Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Material and Methods
Study Area
Results and Discussion
Conclusions
References

Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development

Profile image of Edward K NunooEdward K Nunoo

2018, Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63951-2_423-1
visibility

…

description

10 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

The maintenance of the total natural capital stocks has received increased attention worldwide for its ability to achieve sustainable development. However, the claim that ecosystem services (ES) contribute to sustainability has not been sufficiently verified. In this study, we explore how major ecosystem functions affect food, energy, and water (FEW) sustainability. This research addresses the importance of ecosystems and services provided, which sustainability depends on. Specific types of sustainabilityfood, energy, water, and fundamental ES with regional GDP are chosen to exam this relationship using the pressure-state-response framework. The results show that ecosystem services are indispensable keys to successfully achieving sustainable development goals. The research findings also illustrate a scheme for emphasizing how economic development can be a factor contributing to a multi-objective case study. Our approach may help guide future cooperative applications to achieve food, energy, and water sustainability while protecting ecosystem services.

Related papers

Ecosystem services for meeting sustainable development goals: Challenges and pathways
Nazmul Huq

The paper summarizes four presentations of the session “Environment and Wellbeing: The Role of Ecosystems for Sustainable Development” at the international conference “Sustainability in the Water- Energy-Food Nexus” held on 19-20th May 2014 in Bonn, Germany. The aim of the session was to present current stresses on ecosystem services imposed by global development trajectory, potential impacts on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and pathways to achieve SDGs. All four presentations agreed that global ecosystem services are under increasing pressure from degradation and may not be able to meet the growing Water-Energy- Food (WEF) demands especially for the developing world. Three examples from Tanzania, Cambodia and Niger made attempt to understand how governance policies attributed to natural resource depletion such as forestry and common grazing. The examples showed that governance policies favoring economic development are heavily contributing to clearing up natural resource bases. As a result, there were increasing conflicts among different resource user groups. Two other presentations introduce conceptual pathways to achieve the targets of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) under current resource stressed regime. The pathways suggested global technologies, decentralized solutions and consumption changes as the major means of achieving global sustainability and poverty eradication without any major trade-offs.

View PDFchevron_right
Ecosystem Services (ES) and their Modeling and Evaluation
omar alsharef

International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications (IJSRP), 2021

Sustainable development is a harmonious relationship between ecology and economy, in order to preserve the natural wealth of our planet for future generations. Sustainable development can be achieved only when the ecological, social and economic aspects of life gain equal importance and attention in all areas of human work and activities, and thus, or even in the first place, in food production. In all spheres of human activities, and especially in the field of environmental protection, there is a growing awareness of the limitations that our planet has and the need to reduce human impact to the least dangerous, tolerant and sustainable level. It can be said that sustainable development is a general direction, an aspiration to create a better world, balancing social, economic and environmental factors. Thus, the principle of sustainable development is an attempt to determine the obligations and rules that ensure that the needs and desires of today's people are not met to the detriment of the vital interests of future generations. Therefore, the moral requirements implied by the principle of sustainable development are the norms of fair treatment of people in the future. This formal principle also raises the normative question of what are the values that make human life quality and meaningful, and thus critically analyzes the very concept of sustainability. Economic instruments are one of the categories used in the implementation of environmental policy. These instruments can also be used as a ground for other environmental policy instruments or can be complementary to them (eg various regulations and agreements on mutual cooperation in any field).

View PDFchevron_right
Ecosystems for water and food security
Petina Pert

Overcoming hunger and meeting the nutritional needs of almost 7 billion people, rising to over 9 billion people by 2050, is a central challenge for this generation. Equally critical will be to achieve this in a way that keeps humanity’s footprint within planetary boundaries. Water scarcity is self-evidently one of the key factors that will limit food production. This is especially the case in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, where malnutrition and food insecurity are already widespread. In these areas, the livelihoods and well-being of poor communities are critically dependent on their farm produce and the ecosystem services from the local landscape that support their livelihoods and income. This background document and synthesis on An Ecosystem Services Approach to Water and Food Security is part of UNEP’s contribution to the global food crisis, pledged to the United Nations Secretary-General and developed in collaboration with the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and other partners. Together, we identified and explored the links between ecosystems, water and food, and illustrate how resilient ecosystems can support and increase food security. It is clear that enormous opportunities exist to increase food production in ways that make optimal and sustainable use of water and other resources. This means that we can feed a global population without massive and irreversible damage to our ecosystems. It also means that ensuring food security, managing water resources and protecting ecosystems must be considered as a single policy rather than as separate, and sometimes competing, choices. This approach calls for a fundamental shift in perspective and a deeper understanding of the enormous economic importance of ecosystems and the broad suite of services they provide. For example, well-managed agroecosystems not only provide food, fiber and animal products, they also generate services such as flood mitigation, groundwater recharge, erosion control and habitats for plants, birds, fish and other animals.It also requires intersectoral collaboration, because only then can policies and practices change. The overarching recommendation of this synthesis is that future sustainability requires an integrated approach to managing multipurpose agroecosystems in a landscape or river basin setting. These ecosystems–whether they are wetlands or forests, arid pastoral lands or rice fields–represent the future of food security and resilience against shocks while offering a way towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and beyond. This document does not come in isolation. It is also a contribution to UNEP’s wider work and partnership on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) and a transition to a low-carbon, resourceefficient Green Economy. Together they are all part of the urgency to evolve the sustainable development agenda forged in a previous century to reflect the new challenges and also the emerging opportunities of the 21st century.

View PDFchevron_right
Accounting for ecosystem services as a way to understand the requirements for sustainable development
Sara Aniyar

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2008

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment documented the importance of ecosystem services. It is therefore important that these services are included in our economic accounts (Standard National Accounts), as long as we believe that these accounts should tell us something about our wellbeing. This requires measures of the ecosystem assets and their accounting prices. This article discusses how the concept of inclusive wealth can be exploited for creating such accounts.

View PDFchevron_right
Natural Capital Accounting and Ecosystem Services Within the Water–Energy–Food Nexus: Local and Regional Contexts
Natasha Tang Kai

Water, Energy, Food and People Across the Global South, 2017

The demand for water, food and energy is steadily increasing; growth is expected at 30-50 percent in the next two decades (WEF 2011). Economic interests favor short-term responses in production and consumption but, in turn, undermine long-term sustainability. Shortages in water, energy and food could cause social and political instability, geopolitical conflict and irreparable environmental damage (WEF 2011). A further complexity is balancing the elements of the water, energy and food nexus with climate change and its impacts on the availability of water for drinking, food production, ecosystems and changes in energy consumption (Thirlwell et al. 2007; Waughray 2011; Bazilian et al. 2012; Van Vuuren et al. 2012). The interconnections between water, energy and food are central to management and sustainability. Current environmental impacts are measured in terms of tonnes of carbon and cubic meters of water while business performance is measured in

View PDFchevron_right
Ecosystem Services and Green Growth
Jeffrey Vincent

Policy Research Working Papers, 2012

The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Policy Research Working Paper 6233 "Ecosystem services" has become a catch-phrase for the complex connections between the natural environment and human well-being. This paper considers the impact of changes in the supply of ecosystem services, and programs to increase their supply, on near-term growth of gross domestic product. It focuses on the relationship between locally generated versus transboundary services and growth in developing countries, where the highest rates of ecosystem degradation tend to be found. There is a common perception that there is a tradeoff between environmental protection and economic growth, especially in the near term. This perception can make policymakers reluctant to support environmental

View PDFchevron_right
An Assessment of Water-Energy-Food Nexus for Environmental Sustainability: The Case of Developing Economics
Badar Rizvi

Pakistan Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences

This study examines the water-energy-food nexus for environmental sustainability using panel data of developing economies from 1995-2017. Food index has been constructed using principle component analysis (PCA). Two-step difference generalized method of moment has been employed to estimate four models for assessment of the nexus in 77 developing economies from 1995-2017. Results indicate that the water, energy and food are closely related to each other as one sector affects the productivity of the remaining two sectors. Energy use and food index have strong positive effects on water productivity in developing economies. The environmental degradation of developing economies analyzed through the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis confirms the inverted U-shaped relationship between environmental pollution and economic growth for developing economies. Study suggests that an integrated policy is required for the management of energy, water and food resources to avoid the water scarc...

View PDFchevron_right
Beyond the economic boundaries to account for ecosystem services
Alessandra La Notte

Ecosystem Services, 2019

Ecosystem services (ES) accounts are essential to quantify and monitor the contribution of ecosystems to human well-being. The System of Environmental and Economic Accounting – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA) is the first attempt to provide a set of standards to compile ecosystem accounts. We argue for the inclusion of an ecological perspective in the SEEA EEA that considers ecosystems to be more than input providers to the economy. Ecosystems can act as accounting units capable of producing, consuming and recording changes in regeneration and absorption rates. To account for that we propose (i) to identify ES typologies according to the way in which energy, biomass and information is released to generate services; (ii) to use these typologies to define the concepts of ES potential, ES potential flows, ES demand and ES actual flows; and (iii) to build the ES capacity accounts in monetary terms based on these concepts. These arguments are illustrated with case studies for water purification and crop pollination accounts in European countries. Extending the production boundary would allow the measurement of the sustainable use of ES and the establishment of causality between the use of ES and the value accrued by the economic actors and households.

View PDFchevron_right
Ecosystem Services for Sustainable Prosperity
Ida Kubiszewski
View PDFchevron_right
Water-energy-food-ecosystem nexus: how to frame and how to govern
Dries Hegger

Sustainability Science, 2025

The food, energy, and water domains are strongly interrelated. The body of literature investigating these interlinkages developed into water-energy-food and, more recently, ecosystem (WEFE) nexus thinking. The WEFE nexus is concerned with cross-sectoral resource management requiring dedicated WEFE governance approaches. Among the existing WEFE nexus conceptualizations, the one that places the ecosystem at the center emphasizes the importance of ecosystem services for human well-being and as the basis for the functioning of the water, energy, and food domains. Such conceptualization, however, lacks clear definition and explanation of implications for WEFE nexus governance as well as practical tools for implementation. Accordingly, based on an in-depth analysis of WEFE nexus interlinkages, associated governance challenges, and practical experience, we propose the WEFE Nexus Governance Approach as an operationalization of the ecosystemcentric WEFE nexus conceptual framework. This approach takes policy coherence and stakeholder co-creation at its core, integrated with quantitative modeling of WEFE nexus interlinkages, and is organized in four steps: problem identification; formulation of substantive ambitions through stakeholder dialogue; embedding of ambitions and action into a stakeholder agreement; and implementation of actions. The approach is oriented to practical application and can be implemented by any actor (e.g., research institutes, governments, non-governmental organizations) having the ambition to initiate a stakeholders co-creation process toward nexus governance in a specific context. Furthermore, it can be applied to different scales and Handled by Nidhi Nagabhatla,

View PDFchevron_right

References (84)

  1. Bagstad, K.J., Reed, J.M., Semmens, D.J., Sherrouse, B.C., Troy, A., 2016. Linking biophysical models and public preferences for ecosystem service assessments: A case study for the Southern Rocky Mountains. Reg. Environ. Chang. 16 (7), 2005-2018.
  2. Bagstad, K.J., Semmens, D.J., Ancona, Z.H., Sherrouse, B.C., 2017. Evaluating alternative methods for biophysical and cultural ecosystem services hotspot mapping in natural resource planning. Landsc. Ecol. 32 (1), 77-97.
  3. Bagstad, K.J., Semmens, D.J., Waage, S., Winthrop, R., 2013. A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 5, 27-39.
  4. Bagstad, K.J., Villa, F., Johnson, G.W., Voigt, B., 2011. ARIES-Artificial Intelligence for Ecosyst. Serv.: A guide to models and data, version 1.0. ARIES report series n.1.
  5. Balbi, S., Selomane, O., Sitas, N., Blanchard, R., Kotzee, I., O'Farrell, P., Villa, F., 2019. Human dependence on natural resources in rapidly urbanising South African regions. Environ. Res, Lett, p. 14.
  6. Barbosa, A., Martín, B., Hermoso, V., Arévalo-Torres, J., Barbière, J., Martínez-López, J., Domisch, S., Langhans, S.D., Balbi, S., Villa, F., Delacámara, G., Teixeira, H., Nogueira, A.J.A., Lillebø, A.I., Gil-Jiménez, Y., McDonald, H., Iglesias-Campos, A., 2019. Cost-effective restoration and conservation planning in Green and Blue Infrastructure designs. A case study on the Intercontinental Biosphere Reserve of the Mediterranean: Andalusia (Spain) -Morocco. Sci. Total Environ. 652, 1463-1473.
  7. Bateman, I.J., Harwood, A.R., Mace, G.M., Watson, R.T., Abson, D.J., Andrews, B., Binner, A., Crowe, A., Day, B.H., Dugdale, S., 2013. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341 (6141), 45-50.
  8. BEVEN, K.J., Kirkby, M., 1979. A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrol. Sci. J. 24 (1), 43-69.
  9. Bhaduri, A., Ringler, C., Dombrowski, I., Mohtar, R., Scheumann, W., 2015. Sustainability in the water-energy-food nexus. Taylor & Francis.
  10. Bidoglio, G., Brander, L., 2016. Enabling management of the Water-Food-Energy- Ecosystem Services Nexus. Ecosyst. Serv. 17, 265-267.
  11. Biggs, E.M., Bruce, E., Boruff, B., Duncan, J.M., Horsley, J., Pauli, N., McNeill, K., Neef, A., Van Ogtrop, F., Curnow, J., 2015. Sustainable development and the water-energy-food nexus: A perspective on livelihoods. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 389-397.
  12. Bleys, B.J.S.I.R., 2012. Beyond GDP: Classifying alternative measures for progress. Soc. Indic. Res. 109 (3), 355-376.
  13. Boumans, R., Roman, J., Altman, I., Kaufman, L., 2015. The Multiscale Integrated Model of Ecosystem Services (MIMES): Simulating the interactions of coupled human and natural systems. Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 30-41.
  14. Clark, V.R., Vidal, J.d.D., Grundy, I.M., Fakarayi, T., Childes, S.L., Barker, N.P., Linder, H.P., 2019. Bridging the divide between intuitive social-ecological value and sustainability in the Manica Highlands of southern Africa (Zimbabwe-Mozambique). Ecosyst. Serv. 39, 100999.
  15. Costanza, R., D'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., Van Den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387 (6630), 253-260.
  16. Costanza, R., Daly, H.E., 1992. Natural capital and sustainable development. Conserv. Biol. 6 (1), 37-46.
  17. Costanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., Giovannini, E., Lovins, H., McGlade, J., Pickett, K.E., Ragnarsdóttir, K.V., Roberts, D., De Vogli, R., Wilkinson, R., 2014. Development: Time to leave GDP behind. Nature. 505 (7483), 283.
  18. Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H., Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R., 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7 (1), 21-28.
  19. Daly, H.E., Cobb Jr, J.B., Cobb, J.B., 1989. For the common good: Redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future. Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
  20. Development, U.C.o.S.,, 2001. Indicators of sustainable development: guidelines and methodologies. United Nations, New York.
  21. Domisch, S., Kakouei, K., Martínez-López, J., Bagstad, K.J., Magrach, A., Balbi, S., Villa, F., Funk, A., Hein, T., Borgwardt, F., Hermoso, V., Jähnig, S.C., Langhans, S.D., 2019. Social equity shapes zone-selection: Balancing aquatic biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services delivery in the transboundary Danube River Basin. Sci. Total Environ. 656, 797-807.
  22. Du Preez, C.C., van Huyssteen, C.W., Kotzé, E., van Tol, J.J., 2020. Chapter 2 -Ecosystem services in sustainable food systems: Operational definition, concepts, and applications. In: in: Rusinamhodzi, L., . (Ed.), The Role of Ecosystem Services in Sustainable Food Systems. Academic Press, pp. 17-42.
  23. Farley, J., 2012. Ecosystem services: The economics debate. Ecosyst. Serv. 1 (1), 40-49.
  24. Fisher, J.A., Patenaude, G., Meir, P., Nightingale, A.J., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Williams, M., Woodhouse, I.H., 2013. Strengthening conceptual foundations: Analysing frameworks for ecosystem services and poverty alleviation research. Glob. Environ. Change 23 (5), 1098-1111.
  25. Funk, A., Martínez-López, J., Borgwardt, F., Trauner, D., Bagstad, K.J., Balbi, S., Magrach, A., Villa, F., Hein, T., 2019. Identification of conservation and restoration priority areas in the Danube River based on the multi-functionality of river- floodplain systems. Sci. Total Environ. 654, 763-777.
  26. Gibbs, H.K., Ruesch, A., 2008. New IPCC Tier-1 Global Biomass Carbon Map for the Year 2000.
  27. Gibson, R.B., 2010. Beyond the pillars: sustainability assessment as a framework for effective integration of social, economic and ecological considerations in significant decision-making, Tools, Techniques and Approaches for Sustainability: collected writings in environmental assessment policy and management. World Scientific 389-410.
  28. Gissi, E., Gaglio, M., Reho, M., 2016. Sustainable energy potential from biomass through ecosystem services trade-off analysis: The case of the Province of Rovigo (Northern Italy). Ecosyst. Serv. 18, 1-19.
  29. Giupponi, C., Gain, A.K., 2017. Integrated spatial assessment of the water, energy and food dimensions of the Sustainable Development Goals. Reg. Environ. Chang. 17 (7), 1881-1893.
  30. Grêt-Regamey, A., Sirén, E., Brunner, S.H., Weibel, B., 2017. Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem services concept. Ecosyst. Serv. 26, 306-315.
  31. Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M.C., Shyamsundar, P., Steffen, W., Glaser, G., Kanie, N., Noble, I., 2013. Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495 (7441), 305-307.
  32. Grima, N., Singh, S.J., 2020. The self-(in)sufficiency of the Caribbean: Ecosystem services potential Index (ESPI) as a measure for sustainability. Ecosyst. Serv. 42, 101087.
  33. Hackbart, V.C.S., de Lima, G.T.N.P., dos Santos, R.F., 2017. Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going? Ecosyst. Serv. 23, 218-227.
  34. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2011. Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES): 2011 Update. Report to the European Environmental Agency, Nottingham.
  35. Hanes, R.J., Gopalakrishnan, V., Bakshi, B.R., 2018. Including nature in the food-energy- water nexus can improve sustainability across multiple ecosystem services. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 137, 214-228.
  36. Hayley, L., Declan, C., Michael, B., Judith, R., 2015. Tracing the water-energy-food nexus : description, theory and practice. Geogr. Compass 9 (8), 445-460.
  37. Holland, R.A., Beaumont, N., Hooper, T., Austen, M., Gross, R.J.K., Heptonstall, P.J., Ketsopoulou, I., Winskel, M., Watson, J., Taylor, G., 2018. Incorporating ecosystem services into the design of future energy systems. Appl. Energy. 222, 812-822.
  38. Hossain, M.S., Pogue, S.J., Trenchard, L., Van Oudenhoven, A.P., Washbourne, C.-L., Muiruri, E.W., Tomczyk, A.M., García-Llorente, M., Hale, R., Hevia, V., 2018. Identifying future research directions for biodiversity, ecosystem services and sustainability: perspectives from early-career researchers. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 25 (3), 249-261.
  39. ICIMOD, 2012. Contribution of Himalayan ecosystems to water, energy, and food security in South Asia: A nexus approach. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.
  40. Jeranyama, P., Shrestha, A., Neupane, N., 2020. Chapter 1 -Sustainable food systems: Diversity, scope and challenges. In: in: Rusinamhodzi, L., . (Ed.), The Role of Ecosystem Services in Sustainable Food Systems. Academic Press, pp. 1-16.
  41. Kajikawa, Y., 2008. Research core and framework of sustainability science. Sustain. Sci. 3 (2), 215-239.
  42. Karabulut, A., Egoh, B.N., Lanzanova, D., Grizzetti, B., Bidoglio, G., Pagliero, L., Bouraoui, F., Aloe, A., Reynaud, A., Maes, J., Vandecasteele, I., Mubareka, S., 2016. Mapping water provisioning services to support the ecosystem-water-food-energy nexus in the Danube river basin. Ecosyst. Serv. 17, 278-292.
  43. Karabulut, A.A., Crenna, E., Sala, S., Udias, A., 2018. A proposal for integration of the ecosystem-water-food-land-energy (EWFLE) nexus concept into life cycle assessment: A synthesis matrix system for food security. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3874-3889.
  44. Karabulut, A.A., Udias, A., Vigiak, O., 2019. Assessing the policy scenarios for the Ecosystem Water Food Energy (EWFE) nexus in the Mediterranean region. Ecosyst. Serv. 35, 231-240.
  45. Ko, C.-Y., Murphy, S.C., Root, T.L., Lee, P.-F., 2014. An assessment of the efficiency of protection status through determinations of biodiversity hotspots based on endemic bird species. Taiwan. J. Nat. Conserv. 22 (6), 570-576.
  46. Layke, C., Mapendembe, A., Brown, C., Walpole, M., Winn, J., 2012. Indicators from the global and sub-global Millennium Ecosystem Assessments: An analysis and next steps. Ecol. Indic. 17, 77-87.
  47. Lin, Y.-C., Lin, C.-C., Lee, M., Chiueh, P.-T., Lo, S.-L., Liou, M.-L., 2019. Comprehensive assessment of regional food-energy-water nexus with GIS-based tool. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 151, 104457.
  48. Liu, Q., 2016. Interlinking climate change with water-energy-food nexus and related ecosystem processes in California case studies. Ecol. Process. 5 (1), 14.
  49. Liu, X., Wang, Y., Costanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., Xu, N., Yuan, M., Geng, R., 2019. The value of China's coastal wetlands and seawalls for storm protection. Ecosyst. Serv. 36, 100905.
  50. Lonsdorf, E., Kremen, C., Ricketts, T., Winfree, R., Williams, N., Greenleaf, S., 2009. Modelling pollination services across agricultural landscapes. Ann. Bot. 103 (9), 1589-1600.
  51. Müller, F., Burkhard, B., 2012. The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 1 (1), 26-30.
  52. Mayer, A.L., 2008. Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for multidimensional systems. Environ. Int. 34 (2), 277-291.
  53. McIntyre, N., Moore, J., Yuan, M., 2008. A place-based, values-centered approach to managing recreation on Canadian crown lands. Soc. Nat. Resour. 21 (8), 657-670.
  54. MEA, 2005. Millennium ecosystem assessment: living beyond our means-natural assets and human well-being. Island Press Washington, DC, World Resour Inst.
  55. Nel, J.L., Le Maitre, D.C., Roux, D.J., Colvin, C., Smith, J.S., Smith-Adao, L.B., Maherry, A., Sitas, N., 2017. Strategic water source areas for urban water security: Making the connection between protecting ecosystems and benefiting from their services. Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 251-259.
  56. Niemeijer, D., de Groot, R.S., 2008. A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecol. Indic. 8 (1), 14-25.
  57. OECD, 1993. Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews: A Synthesis Report. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
  58. OECD, 1994. Environmental Indicators. OECD Core Set, Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, Paris.
  59. Ozturk, I., 2015. Sustainability in the food-energy-water nexus: Evidence from BRICS (Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, China, and South Africa) countries. Energy 93, 999-1010.
  60. Paracchini, M.L., Zulian, G., Kopperoinen, L., Maes, J., Schägner, J.P., Termansen, M., Zandersen, M., Perez-Soba, M., Scholefield, P.A., Bidoglio, G., 2014. Mapping cultural ecosystem services: A framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecol. Indic. 45, 371-385.
  61. Picchi, P., van Lierop, M., Geneletti, D., Stremke, S., 2019. Advancing the relationship between renewable energy and ecosystem services for landscape planning and design: A literature review. Ecosyst. Serv. 35, 241-259.
  62. Rasul, G., 2016. Managing the food, water, and energy nexus for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in South Asia. Environ. Dev. 18, 14-25.
  63. Renard, K.G., 1997. Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). United States Government Printing.
  64. Sahle, M., Saito, O., Fürst, C., Yeshitela, K., 2019. Quantifying and mapping of water- related ecosystem services for enhancing the security of the food-water-energy nexus in tropical data-sparse catchment. Sci. Total Environ. 646, 573-586.
  65. Saladini, F., Betti, G., Ferragina, E., Bouraoui, F., Cupertino, S., Canitano, G., Gigliotti, M., Autino, A., Pulselli, F.M., Riccaboni, A., Bidoglio, G., Bastianoni, S., 2018. Linking the water-energy-food nexus and sustainable development indicators for the Mediterranean region. Ecol. Indic. 91, 689-697.
  66. Sanguankaew, P., Vathanophas Ractham, V., 2019. Bibliometric Review of Research on Knowledge Management and Sustainability, 1994-2018. Sustainability 11 (16), 4388.
  67. Schirpke, U., Egarter Vigl, L., Tasser, E., Tappeiner, U., 2019. Analyzing spatial congruencies and mismatches between supply, demand and flow of ecosystem services and sustainable development. Sustainability 11 (8), 2227.
  68. Schröter, M., Stumpf, K.H., Loos, J., van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Böhnke-Henrichs, A., Abson, D.J., 2017. Refocusing ecosystem services towards sustainability. Ecosyst. Serv. 25, 35-43.
  69. Spanò, M., Gentile, F., Davies, C., Lafortezza, R., 2017. The DPSIR framework in support of green infrastructure planning: A case study in Southern Italy. Land Use Policy 61, 242-250.
  70. Suich, H., Howe, C., Mace, G., 2015. Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A review of the empirical links. Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 137-147.
  71. Tsai, W.-T., 2010. Energy sustainability from analysis of sustainable development indicators: A case study in Taiwan. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 14 (7), 2131-2138.
  72. UKNEA, 2011. The UK national ecosystem assessment: synthesis of the key findings. Unep-Wcmc Cambridge.
  73. van den Heuvel, L., Blicharska, M., Masia, S., Sušnik, J., Teutschbein, C., 2020. Ecosystem services in the Swedish water-energy-food-land-climate nexus: Anthropogenic pressures and physical interactions. Ecosyst. Serv. 44, 101141.
  74. Vardon, M., May, S., Keith, H., Burnett, P., Lindenmayer, D., 2019. Accounting for ecosystem services -Lessons from Australia for its application and use in Oceania to achieve sustainable development. Ecosyst. Serv. 39, 100986.
  75. Verma, P., Raghubanshi, A.S., 2018. Urban sustainability indicators: Challenges and opportunities. Ecol. Indic. 93, 282-291.
  76. Villa, F., Bagstad, K.J., Voigt, B., Johnson, G.W., Portela, R., Honzák, M., Batker, D., 2014. A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PloS One 9 (3).
  77. Vira, B., Adams, B., Agarwal, C., Badiger, S., Hope, R., Krishnaswamy, J., Kumar, C., 2012. Negotiating trade-offs: choices about ecosystem services for poverty alleviation. Econ. Polit. Wkly 67-75.
  78. Ward, M., Possingham, H., Rhodes, J.R., Mumby, P., 2018. Food, money and lobsters: Valuing ecosystem services to align environmental management with Sustainable Development Goals. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 56-69.
  79. WCED, 1987. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Developmemt. Our Common Future, 1987.
  80. Wood, S.L.R., Jones, S.K., Johnson, J.A., Brauman, K.A., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Fremier, A., Girvetz, E., Gordon, L.J., Kappel, C.V., Mandle, L., Mulligan, M., O'Farrell, P., Smith, W.K., Willemen, L., Zhang, W., DeClerck, F.A., 2018. Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the Sustainable Development Goals. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 70-82.
  81. Yang, W.-C., Lee, Y.-M., Hu, J.-L., 2016. Urban sustainability assessment of Taiwan based on data envelopment analysis. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 61, 341-353.
  82. Yuan, M.-H., Lo, S.-L., 2019. Developing indicators for the monitoring of the sustainability of food, energy, and water. Renew. Sust. Energ, Rev, p. 109565.
  83. Yuan, M.-H., Lo, S.-L., Yang, C.-K., 2017. Integrating ecosystem services in terrestrial conservation planning. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24 (13), 12144-12154.
  84. Zank, B., Bagstad, K.J., Voigt, B., Villa, F., 2016. Modeling the effects of urban expansion on natural capital stocks and ecosystem service flows: A case study in the Puget Sound, Washington, USA. Landsc. Urban Plan. 149, 31-42.

Related papers

Ecosystem Services and Food Security: Economic Perspectives on Environmental Sustainability
Robert B Richardson

Sustainability, 2010

Food security in developing countries depends in part on the sustainable use of natural resources. Food security is usually examined through three dimensions, namely the availability, access, and utilization of food. Ecosystems directly and indirectly support each of these dimensions through the provision of critical ecosystem services that facilitate agricultural production, create income-generating opportunities, and provide energy for cooking. However, in some cases, household uses of natural resources undermine particular elements of food security, hindering national poverty reduction strategies and threatening the sustainability of critical ecosystem functions. I examine the role of ecosystem services in rural food security through the lens of its three dimensions, and highlight the tensions that stem from household-level interactions and uses. In some cases, uses of resources and services that support the access and utilization dimensions may undermine the ecosystem functions that support food availability. The conclusions underscore the importance for the integration of ecosystem services into food security plans and poverty reduction strategies in developing countries.

View PDFchevron_right
Ecosystem services in global sustainability policies
Emmanuelle Cohen Shacham

Environmental Science & Policy

Global sustainability policies, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or the Aichi Targets, aim to ensure sustainable development, including improved human well-being and the conservation of nature. Although not yet explicitly used to evaluate the progress towards sustainable development, the ecosystem service concept implies a direct link between biodiversity and human well-being. This study explores how and which ecosystem services are currently considered in the SDGs and the Aichi Targets. We also identify which information might be already available for monitoring the progress towards their goals by reviewing national ecosystem assessments. This allows the identification of the main knowledge gaps for monitoring progress towards these global sustainability targets. There is a wealth of information on all major ecosystem services categories which is directly relevant for the Aichi Targets and the SDGs. The top 25% most cited ecosystem services across both policy documents are: Natural heritage and diversity, Capture fisheries, Aquaculture, Water purification, Crops, Cultural heritage & diversity and Livestock. Most monitoring information recommended for the global sustainability goals, as well as in the information available from national assessments, is biased towards supply related aspects of ecosystem services flows. In contrast, there is much less information on social behaviour, use, demand and governance measures. Indicators are rarely available for all aspects of a specific ecosystem service. The national statistical bureaus currently in charge of providing observations for reporting on SDGs, could be well placed to address this bias, by integrating ecological observations with socioeconomic statistics into socio-ecological indicators for ecosystem services flows. IPBES can potentially address the gaps identified in this paper by improving coverage of the different dimensions of ecosystem services flows.

View PDFchevron_right
An ecosystem services approach to water and food security
Eline Boelee
View PDFchevron_right
An ecosystem services approach to food and water security - Synthesis report
Petina Pert

Overcoming hunger and meeting the nutritional needs of almost 7 billion people, rising to over 9 billion people by 2050, is a central challenge for this generation. Equally critical will be to achieve this in a way that keeps humanity’s footprint within planetary boundaries. Water scarcity is self-evidently one of the key factors that will limit food production. This is especially the case in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, where malnutrition and food insecurity are already widespread. In these areas, the livelihoods and well-being of poor communities are critically dependent on their farm produce and the ecosystem services from the local landscape that support their livelihoods and income. This synthesis and background document on Ecosystems for Water and Food Security is part of UNEP’s contribution to the global food crisis, pledged to the United Nations Secretary-General and developed in collaboration with the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and other partners. Together, we identified and explored the links between ecosystems, water and food, and illustrate how resilient ecosystems can support and increase food security. It is clear that enormous opportunities exist to increase food production in ways that make optimal and sustainable use of water and other resources. This means that we can feed a global population without massive and irreversible damage to our ecosystems. It also means that ensuring food security, managing water resources and protecting ecosystems must be considered as a single policy rather than as separate, and sometimes competing, choices.

View PDFchevron_right
Sustainable development and ecosystem services
Sanjiv Silva

2014

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Business
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved