Managing Forests for Water in the Anthropocene—The Best Kept Secret Services of Forest Ecosystems
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Managing Forests to Reduce Risk
2.1. Step 1. The Management Context: What Are We Trying to Achieve, and Who Is Responsible for Achieving It?
Challenges
- Decision makers need to identify the linkages between the forest AES and people and be cognizant of the spatial and temporal mismatches between ecosystem functions, services, and beneficiaries. Mapping service areas helps us understand who the decision makers are that affect services and where management interventions should be concentrated while beneficiary mapping helps us understand who is affected by decisions, and from a financing perspective who might be willing to pay or need to be compensated for practice changes.
- We need to understand the full scope for trade-offs and externalities. Ecosystems are multi-functional with ecosystem functions that contribute to multiple AES in potentially conflicting ways. To avoid inconsistencies, we need to develop a conceptual map that shows the causal chain from forest management decisions to ecosystem services and benefits (e.g., [49]).
- We need to understand what incentives currently link AES to people and where there are policy gaps and opportunities. For commodities such as timber, the demand is global with supply linked to demand through global commodity markets [50]. In contrast, the demand for flood protection/water purification or other AES is local or regional and linked to supply through forest watershed management or water treatment facilities. We need to identify where current incentives create vulnerabilities and feedbacks between beneficiaries and the capacity of ecosystems to supply AES.
2.2. Step 2. Risk Identification: Where Are the Risks That May Result in Failure to Meet the Policy Objective?
Challenges
- We need spatial and temporal data that are consistent and comparable at different scales. Both traditional but also contemporary data-capture methods such as airborne and satellite imagery will be vital.
- We need multi-temporal and multi-spatial scale models to understand better the risks to AES from drivers of changing forest landscapes (both retrospectively and prospectively) and to create narratives for exploring management options under different scenarios.
- We need models that can represent interacting pressures on forest ecosystems that are poorly understood but may further threaten the sustainability of AES and that link forest and social system behaviors.
- We need to represent uncertainties at national, regional and local scales.
2.3. Step 3. Risk Analysis: What Is the Effectiveness of Management Measures That Act as Barriers to a Risk Event?
Challenges
- We need to build and share databases of regulatory and voluntary management measures.
- We need to evaluate the performance of the system of management measures that are put in place to reduce the risk of cumulative effects in the face of changing global conditions, including their effectiveness as well as the compliance of regulatory measures and the adoption of voluntary measures.
- We need to bring the concepts of thresholds, tipping points and regimes shifts, and their appropriate indicators, into forest management strategies.
- We need to create new indicators and methods for modeling resilience that reveal the pathways between pressures-effects-impacts, and that incorporate synergistic/antagonistic interactions and feedbacks within the managed system.
2.4. Step 4. Risk Evaluation: Do We Need to Act to Reduce the Risk Events?
Challenges
- We must develop standardized methods for valuing ES. There is increasing evidence that AES are linked regionally, nationally and internationally; thus there is a need for consistent and transparent methodologies to compare and aggregate benefits and values of AES at different scales. Both the EU Forest Action Plan [100] and the Biodiversity Strategy [101] call for the development of a standard framework for valuing forest ES.
- We must standardize approaches for distinguishing intermediate services and final benefits. The MEA [12] classification of ES as supporting, regulating, provisional and cultural services is not amenable to valuation [98]. Challenges include distinguishing intermediate services from final benefits to ensure there is no double counting, and addressing spatial and temporal dimensions [98,99].
- We must choose appropriate discount rates to account for intra- and inter-generational equity. Equity problems are prominent in dealing with AES, because benefits are usually downstream from where management actions take place and costs are incurred. Some benefits have long time lags before they are realized after a management action, whereas most costs are immediate.
2.5. Step 5. Risk Treatment: What Policies and Strategies Can Reduce Risk and Increase the Resilience of Forest Ecosystems and Their Services?
Challenges
- Dealing with complexity means we need to design forest management strategies that reflect feedbacks between forest AES and future landscape conditions, and that signal appropriate scarcities and risks. Regulatory and voluntary (i.e., incentive) strategies must be considered jointly to account for perverse incentives and feedbacks.
- We must develop incentives that can protect hydrologic regimes that underpin forest AES across multiple boundaries from sub-watersheds to large multi-basin drainage areas. Similarly, we must incorporate signals about future ecological scarcity into current incentives to address lag times in forest restoration.
- The unprecedented level of forest investment under new carbon agreements provides opportunities for new investments in AES. These investments should be undertaken as experiments in order to better understand the relationship between forest management practices and AES at multiple scales. These types of experiments could help us to improve how we manage forests in the face of increasing demands for food, fiber and energy, and to ensure that we avoid some of the unanticipated consequences that have arisen from past carbon-focused policies.
3. Conclusions
- Define a realistic boundary for the forest AES management context that specifies how spatial and temporal scales and lags should be represented in the boundary condition.
- Develop models and indicators that reveal the pathways (including interactions and feedbacks) among pressures-effects-impacts and that incorporate concepts of complexity, thresholds, tipping points and regime shifts into forest ecosystem monitoring and assessment programs.
- Develop standardized methods for assessing the cumulative effects on forest AES from multiple stressors and build databases of regulatory/voluntary management measures to assess and monitor management effectiveness and compliance.
- Develop next generation models and indicators to analyze the adaptability of socio-ecological systems to changing conditions and indicators to track the resilience and robustness of policies operating within these systems.
- Develop incentives (e.g., payments for ES) that will mitigate impacts of forest management, loss, or degradation of hydrologic function and other AES, and that will overcome some of the complexity highlighted above.
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wilson, E.O. The Future of Life; Vintage: New York, NY, USA, 2002; p. 265. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
- Sizer, N.; Petersen, R.; Anderson, J.; Hansen, M.; Potapov, P.; Thau, D. Tree Cover Loss Spikes in Russia and Canada, Remains Globally High. World Resources Institute; Available online: http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/04/tree-cover-loss-spikes-russia-and-canada-remains-high-globally (accessed on 18 December 2015).
- Hansen, M.C.; Potapov, P.V.; Moore, R.; Hancher, M.; Turubanova, S.A.; Tyukavina1, A.; Thau, D.; Stehman, S.V.; Goetz, S.J.; Loveland, T.R.; et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-Century forest cover change. Science 2013, 342, 850–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Henry, J.D. Northern Exposure: Can the planet-encircling boreal forest survive global warming and resource exploitation? Nat. Hist. 2005, 114, 26–32. [Google Scholar]
- Repetto, R. Deforestation in the tropics. Sci. Am. 1990, 262, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schindler, D.W.; Lee, P.G. Comprehensive conservation planning to protect biodiversity and ecosystem services in Canadian boreal regions under a warming climate and increasing exploitation. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 1571–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wells, J.; Roberts, D.; Lee, P.; Cheng, R.; Darveau, M. A Forest of Blue–Canada’s Boreal Forest: The World’s Waterkeeper; International Boreal Conservation Campaign: Seattle, WA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Biggs, T.W.; Dunne, T.; Roberts, D.A.; Matricardi, E. The rate and extent of deforestation in watershed of the southwestern Amazon basin. Ecol. Appl. 2008, 18, 31–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brandt, J.P.; Flannigan, M.D.; Maynard, D.G.; Thompson, I.D.; Volney, W.J.A. An introduction to Canada’s boreal zone: Ecosystem processes, health, sustainability, and environmental issues. Environ. Rev. 2013, 21, 207–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrence, D.; Vandecar, K. Effects of tropical deforestation on climate and agriculture. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2015, 5, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Muira, A.; Amacher, M.; Hofer, T.; San-Miguel-Ayanz, J.; Ernawati; Thankway, R. Protective functions and ecosystem services of global forests in the past quarter-century. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 35, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mace, G.M.; Norris, K.; Fitter, A.H. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012, 27, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Naeem, S.; Duffy, L.E.; Zavaleta, E. The functions of biological diversity in an age of extinction. Science 2012, 336, 1401–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tilman, D. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. In Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems; Daily, C.G., Ed.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA; Covelo, CA, USA, 1997; pp. 93–112. [Google Scholar]
- Furniss, M.J.; Staab, B.P.; Hazelhurst, S.; Clifton, C.F.; Roby, K.B.; Ilhadrt, B.L.; Larry, E.B.; Todd, A.H.; Reid, L.M.; Hines, S.J.; et al. Water, Climate Change, and Forests: Watershed Stewardship for a Changing Climate; General Technical Report PNW-GTR-812; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Abildtrup, J.; Albers, H.; Stenger-Letheux, A.; Termansen, M. Scale, Location, and Spatial Interactions in the Analysis of Natural Resources: Lessons for Forest Economics. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 92, 34–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbier, E.B.; Heal, G.M. Valuing Ecosystem Services. Econ. Voice 2006, 3, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- US Forest Service. Watershed Services: The Important Link between Forests and Water. Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/pdf/Watershed_Services.pdf (accessed on 30 November 2015).
- Corvalan, C.; Hales, S.; McMichael, A.J. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Health Synthesis; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Mueller, J.M.; Swaffar, W.; Nielsen, E.A.; Springer, A.E.; Lopez, S.M. Estimating the value of watershed services following forest restoration. Water Resour. Res. 2013, 49, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bargués Tobella, A.; Reese, H.; Almaw, A.; Bayala, J.; Malmer, A.; Laudon, H.; Ilstedt, U. The effect of trees on preferential flow and soil infiltrability in an agroforestry parkland in semiarid Burkina Faso. Water Resour. Res. 2014, 50, 3342–3354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilstedt, U.; Malmer, A.; Verbeeten, E.; Murdiyarso, D. The effect of afforestation on water infiltration in the tropics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 251, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghimire, C.P.; Bruijnzeel, L.A.; Lubczynski, M.W.; Bonell, M. Negative trade-off between changes in vegetation water use and infiltration recovery after reforesting degraded pasture land in the Nepalese Lesser Himalaya. Hydrol. Earth Sys. Sci. 2014, 18, 4933–4949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Committee on Hydrologic Impacts of Forest Management, National Research Council (NRC). Hydrologic Effects of a Changing Forest Landscape; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Reese, J.; US Forest Service, Charleston, SC, USA. Personal communication, 2015.
- Egoh, B.; Drakou, E.G.; Dunbar, M.B.; Maes, J.; Willemen, L. Indicators for Mapping Ecosystem Services: A Review; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Grêt-Regamey, A.; Weibel, B.; Kienast, F.; Rabe, S.E.; Zulian, G. A tiered approach for mapping ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 13, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- US Environmental Protection Agency. Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services: A Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board; EPA-SAB-09-012; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
- Forestry Agency of Japan. Shiga declaration on forests and water. In Proceedings of the International Expert Meeting on Forests and Water, Shiga, Japan, 20–22 November 2002.
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Forests and Water: International Momentum and Action; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. How Are the World’s Forests Changing? Available online: www.fao.org/3/a-i4793e.pdf (accessed on 30 November 2015).
- Daily, G.C.; Polansky, S.; Goldstein, J.; Kareiva, P.M.; Mooney, H.A.; Pejchar, L.; Ricketts, T.H.; Salzman, J.; Shallenberger, R. Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norgaard, R.B. Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1219–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, N.; Deal, R.; Kline, J.; Blahna, D.; Patterson, T.; Spies, T.A.; Bennett, K. Ecosystem Services As a Framework for Forest Stewardship: Deschutes National Forest Overview; General Technical Report PNW-GTR-852; Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR, USA, 2011; p. 46. [Google Scholar]
- International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 31000:2009. Risk Management—Principles and Guidelines. Available online: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=43170 (accessed on 30 November 2015).
- International Electrotechnical Commission/International Organization for Standardization (IEC/ISO). IEC/ISO 31010:2009. Risk Assessment Techniques. Available online: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=51073 (accessed on 10 December 2015).
- Cormier, R.; Kannen, A.; Elliott, M.; Hall, P.; Davies, I.M. Marine and Coastal Ecosystem-Based Risk Management Handbook; International Council for the Exploration of the Seas: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Creed, I.F.; Cormier, R.C.; Laurent, K.L.; Accatino, F.; Igras, J.; Henley, P.; Friedman, K.B.; Johnson, L.B.; Crossman, J.; Dillon, P.J.; et al. Formal integration of science and management systems needed to achieve thriving and prosperous Great Lakes. BioScience 2016, in press. [Google Scholar]
- Lescourret, F.; Magda, D.; Richard, G.; Adam-Blondon, A.-F.; Bardy, M.; Baudry, J.; Doussan, I.; Dumont, B.; Lefevre, F.; Litrico, I.; et al. A social-ecological approach to managing multiple agro-ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlüter, M.; Hinkel, J.; Bots, P.W.; Arlinghaus, R. Application of the SES framework of model-based analysis of the dynamics of social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binder, C.R.; Hinkel, J.; Bots, P.W.G.; Pahl-Wostl, C. Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fremier, A.K.; DeClerck, F.A.J.; Bosque-Pérez, N.A.; Carmona, N.E.; Hill, R.; Joyal, T.; Keesecker, L.; Zion Klos, P.; Martínez-Salinas, A.; Niemeyer, R.; et al. Understanding spatiotemporal lags in ecosystem services to improve incentives. BioScience 2013, 63, 472–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, B.; Turner, R.K.; Morling, P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 643–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gayer, T.; Viscusi, W.K. Determining the Proper Scope of Climate Change Benefits. Available online: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/06/04-determining-proper-scope-climate-change-benefits-gayer (accessed on 22 February 2016).
- Costanza, R. Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 350–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pattanayak, S.K.; Butry, D.T. Spatial complementarity of forests and farms: Accounting for ecosystem services. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 2005, 87, 995–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olander, L.; Johnston, R.J.; Tallis, H.; Kagan, J.; Maguire, L.; Polasky, S.; Urban, D.; Boyd, J.; Wainger, L.; Palmer, M. Best Practices for Integrating Ecosystem Services into Federal Decision Making; Duke University National Ecosystem Services Partnership: Durham, NC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Lewis, D.J.; Wu, J. Land-use patterns and spatially dependent ecosystem services: Some microeconomic foundations. Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2015, 8, 191–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables; Working Paper No ESA/P/WP.241; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Waters, C.; Zalasiewicz, J.; Summerhayes, C.; Barnosky, A.D.; Poirier, C.; Gałuszka, A.; Cearreta, A.; Edgeworth, M.; Ellis, E.C.; Ellis, M.; et al. The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science 2016, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Venier, L.; Thompson, I.; Fleming, R.; Malcolm, J.; Aubin, I.; Trofymow, J.; Langor, D.; Sturrock, R.; Patry, C.; Outerbridge, R.; et al. Effects of natural resource development on the terrestrial biodiversity of Canadian boreal forests. Environ. Rev. 2014, 22, 457–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kreutzweiser, D.; Beall, F.; Webster, K.; Thompson, D.; Creed, I. Impacts and prognosis of natural resource development on aquatic biodiversity in Canada’s boreal zone. Environ. Rev. 2013, 21, 227–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webster, K.; Beall, F.D.; Creed, I.F.; Kreutzweiser, D.P. Impacts and prognosis of natural resource development on water and wetlands in Canada’s boreal zone. Env. Rev. 2015, 23, 78–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). Act and Regulations. Available online: https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=07F0DCD5-1 (accessed on 22 February 2016).
- Bishop, J.; Kapila, S.; Hicks, F.; Mitchell, P.; Vorhies, F. Building Biodiversity Business; Shell International Limited and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): London, UK; Gland, Switzerland, 2008; p. 164. [Google Scholar]
- Krieger, D.J. The Economic Value of Forest Ecosystem Services: A Review; The Wilderness Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Simberloff, D. The role of science in the preservation of forest biodiversity. Forest Ecol. Manag. 1999, 115, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergeron, Y.; Cyr, D.; Drever, C.R.; Flannigan, M.; Gauthier, S.; Kneeshaw, D.; Lauzon, È.; Leduc, A.; Le Goff, H.; Lesieur, D.; et al. Past, current, and future fire frequencies in Quebec’s commercial forests: Implications for the cumulative effects of harvesting and fire on age-class structure and natural disturbance-based management. Can. J. For. Res. 2006, 36, 2737–2744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sibley, P.K.; Kreutzweiser, D.P.; Naylor, B.J.; Richardson, J.S.; Gordon, A.M. Emulation of natural disturbance (END) for riparian forest management: Synthesis and recommendations. Freshw. Sci. 2012, 31, 258–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thiffault, E.; Paré, D.; Brais, S.; Titus, B.D. Intensive biomass removals and site productivity in Canada: A review of relevant issues. Forest. Chron. 2010, 86, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Forest Futures Methodology; Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper 182: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, C.J.; Bode, M.; Venter, O.; Barnes, M.D.; McGowan, J.; Runge, C.A.; Watson, J.E.M.; Possingham, H.P. Effective conservation requires clear objectives and prioritizing actions, not places or species. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, E4342–E4342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- International Panel on Climate Change. Special Report on Emissions; Nakićenović, N., Swart, R., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2000; p. 27. [Google Scholar]
- Carpenter, S.R.; Bennett, E.M.; Peterson, G.D. Editorial: Special feature on scenarios for ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 32. Available online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art32/ (accessed on 22 February 2016). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calder, I.R. Forests and water—Ensuring forest benefits outweigh water costs. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2007, 25, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wack, P. Scenarios: Shooting the rapids. Harvard Bus. Rev. 1985, 63, 139–150. [Google Scholar]
- Bishop, P.; Hines, A.; Collins, T. The current state of scenario development: An overview of techniques. Foresight 2007, 9, 2–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradfield, R.; Wright, G.; Burt, G.; Cairns, G.; Van Der Heijden, K. The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures 2005, 37, 795–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huss, W.R.; Honton, E.J. Scenario planning—What style should you use? Long Range Plan. 1987, 20, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alcamo, J. Introduction: The case for scenarios of the environment. In Environmental Futures: The Practice of Environmental Scenario Analysis, 1st ed.; Alcamo, J., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Schwartz, P. The Art of the Long View, 2nd ed.; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 1996; p. 288. [Google Scholar]
- Tapinos, E. Perceived environmental uncertainty in scenario planning. Futures 2012, 44, 338–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chermack, T.J.; van der Merwe, L.; Lynham, S.A. Exploring the relationship between scenario planning and perceptions of strategic conversation quality. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2007, 74, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swart, R.J.; Raskin, P.; Robinson, J. The problem of the future: Sustainability science and scenario analysis. Global Environ. Chang. 2004, 14, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Report of the Joint Rijkswaterstaat/DFO/ICES Workshop: Risk Assessment for Spatial Management; ICES CM 2014/SSGHIE:01; ICES: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- European Union. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008. Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32008L0056 (accessed on 22 February 2016).
- Gann, G.D.; Lamb, D. Society for Ecological Restoration International, Tucson, Arizona, USA and IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. A call to action by the ecological restoration joint working group of SER International and the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management. Available online: http://www.ser.org/resources/resources-detail-view/ecological-restoration-a-means-of-conserving-biodiversity-and-sustaining-livelihoods (accessed on 22 February 2016).
- Bishop, K.; Baven, K.; Destouni, G.; Abrahamsson, K.; Andersson, L.; Johnson, R.K.; Rodhe, J.; Hjerdt, N. Nature as the “natural” goal for water management: A conversation. AMBIO 2009, 38, 209–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Valinia, S.; Hansen, H.P.; Futter, M.N.; Bishop, K.; Sriskandarajah, N.; Fölster, J. Problems with the reconciliation of good ecological status and public participation in the Water Framework Directive. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 433, 482–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ye, H.; Beamish, R.J.; Glaser, S.M.; Grant, S.C.H.; Hsieh, C.; Richards, L.J.; Schnute, J.T.; Sugihara, G. Equation-free mechanistic ecosystem forecasting using empirical dynamic modeling. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, E1569–E1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hodgson, D.; McDonald, J.; Hosken, D. What do you mean “resilient”? Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015, 30, 503–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kimmins, J.P.H. Future shock in forestry Where have we come from; where are we going; is there a “right way” to manage forests? Lessons from Thoreau, Leopold, Toffler, Botkin and Nature. Forest. Chron. 2002, 78, 263–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeung, A.; Richardson, J. Some conceptual operational considerations when measuring resilience: A response to Hodgson et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2016, 31, 2–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Newton, A.; Cantarello, E. Restoration or forest resilience: An achievable goal? New For. 2015, 46, 645–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brock, W.A.; Carpenter, S.R. Variance as a leading indicator of regime shift in ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 9. Available online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art9/ (accessed on 30 November 2015). [Google Scholar]
- Guttal, V.; Jayaprakash, C. Spatial variance and spatial skewness: Leading indicators of regime shifts in spatial ecological systems. Theor. Ecol. 2009, 2, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carpenter, S.R.; Cole, J.J.; Pace, M.L.; Batt, R.; Brock, W.A.; Cline, T.; Coloso, J.; Hodgson, J.R.; Kitchell, J.F.; Seekell, D.A.; et al. Early warnings of regime shifts: A whole-ecosystem experiment. Science 2011, 332, 1079–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cabezas, H.; Fath, B.D. Towards a theory of sustainable systems. Fluid Ph. Equilib. 2002, 194, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacDougall, A.S.; McCann, K.S.; Gellner, G.; Turkington, R. Diversity loss with persistent human disturbance increases vulnerability to ecosystem collapse. Nature 2013, 494, 86–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ulanowicz, R.E.; Goerner, S.J.; Liataer, B.; Gomez, R. Quantifying sustainability: Resilience, efficiency, and the return of information theory. Ecol. Complex. 2009, 6, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayer, A.L.; Donovan, R.P.; Pawlowski, C.W. Information and entropy theory for the sustainability of coupled human and natural systems. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dow, K.; Berkhout, F.; Preston, B.L.; Klein, R.J.T.; Midgley, G.; Shaw, M.R. Limits to adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 305–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klinke, A.; Renn, O. A new approach to risk evaluation and management: Risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies. Risk Anal. 2002, 22, 1071–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Options: An Overview of Approaches; UNFCCC: Bonn, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Onaindia, M.; de Fernandez Manuel, B.; Madariaga, I.; Rodriguez-Loinaz, G. Co-benefits and trade-offs between biodiversity, carbon storage and water flow regulation. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 289, 1–9. Available online: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037811271200607X (accessed on 22 February 2016). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, B.; Batement, I.; Turner, R.K. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Benefits, Values, Space and Time; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Keeler, B.L.; Polasky, S.; Brauman, K.A.; Johnson, K.A.; Finlay, J.C.; O’Neill, A.; Kovaks, K.; Dalzell, B. Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 18619–18624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- European Commission. A New EU Forest Strategy: For Forests and the Forest-Based Sector. 2013. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0659 (accessed on 30 November 2015).
- European Commission. The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. 2012. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/2020.htm (accessed on 30 November 2015).
- Bele, M.Y.; Sonwa, D.J.; Tiani, A.-M. Adapting the Congo Basin forests management to climate change: Linkages among biodiversity, forest loss, and human well-being. For. Pol. Econ. 2015, 50, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tol, R.S.J.; Downing, T.W.; Kuik, O.J.; Smith, J.B. Distributional aspects of climate change impacts. Glob. Env. Chang. 2004, 14, 259–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weisbach, D.A.; Sunstein, C.R. Symposium on Intergenerational Equity and Discounting. Univ. Chic. Law Rev. 2007, 74, 1–3. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4495592?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents (accessed on 22 February 2016). [Google Scholar]
- Schneider, M.T.; Traeger, C.P.; Winkler, R. Trading off generations: Equity, discounting and climate change. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2012, 56, 1621–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Neumayer, E. A Missed Opportunity: The Stern Review on Climate Change Fails to Tackle the Issue of Non-Substitutable Loss of Natural Capital. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2007, 17, 297–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weitzman, M.L. A review of the Stern review on the economics of climate change. J. Econ. Lit. 2007, 45, 703–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordhaus, W.D. A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate. J. Econ. Lit. 2007, 45, 686–702. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27646843?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents (accessed on 18 December 2015). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, N. The Economics of Climate Change: The STERN Review; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Lempert, R.J. Embedding (some) benefit-cost concepts into decision support processes with deep uncertainty. J. Benefit Cost Anal. 2014, 5, 487–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssen, M.A.; Bodin, Ö.; Anderies, J.M.; Elmqvist, T.; Ernstson, H.; McAllister, R.R.J.; Olsson, P.; Ryan, P. Toward a network perspective of the study of resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 15. Available online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art15/ (accessed on 15 December 2015). [Google Scholar]
- Farmer, J.D.; Foley, D. The economy needs agent-based modelling. Nature 2009, 460, 685–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brown, D.G.; Riolo, R.; Robinson, D.; North, M.; Rand, W. Spatial process and data models: Toward integration of agent-based models and GIS. J. Geograph. Syst. 2005, 7, 25–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roux, D.J.; Nel, J.L.; Fisher, R.M.; Berendise, J. Top-down conservation targets and bottom-up management action: Creating complementary feedbacks for freshwater conservation. Aquat. Conserv. Available online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aqc.2577 (accessed on 30 November 2015). [CrossRef]
- Barbier, E.B. Poverty, development, and ecological services. Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2008, 2, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hogarth, N.J.; Belcher, B.; Campbell, B.; Stacey, N. The role of forest-related income in household economies and rural livelihoods in the border-region of Southern China. World Dev. 2013, 43, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahanty, S.; Suich, H.; Tacconi, L. Access and benefits in payments for environmental services and implications for REDD+: Lessons from seven PES schemes. Land Use Policy 2013, 31, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whittington, D.; Pagiola, S. Using contingent valuation in the design of payments for environmental services mechanisms: A review and assessment. World Bank Res. Obs. 2012, 27, 261–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Muñoz-Piña, C.; Guevara, A.; Torres, J.M.; Braña, J. Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico’s forests: Analysis, negotiations and results. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 4, 725–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillis, J. Delegates at Climate Talks Focus on Saving the World’s Forests. New York Times. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/world/delegates-at-climate-talks-focus-on-saving-the-worlds-forests.html?_r=0 (accessed on 10 December 2015).
- Barbier, E.B. Poverty, development, and environment. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2010, 15, 635–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Principle | Description |
---|---|
Principle 1 | Move from a sectoral to an integrated cross-sectoral approach to economic, social and environmental planning at local, national and international levels. |
Principle 2 | Capture the total economic value of forest and water resources and evaluate trade-offs and distributional and equity effects of policies to maintain AES. |
Principle 3 | Put in place appropriate incentives to support the sustainable management of forest and water services to ensure that those who use resources pay the full cost of their exploitation and those who bear the costs of conservation are equitably compensated. |
Principle 4 | Promote effective and equitable collaborative arrangements and partnerships among governments and stakeholders to develop new tools for managing AES. |
Management Measures | ||
---|---|---|
Hard Controls | Avoid | Where and when is the human activity allowed to occur? |
Prevent | What is the amount of human activity permitted? | |
Mitigate | What is the degree of impact? | |
Soft Controls | Enable | What is the allocation and coordination of authority? |
Facilitate | How can we make the public care that we can meet the policy objectives? | |
Track | What is the target, and how can we track compliance and conformity to reach the target? |
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Creed, I.F.; Weber, M.; Accatino, F.; Kreutzweiser, D.P. Managing Forests for Water in the Anthropocene—The Best Kept Secret Services of Forest Ecosystems. Forests 2016, 7, 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7030060
Creed IF, Weber M, Accatino F, Kreutzweiser DP. Managing Forests for Water in the Anthropocene—The Best Kept Secret Services of Forest Ecosystems. Forests. 2016; 7(3):60. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7030060
Chicago/Turabian StyleCreed, Irena F., Marian Weber, Francesco Accatino, and David P. Kreutzweiser. 2016. "Managing Forests for Water in the Anthropocene—The Best Kept Secret Services of Forest Ecosystems" Forests 7, no. 3: 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7030060