Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach
Tóm tắt
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Alkemade, 2009, GLOBIO3: a framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss, Ecosystems, 12, 374, 10.1007/s10021-009-9229-5
Bagstad, 2013, A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation, Ecosyst. Serv., 5, 27, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.004
Barton, 2018, (Dis) integrated valuation: narrowing the gap between ES appraisals and governance support, Ecosyst. Serv., 29, 529, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021
Baró, 2015, Mismatches between ecosystem services supply and demand in urban areas: a quantitative assessment in five European cities, Ecol. Indic., 55, 146, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.013
Bateman, I., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D.W., Swandon, J. (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preferences Techniques. A Manual.
Bateman, 2011, Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments, Environ. Resource Econ., 48, 177, 10.1007/s10640-010-9418-x
BBOP (2009). Biodiversity Offset Cost-Benefit Handbook. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP), Washington, D.C. Available from: www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines/cbh.pdf.
Bestelmeyer, 2010, Practical guidance for developing State-and-Transition Models, Rangelands, 32, 23, 10.2111/Rangelands-D-10-00077.1
Boardman, 2006
Brown, 2015, Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation, Ecosyst. Serv., 13, 119, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007
Burkhard, 2012, Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets, Ecol. Ind., 21, 17, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019
Calvet-Mir, 2012, Beyond food production: ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain, Ecol. Econ., 74, 153, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.12.011
Campos, P., Caparrós, A. (2011). RECAMAN Project: Mediterranean Monte Ecosystems total income green accounting. Presentation to the Expert Meeting on Ecosystem Accounting, May 2011. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
CBD (2012). Best policy guidance for the integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in standards. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Montreal, CBD Technical Series No. 73. Available from: https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-73-en.pdf. Accessed 2 November 2016.
de Oliveira, 2014, What value São Pedro's procession? Ecosystem services from local people's perceptions, Ecol. Econ., 107, 114, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.008
Dick, 2018, Users’ perspectives of ecosystem service concept: results from 27 case studies, Ecosyst. Serv., 29, 552, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.015
Dunford, 2018, Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment: experiences from real world situations, Ecosyst. Serv., 29, 499, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.014
FAO (2013). Policy Support Guidelines for the Promotion of Sustainable Production Intensification and Ecosystem Services. Plant Production and Protection Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Available from: http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/CA-Publications/ICM19.pdf. Accessed 2 November 2016.
Francesconi, 2016, Using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to model ecosystem services: A systematic review, J. Hydrol., 535, 625, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.01.034
García-Llorente, 2016, The value of time in biological conservation and supplied services, J. Arid Environ., 124, 13, 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.07.004
García-Llorente, 2012, The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: an ecosystem service approach, Environ. Sci. Policy, 19–20, 136, 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.006
García-Llorente, 2012, A choice experiment study for land use scenarios in semi-arid watersheds environments, J. Arid Environ., 87, 219, 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.07.015
Gasparatos, 2012, Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment tool, Ecol. Econ., 80, 1, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.05.005
Gibbons, 2014, The amenity value of English nature: a hedonic price approach, Environ. Resource Econ., 57, 175, 10.1007/s10640-013-9664-9
Gómez-Baggethun, 2013, Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning, Ecol. Econ., 86, 235, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019
Gómez-Baggethun, 2016, Concepts and methods in ecosystem services valuation, 99
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Barton, D.N., Braat, L., Saarikoski, H., Kelemen, E., García-Llorente, M., E., J.v.d.B., Arias, P., Berry, P., Potschin, M., Keene, H., Dunford, R., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Harrison, P.A. (2014). EU FP7 OpenNESS Project Deliverable 4.1. State-of-the-art report on integrated valuation of ecosystem services. European Commission FP7.
Gould, 2015, A protocol for eliciting nonmaterial values through a cultural ecosystem services frame, Conserv. Biol., 29, 575, 10.1111/cobi.12407
Grêt-regamey, 2017, Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem services concept, Ecosyst. Serv., 26, 306, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.012
GRI (2011). Approach for reporting on ecosystem services: Incorporating ecosystem services into an organisation’s performance disclosure. Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam. Available from: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Approach-for-reporting-on-ecosystem-services.pdf. Accessed 2 November 2016.
Guillem, 2015, Modelling farmer decision-making to anticipate trade-offs between provisioning ecosystem services and biodiversity, Agric. Syst., 137, 12, 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.03.006
Gürlük, 2006, The estimation of ecosystem services' value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project: results from a contingent valuation survey, For. Policy Econ., 9, 209, 10.1016/j.forpol.2005.07.007
Harrison, 2015, Assessing cross-sectoral climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation: an Introduction to the CLIMSAVE project, Clim. Change, 128, 153, 10.1007/s10584-015-1324-3
Harrison, 2006, Modelling climate change impacts on species’ distributions at the European scale: implications for conservation policy, Environ. Sci. Policy, 9, 116, 10.1016/j.envsci.2005.11.003
Highway Agency/DfT (2013). Applying an Ecosystem Services Framework to Transport Appraisal. Final Report by Atkins and Metroeconomica to the UK Highways Agency and Department for Transport. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/193821/esa-report.pdf. Accessed 2 November 2016.
IPBES (2016a). Preliminary guide regarding diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services (Deliverable 3 (d)). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. Available from: http://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/IPBES-4-INF-13_EN.pdf. Accessed 25 November 2016.
IPBES (2016b). Methodological assessment of scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services [S. Ferrier, K.N. Ninan, P. Leadley, R. Alkemade, L.A. Acosta, H.R. Akçakaya, L. Brotons, W.W.L. Cheung, V. Christensen, K.A. Harhash, J. Kabubo-Mariara, C. Lundquist, M. Obersteiner, H. Pereira, G. Peterson, R. Pichs-Madruga, N. Ravindranath, C. Rondinini and B.A. Wintle (eds.)], Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. Available from http://www.ipbes.net/work-programme/scenarios-and-modelling. Accessed 10 January 2017.
IPIECA/OGP (2011). Ecosystem services guidance: Biodiversity and ecosystem services guide and checklists. OGP Report Number 461, The global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues (IPIECA) and the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP), London. Available from: http://www.ipieca.org/publication/ecosystem-services-guidance. Accessed 2 November 2016.
Jacobs, 2018, The means determine the end – pursuing plural valuation in practice, Ecosyst. Serv., 29, 515, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011
Jacobs, 2015, The ecosystem service assessment challenge: reflections from Flanders-REA, Ecol. Ind., 61
Jax, 2018, Handling a messy world: Lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational, Ecosyst. Serv., 29, 415, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.001
Johnson, 2012, Using participatory scenarios to stimulate social learning for collaborative sustainable development, Ecol. Soc., 17, 9, 10.5751/ES-04780-170209
2015
Kelemen, 2013, Farmers’ perceptions of biodiversity: lessons from a discourse-based deliberative valuation study, Land Policy, 35, 318, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.06.005
Kelly, 2013, Selecting among five common modelling approaches for integrated environmental assessment and management, Environ. Model. Software, 47, 159, 10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.05.005
Kenter, 2015, What are shared and social values of ecosystems?, Ecol. Econ., 111, 86, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006
Konrad, 2017, Synergies and trade-offs in water quality and climate change mitigation policies, Land Econ., 93, 3090, 10.3368/le.93.2.309
Kopperoinen, 2014, Using expert knowledge in combining green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning: an insight into a new place-based methodology, Landscape Ecol., 29, 1361, 10.1007/s10980-014-0014-2
Langemeyer, 2015, Contrasting values of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas: the case of park Montjuïc in Barcelona, Ecosyst. Serv., 12, 178, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.016
Langemeyer, 2016, Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), Environ. Sci. Policy, 62, 45, 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.013
Laurans, 2013, Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: questioning a literature blindspot, J. Environ. Manage., 119, 208, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.008
López-Santiago, 2014, Using visual stimuli to explore the social perceptions of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes: the case of transhumance in Mediterranean Spain, Ecol. Soc., 19, 27, 10.5751/ES-06401-190227
Luck, 2009, Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services, Bioscience, 59, 223, 10.1525/bio.2009.59.3.7
Martín-López, 2014, Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment, Ecol. Ind., 37, 220, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003
Martín-López, 2012, Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences, PLoS ONE, 7, e38970, 10.1371/journal.pone.0038970
Martín-López, 2009, Scale effects on cultural services valuation in protected Areas, J. Environ. Manage., 90, 1050, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.03.013
Martinez-Harms, 2015, Making decisions for managing ecosystem services, Biol. Conserv., 184, 229, 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.024
Maynard, 2015, Determining the value of multiple ecosystem services in terms of community wellbeing: Who should be the valuing agent?, Ecol. Econ., 115, 22, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.002
McCarthy, D., Morling, P. (2014). A Guidance Manual for Assessing Ecosystem Services at Natura 2000 Sites. Produced as part of the Natura People project, part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the INTERREG IV A 2 Mers Seas Zeeen Crossborder Programme 2007–2013. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds: Sandy, Bedfordshire. Available from: http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/natura_2000_guidance_manual_tcm9-399208.pdf. Accessed 2 November 2016.
Munda, 2004, Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations and operational consequences, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 158, 662, 10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00369-2
Nayab, N. (2011). Disadvantages to Using Decision Trees. Bright Hub Project Management http://www.brighthubpm.com/project-planning/106005-disadvantages-to-using-decision-trees/. Accessed 13 December 2016.
Obst, 2016, National accounting and the valuation of ecosystem assets and their services, Environ. Resource Econ., 64, 1, 10.1007/s10640-015-9921-1
Opdam, 2015, Ecosystem services for connecting actors – lessons from a symposium, Change Adaptation Socio-Ecol. Syst, 2, 1
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R., Başak, E., Breslow, S.J., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Keune, H., Maris, V., Pengue, W., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S.M., Wittmer, H., Mohamed, A.A., Al-Hafedh, Y.S., Asah, S.T., Berry, P., Bilgin, A., Bullock, C., Cáceres, D., Golden, C., Gómez-Baggethun, E., González-Jiménez, D., Houdet, J., Kumar, R., May, P.H., Mead, A., O'Farrell, P., Pacheco-Balanza, D., Pandit, R., Pichis-Madruga, R., Popa, F., Preston, S., Saarikoski, H., Strassburg, B.B., Verma, M., Yagi, N. (2016). Revealing the diversity of values of nature and its benefits to people for a good quality of life: The IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability, 23. Forthcoming.
Pereira, 2005, Ecosystem services and human well-being: a participatory study in a mountain community in Portugal, Ecol. Soc., 10, 14, 10.5751/ES-01353-100214
Potschin, 2011, Ecosystem services: exploring a geographical perspective, Prog. Phys. Geogr., 35, 575, 10.1177/0309133311423172
Pullin, 2016, Selecting appropriate methods of knowledge synthesis to inform biodiversity policy, Biodivers. Conserv., 25, 1285, 10.1007/s10531-016-1131-9
Quinlan, 1990, Decision trees and decision-making, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., 20, 339, 10.1109/21.52545
Richards, 2015, A rapid indicator of cultural ecosystem service usage at a fine spatial scale: content analysis of social media photographs, Ecol. Ind., 53, 187, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.01.034
Rokach, 2005, Chapter 9 classification trees, 165
Rodela, R., Bregt, A.K., Perez-Soba, M., Verweij, P. (2017). When having a stake matters: pilot-testing spatial decision support systems with students vs. real stakeholders. Environ. Model. Software, submitted December 2016.
Ruckelshaus, 2015, Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions, Ecol. Econ., 115, 11, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009
Saarikoski, 2016, Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis: comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services, Ecosyst. Serv., 22, 238, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.014
Saarikoski, 2018, Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice, Ecosyst. Serv., 29, 579, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019
Santos-Martín, F., Kelemen, E., García-Llorente, M., Jacobs, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., Palomo, I., Barton, D.N., Hevia, V., Martín-López, B. (2017). Socio-cultural valuation approaches. In: Burkhard, B., Maes, J. (eds) Mapping Ecosystem Services. Pensoft Publishers. Forthcoming.
Schulp, 2012, Mapping ecosystem functions and services in Eastern Europe using global-scale data sets, Int. J. Biodivers. Sci., Ecosyst. Serv. Manage., 8, 156, 10.1080/21513732.2011.645880
Schweitzer, 2011, A generic framework for land-use modelling, Environ. Model. Software, 26, 1052, 10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.02.016
Sharp, R., Tallis, H.T., Ricketts, T., Guerry, A.D., Wood, S.A., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Nelson, E., Ennaanay, D., Wolny, S., Olwero, N., Vigerstol, K., Pennington, D., Mendoza, G., Aukema, J., Foster, J., Forrest, J., Cameron, D., Arkema, K., Lonsdorf, E., Kennedy, C., Verutes, G., Kim, C.K., Guannel, G., Papenfus, M., Toft, J., Marsik, M., Bernhardt, J., Griffin, R., Glowinski, K., Chaumont, N., Perelman, A., Lacayo, M., Mandle, L., Hamel, P., Vogl, A.L., Rogers, L., Bierbower, W. (2016). InVEST +VERSION+ User’s Guide, Stanford University, University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy and World Wildlife Fund, The Natural Capital Project, Stanford, USA.
Seppelt, 2012, Form follows function? Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments based on reviews and case studies, Ecol. Ind., 21, 145, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.003
Smith, 2018, Operationalising ecosystem service assessment in Bayesian Belief Networks: experiences within the OpenNESS project, Ecosyst. Serv., 29, 452, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.004
TEEB (2013). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): Guidance Manual for TEEB Country Studies. Version 1.0. Available from: http://www.teebweb.org/media/2013/10/TEEB_GuidanceManual_2013_1.0.pdf.
TEEB
UN, 2014
USDA, 2016
Vatn, 2009, An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal, Ecol. Econ., 31, 2207, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.005
Verweij, 2016, QUICKScan as a quick and participatory methodology for problem identification and scoping in policy processes, Environ. Sci. Policy, 66, 47, 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.07.010
Vihervaara, 2010, Trends in ecosystem service research: early steps and current drivers, Ambio, 39, 314, 10.1007/s13280-010-0048-x
Ward, 2000
Wijnja, H., van Uden, G., Delbaere, B. (Eds.) 2016. Ecosystem services in operation: case studies. EU FP7 OpenNESS Project. European Commission. Available at: https://issuu.com/ecnc.org/docs/openness_casestudies_brochure.
Wilson, 2002, Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation, Ecol. Econ., 41, 431, 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00092-7
Zulian, G., Paracchini, M.-L., Maes, J., Liquete Garcia, M.D.C. (2013a). ESTIMAP: Ecosystem services mapping at European scale. Available from http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/30410/1/lb-na-26474-en-n.pdf.
Zulian, G., Paracchini, M.-L., Maes, J., Liquete Garcia, M.D.C. (2013b). ESTIMAP: Ecosystem services mapping at European scale. (E. U. R.-S., T. R. Reports, Ed.). European Commision. Available from http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/30410/1/lb-na-26474-en-n.pdf.