Cargando…

REVIEW: Towards a risk register for natural capital

1. Natural capital is essential for goods and services on which people depend. Yet pressures on the environment mean that natural capital assets are continuing to decline and degrade, putting such benefits at risk. Systematic monitoring of natural assets is a major challenge that could be both unaff...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mace, Georgina M., Hails, Rosemary S., Cryle, Philip, Harlow, Julian, Clarke, Stewart J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4979659/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27563153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12431
_version_ 1782447349198487552
author Mace, Georgina M.
Hails, Rosemary S.
Cryle, Philip
Harlow, Julian
Clarke, Stewart J.
author_facet Mace, Georgina M.
Hails, Rosemary S.
Cryle, Philip
Harlow, Julian
Clarke, Stewart J.
author_sort Mace, Georgina M.
collection PubMed
description 1. Natural capital is essential for goods and services on which people depend. Yet pressures on the environment mean that natural capital assets are continuing to decline and degrade, putting such benefits at risk. Systematic monitoring of natural assets is a major challenge that could be both unaffordable and unmanageable without a way to focus efforts. Here we introduce a simple approach, based on the commonly used management tool of a risk register, to highlight natural assets whose condition places benefits at risk. 2. We undertake a preliminary assessment using a risk register for natural capital assets in the UK based solely on existing information. The status and trends of natural capital assets are assessed using asset–benefit relationships for ten kinds of benefits (food, fibre (timber), energy, aesthetics, freshwater (quality), recreation, clean air, wildlife, hazard protection and equable climate) across eight broad habitat types in the UK based on three dimensions of natural capital within each of the habitat types (quality, quantity and spatial configuration). We estimate the status and trends of benefits relative to societal targets using existing regulatory limits and policy commitments, and allocate scores of high, medium or low risk to asset–benefit relationships that are both subject to management and of concern. 3. The risk register approach reveals substantial gaps in knowledge about asset–benefit relationships which limit the scope and rigour of the assessment (especially for marine and urban habitats). Nevertheless, we find strong indications that certain assets (in freshwater, mountain, moors and heathland habitats) are at high risk in relation to their ability to sustain certain benefits (especially freshwater, wildlife and climate regulation). 4. Synthesis and applications. With directed data gathering, especially to monitor trends, improve metrics related to asset–benefit relationships, and improve understanding of nonlinearities and thresholds, the natural capital risk register could provide a useful tool. If updated regularly, it could direct monitoring efforts, focus research and protect and manage those natural assets where benefits are at highest risk.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4979659
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49796592016-08-23 REVIEW: Towards a risk register for natural capital Mace, Georgina M. Hails, Rosemary S. Cryle, Philip Harlow, Julian Clarke, Stewart J. J Appl Ecol Tools for Decision‐making 1. Natural capital is essential for goods and services on which people depend. Yet pressures on the environment mean that natural capital assets are continuing to decline and degrade, putting such benefits at risk. Systematic monitoring of natural assets is a major challenge that could be both unaffordable and unmanageable without a way to focus efforts. Here we introduce a simple approach, based on the commonly used management tool of a risk register, to highlight natural assets whose condition places benefits at risk. 2. We undertake a preliminary assessment using a risk register for natural capital assets in the UK based solely on existing information. The status and trends of natural capital assets are assessed using asset–benefit relationships for ten kinds of benefits (food, fibre (timber), energy, aesthetics, freshwater (quality), recreation, clean air, wildlife, hazard protection and equable climate) across eight broad habitat types in the UK based on three dimensions of natural capital within each of the habitat types (quality, quantity and spatial configuration). We estimate the status and trends of benefits relative to societal targets using existing regulatory limits and policy commitments, and allocate scores of high, medium or low risk to asset–benefit relationships that are both subject to management and of concern. 3. The risk register approach reveals substantial gaps in knowledge about asset–benefit relationships which limit the scope and rigour of the assessment (especially for marine and urban habitats). Nevertheless, we find strong indications that certain assets (in freshwater, mountain, moors and heathland habitats) are at high risk in relation to their ability to sustain certain benefits (especially freshwater, wildlife and climate regulation). 4. Synthesis and applications. With directed data gathering, especially to monitor trends, improve metrics related to asset–benefit relationships, and improve understanding of nonlinearities and thresholds, the natural capital risk register could provide a useful tool. If updated regularly, it could direct monitoring efforts, focus research and protect and manage those natural assets where benefits are at highest risk. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-06 2015-04-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4979659/ /pubmed/27563153 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12431 Text en © 2015 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Tools for Decision‐making
Mace, Georgina M.
Hails, Rosemary S.
Cryle, Philip
Harlow, Julian
Clarke, Stewart J.
REVIEW: Towards a risk register for natural capital
title REVIEW: Towards a risk register for natural capital
title_full REVIEW: Towards a risk register for natural capital
title_fullStr REVIEW: Towards a risk register for natural capital
title_full_unstemmed REVIEW: Towards a risk register for natural capital
title_short REVIEW: Towards a risk register for natural capital
title_sort review: towards a risk register for natural capital
topic Tools for Decision‐making
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4979659/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27563153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12431
work_keys_str_mv AT macegeorginam reviewtowardsariskregisterfornaturalcapital
AT hailsrosemarys reviewtowardsariskregisterfornaturalcapital
AT crylephilip reviewtowardsariskregisterfornaturalcapital
AT harlowjulian reviewtowardsariskregisterfornaturalcapital
AT clarkestewartj reviewtowardsariskregisterfornaturalcapital