Peer-reviewed publications

The limited understanding of how ecosystem service knowledge (ESK) is used in decision making constrains our ability to learn from, replicate, and convey success stories. We explore use of ESK in decision making in three international cases: national coastal planning in Belize; regional marine spatial planning on Vancouver Island, Canada; and regional land-use planning on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. Decision makers, scientists, and stakeholders collaborated in each case to use a standardized ecosystem service accounting tool to inform spatial planning. We evaluate interview, survey, and observation data to assess evidence of ‘conceptual’, ‘strategic’, and ‘instrumental’ use of ESK. We find evidence of all modes: conceptual use dominates early planning, while strategic and instrumental uses occur iteratively in middle and late stages. Conceptual and strategic uses of ESK build understanding and compromise that facilitate instrumental use. We highlight attributes of ESK, characteristics of the process, and general conditions that appear to affect how knowledge is used. Meaningful participation, scenario development, and integration of local and traditional knowledge emerge as important for particular uses.

Providing food, timber, energy, housing, and other goods and services, while maintaining ecosystem functions and biodiversity that underpin their sustainable supply, is one of the great challenges of our time. Understanding the drivers of land-use change and how policies can alter land-use change will be critical to meeting this challenge. Here we project land-use change in the contiguous United States to 2051 under two plausible baseline trajectories of economic conditions to illustrate how differences in underlying market forces can have large impacts on land-use with cascading effects on ecosystem services and wildlife habitat. We project a large increase in croplands (28.2 million ha) under a scenario with high crop demand mirroring conditions starting in 2007, compared with a loss of cropland (11.2 million ha) mirroring conditions in the 1990s. Projected land-use changes result in increases in carbon storage, timber production, food production from increased yields, and >10% decreases in habitat for 25% of modeled species. We also analyze policy alternatives designed to encourage forest cover and natural landscapes and reduce urban expansion. Although these policy scenarios modify baseline land-use patterns, they do not reverse powerful underlying trends. Policy interventions need to be aggressive to significantly alter underlying land-use change trends and shift the trajectory of ecosystem service provision.

Commonalities and complementarities among approaches to conservation monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are not well articulated, creating the potential for confusion, misuse, and missed opportunities to inform conservation policy and practice. We examine the relationships among five approaches to conservation M&E, characterizing each approach in eight domains: the focal question driving each approach, when in the project cycle each approach is employed, scale of data collection, the methods of data collection and analysis, the implementers of data collection and analysis, the users of M&E outputs, and the decisions informed by these outputs. Ambient monitoring measures status and change in ambient social and ecological conditions, independent of any conservation intervention. Management assessment measures management inputs, activities, and outputs, as the basis for investments to build management capacity for conservation projects. Performance measurement assesses project or program progress toward desired levels of specific activities, outputs, and outcomes. Impact evaluation is the systematic process of measuring the intended and unintended causal effects of conservation interventions, with emphasis upon long-term impacts on ecological and social conditions. Systematic review examines existing research findings to assess the state of the evidence regarding the impacts of conservation interventions, and to synthesize the insights emerging from this evidence base. Though these five approaches have some commonalities, they complement each other to provide unique insights for conservation planning, capacity-building, adaptive management, learning, and accountability. Ambient monitoring, management assessment, and performance measurement are now commonplace in conservation, but opportunities remain to inform conservation policy and practice more fully through catalytic investments in impact evaluations and systematic reviews.

Ecosystem services have clear promise to help identify and protect priority areas for biodiversity. To leverage them effectively, practitioners must conduct timely analyses at appropriate scales, often with limited data. Here we use simple spatial analyses on readily available datasets to compare the distribution of five ecosystem services with tiger habitat in central Sumatra. We assessed services and habitat in 2008 and the changes in these variables under two future scenarios: a conservation-friendly Green Vision, and a Spatial Plan developed by the Indonesian government. In 2008, the range of tiger habitat overlapped substantially with areas of high carbon storage and sediment retention, but less with areas of high water yield and nutrient retention. Depending on service, location and spatial grain of analysis, there were both gains and losses from 2008 to each scenario; however, aggregate provision of each ecosystem service (except water yield) and total area of tiger habitat were higher in the Vision than the Plan, likely driven by an increase in forest cover in the Vision. Sub-watersheds with high levels of several ecosystem services contained substantially more tiger habitat than random subsets of sub-watersheds, suggesting that prioritizing ecosystem services could benefit tiger conservation. Our analyses provided input to government-led spatial planning and strategic environmental assessments in the study area, indicating that even under time and data constraints, policy-relevant assessments of multiple ecosystem services are feasible.

While there have been rapid advances in assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES), a critical remaining challenge is how to move from scientific knowledge to real-world decision making. We offer 6 lessons from our experiences applying new approaches and tools for quantifying BES in 20 pilot demonstrations: (1) Applying a BES approach is most effective in leading to policy change as part of an iterative science-policy process; (2) simple ecological production function models have been useful in a diverse set of decision contexts, across a broad range of biophysical, social, and governance systems. Key limitations of simple models arise at very small scales, and in predicting specific future BES values; (3) training local experts in the approaches and tools is important for building local capacity, ownership, trust, and long-term success; (4) decision makers and stakeholders prefer to use a variety of BES value metrics, not only monetary values; (5) an important science gap exists in linking changes in BES to changes in livelihoods, health, cultural values, and other metrics of human wellbeing; and (6) communicating uncertainty in useful and transparent ways remains challenging.