TY  - JOUR
T1  - Biodiversity and ecosystem services require IPBES to take novel approach to scenarios
JF  - Sustainability Science
Y1  - 2016
A1  - Kok, Marcel T. J.
A1  - Kok, Kasper
A1  - Peterson, Garry D.
A1  - Hill, Rosemary
A1  - Agard, John
A1  - Carpenter, Stephen R.
AB  - What does the future hold for the world’s ecosystems and benefits that people obtain from them? While the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has identified the development of scenarios as a key to helping decision makers identify potential impacts of different policy options, it currently lacks a long-term scenario strategy. IPBES will decide how it will approach scenarios at its plenary meeting on 22–28 February 2016, in Kuala Lumpur. IPBES now needs to decide whether it should create new scenarios that better explore ecosystem services and biodiversity dynamics. For IPBES to capture the social-ecological dynamics of biodiversity and ecosystem services, it is essential to engage with the great diversity of local contexts, while also including the global tele-coupling among local places. We present and compare three alternative scenario strategies that IPBES could use and then suggest a bottom-up, cross-scale scenario strategy to improve the policy relevance of future IPBES assessments. We propose five concrete steps as part of an effective, long term scenario development process for IPBES in cooperation with the scientific community.
SN  - 1862-4057
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0354-8
JO  - Sustainability Science
ER  - 

TY  - JOUR
T1  - The biodiversity–ecosystem service relationship in urban areas: a quantitative review
JF  - Oikos
Y1  - 2016
A1  - Ziter, Carly
AB  - By 2050, up to 75% of people globally will live in cities. Despite the potential ramifications of this urbanization for ecosystem services (ES), and the importance of locally produced ES for the health and wellbeing of urban residents, syntheses addressing the underlying ecology of ES provision rarely include urban areas. Here, I conduct a quantitative review of urban ES studies in the ecological literature, synthesizing trends across the discipline. I also quantify the extent to which this work considers the organisms and ecosystem components responsible for ES provision using two approaches: assessment of biodiversity–ES relationships, and an adaptation of the service provider concept. The majority of urban ES studies were conducted in western, developed countries, and typically assessed a single service in a single city – largely ignoring ES synergies and tradeoffs, and cross-city comparisons. While several different ES are studied in urban ecosystems, the field is dominated by weather and climate-related regulating services, with assessments of cultural services particularly lacking. Most studies described a habitat type as the service provider; however, studies that considered the biodiversity–ES relationship were more likely to identify a specific functional group, community, or population as the key provider of an ES. The biodiversity–ES relationship itself was most frequently characterized as dependent on the composition of species, functional traits, or structures, rather than correlated with the magnitude of any specific biodiversity metric. While the study of ES in urban ecosystems is increasing, there exists considerable room for further research. Future studies would benefit by expanding the number and categories of ES assessed within and across cities, as well as broadening the geographical scope of urban ES research. Biodiversity–ES assessments in urban ecosystems would also benefit from an expansion of the biodiversity types considered, particularly regarding non-species based approaches, and consideration of non-native and invasive species.
VL  - 125
IS  - 6
ER  -