Author
Carsten Nesshöver
Other affiliations: Leipzig University
Bio: Carsten Nesshöver is an academic researcher from Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ. The author has contributed to research in topics: Science policy & Ecosystem services. The author has an hindex of 14, co-authored 21 publications receiving 2979 citations. Previous affiliations of Carsten Nesshöver include Leipzig University.
Papers
More filters
National University of Cordoba1, Addis Ababa University2, National Autonomous University of Mexico3, State University of Campinas4, United Nations Environment Programme5, UNESCO6, United States Department of Agriculture7, Indiana University8, University of British Columbia9, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation10, University of Paris-Sud11, Landcare Research12, University College London13, Autonomous University of Madrid14, University of Cambridge15, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research16, University of Southern Denmark17, United Nations University18, Virginia Tech College of Natural Resources and Environment19, The Nature Conservancy20, University of the South Pacific21, University of East Anglia22, Kyushu University23, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology24, University of Washington25, Budapest University of Technology and Economics26, Environmental Law Institute27, Ankara University28, University of Portsmouth29, Chinese Academy of Sciences30, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay31, Kyoto University32, Joseph Fourier University33, National Scientific and Technical Research Council34, University of Yaoundé35, Polish Academy of Sciences36, University of São Paulo37, École Normale Supérieure38, University of Otago39, Stanford University40, University of Queensland41, Azim Premji University42, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ43, University of Ghana44, Corvinus University of Budapest45, Stockholm University46, Lakehead University47, Indian Institute of Forest Management48, Seoul National University49, Sofia University50
TL;DR: The first public product of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is its Conceptual Framework as discussed by the authors, which will underpin all IPBES functions and provide structure and comparability to the syntheses that will produce at different spatial scales, on different themes, and in different regions.
1,585 citations
Book•
01 Jan 2010
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors highlight and illustrate the approach adopted by TEEB: namely to show how economic concepts and tools can help equip society with the means to incorporate the values of nature into decision making at all levels.
Abstract: The aim of this synthesis is to highlight and illustrate the approach adopted by TEEB: namely to show how economic concepts and tools can help equip society with the means to incorporate the values of nature into decision making at all levels.
958 citations
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ1, Finnish Environment Institute2, James Hutton Institute3, European Centre for Nature Conservation4, Humboldt University of Berlin5, Wageningen University and Research Centre6, University of Antwerp7, Szent István University8, Polish Academy of Sciences9, Estonian University of Life Sciences10, University of Grenoble11
TL;DR: To realise their full potential, NBS must be developed by including the experience of all relevant stakeholders such that 'solutions' contribute to achieving all dimensions of sustainability.
677 citations
Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg1, Leipzig University2, University of Porto3, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation4, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency5, University of the Philippines Los Baños6, Stony Brook University7, Wageningen University and Research Centre8, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis9, National Institute for Environmental Studies10, United Nations Environment Programme11, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ12, Chinese Ministry of Economic Affairs13, Calcutta Institute of Engineering and Management14, Imperial College London15, Yale University16, North-West University17, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine18, University of Paris-Sud19, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research20, University of Auckland21, Humboldt University of Berlin22, National Scientific and Technical Research Council23, Stellenbosch University24, Stockholm Resilience Centre25, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research26, Natural History Museum27, University of Victoria28, Spanish National Research Council29, Sapienza University of Rome30, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research31
TL;DR: An outline of a strategy to generate scenarios centred on the authors' relationship with nature to inform decision-making at multiple scales is outlined.
Abstract: Targets for human development are increasingly connected with targets for nature, however, existing scenarios do not explicitly address this relationship. Here, we outline a strategy to generate scenarios centred on our relationship with nature to inform decision-making at multiple scales.
142 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present insights and recommendations on how to improve the interfaces between science and policy, highlighting among others the role of facilitating collaborative learning and enhancing interface expertise in institutions.
Abstract: Against the background of a continuing biodiversity loss there is a strong need to improve the interfaces
between science and policy. Many approaches for such interfaces exist, the most recent being the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). A less prominent approach to interface science with policy consists of research projects directly linking with decision makers. Here we present insights and recommendations on how to do this successfully, highlighting among others the role of facilitating
mutual learning and enhancing interface expertise in institutions.
52 citations
Cited by
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provided an updated estimate based on updated unit ecosystem service values and land use change estimates between 1997 and 2011, using the same methods as in the 1997 paper but with updated data, the estimate for the total global ecosystem services in 2011 is $125 trillion/yr (assuming updated unit values and changes to biome areas).
Abstract: In 1997, the global value of ecosystem services was estimated to average $33 trillion/yr in 1995 $US ($46 trillion/yr in 2007 $US). In this paper, we provide an updated estimate based on updated unit ecosystem service values and land use change estimates between 1997 and 2011. We also address some of the critiques of the 1997 paper. Using the same methods as in the 1997 paper but with updated data, the estimate for the total global ecosystem services in 2011 is $125 trillion/yr (assuming updated unit values and changes to biome areas) and $145 trillion/yr (assuming only unit values changed), both in 2007 $US. From this we estimated the loss of eco-services from 1997 to 2011 due to land use change at $4.3–20.2 trillion/yr, depending on which unit values are used. Global estimates expressed in monetary accounting units, such as this, are useful to highlight the magnitude of eco-services, but have no specific decision-making context. However, the underlying data and models can be applied at multiple scales to assess changes resulting from various scenarios and policies. We emphasize that valuation of eco-services (in whatever units) is not the same as commodification or privatization. Many eco-services are best considered public goods or common pool resources, so conventional markets are often not the best institutional frameworks to manage them. However, these services must be (and are being) valued, and we need new, common asset institutions to better take these values into account.
3,932 citations
Wageningen University and Research Centre1, VU University Amsterdam2, Portland State University3, World Agroforestry Centre4, Aberystwyth University5, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation6, Saint Petersburg State University7, Scottish Agricultural College8, United Nations Environment Programme9, Conservation International10, Institute for European Environmental Policy11
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors presented an overview of the value of ecosystem services of 10 main biomes expressed in monetary units and showed that most of this value is outside the market and best considered as nontradable public benefits.
Abstract: This paper gives an overview of the value of ecosystem services of 10 main biomes expressed in monetary units. In total, over 320 publications were screened covering over 300 case study locations. Approximately 1350 value estimates were coded and stored in a searchable Ecosystem Service Value Database (ESVD). A selection of 665 value estimates was used for the analysis. Acknowledging the uncertainties and contextual nature of any valuation, the analysis shows that the total value of ecosystem services is considerable and ranges between 490 int$/year for the total bundle of ecosystem services that can potentially be provided by an ‘average’ hectare of open oceans to almost 350,000 int$/year for the potential services of an ‘average’ hectare of coral reefs. More importantly, our results show that most of this value is outside the market and best considered as non-tradable public benefits. The continued over-exploitation of ecosystems thus comes at the expense of the livelihood of the poor and future generations. Given that many of the positive externalities of ecosystems are lost or strongly reduced after land use conversion better accounting for the public goods and services provided by ecosystems is crucial to improve decision making and institutions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable ecosystem management.
1,815 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors trace the history leading up to these publications and the subsequent debates, research, institutions, policies, on-the-ground actions, and controversies they triggered.
Abstract: It has been 20 years since two seminal publications about ecosystem services came out: an edited book by Gretchen Daily and an article in Nature by a group of ecologists and economists on the value of the world’s ecosystem services. Both of these have been very highly cited and kicked off an explosion of research, policy, and applications of the idea, including the establishment of this journal. This article traces the history leading up to these publications and the subsequent debates, research, institutions, policies, on-the-ground actions, and controversies they triggered. It also explores what we have learned during this period about the key issues: from definitions to classification to valuation, from integrated modelling to public participation and communication, and the evolution of institutions and governance innovation. Finally, it provides recommendations for the future. In particular, it points to the weakness of the mainstream economic approaches to valuation, growth, and development. It concludes that the substantial contributions of ecosystem services to the sustainable wellbeing of humans and the rest of nature should be at the core of the fundamental change needed in economic theory and practice if we are to achieve a societal transformation to a sustainable and desirable future.
1,514 citations
TL;DR: The notion of nature's contributions to people (NCP) was introduced by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) as mentioned in this paper, a joint global effort by governments, academia, and civil society to assess and promote knowledge of Earth's biodiversity and ecosystems and their contribution to human societies.
Abstract: A major challenge today and into the future is to maintain or enhance beneficial contributions of nature to a good quality of life for all people. This is among the key motivations of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a joint global effort by governments, academia, and civil society to assess and promote knowledge of Earth's biodiversity and ecosystems and their contribution to human societies in order to inform policy formulation. One of the more recent key elements of the IPBES conceptual framework ( 1 ) is the notion of nature's contributions to people (NCP), which builds on the ecosystem service concept popularized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) ( 2 ). But as we detail below, NCP as defined and put into practice in IPBES differs from earlier work in several important ways. First, the NCP approach recognizes the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining all links between people and nature. Second, use of NCP elevates, emphasizes, and operationalizes the role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding nature's contribution to people.
1,470 citations
TL;DR: Biodiversity has key roles at all levels of the ecosystem service hierarchy: as a regulator of underpinning ecosystem processes, as a final ecosystem service and as a good that is subject to valuation, whether economic or otherwise.
Abstract: The relationship between biodiversity and the rapidly expanding research and policy field of ecosystem services is confused and is damaging efforts to create coherent policy. Using the widely accepted Convention on Biological Diversity definition of biodiversity and work for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment we show that biodiversity has key roles at all levels of the ecosystem service hierarchy: as a regulator of underpinning ecosystem processes, as a final ecosystem service and as a good that is subject to valuation, whether economic or otherwise. Ecosystem science and practice has not yet absorbed the lessons of this complex relationship, which suggests an urgent need to develop the interdisciplinary science of ecosystem management bringing together ecologists, conservation biologists, resource economists and others.
1,412 citations