Search

Concern is growing about ecosystem collapse, namely the abrupt decline or loss of an ecosystem resulting from human activities. While efforts to assess the risk of ecosystem collapse have developed at large spatial scales, less attention has been given to the local scales at which conservation management decisions are typically made. Development of appropriate management responses to ecosystem collapse has been limited by uncertainty regarding how collapse may best be identified, together with its underlying causes. Here we operationalise ecosystem collapse for conservation practice by providing a robust definition of collapse, in a form that is relevant to the scale of conservation decision-making. We provide an overview of different causes of collapse, and then explore the implications of this understanding for conservation practice, by examining potential management responses. This is achieved through development of a decision tree, which we illustrate through a series of case studies. We also explore the role of indicators for the early detection of collapse and for monitoring the effectiveness of management responses. Ecosystem collapse represents a significant challenge to conservation practice, as abrupt changes in ecosystem structure, function and composition can occur with little warning, leading to profound impacts on both biodiversity and human society. The risks of ecosystem collapse are likely to increase in future, as multiple forms of environmental change continue to intensify. We suggest that selection of management responses should be based on an understanding of the causal mechanisms responsible for collapse, which can be identified through appropriate monitoring and research activities.

Biodiversity conservation approaches are increasingly being implemented at the landscape-scale to support the maintenance\ud of metapopulations and metacommunities. However, the impact of such interventions on the provision of ecosystem services\ud is less well defined. Here we examine the potential impacts of landscape-scale conservation initiatives on ecosystem\ud services, through analysis of five case study areas in England and Wales. The provision of multiple ecosystem services was\ud projected according to current management plans and compared with a baseline scenario. Multicriteria analysis indicated\ud that in most cases landscape-scale approaches lead to an overall increase in service provision. Consistent increases were\ud projected in carbon storage, recreation and aesthetic value, as well as biodiversity value. However, most study areas\ud provided evidence of trade-offs, particularly between provisioning services and other types of service. Results differed\ud markedly between study areas, highlighting the importance of local context. These results suggest that landscape-scale\ud conservation approaches are likely to be effective in increasing ecosystem service provision, but also indicate that associated\ud costs can be significant, particularly in lowland areas.

1.The development of ecological networks could enhance the ability of species to disperse across fragmented landscapes and could mitigate against the negative impacts of climate change. The development of such networks will require widespread ecological restoration at the landscape scale, which is likely to be costly. However, little information is available regarding the cost-effectiveness of restoration approaches. 2.We address this knowledge gap by examining the potential impact of landscape-scale habitat restoration on the value of multiple ecosystem services across the catchment of the River Frome in Dorset, England. This was achieved by mapping the market value of four ecosystem services (carbon storage, crops, livestock and timber) under three different restoration scenarios, estimating restoration costs, and calculating net benefits. 3.The non-market value of additional services (cultural, aesthetic and recreational value) was elicited from local stakeholders using an online survey tool. Flood risk was assessed using a scoring approach. Spatial Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) was conducted, incorporating both market and non-market values, to evaluate the relative benefits of restoration scenarios. These were compared with impacts of restoration on biodiversity value. 4.Multi-Criteria Analysis results consistently ranked restoration scenarios above a non-restoration comparator, reflecting the increased provision of multiple ecosystem services. Restoration scenarios also provided benefits to biodiversity, in terms of increased species richness and habitat connectivity. However, restoration costs consistently exceeded the market value of ecosystem services. 5.Synthesis and applications. Establishment of ecological networks through ecological restoration is unlikely to deliver net economic benefits in landscapes dominated by agricultural land use. This reflects the high costs of ecological restoration in such landscapes. The cost-effectiveness of ecological networks will depend on how the benefits provided to people are valued, and on how the value of non-market benefits are weighted against the costs of reduced agricultural and timber production. Future plans for ecological restoration should incorporate local stakeholder values, to ensure that benefits to people are maximised. © 2012 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2012 British Ecological Society.

A map for valuing ecosystem services in the 480 km2 Frome catchment, to investigate scenarios of change in land use, was internet crowd-sourced. Scouts mapped deer habitats in 15% of the 30 km2 Arne Parish, while 143 residents volunteered data on deer sightings in the 5-year community survey.

This chapter draws on results from previous chapters, in some cases creating new syntheses by combining information across chapters and including findings of previous projects. Its specific objective is to consolidate all these findings in the design of a system to support transaction of information for environmental assessments and decision support at central and local levels, by local managers of land and species as well as by policymakers. It recognises the need not merely to provide a technological tool, but also to consider demand and supply for information in that tool, the ease of use of the tool, motivation to use the tool and cost of maintaining the tool long-term: a tool that is not desirable, practical, and durable will not last. The chapter therefore first addresses who makes the most decisions, finding not only that local managers of land and species have high need of support, but also that their demand is least met by model-based decision support despite their high capacity to generate data. For this reason a system was designed primarily to accommodate needs of knowledge transfer at local level. Consideration of data quality, ownership, and confidentiality was important, together with scale, uncertainty (and resulting liability) of resulting decision support. All these considerations can be addressed by developing trust in operation of such a system, for which a basis in the civic sector (rather than in private business or government) was recommended. A portal was launched to continue informing all interests of the scope for building and opportunities from use of such a system.

During pilot surveys at local level, individual stakeholders and officials in local government were asked to list the main environmental issues for which they needed to make decisions, and then to select sources of information they used in each case. Overall, habitats were in the most important information topic for decisions, followed by socio-economics, species, and hazards. However, models of information flows showed great variation in the priorities and the main sources across the stakeholder categories and tiers of local government.