Skip to main content
Article
Response to Kabisch and Colleagues
BioScience
  • Jesse T. Rieb, McGill University
  • Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer, Stanford University
  • Gretchen C. Daily, Stanford University
  • Paul R. Armsworth, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
  • Katrin Böhning-Gaese, Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre
  • Aletta Bonn, German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research
  • Graeme S. Cumming, James Cook University
  • Felix Eigenbrod, University of Southampton
  • Volker Grimm, German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research
  • Bethanna M. Jackson, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Alexandra Marques, German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research
  • Subhrendu K. Pattanayak, Duke University
  • Henrique M. Pereira, German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research
  • Garry D. Peterson, Stockholm University
  • Taylor H. Ricketts, University of Vermont
  • Brian E. Robinson, McGill University
  • Matthias Schröter, German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research
  • Lisa A. Schulte, Iowa State University
  • Ralf Seppelt, UFZ–Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research
  • Monica G. Turner, University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Elena M. Bennett, McGill University
Document Type
Response or Comment
Publication Version
Accepted Manuscript
Publication Date
3-1-2018
DOI
10.1093/biosci/bix154
Abstract

Kabisch et al. (2017) reviewed our call for advances in ecosystem service (ES) decisionsupport tools from an urban perspective, and explored how the three research frontiers we identified should be considered in cities. We appreciate how they build on our original ideas, and welcome this as a good example of how the general principles we developed in the original paper can be applied and adapted to specific contexts. In fact, we believe that similar points about the importance of adapting our general principles for specific social-ecological systems could be made for many other systems, such as marine ecosystems or managed forestry systems. The specific characteristics of these different systems also provide opportunities to expand on current ES knowledge and improve ES management tools. For example, as Kabisch et al. (2017) point out, cities are unique due to their relatively small area and high population density, which may make them more ideal than other systems for understanding certain aspects of the linkages between humans and nature and for implementing this understanding in management tools. We take the opportunity to respond to the ideas presented by Kabisch et al. and thus continue the conversation around urban ES.

Comments

This is a manuscript of a response published as Rieb, Jesse T., Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer, Gretchen C. Daily, Paul R. Armsworth, Katrin Böhning-Gaese, Aletta Bonn, Graeme S. Cumming et al. "Response to Kabisch and Colleagues." BioScience 68, no. 3 (2018): 167-168. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix154. Posted with permission.

Copyright Owner
The Author(s)
Language
en
File Format
application/pdf
Citation Information
Jesse T. Rieb, Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer, Gretchen C. Daily, Paul R. Armsworth, et al.. "Response to Kabisch and Colleagues" BioScience Vol. 68 Iss. 3 (2018) p. 167 - 168
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/lisa_schulte/79/