Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education

2019 Edition
| Editors: Walter Leal Filho

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development

  • Petra SchneiderEmail author
  • Anna Belousova
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11352-0_423

Abstract

The paper aims on the characterization of the role of ecosystem services (ES) in the frame of sustainable development. ES are services produced by ecosystems through the function of the compartments of the respective ecosystem that provide essential benefits to human (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, ISBN 1-59726-040-1, 2005). They include purification of drinking water and air, climate regulation, pest and disease control, pollination, and other mechanisms of supporting food production, medicinal resources, flood regulation, and the recreational value. The paper presents the current status on ES assessment frameworks and their classification as well as typology and provides insights into the intrinsic value and the approaches for economic valorisation of ES. Sustainable development is a driving force for the effectiveness of ES which aims particularly also to defragmentation of environment as well as social and economic aspects. Nature conservation provides lessons on reintegration. These strategies go beyond conventional spatial and conservation planning as the focus is a holistic reintegration. In terms of ES, the lessons to be learned lead to nature-based planning solutions, for instance, for climate change adaptation or flood protection. But the role of ES goes much beyond this, having in view also the future role of cultural ecosystem services.

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

Notes

Acknowledgments

The current contribution was prepared in the context of the project “Water Management and Climate Change in the Focus of International Master Programs WATERMAS” funded by the Erasmus+ Program of the European Union. In this regard, this manuscript reflects only the views of the authors; as such, the European Union cannot be held responsible for these views or any future use of them.

References

  1. Antrop M (2005) Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landsc Urban Plan 70(1–2):21–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergen V, Löwenstein W, Olschewski R (2013) Forstökonomie – Ansätze für eine vernünftige Umwelt- und Landnutzung. Vahlen, München, 477 pGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63:616–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burkhard B, Maes J (eds) (2017) Mapping ecosystem services. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, 376 pp. Open AccessGoogle Scholar
  5. Burkhard B, Kandziora M, Hou Y, Müller F (2014) Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands – concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landsc Online 34:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen-Shacham E, Walters G, Janzen C, Maginnis S (eds) (2016) Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. IUCN, Gland, xiii + 97pp.  https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en. ISBN 978-2-8317-1812-5
  7. De Groot R, Fisher B, Christie M, Aronson J, Braat L, Gowdy J, Haines-Young R, Maltby E, Neuville A, Polasky S, Portella R, Ring I (2010) Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In: Kumar P (ed) TEEB – The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London/Washington, DC, pp 9–40Google Scholar
  8. Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks – triple bottom line of 21st century business. New Society Publishers, Stoney CreekGoogle Scholar
  9. European Commission, FET Advisory Group (2016) The need to integrate the Social Sciences and Humanities with Science and Engineering in Horizon 2020 and beyond. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. European Environment Agency (2011) Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). Paper prepared for discussion at the expert meeting on ecosystem accounts organised by the UNSD, the EEA and the World Bank, London, December 2011Google Scholar
  11. European Union (2016) Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services – mapping and assessing the condition of Europe’s ecosystems: progress and challenges, 3rd report – final, March 2016.  https://doi.org/10.2779/351581. ISBN 978-92-79-55019-5
  12. Fish R, Church A, Winter M (2016) Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: a novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosyst Serv 21: 208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher B, Turner K (2008) Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biol Conserv 141:1167–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hersperger AM, Bürgi M (2009) Going beyond landscape change description: quantifying the importance of driving forces of landscape change in a Central Europe case study. Land Use Policy 26:640–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoff H (2011) Understanding the Nexus. Background paper for the Bonn 2011 conference: the water, energy and food security Nexus. Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), StockholmGoogle Scholar
  16. IPBES (2016) Decision IPBES-214: conceptual framework for the intergovernmental science – policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. http://www.ipbes.het/
  17. Kabisch N, Korn H, Stadler J, Bonn A (2017) Nature-based solutions to climate change in urban areas – linkages of science, policy and practice. Theory and practice of urban sustainability transitions. Springer, Cham.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Langemeyer J, Camps-Calvet M, Calvet-Mir L, Barthel S, Gómez-Baggethun E (2017) Stewardship of urban ecosystem services: understanding the value(s) of urban gardens in Barcelona. Landsc Urban Plan.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.013
  19. Lindborg R, Eriksson O (2004) Historical landscape connectivity affects present plant species diversity. Ecology 85:1840–1845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. ISBN 1-59726-040-1Google Scholar
  21. Naturkapital Deutschland – TEEB DE (2012) Der Wert der Natur für Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft – Eine Einführung. ifuplan/Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung – UFZ/Bundesamt für Naturschutz, München/Leipzig/Bonn. Download 14.10.2014. http://www.naturkapital-teeb.de/publikationen/projekteigene-publikationen.htmlGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Farrell PJ, Anderson PML (2010) Sustainable multifunctional landscapes: a review to implementation. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Olschewski R (2017) Bewertung von Ökosystemleistungen: eine Bestandsaufnahme. Schweiz Z Forstwes 168(1):3–13. PerspectivesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pascual U, Balvanera P, Diaz S, Pataki G, Roth E, Stenseke M, Watson RT, Dessane EB, Islar M, Kelemen E, Maris V, Quaas M, Subramanian SM, Wittmer H, Adlan A, Ahn S, Al-Hafedh YS, Amankwah E, Asah ST, Berry P, Bilgin A, Breslow SJ, Bullock C, Caceres D, Hamed Daly-Hassen H, Figueroa E, Golden CD, Gomez-Baggethun E, Gonzalez-Jimenez D, Houdet J, Keune H, Kumar R, Ma K, May PH, Mead A, O’Farrell P, Pandit R, Pengue W, Pichis-Madruga R, Popa F, Preston S, Pacheco-Balanza D, Saarikoski H, Strassburg BB, van den Belt M, Verma M, Wickson F, Yagi N (2017) Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26:7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Plieninger T, Kizos T, Bieling C, Le Dû-Blayo L, Budniok M-A, Bürgi M, Crumley CL, Girod G, Howard P, Kolen J, Kuemmerle T, Milcinski G, Palang H, Trommler K, Verburg PH (2015) Exploring ecosystem-change and society through a landscape lens: recent progress in European landscape research. Ecol Soc 20(2):5.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07443-200205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roetman PEJ, Daniels CB (2011) Creating sustainable communities in a changing world. Crawford House Publishing, Adelaide, p 262Google Scholar
  27. Schmidt K, Walz A, Martín-López B, Sachse R (2017) Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences. Ecosyst Serv 26:270–288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schneider P, Popovici LD (2019) Approaches for the implementation of water-related cultural ecosystem services in teaching programs on sustainable development. In: Leal Filho W, McCrea AC (eds) Sustainability and humanities. Springer, Cham, pp 267–289.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95336-6 (online first)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schneider P, Folkens L, Busch M (2018) The teaching-research-practice nexus as framework for the implementation of sustainability in curricula in higher education. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Implementing sustainability in the curriculum of universities. World sustainability series. Springer, Cham, pp 113–135.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70281-0_8. ISBN 978-3-319-70280-3 (online first)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schröter M (2017) Do ecosystem services and sustainability fit together? ESP-DE Blog. http://www.esp-de.de/passen-oekosystemleistungen-und-nachhaltigkeit-zusammen/. Accessed 02 Dec 2017
  31. Schröter M, vander zanden EH, van Oudenhoven APE, Remme RP, Sema-chavet HM, de Groot RS, Opdam P (2014) Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-arguments.  https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.1209n. Conservation letters
  32. Teal JM, Weinstein MP (2002) Ecological engineering, design, and construction considerations for marsh restorations in Delaware Bay, USA. Ecol Eng 18:607–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. http://www.theweb.org/our-publications/teeb-study-reports/synthesis-report/
  34. United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations – Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 25.09.2015Google Scholar
  35. Zimmermann RC (2006) Recording rural landscapes and their cultural associations: some initial results and impressions. Environ Sci Policy 9(4):360–369.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.01.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zölch T, Wamsler C, Pauleit S (2018) Integrating the ecosystem-based approach into municipal climate adaptation strategies: the case of Germany. J Clean Prod 170:966–977.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.146CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department Water, Environment, Civil Engineering and SafetyUniversity of Applied Sciences Magdeburg-StendalMagdeburgGermany
  2. 2.C&E Consulting und Engineering GmbHChemnitzGermany

Section editors and affiliations

  • Markus Will
  • Isabel Novo-Corti
    • 1
  • Bernd Delakowitz
    • 2
  1. 1.University of A Coruna Constantin Brancusi UniversityA CoruñaTargu-JiuRomania
  2. 2.University of Applied Sciences Zittau-GörlitzZittau-GörlitzGermany