Ecosysytem services&classification
Download as PPTX, PDF2 likes156 views
The document discusses ecosystem services, which are benefits derived from ecosystems, and outlines various classification systems used to categorize these services, including functional, organizational, and descriptive groupings. It emphasizes the necessity of multiple classification systems for different purposes, while noting that they complicate comparison and integration of assessments. A new universal classification system, CICES, is under development to streamline the categorization of ecosystem services for better communication and application.
Ecosysytem services&classification
- 1. Ecosystem services and the need for multiple classification system – Justifications Presented by- Hina Chaudhary Department of Botany, Delhi University
- 2. INTRODUCTION • Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. This terminology is derived from two representative definitions: • “Ecosystem goods (such as food) and services (such as waste assimilation) represent the benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions ”(Costanza et al., 1997). • “Ecosystem services are the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfill human life. They maintain biodiversity and the production of ecosystem goods” (Daily, 1997).
- 3. Classification of ecosystem services • Ecosystem services have been classified in various ways, including: Functional groupings’ such as regulation, carrier, habitat, production, and information services (de Groot et al. 2002) Organisational groupings’, such as services associated with certain species that regulate external inputs into a system, and those related to the organisation of biological entities (Norberg 1999) Descriptive groupings’, such as renewable resource goods, non- renewable resource goods, physical structure services, biotic services, biogeochemical services, information services, and social and cultural services (Moberg and Folke 1999) http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=6382
- 4. The most widely adopted classification is the ‘functional grouping’ where ecosystem services are divided into four categories. Some overlap occurs between categories but the four main groupings include: Assessment, Millennium Ecosystem. "Ecosystem and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis." World Resources Institute, Washington, DC (2005).
- 5. • Several ES classification systems have been proposed (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997, 1999; De Groot et al., 2002; MEA, 2003; de Groot 2006; Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; Fisher and Turner, 2008; TEEB, 2010). • Various Classifications have been proposed for Scientific analysis, Economic valuation and Policy making. • Costanza (2008) states that there are many useful ways to classify ecosystem goods and services, and that the goal should not be to have a single, consistent system, but rather a pluralism of typologies that can be useful for different purposes. • A drawback is that the use of multiple classification systems makes comparisons and integration of assessments with other data difficult (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2011).
- 6. Among the more commonly used classification systems, Costanza et al. (1997) categorized Ecosystem Services into 17 major groups 1Gas regulation 2 Climate regulation 3 Disturbance regulation 4 Water regulation 5 Water supply. 6 Erosion control and sediment retention. 7 Soil formation 8 Nutrient cycling 9 Waste treatment 10 Pollination 11 Biological control. 12 Refugia 13 Food production 14 Raw materials . 15 Genetic resources. 16 Recreation. 17 Cultural
- 7. Assessment, Millennium Ecosystem. "Ecosystem and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis." World Resources Institute, Washington, DC (2005). MEA (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, categorized a similar set of ES as “provisioning”, “regulating”, “supporting” and “cultural
- 8. HABITAT OR SUPPORTING SERVICES’ cover habitats for species and maintenance of genetic diversity. TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. p. 36. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) initiative (2010) adopted a classification based on MEA, but considered “supporting services” to be ecological processes rather than Ecosystem Services, and emphasized the importance of “habitat services” by assigning it a separate category. Initially, the TEEB classification contained 22 ES (TEEB, 2010) but was reduced to 17 ES (TEEB, 2010).
- 9. The hierarchical structure of CICES, illustrated with reference to a provisioning service (cultivated plants- cereals) (Source: CICES,2011) A new classification system, the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), is being developed by the European Environment Agency (www.cices.eu). The aim of CICES is to propose a universal classification of ES that is both consistent with accepted categorizations and allows easy translation of statistical information between different applications (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2011).
- 10. Case Study •This paper identifies and qualitatively assesses methods for Mapping ES in terrestrial landscapes, based on a systematic review of the scientific literature. •Mapping ecosystem services is essential to understand how ecosystems contribute to human wellbeing and to support policies which have an impact on natural resources. •Landscape - An area viewed at a scale determined by ecological, cultural-historical, social and/or economic considerations. •Landscape services - The contributions of landscapes and landscape elements to human well-being
- 11. Geographical distribution of reviewed studies (n = 170). The number of studies performed in each country ranges from 1 (light grey) to 26 (black). White = zero. Most studies were carried out in Europe (87), followed by North America (31), Asia (15), Africa and Australia (12 each), and South America (11) O. Englund et al., 2017
- 12. O. Englund et al., 2017 Number of times different ES have been mapped at a landscape scale, divided into different method types used.
- 13. Regulating and maintenance services were most commonly mapped (165),followed by cultural (85), and provisioning services (73). O. Englund et al., 2017
- 14. CONCLUSION •The reviewed papers used different classification systems, but conversion of the reviewed ES into the CICES classification system was in most cases fairly straight-forward. •Most of the ES that could not be fitted into CICES were either bundles of ES mapped together or examples of ecosystem processes rather than ES. •Further development of CICES should consider whether to only include final ES and thus exclude ecosystem processes and functions. O. Englund et al., 2017
- 15. Final ES Intermediate ES, or an ecosystem function.by weathering, decomposition what benefits to humans the soils facilitate! Soil formation and composition Cultivation of crops, or—indirectly, since soils facilitate vegetation growth mediation of water flows, and climate control
- 16. References • Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed, Biological conservation 141 Robert Costanza (2008) 350 –352 • Costanza, Robert, et al. "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital." nature 387.6630 (1997): 253. • Assessment, Millennium Ecosystem. "Ecosystem and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis." World Resources Institute, Washington, DC (2005). • TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. p. 36. • Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. Pieejams: http://cices.eu/ • Costanza, Robert, et al. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go?." Ecosystem Services 28 (2017): 1-16. • Englund, Oskar, Göran Berndes, and Christel Cederberg. "How to analyse ecosystem services in landscapes—A systematic review." Ecological Indicators 73 (2017): 492-504.
- 17. Thank you.