Talk:Ecosystem service: Difference between revisions
Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) →Add {{tlx|Portal box|Environment|Ecology|Earth sciences|Biology}} ?: The multiheaded anon is still adding the material, without giving reasons. |
|||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
:Why? I can see, potentially, Environment '''or''' Ecology, but I'd be willing to allow above. The other two topics are, to the extent appropriate, contained in Environment or Ecology. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 00:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC) |
:Why? I can see, potentially, Environment '''or''' Ecology, but I'd be willing to allow above. The other two topics are, to the extent appropriate, contained in Environment or Ecology. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 00:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
:The multiheaded anon is still adding the material, without giving reasons. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 20:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC) |
:The multiheaded anon is still adding the material, without giving reasons. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 20:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Necessary to change [[Human|our species]] to [[homo sapiens|our species]] ... the same place? == |
|||
Necessary to change [[Human|our species]] to [[homo sapiens|our species]] ... the same place? [[Special:Contributions/99.181.129.120|99.181.129.120]] ([[User talk:99.181.129.120|talk]]) 06:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:48, 3 April 2011
Environment Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Economics Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
It is requested that a diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. |
To merge or not to merge
I say nay. In my experience ecosystem services are referred to in quite a thorough ecological sense, at times even without mention of economics. I haven't encountered nature's services in what ecological literature I've read; it's seems to be used more by (environmental) economists. Daniel Collins 01:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I say nay as well. nature's services is not a common term in ecological literature. I did create a ecological goods and services page which would merge well with this one. I had not thought to search the term ecosystem services when I was checking around before starting the new page. wagors 04:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weigh in nay. not only are these distinct and of different origin, they are both vast topics and deserve separate articles. Anlace 05:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
No! Since ‘ecosystem services’ is becoming a more and more utilized phrase with a technical and precise meaning — Especially since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment — it is better to leave it alone. Many ecological economist use it to contrast their field with environmental or resource economics. Compared to ecosystem services, ‘natures services’ sounds much more journalistic, loose and all inclusive. Ecosystem services also places emphasis on the biotic and ecological elements of ‘nature’. So lets leave it as a distinct phrase. Manoj
I have to say I find this human centric view of the definition "ecosystem services" quite strange. It seems that the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment hijacked the term for a very narrow description. Before the assessment the U.S. government actually defined this concept through the promulgation of regulations for the Oil Pollution Act. From the OPA regulations CFR 15 Part 990: Services Natural resource services are all functions that a natural resource provides for another natural resource(s) or for the public. Natural resource services may be classified as follows: (i) Ecological services-the physical, chemical, or biological functions that one natural resource provides for another. Examples include provision of food, protection from predation, and nesting habitat, among others; and (ii) Public services-the public uses of natural resources or functions of natural resources that provide value to the public. Examples include fishing, hunting, nature photography, and education, among others 208.252.206.34 (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll drop the tags, given discussion. Cheers. Heds (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Proposed merger with Ecological goods and services
I say "no" too these are clearly different concepts, an anthropocentric one, and an eco-centric one. Rich Farmbrough, 15:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC).
I say no. Ecological Goods and Services are increasingly being discussed as the goods and services provided by land uses such as agriculture and other working lands, rather than services provided by forest or wetland ecosystems. Greeneracres (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment Regarding this Article
The first sentence under "A brief history" seems to indicate that at the start of our species' existence, we were all Serbians. I expect this needs to be edited, but I am not sure how to do so. If anyone can help out with this, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Bolo5000 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Definition for each type
I have briefly read through this article and I feel that some information can perhaps be added to what each type of ecosystem service means. Currently the article only states some examples. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Of Natural capital Valuation/Environmental finance interest? Ecosystem Services: How People Benefit from Nature by Rebecca L. Goldman, currently in print.
Some excerpts: "... Economists refer to this full valuation as shadow pricing, but even an informal, “back-of-the envelope” calculation of all values can help to illustrate the importance of ecosystem services in our daily lives. ... due to Colony collapse disorder (CCD). The disappearance of the honey bee would have catastrophic financial outcomes, since it is the most economically valuable pollinator worldwide.[17] ... How Are Ecosystem Service Approaches Being Leveraged?... books such as The New Economy of Nature[40] and interdisciplinary scholarly investigations such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) demonstrating the ecosystem alternatives to resource problems. ... 14. W. Reid, “Nature: The Many Benefits of Ecosystem Services,” Nature (journal) 443 (2006): 749; R. L. Goldman, H. Tallis, P. Kareiva, and G. C. Daily, “Field Evidence That Ecosystem Service Projects Support Biodiversity and Diversify Options,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105 (2008): 9445–9448. ... [29.] J. Jowit, “UN Says Case for Saving Species ‘More Powerful Than Climate Change,’” May 21, 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/21/un-biodiversity-economic-report. ... E.B. Barbier, E.W. Koch, B.R. Silliman, S.D. Hacker, E. Wolanski, J. Primavera, E.F. Granek, S. Polasky, S. Aswani, L.A. Cramer, D.M. Stoms, C.J. Kennedy, D. Bael, C.V. Kappel, G.M. Perillo, D.J. Reed, “Coastal Ecosystem-Based Management with Nonlinear Ecological Functions and Values,” Science (journal) 319 (2008): 321–323 ... B. K. Jack, C. Kousky, and K. R. E. Sims, “Designing Payments for Ecosystem Services: Lessons from Previous Experience with Incentive-Based Mechanisms,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105 (2008): 9465–9470. [36.] D. Perrot-Maître, “The Vittel Payments for Ecosystem Services: A “Perfect” PES Case?” (London: International Institute for Environment and Development, 2006); N. Asquith and S. Wunder, Payments for Watershed Services: The Bellagio Conversations (Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia: Fundación Natura Bolivia, 2008); S. Engel, S. Pagiola, and S. Wunder, “Designing Payments for Environmental Services in Theory and Practice: An Overview of the Issues,” Ecological Economics 65 (2008): 663–674; Jack et al., note 35; G. C. Daily and P. Matson, “Ecosystem Services: From Theory to Implementation,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105 (2008): 9455–9456. [37.] K. A. Brauman, G. C. Daily, T. K. Duarte, and H. A. Mooney, “The Nature and Value of Ecosystem Services: An Overview Highlighting Hydrologic Services,” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32 (2007): 67–98; K. M. Krchnak, Watershed Valuation as a Tool for Biodiversity Conservation (Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy, 2007); Asquith and Wunder, note 36; I. Porras, M. Greig-Gran, and N. Neves, “All that Glitters: A Review of Payments for Watershed Services in Developing Countries,” Natural Resource Issues No. 11 (London: International Institute for Environment and Development, 2008). [39.] For more information on water funds, see R. L. Goldman, S. Benitez, A. Calvache, and A. Ramos, Water Funds: Protecting Watersheds for Nature and People (Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy, 2010). [40.] G. Daily and K. Ellison, The New Economy of Nature: The Quest to make Conservation Profitable (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002).
99.88.230.136 (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- And what is this in aid of? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- This might be more plain User:A.R.The new green economy by Hillary Rosner 10.September.2010 Wired UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.183.67 (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Add {{Portal box|Environment|Ecology|Earth sciences|Biology}}
?
Add {{Portal box|Environment|Ecology|Earth sciences|Biology}}
? 99.102.178.168 (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why? I can see, potentially, Environment or Ecology, but I'd be willing to allow above. The other two topics are, to the extent appropriate, contained in Environment or Ecology. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- The multiheaded anon is still adding the material, without giving reasons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Necessary to change our species to our species ... the same place?
Necessary to change our species to our species ... the same place? 99.181.129.120 (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)