Interregional flows of ecosystem services: Concepts, typology and four cases

Abstract Conserving and managing global natural capital requires an understanding of the complexity of flows of ecosystem services across geographic boundaries. Failing to understand and to incorporate these flows into national and international ecosystem assessments leads to incomplete and potentially skewed conclusions, impairing society’s ability to identify sustainable management and policy choices. In this paper, we synthesise existing knowledge and develop a conceptual framework for analysing interregional ecosystem service flows. We synthesise the types of such flows, the characteristics of sending and receiving socio-ecological systems, and the impacts of ecosystem service flows on interregional sustainability. Using four cases (trade of certified coffee, migration of northern pintails, flood protection in the Danube watershed, and information on giant pandas), we test the conceptual framework and show how an enhanced understanding of interregional telecouplings in socio-ecological systems can inform ecosystem service-based decision making and governance with respect to sustainability goals.

[1]  Wei Liu,et al.  Multiple telecouplings and their complex interrelationships , 2015 .

[2]  Sanderine Nonhebel,et al.  International wood trade and forest change: A global analysis , 2011 .

[3]  R. Biggs,et al.  Mapping social–ecological systems: Identifying ‘green-loop’ and ‘red-loop’ dynamics based on characteristic bundles of ecosystem service use , 2015 .

[4]  Kevin M. Podruzny,et al.  Long-term response of northern pintails to changes in wetlands and agriculture in the Canadian prairie pothole region , 2002 .

[5]  Patrick Hostert,et al.  From teleconnection to telecoupling: taking stock of an emerging framework in land system science , 2016 .

[6]  Benjamin Burkhard,et al.  Mapping Ecosystem Services , 2017 .

[7]  Stefan Giljum,et al.  Measuring telecouplings in the global land system: A review and comparative evaluation of land footprint accounting methods , 2015 .

[8]  R. Costanza.  Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed , 2008 .

[9]  R. DeFries,et al.  Framing Sustainability in a Telecoupled World , 2013, Ecology and Society.

[10]  Claire Brown,et al.  National Ecosystem Assessments in Europe: A Review , 2016, Bioscience.

[11]  Eric F. Lambin,et al.  Globalization of land use: distant drivers of land change and geographic displacement of land use , 2013 .

[12]  K. Seto,et al.  Urban land teleconnections and sustainability , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  Eugen Avram,et al.  Perception of flood risk in Danube Delta, Romania , 2009 .

[14]  Unai Pascual,et al.  Off-stage ecosystem service burdens: A blind spot for global sustainability , 2017 .

[15]  Klaus Hubacek,et al.  Tele-connecting local consumption to global land use , 2013 .

[16]  R. D. Groot,et al.  Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making , 2010 .

[17]  Darius J. Semmens,et al.  Accounting for the ecosystem services of migratory species: Quantifying migration support and spatial subsidies , 2011 .

[18]  Berta Martín-López,et al.  Mapping forest ecosystem services: from providing units to beneficiaries. , 2013 .

[19]  B. Thorsen,et al.  Patriotic values for public goods: transnational trade-offs for biodiversity and ecosystem services? , 2015 .

[20]  Berta Martín-López,et al.  Delineating boundaries of social-ecological systems for landscape planning: A comprehensive spatial approach , 2017 .

[21]  A. Klein,et al.  Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[22]  E. Lambin,et al.  INAUGURAL ARTICLE by a Recently Elected Academy Member:Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity , 2011 .

[23]  Edgar G. Hertwich,et al.  Ecological footprint of nations: Comparison of process analysis, and standard and hybrid multiregional input–output analysis , 2014 .

[24]  Gary W. Johnson,et al.  Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services , 2013 .

[25]  Wolfgang Lucht,et al.  Embodied HANPP: Mapping the spatial disconnect between global biomass production and consumption , 2009 .

[26]  Eric F. Lambin,et al.  Forest transitions, trade, and the global displacement of land use , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  J. Dubovsky,et al.  Replacement Cost Valuation of Northern Pintail (Anas acuta) Subsistence Harvest in Arctic and Sub-Arctic North America , 2014 .

[28]  Stacy M. Philpott,et al.  Shade Coffee: Update on a Disappearing Refuge for Biodiversity , 2014 .

[29]  J. Kamp,et al.  Northern Pintail Anas acuta , 2020 .

[30]  N. Thomas,et al.  Eco-certification and coffee cultivation enhance tree cover and forest connectivity in the Colombian coffee landscapes , 2014, Regional Environmental Change.

[31]  S. Moser,et al.  The long arm of climate change: societal teleconnections and the future of climate change impacts studies , 2015, Climatic Change.

[32]  Robert G. Clark,et al.  A modeling framework for integrated harvest and habitat management of North American waterfowl: Case-study of northern pintail metapopulation dynamics , 2012 .

[33]  P. Balvanera,et al.  Ecosystem services across borders: a framework for transboundary conservation policy , 2010 .

[34]  Li An,et al.  Agent-based modeling of the effects of social norms on enrollment in payments for ecosystem services. , 2012, Ecological modelling.

[35]  Berta Martín-López,et al.  Ecosystem Services Flows: Why Stakeholders’ Power Relationships Matter , 2015, PloS one.

[36]  A. Bondeau,et al.  Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[37]  William E. Rees,et al.  Interregional sustainability: governance and policy in an ecologically interdependent world , 2011 .

[38]  William E. Rees,et al.  An interregional ecological approach for modelling sustainability in a globalizing world???Reviewing existing approaches and emerging directions , 2010 .

[39]  Floor I. Vandevenne,et al.  Soybean Trade: Balancing Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts of an Intercontinental Market , 2016, PloS one.

[40]  K. Jax,et al.  Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade , 2017, Ecosystem services.

[41]  Unai Pascual,et al.  Social Equity Matters in Payments for Ecosystem Services , 2014 .

[42]  Peter H. Verburg,et al.  Quantifying Spatial Variation in Ecosystem Services Demand: A Global Mapping Approach , 2017 .

[43]  P. Verburg,et al.  Mapping ecosystem services demand: A review of current research and future perspectives , 2015 .

[44]  Stanley T. Asah,et al.  The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people , 2015 .

[45]  Helmut Haberl,et al.  Using embodied HANPP to analyze teleconnections in the global land system: Conceptual considerations , 2009 .

[46]  H. Campa,et al.  Telecoupling framework for research on migratory species in the Anthropocene , 2017 .

[47]  B. Merz,et al.  Trends in flood magnitude, frequency and seasonality in Germany in the period 1951–2002 , 2009 .

[48]  Willem Bouten,et al.  A quantitative framework for assessing spatial flows of ecosystem services , 2014 .

[49]  Christoph Schmitz,et al.  Trading more food: Implications for land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and the food system , 2012 .

[50]  Pete Smith,et al.  UK National Ecosystem Assessment:Technical report , 2011 .

[51]  Maria Cristina Rulli,et al.  Global land and water grabbing , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[52]  E. Bennett,et al.  Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery , 2013 .

[53]  Helmut Haberl,et al.  Trading Land: A Review of Approaches to Accounting for Upstream Land Requirements of Traded Products , 2015, Journal of industrial ecology.

[54]  W. Thogmartin,et al.  Ecosystem Services from Transborder Migratory Species: Implications for Conservation Governance , 2017 .

[55]  F. Boons,et al.  National Contexts Matter: The Co-Evolution of Sustainability Standards in Global Value Chains , 2012 .

[56]  F. Müller,et al.  Rural-urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics , 2012 .

[57]  Wu Yang,et al.  Framing ecosystem services in the telecoupled Anthropocene , 2016 .

[58]  Jacqueline Loos,et al.  Refocusing ecosystem services towards sustainability , 2017 .

[59]  Eld,et al.  Ocean grabbing , 2018 .

[60]  V. Seufert,et al.  Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture , 2012, Nature.

[61]  E. Lambin,et al.  Responding to Globalization: Impacts of Certification on Colombian Small-Scale Coffee Growers , 2013 .

[62]  Jan Sendzimir,et al.  Nested vulnerability:exploring cross-scale linkages and vulnerability teleconnections in Mexican and Vietnamese coffee systems , 2009 .

[63]  J. Newig,et al.  Globalization’s limits to the environmental state? Integrating telecoupling into global environmental governance , 2016 .

[64]  Unai Pascual,et al.  Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations , 2016 .

[65]  E. Bennett,et al.  Disentangling the Pathways and Effects of Ecosystem Service Co-Production , 2016 .