Cargando…
Common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services: the “partial protection” challenge
New global initiatives require clarity about similarities and differences between biodiversity and ecosystem services. One argument is that ecosystem services capture utilitarian values, while biodiversity captures intrinsic values. However, the concept of biodiversity equally emerges from anthropog...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
F1000Research
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3782344/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24358821 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.1-30.v1 |
_version_ | 1782285531261960192 |
---|---|
author | Faith, Daniel P |
author_facet | Faith, Daniel P |
author_sort | Faith, Daniel P |
collection | PubMed |
description | New global initiatives require clarity about similarities and differences between biodiversity and ecosystem services. One argument is that ecosystem services capture utilitarian values, while biodiversity captures intrinsic values. However, the concept of biodiversity equally emerges from anthropogenic use values. Measures of biodiversity indicate broad option values, and so provide different information about future uses and benefits. Such differences nevertheless can be the basis for “common ground” for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Systematic conservation planning and related frameworks acknowledge such differences through effective trade-offs and synergies among different values of society. The early work on regional biodiversity trade-offs includes a little-explored aspect that could enhance this common ground. Regional planning here takes into account the “partial protection” of biodiversity provided by some land uses. Common-ground will be promoted by better integrating the ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation offered by ecosystems at the “natural end of the spectrum” with the partial protection and other benefits/services provided by more intensively-transformed places. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3782344 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | F1000Research |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-37823442013-12-05 Common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services: the “partial protection” challenge Faith, Daniel P F1000Res Commentary New global initiatives require clarity about similarities and differences between biodiversity and ecosystem services. One argument is that ecosystem services capture utilitarian values, while biodiversity captures intrinsic values. However, the concept of biodiversity equally emerges from anthropogenic use values. Measures of biodiversity indicate broad option values, and so provide different information about future uses and benefits. Such differences nevertheless can be the basis for “common ground” for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Systematic conservation planning and related frameworks acknowledge such differences through effective trade-offs and synergies among different values of society. The early work on regional biodiversity trade-offs includes a little-explored aspect that could enhance this common ground. Regional planning here takes into account the “partial protection” of biodiversity provided by some land uses. Common-ground will be promoted by better integrating the ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation offered by ecosystems at the “natural end of the spectrum” with the partial protection and other benefits/services provided by more intensively-transformed places. F1000Research 2012-10-16 /pmc/articles/PMC3782344/ /pubmed/24358821 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.1-30.v1 Text en Copyright: © 2012 Faith DP http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication). |
spellingShingle | Commentary Faith, Daniel P Common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services: the “partial protection” challenge |
title | Common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services: the “partial protection” challenge |
title_full | Common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services: the “partial protection” challenge |
title_fullStr | Common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services: the “partial protection” challenge |
title_full_unstemmed | Common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services: the “partial protection” challenge |
title_short | Common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services: the “partial protection” challenge |
title_sort | common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services: the “partial protection” challenge |
topic | Commentary |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3782344/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24358821 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.1-30.v1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT faithdanielp commongroundforbiodiversityandecosystemservicesthepartialprotectionchallenge |