Ecosystem services to support environmental and socially sustainable decision-making
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25260/EA.17.27.1.1.295Abstract
The theory of ecosystem services (ES) needs to be operationalized to contribute to practices leading to sustainable use of ecosystems, which includes solving trade-offs between private and public benefits and incorporating monetary and non-monetary values to help inform decisions. We developed a framework to analyse the impacts of farmers’ management alternatives on Nothofagus antarctica (G. Forst.) Oerst. forest in northern Patagonia, and analysed synergies and trade-offs between private and public benefits based on three conceptual and methodological approaches: a) a state-and-transition model of ecosystem dynamics, and b) indicators of values of ecosystem service benefits based on the cascade model, implemented as c) a decision support tool based on a Bayesian network. We optimized a utility function for short (0-10 yr) and long (70-140 yr) term management decisions (levels of grazing, logging and tree planting) based on monetary and non-monetary indicators of benefits that fulfilled “farmer’s satisfaction” objectives. We then assessed the consequences of these decisions on the fulfilment of public benefits as defined by the National Forest Law when projected into short (0-10 yr), intermediate (10-40 yr) and long (70-140 yr) time horizons. We found that when the short-term decisions are projected into a long-time horizon, they lead to high losses of benefits, mainly linked to “regulating and maintenance” ES. On the other hand, long-term decisions improved the level of benefits in degraded systems but resulted in the degradation of well-preserved forests. The decisions that optimize farmer’s satisfaction did not change with different weights of “farm income” in the utility function, indicating the absence of trade-offs between monetary and non-monetary benefits considered in the utility function. The tool developed helps to show long-term impacts of management, and discloses cause-effect relationships between levels of use and multiple benefits. It can therefore support measures aiming to raise awareness about degradation trends, and improve the functional understanding of the system that can lead to identify solutions for socio-economic and environmental sustainability.
https://doi.org/10.25260/EA.17.27.1.1.295
References
Baró, F., D. Haase, E. Gómez-Baggethun, and N. Frantzeskaki. 2015. Mismatches between ecosystem services supply and demand in urban areas: A quantitative assessment in five European cities. Ecological Indicators 55:146-158.
Bestelmeyer, B., J. Brown, K. Havstad, R. Alexander, G. Chavez, and J. Herrick. 2003. Development and use of state-and-transition models for rangelands. Journal of Range Management 56:114-126.
Briske, D., S. Fuhlendorf, and F. Smeins. 2003. Vegetation dynamics on rangelands: a critique of the current paradigms. Journal of Applied Ecology 40:601-614.
Briske, D., S. Fuhlendorf, and F. Smeins. 2006. A unified framework for assessment and application of ecological thresholds. Rangeland Ecol Manage 59:225-236.
Burkhard, B., F. Kroll, S. Nedkov, and F. Mueller. 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators 21:17-29.
Cardozo, A. 2014. Estrategias socio-productivas de establecimientos ganaderos del sudoeste de la provincia de Río Negro, Argentina. Tesis de Maestría, EPG-FAUBA, Argentina.
Clemen, R., and T. Reilly. 2001. Making hard decisions with Decision Tools. 2nd edition. Duxbury/Thomson Learning, Pacific Grove, CA.
Díaz, S., S. Demissew, J. Carabias, C. Joly, M. Lonsdale, et al. 2015. The IPBES Conceptual Framework, connecting nature and people. Environmental Sustainability 14:1-16.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., D. Barton, P. Berry, R. Dunford, and P. Harrison. 2016. Concepts and methods in ecosystem services valuation. Pp. 99-111 in M. Potschin, R. Haines-Young, R. Fish, and R. K. Turner (eds.). Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services. Routledge, UK New York, USA.
Haines-Young, R., and M. Potschin. 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, 2012. European Environment Agency. Pp. 1-34.
Huan, I., J. Keisler, and I. Linkov. 2011. Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: Ten years of applications and trends. Science of the Total Environment 409:3578-3594.
Infoleg. 2007. Presupuestos mínimos de protección ambiental de los bosques nativos. LN 26331. Argentina.
Ivancich, H. 2013. Relaciones entre la estructura forestal y el crecimiento del bosque de Nothofagus antárctica en gradientes de edad y calidad de sitios. Tesis doctoral. Univ. La Plata, Argentina. Pp. 181.
Jacobs, S., Dendoncker, N., Martín-López, B., Barton, D., Gómez-Baggethun, et al. 2016. A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosystem Services 22:213-220.
Kenter, J. O. 2016. Editorial: Shared, plural and cultural values. Ecosystem Services 21:175-183
Kragt, M., L. T. Newham, J. Bennett, and A. Jakeman. 2011. An integrated approach to linking economic valuation and catchment modelling. Environmental Modelling and Software 26:92-102.
MEA. 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. UN, Washington, D.C.
Marcot, B., R. Holthausen, M. Raphael, M. Rowland, and M. Wisdom. 2001. Using Bayesian belief networks to evaluate fish and wildlife population viability under land management alternatives from an environmental impact statement. Forest Ecology and Management 153:29-42.
Mastrangelo, M., F. Weyland, L. Herrera, S. Villarino, M. Barral, et al. 2015. Ecosystem services research in contrasting socio-ecological contexts of Argentina: Critical assessment and future directions. Ecosystem Services 16:63-73.
Marchesini, V., O. Sala, and A. Austin. 2009. Ecological consequences of a massive flowering event of bamboo (Chusquea culeou) in a temperate forest of Patagonia. J Veg Sci 20(3):424-432.
Nyberg, J., B. Marcot, and R. Sulyma. 2006. Using Bayesian networks in adaptive management. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36:3104-3116.
Orstein, R., and P. Ehlrich. 2000. New world, new mind. Malor Books, USA.
Peri, P., F. Dube, and A. Varella. 2015. Silvopastoral systems in southern South America. Springer.
Potschin, M., R. Haines-Young, R. Fish, and R. Turner (eds.). 2016. Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services. Routledge, New York, USA.
Rusch, V., M. Sarasola, and T. Schlichter. 2005. Indicadores de biodiversidad para el manejo sustentable de bosques de Nothofagus en Patagonia. IDIA 21:8-14.
Rusch, V., S. Varela, H. Ivancich, F. Letourneau, and A. Goijman. 2016. Toma de decisiones y manejo silvopastoril en ñirantales. Modelo de producción de leña. Jornadas Forestales Patagónicas. Pp. 333-337. http://jornadasforestales.org.ar/pdf/Actas_Completas_JFP201.
Rusch, V., D. López, L. Cavallero, G. Rusch, J. Grosfeld, L. Garibaldi, et al. (in press). State-and-Transition model of Ñire forest in NW Patagonia as a tool for sustainable silvopastoral management. Ecología Austral.
Schröter, M., D. Barton, R. Remme, and L. Hein. 2014. Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway. Ecological Indicators 36:539-551.
Selin, H., and G. Davey (eds.). 2012. Happiness across cultures. Springer, Heidelberg.
TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. www.teebweb.org/our-publications/
Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Wischmeier, W., and D. Smith. 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses. Agriculture Handbook No. 537. USDA/Sci. and Ed. Adm., Washington. Pp. 58.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 Verónica E. Rusch, Graciela M. Rusch, Andrea P. Goijman, Santiago Varela, Leonardo Claps
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Authors retain their rights as follows: 1) by granting the journal the right to its first publication, and 2) by registering the published article with a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which allows authors and third parties to view and use it as long as they clearly mention its origin (citation or reference, including authorship and first publication in this journal). Authors can make other non-exclusive distribution agreements as long as they clearly indicate their origin and are encouraged to widely share and disseminate the published version of their work.
