Background and Research Aims Human-orangutan conflicts are a growing problem in the tropical rainforests of Sumatra. Habitat degradation and fragmentation can drive orangutans to move on to agroforestry plantations and into conflict with farmers. This research examines farmers’ awareness of the roles that Tapanuli orangutans play, their attitudes towards orangutans when they come on their land and the broader political-economic factors which influence interactions between smallholders and orangutans. Methods We used a mixed methods approach of quantitative surveys with 275 farmers and qualitative in-depth interviews with 22 key informants from 11 villages on the island of Sumatra, Indonesia. Results We found that while many farmers had negative encounters with orangutans eating their crops, their responses differed. Some tolerated the orangutans; others chased them away. The difference stemmed from cultural beliefs about orangutans and their relationship to humans. Some communities hold them as neighbours, others fear them, but in both cases would not harm them. Most farmers do not perceive them as significant threats but as hunger-driven neighbours. Rather than blaming the orang-utans per se, they argue that habitat loss caused by expanding extractive activities is the driving factor of this conflict. They want to see limits on the expansion of extractive industry, alternative income sources and compensation for their orangutan losses. Conclusion The study concludes by highlighting five aspects that need consideration for reducing human-orangutan conflicts and with a broader discussion on the need to include the socio-cultural context of the human populations in conservation initiatives. Implications for Conservation The study underscores the imperative of integrating local farmers’ perspectives in conserving critically endangered Tapanuli orangutans. It advocates coexistence through crop loss mitigation, deforestation prevention, and compensation strategies, emphasizing the need for holistic, sustainable conservation measures encompassing ecological, social, and economic facets within the region.

• Classification systems require specific principles be met. • The MA and TEEB ES groupings (e.g. provisioning) do not meet these requirements. • MA and TEEB ES groupings are not synonymous with the CICES classification system. • Using ES groupings (e.g. MA and TEEB) creates numerous challenges. • Proper use of CICES or NESCS Plus classification systems can fix these problems.

•Classification systems require specific principles be met.•The MA and TEEB ES groupings (e.g. provisioning) do not meet these requirements.•MA and TEEB ES groupings are not synonymous with the CICES classification system.•Using ES groupings (e.g. MA and TEEB) creates numerous challenges.•Proper use of CICES or NESCS Plus classification systems can fix these problems.

Ecosystem services (ES) practitioners (e.g., researchers, policy makers) have been working to better define, measure, and value the ways that nature contributes to society. Because measurement techniques follow the labeling or identification of ES, precise identification is critical. This article reviews literature and consults experts in classification science and ES to determine the expected benefits of using ES classification knowledge (classification knowledge); ecosystem services classification systems (ES-CS) and their principles. An informal analysis of the costs of transitioning from the current ad-hoc approach—based on various ES lists—to using classification knowledge was conducted. 18 benefits of using classification knowledge were found, including allowing ES to be defined more easily and precisely, easing the transfer of knowledge among studies, and avoiding the need to recreate ES identification systems. Collectively, these 18 benefits should allow for more accurate and consistent definition of ES, thereby serving to improve communication and measurement of ES. Moreover, the expected benefits of using ES-CS outweigh expected costs of the transition. Practitioners can use ES-CS in whole, or in parts, as their research or their institutions warrant. Finally, a case study was conducted that shows how ES measures can be organized using ES-CS, delivering benefits to practitioners.

Despite substantial increases in the scope and magnitude of biodiversity conservation and ecological restoration, there remains ongoing degradation of natural resources that adversely affects both biodiversity and human well-being. Nature-based Solutions (NbS) can be an effective framework for reversing this trend, by increasing the alignment between conservation and sustainable development objectives. However, unless there is clarity on its evolution, definition and principles, and relationship with related approaches, it will not be possible to develop evidence-based standards and guidelines, or to implement, assess, improve and upscale NbS interventions globally. In order to address this gap, we present the definition and principles underpinning the NbS framework, recently adopted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and compare it to (1) the Ecosystem Approach that was the foundation for developing the NbS definitional framework, and (2) four specific ecosystem-based approaches (Forest Landscape Restoration, Ecosystem-based Adaptation, Ecological Restoration and Protected Areas) that can be considered as falling under the NbS framework. Although we found substantial alignment between NbS principles and the principles of the other frameworks, three of the eight NbS principles stand out from other approaches: NbS can be implemented alone or in an integrated manner with other solutions; NbS should be applied at a landscape scale; and, NbS are integral to the overall design of policies, measures and actions, to address societal challenges. Reversely, concepts such as adaptive management/governance, effectiveness, uncertainty, multi-stakeholder participation, and temporal scale are present in other frameworks but not captured at all or detailed enough in the NbS principles. This critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the NbS principles can inform the review and revision of principles supporting specific types of NbS (such as the approaches reviewed here), as well as serve as the foundation for the development of standards for the successful implementation of NbS.

This study assesses the knowledge and perceptions of potential participants in a payment for watershed services (PWS) scheme in a watershed containing a reservoir and hydropower plant in Indonesia. Information was collected by interviewing watershed service providers such as upland farmers and downstream beneficiaries of services i.e. fishers, rest area operators, tourists, and the power plant manager. The study found some challenges if relying on stated preference values as a basis for a workable PWS scheme, specifically asymmetric information among stakeholders. Upland farmers did not realize their location within the upland of a watershed whose activities affect the quality of watershed services. Watershed users similarly do not know what activities their counterparts do in the upland. The study reveals market forces are a driver of livelihoods in the watershed. It concludes that prior to introducing a PWS scheme it is: 1/important to address any asymmetric information across stakeholders (e.g. through farmer extension services); and 2/consideration should be given to fluctuating commodity price subsidies so to sustain farmers' livelihoods and ensure they maintain sustainable management practices for the uninterrupted and long term supply of watershed services. This study provides important lessons for other regions struggling with the same issues.

Many local and Indigenous communities across the globe afford ecosystem services to the wider global public through maintaining natural resources because of their duteous usage and astute management. However there is barely any recognition or financial support for them to continue maintaining or enhancing the flow of ecosystem services from their finely managed Indigenous and local lands. This paper offers insights using three case studies from the Oceania-Asia region-i.e. Australia, India and Fiji-that supports the highest Indigenous and local communities population. It describes the main cultural values and traditions, and land rights of Indigenous and local communities in relation to their natural systems, and the key issues and challenges that people experience in their respective regions. Lack of recognition of peoples' land rights, unregulated and exploitative use of resources, and inequitable distribution of benefits that accrue to private (often corporate) enterprises from using natural resources were the common issues among all case studies. To support conservative use and management of Indigenous and local lands, this paper argues to establish monetary mechanisms i.e. Payments for Ecosystem Services, Green Funds, Common Trusts, etc. to enable Indigenous and local communities to continue managing natural resources for the greater public benefit.

Humans are dependent upon ecosystems for the production of goods and services necessary for their well-being (Daily, 1997). As the service provider units (SPUs) for these benefits of nature (Anderson et al., 2015), ecosystems need to be managed in a way that maximizes their persistence on the planet. Part of that management effort includes knowing a) what the ecosystem types are, b) where they are located on the landscape and in the seascape, and c) what condition they are in. Mapping of ecosystem occurrences as the SPUs for ecosystems goods and services is therefore an important element of ecosystem accounting, an inherently spatial activity. Maps are also needed of the ecosystem accounting areas within which the accounting is conducted. Standardized maps of ecosystem accounting areas and terrestrial ecosystem SPUs have not previously been available for many islands of the Oceania region. We describe the availability of new island shorelines and ecosystems data for Oceania herein, and encourage consideration and evaluation of the data for ecosystem accounting and other applications.

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 437 © 2018 The Authors This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. Increasing concern for the consequences of global ecological change (GEC) has seen sustainable ecological development emerge as a human health priority.1,2 Policy frameworks are in place to protect the health-nurturing properties of the natural environment and to limit the health harms of development. Landmark events such as the Ottawa Charter (1986), United Nation’s (UN) Conference on Environment and Development (1992), the Convention of Biodiversity (1992), UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992), the Millennium Development Goals (2000), the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), and now the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 2015–2030 have had significant impact on domestic policy, including within Australia. There are concurrent calls for biodiversity conservation to be mainstreamed (e.g. Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010–2030) and for strategic consideration of the World Health Organization’s Health in All Policies (2013), in addition to SDG and carbon emission reduction goals that exist and provide frameworks within which such aspirations may be met.

Ecosystem services approaches are material to business performance. However, the lack of sufficiently detailed and commonly used ecosystem services classification systems prevents companies from benefitting fully from them. The final ecosystem services perspective, embodied by the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS) and the National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS), offers a way through key bottlenecks to main-streaming ecosystem services in corporate decision-making and accounting. Compared to other systems, these are easier to use, improve materiality analysis, and aid stakeholder engagement. In addition, their potential to improve the accuracy of valuation makes them preferable for natural capital accounting. Companies that adopt this final ecosystem services (FES) perspective are likely to gain these immediate benefits and first-mover advantage, as this FES perspective is poised to become standard practice.

This research note illustrates how European national delegates to the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) perceive the challenges, needs, gaps and opportunities related to the policy implementation of “Nature’s contributions to people (NCP)” in their nation. Until now, only little information has been available on how IPBES delegations perceive national policy-uptake and the implementation of the IPBES core concept of NCP. Based on an online survey with IPBES delegates, we aim to provide a stock-take of how IPBES delegations see NCP currently being incorporated in national government policies in Europe and how these policies are being implemented through programmes. Survey results show IPBES delegates consider a lack of relevant data and methodologies for NCP assessments to be a major obstacle to the uptake and implementation of NCP concepts in Europe. We wonder if availability of data and methodologies are the most prominent challenges to make IPBES a success, and consider the need for policy uptake and implementation to be more prominently addressed within the IPBES process.

Despite the great potential of palaeo-environmental information to strengthen natural resource policy, science and practical outcomes naturally occurring archives of palaeo-environmental and ecosystem service information have not been fully recognised or utilised to inform the development of environmental policy. In this paper, we describe how Australian palaeo-environmental science is improving environmental understanding through local studies and regional syntheses that inform us about past conditions, extreme conditions and altered ecosystem states. Australian innovations in ecosystem services research and palaeo-environmental science contribute in five important contexts: discussions about environmental understanding and management objectives, improving access to information, improved knowledge about the dynamics of ecosystem services, increasing understanding of environmental processes and resource availability, and engaging interdisciplinary approaches to manage ecosystem services. Knowledge of the past is an important starting point for setting present and future resource management objectives, anticipating consequences of trade-offs, sharing risk and evaluating and monitoring the ongoing availability of ecosystem services. Palaeo-environmental information helps reframe discussions about desirable futures and collaborative efforts between scientists, planners, managers and communities. However, further steps are needed to translate the ecosystem services concept into ecosystem services policy and tangible management objectives and actions that are useful, feasible and encompass the range of benefits to people from ecosystems. We argue that increased incorporation of palaeo-environmental information into policy and decision-making is needed for evidence-based adaptive management to enhance sustainability of ecosystem functions and reduce long-term risks.

Humans currently spend over 3 billion person-hours per week playing computer games. Most of these games are purely for entertainment, but use of computer games for education has also expanded dramatically. At the same time, experimental games have become a staple of social science research but have depended on relatively small sample sizes and simple, abstract situations, limiting their range and applicability. If only a fraction of the time spent playing computer games could be harnessed for research, it would open up a huge range of new opportunities. We review the use of games in research, education, and entertainment and develop ideas for integrating these three functions around the idea of ecosystem services valuation. This approach to valuation can be seen as a version of choice modeling that allows players to generate their own scenarios taking account of the trade-offs embedded in the game, rather than simply ranking pre-formed scenarios. We outline a prototype game called “Lagom Island” to test the proposition that gaming can be used to reveal the value of ecosystem services. Our prototype provides a potential pathway and functional building blocks for approaching the relatively untapped potential of games in the context of ecosystem services research.

In response to the need and an intergovernmental commission for a high resolution and data-derived global ecosystem map, land surface elements of global ecological pattern were characterized in an ecophysiographic stratification of the planet. The stratification produced 3,923 terrestrial ecological land units (ELUs) at a base resolution of 250 meters. The ELUs were derived from data on land surface features in a three step approach. The first step involved acquiring or developing four global raster datalayers representing the primary components of ecosystem structure: bioclimate, landform, lithology, and land cover. These datasets generally represent the most accurate, current, globally comprehensive, and finest spatial and thematic resolution data available for each of the four inputs. The second step involved a spatial combination of the four inputs into a single, new integrated raster dataset where every cell represents a combination of values from the bioclimate, landforms, lithology, and land cover datalayers. This foundational global raster datalayer, called ecological facets (EFs), contains 47,650 unique combinations of the four inputs. The third step involved an aggregation of the EFs into the 3,923 ELUs. This subdivision of the Earth’s surface into relatively fine, ecological land areas is designed to be useful for various types of ecosystem research and management applications, including assessments of climate change impacts to ecosystems, economic and non-economic valuation of ecosystem services, and conservation planning.

When multiple ecosystem services are derived from multiple ecosystems across different policy, planning or management jurisdictions, questions arise regarding the valuation of ecosystem services such as: who are the beneficiaries; how do they value ecosystem services; and who should be the valuing agent? In attempting to achieve an integrated approach to natural resource management in South East Queensland (SEQ), stakeholders have combined their knowledge to develop a framework to identify, measure and value ecosystem services provided by the region. This paper focuses on a methodology trialled to value the ecosystem services derived from the SEQ region in terms of the wellbeing of the SEQ community. The methodology allows flexibility of choice regarding whose values count and who should be the valuing agent. The methodology was trialled with community participants and scientific experts. The building blocks of the Framework can be used to construct different model variants, each of which reveals key characteristics of ecosystem services in SEQ. The approach adopted to value ecosystems and ecosystem services offers scope for decision makers to think more broadly about possible impacts of decisions on the wellbeing of the community and has facilitated the inclusion of ecosystem services in statutory planning policy in SEQ.