Response to Kabisch and Colleagues

Response to Kabisch and Colleagues Kabisch and colleagues (2017) have reviewed our call for advances in ecosystem service (ES) decision-support tools from an urban perspective and explored how the three research frontiers we identified should be considered in cities. We appreciate how they build on our original ideas and welcome this as a good example of how the general principles we developed in the original article can be applied and adapted to specific contexts. In fact, we believe that similar points about the importance of adapting our general principles for specific social–ecological systems could be made for many other systems, such as marine ecosystems or managed forestry systems. The specific characteristics of these different systems also prov´ide opportunities to expand on current ES knowledge and improve ES management tools. For example, as Kabisch and colleagues (2017) point out, cities are unique because of their relatively small area and high population density, which may make them more ideal than other systems for understanding certain aspects of the links between humans and nature and for implementing this understanding in management tools. We take the opportunity to respond to the ideas presented by Kabisch and colleagues and thus continue the conversation around urban ES. Kabisch and colleagues suggest that remote sensing is less useful in urban areas. However, remote sensing has been used very effectively in cities to model heat regulation (Schwarz et al. 2011), carbon storage (Tigges et al. 2017), and flood regulation (Wirion et al. 2017), among other ecosystem services. The small scale and contained nature of cities may allow for additional methods to be used in conjunction with remote sensing, such as participatory mapping (Plieninger et al. 2013), or direct measurements, such as tree inventories (Nielsen et al. 2014). Using multiple methods may provide more complete information than remote sensing alone (Cord et al 2017), leading to a more comprehensive understanding. Building tools that can use multiple knowledge sources and produce diverse types of information would allow urban areas to leverage these alternative data sources to improve ES management. Kabisch and colleagues (2017) also call for simplification of ES models and tools to make them accessible to a broad range of stakeholders, many of whom are underrepresented in current environmental decision-­making processes. Although we support efforts to make ES decision-support tools more democratic, we argue that a renewed focus on land-cover-based tools, which have a number of disadvantages, as we laid out in our original article, is counterproductive. Instead, we suggest shifting the focus of simple ES decision-support tools away from land use and land cover and toward the ecosystems and environmental processes that actually produce ES, as well as the interactions between people and nature that support the coproduction of ES in highly human-influenced landscapes such as cities. (Luck et al. 2009, Ziter 2016). We also suggest that models be developed to provide metrics that support different types of decision-making, including problem scoping and definition, assessment of alternatives, implementation planning, and evaluation of previous management actions. Such an approach could still be tangible to diverse stakeholders, including those without scientific backgrounds, while providing a more accurate assessment of ES and supporting a broader range of decision contexts. Where urban areas are a focus, the small spatial scale of cities and other human settlements would facilitate the collection of the detailed ecological data necessary to build and apply these types of tools. As Kabisch and colleagues (2017) point out, and as we highlight as one of our core frontier areas, it is crucial to integrate beneficiaries into ES tools and to acknowledge how different populations access (or lack access to) ES. Kabisch and colleagues’ suggestion of a “multimethod approach” is one promising way to address these issues. We also highlight the importance of working closely with stakeholders, not only when using tools to design management strategies but also through codesign of the tools themselves and through citizen-science approaches (Schröter et al. 2017). This allows the integration of diverse perspectives through the ES modeling process (Jacobs et al. 2016). Although we believe that this is important in all types of ES assessments, cities, with their defined boundaries and existing structures for social organization, offer excellent opportunities to pilot and test some of these strategies. Although we expect social processes and telecouplings to play important roles in many systems, they exert an outsized influence on the provision of urban ES (Yang et al. 2016). Because of this, the development of tools that account for these processes is crucial to understanding the provision of ES in urban areas. The high dependence within cities on technology and reliance on flows of services from other locations offer advantages for understanding the integrated role of social and ecological processes in ES provision and use. For example, it might be easier to determine the limits of technology and telecouplings’ abilities to substitute for local natural capital in ES provision in cities than in other locations. Kabisch and colleagues’ (2017) Viewpoint serves as a useful companion to our original article. However, we urge caution around their call for redrawing the focus of our ES modeling frontiers toward cities. Cities contain a large and increasing proportion of the Earth's population, and urban ecosystems may play a disproportionate role in providing certain ES, such as temperature regulation, air purification, or aesthetic benefits, because of their proximity to people. However, urban areas still only contain a very small proportion of the Earth's land area. Other nonurban types of land use cover the vast majority of the Earth's surface and provide important ES to people living in both urban and rural areas, including climate regulation; water purification; and the provision of food, water, and raw materials. Therefore, we encourage even urban-focused ES studies to recognize the diverse types of social–ecological systems, both within and outside of cities, that support human well-being through ES provision. All social–ecological systems that produce ES are complex in unique ways, which complicates the task of building generalized tools that can be used across different contexts. However, each system also provides opportunities to expand our understanding of the different aspects of ES that are necessary for building such generalized tools. We welcome work such as that by Kabisch and colleagues (2017) that explores our frontiers from the perspective of a particular system, and we hope that such work will push us closer to achieving the advances we called for in our original article. Acknowledgments This article is a joint effort of the sESMOD—Next-Generation Models for Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity working group and an outcome of a workshop kindly supported by the Synthesis Centre (sDiv) of the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig (no. DFG FZT 118). References cited Cord AF, Brauman KA, Chaplin-Kramer R, Huth A, Ziv G, Seppelt R. 2017. Priorities to advance monitoring of ecosystem services using Earth observation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution  32: 416– 428. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Jacobs K, Lebel L, Buizer J, Addams L, Matson P, McCullough E, Garden P, Saliba G, Finan T. 2016. Linking knowledge with action in the pursuit of sustainable water-resources management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences  113: 4591– 4596. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kabisch N, Haase D, Elmqvist T, McPhearson T. 2017. Cities matter: Workspaces in ecosystem-service assessments with decision-support tools in the context of urban systems. BioScience . doi:10.1093/biosci/bix153. Luck GW et al.   2009. Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services. BioScience  59: 223– 235. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Nielsen AB, Östberg J, Delshammar T. 2014. Review of urban tree inventory methods used to collect data at single-tree level. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry  40: 96– 111. Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, Bieling C. 2013. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy  33: 118– 129. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Schröter M, Kraemer R, Mantel M, Kabisch N, Hecker S, Richter A, Neumeier V, Bonn A. 2017. Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities. Ecosystem Services  28: 80– 94. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Schwarz N, Lautenbach S, Seppelt R. 2011. Exploring indicators for quantifying surface urban heat islands of European cities with MODIS land surface temperatures. Remote Sensing of Environment  115: 3175– 3186. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Tigges J, Churkina G, Lakes T. 2017. Modeling above-ground carbon storage: A remote sensing approach to derive individual tree species information in urban settings. Urban Ecosystems  20: 97– 111. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Wirion C, Bauwens W, Verbeiren B. 2017. Location- and time-specific hydrological simulations with multi-resolution remote sensing data in urban areas. Remote Sensing  9 (art. 645). Yang W et al.   2016. Urban water sustainability: Framework and application. Ecology and Society  21 (art. 4). Ziter C. 2016. The biodiversity–ecosystem service relationship in urban areas: A quantitative review. Oikos  125: 761– 768. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png BioScience Oxford University Press

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/response-to-kabisch-and-colleagues-meWNLwEZeP
Publisher
American Institute of Biological Sciences
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
ISSN
0006-3568
eISSN
1525-3244
D.O.I.
10.1093/biosci/bix154
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Kabisch and colleagues (2017) have reviewed our call for advances in ecosystem service (ES) decision-support tools from an urban perspective and explored how the three research frontiers we identified should be considered in cities. We appreciate how they build on our original ideas and welcome this as a good example of how the general principles we developed in the original article can be applied and adapted to specific contexts. In fact, we believe that similar points about the importance of adapting our general principles for specific social–ecological systems could be made for many other systems, such as marine ecosystems or managed forestry systems. The specific characteristics of these different systems also prov´ide opportunities to expand on current ES knowledge and improve ES management tools. For example, as Kabisch and colleagues (2017) point out, cities are unique because of their relatively small area and high population density, which may make them more ideal than other systems for understanding certain aspects of the links between humans and nature and for implementing this understanding in management tools. We take the opportunity to respond to the ideas presented by Kabisch and colleagues and thus continue the conversation around urban ES. Kabisch and colleagues suggest that remote sensing is less useful in urban areas. However, remote sensing has been used very effectively in cities to model heat regulation (Schwarz et al. 2011), carbon storage (Tigges et al. 2017), and flood regulation (Wirion et al. 2017), among other ecosystem services. The small scale and contained nature of cities may allow for additional methods to be used in conjunction with remote sensing, such as participatory mapping (Plieninger et al. 2013), or direct measurements, such as tree inventories (Nielsen et al. 2014). Using multiple methods may provide more complete information than remote sensing alone (Cord et al 2017), leading to a more comprehensive understanding. Building tools that can use multiple knowledge sources and produce diverse types of information would allow urban areas to leverage these alternative data sources to improve ES management. Kabisch and colleagues (2017) also call for simplification of ES models and tools to make them accessible to a broad range of stakeholders, many of whom are underrepresented in current environmental decision-­making processes. Although we support efforts to make ES decision-support tools more democratic, we argue that a renewed focus on land-cover-based tools, which have a number of disadvantages, as we laid out in our original article, is counterproductive. Instead, we suggest shifting the focus of simple ES decision-support tools away from land use and land cover and toward the ecosystems and environmental processes that actually produce ES, as well as the interactions between people and nature that support the coproduction of ES in highly human-influenced landscapes such as cities. (Luck et al. 2009, Ziter 2016). We also suggest that models be developed to provide metrics that support different types of decision-making, including problem scoping and definition, assessment of alternatives, implementation planning, and evaluation of previous management actions. Such an approach could still be tangible to diverse stakeholders, including those without scientific backgrounds, while providing a more accurate assessment of ES and supporting a broader range of decision contexts. Where urban areas are a focus, the small spatial scale of cities and other human settlements would facilitate the collection of the detailed ecological data necessary to build and apply these types of tools. As Kabisch and colleagues (2017) point out, and as we highlight as one of our core frontier areas, it is crucial to integrate beneficiaries into ES tools and to acknowledge how different populations access (or lack access to) ES. Kabisch and colleagues’ suggestion of a “multimethod approach” is one promising way to address these issues. We also highlight the importance of working closely with stakeholders, not only when using tools to design management strategies but also through codesign of the tools themselves and through citizen-science approaches (Schröter et al. 2017). This allows the integration of diverse perspectives through the ES modeling process (Jacobs et al. 2016). Although we believe that this is important in all types of ES assessments, cities, with their defined boundaries and existing structures for social organization, offer excellent opportunities to pilot and test some of these strategies. Although we expect social processes and telecouplings to play important roles in many systems, they exert an outsized influence on the provision of urban ES (Yang et al. 2016). Because of this, the development of tools that account for these processes is crucial to understanding the provision of ES in urban areas. The high dependence within cities on technology and reliance on flows of services from other locations offer advantages for understanding the integrated role of social and ecological processes in ES provision and use. For example, it might be easier to determine the limits of technology and telecouplings’ abilities to substitute for local natural capital in ES provision in cities than in other locations. Kabisch and colleagues’ (2017) Viewpoint serves as a useful companion to our original article. However, we urge caution around their call for redrawing the focus of our ES modeling frontiers toward cities. Cities contain a large and increasing proportion of the Earth's population, and urban ecosystems may play a disproportionate role in providing certain ES, such as temperature regulation, air purification, or aesthetic benefits, because of their proximity to people. However, urban areas still only contain a very small proportion of the Earth's land area. Other nonurban types of land use cover the vast majority of the Earth's surface and provide important ES to people living in both urban and rural areas, including climate regulation; water purification; and the provision of food, water, and raw materials. Therefore, we encourage even urban-focused ES studies to recognize the diverse types of social–ecological systems, both within and outside of cities, that support human well-being through ES provision. All social–ecological systems that produce ES are complex in unique ways, which complicates the task of building generalized tools that can be used across different contexts. However, each system also provides opportunities to expand our understanding of the different aspects of ES that are necessary for building such generalized tools. We welcome work such as that by Kabisch and colleagues (2017) that explores our frontiers from the perspective of a particular system, and we hope that such work will push us closer to achieving the advances we called for in our original article. Acknowledgments This article is a joint effort of the sESMOD—Next-Generation Models for Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity working group and an outcome of a workshop kindly supported by the Synthesis Centre (sDiv) of the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig (no. DFG FZT 118). References cited Cord AF, Brauman KA, Chaplin-Kramer R, Huth A, Ziv G, Seppelt R. 2017. Priorities to advance monitoring of ecosystem services using Earth observation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution  32: 416– 428. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Jacobs K, Lebel L, Buizer J, Addams L, Matson P, McCullough E, Garden P, Saliba G, Finan T. 2016. Linking knowledge with action in the pursuit of sustainable water-resources management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences  113: 4591– 4596. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kabisch N, Haase D, Elmqvist T, McPhearson T. 2017. Cities matter: Workspaces in ecosystem-service assessments with decision-support tools in the context of urban systems. BioScience . doi:10.1093/biosci/bix153. Luck GW et al.   2009. Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services. BioScience  59: 223– 235. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Nielsen AB, Östberg J, Delshammar T. 2014. Review of urban tree inventory methods used to collect data at single-tree level. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry  40: 96– 111. Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, Bieling C. 2013. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy  33: 118– 129. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Schröter M, Kraemer R, Mantel M, Kabisch N, Hecker S, Richter A, Neumeier V, Bonn A. 2017. Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities. Ecosystem Services  28: 80– 94. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Schwarz N, Lautenbach S, Seppelt R. 2011. Exploring indicators for quantifying surface urban heat islands of European cities with MODIS land surface temperatures. Remote Sensing of Environment  115: 3175– 3186. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Tigges J, Churkina G, Lakes T. 2017. Modeling above-ground carbon storage: A remote sensing approach to derive individual tree species information in urban settings. Urban Ecosystems  20: 97– 111. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Wirion C, Bauwens W, Verbeiren B. 2017. Location- and time-specific hydrological simulations with multi-resolution remote sensing data in urban areas. Remote Sensing  9 (art. 645). Yang W et al.   2016. Urban water sustainability: Framework and application. Ecology and Society  21 (art. 4). Ziter C. 2016. The biodiversity–ecosystem service relationship in urban areas: A quantitative review. Oikos  125: 761– 768. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com

Journal

BioScienceOxford University Press

Published: Mar 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve Freelancer

DeepDyve Pro

Price
FREE
$49/month

$360/year
Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed
Create lists to
organize your research
Export lists, citations
Read DeepDyve articles
Abstract access only
Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles
Print
20 pages/month
PDF Discount
20% off