ORCID Profile
0000-0002-9538-8831
Current Organisations
University of Western Australia
,
United Nations University
,
University of the Western Cape
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 14-08-2022
Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Date: 15-07-2008
Abstract: Research on ecosystem services has grown markedly in recent years. However, few studies are embedded in a social process designed to ensure effective management of ecosystem services. Most research has focused only on biophysical and valuation assessments of putative services. As a mission-oriented discipline, ecosystem service research should be user-inspired and user-useful, which will require that researchers respond to stakeholder needs from the outset and collaborate with them in strategy development and implementation. Here we provide a pragmatic operational model for achieving the safeguarding of ecosystem services. The model comprises three phases: assessment, planning, and management. Outcomes of social, biophysical, and valuation assessments are used to identify opportunities and constraints for implementation. The latter then are transformed into user-friendly products to identify, with stakeholders, strategic objectives for implementation (the planning phase). The management phase undertakes and coordinates actions that achieve the protection of ecosystem services and ensure the flow of these services to beneficiaries. This outcome is achieved via mainstreaming, or incorporating the safeguarding of ecosystem services into the policies and practices of sectors that deal with land- and water-use planning. Management needs to be adaptive and should be institutionalized in a suite of learning organizations that are representative of the sectors that are concerned with decision-making and planning. By following the phases of our operational model, projects for safeguarding ecosystem services are likely to empower stakeholders to implement effective on-the-ground management that will achieve resilience of the corresponding social-ecological systems.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 09-08-2023
DOI: 10.1038/S41586-023-06406-9
Abstract: Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being 1,2 , addressing the global bio ersity crisis 3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s erse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever 4 . Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Bio ersity Framework (GBF) 5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals 6 , predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature 7 . Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of bio ersity loss and climate change 8 , pandemic emergence 9 and socio-environmental injustices 10 . On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Bio ersity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s erse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions 7,11 . Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2017
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 14-06-2023
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 29-01-2023
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 08-08-2011
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 14-07-2012
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 15-07-2010
DOI: 10.1111/J.1523-1739.2009.01442.X
Abstract: Global declines in bio ersity and the widespread degradation of ecosystem services have led to urgent calls to safeguard both. Responses to this urgency include calls to integrate the needs of ecosystem services and bio ersity into the design of conservation interventions. The benefits of such integration are purported to include improvements in the justification and resources available for these interventions. Nevertheless, additional costs and potential trade-offs remain poorly understood in the design of interventions that seek to conserve bio ersity and ecosystem services. We sought to investigate the synergies and trade-offs in safeguarding ecosystem services and bio ersity in South Africa's Little Karoo. We used data on three ecosystem services--carbon storage, water recharge, and fodder provision--and data on bio ersity to examine several conservation planning scenarios. First, we investigated the amount of each ecosystem service captured incidentally by a conservation plan to meet targets for bio ersity only while minimizing opportunity costs. We then examined the costs of adding targets for ecosystem services into this conservation plan. Finally, we explored trade-offs between bio ersity and ecosystem service targets at a fixed cost. At least 30% of each ecosystem service was captured incidentally when all of bio ersity targets were met. By including data on ecosystem services, we increased the amount of services captured by at least 20% for all three services without additional costs. When bio ersity targets were reduced by 8%, an extra 40% of fodder provision and water recharge were obtained and 58% of carbon could be captured for the same cost. The opportunity cost (in terms of forgone production) of safeguarding 100% of the bio ersity targets was about US$500 million. Our results showed that with a small decrease in bio ersity target achievement, substantial gains for the conservation of ecosystem services can be achieved within our bio ersity priority areas for no extra cost.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 2020
Publisher: Unpublished
Date: 2015
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2023
Location: South Africa
No related grants have been discovered for Patrick O'Farrell.