REVIEW: Towards a risk register for natural capital
Summary Natural capital is essential for goods and services on which people depend. Yet pressures on the environment mean that natural capital assets are continuing to decline and degrade, putting such benefits at risk. Systematic monitoring of natural assets is a major challenge that could be both...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of applied ecology 2015-06, Vol.52 (3), p.641-653 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 653 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 641 |
container_title | The Journal of applied ecology |
container_volume | 52 |
creator | Mace, Georgina M. Hails, Rosemary S. Cryle, Philip Harlow, Julian Clarke, Stewart J. Manning, Peter |
description | Summary
Natural capital is essential for goods and services on which people depend. Yet pressures on the environment mean that natural capital assets are continuing to decline and degrade, putting such benefits at risk. Systematic monitoring of natural assets is a major challenge that could be both unaffordable and unmanageable without a way to focus efforts. Here we introduce a simple approach, based on the commonly used management tool of a risk register, to highlight natural assets whose condition places benefits at risk.
We undertake a preliminary assessment using a risk register for natural capital assets in the UK based solely on existing information. The status and trends of natural capital assets are assessed using asset–benefit relationships for ten kinds of benefits (food, fibre (timber), energy, aesthetics, freshwater (quality), recreation, clean air, wildlife, hazard protection and equable climate) across eight broad habitat types in the UK based on three dimensions of natural capital within each of the habitat types (quality, quantity and spatial configuration). We estimate the status and trends of benefits relative to societal targets using existing regulatory limits and policy commitments, and allocate scores of high, medium or low risk to asset–benefit relationships that are both subject to management and of concern.
The risk register approach reveals substantial gaps in knowledge about asset–benefit relationships which limit the scope and rigour of the assessment (especially for marine and urban habitats). Nevertheless, we find strong indications that certain assets (in freshwater, mountain, moors and heathland habitats) are at high risk in relation to their ability to sustain certain benefits (especially freshwater, wildlife and climate regulation).
Synthesis and applications. With directed data gathering, especially to monitor trends, improve metrics related to asset–benefit relationships, and improve understanding of nonlinearities and thresholds, the natural capital risk register could provide a useful tool. If updated regularly, it could direct monitoring efforts, focus research and protect and manage those natural assets where benefits are at highest risk.
With directed data gathering, especially to monitor trends, improve metrics related to asset–benefit relationships, and improve understanding of nonlinearities and thresholds, the natural capital risk register could provide a useful tool. If updated regularly, it could direct monit |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/1365-2664.12431 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4979659</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1859714152</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2841-f394894bbd6d115e3ee7f205152fcaa030f4745e5eb182426dad5804ffafe2bc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkM1LwzAYh4Mobk7P3qRHL93y5qMfHgQZVScDRaYeQ9omM9q1M2kd--_t7Bx6MpcXkuf95ceD0CngIbRnBDTgPgkCNgTCKOyh_u5mH_UxJuBHMYYeOnLuDWMcc0oPUY-EPKDAaR_Rx-R5krxceLNqJW3uPOlZ4949q-bG1cp6urJeKevGysLL5NLUsjhGB1oWTp1s5wA9XSez8a0_vb-ZjK-mfkYiBr6mMYtilqZ5kANwRZUKNcEcONGZlJhizULGFVcpRISRIJc5jzDTWmpF0owO0GWXu2zShcozVdZtC7G0ZiHtWlTSiL8vpXkV8-pTsDiMAx63AefbAFt9NMrVYmFcpopClqpqnICIxyGwtlCLjjo0s5VzVundN4DFRrXYiBUbseJbdbtx9rvdjv9x2wK8A1amUOv_8sTdQ9IFfwEv8ogR</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1859714152</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>REVIEW: Towards a risk register for natural capital</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Mace, Georgina M. ; Hails, Rosemary S. ; Cryle, Philip ; Harlow, Julian ; Clarke, Stewart J. ; Manning, Peter</creator><contributor>Manning, Peter</contributor><creatorcontrib>Mace, Georgina M. ; Hails, Rosemary S. ; Cryle, Philip ; Harlow, Julian ; Clarke, Stewart J. ; Manning, Peter ; Manning, Peter</creatorcontrib><description>Summary
Natural capital is essential for goods and services on which people depend. Yet pressures on the environment mean that natural capital assets are continuing to decline and degrade, putting such benefits at risk. Systematic monitoring of natural assets is a major challenge that could be both unaffordable and unmanageable without a way to focus efforts. Here we introduce a simple approach, based on the commonly used management tool of a risk register, to highlight natural assets whose condition places benefits at risk.
We undertake a preliminary assessment using a risk register for natural capital assets in the UK based solely on existing information. The status and trends of natural capital assets are assessed using asset–benefit relationships for ten kinds of benefits (food, fibre (timber), energy, aesthetics, freshwater (quality), recreation, clean air, wildlife, hazard protection and equable climate) across eight broad habitat types in the UK based on three dimensions of natural capital within each of the habitat types (quality, quantity and spatial configuration). We estimate the status and trends of benefits relative to societal targets using existing regulatory limits and policy commitments, and allocate scores of high, medium or low risk to asset–benefit relationships that are both subject to management and of concern.
The risk register approach reveals substantial gaps in knowledge about asset–benefit relationships which limit the scope and rigour of the assessment (especially for marine and urban habitats). Nevertheless, we find strong indications that certain assets (in freshwater, mountain, moors and heathland habitats) are at high risk in relation to their ability to sustain certain benefits (especially freshwater, wildlife and climate regulation).
Synthesis and applications. With directed data gathering, especially to monitor trends, improve metrics related to asset–benefit relationships, and improve understanding of nonlinearities and thresholds, the natural capital risk register could provide a useful tool. If updated regularly, it could direct monitoring efforts, focus research and protect and manage those natural assets where benefits are at highest risk.
With directed data gathering, especially to monitor trends, improve metrics related to asset–benefit relationships, and improve understanding of nonlinearities and thresholds, the natural capital risk register could provide a useful tool. If updated regularly, it could direct monitoring efforts, focus research and protect and manage those natural assets where benefits are at highest risk.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8901</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2664</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12431</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27563153</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: John Wiley and Sons Inc</publisher><subject>ecosystem services ; goods and benefits ; limits ; natural capital ; Review ; targets ; thresholds ; Tools for Decision‐making</subject><ispartof>The Journal of applied ecology, 2015-06, Vol.52 (3), p.641-653</ispartof><rights>2015 The Authors. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2841-f394894bbd6d115e3ee7f205152fcaa030f4745e5eb182426dad5804ffafe2bc3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2841-f394894bbd6d115e3ee7f205152fcaa030f4745e5eb182426dad5804ffafe2bc3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2F1365-2664.12431$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2F1365-2664.12431$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1416,1432,27923,27924,45573,45574,46408,46832</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27563153$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Manning, Peter</contributor><creatorcontrib>Mace, Georgina M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hails, Rosemary S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cryle, Philip</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harlow, Julian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clarke, Stewart J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manning, Peter</creatorcontrib><title>REVIEW: Towards a risk register for natural capital</title><title>The Journal of applied ecology</title><addtitle>J Appl Ecol</addtitle><description>Summary
Natural capital is essential for goods and services on which people depend. Yet pressures on the environment mean that natural capital assets are continuing to decline and degrade, putting such benefits at risk. Systematic monitoring of natural assets is a major challenge that could be both unaffordable and unmanageable without a way to focus efforts. Here we introduce a simple approach, based on the commonly used management tool of a risk register, to highlight natural assets whose condition places benefits at risk.
We undertake a preliminary assessment using a risk register for natural capital assets in the UK based solely on existing information. The status and trends of natural capital assets are assessed using asset–benefit relationships for ten kinds of benefits (food, fibre (timber), energy, aesthetics, freshwater (quality), recreation, clean air, wildlife, hazard protection and equable climate) across eight broad habitat types in the UK based on three dimensions of natural capital within each of the habitat types (quality, quantity and spatial configuration). We estimate the status and trends of benefits relative to societal targets using existing regulatory limits and policy commitments, and allocate scores of high, medium or low risk to asset–benefit relationships that are both subject to management and of concern.
The risk register approach reveals substantial gaps in knowledge about asset–benefit relationships which limit the scope and rigour of the assessment (especially for marine and urban habitats). Nevertheless, we find strong indications that certain assets (in freshwater, mountain, moors and heathland habitats) are at high risk in relation to their ability to sustain certain benefits (especially freshwater, wildlife and climate regulation).
Synthesis and applications. With directed data gathering, especially to monitor trends, improve metrics related to asset–benefit relationships, and improve understanding of nonlinearities and thresholds, the natural capital risk register could provide a useful tool. If updated regularly, it could direct monitoring efforts, focus research and protect and manage those natural assets where benefits are at highest risk.
With directed data gathering, especially to monitor trends, improve metrics related to asset–benefit relationships, and improve understanding of nonlinearities and thresholds, the natural capital risk register could provide a useful tool. If updated regularly, it could direct monitoring efforts, focus research and protect and manage those natural assets where benefits are at highest risk.</description><subject>ecosystem services</subject><subject>goods and benefits</subject><subject>limits</subject><subject>natural capital</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>targets</subject><subject>thresholds</subject><subject>Tools for Decision‐making</subject><issn>0021-8901</issn><issn>1365-2664</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkM1LwzAYh4Mobk7P3qRHL93y5qMfHgQZVScDRaYeQ9omM9q1M2kd--_t7Bx6MpcXkuf95ceD0CngIbRnBDTgPgkCNgTCKOyh_u5mH_UxJuBHMYYeOnLuDWMcc0oPUY-EPKDAaR_Rx-R5krxceLNqJW3uPOlZ4949q-bG1cp6urJeKevGysLL5NLUsjhGB1oWTp1s5wA9XSez8a0_vb-ZjK-mfkYiBr6mMYtilqZ5kANwRZUKNcEcONGZlJhizULGFVcpRISRIJc5jzDTWmpF0owO0GWXu2zShcozVdZtC7G0ZiHtWlTSiL8vpXkV8-pTsDiMAx63AefbAFt9NMrVYmFcpopClqpqnICIxyGwtlCLjjo0s5VzVundN4DFRrXYiBUbseJbdbtx9rvdjv9x2wK8A1amUOv_8sTdQ9IFfwEv8ogR</recordid><startdate>201506</startdate><enddate>201506</enddate><creator>Mace, Georgina M.</creator><creator>Hails, Rosemary S.</creator><creator>Cryle, Philip</creator><creator>Harlow, Julian</creator><creator>Clarke, Stewart J.</creator><creator>Manning, Peter</creator><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201506</creationdate><title>REVIEW: Towards a risk register for natural capital</title><author>Mace, Georgina M. ; Hails, Rosemary S. ; Cryle, Philip ; Harlow, Julian ; Clarke, Stewart J. ; Manning, Peter</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2841-f394894bbd6d115e3ee7f205152fcaa030f4745e5eb182426dad5804ffafe2bc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>ecosystem services</topic><topic>goods and benefits</topic><topic>limits</topic><topic>natural capital</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>targets</topic><topic>thresholds</topic><topic>Tools for Decision‐making</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mace, Georgina M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hails, Rosemary S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cryle, Philip</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harlow, Julian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clarke, Stewart J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manning, Peter</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>The Journal of applied ecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mace, Georgina M.</au><au>Hails, Rosemary S.</au><au>Cryle, Philip</au><au>Harlow, Julian</au><au>Clarke, Stewart J.</au><au>Manning, Peter</au><au>Manning, Peter</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>REVIEW: Towards a risk register for natural capital</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of applied ecology</jtitle><addtitle>J Appl Ecol</addtitle><date>2015-06</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>52</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>641</spage><epage>653</epage><pages>641-653</pages><issn>0021-8901</issn><eissn>1365-2664</eissn><abstract>Summary
Natural capital is essential for goods and services on which people depend. Yet pressures on the environment mean that natural capital assets are continuing to decline and degrade, putting such benefits at risk. Systematic monitoring of natural assets is a major challenge that could be both unaffordable and unmanageable without a way to focus efforts. Here we introduce a simple approach, based on the commonly used management tool of a risk register, to highlight natural assets whose condition places benefits at risk.
We undertake a preliminary assessment using a risk register for natural capital assets in the UK based solely on existing information. The status and trends of natural capital assets are assessed using asset–benefit relationships for ten kinds of benefits (food, fibre (timber), energy, aesthetics, freshwater (quality), recreation, clean air, wildlife, hazard protection and equable climate) across eight broad habitat types in the UK based on three dimensions of natural capital within each of the habitat types (quality, quantity and spatial configuration). We estimate the status and trends of benefits relative to societal targets using existing regulatory limits and policy commitments, and allocate scores of high, medium or low risk to asset–benefit relationships that are both subject to management and of concern.
The risk register approach reveals substantial gaps in knowledge about asset–benefit relationships which limit the scope and rigour of the assessment (especially for marine and urban habitats). Nevertheless, we find strong indications that certain assets (in freshwater, mountain, moors and heathland habitats) are at high risk in relation to their ability to sustain certain benefits (especially freshwater, wildlife and climate regulation).
Synthesis and applications. With directed data gathering, especially to monitor trends, improve metrics related to asset–benefit relationships, and improve understanding of nonlinearities and thresholds, the natural capital risk register could provide a useful tool. If updated regularly, it could direct monitoring efforts, focus research and protect and manage those natural assets where benefits are at highest risk.
With directed data gathering, especially to monitor trends, improve metrics related to asset–benefit relationships, and improve understanding of nonlinearities and thresholds, the natural capital risk register could provide a useful tool. If updated regularly, it could direct monitoring efforts, focus research and protect and manage those natural assets where benefits are at highest risk.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>John Wiley and Sons Inc</pub><pmid>27563153</pmid><doi>10.1111/1365-2664.12431</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0021-8901 |
ispartof | The Journal of applied ecology, 2015-06, Vol.52 (3), p.641-653 |
issn | 0021-8901 1365-2664 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4979659 |
source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Wiley Free Content; Wiley Online Library All Journals |
subjects | ecosystem services goods and benefits limits natural capital Review targets thresholds Tools for Decision‐making |
title | REVIEW: Towards a risk register for natural capital |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T07%3A38%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=REVIEW:%20Towards%20a%20risk%20register%20for%20natural%20capital&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20applied%20ecology&rft.au=Mace,%20Georgina%20M.&rft.date=2015-06&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=641&rft.epage=653&rft.pages=641-653&rft.issn=0021-8901&rft.eissn=1365-2664&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12431&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1859714152%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1859714152&rft_id=info:pmid/27563153&rfr_iscdi=true |