Core Concept: Ecosystem Services. West, A. 112(24):7337–7338.
Core Concept: Ecosystem Services [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
[Excerpt] If one were to build a healthy biosphere from scratch on another planet, what kinds of ecosystems and combinations of species would be necessary to support humans? This is the thought experiment that ecologist Gretchen Daily, a Bing professor at Stanford University, poses to illustrate the crucial role that the natural environment plays in supporting human society. [\n] Efforts to spotlight the various ways human existence relies on our natural surroundings began in the 1980s, partly instigated by Daily's doctoral advisors at the time, ecologists Paul Ehrlich and Harold Mooney, both then professors at Stanford University (Mooney is now emeritus). Despite this reliance on nature, Ehrlich, Mooney, and others pointed out that humans degrade that natural life support through activities like deforestation, coral reef destruction, or freshwater contamination (1). Our fundamental relationship with nature, they argued, needed to shift. Such views would give rise to a call for valuing ” ecosystem services” for the benefits they bring to society. Efforts to assign economic value to these services would follow. [...] [\n] As chief scientist at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research in South Africa, Belinda Reyers relies on terminology ranging from ” healthy landscapes” to ” ecological infrastructure” to express human connection to the environment. Being sensitive to language is important, she says, because of the different values and interpretations across South Africa; some words can trigger unintended perceptions in certain groups. For example, the word ” nature” can conjure thoughts of a remote protected region, when in fact the service in question may be relevant to urban areas. As a result, work in South Africa and other countries often attempts to help people understand what they value about their natural surroundings, such as a wetland, before beginning to quantify ecosystem services (12). Reyers cites one national policy with particularly exciting potential: the country's Ecological Infrastructure for Water Security investment. Now pending ministerial approval, it grew out of ecosystem services research. [\n] Many still debate the degree of human focus on ecosystem services (13), particularly because people's valuation of them can shift. Ecologists, conservation biologists, and others, notes Daily, often disagree about whether and how to divide up the environment's complex systems into discrete services that lend themselves to modern accounting and policy-making. This, adds Daily, can confuse funders and other stakeholders who are otherwise keen on helping to support ecosystem services approaches (14⇓-16). Meanwhile, some conservationists argue that nature has an intrinsic value that cannot and should not ever be monetized (17). [\n] Reyers, for one, acknowledges that nature has a value in and of itself, but also notes that people have moved into most of the world's ecosystems. ” It's impossible to think about nature,” says Reyers, ” without thinking about people.”
@article{westCoreConceptEcosystem2015,
  title = {Core Concept: Ecosystem Services},
  author = {West, Amy},
  date = {2015-06},
  journaltitle = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
  volume = {112},
  pages = {7337--7338},
  issn = {1091-6490},
  doi = {10.1073/pnas.1503837112},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503837112},
  abstract = {[Excerpt] If one were to build a healthy biosphere from scratch on another planet, what kinds of ecosystems and combinations of species would be necessary to support humans? This is the thought experiment that ecologist Gretchen Daily, a Bing professor at Stanford University, poses to illustrate the crucial role that the natural environment plays in supporting human society. 

[\textbackslash n] Efforts to spotlight the various ways human existence relies on our natural surroundings began in the 1980s, partly instigated by Daily's doctoral advisors at the time, ecologists Paul Ehrlich and Harold Mooney, both then professors at Stanford University (Mooney is now emeritus). Despite this reliance on nature, Ehrlich, Mooney, and others pointed out that humans degrade that natural life support through activities like deforestation, coral reef destruction, or freshwater contamination (1). Our fundamental relationship with nature, they argued, needed to shift. Such views would give rise to a call for valuing ” ecosystem services” for the benefits they bring to society. Efforts to assign economic value to these services would follow. [...]

[\textbackslash n] As chief scientist at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research in South Africa, Belinda Reyers relies on terminology ranging from ” healthy landscapes” to ” ecological infrastructure” to express human connection to the environment. Being sensitive to language is important, she says, because of the different values and interpretations across South Africa; some words can trigger unintended perceptions in certain groups. For example, the word ” nature” can conjure thoughts of a remote protected region, when in fact the service in question may be relevant to urban areas. As a result, work in South Africa and other countries often attempts to help people understand what they value about their natural surroundings, such as a wetland, before beginning to quantify ecosystem services (12). Reyers cites one national policy with particularly exciting potential: the country's Ecological Infrastructure for Water Security investment. Now pending ministerial approval, it grew out of ecosystem services research.

[\textbackslash n] Many still debate the degree of human focus on ecosystem services (13), particularly because people's valuation of them can shift. Ecologists, conservation biologists, and others, notes Daily, often disagree about whether and how to divide up the environment's complex systems into discrete services that lend themselves to modern accounting and policy-making. This, adds Daily, can confuse funders and other stakeholders who are otherwise keen on helping to support ecosystem services approaches (14⇓-16). Meanwhile, some conservationists argue that nature has an intrinsic value that cannot and should not ever be monetized (17).

[\textbackslash n] Reyers, for one, acknowledges that nature has a value in and of itself, but also notes that people have moved into most of the world's ecosystems. ” It's impossible to think about nature,” says Reyers, ” without thinking about people.”},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13647714,~to-add-doi-URL,anthropocene,anthropogenic-changes,anthropogenic-impacts,ecosystem,ecosystem-resilience,ecosystem-services,feedback,non-linearity,nonmarket-impacts,sustainability},
  number = {24}
}
Downloads: 0
About
Documentation
Keywords
Search
Users
Terms and Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
© BibBase.org 2021