Latest Articles from One Ecosystem Latest 3 Articles from One Ecosystem https://oneecosystem.pensoft.net/ Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:47:05 +0200 Pensoft FeedCreator https://oneecosystem.pensoft.net/i/logo.jpg Latest Articles from One Ecosystem https://oneecosystem.pensoft.net/ Revision of the Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES V5.1): A Policy Brief https://oneecosystem.pensoft.net/article/27108/ One Ecosystem 3: e27108

DOI: 10.3897/oneeco.3.e27108

Authors: Roy Haines-Young, Marion Potschin-Young

Abstract: The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) is widely used for mapping, ecosystem assessment, and natural capital ecosystem accounting. On the basis of the experience gained in using it since the first version was published in 2013, it has been updated for version 5.1. This policy brief summarises what has been done and how the classification can be used.

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Policy Brief Mon, 11 Jun 2018 16:53:49 +0300
The role of enabling actors in ecosystem service accounting https://oneecosystem.pensoft.net/article/20834/ One Ecosystem 2: e20834

DOI: 10.3897/oneeco.2.e20834

Authors: Alessandra La Notte, Alexandra Marques

Abstract: When accounting for ecosystem services, it is important to distinguish between the flow of services and the flow of benefits (which can be part of economic accounts or not) generated by those services. To disentangle services and benefits, particular attention has to be paid in allocating each category of flows in the use table to those institutional sectors that generate the need for the services and have the power to modify them - the enabling actors - and to final beneficiaries. The general concept of use, without specifying whether services or benefits are referred to, could in fact lead to misinterpretations. This paper discusses the issue of the allocation of ecosystem services and the role of enabling actors through a practical example of water purification accounts in the Netherlands. In particular, the role of the agricultural sector as an enabling actor is disentangled from the cleaned water as benefit and from water supply companies as beneficiaries. The proper allocation of the flow of the service can in fact facilitate the establishment of a causal relationship between the actions of economic actors and ecological consequences and vice versa.

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Research Article Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:08:38 +0200
Ecosystem services in Norway https://oneecosystem.pensoft.net/article/14814/ One Ecosystem 2: e14814

DOI: 10.3897/oneeco.2.e14814

Authors: Oddvar Skre

Abstract: The present study is reviewing public reports and research articles in order to estimate and validate ecosystem services in Norway, and investigate conflicts between stakeholders representing different ecosystem services, by means of direct and indirect methods, for different main ecosystem categories,e.g. mountain ecosystems, forests,agricultural areas, freshwater ecosystems, marine ecosystems and urban areas. The ecosystem services (ES) are based on the three main well-known categories (providing, regulating and cultural services). The provisional services in Norway include some very important ES like fish & seafood production, timber and pulp products, bioenergy and genetic resources, while the regulating services in Norway include important services like flood and landslide protection, pest and disease control in forestry and farming, carbon fixation in forests and air quality regulation. These services are also influenced by climate, pollution, urbanization and invasive species. Finally, the cultural services, like recreation & ecotourism, health and well-being, knowledge & learning and spiritual enrichment, are included. The values of the ES are estimated and quantified by direct (market based) and indirect methods (e.g. preferences). The relative importance of these ES is estimated by questionnaires and cost/benefit analysis, and administrative measures are suggested to compensate for threats and lack of sustainability. However, non-renewable resources like oil, gas and minerals are not included in the present overview. Among the ES in mountains, the value of outdoor activity as estimated from preference studies is totally dominating over the value of hunting and reindeer husbandry. Among the ES in forests the highest values are related to the health benefit from recreation, followed by the value of carbon fixation. The willingness to protect certain forests with high biodiversity is also high. Among ES from agricultural areas the provisional services (food and food processing) are dominating, while in freshwater ecosystems the value of wild salmon fishing measured by payment willingness, is dominating over the willingness to pay for improved water quality. Finally, the most important ES in Norway in monetary terms are found in marine ecosystems. Among the urban ES, the value of outdoor recreation and improved air quality represent the highest values. The most frequent conflicts in Norway are probably those dealing with energy production (windmills, hydropower production, oil drilling) and sea farming vs. biodiversity and recreation, between mass tourism and nature conservation and between sheep farming and conservation of big predators like wolf, bear, lynx and wolverine.

HTML

XML

PDF

]]>
Review Article Mon, 9 Oct 2017 10:03:47 +0300