Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
ClimateKG
Search
Search
English
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-3
(section)
IPCC
Discussion
English
Read
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
In other projects
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===== 3.5.4.3.3 Linking eosystem services with human livelihoods ===== Incorporating measures of ecosystem services into assessments is key in integrating environmental, economic, and social policies that build resilience to climate change in polar regions (CAFF, 2015a <sup>[[#fn:r2322|2322]]</sup> ; Malinauskaite et al., 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r2323|2323]]</sup> ; Sarkki and Acosta García, 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r2324|2324]]</sup> ) ( ''high confidence'' ). Currently, there is limited recognition of the wide range of benefits people receive from polar ecosystems and a lack of management tools that demonstrate their benefits in decision-making processes (CAFF, 2015a <sup>[[#fn:r2325|2325]]</sup> ). The concept of ecosystem services is increasingly used in the Arctic, yet there continues to be significant knowledge gaps in mapping, valuation, and the study of the social implications of changes in ecosystem services. There are few Arctic examples of the application of ecosystem services in management (Malinauskaite et al., 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r2326|2326]]</sup> ). A strategy of ecosystem stewardship, therefore, is to maintain a continued flow of ecosystem services, recognising how their benefits provide incentives for preserving biodiversity, while also ensuring options for sustainable development and ecosystem-based adaptation (Chapin III et al., 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r2327|2327]]</sup> ; Guerry et al., 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r2328|2328]]</sup> ; Díaz et al., 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r2329|2329]]</sup> ). Arctic stewardship opportunities at landscape, seascape, and community scales to a great extent lie in supporting culturally engrained (often traditional indigenous) values of respect for land and animals, and reliance on the local environment through the sharing of knowledge and power between local users of renewable resources and agencies responsible for managing resources (Mengerink et al., 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r2330|2330]]</sup> ) ( ''high confidence'' ). In the Antarctic, ecosystem stewardship is dependent on international formally-defined and informally-enacted cooperation, and the recognition of its service to the global community (Section 3.5.3.2). <span id="synopsis"></span>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to ClimateKG may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
ClimateKG:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-3
(section)
Add languages
Add topic