Environmental Management

, Volume 45, Issue 5, pp 881–895 | Cite as

The Development of an Ecosystem Services Framework for South East Queensland

Article

Abstract

Extensive research has been conducted globally into conceptual frameworks for ecosystem services, the most notable being the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium ecosystem assessment: ecosystems and human well-being; a framework for assessment. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, pp 51, 53–55, 2005). The South East Queensland (SEQ) Ecosystem Services Framework (Australia) aims to provide the tools to enable government, industry, business, researchers, non-government organizations and land managers to apply the concept of ecosystem services in their planning and management practices. This article describes the Framework and the process that has produced matrices and maps that identify and illustrate the linkages between ecosystems, ecosystem functions, ecosystem services and the community’s well-being. The matrices and maps derived can identify areas in the region where the most ecosystem services are generated. This allows areas to be considered as valuable natural assets of the region, deserving appropriate protection measures or significant offsets if they are diminished or degraded in any way. Although the Framework requires further refinement and ongoing development, the process applied and the products produced has enabled decision makers to turn the concept of ecosystem services into practical application in SEQ.

Keywords

Ecosystems Ecosystem functions Ecosystem services Human wellbeing Millennium Ecosystem Assessment South East Queensland Regional land-use planning 

References

  1. Australia 21 (2008) National ecosystem services strategy. http://www.australia21.org.au/pdf/final.doc. Accessed 20 Aug 2008
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006) Census 2006. http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/Census+data. Accessed 10 Mar 2009
  3. Australian Government (2008) Caring for our country; what is a natural resource management region. http://www.nrm.gov.au/nrm/region.html. Accessed 5 Oct 2009
  4. Barbier E (2007) Valuing ecosystem service as product inputs. Economic Policy 49:178–228Google Scholar
  5. Bennett J, Blamey R (eds) (2001) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, CheltenamGoogle Scholar
  6. Binning C, Cork S, Parry R, Shelton D (2001) Natural assets: an inventory of ecosystems goods and services in the Goulburn-Broken catchment. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyd J (2007) Nonmarket benefits of nature: what should be accounted in green GDP. Ecological Economics 61(4):716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan K, Shaw M, Cameron D, Underwood E, Daily G (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLOS Biology 4(11)Google Scholar
  9. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill R, Paruelo J, Raskin R, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The total value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Costanza R, Fisher B, Ali S, Beer C, Bond L, Boumans R, Danigelis N, Dickinson J, Elliott C, Farley J, Elliott Gayer D, MacDonald Glenn L, Hudspeth T, Mahoney D, McCahill L, McIntosh B, Reed B, Abu Turab Rizvi S, Rizzo D, Simpatico T, Snapp R (2007) Quality of life: an approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being. Ecological Economics 61(2–3):267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cowling R, Egoh B, Knight A, Farrell P, Reyers B, Mathieu R, Dirk R, Weiz A, Wilhelm-Rechman A (2008) An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the United States of America, ecosystem services special feature, pp 9483–9485Google Scholar
  12. de Groot R, Wilson M, Boumans R (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41(3):393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Groot R, Stuip M, Finlayson M, Davidson N (2006) Valuing wetlands: guidance for valuing the benefits derived from wetland ecosystem services. Ramsar technical report no 3. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  14. Department of Environment and Resource Management (2009) SEQ natural resource management plan 2009–2031. Queensland GovernmentGoogle Scholar
  15. Department of Infrastructure and Planning (2005) SEQ regional plan 2005–2026. Queensland Government, pp 1–48Google Scholar
  16. Department of Infrastructure and Planning (2009) SEQ regional plan 2009–2031. Queensland GovernmentGoogle Scholar
  17. European Communities (2008) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. A Banson Production, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher B, Turner K, Zylstra M, Brouwer R, de Groot R, Farber F, Ferraro P, Green R, Hadley D, Harlow J, Jefferiss P, Kirkby C, Morling P, Mowatt S, Naidoo R, Paavola J, Strassburg B, Yu D, Balmford A (2008) Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy relevant research. Ecological Applications 18(8):2050–2067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freeman A (1993) The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  20. Graymore M (2005) Report on current, past and planned future work on ecosystem services in south east Queensland. Report to the SEQ Ecosystem Services Working GroupGoogle Scholar
  21. Grêt-Regamey A, Kytzia S (2007) Integrating the valuation of ecosystem services into the input–output economics of an Alpine region. Ecological Economics 63(4):786–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Janssen R (1994) Multiobjective decision support for environmental management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  23. Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecological Letters 8:468–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maslow A (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50(4):370–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Max-Neef M (1991) Human scale development: conception, application and further reflections. The Apex Press, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment: ecosystems and human well-being; a framework for assessment. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, pp 51, 53–55Google Scholar
  27. Mitchell R, Carson R (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  28. Natural Resource Management South East Queensland (2005) Integrated natural resource management plan for SEQ: future in the balance. Natural Resource Management South East Queensland, p 73Google Scholar
  29. Queensland Government (2009) Department of infrastructure and planning, south east queensland. http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/seq. Accessed 30 July 2009
  30. Raymond C, Bryan B, MacDonald D, Cast A, Strathearn S, Grandgirard A, T Kalivas (2009) Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, article in pressGoogle Scholar
  31. Rietveld P (1980) Multiple objective decision methods in regional planning. North Holland, Amsterdam, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  32. Saaty T (1980) The analytical hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  33. Sayre R, Comer, P, Warner H, J Cress (2009) A new map of standardized terrestrial ecosystems of the conterminous United States. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1768Google Scholar
  34. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD) (2004) The ecosystem approach. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada, p 16Google Scholar
  35. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD) (2006) Convention on biological diversity, article 2: use of terms. http://www.cbd.int/convention/articles.shtml?a=cbd-02. Accessed 3 Nov 2006
  36. Serrat-Capdevila A, Browning-Aiken A, Lansey K, Finan T, Valdés J (2009) Increasing social–ecological resilience by placing science at the decision table: the role of the San Pedro Basin (Arizona) decision-support system model. Ecology and Society 14(1):37Google Scholar
  37. Troy A, Wilson M (2006) mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics 60:435–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wallace K (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biological Conservation 139(3–4):235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. World Bank (2004) What is an ecosystem worth; assessing the economic value of conservation? Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. World Resources Institute (2007) Restoring nature’s capital; an action agenda to sustainable ecosystem services. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SEQ Catchments LtdBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.University of the Sunshine CoastSippy DownsAustralia

Personalised recommendations