Session list page
Back to session list | Personal timetableOral Session 26: Ecosystem Services
Tuesday 18 December
| Add | 11:15 | Ecosystem service provision maps, models and optimization from city-to-regional scale |
| Maria Luisa Avila-Jimenez (Environmental and Sustainability Institute), Richard Inger (Environmental and Sustainability Institute), Kevin Gaston (Nvironmental and Sustainability Institute) | ||
Increasing attention is being paid to the provision of ecosystem services within urban areas, those places where the beneficiaries of those services reside at greatest densities. Here we report the influence of scale and densification on this provision, providing essential background for urban planning, greenspace management, conservation measures and sustainable development. |
||
| Add | 11:30 | Ecosystem service provision sets the pace for pre-Columbian Andean societal development |
| William Gosling (The Open University), Joseph Williams (University of Aberystwyth) | ||
In the central Andes water and woodlands have been critical resources for human populations over the last 5000 years. During this period societies have developed from hunter-gatherers into ‘civilizations’. Palaeoecological and archaeological records reveal coincident cycles of past environmental and societal change showing that long-term (>100 year) societal development was paced by both increases and decreases in ecosystem service provision. |
||
| Add | 12:00 | Social-ecological Innovation in the City: Making the Most of the Urban Landscape? |
| Matthew Dennis (University of Salford), Philip James (University of Salford), Richard Armitage (University of Salford) | ||
Cities suffer from high disturbance, low quality habitats and reduced access to green space. Social-ecological innovation can mitigate against loss of quality naturalistic spaces and their associated ecosystem services. A mapping study of sites of social-ecological innovation in Manchester showed their distribution was uneven due to environmental and social factors. |
||
| Add | 12:15 | A critical appraisal of payments for ecosystem services: to pay or not to pay? |
| Adam Hejnowicz (University of York), Dave Raffaelli (University of York), Murray Rudd (University of York), Piran White (University of York) | ||
Is the popularity of payments for ecosystem services justified based on current scheme outcomes? Advocated widely in policy circles do PES improve upon existing command-and-control strategies? Furthermore, is the view that they de-centralise bureaucracy, increase ownership over local natural resources and provide transparent linkages between service providers and beneficiaries accurate? This talk critically appraises current thinking surrounding PES. |
||
| Add | 12:30 | Alternative routes for development of PES schemes at catchment scale; Lake Naivasha, Kenya |
| David Harper (University of Leicester), Ed Morrison (University of Leicester), Nic Pacini (University of Calabria Italy), Caroline Upton (University of Leicester), Philip Cook (University of Connecticut), Mark Ellis-Jones (Independent) | ||
The ecosystem services from the Naivasha basin are dominated by irrigated roses exported over the world – one of Kenya’s top 3 currency earners. The value of this trade coupled with the degradation of the lake, has led to the development of several schemes which seek to recycle money earned into ecosystem restoration and conservation. We examine five schemes. |
||
| Add | 12:45 | Dispelling the myth of win-wins: analysing trade-offs in ecosystem service-based conservation and development |
| Caroline Howe (University College London), Georgina Mace (University College London), Bhaskar Vira (University of Cambridge) | ||
We carried out a systematic review of the literature on where ecosystem service interventions had the potential to or resulted in trade-offs. Of 1092 potentially relevant articles, 213 were selected for review. Trade-offs arise between services (biophysical trade-offs) and between benefits from services (trade-offs between stakeholders). We analyse why these different trade-offs occur and discuss the economic and policy implications. |
||
| Add | 13:00 | Exploring the biodiversity science-policy interface: Lessons learned from the UK National Ecosystem Assessment |
| Juliette Young (CEH), Kerry Waylen (JHI) | ||
We explore communication in the process of developing the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) based on qualitative analysis of individual experiences. We highlight dissatisfactions and challenges in communicating between disciplinary and sectoral groups. Based on our results, we suggest ideas to improve NEA follow-on initiatives and general efforts to improve biodiversity science-policy interfaces. |
||
| Add | 15:00 | Linking Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and ecosystem services: new connections in urban ecology |
| Chunglim Mak (University of Salford), Philip James (Environmental and Urban Research Peel Building University of Salford), Miklas Scholz (Civil Engineering Research Centre Newton Building University of Salford) | ||
The relationship between Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and ecosystem services has not been articulated clearly, leading to misinformed and inadequate SuDS designs. A new conceptual model, informed by literature review, sets out the relationship between SuDS and ecosystem services in a way that facilitates greater understanding and better decision-making by SuDS planners and designers. |
||
| Add | 15:15 | Managing mangroves for carbon conservation: a controlled experiment on the effects of cutting |
| Mark Huxham (Edinburgh Napier University), Joseph Langat (Edinburgh Napier University), Maurizio Mencuccini (Edinburgh University), Steven Bouillon (Katholic University Leuven), Waldron Susan (Glasgow University), James Kairo (Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute) | ||
Mangroves are powerful natural carbon sinks and can raise the forest floor in response to sea level rise. A field experiment in Kenya explored the effects of tree removal on greenhouse gas emissions and sediment elevation. Treatment caused significantly higher fluxes of CO2 and CH4 and rapid subsidence, with important implications for managing mangroves as carbon stores and coastal buffers. |
||
| Add | 15:30 | Visitor perception of features that impact recreational value at a restored floodplain |
| Daniel Richards (University of Sheffield), Philip Warren (University of Sheffield), Lorraine Maltby (University of Sheffield) | ||
One common aim of wetland restoration is to increase the recreational value of an area. The quality of experience gained from visiting a restored site is affected by the balance of positive and negative features that are present, and the availability of those features to the visitor. Here we examine the interaction of these effects at a case study floodplain. |
||
| Add | 15:45 | Understanding the full impact of biofuel production on ecosystem services |
| Robert Holland (University of Southampton), Gareth Brown (Imperial College London), Rob Ewer (Imperial College London), Valerie Kapos (UNEP-WCMC), Ann Muggeridge (Imperial College London), Jorn Scharlemann (UNEP-WCMC), Gail Taylor (University of Southampton), Louise Woods (UNEP-WCMC), Felix Eigenbrod (University of Southampton) | ||
We present a comprehensive review of the impact of liquid biofuel production on ecosystem services. We show that 1) there is little evidence for impacts for most non-regulating services; 2) that most studies that do exist are modelled rather than empirical and 3) that there is some evidence that second generation biofuels have less impacts than first generation fuels. |
||
| Add | 16:00 | Urban soil organic carbon storage: measurement and management of an undervalued ecosystem service in densely urbanised Europe |
| Jill Edmondson (University of Sheffield), Odhran O'Sullivan (University of Sheffield), Nicola McHugh (University of Sheffield), Jonathan Potter (University of Sheffield), Kevin Gaston (University of Exeter), Jonathan Leake (University Sheffield) | ||
Soils form the foundation of terrestrial ecosystems, and are vital as they hold 75% of organic carbon (OC) stocks sequestered from the atmosphere. Urbanisation is widely presumed to degrade ecosystem services including OC storage. Quantification of urban soil OC stocks reveal that previous national inventories have seriously underestimated the contribution of cities and towns to provision of this ecosystem service. |