Advertisement

Ambio

pp 1–14 | Cite as

Distant regions underpin interregional flows of cultural ecosystem services provided by birds and mammals

  • Matthias SchröterEmail author
  • Roland Kraemer
  • Roy P. Remme
  • Alexander P. E. van Oudenhoven
Research Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Biodiversity conservation Ecosystem service flows Service-providing species Sustainability Telecoupling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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).

Supplementary material

13280_2019_1261_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (62 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 63 kb)

References

  1. Barua, M. 2011. Mobilizing metaphors: The popular use of keystone, flagship and umbrella species concepts. Biodiversity and Conservation 20: 1427–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boere, G.C., and T. Piersma. 2012. Flyway protection and the predicament of our migrant birds: A critical look at international conservation policies and the Dutch Wadden Sea. Ocean and Coastal Management 68: 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Booth, J.E., K.J. Gaston, K.L. Evans, and P.R. Armsworth. 2011. The value of species rarity in biodiversity recreation: A birdwatching example. Biological Conservation 144: 2728–2732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bowen-Jones, E., and A. Entwistle. 2002. Identifying appropriate flagship species: The importance of culture and local contexts. Oryx 36: 189–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Courchamp, F., I. Jaric, C. Albert, Y. Meinard, W.J. Ripple, and G. Chapron. 2018. The paradoxical extinction of the most charismatic animals. PLoS Biology 16: e2003997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cumming, G.S., and K. Maciejewski. 2017. Reconciling community ecology and ecosystem services: Cultural services and benefits from birds in South African National Parks. Ecosystem Services 28: 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davidson, M.D. 2013. On the relation between ecosystem services, intrinsic value, existence value and economic valuation. Ecological Economics 95: 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Díaz, S., U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, B. Martín-López, R.T. Watson, Z. Molnár, R. Hill, K.M.A. Chan, et al. 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359: 270–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dorninger, C., D.J. Abson, J. Fischer, and H. von Wehrden. 2017. Assessing sustainable biophysical human–nature connectedness at regional scales. Environmental Research Letters 12: 055001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EOL. 2018. Encyclopedia of life. Retrieved 25 May 2018, from http://www.eol.org/.
  12. Fish, R., A. Church, and M. Winter. 2016. Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosystem Services 21: 208–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansjürgens, B., C. Schröter-Schlaack, A. Berghöfer, and N. Lienhoop. 2017. Justifying social values of nature: Economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences. Ecosystem Services 23: 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harrison, P.A., P.M. Berry, G. Simpson, J.R. Haslett, M. Blicharska, M. Bucur, R. Dunford, B. Egoh, et al. 2014. Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosystem Services 9: 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hausmann, A., T. Toivonen, R. Slotow, H. Tenkanen, A. Moilanen, V. Heikinheimo, and E.D. Minin. 2018. Social media data can be used to understand tourists’ preferences for nature-based experiences in protected areas. Conservation Letters 11: e12343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hurlbert, A.H., and W. Jetz. 2007. Species richness, hotspots, and the scale dependence of range maps in ecology and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 13384–13389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IUCN. 2018. 1994 Categories & criteria (version 2.3). Retrieved 25 May 2018, from http://www.iucnredlist.org/static/categories_criteria_2_3.
  18. Jones, K.R., O. Venter, R.A. Fuller, J.R. Allan, S.L. Maxwell, P.J. Negret, and J.E.M. Watson. 2018. One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science 360: 788–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karp, D.S., C.D. Mendenhall, E. Callaway, L.O. Frishkoff, P.M. Kareiva, P.R. Ehrlich, and G.C. Daily. 2015. Confronting and resolving competing values behind conservation objectives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112: 11132–11137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kastner, T., K.-H. Erb, and S. Nonhebel. 2011. International wood trade and forest change: A global analysis. Global Environmental Change 21: 947–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Kirby, J.S., A.J. Stattersfield, S.H.M. Butchart, M.I. Evans, R.F.A. Grimmett, V.R. Jones, J. O’Sullivan, G.M. Tucker, et al. 2008. Key conservation issues for migratory land- and waterbird species on the world’s major flyways. Bird Conservation International 18: S49–S73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koellner, T., A. Bonn, S. Arnhold, K.J. Bagstad, D. Fridman, C.A. Guerra, T. Kastner, M. Kissinger, et al. 2019. Guidance for assessing interregional ecosystem service flows. Ecological Indicators 105: 92–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu, J., V. Hull, J. Luo, W. Yang, W. Liu, A. Viña, C. Vogt, Z. Xu, et al. 2015. Multiple telecouplings and their complex interrelationships. Ecology and Society 20 (3): 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. López-Hoffman, L., R.G. Varady, K.W. Flessa, and P. Balvanera. 2010. Ecosystem services across borders: A framework for transboundary conservation policy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. López-Hoffman, L., R. Wiederholt, C. Sansone, K.J. Bagstad, P. Cryan, J.E. Diffendorfer, J. Goldstein, K. LaSharr, et al. 2014. Market forces and technological substitutes cause fluctuations in the value of bat pest-control services for cotton. PLoS ONE 9: e87912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Luck, G.W., R. Harrington, P.A. Harrison, C. Kremen, P.M. Berry, R. Bugter, T.R. Dawson, F.D. Bello, et al. 2009. Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services. BioScience 59: 223–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Martin, A., B. Coolsaet, E. Corbera, N.M. Dawson, J.A. Fraser, I. Lehmann, and I. Rodriguez. 2016. Justice and conservation: The need to incorporate recognition. Biological Conservation 197: 254–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Meyfroidt, P., E.F. Lambin, K.-H. Erb, and T.W. Hertel. 2013. Globalization of land use: Distant drivers of land change and geographic displacement of land use. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5: 438–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Milcu, A.I., J. Hanspach, D. Abson, and J. Fischer. 2013. Cultural ecosystem services: A literature review and prospects for future research. Ecology and Society 18 (3): 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Pascual, U., I. Palomo, W. Adams, K.M.A. Chan, T. Daw, E. Garmendia, E. Gómez-Baggethun, R. de Groot, et al. 2017. Off-stage ecosystem service burdens: A blind spot for global sustainability. Environmental Research Letters 12: 075001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reyers, B., S. Polasky, H. Tallis, H.A. Mooney, and A. Larigauderie. 2012. Finding common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services. BioScience 62: 503–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rondinini, C., M. Di Marco, F. Chiozza, G. Santulli, D. Baisero, P. Visconti, M. Hoffmann, J. Schipper, et al. 2011. Global habitat suitability models of terrestrial mammals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences 366: 2633–2641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schirpke, U., C. Meisch, and U. Tappeiner. 2018. Symbolic species as a cultural ecosystem service in the European Alps: Insights and open issues. Landscape Ecology 33: 711–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schröter, M., C. Albert, A. Marques, W. Tobon, S. Lavorel, J. Maes, C. Brown, S. Klotz, et al. 2016. National ecosystem assessments in Europe: A review. BioScience 66: 813–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schröter, M., T. Koellner, R. Alkemade, S. Arnhold, K.J. Bagstad, K.-H. Erb, K. Frank, T. Kastner, et al. 2018. Interregional flows of ecosystem services: Concepts, typology and four cases. Ecosystem Services 31: 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Semmens, D.J., J.E. Diffendorfer, K.J. Bagstad, R. Wiederholt, K. Oberhauser, L. Ries, B.X. Semmens, J. Goldstein, et al. 2018. Quantifying ecosystem service flows at multiple scales across the range of a long-distance migratory species. Ecosystem Services 31: 255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Serna-Chavez, H., C. Schulp, P. van Bodegom, W. Bouten, P. Verburg, and M. Davidson. 2014. A quantitative framework for assessing spatial flows of ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators 39: 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Steven, R., J.C.R. Smart, C. Morrison, and J.G. Castley. 2017. Using a choice experiment and birder preferences to guide bird-conservation funding. Conservation Biology 31: 818–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.
  45. Venter, O., E.W. Sanderson, A. Magrach, J.R. Allan, J. Beher, K.R. Jones, H.P. Possingham, W.F. Laurance, et al. 2016. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nature Communications 7: 12558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vogelbescherming. 2016. Jaarverslag 2016, p. 116.Google Scholar
  47. Watson, R.A., B.S. Green, S.R. Tracey, A. Farmery, and T.J. Pitcher. 2015. Provenance of global seafood. Fish and Fisheries 17: 585–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Willemen, L., A.J. Cottam, E.G. Drakou, and N.D. Burgess. 2015. Using social media to measure the contribution of red list species to the nature-based tourism potential of African protected areas. PLoS ONE 10: e0129785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Williams, P.H., N.D. Burgess, and C. Rahbek. 2000. Flagship species, ecological complementarity and conserving the diversity of mammals and birds in sub-Saharan Africa. Animal Conservation 3: 249–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yu, Y., K. Feng, and K. Hubacek. 2013. Tele-connecting local consumption to global land use. Global Environmental Change 23: 1178–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecosystem ServicesUFZ – Helmholtz Centre for Environmental ResearchLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  3. 3.Institute of GeographyHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Natural Capital ProjectStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  5. 5.National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)BilthovenThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Institute of Environmental Sciences CMLLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations