3 results
7 - Peatlands and cultural ecosystem services
- from Part I - Peatland ecosystems services
-
- By Kerry A. Waylen, The James Hutton Institute Aberdeen, Robert van de Noort, University of Reading, Kirsty L. Blackstock, The James Hutton Institute Craigiebuckler Aberdeen
- Edited by Aletta Bonn, Tim Allott, University of Manchester, Martin Evans, University of Manchester, Hans Joosten, Rob Stoneman
-
- Book:
- Peatland Restoration and Ecosystem Services
- Published online:
- 05 June 2016
- Print publication:
- 23 June 2016, pp 114-128
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The importance of cultural ecosystem services
This chapter argues that peatlands across the world provide many types of cultural ecosystem services, and so these should be reflected in peatland management. Chapters 2–5 and 17 convincingly demonstrate how peatlands provide essential provisioning and regulating services, but as human well-being is a multi-dimensional concept (UNDP 2010), it is important that we recognise and support the role that nature can play in meeting other needs as leisure, religiosity, identity and freedom (Church, Burgess and Ravenscroft 2011).
Although this idea is (arguably) easy to relate to intuitively, it has proved challenging to articulate a precise and comprehensive definition of cultural ecosystem services (Daniel et al. 2012). The European CICES classification for ecosystem services (Chapter 1) describes them as: ‘the provision of non-material benefits, such as opportunities for recreation, spiritual and aesthetic experiences as well as the gaining of information and knowledge’. This definition is useful as it embraces everything from symbolic (aesthetic and spiritual meanings) to experiential (derived from more physical experiences, such as recreation, community activities) and intellectual benefits (such as scientific research and knowledge-building). The idea of non-material benefits offers a useful way to start thinking about cultural services, but it should not be interpreted strictly binding: as examples in this chapter show, culture can drive consumptive use while virtually all services that provide material services have cultural dimensions.
We begin by discussing some of the current challenges in understanding of peatland cultural services, before going on to explain and provide detail of the varied and interconnected ways in which peatlands provide cultural ecosystem services, and the implications for management.
Challenges for describing the value of cultural ecosystem services
The properties of cultural services mean that it is often difficult to measure their importance in monetary terms (Abson and Termansen 2011). First, many are ‘non-material’ uses that do not entail consumption (harvesting) of the resources – as for aesthetic appreciation of a peatland landscape – and these are typically not valued in conventional markets. Second, many goods in this category are ‘common goods’ or ‘public goods’, where it is hard to exclude users or charge for use. Third, many cultural services and benefits are interconnected with each other, and with other ecosystem services (Chan, Satterfield and Goldstein 2012). Chapter 16 in this volume provides a detailed discussion of valuation challenges.
7 - Implementation of the European Water Framework Directive: what does taking an ecosystem services-based approach add?
- from Part II - Applying frameworks for water management and biodiversity conservation under an ecosystem services-based approach
-
- By Kirsty L. Blackstock, The James Hutton Institute, Julia Martin-Ortega, The James Hutton Institute, Chris J. Spray, University of Dundee
- Edited by Julia Martin-Ortega, Robert C. Ferrier, Iain J. Gordon, Shahbaz Khan, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), France
-
- Book:
- Water Ecosystem Services
- Published online:
- 05 May 2015
- Print publication:
- 26 March 2015, pp 57-64
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The European Water Framework Directive (2000) provided a step-change in the way European waters are characterised, monitored, and managed. The Directive provides a framework to integrate multiple water environments and to coordinate a range of water-relevant legislation, while advocating for public participation and economic efficiency in water management. However, in the decade since the publication of the Directive, implementation has been problematic. As the Directive moves into its second implementation cycle, the European Commission and the member states are beginning to consider how it could be delivered using the concept of ecosystem services (Martin-Ortega 2012). Therefore, this chapter considers what an ecosystem services-based approach might add to the different stages required as part of the River Basin Management Planning process in Europe, and whether the approach might improve the implementation of the Water Framework Directive.
7.1 THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
7.2.1 Purpose
The objectives of the Water Framework Directive are to stop deterioration, improve the state of aquatic ecosystems, and promote the sustainable use of water by achieving ‘good ecological status’ in defined river basins (Box 7.1 collects the seven facts upon which the European Commission justifies and underpins the implementation of the Water Framework Directive). Under this norm, good ecological status is a composite assessment that measures the current state against the ‘reference condition’ for that type of water body (essentially, the state of the ecosystem before the impact of human pressures). Where the water body is at less than good status, measures (actions) must be taken. To achieve the good ecological status, cost-effective Programmes of Measures need to be set up. Where this is technically unfeasible or economically disproportionate then the objective can be reduced to moderate status or deferred to a later cycle (2021, 2027). Thus the plans provide an overview of the state of the ecosystem, the pressures on the ecosystem, and the actions that will be taken to remove the pressures and mitigate their impacts in an economically efficient way.
Knowledge exchange: a review and research agenda for environmental management
- IOAN FAZEY, ANNA C. EVELY, MARK S. REED, LINDSAY C. STRINGER, JOANNEKE KRUIJSEN, PIRAN C. L. WHITE, ANDREW NEWSHAM, LIXIAN JIN, MARTIN CORTAZZI, JEREMY PHILLIPSON, KIRSTY BLACKSTOCK, NOEL ENTWISTLE, WILLIAM SHEATE, FIONA ARMSTRONG, CHRIS BLACKMORE, JOHN FAZEY, JULIE INGRAM, JON GREGSON, PHILIP LOWE, SARAH MORTON, CHRIS TREVITT
-
- Journal:
- Environmental Conservation / Volume 40 / Issue 1 / March 2013
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 24 September 2012, pp. 19-36
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
There is increasing emphasis on the need for effective ways of sharing knowledge to enhance environmental management and sustainability. Knowledge exchange (KE) are processes that generate, share and/or use knowledge through various methods appropriate to the context, purpose, and participants involved. KE includes concepts such as sharing, generation, coproduction, comanagement, and brokerage of knowledge. This paper elicits the expert knowledge of academics involved in research and practice of KE from different disciplines and backgrounds to review research themes, identify gaps and questions, and develop a research agenda for furthering understanding about KE. Results include 80 research questions prefaced by a review of research themes. Key conclusions are: (1) there is a diverse range of questions relating to KE that require attention; (2) there is a particular need for research on understanding the process of KE and how KE can be evaluated; and (3) given the strong interdependency of research questions, an integrated approach to understanding KE is required. To improve understanding of KE, action research methodologies and embedding evaluation as a normal part of KE research and practice need to be encouraged. This will foster more adaptive approaches to learning about KE and enhance effectiveness of environmental management.