Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPalliwoda, J.
dc.contributor.authorFischer, J.
dc.contributor.authorFelipe-Lucia, M. R.
dc.contributor.authorPalomo, I.
dc.contributor.authorNeugarten, R.
dc.contributor.authorBüermann, A.
dc.contributor.authorPrice, M. F.
dc.contributor.authorTorralba, M.
dc.contributor.authorEigenbrod, F.
dc.contributor.authorMitchell, M.G.E.
dc.contributor.authorBeckmann, M.
dc.contributor.authorSeppelt, R.
dc.contributor.authorSchröter, M.
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-15T14:45:31Z
dc.date.available2023-06-15T14:45:31Z
dc.date.issued2021-09-06
dc.identifier.citationEcosystems and People: 17 (1): 491-506-506 (2021)es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10810/61412
dc.description.abstractBiosphere 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. © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipAB, 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. 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 Mart?n-L?pez 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 Aut?nomo Parques Nacionales and the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN). We thank Carlo Rega (JRC) for providing data.es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherEcosystems and Peoplees_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/es/*
dc.subjectcapitalses_ES
dc.subjectco-productiones_ES
dc.subjectconservationes_ES
dc.subjectNature’s contributions to peoplees_ES
dc.subjectNynke Schulpes_ES
dc.subjectprotected areases_ES
dc.subjectUNESCO Man and Biosphere Programmees_ES
dc.subjectzonationes_ES
dc.titleEcosystem service coproduction across the zones of biosphere reserves in Europees_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.rights.holder© 2021 The Author(s).es_ES
dc.rights.holderAtribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 España*
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1968501es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/26395916.2021.1968501


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2021 The Author(s).
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2021 The Author(s).