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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Barua, M. 2011. Mobilizing metaphors: The popular use of keystone, flagship and umbrella species concepts. Biodiversity and Conservation 20: 1427–1440.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bowen-Jones, E., and A. Entwistle. 2002. Identifying appropriate flagship species: The importance of culture and local contexts. Oryx 36: 189–195.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Davidson, M.D. 2013. On the relation between ecosystem services, intrinsic value, existence value and economic valuation. Ecological Economics 95: 171–177.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    CAS  Google 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.

    CAS  Google 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.

    CAS  Google 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.

    Google 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.

  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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Vogelbescherming. 2016. Jaarverslag 2016, p. 116.

  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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Yu, Y., K. Feng, and K. Hubacek. 2013. Tele-connecting local consumption to global land use. Global Environmental Change 23: 1178–1186.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Schröter.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 63 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schröter, M., Kraemer, R., Remme, R.P. et al. Distant regions underpin interregional flows of cultural ecosystem services provided by birds and mammals. Ambio 49, 1100–1113 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01261-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Biodiversity conservation
  • Ecosystem service flows
  • Service-providing species
  • Sustainability
  • Telecoupling