The distinctive role of supporting services and ecological integrity
Simone Beichler and Jan Wildefeld
moeni123@gmx.de and jwildefeld@o2online.de
1 Introduction
Environmental change has always been a reality, and it is a continuous development.
Change on our planet is driven by wind and water, geological activity, astronomical
events, and the work of microorganisms, plants, and animals … over the past two
centuries, however, this pattern has changed. The activity of one species, Homo sapiens, has become the principle driver of change on Earth’s surface (Karr, James R.,
2005). Mankind uses and alters the environment due to their needs, in order to maximize the profit from ecosystem services. While this behavior took place mainly on
small scales in the past, we nowadays act on rather large scales.
Figure 1: The comparison shows how the scale of human construction has changed over
time. Sources http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Braine_le_Chateau,Belgium,moulin_banal.JPG and
http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/three_gorges_dam.jpg)
One severe problem that co-occurs with the ongoing maximization is that we can not
foresee all the future effects of our activities, nor do we know
the social and demographic changes, or the altering of demands of future.
This leads to several uncertainties in terms of sustainable development, the so called
triple uncertainty (Barkmann, J. et al., 2001)
1. Social uncertainty (we don´t know the demands of future generations)
2. Stochastic uncertainty (due to the high complexity of environmental systems, we can‘t estimate the effects of our activities)
3. Epistemic uncertainty (we don’t even know if our theoretical models actual
work correct)
The „triple uncertainty“ leads to unspecified risks, for instance risks can occur that we
doesn‘t even recognize or we could not identify the specific forcing factor of the threat
or the specific threatened element of the human environmental system. Humans
have a lack of knowledge how to avoid ecological risks, so that we have to learn how
to deal with changes.
1
2 How to deal with changes?
Fath and Müller (Salzau Conference 2008) presented the thesis that understanding
long term ecosystem dynamics can help manage ecological services. What is new
about this is to measure ecosystem dynamics over the long term and assess the
growth and development trends.
Ecosystems are changing continuously over time and thereby outlast their parts.
Ecological succession is one important part of that change. Those are orderly changes in composition and structure of biotic communities, species composition changes
from r- selected species to K-selected species. Humans permanently induce succession by e.g. agriculture or deforestation and therewith move the system back to an
earlier state. That’s important due to the fact that ecosystem services are extracted to
exploit the growth phase (Fath & Müller 2008 Salzau).
Community energetics (e.g. biomass, food chains), nutrients (e.g. mineral cycle) and
overall homeostasis (e.g. entropy, information) are indicating ecosystem attributes to
figure out what stage (developmental or mature) a system is passing through (Odum
1969). A moving system follows thermodynamic rules, thus the orientors are changing through time. The system changes to more conservative strategies like storage,
through flow, cycling and retention time increase (Fath & Müller 2008 Salzau).
The adaptive cycle is a four stage model of the ecosystem dynamics (see Figure 2).
The cycle starts with the exploitation phase which is dominated by r-selected species
and the growth of the system. Exergy and connectedness are increasing till the entering in the conservation phase. Humans influence ecosystems always using this
growth state and exhausting it. The conservation phase is the mature state of an
ecosystem where stored exergy and connectedness are at the zenith but the risk of
brittleness grows. In the end the system collapses in the creative destruction phase.
Accumulated exergy released but the developmental potential increases till the reorganization phase is reached. Finally the cycle is closed and starts again (Fath & Müller 2008 Salzau, Holling 2001, Gunderson & Holling 2002).
Figure 2: The adaptive cycle - Source: http://rs.resalliance.org/wpcontent/uploads/2007/02/4box-adaptive-cycle.gif)
2
One can find socio- environmental examples to illustrate the adaptive cycle. For example in 1871 a huge fire event took place in Chicago. The rebuilding began almost
immediately and they changed from wooden buildings to a more improved way of
construction. After that population growth was higher than before and Chicago developed into one of the most populous and economically important cities. This shows
how disasters allow a new development capacity (Fath & Müller 2008 Salzau).
Ecological as well as societal systems benefit from increasing complexity but after
some time it is more costly to maintain the system and a collapse is inevitable.
In practice we do not know the real state of the system but the direction is important.
We should not try to maintain the system like it is this would be against its direction.
We should learn to deal with the change in order to avoid a speed up of the cycle to
the collapse (Fath & Müller 2008 Salzau). Further research questions need to be
solved. How to cope with changing adaptability and future developmental capacity?
Develop and test theory! Potentials and limitations to apply ecosystem principles for
the analysis of human-environmental systems should be investigated.
3 Marketable and nonmarketable Ecosystem Services
In the economic point of view we distinguish ecosystem services in marketable and
nonmarketable. However the following studies show that often nonmarketable services support the marketable services, in fact our productivity and therewith should
be taken into account.
Agro ecosystems cover between 28% and 37% of the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Sandhu 2008 Salzau). Therefore they play an important role in our landscape.
Like Odum 1969 said: “landscape is not just a supply depot but is also oikos- the
home- in which we must live”. Comparing natural- and agro- ecosystems there are
decisive differences in structure and functionality. Agro- ecosystems are modified
ecosystems strongly depending on human intervention. The net productivity is of
course high but species as well as genetic diversity is low. Natural ecosystems have
indeed only medium net productivity but they provide much more important services.
The trophic interactions and habitat heterogeneity is complex whereas genetic and
species diversity is high. Natural ecosystems are independent of human control e.g.
the nutrient cycle is closed (no additional supply necessary) (Sandhu 2008 Salzau).
In previous studies only three ecosystem services (pollination, biological control and
food production) were noted. In this current study a bottom up approach was used to
identify and quantify ecosystem service in agro- ecosystems. They compared organic
and conventional fields to valuate ecosystem service in arable farmland in New Zealand (Sandhu et al. 2005a, Sandhu et al. 2005b).
Biological control of pest insects:
1. Assessing predation rats of aphids and fly eggs resulted in a significant difference between organic (much higher) and conventional fields.
2. Soil formation by earth worms: They found that the earthworm populations
growth with the years of organic farming and therewith the service of soil formation.
3
3. Nutrient mineralization: The last point of investigation was the comparison of the
rate of mineralization of plant nutrients, but no significant difference between
conventional and organic farming was found.
Analysis was done by an ecosystem service value calculation.

V(ESbc)= Total avoided cost of pesticides

V(ESsf)= Total avoided cost of replacing top soil

V(ESnm)= Total avoided cost of Nitrogen input
(Sandhu 2008 Salzau)
In conclusion the value of the marketable ecosystem service is strongly depending
on the nonmarketable supporting services (e.g. without soil formation no long term
plant growth). This dependency shows the high economic worth of the supporting
services on farmland. Even so there is already a possible solution for that problem.
The ecological engineering offers a great advantage in maintaining and enhancing
supporting services by improving the ecosystem services at lower input costs --> organic farming. In the study area of New Zealand there are about 20-25% organic
farms up to now (Sandhu 2008 Salzau). However to convince the local farmer that
they are better of with the service of nature needs a lot of work in future.
Figure 3: A picture of a typical cultural landscape
The more and more intensified agriculture showed that biodiversity is decreasing with
increasing productivity. But what if we ask this question the other way around: Is
there an effect of biodiversity on productivity?
At first one has to find out what kind of biodiversity we are talking about in this context. All different groups of animals and plants have an effect on our productivity.
Frequently named ecosystem services in this context are pests and pest regulation,
pollination, water conservation etc (Heuermann et al. 2008 Salzau).
4
The second question is how could one try to estimate biodiversity effects on agricultural production? Heuermann et al. (2008 Salzau) examined the nitrogen balance
concept. They reviewed the nitrogen balance in maize fields and the changes in soil
nitrate contents as well as the relation between soil biodiversity and soil nitrogen.
They ascertain that the amount of nitrogen from the ecosystem (natural ecosystem
service) is decreasing with increasing fertilization as soon as one passes the point of
optimal fertilization. A net accumulation of nitrogen is observable all over the world.
Secondly the nitrogen availability is higher if there is more biodiversity (Heuermann et
al. 2008 Salzau).
In conclusion little use is made out of the ecosystem services in agricultural production. There is the potential to maintain yields while reducing input of fertilizer and
therewith environmental costs. The new multifunctionality meaning higher biodiversity
and more ecosystem service might increase the total production. Heuermann et al.
(2008 Salzau) develop a model like the IMAGE model (MNP 2006) to determine the
contribution of biodiversity for different levels of human input. To finally provide a tool
to determine the optimal sustainable production scheme (Heuermann et al. 2008
Salzau).
The previous studies conclude that nonmarketable services should be included in our
calculation and used to increase our productivity. Hence the following study shows
one step further how to modify a nonmarketable service till it gets a marketable service.
One of the strategies against global warming is the reduction of atmospheric CO2 by
avoiding or sequesting. The project of R. Olschewski (Salzau 2008) assesses the
payments within the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto protocol.
Due to the fact that forestry in tropic countries is often not competitive with e.g. pasture (cattle ranching) farmers need an incentive to switch from pasture to forestry
(Olschewski & Benítez 2005).
This might be possible if they get additional income for providing carbon sequesting
services. The study evaluates the carbon sequestration on the demand and the supply side of CER to determine under wich conditions these projects are attractive to
them (Olschewski 2008 Salzau). Certified Emission Reductions (CER) are certificates of greenhouse gas emission reductions obtained from project activities in developing countries. There are two possible ways to account for non-permanent carbon sequestration in forests: temporary and long-term credits (UNFCCC 2003). The
current study deals with the temporary credit (tCER). This defined as a CER issued
for an afforestation or reforestation project activity under the CDM, which expires at
the end of the commitment period following the one during which it was issued (Olschewski & Benítez 2005).
At the supply side (landowner) opportunity costs occur due to the fact that if the
farmer switches from pasture to forest he forgoes the opportunity to get an income
out of this land use alternative. Hence these costs are defined as the minimum financial compensation per ton of CO2 a landowner would have to receive. This compensation value was calculated out of a cost benefit analysis for both land use types using the net present value criterion (NPV) (equation Figure 1). That implies if the net
present value for the forest (NPVF) is higher than the net present value for the pasture (NPVP) the farmer would switch to the more efficient land use (forest) (Olschewski et al. 2005, Olschewski 2008 Salzau).
5
At the demand side are CO2 emitting industrialized countries which have the opportunity to fulfill the reduction commitments by buying nonpermanent credits at market
prices. Those credits are produced in developing countries under the CDM (Olschewski et al. 2005). In the current project they constructed an equation (Figure 4)
which results in the maximum price that the demand side would be willing to pay for
temporary carbon credits (Olschewski 2008 Salzau).
Figure 4: PtCERmax lifetime 5 years, the sub-index of P indicates the lifetime of the CER
units, P is the price of CER units p unendlich is the price for a permanent credit and d* is the
discount rate of potential buyers (source Olschewski Salzau 2008).
The results support the decision making process for the determination of benchmark
prices of permanent CER. This means in the particular case of Patagonia and Equator forestry project should generate a higher income than pasture. There are some
suggestions for future prices for permanent carbon credits. In these study they compared the proposals of the BioCarbon Fund $3/tCO2 (The World Bank, 2003), the
International Emission Trading Agency $9.9 to $13.7 (IETA, 2003) and the OECD
Global Forum on Sustainable Development $9 to $22 (Grubb, 2003).
The projects should reach development objectives (e.g. regional welfare improvement) and cost-efficient emission abatement. In conclusion at medium price levels for
permanent credits (higher then BioCarbon proposal) carbon sink projects in northwestern Patagonia and Ecuador are attractive to suppliers and demanders of nonpermanent CER (Olschewski 2008 Salzau). Comparing plantations and secondary
forest in the tropics secondary forests are more advantageous due to low establishing costs and fast growth (Olschewski & Benítez, 2005). In Patagonia especially degraded and abandoned pasture land are attractive areas for carbon sink projects because of the low opportunity costs and possibility to combat desertification processes
(Olschewski 2008 Salzau, Olschewski et al. 2005).
In the present calculation there are some assumptions (price of permanent credits is
constant in time, constant welfare level) and open questions (transaction costs, liability aspects) where further research is needed (Olschewski 2008 Salzau). All in all this
study provides a good tool for calculating reasonable prices of permanent CER and
paves the way for projects to reduce global atmospheric CO2 and at the same time
combat regional environmental problems like land degradation and desertification.
6
4 How to fill the gap between ecology (theory) and economy (practice)?
In our today's society humans have the need to maximize everything. It is considered
a bad year if there is no new record, whether it be in GDP, stocks, industrial sales
volume, harvest per hectare or liters of milk per cow. Therefore humans change the
world very fast, with dramatical changes/damages the health and integrity of an ecosystem. One of the main problems in ecosystem assessment is that scientist often
fail short of offering practical restoration methods. Instead most of the scientific publications deal with criteria that could represent an indicator of ecosystem integrity or
about methods to assess the ecosystem health or the impact on an ecosystem. This
is where one faces “OR”, as methods mostly deal with one of these at a time, either
assessing ecosystem health, ecosystem goods and services OR offering restoration
measures (Mahiny, 2008).
Figure 5: - Source: Integrity and Health Assessment for Ecosystems or Offering Restoration
Measures? Modified after Mahiny, Abdolrassoul Salman (2008).
Thus we need methods, subjects and specialists that are helpful in guiding a general
practitioner towards some useful approach for restoration of the ecosystems and thus
bringing back the impaired goods and services of the nature. There’s a wide spectrum of stakeholders and specialists involved in these activities that necessitates a
larger framework to be able to incorporate their different views. We need a collection
of practitioners from various fields that can brainstorm in a transdisciplinary framework and with their contradictory ideas reconciled through depicting what we really
mean by integrity, ecosystem goods and services and why we need it at all and how
to get them back (Mahiny, 2008). Therefore we need a new generation of transdiciplinary people with basic knowledge in economics, sociology, law, chemistry, physics
and ecology that can act as the missing link between the ecology and the economy
to implement all the great existing knowledge of scientists on a practical scale.
7
5 Measurement problems related to time and space (scale) and optimization technics for time series analysis
Time and space are often considered as important factors in environmental assessment and are always strongly connected to the objects and attributes of investigation.
However, there are different concepts about the importance of these factors. Zaccarelli et al. put the question whether “space and time in ecosystems’ services analysis really matter”. One part of the framework for valuation of ecosystem services is
the mapping which is important for the understanding of the provision and value of
ecosystem services. In this project four points attention should be paid to were figured out.
First one is that maps are full of errors. During map development a lot of assumptions
and interpretations are made. Mainly digitalization and data accuracy are sources of
error. Such limits of input data are many times underestimated. However they could
lead to incorrect results in comparisons among locations or among time periods.
Secondly they pointed out that the spatial pattern is more than the amount of something. Meaning that on the one hand composition is very important not only the area.
On the other hand configuration (adjacency, distances, context between different areas) affect ecosystem services. Sometimes what is around the observed plot, the
spatial relations, are actually important.
The third point is concerned with the question: how to incorporate scale? The scale is
changed by looking at different complex units. Assessing the same area with different
objectives (content measure resampling or spatial context) changes the scale. Making a multiscale analysis of categorical maps predictable to unpredictable responses
in scaling relations were found.
The fourth point implies that time changes the value of things. Comparing maps
among time series involves many problems. The time interval could mask part of the
dynamics ecosystem service values, certain services may also fluctuate during
smaller intervals.
In conclusion the provocative question in the beginning would like to spotlight the
problems related to doing only space and time analysis of ecosystems’ services
some important facts might remain hidden (Zaccarelli et al. 2008 Salzau). To develop
future ecosystem service valuation researchers should address the limits of spatial
models, incorporate the scale and evaluate the spatial-temporal variability. Cooperating with researchers at multiple scales and come up with an integrated approach with
new techniques in mapping and valuing ecosystem services should be the future
goal.
In contrast is the experiment of Kirsten Rücker about "The regulation of water quality
in stream-wetland-systems - new insights from high frequency monitoring" which
strongly sharpened her opinion that "... time definitely matters in ecosystem analysis"
(Rücker, 2008 during the Salzau Conference). Mrs. Rücker investigated together with
Mr. Joachim Schrautzer nutrient retention in a stream wetland complex on the timescale of hydrological exchange between the two systems. Their results show highest
nitrate retention during summer flood (wetland) and summer low flow (stream). Despite of rewetting measures in the wetland, an overall net export of both nutrients
occurred for the whole season. As a conclusion they came up with the point that nu8
trient retention in streams and wetlands is among other things primarily driven by
seasonal ecosystem development and therefore very well time related.
Another topic in environmental assessment is the scale and the compartments one
focuses on. At this it is especially difficult to determine and uphold the connectivity in
fragmental landscapes and to come to a decision which fragments are reachable for
the concerned species so that they can be connected in future landscape planning
process. Landscape connectivity is strongly related to the generation of several important ecosystem services such as species dispersals and pollination (Bodin, 2008).
Bodin did some case studies from rural and urban Sweden and southern Madagascar that are utilizing the so called network modeling approach. A network describing
a fragmented landscape consists of:
1. Nodes (representing individually and spatially distinct habitat patches)
2. Links (representing the possibility for species dispersal between individual patches)
Thus, the network represents the landscape's spatial structure of connectivity (from
an organism's point of view). The network approach merges dispersal processes with
spatial patterns of habitat patches, hence enables topological process-oriented analyses of landscape connectivity and ecosystem service generation at different scales
(Bodin, 2008). It turned out that the network approach is a suitable method as it
shows fairly good agreement (model/data). It is important to find islands and critical
bridges in the given network and associated with this to protect/preserve the weakest
parts of the network.
Scientist continuously improve the complexity and accuracy of the actual models, but
most of the used models represent only a small part of the real environment, because there is just no possibility to simulate the complexity of nature in all its details.
Another restricting factor arises from the implemented mathematic functions, for instance in time series analysis of freshwater ecosystems. Most of these analyses use
the Fourier transformation that is "... based on fixed frequencies and gives suitable
approximations for physical water quality indicators" (Gnauck, 2008). But there is
some criticism on this method:

f is a function with 2π-periodicity.

f is analyzed as one object only.

Each Fourier coefficient contains information on from the global region of definition.
These points implicate that an analysis with the Fourier transformation method "...
can not follow the disturbed dynamic ecological processes which take place in freshwater and marine ecosystems" (Gnauck, 2008). A more sophisticated method is the
wavelet analysis. "A wavelet is a small wave which has its energy concentrated in a
short interval of time. It decomposes a signal into a set of crystals at various scales
and different resolutions. Wavelets are mathematical tools that have been proven
quite useful for time scale based signal analysis in natural sciences, engineering
medicine and environmental sciences. Wavelet analysis allows the use of long-term
variations where more precise low frequency information is desired, and shorter regions where high frequency information is desired.
They are especially useful where a signal lasts only for a finite interval or shows
9
markedly different behavior in different time periods" (Gnauck, 2008). This method
could be used " ...to help us to understand and to interpret the frequency dependent
changes in time courses of water quality indicators due to environmental changes"
and to answer further questions like" are the statistical variations of a given ecological indicator homogenous across time? What are the time dependent variations such
as the presence of trends?
What is the dominant scale of variation influencing the long-term variation of the indicator? Are the variations from one day to the next more prominent than the variations
from one week to the next? How are two indicators related on a scale by scale basis?
How do they covary? Are the time lags from one scale to another one significantly
different?" (Gnauck, 2008).
6 Perspective and Conclusions
Ecosystem Integrity is to prepare against threats caused by uncertainties. In plain
language, ecosystems have integrity when they have their native components intact:

abiotic components (the physical elements, e.g. water, rocks)

biodiversity (the composition and abundance of species and communities in an
ecosystem, e.g. tundra, rainforest and grasslands represent landscape diversity)

ecosystem processes (the engines that makes ecosystem work; e.g. fire, flooding, predation)
In contrast to common Ecosystem Integrity Definitions (e.g. James R. Karr) we
should take the humans as a part of the ecosystem into account (Kiel Interpretation).
Further on it makes no sense to define a term like ecosystem integrity in a „correct“
way, because it can be filled up with content from many sites. Instead we should focus on the relationship between ecosystem integrity and the ability of
self‐organization of ecosystems. We need to know the direction to which an ecosystem will be going to develop to deal with the changes. At this we encounter two main
problems referring to Ecosystem Indicators:
1. Which variables of ecosystem investigations should we take into account?
2. How to gain a reference?
"Unfortunately, a major problem in modern ecology is that we do not know which
state variables are important and which ones are not. Neither do we have simple
quantitative models to describe relationships among these state variables … in contrast, in assessing human health, we already known that some state variables, like
height and eye color, are unimportant in assessing state of health whereas others,
like blood pressure and heart rate, are important" (Karr, 1996).
Under these circumstances new assessment-methods should be developed and
tested if they are suitable in practice. One of these new approaches is the one from
Mr. Sven Erik Jørgensen who works on the question "How to estimate the sum of all
services offered by an ecosystem?". During his presentation at Salzau about „Ecosystem services, sustainability and thermodynamic indicators" he came up with the
proposal that the sum could be measured as the total amount of work energy (EcoExergy), that the ecosystem offer.
10
Therefore he introduced a so called Beta-value (calculated for instance out of the
genome size of an organism) and calculated the annual sum of services of ecosystems (GJ/ha) and from it the annual value of services by ecosystems (1 MJ has the
value of 1 EURO-cent or 1.4 $-cent; 1 GJ has therefore the value of 10 EURO or 14
$). Compared to the work of Costanza et al. he got the following results about the
value of ecosystems (figure 6).
Figure 6: Annual value of services by ecosystems (Source: Key note lecture 4: Sven Erik
Jørgensen, Copenhagen (Denmark): „Ecosystem services, sustainability and thermodynamic
indicators“)
The "Ratio" shows the enormous differences between the estimated values of Mr.
Jørgensen and Mr. Constanza. Sometimes the approach of Mr. Jørgensen assigns
up to 1500 times the value of Mr. Constanzas estimations. Jørgensen divides the
ecosystems in four classes according to how much we have been able to utilize the
entire spectrum of services. The sequence of the utilization of the ecosystem services is:
1. Costal zones, lakes, rivers
o
Regulation, water supply, waste treatment, recreation, genetic resources, pollination, nutrient cycles, biological control, food production, refugia, transportation, raw materials, cultural; ratio about 10-20
2. Wetlands
o
Regulation, water supply, waste treatment, recreation, raw material, genetic
resources, pollination, nutrient cycles, biological control, refugia, cultural; ratio
about 30
3. Open sea, estuaries, coral reef
o
Only climate and gas regulation, very little waste treatment, much less recreation than 1 and 2, raw material, genetic resources, pollination, nutrient cycles,
(minor) biological control, (minor) refugia, raw materials, cultural; ratio about
60-90
11
4. Forests, croplands, grasslands and (deserts)
o
Mainly as raw materials, too little the genetic resources, pollination, nutrient
cycles, biological control, (minor) refugia, cultural, recreation; ratio about >750
o
Notice croplands are only utilized to produce raw materials (mainly food); the
ratio is therefore high, 4348
The sequence is understandable and might be a future approach in estimating the
sum of services of an ecosystem.
References and useful Links
Salzau

Brian Fath and Felix Müller: Long Term Ecosystem Dynamics: Can theoretical concepts of
environmental change help manage ecosystem services?

Harpinder S. Sandhu, Stephen D. Wratten and Ross Cullen: The role of supporting ecosystem
services in arable farmland

Nicol Heuermann, Rob Alkemade and Bas Eickhout: Towards a model for the role of biodiversity in the provision of ecosystem services

Roland Olschewski: How attractive are forest carbon sinks in the tropics?

Abdolrassoul Salman Mahiny: Integrity and Health Assessment for Ecosystems or Offering
Restoration Measures?

Nicola Zaccarelli, Marco Dadamo, Irene Petrosillo and Giovanni Zurlini: Do space and time in
ecosystems’ services analysis really matter?

Kirsten Rücker and Joachim Schrautzer: The regulation of water quality in stream-wetlandsystems - new insights from high frequency monitoring

Örjan Bodin: Network based models of fragmented landscapes – assessing different scales of
connectivity

Albrecht Gnauck: Wavelet analysis of long-term variations of water quality indicators

Sven Erik Jørgensen, Copenhagen (Denmark): „Ecosystem services, sustainability and thermodynamic indicators“ (Convener: Brian Fath)
Links

http://www.ecology.uni-kiel.de/salzau2008/

http://www.ecology.uni-kiel.de/salzau2006/

http://www.ecology.uni-kiel.de/salzau2006/studentpages/index.html

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx

http://www.globalecointegrity.net/papers.html

http://www.cababstractsplus.org/google/abstract.asp?AcNo=20053062018
12

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/621241/description#descriptio
n

http://www.csiro.au/

http://www.unfccc.int

http://www.resalliance.org/1.php

http://www.mnp.nl/en/index.html

http://www.mnp.nl/en/dossiers/Biodiversity/index.html
Literature
1. Barkmann, Jan; Baumann, Rainer; Meyer, Ulrike; Müller, Felix; Windhorst, Wilhelm (2001).
Ökologische Integrität: Risikovorsorge im nachhaltigen Landschaftsmanagement.
GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, Volume 10, Number 2, June 2001 ,
pp. 97-108(12)
2. C. S. Holling (2001):Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems 4: 390–405
3. Gnauk, Albrecht (2008). Wavelet analysis of long-term variations of water quality indicators.
4. Harpinder S. Sandhu, Stephen D. Wratten, Ross Cullen, Brad Case (2008): The future of
farming: The value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach. Ecological Economics 64:835–848
5. Integrated modelling of global environmental change. An overview of IMAGE 2.4 © Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), Bilthoven, October 2006 MNP publication
number 500110002/2006 Edited by A.F. Bouwman, T. Kram and K. Klein Goldewijk
6. Karr, James R. (2005). Measuring biological condition, protecting biological integrity. Article 3,
http://www.sinauer.com/groom/article.php?id=23, companion website to MJ Groom, GK Meffe,
CR Carroll (eds), 2005, Principles of Conservation Biology, 3rd ed. Sinauer, Sunderland,
Massachussetts.
7. L .Gunderson, C.S. Holling (2002): Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and
natural systems. Washington,Island Press.
8. Mahiny, Abdolrassoul Salman (2008). Integrity and Health Assessment for Ecosystems or Offering Restoration Measures? PPT-Presentation during the 2008 Salzau Workshop "Ecosystem Services - Solution for problems or a problem that needs solutions?"
9. Odum (1969), The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164 (1969), pp. 262–270
10. Olschewski, R. & Benítez, P. (2005): Secondary forests as temporary carbon sinks? The economic impact of accounting methods on reforestation projects in the tropics. Ecological Economics. 55(3), 380-394.
11. IETA, (2003). Greenhouse Gas Market 2003. International Emission Trading Association,
Switzerland.
12. Grubb, M., (2003): On carbon prices and volumes in the evolving ‘Kyoto Market’. In: OECD
(ed.): Global Forum on Sustainable Development: Emission Trading.
13. The World Bank, (2003): Basics of the BioCarbon Fund for Project Proponents. Available at:
http://www.biocarfonfund.org. (in Olschewski & Benítez 2005)
13
14. Olschewski, R., Pablo C. Benítez, G.H.J. de Koning,Tomás Schlichter(2005): How attractive
are forest carbon sinks? Economic insights into supply and demand of Certified Emission Reductions.Journal of Forest Economics. 11, 77-94.
15. Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D., Cullen, R., (2005a): Evaluating ecosystem services on farmland:
a novel, experimental, ‘bottom-up’ approach. Proceedings of the 15th International Federation
of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Organic World Congress, Adelaide, Australia.
16. Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D., Cullen, R., ( 2005b): Field evaluation of ecosystem services in
organic and conventional arable land. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability.
17. UNFCCC (2003): Modalities and procedures for afforestation and reforestation project activities under the clean development mechanism in the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Decion-/CP.9. Available at: http://www.unfccc.int.
14