Improving the identification of mismatches in ecosystem services assessments

被引:183
作者
Geijzendorffer, Ilse R. [1 ,2 ]
Martin-Lopez, Berta [3 ]
Roche, Philip K. [2 ]
机构
[1] Aix Marseille Univ, Inst Mediterraneen Biodiversite & Ecol Marine & C, Avignon Univ, CNRS,IRD, F-13545 Aix En Provence, France
[2] UR EMAX, Mediterranean Ecosyst & Risk Res Unit, Irstea, F-1382 Aix En Provence 05, France
[3] Univ Autonoma Madrid, Dept Ecol, Social Ecol Syst Lab, Madrid, Spain
关键词
Demand; Governance; Management; Mapping; Supply; Sustainable; SUPPLY-AND-DEMAND; FRAMEWORK; SCALES; CLASSIFICATION; VALUATION; LANDSCAPE; PROVISION; CAPACITY; POLICY; FLOW;
D O I
10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.016
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Assessments and sustainable management of ecosystem services (ES) require an understanding of both ES supply and demand qualities, quantities, spatial scales and dynamics. Mismatches, i.e., differences in quality or quantity between the supply and demand of ES, can occur in many different forms. Being able to identify these mismatches and their nature is of prime importance for informing governance and management decisions. This manuscript explores which mismatches can be detected by current ES supply and demand assessments and which mismatches currently remain unidentified. An analytic framework was developed comprised of five interlinked components of ES supply and demand linking nature and society (i.e., potential supply, managed supply, match, demand, and interests). This framework was used to examine 11 recent papers, which applied ES assessments to both ES supply and demand, to determine which mismatches were or could be identified and which mismatches remained unidentified. The selected papers typically used multiple methods in their assessments to capture supply and demand components. The found diversity in methods and the inclusion of temporal and spatial dimensions, and the existence of multiple stakeholder groups allowed for the assessments to identify several mismatches, but also lead to differences in the discriminative capacity of the assessments between the selected papers. The mismatch that was most often included in the assessments was Unsatisfied demand, whereas the least included mismatch was Unsustainable uptake. The mismatches caused by differing spatial patterns were most often identified, whereas the existence of mismatches among different stakeholder groups was least often detected in the assessment methods. Three options emerged that could further strengthen the discriminative capacity of ES supply and demand assessments to inform sustainable ES governance and management decisions: (i) include multiple stakeholders groups and the diversification of their roles and demands; (ii) acknowledge that ES supply is not only determined by the bio-geophysical conditions, but also determined by the ES demand by society, in terms of their quantity, quality and location, as well as by the applied management; (iii) include temporal and spatial scale sensitivity into the discriminative capacity of assessment methods to allow for a better identification which institutional structures could most effectively act upon them. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:320 / 331
页数:12
相关论文
共 52 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2011, The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, DOI DOI 10.2779/39229
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2005, EC HUM WELLB SYNTH
[3]   Research needs for incorporating the ecosystem service approach into EU biodiversity conservation policy [J].
Anton, Christian ;
Young, Juliette ;
Harrison, Paula A. ;
Musche, Martin ;
Bela, Gyoergyi ;
Feld, Christian K. ;
Harrington, Richard ;
Haslett, John R. ;
Pataki, Gyoergy ;
Rounsevell, Mark D. A. ;
Skourtos, Michalis ;
Sousa, J. Paulo ;
Sykes, Martin T. ;
Tinch, Rob ;
Vandewalle, Marie ;
Watt, Allan ;
Settele, Josef .
BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, 2010, 19 (10) :2979-2994
[4]   Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services [J].
Bagstad, Kenneth J. ;
Johnson, Gary W. ;
Voigt, Brian ;
Villa, Ferdinando .
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2013, 4 :117-125
[5]   The five pillar EPPS framework for quantifying, mapping and managing ecosystem services [J].
Bastian, Olaf ;
Syrbe, Ralf-Uwe ;
Rosenberg, Matthias ;
Rahe, Doreen ;
Grunewald, Karsten .
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2013, 4 :15-24
[6]   Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services [J].
Bennett, Elena M. ;
Peterson, Garry D. ;
Gordon, Line J. .
ECOLOGY LETTERS, 2009, 12 (12) :1394-1404
[7]   Toward Principles for Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services [J].
Biggs, Reinette ;
Schlueter, Maja ;
Biggs, Duan ;
Bohensky, Erin L. ;
BurnSilver, Shauna ;
Cundill, Georgina ;
Dakos, Vasilis ;
Daw, Tim M. ;
Evans, Louisa S. ;
Kotschy, Karen ;
Leitch, Anne M. ;
Meek, Chanda ;
Quinlan, Allyson ;
Raudsepp-Hearne, Ciara ;
Robards, Martin D. ;
Schoon, Michael L. ;
Schultz, Lisen ;
West, Paul C. .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES, VOL 37, 2012, 37 :421-+
[8]   Assessment of the water supply:demand ratios in a Mediterranean basin under different global change scenarios and mitigation alternatives [J].
Boithias, Laurie ;
Acuna, Vicenc ;
Vergonos, Laura ;
Ziv, Guy ;
Marce, Rafael ;
Sabater, Sergi .
SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2014, 470 :567-577
[9]  
Burkhard B., 2009, Landscape Online
[10]   Mapping and modelling ecosystem services for science, policy and practice [J].
Burkhard, Benjamin ;
Crossman, Neville ;
Nedkov, Stoyan ;
Petz, Katalin ;
Alkemade, Rob .
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2013, 4 :1-3