Ecosystem health towards sustainability
Robert Ferrier2015, Ecosystem Health and Sustainability
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
Ecosystems are becoming damaged or degraded as a result of stresses especially associated with human activities. A healthy ecosystem is essential to provide the services that humans and the natural environment require and has tremendous social and economic value. Exploration of the definition of ecosystem health includes what constitutes health and what it means to be healthy. To evaluate ecosystem health, it is necessary to quantify ecosystem conditions using a variety of indicators. In this paper, the main principles and criteria for indicator selection, classification of indicators for different kinds of ecosystems, the most appropriate indicators for measuring ecosystem sustainability, and various methods and models for the assessment of ecosystem health are presented. Drivers, sustainability, and resilience are considered to be critical factors for ecosystem health and its assessment. Effective integration of ecological understanding with socioeconomic, biophysical, biogeochemical, and public-policy dimensions is still the primary challenge in this field, and devising workable strategies to achieve and maintain ecosystem health is a key future challenge.
Figures (8)
Related papers
Ecosystem health: I. Measuring ecosystem health
Environmental Management, 1988
/ Ecosystem analysis has been advanced by an improved understanding of how ecosystems are structured and how they function. Ecology has advanced from an era-phasis on natural history to consideration of energeiics, the relationships and connections between species, hierarchies, and systems theory. Still, we consider ecosystems as entities with a distinctive character and individual characteristics. Ecosystem maintenance and preservation form the objective of impact analysis, hazard evaluation, and other management or regulation activities. In this article we explore an approach to ecosystem analysis which identifies and quantifies factors which define the condition or state of an ecosystem in terms of health criteria. We relate ecosystem health to human/nonhuman animal health and explore the difficulties of defining ecosystem health and suggest criteria which provide a functional definition of state and condition. We suggest that, as has been found in human/nonhuman animal health studies, disease states can be recognized before disease is of clinical magnitude. Example disease states for ecosystems are functionally defined and discussed, together with test systems for their early detection.
Ecosystem health and ecological engineering
2012
Ecosystem health is a desired endpoint of environmental management and should be a primary design goal for ecological engineering. This paper describes ecosystem health as a comprehensive, multiscale, measure of system vigor, organization and resilience. Ecosystem health is thus closely linked to the idea of sustainability, which implies the ability of the system to maintain its structure (organization) and function (vigor) over time in the face of external stress (resilience).
Evaluation for regional ecosystem health: methodology and research progress
Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2007
The evaluation for ecosystem health is one of the hotspots in the fields of macro-ecology and ecosystem management.
Ecosystem services and management options as blanket indicators of ecosystem health
Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health, 1995
A pragmatic and integrative approach to evaluation of the environment combines ecosystem sciences, health sciences, and social sciences. Each has a crucial role to play: the ecosystem sciences provide information on the complex dynamics of ecosystems as they are influenced by stress and disturbance; the health sciences provide a methodology for systematic diagnosis of pathology, taxonomy of ills, and models for preventive as well as rehabilitative modes; the social sciences bring to the fore the importance of human values which are part and parcel of any health evaluation. The complexity of stress-response systems precludes anything approximating a complete understanding of mechanisms underpinning ecosystem transformations. However, the loss of ecosystem services and management options appears to be a general phenomenon that permits an overall evaluation of ecosystem health in both aquatic and terrestrial systems. Such blanket indicators take into account both the impairment of ecosystem function and societal values. This is illustrated by the history of ecosystem transformation in the Laurentian Lower Great Lakes and in the overharvested forest ecosystems of Eastern Canada. In both cases, cultural stress resulted in losses in highly valued ecosystem services and management options. These losses have been partially compensated for by new technologies that have permitted commercial use of the remaining lower quality resources. This process itself, however, may be pathological, reinforcing a degradation sequence rather than serving to restore ecosystem health.
Evaluating ecosystem health
JOURNAL OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM HEALTH, 1992
In the past decade, metaphors drawn from human health are finding increasing application in environmental assessment at ecosystem levels. If ecosystem medicine is to come of age, it must cope with three fundamental dilemmas. The first stems from the recognition that there are no strictly objective criteria for judging health. Assessments of health, as in humans, inevitably are based on some combination of established norms and desirable attributes. The second stems from the irregular pulse of nature which either precludes the early recognition of substantive changes or gives rise to false alarms. The third is posed by the quest for indicators that have the attributes of being holistic, early warning, and diagnostic. Indicators that excel in one of these aspects, often fail in another. Advances in ecosystem medicine are likely to come from closer collaboration with medical colleagues in both clinical and epidemiological areas. In particular the time appears ripe for a more systematic effort to characterize ecosystem maladies, to validate treatments and to develop more sophisticated diagnostic protocols. These aspects are illustrated with comparisons drawn from studies of environmental transformation in the Laurentian Great Lakes, the Baltic Sea and Canadian terrestrial ecosystems. 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n * Dedicated to Prof. J. Stan Rowe whose pioneering work in formulating a holistic perspective on ecosystem health has substantially contributed to the development of these ideas.
Chapter 2 Analytical Approaches for Assessing Ecosystem Condition and Human Well-being Coordinating Lead
2006
Coordinating Lead Authors: Ruth DeFries, Stefano Pagiola Lead Authors: W.L. Adamowicz, H. Resit Akçakaya, Agustin Arcenas, Suresh Babu, Deborah Balk, Ulisses Confalonieri, Wolfgang Cramer, Fander Falconı́, Steffen Fritz, Rhys Green, Edgar Gutiérrez-Espeleta, Kirk Hamilton, Racine Kane, John Latham, Emily Matthews, Taylor Ricketts, Tian Xiang Yue Contributing Authors: Neville Ash, Jillian Thönell Review Editors: Gerardo Ceballos, Sandra Lavorel, Gordon Orians, Stephen Pacala, Jatna Supriatna, Michael Young
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA): Ecosystems and Human Well-being Vol.1
2009
Copyright 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher: Island Press, 1718 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 300, NW, Washington, DC 20009. ISLAND PRESS is a trademark of The Center for Resource Economics. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data. Ecosystems and human well-being : current state and trends : findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group / edited by Rashid Hassan, Robert Scholes, Neville Ash. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was carried out between 2001 and 2005 to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and to establish the scientific basis for actions needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems and their contributions to human well-being. The MA responds to government requests for information received through four international conventions—the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and the Convention on Migratory Species—and is designed to also meet needs of other stakeholders, including the business community, the health sector, nongovernmental organizations, and indigenous peoples. The sub-global assessments also aimed to meet the needs of users in the regions where they were undertaken. The assessment focuses on the linkages between ecosystems and human well-being and, in particular, on ‘‘ecosystem services.’’ An ecosystem is a dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and the nonliving environment interacting as a functional unit. The MA deals with the full range of ecosystems—from those relatively undisturbed, such as natural forests, to landscapes with mixed patterns of human use and to ecosystems intensively managed and modified by humans, such as agricultural land and urban areas. Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include provisioning services such as food, water, timber, and fiber; regulating services that affect climate, floods, disease, wastes, and water quality; cultural services that provide recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits; and supporting services such as soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling. The human species, while buffered against environmental changes by culture and technology, is fundamentally dependent on the flow of ecosystem services.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA): Ecosystems and Human Well-being Vol.4
2012
Copyright 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher: Island Press, 1718 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 300, NW, Washington, DC 20009. ISLAND PRESS is a trademark of The Center for Resource Economics. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data. Ecosystems and human well-being : current state and trends : findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group / edited by Rashid Hassan, Robert Scholes, Neville Ash. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was carried out between 2001 and 2005 to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and to establish the scientific basis for actions needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems and their contributions to human well-being. The MA responds to government requests for information received through four international conventions—the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and the Convention on Migratory Species—and is designed to also meet needs of other stakeholders, including the business community, the health sector, nongovernmental organizations, and indigenous peoples. The sub-global assessments also aimed to meet the needs of users in the regions where they were undertaken. The assessment focuses on the linkages between ecosystems and human well-being and, in particular, on ‘‘ecosystem services.’’ An ecosystem is a dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and the nonliving environment interacting as a functional unit. The MA deals with the full range of ecosystems—from those relatively undisturbed, such as natural forests, to landscapes with mixed patterns of human use and to ecosystems intensively managed and modified by humans, such as agricultural land and urban areas. Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include provisioning services such as food, water, timber, and fiber; regulating services that affect climate, floods, disease, wastes, and water quality; cultural services that provide recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits; and supporting services such as soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling. The human species, while buffered against environmental changes by culture and technology, is fundamentally dependent on the flow of ecosystem services.
Ecosystem Health
Environmental Ethics, 2004
On most understandings of what an ecosystem is, it is a kind of thing that can be literally, not just metaphorically, healthy or unhealthy. Health is best understood as a kind of well-being; a thing’s health is a matter of retaining those structures and functions that are good for it. While it is true both that what’s good for an ecosystem depends on how we define the system and that how we define the system depends on our interests, these facts do not force us to the conclusion that an ecosystem has no good of its own. Ecosystems and persons can have goods of their own in spite of the fact that the schemes we use to categorize them are matters that we decide upon.
Developing integrated ecosystem indices
Ecological Indicators, 2014
Enabling ecosystem-based management requires, among other things, reaching a scientifically based consensus with respect to the key characteristics of a sustainable ecosystem capable of supporting those levels of key ecosystem services desired by society. To determine and convey whether an ecosystem is in fact approaching this goal implies developing indicators that capture the status of both the natural and societal aspects of the system. That said, developing consistent and useful indicators for both societal and natural system aspects of the ecosystem requires both resolving disparate perspectives and inconsistent terminology between human dimensions and natural system scientists and keeping the number of indicators manageably few, without oversimplifying a highly complex ecosystem. To accomplish this we employed a "recursive relationship" approach that defined (and redefined) variables, indicators, and indices along a sliding hierarchy from measurable parameters to highly aggregated indices. To illustrate this approach it is applied herein to both a human dimensions index (recreational quality), and a natural sciences index (water column). This "recursive relationship" approach facilitated development of a parsimonious set of high-level indices that together constitute an ecosystem report card integrating natural system status and related societal dimensions from an ecosystem services perspective, while maintaining all of the information at lower levels necessary to inform specific management decisions.
Related papers
Moving beyond the ecosystem in ecosystem health report cards
Environmental Practice, 2019
Early ecosystem health report cards focused on assessing the health of natural ecosystems, producing a "snapshot" of ecosystem health at one point in time. Ecosystem health report cards are used to guide efforts that improve ecosystem health through natural resources management and stakeholder engagement. Common themes among Report Cards include water quality and quantity and habitat. These indicators are not strictly environmental concerns, though. They also impact, and are impacted by, human communities. For example, water quantity bridges natural and human resources: a minimum amount of water is needed to maintain ecosystem health, and humans rely on water for industries, for example agriculture. People impact the ecosystems in which they live, and it is important to assess their impacts on ecosystems, as well as assessing how an ecosystem functions to support these communities. This requires consideration of both indicators that bridge the natural and human world, and some that are considered strictly human-focused. These include infrastructure, employment, and nutrition/food availability. When combined with assessments of natural resources, the evaluation of human focused indicators and indicators that bridge the natural and human world provide a more complex and accurate view of system health. Using three case studies, this paper explores the importance of integrating economic, cultural, and social indicators into traditional ecosystem health report cards, the challenges such integration poses, and potential solutions.
Ecosystem health demystified © An ecological concept determined by economic means
This paper addresses "ecosystem health", a concept recently popularised as the way forward in evaluating nature. The concept is often defined in vague expressions and is being seen more as a broad societal aspiration rather than a specific performance measure of ecosystem management. As such, the paper aims to demystify ecosystem health, that is, to demarcate an accurate and feasible characterisation of the concept. To achieve this aim an examination of the various viewpoints of nature is undertaken. Models of ecosystem health, such as the notions of naturalness, genetic fitness, climax, diversity, stability and keystone species are each considered and subsequently deemed inappropriate, especially when viewing ecosystems as "complex self-organising systems". Complex self-organising systems are non-linear dynamic systems that have multiple steady states and have emergent and chaotic properties. One model that captures this selforganisation process is Holling's adaptive cycle. However, when investigating this model it was concluded that there is no means to determining which phase within a system state, or state within a system is ecologically "better". Therefore, ecosystem health cannot be considered in a positive manner established by scientific objectivity. Rather, the concept must be determined in a normative fashion through it is suggested the elicitation of subjective societal values, so to define an optimal management strategy. But, implementing such a strategy is difficult because the changing nature and unpredictability of complex self-organising systems means we cannot focus on "locking-in" ecosystems (or preferences), instead it is argued we must forever adapt to changing ecological conditions.
Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators
Ecological indicators, 2001
Ecological indicators can be used to assess the condition of the environment, to provide an early warning signal of changes in the environment, or to diagnose the cause of an environmental problem. Ideally the suite of indicators should represent key information about structure, function, and composition of the ecological system. Three concerns hamper the use of ecological indicators as a resource management tool. (1) Monitoring programs often depend on a small number of indicators and fail to consider the full complexity of the ecological system. (2) Choice of ecological indicators is confounded in management programs that have vague long-term goals and objectives. (3) Management and monitoring programs often lack scientific rigor because of their failure to use a defined protocol for identifying ecological indicators. Thus, ecological indicators need to capture the complexities of the ecosystem yet remain simple enough to be easily and routinely monitored. Ecological indicators should meet the following criteria: be easily measured, be sensitive to stresses on the system, respond to stress in a predictable manner, be anticipatory, predict changes that can be averted by management actions, be integrative, have a known response to disturbances, anthropogenic stresses, and changes over time, and have low variability in response. The challenge is to derive a manageable set of indicators that together meet these criteria. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Analytical Approaches for Assessing Ecosystem Condition and Human Well-being
Ecosystems and human well …, 2005
Analytical Approaches for Assessing Ecosystem Condition and Human Well-being Main Messages Many tools are available to assess ecosystem condition and support policy decisions that involve trade-offs among ecosystem services. Clearing forested land, for example, affects multiple ecosystem services (such as food production, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and watershed protection), each of which affects human well-being (such as increased income from crops, reduced tourism value of biodiversity, and damage from downstream flooding). Assessing these trade-offs in the decision-making process requires scientifically based analysis to quantify the responses to different management alternatives. Scientific advances over the past few decades, particularly in computer modeling, remote sensing, and environmental economics, make it possible to assess these linkages. The availability and accuracy of data sources and methods for this assessment are unevenly distributed for different ecosystem services and geographic regions. Data on provisioning services, such as crop yield and timber production, are usually available. On the other hand, data on regulating, supporting, and cultural services such as nutrient cycling, climate regulation, or aesthetic value are seldom available, making it necessary to use indicators, model results, or extrapolations from case studies as proxies. Systematic data collection for carefully selected indicators reflecting trends in ecosystem condition and their services would provide an improved basis for future assessments. Methods for quantifying ecosystem responses are also uneven. Methods to estimate crop yield responses to fertilizer application, for example, are well developed. But methods to quantify relationships between ecosystem services and human well-being, such as the effects of deteriorating biodiversity on human disease, are at an earlier stage of development. Ecosystems respond to management changes on a range of time and space scales, and careful definition of the scales included in analyses is critical. Soil nutrient depletion, for example, occurs over decades and would not be captured in an analysis based on a shorter time period. Some of the impact of deforestation is felt in reduced water quality far downstream; an analysis that only considers the forest area itself would miss this impact. Ideally, analysis at varying scales would be carried out to assess trade-offs properly. In particular, it is essential to consider nonlinear responses of ecosystems to perturbations in analysis of trade-offs, such as loss of resilience to climate variability below a threshold number of plant species. Ecosystem condition is only one of many factors that affect human wellbeing, making it challenging to assess linkages between them. Health outcomes, for example, are the combined result of ecosystem condition, access to health care, economic status, and myriad other factors. Interpretations of trends in indicators of well-being must appropriately account for the full range of factors involved. The impacts of ecosystem change on well-being are often subtle, which is not to say unimportant; impacts need not be drastic to be significant. A small increase in food prices resulting from lower yields will affect many people, even if none starve as a result. Tracing these impacts is often difficult, particularly in aggregate analyses where the signal of the effect of ecosystem change is often hidden by multiple confounding factors. Analyses linking well-being and ecosystem condition are most easily carried out at a local scale, where the linkages can be most clearly identified. Ultimately, decisions about trade-offs in ecosystem services require balancing societal objectives, including utilitarian and non-utilitarian objectives, short-and long-term objectives, and local-and global-scale objectives. The analytical approach for this report aims to quantify, to the degree possible, the most important trade-offs within different ecosystems and among ecosystem services as input to weigh societal objectives based on comprehensive analysis of the full suite of ecosystem services.
What is a healthy ecosystem?
Aquatic Ecology, 1999
Rapid deterioration of the world's major ecosystems has intensified the need for effective environmental monitoring and the development of operational indicators of ecosystem health. Ecosystem health represents a desired endpoint of environmental management, but it requires adaptive, ongoing definition and assessment. We propose that a healthy ecosystem is one that is sustainable -that is, it has the ability to maintain its structure (organization) and function (vigor) over time in the face of external stress (resilience). Various methods to quantify these three ecosystem attributes (vigor, organization, and resilience) are discussed. These attributes are then folded into a comprehensive assessment of ecosystem health. A network analysis based ecosystem health assessment is developed and tested using trophic exchange networks representing several different aquatic ecosystems. Results indicate the potential of such an ecosystem health assessment for evaluating the relative health of similar ecosystems, and quantifying the effects of natural or anthropogenic stress on the health of a particular ecosystem over time.
Ecosystem Health and Its Measurement at Landscape Scale: Toward the Next Generation of Quantitative Assessments
Ecosystem Health, 2001
The purpose of this paper is twofold: (A) to describe the challenges of reporting on changes in ecosystem health at landscape scales, and (B) to review the statistical and mathematical techniques that allow the derivation of landscape health assessments from a variety of data consisting of remote sensing imagery, demographic and socioeconomic censuses, natural resource surveys, long‐term ecological research, and other geospatial information that is site specific.We draw upon seven innovative and integrative concepts and tools that together will provide the next generation of ecosystem health assessments at regional scales. The first is the concept of ecosystem health, which integrates across the social, natural, physical, and health sciences to provide the basis for comprehensive assessments of regional environments. The second consists of innovative stochastic techniques for representing human disturbance and ecosystem response in landscapes, and the corresponding statistical tools...
National ecosystem service indicators: Measures of social–ecological sustainability
Ecological Indicators, 2015
Until present, it has been challenging to turn the concept of ecosystem services into a practical tool in the formulation of day-to-day policies on a national or regional scale. This is largely due to the overarching nature of the concept of ecosystems services (ESs) and the lack of concrete ecosystem service typologies. In this paper, we describe the foundation process of a national ecosystem service indicator framework for Finland, beginning with the selection of nationally important ESs. We also evaluate how this set of national indicators could be scaled down to regional circumstances, or integrated in the international ecosystem assessment processes. Our aim was to develop a national framework that complies both with national circumstances and with international typologies such as the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) and the cascade model. We developed indicators for 28 ecosystem services (10 provisioning, 12 regulating and maintenance, and 6 cultural services), a set of four indicators for every stage of the cascade model; altogether 112 indicators. We hope that the indicator framework draws attention to questions of resilience by providing information on the different aspects of ecosystem functioning that are crucial to the provisioning of ecosystem services. Furthermore, we hope to highlight the societal dependence on ecosystem services by providing indicators of both benefits and values. Besides higher-level decision-making processes, our attempt was to provide novel ecosystem service information for regional environmental managers and decision-makers, as well as the wider public interested in local issues. Integrating both ecological and socio-economic data into one platform may help to bridge the gap between science and practical decision-making resulting in more sustainable environmental management.
Towards the Assessment of Ecosystem Health of Ecosystems in Asia and Promoting Nature-Based Solutions
Anthropocene Science
Evaluating and Monitoring the Health of Large Scale Ecosystems
Ecological Economics, 1996
Indicators of human health in ecosystems: what do we measure?
Science of The Total Environment, 1998
0048-9697r98r$ -see front matter ᮊ 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.