclusion of ecosystem services in statutory planning policy in SEQ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Frameworks for solving environmental problems have been presented over the past 40years from many organizations and disciplines, often with a strong focus on their own discipline. This paper describes a modification of an existing framework that can be better applied to manage environmental problems. Human well being, environmental policy, human activities, stressors (contaminants and habitat alterations), and ecosystem services are highlighted as five elements of the coupled human and natural system in the proposed framework. Thresholds in relationships among elements in coupled human and natural systems are key attributes of couplings because of their use in development of environmental criteria by facilitating stakeholder consensus and preventing catastrophic changes. Propagation of thresholds through coupled human and natural systems is hypothesized to be a significant driver of policy development. The application of the framework is related to managing eutrophication and algal bloom problems. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The prerequisite for a sustainable and equitable use of common resources (the so-called Commons) must be the proper evaluation of their role within the complex network of relationships that ensure ecosystems functioning, resilience, and evolutionary dynamics. It is crucial to ascertain to what extent the common wealth is used for the common benefit. Money-based schemes for valuing the Commons, such as the so-called “willingness-to-pay”, provide a user-side evaluation perspective based on the idea that value only stems from utilization by humans. As a complement to such a point of view, we present and discuss in this paper a donor-side evaluation method (Emergy Synthesis) based on the idea that a proper measure of value can be achieved by also accounting for the work done by the biosphere in generating services and resources. It should not be disregarded that such resources and services also provide support to other species in the web of life. Emergy, a scientific measure of such environmental support, is suggested as a tool capable to assess quantity and quality of shared resources, thus providing a basis for their environmentally sound management. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]