Читать книгу Handbook of Ecological and Ecosystem Engineering - Группа авторов - Страница 15

The first step toward a comprehensive assessment of ecosystem services lies in translating ecological complexity (structures and processes) into a more limited number of ecosystem functions that provide goods and services that are sized and valued by humans [18]. According to the aforementioned authors, understanding the functions of a given ecosystem and the nature and magnitude of its value for humans provides an empirical basis for the classification of useful aspects for humanity.

Many scholars have tried to measure the value of services provided by natural environments. Thus, as a science, economics has developed several forms of analysis over the years, which can be divided into three stages: natural resource economics, environmental economics, and ecological economics [23]. Numerous studies focused on standardizing these investigations were published during this period. Among them, one finds Constanza [24–26], De Groot et al. [18], Hein et al. [27], and Andrade and Romeiro [28].

Constanza et al. (1987) surveyed the economic value of 17 ecosystem services in 16 biomes; they only considered renewable resources and excluded non‐renewable fuels and the atmosphere. This study has shown the lack of standardization in the categorization of ecosystem services, as well as the difficulty of presenting the real valuation of these services.

Overall, the valuation of ecosystem services depends on how much individuals would be willing to pay for a specific service, which makes this type of assessment relative since value is specific to objectives of choice (moment) and individuals evaluate things in different ways. A single person can assign two different values to the same service depending on the person's momentary state and whether they have greater or lesser need of it at that moment [29]. In addition, these services are often indispensable; for many individuals, no institution or technology can make them expendable [19].

Several scholars have tried to improve methodologies in the last two decades to achieve well‐founded valuation parameters with applicability in different fields. Accordingly, De Groot et al. [18] have shown that data on ecosystem services often appears on incompatible scales. According to them, even if a given ecosystem service is sometimes valued at the price individuals are willing to pay for it, in some cases this service is so necessary for their survival that it is more logical to measure how much individuals would be willing to pay to avoid losing it.

According to Merico [30], it is necessary to differentiate value from intrinsic value among different economic value types associated with natural resources. Use value derives from the way the environment is used, such as mineral resource extraction or birdwatching. On the other hand, intrinsic value is the value of a given good – even its potential value – such as a certain plant species growing in a specific area or a particular insect species.

Based on the assumption that every ecosystem service derives from a given ecosystem function that has value for human beings, De Groot et al. [18] have systematized a wide variety of ecosystem functions by categorizing ecosystem services provided by such functions, either individually or jointly. The authors mentioned above divided ecosystem functions into four different groups: (i) regulation function (gas, climate, and water, among others); (ii) habitat function (places, such as refuges and estuaries, which provide habitat for animal and plant species); (iii) production function (food production), and; (iv) information function (cultural, recreational, historical, spiritual, scientific, among others); this division enabled the same groups in different environments. It is important to highlight that both regulation and habitat functions provide support to and maintain natural components; thus, they contribute to the provision of other functions [28].

The biggest challenge today in the study of ecosystem services is standardizing terminologies and methodologies, which is often an obstacle to more consistent analyses [31]; this issue can be associated with a lack of collaborative studies among scientists from different fields [29]. However, significant efforts have been made to establish standardization in these studies, such as those carried out by De Groot et al. [18], the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2003) [32], Santos and Silva [33], and Souza et al. [34].

Santos and Silva [33] conducted a survey of ecosystem services in a coastal zone; they traveled to the study site to make an inventory based on environmental and geological indicators. This strategy was also adopted by Seppelt et al. [35] and reformulated by Crossman et al. [36], who suggested that the evaluated service should be described based on indicators such as quantification unit (i.e. area, time) and scale (local, regional, global).

Souza et al. [34] have adapted the methodologies suggested by the authors mentioned above (see Tables 1.2–1.4) and used them to value ecosystem services provided by beaches in Ilhéus County, Bahia State, Brazil (Figures 1.8 and 1.9). They concluded that the greater the concentration of technical systems, the smaller the variety and the poorer the quality of provided services, highlighting the importance of conducting diagnosis and ecological valuation studies to substantiate environmental management processes.

Table 1.2 Indicators for the valuation of regulating and supporting ecosystem services.

Regulating and supporting service	Low (1)	Medium (2)	High (3)
Natural sediment retention	Absence of vegetation in the backshore or along the beach ridge	Occurrence of vegetation in the backshore or along the beach ridge over at least 50% of the shoreline	Occurrence of vegetation in the backshore or along the beach ridge over more than 50% of the shoreline
Aquifer recharge	Absence of sandy terraces or terraces with waterproofed surface	Occurrence of sandy terraces in at least 50% of the shoreline	Occurrence of sandy terraces in over 50% of the shoreline
Water control and storage	Absence of wetlands or mangrove forests	Occurrence of wetlands or mangrove forests in less than 50% of the shoreline	Occurrence of wetlands or mangrove forests in over 50% of the shoreline
Pollutant assimilation and recycling	Absence of wetlands or mangrove forests	Occurrence of wetlands or mangrove forests in less than 50% of the shoreline	Occurrence of wetlands or mangrove forests in over 50% of the shoreline
Wave energy dissipation	Absence of surf zone	Surf zone with up to three breakers	Surf zone with more than three breakers
Foreshore zone natural protection	Absence of coral reefs and/or sandstone banks	Occurrence of coral reefs and/or sandstone banks in less than 50% of the shoreline	Occurrence of coral reefs and/or sandstone banks in less than 50% of the shoreline
Backshore zone natural protection	Absence of beach ridge	Occurrence of beach ridge in less than 50% of the shoreline	Occurrence of beach ridge in over 50% of the shoreline
Marine refuge and/or nursery	Absence of estuaries, coral reefs, or sea turtle nesting areas	Occurrence of at least one refuge/nursery area (estuaries, coral reefs, or sea turtle nesting areas)	Occurrence of more than one refuge/nursery area (estuaries, coral reefs, or sea turtle nesting areas)
Terrestrial or transitional refuge and/or nursery	Absence of mangrove forests, restinga, or Atlantic rainforest	Occurrence of at least one refuge/nursery area (mangrove forests, restinga, Atlantic rainforest)	Occurrence of more than one refuge/nursery area (mangrove forests, restinga, Atlantic rainforest)

Table 1.3 Indicators for the valuation of provisioning ecosystem services.

Provisioning Service	Low (1)	Medium (2)	High (3)
Natural food production	Absence of activities such as fisheries, shellfish gathering, or gathering wild plants	Occurrence ofat least one activity (i.e. fisheries, shellfish gathering or gathering wild plants)	Occurrence of more than one activity (i.e. fisheries, shellfish gathering or gathering wild plants)
Food production in farmed areas	Absence of activities such as crops, animal breeding, fish farming, etc.	Occurrence of at least one activity (i.e. crops, animal breeding, fish farming, etc.)	Occurrence of more than one activity (i.e. crops, animal breeding, fish farming, etc.)
Water resources	Absence of surface water bodies or aquifers	Occurrence of at least one source of water (i.e. surface water bodies or aquifers)	Occurrence of more than one source of water (i.e. surface water bodies or aquifers)
Ornamental resources	Absence of ornamental resources (i.e. deadwood, oysters, plants, fish, rocks, minerals)	Occurrence of at least one ornamental resource (i.e. deadwood, oysters, plants, fish, rocks, minerals)	Occurrence of more than one ornamental resource (i.e. deadwood, oysters, plants, fish, rocks, minerals)
Genetic resources	Occurrence of anthropized areas, pastures, or monocultures	Occurrence of restinga or agroforestry systems	Occurrence of forests, coral reefs, estuaries, or mangrove forests

Table 1.4 Indicators for the valuation of information and cultural ecosystem services.

Information and cultural service	Low (1)	Medium (2)	High (3)
Ecotourism	Absence of locations with quality for ecotourism, such as hiking and diving	Occurrence of at least one location with quality for ecotourism, such as hiking and diving	Occurrence of more than one location with quality for ecotourism, such as hiking and diving
Historical/cultural tourism	Absence of buildings or areas with known historical value	Occurrence of at least one building or area with known historical value	Occurrence of more than one building or area with known historical value
Recreation and leisure	Low recreational quality	Medium recreational quality	High recreational quality
Scenic quality	Absence of natural attractions (e.g. cliffs)	Occurrence of at least one natural attraction (e.g. cliffs)	Occurrence of more than one natural attraction (e.g. cliffs)

Primary information collected by methodologies such as the ones applied by Santos and Silva [33], Seppelt et al. [35], and Souza et al. [34] is essential to enable researchers to perform environmental mapping and modeling. Chan and Ruckelshaus [37] reported efforts to map and model ecosystem services, such as the Multiscale Integrated Models of Ecosystem Services (MIMES), Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES), and Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST). However, these models are considered recent. Studies about them remain scarce in the literature [31]. The applicability and effectiveness of the adopted tools remain significantly questionable.

Figure 1.8 Ecosystem service index obtained for the northern shoreline of the municipality of Ilhéus, state of Bahia, Brazil.

It is important to emphasize that the analysis of ecosystem services applied to management and decision‐making processes does not need to include economic assessments [31], as shown in the study by Ruckelshaus et al. [38], who evaluated 20 pilot studies about the application of ecosystem services and concluded that many decision‐makers wished to examine the consequences of their actions for traditional market commodities in monetary terms, as well as the non‐economic benefits, including cultural aspects and biodiversity values. The misconception that the assessment of ecosystem services requires economic assessment can be a barrier to scientific development.

Figure 1.9 Qualitative assessment of ecosystem services by beaches in the municipality of Ilhéus, state of Bahia, Brazil. Northern shoreline beaches – PS: Pé de Serra; S1: Sargi – trecho 1; S2: Sargi – trecho 2; PR: Ponta do Ramo; L: Luzimares; C: Coqueiros; M1: Mamoã – trecho 1; M2: Mamoã – trecho 2; M3: Mamoã – trecho 3; PT1: Ponta da Tulha – trecho 1; PT2: Ponta da Tulha – trecho 2; V: Verdesmares; B: Barramares; PA: Paraíso do Atlântico; JA1: Jóia do Atlântico – trecho 1; JA2: Jóia do Atlântico – trecho 2; MS: Mar e Sol; J: Japará; FO: Fazenda de Osmar; SD1: São Domingos – trecho 1; SD2: São Domingos – trecho 2; SM: São Miguel.

As the concept of ecosystem service increasingly becomes an operational tool, it is necessary to explain the complexity of the relationships among production, ecosystem service appropriation [22], and impacts on different time and space scales. So far, there has been considerable focus on spatial patterns of ecosystem service provision and appropriation; however, the temporal dynamics have been little explored, as highlighted by Rau et al. [22], who proposed a new way of categorizing ecosystem services based on their temporal dynamics by differentiating linear from nonlinear dynamics in the provision and appropriation of these services.

The authors above have suggested that temporal dynamics can be better integrated into studies about ecosystem services through four stages: (i) defining the appropriate time limits of the system; (ii) identifying the primary types of ecosystem dynamics; (iii) evaluating the spatial scale at which the dynamics develop in the system; and (iv) developing measures to assess such dynamics.

Considering the temporal dynamics of ecosystem services by following the stages suggested by Rau et al. [22] is a way to better plan the management of ecosystem services.