In 1974 an article appeared in Science magazine with the dry-sounding title “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases” by a pair of psychologists who were not well known outside their discipline of decision theory. In it Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman introduced the world to Prospect Theory, which mapped out how humans actually behave when faced with decisions about gains and losses, in contrast to how economists assumed that people behave. Prospect Theory turned Economics on its head by demonstrating through a series of ingenious experiments that people are much more concerned with losses than they are with gains, and that framing a choice from one perspective or the other will result in decisions that are exactly the opposite of each other, even if the outcomes are monetarily the same. Prospect Theory led cognitive psychology in a new direction that began to uncover other human biases in thinking that are probably not learned but are part of our brain’s wiring.

Thinking fast and slow.

In 1997, the global value of ecosystem services was estimated to average $33 trillion/yr in 1995 $US ($46 trillion/yr in 2007 $US). In this paper, we provide an updated estimate based on updated unit ecosystem service values and land use change estimates between 1997 and 2011. We also address some of the critiques of the 1997 paper. Using the same methods as in the 1997 paper but with updated data, the estimate for the total global ecosystem services in 2011 is $125 trillion/yr (assuming updated unit values and changes to biome areas) and $145 trillion/yr (assuming only unit values changed), both in 2007 $US. From this we estimated the loss of eco-services from 1997 to 2011 due to land use change at $4.3–20.2 trillion/yr, depending on which unit values are used. Global estimates expressed in monetary accounting units, such as this, are useful to highlight the magnitude of eco-services, but have no specific decision-making context. However, the underlying data and models can be applied at multiple scales to assess changes resulting from various scenarios and policies. We emphasize that valuation of eco-services (in whatever units) is not the same as commodification or privatization. Many eco-services are best considered public goods or common pool resources, so conventional markets are often not the best institutional frameworks to manage them. However, these services must be (and are being) valued, and we need new, common asset institutions to better take these values into account.

/pdf/changes-in-the-global-value-of-ecosystem-services-1l97k9k1qb.pdf

Changes in the global value of ecosystem services

It has been 20 years since two seminal publications about ecosystem services came out: an edited book by Gretchen Daily and an article in Nature by a group of ecologists and economists on the value of the world’s ecosystem services. Both of these have been very highly cited and kicked off an explosion of research, policy, and applications of the idea, including the establishment of this journal. This article traces the history leading up to these publications and the subsequent debates, research, institutions, policies, on-the-ground actions, and controversies they triggered. It also explores what we have learned during this period about the key issues: from definitions to classification to valuation, from integrated modelling to public participation and communication, and the evolution of institutions and governance innovation. Finally, it provides recommendations for the future. In particular, it points to the weakness of the mainstream economic approaches to valuation, growth, and development. It concludes that the substantial contributions of ecosystem services to the sustainable wellbeing of humans and the rest of nature should be at the core of the fundamental change needed in economic theory and practice if we are to achieve a societal transformation to a sustainable and desirable future.

Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?

Human population growth, economic development, climate change, and the need to close the electricity access gap have stimulated the search for new sources of renewable energy. In response to this need, major new initiatives in hydropower development are now under way. At least 3,700 major dams, each with a capacity of more than 1 MW, are either planned or under construction, primarily in countries with emerging economies. These dams are predicted to increase the present global hydroelectricity capacity by 73 % to about 1,700 GW. Even such a dramatic expansion in hydropower capacity will be insufficient to compensate for the increasing electricity demand. Furthermore, it will only partially close the electricity gap, may not substantially reduce greenhouse gas emission (carbon dioxide and methane), and may not erase interdependencies and social conflicts. At the same time, it is certain to reduce the number of our planet’s remaining free-flowing large rivers by about 21 %. Clearly, there is an urgent need to evaluate and to mitigate the social, economic, and ecological ramifications of the current boom in global dam construction.

A global boom in hydropower dam construction

It has been frequently stated, but without provision of supporting evidence, that the world has lost 50% of its wetlands (or 50% since 1900 AD). This review of 189 reports of change in wetland area finds that the reported long-term loss of natural wetlands averages between 54–57% but loss may have been as high as 87% since 1700 AD. There has been a much (3.7 times) faster rate of wetland loss during the 20th and early 21st centuries, with a loss of 64–71% of wetlands since 1900 AD. Losses have been larger and faster for inland than coastal natural wetlands. Although the rate of wetland loss in Europe has slowed, and in North America has remained low since the 1980s, the rate has remained high in Asia, where large-scale and rapid conversion of coastal and inland natural wetlands is continuing. It is unclear whether the investment by national governments in the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands has influenced these rates of loss. There is a need to improve the knowledge of change in wetland areas worldwide, particularly for Africa, the Neotropics and Oceania, and to improve the consistency of data on change in wetland areas in published papers and reports.

How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area

This burgeoning world is now in need of institutions capable of managing the thousands of projects currently devoted to these issues. One such project can be found at the Baviaanskloof Mega Reserve in South Africa. The Mega Reserve is a World Heritage site and nature reserve and includes private and community land. Over several decades, areas across the reserve

/pdf/a-global-partnership-for-ecosystem-services-1d6l56yv53.pdf

A Global Partnership for Ecosystem Services

/pdf/a-short-history-of-the-ecosystem-services-concept-4ukiflti0q.pdf

Rudolph de Groot

Papers

Changes in the global value of ecosystem services

Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?

A Global Partnership for Ecosystem Services

A short history of the ecosystem services concept