Neville Crossman

Dr. Neville Crossman


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

21Years (2006-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 July 2012 in Ecosystem Services
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
RGRudolf de Groot
Rudolf de Groot
LBLuke Brander
Luke Brander
SPSander van der Ploeg
Sander van der Ploeg
Robert CostanzaRobert Costanza
Robert Costanza
FBFlorence Bernard
Florence Bernard
PBPieter van Beukering
Pieter van Beukering
This paper gives an overview of the value of ecosystem services of 10 main biomes expressed in monetary units. In total, over 320 publications were screened covering over 300 case study locations. Approximately 1350 value estimates were coded and stored in a searchable Ecosystem Service Value Database (ESVD). A selection of 665 value estimates was used for the analysis. Acknowledging the uncertainties and contextual nature of any valuation, the analysis shows that the total value of ecosystem services is considerable and ranges between 490 int$/year for the total bundle of ecosystem services that can potentially be provided by an ?average? hectare of open oceans to almost 350,000 int$/year for the potential services of an ?average? hectare of coral reefs. More importantly, our results show that most of this value is outside the market and best considered as non-tradable public benefits. The continued over-exploitation of ecosystems thus comes at the expense of the livelihood of the poor and future generations. Given that many of the positive externalities of ecosystems are lost or strongly reduced after land use conversion better accounting for the public goods and services provided by ecosystems is crucial to improve decision making and institutions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable ecosystem management.Peer reviewe

11 July 2018 in Nature
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Brett BryanBrett Bryan
Brett Bryan
Lei GaoLei Gao
Lei Gao
YYYanqiong Ye
Yanqiong Ye
XSXiufeng Sun
Xiufeng Sun
jeff connorjeff connor
jeff connor
XHXiangyang Hou
Xiangyang Hou

1 June 2013 in Ecosystem Services
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
NCNeville Crossman
Neville Crossman
BBBenjamin Burkhard
Benjamin Burkhard
SNStoyan Nedkov
Stoyan Nedkov
LWLouise Willemen
Louise Willemen
KPKatalin Petz
Katalin Petz
JMJoachim Maes
Joachim Maes

1 January 2018 in Environmental Science & Policy
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
ACAnnette Cowie
Annette Cowie
BOBarron J. Orr
Barron J. Orr
VCVíctor M Castillo
Víctor M Castillo
PCPamela Chasek
Pamela Chasek
NCNeville Crossman
Neville Crossman
SWShelley Welton
Shelley Welton
© 2017 The health and productivity of global land resources are declining, while demand for those resources is increasing. The aim of land degradation neutrality (LDN) is to maintain or enhance land-based natural capital and its associated ecosystem services. The Scientific Conceptual Framework for Land Degradation Neutrality has been developed to provide a scientific approach to planning, implementing and monitoring LDN. The Science-Policy Interface of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) led the development of the conceptual framework, drawing in expertise from a diverse range of disciplines. The LDN conceptual framework focuses on the supporting processes required to deliver LDN, including biophysical and socio-economic aspects, and their interactions. Neutrality implies no net loss of the land-based natural capital relative to a reference state, or baseline. Planning for neutrality involves projecting the likely cumulative impacts of land use and land management decisions, then counterbalancing anticipated losses with measures to achieve equivalent gains. Counterbalancing should occur only within individual land types, distinguished by land potential, to ensure “like for like” exchanges. Actions to achieve LDN include sustainable land management (SLM) practices that avoid or reduce degradation, coupled with efforts to reverse degradation through restoration or rehabilitation of degraded land. The response hierarchy of Avoid > Reduce > Reverse land degradation articulates the priorities in planning LDN interventions. The implementation of LDN is managed at the landscape level through integrated land use planning, while achievement is assessed at national level. Monitoring LDN status involves quantifying the balance between the area of gains (significant positive changes in LDN indicators) and area of losses (significant negative changes in LDN indicators), within each land type across the landscape. The LDN indicators (and associated metrics) are land cover (physical land cover class), land productivity (net primary productivity, NPP) and carbon stocks (soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks). The LDN conceptual framework comprises five modules: A: Vision of LDN describes the intended outcome of LDN; B: Frame of Reference clarifies the LDN baseline; C: Mechanism for Neutrality explains the counterbalancing mechanism; D: Achieving Neutrality presents the theory of change (logic model) articulating the impact pathway; and E: Monitoring Neutrality presents the LDN indicators. Principles that govern application of the framework provide flexibility while reducing risk of unintended outcomes

1 December 2015 in Anthropocene
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PVPeter H. Verburg
Peter H. Verburg
NCNeville Crossman
Neville Crossman
EEErle C. Ellis
Erle C. Ellis
AHAndreas Heinimann
Andreas Heinimann
PHPatrick Hostert
Patrick Hostert
LZLin Zhen
Lin Zhen
Land systems are the result of human interactions with the natural environment. Understanding the drivers, state, trends and impacts of different land systems on social and natural processes helps to reveal how changes in the land system affect the functioning of the socio-ecological system as a whole and the tradeoff these changes may represent. The Global Land Project has led advances by synthesizing land systems research across different scales and providing concepts to further understand the feedbacks between social-and environmental systems, between urban and rural environments and between distant world regions. Land system science has moved from a focus on observation of change and understanding the drivers of these changes to a focus on using this understanding to design sustainable transformations through stakeholder engagement and through the concept of land governance. As land use can be seen as the largest geo-engineering project in which mankind has engaged, land system science can act as a platform for integration of insights from different disciplines and for translation of knowledge into action

1 March 2017 in Ecological Indicators
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
ANAlessandra La Notte
Alessandra La Notte
DDDalia D'Amato
Dalia D'Amato
HMHanna Mäkinen
Hanna Mäkinen
MPMaria Luisa Paracchini
Maria Luisa Paracchini
CLCamino Liquete
Camino Liquete
NCNeville Crossman
Neville Crossman
• Different ecosystem service definitions and interpretations create too much ambiguity. • The cascade model is used as framework, and Systems Ecology as theoretical basis. • The notions of biomass information and interaction enrich a refreshed conceptualization. • The cascade framework shifts from a ‘two dimensional’ to a ‘telescopic’ perspective. • This perspective can emphasize the ecological dimension and its complex reality.