Search results

Big Data (BD) is not only a quintessential part of many economic activities but also has evolved into a veritable business ecosystem. However, most Big Data ecosystem (BDE) models have a technical, bottom-up focus and mostly lack the capability for a broad socioeconomic analysis. This paper identifies the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) as a useful, operational framework and uses a metaphorical analogy to adapt it for the BDE. The top-down approach adopted here allows for seeing the big picture of the BD ecosystem. Meeting “end-user needs” is the main objective of the proposed BDE framework.

The methodology of this paper consists of two parts. First, the MA is adapted for the BDE through a metaphorical analogy. Then, to operationalize and validate the proposed framework, it is applied to an emerging BD ecosystem.

In total, four types of services are offered in the BD ecosystem: provisioning information and products; regulating; cultural and supporting services. Direct and indirect drivers of change impact ecosystem processes such as BD service provision. Based on the assessment results, interventions can be devised to remedy problems, sustain the ecosystem or accelerate growth. The proposed BDE assessment framework is applied to an emerging BDE as an example of operationalization and validation of the proposed BDE framework.

The strengths of the proposed BDE framework is that, in contrast to existing frameworks that are technical and bottom-up, it is constructed top-down by a metaphorical analogy from the proven MA framework. It is a generic framework with the ultimate objective of meeting the “end-user needs” and does not focus on a single sector or firm. Also, the proposed BDE framework is multi-faceted and considers broad socioeconomic issues such as regulating, cultural and supporting services and drivers of change.

Ecosystem services are essential for human well-being. The chapter explores the linkages between ecosystems and ecosystem services, biodiversity, and the Millennium Development Goals. Specifically, it focuses on the discussions in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the ecosystem approach within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and ecosystems’ role in the achievement of specific targets of the Millennium Development Goals. It highlights the need for ecosystem-based approaches to ecosystem management, biodiversity conservation, and attainment of human well-being.

The assessment of ecosystem services (ES) in urban areas can be an important policy instrument for both strategic directives at national and regional levels and concrete actions at municipality level. A unifying underpinning framework that combines different administrative levels through a common, consistent basis would greatly facilitate the mainstreaming of such an instrument. Three key concepts underpin this framework: urban ecosystems, nature-based solutions (NBS), and ES. First, NBS are acknowledged as the ecological assets that in the urban context can provide ES, meant as complex processes made possible through the existence of natural and seminatural systems at various scales. Second, the classification of urban ecosystems needs to be consistent with the treatment of urban areas in ecosystem accounting and with NBS levels of intervention and primary objectives. Third, by serving societal challenges, it is important to clearly frame the strategic drivers of change: whether it concerns management practices of current land use or radical conversions in land use. Finally, once such a framework will be in place, it can facilitate sustainability assessment in urban ecosystems by quantifying the presence of NBS, whose creation/maintenance assure the delivery of ES. The purpose of this chapter is to theoretically frame an ES-based approach, but this is only a first step. Many more steps are required on to concretely put this framework in practice at different administrative levels, such as strategic planning and policy setting (at national level), and urban, peri-urban, and coastal development (at municipal level).

Human beings are inseparable from the environment because of their dependence on ecosystems and their services (Schroter, 2009). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) identifies ecosystem services as vital links between humans and ecosystems because these services are essential for human well-being, especially in terms of security, basic materials for a good life, health, good social relations, and freedom of choice and action. Ecosystem services include flows of materials, energy, and information from natural resources that combined with manufactured and human resources contribute to human well-being (Costanza et al., 1997). These include provisioning services (e.g., food, fresh water, wood and fiber, fuel), regulating services (e.g., climate, flood and disease regulation, water purification), supporting services (e.g., nutrient cycling, soil formation, primary production), and cultural services (e.g., aesthetic, spiritual, educational, and recreational value). The regulating services provided by ecosystems, in particular, are critical for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. Ecosystems primarily affect both the probability and the severity of events and modulate the effects of extreme events. For example, soils store large amounts of water, facilitate transfer of surface water to groundwater, and prevent or reduce flooding, and natural buffers reduce hazards by absorbing runoff peaks and storm surges.

Forests and the goods and services they provide are essential for human well-being (Seppälä, Buck, & Katila, 2009). Forests provide three types of ecosystem services that directly support human well-being: provisioning services such as food, fuelwood, medicine, etc.; regulating services such as water purification, climate regulation, erosion control, etc.; and cultural services, including recreation, spiritual, and religious values (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003). About 1.6 billion people live in predominantly forest ecosystems or in their vicinity. Forest communities include indigenous peoples (IPs) who have been living since time immemorial in forest areas and other local groups including the more recent settlers or immigrants. In the tropics, over 800 million people are living in forests and woodlands, which makes these areas a very important resource for the rural poor (Chomitz, Buys, De Luca, Thomas, & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, 2007). Based on ADB's (2009a) estimates, half of the world's poorest of the poor are IPs, and more than half live in Asia. Sixty million of these IPs are forest dependent.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss integrative environmental assessments applicable to estuarine sediments, including the advantages and limitations of different lines of evidence that could form part of such assessments and their application to ecosystem services.

Weight of evident framework integrating multiple lines of evidence for sediment quality assessment.

Integrative environmental assessments are required to fully address the risks to resident fauna of anthropogenic contaminants deposited in estuarine sediments.

The paper presents an updated discussion of the methodologies for environmental assessments of contaminated estuarine sediments.

The purpose of this paper is to review, from a sustainable management perspective, a range of conceptual frameworks; determine the efficacy and utility of three different data sources in generating indicators collectively; and consider the utility of a single index of total ecosystem services (TESI). The ecosystem service (ES) concept has been discussed as an important model to aid sustainable land-use management.

The historical development and the relative merits of sustainable management frameworks which can be implemented in a decision-making context were examined. The efficacy of a single index TESI was examined considering three data sources for 11 contrasting sites within the UK.

The choice of conceptual framework and data source depends on the specific question and scale being addressed. Publicly available data through the Eurostat route is primarily limited to the assessment of the provisioning services.

Limitation of the study is that both bottom-up and top-down sourcing of data to conduct an ES assessment were considered.

The scale of enquiry when conducting ES assessment to aid sustainable management dictate the most useful data source. If conducting local assessments that give local data is more appropriate while conducting European Union (EU)-wide assessment gives less local precision, it does provide some insight when conducting larger-scale regional assessment which cannot otherwise be achieved.

The various data set analysed in this study all provided insight for sustainable management.

The overexploitation of resources has led to drastic negative impacts on biodiversity such as an overall increasing amount of infertile soil and overgrazed land. Environmentalists have been noticing now more than ever that plants and trees around the world have seen their population numbers severely drop over the last century. Many species including enormous flocks of birds congregating in marshes, herds of Wildebeest, Zebra and Tomson's Gazelle, along with untamed Tigers, Elephants, Giraffes, and Rhinos, grazing the vast natural landscape of the African plains that make their natural homes are at major risk of becoming extinct. With many pressures on world ecosystems already impacting the environment, continuous growth and natural human development trajectory is one that we must find a way to reconcile with environmental sustainability. The best way to do so is by establishing sustainability through the preservation of biodiversity and the ecosystem services different aspects of biodiversity provide. Although sustainability and biodiversity are crucial to assuring a clean future for our planet, the COVID-19 Pandemic has had a negative effect on the needs for biodiversity research, protection, and policymaking. This chapter looks at two main examples of biodiversity loss (1) the Tragedy of the Commons and (2) Deforestation to provide potential policy solutions to combat impacts of the Tragedy of the Commons and Deforestation, especially while considering implications of the current COVID-19 pandemic on biodiversity supportive policies.

IUCN ‐ The World Conservation Union defines a protected area as an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means. The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) describes a protected area as a geographically defined area, which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objective. Protected areas‐national parks, wildlife reserves, wilderness areas, etc. ‐ are the cornerstones of national and international conservation strategies. They act as refuges for species and help maintain critical ecological processes and ecosystem services that intensely managed landscapes and seascapes cannot provide. These places provide space for natural evolution and future ecological restoration. In recent years there has been growing recognition of the benefits that protected areas provide for people: genetic resources for pharmaceuticals and agriculture, traditional medicines; recreational opportunities and ecotourism revenues; sustainable sources of goods such as non‐timber forest products; and refuge for traditional and vulnerable human societies (Dudley et al. 2005). A wide range of management objectives, approaches and types of governance are used within protected areas in different countries. In terms of management objectives, these range from strict protection and exclusion of humans to broad‐scale approaches that include cultural landscapes such as farms and managed forests. IUCN‐The World Conservation Union subdivides protected areas into six categories based on management objectives: Ia: strict nature reserve/wilderness protection area; Ib: wilderness area; II:national park; III:natural monument; IV:habitat/species management area; V:protected landscape/seascape; and VI:managed resource protected area. In terms of governance types, protected areas may be managed directly by a government, co‐managed with other actors such as nongovernmental organizations, or even declared and managed collectively by indigenous peoples and local communities or by the relevant individual or corporate landowner. Today, there are more than 100,000 designated protected areas in the World Database on Protected Areas covering around 11.4 per cent of Earth’s land surface, along with more than 1,300 marine protected areas covering less than 0.5 per cent of the oceans (Dudley et all. 2005).