Show simple item record

resumen

Abstract
Ecosystem services are only able to make a contribution to human well-being if they reach the users or beneficiaries. Therefore, it is important to differentiate the potential contributions of ecosystems (ecosystem service supply) from the fraction of the supply that is captured or used. This is even more relevant when the supply and capture of the service occur in different locations. In this case, propagation models are needed to identify who wins and [ver mas...]
dc.contributor.authorBarral, Maria Paula
dc.contributor.authorLaterra, Pedro
dc.contributor.authorMaceira, Nestor Oscar
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-09T14:41:52Z
dc.date.available2019-05-09T14:41:52Z
dc.date.issued2019-07-15
dc.identifier.issn0301-4797
dc.identifier.otherhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.03.099
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479719304025#!
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/5080
dc.description.abstractEcosystem services are only able to make a contribution to human well-being if they reach the users or beneficiaries. Therefore, it is important to differentiate the potential contributions of ecosystems (ecosystem service supply) from the fraction of the supply that is captured or used. This is even more relevant when the supply and capture of the service occur in different locations. In this case, propagation models are needed to identify who wins and who loses when land-use policies are applied. In this study, we developed an integrated approach for the analysis of supply, propagation and capture patterns of flood-mitigation ecosystem service in rural landscapes and we illustrated how to apply it for the identification of winning and losing farmers under alternative land-use scenarios. The proposed approach allowed us to differentiate farms according to their flood mitigation capacity and to estimate how that capacity could be affected by changes in land use. It also highlights the importance of considering the propagation and capture of ecosystem services in evaluations. Reliable methodological developments are scarce. Therefore, flexible tools such as this proposal are necessary to fit the available information and the context to be analyzed.eng
dc.formatapplication/pdfeng
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevieres_AR
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccesses_AR
dc.sourceJournal of environmental management 240 : 168-17615.(June 2019)es_AR
dc.subjectUtilización de la Tierraes_AR
dc.subjectLand Useeng
dc.subjectPlanificaciónes_AR
dc.subjectPlanningeng
dc.subjectServicios de los Ecosistemases_AR
dc.subjectEcosystem Serviceseng
dc.subjectReducción de Riesgoes_AR
dc.subjectRisk Reductioneng
dc.subjectInundaciónes_AR
dc.subjectFloodingeng
dc.subjectLa Pampa
dc.titleFlood mitigation ecosystem service in landscapes of Argentina's Pampas: identifying winning and losing farmerseng
dc.typeinfo:ar-repo/semantics/artículoes_AR
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleeng
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioneng
dc.description.origenEEA Balcarcees_AR
dc.description.filFil: Barral, María Paula. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Laterra, Pedro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires; Argentina. Fundación Bariloche, San Carlos de Bariloche; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Maceira, Néstor. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce, Argentinaes_AR
dc.subtypecientifico


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

common

Show simple item record