linking ecosystems functions and ecosystem services · o. bastian, k. grunewald, d. haase, salzau...

www.ioer.deO. Bastian, K. Grunewald, D. Haase, Salzau 2010

Linking ecosystems functions and ecosystem services

Olaf Bastian1, Karsten Grunewald1, Dagmar Haase²

Salzau Conference on „Solutions for Sustaining Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services: Designing Socio-Ecological Institutions“, June 2010

1Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development, Dresden

²Humboldt University Berlin, Geographical Institute


Comparing the Ecosystem Services Concept with related approaches (landscape functions, potentials)

Introducing a practicable framework which bases on 3 pillars: structures/processes potentials (capacity) services (functions)

Aim


BackgroundFirst steps to the concept of ecosystem functions, services und their economic values in the 1960ies and 1970ies (e.g. King 1966, Neef 1966,van der Maarel & Dauvellier 1978)

1990ies onwards: exponential growth of papers about „benefits of natural ecosystems to human society“ (De Groot 2002)

Increasing significance of the Ecosystem Services Concept as a multi-layered approach at the interface between ecosystems and human well-being

Current fuzziness of the use of termini; also concerning function, functioning and service


Different definitions of ecosystem services

Daily (1997): the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfill human lifeCostanza et al. (1997): the benefits human populations derive, directly of indirectly, from ecosystem functionsMEA (2005): the benefits people obtain from ecosystemsBoyd & Banzhaf (2007): ecological components directly consumed or enjoyed to produce human well-being


Different definitions of ecosystem services ctd.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008): products of ecological functions or processes that directly or indirectly contribute to human well-being, or have the potential to do so in the future

TEEB (2009): the direct and indirect contribu-tions of ecosystems to human well-being Fisher et al. (2009): aspects of ecosystems utilized (actively or passively) to produce human well-being


The system of termini in TEEB (2009)

Focus of the presentation


Functions

Every part of the earth’s surface fulfills societal functions

Latin term “function” (fungi) generally means “carrying out”, “managing”, or “task” or “activity”

Niemann (1977, 1982): degree of functional performance of landscape elements and landscape units

Wiggering et al. (2003): multiple ecological, social and economic functions (multifunctionality) = prerequisite for sustainable land use


Functions = Capacity?Ecosystem functions = capacity (= potential) of natural processes and components to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly (De Groot et al. 2002)

see potentials


Functioning

but: Functioning (of landscapes) = the interactions among the spatial elements, that is, the flows of energy, materials, and species among the component ecosystems“ (Forman & Godron 1986)

Functions = ecological phenomena: the „things“ that are needed to deliver a service (TEEB 2009)

= „intermediate products“ while producing services (e.g. nutrient cycle = function, no service)(Boyd & Banzhaf 2006)


Classification of functions/services

De Groot et al. (2002): production, regulation, habitat, information functions

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003): provisioning, regulating, supporting, cultural services

Burkhard et al. (2006): ecosystem integrity (basis functions), provisioning, regulating, cultural services

TEEB (2009): provisioning, regulating, habitat, cultural services


Classification of (landscape) functions / services (Bastian (1991)

Advantage of the breakdown into

productive functions (economic functions),

regulation functions (ecological functions) and

social functions

link to the concept of sustainability with its established ecological, economic and social development categories


Since the 1990s the use of the term ‘service’ has become more common, because it is focussed on valuation purposes.

Clear definitions necessary distinguishing functions, functioning, potentials, service

But: Can we simply neglect the functioning, the functions and the potentials in order to simplify wording and to avoid the fuzziness of termini?

Intermediate conclusion:


Framework

partial potentials of landscapes (relevant for the society)


Left pillar: Analysing structure and processes (the functioning) of ecosystems (landscapes) as a precondition

Functioning as the first step


Framework



Potentials = nature‘s goods by means of a primarily scientific mode of operation (Mannsfeld 1983)

Neef (1966): „all-embracing economic potential of the landscape“

Haase (1973, 1978): partial natural landscape potentials

van der Maarel (1978) and Lahaye et al. (1979) addressed landscape potencies, which might contribute to the fulfilment of certain societal needs

Natural capital = the ecosystem functions available to society (Drepper & Månsson 1993, Barbier 2000, Mäler 2000 – in Ansink et al. 2008)

Potentials as the second step(distinction between the possibility of use and actual use)


Potentials Functions/Services Well-being (examples)

The recreational potential (capacity) of the Jurassic Coast in southern England is used by many tourists (realisation of the recreational function), and contributes to the well-being of the visitors

(© K. Grunewald)


Risks of using potentials: intensive agriculture versus conservation of a nationally significant archaeological site

• Fertile loess soil in the Lommatzscher Pflege landscape in Saxony has the potential for productive agriculture, which has in fact long been used (= societal function or service) risks of soil erosion, eutrophication, biodiversity loss.• The hill fortification already settled during the early Iron Age (800-500 B.C.) is not suitable for agriculture since soil removal is severely damaging this nationally significant archaeological site. Since, unlike the crops produced in this area, ideational or scientific values (or services) have no market, it is difficult to gain acceptance for any restriction of agricultural use.

(© O. Bastian)


Biotic yield potential versus potential for environmental education and tourism

Bizarre pines in the Königsbrück Heath, Saxony, nature conservation area: Due to centuries of withdrawal of fallen conifer needles as straw for cattle stables, the forest soil has been degraded, accompanied by a reduction of its biotic yield potential.

Such forest forms have now become very rare, and represent not only a habitat for animal and plant species in decline, but also a valuable cultural-historical relict of past methods of economic use – with a potential for environmental education and tourism that has hardly been utilised to date.

(© O. Bastian)


Framework



Examples of ecosystem servicesRecreation service of green spaces in cities

Service generation: Green spaces (parks, allotments etc)Housing areas: where do green space users live?

Accessibility of the service: road/path network

© Haase 2010


Based on epidemiological knowledge

Maas et al. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006;60:587-592

Examples of ecosystem servicesContribution of green spaces in cities to human health


Examples of ecosystem servicesDemand and supply of green spaces along a rural-to-urban gradient

over time (1990-2007)

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

1,00

1,10

1,20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Distance to city centre im km

D-Recreation 1990S-Recreation 1990D-Recreation 2000S-Recreation 2000D-Recreation 2007S-Recreation 2007

Haase 2010

∆ of demand (D) due to demographic change

∆ of supply (S) due to land use change


Scottish Natural Heritage commissioned report No 60

Application of ecosystem services in landscape planning


Conclusions

A clear terminology in the area of Ecosystem Services is very important (e.g., function – service)

The framework presented enables the step-wise assessment of ecological structures and processes (functioning) via the potentials (for uses) to the actual use (services, functions for humans)

This approach is useful for practical purposes (e.g. landscape planning)


Thank you for your attention!

linking ecosystems functions and ecosystem services · o. bastian, k. grunewald, d. haase, salzau...

Documents