scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Patrick J. O’Farrell

Bio: Patrick J. O’Farrell is an academic researcher from Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology. The author has contributed to research in topics: Ecosystem services & Sustainability. The author has an hindex of 34, co-authored 75 publications receiving 4761 citations. Previous affiliations of Patrick J. O’Farrell include University of Cape Town & Virginia Tech College of Natural Resources and Environment.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present the rationale for the inclusive valuation of nature's contributions to people (NCP) in decision making, as well as broad methodological steps for doing so, and argue that transformative practices aiming at sustainable futures would benefit from embracing such diversity, which require recognizing and addressing power relationships across stakeholder groups that hold different values on human nature-relations and NCP.

985 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors provide a pragmatic operational model for achieving the safeguarding of ecosystem services, which comprises three phases: assessment, planning, and management, which are used to identify opportunities and constraints for implementation.
Abstract: Research on ecosystem services has grown markedly in recent years. However, few studies are embedded in a social process designed to ensure effective management of ecosystem services. Most research has focused only on biophysical and valuation assessments of putative services. As a mission-oriented discipline, ecosystem service research should be user-inspired and user-useful, which will require that researchers respond to stakeholder needs from the outset and collaborate with them in strategy development and implementation. Here we provide a pragmatic operational model for achieving the safeguarding of ecosystem services. The model comprises three phases: assessment, planning, and management. Outcomes of social, biophysical, and valuation assessments are used to identify opportunities and constraints for implementation. The latter then are transformed into user-friendly products to identify, with stakeholders, strategic objectives for implementation (the planning phase). The management phase undertakes and coordinates actions that achieve the protection of ecosystem services and ensure the flow of these services to beneficiaries. This outcome is achieved via mainstreaming, or incorporating the safeguarding of ecosystem services into the policies and practices of sectors that deal with land- and water-use planning. Management needs to be adaptive and should be institutionalized in a suite of learning organizations that are representative of the sectors that are concerned with decision-making and planning. By following the phases of our operational model, projects for safeguarding ecosystem services are likely to empower stakeholders to implement effective on-the-ground management that will achieve resilience of the corresponding social-ecological systems.

607 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a comprehensive overview of ecosystem services provided by natural and semi-natural grasslands, using southern Africa (SA) and northwest Europe as case studies, respectively, is presented.
Abstract: Extensively managed grasslands are recognized globally for their high biodiversity and their social and cultural values. However, their capacity to deliver multiple ecosystem services (ES) as parts of agricultural systems is surprisingly understudied compared to other production systems. We undertook a comprehensive overview of ES provided by natural and semi-natural grasslands, using southern Africa (SA) and northwest Europe as case studies, respectively. We show that these grasslands can supply additional non-agricultural services, such as water supply and flow regulation, carbon storage, erosion control, climate mitigation, pollination, and cultural ES. While demand for ecosystems services seems to balance supply in natural grasslands of SA, the smaller areas of semi-natural grasslands in Europe appear to not meet the demand for many services. We identified three bundles of related ES from grasslands: water ES including fodder production, cultural ES connected to livestock production, and population-based regulating services (e.g., pollination and biological control), which also linked to biodiversity. Greenhouse gas emission mitigation seemed unrelated to the three bundles. The similarities among the bundles in SA and northwestern Europe suggest that there are generalities in ES relations among natural and semi-natural grassland areas. We assessed trade-offs and synergies among services in relation to management practices and found that although some trade-offs are inevitable, appropriate management may create synergies and avoid trade-offs among many services. We argue that ecosystem service and food security research and policy should give higher priority to how grasslands can be managed for fodder and meat production alongside other ES. By integrating grasslands into agricultural production systems and land-use decisions locally and regionally, their potential to contribute to functional landscapes and to food security and sustainable livelihoods can be greatly enhanced. (Less)

402 citations

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 2013
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore the potential of urban ecosystem services for improving resilience and quality of life in cities and describe a range of valuation approaches (cultural values, health benefits, economic costs, and resilience) for capturing the importance of urban ecosystems.
Abstract: We explore the potential of urban ecosystem services for improving resilience and quality of life in cities. First, we classify and categorize important ecosystem services and disservices in urban areas. Second, we describe a range of valuation approaches (cultural values, health benefits, economic costs, and resilience) for capturing the importance of urban ecosystem service multiple values. Finally, we analyze how ecosystem service assessment may inform urban planning and governance and provide practical examples from cities in Africa, Europe, and America. From our review, we find that many urban ecosystem services have already been identified, characterized and valued, and have been found to be of great value and importance for human well-being and urban resilience. We conclude that the use of the concept of urban ecosystem services can play a critical role in reconnecting cities to the biosphere, and reducing the ecological footprint and ecological debt of cities while enhancing resilience, health, and quality of life of their inhabitants.

391 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a conceptual model of ecosystem responses to the increasing severity (density and duration) of invasions was developed from the literature and knowledge of how these impacts affect options for restoration.
Abstract: Aim The biophysical impacts of invasive Australian acacias and their effects on ecosystem services are explored and used to develop a framework for improved restoration practices. Location South Africa, Portugal and Chile. Methods A conceptual model of ecosystem responses to the increasing severity (density and duration) of invasions was developed from the literature and our knowledge of how these impacts affect options for restoration. Case studies are used to identify similarities and differences between three regions severely affected by invasions of Australian acacias: Acacia dealbata in Chile, Acacia longifolia in Portugal and Acacia saligna in South Africa. Results Australian acacias have a wide range of impacts on ecosystems that increase with time and disturbance, transform ecosystems and alter and reduce ecosystem service delivery. A shared trait is the accumulation of massive seed banks, which enables them to become dominant after disturbances. Ecosystem trajectories and recovery potential suggest that there are important thresholds in ecosystem state and resilience. When these are crossed, options for restoration are radically altered; in many cases, autogenic (self-driven and self-sustaining) recovery to a pre-invasion condition is inhibited, necessitating active intervention to restore composition and function. Main conclusions The conceptual model demonstrates the degree, nature and reversibility of ecosystem degradation and identifies key actions needed to restore ecosystems to desired states. Control and restoration operations, particularly active restoration, require substantial short- to medium-term investments, which can reduce losses of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and the costs to society in the long term. Increasing restoration effectiveness will require further research into linkages between impacts and restoration. This research should involve scientists, practitioners and managers engaged in invasive plant control and restoration programmes, together with society as both the investors in, and beneficiaries of, more effective restoration.

339 citations


Cited by
More filters
Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose a conceptual framework and sketch out a strategic plan for delivering on the promise of ecosystem services, drawing on emerging examples from Hawai'i, and describe key advances in the science and practice of accounting for natural capital in the decisions of individuals, communities, corporations, and governments.
Abstract: Over the past decade, efforts to value and protect ecosystem services have been promoted by many as the last, best hope for making conservation mainstream - attractive and commonplace worldwide. In theory, if we can help individuals and institutions to recognize the value of nature, then this should greatly increase investments in conservation, while at the same time fostering human well-being. In practice, however, we have not yet developed the scientific basis, nor the policy and finance mechanisms, for incorporating natural capital into resource- and land-use decisions on a large scale. Here, we propose a conceptual framework and sketch out a strategic plan for delivering on the promise of ecosystem services, drawing on emerging examples from Hawai‘i. We describe key advances in the science and practice of accounting for natural capital in the decisions of individuals, communities, corporations, and governments.

1,666 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Sandra Díaz1, Sebsebe Demissew2, Julia Carabias3, Carlos Alfredo Joly4, Mark Lonsdale, Neville Ash5, Anne Larigauderie, Jay Ram Adhikari, Salvatore Arico6, András Báldi, Ann M. Bartuska7, Ivar Andreas Baste, Adem Bilgin, Eduardo S. Brondizio8, Kai M. A. Chan9, Viviana E. Figueroa, Anantha Kumar Duraiappah, Markus Fischer, Rosemary Hill10, Thomas Koetz, Paul Leadley11, Philip O'b. Lyver12, Georgina M. Mace13, Berta Martín-López14, Michiko Okumura5, Diego Pacheco, Unai Pascual15, Edgar Selvin Pérez, Belinda Reyers16, Eva Roth17, Osamu Saito18, Robert J. Scholes19, Nalini Sharma5, Heather Tallis20, Randolph R. Thaman21, Robert T. Watson22, Tetsukazu Yahara23, Zakri Abdul Hamid, Callistus Akosim, Yousef S. Al-Hafedh24, Rashad Allahverdiyev, Edward Amankwah, T. Stanley Asah25, Zemede Asfaw2, Gabor Bartus26, Anathea L. Brooks6, Jorge Caillaux27, Gemedo Dalle, Dedy Darnaedi, Amanda Driver (Sanbi), Gunay Erpul28, Pablo Escobar-Eyzaguirre, Pierre Failler29, Ali Moustafa Mokhtar Fouda, Bojie Fu30, Haripriya Gundimeda31, Shizuka Hashimoto32, Floyd Homer, Sandra Lavorel33, Gabriela Lichtenstein34, William Armand Mala35, Wadzanayi Mandivenyi, Piotr Matczak36, Carmel Mbizvo, Mehrasa Mehrdadi, Jean Paul Metzger37, Jean Bruno Mikissa38, Henrik Moller39, Harold A. Mooney40, Peter J. Mumby41, Harini Nagendra42, Carsten Nesshöver43, Alfred Oteng-Yeboah44, György Pataki45, Marie Roué, Jennifer Rubis6, Maria Schultz46, Peggy Smith47, Rashid Sumaila9, Kazuhiko Takeuchi18, Spencer Thomas, Madhu Verma48, Youn Yeo-Chang49, Diana Zlatanova50 
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

Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
19 Jan 2018-Science
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