Abstract image of a woman sitting on books and studying on a laptop

Ecosystem Services In Agricultural And Urban Landscapes Wratten Stephen Etal

T
tacamalafark

Ecosystem Services In Agricultural And Urban Landscapes Wratten Stephen Etal Ecosystem Services In Agricultural And Urban Landscapes Wratten Stephen Etal Ecosystem Services In Agricultural And Urban Landscapes Wratten Stephen Etal

Education
1 of 86
Download to read offline
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
Ecosystem Services In Agricultural And Urban Landscapes Wratten Stephen Etal download https://ebookbell.com/product/ecosystem-services-in-agricultural- and-urban-landscapes-wratten-stephen-etal-4303450 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. Regional Assessment Of Climate Change In The Mediterranean Volume 2 Agriculture Forests And Ecosystem Services And People 1st Edition Monia Santini https://ebookbell.com/product/regional-assessment-of-climate-change- in-the-mediterranean-volume-2-agriculture-forests-and-ecosystem- services-and-people-1st-edition-monia-santini-4406900 Tropical Forest Ecosystem Services In Improving Livelihoods For Local Communities 1st Edition Zaiton Samdin Editor https://ebookbell.com/product/tropical-forest-ecosystem-services-in- improving-livelihoods-for-local-communities-1st-edition-zaiton-samdin- editor-48844074 Sustaining Biodiversity And Ecosystem Services In Soils And Sediments Scientific Committee On Problems Of The Environment Scope Series 1st Edition Diana H Wall https://ebookbell.com/product/sustaining-biodiversity-and-ecosystem- services-in-soils-and-sediments-scientific-committee-on-problems-of- the-environment-scope-series-1st-edition-diana-h-wall-2178724 A Catalogue Of Ecosystem Services In Slovakia Benefits To Society 1st Ed Peter Mederly https://ebookbell.com/product/a-catalogue-of-ecosystem-services-in- slovakia-benefits-to-society-1st-ed-peter-mederly-22505222
Payment Schemes For Forest Ecosystem Services In China Policy Practices And Performance Dan Liang https://ebookbell.com/product/payment-schemes-for-forest-ecosystem- services-in-china-policy-practices-and-performance-dan-liang-4668764 Estuaries A Lifeline Of Ecosystem Services In The Western Indian Ocean 1st Edition Salif Diop https://ebookbell.com/product/estuaries-a-lifeline-of-ecosystem- services-in-the-western-indian-ocean-1st-edition-salif-diop-5482790 Planning For Ecosystem Services In Cities 1st Ed 2020 Davide Geneletti https://ebookbell.com/product/planning-for-ecosystem-services-in- cities-1st-ed-2020-davide-geneletti-10797130 Role Of Ecosystem Services In Sustainable Food Systems Rusinamhodzi https://ebookbell.com/product/role-of-ecosystem-services-in- sustainable-food-systems-rusinamhodzi-10818914 Recommendations On Payments For Ecosystem Services In Integrated Water Resources Management Illustrated Edition United Nations https://ebookbell.com/product/recommendations-on-payments-for- ecosystem-services-in-integrated-water-resources-management- illustrated-edition-united-nations-1945760
Ecosystem Services In Agricultural And Urban Landscapes Wratten Stephen Etal
Ecosystem Services in Agricultural and Urban Landscapes
Ecosystem Services in Agricultural and Urban Landscapes Edited by Steve Wratten Bio-Protection Research Centre Lincoln University, New Zealand Harpinder Sandhu School of the Environment Flinders University, Australia Ross Cullen Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance Lincoln University, New Zealand Robert Costanza Crawford School of Public Policy Australian National University, Australia A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication
This edition first published 2013 © 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Chapter 10 is copyright of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons, in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing program has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell. Registered Office John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK Editorial Offices 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774, USA For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell. The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author(s) have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ecosystem services in agricultural and urban landscapes / edited by Steve Wratten, Harpinder Sandhu, Ross Cullen, and Robert Costanza. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4051-7008-6 (cloth) 1. Ecosystem services. 2. Ecosystem management. 3. Ecology–Economic aspects. I. Wratten, Stephen D., editor of compilation. II. Sandhu, Harpinder, editor of compilation. III. Cullen, Ross, 1948– editor of compilation. IV . Costanza, Robert, editor of compilation. QH541.15.E267E28 2012 333.72–dc23 2012033656 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Main Cover image A baby spinach field in Dome Valley, Arizona. Courtesy of John C. Palumbo. Inset images courtesy of Morguefile/Darren Hester, Clarita and Fractl. Cover design by Steve Thompson Set in 10.5/12pt Classical Garamond BT by SPi Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India 1 2012
Contents Contributors xi Reviewers xiv Foreword xv Introduction xvi Steve Wratten, Harpinder Sandhu, Ross Cullen and Robert Costanza Part A: Scene Setting 1 1 Ecosystem Services in Farmland and Cities 3 Harpinder Sandhu and Steve Wratten Abstract 3 Introduction 4 What are ecosystem services? 4 Ecosystem functions, goods and services 5 The ES framework 6 Engineered systems 7 Agricultural systems 7 Urban systems 10 ES and their interactions in engineered systems 11 2 Ecological Processes, Functions and Ecosystem Services: Inextricable Linkages between Wetlands and Agricultural Systems 16 Onil Banerjee, Neville D. Crossman and Rudolf S. de Groot Abstract 16 Introduction 17
vi Contents Linking ecosystem function with ecosystem service 18 Wetlands 19 Wetland functions 20 Wetland–agricultural systems interactions 22 Some research challenges 24 Understanding complexity and resilience 24 Trade-offs 25 3 Key Ideas and Concepts from Economics for Understanding the Roles and Value of Ecosystem Services 28 Pamela Kaval and Ramesh Baskaran Abstract 28 How can ecosystem services be valued? 28 Ecosystem service valuation methodologies 31 Revealed preference methods 32 Stated preference methods 32 Other methods 33 How ecosystem services have been measured in the past 34 Ecosystem service valuation study recommendations 37 Conclusions 39 Part B: Ecosystem Services in Three Settings 43 4 Viticulture can be Modified to Provide Multiple Ecosystem Services 45 Sofia Orre-Gordon, Marco Jacometti, Jean Tompkins and Steve Wratten Abstract 45 Introduction 45 Enhancing CBC in vineyards 46 Leafrollers and Botrytis cinerea in the vineyards 48 Habitat modification to enhance naturally occurring pest control 48 Floral resource supplementation as a form of habitat modification 48 Mulch application as a form of habitat modification 49 Combining two forms of habitat modification 51 The deployment of herbivore-induced plant volatiles as a form of habitat modification 51 Habitat modification may provide further ecosystem services 52 The future 55
Contents vii 5 Aquaculture and Ecosystem Services: Reframing the Environmental and Social Debate 58 Corinne Baulcomb Abstract 58 Introduction 58 Aquaculture and the environment 59 A typology of aquaculture operations and the link to ecosystem services 60 Inland production systems 64 Overview 64 Case study 1: hypothetical integrated agriculture–aquaculture carp polyculture 65 Case study 2: hypothetical inland marine shrimp cultivation 68 Marine and coastal-based production systems 71 Overview 71 Case study 3: hypothetic nearshore, intensive and raft-based shellfish cultivation 72 Case study 4: hypothetical ‘best-case’ offshore aquaculture cultivation 75 The value of a complementary life-cycle approach 75 Conclusion 77 6 Urban Landscapes and Ecosystem Services 83 Jürgen Breuste, Dagmar Haase and Thomas Elmqvist Abstract 83 Growing urban landscapes 83 The process of urbanization 83 Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystems 86 Urbanization and management of ecosystems – challenges 86 Urban ecosystem services 87 What are urban ecosystem services? 87 Classification of UES 88 Land use – basic information on human influence on ecosystem services 88 Urban green – carrier of UES 89 Types of urban green space 89 Recreation 90 Climate regulation 91 Biodiversity 94 Carbon mitigation 95 Rapid growth of soil sealing – destruction of UES and its avoidance 95
viii Contents Climate change – challenges for UES 97 Increase in temperature 98 Precipitation 99 Sea level rise 100 UES in urban landscape planning 100 Part C: Measuring and Monitoring Ecosystem Services at Multiple Levels 105 7 Scale-dependent Ecosystem Service 107 Yangjian Zhang, Claus Holzapfel and Xiaoyong Yuan Abstract 107 Introduction 107 Scale 108 Ecosystem service is scale dependent 108 The ecosystem beneficiary is scale dependent 109 Ecosystem service measurement is scale dependent 109 Ecosystem service management decision making is scale dependent 112 Ecosystem service types 112 Ecosystem service studies need to consider scale 113 Case studies 114 Liberty State Park Interior 115 Qinghai-Tibet plateau 117 Conclusions 118 8 Experimental Assessment of Ecosystem Services in Agriculture 122 Harpinder Sandhu, John Porter and Steve Wratten Abstract 122 Introduction 122 ES in agroecosystems 123 Provisioning goods and services 124 Supporting services 124 Regulating services 124 Cultural services 124 Field-scale assessment of ES 127 The combined food and energy system 128 New Zealand arable farmland 129 Scenarios of production and ES in agroecosystems 131 The ethnocentric systems 131 The technocentric systems 131 The ecocentric systems 131 The ecotechnocentric systems 132 The sustaincentric systems 132 Conclusions 133
Contents ix Part D: Designing Ecological Systems to Deliver Ecosystem Services 137 9 Towards Multifunctional Agricultural Landscapes for the Upper Midwest Region of the USA 139 Nicholas Jordan and Keith Douglass Warner Abstract 139 Introduction 139 Multifunctional agroecosystems 140 Re-designed agricultural landscapes for the Upper Midwest 141 Moving forward on design and implementation of multifunctional landscapes for the Upper Midwest 142 Theory of change: a social–ecological system model for increasing multifunctionality of agricultural landscapes 143 Focal level: enterprise development via ‘virtuous circles’ 143 Subsystem level: collaborative social learning for multifunctional agriculture 147 Supersystem level: re-visioning the social metabolism of American agriculture 148 Applying the theory of change: the Koda Energy fuelshed project 149 Enterprise development 150 Agroecological partnership 152 Re-shaping public opinion and policy 153 Conclusions 153 10 Supply Chain Management and the Delivery of Ecosystems Services in Manufacturing 157 Mary Haropoulou, Clive Smallman and Jack Radford Abstract 157 Towards the sustainable economic production of goods and services? 158 Ecological economics and supply chain management: a review and synthesis 158 Conventional economic and ecologically economic production 158 Conventional SCM: economic efficiency through distribution network configuration and strategy 160 Green SCM: the economic inefficiency of waste 161 Sustainable SCM: connecting social, economic and ecological performance 162 Enabling ecological economics: SSCM 163 A case in point: ‘what do we do with it now?’ 165 WYM background 166 The economic production of wool yarn 167 Goods 168 Wastes 169
x Contents Ecological services and amenities 169 Natural capital 169 Human capital 171 Social capital 173 Manufactured capital 174 Community and individual well-being 175 Discussion 175 Conclusion 176 11 Market-based Instruments and Ecosystem Services: Opportunity and Experience to Date 178 Stuart M. Whitten and Anthea Coggan Abstract 178 Introduction 179 Market-based instruments: definition and preconditions 180 Types of MBIs 180 Examples of MBIs for ecosystem services 184 Price-based MBIs 184 Quantity-based MBIs 186 Market friction MBIs 188 The brave new world of ecosystem markets 189 Designing effective MBIs 189 Where to next in the brave new world of markets for ecosystem services? 190 Epilogue: Equitable and Sustainable Systems 194 Steve Wratten, Harpinder Sandhu, Ross Cullen and Robert Costanza Index 196
Contributors Onil Banerjee CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences PMB2 Glen Osmond South Australia 5064 Australia Ramesh Baskaran Faculty of Commerce PO Box 84 Lincoln University Christchurch 7647 New Zealand Corinne Baulcomb Scottish Agricultural College West Mains Road Edinburgh EH9 3JG Scotland Jürgen Breuste Department of Geography/Geology University Salzburg Hellbrunnerstrasse 34 A 5020 Salzburg Austria Anthea Coggan CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences GPO Box 2583 Brisbane 4102 Queensland Australia Robert Costanza Crawford School of Public Policy Crawford Building (132) Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 Australia Neville D. Crossman CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences PMB2 Glen Osmond South Australia 5064 Australia Ross Cullen Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance PO Box 84 Lincoln University 7647 Christchurch New Zealand
xii Contributors Rudolf S. de Groot Environmental Systems Analysis Group Wageningen University PO Box 47 6700 AA Wageningen the Netherlands Thomas Elmqvist Department of Systems Ecology and Stockholm Resilience Centre Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm Sweden Dagmar Haase Institute of Geography Humboldt-University Berlin Berlin Germany and Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH-UFZ Permoserstraße 15 04318 Leipzig Germany Mary Haropoulou Faculty of Commerce Lincoln University PO Box 84 Christchurch 7647 New Zealand Claus Holzapfel Department of Biological Sciences Rutgers University Newark New Jersey 07102 USA Marco Jacometti Bio-Protection Research Centre PO Box 84 Lincoln University Lincoln 7647 New Zealand Nicholas Jordan Agronomy and Plant Genetics Department University of Minnesota 411 Borlaug Hall 1991 Buford Circle St. Paul Minnesota 55018 USA Pamela Kaval Havelock North New Zealand and Marylhurst University Oregon USA Sofia Orre-Gordon Barbara Hardy Institute University of South Australia GPO Box 2471 Adelaide South Australia 5001 Australia and Bio-Protection Research Centre PO Box 84 Lincoln University Lincoln 7647 New Zealand John Porter Department of Plant and Environmental Science Faculty of Life Sciences University of Copenhagen (KU-LIFE) HøjbakkegårdAlle 9 2630 Taastrup Denmark Jack Radford Lincoln University Faculty of Commerce PO Box 84 Christchurch 7647 New Zealand
Contributors xiii Harpinder Sandhu School of the Environment Flinders University GPO Box 2100 Adelaide SA 5001 Australia Clive Smallman University of Western Sydney School of Business Locked Bag 1797 Penrith NSW 2751 Australia Jean Tompkins Bio-Protection Research Centre PO Box 84 Lincoln University Lincoln 7647 New Zealand Keith Douglass Warner Center for Science, Technology and Society Santa Clara University 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara California 95053 USA Stuart M. Whitten CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences GPO Box 1700 Canberra ACT 2601 Australia Steve Wratten Bio-Protection Research Centre PO Box 84 Lincoln University Lincoln 7647 New Zealand Xiaoyong Yuan Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Network Observation and Modelling Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing 100101 China Yangjian Zhang Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Network Observation and Modelling Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing 100101 China
Reviewers Editors acknowledge the contribution of following reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions that helped to improve clarity of the chapters. t Andrew Davidson, SEQ Catchments Ltd, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. t Brenda Lin, CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. t Francis Turkelboom, Research Institute for Forest and Nature (INBO), Brussels, Belgium. t Gupta Vadakattu, CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Adelaide, Australia. t Uday Nidumolu, CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Adelaide, Australia. t Yuki Takatsuka, Temple University, Japan.
Foreword It is now becoming clear that an ecosystem approach is the most appropriate methodology to ensure sustainable food security and conservation of urban landscapes. Hence this book by Steve Wratten and colleagues is a timely one. At the time of the origin of agriculture or settled cultivation over 10000 years ago, the early cultivators, mostly women, adopted an ecosystem approach for standardizing cultivation practices, as well as in the choice of crops. For example, in the state of Tamil Nadu in India, ancient scholars divided the state into five major agroecological zones. These were: coastal, hill, arid, semiarid and wet zones. Agricultural practices were followed according to the specific ecosystem, keeping in view the extent of rainfall, the incidence of sunlight and the moisture- holding capacity of the soil. From the naturally occurring biodiversity, plants with specialized adaptations, such as halophytes for coastal areas and xerophytes for the arid zone, were identified and cultivated. An ecosystem approach to soil and water management helps to ensure successful agriculture. Water security is important not only for agriculture and industry, but also for domestic needs and for ecosystem maintenance. The book covers all aspects of soil health conservation and enhancement, and water and biodiversity management. Ecosystem-based agriculture ensures stability of production and at the same time enhances the coping capacity of farming families to meet the challenges of climate change. I therefore hope that this book will be widely read and used both by farming practitioners and policy makers. We owe a deep debt of gratitude to the editorial team for their dedication to the cause of sustainable agriculture and food security. M.S. Swaminathan PROF MS SWAMINATHAN Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) Emeritus Chairman, MS Swaminathan Research Foundation Third Cross Street, Taramani Institutional Area Chennai - 600 113 (India)
Ecosystem goods and services provide mankind with most necessities of life and survival. They include such processes as biological control of pests, weeds and diseases, pollination of crops, amelioration of flooding and wind erosion, provi- sion of food (including fisheries), the hydro-geochemical cycle, capture of carbon by plants and by soil and providing settings for much of the world’s tourism. A pivotal paper by Robert Costanza and colleagues written in 1997 used a range of methods to quantify ecosystem services (ES) and to estimate their total economic value worldwide. The estimate was $US33 trillion (1012 ) per annum. Costanza et al.’s valuation stimulated much debate, including the suggestion that $US33 trillion is ‘a serious underestimate of infinity’. In other words, some people believe that mankind cannot survive without ES, so evaluating it is futile. However, ES world-wide are being degraded more rapidly than ever before and this degrada- tion poses serious threats to quality of life and therefore to modern economies. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) pointed to the very high rate of ES loss and the consequences for global stability if that rate continues. In the same year as Costanza et. al.’s paper, Gretchen Daily, of Stanford University, USA, published a key book entitled Nature’s Services. Those two publications led to a change in the paradigm within which mankind’s depend- ence on living things is viewed. However, Costanza and Daily concentrated largely on ‘natural’ ecosystems and biomes, such as boreal forests, coral reefs and mangroves. They did not concentrate on the many ecosystem services provided by highly modified or managed areas, such as farmland and cities. However, ES in these systems are of vital significance to the survival and pro- ductivity of those systems, as more than 50% of the world’s population lives in cities and this proportion is increasing by 1–2% per annum. The ‘ecological footprint’ of cities is enormous and, with cities such as Shanghai forecast to grow from 17 million to 70 million over the next decade, the extent to which Introduction
Introduction xvii cities can support themselves in even a limited number of ecosystem functions is likely to continue to decline. ES underpin life on earth, provide major inputs to many sectors of the econ- omy and support our lifestyles. This book explores the role that ES play in two settings where humans have actively modified ecological systems: agriculture and urban areas. It addresses the hitherto under-estimation of ES in farmland and cit- ies and explores ways to develop concepts, policies and methods of evaluating ES, as well as the ways in which ES in these systems can be maintained and enhanced. This approach is timely and will be of high scientific and political value, especially given that the MEA disappeared from world media and discus- sion very soon after it was announced, because of a widely-held but increasingly erroneous belief that technology will rescue mankind as the environmental equivalent of ‘peak oil’ is approached. The book is divided into four parts with a series of self-contained chapters con- nected by the overall aim of the book. The Introduction is written by the editorial team to highlight the importance of ES in natural and managed landscapes. Part A sets the scene by introducing the concept of ES in managed landscapes such as farmland and cities. Chapter 1 explains the concept of ES and their importance. Chapter 2 provides links between ecosystem function to economic benefits by exploring changes in these due to change in land and water management. Chapter 3 deals with key concepts and methods to value ES. Part B provides information on ES in three different managed systems: viticulture, aquaculture and urban areas. Chapter 4 discusses ES associated with viticulture and techniques to enhance them. Chapter 5 explores environmental and social impacts of aquacul- ture and maps them through an ES typology. Chapter 6 develops the concept of ES in urban planning and management. It discusses ES relevant to urban areas and their importance in planning and management of cities. Part C focuses on measuring and monitoring ES at different scales. Chapter 7 develops this theme by also exploring ES at a range of spatial scales with case studies ranging from landscape, to regions and biomes. Chapter 8 provides frameworks to evaluate ES using ‘bottom-up’ field-scale measurements. It also discusses scenarios for balanc- ing production and ES on farmland. Part D discusses design of ecological systems for the delivery of ES. In this Part, Chapter 9 explores the concept of multifunc- tional agriculture in the Upper Midwest region of the US. Chapter 10 discusses the role of ES through supply chain management in a wool enterprise. Chapter 11 analyses the concept of market-based instruments by providing examples to improve the delivery of ES. The epilogue examines prospects for the future and the role of ES in contributing to sustainable agriculture and cities. We believe this book will be useful to senior undergraduates, postgraduates, environmental economists, agriculturalists, theoretical and applied ecologists, local and regional planners and government personnel in understanding the role of ES in a sustainable future. This book has been written by an international team of researchers. We acknowledge the effort, expert knowledge and care of team members that brought this project to completion and sincerely thank all of the authors for their contributions. The editors thank their family and friends for their continued support.
xviii Introduction We end this Introduction with one of our favourite quotations about ES and ‘future farming’: ‘I am a photosynthesis manager and an ecosystem-service provider’, Peter Edlin, farmer, Sweden, 2003. Steve Wratten (Lincoln), Harpinder Sandhu (Adelaide), Ross Cullen (Lincoln), Robert Costanza (Canberra) May 2012
Part A Scene Setting
Ecosystem Services in Agricultural and Urban Landscapes, First Edition. Edited by Steve Wratten, Harpinder Sandhu, Ross Cullen and Robert Costanza. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 Ecosystem Services in Farmland and Cities Harpinder Sandhu1 and Steve Wratten2 1 School of the Environment, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia 2 Bio-Protection Research Centre, Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand Abstract Ecosystems sustain human life through the provision of four types of ecosystem services (ES) – a central tenet of the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These categories are, with examples: supporting (water and nutrient cycling), provisioning (food production, fuel wood), regulating (water purification, erosion control), and cultural (aesthetic and spiritual values). A recent trend has been a decline in ES globally, largely due to ignorance of their value to human well-being and inadequate socioeco- nomic valuation mechanisms that encourage individuals/governments to invest in maintaining them. Engineered ecosystems from farmland and cities are the most important providers of ES for the world population. However, they are largely left outside the decision-making process in managing agriculture and urban areas, due to the general low awareness of how the ES associated with these systems can and have been quantified. As nearly half of the world population is dependent on agriculture for its livelihood and cities are expanding at a faster rate than ever before, it is vital to understand, measure and incorporate ES into decision making and planning of agriculture and cities. This chapter discusses the concept of ES, their valuation methods, the types of engineered systems and how ES can be adopted by them to enhance them and ensure an equitable and sustainable future.
4 Scene Setting Introduction Natural and modified ecosystems support human life through functions and pro- cesses known as ecosystem services (ES; Daily, 1997). These are the life-support systems of the planet (Myers, 1996; Daily, 1997; Daily et al., 1997) and it is evident that human life cannot exist without them. The importance of ecosystem goods and services in supporting human life and as a life-support system of the planet (Myers, 1996; Daily, 1997; Costanza et al., 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) is now very well established and ES were demonstrated to be of very high economic value 15 years ago (US $33 trillion year−1 ; Costanza et al., 1997). Although that value-transfer approach has been heavily criticized (Toman, 1998), no subsequent attempt to quantify ES globally has been made. However, for particular biological groups, such as insects, value transfer has again been used (Losey and Vaughan, 2006) or for one taxon for one region, experi- mental techniques to evaluate animals’ populations have been combined with the economic value of the support they provide (e.g. earthworms and soil formation; Sandhu et al., 2008). Also, a whole-of-farm approach has been again based on in situ measurements followed by spatial scaling (Porter et al., 2009), in that case for the whole of the European Union in relation to current agricultural subsidies. Yet because most ES are not traded in economic markets, they carry no ‘price tags’ (no exchange value in spite of their high use value) that could alert society to changes in their sup- ply or deterioration of underlying ecological systems that generate them. Despite this, there has been a recent trend of decline in ES globally, with 60% of the ES examined having been degraded in the last 50 years (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Global efforts to halt this decline in ES have increased consider- ably since the completion of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) in 2005. The United Nations has established the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to translate science into action world-wide in consultation with governments and research partners (IPBES, 2010). Because the threats to ES are increasing, there is a critical need for identifica- tion, monitoring and enhancement of ES both locally and globally, and for the incorporation of their value into decision-making processes (Daily et al., 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; IPBES, 2010; UN, 2012). It is well known that agroecosystems and urban areas contribute substantially to the welfare of human societies by providing highly demanded and valuable ES. Many of these, however, remain outside conventional markets. This is especially the case for public goods (climate regulation, soil erosion control, etc.) and external costs related to the active protection and management of these ecosystems. The capacity of ecosystems to deliver ES is already under stress (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) and additional challenges imposed by climate change in the coming years will require better adaptation (Mooney et al., 2009). What are ecosystem services? The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment sponsored by the United Nations (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) defines ecosystem services (ES) as
Ecosystem Services in Farmland and Cities 5 the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. There is a general lack of understanding of what an ecosystem actually is, however; for example, among university undergraduates and even researchers it is probably worth remember- ing that single species can provide ES, albeit as part of their place in a trophic web. The facts that honey bees pollinate crops and ladybugs (ladybirds) eat insect pests are often a simple way of illustrating the power of ES to land owners, among others. In these circumstances, ‘nature’s services’ can be a more useful phrase. These benefits sustain human existence through four types of service that include supporting (e.g. water and nutrient cycling), provisioning (e.g. food production, fuel wood), regulating (e.g. water purification, erosion control), and cultural (e.g. aesthetic and spiritual values) services. Benefits arise from managed as well as natural ecosystems. Recent studies have contributed to further understanding of ES for natural resource management (Wallace, 2007), for accounting purposes (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007), for valuation (Fisher and Turner, 2008), and for policy-relevant research (Fisher et al., 2008; Balmford et al., 2011). Sagoff (2011) points out the differences in ecological and economic criteria in assessing and valuing ES and advocates for a conceptual framework to integrate market-based and science-based methods to manage ecosystems for human well-being. Ecosystem functions, goods and services Ecosystem functions can be defined as ‘the capacity of natural processes and components to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly’ (de Groot, 1992). Using this definition, ecosystem functions are best conceived as a subset of ecological processes and ecosystem structures. Each function is the result of the natural processes of the total ecological subsystem of which it is a part. Natural processes, in turn, are the result of complex interactions between biotic (living) and abiotic (chemical and physical) compo- nents of ecosystems through the universal driving forces of matter and energy (de Groot et al., 2002). One of the key insights provided by the MEA (2005) is that not all ES are equal – there is no one single category that captures the diversity of what fully functioning ecological systems provide humans. Rather, researchers must recognize that ES occur at multiple scales, from climate regulation and carbon sequestration at the global scale, to soil formation and nutrient cycling more locally. To capture the diversity of ES, the MEA (2005) grouped them into four basic services based on their functional characteristics. 1 Regulating services: ecosystems regulate essential ecological processes and life support systems through biogeochemical cycles and other biospheric processes. These include climate regulation, disturbance moderation and waste treatment. 2 Provisioning services: the provisioning function of ecosystems supplies a large variety of ecosystem goods and other services for human consumption,
6 Scene Setting ranging from food in agricultural systems, raw materials and energy resources. 3 Cultural services: ecosystems provide an essential ‘reference function’ and contribute to the maintenance of human health and well-being by providing spiritual fulfilment, historical integrity, recreation sites and aesthetics. 4 Supporting services: ecosystems also provide a range of services that are nec- essary for the production of the other three service categories. These include nutrient cycling, soil formation and soil retention. The ES framework The ES framework has been increasingly used to explain the interactions between ecosystems and human well-being. Several studies classified ES into different categories based on their functions (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; de Groot et al., 2002). The MEA assessed the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and provided a framework to identify and classify ES (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). It established the scientific basis for actions needed to balance nature and human well-being by sustainable use of ecosystems. In the following section, we follow MEA typology and discuss the ES approach and ecosystem-based adaptation. The ecosystem services approach An ES approach is one that integrates the ecological, social and economic dimen- sions of natural resource management (Cork et al., 2007). Cork and colleagues (2007) have described an ES approach as the following. t An ES approach helps to identify and classify the benefits that people derive from ecosystems. It also includes market and non-market, use and non-use, tangible and non-tangible benefits. t It also explains consumers and producers of ES for maintenance and improve- ment of ecosystems for human well-being. t This approach helps to describe and communicate benefits derived from natural and modified ecosystems to a wide range of stakeholders. Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) This approach integrates biodiversity and ES into an overall adaptation strategy to help people to adapt to the adverse effects of, for example, climate change (Colls et al., 2009). EbA can be applied at different geographical scales (local, regional, national) and over various periods (short to long term). It can be implemented as projects and as part of overall adaptation programmes. It is most effective when implemented as part of a broad portfolio of adaptation and devel- opment interventions (Colls et al., 2009). It is cost-effective and more accessible to rural or poor communities than measures based on hard infrastructure and engineering. It can integrate and maintain traditional and local knowledge and cultural values, such as in the New Zealand Maori concept of Kaitiakitanga.
Ecosystem Services in Farmland and Cities 7 This embraces the philosophy and practice of valuing inherited places and practices and aims to pass them on undamaged or improved. Some examples of EbA activities (CBD, 2009; Colls et al., 2009) are: t coastal defence through the maintenance and/or restoration of mangroves and other coastal wetlands to reduce coastal flooding and coastal erosion; t sustainable management of upland wetlands and floodplains for maintenance of water flow and quality; t conservation and restoration of forests to stabilize land slopes and regulate water flows; t establishment of diverse agroforestry systems to cope with increased risk from changed climatic conditions; t conservation of agrobiodiversity to provide specific gene pools for crop and livestock adaptation to climate change. Engineered systems Engineered systems are landscapes such as farmland and cities that are actively modified to supply a particular set of ES. Farmland has been modified or ‘engi- neered’ to provide food and fibre, whereas cities have been actively managed to accommodate a human population. ‘Engineered’ or modified ecosystems are providers and consumers of different types of ES. Optimally managed ‘engineered’ or ‘designed’ ecosystems can provide a range of important ES; for instance, more fresh water, cleaner air and greater food production, as well as fewer floods and pollutants (Palmer et al., 2004). However, pursuit of commercial gains often reduces the ability to supply other vital ES. In this section and indeed in the following chapters, we discuss two modified or designed systems – agricultural and urban. Agricultural systems ‘Engineered’ or modified ecosystems such as farmland are providers and con- sumers of different types of ES. Farmland comprises highly modified landscapes designed to generate revenue for farmers. Farmers use many inputs as well as natural inputs to produce food and fibre. The production of these is an ES. Intensive agriculture replaces many other ES with chemical inputs, resulting in a decrease in these services and their importance on farmland (Sandhu et al., 2008, 2010a, 2010b, 2012). This ‘substitution agriculture’ has to a large extent replaced these ES world-wide in the twentieth century. Severe environmental destruction, increasing fuel prices and the external costs of modern agriculture have resulted in increased interest among researchers and farmers in using ES for the more sustainable production of food and fibre (Daily, 1997; Costanza et al., 1997; Tilman, 1999; Cullen et al., 2004; Gurr et al., 2004, 2012; Robertson and Swinton, 2005). The above global trends have led to world-wide concerns about the environmental consequences of modern agriculture (Millennium Ecosystem
8 Scene Setting Assessment, 2005; De Schutter, 2010). There is also an additional concern that as the world approaches ‘peak oil’ and is already experiencing high oil prices, agriculture may no longer be able to depend so heavily on oil-derived ‘substitu- tion’ inputs (Pimentel and Giampietro, 1994). Such a grave situation does not detract from the responsibility of agriculture to meet the food demands of a growing population but it does question its ability to increase yields without fur- ther ecosystem damage (Escudero, 1998; Tilman, 1999; Pimentel and Wilson, 2004; Schröter et al., 2005; UN, 2012). Therefore, the current challenge is to meet the food demands of a growing population and yet maintain and enhance the productivity of agricultural systems (UN, 1992). There is, therefore, cur- rently an increasing interest in the services provided by nature. It is now urgent that ES on farmland be enhanced as part of global food policy because increasingly dysfunctional biomes and ecosystems are appearing and agriculture, which largely created the problem, has become more intensive in its use of non-renewable resources, driven by a world population which is likely to reach nine billion people by 2050 (Foley et al., 2005). This intensifica- tion is compounded by a grain demand which is rising super-proportionally to human population increase and which is largely caused by biofuels develop- ment and a rapid rise in per capita meat consumption in parts of Asia (Rosegrant et al., 2001). Continuing with the current energy-intense (Pimentel et al., 2005), wasteful (Vitousek et al., 2009), polluting and unsustainable ‘substitution agriculture’, with its associated problems, which are likely to be exacerbated by climate change, is not an option for future world food security and productiv- ity. There is, therefore, an urgent need for enhanced biodiversity-driven ES in world farming. Different types of agricultural systems and ES interactions are discussed in following chapters. More information is provided by Orre-Gordon et al., Sandhu et al. and Jordan and Warner in Chapters 4, 8 and 9, respectively. The relationship between aquaculture and ES is discussed in detail by Baulcomb in Chapter 5. ES associated with agriculture Costanza et al. (1997) estimated, with limited available data, the ES of world croplands to be only US$92 ha−1 year−1 . This was in marked contrast with other world biomes, for which ES were estimated to be worth US$23000 ha−1 year−1 for estuaries, US$20000 ha−1 year−1 for swamps and US$2000 ha−1 year−1 for tropical forests (Costanza et al., 1997). There are, however, two recent experi- mental agroecological approaches that can be used to demonstrate how this croplands figure can be much higher. The first involves agroecological experi- ments to measure ecosystem functions combined with value-transfer techniques to calculate their economic value. These studies demonstrate that some current farming practices have much higher ES values than in the Costanza et al. (1997) work. For example, recent data show that the combined value of only two ES (nitrogen mineralization and biological control of a single pest by one guild of invertebrate predators) can have values of US$197, $271 and $301 ha−1 year−1 in terms of avoided costs for conventional (Sandhu et al., 2008), organic (Lampkin, 1991) and integrated (Porter et al., 2009) arable farming systems, respectively. The above values comprise reduced variable costs (labour, fuel and
Ecosystem Services in Farmland and Cities 9 pesticides) and lower external costs to human health and the environment. Paying for these variable costs is a charge to society, not to the individual farmer and although they contribute to GDP , that is a poor indicator of sustainability and of human well-being (Costanza, 2008). The second recent realization that can transform ES on farmland is that a better understanding of ecological processes in agroecosystems can generate protocols which do not require a major farming system change but which enhance ES by returning selective functional agricultural biodiversity (FAB) to agriculture (Landis et al., 2000). For example, the role of leguminous crops in nitrogen fixation is a well-known enhancement of farmland ES and can have a value of US$40 ha−1 year−1 in terms of reduced oil-based fertilizer inputs (Vitousek et al., 2009), without including the value of reduced ES damage. More recent farmland ES improvements are illustrated by agroecological research on biological control of insect pests. In New Zealand and Australia, strips of flowering buckwheat Fagopyrum esculentum (Moench.) between vine rows provide nectar in an otherwise virtual monoculture and thereby improve the ecological fitness of parasitoid wasps that attack grape-feeding caterpillars. This in turn leads to the pest population being brought below the economic threshold. An investment of US$3 ha−1 year−1 in buckwheat seed and minimal sowing costs can lead to savings in variable costs of US$200 ha−1 year−1 as well as fewer pesticide residues in the wine, higher well-being for vineyard workers and enhanced ecotourism (Fountain and Tomkins, 2011). Although the ecotechnologies now exist to improve farming sustainability when the negative consequences of oil-based inputs are well recognized, farmers world-wide are still largely risk averse (Anderson, 2003). They have traditionally rejected the idea that non-crop biodiversity on their land can improve production and/or minimize costs. The challenge now for agroecologists and policymakers is to use a range of market-based instruments or incentives, government interven- tions and enhanced social learning among growers to accelerate the deployment of sound, biodiversity-based ES-enhancement protocols for farmers. These pro- tocols need to be framed in the form of service-providing units (Luck et al., 2003), which precisely explain the necessary ES-enhancement procedures and which should ideally include cost–benefit analyses. Such a requirement invites the design of new systems of primary production that ensure positive net carbon sequestration, are species diverse, have low inputs and provide a diverse suite of ES. An experimental example of such a system is a combined food, energy and ecosystem services (CFEES) agroecosystem in Denmark that uses non-food hedgerows as sources of biodiversity and biofuel. This novel production system is a net energy producer, providing more energy in the form of renewable bio- mass than is consumed in the planting, growing and harvesting of the food and fodder (Porter et al., 2009). An approach to encouraging the uptake of ES-enhancing farming systems such as CFEES is through ‘payment for ecosystem services’ (PES) to private landown- ers (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2007). In this approach, those that benefit from the provision of ES make payments to those that supply them, thereby maintaining ES. Examples of working PES schemes currently in practice are found in different areas of the world. The current focus of these schemes is
10 Scene Setting on water, carbon and biodiversity in addressing environmental problems through positive incentives to land managers (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2007). Such schemes would not only help to improve the environment and human well- being but also ensure food security and long-term farm sustainability (Rosegrant and Cline, 2003). Although agricultural ecosystems may have low ES values per unit area when compared with others such as estuaries and wetlands, they offer the best chance of increasing global ES by developing appropriate goals for agriculture and the use of land management regimes that favour ES provision. This is because agri- culture occupies 40% of the earth’s land area and is readily amenable to changing practices, if the sociopolitical impediments are met. Agriculture can be consid- ered to be the largest ecological experiment on Earth, with a high potential to damage global ES but also to promote them via ecologically informed approaches to the design of agroecosystems that value both marketed and non-marketed ES. The extensive Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) of global ecosystems completed by science and policy com- munities provided a new framework for analysing socioecological processes and suggested that agriculture may be the ‘largest threat to biodiversity and ecosys- tem function of any single human activity’. As 45% of the global population is engaged in farming activities, and such a large proportion of the global land area is in agriculture, achievement of human well-being as agreed by the UN-led Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (UN, 2000) is not possible without clear pathways for the design of future agroecosystems. There are major global advantages of enhancing ES on farmland through adoption of ES-enhancement protocols. Therefore, global agricultural systems that utilize and maintain high levels of ES are required so that they can provide sustainable economic well-being and food security within ecological constraints (Royal Society, 2009). To con- dense this discussion into a simple goal, the farmer of the future needs to be encouraged to re-define his/her role to ‘I am a photosynthesis manager and an ecosystem-service provider’. Urban systems Urbanization and urban growth are major drivers of ecosystem change globally. Urban areas are providing habitats for more than half the human population. In spite of these trends, the ecosystem idea has generally been applied to locations distant from the places where people live. However, knowledge about ecosys- tems is important for maintaining the quality of life in cities, suburbs and the fringes of metropolitan areas. Urban ecosystem concepts remind citizens and decision makers that we all ultimately depend on our ecosystems and their ser- vices (Daily, 1997). As the ‘ecological footprint’ of cities will increase in the com- ing decades, because they ‘sequester’ the products of ES from elsewhere, there is need to incorporate ES into decision making during planning and management of urban areas. Urban ecosystems have been neglected due to the lack of understanding of the complex processes involved, the lack of mechanisms to govern them, and the failure to incorporate ES into day-to-day decision making. Urban development
Ecosystem Services in Farmland and Cities 11 trends pose serious problems with respect to ES and human well-being. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) treated urban systems as ecosystems necessary for human welfare. As they are dominated by humans, these systems can be classified on the basis of population size, economic condition and loca- tion. Nearly half the world’s population lives in cities of less than half a million people and about 10% lives in those with more than 10 million (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). The ES challenges within cities are enormous and are discussed in this chapter below and later in this book. ES in urban systems Urban systems are not functional or self-contained ecosystems. They depend largely on surrounding ecosystems in rural areas or more distant ecosystems to fulfil their daily needs including food, water and material for housing and other needs. In cities, urban parks, forests and green belts have their strategic impor- tance for the quality of life. They provide essential ES such as gas regulation, air and water purification, wind and noise reduction, etc. They also enhance social and cultural services such as feelings of well-being, and provide recreational opportunities for urban dwellers (Miller, 1997; Smardon, 1988; Botkin and Beveridge, 1997; Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999; Lorenzo et al., 2000; Tyrväinen and Miettinen, 2000). Towns and cities are also both consumers and producers of ES. However, the net flow of ES is invariably into rather than out of urban systems. Even if they are not major producers of ES, urban activities can alter the supply and flow of ES at every scale, from local to global level. Urban development threatens the quality of the air, the quality and availability of water, the waste processing and recycling systems, and many other qualities of the ambient environment that contribute to human well-being. ES and their interactions in engineered systems Both agricultural and urban systems are dependent and impact on the provision of ES. These designed systems are affected by direct and indirect drivers that in turn impact ES (Fig. 1.1). It is very important to understand these interactions between ES and ‘engineered systems’ for the achievement of equitable and sus- tainable human welfare (Swaminathan, 2012). Human society, as part of the planetary system of interacting biomes depends on these ES as life support functions. Yet simultaneously we are impacting nega- tively on ecosystem goods and services. This is the dilemma facing society as our ecological footprint on planet earth increases. Projected economic expansion to meet the demands of a growing population (projected to be 9 billion by 2050) along with global climate change will jeopardize future human well-being by further degrading ecosystems. There is a great need to incorporate the value of ES into day-to-day decision making, into government policies and in business practices so that sustainable and desirable futures can be achieved. Waste of energy, food and other resources in the ‘developed’ world points to areas where our current practices can be readly modified.
12 Scene Setting In this context, global studies have largely focused on natural ecosystems and biomes, such as the boreal forests and the sea and have put little emphasis on managed ecosystems such as farmland and cities. However, the continued supply of ecosystem goods and services is of vital significance for the survival and productivity of our farmland and our cities. Agricultural systems comprise the largest managed ecosystems on Earth, and are often confronted by ecosystem degradation. Much of the success of modern agriculture has been from provision- ing services such as food and fibre. However, the expansion in the demand and supply of these marketable ecosystem goods has resulted in the suppression of other valuable and essential ES such as pollination, climate and water regulation, biodiversity and soil conservation. Similarly, demands from urban areas to support and enhance human lifestyles have resulted in the degradation of other valuable ES in other parts of the world. As economic wealth is underpinned by ecological wealth, we need to recognize and understand the role of ES in sustaining societies, nations and individuals. This can help to achieve food security and environmental sustainability at scales from local to global. It can help ensure a sustainable development and an equitable future. Without the evaluation, protection and enhancement of ES in agriculture and cities, the world’s future is bleak indeed. References Anderson, J.R. (2003). Risk in rural development: challenges for managers and policy makers. Agricultural Systems, 75, 161–197. Ecosystem Services s 0ROVISIONING SERVICES s 2EGULATING SERVICES s #ULTURAL SERVICES s 3UPPORTING SERVICES Urban systems s (ABITAT s 0ERSONAL SAFETY s 3OCIAL COHESION s &REEDOM OF CHOICE s #LEAN AIR AND WATER Agricultural systems s !DEQUATE LIVELIHOODS s 3UFFICIENT NUTRITIOUS FOOD FIBRE s 3ECURE RESOURCE ACCESS s #ULTURAL ASPECTS Indirect drivers of ecosystem change s %CONOMIC s 3OCIAL s #ULTURAL Direct drivers of ecosystem change s .ATURAL s "IOLOGICAL s ,AND USE CHANGE Impacts Dependence Human well-being Fig. 1.1 Framework of drivers of ecosystem change and the interaction between ES and two ‘engineered systems’ – urban and agricultural systems.
Ecosystem Services in Farmland and Cities 13 Balmford, A., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., et al. (2011). Bringing ecosystem services into the real world: an operational framework for assessing the economic consequences of los- ing wild nature. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48, 161–175. Bolund, P . and Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29, 293–301. Botkin, D.B. and Beveridge, C.E. (1997). Cities as environments. Urban Ecosystems, 1, 3–19. Boyd, J. and Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? Ecological Economics, 63, 616–626. CBD (2009). Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change. Montreal, Technical Series No. 41. Colls, A., Ash, N. and Ikkalal, N. (2009). Ecosystem Based Adaptation: a Natural Response to Climate Change. IUCN Report, p. 16. Cork, S., Stoneham, G. and Lowe, K. (2007). Ecosystem Services and Australian Natural Resource Management (NRM) Futures. Paper to the Natural Resource Policies and Programs Committee (NRPPC) and the Natural Resource Management Standing Committee (NRMSC). Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, Australia. Costanza, R. (2008). Stewardship for a ‘full’ world. Current History, 107, 30–35. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., De Groot, R., et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260. Cullen, R., Takatsuka, Y., Wilson, M. and Wratten, S. (2004). Ecosystem Services on New Zealand Arable Farms. Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, Lincoln University, Discussion Paper 151, pp. 84–91. Daily, G.C. (1997). Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC. Daily, G.C., Alexander, S., Ehrlich, P .R., et al. (1997). Ecosystem services: benefits sup- plied to human societies by natural ecosystems. Issues in Ecology, 2, 18. de Groot, R.S. (1992). Functions of Nature: Evaluation of Nature in Environment Planning, Management and Decision Making. Wolters-Noordhoff, Gröningen. de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M. and Boumans, R.M.J. (2002). A typology for the classifica- tion, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41, 393–408. De Schutter, O. (2010). Agroecology and the Right to Food, Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, p.21. United Nations General Assembly. Escudero, G. (1998). The vision and mission of agriculture in the year 2020: towards a focus that values agriculture and the rural environment. Agricultura, Medioambiente y Pobreza Rural en America Latina (eds L.G. Reca and R.G., Echeverria), pp. 21–54. CAB Direct, Washington, DC. Fisher, B. and Turner, K. (2008). Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biological Conservation, 141, 1167–1169. Fisher, B., Turner, K., Zylstra, M., et al. (2008). Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy-relevant research. Ecological Applications, 18, 2050–2067. Foley, J.A., deFries, R., Asner, G.P ., et al. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science, 309, 570–573. Food and Agriculture Organization (2007). The State of Food and Agriculture: Paying Farmers for Environmental Services, p. 222. Fountain, J. and Tompkins, J. (2011).The potential of wine tourism experiences to impart knowledge of sustainable practices: the case of the Greening Waipara biodiversity trails. Proceedings of the 6th AWBR International Conference, 9–10 June, Bordeaux Management School, France. Gurr, G.M., Wratten, S.D. and Altieri, M.A. (eds) (2004). Ecological Engineering for Pest Management: Advances in Habitat Manipulation for Arthropods. CSIRO, Victoria. Gurr, G.M., Wratten, S.D., Snyder, W .E. and Read, D.M. (2012). Biodiversity and Insect Pests – Key Issues for Sustainable Management. Wiley-Blackwell, UK.
14 Scene Setting IPBES (2010). Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. UNEP . Available at http://ipbes.net/ (accessed August 2012). Lampkin, N. (1991). Organic Farming. Farming Press, Ipswich, UK. Landis, D.A., Wratten, S.D. and Gurr, G.M. (2000). Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in Agriculture. Annual Review of Entomology, 45, 175–201. Lorenzo, A.B., Blanche, C.A., Qi, Y. and Guidry, M.M. (2000). Assessing residents’ will- ingness to pay to preserve the community urban forest: a small-city case study. Journal of Arboriculture, 26, 319–325. Losey, J.E. and Vaughan, M. (2006).The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. BioScience, 56, 311–323. Luck, G.W ., Daily, G.C. and Ehrlich, P .R. (2003). Population diversity and ecosystem services. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18, 331–336. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Synthesis Report. Island Press, Washington, DC. Miller, R. W . (1997). Urban Forestry – Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Mooney, H., Larigauderie, A., Cesario, M., et al. (2009). Biodiversity, climate change and ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environment Sustainability, 1, 46–54. Myers, N. (1996). Environmental services of biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 93, 2764–2769. Palmer, M., Bernhardt, E., Chornesky, E., et al. (2004). Ecology for a crowded planet. Science, 304, 1251–1252. Pimentel, D., Hepperly P ., Hanson, J., Douds, D. and Seidel, R. (2005). Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. Bioscience, 55, 573–582. Pimentel, D. and Giampietro, M. (1994). Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy. Carrying Capacity Network, Washington, DC. Pimentel, D. and Wilson, A. (2004). World population, agriculture and malnutrition. World Watch, 17, 22–25. Porter, J.R.P ., Costanza, R., Sandhu, H., Sigsgaard, L. and Wratten, S. (2009). The value of producing food, energy, and ecosystem services within and agro-ecosystem. Ambio, 38, 186–193. Robertson, G.P . and Swinton, S.M. (2005). Reconciling agricultural productivity and environmental integrity: a grand challenge for agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, 3, 38–46. Rosegrant, M.W . and Cline, S.A. (2003). Global food security: challenges and policies. Science, 302, 1917–1919. Rosegrant, M.W ., Paisner, M., Meijer, S. and Whitcover, J. (2001). Global Food Projections to 2020: Emerging Trends and Alternative Futures. IFPRI, Washington, DC. Royal Society (2009). Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture. Available at http://royalsociety.org/Reapingthebenefits/ (2009), p. 86 (accessed August 2012). Sagoff, M. (2011). The quantification and valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 70, 497–502. Sandhu, H., Crossman, N. and Smith, F. (2012). Ecosystem services in Australian agricul- tural enterprises. Ecological Economics, 74, 19–26. Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D. and Cullen, R. ( 2010a). Organic agriculture and ecosystem services. Environmental Science and Policy, 13, 1–7. Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D. and Cullen, R. (2010b). The role of supporting ecosys- tem services in conventional and organic arable farmland. Ecological Complexity, 7, 302–310. Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D., Cullen, R. and Case, B. (2008).The future of farming: the value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach. Ecological Economics, 64, 835–848. Schröter, D., Cramer, W ., Leemans, R., et al. (2005). Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science, 310, 1333–1337.
Ecosystem Services in Farmland and Cities 15 Smardon, R.C. (1988). Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: review of the role of vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15, 85–106. Swaminathan,M.S.(2012).SustainableDevelopment:TwentyYearsafterRio.International Consultation on Twenty years of Rio: Biodiversity-Development-Livelihoods, Chennai, India. Tilman, D. (1999). Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: The need for sustainable and efficient practices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 96, 5995–6000. Toman, M. (1998). Why not to calculate the value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecological Economics, 25, 1, 57–60. Tyrväinen, L. and Miettinen, A. (2000). Property prices and urban forest amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39, 205–223. UN (1992). Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June. Agenda 21, 14.1-14.104. Available at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21.htm (accessed August 2012). UN (2000). United Nations Millennium Declaration. Available at: http://www.un.org/ millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf (accessed August 2012). UN (2012). The Future We Want. United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. United Nations, Rio de Janeiro. Vitousek, P .M., Naylor, R., Crews, T., et al. (2009). Nutrient imbalances in agricultural development. Science, 324,1519–1520. Wallace, K.J. (2007). Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biological Conservation, 139, 235–246.
Ecosystem Services in Agricultural and Urban Landscapes, First Edition. Edited by Steve Wratten, Harpinder Sandhu, Ross Cullen and Robert Costanza. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2 Ecological Processes, Functions and Ecosystem Services: Inextricable Linkages between Wetlands and Agricultural Systems Onil Banerjee,1 Neville D. Crossman1 and Rudolf S. de Groot2 1 CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Adelaide, Australia 2 Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands Abstract Ecosystems contribute to human well-being via the provision of goods and services where the benefits are direct, such as in the production of food and raw materials, and indirect as is the case in the regulation of water quality and supply. Underpinning these services is a suite of ecological functions that must be under- stood in order to manage and enhance ecosystem services provision. For exam- ple, a healthy wetland that contains a biologically diverse array of producers and consumers purifies water, making freshwater available for irrigated agricultural production, which in turn provides food for human consumption. Making the link between function and service also enables us to identify threats to ecosystem services from unsustainable management practices. For example, the excessive use of chemicals in agricultural production affects water quality and threatens a wetland’s functional capacity to purify water, consequently affecting food production. In this chapter, we identify the relationships between ecosystem function and ecosystem service. This linkage is a precursor to the estimation of ecosystem service values and understanding how changes in land and water man- agement flow through to marginal changes in values. To contextualize this rela- tionship, we consider specifically the services that wetlands provide in support of agricultural systems. We conclude with research challenges on managing complexity, resilience and trade-offs between ecosystem services and agriculture.
Ecological Processes, Functions and Ecosystem Services 17 Introduction A critical challenge in the integration of ecosystem and economic science is the development of an operational classification of ecosystems and their functions which lends itself to the valuation of ecosystem services (de Groot et al., 2002; National Research Council, 2005). In the absence of either a political mandate to protect ecosystem integrity or a method of assigning value to ecosystem services for use in decision making, land use and development decisions will continue to be made without sufficient consideration for the important role ecosystems play in sustaining life (National Research Council, 2005; Daily et al., 2009). Furthermore, assigning monetary value to ecosystem services can aid in making environmental problems visible and thus inform decision processes (Wilson and Howarth, 2002; Spangenberg and Settele, 2010). The provision of ecosystem services and subsequent benefit to humans is underpinned by a series of biophysical processes and ecological functions which themselves are driven by biological diversity (Balvanera et al., 2006). These linkages are highlighted in Fig. 2.1. Experiments have shown that increasing the amount of biological diversity has in most cases an increasingly positive effect on ecosystem function and service. For example, greater abundance of soil myc- orrhiza and a higher rate of soil decomposer activity increases the rate of nutri- ent cycling, which is a regulating ecosystem service. A faster rate of nutrient cycling can be of direct benefit to humans if harnessed to increase agricultural productivity. Service Biophysical structure or process Function* (e.g. flood- protection, products) Ecosystems and Biodiversity (econ) Value Benefit(s) Human well-being (sociocultural context) (e.g. WTP for protection or products) (contribution to health, safety, etc) (e.g. slow water passage biomass) (e.g. vegetation cover or net primary productivity) * Subset of biophysical structure or process providing the service Fig. 2.1 The interdependencies of biological diversity, biophysical process, ecosystem function and service, human well-being, and willingness to pay (WTP). From de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L. and Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7, 260–272.
18 Scene Setting Agricultural commodities, valued in the market place, are just one of the ecosystem services agricultural systems produce. Ecosystem services have use and non-use values, and are valued using various methods. Non-use values include existence, bequest and altruistic values, or simply put – the knowledge that an ecosystem exists for us and for others now and in the future is valuable (National Research Council, 2005; Turner et al., 2008). Use values are categorized as direct and indirect. Direct-use values include timber production; a scenic lake may have recreational value which is captured by a management authority, or a home with a view of a natural and structurally diverse forest may fetch a better market price than a similar house without a scenic view. Ecosystems generate a multitude of indirect use values such as water filtration, nutrient retention and erosion mitiga- tion. These values are less tangible than direct-use values and do not directly involve interaction between a beneficiary and the ecosystem (TEEB, 2010). In this chapter we document the relationship between biological diversity, ecosystem function and service within agricultural systems. To guide the discus- sion, we focus on the interdependencies between agricultural production and the ecosystem services provided by freshwater wetlands (hereafter wetlands) and the impacts agricultural systems can have on the health and functioning of wetlands. We focus on wetlands because they are biologically complex yet relatively well understood, and critical to the provision of freshwater for agricultural use and human benefit. In the section that follows, ecosystem function and its linkages with ecosystem services are established. The ecological functions and subsequent ecosystem services generated by wetlands are defined and their interactions with agricultural systems are discussed in detail. We conclude the chapter with a dis- cussion of the research challenges involved in managing complexity, resilience and trade-offs between ecosystem services and agriculture. Linking ecosystem function with ecosystem service Ecosystems directly contribute to human well-being via the provision of ecosys- tem services (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003; Perrings, 2006; TEEB, 2010). The benefits provided by ecosys- tem services within agricultural systems are direct, such as food and raw materials, and indirect and include the regulation of water supply and quality and nutrient cycling example. Underpinning these services is a suite of ecological functions that must be understood in a first step to valuing, managing and enhancing ecosystem service provision. Importantly, a healthy and functioning wetland purifies water via biogeochemical and nutrient-retention processes, making freshwater available for irrigated agricultural production, which in turn provides food for human con- sumption. Making the link between function and service also enables us to iden- tify threats to ecosystem services from unsustainable management practices. For example, agricultural run-off that follows from excessive pesticide or fertilizer use impedes biogeochemical and nutrient retention processes, threatening the ability of wetlands to purify water, which in turn threatens food production. Ecosystem functions result from the interactions between characteristics, structures and processes (Turner et al., 2000) constituting the physical, chemical
Ecological Processes, Functions and Ecosystem Services 19 and biological exchanges and processes that contribute to the self-maintenance and self-renewal of an ecosystem (e.g. nutrient cycling and food-web interactions). Ecosystem functions involve interactions between biotic and abiotic system com- ponents in achieving any and all ecosystem outcomes (National Research Council, 2005). de Groot (1992) illustrates the link between ecosystem function and human benefit by defining function as the capacity of natural processes and com- ponents to provide goods and services that generate human utility. Linking eco- system function to human benefit should encourage ecosystem-based management because of the monetary or non-monetary benefits provided by functionally diverse systems (Turner et al., 2008; Willemen et al., 2010). Following the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium Ecosystems Assessment, 2005), ecosystem functions may be conveniently grouped into four categories, namely: production, regulation, habitat and informational functions. Regulatory functions include gas and nutrient exchange, disturbance prevention, water regulation, soil retention and formation, waste treatment, pollination and biological control. Critical habitat functions are the provision of habitat and maintenance of biological diversity, while the production function includes the production of food and other raw materials such as medicinal, genetic and ornamental resources. Informational functions include aesthetic, recreational, cultural and spiritual functions. Ecosystem function and their resulting services have an inherently spatial nature. Services may be created and the benefits enjoyed in situ. An example of this is the provision of habitat which may be used by animals that are subse- quently hunted for recreation. Benefits may be omnidirectional where services are created in one location, though the benefits are spatially extensive, which is the case of the role of wetlands in sequestering carbon (Zedler and Kercher, 2005) and thus mitigating climate change – a benefit enjoyed globally. Finally, services may be directional, where a function occurs in one location, while the benefits are perceived directionally from that location due to the direction of flow. An example of this is the function riparian ecosystems serve in downstream flood control (Zedler and Kercher, 2005; Turner et al., 2008). Wetlands Wetlands are particularly diverse and productive ecosystems (Woodward and Wui, 2001; Zedler and Kercher, 2005) providing direct and indirect benefits at local, landscape and global scales (Acharya, 2000). Wetlands may be defined as areas exhibiting a temporary or permanent presence of water above or close to the soil surface and are maintained by waterlogging. Water is the primary factor affecting plant and animal life in these systems. Wetlands, although occupying less than 9% of the earth’s terrestrial surface, contribute significantly in the provision of ecosystem services (Zedler and Kercher, 2005). There are three major types of freshwater wetlands (Barbier et al., 1997): riverine, palustrine and lacustrine wetlands. Riverine wetlands are areas that are periodically flooded by a river rising above its banks and include water meadows, flooded forests and oxbow lakes. Palustrine wetlands are characterized by a
20 Scene Setting mostly permanent presence of water and include ponds and kettle and volcanic crater lakes. Lacustrine wetlands are permanently inundated areas with minimal water flow. The following sections provide an overview of key wetland functions, linkages to ecosystem services and their relationship with agricultural systems. Wetland functions Wetlands provide regulation (hydrological and biogeochemical), production, habitat and informational functions. The hydrological aspects of a wetland are critical in defining their characteristics and processes (Maltby, 2009). Three prin- cipal hydrological functions of wetlands are floodwater detention, groundwater recharge/discharge and sediment retention (Turner et al., 2008). Table 2.1 describes the linkages between wetland function and ecosystem service, and presents metrics to assess the presence and level of service provision. A wetland’s hydrological function contributes to its high productivity through the capture and cycling of nutrients from upstream (Barbier et al., 1997). Wetlands reduce overbank flooding and slope run-off (Zedler and Kercher, 2005). By stor- ing water, wetlands delay and reduce peak flows which could otherwise cause downstream flood damage. Wetlands may have significant interactions with groundwater where the substrate between the two is permeable. In these cases, wetlands may be involved in groundwater recharge and/or discharge of aquifers (Maltby, 2009). Finally, wetlands serve to retain sediments thereby alleviating downstream navigational problems, water treatment costs and damage to pump- ing infrastructure and spawning habitat. The interaction of a wetland’s biogeochemical function with hydrological functions enables interactions with surrounding wetlands (Mander et al., 2005). Specifically, biogeochemical functions of wetlands influence water quality, pollu- tion control and biodiversity (Mander et al., 2005; Zedler and Kercher, 2005; Maltby, 2009). Oxidization and reduction processes in the soil are responsible for significant biogeochemical reactions. Wetland flooding results in oxygen deple- tion where, through time, organic substrates are consumed and oxygen, nitrates and other compounds are reduced. The inundation of floodplains facilitates nutrient exchange; these sites are also often important spawning grounds for fish. The nutrient retention function of wetlands can affect water quality consider- ably, especially through the mitigation of incoming pollution. Nutrients and trace elements may be retained in plant structures or soil and organic matter (Mander et al., 2005), while nutrient export contributes to water quality maintenance and occurs through gaseous emission (Zedler, 2003), biomass harvest or erosion. Carbon is also retained in wetlands and is dependent on waterlogging, pH, nutri- ents and temperature. The level of pH and aerobic conditions in a wetland affects biodiversity in terms of the species and community assemblages possible. Organic carbon concentrations affect water turbidity and pH (Maltby, 2009). With regards to habitat function, wetlands often support a disproportionately large amount of biodiversity, including a significant number of rare or endangered species. Efforts aimed at protecting wetlands are often driven by concern for their biodiversity (Zedler and Kercher, 2005). A higher level of species diversity is promoted by ecological disturbance that occurs as a consequence of wetting
Ecological Processes, Functions and Ecosystem Services 21 Table 2.1 Wetland ecosystem function, service and indicator. Ecosystem function Ecosystem service Establishing presence State indicator; sustainable yield Provisioning Food Fish, game, fruits and grains Total or average stock (kgha−1 ) Net productivity (Kcalyear−1 ) Water Water storage for domestic/ industrial/ agricultural use Total water (cubic mha−1 ) Net water inflow (m3 year−1 ) Fibre, fuel and other raw material Biotic/ abiotic resources, e.g. peat, fodder, fuel wood Total biomass (kgha−1 ) Net productivity (kgyear−1 ) Genetic resources Genes for pathogen resistance, ornamental species Number of species Maximum sustainable harvest (kgha−1 ) Biochemical and medicinal resources Potential medicines and other biotic materials Amount of useful substances (kgha−1 ) Maximum sustainable harvest (kgha−1 ) Regulating Air quality Capacity to extract atmospheric aerosols and chemicals Leaf Area Index or NOx-fixation Quantity of aerosols/ chemicals extracted Climate Influence on global and local climate Greenhouse gas balance, carbon sequestration, land cover Quantity of GHGs fixed Water regulation Groundwater recharge/ discharge Surface or soil water retention capacity Quantity of water stored and influence of hydrological regime Waste treatment Biotic and abiotic processes to remove excess nutrients/ pollutants Denitrification (kg Nha−1 year−1 ) Immobilization in plants and soil Maximum amount of waste recycled and influence on water and soil parameters Erosion protection Soil and sediment retention Root matrix Amount of soil/ sediment captured/ retained Soil formation and regeneration Natural processes in soil formation and regeneration Bioturbation Pollination Habitat for pollinators Number and impact of pollinating species (continued)
22 Scene Setting and drying cycles of wetlands. The production function of wetlands involves the conversion of energy, nutrients, water and gases into living biomass. This is a form of food-web support – the efficient primary production of biomass (Maltby, 2009). This function generates significant human utility through its production and provision of raw materials. Wetlands also serve an important function in maintaining habitat connectivity (Zedler, 2003; Mander et al., 2005; Tscharntke et al., 2005). Finally, information functions contribute to human cognitive, emo- tional and spiritual health, among other things. Wetland–agricultural systems interactions Agricultural systems rely on ecosystem services to enable the production of food, fibre, bioenergy and pharmaceuticals, and other important commodities. This present volume as well as recent research discuss in detail the ecosystem Ecosystem function Ecosystem service Establishing presence State indicator; sustainable yield Biological regulation Control of pests through trophic relations Number and impact of pest- control species Reduction of disease and pests, and crop pollination dependence Natural hazard Forests and dampening extreme events Water storage in cubic meters Reduction of flood danger and prevention of infrastructure damage Habitat Nursery Breeding, feeding and resting habitat Number of species and individuals Ecological value Gene pool Maintenance of ecological balance Natural biodiversity; endemic species Habitat integrity Information Aesthetic Structural diversity and other factors Number/area of landscape features Number of sustainable users Recreational and inspirational Landscape features Number/area of landscape features Number of sustainable users Cultural Culturally significant features Number/area or presence of landscape features Number of users Spiritual Spiritually significant features Number/area or presence of landscape features Number of users Sources: de Groot et al. (2002); de Groot et al. (2006); Food and Agriculture Organization (2008). Table 2.1 (Cont’d)
Ecological Processes, Functions and Ecosystem Services 23 services on which agriculture depends (Porter et al., 2009; Power, 2010; Ribaudo et al., 2010; Sandhu et al., 2010a, 2010b, 2012). Approximately 20% of global agriculture depends on blue water (i.e. freshwater) extracted from surface water and groundwater resources and close to 70% of global water withdrawal is used for agricultural purposes (Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, 2007). The water filtration service under- taken by wetlands is therefore critical to agricultural productivity. In addition to ensuring adequate water quality and supply, wetlands provide agriculture with services related to pollination, biological pest control, mainte- nance of soil structure and fertility, and erosion mitigation. Wetlands mitigate floods and reduce floodwater peaks; they replenish stream flow through subsur- face flow, contribute to water table recharge and, depending on their position in the landscape, wetlands may retain water from aquifer discharge (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2008). Wetlands and riparian areas influence microcli- mates of adjacent fields by regulating humidity and evapotranspiration, and serve in filtering often contaminated overland flow from intensively managed agricultural areas (Mander et al., 2005). Various crops such as rice, corn, some vegetables and fruits are grown in, or in proximity to, wetlands. Activities such as fishing, livestock grazing and hay pro- duction are also conducted in or supported by these ecosystems. Soils in these areas are typically quite fertile with high clay content, particularly in seasonally inundated floodplains (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2008). Agricultural systems themselves produce ecosystem services (Tscharntke et al., 2005): they sequester carbon, regulate soil fertility, retain and cycle nutrients, and provide landscapes with aesthetic, cultural and spiritual values (Antle and Stoorvogel, 2006; Porter et al., 2009; Ribaudo et al., 2010). Wetlands support not only agri- culture in these ways, but also agricultural communities, by providing potable water and adequate supply for hydroelectric power generation. Wetlands and agricultural systems are therefore inextricably linked as they provide agriculture with critical and valuable services. Negative feedbacks, otherwise known as disservices (Power, 2010), created by agricultural systems have adverse impacts on wetlands through habitat deteriora- tion, contamination of fisheries and spawning areas, biodiversity loss, run-off, sedimentation, greenhouse gas emissions and the release of toxins into the envi- ronment. The primary pathway by which agricultural systems affect wetlands is through the diversion of water for irrigation and nutrient loading of nitrogen and phosphorous (Millennium Ecosystems Assessment, 2005; Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, 2007). Irrigated agriculture in some regions has resulted in soil salinization, equating to a global loss of 1.5 million hectares of arable land per year. Furthermore, large quantities of salt from land salinization are transported into wetlands by irriga- tion run-off, having substantial impacts on biodiversity, productivity and biogeo- chemical composition in wetlands (Williams, 2001). Changes to water regimes can have devastating effects on wetlands and their regulating functions including those dependent on groundwater, surface water and direct rainfall. Wetland degradation may expose agricultural systems to increased vulnerability to storm, flood and eutrophication events.
24 Scene Setting The interactions between wetlands and agricultural systems may be characterized as in situ or external where the former constitutes an agricultural intervention within a wetland and the latter is an intervention that is upstream, downstream or peripheral to a wetland. In situ interactions may involve a substantial transfor- mation of the wetland ecosystem or a more benign interaction. Significantly altering the ecosystem could involve drainage, grazing, ploughing or the applica- tion of pesticides and fertilizers. Fishing or the managed gathering of plants and animals is considered non-transformative, while enhancement can include manipulation of wetlands for agricultural or aquacultural purposes, including the creation of rice paddies, fish ponds and water storage areas (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2008). External interactions are more common than direct wetland interventions. Upstream interactions can involve diversion of water to agriculture which may have water quantity, quality and flow effects to wetlands situated downstream. Return flows of diverted water will be lower in quantity and may contain sub- stantial amounts of nutrients and toxins. Hydraulic gradients may also be cre- ated resulting in more rapid release of upland water and a lower watertable. Upstream agricultural practices that create erosion, sedimentation and runoff are detrimental to wetland ecosystems (Zedler and Kercher, 2005). Less com- mon is the case where wetlands affect agricultural activity upstream through their capacity for water storage and sediment retention; should their capacity in this regard be compromised, upstream waterlogging of agricultural areas may result (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2008). Furthermore, these types of interactions are seldom confined to one agricultural production unit and wetland, rather these interactions typically occur and are compounded at the catchment scale. Some research challenges Understanding complexity and resilience Ecosystems provide numerous goods and services, many of which have indirect value and are not traded in the market place. Our understanding of the ecosys- tem functions underpinning these services is limited, complicated by the spatial and temporal scales over which ecosystem services operate, and the interdepend- encies between ecosystem components and functions. Ecosystem functions are dynamic, exhibiting thresholds, complementary relationships to keystone processes, and system integrity and irreversibility (Turner et al., 2008). A thresh- old occurs where an ecosystem may cease to function or may function in an alternative undesirable state because one or more of its attributes are degraded beyond a specific level. Complementary relationships describe the interactions and interdependence of ecosystem components where the survival of one species depends on the existence of other species. These relationships have contributory value, which is a reflection of limited substitution possibilities. The notion of keystone processes describes system dependence on a limited number of ecosys- tem functions. A reduction in ecosystem diversity (e.g. structural or species
Ecological Processes, Functions and Ecosystem Services 25 diversity) can affect system resilience and adaptability to shocks. Ecosystem structure and function reflects the notion that the health of an ecosystem depends on system integrity and the whole functioning of the system. Trade-offs Management and planning for wetlands and agriculture should focus on enhanc- ing multifunctionality where multiple ecosystem services are provided for human well-being and economic development. There is great potential to achieve syner- gies and win–win outcomes from effective planning and the development of economic incentives (DeFries and Rosenzweig, 2010; Gordon et al., 2010; Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2010). However, the less desirable lose–lose or lose–win outcomes are commonplace due to trade-offs between services and agriculture production (Tallis et al., 2008; Gordon et al., 2010; Crossman et al., 2011). Trade-offs arise when provisioning services, especially agricultural production, seem to conflict with regulating, habitat and information services. Globally, most wetland ecosystems have been heavily modified to make way for food provision- ing at the expense of other ecosystem services (Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, 2007). The principle cause for the decline of ecosystem services other than provisioning services, and a major barrier to the evolution of multifunctional landscapes, is the lack of economic valuation of these services. Where the value of these services is not accounted for in decision- making frameworks, such as cost–benefit analysis, the importance of these services in support of agricultural production are overlooked and trade-offs may be made using poor information. Management of wetlands and surrounding agricultural landscapes needs to account for the values of multiple ecosystem services (Carpenter et al., 2009). While there are an increasing number of examples of the creation of markets for ecosystem goods and services, including the provision of freshwater (Carroll et al., 2008; Bayon et al., 2009; Garrick et al., 2009), markets for most services are either absent or immature, leading to a lack of appropriate price signals for enhancing multifunctionality. Major challenges that lie ahead are the design of efficient markets for ecosystem service provision, and the development of strong institutions and regulatory instruments that underpin these markets. The goal is the sustainable growth of agricultural provisioning services without increasing the production of ecosystem disservices as these markets and institutions evolve. References Acharya, G. (2000). Approaches to Valuing the hidden hydrological services of wetland ecosystems. Ecological Economics, 35, 63–74. Antle, J.M. and Stoorvogel, J.J. (2006). Predicting the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88, 1174–1180. Balvanera, P ., Pfisterer, A.B., Buchmann, N., et al. (2006). Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecology Letters, 9, 1146–1156. Barbier, E.B., Acreman, M. and Knowler, D. (1997). Economic Valuation of Wetlands. A Guide for Policy Makers and Planners. Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland.
26 Scene Setting Bayon, R., Hawn, A. and Hamilton, K. (2009). Voluntary Carbon Markets: An International Business Guide to What They Are and How They Work. Earthscan, London. Carpenter, S.R., Mooney, H.A., Agard, J., et al. (2009). Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 1305–1312. Carroll, N., Fox, J. and Bayon, R. (eds) (2008). Conservation and Biodiversity Banking: A Guide to Setting up and Running Biodiversity Credit Trading Systems. Earthscan, London. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (2007). Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. Earthscan and International Water Management Institute, London and Colombo. Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., De Groot, R., et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260. Crossman, N.D., Bryan, B.A. and Summers, N.D. (2011). Carbon payments and low cost conservation. Conservation Biology, 25, 835–845. Daily, G.C. (ed.) (1997). Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC. Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., et al. (2009). Ecosystem services in decision mak- ing: time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 21–28. DeFries, R. and Rosenzweig, C. (2010). Toward a whole-landscape approach for sustain- able land use in the tropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 19627–19632. de Groot, R.S. (1992). Functions of Nature: Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Planning Management and Decision Making. Wolters-Noordhoff, Amsterdam. de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L. and Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, man- agement and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7, 260–272. de Groot, R.S., Stuip, M.A.M., Finlayson, C.M. and Davidson, N. (2006). Valuing Wetlands: Guidance for Valuing the Benefits Derived from Wetland Ecosystem Services. Secretariat of the Convention on Wetlands and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Gland and Montreal. de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A. and Boumans, R.M.J. (2002). A typology for the classifica- tion, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41, 393–408. Food and Agriculture Organization (2008). Scoping Agriculture–Wetland Interactions, Towards a Sustainable Multiple-Response Strategy. FAO Water Reports, 33. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0314e/i0314e00.htm (accessed August 2012). Garrick, D., Siebentritt, M.A., Aylward, B., Bauer, C.J. and Purkey, A. (2009). Water Markets and freshwater ecosystem services: policy reform and implementation in the Columbia and Murray-Darling basins. Ecological Economics, 69, 366–379. Gordon, L.J., Finlayson, C.M. and Falkenmark, M. (2010). Managing water in agricul- ture for food production and other ecosystem services. Agricultural Water Management, 97, 512–519. Maltby, E. (2009). Functional Assessment of Wetlands: Towards Evaluation of Ecosystem Services. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge. Mander, Ü., Hayakawa, Y. and Kuusemets, V . (2005). Purification processes, ecological functions, planning and design of riparian buffer zones in agricultural watersheds. Ecological Engineering, 24, 421–432. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC. Millennium Ecosystems Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. National Research Council (2005). Valuing Ecosystem Services. Toward Better Environmental Decision-Making. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Perrings, C. (2006). Ecological economics after the millennium assessment. International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics, 6, 8–22.
Ecological Processes, Functions and Ecosystem Services 27 Porter, J., Costanza, R., Sandhu, H., Sigsgaard, L. and Wratten, S. (2009). The value of producing food, energy, and ecosystem services within an agro-ecosystem. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 38, 186–193. Power, A.G. (2010). Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365 (1554), 2959–2971. Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D. and Bennett, E.M. (2010). Ecosystem service bun- dles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 5242–5247. Ribaudo, M., Greene, C., Hansen, L. and Hellerstein, D. (2010). Ecosystem services from agriculture: steps for expanding markets. Ecological Economics, 69, 2085–2092. Sandhu, H.S., Crossman, N.D. and Smith, F.P . (2012). Ecosystem services and Australian agricultural enterprises. Ecological Economics, 74, 19–26. Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D. and Cullen, R. (2010a). Organic agriculture and ecosystem services. Environmental Science and Policy, 13, 1–7. Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D. and Cullen, R. (2010b). The role of supporting ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable farmland. Ecological Complexity, 7, 302–310. Spangenberg, J.H. and Settele, J. (2010). Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services. Ecological Complexity, 7, 327–337. Tallis, H., Kareiva, P ., Marvier, M. and Chang, A. (2008). An ecosystem services frame- work to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 9457–9464. TEEB (ed.) (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London. Tscharntke, T., Klein, A.M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I. and Thies, C. (2005). Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem ser- vice management. Ecology Letters, 8, 857–874. Turner, R.K., Georgiou, S. and Fisher, B. (2008). Valuing Ecosystem Services: The Case of Multi-Functional Wetlands. Earthscan, London. Turner, R.K., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Söderqvist, T., et al. (2000). Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy. Ecological Economics, 35, 7–23. Willemen, L., Hein, L. and Verburg, P .H. (2010). Evaluating the impact of regional devel- opment policies on future landscape services. Ecological Economics, 69, 2244–2254. Williams, W .D. (2001). Anthropogenic salinisation of inland waters. Hydrobiologia, 466, 329–337. Wilson, M.A. and Howarth, R.B. (2002). Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecological Economics, 41, 431–443. Woodward, R.T. and Wui, Y.-S. (2001). The economic value of wetland services: a meta- analysis. Ecological Economics, 37, 257–270. Zedler, J.B. (2003). Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1, 65–72. Zedler, J.B. and Kercher, S. (2005). Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services and restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 39–74.
Ecosystem Services in Agricultural and Urban Landscapes, First Edition. Edited by Steve Wratten, Harpinder Sandhu, Ross Cullen and Robert Costanza. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 3 Key Ideas and Concepts from Economics for Understanding the Roles and Value of Ecosystem Services Pamela Kaval1 and Ramesh Baskaran2 1 Havelock North, New Zealand and Marylhurst University, Oregon, USA 2 Faculty of Commerce, Lincoln University, New Zealand Abstract Economists have been contributing to the discussion of the valuation of ecosys- tem services for many years; however, there is currently no standardization in the field. Consequently, studies differ extensively and comparisons between studies are difficult. This chapter briefly describes the primary economic methods commonly used to value ecosystem services. The results of an ecosystem service valuation literature review are then discussed. Finally, recommendations are offered on how to conduct ecosystem service valuation studies. How can ecosystem services be valued? It is easy to understand how ecosystem services contribute directly to life. For example, plants produce oxygen, a gas we need to breathe, while the ozone layer protects us from the sun’s ultraviolet radiation. However, it is difficult to make comparisons between how much oxygen one tree produces, how much oxygen a person needs, how well the ozone layer prevents people from getting skin cancer, 50 tons of lumber, 3 hours of hiking and the 100 worms per square meter of soil that help to aerate the soil for plant growth. The easiest way to enable compari- son of these ecosystem services is to use one type of unit. Economists have devised a methodology that enables us to use a dollar value as the common unit of comparison. Placing dollar values on ecosystem services makes it simpler for everyone, from farmers to politicians, to understand the value of a service,
Key Ideas and Concepts from Economics 29 because most people use currency as a unit of value and medium of exchange (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; Daily et al., 1997; de Groot et al., 2002). Placing a dollar value on ecosystem services requires extensive reflection on the interconnectedness of ecosystems. As there are so many ecosystem services, there are also many ecosystem service values, from the price of gold, to the value of swimming in a stream, to the value of the safety of a fledgling in a bird nest on a tall cliff (Pearce and Turner, 1990; Merlo and Croitoru, 2005). By considering all ecosystem service values, the total economic value of nature is considered. The total economic value approach depends on the spatial and temporal scales being assessed, thus requiring analysts to be clear about the intended scope of their study. The total economic value conceptual framework views ecosystem goods and services as the flows of benefits and costs provided by the stock of natural capital (eftec, 2006). Because there are so many types of ecosystem services, it is often preferable to group them together before attempting to calculate their value. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) divided ecosystem services into four categories: supporting, provisioning, regulation and cultural services. Similarly, de Groot et al. (2002) also divided ecosystem services into four categories: regulation, habi- tat, production and information. In order to calculate the total economic value of ecosystem services, it may be easier to think of these services according to the type of value they provide (Fig. 3.1). Values can be assessed in the ways in which ecosystem services provide intangible benefits, or non-use values, where the resource is not directly used, and ways in which they support consumption, or use values, where the resource is being used. More specifically, non-use values include altruistic, existence, bequest and option value. Altruistic value is the value people have knowing that others can enjoy goods and services from ecosystem services, even though they may never enjoy them themselves. For example, people may value knowing that others enjoy viewing the wildlife in Kenya’s national parks and reserves, even though they will never go there to see the wildlife themselves. Existence value is derived from the satisfaction of knowing that a certain species or ecosystem exists, even if it will never be seen or used directly. An example of an existence value is know- ing and feeling good about the existence of the blue whale, the largest mammal in the world living today. A person may believe that it is important that blue whales exist even though they may never see them although they may read about it in a book or see it on a television or movie programme. Bequest value is the satisfaction one obtains from being able to pass on environmental benefits to future generations. In this way, a person knows that the wildlife in Kenya’s national parks and reserves will be available for their grandchildren and great grandchildren to visit someday. Option value pertains to the value people have knowing they have the option to use a resource in the future, even if they never do. This value relates to uncertainty and risk aversion, in that they are unsure they will ever use it, but don’t want to risk the chance of it being lost. Use values focus on the actual use of a resource and can be further subdivided into direct-use values, where a resource is directly being used in some way, and indirect-use values, where the resource is only indirectly being used. Direct use is further divided into extractive-use values that are extracted or consumed from
30 Scene Setting ecosystems, such as logging and fishing, and non-extractive-use values, from activities that are directly enjoyed, such as swimming, bird watching and cross- country skiing. The indirect-use value is referred to as a non-extractive-use value derived from functional services that the environment provides. For example, ecosystem regulatory processes that indirectly provide support and protection include erosion control and ultraviolet radiation protection (Freeman, 2003; National Research Council, 2005; Anderson, 2006; Tietenberg, 2006; Hanley and Barbier, 2009). Total economic value of ecosystem services Market values (the dollar value people knowingly pay for an ES) Non-market values (ES is not directly exchanged on the market, but may be indirectly exchanged) Non-use values – includes altruistic, existence, bequest, and option value Use values (when people use the resource in some way, but do not directly pay to use it) Use values (when people use the resource in some way and directly pay to use it) Direct use values – can be extractive (e.g., purchasing lumber) or non-extractive (e.g., the fee paid to climb at a rockclimbing crag) Non-use values (e.g., paying someone to protect a beach that they will never visit to save an endangered species) Indirect use values (e.g., volunteering to pay your homeowners association extra money for an erosion control project in your neighborhood) Direct use values – can be extractive (e.g., picking wild berries you don’t pay a fee for) or non- extractive (e.g., swimming, assuming there is no fee) Indirect use values – (e.g., natural flood and erosion control) Fig. 3.1 Total economic value of ecosystem services. Note that market values are typically measured as direct use values; whereas indirect use and non-use values are more commonly measured as non-market values.
Key Ideas and Concepts from Economics 31 The next step is to determine whether the resource was paid for directly, as then it is considered a market value, or whether it was not paid for directly, or not paid for at all, as then it is a non-market value. For consumptive goods, when directly using a resource, such as eating a fish that you have purchased, we can consider the market value, in that a specific amount of money is exchanged in a market by people to directly use these products. When paying for something that will not be used directly, such as giving money to your neighbour’s son to raise bees, you are experiencing an indirect-use market value. More specifically, since the son is raising bees for honey and not providing you with any of the honey, but you are still benefitting from the bees’ pollination of the flowers in your yard, it is an indirect-use market value. However, if you donate money to sponsor a trip for your neighbour’s son to work on an island to prevent poachers from stealing turtle eggs, you have a non-use market value because you feel good about saving the turtles even though you may never see them (Pearce and Turner, 1990; Freeman, 2003; National Research Council, 2005; Anderson, 2006). Using similar examples, if you are fishing on your uncle’s boat on the ocean and catch and eat a fish, but do not pay directly for this fish, as you do not need a fishing license to fish on the ocean, it is a non-market direct-use value. You have value in this trip, as you chose to go on the trip, may have paid for petrol to drive to your uncle’s house and may pay to camp overnight somewhere to get there, but you did not pay ‘directly’ for the fish. If you did not give money to your neighbour’s son for the bees, but the bees are still pollinating your flowers, you have an indirect non-market-use value. And if you did not give your neighbour’s son any money to work on the island, but still feel good about him being there saving the turtles, you have a non-market non-use value for the turtles (Freeman, 2003; Anderson, 2006; Hanley and Barbier, 2009). It is clear that a single person may benefit in more than one way from the same ecosystem. Thus, total economic value is the sum of all the relevant use and non- use, market and non-market values, for goods and services in a particular ecosys- tem.Thesemeasuresofvaluecanbeincludedinpolicyandotherland-management decisions. Ecosystem service valuation methodologies Economists have developed a number of market and non-market techniques to estimate the value of the environmental amenities from ecosystem services. Market values are calculated as out-of-pocket expenses and can be used to estimate the value of ecosystem goods and services that are traded in formal markets, such as the sale of timber and fish. Market values also include for example a decrease in the productivity of a fish stock, caused by an environmental effect such as an oil spill, that could lead to an earnings loss of a person dependant on fishing for their income. Defensive or preventive expenditures are another type of market value. These expenditures are made by a firm, government or individual to avoid or reduce an unwanted effect. An example of a defensive expenditure is the purchase of a water filter to drink water from a well contaminated by an unwanted chemi- cal that leached into the groundwater system from a nearby mining operation.
32 Scene Setting Methods for measuring non-market values fall into two general categories: revealed preference and stated preference methods (Freeman, 2003; Hanley and Barbier, 2009). Revealed preference methods are based on observations of actual behaviour and allow us to make inferences about how individuals value changes in environmental quality. In contrast, stated preference measurements are based on responses to survey questions. Some common non-market valuation methods used today include the contingent valuation method, choice experiments, the travel cost method, and the hedonic pricing method. These methods are described briefly. Revealed preference methods The travel cost method sometimes called the Clawson Method, is a revealed preference method in that the respondent is revealing something that they actu- ally did. Here, they report on the time they took and the costs they incurred to take a specific trip, costs that they would not have spent normally. An example is determining the cost of travelling to a lake to fish and camp. To do this, extra money is spent on fuel and camping fees, assuming the person already has all of their fishing equipment (Pearce and Turner, 1990; Haab and McConnell, 2002; Kahn, 2005; Anderson, 2006; Hackett, 2006). Hedonic pricing is a revealed preference method that investigates the prices people pay for specific goods for the purpose of valuing an environmental resource. Oftentimes, the price that is investigated is a house/ property price. For example, to determine the value of seeing the beach from a house, the researcher could compare the price of houses overlooking a beach to equivalent homes one block away without a beach view (Hussen, 2000; Haab and McConnell, 2002; Kahn, 2005; Anderson, 2006; Hackett, 2006). Stated preference methods The contingent valuation method is sometimes called the willingness-to-pay or willingness-to-accept method. It is a stated preference method in that a person ‘states’ what they will do if a hypothetical situation were to arise. More specifi- cally, they state how much they are willing-to-pay (willing-to-accept) for a change in a particular good or service. An example is the amount of money they would be willing-to-pay to hunt for deer in an area, if they were guaranteed to see at least some deer on a particular hunting trip (Hussen, 2000; Haab and McConnell, 2002; Daly and Farley, 2004; Kahn, 2005; Anderson, 2006; Hackett, 2006). Choice modelling is a stated preference method in which a respondent is faced with a variety of alternatives and may be asked to select their most preferred alternative from a choice set (choice experiment), group their preferences (contingent grouping), rate their preferences (contingent rating), or rank their preferences (contingent ranking). There will typically be three or four alternative strategies with similar attributes (per question) presented to the respondents. An
Key Ideas and Concepts from Economics 33 example of choice modelling alternatives include variations in the risk of toxic chemicals reaching the groundwater, the percentage of harvested trees, the per- centage of species diversity, as well as a dollar value, such as an entrance fee or a fee in your annual taxes/ rates (Louviere et al., 2000; Bateman et al., 2002; Hensher et al., 2005; Street and Burgess, 2007; Riera et al., 2012). These four methods, together with direct-market values, can aid us in valuing many ecosystem services. But they fall short of valuing all ecosystem services, for which other methods must be employed. These include the avoided cost method, the replacement cost method, the restoration cost method, factor income, and the benefit transfer method.1 Other methods Avoided cost methods attempt to quantify the costs we do not have to pay when nature is providing a particular good. One example is to calculate the value of storm and buffer functions provided by coastal wetlands in the event of a hur- ricane or cyclone. To do this, you could calculate the potential financial losses if the wetlands did not exist. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused over $US81 billion damage to the New Orleans area. If the wetlands around New Orleans had not been destroyed by years of alterations to the Mississippi River, New Orleans would not have been almost completely exposed to the Gulf of Mexico, and there may not have been any, or as much, damage (Daily, 1997; Daily, 1997; Knabb, 2006; Cleveland, 2006). Replacement cost is a method used to calculate the cost of replacing a service with a human-created product, such as fertilizers to replace the nutrients that are recycled by earthworms and benefit the soil (Hussen, 2000; Kahn, 2005). Restoration cost is a method used to calculate the cost of restoring an ecosys- tem to the natural state that existed prior to an environmental damage, such as the cost of repairing the environmental damage caused by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill of 1989 (Bragg et al., 1994; Kahn, 2005). Factor income is the value of an ecosystem service that enhances the market value of ecosystem services. For example, bees pollinate the flowers of the agri- cultural crops sold on the market (Woodward and Wui, 2001; Brander et al., 2006). The marginal benefit of pollination services to the crop can be used to estimate the value of the service provided by the bees. 1 Some studies also consider group valuation or discourse based methods to obtain values for ecosystem services. In a discourse based study, people get together in a designated location and discuss their values for an ecosystem good or service. Since ecosystem services are commonly public goods that affect many people, some feel that the valuation of these public services should not come from individual-based values, such as in the previous approaches used, but from public discussion. In this way, the values derived are considered those of society and are believed to lead to socially equitable and politically legitimate out- comes (Wilson and Howarth, 2002). Consequently, this method focuses on qualitative values. The focus of this study is quantitative methods, therefore, this method is not being considered here.
34 Scene Setting Benefit transfer or value transfer, is a method used as a result of time limita- tions and/or budget constraints and focuses on applying secondary data. In this method, a researcher uses existing economic valuation information from a study conducted in a particular area, called the study site, and transfers those values to a new site or area, sometimes called the policy site. Care should be made to trans- fer values from an area that is similar to the policy site (Kaval and Loomis, 2003; Kahn, 2005). There are two types of benefit transfers: value transfers and function transfers. A value-transfer approach takes a single point estimate, usually a mean willingness-to-pay or an average of point estimates from multiple studies that have been developed elsewhere, to transfer to a new study area. A function transfer approach transfers the entire estimated equation (function) of a study site to the policy site. For example, a travel cost demand equation from a study site could be used with the socioeconomic or demographic characteristics such as income, average travel costs and quality conditions at the policy site to estimate the average willingness-to-pay of different proposed plans at the policy site. While this method is listed under non-market valuation methods, it can also be used to transfer market values. Table 3.1 is an extension of the de Groot et al. (2002) table and provides a list of ecosystem services, their value types, as well as the methods commonly used to calculate their dollar value. As can be seen, researchers use different methods to calculate values. Recreation, for example, is a direct use value and can be cal- culated as a market or non-market value. If you paid money to use an indoor climbing wall, the price paid is a market value. However, if you went to climb in a park that does not charge an entrance fee, this would be considered a non- market value. Non-market-valuation methods commonly used to calculate rec- reation values include the contingent-valuation method, travel-cost method, choice experiments, factor income, hedonic method, avoided costs, restoration costs and the benefit-transfer method. Science and education, on the other hand, are considered a market value and a direct use. Valuation methods commonly used for science and education include market valuation and benefit transfer (Hartwick and Olewiler, 1998; de Groot et al., 2002; Kahn, 2005). As can be seen, the valuation method used will depend on the type of service being studied. Many different methods can work for any given service, and the method of choice depends on the availability of the resources, time, data, specific characteristics and goals of the study. How ecosystem services have been measured in the past Ecosystem service studies are well represented in the literature, even if they were not always termed as such. One of the first and most thorough, original longitu- dinal ecosystem service studies that predated this discipline was a Rhone Poulenc farm management study conducted by Higgenbotham et al. (Higginbotham et al., 1997, 1999, 2000). In this seminal study that began in 1994 on 57 hectares in Essex, they compared organic farming to reduced input and conventional farming for a variety of crops. They not only estimated the values, costs and yields of the crops, but also measured food quality, the taste of the final goods,
Another Random Document on Scribd Without Any Related Topics
Wayteglede, == watch-the-fire, i. e. one who sits in the chimney corner, poking over the fire? Wright’s L. P. p. 47. Cf. the Norse phrase Kólbitr; and see the Introduction to Dasent’s Popular Tales from the Norse, pp. lxxx-lxxxii. 1st Edit. We. See Woe We. See I We. See With Weak, adj. HD. 1012 Weal, sb. 1277 B. Wealth, sb. Ps. lxxii. 12 Weapon, sb. HD. 1436. O. and N. 1367 Wear, v. a. RG. 390; pret, ‘werede.’ RG. 434 Weariness, sb. RG. 240 Weary, adj. RG. 19 Weather, sb. RG. 560 Web, sb. Fr. Sci. 315 Webbe, sb. == weaver. Pol. S. 188 Wed, sb. == pledge. Pol. S. 151. Wright’s L. P. p. 110. RG. 393. AS. wed Wed, v. a. == marry. RG. 295, 439; said of the priest who marries two persons. Pol. S. 159. AS. weddian, wed Wedbreak, sb. == adulterer. Ps. xlix. 18 Wedding, sb. St Lucy, 88. Manuel des Pecches, 1712 Wede, vb. == wade, go. See Wade
Wedlock, sb. Marg. 11 Wednesday. RG. 509 Wee. See Woe Weed, sb. == garment. RG. 560. AS. wǽd Weed, sb. == herb. Alys. 796. AS. weód Week, sb. RG. 113; pl. ‘wouke.’ RG. 387. AS. weoc Weeles. See Well, sb. Ween, v. n. == think. RG. 369. O. and N. 237. 2 s. pres. ‘wanst.’ O. and N. 1642. AS. wénan —— v. a. == impute. Ps. xxxi. 2 Weep, v. n. RG. 420; [wyppen]. O. and N. 1064 Weeping, sb. RG. 405. Wright’s L. P. p. 30; [wyping]. Ibid. p. 85 Wef, sb. == whiff or scent. Body and Soul, 56. AS. wiffan Weight, sb. == a measure, weight. Ps. lxi. 10. AS. wæg Weir, sb. Ps. cxiii. 8; [wore]. Wright’s L. P. p. 28. AS. wǽr Welaway, interj. 1179 B. Welcome, adj. RG. 508 —— v. a. 473 B. Welde. See Wield Welk, v. n. == fade, become pale. Ps. lxxxix. 6. See Weolewe Welkin, sb. == the sky. Wright’s L. P. p. 114; [walken]. Alys. 5799. Ps. cl. 1; dat. s. ‘weoluce.’ O. and N. 1680. AS. welcn, wolcen Well, adj. == good. 89 B.
—— adv. RG. 375. O. and N. 31 —— == rightly. Rel. S. i. 20 Well, sb. (of water). RG. 1. Wright’s L. P. p. 94; pl. ‘weeles.’ Ps. xvii. 5. AS. well, wyl Well, v. n. == boil, well up. Wright’s L. P. p. 40; [walle]. RG. 28; pret. ‘wal.’ Body and Soul, 218; part. ‘wallyng.’ Alys. 1622. AS. weallan —— v. a. == boil. Marg. 60 Wellnigh, adv. == almost. O. and N. 44 Wellquemand, part. == pleasing. Ps. xci. 15 Wellqueme, sb. == pleasure. Ps. lxxxviii. 18; cv. 4 Wellquemeness, sb. == pleasingness. Ps. cxl. 5 Wellset, v. a. Ps. civ. 9; cxi. 5 Wellsetting, sb. Ps. cxviii. 91 Welly, adv. == kindly. Ps. l. 20 Wem, sb. == a spot or scar. RG. 336. St Kath. 151. AS. wem, womm Wem, v. a. == to defile, corrupt. Ps. lxxxviii. 35; [wemmy]. RG. 206; part. ‘wemmed.’ Ps. xv. 10. AS. wemman Wemed, adj. ‘prout wemod’ == with a proud stomach. Fr. Sci. 285. ‘Wem’ is still used for ‘womb’ in the North of England. AS. wamb Wemless, adj. == spotless. Creed of St Athan. 6. Ps. xiv. 2 Wemmand, sb. == sinner. Ps. cxviii. 158 Wemmedness, sb. Ps. c. 3
Wemming, sb. RG. 336 Wemmy, v. a. == defile. See Wem, vb. Wench, sb. Cok. 139. Ps. lxvii. 26. AS. wencle. See Gloss. to Orm. s. v. wenchell Wend, v. n. == go. RG. 8. AS. wendan —— == turn (as in bed). Wright’s L. P. p. 28 —— v. a. == turn. HD. 2138; change. Wright’s L. P. p. 91 Wending, sb. == departure. Alys. 920 Wene, adj. == frequent, rife? Pol. S. 150. AS. wune, custom. Dut. wennen Weole, sb. == wealth. Pol. S. 156. AS. weola —— == happiness? Wright’s L. P. p. 44 Weolewe, v. n. == fade, become pale. Wright’s L. P. p. 50. AS. wealwian Wepmon, sb. == man. Pol. S. 153. O. and N. 1377. AS. wæpman Were. See Be Were, v. a. == defend. HD. 2298. Alys. 5836; [werye]. Alys. 3533. AS. werian. Germ. wehren Were, sb. == man, husband. O. and N. 1339. AS. wer Werewed, part. == worried, killed? HD. 1915 Werien, v. a. == curse. O. and N. 1172; [werre]. Manuel des Pecches, 1291; [warye]. Id. 1292. AS. werigan Werth, == throweth. See Warp
Weryying, sb. == protection. Wright’s L. P. p. 75. Ps. xxi. 20; [weryng]. Alys. 2798. AS. werian West. RG. 544 West, vb. == shows? Alys. 238. AS. wísian Westerness, sb. == the West country. K. Horn, 949 Westward, adv. RG. 20 Wet, sb. Fr. Sci. 136. AS. wæt —— v. a. Wright’s L. P. p. 31; pret. ‘watte.’ RG. 322; part. ‘wet.’ Wright’s L. P. p. 30 —— v. n. == become wet. Wright’s L. P. p. 36 —— adj. [wete]. Wright’s L. P. p. 85 Wete, v. n. == weep. Wright’s L. P. p. 84 Wether, sb. Ps. lxiv. 14. RG. 52. AS. weðer Weve, v. a. == make to go, cut off; part. ‘weved,’ ‘yweved.’ Alys. 3839, 3807 Weve, v. n. == go, move. RG. 64. Another form of ‘wawe,’ ‘wave,’ ‘wag’ Weved, sb. == altar. RG. 369, 419, 433. AS. weofod Weye, sb. == woe, q. v. Weȝe, v. a. == carry, O. and N. 1020. AS. wegan Whale, sb. [hwal]. HD. 755; [qual]. HD. 753. AS. hwæl Whalebone, sb. [whalles bone]. Wright’s L. P. p. 38 What, interr. pron. O. and N. 1438 —— rel. pron. O. and N. 1439
—— interj. O. and N. 1296 What—what, == some—some. RG. 402 Whate, adv. == quickly. Alys. 2639. AS. hwæt Whatkin, adj. == what kind of. Ps. lv. 10 Whatloker, adj. == much rather. RG. 429, 357. 1249 B. (?) AS. hwætlíc, comp. hwætlicor Wheat, sb. Alys. 5193. AS. hwǽte Wheel, sb. RG. 408. AS. hweol Whelp, sb. Ps. ciii. 21. AS. hwelp When, adv. [wanne]. RG. 367, 378; [hwenne]. Rel. S. iv. 1; [hwanne]. O. and N. 1416; [hwan]. O. and N. 1468; [whan]. 290 β; [wane]. O. and N. 521; [wone]. O. and N. 324 Whence, adv. gen. of ‘when;’ [whonene]. O. and N. 138; [wanene]. O. and N. 1298; [whannes]. 288 β; [whethen]. Ps. cxx. 1 Where, adv. [war]. RG. 40. O. and N. 526; [whar]. 1078 B. Whereby, adv. [warbi]. RG. 101 Wherefore, adv. 126 B. Whereof, adv. RG. 405 Wheresoever, adv. 1389 B. Wherethrough, adv. [war þoru]. RG. 432 Whereto, adv. 447 B. O. and N. 464 Whet, v. a. == sharpen; part. ‘y-whet.’ Alys. 6607. AS. hwettan Whethen, == whence, q. v.
Whether, adv. RG. 16; [whar]. 67 B; ‘whether—the’ == whether— or. O. and N. 1358, 1360 —— adj. RG. 408 Whey, sb. [wei]. O. and N. 1007. AS. wæg Which, rel. pron. RG. 472; [hwucche]. O. and N. 934; [wuch]. O. and N. 1376 —— == what. 974 B. RG. 454 While, sb. == time. O. and N. 1589 —— with the def. art. == whilst [þe wule]. RG. 377 Whilom, adv. == formerly (dat. pl. of while). Wright’s L. P. p. 87 Whine, v. n. [wonie]. O. and N. 973. AS. wánian. Dut. weynen Whining, sb. [wonyng]. O. and N. 311 Whistle, v. n. Alys. 5348, 5263. AS. hwistlian White, adj. RG. 2, 228; [with]. HD. 48 —— sb. == white of an egg. HD. 240 Whiten, v. a. Ps. l. 9 Whither, adv. 693 B. Whitherward, adv. 59 B. Who, rel. pron. [hoo]. RG. 40; [hwo]. O. and N. 1193 gen. ‘was.’ RG. 475 dat. and acc. ‘whom.’ RG. 10; ‘wham.’ 116 B.; ‘hwam.’ Rel. S. ii. 2; ‘hwan.’ O. and N. 1508 Who, == one, ‘as who seith’ == as one saith. RG. 328; ‘alle ho’ == every one. O. and N. 66
Whole, adj. == sound. RG. 377. 676 β Whore, sb. RG. 279 Whoredom, sb. RG. 241, 479 Whoreling, sb. Rel. S. vii. 29 Whoreson, sb. Alys. 880 Whoso, pron. Wright’s L. P. p. 26; [whose]. Ibid. p. 114 Why, interr. [wu]. RG. 307; [hwi]. O. and N. 1256; [wi]. O. and N. 1232 —— rel. adv. O. and N. 474; [whi]. 1573 B. Wick, adj. == wicked. RG. 208. From AS. wǽc, weak —— == bad, wretched; ‘wikke clothes.’ HD. 2458 Wicke, adj. ‘wicke tune,’ O. and N. 730, means probably ‘establishments.’ From the AS. wíc-tunas Wicked, adj. Wright’s L. P. pp. 24, 30; ‘a wicked weed’ == a wretched garment. Serm. 40 Wickedness, sb. Pol. S. 230 Wickehede, sb. == wickedness. Body and Soul, 43 Wicket, sb. K. Horn, 1106. Fr. guichet Wiclik, adv. == wickedly. Ps. xliii. 18 Wide, adj. RG. 410. Widow, sb. HD. 79. AS. wuduwe Wield, v. a. == govern, rule. 816 B.; [wolde]. RG. 147 Wife, sb. RG. 26, 380
Wigeling, sb. == an out-of-the-way place? Ps. cvi. 40. AS. wicelian, to stagger, to go out of the direct road Wight, sb. == a man. RG. 533. 470 β. AS. wiht Wight, adj. == active. HD. 9; [with]. HD. 1756; comp. ‘wyghtyore.’ Alys. 2396. Swed. vig —— adv. == immediately, quickly. Wright’s L. P. p. 44 Wighth, sb. == a space of time. Alys. 5362; a space. Ps. viii. 6. AS. wuht, wiht Wightness, sb. == valour, activity. Alys. 5001 Wike, sb. == dwelling. O. and N. 604. AS. wic Wike, sb. == office, duty. O. and N. 603; station. Alys. 4608. See Gl. to Orm. s. v. Wikenn Wike, v. n. == be weary. Wright’s L. P. p. 87. AS. wícan Wikness, sb. == wickedness. Ps. v. 5 Wil, adj. == wild, uncertain. HD. 1042 Wild, adj. == fierce. RG. 374, 510; ‘wild beasts.’ RG. 375 Wilderness, sb. == a desolate place. RG. 15 Wildfire, sb. RG. 410 Wile, sb. == trick, deceit. Ritson’s AS. viii. 180. AS. wile Wilful, adj. RG. 359; [willesful]. RG. 77 —— == voluntary. Ps. lxvii. 10 Wilfully, adv. == without a cause. Ps. xxxiv. 7; lxviii. 5 Will, sb. RG. 367 —— v. n. == wish. RG. 384; pret. ‘wolde.’ RG. 550
Will, v. aux. pres. 1 s. ‘wole.’ 39 B.; 2 s. ‘wolt.’ 40 B.; ‘wlt.’ O. and N. 499; 3 s. ‘wule.’ O. and N. 1360; ‘wile.’ O. and N. 1358; pret. 3 s. ‘wolde.’ 17 β; 2 s. ‘woldest.’ 35 B. ‘Will’ is constantly used with the infin. of the verb to form an imperative, as ‘nil þou niþe’ == strive not. Ps. xxxvi. 8, and cf. Ps. lxxiv. 5, 6 Willesful, == wilful, q. v. Willing, sb. Rel. Ant. ii. 212 Wilne, v. n. == wish. RG. 217. AS. wilnian —— v. a. == covet, desire. RG. 46; part. ‘y-wilned.’ RG. 309 Wimple, sb. Marg. 47. AS. winpel Win, v. a. == subdue, get possession of [i-winne]. RG. 519; recover, obtain. RG. 523, 549; pret. ‘wonne.’ RG. 384; ‘wonde.’ RG. 258; ‘wan.’ Alys. 5561. AS. winnan Wind, sb. RG. 367 Wind, v. a. == twist. pret. ‘wond.’ Pilate, 126. AS. windan Windmill, sb. RG. 547 Window, sb. Wright’s L. P. p. 91 Wine, sb. RG. 6, 542. AS. wín Wine, sb. == a friend. M. Ode, 111. AS. wine Wineyard, sb. == vineyard. Wright’s L. P. p. 41. AS. wín-geard Wing, sb. RG. 28 Winli, adj. == winsome. Ps. xxiii. 3. AS. wynlíc Winne, sb. == joy. Pol. S. 195. AS. wyn Winne, sb. == labour. O. and N. 670. AS. win
Winsome, adj. == lovely, delightful. Ps. lxxviii. 9. AS. wynsum —— v. n. == be propitious. Ps. cii. 3 Winter, sb. RG. 371, 539 Wipe, v. a. RG. 435. AS. wípian Wippen, v. n. == weep? O. and N. 1064 Wire, sb. [wyred]. Alys. 208. AS. wír Wirwed, part. == strangled. HD. 1921. Dut. wurghen Wisdom, sb. RG. 384 Wise, sb. == manner, ‘in no wise.’ 1212 B.; [wes]. O. and N. 748 Wise, adj. RG. 468, 506; sup. ‘wisest.’ RG. 266 Wisely, adv. RG. 550 Wisse, v. a. == direct. HD. 104. 1057 B. O. and N. 971. AS. wísian Wissing, sb. == advice. HD. 2902. AS. wissung Wit, sb. == knowledge, sense. RG. 457, 526; [i-wit]. O. and N. 772 Witch, sb. Wright’s L. P. p. 38. AS. wicca, a wizard —— v. n. == sing charms. Ps. lvii. 6 Witchcraft, sb. Body and Soul, 27 Witching, sb. == witchcraft. St Lucy, 122 Wite, v. a. == know. RG. 374; [y-wyte]. RG. 10; [iwite]. RG. 487; [wot]. 1625 B.; [wat]. O. and N. 1200; [wod]. Ib. 1188; 2 s. pres. ‘wost.’ O. and N. 717; pret. ‘wuste.’ RG. 374; ‘wiste.’ 208 B.; ‘west.’ Alys. 5834; part. ‘iwiste.’ 137 B. Wite, v. n. == think, or expect. 2 s. pres. ‘west.’ O. and N. 47; pret. ‘wiste.’ RG. 93
Wite, v. a. == defend. RG. 487; pret. ‘wuste.’ RG. 549; S. S. witen. See Gloss. to Laȝ. Wite, v. n. == go forth. Ps. lxxxix. 6; part. ‘wited.’ Ps. ix. 22; ‘witand.’ Ps. cxviii. 118. AS. wítan Wite, v. a. == blame. O. and N. 1354; accuse. Wright’s L. P. p. 39. AS. witian Witerlike, adv. == certainly. HD. 671. Ps. ii. 6 Witermon, sb. == a wise man. Wright’s L. P. p. 28 With, prep. == together with. 279 B.; [we]. RG. 457 —— == by means of. RG. 41 —— == against. O. and N. 62 —— == from. O. and N. 610. AS. wíð With, adj. == white, q. v. With, adj. for ‘wight,’ q. v. With, adj. == pleasant? Wright’s L. P. p. 45. AS. wéðe Withal, adv. RG. 28 Withclepe, v. a. == oppose. Alys. 1301 Withdraw, v. a. RG. 447 —— v. n. Ps. cxviii. 115; ‘withdraw of’ == withdraw from. RG. 497 Wither, adj. == hostile. Rel. S. i. 12; S. S. wiðer. See Gloss. to Laȝ. Withering, sb. == adversary. K. Horn, 154 Witherthreat, v. a. Ps. xxxiv. 19; lxxiii. 10 Witherwendand, part. == opposing. Ps. iii. 8
Witherwine, sb. == adversary. RG. 325. AS. wiðer-winna, from winnan, to strive Witherword, sb. == a hostile word. Ps. xc. 3 Withhold, v. a. == to hold with, or make to accompany. HD. 2356, 2362 —— == restrain. Alys. 2302 Within, adv. RG. 375, 549 Without, adv. RG. 549. 267 B.; [widh wute]. O. and N. 1593 —— prep. RG. 369; [witute]. O. and N. 183; [withouten]. 33 B. Withsay, v. a. RG. 369, 374 Withseek, v. a. == seek out. part. ‘wuthsoht.’ Rel. S. v. 54 Withsitten, v. a. == oppose. HD. 1683 Withstand, v. n. == oppose. 725 B. Withy, sb. == halter of withy. Alys. 4714. AS. wíðie Witless, adj. == mad. RG. 216; at a loss. Pilate, 242 Witness, sb. RG. 29 Witterli, adv. == certainly. Ps. cxix. 1. ON. víturlega Witty, adj. == clever. RG. 189; full of knowledge. O. and N. 1187. F. and P. 31 Witword, sb. == testimony. Ps. xxiv. 10. AS. wit-word Wive, v. n. == marry. RG. 35 —— v. a. part. ‘iwived.’ RG. 529 Wiving, sb. == marriage. RG. 294
Wlak, adj. == lukewarm. Fr. Sci. 290 AS. wlæc Wlate, v. a. == loathe. Ps. v. 7. AS. wlættian —— v. n. == feel disgust for. O. and N. 354 —— sb. == disgust. O. and N. 1504. AS. wlætte Wlatful, adj. == loathsome, abominable. Ps. lii. 2 Wlating, sb. == loathing, disgust. Ps lxxxvii. 9. AS. wlætung Wlite, v. n. == look. Wright’s L. P. p. 43. AS. wlítan —— sb. == countenance. O. and N. 439; Ps. xliv. 5. AS. wlíte Wlonk, adj. == fair, proud. Pol. S. 156. AS. wlanc Wluine, sb. == she wolf? HD. 573. Probably a metathesis of the ON. ulfinna, thus ulvin } vluin Wo, sb. RG. 172, 485; [wai]. O. and N. 120; [wee]. Pol. S. 152; [weye]. Alys. 3449; [wa]. Ritson’s AS. viii. 152. AS. wá Wo worth, i. e. woe be to, &c. Body and Soul, 7 Wobegone, adj. Body and Soul, 220 Wode, == went. See Go Woderove, sb. == the woodruff; the asterula odorata of botanists. Wright’s L. P. p. 43. In Wright’s Vocab. p. 140, ‘wuderove’ is given as the transl. of ‘hastula regia’ or ‘muge de bois’ Wodewale, sb. == woodpecker. Wright’s L. P. p. 26 —— == wild thyme? Alys. 6793. AS. wudufille. Palsgrave has ‘wodewale, a herbe’
Woht, sb. == sin. See Woȝ Wolc, sb. == some bird. Wright’s L. P. p. 26 Wold, sb. == power, governance. Alys. 6716 Woldeneyed, == wall-eyed. Alys. 5274. Probably from the ON. vagl i augum == festuca, pterygion. ‘En hinde, som trækker sig over öiet.’ B. Haldorson. Wole, adj. == evil. O. and N. 8; [wle]. O. and N. 35. AS. wól Wolf, sb. RG. 369 Wolfling, sb. Alys. 6272 Wollen, sb. == wollen garment. Fr. on Seven Sins, 16 Woman, sb. RG. 380; [wimman]. RG. 535. pl. ‘wymmen.’ Wright’s L. P. p. 33 Womanly, adj. RG. 457 Womb, sb. RG. 369. AS. wamb Wombed, adj. RG. 377; [wemod]. Fr. Sci. 286 Wombeling, sb. == womb. Alys. 5674 Won, sb. == hope. RG. 419; [iwon]. 1022, 1712, B.; [wunne]. Pol. S. 153 —— == opinion. HD. 1972. AS. wén. ON. von Won, sb. == plenty. RG. 2, 265; [iwon]. Rel. S. v. 76 —— == riches. Wright’s L. P. p. 24. Alys. 5658; [wane]. Ritson’s AS. viii. 50; SS. winne, wunnen Won, sb. == dwelling. Wright’s L. P. pp. 46, 51. AS. wunian Won. See Wan
Wonde, v. n. == fear, hesitate. K. Horn, 345. AS. wandian Wonde, v. n. == cease. Wright’s L. P. p. 29. AS. wendan Wonde, v. n. == wound? Alys. 6525 Wonde, adj. == wicked. Rel. S. v. 112. ON. vondr. AS. wonn Wonder, sb. RG. 376 —— == a wonderful thing. RG. 7, 417 —— v. n. O. and N. 228 —— adj. == wonderful. RG. 416 Wonderful, adj. RG. 414 Wondering, sb. Wright’s L. P. p. 40 Wonderliche, adv. == wonderfully. RG. 489 Wondred, == sorrow. See Wandreth Wone. See When Wone, sb. == want. See Wane, sb. Wone, sb. == opinion. HD. 1711. AS. wénan Wone, adj. == wont. HD. 2297; [i-wune]. O. and N. 1318; [y- woned]. RG. 377 —— sb. == custom. RG. 392. AS. wune Wong, sb. == cheek. Wright’s L. P. pp. 28, 30, 31. AS. wang Wong, sb. == field, plain. HD. 397, 1444. AS. wang Wonie, == whine, q. v. Woning, sb. == a dwelling. RG. 275; [wonyghing]. Alys. 5930
Woningstede, sb. Ps. lxxxvi. 7. Ritson’s AS. viii. 53, 200 Wonne, v. n. == dwell. RG. 41. AS. wunian Wonying, == whining, q. v. Woo, v. a. [woȝe]. K. Horn, 558; [wowe]. Wright’s L. P. p. 44. AS. wógan Wood, sb. RG. 374, 565. AS. wudu Wood, adj. == mad. RG. 496. AS. wód Woodward, sb. == the keeper of the wood. Pol. S. 149 Wooing, sb. Wright’s L. P. p. 28 Wool, sb. RG. 2 Woolmonger, sb. RG. 539 Woolpack, sb. RG. 539 Wop, sb. == weeping. RG. 476 Word, sb. RG. 377, 501 —— == tidings. RG. 153 Woren, v. a. == trouble, disturb. Wright’s L. P. p. 24. AS. worian Worewed, part. == worried. See Worry Wori, adj. == troubled (of water). 255, 274 β Work, sb. RG. 448 —— v. a. == cause. Wright’s L. P. p. 42, make, fashion; part ‘ywroȝte.’ RG. 447, ‘ywort.’ RG. 174 —— v. n. == do work. 186 B. Wright’s L. P. p. 60; pret. ‘wraht.’ Ibid. p. 42, ‘wroȝte.’ RG. 287
Workman, sb. St Swithin, 55 World, sb. KG. 367 Worldly, adj. Fragm. on Seven Sins, 16 Worly, adj. == excellent, beautiful. Wright’s L. P. pp. 39, 45; [wurhliche]. Ibid. p. 51. AS. wurðlic Worm, sb. RG. 490 Worry, v. a. 1598 B.; part. ‘worewed.’ HD. 1915. AS. wérian Worse, adj. RG. 374, 501 Worship, sb. [wurthsipe]. O. and N. 1097, 1342 Worshipful, adj. Ps. lxxi. 14 Worst, adj. Wright’s L. P. p. 99 Worst. See Worthe Wort, sb. == a root. RG. 341. AS. wyrt Worth, sb. == value. RG. 373 —— adj. == worthy of, ‘what hii were wurth.’ RG. 374 Worth, adv. = forth. RG. 457 Worthe, v. n. == be, become. [iworthe]. 947 B. 2 s. pres. ‘worst.’ 1812; 3 s. pres. ‘worth.’ RG. 512; 1 pl. ‘wortheth.’ RG. 454; 3 s. imper. (in the phrase ‘wo worth.’) Body and Soul, 7; part. ‘iworthe.’ O. and N. 660. AS. weorðan Worthful, adj. O. and N. 1479 Worthing, sb. == glory, honour. Fragm. in Warton, H. E. P. vol. i. p. 22. AS. weorðung Worthship, sb. == worship, q. v.
Worthy, adj. == excellent. 412 B. —— == powerful. Ps. xlix. 3 Wot, == know. See Wite Wote ? RG. 361 Wou, See Woȝ Would, sb. See Will Wound, sb. RG. 49. Wright’s L. P. pp. 85, 84 —— v. a. part, ‘ywonded.’ RG. 49 Wow, See Woȝ Wowe, sb. == wall. HD. 1963. K. Horn, 1000. AS. wáh Wowe, v. n. == to woo, q. v. Woȝ, sb. == wrong. O. and N. 164. RG. 39; [wou]. RG. 375, 550; [wow]. RG. 379; [woht]. Rel. S. ii. 16. AS. wóh Wrake, sb. == evil, destruction. O. and N. 1192. AS. wræc Wrakeful, adj. == wicked. Wright’s L. P. p. 23. AS. wræcfull Wrath, sb. 451 B. AS. wráð —— v. n. == be angry. Ps. iv. 5 —— v. a. == make angry. RG. 376, 253 Wrathless, adj. Wright’s L. P. p. 42 Wray, v. a. == betray. 1226 B; [wrye]. Alys. 442. AS. wreian Wrayli, v. n. == chatter, rail, abuse. St Swithin, 70. Dut. rallen. Swed. ralla Wreche, sb. == vengeance. RG. 380, 419. AS. wræc
Wreche, == misery. RG. 252. But we should probably read ‘wrechede’ Wreier, sb. == betrayer, spoiler. HD. 39 Wreke, v. a. == avenge. HD. 1363. AS. wræccan Wreker, sb. == avenger. Ps. viii. 3 Wren, sb. O. and N. 564. AS. wrenna Wrench, sb. == trick. RG. 570, 535. AS. wrence Wreon, v. a. == cover. Alys. 1606; 3 s. pres. ‘wrieth.’ Alys. 1992; part. ‘ywrye.’ RG. 56, 92. AS. wreon, wríhan Wrestle, v. n. RG. 22, 361. Alys. 1046. AS. wræstlian Wrestling, sb. O. and N. 793. Alys. 1046 Wretch, sb. 524 β AS. wræcca —— adj. == wretched. 449 B. Wretched, adj. comp. ‘wretcheder.’ 2432 B. Wretchede, sb. == wretchedness. RG. 386, 511 Wretchedly, adv. RG. 446 Wrethen—writhen, part. == twisted. Alys. 5723 Wrey, v. a. == accuse. Pol. S. 198, 199; part. ‘wreynt.’ Pol. S. 157. AS. wrégan Wrie, v. n. == move away. Wright’s L. P. p. 48. AS. wrigan, whence our ‘wriggle’ Wrieth, == covereth. See Wreon Wrikke, v. n. == wriggle. St Dunstan, 82; ‘wrikkend’ == walking, going. Rel. Ant. ii. p. 216. AS. wrigan
Wring, v. a. (one’s hands). Body and Soul, 174; (clothes). HD. 1233 —— == keep tight hold of. Sermon, 20 —— == twist; part. ‘wrong.’ Alys. 6447 —— == press down, overcome; pret. ‘wrong.’ Marg. 47. AS. wringan Wringer, sb. Sermon, 21 Writ, sb. HD. 136 —— == Scripture. Wright’s L. P. p. 101 —— == letter. Alys. 4502 Write, v. a. pret. ‘wrot.’ 164 B.; part. ‘iwrite.’ 1425 B. Writeling, sb. == trills in a song? O. and N. 48, 912. From AS. wriðan == to writhe or twist Writhe, v. n. == bend easily. Body and Soul, 116. AS. wríðan Wro, sb. == hole or corner. HD. 68. Su. Goth. wra. Dan. vraa Wronehede. Probably a mistake for ‘wronghede’ == wickedness. O. and N. 1398 Wrong, adj. == mistaken. Wright’s L. P. p. 31. ON. rángr. AS. wringan Wrong, sb. == injustice, oppression. Wright’s L. P. p. 68. 1616 B. —— adv. == badly. O. and N. 196 Wrong, part. == twisted. See Wring Wrongwis, adj. == wicked. Ritson’s AS. viii. 177; [wrancwise]. Moral Ode, 129 Wrot, sb. == snout. Rel. Ant. ii. 211. AS. wrót Wroten, v. n. == to root. Earth, st. 3. AS. wrót
Wroth, adj. == angry. RG. 31; timid. Alys. 544. AS. wráð —— == poor, base. Wright’s L. P. p. 38 —— sb. == evil, unkindness. RG. 31 Wrotherhele, sb. [wrothe hele] == injury, destruction. RG. 143, 164. Body and Soul, 225. See Gloss. Rem. to Laȝamon, iii. 444 Wrought. See Work, vb. Wrying, sb. == treachery. Alys. 3514 Wune, sb. == custom. O. and N. 272. AS. wune Wunne, adj. == accustomed? Wright’s L. P. p. 46 Wunne, sb. == joy. Wright’s L. P. p. 47. AS. wyn —— == hope. See Won Wyred, == wire, q. v. Wyt, sb. == calamity, blame. Body and Soul, 62. AS. wíte
Y. Y, == in. Pol. S. 151 Yard, sb. == rod. RG. 22; [ȝurd]. 2385 B. —— == staff or sceptre. Ps. xliv. 7. AS. gyrd Yard, sb. == courtyard. HD. 702. AS. geard Yare, adj. == ready. RG. 396; [ȝarte]. O. and N. 1220. AS. gearo —— v. a. == make ready. HD. 1350 Yare, adv. == of yore. 1512 B. AS. geara Yate, v. a. == tell. Ritson’s AS. viii. 80. ON. géta Yawn, v. n. [ȝonie]. O. and N. 292; [yene]. Body and Soul, 202. Alys. 485. AS. ganian Ybrad. See Braid Ycholle, == I shall. RG. 405 Ycoled, part. == helmeted, armed. Alys. 2686. AS. col, a helmet Ydle. See Isle Ydought. See Dow Yea. 36 B.; [ya]. Alys. 3571 Year, sb. RG. 373. AS. gear Yearn, v. a. Wright’s L. P. p. 43; [eorne]. O. and N. 1202 —— v. n. Wright’s L. P. p. 63. AS. geornian
Yearning, sb. Wright’s L. P. p. 72 Yell, v. n. [ȝulle]. 498 β; 2 s. pres. ‘ȝollest.’ O. and N. 223; pret. ‘ȝal.’ 502 β. AS. geallian Yelling, sb. [ȝullinge]. 487 β. O. and N. 1641 Yellowman, sb. [ȝeolumon], Pol. S. 158 Yelp, v. n. == speak. Alys. 1065. AS. gilpan —— == boast [ȝulpe], O. and N. 1650; part. ‘y-yolpe.’ Alys. 3368 Yelping [ȝulping], sb. == boasting. RG. 209, 210 Yeme, Yheme, Yheming. See ȝeme Yene, sb. == yawn, q. v. Yepe, adj. == ready. Alys. 1193. See ȝep Yering, sb. == yearning, desire. Ritson’s AS. viii. 79 Yesterday. Ps. lxxxix. 4 Yet, adv. [ȝut]. RG. 372; [ȝot]. O. and N. 1695 Yfere, sb. == companions. Alys. 6906. AS. ge-fera Yhaht. See Hatch Yhatered, part. == clothed. Alys. 5922. See Hattren Yhete, v. a. == cast, pour out. Ps. lxviii. 25; pret. ‘yhet.’ Ps. xli. 5; pl. ‘yhotten.’ Ps. lxxviii. 3; part. ‘yotten.’ Ps. lxxiii. 21. AS. geotan. See ‘ȝete’ Yhoten, sb. == giant, Ps. xviii. 7. AS. eóten Yield, v. a. == give up. Alys. 3176; pret. ‘yolde.’ RG. 387; part. ‘y- yolde.’ RG. 449; ‘iȝulde.’ 612 B. AS. geldan —— == repay. Alys. 132
—— v. n. == turn out. K. Horn, 495 Ylef, vb. == believe thou. RG. 265 Ylome, == frequently. See Ilome Ylong, adv. == belonging to, proper to. Wright’s L. P. pp. 61, 74. AS. gelang Ymette, adj. == moderate? Wright’s L. P. p. 35. AS. gemet Ymone, adv. == together, in concert. 380 β AS. gemana Ympne. See Hymn Ynele, == I ne will—I will not. RG. 314 Ynote, part. == noted, known. Alys. 59 Yoke, sb. RG. 453. AS. geoc —— v. a. part. ‘y-yoked.’ Rel. Ant. ii. 211 Yolk, sb. Fr. Sci. 240. AS. geolca Yond, adv. [ȝund] == yonder. 1 β. AS. geond Yond, adj. == farther, as the ‘yond half,’ or farther side. Ritson’s AS. viii. 200. 713 β Yornandlike, adj. == desirable. Ps. xviii. 11 Young, adj. RG. 377; comp. ‘younger.’ RG. 423; sup. ‘youngest.’ RG. 381. AS. geong Younghede, sb. [ȝonghede] == youth. Legend of St Cuthbert, in Warton, H. E. P. vol. i. p. 15, n. Younglike, adj. Ps. cxviii. 141 Youngling, sb. Alys. 2366 Your, adj. RG. 455; [ower]. RG. 500; [or]. Wright’s L. P. p. 32
Youth, sb. Body and Soul, 111; [ȝeuȝede]. Moral Ode, st. 178. AS. geogoð Youthhede, sb. Ps. xlii. 4 Yox, v. n. == sob. 1570 B. AS. geocsa Yoxing, sb. == hiccuping. RG. 34 Ypotanos. See Hippopotamus Yraȝte, vb. == procreated? O. and N. 106 Yse, sb. == iron. Alys. 5149. AS. ísen. Germ. eisen Ysome, adv. == together. RG. 3, 83. AS. gesome Ysteot, part. == fastened. Alys. 2768 Yswerred, adj. == having necks. Alys. 6264. AS. sweora Yswowe, part. == in a swoon. Alys. 2262. See Swoon Ythe, adv. == easily. K. Horn, 61. AS. eáðe Ythen, part. == flourishing, prosperous. See The, vb. Ytolde, part. == pitched (of a tent). Alys. 5901. See Teld Yvortrou, adj. == mistrustful. RG. 342 Ywrye. See Wreon
Ȝ. Ȝarewe, adj. == ready. O. and N. 378. AS. gearo Ȝark, v. a. == make ready. RG. 391, 399. Alys. 1411. AS. gearcian Ȝarte. See Yare Ȝavre, == ever, or perhaps ‘of yore.’ O. and N. 1178 Ȝef. See If Ȝeines. Rel. S. i. 16. Probably instead of ‘tharto ȝeines’ we should read ‘thar toȝeines’ == there against, i.e. against death. AS. to- geánes Ȝeme, sb. == care. RG. 135. AS. gýman —— v. a. == care for, take care of. HD. 131 Ȝeming, sb. == care. Ps. cxl. 3 Ȝende, sb. == end. RG. 169 Ȝene ? O. and N. 843 Ȝeode, vb. == went. See Go Ȝep, adj. == active. Wright’s L. P. p. 39; bold. O. and N. 465. AS. gæp Ȝephede, sb. == boldness. O. and N. 683 Ȝerne, adv. == earnestly. RG. 487. AS. georne Ȝete, v. a. == cast. Body and Soul, 189. See yhete Ȝeuȝede, sb. == youth, q. v.
Ȝeve, == give, q. v. Ȝeynchar, sb. == repentance. Wright’s L. P. p. 46. See App. to Mapes’s Poems, p. 343. AS. cerran with ‘gen’ Ȝeȝe, v. n. == jog along, go. Wright’s L. P. p. 111 —— v. a. == jog. Pol. S. 158 Ȝif. See If Ȝiverness, sb. == avarice. Rel. S. vii. 11. AS. gífer Ȝoe, == she. See under He Ȝoe, == joy, q. v. Ȝokkyn, sb. == joking? Wright’s L. P. p. 50 Ȝomere, adj. == sorrowful. O. and N. 415. AS. geomor Ȝonie, == yawn, q. v. Ȝoȝelinge, sb. == chattering, gabbling. O. and N. 40. Probably the same as the later ‘gaggle,’ which is used of a confused noise of people talking, in the Poem on the Deposition of Richard II. p. 18, and of geese, in Churchyard’s Pleasant Conceit penned in Verse (1593), cited in the pref. to Nash’s Pierce Penniless. (Shaksp. Soc.’s ed.), p. xviii. Ȝraihand. See Thraying Ȝuling. See Yelling Ȝulle. See Yell Ȝulpe. See Yelp Ȝulping. See Yelping
Ecosystem Services In Agricultural And Urban Landscapes Wratten Stephen Etal
ADDENDA. Baru, add AS. bearh Bert, v. n. == crepitum ventris edere. Rel. Ant. ii. p. 211 Bidde, v. n. == need, ought. HD. 1733. Another form of ‘bud.’ Dan. bör. Compare Chaucer’s ‘bode.’ Rom. Rose, 790 Birde, sb. For HD. 2760, read Wright’s L. P. pp. 25, 30 Birde, vb. pret. == it behoved. HD. 2760. ON. byrjar. Dan. bör Brol ? Rel. Ant. ii. 192 By, v. a. == to defame. Manuel des Pecches, 1355. ON. bía, maculare Ferblet. Possibly ‘suffused with blood,’ ‘sanguine.’ Cf. ‘forbled,’ in the Anturs of Arthur at Tarne Wathelan, st. 51 Graueth. Probably for ‘graveth,’ or ‘geraveth,’ from AS. reáf, clothing JOHN CHILDS AND SON, PRINTERS.
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com

More Related Content

PDF
Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services Marion Potschin (Editor)
dhlnwjmvhw1695
 
PDF
Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services Marion Potschin (Editor)
nevsagolisjq
 
PDF
Urban Agriculture Diverse Activities And Benefits For City Society Craig Pearson
aihqkiclgx055
 
PDF
Routledge Handbook of Agricultural Biodiversity First Edition Danny Hunter
aylahccjtdce
 
PDF
Routledge Handbook of Agricultural Biodiversity First Edition Danny Hunter
uvyslcsz9607
 
PDF
Essentials of Ecology 3rd Edition Colin R. Townsend
ajoulianmed
 
PDF
Kaphengst 13 agriculture as provisioning ecosystem service_0
Michael Newbold
 
PDF
Principles of Sustainable Aquaculture: Promoting Social, Economic and Environ...
lersqkfzk308
 
Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services Marion Potschin (Editor)
dhlnwjmvhw1695
 
Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services Marion Potschin (Editor)
nevsagolisjq
 
Urban Agriculture Diverse Activities And Benefits For City Society Craig Pearson
aihqkiclgx055
 
Routledge Handbook of Agricultural Biodiversity First Edition Danny Hunter
aylahccjtdce
 
Routledge Handbook of Agricultural Biodiversity First Edition Danny Hunter
uvyslcsz9607
 
Essentials of Ecology 3rd Edition Colin R. Townsend
ajoulianmed
 
Kaphengst 13 agriculture as provisioning ecosystem service_0
Michael Newbold
 
Principles of Sustainable Aquaculture: Promoting Social, Economic and Environ...
lersqkfzk308
 

Similar to Ecosystem Services In Agricultural And Urban Landscapes Wratten Stephen Etal (20)

PDF
Principles of Sustainable Aquaculture: Promoting Social, Economic and Environ...
imtazharlebu
 
PDF
Ecosystem Services Of Headwater Catchments 1st Edition Josef Keek
sabalotrenka64
 
PDF
The Agrienvironment Warren J Lawson C Belcher K
boetytomine
 
PDF
Metabolic Ecology A Scaling Approach 1st Edition Richard M Sibly
prmltqes623
 
PPTX
The Nature of Change: Megan Tierney & Andrew Church
Sussex Wildlife Trust
 
PDF
Transition Pathways Towards Sustainability In Agriculture Case Studies From E...
miblmpbbci866
 
PDF
Download full ebook of Cities And Agriculture Henk De Zeeuw instant download pdf
beiderzippo
 
PDF
Ecosystem Services 1st Edition R M Harrison R E Hester Erik Gomez Baggethun
taykalxvish
 
PDF
Sustainability Assessment of Renewables Based Products Methods and Case Studi...
mxewjgna196
 
DOCX
NATURE VOL 387 15 MAY 1997 253articlesThe value of.docx
hallettfaustina
 
PDF
The Precision Farming Revolution: Global Drivers of Local Agricultural Method...
khanzadevcic
 
PDF
Soil Biological Communities and Ecosystem Resilience 1st Edition Martin Lukac
gamervickyr1
 
PDF
Biodiversity Ecosystem Functioning And Human Wellbeing An Ecological And Econ...
hiderbediga
 
PDF
Vegetation Ecology Second Edition Eddy Van Der Maarel Janet Franklin
djaedishipyu
 
PDF
Freshwater Microbiology Biodiversity And Dynamic Interactions Of Microorganis...
alelpkdxoc8053
 
PDF
Ecosystem_Services_Primer-edited
Jay Drummond, jr
 
PDF
People And Environment A Global Approach Gareth Jones
asadurashad
 
PDF
Handbook Of Sustainability For The Food Sciences Ruben O Morawickiauth
hgnsqvrvo4168
 
PDF
Biodiversity And Health In The Face Of Climate Change 1st Ed Melissa R Marselle
kaziorxwq
 
PDF
Indicators and Surrogates of Biodiversity and Environmental Change 1st Editio...
oqxolpn003
 
Principles of Sustainable Aquaculture: Promoting Social, Economic and Environ...
imtazharlebu
 
Ecosystem Services Of Headwater Catchments 1st Edition Josef Keek
sabalotrenka64
 
The Agrienvironment Warren J Lawson C Belcher K
boetytomine
 
Metabolic Ecology A Scaling Approach 1st Edition Richard M Sibly
prmltqes623
 
The Nature of Change: Megan Tierney & Andrew Church
Sussex Wildlife Trust
 
Transition Pathways Towards Sustainability In Agriculture Case Studies From E...
miblmpbbci866
 
Download full ebook of Cities And Agriculture Henk De Zeeuw instant download pdf
beiderzippo
 
Ecosystem Services 1st Edition R M Harrison R E Hester Erik Gomez Baggethun
taykalxvish
 
Sustainability Assessment of Renewables Based Products Methods and Case Studi...
mxewjgna196
 
NATURE VOL 387 15 MAY 1997 253articlesThe value of.docx
hallettfaustina
 
The Precision Farming Revolution: Global Drivers of Local Agricultural Method...
khanzadevcic
 
Soil Biological Communities and Ecosystem Resilience 1st Edition Martin Lukac
gamervickyr1
 
Biodiversity Ecosystem Functioning And Human Wellbeing An Ecological And Econ...
hiderbediga
 
Vegetation Ecology Second Edition Eddy Van Der Maarel Janet Franklin
djaedishipyu
 
Freshwater Microbiology Biodiversity And Dynamic Interactions Of Microorganis...
alelpkdxoc8053
 
Ecosystem_Services_Primer-edited
Jay Drummond, jr
 
People And Environment A Global Approach Gareth Jones
asadurashad
 
Handbook Of Sustainability For The Food Sciences Ruben O Morawickiauth
hgnsqvrvo4168
 
Biodiversity And Health In The Face Of Climate Change 1st Ed Melissa R Marselle
kaziorxwq
 
Indicators and Surrogates of Biodiversity and Environmental Change 1st Editio...
oqxolpn003
 
Ad

Recently uploaded (20)

PDF
Literature_Review_methods_ BRACU_MKT426 course material
mokoto4834
 
PDF
semiconductor packaging in vlsi design fab
KarpoorasundariK
 
PDF
Compact First Student's Book Cambridge Official
TunHng48
 
PDF
Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery at WLH Hospital
mohitsuren827
 
PDF
Fun with Grammar (Communicative Activities for the Azar Grammar Series)
JohanaWulandari2
 
PDF
LIFE & LIVING TRILOGY - PART (3) REALITY & MYSTERY.pdf
sureshkumarsoni26
 
PDF
Farming Based Livelihood Systems English Notes
Akhil Agriculture
 
PDF
CRP102_SAGALASSOS_Final_Projects_2025.pdf
City and Regional Planning, METU
 
PPTX
ELIAS-SEZIURE AND EPilepsy semmioan session.pptx
eyoba2172
 
PDF
MA in English at Shiv Nadar University – Advanced Literature, Language & Rese...
Shiv Nadar Institution of Eminence (IoE)
 
PDF
English-bài kiểm tra tiếng anh cơ bản.pdf
HunhTnNht1
 
PDF
M.Tech in Aerospace Engineering | BIT Mesra
BIT Mesra
 
PDF
MBA _Common_ 2nd year Syllabus _2021-22_.pdf
DrAnubha4
 
PDF
Civil Department's presentation Your score increases as you pick a category
OperaVill
 
PDF
Nurlina - Urban Planner Portfolio (english ver)
Nurlina Y.
 
PPTX
What’s under the hood: Parsing standardized learning content for AI
Rustici Software
 
PPTX
Climate Change and Its Global Impact.pptx
vaishalidobhal148
 
PDF
0520_Scheme_of_Work_(for_examination_from_2021).pdf
SankariNandakumar
 
PPTX
UNIT_2-__LIPIDS[1].pptx.................
Akanksha Kotangale
 
PDF
Everyday Spelling and Grammar by Kathi Wyldeck
JohanaWulandari2
 
Literature_Review_methods_ BRACU_MKT426 course material
mokoto4834
 
semiconductor packaging in vlsi design fab
KarpoorasundariK
 
Compact First Student's Book Cambridge Official
TunHng48
 
Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery at WLH Hospital
mohitsuren827
 
Fun with Grammar (Communicative Activities for the Azar Grammar Series)
JohanaWulandari2
 
LIFE & LIVING TRILOGY - PART (3) REALITY & MYSTERY.pdf
sureshkumarsoni26
 
Farming Based Livelihood Systems English Notes
Akhil Agriculture
 
CRP102_SAGALASSOS_Final_Projects_2025.pdf
City and Regional Planning, METU
 
ELIAS-SEZIURE AND EPilepsy semmioan session.pptx
eyoba2172
 
MA in English at Shiv Nadar University – Advanced Literature, Language & Rese...
Shiv Nadar Institution of Eminence (IoE)
 
English-bài kiểm tra tiếng anh cơ bản.pdf
HunhTnNht1
 
M.Tech in Aerospace Engineering | BIT Mesra
BIT Mesra
 
MBA _Common_ 2nd year Syllabus _2021-22_.pdf
DrAnubha4
 
Civil Department's presentation Your score increases as you pick a category
OperaVill
 
Nurlina - Urban Planner Portfolio (english ver)
Nurlina Y.
 
What’s under the hood: Parsing standardized learning content for AI
Rustici Software
 
Climate Change and Its Global Impact.pptx
vaishalidobhal148
 
0520_Scheme_of_Work_(for_examination_from_2021).pdf
SankariNandakumar
 
UNIT_2-__LIPIDS[1].pptx.................
Akanksha Kotangale
 
Everyday Spelling and Grammar by Kathi Wyldeck
JohanaWulandari2
 
Ad

Ecosystem Services In Agricultural And Urban Landscapes Wratten Stephen Etal

  • 1. Ecosystem Services In Agricultural And Urban Landscapes Wratten Stephen Etal download https://ebookbell.com/product/ecosystem-services-in-agricultural- and-urban-landscapes-wratten-stephen-etal-4303450 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
  • 2. Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. Regional Assessment Of Climate Change In The Mediterranean Volume 2 Agriculture Forests And Ecosystem Services And People 1st Edition Monia Santini https://ebookbell.com/product/regional-assessment-of-climate-change- in-the-mediterranean-volume-2-agriculture-forests-and-ecosystem- services-and-people-1st-edition-monia-santini-4406900 Tropical Forest Ecosystem Services In Improving Livelihoods For Local Communities 1st Edition Zaiton Samdin Editor https://ebookbell.com/product/tropical-forest-ecosystem-services-in- improving-livelihoods-for-local-communities-1st-edition-zaiton-samdin- editor-48844074 Sustaining Biodiversity And Ecosystem Services In Soils And Sediments Scientific Committee On Problems Of The Environment Scope Series 1st Edition Diana H Wall https://ebookbell.com/product/sustaining-biodiversity-and-ecosystem- services-in-soils-and-sediments-scientific-committee-on-problems-of- the-environment-scope-series-1st-edition-diana-h-wall-2178724 A Catalogue Of Ecosystem Services In Slovakia Benefits To Society 1st Ed Peter Mederly https://ebookbell.com/product/a-catalogue-of-ecosystem-services-in- slovakia-benefits-to-society-1st-ed-peter-mederly-22505222
  • 3. Payment Schemes For Forest Ecosystem Services In China Policy Practices And Performance Dan Liang https://ebookbell.com/product/payment-schemes-for-forest-ecosystem- services-in-china-policy-practices-and-performance-dan-liang-4668764 Estuaries A Lifeline Of Ecosystem Services In The Western Indian Ocean 1st Edition Salif Diop https://ebookbell.com/product/estuaries-a-lifeline-of-ecosystem- services-in-the-western-indian-ocean-1st-edition-salif-diop-5482790 Planning For Ecosystem Services In Cities 1st Ed 2020 Davide Geneletti https://ebookbell.com/product/planning-for-ecosystem-services-in- cities-1st-ed-2020-davide-geneletti-10797130 Role Of Ecosystem Services In Sustainable Food Systems Rusinamhodzi https://ebookbell.com/product/role-of-ecosystem-services-in- sustainable-food-systems-rusinamhodzi-10818914 Recommendations On Payments For Ecosystem Services In Integrated Water Resources Management Illustrated Edition United Nations https://ebookbell.com/product/recommendations-on-payments-for- ecosystem-services-in-integrated-water-resources-management- illustrated-edition-united-nations-1945760
  • 5. Ecosystem Services in Agricultural and Urban Landscapes
  • 6. Ecosystem Services in Agricultural and Urban Landscapes Edited by Steve Wratten Bio-Protection Research Centre Lincoln University, New Zealand Harpinder Sandhu School of the Environment Flinders University, Australia Ross Cullen Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance Lincoln University, New Zealand Robert Costanza Crawford School of Public Policy Australian National University, Australia A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication
  • 7. This edition first published 2013 © 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Chapter 10 is copyright of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons, in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing program has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell. Registered Office John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK Editorial Offices 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774, USA For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell. The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author(s) have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ecosystem services in agricultural and urban landscapes / edited by Steve Wratten, Harpinder Sandhu, Ross Cullen, and Robert Costanza. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4051-7008-6 (cloth) 1. Ecosystem services. 2. Ecosystem management. 3. Ecology–Economic aspects. I. Wratten, Stephen D., editor of compilation. II. Sandhu, Harpinder, editor of compilation. III. Cullen, Ross, 1948– editor of compilation. IV . Costanza, Robert, editor of compilation. QH541.15.E267E28 2012 333.72–dc23 2012033656 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Main Cover image A baby spinach field in Dome Valley, Arizona. Courtesy of John C. Palumbo. Inset images courtesy of Morguefile/Darren Hester, Clarita and Fractl. Cover design by Steve Thompson Set in 10.5/12pt Classical Garamond BT by SPi Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India 1 2012
  • 8. Contents Contributors xi Reviewers xiv Foreword xv Introduction xvi Steve Wratten, Harpinder Sandhu, Ross Cullen and Robert Costanza Part A: Scene Setting 1 1 Ecosystem Services in Farmland and Cities 3 Harpinder Sandhu and Steve Wratten Abstract 3 Introduction 4 What are ecosystem services? 4 Ecosystem functions, goods and services 5 The ES framework 6 Engineered systems 7 Agricultural systems 7 Urban systems 10 ES and their interactions in engineered systems 11 2 Ecological Processes, Functions and Ecosystem Services: Inextricable Linkages between Wetlands and Agricultural Systems 16 Onil Banerjee, Neville D. Crossman and Rudolf S. de Groot Abstract 16 Introduction 17
  • 9. vi Contents Linking ecosystem function with ecosystem service 18 Wetlands 19 Wetland functions 20 Wetland–agricultural systems interactions 22 Some research challenges 24 Understanding complexity and resilience 24 Trade-offs 25 3 Key Ideas and Concepts from Economics for Understanding the Roles and Value of Ecosystem Services 28 Pamela Kaval and Ramesh Baskaran Abstract 28 How can ecosystem services be valued? 28 Ecosystem service valuation methodologies 31 Revealed preference methods 32 Stated preference methods 32 Other methods 33 How ecosystem services have been measured in the past 34 Ecosystem service valuation study recommendations 37 Conclusions 39 Part B: Ecosystem Services in Three Settings 43 4 Viticulture can be Modified to Provide Multiple Ecosystem Services 45 Sofia Orre-Gordon, Marco Jacometti, Jean Tompkins and Steve Wratten Abstract 45 Introduction 45 Enhancing CBC in vineyards 46 Leafrollers and Botrytis cinerea in the vineyards 48 Habitat modification to enhance naturally occurring pest control 48 Floral resource supplementation as a form of habitat modification 48 Mulch application as a form of habitat modification 49 Combining two forms of habitat modification 51 The deployment of herbivore-induced plant volatiles as a form of habitat modification 51 Habitat modification may provide further ecosystem services 52 The future 55
  • 10. Contents vii 5 Aquaculture and Ecosystem Services: Reframing the Environmental and Social Debate 58 Corinne Baulcomb Abstract 58 Introduction 58 Aquaculture and the environment 59 A typology of aquaculture operations and the link to ecosystem services 60 Inland production systems 64 Overview 64 Case study 1: hypothetical integrated agriculture–aquaculture carp polyculture 65 Case study 2: hypothetical inland marine shrimp cultivation 68 Marine and coastal-based production systems 71 Overview 71 Case study 3: hypothetic nearshore, intensive and raft-based shellfish cultivation 72 Case study 4: hypothetical ‘best-case’ offshore aquaculture cultivation 75 The value of a complementary life-cycle approach 75 Conclusion 77 6 Urban Landscapes and Ecosystem Services 83 Jürgen Breuste, Dagmar Haase and Thomas Elmqvist Abstract 83 Growing urban landscapes 83 The process of urbanization 83 Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystems 86 Urbanization and management of ecosystems – challenges 86 Urban ecosystem services 87 What are urban ecosystem services? 87 Classification of UES 88 Land use – basic information on human influence on ecosystem services 88 Urban green – carrier of UES 89 Types of urban green space 89 Recreation 90 Climate regulation 91 Biodiversity 94 Carbon mitigation 95 Rapid growth of soil sealing – destruction of UES and its avoidance 95
  • 11. viii Contents Climate change – challenges for UES 97 Increase in temperature 98 Precipitation 99 Sea level rise 100 UES in urban landscape planning 100 Part C: Measuring and Monitoring Ecosystem Services at Multiple Levels 105 7 Scale-dependent Ecosystem Service 107 Yangjian Zhang, Claus Holzapfel and Xiaoyong Yuan Abstract 107 Introduction 107 Scale 108 Ecosystem service is scale dependent 108 The ecosystem beneficiary is scale dependent 109 Ecosystem service measurement is scale dependent 109 Ecosystem service management decision making is scale dependent 112 Ecosystem service types 112 Ecosystem service studies need to consider scale 113 Case studies 114 Liberty State Park Interior 115 Qinghai-Tibet plateau 117 Conclusions 118 8 Experimental Assessment of Ecosystem Services in Agriculture 122 Harpinder Sandhu, John Porter and Steve Wratten Abstract 122 Introduction 122 ES in agroecosystems 123 Provisioning goods and services 124 Supporting services 124 Regulating services 124 Cultural services 124 Field-scale assessment of ES 127 The combined food and energy system 128 New Zealand arable farmland 129 Scenarios of production and ES in agroecosystems 131 The ethnocentric systems 131 The technocentric systems 131 The ecocentric systems 131 The ecotechnocentric systems 132 The sustaincentric systems 132 Conclusions 133
  • 12. Contents ix Part D: Designing Ecological Systems to Deliver Ecosystem Services 137 9 Towards Multifunctional Agricultural Landscapes for the Upper Midwest Region of the USA 139 Nicholas Jordan and Keith Douglass Warner Abstract 139 Introduction 139 Multifunctional agroecosystems 140 Re-designed agricultural landscapes for the Upper Midwest 141 Moving forward on design and implementation of multifunctional landscapes for the Upper Midwest 142 Theory of change: a social–ecological system model for increasing multifunctionality of agricultural landscapes 143 Focal level: enterprise development via ‘virtuous circles’ 143 Subsystem level: collaborative social learning for multifunctional agriculture 147 Supersystem level: re-visioning the social metabolism of American agriculture 148 Applying the theory of change: the Koda Energy fuelshed project 149 Enterprise development 150 Agroecological partnership 152 Re-shaping public opinion and policy 153 Conclusions 153 10 Supply Chain Management and the Delivery of Ecosystems Services in Manufacturing 157 Mary Haropoulou, Clive Smallman and Jack Radford Abstract 157 Towards the sustainable economic production of goods and services? 158 Ecological economics and supply chain management: a review and synthesis 158 Conventional economic and ecologically economic production 158 Conventional SCM: economic efficiency through distribution network configuration and strategy 160 Green SCM: the economic inefficiency of waste 161 Sustainable SCM: connecting social, economic and ecological performance 162 Enabling ecological economics: SSCM 163 A case in point: ‘what do we do with it now?’ 165 WYM background 166 The economic production of wool yarn 167 Goods 168 Wastes 169
  • 13. x Contents Ecological services and amenities 169 Natural capital 169 Human capital 171 Social capital 173 Manufactured capital 174 Community and individual well-being 175 Discussion 175 Conclusion 176 11 Market-based Instruments and Ecosystem Services: Opportunity and Experience to Date 178 Stuart M. Whitten and Anthea Coggan Abstract 178 Introduction 179 Market-based instruments: definition and preconditions 180 Types of MBIs 180 Examples of MBIs for ecosystem services 184 Price-based MBIs 184 Quantity-based MBIs 186 Market friction MBIs 188 The brave new world of ecosystem markets 189 Designing effective MBIs 189 Where to next in the brave new world of markets for ecosystem services? 190 Epilogue: Equitable and Sustainable Systems 194 Steve Wratten, Harpinder Sandhu, Ross Cullen and Robert Costanza Index 196
  • 14. Contributors Onil Banerjee CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences PMB2 Glen Osmond South Australia 5064 Australia Ramesh Baskaran Faculty of Commerce PO Box 84 Lincoln University Christchurch 7647 New Zealand Corinne Baulcomb Scottish Agricultural College West Mains Road Edinburgh EH9 3JG Scotland Jürgen Breuste Department of Geography/Geology University Salzburg Hellbrunnerstrasse 34 A 5020 Salzburg Austria Anthea Coggan CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences GPO Box 2583 Brisbane 4102 Queensland Australia Robert Costanza Crawford School of Public Policy Crawford Building (132) Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 Australia Neville D. Crossman CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences PMB2 Glen Osmond South Australia 5064 Australia Ross Cullen Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance PO Box 84 Lincoln University 7647 Christchurch New Zealand
  • 15. xii Contributors Rudolf S. de Groot Environmental Systems Analysis Group Wageningen University PO Box 47 6700 AA Wageningen the Netherlands Thomas Elmqvist Department of Systems Ecology and Stockholm Resilience Centre Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm Sweden Dagmar Haase Institute of Geography Humboldt-University Berlin Berlin Germany and Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH-UFZ Permoserstraße 15 04318 Leipzig Germany Mary Haropoulou Faculty of Commerce Lincoln University PO Box 84 Christchurch 7647 New Zealand Claus Holzapfel Department of Biological Sciences Rutgers University Newark New Jersey 07102 USA Marco Jacometti Bio-Protection Research Centre PO Box 84 Lincoln University Lincoln 7647 New Zealand Nicholas Jordan Agronomy and Plant Genetics Department University of Minnesota 411 Borlaug Hall 1991 Buford Circle St. Paul Minnesota 55018 USA Pamela Kaval Havelock North New Zealand and Marylhurst University Oregon USA Sofia Orre-Gordon Barbara Hardy Institute University of South Australia GPO Box 2471 Adelaide South Australia 5001 Australia and Bio-Protection Research Centre PO Box 84 Lincoln University Lincoln 7647 New Zealand John Porter Department of Plant and Environmental Science Faculty of Life Sciences University of Copenhagen (KU-LIFE) HøjbakkegårdAlle 9 2630 Taastrup Denmark Jack Radford Lincoln University Faculty of Commerce PO Box 84 Christchurch 7647 New Zealand
  • 16. Contributors xiii Harpinder Sandhu School of the Environment Flinders University GPO Box 2100 Adelaide SA 5001 Australia Clive Smallman University of Western Sydney School of Business Locked Bag 1797 Penrith NSW 2751 Australia Jean Tompkins Bio-Protection Research Centre PO Box 84 Lincoln University Lincoln 7647 New Zealand Keith Douglass Warner Center for Science, Technology and Society Santa Clara University 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara California 95053 USA Stuart M. Whitten CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences GPO Box 1700 Canberra ACT 2601 Australia Steve Wratten Bio-Protection Research Centre PO Box 84 Lincoln University Lincoln 7647 New Zealand Xiaoyong Yuan Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Network Observation and Modelling Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing 100101 China Yangjian Zhang Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Network Observation and Modelling Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing 100101 China
  • 17. Reviewers Editors acknowledge the contribution of following reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions that helped to improve clarity of the chapters. t Andrew Davidson, SEQ Catchments Ltd, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. t Brenda Lin, CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. t Francis Turkelboom, Research Institute for Forest and Nature (INBO), Brussels, Belgium. t Gupta Vadakattu, CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Adelaide, Australia. t Uday Nidumolu, CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Adelaide, Australia. t Yuki Takatsuka, Temple University, Japan.
  • 18. Foreword It is now becoming clear that an ecosystem approach is the most appropriate methodology to ensure sustainable food security and conservation of urban landscapes. Hence this book by Steve Wratten and colleagues is a timely one. At the time of the origin of agriculture or settled cultivation over 10000 years ago, the early cultivators, mostly women, adopted an ecosystem approach for standardizing cultivation practices, as well as in the choice of crops. For example, in the state of Tamil Nadu in India, ancient scholars divided the state into five major agroecological zones. These were: coastal, hill, arid, semiarid and wet zones. Agricultural practices were followed according to the specific ecosystem, keeping in view the extent of rainfall, the incidence of sunlight and the moisture- holding capacity of the soil. From the naturally occurring biodiversity, plants with specialized adaptations, such as halophytes for coastal areas and xerophytes for the arid zone, were identified and cultivated. An ecosystem approach to soil and water management helps to ensure successful agriculture. Water security is important not only for agriculture and industry, but also for domestic needs and for ecosystem maintenance. The book covers all aspects of soil health conservation and enhancement, and water and biodiversity management. Ecosystem-based agriculture ensures stability of production and at the same time enhances the coping capacity of farming families to meet the challenges of climate change. I therefore hope that this book will be widely read and used both by farming practitioners and policy makers. We owe a deep debt of gratitude to the editorial team for their dedication to the cause of sustainable agriculture and food security. M.S. Swaminathan PROF MS SWAMINATHAN Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) Emeritus Chairman, MS Swaminathan Research Foundation Third Cross Street, Taramani Institutional Area Chennai - 600 113 (India)
  • 19. Ecosystem goods and services provide mankind with most necessities of life and survival. They include such processes as biological control of pests, weeds and diseases, pollination of crops, amelioration of flooding and wind erosion, provi- sion of food (including fisheries), the hydro-geochemical cycle, capture of carbon by plants and by soil and providing settings for much of the world’s tourism. A pivotal paper by Robert Costanza and colleagues written in 1997 used a range of methods to quantify ecosystem services (ES) and to estimate their total economic value worldwide. The estimate was $US33 trillion (1012 ) per annum. Costanza et al.’s valuation stimulated much debate, including the suggestion that $US33 trillion is ‘a serious underestimate of infinity’. In other words, some people believe that mankind cannot survive without ES, so evaluating it is futile. However, ES world-wide are being degraded more rapidly than ever before and this degrada- tion poses serious threats to quality of life and therefore to modern economies. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) pointed to the very high rate of ES loss and the consequences for global stability if that rate continues. In the same year as Costanza et. al.’s paper, Gretchen Daily, of Stanford University, USA, published a key book entitled Nature’s Services. Those two publications led to a change in the paradigm within which mankind’s depend- ence on living things is viewed. However, Costanza and Daily concentrated largely on ‘natural’ ecosystems and biomes, such as boreal forests, coral reefs and mangroves. They did not concentrate on the many ecosystem services provided by highly modified or managed areas, such as farmland and cities. However, ES in these systems are of vital significance to the survival and pro- ductivity of those systems, as more than 50% of the world’s population lives in cities and this proportion is increasing by 1–2% per annum. The ‘ecological footprint’ of cities is enormous and, with cities such as Shanghai forecast to grow from 17 million to 70 million over the next decade, the extent to which Introduction
  • 20. Introduction xvii cities can support themselves in even a limited number of ecosystem functions is likely to continue to decline. ES underpin life on earth, provide major inputs to many sectors of the econ- omy and support our lifestyles. This book explores the role that ES play in two settings where humans have actively modified ecological systems: agriculture and urban areas. It addresses the hitherto under-estimation of ES in farmland and cit- ies and explores ways to develop concepts, policies and methods of evaluating ES, as well as the ways in which ES in these systems can be maintained and enhanced. This approach is timely and will be of high scientific and political value, especially given that the MEA disappeared from world media and discus- sion very soon after it was announced, because of a widely-held but increasingly erroneous belief that technology will rescue mankind as the environmental equivalent of ‘peak oil’ is approached. The book is divided into four parts with a series of self-contained chapters con- nected by the overall aim of the book. The Introduction is written by the editorial team to highlight the importance of ES in natural and managed landscapes. Part A sets the scene by introducing the concept of ES in managed landscapes such as farmland and cities. Chapter 1 explains the concept of ES and their importance. Chapter 2 provides links between ecosystem function to economic benefits by exploring changes in these due to change in land and water management. Chapter 3 deals with key concepts and methods to value ES. Part B provides information on ES in three different managed systems: viticulture, aquaculture and urban areas. Chapter 4 discusses ES associated with viticulture and techniques to enhance them. Chapter 5 explores environmental and social impacts of aquacul- ture and maps them through an ES typology. Chapter 6 develops the concept of ES in urban planning and management. It discusses ES relevant to urban areas and their importance in planning and management of cities. Part C focuses on measuring and monitoring ES at different scales. Chapter 7 develops this theme by also exploring ES at a range of spatial scales with case studies ranging from landscape, to regions and biomes. Chapter 8 provides frameworks to evaluate ES using ‘bottom-up’ field-scale measurements. It also discusses scenarios for balanc- ing production and ES on farmland. Part D discusses design of ecological systems for the delivery of ES. In this Part, Chapter 9 explores the concept of multifunc- tional agriculture in the Upper Midwest region of the US. Chapter 10 discusses the role of ES through supply chain management in a wool enterprise. Chapter 11 analyses the concept of market-based instruments by providing examples to improve the delivery of ES. The epilogue examines prospects for the future and the role of ES in contributing to sustainable agriculture and cities. We believe this book will be useful to senior undergraduates, postgraduates, environmental economists, agriculturalists, theoretical and applied ecologists, local and regional planners and government personnel in understanding the role of ES in a sustainable future. This book has been written by an international team of researchers. We acknowledge the effort, expert knowledge and care of team members that brought this project to completion and sincerely thank all of the authors for their contributions. The editors thank their family and friends for their continued support.
  • 21. xviii Introduction We end this Introduction with one of our favourite quotations about ES and ‘future farming’: ‘I am a photosynthesis manager and an ecosystem-service provider’, Peter Edlin, farmer, Sweden, 2003. Steve Wratten (Lincoln), Harpinder Sandhu (Adelaide), Ross Cullen (Lincoln), Robert Costanza (Canberra) May 2012
  • 23. Ecosystem Services in Agricultural and Urban Landscapes, First Edition. Edited by Steve Wratten, Harpinder Sandhu, Ross Cullen and Robert Costanza. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 Ecosystem Services in Farmland and Cities Harpinder Sandhu1 and Steve Wratten2 1 School of the Environment, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia 2 Bio-Protection Research Centre, Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand Abstract Ecosystems sustain human life through the provision of four types of ecosystem services (ES) – a central tenet of the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These categories are, with examples: supporting (water and nutrient cycling), provisioning (food production, fuel wood), regulating (water purification, erosion control), and cultural (aesthetic and spiritual values). A recent trend has been a decline in ES globally, largely due to ignorance of their value to human well-being and inadequate socioeco- nomic valuation mechanisms that encourage individuals/governments to invest in maintaining them. Engineered ecosystems from farmland and cities are the most important providers of ES for the world population. However, they are largely left outside the decision-making process in managing agriculture and urban areas, due to the general low awareness of how the ES associated with these systems can and have been quantified. As nearly half of the world population is dependent on agriculture for its livelihood and cities are expanding at a faster rate than ever before, it is vital to understand, measure and incorporate ES into decision making and planning of agriculture and cities. This chapter discusses the concept of ES, their valuation methods, the types of engineered systems and how ES can be adopted by them to enhance them and ensure an equitable and sustainable future.
  • 24. 4 Scene Setting Introduction Natural and modified ecosystems support human life through functions and pro- cesses known as ecosystem services (ES; Daily, 1997). These are the life-support systems of the planet (Myers, 1996; Daily, 1997; Daily et al., 1997) and it is evident that human life cannot exist without them. The importance of ecosystem goods and services in supporting human life and as a life-support system of the planet (Myers, 1996; Daily, 1997; Costanza et al., 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) is now very well established and ES were demonstrated to be of very high economic value 15 years ago (US $33 trillion year−1 ; Costanza et al., 1997). Although that value-transfer approach has been heavily criticized (Toman, 1998), no subsequent attempt to quantify ES globally has been made. However, for particular biological groups, such as insects, value transfer has again been used (Losey and Vaughan, 2006) or for one taxon for one region, experi- mental techniques to evaluate animals’ populations have been combined with the economic value of the support they provide (e.g. earthworms and soil formation; Sandhu et al., 2008). Also, a whole-of-farm approach has been again based on in situ measurements followed by spatial scaling (Porter et al., 2009), in that case for the whole of the European Union in relation to current agricultural subsidies. Yet because most ES are not traded in economic markets, they carry no ‘price tags’ (no exchange value in spite of their high use value) that could alert society to changes in their sup- ply or deterioration of underlying ecological systems that generate them. Despite this, there has been a recent trend of decline in ES globally, with 60% of the ES examined having been degraded in the last 50 years (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Global efforts to halt this decline in ES have increased consider- ably since the completion of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) in 2005. The United Nations has established the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to translate science into action world-wide in consultation with governments and research partners (IPBES, 2010). Because the threats to ES are increasing, there is a critical need for identifica- tion, monitoring and enhancement of ES both locally and globally, and for the incorporation of their value into decision-making processes (Daily et al., 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; IPBES, 2010; UN, 2012). It is well known that agroecosystems and urban areas contribute substantially to the welfare of human societies by providing highly demanded and valuable ES. Many of these, however, remain outside conventional markets. This is especially the case for public goods (climate regulation, soil erosion control, etc.) and external costs related to the active protection and management of these ecosystems. The capacity of ecosystems to deliver ES is already under stress (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) and additional challenges imposed by climate change in the coming years will require better adaptation (Mooney et al., 2009). What are ecosystem services? The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment sponsored by the United Nations (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) defines ecosystem services (ES) as
  • 25. Ecosystem Services in Farmland and Cities 5 the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. There is a general lack of understanding of what an ecosystem actually is, however; for example, among university undergraduates and even researchers it is probably worth remember- ing that single species can provide ES, albeit as part of their place in a trophic web. The facts that honey bees pollinate crops and ladybugs (ladybirds) eat insect pests are often a simple way of illustrating the power of ES to land owners, among others. In these circumstances, ‘nature’s services’ can be a more useful phrase. These benefits sustain human existence through four types of service that include supporting (e.g. water and nutrient cycling), provisioning (e.g. food production, fuel wood), regulating (e.g. water purification, erosion control), and cultural (e.g. aesthetic and spiritual values) services. Benefits arise from managed as well as natural ecosystems. Recent studies have contributed to further understanding of ES for natural resource management (Wallace, 2007), for accounting purposes (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007), for valuation (Fisher and Turner, 2008), and for policy-relevant research (Fisher et al., 2008; Balmford et al., 2011). Sagoff (2011) points out the differences in ecological and economic criteria in assessing and valuing ES and advocates for a conceptual framework to integrate market-based and science-based methods to manage ecosystems for human well-being. Ecosystem functions, goods and services Ecosystem functions can be defined as ‘the capacity of natural processes and components to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly’ (de Groot, 1992). Using this definition, ecosystem functions are best conceived as a subset of ecological processes and ecosystem structures. Each function is the result of the natural processes of the total ecological subsystem of which it is a part. Natural processes, in turn, are the result of complex interactions between biotic (living) and abiotic (chemical and physical) compo- nents of ecosystems through the universal driving forces of matter and energy (de Groot et al., 2002). One of the key insights provided by the MEA (2005) is that not all ES are equal – there is no one single category that captures the diversity of what fully functioning ecological systems provide humans. Rather, researchers must recognize that ES occur at multiple scales, from climate regulation and carbon sequestration at the global scale, to soil formation and nutrient cycling more locally. To capture the diversity of ES, the MEA (2005) grouped them into four basic services based on their functional characteristics. 1 Regulating services: ecosystems regulate essential ecological processes and life support systems through biogeochemical cycles and other biospheric processes. These include climate regulation, disturbance moderation and waste treatment. 2 Provisioning services: the provisioning function of ecosystems supplies a large variety of ecosystem goods and other services for human consumption,
  • 26. 6 Scene Setting ranging from food in agricultural systems, raw materials and energy resources. 3 Cultural services: ecosystems provide an essential ‘reference function’ and contribute to the maintenance of human health and well-being by providing spiritual fulfilment, historical integrity, recreation sites and aesthetics. 4 Supporting services: ecosystems also provide a range of services that are nec- essary for the production of the other three service categories. These include nutrient cycling, soil formation and soil retention. The ES framework The ES framework has been increasingly used to explain the interactions between ecosystems and human well-being. Several studies classified ES into different categories based on their functions (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; de Groot et al., 2002). The MEA assessed the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and provided a framework to identify and classify ES (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). It established the scientific basis for actions needed to balance nature and human well-being by sustainable use of ecosystems. In the following section, we follow MEA typology and discuss the ES approach and ecosystem-based adaptation. The ecosystem services approach An ES approach is one that integrates the ecological, social and economic dimen- sions of natural resource management (Cork et al., 2007). Cork and colleagues (2007) have described an ES approach as the following. t An ES approach helps to identify and classify the benefits that people derive from ecosystems. It also includes market and non-market, use and non-use, tangible and non-tangible benefits. t It also explains consumers and producers of ES for maintenance and improve- ment of ecosystems for human well-being. t This approach helps to describe and communicate benefits derived from natural and modified ecosystems to a wide range of stakeholders. Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) This approach integrates biodiversity and ES into an overall adaptation strategy to help people to adapt to the adverse effects of, for example, climate change (Colls et al., 2009). EbA can be applied at different geographical scales (local, regional, national) and over various periods (short to long term). It can be implemented as projects and as part of overall adaptation programmes. It is most effective when implemented as part of a broad portfolio of adaptation and devel- opment interventions (Colls et al., 2009). It is cost-effective and more accessible to rural or poor communities than measures based on hard infrastructure and engineering. It can integrate and maintain traditional and local knowledge and cultural values, such as in the New Zealand Maori concept of Kaitiakitanga.
  • 27. Ecosystem Services in Farmland and Cities 7 This embraces the philosophy and practice of valuing inherited places and practices and aims to pass them on undamaged or improved. Some examples of EbA activities (CBD, 2009; Colls et al., 2009) are: t coastal defence through the maintenance and/or restoration of mangroves and other coastal wetlands to reduce coastal flooding and coastal erosion; t sustainable management of upland wetlands and floodplains for maintenance of water flow and quality; t conservation and restoration of forests to stabilize land slopes and regulate water flows; t establishment of diverse agroforestry systems to cope with increased risk from changed climatic conditions; t conservation of agrobiodiversity to provide specific gene pools for crop and livestock adaptation to climate change. Engineered systems Engineered systems are landscapes such as farmland and cities that are actively modified to supply a particular set of ES. Farmland has been modified or ‘engi- neered’ to provide food and fibre, whereas cities have been actively managed to accommodate a human population. ‘Engineered’ or modified ecosystems are providers and consumers of different types of ES. Optimally managed ‘engineered’ or ‘designed’ ecosystems can provide a range of important ES; for instance, more fresh water, cleaner air and greater food production, as well as fewer floods and pollutants (Palmer et al., 2004). However, pursuit of commercial gains often reduces the ability to supply other vital ES. In this section and indeed in the following chapters, we discuss two modified or designed systems – agricultural and urban. Agricultural systems ‘Engineered’ or modified ecosystems such as farmland are providers and con- sumers of different types of ES. Farmland comprises highly modified landscapes designed to generate revenue for farmers. Farmers use many inputs as well as natural inputs to produce food and fibre. The production of these is an ES. Intensive agriculture replaces many other ES with chemical inputs, resulting in a decrease in these services and their importance on farmland (Sandhu et al., 2008, 2010a, 2010b, 2012). This ‘substitution agriculture’ has to a large extent replaced these ES world-wide in the twentieth century. Severe environmental destruction, increasing fuel prices and the external costs of modern agriculture have resulted in increased interest among researchers and farmers in using ES for the more sustainable production of food and fibre (Daily, 1997; Costanza et al., 1997; Tilman, 1999; Cullen et al., 2004; Gurr et al., 2004, 2012; Robertson and Swinton, 2005). The above global trends have led to world-wide concerns about the environmental consequences of modern agriculture (Millennium Ecosystem
  • 28. 8 Scene Setting Assessment, 2005; De Schutter, 2010). There is also an additional concern that as the world approaches ‘peak oil’ and is already experiencing high oil prices, agriculture may no longer be able to depend so heavily on oil-derived ‘substitu- tion’ inputs (Pimentel and Giampietro, 1994). Such a grave situation does not detract from the responsibility of agriculture to meet the food demands of a growing population but it does question its ability to increase yields without fur- ther ecosystem damage (Escudero, 1998; Tilman, 1999; Pimentel and Wilson, 2004; Schröter et al., 2005; UN, 2012). Therefore, the current challenge is to meet the food demands of a growing population and yet maintain and enhance the productivity of agricultural systems (UN, 1992). There is, therefore, cur- rently an increasing interest in the services provided by nature. It is now urgent that ES on farmland be enhanced as part of global food policy because increasingly dysfunctional biomes and ecosystems are appearing and agriculture, which largely created the problem, has become more intensive in its use of non-renewable resources, driven by a world population which is likely to reach nine billion people by 2050 (Foley et al., 2005). This intensifica- tion is compounded by a grain demand which is rising super-proportionally to human population increase and which is largely caused by biofuels develop- ment and a rapid rise in per capita meat consumption in parts of Asia (Rosegrant et al., 2001). Continuing with the current energy-intense (Pimentel et al., 2005), wasteful (Vitousek et al., 2009), polluting and unsustainable ‘substitution agriculture’, with its associated problems, which are likely to be exacerbated by climate change, is not an option for future world food security and productiv- ity. There is, therefore, an urgent need for enhanced biodiversity-driven ES in world farming. Different types of agricultural systems and ES interactions are discussed in following chapters. More information is provided by Orre-Gordon et al., Sandhu et al. and Jordan and Warner in Chapters 4, 8 and 9, respectively. The relationship between aquaculture and ES is discussed in detail by Baulcomb in Chapter 5. ES associated with agriculture Costanza et al. (1997) estimated, with limited available data, the ES of world croplands to be only US$92 ha−1 year−1 . This was in marked contrast with other world biomes, for which ES were estimated to be worth US$23000 ha−1 year−1 for estuaries, US$20000 ha−1 year−1 for swamps and US$2000 ha−1 year−1 for tropical forests (Costanza et al., 1997). There are, however, two recent experi- mental agroecological approaches that can be used to demonstrate how this croplands figure can be much higher. The first involves agroecological experi- ments to measure ecosystem functions combined with value-transfer techniques to calculate their economic value. These studies demonstrate that some current farming practices have much higher ES values than in the Costanza et al. (1997) work. For example, recent data show that the combined value of only two ES (nitrogen mineralization and biological control of a single pest by one guild of invertebrate predators) can have values of US$197, $271 and $301 ha−1 year−1 in terms of avoided costs for conventional (Sandhu et al., 2008), organic (Lampkin, 1991) and integrated (Porter et al., 2009) arable farming systems, respectively. The above values comprise reduced variable costs (labour, fuel and
  • 29. Ecosystem Services in Farmland and Cities 9 pesticides) and lower external costs to human health and the environment. Paying for these variable costs is a charge to society, not to the individual farmer and although they contribute to GDP , that is a poor indicator of sustainability and of human well-being (Costanza, 2008). The second recent realization that can transform ES on farmland is that a better understanding of ecological processes in agroecosystems can generate protocols which do not require a major farming system change but which enhance ES by returning selective functional agricultural biodiversity (FAB) to agriculture (Landis et al., 2000). For example, the role of leguminous crops in nitrogen fixation is a well-known enhancement of farmland ES and can have a value of US$40 ha−1 year−1 in terms of reduced oil-based fertilizer inputs (Vitousek et al., 2009), without including the value of reduced ES damage. More recent farmland ES improvements are illustrated by agroecological research on biological control of insect pests. In New Zealand and Australia, strips of flowering buckwheat Fagopyrum esculentum (Moench.) between vine rows provide nectar in an otherwise virtual monoculture and thereby improve the ecological fitness of parasitoid wasps that attack grape-feeding caterpillars. This in turn leads to the pest population being brought below the economic threshold. An investment of US$3 ha−1 year−1 in buckwheat seed and minimal sowing costs can lead to savings in variable costs of US$200 ha−1 year−1 as well as fewer pesticide residues in the wine, higher well-being for vineyard workers and enhanced ecotourism (Fountain and Tomkins, 2011). Although the ecotechnologies now exist to improve farming sustainability when the negative consequences of oil-based inputs are well recognized, farmers world-wide are still largely risk averse (Anderson, 2003). They have traditionally rejected the idea that non-crop biodiversity on their land can improve production and/or minimize costs. The challenge now for agroecologists and policymakers is to use a range of market-based instruments or incentives, government interven- tions and enhanced social learning among growers to accelerate the deployment of sound, biodiversity-based ES-enhancement protocols for farmers. These pro- tocols need to be framed in the form of service-providing units (Luck et al., 2003), which precisely explain the necessary ES-enhancement procedures and which should ideally include cost–benefit analyses. Such a requirement invites the design of new systems of primary production that ensure positive net carbon sequestration, are species diverse, have low inputs and provide a diverse suite of ES. An experimental example of such a system is a combined food, energy and ecosystem services (CFEES) agroecosystem in Denmark that uses non-food hedgerows as sources of biodiversity and biofuel. This novel production system is a net energy producer, providing more energy in the form of renewable bio- mass than is consumed in the planting, growing and harvesting of the food and fodder (Porter et al., 2009). An approach to encouraging the uptake of ES-enhancing farming systems such as CFEES is through ‘payment for ecosystem services’ (PES) to private landown- ers (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2007). In this approach, those that benefit from the provision of ES make payments to those that supply them, thereby maintaining ES. Examples of working PES schemes currently in practice are found in different areas of the world. The current focus of these schemes is
  • 30. 10 Scene Setting on water, carbon and biodiversity in addressing environmental problems through positive incentives to land managers (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2007). Such schemes would not only help to improve the environment and human well- being but also ensure food security and long-term farm sustainability (Rosegrant and Cline, 2003). Although agricultural ecosystems may have low ES values per unit area when compared with others such as estuaries and wetlands, they offer the best chance of increasing global ES by developing appropriate goals for agriculture and the use of land management regimes that favour ES provision. This is because agri- culture occupies 40% of the earth’s land area and is readily amenable to changing practices, if the sociopolitical impediments are met. Agriculture can be consid- ered to be the largest ecological experiment on Earth, with a high potential to damage global ES but also to promote them via ecologically informed approaches to the design of agroecosystems that value both marketed and non-marketed ES. The extensive Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) of global ecosystems completed by science and policy com- munities provided a new framework for analysing socioecological processes and suggested that agriculture may be the ‘largest threat to biodiversity and ecosys- tem function of any single human activity’. As 45% of the global population is engaged in farming activities, and such a large proportion of the global land area is in agriculture, achievement of human well-being as agreed by the UN-led Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (UN, 2000) is not possible without clear pathways for the design of future agroecosystems. There are major global advantages of enhancing ES on farmland through adoption of ES-enhancement protocols. Therefore, global agricultural systems that utilize and maintain high levels of ES are required so that they can provide sustainable economic well-being and food security within ecological constraints (Royal Society, 2009). To con- dense this discussion into a simple goal, the farmer of the future needs to be encouraged to re-define his/her role to ‘I am a photosynthesis manager and an ecosystem-service provider’. Urban systems Urbanization and urban growth are major drivers of ecosystem change globally. Urban areas are providing habitats for more than half the human population. In spite of these trends, the ecosystem idea has generally been applied to locations distant from the places where people live. However, knowledge about ecosys- tems is important for maintaining the quality of life in cities, suburbs and the fringes of metropolitan areas. Urban ecosystem concepts remind citizens and decision makers that we all ultimately depend on our ecosystems and their ser- vices (Daily, 1997). As the ‘ecological footprint’ of cities will increase in the com- ing decades, because they ‘sequester’ the products of ES from elsewhere, there is need to incorporate ES into decision making during planning and management of urban areas. Urban ecosystems have been neglected due to the lack of understanding of the complex processes involved, the lack of mechanisms to govern them, and the failure to incorporate ES into day-to-day decision making. Urban development
  • 31. Ecosystem Services in Farmland and Cities 11 trends pose serious problems with respect to ES and human well-being. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) treated urban systems as ecosystems necessary for human welfare. As they are dominated by humans, these systems can be classified on the basis of population size, economic condition and loca- tion. Nearly half the world’s population lives in cities of less than half a million people and about 10% lives in those with more than 10 million (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). The ES challenges within cities are enormous and are discussed in this chapter below and later in this book. ES in urban systems Urban systems are not functional or self-contained ecosystems. They depend largely on surrounding ecosystems in rural areas or more distant ecosystems to fulfil their daily needs including food, water and material for housing and other needs. In cities, urban parks, forests and green belts have their strategic impor- tance for the quality of life. They provide essential ES such as gas regulation, air and water purification, wind and noise reduction, etc. They also enhance social and cultural services such as feelings of well-being, and provide recreational opportunities for urban dwellers (Miller, 1997; Smardon, 1988; Botkin and Beveridge, 1997; Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999; Lorenzo et al., 2000; Tyrväinen and Miettinen, 2000). Towns and cities are also both consumers and producers of ES. However, the net flow of ES is invariably into rather than out of urban systems. Even if they are not major producers of ES, urban activities can alter the supply and flow of ES at every scale, from local to global level. Urban development threatens the quality of the air, the quality and availability of water, the waste processing and recycling systems, and many other qualities of the ambient environment that contribute to human well-being. ES and their interactions in engineered systems Both agricultural and urban systems are dependent and impact on the provision of ES. These designed systems are affected by direct and indirect drivers that in turn impact ES (Fig. 1.1). It is very important to understand these interactions between ES and ‘engineered systems’ for the achievement of equitable and sus- tainable human welfare (Swaminathan, 2012). Human society, as part of the planetary system of interacting biomes depends on these ES as life support functions. Yet simultaneously we are impacting nega- tively on ecosystem goods and services. This is the dilemma facing society as our ecological footprint on planet earth increases. Projected economic expansion to meet the demands of a growing population (projected to be 9 billion by 2050) along with global climate change will jeopardize future human well-being by further degrading ecosystems. There is a great need to incorporate the value of ES into day-to-day decision making, into government policies and in business practices so that sustainable and desirable futures can be achieved. Waste of energy, food and other resources in the ‘developed’ world points to areas where our current practices can be readly modified.
  • 32. 12 Scene Setting In this context, global studies have largely focused on natural ecosystems and biomes, such as the boreal forests and the sea and have put little emphasis on managed ecosystems such as farmland and cities. However, the continued supply of ecosystem goods and services is of vital significance for the survival and productivity of our farmland and our cities. Agricultural systems comprise the largest managed ecosystems on Earth, and are often confronted by ecosystem degradation. Much of the success of modern agriculture has been from provision- ing services such as food and fibre. However, the expansion in the demand and supply of these marketable ecosystem goods has resulted in the suppression of other valuable and essential ES such as pollination, climate and water regulation, biodiversity and soil conservation. Similarly, demands from urban areas to support and enhance human lifestyles have resulted in the degradation of other valuable ES in other parts of the world. As economic wealth is underpinned by ecological wealth, we need to recognize and understand the role of ES in sustaining societies, nations and individuals. This can help to achieve food security and environmental sustainability at scales from local to global. It can help ensure a sustainable development and an equitable future. Without the evaluation, protection and enhancement of ES in agriculture and cities, the world’s future is bleak indeed. References Anderson, J.R. (2003). Risk in rural development: challenges for managers and policy makers. Agricultural Systems, 75, 161–197. Ecosystem Services s 0ROVISIONING SERVICES s 2EGULATING SERVICES s #ULTURAL SERVICES s 3UPPORTING SERVICES Urban systems s (ABITAT s 0ERSONAL SAFETY s 3OCIAL COHESION s &REEDOM OF CHOICE s #LEAN AIR AND WATER Agricultural systems s !DEQUATE LIVELIHOODS s 3UFFICIENT NUTRITIOUS FOOD FIBRE s 3ECURE RESOURCE ACCESS s #ULTURAL ASPECTS Indirect drivers of ecosystem change s %CONOMIC s 3OCIAL s #ULTURAL Direct drivers of ecosystem change s .ATURAL s "IOLOGICAL s ,AND USE CHANGE Impacts Dependence Human well-being Fig. 1.1 Framework of drivers of ecosystem change and the interaction between ES and two ‘engineered systems’ – urban and agricultural systems.
  • 33. Ecosystem Services in Farmland and Cities 13 Balmford, A., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., et al. (2011). Bringing ecosystem services into the real world: an operational framework for assessing the economic consequences of los- ing wild nature. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48, 161–175. Bolund, P . and Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29, 293–301. Botkin, D.B. and Beveridge, C.E. (1997). Cities as environments. Urban Ecosystems, 1, 3–19. Boyd, J. and Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? Ecological Economics, 63, 616–626. CBD (2009). Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change. Montreal, Technical Series No. 41. Colls, A., Ash, N. and Ikkalal, N. (2009). Ecosystem Based Adaptation: a Natural Response to Climate Change. IUCN Report, p. 16. Cork, S., Stoneham, G. and Lowe, K. (2007). Ecosystem Services and Australian Natural Resource Management (NRM) Futures. Paper to the Natural Resource Policies and Programs Committee (NRPPC) and the Natural Resource Management Standing Committee (NRMSC). Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, Australia. Costanza, R. (2008). Stewardship for a ‘full’ world. Current History, 107, 30–35. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., De Groot, R., et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260. Cullen, R., Takatsuka, Y., Wilson, M. and Wratten, S. (2004). Ecosystem Services on New Zealand Arable Farms. Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, Lincoln University, Discussion Paper 151, pp. 84–91. Daily, G.C. (1997). Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC. Daily, G.C., Alexander, S., Ehrlich, P .R., et al. (1997). Ecosystem services: benefits sup- plied to human societies by natural ecosystems. Issues in Ecology, 2, 18. de Groot, R.S. (1992). Functions of Nature: Evaluation of Nature in Environment Planning, Management and Decision Making. Wolters-Noordhoff, Gröningen. de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M. and Boumans, R.M.J. (2002). A typology for the classifica- tion, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41, 393–408. De Schutter, O. (2010). Agroecology and the Right to Food, Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, p.21. United Nations General Assembly. Escudero, G. (1998). The vision and mission of agriculture in the year 2020: towards a focus that values agriculture and the rural environment. Agricultura, Medioambiente y Pobreza Rural en America Latina (eds L.G. Reca and R.G., Echeverria), pp. 21–54. CAB Direct, Washington, DC. Fisher, B. and Turner, K. (2008). Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biological Conservation, 141, 1167–1169. Fisher, B., Turner, K., Zylstra, M., et al. (2008). Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy-relevant research. Ecological Applications, 18, 2050–2067. Foley, J.A., deFries, R., Asner, G.P ., et al. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science, 309, 570–573. Food and Agriculture Organization (2007). The State of Food and Agriculture: Paying Farmers for Environmental Services, p. 222. Fountain, J. and Tompkins, J. (2011).The potential of wine tourism experiences to impart knowledge of sustainable practices: the case of the Greening Waipara biodiversity trails. Proceedings of the 6th AWBR International Conference, 9–10 June, Bordeaux Management School, France. Gurr, G.M., Wratten, S.D. and Altieri, M.A. (eds) (2004). Ecological Engineering for Pest Management: Advances in Habitat Manipulation for Arthropods. CSIRO, Victoria. Gurr, G.M., Wratten, S.D., Snyder, W .E. and Read, D.M. (2012). Biodiversity and Insect Pests – Key Issues for Sustainable Management. Wiley-Blackwell, UK.
  • 34. 14 Scene Setting IPBES (2010). Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. UNEP . Available at http://ipbes.net/ (accessed August 2012). Lampkin, N. (1991). Organic Farming. Farming Press, Ipswich, UK. Landis, D.A., Wratten, S.D. and Gurr, G.M. (2000). Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in Agriculture. Annual Review of Entomology, 45, 175–201. Lorenzo, A.B., Blanche, C.A., Qi, Y. and Guidry, M.M. (2000). Assessing residents’ will- ingness to pay to preserve the community urban forest: a small-city case study. Journal of Arboriculture, 26, 319–325. Losey, J.E. and Vaughan, M. (2006).The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. BioScience, 56, 311–323. Luck, G.W ., Daily, G.C. and Ehrlich, P .R. (2003). Population diversity and ecosystem services. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18, 331–336. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Synthesis Report. Island Press, Washington, DC. Miller, R. W . (1997). Urban Forestry – Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Mooney, H., Larigauderie, A., Cesario, M., et al. (2009). Biodiversity, climate change and ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environment Sustainability, 1, 46–54. Myers, N. (1996). Environmental services of biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 93, 2764–2769. Palmer, M., Bernhardt, E., Chornesky, E., et al. (2004). Ecology for a crowded planet. Science, 304, 1251–1252. Pimentel, D., Hepperly P ., Hanson, J., Douds, D. and Seidel, R. (2005). Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. Bioscience, 55, 573–582. Pimentel, D. and Giampietro, M. (1994). Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy. Carrying Capacity Network, Washington, DC. Pimentel, D. and Wilson, A. (2004). World population, agriculture and malnutrition. World Watch, 17, 22–25. Porter, J.R.P ., Costanza, R., Sandhu, H., Sigsgaard, L. and Wratten, S. (2009). The value of producing food, energy, and ecosystem services within and agro-ecosystem. Ambio, 38, 186–193. Robertson, G.P . and Swinton, S.M. (2005). Reconciling agricultural productivity and environmental integrity: a grand challenge for agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, 3, 38–46. Rosegrant, M.W . and Cline, S.A. (2003). Global food security: challenges and policies. Science, 302, 1917–1919. Rosegrant, M.W ., Paisner, M., Meijer, S. and Whitcover, J. (2001). Global Food Projections to 2020: Emerging Trends and Alternative Futures. IFPRI, Washington, DC. Royal Society (2009). Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture. Available at http://royalsociety.org/Reapingthebenefits/ (2009), p. 86 (accessed August 2012). Sagoff, M. (2011). The quantification and valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 70, 497–502. Sandhu, H., Crossman, N. and Smith, F. (2012). Ecosystem services in Australian agricul- tural enterprises. Ecological Economics, 74, 19–26. Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D. and Cullen, R. ( 2010a). Organic agriculture and ecosystem services. Environmental Science and Policy, 13, 1–7. Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D. and Cullen, R. (2010b). The role of supporting ecosys- tem services in conventional and organic arable farmland. Ecological Complexity, 7, 302–310. Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D., Cullen, R. and Case, B. (2008).The future of farming: the value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach. Ecological Economics, 64, 835–848. Schröter, D., Cramer, W ., Leemans, R., et al. (2005). Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science, 310, 1333–1337.
  • 35. Ecosystem Services in Farmland and Cities 15 Smardon, R.C. (1988). Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: review of the role of vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15, 85–106. Swaminathan,M.S.(2012).SustainableDevelopment:TwentyYearsafterRio.International Consultation on Twenty years of Rio: Biodiversity-Development-Livelihoods, Chennai, India. Tilman, D. (1999). Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: The need for sustainable and efficient practices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 96, 5995–6000. Toman, M. (1998). Why not to calculate the value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecological Economics, 25, 1, 57–60. Tyrväinen, L. and Miettinen, A. (2000). Property prices and urban forest amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39, 205–223. UN (1992). Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June. Agenda 21, 14.1-14.104. Available at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21.htm (accessed August 2012). UN (2000). United Nations Millennium Declaration. Available at: http://www.un.org/ millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf (accessed August 2012). UN (2012). The Future We Want. United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. United Nations, Rio de Janeiro. Vitousek, P .M., Naylor, R., Crews, T., et al. (2009). Nutrient imbalances in agricultural development. Science, 324,1519–1520. Wallace, K.J. (2007). Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biological Conservation, 139, 235–246.
  • 36. Ecosystem Services in Agricultural and Urban Landscapes, First Edition. Edited by Steve Wratten, Harpinder Sandhu, Ross Cullen and Robert Costanza. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2 Ecological Processes, Functions and Ecosystem Services: Inextricable Linkages between Wetlands and Agricultural Systems Onil Banerjee,1 Neville D. Crossman1 and Rudolf S. de Groot2 1 CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Adelaide, Australia 2 Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands Abstract Ecosystems contribute to human well-being via the provision of goods and services where the benefits are direct, such as in the production of food and raw materials, and indirect as is the case in the regulation of water quality and supply. Underpinning these services is a suite of ecological functions that must be under- stood in order to manage and enhance ecosystem services provision. For exam- ple, a healthy wetland that contains a biologically diverse array of producers and consumers purifies water, making freshwater available for irrigated agricultural production, which in turn provides food for human consumption. Making the link between function and service also enables us to identify threats to ecosystem services from unsustainable management practices. For example, the excessive use of chemicals in agricultural production affects water quality and threatens a wetland’s functional capacity to purify water, consequently affecting food production. In this chapter, we identify the relationships between ecosystem function and ecosystem service. This linkage is a precursor to the estimation of ecosystem service values and understanding how changes in land and water man- agement flow through to marginal changes in values. To contextualize this rela- tionship, we consider specifically the services that wetlands provide in support of agricultural systems. We conclude with research challenges on managing complexity, resilience and trade-offs between ecosystem services and agriculture.
  • 37. Ecological Processes, Functions and Ecosystem Services 17 Introduction A critical challenge in the integration of ecosystem and economic science is the development of an operational classification of ecosystems and their functions which lends itself to the valuation of ecosystem services (de Groot et al., 2002; National Research Council, 2005). In the absence of either a political mandate to protect ecosystem integrity or a method of assigning value to ecosystem services for use in decision making, land use and development decisions will continue to be made without sufficient consideration for the important role ecosystems play in sustaining life (National Research Council, 2005; Daily et al., 2009). Furthermore, assigning monetary value to ecosystem services can aid in making environmental problems visible and thus inform decision processes (Wilson and Howarth, 2002; Spangenberg and Settele, 2010). The provision of ecosystem services and subsequent benefit to humans is underpinned by a series of biophysical processes and ecological functions which themselves are driven by biological diversity (Balvanera et al., 2006). These linkages are highlighted in Fig. 2.1. Experiments have shown that increasing the amount of biological diversity has in most cases an increasingly positive effect on ecosystem function and service. For example, greater abundance of soil myc- orrhiza and a higher rate of soil decomposer activity increases the rate of nutri- ent cycling, which is a regulating ecosystem service. A faster rate of nutrient cycling can be of direct benefit to humans if harnessed to increase agricultural productivity. Service Biophysical structure or process Function* (e.g. flood- protection, products) Ecosystems and Biodiversity (econ) Value Benefit(s) Human well-being (sociocultural context) (e.g. WTP for protection or products) (contribution to health, safety, etc) (e.g. slow water passage biomass) (e.g. vegetation cover or net primary productivity) * Subset of biophysical structure or process providing the service Fig. 2.1 The interdependencies of biological diversity, biophysical process, ecosystem function and service, human well-being, and willingness to pay (WTP). From de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L. and Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7, 260–272.
  • 38. 18 Scene Setting Agricultural commodities, valued in the market place, are just one of the ecosystem services agricultural systems produce. Ecosystem services have use and non-use values, and are valued using various methods. Non-use values include existence, bequest and altruistic values, or simply put – the knowledge that an ecosystem exists for us and for others now and in the future is valuable (National Research Council, 2005; Turner et al., 2008). Use values are categorized as direct and indirect. Direct-use values include timber production; a scenic lake may have recreational value which is captured by a management authority, or a home with a view of a natural and structurally diverse forest may fetch a better market price than a similar house without a scenic view. Ecosystems generate a multitude of indirect use values such as water filtration, nutrient retention and erosion mitiga- tion. These values are less tangible than direct-use values and do not directly involve interaction between a beneficiary and the ecosystem (TEEB, 2010). In this chapter we document the relationship between biological diversity, ecosystem function and service within agricultural systems. To guide the discus- sion, we focus on the interdependencies between agricultural production and the ecosystem services provided by freshwater wetlands (hereafter wetlands) and the impacts agricultural systems can have on the health and functioning of wetlands. We focus on wetlands because they are biologically complex yet relatively well understood, and critical to the provision of freshwater for agricultural use and human benefit. In the section that follows, ecosystem function and its linkages with ecosystem services are established. The ecological functions and subsequent ecosystem services generated by wetlands are defined and their interactions with agricultural systems are discussed in detail. We conclude the chapter with a dis- cussion of the research challenges involved in managing complexity, resilience and trade-offs between ecosystem services and agriculture. Linking ecosystem function with ecosystem service Ecosystems directly contribute to human well-being via the provision of ecosys- tem services (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003; Perrings, 2006; TEEB, 2010). The benefits provided by ecosys- tem services within agricultural systems are direct, such as food and raw materials, and indirect and include the regulation of water supply and quality and nutrient cycling example. Underpinning these services is a suite of ecological functions that must be understood in a first step to valuing, managing and enhancing ecosystem service provision. Importantly, a healthy and functioning wetland purifies water via biogeochemical and nutrient-retention processes, making freshwater available for irrigated agricultural production, which in turn provides food for human con- sumption. Making the link between function and service also enables us to iden- tify threats to ecosystem services from unsustainable management practices. For example, agricultural run-off that follows from excessive pesticide or fertilizer use impedes biogeochemical and nutrient retention processes, threatening the ability of wetlands to purify water, which in turn threatens food production. Ecosystem functions result from the interactions between characteristics, structures and processes (Turner et al., 2000) constituting the physical, chemical
  • 39. Ecological Processes, Functions and Ecosystem Services 19 and biological exchanges and processes that contribute to the self-maintenance and self-renewal of an ecosystem (e.g. nutrient cycling and food-web interactions). Ecosystem functions involve interactions between biotic and abiotic system com- ponents in achieving any and all ecosystem outcomes (National Research Council, 2005). de Groot (1992) illustrates the link between ecosystem function and human benefit by defining function as the capacity of natural processes and com- ponents to provide goods and services that generate human utility. Linking eco- system function to human benefit should encourage ecosystem-based management because of the monetary or non-monetary benefits provided by functionally diverse systems (Turner et al., 2008; Willemen et al., 2010). Following the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium Ecosystems Assessment, 2005), ecosystem functions may be conveniently grouped into four categories, namely: production, regulation, habitat and informational functions. Regulatory functions include gas and nutrient exchange, disturbance prevention, water regulation, soil retention and formation, waste treatment, pollination and biological control. Critical habitat functions are the provision of habitat and maintenance of biological diversity, while the production function includes the production of food and other raw materials such as medicinal, genetic and ornamental resources. Informational functions include aesthetic, recreational, cultural and spiritual functions. Ecosystem function and their resulting services have an inherently spatial nature. Services may be created and the benefits enjoyed in situ. An example of this is the provision of habitat which may be used by animals that are subse- quently hunted for recreation. Benefits may be omnidirectional where services are created in one location, though the benefits are spatially extensive, which is the case of the role of wetlands in sequestering carbon (Zedler and Kercher, 2005) and thus mitigating climate change – a benefit enjoyed globally. Finally, services may be directional, where a function occurs in one location, while the benefits are perceived directionally from that location due to the direction of flow. An example of this is the function riparian ecosystems serve in downstream flood control (Zedler and Kercher, 2005; Turner et al., 2008). Wetlands Wetlands are particularly diverse and productive ecosystems (Woodward and Wui, 2001; Zedler and Kercher, 2005) providing direct and indirect benefits at local, landscape and global scales (Acharya, 2000). Wetlands may be defined as areas exhibiting a temporary or permanent presence of water above or close to the soil surface and are maintained by waterlogging. Water is the primary factor affecting plant and animal life in these systems. Wetlands, although occupying less than 9% of the earth’s terrestrial surface, contribute significantly in the provision of ecosystem services (Zedler and Kercher, 2005). There are three major types of freshwater wetlands (Barbier et al., 1997): riverine, palustrine and lacustrine wetlands. Riverine wetlands are areas that are periodically flooded by a river rising above its banks and include water meadows, flooded forests and oxbow lakes. Palustrine wetlands are characterized by a
  • 40. 20 Scene Setting mostly permanent presence of water and include ponds and kettle and volcanic crater lakes. Lacustrine wetlands are permanently inundated areas with minimal water flow. The following sections provide an overview of key wetland functions, linkages to ecosystem services and their relationship with agricultural systems. Wetland functions Wetlands provide regulation (hydrological and biogeochemical), production, habitat and informational functions. The hydrological aspects of a wetland are critical in defining their characteristics and processes (Maltby, 2009). Three prin- cipal hydrological functions of wetlands are floodwater detention, groundwater recharge/discharge and sediment retention (Turner et al., 2008). Table 2.1 describes the linkages between wetland function and ecosystem service, and presents metrics to assess the presence and level of service provision. A wetland’s hydrological function contributes to its high productivity through the capture and cycling of nutrients from upstream (Barbier et al., 1997). Wetlands reduce overbank flooding and slope run-off (Zedler and Kercher, 2005). By stor- ing water, wetlands delay and reduce peak flows which could otherwise cause downstream flood damage. Wetlands may have significant interactions with groundwater where the substrate between the two is permeable. In these cases, wetlands may be involved in groundwater recharge and/or discharge of aquifers (Maltby, 2009). Finally, wetlands serve to retain sediments thereby alleviating downstream navigational problems, water treatment costs and damage to pump- ing infrastructure and spawning habitat. The interaction of a wetland’s biogeochemical function with hydrological functions enables interactions with surrounding wetlands (Mander et al., 2005). Specifically, biogeochemical functions of wetlands influence water quality, pollu- tion control and biodiversity (Mander et al., 2005; Zedler and Kercher, 2005; Maltby, 2009). Oxidization and reduction processes in the soil are responsible for significant biogeochemical reactions. Wetland flooding results in oxygen deple- tion where, through time, organic substrates are consumed and oxygen, nitrates and other compounds are reduced. The inundation of floodplains facilitates nutrient exchange; these sites are also often important spawning grounds for fish. The nutrient retention function of wetlands can affect water quality consider- ably, especially through the mitigation of incoming pollution. Nutrients and trace elements may be retained in plant structures or soil and organic matter (Mander et al., 2005), while nutrient export contributes to water quality maintenance and occurs through gaseous emission (Zedler, 2003), biomass harvest or erosion. Carbon is also retained in wetlands and is dependent on waterlogging, pH, nutri- ents and temperature. The level of pH and aerobic conditions in a wetland affects biodiversity in terms of the species and community assemblages possible. Organic carbon concentrations affect water turbidity and pH (Maltby, 2009). With regards to habitat function, wetlands often support a disproportionately large amount of biodiversity, including a significant number of rare or endangered species. Efforts aimed at protecting wetlands are often driven by concern for their biodiversity (Zedler and Kercher, 2005). A higher level of species diversity is promoted by ecological disturbance that occurs as a consequence of wetting
  • 41. Ecological Processes, Functions and Ecosystem Services 21 Table 2.1 Wetland ecosystem function, service and indicator. Ecosystem function Ecosystem service Establishing presence State indicator; sustainable yield Provisioning Food Fish, game, fruits and grains Total or average stock (kgha−1 ) Net productivity (Kcalyear−1 ) Water Water storage for domestic/ industrial/ agricultural use Total water (cubic mha−1 ) Net water inflow (m3 year−1 ) Fibre, fuel and other raw material Biotic/ abiotic resources, e.g. peat, fodder, fuel wood Total biomass (kgha−1 ) Net productivity (kgyear−1 ) Genetic resources Genes for pathogen resistance, ornamental species Number of species Maximum sustainable harvest (kgha−1 ) Biochemical and medicinal resources Potential medicines and other biotic materials Amount of useful substances (kgha−1 ) Maximum sustainable harvest (kgha−1 ) Regulating Air quality Capacity to extract atmospheric aerosols and chemicals Leaf Area Index or NOx-fixation Quantity of aerosols/ chemicals extracted Climate Influence on global and local climate Greenhouse gas balance, carbon sequestration, land cover Quantity of GHGs fixed Water regulation Groundwater recharge/ discharge Surface or soil water retention capacity Quantity of water stored and influence of hydrological regime Waste treatment Biotic and abiotic processes to remove excess nutrients/ pollutants Denitrification (kg Nha−1 year−1 ) Immobilization in plants and soil Maximum amount of waste recycled and influence on water and soil parameters Erosion protection Soil and sediment retention Root matrix Amount of soil/ sediment captured/ retained Soil formation and regeneration Natural processes in soil formation and regeneration Bioturbation Pollination Habitat for pollinators Number and impact of pollinating species (continued)
  • 42. 22 Scene Setting and drying cycles of wetlands. The production function of wetlands involves the conversion of energy, nutrients, water and gases into living biomass. This is a form of food-web support – the efficient primary production of biomass (Maltby, 2009). This function generates significant human utility through its production and provision of raw materials. Wetlands also serve an important function in maintaining habitat connectivity (Zedler, 2003; Mander et al., 2005; Tscharntke et al., 2005). Finally, information functions contribute to human cognitive, emo- tional and spiritual health, among other things. Wetland–agricultural systems interactions Agricultural systems rely on ecosystem services to enable the production of food, fibre, bioenergy and pharmaceuticals, and other important commodities. This present volume as well as recent research discuss in detail the ecosystem Ecosystem function Ecosystem service Establishing presence State indicator; sustainable yield Biological regulation Control of pests through trophic relations Number and impact of pest- control species Reduction of disease and pests, and crop pollination dependence Natural hazard Forests and dampening extreme events Water storage in cubic meters Reduction of flood danger and prevention of infrastructure damage Habitat Nursery Breeding, feeding and resting habitat Number of species and individuals Ecological value Gene pool Maintenance of ecological balance Natural biodiversity; endemic species Habitat integrity Information Aesthetic Structural diversity and other factors Number/area of landscape features Number of sustainable users Recreational and inspirational Landscape features Number/area of landscape features Number of sustainable users Cultural Culturally significant features Number/area or presence of landscape features Number of users Spiritual Spiritually significant features Number/area or presence of landscape features Number of users Sources: de Groot et al. (2002); de Groot et al. (2006); Food and Agriculture Organization (2008). Table 2.1 (Cont’d)
  • 43. Ecological Processes, Functions and Ecosystem Services 23 services on which agriculture depends (Porter et al., 2009; Power, 2010; Ribaudo et al., 2010; Sandhu et al., 2010a, 2010b, 2012). Approximately 20% of global agriculture depends on blue water (i.e. freshwater) extracted from surface water and groundwater resources and close to 70% of global water withdrawal is used for agricultural purposes (Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, 2007). The water filtration service under- taken by wetlands is therefore critical to agricultural productivity. In addition to ensuring adequate water quality and supply, wetlands provide agriculture with services related to pollination, biological pest control, mainte- nance of soil structure and fertility, and erosion mitigation. Wetlands mitigate floods and reduce floodwater peaks; they replenish stream flow through subsur- face flow, contribute to water table recharge and, depending on their position in the landscape, wetlands may retain water from aquifer discharge (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2008). Wetlands and riparian areas influence microcli- mates of adjacent fields by regulating humidity and evapotranspiration, and serve in filtering often contaminated overland flow from intensively managed agricultural areas (Mander et al., 2005). Various crops such as rice, corn, some vegetables and fruits are grown in, or in proximity to, wetlands. Activities such as fishing, livestock grazing and hay pro- duction are also conducted in or supported by these ecosystems. Soils in these areas are typically quite fertile with high clay content, particularly in seasonally inundated floodplains (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2008). Agricultural systems themselves produce ecosystem services (Tscharntke et al., 2005): they sequester carbon, regulate soil fertility, retain and cycle nutrients, and provide landscapes with aesthetic, cultural and spiritual values (Antle and Stoorvogel, 2006; Porter et al., 2009; Ribaudo et al., 2010). Wetlands support not only agri- culture in these ways, but also agricultural communities, by providing potable water and adequate supply for hydroelectric power generation. Wetlands and agricultural systems are therefore inextricably linked as they provide agriculture with critical and valuable services. Negative feedbacks, otherwise known as disservices (Power, 2010), created by agricultural systems have adverse impacts on wetlands through habitat deteriora- tion, contamination of fisheries and spawning areas, biodiversity loss, run-off, sedimentation, greenhouse gas emissions and the release of toxins into the envi- ronment. The primary pathway by which agricultural systems affect wetlands is through the diversion of water for irrigation and nutrient loading of nitrogen and phosphorous (Millennium Ecosystems Assessment, 2005; Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, 2007). Irrigated agriculture in some regions has resulted in soil salinization, equating to a global loss of 1.5 million hectares of arable land per year. Furthermore, large quantities of salt from land salinization are transported into wetlands by irriga- tion run-off, having substantial impacts on biodiversity, productivity and biogeo- chemical composition in wetlands (Williams, 2001). Changes to water regimes can have devastating effects on wetlands and their regulating functions including those dependent on groundwater, surface water and direct rainfall. Wetland degradation may expose agricultural systems to increased vulnerability to storm, flood and eutrophication events.
  • 44. 24 Scene Setting The interactions between wetlands and agricultural systems may be characterized as in situ or external where the former constitutes an agricultural intervention within a wetland and the latter is an intervention that is upstream, downstream or peripheral to a wetland. In situ interactions may involve a substantial transfor- mation of the wetland ecosystem or a more benign interaction. Significantly altering the ecosystem could involve drainage, grazing, ploughing or the applica- tion of pesticides and fertilizers. Fishing or the managed gathering of plants and animals is considered non-transformative, while enhancement can include manipulation of wetlands for agricultural or aquacultural purposes, including the creation of rice paddies, fish ponds and water storage areas (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2008). External interactions are more common than direct wetland interventions. Upstream interactions can involve diversion of water to agriculture which may have water quantity, quality and flow effects to wetlands situated downstream. Return flows of diverted water will be lower in quantity and may contain sub- stantial amounts of nutrients and toxins. Hydraulic gradients may also be cre- ated resulting in more rapid release of upland water and a lower watertable. Upstream agricultural practices that create erosion, sedimentation and runoff are detrimental to wetland ecosystems (Zedler and Kercher, 2005). Less com- mon is the case where wetlands affect agricultural activity upstream through their capacity for water storage and sediment retention; should their capacity in this regard be compromised, upstream waterlogging of agricultural areas may result (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2008). Furthermore, these types of interactions are seldom confined to one agricultural production unit and wetland, rather these interactions typically occur and are compounded at the catchment scale. Some research challenges Understanding complexity and resilience Ecosystems provide numerous goods and services, many of which have indirect value and are not traded in the market place. Our understanding of the ecosys- tem functions underpinning these services is limited, complicated by the spatial and temporal scales over which ecosystem services operate, and the interdepend- encies between ecosystem components and functions. Ecosystem functions are dynamic, exhibiting thresholds, complementary relationships to keystone processes, and system integrity and irreversibility (Turner et al., 2008). A thresh- old occurs where an ecosystem may cease to function or may function in an alternative undesirable state because one or more of its attributes are degraded beyond a specific level. Complementary relationships describe the interactions and interdependence of ecosystem components where the survival of one species depends on the existence of other species. These relationships have contributory value, which is a reflection of limited substitution possibilities. The notion of keystone processes describes system dependence on a limited number of ecosys- tem functions. A reduction in ecosystem diversity (e.g. structural or species
  • 45. Ecological Processes, Functions and Ecosystem Services 25 diversity) can affect system resilience and adaptability to shocks. Ecosystem structure and function reflects the notion that the health of an ecosystem depends on system integrity and the whole functioning of the system. Trade-offs Management and planning for wetlands and agriculture should focus on enhanc- ing multifunctionality where multiple ecosystem services are provided for human well-being and economic development. There is great potential to achieve syner- gies and win–win outcomes from effective planning and the development of economic incentives (DeFries and Rosenzweig, 2010; Gordon et al., 2010; Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2010). However, the less desirable lose–lose or lose–win outcomes are commonplace due to trade-offs between services and agriculture production (Tallis et al., 2008; Gordon et al., 2010; Crossman et al., 2011). Trade-offs arise when provisioning services, especially agricultural production, seem to conflict with regulating, habitat and information services. Globally, most wetland ecosystems have been heavily modified to make way for food provision- ing at the expense of other ecosystem services (Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, 2007). The principle cause for the decline of ecosystem services other than provisioning services, and a major barrier to the evolution of multifunctional landscapes, is the lack of economic valuation of these services. Where the value of these services is not accounted for in decision- making frameworks, such as cost–benefit analysis, the importance of these services in support of agricultural production are overlooked and trade-offs may be made using poor information. Management of wetlands and surrounding agricultural landscapes needs to account for the values of multiple ecosystem services (Carpenter et al., 2009). While there are an increasing number of examples of the creation of markets for ecosystem goods and services, including the provision of freshwater (Carroll et al., 2008; Bayon et al., 2009; Garrick et al., 2009), markets for most services are either absent or immature, leading to a lack of appropriate price signals for enhancing multifunctionality. Major challenges that lie ahead are the design of efficient markets for ecosystem service provision, and the development of strong institutions and regulatory instruments that underpin these markets. The goal is the sustainable growth of agricultural provisioning services without increasing the production of ecosystem disservices as these markets and institutions evolve. References Acharya, G. (2000). Approaches to Valuing the hidden hydrological services of wetland ecosystems. Ecological Economics, 35, 63–74. Antle, J.M. and Stoorvogel, J.J. (2006). Predicting the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88, 1174–1180. Balvanera, P ., Pfisterer, A.B., Buchmann, N., et al. (2006). Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecology Letters, 9, 1146–1156. Barbier, E.B., Acreman, M. and Knowler, D. (1997). Economic Valuation of Wetlands. A Guide for Policy Makers and Planners. Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland.
  • 46. 26 Scene Setting Bayon, R., Hawn, A. and Hamilton, K. (2009). Voluntary Carbon Markets: An International Business Guide to What They Are and How They Work. Earthscan, London. Carpenter, S.R., Mooney, H.A., Agard, J., et al. (2009). Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 1305–1312. Carroll, N., Fox, J. and Bayon, R. (eds) (2008). Conservation and Biodiversity Banking: A Guide to Setting up and Running Biodiversity Credit Trading Systems. Earthscan, London. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (2007). Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. Earthscan and International Water Management Institute, London and Colombo. Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., De Groot, R., et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260. Crossman, N.D., Bryan, B.A. and Summers, N.D. (2011). Carbon payments and low cost conservation. Conservation Biology, 25, 835–845. Daily, G.C. (ed.) (1997). Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC. Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., et al. (2009). Ecosystem services in decision mak- ing: time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 21–28. DeFries, R. and Rosenzweig, C. (2010). Toward a whole-landscape approach for sustain- able land use in the tropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 19627–19632. de Groot, R.S. (1992). Functions of Nature: Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Planning Management and Decision Making. Wolters-Noordhoff, Amsterdam. de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L. and Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, man- agement and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7, 260–272. de Groot, R.S., Stuip, M.A.M., Finlayson, C.M. and Davidson, N. (2006). Valuing Wetlands: Guidance for Valuing the Benefits Derived from Wetland Ecosystem Services. Secretariat of the Convention on Wetlands and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Gland and Montreal. de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A. and Boumans, R.M.J. (2002). A typology for the classifica- tion, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41, 393–408. Food and Agriculture Organization (2008). Scoping Agriculture–Wetland Interactions, Towards a Sustainable Multiple-Response Strategy. FAO Water Reports, 33. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0314e/i0314e00.htm (accessed August 2012). Garrick, D., Siebentritt, M.A., Aylward, B., Bauer, C.J. and Purkey, A. (2009). Water Markets and freshwater ecosystem services: policy reform and implementation in the Columbia and Murray-Darling basins. Ecological Economics, 69, 366–379. Gordon, L.J., Finlayson, C.M. and Falkenmark, M. (2010). Managing water in agricul- ture for food production and other ecosystem services. Agricultural Water Management, 97, 512–519. Maltby, E. (2009). Functional Assessment of Wetlands: Towards Evaluation of Ecosystem Services. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge. Mander, Ü., Hayakawa, Y. and Kuusemets, V . (2005). Purification processes, ecological functions, planning and design of riparian buffer zones in agricultural watersheds. Ecological Engineering, 24, 421–432. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC. Millennium Ecosystems Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. National Research Council (2005). Valuing Ecosystem Services. Toward Better Environmental Decision-Making. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Perrings, C. (2006). Ecological economics after the millennium assessment. International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics, 6, 8–22.
  • 47. Ecological Processes, Functions and Ecosystem Services 27 Porter, J., Costanza, R., Sandhu, H., Sigsgaard, L. and Wratten, S. (2009). The value of producing food, energy, and ecosystem services within an agro-ecosystem. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 38, 186–193. Power, A.G. (2010). Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365 (1554), 2959–2971. Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D. and Bennett, E.M. (2010). Ecosystem service bun- dles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 5242–5247. Ribaudo, M., Greene, C., Hansen, L. and Hellerstein, D. (2010). Ecosystem services from agriculture: steps for expanding markets. Ecological Economics, 69, 2085–2092. Sandhu, H.S., Crossman, N.D. and Smith, F.P . (2012). Ecosystem services and Australian agricultural enterprises. Ecological Economics, 74, 19–26. Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D. and Cullen, R. (2010a). Organic agriculture and ecosystem services. Environmental Science and Policy, 13, 1–7. Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D. and Cullen, R. (2010b). The role of supporting ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable farmland. Ecological Complexity, 7, 302–310. Spangenberg, J.H. and Settele, J. (2010). Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services. Ecological Complexity, 7, 327–337. Tallis, H., Kareiva, P ., Marvier, M. and Chang, A. (2008). An ecosystem services frame- work to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 9457–9464. TEEB (ed.) (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London. Tscharntke, T., Klein, A.M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I. and Thies, C. (2005). Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem ser- vice management. Ecology Letters, 8, 857–874. Turner, R.K., Georgiou, S. and Fisher, B. (2008). Valuing Ecosystem Services: The Case of Multi-Functional Wetlands. Earthscan, London. Turner, R.K., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Söderqvist, T., et al. (2000). Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy. Ecological Economics, 35, 7–23. Willemen, L., Hein, L. and Verburg, P .H. (2010). Evaluating the impact of regional devel- opment policies on future landscape services. Ecological Economics, 69, 2244–2254. Williams, W .D. (2001). Anthropogenic salinisation of inland waters. Hydrobiologia, 466, 329–337. Wilson, M.A. and Howarth, R.B. (2002). Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecological Economics, 41, 431–443. Woodward, R.T. and Wui, Y.-S. (2001). The economic value of wetland services: a meta- analysis. Ecological Economics, 37, 257–270. Zedler, J.B. (2003). Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1, 65–72. Zedler, J.B. and Kercher, S. (2005). Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services and restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 39–74.
  • 48. Ecosystem Services in Agricultural and Urban Landscapes, First Edition. Edited by Steve Wratten, Harpinder Sandhu, Ross Cullen and Robert Costanza. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 3 Key Ideas and Concepts from Economics for Understanding the Roles and Value of Ecosystem Services Pamela Kaval1 and Ramesh Baskaran2 1 Havelock North, New Zealand and Marylhurst University, Oregon, USA 2 Faculty of Commerce, Lincoln University, New Zealand Abstract Economists have been contributing to the discussion of the valuation of ecosys- tem services for many years; however, there is currently no standardization in the field. Consequently, studies differ extensively and comparisons between studies are difficult. This chapter briefly describes the primary economic methods commonly used to value ecosystem services. The results of an ecosystem service valuation literature review are then discussed. Finally, recommendations are offered on how to conduct ecosystem service valuation studies. How can ecosystem services be valued? It is easy to understand how ecosystem services contribute directly to life. For example, plants produce oxygen, a gas we need to breathe, while the ozone layer protects us from the sun’s ultraviolet radiation. However, it is difficult to make comparisons between how much oxygen one tree produces, how much oxygen a person needs, how well the ozone layer prevents people from getting skin cancer, 50 tons of lumber, 3 hours of hiking and the 100 worms per square meter of soil that help to aerate the soil for plant growth. The easiest way to enable compari- son of these ecosystem services is to use one type of unit. Economists have devised a methodology that enables us to use a dollar value as the common unit of comparison. Placing dollar values on ecosystem services makes it simpler for everyone, from farmers to politicians, to understand the value of a service,
  • 49. Key Ideas and Concepts from Economics 29 because most people use currency as a unit of value and medium of exchange (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; Daily et al., 1997; de Groot et al., 2002). Placing a dollar value on ecosystem services requires extensive reflection on the interconnectedness of ecosystems. As there are so many ecosystem services, there are also many ecosystem service values, from the price of gold, to the value of swimming in a stream, to the value of the safety of a fledgling in a bird nest on a tall cliff (Pearce and Turner, 1990; Merlo and Croitoru, 2005). By considering all ecosystem service values, the total economic value of nature is considered. The total economic value approach depends on the spatial and temporal scales being assessed, thus requiring analysts to be clear about the intended scope of their study. The total economic value conceptual framework views ecosystem goods and services as the flows of benefits and costs provided by the stock of natural capital (eftec, 2006). Because there are so many types of ecosystem services, it is often preferable to group them together before attempting to calculate their value. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) divided ecosystem services into four categories: supporting, provisioning, regulation and cultural services. Similarly, de Groot et al. (2002) also divided ecosystem services into four categories: regulation, habi- tat, production and information. In order to calculate the total economic value of ecosystem services, it may be easier to think of these services according to the type of value they provide (Fig. 3.1). Values can be assessed in the ways in which ecosystem services provide intangible benefits, or non-use values, where the resource is not directly used, and ways in which they support consumption, or use values, where the resource is being used. More specifically, non-use values include altruistic, existence, bequest and option value. Altruistic value is the value people have knowing that others can enjoy goods and services from ecosystem services, even though they may never enjoy them themselves. For example, people may value knowing that others enjoy viewing the wildlife in Kenya’s national parks and reserves, even though they will never go there to see the wildlife themselves. Existence value is derived from the satisfaction of knowing that a certain species or ecosystem exists, even if it will never be seen or used directly. An example of an existence value is know- ing and feeling good about the existence of the blue whale, the largest mammal in the world living today. A person may believe that it is important that blue whales exist even though they may never see them although they may read about it in a book or see it on a television or movie programme. Bequest value is the satisfaction one obtains from being able to pass on environmental benefits to future generations. In this way, a person knows that the wildlife in Kenya’s national parks and reserves will be available for their grandchildren and great grandchildren to visit someday. Option value pertains to the value people have knowing they have the option to use a resource in the future, even if they never do. This value relates to uncertainty and risk aversion, in that they are unsure they will ever use it, but don’t want to risk the chance of it being lost. Use values focus on the actual use of a resource and can be further subdivided into direct-use values, where a resource is directly being used in some way, and indirect-use values, where the resource is only indirectly being used. Direct use is further divided into extractive-use values that are extracted or consumed from
  • 50. 30 Scene Setting ecosystems, such as logging and fishing, and non-extractive-use values, from activities that are directly enjoyed, such as swimming, bird watching and cross- country skiing. The indirect-use value is referred to as a non-extractive-use value derived from functional services that the environment provides. For example, ecosystem regulatory processes that indirectly provide support and protection include erosion control and ultraviolet radiation protection (Freeman, 2003; National Research Council, 2005; Anderson, 2006; Tietenberg, 2006; Hanley and Barbier, 2009). Total economic value of ecosystem services Market values (the dollar value people knowingly pay for an ES) Non-market values (ES is not directly exchanged on the market, but may be indirectly exchanged) Non-use values – includes altruistic, existence, bequest, and option value Use values (when people use the resource in some way, but do not directly pay to use it) Use values (when people use the resource in some way and directly pay to use it) Direct use values – can be extractive (e.g., purchasing lumber) or non-extractive (e.g., the fee paid to climb at a rockclimbing crag) Non-use values (e.g., paying someone to protect a beach that they will never visit to save an endangered species) Indirect use values (e.g., volunteering to pay your homeowners association extra money for an erosion control project in your neighborhood) Direct use values – can be extractive (e.g., picking wild berries you don’t pay a fee for) or non- extractive (e.g., swimming, assuming there is no fee) Indirect use values – (e.g., natural flood and erosion control) Fig. 3.1 Total economic value of ecosystem services. Note that market values are typically measured as direct use values; whereas indirect use and non-use values are more commonly measured as non-market values.
  • 51. Key Ideas and Concepts from Economics 31 The next step is to determine whether the resource was paid for directly, as then it is considered a market value, or whether it was not paid for directly, or not paid for at all, as then it is a non-market value. For consumptive goods, when directly using a resource, such as eating a fish that you have purchased, we can consider the market value, in that a specific amount of money is exchanged in a market by people to directly use these products. When paying for something that will not be used directly, such as giving money to your neighbour’s son to raise bees, you are experiencing an indirect-use market value. More specifically, since the son is raising bees for honey and not providing you with any of the honey, but you are still benefitting from the bees’ pollination of the flowers in your yard, it is an indirect-use market value. However, if you donate money to sponsor a trip for your neighbour’s son to work on an island to prevent poachers from stealing turtle eggs, you have a non-use market value because you feel good about saving the turtles even though you may never see them (Pearce and Turner, 1990; Freeman, 2003; National Research Council, 2005; Anderson, 2006). Using similar examples, if you are fishing on your uncle’s boat on the ocean and catch and eat a fish, but do not pay directly for this fish, as you do not need a fishing license to fish on the ocean, it is a non-market direct-use value. You have value in this trip, as you chose to go on the trip, may have paid for petrol to drive to your uncle’s house and may pay to camp overnight somewhere to get there, but you did not pay ‘directly’ for the fish. If you did not give money to your neighbour’s son for the bees, but the bees are still pollinating your flowers, you have an indirect non-market-use value. And if you did not give your neighbour’s son any money to work on the island, but still feel good about him being there saving the turtles, you have a non-market non-use value for the turtles (Freeman, 2003; Anderson, 2006; Hanley and Barbier, 2009). It is clear that a single person may benefit in more than one way from the same ecosystem. Thus, total economic value is the sum of all the relevant use and non- use, market and non-market values, for goods and services in a particular ecosys- tem.Thesemeasuresofvaluecanbeincludedinpolicyandotherland-management decisions. Ecosystem service valuation methodologies Economists have developed a number of market and non-market techniques to estimate the value of the environmental amenities from ecosystem services. Market values are calculated as out-of-pocket expenses and can be used to estimate the value of ecosystem goods and services that are traded in formal markets, such as the sale of timber and fish. Market values also include for example a decrease in the productivity of a fish stock, caused by an environmental effect such as an oil spill, that could lead to an earnings loss of a person dependant on fishing for their income. Defensive or preventive expenditures are another type of market value. These expenditures are made by a firm, government or individual to avoid or reduce an unwanted effect. An example of a defensive expenditure is the purchase of a water filter to drink water from a well contaminated by an unwanted chemi- cal that leached into the groundwater system from a nearby mining operation.
  • 52. 32 Scene Setting Methods for measuring non-market values fall into two general categories: revealed preference and stated preference methods (Freeman, 2003; Hanley and Barbier, 2009). Revealed preference methods are based on observations of actual behaviour and allow us to make inferences about how individuals value changes in environmental quality. In contrast, stated preference measurements are based on responses to survey questions. Some common non-market valuation methods used today include the contingent valuation method, choice experiments, the travel cost method, and the hedonic pricing method. These methods are described briefly. Revealed preference methods The travel cost method sometimes called the Clawson Method, is a revealed preference method in that the respondent is revealing something that they actu- ally did. Here, they report on the time they took and the costs they incurred to take a specific trip, costs that they would not have spent normally. An example is determining the cost of travelling to a lake to fish and camp. To do this, extra money is spent on fuel and camping fees, assuming the person already has all of their fishing equipment (Pearce and Turner, 1990; Haab and McConnell, 2002; Kahn, 2005; Anderson, 2006; Hackett, 2006). Hedonic pricing is a revealed preference method that investigates the prices people pay for specific goods for the purpose of valuing an environmental resource. Oftentimes, the price that is investigated is a house/ property price. For example, to determine the value of seeing the beach from a house, the researcher could compare the price of houses overlooking a beach to equivalent homes one block away without a beach view (Hussen, 2000; Haab and McConnell, 2002; Kahn, 2005; Anderson, 2006; Hackett, 2006). Stated preference methods The contingent valuation method is sometimes called the willingness-to-pay or willingness-to-accept method. It is a stated preference method in that a person ‘states’ what they will do if a hypothetical situation were to arise. More specifi- cally, they state how much they are willing-to-pay (willing-to-accept) for a change in a particular good or service. An example is the amount of money they would be willing-to-pay to hunt for deer in an area, if they were guaranteed to see at least some deer on a particular hunting trip (Hussen, 2000; Haab and McConnell, 2002; Daly and Farley, 2004; Kahn, 2005; Anderson, 2006; Hackett, 2006). Choice modelling is a stated preference method in which a respondent is faced with a variety of alternatives and may be asked to select their most preferred alternative from a choice set (choice experiment), group their preferences (contingent grouping), rate their preferences (contingent rating), or rank their preferences (contingent ranking). There will typically be three or four alternative strategies with similar attributes (per question) presented to the respondents. An
  • 53. Key Ideas and Concepts from Economics 33 example of choice modelling alternatives include variations in the risk of toxic chemicals reaching the groundwater, the percentage of harvested trees, the per- centage of species diversity, as well as a dollar value, such as an entrance fee or a fee in your annual taxes/ rates (Louviere et al., 2000; Bateman et al., 2002; Hensher et al., 2005; Street and Burgess, 2007; Riera et al., 2012). These four methods, together with direct-market values, can aid us in valuing many ecosystem services. But they fall short of valuing all ecosystem services, for which other methods must be employed. These include the avoided cost method, the replacement cost method, the restoration cost method, factor income, and the benefit transfer method.1 Other methods Avoided cost methods attempt to quantify the costs we do not have to pay when nature is providing a particular good. One example is to calculate the value of storm and buffer functions provided by coastal wetlands in the event of a hur- ricane or cyclone. To do this, you could calculate the potential financial losses if the wetlands did not exist. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused over $US81 billion damage to the New Orleans area. If the wetlands around New Orleans had not been destroyed by years of alterations to the Mississippi River, New Orleans would not have been almost completely exposed to the Gulf of Mexico, and there may not have been any, or as much, damage (Daily, 1997; Daily, 1997; Knabb, 2006; Cleveland, 2006). Replacement cost is a method used to calculate the cost of replacing a service with a human-created product, such as fertilizers to replace the nutrients that are recycled by earthworms and benefit the soil (Hussen, 2000; Kahn, 2005). Restoration cost is a method used to calculate the cost of restoring an ecosys- tem to the natural state that existed prior to an environmental damage, such as the cost of repairing the environmental damage caused by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill of 1989 (Bragg et al., 1994; Kahn, 2005). Factor income is the value of an ecosystem service that enhances the market value of ecosystem services. For example, bees pollinate the flowers of the agri- cultural crops sold on the market (Woodward and Wui, 2001; Brander et al., 2006). The marginal benefit of pollination services to the crop can be used to estimate the value of the service provided by the bees. 1 Some studies also consider group valuation or discourse based methods to obtain values for ecosystem services. In a discourse based study, people get together in a designated location and discuss their values for an ecosystem good or service. Since ecosystem services are commonly public goods that affect many people, some feel that the valuation of these public services should not come from individual-based values, such as in the previous approaches used, but from public discussion. In this way, the values derived are considered those of society and are believed to lead to socially equitable and politically legitimate out- comes (Wilson and Howarth, 2002). Consequently, this method focuses on qualitative values. The focus of this study is quantitative methods, therefore, this method is not being considered here.
  • 54. 34 Scene Setting Benefit transfer or value transfer, is a method used as a result of time limita- tions and/or budget constraints and focuses on applying secondary data. In this method, a researcher uses existing economic valuation information from a study conducted in a particular area, called the study site, and transfers those values to a new site or area, sometimes called the policy site. Care should be made to trans- fer values from an area that is similar to the policy site (Kaval and Loomis, 2003; Kahn, 2005). There are two types of benefit transfers: value transfers and function transfers. A value-transfer approach takes a single point estimate, usually a mean willingness-to-pay or an average of point estimates from multiple studies that have been developed elsewhere, to transfer to a new study area. A function transfer approach transfers the entire estimated equation (function) of a study site to the policy site. For example, a travel cost demand equation from a study site could be used with the socioeconomic or demographic characteristics such as income, average travel costs and quality conditions at the policy site to estimate the average willingness-to-pay of different proposed plans at the policy site. While this method is listed under non-market valuation methods, it can also be used to transfer market values. Table 3.1 is an extension of the de Groot et al. (2002) table and provides a list of ecosystem services, their value types, as well as the methods commonly used to calculate their dollar value. As can be seen, researchers use different methods to calculate values. Recreation, for example, is a direct use value and can be cal- culated as a market or non-market value. If you paid money to use an indoor climbing wall, the price paid is a market value. However, if you went to climb in a park that does not charge an entrance fee, this would be considered a non- market value. Non-market-valuation methods commonly used to calculate rec- reation values include the contingent-valuation method, travel-cost method, choice experiments, factor income, hedonic method, avoided costs, restoration costs and the benefit-transfer method. Science and education, on the other hand, are considered a market value and a direct use. Valuation methods commonly used for science and education include market valuation and benefit transfer (Hartwick and Olewiler, 1998; de Groot et al., 2002; Kahn, 2005). As can be seen, the valuation method used will depend on the type of service being studied. Many different methods can work for any given service, and the method of choice depends on the availability of the resources, time, data, specific characteristics and goals of the study. How ecosystem services have been measured in the past Ecosystem service studies are well represented in the literature, even if they were not always termed as such. One of the first and most thorough, original longitu- dinal ecosystem service studies that predated this discipline was a Rhone Poulenc farm management study conducted by Higgenbotham et al. (Higginbotham et al., 1997, 1999, 2000). In this seminal study that began in 1994 on 57 hectares in Essex, they compared organic farming to reduced input and conventional farming for a variety of crops. They not only estimated the values, costs and yields of the crops, but also measured food quality, the taste of the final goods,
  • 55. Another Random Document on Scribd Without Any Related Topics
  • 56. Wayteglede, == watch-the-fire, i. e. one who sits in the chimney corner, poking over the fire? Wright’s L. P. p. 47. Cf. the Norse phrase Kólbitr; and see the Introduction to Dasent’s Popular Tales from the Norse, pp. lxxx-lxxxii. 1st Edit. We. See Woe We. See I We. See With Weak, adj. HD. 1012 Weal, sb. 1277 B. Wealth, sb. Ps. lxxii. 12 Weapon, sb. HD. 1436. O. and N. 1367 Wear, v. a. RG. 390; pret, ‘werede.’ RG. 434 Weariness, sb. RG. 240 Weary, adj. RG. 19 Weather, sb. RG. 560 Web, sb. Fr. Sci. 315 Webbe, sb. == weaver. Pol. S. 188 Wed, sb. == pledge. Pol. S. 151. Wright’s L. P. p. 110. RG. 393. AS. wed Wed, v. a. == marry. RG. 295, 439; said of the priest who marries two persons. Pol. S. 159. AS. weddian, wed Wedbreak, sb. == adulterer. Ps. xlix. 18 Wedding, sb. St Lucy, 88. Manuel des Pecches, 1712 Wede, vb. == wade, go. See Wade
  • 57. Wedlock, sb. Marg. 11 Wednesday. RG. 509 Wee. See Woe Weed, sb. == garment. RG. 560. AS. wǽd Weed, sb. == herb. Alys. 796. AS. weód Week, sb. RG. 113; pl. ‘wouke.’ RG. 387. AS. weoc Weeles. See Well, sb. Ween, v. n. == think. RG. 369. O. and N. 237. 2 s. pres. ‘wanst.’ O. and N. 1642. AS. wénan —— v. a. == impute. Ps. xxxi. 2 Weep, v. n. RG. 420; [wyppen]. O. and N. 1064 Weeping, sb. RG. 405. Wright’s L. P. p. 30; [wyping]. Ibid. p. 85 Wef, sb. == whiff or scent. Body and Soul, 56. AS. wiffan Weight, sb. == a measure, weight. Ps. lxi. 10. AS. wæg Weir, sb. Ps. cxiii. 8; [wore]. Wright’s L. P. p. 28. AS. wǽr Welaway, interj. 1179 B. Welcome, adj. RG. 508 —— v. a. 473 B. Welde. See Wield Welk, v. n. == fade, become pale. Ps. lxxxix. 6. See Weolewe Welkin, sb. == the sky. Wright’s L. P. p. 114; [walken]. Alys. 5799. Ps. cl. 1; dat. s. ‘weoluce.’ O. and N. 1680. AS. welcn, wolcen Well, adj. == good. 89 B.
  • 58. —— adv. RG. 375. O. and N. 31 —— == rightly. Rel. S. i. 20 Well, sb. (of water). RG. 1. Wright’s L. P. p. 94; pl. ‘weeles.’ Ps. xvii. 5. AS. well, wyl Well, v. n. == boil, well up. Wright’s L. P. p. 40; [walle]. RG. 28; pret. ‘wal.’ Body and Soul, 218; part. ‘wallyng.’ Alys. 1622. AS. weallan —— v. a. == boil. Marg. 60 Wellnigh, adv. == almost. O. and N. 44 Wellquemand, part. == pleasing. Ps. xci. 15 Wellqueme, sb. == pleasure. Ps. lxxxviii. 18; cv. 4 Wellquemeness, sb. == pleasingness. Ps. cxl. 5 Wellset, v. a. Ps. civ. 9; cxi. 5 Wellsetting, sb. Ps. cxviii. 91 Welly, adv. == kindly. Ps. l. 20 Wem, sb. == a spot or scar. RG. 336. St Kath. 151. AS. wem, womm Wem, v. a. == to defile, corrupt. Ps. lxxxviii. 35; [wemmy]. RG. 206; part. ‘wemmed.’ Ps. xv. 10. AS. wemman Wemed, adj. ‘prout wemod’ == with a proud stomach. Fr. Sci. 285. ‘Wem’ is still used for ‘womb’ in the North of England. AS. wamb Wemless, adj. == spotless. Creed of St Athan. 6. Ps. xiv. 2 Wemmand, sb. == sinner. Ps. cxviii. 158 Wemmedness, sb. Ps. c. 3
  • 59. Wemming, sb. RG. 336 Wemmy, v. a. == defile. See Wem, vb. Wench, sb. Cok. 139. Ps. lxvii. 26. AS. wencle. See Gloss. to Orm. s. v. wenchell Wend, v. n. == go. RG. 8. AS. wendan —— == turn (as in bed). Wright’s L. P. p. 28 —— v. a. == turn. HD. 2138; change. Wright’s L. P. p. 91 Wending, sb. == departure. Alys. 920 Wene, adj. == frequent, rife? Pol. S. 150. AS. wune, custom. Dut. wennen Weole, sb. == wealth. Pol. S. 156. AS. weola —— == happiness? Wright’s L. P. p. 44 Weolewe, v. n. == fade, become pale. Wright’s L. P. p. 50. AS. wealwian Wepmon, sb. == man. Pol. S. 153. O. and N. 1377. AS. wæpman Were. See Be Were, v. a. == defend. HD. 2298. Alys. 5836; [werye]. Alys. 3533. AS. werian. Germ. wehren Were, sb. == man, husband. O. and N. 1339. AS. wer Werewed, part. == worried, killed? HD. 1915 Werien, v. a. == curse. O. and N. 1172; [werre]. Manuel des Pecches, 1291; [warye]. Id. 1292. AS. werigan Werth, == throweth. See Warp
  • 60. Weryying, sb. == protection. Wright’s L. P. p. 75. Ps. xxi. 20; [weryng]. Alys. 2798. AS. werian West. RG. 544 West, vb. == shows? Alys. 238. AS. wísian Westerness, sb. == the West country. K. Horn, 949 Westward, adv. RG. 20 Wet, sb. Fr. Sci. 136. AS. wæt —— v. a. Wright’s L. P. p. 31; pret. ‘watte.’ RG. 322; part. ‘wet.’ Wright’s L. P. p. 30 —— v. n. == become wet. Wright’s L. P. p. 36 —— adj. [wete]. Wright’s L. P. p. 85 Wete, v. n. == weep. Wright’s L. P. p. 84 Wether, sb. Ps. lxiv. 14. RG. 52. AS. weðer Weve, v. a. == make to go, cut off; part. ‘weved,’ ‘yweved.’ Alys. 3839, 3807 Weve, v. n. == go, move. RG. 64. Another form of ‘wawe,’ ‘wave,’ ‘wag’ Weved, sb. == altar. RG. 369, 419, 433. AS. weofod Weye, sb. == woe, q. v. Weȝe, v. a. == carry, O. and N. 1020. AS. wegan Whale, sb. [hwal]. HD. 755; [qual]. HD. 753. AS. hwæl Whalebone, sb. [whalles bone]. Wright’s L. P. p. 38 What, interr. pron. O. and N. 1438 —— rel. pron. O. and N. 1439
  • 61. —— interj. O. and N. 1296 What—what, == some—some. RG. 402 Whate, adv. == quickly. Alys. 2639. AS. hwæt Whatkin, adj. == what kind of. Ps. lv. 10 Whatloker, adj. == much rather. RG. 429, 357. 1249 B. (?) AS. hwætlíc, comp. hwætlicor Wheat, sb. Alys. 5193. AS. hwǽte Wheel, sb. RG. 408. AS. hweol Whelp, sb. Ps. ciii. 21. AS. hwelp When, adv. [wanne]. RG. 367, 378; [hwenne]. Rel. S. iv. 1; [hwanne]. O. and N. 1416; [hwan]. O. and N. 1468; [whan]. 290 β; [wane]. O. and N. 521; [wone]. O. and N. 324 Whence, adv. gen. of ‘when;’ [whonene]. O. and N. 138; [wanene]. O. and N. 1298; [whannes]. 288 β; [whethen]. Ps. cxx. 1 Where, adv. [war]. RG. 40. O. and N. 526; [whar]. 1078 B. Whereby, adv. [warbi]. RG. 101 Wherefore, adv. 126 B. Whereof, adv. RG. 405 Wheresoever, adv. 1389 B. Wherethrough, adv. [war þoru]. RG. 432 Whereto, adv. 447 B. O. and N. 464 Whet, v. a. == sharpen; part. ‘y-whet.’ Alys. 6607. AS. hwettan Whethen, == whence, q. v.
  • 62. Whether, adv. RG. 16; [whar]. 67 B; ‘whether—the’ == whether— or. O. and N. 1358, 1360 —— adj. RG. 408 Whey, sb. [wei]. O. and N. 1007. AS. wæg Which, rel. pron. RG. 472; [hwucche]. O. and N. 934; [wuch]. O. and N. 1376 —— == what. 974 B. RG. 454 While, sb. == time. O. and N. 1589 —— with the def. art. == whilst [þe wule]. RG. 377 Whilom, adv. == formerly (dat. pl. of while). Wright’s L. P. p. 87 Whine, v. n. [wonie]. O. and N. 973. AS. wánian. Dut. weynen Whining, sb. [wonyng]. O. and N. 311 Whistle, v. n. Alys. 5348, 5263. AS. hwistlian White, adj. RG. 2, 228; [with]. HD. 48 —— sb. == white of an egg. HD. 240 Whiten, v. a. Ps. l. 9 Whither, adv. 693 B. Whitherward, adv. 59 B. Who, rel. pron. [hoo]. RG. 40; [hwo]. O. and N. 1193 gen. ‘was.’ RG. 475 dat. and acc. ‘whom.’ RG. 10; ‘wham.’ 116 B.; ‘hwam.’ Rel. S. ii. 2; ‘hwan.’ O. and N. 1508 Who, == one, ‘as who seith’ == as one saith. RG. 328; ‘alle ho’ == every one. O. and N. 66
  • 63. Whole, adj. == sound. RG. 377. 676 β Whore, sb. RG. 279 Whoredom, sb. RG. 241, 479 Whoreling, sb. Rel. S. vii. 29 Whoreson, sb. Alys. 880 Whoso, pron. Wright’s L. P. p. 26; [whose]. Ibid. p. 114 Why, interr. [wu]. RG. 307; [hwi]. O. and N. 1256; [wi]. O. and N. 1232 —— rel. adv. O. and N. 474; [whi]. 1573 B. Wick, adj. == wicked. RG. 208. From AS. wǽc, weak —— == bad, wretched; ‘wikke clothes.’ HD. 2458 Wicke, adj. ‘wicke tune,’ O. and N. 730, means probably ‘establishments.’ From the AS. wíc-tunas Wicked, adj. Wright’s L. P. pp. 24, 30; ‘a wicked weed’ == a wretched garment. Serm. 40 Wickedness, sb. Pol. S. 230 Wickehede, sb. == wickedness. Body and Soul, 43 Wicket, sb. K. Horn, 1106. Fr. guichet Wiclik, adv. == wickedly. Ps. xliii. 18 Wide, adj. RG. 410. Widow, sb. HD. 79. AS. wuduwe Wield, v. a. == govern, rule. 816 B.; [wolde]. RG. 147 Wife, sb. RG. 26, 380
  • 64. Wigeling, sb. == an out-of-the-way place? Ps. cvi. 40. AS. wicelian, to stagger, to go out of the direct road Wight, sb. == a man. RG. 533. 470 β. AS. wiht Wight, adj. == active. HD. 9; [with]. HD. 1756; comp. ‘wyghtyore.’ Alys. 2396. Swed. vig —— adv. == immediately, quickly. Wright’s L. P. p. 44 Wighth, sb. == a space of time. Alys. 5362; a space. Ps. viii. 6. AS. wuht, wiht Wightness, sb. == valour, activity. Alys. 5001 Wike, sb. == dwelling. O. and N. 604. AS. wic Wike, sb. == office, duty. O. and N. 603; station. Alys. 4608. See Gl. to Orm. s. v. Wikenn Wike, v. n. == be weary. Wright’s L. P. p. 87. AS. wícan Wikness, sb. == wickedness. Ps. v. 5 Wil, adj. == wild, uncertain. HD. 1042 Wild, adj. == fierce. RG. 374, 510; ‘wild beasts.’ RG. 375 Wilderness, sb. == a desolate place. RG. 15 Wildfire, sb. RG. 410 Wile, sb. == trick, deceit. Ritson’s AS. viii. 180. AS. wile Wilful, adj. RG. 359; [willesful]. RG. 77 —— == voluntary. Ps. lxvii. 10 Wilfully, adv. == without a cause. Ps. xxxiv. 7; lxviii. 5 Will, sb. RG. 367 —— v. n. == wish. RG. 384; pret. ‘wolde.’ RG. 550
  • 65. Will, v. aux. pres. 1 s. ‘wole.’ 39 B.; 2 s. ‘wolt.’ 40 B.; ‘wlt.’ O. and N. 499; 3 s. ‘wule.’ O. and N. 1360; ‘wile.’ O. and N. 1358; pret. 3 s. ‘wolde.’ 17 β; 2 s. ‘woldest.’ 35 B. ‘Will’ is constantly used with the infin. of the verb to form an imperative, as ‘nil þou niþe’ == strive not. Ps. xxxvi. 8, and cf. Ps. lxxiv. 5, 6 Willesful, == wilful, q. v. Willing, sb. Rel. Ant. ii. 212 Wilne, v. n. == wish. RG. 217. AS. wilnian —— v. a. == covet, desire. RG. 46; part. ‘y-wilned.’ RG. 309 Wimple, sb. Marg. 47. AS. winpel Win, v. a. == subdue, get possession of [i-winne]. RG. 519; recover, obtain. RG. 523, 549; pret. ‘wonne.’ RG. 384; ‘wonde.’ RG. 258; ‘wan.’ Alys. 5561. AS. winnan Wind, sb. RG. 367 Wind, v. a. == twist. pret. ‘wond.’ Pilate, 126. AS. windan Windmill, sb. RG. 547 Window, sb. Wright’s L. P. p. 91 Wine, sb. RG. 6, 542. AS. wín Wine, sb. == a friend. M. Ode, 111. AS. wine Wineyard, sb. == vineyard. Wright’s L. P. p. 41. AS. wín-geard Wing, sb. RG. 28 Winli, adj. == winsome. Ps. xxiii. 3. AS. wynlíc Winne, sb. == joy. Pol. S. 195. AS. wyn Winne, sb. == labour. O. and N. 670. AS. win
  • 66. Winsome, adj. == lovely, delightful. Ps. lxxviii. 9. AS. wynsum —— v. n. == be propitious. Ps. cii. 3 Winter, sb. RG. 371, 539 Wipe, v. a. RG. 435. AS. wípian Wippen, v. n. == weep? O. and N. 1064 Wire, sb. [wyred]. Alys. 208. AS. wír Wirwed, part. == strangled. HD. 1921. Dut. wurghen Wisdom, sb. RG. 384 Wise, sb. == manner, ‘in no wise.’ 1212 B.; [wes]. O. and N. 748 Wise, adj. RG. 468, 506; sup. ‘wisest.’ RG. 266 Wisely, adv. RG. 550 Wisse, v. a. == direct. HD. 104. 1057 B. O. and N. 971. AS. wísian Wissing, sb. == advice. HD. 2902. AS. wissung Wit, sb. == knowledge, sense. RG. 457, 526; [i-wit]. O. and N. 772 Witch, sb. Wright’s L. P. p. 38. AS. wicca, a wizard —— v. n. == sing charms. Ps. lvii. 6 Witchcraft, sb. Body and Soul, 27 Witching, sb. == witchcraft. St Lucy, 122 Wite, v. a. == know. RG. 374; [y-wyte]. RG. 10; [iwite]. RG. 487; [wot]. 1625 B.; [wat]. O. and N. 1200; [wod]. Ib. 1188; 2 s. pres. ‘wost.’ O. and N. 717; pret. ‘wuste.’ RG. 374; ‘wiste.’ 208 B.; ‘west.’ Alys. 5834; part. ‘iwiste.’ 137 B. Wite, v. n. == think, or expect. 2 s. pres. ‘west.’ O. and N. 47; pret. ‘wiste.’ RG. 93
  • 67. Wite, v. a. == defend. RG. 487; pret. ‘wuste.’ RG. 549; S. S. witen. See Gloss. to Laȝ. Wite, v. n. == go forth. Ps. lxxxix. 6; part. ‘wited.’ Ps. ix. 22; ‘witand.’ Ps. cxviii. 118. AS. wítan Wite, v. a. == blame. O. and N. 1354; accuse. Wright’s L. P. p. 39. AS. witian Witerlike, adv. == certainly. HD. 671. Ps. ii. 6 Witermon, sb. == a wise man. Wright’s L. P. p. 28 With, prep. == together with. 279 B.; [we]. RG. 457 —— == by means of. RG. 41 —— == against. O. and N. 62 —— == from. O. and N. 610. AS. wíð With, adj. == white, q. v. With, adj. for ‘wight,’ q. v. With, adj. == pleasant? Wright’s L. P. p. 45. AS. wéðe Withal, adv. RG. 28 Withclepe, v. a. == oppose. Alys. 1301 Withdraw, v. a. RG. 447 —— v. n. Ps. cxviii. 115; ‘withdraw of’ == withdraw from. RG. 497 Wither, adj. == hostile. Rel. S. i. 12; S. S. wiðer. See Gloss. to Laȝ. Withering, sb. == adversary. K. Horn, 154 Witherthreat, v. a. Ps. xxxiv. 19; lxxiii. 10 Witherwendand, part. == opposing. Ps. iii. 8
  • 68. Witherwine, sb. == adversary. RG. 325. AS. wiðer-winna, from winnan, to strive Witherword, sb. == a hostile word. Ps. xc. 3 Withhold, v. a. == to hold with, or make to accompany. HD. 2356, 2362 —— == restrain. Alys. 2302 Within, adv. RG. 375, 549 Without, adv. RG. 549. 267 B.; [widh wute]. O. and N. 1593 —— prep. RG. 369; [witute]. O. and N. 183; [withouten]. 33 B. Withsay, v. a. RG. 369, 374 Withseek, v. a. == seek out. part. ‘wuthsoht.’ Rel. S. v. 54 Withsitten, v. a. == oppose. HD. 1683 Withstand, v. n. == oppose. 725 B. Withy, sb. == halter of withy. Alys. 4714. AS. wíðie Witless, adj. == mad. RG. 216; at a loss. Pilate, 242 Witness, sb. RG. 29 Witterli, adv. == certainly. Ps. cxix. 1. ON. víturlega Witty, adj. == clever. RG. 189; full of knowledge. O. and N. 1187. F. and P. 31 Witword, sb. == testimony. Ps. xxiv. 10. AS. wit-word Wive, v. n. == marry. RG. 35 —— v. a. part. ‘iwived.’ RG. 529 Wiving, sb. == marriage. RG. 294
  • 69. Wlak, adj. == lukewarm. Fr. Sci. 290 AS. wlæc Wlate, v. a. == loathe. Ps. v. 7. AS. wlættian —— v. n. == feel disgust for. O. and N. 354 —— sb. == disgust. O. and N. 1504. AS. wlætte Wlatful, adj. == loathsome, abominable. Ps. lii. 2 Wlating, sb. == loathing, disgust. Ps lxxxvii. 9. AS. wlætung Wlite, v. n. == look. Wright’s L. P. p. 43. AS. wlítan —— sb. == countenance. O. and N. 439; Ps. xliv. 5. AS. wlíte Wlonk, adj. == fair, proud. Pol. S. 156. AS. wlanc Wluine, sb. == she wolf? HD. 573. Probably a metathesis of the ON. ulfinna, thus ulvin } vluin Wo, sb. RG. 172, 485; [wai]. O. and N. 120; [wee]. Pol. S. 152; [weye]. Alys. 3449; [wa]. Ritson’s AS. viii. 152. AS. wá Wo worth, i. e. woe be to, &c. Body and Soul, 7 Wobegone, adj. Body and Soul, 220 Wode, == went. See Go Woderove, sb. == the woodruff; the asterula odorata of botanists. Wright’s L. P. p. 43. In Wright’s Vocab. p. 140, ‘wuderove’ is given as the transl. of ‘hastula regia’ or ‘muge de bois’ Wodewale, sb. == woodpecker. Wright’s L. P. p. 26 —— == wild thyme? Alys. 6793. AS. wudufille. Palsgrave has ‘wodewale, a herbe’
  • 70. Woht, sb. == sin. See Woȝ Wolc, sb. == some bird. Wright’s L. P. p. 26 Wold, sb. == power, governance. Alys. 6716 Woldeneyed, == wall-eyed. Alys. 5274. Probably from the ON. vagl i augum == festuca, pterygion. ‘En hinde, som trækker sig over öiet.’ B. Haldorson. Wole, adj. == evil. O. and N. 8; [wle]. O. and N. 35. AS. wól Wolf, sb. RG. 369 Wolfling, sb. Alys. 6272 Wollen, sb. == wollen garment. Fr. on Seven Sins, 16 Woman, sb. RG. 380; [wimman]. RG. 535. pl. ‘wymmen.’ Wright’s L. P. p. 33 Womanly, adj. RG. 457 Womb, sb. RG. 369. AS. wamb Wombed, adj. RG. 377; [wemod]. Fr. Sci. 286 Wombeling, sb. == womb. Alys. 5674 Won, sb. == hope. RG. 419; [iwon]. 1022, 1712, B.; [wunne]. Pol. S. 153 —— == opinion. HD. 1972. AS. wén. ON. von Won, sb. == plenty. RG. 2, 265; [iwon]. Rel. S. v. 76 —— == riches. Wright’s L. P. p. 24. Alys. 5658; [wane]. Ritson’s AS. viii. 50; SS. winne, wunnen Won, sb. == dwelling. Wright’s L. P. pp. 46, 51. AS. wunian Won. See Wan
  • 71. Wonde, v. n. == fear, hesitate. K. Horn, 345. AS. wandian Wonde, v. n. == cease. Wright’s L. P. p. 29. AS. wendan Wonde, v. n. == wound? Alys. 6525 Wonde, adj. == wicked. Rel. S. v. 112. ON. vondr. AS. wonn Wonder, sb. RG. 376 —— == a wonderful thing. RG. 7, 417 —— v. n. O. and N. 228 —— adj. == wonderful. RG. 416 Wonderful, adj. RG. 414 Wondering, sb. Wright’s L. P. p. 40 Wonderliche, adv. == wonderfully. RG. 489 Wondred, == sorrow. See Wandreth Wone. See When Wone, sb. == want. See Wane, sb. Wone, sb. == opinion. HD. 1711. AS. wénan Wone, adj. == wont. HD. 2297; [i-wune]. O. and N. 1318; [y- woned]. RG. 377 —— sb. == custom. RG. 392. AS. wune Wong, sb. == cheek. Wright’s L. P. pp. 28, 30, 31. AS. wang Wong, sb. == field, plain. HD. 397, 1444. AS. wang Wonie, == whine, q. v. Woning, sb. == a dwelling. RG. 275; [wonyghing]. Alys. 5930
  • 72. Woningstede, sb. Ps. lxxxvi. 7. Ritson’s AS. viii. 53, 200 Wonne, v. n. == dwell. RG. 41. AS. wunian Wonying, == whining, q. v. Woo, v. a. [woȝe]. K. Horn, 558; [wowe]. Wright’s L. P. p. 44. AS. wógan Wood, sb. RG. 374, 565. AS. wudu Wood, adj. == mad. RG. 496. AS. wód Woodward, sb. == the keeper of the wood. Pol. S. 149 Wooing, sb. Wright’s L. P. p. 28 Wool, sb. RG. 2 Woolmonger, sb. RG. 539 Woolpack, sb. RG. 539 Wop, sb. == weeping. RG. 476 Word, sb. RG. 377, 501 —— == tidings. RG. 153 Woren, v. a. == trouble, disturb. Wright’s L. P. p. 24. AS. worian Worewed, part. == worried. See Worry Wori, adj. == troubled (of water). 255, 274 β Work, sb. RG. 448 —— v. a. == cause. Wright’s L. P. p. 42, make, fashion; part ‘ywroȝte.’ RG. 447, ‘ywort.’ RG. 174 —— v. n. == do work. 186 B. Wright’s L. P. p. 60; pret. ‘wraht.’ Ibid. p. 42, ‘wroȝte.’ RG. 287
  • 73. Workman, sb. St Swithin, 55 World, sb. KG. 367 Worldly, adj. Fragm. on Seven Sins, 16 Worly, adj. == excellent, beautiful. Wright’s L. P. pp. 39, 45; [wurhliche]. Ibid. p. 51. AS. wurðlic Worm, sb. RG. 490 Worry, v. a. 1598 B.; part. ‘worewed.’ HD. 1915. AS. wérian Worse, adj. RG. 374, 501 Worship, sb. [wurthsipe]. O. and N. 1097, 1342 Worshipful, adj. Ps. lxxi. 14 Worst, adj. Wright’s L. P. p. 99 Worst. See Worthe Wort, sb. == a root. RG. 341. AS. wyrt Worth, sb. == value. RG. 373 —— adj. == worthy of, ‘what hii were wurth.’ RG. 374 Worth, adv. = forth. RG. 457 Worthe, v. n. == be, become. [iworthe]. 947 B. 2 s. pres. ‘worst.’ 1812; 3 s. pres. ‘worth.’ RG. 512; 1 pl. ‘wortheth.’ RG. 454; 3 s. imper. (in the phrase ‘wo worth.’) Body and Soul, 7; part. ‘iworthe.’ O. and N. 660. AS. weorðan Worthful, adj. O. and N. 1479 Worthing, sb. == glory, honour. Fragm. in Warton, H. E. P. vol. i. p. 22. AS. weorðung Worthship, sb. == worship, q. v.
  • 74. Worthy, adj. == excellent. 412 B. —— == powerful. Ps. xlix. 3 Wot, == know. See Wite Wote ? RG. 361 Wou, See Woȝ Would, sb. See Will Wound, sb. RG. 49. Wright’s L. P. pp. 85, 84 —— v. a. part, ‘ywonded.’ RG. 49 Wow, See Woȝ Wowe, sb. == wall. HD. 1963. K. Horn, 1000. AS. wáh Wowe, v. n. == to woo, q. v. Woȝ, sb. == wrong. O. and N. 164. RG. 39; [wou]. RG. 375, 550; [wow]. RG. 379; [woht]. Rel. S. ii. 16. AS. wóh Wrake, sb. == evil, destruction. O. and N. 1192. AS. wræc Wrakeful, adj. == wicked. Wright’s L. P. p. 23. AS. wræcfull Wrath, sb. 451 B. AS. wráð —— v. n. == be angry. Ps. iv. 5 —— v. a. == make angry. RG. 376, 253 Wrathless, adj. Wright’s L. P. p. 42 Wray, v. a. == betray. 1226 B; [wrye]. Alys. 442. AS. wreian Wrayli, v. n. == chatter, rail, abuse. St Swithin, 70. Dut. rallen. Swed. ralla Wreche, sb. == vengeance. RG. 380, 419. AS. wræc
  • 75. Wreche, == misery. RG. 252. But we should probably read ‘wrechede’ Wreier, sb. == betrayer, spoiler. HD. 39 Wreke, v. a. == avenge. HD. 1363. AS. wræccan Wreker, sb. == avenger. Ps. viii. 3 Wren, sb. O. and N. 564. AS. wrenna Wrench, sb. == trick. RG. 570, 535. AS. wrence Wreon, v. a. == cover. Alys. 1606; 3 s. pres. ‘wrieth.’ Alys. 1992; part. ‘ywrye.’ RG. 56, 92. AS. wreon, wríhan Wrestle, v. n. RG. 22, 361. Alys. 1046. AS. wræstlian Wrestling, sb. O. and N. 793. Alys. 1046 Wretch, sb. 524 β AS. wræcca —— adj. == wretched. 449 B. Wretched, adj. comp. ‘wretcheder.’ 2432 B. Wretchede, sb. == wretchedness. RG. 386, 511 Wretchedly, adv. RG. 446 Wrethen—writhen, part. == twisted. Alys. 5723 Wrey, v. a. == accuse. Pol. S. 198, 199; part. ‘wreynt.’ Pol. S. 157. AS. wrégan Wrie, v. n. == move away. Wright’s L. P. p. 48. AS. wrigan, whence our ‘wriggle’ Wrieth, == covereth. See Wreon Wrikke, v. n. == wriggle. St Dunstan, 82; ‘wrikkend’ == walking, going. Rel. Ant. ii. p. 216. AS. wrigan
  • 76. Wring, v. a. (one’s hands). Body and Soul, 174; (clothes). HD. 1233 —— == keep tight hold of. Sermon, 20 —— == twist; part. ‘wrong.’ Alys. 6447 —— == press down, overcome; pret. ‘wrong.’ Marg. 47. AS. wringan Wringer, sb. Sermon, 21 Writ, sb. HD. 136 —— == Scripture. Wright’s L. P. p. 101 —— == letter. Alys. 4502 Write, v. a. pret. ‘wrot.’ 164 B.; part. ‘iwrite.’ 1425 B. Writeling, sb. == trills in a song? O. and N. 48, 912. From AS. wriðan == to writhe or twist Writhe, v. n. == bend easily. Body and Soul, 116. AS. wríðan Wro, sb. == hole or corner. HD. 68. Su. Goth. wra. Dan. vraa Wronehede. Probably a mistake for ‘wronghede’ == wickedness. O. and N. 1398 Wrong, adj. == mistaken. Wright’s L. P. p. 31. ON. rángr. AS. wringan Wrong, sb. == injustice, oppression. Wright’s L. P. p. 68. 1616 B. —— adv. == badly. O. and N. 196 Wrong, part. == twisted. See Wring Wrongwis, adj. == wicked. Ritson’s AS. viii. 177; [wrancwise]. Moral Ode, 129 Wrot, sb. == snout. Rel. Ant. ii. 211. AS. wrót Wroten, v. n. == to root. Earth, st. 3. AS. wrót
  • 77. Wroth, adj. == angry. RG. 31; timid. Alys. 544. AS. wráð —— == poor, base. Wright’s L. P. p. 38 —— sb. == evil, unkindness. RG. 31 Wrotherhele, sb. [wrothe hele] == injury, destruction. RG. 143, 164. Body and Soul, 225. See Gloss. Rem. to Laȝamon, iii. 444 Wrought. See Work, vb. Wrying, sb. == treachery. Alys. 3514 Wune, sb. == custom. O. and N. 272. AS. wune Wunne, adj. == accustomed? Wright’s L. P. p. 46 Wunne, sb. == joy. Wright’s L. P. p. 47. AS. wyn —— == hope. See Won Wyred, == wire, q. v. Wyt, sb. == calamity, blame. Body and Soul, 62. AS. wíte
  • 78. Y. Y, == in. Pol. S. 151 Yard, sb. == rod. RG. 22; [ȝurd]. 2385 B. —— == staff or sceptre. Ps. xliv. 7. AS. gyrd Yard, sb. == courtyard. HD. 702. AS. geard Yare, adj. == ready. RG. 396; [ȝarte]. O. and N. 1220. AS. gearo —— v. a. == make ready. HD. 1350 Yare, adv. == of yore. 1512 B. AS. geara Yate, v. a. == tell. Ritson’s AS. viii. 80. ON. géta Yawn, v. n. [ȝonie]. O. and N. 292; [yene]. Body and Soul, 202. Alys. 485. AS. ganian Ybrad. See Braid Ycholle, == I shall. RG. 405 Ycoled, part. == helmeted, armed. Alys. 2686. AS. col, a helmet Ydle. See Isle Ydought. See Dow Yea. 36 B.; [ya]. Alys. 3571 Year, sb. RG. 373. AS. gear Yearn, v. a. Wright’s L. P. p. 43; [eorne]. O. and N. 1202 —— v. n. Wright’s L. P. p. 63. AS. geornian
  • 79. Yearning, sb. Wright’s L. P. p. 72 Yell, v. n. [ȝulle]. 498 β; 2 s. pres. ‘ȝollest.’ O. and N. 223; pret. ‘ȝal.’ 502 β. AS. geallian Yelling, sb. [ȝullinge]. 487 β. O. and N. 1641 Yellowman, sb. [ȝeolumon], Pol. S. 158 Yelp, v. n. == speak. Alys. 1065. AS. gilpan —— == boast [ȝulpe], O. and N. 1650; part. ‘y-yolpe.’ Alys. 3368 Yelping [ȝulping], sb. == boasting. RG. 209, 210 Yeme, Yheme, Yheming. See ȝeme Yene, sb. == yawn, q. v. Yepe, adj. == ready. Alys. 1193. See ȝep Yering, sb. == yearning, desire. Ritson’s AS. viii. 79 Yesterday. Ps. lxxxix. 4 Yet, adv. [ȝut]. RG. 372; [ȝot]. O. and N. 1695 Yfere, sb. == companions. Alys. 6906. AS. ge-fera Yhaht. See Hatch Yhatered, part. == clothed. Alys. 5922. See Hattren Yhete, v. a. == cast, pour out. Ps. lxviii. 25; pret. ‘yhet.’ Ps. xli. 5; pl. ‘yhotten.’ Ps. lxxviii. 3; part. ‘yotten.’ Ps. lxxiii. 21. AS. geotan. See ‘ȝete’ Yhoten, sb. == giant, Ps. xviii. 7. AS. eóten Yield, v. a. == give up. Alys. 3176; pret. ‘yolde.’ RG. 387; part. ‘y- yolde.’ RG. 449; ‘iȝulde.’ 612 B. AS. geldan —— == repay. Alys. 132
  • 80. —— v. n. == turn out. K. Horn, 495 Ylef, vb. == believe thou. RG. 265 Ylome, == frequently. See Ilome Ylong, adv. == belonging to, proper to. Wright’s L. P. pp. 61, 74. AS. gelang Ymette, adj. == moderate? Wright’s L. P. p. 35. AS. gemet Ymone, adv. == together, in concert. 380 β AS. gemana Ympne. See Hymn Ynele, == I ne will—I will not. RG. 314 Ynote, part. == noted, known. Alys. 59 Yoke, sb. RG. 453. AS. geoc —— v. a. part. ‘y-yoked.’ Rel. Ant. ii. 211 Yolk, sb. Fr. Sci. 240. AS. geolca Yond, adv. [ȝund] == yonder. 1 β. AS. geond Yond, adj. == farther, as the ‘yond half,’ or farther side. Ritson’s AS. viii. 200. 713 β Yornandlike, adj. == desirable. Ps. xviii. 11 Young, adj. RG. 377; comp. ‘younger.’ RG. 423; sup. ‘youngest.’ RG. 381. AS. geong Younghede, sb. [ȝonghede] == youth. Legend of St Cuthbert, in Warton, H. E. P. vol. i. p. 15, n. Younglike, adj. Ps. cxviii. 141 Youngling, sb. Alys. 2366 Your, adj. RG. 455; [ower]. RG. 500; [or]. Wright’s L. P. p. 32
  • 81. Youth, sb. Body and Soul, 111; [ȝeuȝede]. Moral Ode, st. 178. AS. geogoð Youthhede, sb. Ps. xlii. 4 Yox, v. n. == sob. 1570 B. AS. geocsa Yoxing, sb. == hiccuping. RG. 34 Ypotanos. See Hippopotamus Yraȝte, vb. == procreated? O. and N. 106 Yse, sb. == iron. Alys. 5149. AS. ísen. Germ. eisen Ysome, adv. == together. RG. 3, 83. AS. gesome Ysteot, part. == fastened. Alys. 2768 Yswerred, adj. == having necks. Alys. 6264. AS. sweora Yswowe, part. == in a swoon. Alys. 2262. See Swoon Ythe, adv. == easily. K. Horn, 61. AS. eáðe Ythen, part. == flourishing, prosperous. See The, vb. Ytolde, part. == pitched (of a tent). Alys. 5901. See Teld Yvortrou, adj. == mistrustful. RG. 342 Ywrye. See Wreon
  • 82. Ȝ. Ȝarewe, adj. == ready. O. and N. 378. AS. gearo Ȝark, v. a. == make ready. RG. 391, 399. Alys. 1411. AS. gearcian Ȝarte. See Yare Ȝavre, == ever, or perhaps ‘of yore.’ O. and N. 1178 Ȝef. See If Ȝeines. Rel. S. i. 16. Probably instead of ‘tharto ȝeines’ we should read ‘thar toȝeines’ == there against, i.e. against death. AS. to- geánes Ȝeme, sb. == care. RG. 135. AS. gýman —— v. a. == care for, take care of. HD. 131 Ȝeming, sb. == care. Ps. cxl. 3 Ȝende, sb. == end. RG. 169 Ȝene ? O. and N. 843 Ȝeode, vb. == went. See Go Ȝep, adj. == active. Wright’s L. P. p. 39; bold. O. and N. 465. AS. gæp Ȝephede, sb. == boldness. O. and N. 683 Ȝerne, adv. == earnestly. RG. 487. AS. georne Ȝete, v. a. == cast. Body and Soul, 189. See yhete Ȝeuȝede, sb. == youth, q. v.
  • 83. Ȝeve, == give, q. v. Ȝeynchar, sb. == repentance. Wright’s L. P. p. 46. See App. to Mapes’s Poems, p. 343. AS. cerran with ‘gen’ Ȝeȝe, v. n. == jog along, go. Wright’s L. P. p. 111 —— v. a. == jog. Pol. S. 158 Ȝif. See If Ȝiverness, sb. == avarice. Rel. S. vii. 11. AS. gífer Ȝoe, == she. See under He Ȝoe, == joy, q. v. Ȝokkyn, sb. == joking? Wright’s L. P. p. 50 Ȝomere, adj. == sorrowful. O. and N. 415. AS. geomor Ȝonie, == yawn, q. v. Ȝoȝelinge, sb. == chattering, gabbling. O. and N. 40. Probably the same as the later ‘gaggle,’ which is used of a confused noise of people talking, in the Poem on the Deposition of Richard II. p. 18, and of geese, in Churchyard’s Pleasant Conceit penned in Verse (1593), cited in the pref. to Nash’s Pierce Penniless. (Shaksp. Soc.’s ed.), p. xviii. Ȝraihand. See Thraying Ȝuling. See Yelling Ȝulle. See Yell Ȝulpe. See Yelp Ȝulping. See Yelping
  • 85. ADDENDA. Baru, add AS. bearh Bert, v. n. == crepitum ventris edere. Rel. Ant. ii. p. 211 Bidde, v. n. == need, ought. HD. 1733. Another form of ‘bud.’ Dan. bör. Compare Chaucer’s ‘bode.’ Rom. Rose, 790 Birde, sb. For HD. 2760, read Wright’s L. P. pp. 25, 30 Birde, vb. pret. == it behoved. HD. 2760. ON. byrjar. Dan. bör Brol ? Rel. Ant. ii. 192 By, v. a. == to defame. Manuel des Pecches, 1355. ON. bía, maculare Ferblet. Possibly ‘suffused with blood,’ ‘sanguine.’ Cf. ‘forbled,’ in the Anturs of Arthur at Tarne Wathelan, st. 51 Graueth. Probably for ‘graveth,’ or ‘geraveth,’ from AS. reáf, clothing JOHN CHILDS AND SON, PRINTERS.
  • 86. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com