Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Trade-offs and synergies between biodiversity conservation, land use change and ecosystem services

Trade-offs and synergies between biodiversity conservation, land use change and ecosystem services International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 2013 Vol. 9, No. 2, 87–89, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2013.796150 EDITORIAL Trade-offs and synergies between biodiversity conservation, land use change and ecosystem services reduced and fragmentised. The outcomes not only show the It is of crucial importance to understand the numer- potential effects of urbanisation on a large scale, but also ous benefits of, and threats to, the world’s biodiversity. that much depends on which indicator species would be In this issue, we present innovative research in the field chosen for assessing these effects and monitoring changes. of biodiversity and ecosystem services sciences as well The final selection of data and indicators ultimately affects as studies on local management of natural resources, the type of ecosystem services that could be assessed in protected areas and nature-based tourist destinations. line with biodiversity trends (Vihervaara et al. 2012). Although all individual topics that are mentioned in this It has become increasingly popular to assess the journal’s title are already big themes themselves, it is worth biodiversity status of flora and fauna through investigating noting that almost all studies in Issue 9(2) touch upon the local knowledge. Linguistic and cultural factors have often linkages between biodiversity, management and/or ecosys- been linked to biodiversity (Maffi 2005), as words and cul- tem services. This once again shows that the topics should tural practices tend to decline rapidly when biodiversity not just be studied and considered in decision-making in disappears. Some research has already been done on the isolation. relation between human perception, biodiversity and nat- A recurring theme in this Issue is the question whether ural resources, for instance in Tanzania (Kideghesho & biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services (poten- Msuya 2010; Mfunda & Røskaft 2011). In this Issue, tially) conflict or whether they complement each other. Clamsen and Røskaft (2013) have built on these studies, In earlier Issues, we presented interesting studies on the by investigating local knowledge and awareness of bird ecological and social factors that influence biodiversity species of conservation interest in the Serengeti. Apart management (Van Oudenhoven & De Groot 2011a) as from its exceptional biodiversity and tourism, the Serengeti well as recent developments in the analysis and moni- is also known for being the home of the Maasai and other toring of human impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem indigenous people. It was found that older men and Maasai services (Van Oudenhoven & De Groot 2011b). Although were able to recognise almost all bird species of conser- the potential synergy between the concepts of ecosystem vation interest, but in general only half of all respondents services and biodiversity conservation has been doubted showed a good ability to recognise the birds. Considering and criticised (e.g. Ridder 2008; Vira & Adams 2009), con- that activities of people living around the Serengeti can tributions in this issue clearly highlight the importance of impact the birds’ abundance quite strongly, the authors considering the complementarity of both concepts in local highlight the importance of incorporating conservation management, spatial planning and decision-making. awareness raising and traditional knowledge into local Urbanisation has been found to be a clear threat to resources management and biodiversity conservation. biodiversity and nature conservation (McKinney 2002). The usefulness of agroforestry schemes in terms of Villareal et al. (2013) studied potential biodiversity losses sustainability, biodiversity aspects and people’s partici- and conservation trade-offs in relation to future urban pation has been studied extensively (e.g. Ramachandran growth scenarios. The studied ecoregions, the Sonoran Nair 2007; Russell et al. 2010). An interesting aspect desert and Apache Highlands, are characterised by only a of agroforestry is the large variety of local initiatives, few vegetation types that support relatively high vertebrate especially in southern Asia (Islam et al. 2012; Shrestha biodiversity. Because these vegetation types have limited et al. 2012). Islam et al. (2012) reported on the human spatial distributions, the impact of land use and urbanisa- component of forest conservation projects in Bangladesh, tion can have severe consequences for biodiversity in North focusing on the extent to which local livelihoods were America. Villareal and colleagues (2013) found that under improved and participation could therefore be influenced. the ‘Current Trends Scenario’ 45% of currently exist- In this issue, Nandy and Das (2013) made a compar- ing riparian woodland and 34% of semi-desert grassland ison between phytosociological aspects of a traditional species will be lost by the year 2050. Under the scenario northeast-Indian agroforestry system and a nearby situ- that represents transnational growth corridor and open- ated natural forest. Interestingly enough, the agroforestry space conservation, it was found that 44% and 24% would sites all had higher species richness and diversity, stand be lost. Moreover, under the latter scenario, avian-rich density and basal area, compared to natural forests. This habitats were projected to decline rapidly, whereas under research shows that careful local management of forest current trends mammal and herpetofauna habitats would be © 2013 Taylor & Francis 88 Editorial areas could be valuable in terms of local resources avail- charismatic animal or plant species, beautiful landscapes ability as well as biodiversity conservation. Just across and appealing land-cover types, among others (Zachrisson the border, in Bangladesh, the trade of non-timber for- et al. 2006; Van Oudenhoven et al. 2012). However, man- est products, especially bamboo, was studied by Mukul agement measures that facilitate tourism, such as realising and Rana (2013). Thus far silvicultural aspects of bam- accommodation, transport and infrastructure, are gener- boo have been the focus of most research (e.g. Muhammed ally also required. Finally, surrounding landowners might et al. 2011), but this recent study focused more strongly also influence an area’s suitability for tourism, either on the socio-economic aspects. Through numerous inter- knowingly or unknowingly. In this Issue, Beltrame et al. views with local traders and entrepreneurs, the authors (2013) report on the results of interviews they conducted managed to unearth the complex dynamics of employment, with landowners (livestock farmers), protected area man- trade and economic benefits related to bamboo and its by- agers and representatives of public institutions to explore products. The most-traded species and associated products the dynamics between local management and biodiversity were identified and it was established that smaller enter- conservation in the wetland area of Camarque (France). prises generated higher net incomes than medium-sized An interesting aspect of their paper is that it aims to and large ones. test whether the ecosystem service framework helps in Research has shown that the European mountain understanding this link. It was found that both livestock regions are quite vulnerable to, among others, land use and farmers and protected area managers consider the sustain- climate change (c.f. Setten & Austrheim 2012). Since this ability of tourism as well as the required ecological state of has a strong effect on ecosystem services provision (espe- the ecosystem when undertaking management measures. cially water and food provision, tourism and avalanche However, public institutions that are ultimately in charge protection), the need to quantify and value impacts of of tourism in Camarque, indicated that damage inflicted land use on Alpine ecosystem services has been recog- on ecosystems was not explicitly considered in their man- nised (Grêt-Regamey et al. 2008; Klug et al. 2012). In this agement plans. This has already led to unsustainable use issue, Schirpke et al. (2013) present results of a sce- of beaches. The authors argue that the ecosystem ser- nario analysis for the Austrian Alps, which was strongly vices concept enabled them to provide useful conservation- based on workshops with local stakeholder and past trends. related recommendations, such as accounting for both the Under various socio-economic scenarios, clear trade-offs use of ecosystem services and the necessary maintenance between tourism, regulating services and provision ser- of ecosystems (Beltrame et al. 2013). Although the man- vices were found. Especially considering the vulnerability agement of nature-based tourism is indeed crucial to the of the Alps, the authors recommend that agricultural man- ecological state of an area, the role of the public should agement should be included into land-use policies, and not be underestimated (Zachrisson et al. 2006; Ballantyne should more explicitly recognise the consequences for et al. 2009). Perceptions, knowledge and motives of all ecosystem services provision. stakeholders, including tourists, should be considered in Urban ecosystem services, provided by green and blue conservation and sustainable management measures in and infrastructure, have the potential to reduce air pollution, around protected areas (Miller et al. 2010). The study by sequester carbon, provide cooling and mitigate floods Beltrame et al. (2013) underlines not only that the con- (Martin et al. 2012; Larondelle & Haase 2013). Research cept of ecosystem services can play an important role in in the United Kingdom by Farrugia et al. (2013) focused local land management issues, but also highlights the role on flood control and urban cooling provided by urban of stakeholders’ perceptions on ecosystem services in local green infrastructure. The authors developed a new inte- decision-making. This makes ecosystem service assess- grated ecosystem services quantification tool that can be ments part of a dynamic process that should be more than used at multiple scales and by different local stakehold- just a purely scientific endeavour (Seppelt et al. 2012). ers, on which they report in this issue. Land surface maps Many of the topics that are being discussed in this issue were used to quantify urban cooling and flood control, will certainly be high on the agenda for the 6th annual with Leaf Area Index and infiltration capacity as proxies, Ecosystem Services Partnership conference, which will be respectively. Although the urban cooling service is rela- held in Bali, Indonesia, from 26 to 30 August 2013 (www. tively easy to evaluate and measure, a lot of work needs to espconference.org). With participants from many differ- be done on flood control as an ecosystem service. This is ent countries, organisations and backgrounds attending, mainly due to the dynamic nature of the service; floods are and more than 45 workshops, special sessions and open difficult to predict and model (especially in an urban envi- topic discussions planned, the conference promises to be ronment), and the service is often provided on a different an exciting event. The theme of the conference is ‘Making location than where the effects are experienced (Nedkov & Ecosystem Services Count’, and from the research pre- Burkhard 2012). sented in this issue, the integration of ecosystem services Natural areas with high biodiversity are often popular with biodiversity conservation will likely be a crucial topic. tourist destinations at the same time, which explains why Alexander P.E. van Oudenhoven and conflicts between biodiversity conservation and ecotourism Rudolf S. de Groot have become increasingly prevalent. Whether an area is Environmental Systems Analysis Group, suitable for ecotourism or not depends on the presence of Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands natural features with stated preference, such as hills, lakes, International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 89 References Bangladesh: status and socio-economic significance. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 9(2):146–154. Ballantyne R, Packer J, Hughes K. 2009. Tourists’ support for Nandy S, Das AK. 2013. Comparing tree diversity and population conservation messages and sustainable management prac- structure between a traditional agroforestry system and nat- tices in wildlife tourism experiences. Tourism Manage. ural forests of Barak valley, Northeast India. Int J Biodivers 30(5):658–664. Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 9(2):104–113. Beltrame C, Cohen-Shacham E, Trouillet M, Guillet F. 2013. Nedkov S, Burkhard B. 2012. Flood regulating ecosystem Exploring the links between local management and conser- services—mapping supply and demand, in the Etropole vation applying the ecosystem services concept: conservation municipality, Bulgaria. Ecol Indic. 21:67–79. and tourism service in Camargue, France. Int J Biodivers Sci Ramachandran Nair PK. 2007. Agroforestry for sustainability of Ecosyst Serv Manage. 9(2):166–177. lower-input land-use systems. J Crop Improv. 19(1–2):25–47. Clamsen E, Røskaft E. 2013. Knowledge of birds of conserva- Ridder B. 2008. Questioning the ecosystem services argument for tion interest among the people living close to protected areas biodiversity conservation. Biodivers Conserv. 17:781–790. in Serengeti, Northern Tanzania. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Russell D, Asare RA, Brosius JP, Witter RC, Welch-Devine ML, Serv Manage. 9(2):114–122. Spainhower K, Barr R. 2010. People, trees, and parks: is Farrugia S, Hudson M, McCulloch L. 2013. An evaluation of agroforestry in or out? J Sustain Forest. 29(2–4):451–476. flood control and urban cooling ecosystem services deliv- Schirpke U, Leitinger G, Tasser E, Schermer M, Steinbacher M, ered by urban green infrastructure. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Tappeiner U. 2013. Multiple ecosystem services of a chang- Serv Manage. 9(2):136–145. ing Alpine landscape: past, present and future. Int J Biodivers Grêt-Regamey A, Walz A, Bebi P. 2008. Valuing ecosystem ser- Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 9(2):123–135. vices for sustainable landscape planning in alpine regions. Mt Seppelt R, Fath B, Burkhard B, Fisher JL, Grêt-Regamey A, Res Dev. 28(2):156–165. Lautenbach S, Pert P, Hotes S, Spangenberg J, Verburg Islam KK, Rahman GMM, Fujiwara T, Sato N. 2012. People’s PH, Van Oudenhoven APE. 2012. Form follows function? participation in forest conservation and livelihoods improve- Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments ment: experience from a forestry project in Bangladesh. Int J based on reviews and case studies. Ecol Indic. 21:145–154. Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 9(1):30–43. Setten G, Austrheim G. 2012. Changes in land use and landscape Kideghesho JR, Msuya TS. 2010. Gender and socio-economic dynamics in mountains of northern Europe: challenges for factors influencing domestication of indigenous medici- science, management and conservation. Int J Biodivers Sci nal plants in the West Usambara Mountains, northern Ecosyst Serv Manage. 8(4):287–291. Tanzania. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 6(1–2): Shrestha KB, Måren IE, Arneberg E, Sah JP, Vetaas OR. 2012. 3–12. Effect of anthropogenic disturbance on plant species diversity Klug H, Dabiri Z, Hochwimmer B, Zalavari P. 2012. Assessing in oak forests in Nepal, Central Himalaya. Int J Biodivers Sci drinking water consumption by inhabitants and tourists in Ecosyst Serv Manage. 9(1):21–29. the Alps using a WebGIS for information distribution. Int J van Oudenhoven APE, de Groot R. 2011a. Editorial: ecologi- Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 8(1–2):50–70. cal and social factors influencing biodiversity management Larondelle N, Haase D. 2013. Urban ecosystem services assess- at different scales. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. ment along a rural–urban gradient: a cross-analysis of 7(2):75–76. European cities. Ecol Indic. 29:179–190. van Oudenhoven APE, de Groot RS. 2011b. Editorial: analysing Maffi L. 2005. Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Ann and monitoring human impacts on biodiversity and ecosys- Rev Anthropol. 34(1):599–617. tem services. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. Martin T, Chappelka A, Loewenstein E, Keever G. 2012. 7(4):245–246. Comparison of carbon storage, carbon sequestration and air van Oudenhoven APE, Petz K, Alkemade R, Hein L, de Groot pollution removal by protected and maintained urban forests RS. 2012. Framework for systematic indicator selection to in Alabama, USA. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. 8(3):265–272. Ecol Indic. 21:110–122. McKinney ML. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conserva- Vihervaara P, Kumpula T, Ruokolainen A, Tanskanen A, tion. BioScience. 52(10):883–890. Burkhard B. 2012. The use of detailed biotope data for link- Mfunda IM, Røskaft E. 2011. Wildlife or crop production: ing biodiversity with ecosystem services in Finland. Int J the dilemma of conservation and human livelihoods in Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 8(1–2):169–185. Serengeti, Tanzania. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Villarreal ML, Norman LM, Boykin KG, Wallace CSA. 2013. Manage. 7(1):39–49. Biodiversity losses and conservation trade-offs: assessing Miller G, Rathouse K, Scarles C, Holmes K, Tribe J. 2010. future urban growth scenarios for a North American trade Public understanding of sustainable tourism. Ann Tourism corridor. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 9(2): Res. 37(3):627–645. 90–103. Muhammed N, Masum MFH, Hossain MM, Chakma S, Vira B, Adams WM. 2009. Ecosystem services and conser- Oesten G, von Detten R. 2011. Floral composition vation strategy: beware the silver bullet. Conserv Lett. 2: and biodiversity conservation in homestead forests in 158–162. Mymensingh, Bangladesh. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Ser Zachrisson A, Sandell K, Fredman P, Eckerberg K. 2006. Tourism Manage. 7:247–257. and protected areas: motives, actors and processes. Int J Mukul SA, Rana MP. 2013. The trade of Bamboo (Graminae) Biodivers Sci Manage. 2(4):350–358. and its secondary products in a regional market of southern http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management Taylor & Francis

Trade-offs and synergies between biodiversity conservation, land use change and ecosystem services

Download PDF
3 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/trade-offs-and-synergies-between-biodiversity-conservation-land-use-tSS60lymyX

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
2151-3732
eISSN
2151-3740
DOI
10.1080/21513732.2013.796150
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 2013 Vol. 9, No. 2, 87–89, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2013.796150 EDITORIAL Trade-offs and synergies between biodiversity conservation, land use change and ecosystem services reduced and fragmentised. The outcomes not only show the It is of crucial importance to understand the numer- potential effects of urbanisation on a large scale, but also ous benefits of, and threats to, the world’s biodiversity. that much depends on which indicator species would be In this issue, we present innovative research in the field chosen for assessing these effects and monitoring changes. of biodiversity and ecosystem services sciences as well The final selection of data and indicators ultimately affects as studies on local management of natural resources, the type of ecosystem services that could be assessed in protected areas and nature-based tourist destinations. line with biodiversity trends (Vihervaara et al. 2012). Although all individual topics that are mentioned in this It has become increasingly popular to assess the journal’s title are already big themes themselves, it is worth biodiversity status of flora and fauna through investigating noting that almost all studies in Issue 9(2) touch upon the local knowledge. Linguistic and cultural factors have often linkages between biodiversity, management and/or ecosys- been linked to biodiversity (Maffi 2005), as words and cul- tem services. This once again shows that the topics should tural practices tend to decline rapidly when biodiversity not just be studied and considered in decision-making in disappears. Some research has already been done on the isolation. relation between human perception, biodiversity and nat- A recurring theme in this Issue is the question whether ural resources, for instance in Tanzania (Kideghesho & biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services (poten- Msuya 2010; Mfunda & Røskaft 2011). In this Issue, tially) conflict or whether they complement each other. Clamsen and Røskaft (2013) have built on these studies, In earlier Issues, we presented interesting studies on the by investigating local knowledge and awareness of bird ecological and social factors that influence biodiversity species of conservation interest in the Serengeti. Apart management (Van Oudenhoven & De Groot 2011a) as from its exceptional biodiversity and tourism, the Serengeti well as recent developments in the analysis and moni- is also known for being the home of the Maasai and other toring of human impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem indigenous people. It was found that older men and Maasai services (Van Oudenhoven & De Groot 2011b). Although were able to recognise almost all bird species of conser- the potential synergy between the concepts of ecosystem vation interest, but in general only half of all respondents services and biodiversity conservation has been doubted showed a good ability to recognise the birds. Considering and criticised (e.g. Ridder 2008; Vira & Adams 2009), con- that activities of people living around the Serengeti can tributions in this issue clearly highlight the importance of impact the birds’ abundance quite strongly, the authors considering the complementarity of both concepts in local highlight the importance of incorporating conservation management, spatial planning and decision-making. awareness raising and traditional knowledge into local Urbanisation has been found to be a clear threat to resources management and biodiversity conservation. biodiversity and nature conservation (McKinney 2002). The usefulness of agroforestry schemes in terms of Villareal et al. (2013) studied potential biodiversity losses sustainability, biodiversity aspects and people’s partici- and conservation trade-offs in relation to future urban pation has been studied extensively (e.g. Ramachandran growth scenarios. The studied ecoregions, the Sonoran Nair 2007; Russell et al. 2010). An interesting aspect desert and Apache Highlands, are characterised by only a of agroforestry is the large variety of local initiatives, few vegetation types that support relatively high vertebrate especially in southern Asia (Islam et al. 2012; Shrestha biodiversity. Because these vegetation types have limited et al. 2012). Islam et al. (2012) reported on the human spatial distributions, the impact of land use and urbanisa- component of forest conservation projects in Bangladesh, tion can have severe consequences for biodiversity in North focusing on the extent to which local livelihoods were America. Villareal and colleagues (2013) found that under improved and participation could therefore be influenced. the ‘Current Trends Scenario’ 45% of currently exist- In this issue, Nandy and Das (2013) made a compar- ing riparian woodland and 34% of semi-desert grassland ison between phytosociological aspects of a traditional species will be lost by the year 2050. Under the scenario northeast-Indian agroforestry system and a nearby situ- that represents transnational growth corridor and open- ated natural forest. Interestingly enough, the agroforestry space conservation, it was found that 44% and 24% would sites all had higher species richness and diversity, stand be lost. Moreover, under the latter scenario, avian-rich density and basal area, compared to natural forests. This habitats were projected to decline rapidly, whereas under research shows that careful local management of forest current trends mammal and herpetofauna habitats would be © 2013 Taylor & Francis 88 Editorial areas could be valuable in terms of local resources avail- charismatic animal or plant species, beautiful landscapes ability as well as biodiversity conservation. Just across and appealing land-cover types, among others (Zachrisson the border, in Bangladesh, the trade of non-timber for- et al. 2006; Van Oudenhoven et al. 2012). However, man- est products, especially bamboo, was studied by Mukul agement measures that facilitate tourism, such as realising and Rana (2013). Thus far silvicultural aspects of bam- accommodation, transport and infrastructure, are gener- boo have been the focus of most research (e.g. Muhammed ally also required. Finally, surrounding landowners might et al. 2011), but this recent study focused more strongly also influence an area’s suitability for tourism, either on the socio-economic aspects. Through numerous inter- knowingly or unknowingly. In this Issue, Beltrame et al. views with local traders and entrepreneurs, the authors (2013) report on the results of interviews they conducted managed to unearth the complex dynamics of employment, with landowners (livestock farmers), protected area man- trade and economic benefits related to bamboo and its by- agers and representatives of public institutions to explore products. The most-traded species and associated products the dynamics between local management and biodiversity were identified and it was established that smaller enter- conservation in the wetland area of Camarque (France). prises generated higher net incomes than medium-sized An interesting aspect of their paper is that it aims to and large ones. test whether the ecosystem service framework helps in Research has shown that the European mountain understanding this link. It was found that both livestock regions are quite vulnerable to, among others, land use and farmers and protected area managers consider the sustain- climate change (c.f. Setten & Austrheim 2012). Since this ability of tourism as well as the required ecological state of has a strong effect on ecosystem services provision (espe- the ecosystem when undertaking management measures. cially water and food provision, tourism and avalanche However, public institutions that are ultimately in charge protection), the need to quantify and value impacts of of tourism in Camarque, indicated that damage inflicted land use on Alpine ecosystem services has been recog- on ecosystems was not explicitly considered in their man- nised (Grêt-Regamey et al. 2008; Klug et al. 2012). In this agement plans. This has already led to unsustainable use issue, Schirpke et al. (2013) present results of a sce- of beaches. The authors argue that the ecosystem ser- nario analysis for the Austrian Alps, which was strongly vices concept enabled them to provide useful conservation- based on workshops with local stakeholder and past trends. related recommendations, such as accounting for both the Under various socio-economic scenarios, clear trade-offs use of ecosystem services and the necessary maintenance between tourism, regulating services and provision ser- of ecosystems (Beltrame et al. 2013). Although the man- vices were found. Especially considering the vulnerability agement of nature-based tourism is indeed crucial to the of the Alps, the authors recommend that agricultural man- ecological state of an area, the role of the public should agement should be included into land-use policies, and not be underestimated (Zachrisson et al. 2006; Ballantyne should more explicitly recognise the consequences for et al. 2009). Perceptions, knowledge and motives of all ecosystem services provision. stakeholders, including tourists, should be considered in Urban ecosystem services, provided by green and blue conservation and sustainable management measures in and infrastructure, have the potential to reduce air pollution, around protected areas (Miller et al. 2010). The study by sequester carbon, provide cooling and mitigate floods Beltrame et al. (2013) underlines not only that the con- (Martin et al. 2012; Larondelle & Haase 2013). Research cept of ecosystem services can play an important role in in the United Kingdom by Farrugia et al. (2013) focused local land management issues, but also highlights the role on flood control and urban cooling provided by urban of stakeholders’ perceptions on ecosystem services in local green infrastructure. The authors developed a new inte- decision-making. This makes ecosystem service assess- grated ecosystem services quantification tool that can be ments part of a dynamic process that should be more than used at multiple scales and by different local stakehold- just a purely scientific endeavour (Seppelt et al. 2012). ers, on which they report in this issue. Land surface maps Many of the topics that are being discussed in this issue were used to quantify urban cooling and flood control, will certainly be high on the agenda for the 6th annual with Leaf Area Index and infiltration capacity as proxies, Ecosystem Services Partnership conference, which will be respectively. Although the urban cooling service is rela- held in Bali, Indonesia, from 26 to 30 August 2013 (www. tively easy to evaluate and measure, a lot of work needs to espconference.org). With participants from many differ- be done on flood control as an ecosystem service. This is ent countries, organisations and backgrounds attending, mainly due to the dynamic nature of the service; floods are and more than 45 workshops, special sessions and open difficult to predict and model (especially in an urban envi- topic discussions planned, the conference promises to be ronment), and the service is often provided on a different an exciting event. The theme of the conference is ‘Making location than where the effects are experienced (Nedkov & Ecosystem Services Count’, and from the research pre- Burkhard 2012). sented in this issue, the integration of ecosystem services Natural areas with high biodiversity are often popular with biodiversity conservation will likely be a crucial topic. tourist destinations at the same time, which explains why Alexander P.E. van Oudenhoven and conflicts between biodiversity conservation and ecotourism Rudolf S. de Groot have become increasingly prevalent. Whether an area is Environmental Systems Analysis Group, suitable for ecotourism or not depends on the presence of Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands natural features with stated preference, such as hills, lakes, International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 89 References Bangladesh: status and socio-economic significance. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 9(2):146–154. Ballantyne R, Packer J, Hughes K. 2009. Tourists’ support for Nandy S, Das AK. 2013. Comparing tree diversity and population conservation messages and sustainable management prac- structure between a traditional agroforestry system and nat- tices in wildlife tourism experiences. Tourism Manage. ural forests of Barak valley, Northeast India. Int J Biodivers 30(5):658–664. Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 9(2):104–113. Beltrame C, Cohen-Shacham E, Trouillet M, Guillet F. 2013. Nedkov S, Burkhard B. 2012. Flood regulating ecosystem Exploring the links between local management and conser- services—mapping supply and demand, in the Etropole vation applying the ecosystem services concept: conservation municipality, Bulgaria. Ecol Indic. 21:67–79. and tourism service in Camargue, France. Int J Biodivers Sci Ramachandran Nair PK. 2007. Agroforestry for sustainability of Ecosyst Serv Manage. 9(2):166–177. lower-input land-use systems. J Crop Improv. 19(1–2):25–47. Clamsen E, Røskaft E. 2013. Knowledge of birds of conserva- Ridder B. 2008. Questioning the ecosystem services argument for tion interest among the people living close to protected areas biodiversity conservation. Biodivers Conserv. 17:781–790. in Serengeti, Northern Tanzania. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Russell D, Asare RA, Brosius JP, Witter RC, Welch-Devine ML, Serv Manage. 9(2):114–122. Spainhower K, Barr R. 2010. People, trees, and parks: is Farrugia S, Hudson M, McCulloch L. 2013. An evaluation of agroforestry in or out? J Sustain Forest. 29(2–4):451–476. flood control and urban cooling ecosystem services deliv- Schirpke U, Leitinger G, Tasser E, Schermer M, Steinbacher M, ered by urban green infrastructure. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Tappeiner U. 2013. Multiple ecosystem services of a chang- Serv Manage. 9(2):136–145. ing Alpine landscape: past, present and future. Int J Biodivers Grêt-Regamey A, Walz A, Bebi P. 2008. Valuing ecosystem ser- Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 9(2):123–135. vices for sustainable landscape planning in alpine regions. Mt Seppelt R, Fath B, Burkhard B, Fisher JL, Grêt-Regamey A, Res Dev. 28(2):156–165. Lautenbach S, Pert P, Hotes S, Spangenberg J, Verburg Islam KK, Rahman GMM, Fujiwara T, Sato N. 2012. People’s PH, Van Oudenhoven APE. 2012. Form follows function? participation in forest conservation and livelihoods improve- Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments ment: experience from a forestry project in Bangladesh. Int J based on reviews and case studies. Ecol Indic. 21:145–154. Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 9(1):30–43. Setten G, Austrheim G. 2012. Changes in land use and landscape Kideghesho JR, Msuya TS. 2010. Gender and socio-economic dynamics in mountains of northern Europe: challenges for factors influencing domestication of indigenous medici- science, management and conservation. Int J Biodivers Sci nal plants in the West Usambara Mountains, northern Ecosyst Serv Manage. 8(4):287–291. Tanzania. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 6(1–2): Shrestha KB, Måren IE, Arneberg E, Sah JP, Vetaas OR. 2012. 3–12. Effect of anthropogenic disturbance on plant species diversity Klug H, Dabiri Z, Hochwimmer B, Zalavari P. 2012. Assessing in oak forests in Nepal, Central Himalaya. Int J Biodivers Sci drinking water consumption by inhabitants and tourists in Ecosyst Serv Manage. 9(1):21–29. the Alps using a WebGIS for information distribution. Int J van Oudenhoven APE, de Groot R. 2011a. Editorial: ecologi- Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 8(1–2):50–70. cal and social factors influencing biodiversity management Larondelle N, Haase D. 2013. Urban ecosystem services assess- at different scales. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. ment along a rural–urban gradient: a cross-analysis of 7(2):75–76. European cities. Ecol Indic. 29:179–190. van Oudenhoven APE, de Groot RS. 2011b. Editorial: analysing Maffi L. 2005. Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Ann and monitoring human impacts on biodiversity and ecosys- Rev Anthropol. 34(1):599–617. tem services. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. Martin T, Chappelka A, Loewenstein E, Keever G. 2012. 7(4):245–246. Comparison of carbon storage, carbon sequestration and air van Oudenhoven APE, Petz K, Alkemade R, Hein L, de Groot pollution removal by protected and maintained urban forests RS. 2012. Framework for systematic indicator selection to in Alabama, USA. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. 8(3):265–272. Ecol Indic. 21:110–122. McKinney ML. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conserva- Vihervaara P, Kumpula T, Ruokolainen A, Tanskanen A, tion. BioScience. 52(10):883–890. Burkhard B. 2012. The use of detailed biotope data for link- Mfunda IM, Røskaft E. 2011. Wildlife or crop production: ing biodiversity with ecosystem services in Finland. Int J the dilemma of conservation and human livelihoods in Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 8(1–2):169–185. Serengeti, Tanzania. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Villarreal ML, Norman LM, Boykin KG, Wallace CSA. 2013. Manage. 7(1):39–49. Biodiversity losses and conservation trade-offs: assessing Miller G, Rathouse K, Scarles C, Holmes K, Tribe J. 2010. future urban growth scenarios for a North American trade Public understanding of sustainable tourism. Ann Tourism corridor. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 9(2): Res. 37(3):627–645. 90–103. Muhammed N, Masum MFH, Hossain MM, Chakma S, Vira B, Adams WM. 2009. Ecosystem services and conser- Oesten G, von Detten R. 2011. Floral composition vation strategy: beware the silver bullet. Conserv Lett. 2: and biodiversity conservation in homestead forests in 158–162. Mymensingh, Bangladesh. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Ser Zachrisson A, Sandell K, Fredman P, Eckerberg K. 2006. Tourism Manage. 7:247–257. and protected areas: motives, actors and processes. Int J Mukul SA, Rana MP. 2013. The trade of Bamboo (Graminae) Biodivers Sci Manage. 2(4):350–358. and its secondary products in a regional market of southern

Journal

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management – Taylor & Francis

Published: Jun 1, 2013

There are no references for this article.