|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|108054||161838||2016||5 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود رایگان|
• Abiotic flows are neglected or addressed inconsistently in ecosystem services (ES) classifications.
• We provide theoretical and practical arguments to include them.
• This supports consistency and optimizes the integration power of the ES concept.
Although ecosystems comprise both biotic and abiotic structures and processes, the role of abiotic output receives less attention and is addressed inconsistently in ecosystem services (ES) classification systems. The authors explore the nature and position of abiotic ecosystem output from: 1) a theoretical perspective on ecosystems, ecosystems services and natural capital; 2) a practical perspective on applying the ES concept in environmental policy, spatial planning and ecosystem management. From a theoretical point of view, excluding abiotic flows in ES frameworks such as CICES is inconsistent with the principles of the ES concept. Consequently, abiotic flows with (high) societal relevance may in practice be neglected or selectively addressed; many of them are related to sediment and the subsurface part of ecosystems. This impedes the integration strength of the ES concept. Given the large contributions to the economy and the societal costs of non-sustainable use of abiotic flows, it also impedes holistic, consistent and transparent information provision to decision makers. The authors urge to include abiotic flows as inherent part in ecosystem services classification systems such as CICES. This makes the application of the ES concept more holistic and consistent and will optimize it's integration power for practical planning and decision making.
Journal: Ecosystem Services - Volume 19, June 2016, Pages 1–5