Landscapes, sustainability and the place-based analysis of ecosystem services
Tóm tắt
There is currently, widespread interest in the assessment of ecosystem services, and the new insights that the concept provides in understanding the ecology of landscapes and the science of sustainability. Three major assessment frameworks can be identified in the contemporary literature, namely one based on habitats, one based on the identification of the system elements that delivers the service, and one based on the understanding of places. Although all are useful for supporting decision making in relation to sustainable development, different situations require different perspectives, and so it is important to understand their advantages and drawbacks. Moreover, it is important to determine how they relate to other approaches used, for example, in landscape planning, so that the contribution that ecosystem assessments can make to sustainability debates can be better understood. The aim of this paper is to describe the strengths of the place-based approach because it is more easily overlooked as an assessment option. In particular we will argue that a place-based approach can help us better understand issues of multi-functionality, the valuation of natural capital and the role of landscape in framing debates about ecosystem services and sustainability. An appreciation of these issues will enable researchers interested in landscape to key questions and priorities in relation to questions of sustainability. Although it is useful to consider different assessment perspectives separately, we conclude that in practice, the habitat and systems approaches can form part of a place-based assessment, just as a better understanding of place can enrich assessments that spring from these more natural science approaches. Nevertheless, in designing analytical strategies to take the ecosystem approach forward, we suggest that it is vital to consider these different perspectives in order to build assessments that are relevant, legitimate and credible, and which can effectively address the problems of sustainability that emerge at the landscape scale.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Albrechts L (2006a) Bridge the gap: from spatial planning to strategic projects. Eur Plan Stud 14(10):1487–1500
Albrechts L (2006b) Shifts in strategic spatial planning? Some evidence from Europe and Australia. Environ Plan A 38(6):1149–1170
Albrechts L (2010) More of the same is not enough! How could strategic spatial planning be instrumental in dealing with the challenges ahead? Environ Plan B 37(6):1115–1127
Ash N, Blanco H, Brown C, Garcia K, Henrichs T, Lucas N, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Simpson RD, Scholes R, Tomich TP, Vira B, Zurek M (eds) (2010) Ecosystems and Human Well-being A Manual for Assessment Practitioners. Island Press, Washington
Berkes F (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv Biol 18(3):621–630
Berkes F (2006) From community-based resource management to complex systems. Ecol Soc 11(1):45
Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63(2–3):616–626
Brown GG (2006) Mapping landscape values development preferences: for tourism and residential development planning. Int J Tour Res 8:101–113
Brown GG, Raymond C (2007) The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: toward mapping place attachment. Appl Geogr 27:89–111
Brown GG, Reed P, Harris CC (2002) Testing a place-based theory for environmental evaluation: an Alaska case study. Appl Geogr 22:49–76
Bryant R, Wilson G (1998) Rethinking environmental management. Prog Hum Geogr 22:321–343
Carey PD, Wallis S, Chamberlain PM, Cooper A, Emmett BA, Maskell LC, McCann T, Murphy J, Norton LR, Reynolds B, Scott WA, Simpson IC, Smart SM, Ullyett JM (2008) Countryside Survey: UK results from 2007. NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, 105 pp (CEH Project Number: C03259)
Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries R, Diaz S, Dietz T, Duriappah A, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM, Perrings C, Reid WV, Sarukhan J, Scholes RJ, Whyte A (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. PNAS 106:1305–1312
Clement JM, Cheng AS (2011) Using analyses of public value orientations, attitudes and preferences to inform national forest planning in Colorado and Wyoming. Appl Geogr 31:393–400
Cowling RM, Egoh B, Knight AT (2008) An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. PNAS 105(28):9483–9488
Douvere F (2008) The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management. Mar Policy 32:762–771
Fagerholm N, Käyhkö N (2009) Participatory mapping and geographical patterns of the social landscape values of rural communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Fennia 187(1):43–60
Fish R, Haines-Young RH, Rubiano J (2003) Stakeholder landscapes and GIS: institutional vision of landscape and sustainability in the management of the Sherwood Natural Area, UK. In: Palang H, Fry G (eds) Landscape interfaces. Cultural heritage in changing landscapes. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 147–162
Fisher B, Turner RK, Zylstra M, Brouwer R, De Groot R, Farber S, Ferraro P, Green R, Hadley D, Harlow J, Jefferiss P, Kirkby C, Morling P, Mowatt S, Naidoo R, Paavola J, Strassburg B, Yu D, Balmford A (2008) Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy-relevant research. Ecol Appl 18:2050–2067
Ghazoul J (2007) Challenges to the uptake of the ecosystem service rationale for conservation. Conserv Biol 21:1651–1652
Ghazoul J (2008) Debating the ecosystem service rationale for conservation: response to Kremen et al. Conserv Biol 22(3):799–801
Gilliland PM, Laffoley D (2008) Key elements and steps in the process of developing ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. Mar Policy 32:787–796
Haines-Young RH (2000) Sustainable development and sustainable landscapes: defining a new paradigm for landscape ecology. Fennia 178(1):7–14
Haines-Young RH (2011) Exploring ecosystem services issues across diverse knowledge domains using Bayesian Belief Networks. Prog Phys Geogr 35(5):685–704
Haines-Young RH, Potschin M (2008) England’s terrestrial ecosystem services and the rationale for an Ecosystem Approach. Project NR0107. Available at: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cem/pdf/NR107_FTR_080108.pdf
Haines-Young RH, Barr CJ, Black HIJ, Briggs DJ, Bunce RGH, Clarke RT, Cooper A, Dawson FH, Firbank LG, Fuller RM, Furse MT, Gillespie MK, Hill R, Hornung M, Howard DC, McCann T, Morecroft MD, Petit S, Sier ARJ, Smart SM, Smith GM, Stott AP, Stuart RC, Watkins JW (2000) Accounting for nature: assessing habitats in the UK countryside. DETR, London
Haines-Young RH, Langanke T, Potschin M (2008) Landscape character as a framework for environmental assessment. In: Petrosillo I, Müller F, Jones KB, Zurlini G, Krauze K, Victorov S, Li B-L, Kepner GW (eds) Use of landscape sciences for the assessment of environmental security. Springer, New York, pp 165–174
Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe L, McCarthy JJ, Schellnhuber HJ, Bolin B, Dickson NM, Faucheux S, Gallopín GC, Grübler A, Huntley B, Jäger J, Jodha NS, Kasperson RE, Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H, Moore B III, O’Riordan T, Svedin U (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292:641–642
Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA (2005) What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment 47(3):8–21
Klein AM, Olschewski R, Kremen C (2008) The ecosystem service controversy: is there sufficient evidence for a “Pollination Paradox”? Gaia 17(1):12–16
Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 8:468–479
Kremen C, Williams NM, Aizen MA, Gemmill-Herren B, LeBuhn G, Minckley R, Packer L, Potts SG, Roulston T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Vázquez DP, Winfree R, Adams L, Crone EE, Greenleaf SS, Keitt TH, Klein A-M, Regetz J, Ricketts TH (2007) Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecol Lett 10:299–314
Lackey RT (1998) Seven pillars of ecosystem management. Landsc Urban Plan 40:21–30
Lane MB, McDonald G (2005) Community-based environmental planning: operational dilemmas, planning principles and possible remedies. J Environ Plan Manag 48(5):709–731
Livingstone DN (1992) The geographical tradition: episodes in the history of a contested enterprise. Blackwell, Oxford
Lonsdorf E, Ricketts T, Kremen C, Winfree R, Greenleaf S, Williams N (2011) Crop pollination services. In: Karvera P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S (eds) Natural capital. Theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 168–187
Luck GW, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (2003) Population diversity and ecosystem services. Trends Ecol Evol 18:331–336
Luck GW, Harrington R, Harrison PA, Kremen C, Berry PM, Bugter R, Dawson TP, de Bello F, Dia S, Feld CK, Haslett JR, Hering D, Kontogianni A, Lavorel S, Rounsevell M, Samways MJ, Sandin L, Settele J, Sykes MT, Van de Hove S, Vandewalle M, Zobel M (2009) Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services. Bioscience 59(3):223–235
MA [Millennium Ecosystem Assessment] (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington
Musacchio LR (2009) The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability: a conceptual framework for translational landscape research and practice of designed landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecol 24:993–1013
Norton BG, Noonan D (2007) Ecology and valuation: big changes needed. Ecol Econ 63:664–675
O’Riordan T (1999) The global environmental debate. In: O’Riordan T (eds) Environmental science for environmental management, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Harlow Essex
Paasi A (2002) Place and region: regional worlds and words. Prog Hum Geogr 26(6):802–811
Potschin M, Haines-Young RH (2003) Improving the quality of environmental assessments using the concept of Natural Capital: a case study from Southern Germany. Landsc Urban Plan 63:93–108
Potschin M, Haines-Young RH (2006) “Rio+10”, sustainability science and Landscape Ecology. Urban Plan 75:162–174
Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2011) Ecosystem services: exploring a geographical perspective. Prog Phys Geogr 35(5):575–594
Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M, Quinn C, Jin N, Holden J, Burt T, Kirby M, Sendzimir J (2007) If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail: ‘traditional’ versus participatory model building. Interdiscipl Sci Rev 32:263–282
Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. PNAS 107(11):5242–5247
Raymond M, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH, Cast A, Starthearn S, Grandgirard A, Kavilas T (2009) Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 68:1301–1315
Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141(10):2417–2431
Ruiz-Frau A, Edwards-Jones G, Kaiser MJ (2011) Mapping stakeholder values for coastal zone management. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 434:239–249
Schaefer FK (1953) Exceptionalism in geography: a methodological examination. AAAG 43:226–245
Stringer LC, Dougill AJ, Fraser E, Hubacek K, Prell C, Reed MS (2006) Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social-ecological systems: a critical review. Ecol Soc 11(2):39
Suárez de Vivero JL, Rodríguez Mateos JC, Florido del Corra D (2009) Geopolitical factors of maritime policies and marine spatial planning: state, regions, and geographical planning scope. Mar Policy 33:624–634
Tallis H, Polasky S (2011) Assessing multiple ecosystem services: an integrated tool for the real world. In: Karvera P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S (eds) Natural capital. Theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 34–52
Turner BL, Lambin EG, Reenberg A (2007) The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. PNAS 104:206660–220671
UK NEA (UK National Ecosystem Assessment) (2011) The UK national ecosystem assessment: synthesis of the key findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge
Wilson G, Bryant R (1997) Environmental management: new directions for the 21st century. University College London Press/Taylor and Francis, London/New York
Wu J (2006) Landscape ecology, cross-disciplinarity, and sustainability science. Landscape Ecol 21:1–4