Information preferences for the evaluation of coastal development impacts on ecosystem services: A multi-criteria assessment in the Australian context

Ecosystem based management requires the integration of various types of assessment indicators. Understanding stakeholders' information preferences is important, in selecting those indicators that best support management and policy. Both the preferences of decision-makers and the general public may matter, in democratic participatory management institutions. This paper presents a multi-criteria analysis aimed at quantifying the relative importance to these groups of economic, ecological and socio-economic indicators usually considered when managing ecosystem services in a coastal development context. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is applied within two nationwide surveys in Australia, and preferences of both the general public and decision-makers for these indicators are elicited and compared. Results show that, on average across both groups, the priority in assessing a generic coastal development project is for the ecological assessment of its impacts on marine biodiversity. Ecological assessment indicators are globally preferred to both economic and socio-economic indicators regardless of the nature of the impacts studied. These results are observed for a significantly larger proportion of decision-maker than general public respondents, questioning the extent to which the general public's preferences are well reflected in decision-making processes.

Jatropha cultivation in Malawi and Mozambique: impact on ecosystem services, local human well-being, and poverty alleviation

Jatropha-based biofuels have undergone a rapid boom-and-bust cycle in southern Africa. Despite strong initial support by governments, donors, and the private sector, there is a lack of empirical studies that compare the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of Jatropha’s two dominant modes of production: large plantations and smallholder-based projects. We apply a rapid ecosystem services assessment approach to understand the impact of two Jatropha projects that are still operational despite widespread project collapse across southern Africa: a smallholder-based project (BERL, Malawi) and a large plantation (Niqel, Mozambique). Our study focuses on changes in provisioning ecosystem services such as biofuel feedstock, food, and woodland products that can have important effects on human well-being locally. Qualitative information is provided for other regulating and cultural ecosystem services. Although at this stage no impact is tremendously positive or negative, both projects show some signs of viability and local poverty alleviation potential. However, their long-term sustainability is not guaranteed given low yields, uncertain markets, and some prevailing management practices.

Competing Ecosystem services: an Assessment of Carbon and timber in the Tropical forests of Central America

4 p.

Economic Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Services Losses: Cost of Policy Inaction

52 p.

Competing Ecosystem Services: an Assessment of Carbon and Timber in the Tropical Forests of Central America

29 p.

Landscape mosaics maps as a basis for spatial assessment and negotiation of ecosystem services and their trade-offs at the meso-scale: Examples from Laos, Madagascar and China

Mapping ecosystem services (ES) and their trade-offs is a key requirement for informed decision making for land use planning and management of natural resources that aim to move towards increasing the sustainability of landscapes. The negotiations of the purposes of landscapes and the services they should provide are difficult as there is an increasing number of stakeholders active at different levels with a variety of interests present on one particular landscape.Traditionally, land cover data is at the basis for mapping and spatial monitoring of ecosystem services. In light of complex landscapes it is however questionable whether land cover per se and as a spatial base unit is suitable for monitoring and management at the meso-scale. Often the characteristics of a landscape are defined by prevalence, composition and specific spatial and temporal patterns of different land cover types. The spatial delineation of shifting cultivation agriculture represents a prominent example of a land use system with its different land use intensities that requires alternative methodologies that go beyond the common remote sensing approaches of pixel-based land cover analysis due to the spatial and temporal dynamics of rotating cultivated and fallow fields.Against this background we advocate that adopting a landscape perspective to spatial planning and decision making offers new space for negotiation and collaboration, taking into account the needs of local resource users, and of the global community. For this purpose we introduce landscape mosaicsdefined as new spatial unit describing generalized land use types. Landscape mosaics have allowed us to chart different land use systems and land use intensities and permitted us to delineate changes in these land use systems based on changes of external claims on these landscapes. The underlying idea behindthe landscape mosaics is to use land cover data typically derived from remote sensing data and to analyse and classify spatial patterns of this land cover data using a moving window approach. We developed the landscape mosaics approach in tropical, forest dominated landscapesparticularly shifting cultivation areas and present examples ofour work from northern Laos, eastern Madagascarand Yunnan Province in China.

The Impact of Offshore Wind Farms on Marine Ecosystems: A Review Taking an Ecosystem Services Perspective

The rapid increase in renewable energy generation from wind has increased concerns about the impacts that wind arrays have on the marine environment and what these impacts mean for society. One method for identifying the impacts of offshore wind farms (OWFs) on human welfare is through the assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. Using an ecosystem services approach, this paper reviews the impacts of OWFs on the ecosystem services delivered by marine environments. During the construction phase, supporting services such as reduced energy capture and nutrient cycling are changed due to the introduction of hard substrate and the reduction in soft sediment habitat at turbine bases. This may lead to changes in all other ecosystem services, both negative and positive. Quantifying these changes, however, is a challenge partly due to data limitations and a lack of clear understanding of the impacts of OWFs on the marine ecosystems. Scientific effort needs to quantitatively explore the impacts of OWFs on ecosystem functionality and the gathering of data that enables the assessment of changes to ecosystem services. Data needed to better quantify and value the impacts of OWFs on ecosystem services are suggested. The development of methods which integrate socioeconomic valuation of ecosystem services into the evaluation of renewable energy devices compliments efforts in assessing the environmental impacts and should enable a holistic assessment of the impact of renewable energy production and greenhouse gas mitigation technologies on the U. K. carbon footprint.

What are the local impacts of energy systems on marine ecosystem services: a systematic map protocol

Background: Increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) and its impact on the climate has resulted in many international governments committing to reduce their GHG emissions. The UK, for example, has committed to reducing its carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. Suggested ways of reaching such a target are to increase dependency on offshore wind, offshore gas and nuclear. It is not clear, however, how the construction, operation and decommissioning of these energy systems will impact marine ecosystem services, i.e. the services obtained by people from the natural environment such as food provisioning, climate regulation and cultural inspiration. Research on ecosystem service impacts associated with offshore energy technologies is still in its infancy. The objective of this review is to bolster the evidence base by firstly, recording and describing the impacts of energy technologies at the marine ecosystems and human level in a consistent and transparent way; secondly, to translate these ecosystem and human impacts into ecosystem service impacts by using a framework to ensure consistency and comparability. The output of this process will be an objective synthesis of ecosystem service impacts comprehensive enough to cover different types of energy under the same analysis and to assist in informing how the provision of ecosystem services will change under different energy provisioning scenarios. Methods: Relevant studies will be sourced using publication databases and selected using a set of selection criteria including the identification of: (i) relevant subject populations such as marine and coastal species, marine habitat types and the general public; (ii) relevant exposure types including offshore wind farms, offshore oil and gas platforms and offshore structures connected with nuclear; (iii) relevant outcomes including changes in species structure and diversity; changes in benthic, demersal and pelagic habitats; and changes in cultural services. The impacts will be synthesised and described using a systematic map. To translate these findings into ecosystem service impacts, the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) frameworks are used and a detailed description of the steps taken provided to ensure transparency and replicability.

Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment and valuation: Mixed methods or mixed messages?

A mixed-method approach was used to assess and value the ecosystem services derived from the Dogger Bank, an extensive shallow sandbank in the southern North Sea. Three parallel studies were undertaken that 1) identified and quantified, where possible, how indicators for ecosystem service provision may change according to two future scenarios, 2) assessed members of the public's willingness-to-pay for improvements to a small number of ecosystem services as a consequence of a hypothetical management plan, and 3) facilitated a process of deliberation that allowed members of the public to explore the uses of the Dogger Bank and the conflicts and dilemmas involved in its management. Each of these studies was designed to answer different and specific research questions and therefore contributes different insights about the ecosystem services delivered by the Dogger Bank. This paper explores what can be gained by bringing these findings together post hoc and the extent to which the different methods are complementary. Findings suggest that mixed-method research brings more understanding than can be gained from the individual approaches alone. Nevertheless, the choice of methods used and how these methods are implemented strongly affects the results obtained.

Ecosystem services and adaptation for agriculture and food security: analysis of two decades (1991–2011) of financing by the Global Environment Facility

Investing in global environmental and adaptation benefits in the context of agriculture and food security initiatives can play an important role in promoting sustainable intensification. This is a priority for the Global Environment Facility (GEF), created in 1992 with a mandate to serve as financial mechanism of several multilateral environmental agreements. To demonstrate the nature and extent of GEF financing, we conducted an assessment of the entire portfolio over a period of two decades (1991–2011) to identify projects with direct links to agriculture and food security. A cohort of 192 projects and programs were identified and used as a basis for analyzing trends in GEF financing. The projects and programs together accounted for a total GEF financing of US$1,086.8 million, and attracted an additional US$6,343.5 million from other sources. The value-added of GEF financing for ecosystem services and resilience in production systems was demonstrated through a diversity of interventions in the projects and programs that utilized US$810.6 million of the total financing. The interventions fall into the following four main categories in accordance with priorities of the GEF: sustainable land management (US$179.3 million), management of agrobiodiversity (US$113.4 million), sustainable fisheries and water resource management (US$379.8 million), and climate change adaptation (US$138.1 million). By aligning GEF priorities with global aspirations for sustainable intensification of production systems, the study shows that it is possible to help developing countries tackle food insecurity while generating global environmental benefits for a healthy and resilient planet.