Over the last few years, considerable attention has been devoted in the scientific literature and in the media to the concept of "ecosystem" services of soils. The monetary valuation of these services, demanded by many governments and international agencies, is often depicted as a necessary condition for the preservation of the natural capital that soils represent. This focus on soil services is framed in the context of a general interest in ecosystem services that allegedly started in 1997, and took off in earnest after 2005. The careful analysis of the literature proposed in this article shows that, in fact, interest in the multifunctionality of soils emerged already in the mid-60s, at a time when hundreds of researchers worldwide were trying, and largely failing, to figure out how to put price tags meaningfully on "nature's services." Soil scientists, since, have tried to better understand various functions/services of soils, as well as their possible relation with key soil characteristics, like biodiversity. They have also tried to make progress on the challenging quantification of soil functions/services. However, researchers have shown very little interest in monetary valuation, undoubtedly in part because it is not clear what economic and financial markets might do with prices of soil functions/services, even if we could somehow come up with such numbers, and because there is no assurance at all, based on neoclassical economic theory, that markets would manage soil resources optimally. Instead of monetary valuation, focus in the literature has been put on decision-making methods, like Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN), which do not require the systematic monetization of soil functions/services and easily accommodate deliberative approaches involving a variety of stakeholders. A prerequisite to progress in such public deliberations is that participants be very cognizant of the extreme relevance of soils to many aspects of their daily life. We argue that, as long as this prerequisite is satisfied, the combination of deliberative decision-making methods and of a sound scientific approach to the quantification of soil functions/services is a very promising avenue to manage effectively and ethically the priceless heritage that soils constitute.

/pdf/soil-ecosystem-services-and-natural-capital-critical-hg9ce99qup.pdf

Soil “Ecosystem” Services and Natural Capital: Critical Appraisal of Research on Uncertain Ground

Ecosystem services (ES), the benefits that humans obtain from nature, are of great importance for human well-being. The challenge of meeting the growing human demands for natural resources while sustaining essential ecosystem functions and resilience requires an in-depth understanding of the complex relationships between ES. These conflicting (‘trade-offs’) or synergistic (‘synergies’) relationships mean that changes in one ES can cause changes in other ES. By synthesizing the growing body of literature on ES relationships, we identified the following four main study objectives: (i) the identification and characterization of co-occurrences of ES, (ii) the identification of drivers that shape ES relationships, (iii) the exploration of biophysical constraints of landscapes and limitations to their multifunctionality, and (iv) the support of environmental planning, management and policy decisions. For each of these objectives we here describe the key concepts, including viewpoints of different disciplines, and highlight the major challenges that need to be addressed. We identified three cross-cutting themes being relevant to all four main types of studies. To help guiding researchers towards more systematic analyses of ES trade-offs and synergies, we conclude with an outlook on suggested future research priorities.

Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies : Main concepts, methods and the road ahead

The role of invasive alien species in shaping local livelihoods and human well-being: A review.

There is growing interest in ecosystem disservices, i.e. the negative effects of ecosystems on humans. The focus on disservices has been controversial because of the lack of clarity on how to disentangle ecosystem services and disservices related to human wellbeing. A perspective that considers both services and disservices is needed to inform objective decision-making. We propose a comprehensive typology of ecosystem disservices, and present a framework for integrating ecosystem services and disservices for human wellbeing linked to ecosystem functioning. Our treatment is underpinned by three key assumptions: (1) ecosystem attributes and functions are value-free; (2) the perception of benefits or nuisances are however dependent on societal context, and preferences and actions by societal actors may trigger, enhance or alleviate benefits or nuisances derived from ecosystems; and (3) the notion of disservices must account for the role of human management in assessments of ecosystem values, i.e. the social and technological measures that identify, protect, promote or restore desirable levels of services, and concurrently minimise, mitigate or adapt to disservices. We illustrate our ideas with examples from plant invasions as a complex social-ecological phenomenon.

https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_36C4B492C58E.P001/REF.pdf

Integrating ecosystem services and disservices: insights from plant invasions

People depend on functioning ecosystems, which provide benefits that support human existence and wellbeing. The relationship between people and nature has been experienced and conceptualized in mul...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26395916.2019.1669713

Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘nature’s contributions to people’

Research into the benefits that ecosystems contribute to human wellbeing has multiplied over the last few years following from the seminal contributions of the international Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. In comparison, the fact that some ecosystem goods and services undermine or harm human wellbeing has been seriously overlooked. These negative impacts have become known as ecosystem disservices. The neglect of ecosystem disservices is problematic because investments into the management or reduction of ecosystem disservices may yield better outcomes for human wellbeing, or at a lower investment, than management of ecosystem services. Additionally, management to optimise specific ecosystem services may simultaneously exacerbate associated disservices. We posit that one reason for the neglect of ecosystem disservices from the discourse and policy debates around ecosystems and human wellbeing is because there is no widely accepted definition or typology of ecosystem disservices. Here, we briefly examine current understandings of the term ecosystem disservices and offer a definition and a working typology to help generate debate, policy and management options around ecosystem disservices. We differentiate ecosystem disservices from natural hazards and social hazards, consider some of their inherent properties and then classify them into six categories. A variety of examples are used to illustrate the different types of, and management strategies to, ecosystem disservices.

N. Mtati

Papers

Unpacking Pandora’s Box: Understanding and Categorising Ecosystem Disservices for Environmental Management and Human Wellbeing