No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Geosystem services: A hidden link in ecosystem management
Abstract
This paper explores the representation of goods and services from the subsurface, as defined by the concept of geosystem services, in contemporary ecosystems literature. A framework is defined consistent with and complementary to the categorization defined under CICES. Following the Campbell Collaboration protocol, a systematic literature review is conducted on the representation of subsurface-related goods and services in ecosystem services research. The review shows that, in the period between 2000 and 2016, for every publication on subsurface services 140 articles on ecosystem services have been published. The results further indicate that valuation and governance studies on geosystem services are scarce. This gap stems from the exclusion of a number of abiotic goods and services from the classification as well as a lack of attention from the current scientific community to this topic. Studies to date have been performed in a limited number of English-speaking countries by researchers with backgrounds in ecology, biology, earth sciences and mining engineering. The underrepresentation of geosystem services in the scientific literature negatively impacts integrated decision making in spatial planning, environmental policy making and long term ecosystem management.
... Most mineral deposits were formed millions or even billions of years ago. Their generation occurred through special geological processes under favorable conditions in appropriate mineral systems [30] that form a part of geosystem services [31][32][33][34]. Ecosystem services refer to biotic nature and are defined as "the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfill human life" [35] (p. ...
... Geosystem services can be recognized as the goods and functions associated with geodiversity, which contribute to human well-being specifically resulting from the surface and subsurface [32,33,36]. The products of geosystem services provide society, for example, with arable land, groundwater, geothermal energy, and mineral raw materials [31][32][33][34]. However, geosystem services have also shaped the landscapes that can be suitable, among others, for tourism, recreation, wind farms, reindeer herding, or as habitats for rare species. ...
... Such areas may be classified as potential no-go zones for mining and mineral exploration due to their high risk of conflict [15,100]. However, the underrepresentation of geosystem services in ecosystem assessment, which leads to the undervaluation of nature, is problematic, as it negatively impacts decision making in spatial planning, environmental policy making, and long-term ecosystem management [34]. Better consideration of diverse types of geosystem services in each region may help to accommodate them together in a more harmonious way. ...
Geosystem services produced by geological processes are the abiotic equivalents of ecosystem services. Geosystems also contribute to satisfying human needs and produce welfare in the form of, e.g., mineral deposits, landscapes for recreation and tourism, and habitats for rare species that require protection. Geosystems are inherently linked to ecosystems, which causes overlap between provided services. This overlap may in turn cause conflicts over land-use needs and interests. Such controversies can be manifested as mining and mineral exploration disputes (MMEDs). Six MMEDs from Finland were selected for a closer examination. The MMEDs are described and spatially analyzed from the geosystem services perspective. The main causes for the examined MMEDs are land-use issues, i.e., the location of a project in a sensitive context (a protected area (PA), tourism destination, reindeer herding area, or lake area with vacation homes), and/or association with uranium. There have been attempts to block some of the projects through land-use planning by expanding PAs or excluding mining from the municipality. Conversely, one of the projects is an example of the safeguarding of mineral deposits by province-level land-use planning. A more comprehensive consideration of geosystem services by land-use planning may help to accommodate and reconciliate diverse interests and alleviate disputes.
... Ecosystem services are, by definition, the contributions that ecosystems make to human well-being, but services rendered by the nonliving (abiotic) parts of ecosystems, including those derived from the subsurface, are often neglected in ecosystem services classification systems (van der Meulen et al., 2016a; van Ree and van Beukering, 2016). An explanation suggested by van Ree et al (2017) for this lack of inclusion of abiotic parts of ecosystems is that ecologists and biologists constituted a predominant group of the scientists involved in the development of the ecosystem services concept and that this indirectly caused other disciplines (e.g., geology, biogeochemistry, geomorphology, and geohydrology) to be underrepresented. However, ecosystems are not independent of abiotic nature (biophysical structures and processes) or its geodiversity, and the boundary between abiotic and biotic services is usually blurred (Fox et al., 2020). ...
... Although biodiversity and ecosystem services are increasingly embedded in global and national environmental policies, geodiversity and the services derived from these abiotic features have not received the same status and standing as their biotic counterparts (e.g. Crofts, 2014;Gray, 2018;Schrodt et al., 2019;van Ree et al., 2017). In fact, 'nature' is often used in literature as a synonym for biodiversity alone, excluding the physical environment composed by abiotic nature (Gray, 2013(Gray, , 2018. ...
... In fact, 'nature' is often used in literature as a synonym for biodiversity alone, excluding the physical environment composed by abiotic nature (Gray, 2013(Gray, , 2018. Thus, as a parallel to (Gray, 2011, 2013, Gray, 2018, or as a complement to (van Ree and van Beukering, 2016;van Ree et al., 2017) the ecosystem services concept, the concept of geosystem services has been suggested as a way for making the full values of geodiversity (Gray, 2011, 2013, Gray, 2018 and the subsurface ( van Ree and van Beukering, 2016;van Ree et al., 2017) visible and acknowledged, supporting integrated decision-making in spatial planning and environmental policy making. As with ecosystem services, geosystem services have been categorised into provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services, in addition to the novel knowledge services category (Gray, 2011(Gray, , 2012(Gray, , 2018. ...
The subsurface is a multifunctional natural resource. However, a mindset of “out of sight, out of mind” and a first-come-first-served principle are prevalent when accessing these resources, compromising fair intergenerational and intragenerational distribution and sustainable development. As with the ecosystem services (ES) concept, which acknowledges the contribution of the living part of nature to human well-being, the concept of geosystem services (GS) has been suggested as a way to highlight abiotic services and services provided by the subsurface. The overall aim of this study was to review current definitions of GS and their categorisation, and to suggest how the concept of GS can support subsurface planning. A systematic literature review on GS was carried out following the PRISMA protocol drawing from the Scopus database. The emerging picture from the reviewed articles is that the GS concept is both one of novelty and one currently showing inconsistency, with two prominent definitions: A) GS are abiotic services that are the direct result of the planet’s geodiversity, independent of the interactions with biotic nature – there is no differentiation between suprasurface and subsurface features, and B) GS provide benefits specifically resulting from the subsurface. Thirty-one out of thirty-nine GS listed in the reviewed literature are included in the abiotic extension of the common ES framework CICES v5.1, but some essential services are omitted. A unified definition of GS is desirable to build a common framework for classifying and describing GS, potentially following the CICES structure for ES. Such a framework can support systematic inclusion of GS in planning processes and contribute to improved subsurface planning. In planning practice, there are examples of important GS that are already included under the ES umbrella because planners are aware of their importance but a comprehensive framework to handle these services is lacking.
... Geodiversity has a wide range of functions and provides numerous services (Gray 2013). Many authors have already recognized abiotic ecosystem services (or geosystem services) that demonstrate that geodiversity should be respected as a full-value part of landscapes (Gordon and Barron 2012;van Ree et al. 2017;Gray 2018;Fox et al. 2020;Reverte et al. 2020). Regarding the scope of its various functions and services, geodiversity has very close links to biodiversity (Najwer et al. 2016;Tukiainen et al. 2017Tukiainen et al. , 2022Alahuhta et al. 2018;Bailey et al. 2018), and the relationships to culture, history or archaeology are also strong and well established (Pica et al. 2016;Reynard et al. 2017;Kubalíková et al. 2020;Kubalíková and Zapletalová 2021). ...
... The concept of ecosystem services (ES) gradually developed in the second half of the twentieth century (Costanza et al. 1997(Costanza et al. , 2017, and today it is fully accepted as an important basis for nature conservation, landscape planning or responsible and sustainable use of natural resources. The acceptance of geodiversity within the concept of ecosystem services by the wider community is still ambiguous (Gray 2018) even though some authors (Gordon and Barron 2012;Gray et al. 2013;van Ree et al. 2017;Fox et al. 2020) have analysed and emphasized the important role of geodiversity in delivering ecosystem services. Gray (2013Gray ( , 2018 presented a detailed scheme of geosystem services following the classical division of ecosystem services into regulating, supporting, provisioning and cultural categories, and included an additional category of 'knowledge' services. ...
... Consequently, this concept may be considered as an alternative to the concepts of geoheritage-cultural heritage relationships proposed by Pijet-Migońand Migoń(2022) or the essential geodiversity variables defined by Schrodt et al. (2019), especially at the local level, with overreach to practical applications (nature conservation, sustainable tourism development, education, integration of geodiversity into urban planning). The application of this methodological approach also enables the exploration of the relationships landscape-cultural value of geoheritage (Reynard and Giusti 2018) and confirms the relevance of the concept of abiotic ecosystem services/geosystem services (van Ree et al. 2017;Gray 2018;Garcia 2019;Fox et al. 2020). Therefore, it should be developed in further studies and applied in different areas with different settings where geodiversity, biodiversity and culture meet, no matter where they are situated. ...
Geodiversity represents a basis of landscape and it has close connections to biodiversity and culture. This complexity is well visible in different types of areas and should be taken into account when planning and managing natural resources, considering legal protection, and developing sustainable forms of tourism and environmental education activities. Abandoned quarries represent a good example of a specific ecosystem where the relationships between geodiversity, biodiversity and culture are very tight and clearly visible. The Hády quarries (Brno, Czech Republic) shows such a case which has significant potential regarding the development of geotourist and geoeducational activities. To recognize and evaluate the mutual links between abiotic, biotic and cultural issues, the ecosystem services concept was applied and together with a mind map, it served as a basis for preparing a geotourist map. However, merging these two approaches can be used for other purposes. It may be considered a solid basis for designing integrated promotion, conservation and management of natural and cultural heritage. These two tools also enable involving local stakeholders and communities and may be applied also in other areas where geodiversity, biodiversity and culture are closely interconnected.
... However, the subsurface is not only a source of space to be used in the built environment, it also has important functions and provides ecosystem and geosystem services (Fox et al., 2020;van Ree et al., 2016van Ree et al., , 2017 and should thus be more fully integrated in urban analyses (von der Tann et al., 2020;Qiao et al., 2022a, b). Over the last decades the attention to the subsurface has increased as a result of soil and groundwater contamination and its related health risks leading to soil protection strategies. ...
... The geosystem services concept (van Ree et al., 2016(van Ree et al., , 2017 distinguishes between: -provisioning services, by which the subsurface has been the provider of earth materials as 'goods' over many millennia. An example is the supply of building materials like sand and clay as well as the use of groundwater -cultural services, which are the nonmaterial benefits to humans such as spiritual and recreational benefits. ...
... Two main services were selected that constitute important building blocks. These are subsurface space as a geosystem provision service and the thermal balance as a geosystem regulating service (van Ree et al., 2017). To determine impacts and analyse potential trade-offs current uses, future trends and potential scarcity need to be determined. ...
The subsurface is a crucial dimension of cities’ landscapes, and its qualities and structures have direct repercussions on the urban environment above surface. However, systematic accounts of its characteristics in urban planning processes are virtually absent, rendering it an underappreciated asset because it is overlooked. When integrated in urban planning, the consideration of subsurface functions and space scarcity can improve and optimize infrastructure management and urban development. Sustainable urban development must include the subsurface as a space, and needs to account for the exploiting, preservation and occupation of that natural environment. The geosystem services approach allows for the evaluation of competing or even conflicting uses, to determine the implications for human wellbeing and sustainability.
This paper looks at the implementation of heat-distribution networks in the city of Amsterdam as part of their heat-transition plan. This plan contains an order of implementation in different neighbourhoods without looking further into detail in the subsurface consequences. The present research intends to address this knowledge gap by applying an indicator for the measurement of underground space scarcity. An analysis is performed using GIS-data and detailed data from the Dutch cadastre database on the existing urban underground infrastructure to determine an infrastructure density (Urban Underground Infrastructure Density) indicator with the assumption that this may support further prioritization to determine the order of implementation. Showing the thermal interaction between heat distribution and drinking water supply pipelines furthermore points to the subsurface heat balance as an important geosystem service to be accounted for in the onset heat-transition. Finally, a quantitative analysis investigates the relationships between this indicator and other relevant socio-demographic and geo-spatial factors. This represents an important attempt to analyse the role of the subsurface in strategic masterplans and in the planning of large urban infrastructure projects. The study reports methodological findings, highlighting the opportunities and challenges of integrating subsurface needs into urban planning, and the necessity of interdisciplinary approaches.
... However, only in more recent years, apart from being seen primarily as a construction basis to provide physical space for infrastructure and to create a better surface living environment, the subsurface has been recognised as a multifunctional natural resource, which provides physical space, water, energy, materials, habitats for ecosystems and support for surface life, while also acting as a repository for cultural heritage and geological archives (e.g. Parriaux et al., 2004Parriaux et al., , 2007Admiraal, 2006;Bobylev, 2009;Maring, 2013, 2018;Griffioen et al., 2014;Hallbeck and Pedersen, 2014;Thulin et al., 2014;Tummers & Hooimeijer, 2016; van Ree et al., 2017;Drake et al., 2017). Consequently, the subsurface forms manmade and natural assets, i.e. it creates a potential or actual value to society by providing services (see e.g. de Mulder and Pereira, 2009;Price et al., 2016;Bobylev, 2016a,b; van Ree and van Beukering, 2016;Maring and Blauw, 2018;Lindblom et al., 2018). ...
... A large body of studies consequently aims to address the challenge of the invisibility of the subsurface (e.g. Parriaux et al., 2004Parriaux et al., , 2007de Mulder and Pereira, 2009;de Mulder et al., 2012;Bobylev, 2009;Maring, 2013, 2018;Griffioen et al., 2014;Makana et al., 2016;Norrman et al., 2016; van Ree et al., 2017;Maring and Blauw, 2018;Vähäaho, 2018;Lindblom et al., 2018;Mossmark et al., 2018). ...
... This view is supported by van der Meulen et al. (2016b), who argue that abiotic flows should be included as an inherent part of classifications such as the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), to make the application of the ESS concept more holistic. Further, the study by van Ree et al. (2017) elaborates the notion of geosystem services to include the representation of goods and services from the subsurface, based on the concept introduced by Gray (2012) and Gray et al. (2013) as well as subsurface functions described by de Mulder et al. (2012) (Fig. 5). These geosystem services (here, both biotic and abiotic) are seen to be complementary to the categorisation of ESS defined under CICES (2012). ...
In response to powerful trends in technology, resource and land supply and demand, socioeconomics and geopolitics, cities are likely to increase use of the subsurface in the near future. Indeed, the subsurface and its appropriate use have been put forward as being of crucial importance if we are to achieve resilient and sustainable cities. In recent years, quite apart from being seen primarily as a construction basis to provide physical space for infrastructure and to create a better surface living environment, the subsurface has been recognised as a multifunctional natural resource, one which provides physical space, water, energy, materials, habitats for ecosystems, support for surface life, and a repository for cultural heritage and geological archives. Currently, the subsurface is often utilised according to the “first-come-first-served” principle, which hinders possibilities to take strategic decisions on prioritisation and optimisation of competing subsurface uses, as well as fair inter- and intragenerational distribution of limited natural resources. Taking a broad international perspective, this paper investigates the subsurface as a multifunctional resource from five focal points: (1) what professionals with different backgrounds mean when using different terms related to the subsurface; (2) how professionals describe the subsurface and its multiple resources, functions and services; (3) how planning of subsurface use is supported in policy and regulations; (4) how the subsurface is included in the planning process; and (5) frameworks that can support decision-making on responsible use of the subsurface. The study reveals that the subsurface must be recognised (not only by scientists but also by decision- and policy-makers and other stakeholders) as a precious and multifunctional resource requiring careful planning and sensitive management in accordance with its potential and its value to society. Utilisation of the different subsurface functions to yield services requires careful planning and a framework to support decision-makers in achieving a balance between utilisation and preservation, and between the subsurface functions themselves in the case of outright utilisation. Further, to facilitate the necessary change towards transdisciplinary work settings in the planning process and form a platform for knowledge exchange and capacity building, there is an urgent need for a common language, i.e. mutually understandable terminology, and a common understanding, i.e. an all-inclusive view on the subsurface as a complex multifunctional resource.
... It is important to note that Mg 2+ mined as a geosystem service can be partially substituted by atmospheric deposition [27]. Atmospheric deposition of nutrients have typically been excluded in a similar way to how abiotic subservice processes have been often omitted from the ES approach [23]. ...
... Atmospheric deposition of nutrients have typically been excluded in a similar way to how abiotic subservice processes have been often omitted from the ES approach [23]. In Mg 2+ -limited areas, atmospheric deposition can augment the pedosphere and lithosphere services [27] with Mg 2+ additions. The monetary value of atmospheric deposition is often unidentified in the market due to lack of information and/or knowledge of the valuation method (Table 7). ...
... Ecosystem services from the atmospheric magnesium deposition flows (wet, dry, and total), which can be considered a naturally occurring liming and fertilizer materials, have not been included in economic valuations of ecosystem services. This represents an example of a "nature-based" addition, in contrast to "human-derived" nutrient materials [27]. This study demonstrated the market valuation of atmospheric magnesium deposition in the USA within science-based boundaries (e.g., soil order), and administrative boundaries (e.g., state, region) based on liming replacement costs. ...
Ecosystem services (ES) often rely on biogeochemical cycles, but values associated with abiotic services are often ignored or underestimated. Ecosystem services from atmospheric magnesium (Mg2+) deposition are abiotic flows (wet, dry, and total), which can be considered a source of naturally-occurring fertilizer and liming material, have not been included in economic valuations of ecosystem services. Market-based valuation of these atmospheric ecosystem service flows can partially address this negative externality. This study assessed the value of wet, dry, and total atmospheric magnesium deposition flows in the contiguous United States (U.S.) within boundary-based administrative accounts (e.g., state, region) based on data from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NRSP-3), and the market price of human-derived material (agricultural dolomite, CaMg(CO3)2). The total supporting ecosystem value of atmospheric magnesium deposition flows was $46.7M (i.e., 46.7 million U.S. dollars) ($18.5M wet + $28.2M dry) based on an average 2014 price of $12.90 per U.S. ton of agricultural dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2). The atmosphere is a common-pool resource which plays an important role in pedosphere, by providing important abiotic ES but its monetary value is often not identified in the market due to the lack of information and/or knowledge of the proper valuation method. This study demonstrates one approach to translate atmospheric magnesium deposition flows entering the soil as an abiotic ES and potential monetary values at various scales. Omission of abiotic services in ES analysis can lead to an incomplete economic valuation.
... Ecosystem services play a major role in 41 of 169 targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (Wood et al. 2018). The study of Van Ree et al. (2017) aimed to debunk the place of geosystem services in ecosystem management. They found that geosystem services are significantly underrepresented in contemporary studies on the topic. ...
... They found that geosystem services are significantly underrepresented in contemporary studies on the topic. Conceptualization of ecosystem services has been driven predominantly by biological and ecological scientists, interpreting biodiversity and ecosystems as underpinning all dimensions of human, societal, cultural, and economic wellbeing (Folke et al. 2016;Van Ree et al. 2017). Geomorphosites for geotourism Štrba et al. (2015) To compare selected geosite assessment methods to prove that further research is needed for geotourism planning and management. ...
Geological resources are basic elements that have shaped both the course of human history and characteristics of human society. Protection of their imprint on our landscapes underlies the field of nature conservation known as geoconservation. Explicitly from 1991—when the term “geoheritage” was used at the First International Symposium on the Conservation of our Geological Heritage—a large body of literature has been produced with multiple conceptualizations. In response to challenges in finding a common definition of geoconservation, a systematic mapping of the scientific literature was undertaken to define key concepts supported by scientific evidence. The aim of this study was understanding the evolution of the research field between 2000 and 2019 to improve conceptual clarity. Relevant databases such as Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Scopus were searched, resulting in the identification of a total of 2478 studies. A method of systematic mapping with supervised keyword acquisition was used to assess geoheritage conservation documents. The analysis uncovered four recurrent concepts, each one describing a very different scope for geoheritage conservation: i) geoscience focus; ii) aligned conservation methods for geo- and biodiversity; iii) the concept of geomorphosites, as a leading resource for geoparks; iv) emphasis on community involvement for sustainability. For characterization of the concept groups, 70 findings were identified as primary articles following criteria implemented through direct reading. These criteria were derived from the identified keywords of each concept group. The information gained by the process allowed us to characterize and list all the major standpoints present in the scientific literature.
... De Groot et al. [69] distinguish the use of biotic resources (i.e., products from living plants and animals) and abiotic resources (mainly sub-surface minerals). The biotic resources have always been considered and rather emphasized, but in the recent years, the importance of abiotic resources is also recognized [70][71][72]. Regulating services are the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes, e.g., climate regulation, water regulation, pests and disease regulation [48]. According to de Groot et al. [69] these services are essential to human existence on the Earth. ...
... Generally, the cultural ecosystem services can be defined as nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences [48]. The conceptual and methodological aspects of cultural ecosystem services were discussed in numerous papers [69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80]. ...
The communication presents the pieces of information of the ecosystem services estimation of the four research localities transformed from an arable land to vegetation features—bosks. These bosks should dispose several ecological functions, primarily anti-erosion measures, additionally the local biodiversity increase, unfavorable microclimate mitigation, shelter provision for small game, birds and insects, or wood and fruit production, etc. One of these benefits, the biodiversity increase, can be evaluated using the Habitat Valuation Method (HVM) and expressed by the financial value obtained on the basis of a combination of expert valuation and cost replacement method. The various combinations of local woody plants and bushes within the project Multifunction anti-erosion measures as a part of adaptable landscape were planted or sown at the project localities (South Moravia and Žďárské vrchy, Czech Republic) in March 2019. Ecosystem services evaluation was one of the fundamental outcomes of the project. The most important result was the calculated value increase of the service termed “environment for the species life providing and genetic diversity conserving”. The increase means the difference between the state prior to planting and the expected target state after 30 years as specified in HVM. In total, the increase of this ecosystem service of the four bosks was valued at 2,633,809.64 CZK (97,206.48 EUR/114,399.06 USD).
... doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online May. 5, 2019; 53 There are a series of limitations on current valuation methods. Theoretically, there are two 57 challenges in current valuation methods ( Costanza et al., 2017): (1) imperfect information, for 58 example individuals might assign no value on an ES if they do not know the role that the service is 59 playing in their wellbeing ( Norton et al., 1998;van Ree et al., 2017); (2) the difficulties of 60 accurately measuring the system's functioning so as to correctly quantify a given service value 61 derived from that system ( Boumans et al., 2002;Barbier et al., 2008;Koch et al., 2009). These 62 two challenges lead to two main problems in valuing the overall ES value of a region (or the 63 ...
... So, DVS avoids the difficulties for transforming and aggregating incommensurable data 405 which come from the values of different type's ES. 406 407 DVS avoids the amplification of underestimate or overestimate on the overall ES value of a region 408 (or the Earth). The common problem of valuing the total economic value of ES in a region (or the 409 Earth) in both the unit value based approach and the primary data based approach is the amplified 410 underestimate or overestimate caused by the miss-counting or double-counting of ES types (Fu et 411 al., 2011;Stoeckl et al., 2014;van Ree et al., 2017), as their aggregating approaches are counting 412 each value of all types' ES ( Costanza et al., 2014;Dai et al., 2016) ( Figure 5). Stoeckl et al. (2014) 413 try to consider the complexity and non-linearity of ecosystems and use statistical techniques to 414 identify and control their overlapping benefits, but their methods and estimates still have some 415 limitations. ...
Valuing ecosystem services (ES) is helpful for effective ES management. However, there are many limitations in traditional ES valuation approaches, including theoretical challenges and practical difficulties. To overcome these limitations, we proposed a dual value system (DVS). And then, we presented a case study of valuing the water provision in Zhujiang River Basin (Pearl River Basin) based on DVS. DVS follows the axioms that (1) human life would end if we lose any of vital ES which is indispensable to human being's survival (such as oxygen, freshwater) and (2) ES cannot provide any value to people without human activities. Correspondingly, DVS includes two types of value: the output support value (OSV) of a vital ES refers to the total value produced by human being's economic and social activities (TVPH) supported by the ES consumption; the optional capacity value (OCV) of a vital ES refers to the optional capacity of supporting TVPH provided by total ES volume. The OCV provided by a vital ES is calculated by using the product of multiplying the OSV (TVPH) by the freedom of choosing the consumption from the total volume of this ES, valued in non-monetary units. Based on DVS, the OSV and OCV of water provision in Zhujiang River Basin were analyzed in river basin scale and sub-basin scale, and the values variation of water provision from 2006 to 2015 was analyzed in sub-basin scale. And then, based on this case study, we discussed the new insights into ES provided by DVS. Results proved that DVS and its assessment scheme overcame the limitations on current ES valuation approaches and provided an innovative quantitative framework to understand and value ES which will help to make good decisions in ES management.
... A reflection on geodiversity-culture relationships within the concept of abiotic ecosystem services Abiotic ecosystem services or geosystem services have been previously addressed and classified in several works (Gray 2013(Gray , 2018(Gray , 2021van Ree and van Beukering 2016;van Ree et al. 2017;Haines-Young and Potschin 2018;Fox et al. 2020). The classification of abiotic ecosystem services usually follows the traditional scheme of ecosystem services (ES) as provided in the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (Reid et al. 2005): supporting, regulating, provisioning and cultural services. ...
Geodiversity and geoheritage studies are multidisciplinary, drawing from all sides of geosciences and extending them into the humanities, geoarchaeology, spatial planning, territorial and risk management, economics, tourism, or culture using integrated and interdisciplinary research approaches. During the last three decades, geodiversity and geoheritage research experienced a considerable growth that confirm both scientific and public relevance of these topics. In this introductory text, a brief review of current literature is presented and the importance of geodiversity and geoheritage for sustainable development, geohazard resilience and associated themes is discussed. Last, but not least, the aims and structure of this volume are outlined.
... However, from the calculation method of the traditional ecological footprint model emerge some controversies, which need to be still improved. Specifically, the theories and methods of accounting ecosystem service value in the ecological footprint model are difficult to unify [25][26][27]. To determine the ecological compensation standards, many studies estimated ecosystem service value for cultivated land using the equivalent factor method and the functional value method of ecosystem services [28,29]. ...
Cultivated land horizontal ecological compensation is an essential means of reconciling agricultural ecosystem protection and regional economic development. It is important to design a horizontal ecological compensation standard for cultivated land. Unfortunately, there are some defects in the existing quantitative assessments of horizontal cultivated land ecological compensation. In order to raise the accuracy of ecological compensation amounts, this study established an improved ecological footprint model based on the ecosystem service function, focused on estimating the value of ecosystem service function, ecological footprint, ecological carrying capacity, ecological balance index and ecological compensation values of cultivated land in all cities of Jiangxi province. It then analyzed the rationality of ecological compensation amounts in Jiangxi province, which is one of the 13 provinces of major grain-producing areas in China. The results show the following: (1) The total value of soil conservation service function, carbon sequestration and oxygen release service function and ecosystem service function in Jiangxi province showed a spatial distribution trend of “gradually increasing around Poyang Lake Basin”. (2) The cultivated land ecological deficit areas in Jiangxi province are Nanchang City, Jiujiang City and Pingxiang City; ecological surplus areas are Yichun City, Ji’an City and eight other cities; and there is an obvious “Spatial Agglomeration” phenomenon in ecological deficit and ecological surplus areas where ecological deficit areas are mainly concentrated in the northwest region of Jiangxi. (3) The amount needed to attain fair ecological compensation for cultivated land is 5.2 times the payment amount for cultivated land; this indicated there is larger arable land, a favorable condition for agricultural cultivation, and better supply capacity of ecosystem services in most of the cities of Jiangxi. (4) The compensation amount for cultivated land ecological surplus areas in Jiangxi province is generally higher than the cost of ecological protection, and its proportion in GDP, fiscal revenue and agriculture-related expenditure is significantly higher than that in ecological deficit areas; this indicated that the compensation value of cultivated land could play the driving role in the protective behavior for cultivated land. The results provide a theoretical and methodological reference for the construction of horizontal ecological compensation standards for cultivated land.
... Thus, geoconservation can be understood both in strict sense as a protection of particular geoheritage and geodiversity sites (Brilha, 2016), and in broader sense, where the geodiversity is protected to ensure the functioning of healthy ecosystems and the services they provide (Gordon and Barron, 2012;Gray, 2013Gray, , 2018Gray, , 2021Van Ree and Van Beukering, 2016;Van Ree et al., 2017;Brilha et al., 2018;García, 2019;Volchko et al., 2020;Kubalíková, 2020;Reverte et al., 2020;Fox et al., 2020). Moreover, there is a specific concept of "geomorphological landscape" (Reynard, 2005;Reynard and Giusti, 2018;Bussard and Reynard, 2022) that constitute the category of geomorphosites that have the largest scale. ...
... Algumas variações no conceito de SE têm sido encontradas na literatura, mas um dos conceitos mais aceitos e utilizados é o do próprio MEA, que os define como os benefícios que o ser humano obtém dos ecossistemas (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005;Kumar, 2010). O conceito evoluiu a partir do reconhecimento da necessidade de proteger a biodiversidade e os ecossistemas mundiais para o bemestar humano (Economia dos Ecossistemas e da Biodiversidade-TEEB, 2010;De Groot et al., 2010;Van Ree et al., 2017). ...
Os estudos da economia ambiental e da economia dos recursos naturais passaram a ter importância maior em correntes do pensamento econômico devido à necessidade de medir as expectativas de benefícios de uso de ativo ambiental frente situações de degradação ambiental. As abordagens ecossistêmicas tradicionais são voltadas, prioritariamente, à porção biótica da natureza, mas os elementos abióticos são responsáveis pelo fornecimento de serviços à sociedade, como serviços ecossistêmicos prestados pela geodiversidade. A pesquisa localiza-se na região que compreende o Parque Nacional de Anavilhanas e municípios do entorno e próximo aos principais afluentes do rio Amazonas, rios Negro e Solimões. Considerado o segundo maior arquipélago fluvial do mundo, expõe beleza exuberante e relevante geodiversidade suportando florestas de várzea, terra-firme e alagáveis. Metodologicamente foi realizada uma atualização bibliográfica sobre avaliação da geodiversidade e serviços ecossistêmicos, a qual embasou o trabalho de campo e permitiram a identificação de serviços ecossistêmicos prestados pela geodiversidade local. Utilizou-se a classificação da Avaliação Ecossistêmica do Milênio como base para categorizar os serviços ecossistêmicos da geodiversidade e seu entorno, apresentados como provisão, regulação, suporte e culturais. Conclui-se que a pesquisa indicou como os serviços ecossistêmicos da geodiversidade são importantes para avaliar as perdas e o valor da natureza contribuindo para o desenvolvimento territorial local.
... A reflection on geodiversity-culture relationships within the concept of abiotic ecosystem services Abiotic ecosystem services or geosystem services have been previously addressed and classified in several works (Gray 2013(Gray , 2018(Gray , 2021van Ree and van Beukering 2016;van Ree et al. 2017;Haines-Young and Potschin 2018;Fox et al. 2020). The classification of abiotic ecosystem services usually follows the traditional scheme of ecosystem services (ES) as provided in the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (Reid et al. 2005): supporting, regulating, provisioning and cultural services. ...
The book presents both thematic and geographical variety of approaches to geodiversity and geoheritage research. Besides the conceptual chapters focused on geodiversity and geoheritage's links to biodiversity, culture or sustainable tourism and development, the volume includes case studies that reflect an integrated view on heritage, conservation or management aspects.
... A reflection on geodiversity-culture relationships within the concept of abiotic ecosystem services Abiotic ecosystem services or geosystem services have been previously addressed and classified in several works (Gray 2013(Gray , 2018(Gray , 2021van Ree and van Beukering 2016;van Ree et al. 2017;Haines-Young and Potschin 2018;Fox et al. 2020). The classification of abiotic ecosystem services usually follows the traditional scheme of ecosystem services (ES) as provided in the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (Reid et al. 2005): supporting, regulating, provisioning and cultural services. ...
Relationships between geodiversity and culture are very close and frequent and they are reflected in numerous and different areas, situations, or levels. The purpose of this chapter is not to give an exhaustive overview of how geodiversity influence culture and vice-versa (as this topic has been already thoroughly explored in numerous works), but it aims to analyse the relationship geodiversity - culture within the concept of abiotic ecosystem services (or geosystem services). This relationship is best visible and recognisable within the cultural and eventually knowledge services, however, other types of services (provisioning, supporting) are relevant too. Moreover, the relationship geodiversity - culture is reflected in every day's life and language, thus a quick insight into these topics is also presented. Anchoring the geodiversity - culture relationships within the concept of abiotic ecosystem services may provide a framework for future interdisciplinary studies and may contribute to the better understanding of protection, conservation and sustainable use not only of geoheritage, but entire geodiversity.
... Sin embargo, pocas personas, incluyendo geocientíficos, perciben la importancia de la geodiversidad para la gestión integral de la naturaleza y de los servicios que ésta presta, que en los últimos años han recibido el nombre de servicios geosistémicos (e.g. Gray, 2011;Bastian & Khoroshev, 2015;Van Ree et al., 2017;Brilha et al., 2018). ...
Gómez-Guerrero, M.; González-Tejada, C.; Marín-Cerón, M.I.; Betancurth-Montes, G.L.; Restrepo-Moreno, S., Rendón-Rivera, A. (2022). Geoconservación en Colombia: Aproximaciones teórico-prácticas. Editorial CTA, Medellín. 193 pp. ISBN: 978-958-8470-62-7 Obra independiente. https://issuu.com/cta_colombia/docs/geoconservaci_n_en_colombia_2022
... Sin embargo, pocas personas, incluyendo geocientíficos, perciben la importancia de la geodiversidad para la gestión integral de la naturaleza y de los servicios que ésta presta, que en los últimos años han recibido el nombre de servicios geosistémicos (e.g. Gray, 2011;Bastian & Khoroshev, 2015;Van Ree et al., 2017;Brilha et al., 2018). ...
Quintero-Marín, J.E.; Restrepo-Moreno, S., Marín-Cerón, M.I. (2022). Capítulo 1. Estado del arte de la geodiversidad, el patrimonio geológico y la Geoconservación: perspectivas para Colombia. 14-27. En: Gómez-Guerrero, M.; González-Tejada, C.; Marín-Cerón, M.I.; Betancurth-Montes, G.L.; Restrepo-Moreno, S., Rendón-Rivera, A. (2022). Geoconservación en Colombia: Aproximaciones teórico-prácticas. Editorial CTA, Medellín. 193 pp. ISBN: 978-958-8470-62-7 Obra independiente. https://issuu.com/cta_colombia/docs/geoconservaci_n_en_col ombia_2022
... Sin embargo, pocas personas, incluyendo geocientíficos, perciben la importancia de la geodiversidad para la gestión integral de la naturaleza y de los servicios que ésta presta, que en los últimos años han recibido el nombre de servicios geosistémicos (e.g. Gray, 2011;Bastian & Khoroshev, 2015;Van Ree et al., 2017;Brilha et al., 2018). ...
González-Tejada, C.; Quintero-Marín, J.E.; Restrepo-Moreno, S., Marín-Cerón, M.I. (2022). Ambivalencias de la Geoconservación. Entre intereses científicos y de apropiación social del patrimonio geológico. Pág. 6-13. En: Gómez-Guerrero, M.; González-Tejada, C. ; Marín-Cerón, M.I.; Betancurth-Montes, G.L.; Restrepo-Moreno, S., Rendón-Rivera, A. (2022). Geoconservación en Colombia: Aproximaciones teórico-prácticas. Editorial CTA, Medellín. 193 pp. ISBN: 978-958-8470-62-7 Obra independiente. https://issuu.com/cta_colombia/docs/geoconservaci_n_en_colombia_2022
... At a more personal and individual visitor level, hints towards connection with geodiversity may be drawn from emerging scholarship on issues such as 'geophilia' (i.e., the affective connection with the lithic, ancient, abiotic earth) and appreciation of different types of stones and minerals as representations of geological time (i.e., not seeing them as merely extractable resources but as vital connections between humans and an ancient earth) [109,110]. In addition, there are studies that call for understanding and protecting 'geosystem services', i.e., the geological base of ecosystem services [111,112]. This is equally important and could be implemented in tourist destinations regardless of their status as protected areas or otherwise, as perhaps all tourist destinations depend on geodiversity/geosystem services such as water, clean air, and surrounding landscapes to an extent. ...
Geodiversity has recently emerged as a key idea for recognizing the value of abiotic nature. The concept has vital implications for informing tourism sustainability research; however, to date, tourism scholarship has not shown adequate engagement with this concept. The issue also assumes further significance in the Anthropocene, where our species has become a geological force. Here, through a review of key works related to geodiversity and Anthropocene, their interface is analyzed, and implications for tourism sustainability are presented. It is argued that, in the Anthropocene, it is no longer enough for tourism sustainability research to remain preoccupied with the human predicament in the Anthropocene or the decline of biotic nature at some prominent tourism destinations, and it is imperative that tourism scholars embrace the concern for abiotic diversity and dynamic earth processes that provide vital resources and services for tourism planetwide.
... According to Comer et al. [31], geodiversity is seldom referenced in predominant environmental law and policy. Incorporating geodiversity in planning conservation actions is thus necessary, as geodiversity offers physical support for biodiversity [11,[32][33][34] and provides numerous ecosystem services [4,7,[35][36][37][38]. In these terms, the implementation of the concepts of abiotic ecosystem services or essential geodiversity variables is desirable for the recognition of the importance of geodiversity [39,40]. ...
A complex approach to geodiversity and landscape in order to foster geoconservation and develop geotourism and geoeducation is usually more effective than isolated protection and promotion of geoheritage sites without wider context. A Geodiversity Action Plan (GAP) represents a reasonable tool for how to follow these goals in cooperation with local stakeholders. This specific document is not focused only on an inventory of sites of Earth science interest in an area, but encompasses all geodiversity (geological, geomorphological, soil and hydrological features, processes, systems and relationships). As geoconservation often goes hand in hand with education, sustainable tourism and promotion, the GAP includes practical proposals for management and rational use of the area’s geodiversity and geoheritage. This complex approach is needed as it provides a complement to the site-oriented protection or management and, moreover, it can be perceived as coherent with a geoethical approach. The paper presents a case study from Moravian-Slovak border (a central part of Bílé Karpaty/Biele Karpaty Mountains) where the proposal for GAP (including inventory, assessment and management measures) was elaborated together with local authorities, schools and other stakeholders.
... The insertion of geodiversity as a provider of ES occurred recently Gordon and Barron 2013;Gray 2013;Gray et al. 2013). Several authors (Gray 2011(Gray , 2013(Gray , 2019Van Ree and van Beukering 2016;van Ree et al. 2017) used the term geosystemic services to refer to services provided by geodiversity. Other authors preferred to use the term abiotic ecosystem services Gray et al. 2013) or abiotic services (Lawson et al. 2018). ...
Ecosystems are maintained due to interactions between biotic and abiotic elements of nature, generating ecosystem services (ES), which are the goods and services enjoyed by society. The term ES has been used in relation to biodiversity; however, many services occur through the interaction between biotic and abiotic elements. Thus, this article aimed to verify how geodiversity was addressed in ES research, and also, to identify which monetary valuation methods can be used for geodiversity. To facilitate selection, essential geodiversity variables (EGV) were used to determine the keywords for the abiotic elements of nature. This study analyzed 468 articles, of which 226 regard abiotic elements. So, even when not nominally cited, geodiversity is hidden in traditional approaches in ES. Monetary valuation is an important tool to highlight the contributions of ES to society. Although there are not specific methods of monetary valuation of ES provided by geodiversity, this survey shows 16 articles already valuing the abiotic part of nature. These methods can be categorized into water, atmosphere, and other elements of geodiversity, and this categorization can help future methods be chosen that better suit research related to the monetary valuation of ecosystem services with a focus on geodiversity.
... construction materials and rare-earth metals), regulating services (e.g. the regulation of thermal flows) and cultural services (e.g. religious sites and recreational activities) (Gray 2011;Van Ree and van Beukering 2016;van Ree et al. 2017;Fox et al. 2020b). ...
Geodiversity is under threat from both anthropogenic activities and environmental change which therefore requires active management in the form of geoconservation to minimise future damage. As research on the role of geodiversity on ecosystem service (ES) provision has been limited, there is a need to improve our understanding of which aspects are most important to providing ES to better inform approaches to its conservation. Here, we focus on the cultural ES of hiking in Wales, UK. Harnessing big data from the social media website Flickr, we used the locations of geotagged images of hiking and a range of spatial layers representing geodiversity, biodiversity and anthropogenic predictor variables in habitat suitability models. To gain a deeper understanding of the role of geodiversity in driving the distribution of this cultural service, we estimated the strength and nature of the relationship of each geodiversity, biodiversity and anthropogenic indicator with hiking. Our models show that three geodiversity (distance from coast, range in slope and range in elevation) and two anthropogenic (distance from greenspace access point and distance from road) variables were the most important drivers of hiking. Furthermore, we assessed the content of the images to understand which features of geodiversity people interact with while hiking. We found that people generally take images of geomorphological and hydrological features, such as mountains and lakes. Through understanding the geodiversity, biodiversity and anthropogenic drivers of hiking in Wales, as well as identifying the geodiversity features people interact with while hiking, this analysis can help to inform future geoconservation methods by focusing efforts on these important features.
... This method can evaluate the non-market value of cultivated land, but the positive ecosystem service value is greater than the environmental loss of cultivated land. Moreover, the theories and methods of accounting ecosystem service value or environmental benefits emerge some controversies and need to be still improved (Norton et al., 1998;Van Ree et al., 2017). Thus, it is hard to apply it for crossregional ecological compensation of cultivated land. ...
It is the core to design a cross-regional ecological compensation standard of cultivated land for promoting its marketization. Unfortunately, there are some defects in the existing ecological compensation model of cultivated land. For its sustainability, this study established a theoretical model of cross-regional ecological compensation of cultivated land, focused on estimating its ecological compensation price and then analyzed the temporal and spatial changes of its ecological compensation amount in Shanxi province. We found that the model designed in our paper had a lot of credibility, and it could better identify the ecological payment and acceptance areas of cultivated land. Moreover, the ecological payment areas were generally distributed in the Fenhe valley and surrounding intermountain basins, while the ecological acceptance areas were mainly along with the Lvliang mountains and the surrounding hilly mountainous. It also noted that the cultivated land's compensation price showed an upward trend with time, and presented a five-region distribution of “three highs and two lows”. Furthermore, the average compensation price in the non-demonstration was greater than that in demonstration counties of Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP) and the average compensation price in ecological payment areas was also greater than that in ecological acceptance areas. It would promote the ecological compensation marketization of cultivated land with the help of regional differences in ecological compensation prices. These findings are highly valuable for the government coordinating the relationship between agricultural production and cultivated land protection.
... This conflicting interest within geological and geomorphological elements are placed to generate the expansion of ecosystem services [11] to specifically analyse the full values abiotic nature provided for human society. In this conceptual framework, a new term was designated to express the services abiotic nature provides for humanity: geosystem services [12][13][14]. Geoheritage is currently considered as a new, educated recreational activity under the scope of conservation science that serves tourist demand to a reasonable level. In effect, justification for geoheritage goes beyond recreation and open space experiments, it is fundamental for geoeducation, resilience, sustainability, geotourism, and community building through local to global geoparks. ...
The increase in geoheritage studies has secured recognition globally regarding the importance of abiotic natural features. Prominent in geoheritage screening practices follows a multicriteria assessment framework; however, the complexity of interest in values often causes decision making to overlook geoeducation, one of the primary facets of geosystem services. Auckland volcanic field in New Zealand stretches through the whole area of metropolitan Auckland, which helps preserve volcanic cones and their cultural heritage around its central business district (CBD). They are important sites for developing tourist activities. Geoeducation is becoming a significant factor for tourists and others visiting geomorphological features, but it cannot be achieved without sound planning. This paper investigates the use of big data (FlickR), Geopreservation Inventory, and Geographic Information System for identifying geoeducation capacity of tourist attractions. Through landform classification using the Topographic Position Index and integrated with geological and the inventory data, the underpromoted important geoeducation sites can be mapped and added to the spatial database Auckland Council uses for urban planning. The use of the Geoeducation Capacity Map can help resolve conflicts between the multiple objectives that a bicultural, metropolitan city council need to tackle in the planning of upgrading open spaces while battling of growing demand for land.
... construction materials and rare-earth metals), regulating services (e.g. the regulation of thermal flows) and cultural services (e.g. religious sites and recreational activities) (Gray 2011;Van Ree and van Beukering 2016;van Ree et al. 2017;Fox et al. 2020b). ...
To provide a more holistic approach to the conservation of ecosystem services (ES) there is a need to further develop our understanding of how features of biotic and abiotic nature, as well as people and society, interact to provide them. However, the role of geodiversity – the diversity of geology, geomorphology, sediments and soils and hydrology – is overlooked in ES literature and frameworks. Furthermore, geosystem services (GS) – the services that geodiversity provides in isolation of interactions with biotic nature – are also currently underrepresented in ES science.
This thesis will focus on the role of geodiversity in providing cultural ecosystem services (CES), in particular how we interact with geodiversity when undertaking recreational actives. Here, social media datasets from the website Flickr and, for the first time in the field of CES, Reddit are used to assess human-nature interactions through a range of analytical methods including image content analysis, textual sentiment analysis and distribution modelling. The results of these methods contribute to our understanding of both the complex relationship between geodiversity and CES and to the applications of social media data to CES studies.
First, the empirical methods highlight that geodiversity is important at driving both the distribution of CES as well as the positive experience of the activity undertaken. It is demonstrated that geomorphological features, such as topography, and hydrological features, such as coastal waters and lakes, play an important role in determining the distribution and experience of the recreational activity of hiking. The results also highlight the complex relationships between geodiversity and biodiversity features, such as trees and plants, as well as between geodiversity and human-made features, such as trails and roads, in providing CES. The results of these studies can help inform future geoconservation management with the aim of promoting the sustainable use of geodiversity to ensure the future of the ES it provides.
Second, this work advances current uses of social media data by providing novel methods of obtaining data through an accessible R package, photosearcher, as well as informing on the best practice for enriching social media datasets. Furthermore, we investigate Reddit as a novel source of data for CES and demonstrate its usefulness in assessing a range of CES.
It is suggested that future work continues to investigate the role of geodiversity on ES, using both social media data and other analytical methods, to better inform the holistic conservation of ES for now and for future generations.
... Geoparks also function as important structures providing ecosystem services -more precisely geosystem services -where identified geoheritage sites serve human socio-economic needs. This in turn has a direct effect on the well-being of the community, driving cultural evolution and strengthening integrity of human communities (Ali et al. 2015;Gray 2011Gray , 2012Gray , 2018avan Ree and van Beukering 2016;van Ree et al. 2017). Within the geopark framework, geodiversity is commonly observed as a precious national resource that can be used for various levels of geoeducation, demonstrating utilization of and learning to live with the resources in a sustainable way (Galas et al. 2018;Han et al. 2018;Ruban 2017). ...
Both Savai’i Island and Upolu Island of Samoa are home to numerous potential geosites that could form the basis of geopark projects at a range of scales from local, regional, or global. During the Samoa Geoparks Project Phase 1, intensive research identified Samoa’s geoheritage values, resulting in the selection of the island of Savai’i as a location for development of geosite inventories, using a first-order approach to create a scientific basis for future geoheritage, geoconservation, and geotourism ventures. The rationale behind this decision was based on the size of the island; the geodiverse and largely untouched landscapes with high geodiversity values; and superbly exposed young volcanic features that are relatively accessible. Most of these volcanic features derived from Holocene and even historical volcanic activity. Within the potential areas of geosites, volcanic features currently utilized as tourist attractions (mataaga in Samoan) are mostly associated with living cultural activities in terms of traditional stories, myth, and place names. These geoheritage components are a very significant part of the Samoa Geoparks Project in general. Workshop and training for further development of the Samoa Geoparks Project are recommended in this study to co-design and co-develop the geopark concept with local communities working in collaboration with geoscience experts. The role of external geoscientists has been redefined as facilitators of participatory methods using iterative, step-by-step processes, where each facet of the geopark is co-produced through truly inclusive methods and frameworks.
... Such services are distinctive from ecosystem services, which are provided by biomes and marine ecosystems. The concept was originally created to address the subsurface and its contributions to human welfare [32,33] and to the conservation of geodiversity [34]. ...
The utilization of urban underground space (UUS) offers an effective solution to urban problems but may also negatively affect urban development. Therefore, UUS development needs better concerted guidelines to coordinate various urban systems and the multiple components of the underground world. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which should be viewed as important yardsticks for UUS development, do not explicitly mention urban underground space, although many of them are affected by both the positive and negative consequences of its development. To fill this gap, this review lays the foundations of relevant UUS concepts and uses exemplary cases to reveal that 11 out of 17 SDGs can be linked with UUS uses. These linkages also manifest that land administration, integrated planning, architectural design, and construction technology are critical dimensions for increasing the contributions of UUS to the realization of SDGs. To achieve multidisciplinary synergies among these four critical dimensions, a collaborative approach framework based on spatial data infrastructure is required. Thus, this work provides academics and practitioners with a holistic view of sustainable UUS development.
... Geodiversity (defined by Gray [1] as the natural range (diversity) of geological, geomorphological, soil and hydrological features, including their assemblages, structures, systems and contribution to landscapes) has an irreplaceable significance for both the biodiversity [2][3][4][5] and for human society, especially for understanding the history of Earth, for its cultural/historical values [6] or as a resource for tourism and recreation [7][8][9]. The functions, services, and benefits of geodiversity have already been recognized [1,[10][11][12] and assessed by using numerous methods and approaches including the concept of ecosystem services [10,[13][14][15][16][17]. Particular methods for assessing the geological and geomorphological sites were also introduced (for a critical overview of the methods see, e.g., Reference [18][19][20][21][22]), especially within the context of geoheritage management and geoconservation. ...
Geodiversity has an irreplaceable significance for both biodiversity and for human society as it has numerous functions and offers various benefits and services. These have been already recognized and assessed by using numerous approaches and methods (e.g., geosite assessment methods, geodiversity indexes, and evaluation of geodiversity functions within the concept of ecosystem services). Nearly all these procedures were elaborated by professionals in the Earth sciences or related domains. The assessment of geodiversity functions and services within nature conservation by the public was not the subject of detailed research yet (with an exception of geotourist assessment). This communication presents the results of a pilot research that is focused on the analysis and interpretation of the public opinion on geodiversity and geoconservation. The data were collected by using the semi-structured questionnaire, and based on them, the interpretation was done and comparison or confrontation with original hypotheses was undertaken.
... The inclusion of both biotic and abiotic ecosystem outputs reflects the EU MAES definition of natural capital, highlighting that the distinction between ecosystem, geosystem and atmospheric system is not clear-cut. Discussions around the concept of geosystem services highlight the importance of the abiotic component and the perceived need to integrate geosystem capital alongside ecosystem capital for a better understanding of the contributions from sub-surface levels and also to inform trade-off more fully (van Ree and van Beukering, 2016;van Ree et al., 2017). For example the value of mineral exploration and mining in Ireland has been identified as a significant contribution to the Irish economy (Indecon, 2017). ...
An overview of natural capital accounting approaches, data requirements and how best to apply and develop in the Irish context, using catchments as pilot study areas.
... This issue is exemplified by the plethora of frameworks that link biotic nature with ES (e.g. Swift et al. 2004;Tallis et al. 2008;Mace et al. 2012;Díaz et al. 2018), and the relatively few that directly acknowledge the role of geodiversity in ES delivery and maintenance (Van Ree and Van Beukering 2016;Van Ree et al. 2017;Gray 2018;. Specifically, no framework yet exists that operationalises the linkages and interactions between geodiversity and biotic nature as well as the interactions of ES and GS within a single framework. ...
Holistic conservation of ecosystem services (ES) requires a greater understanding of how the interactions of biotic and abiotic aspects of nature provide them. Currently, geodiversity, the diversity of geology, geomorphology, sediments and soils and hydrology, as well as the services that they provide in isolation of interactions with biotic nature – geosystem services (GS) – are overlooked in ES literature and frameworks. Here, we provide a series of three nested frameworks which together help to provide clarity for both the theoretical role of geodiversity in service production as well as the basis for real-world management strategies. First, we present the ‘Geodiversity Flower’, a framework that can be operationalised to provide clarity in terminology to decision-makers. Second, we present the ‘Geo-Eco Services Framework’, which establishes the difference between ES and GS. The final framework presented is the ‘Geo-Eco Services Cascade Model’, which builds upon the widely used ES cascade model by demonstrating how geodiversity interacts with biotic nature to simultaneously provide ES and GS. Providing a holistic model that integrates both biotic and abiotic nature alongside ES and GS allows for a greater understanding of the roles of abiotic and biotic nature to services and their associated benefits and values to people.
... Based on this, Gray [2,4] Gordon, Barron [6], and Gray et al. [5] define the so-called "abiotic ecosystem services" or "geosystem services" which include regulatory, support, supply, and cultural services. Van Ree and van Beukering [41] as well as Van Ree et al. [42] also emphasize the importance of subsurface and its role in ecosystems. Lele et al. [43] state that it is necessary to include minerals and other abiotic processes in the framework of ecosystem services. ...
The concept of ecosystem services developed in the second half of the 20th century, and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was crucial for its acceptance. This assessment identified the services that ecosystems provide to society, but geodiversity (as an indispensable component of ecosystems) was somewhat underestimated. At present, geodiversity is intensively used by human society and it provides numerous services including cultural as a resource for tourism, recreation, as a part of natural heritage, and to satisfy matters of spiritual importance. The main purpose of this paper is to present the geocultural issues of Stránská skála (a limestone cliff with caves and an anthropogenic underground) in Brno (Czech Republic) and to evaluate the cultural ecosystem services of geodiversity by using the abiotic ecosystem services approach. This assessment of cultural ecosystem services of the Stránská skála enables the identification and description of the functions and services which are provided by geodiversity and confirms the high cultural and geoheritage value of the site.
... This is not surprising and is in line with the tendency to underestimate hidden geosystem features, such as underground processes. This is also demonstrated by recent results of a systematic literature review [33] that show how goods and services derived from the subsurface are underrepresented in the contemporary literature on ecosystem services. ...
This paper aims at systemizing knowledge related to geodiversity assessment for water resources and its evaluation. The novel aspect connected to geodiversity of this paper is the analysis of the components of hydrological system, both at the superficial and underground level, in the territory of the Sesia Val Grande United Nations educational, scientific, and cultural organization (UNESCO) Global Geopark (Northwest Italy). More specifically, the research establishes a conceptual model and a specific procedure for the evaluation of geodiversity connected to water resources on a regional scale, by means of a qualitative-quantitative geographic information system (GIS) process, renamed here as hydro-geodiversity assessment. For these purposes, a targeted ecosystem approach is applied to consider the assets of the Geopark territory that has been derived from the interaction between water and other components of geodiversity, i.e., the hydro-geosystemic services. The element selection and processing operations led to the identification of areas characterized by greater values of hydrological geodiversity, in which the link between surface and underground hydrodynamics became closer and intense. The single geodiversity factor maps that were obtained from partial data aggregations were added together in map algebra operations, then subjected to weighing to formulate the hydro-geodiversity map of the Sesia Val Grande UNESCO Global Geopark. The results of the present study strengthen the strategic management of geological, geomorphological, and hydrological heritages of the study area by identifying different landscapes and local peculiarities determined by mutual influences between geology and hydrological dynamics.
... For this reason, some authors (e.g. Gray, 2011Gray, , 2013Van Ree and van Beukering, 2016;Van Ree et al., 2017;Daly, 2017) have preferred the term "geosystem services" to apply to services provided by geodiversity. Others have used the rather contradictory term "abiotic ecosystem services" (e.g. Gordon et al., 2012;Gray et al., 2013) or simply "abiotic services" (Lawson et al., 2018). ...
While the “natural capital” approach is generally including geology, the “ecosystem services” approach is often excluding it either consciously or unconsciously. This is regrettable as it means that the total importance and value of nature to human society is being undervalued. This paper explains these issues and outlines 25 major ways in which geodiversity benefits people. It also argues that geodiversity and biodiversity should be treated as equal partners when developing nature policy, and makes proposals to progress this.
... According to Grizzetti et al. (2015) this ambition has been achieved, but there are also some criticisms and proposals to extend CICES, e.g. with 'abiotic services' (e.g. Van der Meulen et al., 2016;Van Ree et al., 2017) or 'landscape services' (Vallés-Planells et al., 2014). At the bottom of the hierarchy, however, the system was designed to be open-ended to allow users to capture what was relevant to them. ...
We present a ‘concept matching’ systematic review linking the classes of the Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES, v4.3) to the ways scientists define and apply ES indicators in published studies. With the dual aim of creating an overview how the different services are measured in the studies, and determining if CICES provides an appropriate structure to accommodate the ES assessed in the practical literature, we reviewed 85 scientific papers from which 440 indicators were identified. Almost all CICES classes were represented, with cultural and some regulating (e.g. global climate regulation, pollination) ES being the most frequently considered. The four most frequently studied CICES classes (or class clusters) were global climate regulation, aesthetic beauty, recreation, and bio-remediation. Regulating and cultural services were more often assessed than provisioning services. Normalisation to unit area and time was common for indicators of several regulating and provisioning ES. Scores were most frequently used for cultural ES (except recreation) and some regulating services (e.g. flood protection). Altogether 20% of the ES indicators were quantified as an economic value, and monetisation is most frequently done for cultural and provisioning ES. Few regulating services, on the other hand, were monetised (including ones, like global climate regulation, for which appropriate techniques are relatively easily available). The work enabled a library of indicators to be compiled and made available. The findings can be used to help improve CICES so that it can provide a more robust and comprehensive framework for ecosystem assessments.
The article presents the results of experimental research in the field of developing a methodology for constructing convolutional neural networks that are effective in the analysis of large spatial data based on an experimentally tested strategy for configuring sets and dimensions of convolution and pooling layers. Approbation of the model was carried out on the basis of a system of test polygons, as well as on the basis of open labeled data sets in order to compare the created solution with existing ones. During the experiments, a number of neural network architectures were tested using methods to improve the quality of recognition. The proposed and tested algorithm for the formation and fine tuning of the spatial data segmentation model provides a high threshold for the quality of object recognition and forms a methodological basis for the formation of new effective classification and segmentation models. The neural network structure is easily functionally extensible for related subject areas. Under the condition of fine-tuning the algorithm for calculating territorial descriptors and training the classifier based on remote monitoring data of a specific satellite that scans the earth's surface for a long time, the generated models can be used to solve the problem of automated monitoring of changes in the structure of metageosystems, land use and the geophysical envelope (including those caused by technogenic transformation), exogeodynamic and deforestation processes, as well as natural processes: fires and floods) and automated validation of digital maps of significant territorial coverage.KeywordsSpatial dataDeep learningSegmentationMetageosystems
Little or no Earth Science literacy is expressed in ignorance about the close relationships between geodiversity, life, well-being, and death. However, given the environmental changes, the exponential population growth, and the predatory exploitation of natural resources, it is necessary to make society aware of the importance of good management of the set of geosystem services that benefit humanity, as well as the conservation of the natural resources and processes that produce these recourses. How to make society aware of the importance of Earth Sciences, geodiversity, and the services they provide? The ordering of geosystem services, following the ecosystem services model, was an important step towards launching new approaches in the teaching and popularization of geosciences. Earlier, the Big Ideas, developed under the Earth Science Literacy Initiative (ESLI), were also an important milestone to follow in the processes of teaching and popularization. Throughout this paper, topics and examples of renewable and non-renewable geologic resources and geologic processes recognized by all, but rarely understood, are suggested. Natural disasters and topics that relate to human well-being are highlighted. It is also proposed to use together the values of geodiversity identified in the scope of geosystem services and ESLI Big Ideas.
Geoparks can provide socio-economical benefits to local communities, but their relative importance to developed and developing countries is yet to be fully realized. The present study aims at analyzing the correspondence of the UNSECO Global Geopark network to countries with different level of human development. The information about the geographical extent of this network and the human developed index is taken into account. Its analysis implies that global geoparks have strong presence in the countries with very high and high human development, but they are relatively rare in the countries with moderate and low human development. <10% of global geoparks exist in the countries with the human development index below its median value. Examination of how social issues are stated in the official descriptions of these geoparks and on their web-pages indicates on its insufficient explanation in some cases. It is proposed to facilitate international mechanisms supporting geopark creation in developing countries.
Geodiversity first emerged nearly 30 years ago in the wake of the Convention on Biological Diversity when geoscientists realised that they too study diverse natural phenomena that are also often threatened with loss or degradation resulting from human activities. Since then, geodiversity has emerged as an important geoscientific paradigm with a central position in the relationships between the geoscientific ‘Gs'. It has spawned much discussion on how geodiversity can be classified and measured, it is often used as the basis for selecting geoheritage sites for geoconservation, including the development of the World Heritage List, it is often used by geoparks to publicise their range of geofeatures, and it is the basis for many ‘geosystem services’ essential to our modern societies. But despite this importance, it is a poorly understood and poorly integrated into nature conservation policy and practice. The result is that the value of the whole of nature is underestimated and the policy and practice for the management of nature lacks integration.
The paper considers the emerging concept of geosystem services (GS), highlights its importance for sustainable urbanization, and the use of urban underground space specifically. A theoretical framework to enable the incorporation of GS into urban planning has been suggested. GS complement ecosystem services (ES) by focusing on abiotic components and services of the environment. Clearly, sustainable urban development is one of the major challenges facing humanity today. In this study we explore how the concept of GS can help address the challenge of a sustainable urbanization via planning instruments. The paper reviews classifications of GS, planning approaches towards urban underground space, and experiences in inclusion of GS and ES in urban planning. Next, the paper elaborates a theoretical framework for the incorporation of GS in urban planning. The framework integrates knowledge on GS, man-made subsurface infrastructure, cultural assets, and traditional planning issues like land use, social and economic considerations. The paper further discusses various particularities, which urban planners may come across considering GS: (1) planning scales, (2) planning time frame, (3) GS inventory, (4) supply and demand for GS, (5) risks, vulnerabilities and disservices, (6) interplay between geosystem and infrastructure services, (7) planning documentation, (8) visualization and planning tools. Our research shows that the concept of GS has not yet been fully integrated into planning processes, despite the increasing need for its inclusion under the emerging development agenda of geothermal energy, hydrological and hydrogeological cycles management, and the rational use of urban underground space. The inclusion of GS into urban planning would constitute an important step forward to sustainable urbanization.
As operational concept, geodiversity implies a measurement and its application narrowed to a given spatial area, allowing the identification of clusters for prioritization and planning purposes. This study proposes a first geodiversity index assessment for French Guiana, a French Oversea territory located within the Guiana Shield (South America). Almost entirely covered by the Amazon rainforest associated with an exceptional biodiversity, French Guiana appears as an international conservation and land planning challenge facing multiple issues (e.g., urban, agricultural and industrial growth, forest management, mining planning). Geodiversity assessment is performed through a grid-based approach. A geodiversity index is calculated as the sum of four sub-indices (lithodiversity and unlithified diversity, mineral diversity, hydrodiversity, geomorphodiversity). The index calculation is based on the number of entities within each grid-cell. Spatial correlation is used to identify geodiversity clusters and finally the index is aggregated at different spatial units relevant for land planning (e.g., municipalities, hydrographic sectors, areas of ecological interest, the Guiana Amazonian Park, and the Departmental Mining Plan). The results show that the geodiversity index is mainly controlled by lithodiversity and that high geodiversity clusters are located along the gold-bearing greenstone belts crossing the territory. However, spatialized data concerning geodiversity are still inadequate or unavailable to perform proper operational assessments in French Guiana. Furthermore, based on qualitative examples, we discuss that the assessment of diversity alone might not be always enough for geoconservation nor land planning perspectives. It is pivotal to account for the geonfunctionality—i.e., the contribution of geodiversity to the functioning of socio-ecological systems—and its interaction with anthropic activities.
This paper presents the second part of the two-piece work for the visualization and spatial analysis of socio-environmental externalities of UUS uses. Since the positive socio-environmental externalities of urban underground space (UUS) use have been articulated in Part 1, this Part 2 paper will be devoted to evaluate the negative aspects of UUS development, i.e., the potential threats posed by UUS use to urban sustainability, which requires methodologically distinctive datasets and analyzing approaches compared with Part 1. Findings from this paper will enable a thorough picture of UUS’s role in urban development, both quantitatively and geographically. Consistent with Part 1, Part 2 presented in this paper also builds on the service replacement cost method (SRCM) framework, under which the compromised services of underground assets, namely geothermal energy, groundwater, geomaterials, historical heritage, space continuum and underground organisms, are identified as the monetarized negative externalities derived from UUS uses. The visualization process requires multi-sourced spatial data such as UUS planning data, construction approach data and geological data. Valuation results of the case study showed that the annual average of the aggregated socio-environmental costs of planned UUS uses amounted to approximately 3.2% of the external benefits. Among the calculated items, geothermal energy losses were proved to be the major source of negative socio-environmental externalities in terms of both quantity and spatial distribution. This study facilitates a holistic cost benefit analysis that incorporates socio-environmental benefits, socio-environmental costs and construction costs. Results of the case study proved that most of the planned UUS uses could yield positive net benefits, hence contributing to urban sustainability.
The subsurface can be used for a variety of purposes in the urban environment and the subsurface should ultimately be seen as a multifunctional resource, offering a multitude of benefits to humans and the society. Underground construction is commonly planned according to the first come, first served principle and later claims on other resources in the subsurface will have to adapt, often at high costs, or are made impossible. This pilot study is a first step in developing a method aiming to investigate a procedure for mapping an area’s subsurface resources, having the multifunctionality of the subsurface in mind, and integrating this information into urban planning processes. A mapping of the existing resources (supporting, provisioning, regulating, cultural) used at present and their future potential is presented, and an analysis, using an interaction matrix, of how the different subsurface resources can influence each other (conflicts and synergies) if the use(s) changes. Conclusions are that: 1) the concept of geosystem services can strongly support the communication about the subsurface between civil/geotechnical engineers and planners; 2) there is a need at the municipality or city level for systematised and digital 3D archives for easy access to information in relevant format; 3) planning based on the perspective that the subsurface has multiple resources, makes subsurface planning not only a metropolitan issue but also relevant for smaller municipalities. Further work is suggested to: i) explore the concept of geosystem services in a planning context; ii) suggest at which planning level different geosystem services can be optimally managed; and iii) develop tools to support planners for handling subsurface conflicts and acknowledge synergies.
The article is devoted to solving the scientific problem of the development of interdisciplinary research in the field of solving complex problems in the field of sustainable development of countries and regions on the basis of the introduction and effective use of new geoinformation technologies that ensure the collection, systematization and processing of data and knowledge about nature, economy and the population of the territories. The basis for the solution of the designated problem is determined by the need for the development of theory, methodology and methods for the development of interdisciplinary research for planning the sustainability of ecological-socio-economic systems (metageosystems) of territories. The central attention is paid to the problem of creating effective infrastructures of spatial data and geoportal systems as tools for solving the problem of integration, cataloging, dissemination and visualization of spatial data in order to support the adoption of managerial decisions in the field of optimizing the functioning of metageosystems, the development of the digital economy. It is shown that increasing the efficiency of diagnostics of spatio-temporal changes in metageosystems should be based on the introduction of intelligent systems used for the conjugate analysis of remote sensing data of the Earth, the results of monitoring environmental, social and economic processes and their interaction in the development of territories. While regional geoportals ensure the coordination of the search and rational use of natural resources, optimize territorial and sectoral planning and economic management, monitoring the ecological state of the region.
The current scale and intensity of urban underground resources (UUR) are greater than ever, and the integrated development of UUR is of considerable significance for urban sustainable development. However, insights on the characteristics of UUR interactions are limited, and thus a quantitative evaluation method is lacking. In this study, we determined UUR interactions to have the following characteristics: spatiotemporal dynamics; multiple influencing factors; chain reactions and synergetic and conflicting coexistence. Based on these characteristics, the system dynamics (SD) method was presented as a new approach to evaluate UUR interactions. Compared with existing methods, SD is not only highly consistent with the interaction characteristics of UUR, but can also quantitatively analyze UUR. Furthermore, by taking the integrated development of geomaterial and urban underground space as a case study, the integrated development impacts were quantitatively evaluated via an integrated two-stage dynamic SD model through Vensim®. The simulation results demonstrate that the GM production of the newly built Beijing subway (991 km, 531 stations) during 2018–2023 can be reduced from 2.07 × 10⁷m³ to 1.33 × 10⁷m³ by integrated development. Moreover, the integrated development achieved favourable environmental impacts, including reductions in the energy consumption from 4.07 × 10⁷kgce to 2.62 × 10⁷ kgce; greenhouse gas emissions from 3.59 × 10⁷kg to 2.31 × 10⁷kg; and landfill space occupation from 9.24 × 10⁶ m³ to 5.95 × 10⁶ m³. This study provides an SD tool for planners interested in the integrated development of UUR and acts as a reference for the assessment of the integrated development impacts.
What are the reasons to protect the geologic resources? Are there any ethical arguments to prevent extraction and support the “in situ” preservation of ordinary geological goods that are not covered by other legal protection regimes? And what about the geological goods which do not even have a market value because they are not economically interesting or because they are not in the market? Are not there any ethical arguments for “in situ” protection of these geological goods against development plans, programs, or projects? The legal rationale for the protection of geological goods—both with and without economic relevance—will be based on their relational value. The relational value is key to understand the fundamental reasons why people want to protect geological goods despite their non-biotic nature and regardless of their direct utility, economic value. The big question here is: how is it possible to know if and how much people care about certain geological objects or sites? The answer lays in cultural geo-ecosystem services. Recognizing the relational value of geological goods by using the ecosystem services language can help prevent conflicts and promote socially and environmentally sustainable development.
Since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was published, a plethora of ecosystem service frameworks have been developed to conceptualise the links between the natural environment and society. The intended geographic scales of application, the policy/practice context, and the scientific disciplines involved have driven variations in how the frameworks are constructed. However, the frameworks are homogenous in that they have been created predominately based on expert opinions and views of how ecosystem services are structured. Here, we use the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) to examine the extent to which frameworks capture people’s values for British woodlands. Our findings reveal several disparities between how experts and the public conceptualise ecosystem services. The considerable refinement and specificity provided by CICES does not align with public values (e.g. some provisioning, and regulation and maintenance, services), which tend to be more generalised. We also demonstrate differences in values explained by social characteristics (e.g. ethnicity) that need to be accounted for in decision-making processes. Moving forwards, we need to consider how society views the services derived from nature and reflect this in frameworks to ensure ecosystem service approaches are effective, transparent and widely supported.
The increasing latent demand for underground space has been adequately considered in the planning process of the central business district (CBD) in Chinese cities. However, underground space plans in most of the Chinese CBDs have yielded few results because they are rarely realized in practice as envisioned. The roots of the problem can be traced back to the lack of effective planning approaches and, more importantly, the administrative management for planning implementation. In a broader sense, this also mirrors deeper deficiencies in the planning and administrative system for urban underground space in China. In this context, Shanghai Hongqiao CBD offers an exemplary case for other Chinese cities with respect to underground space planning and implementation in CBDs or other key areas. This paper presents in detail the entire process of underground space development in terms of planning and the implementation dimensions in the Core Area Phase I in Shanghai Hongqiao CBD, which is also applicable to other Chinese cities.
The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) is widely used for mapping, ecosystem assessment, and natural capital ecosystem accounting. On the basis of the experience gained in using it since the first version was published in 2013, it has been updated for version 5.1. This policy brief summarises what has been done and how the classification can be used.
Although ecosystems comprise both biotic and abiotic structures and processes, the role of abiotic output receives less attention and is addressed inconsistently in ecosystem services (ES) classification systems. The authors explore the nature and position of abiotic ecosystem output from: 1) a theoretical perspective on ecosystems, ecosystems services and natural capital; 2) a practical perspective on applying the ES concept in environmental policy, spatial planning and ecosystem management. From a theoretical point of view, excluding abiotic flows in ES frameworks such as CICES is inconsistent with the principles of the ES concept. Consequently, abiotic flows with (high) societal relevance may in practice be neglected or selectively addressed; many of them are related to sediment and the subsurface part of ecosystems. This impedes the integration strength of the ES concept. Given the large contributions to the economy and the societal costs of non-sustainable use of abiotic flows, it also impedes holistic, consistent and transparent information provision to decision makers. The authors urge to include abiotic flows as inherent part in ecosystem services classification systems such as CICES. This makes the application of the ES concept more holistic and consistent and will optimize it's integration power for practical planning and decision making.
An increasing amount of information is being collected on the ecological and socio-economic value of goods and services provided by natural and semi-natural ecosystems. However, much of this information appears scattered throughout a disciplinary academic literature, unpublished government agency reports, and across the World Wide Web. In addition, data on ecosystem goods and services often appears at incompatible scales of analysis and is classified differently by different authors. In order to make comparative ecological economic analysis possible, a standardized framework for the comprehensive assessment of ecosystem functions, goods and services is needed. In response to this challenge, this paper presents a conceptual framework and typology for describing, classifying and valuing ecosystem functions, goods and services in a clear and consistent manner. In the following analysis, a classification is given for the fullest possible range of 23 ecosystem functions that provide a much larger number of goods and services. In the second part of the paper, a checklist and matrix is provided, linking these ecosystem functions to the main ecological, socio–cultural and economic valuation methods.
In the EU, the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services, abbreviated to MAES, is seen as a key action for the advancement of biodiversity objectives, and also to inform the development and implementation of related policies on water, climate, agriculture, forest, marine and regional planning. In this study, we present the development of an analytical framework which ensures that consistent approaches are used throughout the EU. It is framed by a broad set of key policy questions and structured around a conceptual framework that links human societies and their well-being with the environment. Next, this framework is tested through four thematic pilot studies, including stakeholders and experts working at different scales and governance levels, which contributed indicators to assess the state of ecosystem services. Indicators were scored according to different criteria and assorted per ecosystem type and ecosystem services using the common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES) as typology. We concluded that there is potential to develop a first EU wide ecosystem assessment on the basis of existing data if they are combined in a creative way. However, substantial data gaps remain to be filled before a fully integrated and complete ecosystem assessment can be carried out.
Green infrastructure (GI), a network of nature, semi-natural areas and green space, delivers essential ecosystem services which underpin human well-being and quality of life. Maintaining ecosystem services through the development of GI is therefore increasingly recognized by policies as a strategy to cope with potentially changing conditions in the future. This paper assessed how current trends of land-use change have an impact on the aggregated provision of eight ecosystem services at the regional scale of the European Union, measured by the Total Ecosystem Services Index (TESI8). Moreover, the paper reports how further implementation of GI across Europe can help maintain ecosystem services at baseline levels. Current demographic, economic and agricultural trends, which affect land use, were derived from the so called Reference Scenario. This scenario is established by the European Commission to assess the impact of energy and climate policy up to 2050. Under the Reference Scenario, economic growth, coupled with the total population, stimulates increasing urban and industrial expansion. TESI8 is expected to decrease across Europe between 0 and 5 % by 2020 and between 10 and 15 % by 2050 relative to the base year 2010. Based on regression analysis, we estimated that every additional percent increase of the proportion of artificial land needs to be compensated with an increase of 2.2 % of land that qualifies as green infrastructure in order to maintain ecosystem services at 2010 levels.
The Ecosystem Services Journal starts in 2012 with a formidable basis in the reports and books from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and TEEB projects. Following a half-century history of growing awareness and associated scientific based policy development a bridging concept with natural and social science notions was developed and coined “ecosystem services”. The agenda for the journal Ecosystem Services, presented in this introductory paper to the Journal Ecosystem Services is aimed at scientists and policy analysts who consider contributing to better knowledge and better use of that knowledge about ecosystem services. This should include knowledge of the ecological systems that provide the services, the economic systems that benefit from them, and the institutions that need to develop effective codes for a sustainable use. The agenda is derived from the experience of the authors in science and policy analysis and extended with some of the recommendations from the TEEB book for national and international policy making emphasising the science—policy—practice linkage, which is the philosophy of the Journal.
Economics – specifically, monetary valuation – has been given a pivotal role in ecosystem conservation. This is a retrogressive step, undoing important sustainability principles and practices that should have been embedded in environmental policy and management action. The concept of ecosystem services is a useful framework for understanding the dependency of human society on its natural environment, but it needs to be part of a larger solution that recognizes the complexity of the socio-ecological system, and the issues of equity and justice that pertain to sustainable responses to global environmental change. There have been a few recent critical analyses of the ecosystem services concept and its global application that address these issues. This paper summarizes the perspectives and arguments made in those articles, and argues for more reflexive policy and research.
As reflected in the ecosystem approach, conservation strategies for the natural environment are responding to society's needs and the changing climate. Ecosystem assessments, particularly the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, have reviewed the benefits that society gains from the natural environment, but they under-represent and undervalue the contribution of geodiversity. Geodiversity underpins and delivers many vital ecosystem services, informs their management and is an important element of natural capital. This includes the application of knowledge of physical processes and evidence from Quaternary archives of recent environmental change to help future-proof ecosystems and their services. Key principles include working with natural processes, based on understanding their spatial and temporal dynamics, and adopting where possible soft engineering practices to enable multiple benefits for nature and society. The ecosystem approach and the need for climate change adaptation require more integrated approaches to geodiversity, biodiversity and landscape conservation and management to enable a more sustainable future. Engaging with these issues will also demonstrate the wider relevance today of geodiversity and geoconservation. Contributing successfully in these critical areas requires closer partnership working, both across the geoscience and geoconservation communities, and with other sectors of nature conservation, policy makers, planners and communities, as well as other disciplines. Geoscience has an essential contribution to make in addressing knowledge gaps recognised in ecosystem assessment and in implementing robust solutions to broader environmental, economic and social issues.
The concept of ecosystem services (ES) has taken the environmental science and policy literature by storm, and has become almost the approach to thinking about and assessing the nature-society relationship. In this review, we ask whether and in what way the ES concept is a useful way of organising research on the nature-society relationship. We trace the evolution of the different versions of the concept and identify key points of convergence and divergence. The essence of the concept nevertheless is that the contribution of biotic nature to human well-being is unrecognised and undervalued, which results in destruction of ecosystems. We discuss why this formulation has attracted ecologists and summarise the resultant contributions to research, particularly to the understanding of indirect or regulating services. We then outline three sets of weaknesses in the ES framework: confusion over ecosystem functions and biodiversity, omission of dis-services, trade-offs and abiotic nature, and the use of an economic valuation framework to measure and aggregate human well-being. Underlying these weaknesses is a narrow problem frame that is unidimensional in its environmental concern and techno-economic in its explanation of environmental degradation. We argue that an alternative framing that embraces broader concerns and incorporates multiple explanations would be more useful, and outline how this approach to understanding the nature-society relationship may be implemented.
Linked to diverse biological processes, groundwater ecosystems deliver essential services to mankind, the most important of which is the provision of drinking water. In contrast to surface waters, ecological aspects of groundwater systems are ignored by the current European Union and national legislation. Groundwater management and protection measures refer exclusively to its good physicochemical and quantitative status. Current initiatives in developing ecologically sound integrative assessment schemes by taking groundwater fauna into account depend on the initial classification of subsurface bioregions. In a large scale survey, the regional and biogeographical distribution patterns of groundwater dwelling invertebrates were examined for many parts of Germany. Following an exploratory approach, our results underline that the distribution patterns of invertebrates in groundwater are not in accordance with any existing bioregional classification system established for surface habitats. In consequence, we propose to develope a new classification scheme for groundwater ecosystems based on stygoregions.
Food production requires application of fertilizers containing phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium on agricultural fields in order to sustain crop yields. However modern agriculture is dependent on phosphorus derived from phosphate rock, which is a non-renewable resource and current global reserves may be depleted in 50–100 years. While phosphorus demand is projected to increase, the expected global peak in phosphorus production is predicted to occur around 2030. The exact timing of peak phosphorus production might be disputed, however it is widely acknowledged within the fertilizer industry that the quality of remaining phosphate rock is decreasing and production costs are increasing. Yet future access to phosphorus receives little or no international attention. This paper puts forward the case for including long-term phosphorus scarcity on the priority agenda for global food security. Opportunities for recovering phosphorus and reducing demand are also addressed together with institutional challenges.
Linking biophysical aspects of ecosystems with human benefits through the notion of ecosystem services is essential to assess the trade-offs (ecological, socio-cultural, economic and monetary) involved in the loss of ecosystems and biodiversity in a clear and consistent manner. Any ecosystem assessment should be spatially and temporally explicit at scales meaningful for policy formation or interventions, inherently acknowledging that both ecological functioning and economic values are context, space and time specific. Any ecosystem assessment should first aim to determine the service delivery in biophysical terms, to provide solid ecological underpinning to the economic valuation or measurement with alternative metrics. Clearly delineating between functions, services and benefits is important to make ecosystem assessments more accessible to economic valuation, although no consensus has yet been reached on the classification. Ecosystem assessments should be set within the context of contrasting scenarios - recognising that both the values of ecosystem services and the costs of actions can be best measured as a function of changes between alternative options. In assessing trade-offs between alternative uses of ecosystems, the total bundle of ecosystem services provided by different conversion and management states should be included. Any valuation study should be fully aware of the „cost‟ side of the equation, as focus on benefits only ignores important societal costs like missed opportunities of alternative uses; this also allows for a more extensive range of societal values to be considered. Ecosystem assessments should integrate an analysis of risks and uncertainties, acknowledging the limitations of knowledge on the impacts of human actions on ecosystems and their services and on their importance to human well-being. In order to improve incentive structures and institutions, the different stakeholders - i.e. the beneficiaries of ecosystem services, those who are providing the services, those involved in or affected by the use, and the actors involved at different levels of decision-making - should be clearly identified, and decision making processes need to be transparent
Because functions of the subsurface are hidden from view, its important role in society is often taken for granted. Underground use in cities and subsurface resource extraction rapidly increase. Ensuring sustainability of the subsurface role requires balancing between exploitation and conservation, recognizing the non-renewability of abiotic resources and the long time cycles in the subsurface.
This paper introduces the concept of geosystem services as a framework to analyze the issue of sustainable use of the subsurface in a systemic and holistic manner. Four main elements make up the framework: geosystems, services, values, and governance. Complementarity between the concepts of geosystem and ecosystems services is highlighted by classifying geosystem services in provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services. Geosystem services are distinguished from ecosystem services by systematically reflecting on three cross-cutting themes (i.e. space, scale and time). Applying the concept of ‘geosystem services’ results in improved integration in areas where trade-offs occur between ‘geosystem services’ stemming from the subsurface and ‘ecosystem services’ at surface. The geosystem services concept helps framing a more sustainable process of urbanization, and contributes to a spatially explicit linkage of (mineral) resource production to consumption, environmental impacts on the ecosystem and (global) governance of resources and resource efficiencies.
Most conservation planning to date has focused on protecting today's biodiversity with the assumption that it will be tomorrow's biodiversity. However, modern climate change has already resulted in distributional shifts of some species and is projected to result in many more shifts in the coming decades. As species redistribute and biotic communities reorganize, conservation plans based on current patterns of biodiversity may fail to adequately protect species in the future. One approach for addressing this issue is to focus on conserving a range of abiotic conditions in the conservation-planning process. By doing so, it may be possible to conserve an abiotically diverse "stage" upon which evolution will play out and support many actors (biodiversity). We reviewed the fundamental underpinnings of the concept of conserving the abiotic stage, starting with the early observations of von Humboldt, who mapped the concordance of abiotic conditions and vegetation, and progressing to the concept of the ecological niche. We discuss challenges posed by issues of spatial and temporal scale, the role of biotic drivers of species distributions, and latitudinal and topographic variation in relationships between climate and landform. For example, abiotic conditions are not static, but change through time-albeit at different and often relatively slow rates. In some places, biotic interactions play a substantial role in structuring patterns of biodiversity, meaning that patterns of biodiversity may be less tightly linked to the abiotic stage. Furthermore, abiotic drivers of biodiversity can change with latitude and topographic position, meaning that the abiotic stage may need to be defined differently in different places. We conclude that protecting a diversity of abiotic conditions will likely best conserve biodiversity into the future in places where abiotic drivers of species distributions are strong relative to biotic drivers, where the diversity of abiotic settings will be conserved through time, and where connectivity allows for movement among areas providing different abiotic conditions.
© 2015 Society for Conservation Biology.
Evidence is mounting that the immense diversity of microorganisms and animals that live belowground contributes significantly to shaping aboveground biodiversity and the functioning of terrestrial ecosystems. Our understanding of how this belowground biodiversity is distributed, and how it regulates the structure and functioning of terrestrial ecosystems, is rapidly growing. Evidence also points to soil biodiversity as having a key role in determining the ecological and evolutionary responses of terrestrial ecosystems to current and future environmental change. Here we review recent progress and propose avenues for further research in this field.
Growth in human population and demand for wealth creates ever-increasing pressure on global soils, leading to soil losses and degradation worldwide. Critical Zone science studies the impact linkages between these pressures, the resulting environmental state of soils, and potential interventions to protect soil and reverse degradation. New research on soil processes is being driven by the scientific hypothesis that soil processes can be described along a life cycle of soil development. This begins with formation of new soil from parent material, development of the soil profile, and potential loss of the developed soil functions and the soil itself under overly intensive anthropogenic land use, thus closing the cycle. Four Critical Zone Observatories in Europe have been selected focusing research at sites that represent key stages along the hypothetical soil life cycle; incipient soil formation, productive use of soil for farming and forestry, and decline of soil due to longstanding intensive agriculture. Initial results from the research show that soil develops important biogeochemical properties on the time scale of decades and that soil carbon and the development of favourable soil structure takes place over similar time scales. A new mathematical model of soil aggregate formation and degradation predicts that set-aside land at the most degraded site studied can develop substantially improved soil structure with the accumulation of soil carbon over a period of several years. Further results demonstrate the rapid dynamics of soil carbon; how quickly it can be lost, and also demonstrate how data from the CZOs can be used to determine parameter values for models at catchment scale. A structure for a new integrated Critical Zone model is proposed that combines process descriptions of carbon and nutrient flows, a simplified description of the soil food web, and reactive transport; all coupled with a dynamic model for soil structure and soil aggregation. This approach is proposed as a methodology to analyse data along the soil life cycle and test how soil processes and rates vary within, and between, the CZOs representing different life cycle stages. In addition, frameworks are discussed that will help to communicate the results of this science into a more policy relevant format using ecosystem service approaches.
Over the past decade, efforts to value and protect ecosystem services have been promoted by many as the last, best hope for making conservation mainstream - attractive and commonplace worldwide. In theory, if we can help individuals and institutions to recognize the value of nature, then this should greatly increase investments in conservation, while at the same time fostering human well-being. In practice, however, we have not yet developed the scientific basis, nor the policy and finance mechanisms, for incorporating natural capital into resource- and land-use decisions on a large scale. Here, we propose a conceptual framework and sketch out a strategic plan for delivering on the promise of ecosystem services, drawing on emerging examples from Hawai‘i. We describe key advances in the science and practice of accounting for natural capital in the decisions of individuals, communities, corporations, and governments.
There is a growing trend to include a consideration of ecosystem services, the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems, within decision frameworks. Not more than a decade ago, sediment management efforts were largely site-specific and held little attention except in terms of managing contaminant inputs and addressing sediments as a nuisance at commercial ports and harbors. Sediments figure extensively in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; however, contaminated sediment is not the dominant concern. Rather, the focus is on land and water use and management on the landscape scale, which can profoundly affect soil and sediment quality, quantity and fate. Habitat change and loss, due to changes in sediment inputs, whether reductions (resulting in the loss of beaches, storm protection, nutrient inputs, etc.) or increases (resulting in lake, reservoir and wetland infilling, coral reef smothering, etc.); eutrophication and reductions in nutrient inputs, and disturbance due to development and fishing practices are considered major drivers, with significant consequences for biodiversity and the provision and resilience of ecosystem functions and services. As a mobile connecting medium between various parts of the ecosystem via the hydrocycle, sediments both contaminated and uncontaminated, play both positive and negative roles in the viability and sustainability of social, economic, and ecological objectives. How these roles are interpreted depends upon whether sediment status (defined in terms of sediment quality, quantity, location and transport) is appropriate to the needs of a given endpoint; understanding and managing the dynamic interactions of sediment status on a diverse range of endpoints at the landscape or watershed scale should be the focus of sediment management. This paper seeks to provide a language and conceptual framework upon which sediment-ecosystem regional assessments (SEcoRAs) can be developed in support of that goal.
Typescript (photocopy). Thesis (M. Sc.)--Colorado School of Mines, 2003. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 84-88). Thesis advisor: Jörg E. Drewes, Dept. of Environmental Science and Engineering Division.
Soil food web stability in response to grazing in a semi-arid prairie: The importance of soil textural heterogeneity
- P Andrés
- J C Moore
- R T Simpson
- G Selby
- F Cotrufo
- K Denef
- . . Wall
Andrés, P., Moore, J. C., Simpson, R. T., Selby, G., Cotrufo, F.,
Denef, K.,... & Wall, D. H. (2016). Soil food web stability in
response to grazing in a semi-arid prairie: The importance of soil
textural heterogeneity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 97,
131-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013
Soil carbon stocks in wetlands of New Zealand and impact of land conversion since European settlement. Wetlands ecology and management
- A G Ausseil
- H Jamali
- B R Clarkson
- N E Golubiewski
Ausseil, A. G., Jamali, H., Clarkson, B. R., & Golubiewski, N. E.
(2015). Soil carbon stocks in wetlands of New Zealand and impact
of land conversion since European settlement. Wetlands ecology
and management, 23(5), 947-961.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecoser.2017.05.013
Geomorphic knowledge for mangrove restoration: a pan-tropical categorization. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
- T Balke
- D A Friess
Balke, T., & Friess, D. A. (2016). Geomorphic knowledge for mangrove restoration: a pan-tropical categorization. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 41(2), 231-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoser.2017.05.013
Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater
- J S Baron
- N L Poff
- P L Angermeier
- C N Dahm
- P H Gleick
- N G Hairston
- . . Steinman
Baron, J. S., Poff, N. L., Angermeier, P. L., Dahm, C. N., Gleick, P. H.,
Hairston, N. G.,... & Steinman, A. D. (2002). Meeting ecological and
societal needs for freshwater. Ecological Applications, 12(5),
1247-1260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013
Accounting for land-use efficiency and temporal variations between brownfield remediation alternatives in life-cycle assessment
- A Beames
- S Broekx
- R Heijungs
- R Lookman
- K Boonen
- Y Van Geert
- . . Seuntjens
Beames, A., Broekx, S., Heijungs, R., Lookman, R., Boonen, K., Van
Geert, Y.,... & Seuntjens, P. (2015). Accounting for land-use efficiency and temporal variations between brownfield remediation
alternatives in life-cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production,
101, 109-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013
The value of carbon sequestration and storage in coastal habitats
- N J Beaumont
- L Jones
- A Garbutt
- J D Hansom
- M Toberman
Beaumont, N. J., Jones, L., Garbutt, A., Hansom, J. D., & Toberman,
M. (2014). The value of carbon sequestration and storage in coastal
habitats. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 137, 32-40. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013
Groundwater and ecosystem services: towards their sustainable use
- G Bergkamp
- K Cross
Bergkamp, G., & Cross, K. (2006, January). Groundwater and
ecosystem services: towards their sustainable use. In Proceedings
of the international symposium on groundwater sustainability
(ISGWAS), Alicante, Spain (pp. 24-27).
The Assessment of Regulatory Ecosystem Services: The Case of the Sediment Retention Service in a Mountain Landscape in the Southern Romanian Carpathians
- A Binley
- S S Hubbard
- J A Huisman
- A Revil
- D A Robinson
- K Singha
- L D Slater
- S M Bogdan
- I Pȃtru-Stupariu
- L Zaharia
- A J Boulton
- G D Fenwick
- P J Hancock
- M S Harvey
- S L Brantley
- J P Megonigal
- F N Scatena
- Z Balogh-Brunstad
- R T Barnes
- M A Bruns
- A Heimsath
Binley, A., Hubbard, S. S., Huisman, J. A., Revil, A., Robinson, D. A.,
Singha, K., & Slater, L. D. (2015). The emergence of hydrogeophysics
for improved understanding of subsurface processes over multiple
scales. Water resources research, 51(6), 3837-3866. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Bogdan, S. M., Pȃtru-Stupariu, I., & Zaharia, L. (2016). The
Assessment of Regulatory Ecosystem Services: The Case of
the Sediment Retention Service in a Mountain Landscape in
the Southern Romanian Carpathians. Procedia Environmental
Sciences, 32, 12-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.
013.
Boulton, A. J., Fenwick, G. D., Hancock, P. J., & Harvey, M. S.
(2008). Biodiversity, functional roles and ecosystem services of
groundwater invertebrates. Invertebrate Systematics, 22(2),
103-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Brantley, S. L., Megonigal, J. P., Scatena, F. N., Balogh-Brunstad,
Z., Barnes, R. T., Bruns, M. A., & Heimsath, A. (2011). Twelve testable
hypotheses on the geobiology of weathering. Geobiology, 9(2),
140-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Broers, H. P., & Lijzen, J. P. A. (2014). Afwegingen bij het gebruik
van grondwater en de ondergrond: Een verkenning op basis van
ecosysteemdiensten. RIVM rapport 607710003; Deltares rapport
1207762-016. Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Brookfield, A. E., Sudicky, E. A., Park, Y. J., & Conant, B. (2009).
Thermal transport modelling in a fully integrated surface/subsurface framework
Thermal transport modelling in a fully integrated surface/subsurface framework. Hydrological Processes, 23(15), 2150-2164.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Aggregated indicator to assess land use impacts in life cycle assessment (LCA) based on the economic value of ecosystem services
- E J Brown
- C D Prosser
- N M Stevenson
- V Cao
- M Margni
- B D Favis
- L Deschênes
- S Chakraborty
- I B Pangga
- M M Roper
- Y Chen
- S D Day
- A F Wick
- K J Mcguire
Brown, E. J., Prosser, C. D., & Stevenson, N. M. (2012). Geodiversity, conservation and climate change: key principles for adaptation. Scottish Geographical Journal, 128(3-4), 234-239. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Cao, V., Margni, M., Favis, B. D., & Deschênes, L. (2015). Aggregated indicator to assess land use impacts in life cycle assessment
(LCA) based on the economic value of ecosystem services. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 94, 56-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Cardoso, A. (2015). Behind the life cycle of coal: Socioenvironmental liabilities of coal mining in Cesar, Colombia. Ecological Economics, 120, 71-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.
2017.05.013.
Chakraborty, S., Pangga, I. B., & Roper, M. M. (2012). Climate
change and multitrophic interactions in soil: the primacy of plants
and functional domains. Global Change Biology, 18(7), 2111-2125.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Chen, Y., Day, S. D., Wick, A. F., & McGuire, K. J. (2014). Influence
of urban land development and subsequent soil rehabilitation on
soil aggregates, carbon, and hydraulic conductivity. Science of the
Total Environment, 494, 329-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
The false promises of coal exploitation: How mining affects herdsmen well-being in the grassland ecosystems of Inner Mongolia
- X S Zhang
& Zhang, X. S. (2014). The false promises of coal exploitation: How
mining affects herdsmen well-being in the grassland ecosystems of
Inner Mongolia. Energy Policy, 67, 146-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Extending the timescale and range of ecosystem services through paleoenvironmental analyses, exemplified in the lower Yangtze basin
- A D'alpaos
- J A Dearing
- X Yang
- X Dong
- E Zhang
- X Chen
- P G Langdon
- . . Dawson
- T P Dilmore
- R M Sams
- J I Glosser
- D Carter
- K M Bain
- D J Dominati
- E Patterson
- M Mackay
- A Esteban
- E Dinar
D'Alpaos, A. (2011). The mutual influence of biotic and abiotic
components on the long-term ecomorphodynamic evolution of
salt-marsh ecosystems. Geomorphology, 126(3), 269-278. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Dearing, J. A., Yang, X., Dong, X., Zhang, E., Chen, X., Langdon, P.
G.,... & Dawson, T. P. (2012). Extending the timescale and range of
ecosystem services through paleoenvironmental analyses, exemplified in the lower Yangtze basin. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 109(18), E1111-E1120. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Dilmore, R. M., Sams III, J. I., Glosser, D., Carter, K. M., & Bain, D. J.
(2015). Spatial and temporal characteristics of historical oil and gas
wells in Pennsylvania: Implications for new shale gas resources.
Environmental science & technology, 49(20), 12,015-12,023.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Dominati, E., Patterson, M., & Mackay, A. (2010). A framework
for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem
services of soils. Ecological Economics, 69(9), 1858-1868. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Esteban, E., & Dinar, A. (2016). The role of groundwaterdependent ecosystems in groundwater management. Natural
Resource Modeling, 29(1), 98-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Eziz, M., Yimit, H., Tursun, Z., & Rusuli, Y. (2014).
Variations in ecosystem service value in response to oasis land-use change in Keriya Oasis
Variations in ecosystem service value in response to oasis
land-use change in Keriya Oasis, Tarim Basin, China. Natural
Areas Journal, 34(3), 353-364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Human freshwater demand for economic activity and ecosystems in Taiwan
- J J Ferng
- M Finkel
- J Hays
- A Law
- M L Francis
- M V Fey
- H P Prinsloo
- F Ellis
- A J Mills
- T V Medinski
Ferng, J. J. (2007). Human freshwater demand for economic
activity and ecosystems in Taiwan. Environmental management,
40(6), 913-925. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Finkel, M., Hays, J., & Law, A. (2013). The shale gas boom and the
need for rational policy. American journal of public health, 103(7),
1161-1163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Francis, M. L., Fey, M. V., Prinsloo, H. P., Ellis, F., Mills, A. J., &
Medinski, T. V. (2007). Soils of Namaqualand: compensations for
aridity. Journal of Arid Environments, 70(4), 588-603. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
The importance of sub-peat carbon storage as shown by data from Dartmoor, UK. Soil use and management
- R M Fyfe
- R Coombe
- H Davies
- L Parry
Fyfe, R. M., Coombe, R., Davies, H., & Parry, L. (2014). The importance of sub-peat carbon storage as shown by data from Dartmoor,
UK. Soil use and management, 30(1), 23-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Biostabilization of cohesive sediments: revisiting the role of abiotic conditions, physiology and diversity of microbes, polymeric secretion, and biofilm architecture
- O Gavrilova
- R Vilu
- L Vallner
Hydraulic fracturing in faulted sedimentary basins: Numerical
simulation of potential contamination of shallow aquifers over
long time scales. Water Resources Research, 49(12), 8310-8327.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Gavrilova, O., Vilu, R., & Vallner, L. (2010). A life cycle environmental impact assessment of oil shale produced and consumed
in Estonia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(2), 232-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Gerbersdorf, S. U., & Wieprecht, S. (2015). Biostabilization of
cohesive sediments: revisiting the role of abiotic conditions, physiology and diversity of microbes, polymeric secretion, and biofilm
architecture. Geobiology, 13(1), 68-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Gill, J. L., J. L. Blois, B. Benito, S. Dobrowski, M. L. Hunter and J. L.
Engaging with geodiversity:'stone voices', creativity and ecosystem cultural services in Scotland
- J E Gordon
- H F Barron
Water balance of global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature, 488(7410), 197-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Goldscheider, N. (2012). A holistic approach to groundwater
protection and ecosystem services in karst terrains. AQUA mundi,
3, 117-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Gordon, J. E., & Barron, H. F. (2012). Valuing geodiversity and
geoconservation: developing a more strategic ecosystem approach.
Scottish Geographical Journal, 128(3-4), 278-297. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Gordon, J. E. (2012). Engaging with geodiversity:'stone voices',
creativity and ecosystem cultural services in Scotland. Scottish
Geographical Journal, 128(3-4), 240-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Valuing geodiversity in an 'ecosystem services' context
- M Gray
Gray, M. (2011). Other nature: geodiversity and geosystem services. Environmental Conservation, 38(03), 271-274. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Gray, M. (2012). Valuing geodiversity in an 'ecosystem services'
context. Scottish Geographical Journal, 128(3-4), 177-194. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Groundwater ecosystem services: a review
- C Griebler
- M Avramov
Griebler, C., & Avramov, M. (2014). Groundwater ecosystem services: a review. Freshwater Science, 34(1), 355-367. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Current developments in groundwater ecology-from biodiversity to ecosystem function and services
- C Griebler
- F Malard
- T Lefébure
- D G Groenendyk
- T P Ferré
- K R Thorp
- A K Rice
Griebler, C., Malard, F., & Lefébure, T. (2014). Current developments in groundwater ecology-from biodiversity to ecosystem
function and services. Current opinion in biotechnology, 27,
159-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Groenendyk, D. G., Ferré, T. P., Thorp, K. R., & Rice, A. K. (2015).
Hydrologic-process-based soil texture classifications for improved visualization of landscape function
- J Hjort
- J E Gordon
- M Gray
- M L Hunter
Hydrologic-process-based soil texture classifications for improved
visualization of landscape function. PloS one, 10(6), e0131299.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Hjort, J., J. E. Gordon, M. Gray and M. L. Hunter (2015). ''Why
geodiversity matters in valuing nature's stage." Conservation Biology 29(3): 630-639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.
Investigation of influence of Lapes landfill leachate on ground and surface water pollution with heavy metals
- D U Hooper
- F S Chapin
- J J Ewel
- A Hector
- P Inchausti
- S Lavorel
- . . Schmid
- B Jaskelevičius
- B Lynikiene
Hooper, D. U., Chapin, F. S., Ewel, J. J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P.,
Lavorel, S.,... & Schmid, B. (2005). Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological
monographs, 75(1), 3-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.
05.013.
Jaskelevičius, B., & Lynikiene, V. (2009). Investigation of influence of Lapes landfill leachate on ground and surface water pollution with heavy metals. Journal of Environmental Engineering and
Landscape Management, 17(3), 131-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Shale gas vs. coal: Policy implications from environmental impact comparisons of shale gas, conventional gas, and coal on air, water, and land in the United States
- S Jenner
- A J Lamadrid
Jenner, S., & Lamadrid, A. J. (2013). Shale gas vs. coal: Policy
implications from environmental impact comparisons of shale
gas, conventional gas, and coal on air, water, and land in the United
States. Energy Policy, 53, 442-453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Soil quality: why and how?
- D L Karlen
- C A Ditzler
- S S Andrews
Karlen, D. L., Ditzler, C. A., & Andrews, S. S. (2003). Soil quality:
why and how?. Geoderma, 114(3), 145-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Climate vulnerability of ecosystems and landscapes on Alaska's North Slope
- T G Kittel
- B B Baker
- J V Higgins
- J C Haney
Kittel, T. G., Baker, B. B., Higgins, J. V., & Haney, J. C. (2011). Climate vulnerability of ecosystems and landscapes on Alaska's North
Slope. Regional Environmental Change, 11(1), 249-264. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
A framework for the analysis of governance structures applying to groundwater resources and the requirements for the sustainable management of associated ecosystem services
- B Kløve
- A Allan
- G Bertrand
- E Druzynska
- A Ertürk
- N Goldscheider
- . . Kupfersberger
- H Knüppe
- K Pahl-Wostl
Kløve, B., Allan, A., Bertrand, G., Druzynska, E., Ertürk, A., Goldscheider, N.,... & Kupfersberger, H. (2011). Groundwater dependent ecosystems. Part II. Ecosystem services and management in
Europe under risk of climate change and land use intensification.
Environmental Science & Policy, 14(7), 782-793. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Knüppe, K., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2011). A framework for the analysis of governance structures applying to groundwater resources
and the requirements for the sustainable management of associated ecosystem services. Water Resources Management, 25(13),
3387-3411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Lijzen, J. P., Otte, P., & van Dreumel, M. (2014). Towards sustainable management of groundwater: policy developments in The
Netherlands. Science of the Total Environment, 485, 804-809.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Lijzen, J.P.A., S. Vermooten, S. van der Meulen, M. Rutgers, H.P.
Are grasslands important habitats for soil microarthropod conservation
- C Menta
- A Leoni
- C Gardi
- F D Conti
Menta, C., Leoni, A., Gardi, C., & Conti, F. D. (2011). Are grasslands important habitats for soil microarthropod conservation?.
Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(5), 1073-1087. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.013.
Synergies and Tradeoffs Among Environmental Impacts Under Conservation Planning of Shale Gas Surface Infrastructure. Environmental management
- A W Milt
- T Gagnolet
- P R Armsworth
Milt, A. W., Gagnolet, T., & Armsworth, P. R. (2016). Synergies
and Tradeoffs Among Environmental Impacts Under Conservation
Planning of Shale Gas Surface Infrastructure. Environmental management, 57(1), 21-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.
05.013.
Nave, L. E., Vance, E. D., Swanston, C. W., & Curtis, P. S. (2011).