TY - JOUR

T1 - Ecosystem service coproduction across the zones of biosphere reserves in Europe

AU - Palliwoda, Julia

AU - Fischer, Julia

AU - Felipe-Lucia, María R.

AU - Palomo, Ignacio

AU - Neugarten, Rachel

AU - Büermann, Andrea

AU - Price, Martin F.

AU - Torralba, Mario

AU - Eigenbrod, Felix

AU - Mitchell, Matthew G.E.

AU - Beckmann, Michael

AU - Seppelt, Ralf

AU - Schröter, Matthias

N1 - This work was supported by the Klaus Tschira Stiftung [KT08, BIOSHARE]; German Research Foundation [DFG-FZT 118, 202548816]. AB, JP and JF were (partly) funded through the Boost Fund of the Klaus Tschira Foundation (KT08, BIOSHARE) granted to MS. AB and MFL gratefully acknowledge the support of iDiv funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG-FZT 118, 202548816). We thank Mick Wu for statistical support. We thank Berta Martín-López for participation in the workshop and helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. We thank UNESCO-MAB and UNEP-WCMC for their useful advice on zoning data collection. We are grateful to all national agencies, organisations and biosphere reserve administrations, who helped through providing zoning data, in particular, the Spanish Organismo Autónomo Parques Nacionales and the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN). We thank Carlo Rega (JRC) for providing data.

PY - 2021/1/1

Y1 - 2021/1/1

N2 - Biosphere reserves (BR) balance biodiversity protection and sustainable use through different management restrictions in three zones: core areas, buffer zones, and transition areas. Information about the links between zoning and ecosystem services (ES) is lacking, particularly in terms of the relative roles of natural contributions (ecosystem properties and functions) and anthropogenic contributions (human inputs such as technology and infrastructure) in coproducing ES. This study aimed to: (1) analyse how coproduction of four ES (crop production, grazing, timber production, recreation) differs across the three zones of BRs; and (2) understand which predictors (zoning, natural and anthropogenic contributions, other environmental characteristics) best explain ES provision within BRs. To do this, we collected spatial data on 137 terrestrial BRs in the European Union and on 16 indicators of ES coproduction. We used non-parametric pairwise Wilcoxon rank sum tests to calculate differences in indicators between zones. We used model selection and multiple linear regression to identify predictors of ES provision patterns. Anthropogenic contributions showed most differences between zones, with contributions generally increasing from buffer zones to transition areas. Natural contributions did not, on average, differ between zones, however, for recreation and crop production they decreased from buffer zones to transition areas. ES provision differed between zones only for crop production and grazing, which increased from buffer zones to transition areas. Regression analysis showed that natural contributions are the best predictors of ES provision for all four services. Our results indicate that zoning of BRs has implications for ES coproduction.

AB - Biosphere reserves (BR) balance biodiversity protection and sustainable use through different management restrictions in three zones: core areas, buffer zones, and transition areas. Information about the links between zoning and ecosystem services (ES) is lacking, particularly in terms of the relative roles of natural contributions (ecosystem properties and functions) and anthropogenic contributions (human inputs such as technology and infrastructure) in coproducing ES. This study aimed to: (1) analyse how coproduction of four ES (crop production, grazing, timber production, recreation) differs across the three zones of BRs; and (2) understand which predictors (zoning, natural and anthropogenic contributions, other environmental characteristics) best explain ES provision within BRs. To do this, we collected spatial data on 137 terrestrial BRs in the European Union and on 16 indicators of ES coproduction. We used non-parametric pairwise Wilcoxon rank sum tests to calculate differences in indicators between zones. We used model selection and multiple linear regression to identify predictors of ES provision patterns. Anthropogenic contributions showed most differences between zones, with contributions generally increasing from buffer zones to transition areas. Natural contributions did not, on average, differ between zones, however, for recreation and crop production they decreased from buffer zones to transition areas. ES provision differed between zones only for crop production and grazing, which increased from buffer zones to transition areas. Regression analysis showed that natural contributions are the best predictors of ES provision for all four services. Our results indicate that zoning of BRs has implications for ES coproduction.

KW - capitals

KW - co-production

KW - conservation

KW - Nature’s contributions to people

KW - Nynke Schulp

KW - protected areas

KW - UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme

KW - zonation

KW - Ecosystems Research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85114477739&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/26395916.2021.1968501

DO - 10.1080/26395916.2021.1968501

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:85114477739

VL - 17

SP - 491

EP - 506

JO - Ecosystems and People

JF - Ecosystems and People

SN - 2639-5908

IS - 1

ER -