Rieb, Jesse T., Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca, Daily, Gretchen C., Armsworth, Paul R., Böhning-Gaese, Katrin, Bonn, Aletta, Cumming, Graeme S., Eigenbrod, Felix, Grimm, Volker, Jackson, Bethanna M., Marques, Alexandra, Pattanayak, Subhrendu K., Pereira, Henrique M., Peterson, Garry D., Ricketts, Taylor H., Robinson, Brian E., Schröter, Matthias, Schulte, Lisa A., Seppelt, Ralf, Turner, Monica G., and Bennett, Elena M. (2018) Response to Kabisch and Colleagues. BioScience, 68 (3). pp. 167-168.

PDF (Published Version) - Published Version Restricted to Repository staff only

 

1

Abstract

[Extract] 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.

Actions (Repository Staff Only)

Item Control Page