IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i7p2960-d342671.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of the Ecosystem Service Concept in Social–Ecological Systems—from Theory to Practice

Author

Listed:
  • Johannes Rüdisser

    (Department of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Sternwartestrasse 15, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria)

  • Georg Leitinger

    (Department of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Sternwartestrasse 15, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria)

  • Uta Schirpke

    (Department of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Sternwartestrasse 15, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria
    Institute for Alpine Environment, Eurac Research, Viale Druso 1, 39100 Bozen/Bolzano, Italy)

Abstract

Ecological footprint analyses demonstrate that the world’s more than 7.5 billion people consume multiple planets’ worth of resources. To incite and evaluate societal changes for the sustainable use of the environment and its natural resources, the ecosystem service (ES) concept was developed more than 20 years ago. To ensure the sustainable provision of indispensable ES, the concept has been refined and enhanced, enabling its application across various temporal and spatial scales. However, evidence-based strategies and policies are needed to preserve biodiversity and natural capital in our changing world. This Special Issue comprises studies advancing the frameworks, concepts, and applications related to ES assessment, with a particular focus on social–ecological systems. To broadly apply the ES concept in different social–ecological systems, several key issues emerged: (1) ES-related definitions and procedures should be improved and standardized; (2) the complexity of the interactions in a social–ecological system must be recognized, and knowledge about spatial and temporal dynamics and interactions among multiple ESs must be deepened; and (3) communication about ES, considering cultural and stakeholder differences, must be increased.

Suggested Citation

  • Johannes Rüdisser & Georg Leitinger & Uta Schirpke, 2020. "Application of the Ecosystem Service Concept in Social–Ecological Systems—from Theory to Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-6, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:7:p:2960-:d:342671
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2960/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2960/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joyeeta Gupta & Courtney Vegelin, 2016. "Sustainable development goals and inclusive development," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 433-448, June.
    2. McDonough, Kelsey & Hutchinson, Stacy & Moore, Trisha & Hutchinson, J.M. Shawn, 2017. "Analysis of publication trends in ecosystem services research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 82-88.
    3. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    4. Robinne, François-Nicolas & Gallagher, Louise & Bréthaut, Christian & Schlaepfer, Martin A., 2019. "A novel tool for measuring the penetration of the ecosystem service concept into public policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Yang, Y.C. Ethan & Passarelli, Simone & Lovell, Robin J. & Ringler, Claudia, 2018. "Gendered perspectives of ecosystem services: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 58-67.
    6. Zoderer, Brenda Maria & Tasser, Erich & Carver, Steve & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2019. "Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem service supply and ecosystem service demand bundles," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Richard A. Niesenbaum, 2019. "The Integration of Conservation, Biodiversity, and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-11, August.
    8. Ainscough, Jacob & de Vries Lentsch, Aster & Metzger, Marc & Rounsevell, Mark & Schröter, Matthias & Delbaere, Ben & de Groot, Rudolf & Staes, Jan, 2019. "Navigating pluralism: Understanding perceptions of the ecosystem services concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Sirén, Elina & Brunner, Sibyl Hanna & Weibel, Bettina, 2017. "Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem services concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 306-315.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. M. Araceli Calvo-Serrano & Isabel L. Castillejo-González & Francisco Montes-Tubío & Pilar Mercader-Moyano, 2020. "The Church Tower of Santiago Apóstol in Montilla: An Eco-Sustainable Rehabilitation Proposal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-17, August.
    2. Jakub Chromčák & Daša Bačová & Pavol Pecho & Anna Seidlová, 2021. "The Possibilities of Orthophotos Application for Calculation of Ecological Stability Coefficient Purposes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maund, Phoebe R. & Irvine, Katherine N. & Dallimer, Martin & Fish, Robert & Austen, Gail E. & Davies, Zoe G., 2020. "Do ecosystem service frameworks represent people’s values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    2. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    3. Stępniewska, Małgorzata & Lupa, Piotr & Mizgajski, Andrzej, 2018. "Drivers of the ecosystem services approach in Poland and perception by practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 59-67.
    4. Finisdore, John & Rhodes, Charles & Haines-Young, Roy & Maynard, Simone & Wielgus, Jeffrey & Dvarskas, Anthony & Houdet, Joel & Quétier, Fabien & Lamothe, Karl A. & Ding, Helen & Soulard, François &, 2020. "The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    5. Jen Iris Allan & Graeme Auld & Timothy Cadman & Hayley Stevenson, 2022. "Comparative Fortunes of Ecosystem Services as an International Governance Concept," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(1), pages 62-75, February.
    6. Andrew N Kadykalo & Lisa A Kelly & Albana Berberi & Jessica L Reid & C Scott Findlay, 2021. "Research effort devoted to regulating and supporting ecosystem services by environmental scientists and economists," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-21, May.
    7. Pingarroni, Aline & Castro, Antonio J. & Gambi, Marcos & Bongers, Frans & Kolb, Melanie & García-Frapolli, Eduardo & Balvanera, Patricia, 2022. "Uncovering spatial patterns of ecosystem services and biodiversity through local communities' preferences and perceptions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    8. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    9. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    10. Egor Selivanov & Petra Hlaváčková, 2021. "Methods for monetary valuation of ecosystem services: A scoping review," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 67(11), pages 499-511.
    11. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    12. Ainscough, Jacob & Wilson, Meriwether & Kenter, Jasper O., 2018. "Ecosystem services as a post-normal field of science," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 93-101.
    13. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis E. & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2022. "Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    14. Pires, Aliny P.F. & Amaral, Aryanne G. & Padgurschi, Maíra C.G. & Joly, Carlos A. & Scarano, Fabio R., 2018. "Biodiversity research still falls short of creating links with ecosystem services and human well-being in a global hotspot," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 68-73.
    15. repec:eee:ecoser:v:36:y:2019:i:c:p:- is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Schmitt, Thomas M. & Martín-López, Berta & Kaim, Andrea & Früh-Müller, Andrea & Koellner, Thomas, 2021. "Ecosystem services from (pre-)Alpine grasslands: Matches and mismatches between citizens’ perceived suitability and farmers’ management considerations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    17. Keenan, Rodney J. & Pozza, Greg & Fitzsimons, James A., 2019. "Ecosystem services in environmental policy: Barriers and opportunities for increased adoption," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Manley, Kyle & Nyelele, Charity & Egoh, Benis N., 2022. "A review of machine learning and big data applications in addressing ecosystem service research gaps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    19. Choquet, Pauline & Gabrielle, Benoit & Chalhoub, Maha & Michelin, Joël & Sauzet, Ophélie & Scammacca, Ottone & Garnier, Patricia & Baveye, Philippe C. & Montagne, David, 2021. "Comparison of empirical and process-based modelling to quantify soil-supported ecosystem services on the Saclay plateau (France)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    20. Sagie, Hila & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2022. "Benefits of Stakeholder integration in an ecosystem services assessment of Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve, Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    21. Hysing, Erik, 2021. "Challenges and opportunities for the Ecosystem Services approach: Evaluating experiences of implementation in Sweden," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:7:p:2960-:d:342671. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.