Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A conceptual framework to assess the effects of environmental change on ecosystem services

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A new conceptual framework is presented for the assessment of the impacts of environmental change drivers on ecosystem service provision and the policy and management responses that would derive from the valuation of these impacts. The Framework for Ecosystem Service Provision (FESP), is based on an interpretation of the widely-used Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework. FESP differs from the DPSIR by offering clarity in the definitions of the various DPSIR components as well as introducing novel elements of relevance to the ecosystem service approach. The value of a common framework lies in making the comparison across competing services accessible and clear as well as highlighting the conflicts and trade-offs between not only multiple ecosystem services, but also multiple service beneficiaries. The framework is explicit, for example, in recognising as state variables not only the attributes of the Ecosystem Service Providers (ESPs), but also the attributes of the Ecosystem Service Beneficiaries (ESBs). That a service depends as much on the attributes of the people whose well-being benefits from the service as on the attributes of the biology providing the service is an important step in integrated social-ecological thinking. FESP also identifies the mechanisms of either mitigation or adaptation to the environmental change problem through the effect of these response strategies on specific pressure or state variables. In this way, FESP can contribute to the policies and strategies that are used to support conservation management. This paper describes the principles of FESP and presents some indicative examples of its practical implementation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Rationalising Biodiversity Conservation in Dynamic Ecosystems (RUBICODE; www.rubicode.net) is a Coordination Action funded under the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Commission (Contract No. 036890).

Abbreviations

DPSIR:

Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response

EEA:

European Environment Agency

ESB:

Ecosystem Service Beneficiary

ESP:

Ecosystem Service Provider

FESP:

Framework for Ecosystem Service Provision

IPCC:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

MA:

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

SES:

Social Ecological System

SPU:

Service Providing Unit

SRES:

Special Report on Emissions Scenarios

References

  • Aggarwal PK, Joshi PK, Ingram JS, Gupta RK (2004) Adapting food systems of the Indo-Gangetic plains to global environmental change: key information needs to improve policy formulation. Environ Sci Policy 7:487–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antle JM, Capalbo SM, Elliott ET, Paustian KH (2004) Adaptation, spatial heterogeneity, and the vulnerability of agricultural systems to climate change and CO2 fertilization: an integrated assessment approach. Clim Change 64:289–315

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barron J (2009) Rainwater harvesting: a lifeline to human well-being. Policy brief. Stockholm Environment Institute, York

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F, Folke C (eds) (1998) Linking social ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler SJ, Vickery JA, Norris K (2007) Farmland biodiversity and the footprint of agriculture. Science 315:381–384

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR, DeFries R, Dietz T, Mooney HA, Polasky S, Reid WV, Scholes RJ (2006) Millennium ecosystem assessment: research needs. Science 314:257–258

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS, Díaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM, Perrings C, Reid WV, Sarukhan J, Scholes RJ, Whyte A (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:1305–1312

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty S, Datta S (2003) How will plant pathogens adapt to host plant resistance at elevated CO2 under a changing climate? New Phytol 159:733–742

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Challinor AJ, Wheeler TR, Craufurd PQ, Ferro CAT, Stephenson DB (2007) Adaptation of crops to climate change through genotypic responses to mean and extreme temperatures. Agric Ecosyst Environ 119:190–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correll DL (2005) Principles of planning and establishment of buffer zones. Ecol Eng 24:433–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson TP, Rounsevell MDA, Kluvánková-Oravská T, Chobotová V, Stirling A (2010) Dynamics of complex adaptive ecosystems: implications for the sustainability of service provision. Biodivers Conserv (this issue)

  • de Bello F, Lavorel S, Díaz S, Harrington R, Cornelissen JHC, Bardgett RD, Berg MP, Cipriotti P, Feld CK, Hering D, Martins da Silva P, Potts SG, Sandin L, Sousa JP, Storkey J, Wardle DA, Harrison PA (2010) Towards an assessment of multiple ecosystem processes and services via functional traits. Biodivers Conserv (this volume)

  • De Chazal J, Rounsevell MDA (2009) Land-use and climate change within assessments of biodiversity loss: a review. Glob Environ Chang 19:306–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Döll P (2002) Impact of climate change and variability on irrigation requirements: a global perspective. Clim Chang 54:269–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosskey MG (2001) Toward quantifying water pollution abatement in response to installing buffers on crop land. Environ Manag 28(5):577–598

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Easterling WE, Aggarwal PK, Batima P, Brander KM, Erda L, Howden SM, Kirilenko A, Morton J, Soussana J-F, Schmidhuber J, Tubiello FN (2007). Food, fibre and forest products. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 273–313

  • EEA (1995) Europe’s environment: the Dobris Assessment. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • EEA (1999) Environmental indicators: typology and overview. Technical report no. 25, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen

  • Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AR (1970) Population, resources, environment: issues in human ecology. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Feld CK, Sousa JP, da Silva PM, Dawson TP (2010) A framework to assess indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services: implications for indicator development. Biodivers Conserv (this issue)

  • Fischer G, Tubiello FN, van Velthuizen H, Wiberg D (2007) Climate change impacts on irrigation water requirements: effects of mitigation, 1990–2080. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 74(7):1083–1107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fusco G (2001) Conceptual modelling of the interaction between transportation, land use and the environment as a tool for selecting sustainability indicators of urban mobility. In: 12th European colloquium on quantitative and theoretical geography, St-Valery-en-Caux, France, September 7–11, 2001

  • Gallopin GC (1991) Human dimensions of global change: linking the global and the local processes. Int Soc Sci J 130:707–718

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrington R, Dawson TP, Feld CK et al (2010) Ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation: concepts and a glossary. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9834-9

  • Harrison PA, Vandewalle M, Sykes MT et al (2010) Identifying and prioritising services in European terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9789-x

  • Haslett JR, Berry PM, Jongman RHG et al (2010) Changing conservation strategies in Europe: a framework for integrating ecosystem services and dynamics. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-009-9743-y

  • Hougner C, Colding J, Söderqvist T (2006) Economic valuation of a seed dispersal service in the Stockholm National Urban Park. Ecol Econ 59:364–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howden SM, Ash AJ, Barlow EWR, Booth CS, Cechet R, Crimp S, Gifford RM, Hennessy K (2003) An overview of the adaptive capacity of the Australian agricultural sector to climate change—options, costs and benefits. Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (1994) Guidelines for protected area management categories. IUCN, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 8:468–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C, Williams NM, Thorp RW (2002) Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99:16812–16816

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C, Williams NM, Bugg RL et al (2004) The area requirements of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by native bee communities in California. Ecol Lett 7:1109–1119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard J, Rajot JL (2001) Influence of termites on runoff and infiltration: quantification and analysis. Geoderma 104:17–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luck GW, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (2003) Population diversity and ecosystem services. Trends Ecol Evol 18:331–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luck GW, Harrington R, Harrison PA, Kremen C, Berry PM, Bugter R, Dawson TP, de Bello F, Díaz S, Feld CK, Haslett JR, Hering D, Kontogianni A, Lavorel S, Rounsevell MDA, Samways MJ, Sandin L, Settele J, Sykes MT, van den Hove S, Vandewalle M, Zobel M (2009) Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services. Bioscience 59:223–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. In: Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N (eds) Findings of the condition and trends working group. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx

  • Nakićenović N, Alcamo J, Davis G et al (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson GC, Bennett E, Asefaw Berhe A et al (2005) Drivers of change in ecosystem condition and services. In: Carpenter S, Pingali PL, Bennett EM et al (eds) Ecosystems and human well-being: scenarios, vol 2. Millennium ecosystem assessment, Island Press, Washington DC, pp 173–222

  • Olesen JE, Bindi M (2002) Consequences of climate change for European agricultural productivity, land use and policy. Eur J Agron 16:239–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paterson JS, Araújo MB, Berry PM, Piper JM, Rounsevell MDA (2008) Mitigation, adaptation and the threat to biodiversity. Conserv Biol 22:1352–1355

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Postma-Blaaw MB, Bloem J, Faber JH et al (2006) Earthworm species composition affects the soil bacterial community and net nitrogen mineralization. Pedobiologia 50:243–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quétier F, Lavorel S, Thuiller W et al (2007) Plant trait-based assessment of ecosystem service sensitivity to land-use change in mountain grasslands. Ecol Appl 17:2377–2386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rapport D, Friend A (1979) Towards a comprehensive framework for environmental statistics: a stress-response approach. Statistics Canada catalogue 11-510. Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Redpath S, Thirgood S (1997) Birds of prey and red grouse. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Salafky N, Wollenberg E (2000) Linking livelihoods and conservation: a conceptual framework and scale for assessing the integration of human needs and biodiversity. World Dev 28:1421–1438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott MJ, Bilyard GR, Link SO et al (1998) Valuation of ecological resources and functions. Environ Manag 22(1):49–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skourtos M, Kontogianni A, Harrison PA (2010) Reviewing the dynamics of ecosystem values and preferences. Biodivers Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10531-009-9722-3

  • Svarstad H, Petersen KL, Rothman D, Siepel H, Watzold F (2007) Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR. Land Use Policy 25:116–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thirgood S, Redpath S (2008) Hen harriers and red grouse: science, politics and human–wildlife conflict. J Appl Ecol 45:1550–1554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varon EH, Eigenbrode SD, Bosque-Perez NA et al (2007) Effect of farm diversity on harvesting of coffee leaves by the leaf-curring ant Atta cephalotes. Agric For Entomol 9:47–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xue D, Tisdell C (2001) Valuing ecological functions of biodiversity in Changbaishan Mountain Biosphere Reserve in Northeast China. Biodivers Conserv 10(3):467–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the RUBICODE Coordination Action Project (Rationalising Biodiversity Conservation in Dynamic Ecosystems; www.rubicode.net) funded under the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Commission (Contract No. 036890). RUBICODE is an endorsed project of the Global Land Project of the International Geosphere–Biosphere Project. The authors are grateful to all RUBICODE partners for their contributions to many productive discussions in the development of FESP, and especially to Gary Luck for his insightful comments in reviewing an earlier draft of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for the Study of Environmental Change and Sustainability, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Drummond Street, Edinburgh, UK

    M. D. A. Rounsevell

  2. School of Geography, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, UK

    T. P. Dawson

  3. Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK

    P. A. Harrison

Authors
  1. M. D. A. Rounsevell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. P. Dawson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. A. Harrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. D. A. Rounsevell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rounsevell, M.D.A., Dawson, T.P. & Harrison, P.A. A conceptual framework to assess the effects of environmental change on ecosystem services. Biodivers Conserv 19, 2823–2842 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9838-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9838-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation