Distant regions underpin interregional flows of cultural ecosystem services provided by birds and mammals
Ecosystem service assessments rarely consider flows between distant regions. Hence, telecoupling effects such as conservation burdens in distant ecosystems are ignored. We identified service-providing species for two cultural ecosystem services (existence and bequest, and birdwatching) and two receiving, i.e. benefitting, regions (Germany, the Netherlands). We delineated and analysed sending, i.e. service-providing, regions on a global scale. The proportion of service-providing species with distant habitats was higher for birdwatching (Germany: 58.6%, Netherlands: 59.4%), than for existence and bequest (Germany: 49.3%, Netherlands: 57.1%). Hotspots of sending regions were predominantly situated in tropical and subtropical grasslands, savannas and shrublands and were significantly more threatened and poorer than the global mean. Hotspot protection levels for flows to Germany were higher than the global mean, and lower for the Dutch hotspots. Our findings increase understanding on how distant regions underpin ecosystem services and necessitate interregional assessment as well as conservation efforts.
KeywordsBiodiversity conservation Ecosystem service flows Service-providing species Sustainability Telecoupling
We thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments which have helped to improve an earlier version of the manuscript. We thank Morgan Kain for critical feedback and for checking the language. The work by RK is supported by the research project Environmental-Health Interactions in Cities (GreenEquityHEALTH) - Challenges for Human Well-Being under Global Changes (2017–2022), funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; no. 01LN1705A). RPR is supported by the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation. The work by AvO was funded by the STW research programme ‘Nature-driven nourishment of coastal systems (NatureCoast)’ (Grant Number 12691), which is (partly) financed by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).
- Borucke, M., D. Moore, G. Cranston, K. Gracey, K. Iha, J. Larson, E. Lazarus, J.C. Morales, et al. 2013. Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: The national footprint accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecological Indicators 24: 518–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- EOL. 2018. Encyclopedia of life. Retrieved 25 May 2018, from http://www.eol.org/.
- IUCN. 2018. 1994 Categories & criteria (version 2.3). Retrieved 25 May 2018, from http://www.iucnredlist.org/static/categories_criteria_2_3.
- Kirby, J. 2010. Review of current knowledge of bird flyways, principal knowledge gaps and conservation priorities. Prepared on behalf of the CMS Scientific Council/Working Group on Flyways. UNEP Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
- López-Hoffman, L., C.C. Chester, D.J. Semmens, W.E. Thogmartin, M.S. Rodriguez McGoffin, R. Merideth, and J.E. Diffendorfer. 2017. Ecosystem services from transborder migratory species: Implications for conservation governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 42: 509–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Martín-López, B., A. Church, E. Başak Dessane, P. Berry, C. Chenu, M. Christie, M. Gerino, H. Keune, et al. 2018. Chapter 2: Nature’s contributions to people and quality of life. In The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia, ed. M. Rounsevell, M. Fischer, A. Torre-Marin Rando, A. Mader, and IPBES, 57–185. Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.Google Scholar
- Mattsson, B.J., J.A. Dubovsky, W.E. Thogmartin, K.J. Bagstad, J.H. Goldstein, J.B. Loomis, J.E. Diffendorfer, D.J. Semmens, et al. 2018. Recreation economics to inform migratory species conservation: Case study of the northern pintail. Journal of Environmental Management 206: 971–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Olson, D.M., E. Dinerstein, E.D. Wikramanayake, N.D. Burgess, G.V.N. Powell, E.C. Underwood, J.A. D’Amico, I. Itoua, et al. 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on EarthA new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience 51: 933–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. 2018. The lag effect in the world database on protected areas. Retrieved 25 May 2018, from https://www.protectedplanet.net/c/the-lag-effect-in-the-world-database-on-protected-areas.
- Vogelbescherming. 2016. Jaarverslag 2016, p. 116.Google Scholar