Advertisement

Ecosystem Services (ES): More Than Just a Vogue Term?

Chapter
  • 1.8k Downloads

Abstract

During the 1990s, with the increasing demands of humankind upon the limited resources of the earth , and in view of the growing burdens upon the balance of nature , manifested, too, in biodiversity loss and in the problem complex of energy and the climate, the concept of ecosystem services (ES) entered into the international environmental discussion (e. g. de Groot 1992; Daily 1997; Costanza et al. 1997).

Keywords

Ecosystem Service Natural Capital Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Sustainable Land Ecosystem Service Concept 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. BAFU–Bundesamt für Umwelt (2011) Indikatoren für Ökosystemleistungen. Systematik, Methodik und Umsetzungsempfehlungen für eine wohlfahrtsbezogene Umweltberichterstattung. Herausgegeben vom Bundesamt für Umwelt BAFU, BernGoogle Scholar
  2. BESWS–Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Work Stream (2010) Demystifying materiality: hardwiring biodiversity and ecosystem services into finance. UNEP FI CEO Briefing, GenèveGoogle Scholar
  3. BfN–Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2007) Die Lage der biologischen Vielfalt 2. Globaler Ausblick. Naturschutz und biologische Vielfalt, Heft 44, BonnGoogle Scholar
  4. Bobek H, Schmithüsen J (1949) Die Landschaft im logischen System der Geographie. Erdkunde 3:112–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brouwer R, Brander L, Kuik O, Papyrakis E, Bateman I (2013) A synthesis of approaches to assess and value ecosystem services in the EU in the context of TEEB. TEEB follow-up study for Europe. University AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  6. Bundesrat (2011) Lebensversicherung und Naturkapital: Eine Biodiversitätsstrategie der EU für das Jahr 2020. Drucksache 309/11 vom 25.5.11, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  7. CBD–Convention on Biological Biodiversity (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. CBD Secretariat, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  8. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill R, Paruelo J et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daily G (ed) (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  10. DFG–Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (2011) DFG-Senatskommission für Zukunftsaufgaben, 10.4–Struktur, Funktion und Dynamik von Ökosystemen. ▸www.sk-zag.de/10.4_Struktur_Funktion_und_Dynamik_von_Oekosystemen.html. Accessed 29 Dec 2011
  11. EASAC–European Academies Science Advisory Council (2009) Ecosystem services and biodiversity in Europe. EASAC policy report 09, CardiffGoogle Scholar
  12. Ebert V (2011) Machen Sie sich frei. Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, ReinbekGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH (1974) The end of affluence. Ballantine Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellenberg H, Weber HE, Düll R, Wirth V, Werner W, Paulißen D (1992) Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa, 3. Aufl. Scripta Geobotanica 18, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  15. Elsasser P, Meyerhoff J (2007) A bibliography and data base on environmental benefit valuation studies in Austria, Germany and Switzerland, Part I: Forestry studies. Arbeitsbericht Institut für Ökonomie, 2007/01, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission (EC) (2011) Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, 3.5.2011. ▸http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_ACT_part1_v7%5B1%5D.pdf
  17. Feld CK, da Silva PM, Sousa JP, de Bello F, Bugter R, Grandin U, Hering D, Lavorel S, Mountford O, Pardo I, Pärtel M, Römbke J, Sandin L, Jones KB, Harrison P (2009) Indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services: A synthesis across ecosystems and spatial scales. Oikos 118:1862–1871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giller PS, O’Donnovan G (2002) Biodiversity and ecosystem function: Do species matter? Biol Environ Proc Royal Irish Acad 102B:128–138Google Scholar
  19. Goldman RL, Tallis H, Kareiva P, Daily GC (2008) Field evidence that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diversify options. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9445–9448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graf D (1984) Gratisleistungen und Gratiseffekte. In: Graf D (ed) Ökonomie und Ökologie der Naturnutzung. Gustav Fischer, Jena, pp 42–45Google Scholar
  21. de Groot RS (1992) Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision making. Wolters-Noordhoff, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  22. Grünwald A (2011) Zukunft Landschaftsplan. Perspektiven einer methodischen Weiterentwicklung unter Anwendung des Konzepts der Ökosystemdienstleistungen. Masterarbeit, TU DresdenGoogle Scholar
  23. Grunewald K, Bastian O (2010) Ökosystemdienstleistungen analysieren–begrifflicher und konzeptioneller Rahmen aus landschaftsökologischer Sicht. GEOÖKO 31:50–82Google Scholar
  24. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2010) Proposal for a common international classification of ecosystem goods and services (CICES) for integrated environmental and economic accounting (V1). Report to the European Environment AgencyGoogle Scholar
  25. Hedden-Dunkhorst B, Braat L, Wittmer H, Hundorf J, Hendriks K, Rizzotti N, Grunewald K, Panis J, Erhard M, Singh R, Bradburne R, Kümper-Schlake L, Hu L, Rančić IP (2014) TEEB Country Studies–Implementation, Integration and Utilisation. Policy Brief. ▸http://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/TEEB__Policy_Brief_Vilm_Workshop_May_2013.pdf
  26. IEEP–Institute for European Environmental Policy, Alterra, Ecologic, PBL–Netherland Environmental Assessment Agency und UNEP-WCMC (2009) Scenarios and models for exploring future trends of biodiversity and ecosystem services change. Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment on Contract ENV.G.1/ETU/2008/0090rGoogle Scholar
  27. Jacobsen JB, Hanley N (2009) Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation? Environ Resource Econ 43:137–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jessel B (2011) Ökosystemdienstleistungen. In: BBN (ed) Frischer Wind und weite Horizonte. Jb Natursch Landschaftspfl,  58 72–87Google Scholar
  29. Jessel B, Tschimpke O, Waiser M (2009) Produktivkraft Natur. Hoffmann und Campe, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  30. Kienast F (2010) Landschaftsdienstleistungen: ein taugliches Konzept für Forschung und Praxis? Forum für Wissen:7–12Google Scholar
  31. Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 8:468–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Luck GW, Harrington R, Harrison PA, Kremen C, Berry PM, Bugter R, Dawson TP, de Bello F, Dia S, Feld CK, Haslett JR, Hering D, Kontogianni A, Lavorel S, Rounsevell M, Samways MJ, Sandin L, Settele J, Sykes MT, Van de Hove S, Vandewalle M, Zobel M (2009) Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services. Bioscience 59:223–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MEA–Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystem and human well-being: scenarios, vol 2. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  34. Mosbrugger V, Hofer H (eds) (2008) Biodiversitätsforschung in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft: Eine nationale Aufgabe. Leibniz-Gemeinschaft, Bonn, 48 ppGoogle Scholar
  35. Müller F, Burkhard B (2007) An ecosystem based framework to link landscape structures, functions and services. In: Mander Ü, Wiggering H, Helming K (eds) Multifunctional land use–meeting future demands for landscape goods and services. Springer, Berlin, pp 37–64Google Scholar
  36. PBL–Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2010) Rethinking global biodiversity strategies. Exploring structural changes in production and consumption to reduce biodiversity loss. PBL, BiltvovenGoogle Scholar
  37. Peterson G (2010) Growth of ecosystem services concept. ▸ http://rs.resalliance.org/2010/01/21/growth-of-ecosystem-services-concept/. Accessed 10 April 2012
  38. Ridder B (2008) Questioning the ecosystem services argument for biodiversity argumentation. Biodivers Conserv 17:781–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin III FS, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber H, Nykvist B, De Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker BH, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen C, Foley J (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461: 472–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schröter M, van der Zanden EH, van Oudenhoven APE, Remme RP, Serna-Chavez HM, de Groot RS, Opdam P (2014) Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conserv Lett. doi:10.1111/conl.12091Google Scholar
  41. Schweppe-Kraft B (2010) Ökosystemdienstleistungen: ein Ansatz zur ökonomischen Bewertung von Natur. Local land & soil news 34/35 II/10, The Bulletin of the European Land and Soil Alliance (ELSA) e. V., pp 11–14Google Scholar
  42. Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S (2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol 48:630–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Spangenberg JH, Settele J (2010) Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services. Ecol Complex 7:327–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tansley AG (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16:284–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. TEEB DE–Naturkapital Deutschland (2012) Der Wert der Natur für Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft–Eine Einführung. München: Ifu-Plan; Leipzig: Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung–UFZ; Bonn: Bundesamt für NaturschutzGoogle Scholar
  46. TEEB–The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2009) An interim report. Europ. Comm., Brussels ▸(www.teebweb.org)Google Scholar
  47. Tüxen R (1956) Die heutige potentielle natürliche Vegetation als Gegenstand der Vegetationskartierung. Angewandte Pflanzensoziologie 13:5–42Google Scholar
  48. UKNEA–UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) Synthesis of the key findings. Information Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. UNEP-WCMC–World Conservation Monitoring Centre of the United Nations Environment Programme (2011) Developing ecosystem service indicators: experiences and lessons learned from bus-global assessments and other initiatives. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD Technical Series 58Google Scholar
  50. WBGU–Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung. Globale Umweltveränderungen (2011) Welt im Wandel: Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine Große Transformation, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  51. Wende W, Wojtkiewicz W, Marschall I, Heiland S, Lipp T, Reinke M, Schaal P, Schmidt C (2012) Putting the plan into practice: implementation of proposals for measures of local landscape plans. Landsc Res 37:483–500 doi:10.1080/01426397.2011.592575Google Scholar
  52. Westman W (1977) How much are nature’s services worth? Science 197:960–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FreitalGermany
  2. 2.Leibniz-Institut für ökologische RaumentwicklungDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations