IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v49y2021ics2212041621000577.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem services in Antarctica: Global assessment of the current state, future challenges and managing opportunities

Author

Listed:
  • Pertierra, L.R.
  • Santos-Martin, F.
  • Hughes, K.A.
  • Avila, C.
  • Caceres, J.O.
  • De Filippo, D.
  • Gonzalez, S.
  • Grant, S.M.
  • Lynch, H.
  • Marina-Montes, C.
  • Quesada, A.
  • Tejedo, P.
  • Tin, T.
  • Benayas, J.

Abstract

Antarctic ecosystem services are rich and diverse and include global climate modulation, biodiversity and habitat protection, cultural heritage, scientific knowledge, education and recreation as well as the extraction of marine living resources. However, environmental protection studies have rarely examined the full complement of Antarctic values recognized in the Antarctic Treaty or Antarctica’s other natural benefits as ecosystem services (ES). Moreover, the existing limited number of ES studies have focused primarily on the biophysical modeling of the service providing units, with little focus on evaluating the balance between Antarctica’s intrinsic vs. economic values (e.g., opportunity cost, payment for services and bequest), or societal perceptions on the Antarctic ES teleconnections with global issues. Here, we systematically identify the ES dimensions present in Antarctica through an expert elicitation combined with scientific literature review. We then map their spatial overlap and examine the existing trends of usage over the various stages of ES utilization in the continent. Lastly, we conduct a preliminary evaluation of the resulting trade-offs from their respective increased utilization. Our results show that Antarcticás ES are currently facing substantial challenges to remain sustainable. In marine ecosystems, fish and krill stock provisioning may put at risk the maintenance of habitats and biodiversity regulation. In turn, cultural values centered around terrestrial ecosystems, face a three-way conflict between the increasing demand for tourism opportunities, the region’s rich and diverse scientific interests and the vast wilderness and bequest values. To appropriately conserve Antarctic ES for future generations, we discuss how different ES framework tools could be developed and adapted to the Antarctic Treaty policy context.

Suggested Citation

  • Pertierra, L.R. & Santos-Martin, F. & Hughes, K.A. & Avila, C. & Caceres, J.O. & De Filippo, D. & Gonzalez, S. & Grant, S.M. & Lynch, H. & Marina-Montes, C. & Quesada, A. & Tejedo, P. & Tin, T. & Bena, 2021. "Ecosystem services in Antarctica: Global assessment of the current state, future challenges and managing opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:49:y:2021:i:c:s2212041621000577
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101299
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041621000577
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101299?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    2. Hughes, Kevin A. & Grant, Susie M., 2017. "The spatial distribution of Antarctica’s protected areas: A product of pragmatism, geopolitics or conservation need?," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 41-51.
    3. Steven L. Chown & Andrew Clarke & Ceridwen I. Fraser & S. Craig Cary & Katherine L. Moon & Melodie A. McGeoch, 2015. "The changing form of Antarctic biodiversity," Nature, Nature, vol. 522(7557), pages 431-438, June.
    4. Jasmine R. Lee & Ben Raymond & Thomas J. Bracegirdle & Iadine Chadès & Richard A. Fuller & Justine D. Shaw & Aleks Terauds, 2017. "Climate change drives expansion of Antarctic ice-free habitat," Nature, Nature, vol. 547(7661), pages 49-54, July.
    5. Stephane Hallegatte & Colin Green & Robert J. Nicholls & Jan Corfee-Morlot, 2013. "Future flood losses in major coastal cities," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(9), pages 802-806, September.
    6. Rachel I. Leihy & Bernard W. T. Coetzee & Fraser Morgan & Ben Raymond & Justine D. Shaw & Aleks Terauds & Kees Bastmeijer & Steven L. Chown, 2020. "Antarctica’s wilderness fails to capture continent’s biodiversity," Nature, Nature, vol. 583(7817), pages 567-571, July.
    7. Shaun T. Brooks & Julia Jabour & John Hoff & Dana M. Bergstrom, 2019. "Our footprint on Antarctica competes with nature for rare ice-free land," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 2(3), pages 185-190, March.
    8. Verbitsky, Jane, 2018. "Ecosystem services and Antarctica: The time has come?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 381-394.
    9. Nees Jan Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2010. "Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 523-538, August.
    10. Andrew Gray & Monika Krolikowski & Peter Fretwell & Peter Convey & Lloyd S. Peck & Monika Mendelova & Alison G. Smith & Matthew P. Davey, 2020. "Remote sensing reveals Antarctic green snow algae as important terrestrial carbon sink," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, December.
    11. Deininger, Michaela & Koellner, Thomas & Brey, Thomas & Teschke, Katharina, 2016. "Towards mapping and assessing antarctic marine ecosystem services – The weddell sea case study," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 174-192.
    12. Thomas Frederikse & Maya K. Buchanan & Erwin Lambert & Robert E. Kopp & Michael Oppenheimer & D. J. Rasmussen & Roderik S. W. van de Wal, 2020. "Antarctic Ice Sheet and emission scenario controls on 21st-century extreme sea-level changes," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    13. Tamsin L. Edwards & Mark A. Brandon & Gael Durand & Neil R. Edwards & Nicholas R. Golledge & Philip B. Holden & Isabel J. Nias & Antony J. Payne & Catherine Ritz & Andreas Wernecke, 2019. "Revisiting Antarctic ice loss due to marine ice-cliff instability," Nature, Nature, vol. 566(7742), pages 58-64, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniela Cajiao & Javier Benayas & Pablo Tejedo & Yu-Fai Leung, 2021. "Adaptive Management of Sustainable Tourism in Antarctica: A Rhetoric or Working Progress?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-21, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. D. J. Rasmussen & Scott Kulp & Robert E. Kopp & Michael Oppenheimer & Benjamin H. Strauss, 2022. "Popular extreme sea level metrics can better communicate impacts," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    3. Nicoletta Cannone & Stefano Ponti & Francesco Malfasi, 2021. "A Pilot Project to Limit the Human Impacts on the Fragile Antarctic Biota: Mitigation of a Runway through Vegetation Transplantation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, January.
    4. Jinfang Pu & Jinming Yan, 2024. "Economic Valuation of Nature’s Contributions in the Antarctic: Extension of the Nature’s Contributions to People Conceptual Framework," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, August.
    5. Jasper Verschuur & Dewi Bars & Caroline A. Katsman & Sierd de Vries & Roshanka Ranasinghe & Sybren S. Drijfhout & Stefan G. J. Aarninkhof, 2020. "Implications of ambiguity in Antarctic ice sheet dynamics for future coastal erosion estimates: a probabilistic assessment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(2), pages 859-876, September.
    6. Abinash Bhattachan & Matthew D. Jurjonas & Priscilla R. Morris & Paul J. Taillie & Lindsey S. Smart & Ryan E. Emanuel & Erin L. Seekamp, 2019. "Linking residential saltwater intrusion risk perceptions to physical exposure of climate change impacts in rural coastal communities of North Carolina," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 97(3), pages 1277-1295, July.
    7. Jacob Wood & Gohar Feroz Khan, 2015. "International trade negotiation analysis: network and semantic knowledge infrastructure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 537-556, October.
    8. Yingjin Song & Ruiyi Li & Guanyi Chen & Beibei Yan & Lei Zhong & Yuxin Wang & Yihang Li & Jinlei Li & Yingxiu Zhang, 2021. "Bibliometric Analysis of Current Status on Bioremediation of Petroleum Contaminated Soils during 2000–2019," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-20, August.
    9. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Sven E. Hug, 2018. "Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: a new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 427-437, February.
    10. Niccolò Comerio & Fernanda Strozzi, 2019. "Tourism and its economic impact: A literature review using bibliometric tools," Tourism Economics, , vol. 25(1), pages 109-131, February.
    11. Denis Maragno & Michele Dalla Fontana & Francesco Musco, 2020. "Mapping Heat Stress Vulnerability and Risk Assessment at the Neighborhood Scale to Drive Urban Adaptation Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, February.
    12. Piñeiro-Chousa, Juan & López-Cabarcos, M. Ángeles & Romero-Castro, Noelia María & Pérez-Pico, Ada María, 2020. "Innovation, entrepreneurship and knowledge in the business scientific field: Mapping the research front," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 475-485.
    13. Maria Lourdes Ordoñez Olivo & Zoltán Lakner, 2023. "Shaping the Knowledge Base of Bioeconomy Sectors Development in Latin American and Caribbean Countries: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    14. Akinpelu, O.A. & Olaleye, O. & Fagbola, O., 2023. "The Soil Organic Matter Decomposers: A Bibliometric Analysis," International Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Research, Malwa International Journals Publication, vol. 9(4), August.
    15. Muhammad Farooq Islam & Ozge Can, 2024. "Integrating digital and sustainable entrepreneurship through business models: a bibliometric analysis," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 14(1), pages 1-18, December.
    16. Urša Golob & Mark A. P. Davies & Joachim Kernstock & Shaun M. Powell, 2020. "Trending topics plus future challenges and opportunities in brand management," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(2), pages 123-129, March.
    17. Natalya Ivanova & Ekaterina Zolotova, 2023. "Landolt Indicator Values in Modern Research: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-22, June.
    18. Yucheng Zhang & Zhiling Wang & Lin Xiao & Lijun Wang & Pei Huang, 2023. "Discovering the evolution of online reviews: A bibliometric review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-22, December.
    19. Gaviria-Marin, Magaly & Merigó, José M. & Baier-Fuentes, Hugo, 2019. "Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 194-220.
    20. J. Gómez-Verjan & I. Gonzalez-Sanchez & E. Estrella-Parra & R. Reyes-Chilpa, 2015. "Trends in the chemical and pharmacological research on the tropical trees Calophyllum brasiliense and Calophyllum inophyllum, a global context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(2), pages 1019-1030, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:49:y:2021:i:c:s2212041621000577. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.