Ecosystem Services as a Contested Concept: a Synthesis of Critique and Counter-Arguments

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe and reflect on seven recurring critiques of the concept of ecosystem services and respective counter-arguments and contribute to a more structured debate between opponents and proponents of the ecosystem services concept.

Abstract: We describe and reflect on seven recurring critiques of the concept of ecosystem services and respective counter-arguments. First, the concept is criticized for being anthropocentric, whereas others argue that it goes beyond instrumental values. Second, some argue that the concept promotes an exploitative human-nature relationship, whereas others state that it reconnects society to ecosystems, emphasizing humanity's dependence on nature. Third, concerns exist that the concept may conflict with biodiversity conservation objectives, whereas others emphasize complementarity. Fourth, the concept is questioned because of its supposed focus on economic valuation, whereas others argue that ecosystem services science includes many values. Fifth, the concept is criticized for promoting commodification of nature, whereas others point out that most ecosystem services are not connected to market-based instruments. Sixth, vagueness of definitions and classifications are stated to be a weakness, whereas others argue that vagueness enhances transdisciplinary collaboration. Seventh, some criticize the normative nature of the concept, implying that all outcomes of ecosystem processes are desirable. The normative nature is indeed typical for the concept, but should not be problematic when acknowledged. By disentangling and contrasting different arguments we hope to contribute to a more structured debate between opponents and proponents of the ecosystem services concept.

Summary

Introduction

• The ecosystem services (ES) concept emphasizes the multiple benefits of ecosystems to humans (MA 2005), and its use can facilitate collaboration between scientists, professionals, decision-makers, and other stakeholders.
• It is increasingly contested and encounters multifaceted objections.
• The authors describe and reflect on seven critiques on the concept, summarize counter-arguments based on literature and intersubjective deliberation, and propose a way forward.
• The authors selected three types of critical arguments against the concept.
• The second type of argument deals with strategies for nature conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems, which relate to the science–policy interface.

Critique

• McCauley (2006) criticized the concept for implying that all outcomes of ecosystem processes are good or desirable.
• This masks the fact that some ecosystems provide “disservices” to humans, such as an increased risk of diseases (Zhang et al. 2007).
• Sagoff (2002) stated that this can lead to narrative “parables,” in which the positive nature of the ES concept remains largely unquestioned by environmental scientists.
• This means that the ES concept might be based on an idea of how the world should be: ecosystems are benevolent, hence protect them.

Counter-arguments

• (a) “Services” are the research interest Choosing terms that evoke positive associations, such as “services,” “goods,” and “benefits,” shows the optimistic intention as well as the research interest of scientists working with the ES concept.
• (b) ES as one of many normative concepts in environmental sciences Research on environmental problems, such as in the fields of sustainability (Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2006), conservation biology (Reyers et al. 2010), or ecological economics (Baumgärtner et al. 2008) has both a cognitive and a normative aim.
• Such “umbrella concepts” are postnormal (Funtowicz & Ravetz 1993), value-laden, and often strategic.
• Normative approach to science is rejected by some (e.g., Lackey 2007), others state that total value freedom is impossible, as science is often embedded in sociocultural contexts.
• The latter statement would characterize science based on the ES concept.

ES are not the same as PES

• Contrasting common misunderstandings, Wunder (2013) argues that PES schemes seldom use economic valuation, nor do they depend on markets.
• Instead, PES schemes enable participation and equitable conservation outcomes through their negotiated compensation logic.
• Furthermore, ES can be used as a basis for different policy instruments, and PES is just one way (Skroch & López-Hoffman 2010).
• Economics can help in designing experiments that study how policy instruments might work (e.g., incentives for collaboration between farmers to produce ES, or taxes paid by landowners for ES lost through land-use change).
• This is not necessarily connected to marketization.

ES as a platform for integration of different worldviews

• The environmental ethics behind the concept form a crucial point of contention (Jax et al. 2013).
• It could convince opponents of nature protection, especially in Western cultures.
• Many ES scientists who often also believe in intrinsic values of nature, advocate the ES concept as a strategy to get the conservation idea across in societal discourses by appealing to people’s own interests (e.g., Gretchen Daily in Marris 2009).
• A democratic representation of a broad range of instrumental values that are traded off against each other can be seen as an advantage over limiting decisions on intrinsic values (Justus et al. 2009).
• Stronger acknowledgment of existence aspects within the cultural services category (e.g., parallel to aesthetic or spiritual experience) could integrate use and nonuse considerations 518 Conservation Letters, November/December 2014, 7(6), 514–523 Copyright and Photocopying: C©2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. of ascribed values.

Biodiversity conservation and ES

• The authors have highlighted the possibilities for biodiversity conservation offered by the ES concept.
• Such combined research will help evaluate the constraints and opportunities for biodiversity conservation within ES-based management, as well as for consideration of ES within biodiversity-based management.
• Such value indicators will vary, depending on the decision-making process for which they are designed.
• Measurements of ES in biophysical terms can subsequently strengthen economic and sociocultural cost–benefit analysis or an informed deliberative discourse.
• Hence, there are reasons to be hesitant about ES approaches that focus solely on the regulating power of markets, as there are potential negative impacts of ES markets, for instance on the poor (Landell-Mills & Porras 2002).

ES could foster transdisciplinary research processes

• One of the main characteristics of the ES concept is its interdisciplinary nature, i.e., it offers common ground for debate and methodological progress in different scientific fields.
• At present, this does not seem to be the case, which might be related to the flexibility and ambiguity of the concept.
• The ES concept faces additional critique, most of which is aimed at its application in land management and science.
• One critique deals with the maximization of a single service at the expense of other services (Bennett et al. 2009).

Critique Arguments Counter-arguments Way forward

• Taking a broad systems perspective, which emphasizes the multiple services of ecosystems, lies at the core of the concept.
• Maximizing a single service, in contrast, is an implementation of interests and values of certain actors that favor this specific service, which is based on power distribution and happens irrespective of the use of the ES concept.
• A pitfall is that ES assessments regularly compare and bundle resources from intensively managed ecosystems with those of near-natural ecosystems, without making the relative contribution of ecosystems to the provision of ES explicit enough (Power 2010).
• Some, for instance, see products resulting from intensive agriculture and aquaculture as an ES, although the contribution of natural processes (fertile soil, available water) here is relatively low.
• The authors argue that the concept should be limited to the contribution of natural processes to the production of these “man-made” goods and not consider these goods themselves as ES.

Conclusion

• Critical debates are essential for the development of the ES concept in science and practice.
• The quality and outcome of an informed debate depends on inputs of both opponents and proponents of the concept.
• The authors perceived that in a rising number of critical articles on the ES concept, most authors sharpen or build on each other’s critiques, rather than addressing the origin of the critique and exploring potential refutations.
• Unraveling and contrasting different arguments can be seen as a first step toward an informed and structured dialogue between opponents and proponents of the concept.

Figures

Table 1 Overview of the seven points of critique against the ES concept, responses to these critiques, and an envisioned way forward

Full text

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (http
s
://dare.uva.nl)
UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)
Ecosystem Services as a Contested Concept: A Synthesis of Critique and
Counter-arguments
Schötter, M.; van der Zanden, E.H.; van Oudenhoven, A.P.E.; Remme, R.P.; Serna-Chavez,
H.M.; de Groot, R.S.; Opdam, P.
DOI
10.1111/conl.12091
Publication date
2014
Document Version
Final published version
Published in
Conservation Letters
License
Unspecified
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):
Schötter, M., van der Zanden, E. H., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Remme, R. P., Serna-
Chavez, H. M., de Groot, R. S., & Opdam, P. (2014). Ecosystem Services as a Contested
Concept: A Synthesis of Critique and Counter-arguments.
Conservation Letters
,
7
(6), 514-
523. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12091
General rights
It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s)
and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open
content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please
let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material
inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter
to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You
will be contacted as soon as possible.
Download date:09 Aug 2022

REVIEWS
Ecosystem Services as a Contested Concept: A Synthesis
of Critique and Counter-Arguments
Matthias Schr
¨
oter
1,2
, Emma H. van der Zanden
3
, Alexander P.E. van Oudenhoven
1
, Roy P. Remme
1
,
Hector M. Serna-Chavez
4
, Rudolf S. de Groot
1
,&PaulOpdam
5,6
1
Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
2
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Oslo Centre for Interdisciplinary Environmental and Social Research (CIENS), Gaustadall
´
een 21,
0349 Oslo, Norway
3
Institute for Environmental Studies, Amsterdam Global Change Institute, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1087, 1081 HVAmsterdam,
The Netherlands
4
Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 94248, 1090 GE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
5
Land Use Planning Group, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands
6
ALTERRA, Nature and Society group, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands
Keywords
Boundary object; classification; economic
valuation, environmental ethics; payments for
ecosystem services; philosophy of science;
transdisciplinary research; vagueness.
Correspondence
Matthias Schr
¨
oter, Environmental Systems
Analysis Group, Wageningen University, PO Box
47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Tel: +31 (0) 317-48 57 30;
fax: +31 (0) 317-41 90 00.
E-mail: matthias.schroter@wur.nl
Received
17 July 2013
Accepted
21 January 2014
Editor
Andrew Rosenberg
doi: 10.1111/conl.12091
Abstract
We describe and reflect on seven recurring critiques of the concept of ecosys-
tem services and respective counter-arguments. First, the concept is criticized
for being anthropocentric, whereas others argue that it goes beyond instru-
mental values. Second, some argue that the concept promotes an exploitative
human–nature relationship, whereas others state that it reconnects society to
ecosystems, emphasizing humanity’s dependence on nature. Third, concerns
exist that the concept may conflict with biodiversity conservation objectives,
whereas others emphasize complementarity. Fourth, the concept is questioned
because of its supposed focus on economic valuation, whereas others argue
that ecosystem services science includes many values. Fifth, the concept is
criticized for promoting commodification of nature, whereas others point out
that most ecosystem services are not connected to market-based instruments.
Sixth, vagueness of definitions and classifications are stated to be a weakness,
whereas others argue that vagueness enhances transdisciplinary collaboration.
Seventh, some criticize the normative nature of the concept, implying that all
outcomes of ecosystem processes are desirable. The normative nature is indeed
typical for the concept, but should not be problematic when acknowledged. By
disentangling and contrasting different arguments we hope to contribute to a
more structured debate between opponents and proponents of the ecosystem
services concept.
Introduction
The ecosystem services (ES) concept emphasizes the mul-
tiple benefits of ecosystems to humans (MA 2005), and
its use can facilitate collaboration between scientists, pro-
fessionals, decision-makers, and other stakeholders. Al-
though the concept has gained considerable interest in-
side and outside of science, it is increasingly contested
and encounters multifaceted objections. We describe and
reflect on seven critiques on the concept, summarize
counter-arguments based on literature and intersubjec-
tive deliberation, and propose a way forward. R ather than
providing an exhaustive overview, we synthesize recur-
ring critiques that were distilled from the rapidly ex-
panding literature on ES, discussions during conferences,
and conversations with colleagues from different scien-
tific disciplines.
We selected three types of critical arguments against
the concept. The first one covers ethical considerations,
which relate to how humans interact with nature. We
514 Conservation Letters, November/December 2014, 7(6), 514–523 Copyright and Photocopying:
C
2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

M. Schr
¨
oter et al. Ecosystem services as a contested concept
address critique regarding environmental ethics and re-
garding the human–nature relationship. The second type
of argument deals with strategies for nature conservation
and sustainable use of ecosystems, which relate to the
science–policy interface. These arguments include sup-
posed conflicts with the concept of biodiversity, issues re-
lated to valuation, and commodification and Payments
for Ecosystem Services (PES). The third type of argument
addresses the current state of ES as a scientific approach.
We discuss issues of vagueness of terms and definitions as
well as optimistic assumptions and normative aims.
Environmental ethics
Critique
The ES concept is criticized for its anthropocentric focus
and exclusion of the intrinsic value of different entities in
nature (McCauley 2006; Sagoff 2008; Redford & Adams
2009). This critique has its roots in a long-standing, un-
resolved debate within environmental ethics. This debate
deals with the question whether our actions toward na-
ture should be based on an anthropocentric view that
constitutes instrumental values of nature, or whether
they should be based on biocentric reasoning that con-
stitutes intrinsic values of nature (Krebs 1999; Callicott
2006; Jax et al. 2013).
Counter-arguments
(a) The ES concept includes ethical arguments
Jax et al. (2013) have pointed out that it is misleading to
juxtapose an ethical position with the ES concept, as en-
vironmental ethics also includes anthropocentric values
(Krebs 1999; Callicott 2006). In our world, where most
ecosystems are managed, anthropocentric values provide
additional arguments to address the ongoing ecological
crisis (Reid et al. 2006; Skroch & L
´
opez-Hoffman 2010).
The ES concept is not meant to replace biocentric argu-
ments, but bundles a broad variety of anthropocentric
arguments for protection and sustainable human use of
ecosystems (Chan et al. 2012b; Luck et al. 2012). Such ar-
guments include ensuring the fulfilment of basic needs
of current and future generations through provisioning,
regulating and cultural ES.
(b) The ES concept might allow for integration
of intrinsic values
Broad values, which contribute to a genuinely good life in
an Aristotelian sense, go beyond considering nature as a
toolbox for satisfying material needs (Krebs 1999). For in-
stance, aesthetic contemplation of an ecosystem requires
the valued object to be valuable “in itself,” i.e., for its own
purpose while at the same time being valued by a hu-
man being (Krebs 1999). The cultural ES category shows
overlaps between pure anthropocentric and intrinsic val-
ues. Certain forms of psychospiritual values (beauty, awe,
knowledge) are instrumental values but may also “be
lumped with intrinsic value” (Callicott 2006). Many peo-
ple agree with the idea that nature has other purposes
than just providing humans with the means and condi-
tions to live well physically. This is particularly true for,
but not limited to, ecosystems that have not been cul-
turally shaped or degraded. People appreciate species and
ecosystems simply because of their existence, an idea that
has been acknowledged by many ES scientists (e.g., Chan
et al. 2012b; Reyers et al. 2012). Although existence value
is still anthropocentric, it contains elements of intrinsic
value. The valued object is appreciated for what it is in
itself—as an object of awe and respect.
Human–nature relationship
Critique
Several scholars warn that the economic production
metaphor of ES could promote an exploitative human–
nature relationship (Fairhead et al. 2012; Raymond et al.
2013), in which ES are seen as a “green box of consump-
tive nature” (Brockington et al. 2008). ES will turn peo-
ple into consumers that are increasingly separated and
alienated from nature (Robertson 2012). Furthermore,
the prevailing transactional nature of ES might neglect
societal demand and access. This would not account for,
or might even contradict other forms of human–nature
relationships such as holistic perspectives of indigenous
and long-resident peoples (Fairhead et al. 2012).
Counter-arguments
The ES concept can be used to reconnect society
and nature
Society has become increasingly disconnected from na-
ture, especially in the Western world, and the ES con-
cept can challenge dominant “exploitative” practices. For
instance, a more holistic perspective toward the use of
nature can be offered by emphasizing sustainable provi-
sion of multiple ES. Therefore, using the concept provides
the potential to build bridges across the modernization
gap between consumers and ecosystems. It offers a way
to reconceptualize humanity’s relationship with nature.
ES reflect human dependence on Earth’s life-support
system by including reciprocal feedbacks between
Conservation Letters, November/December 2014, 7(6), 514–523 Copyright and Photocopying:
C
2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
515

Ecosystem services as a contested concept M. Schr
¨
oter et al.
humans and their environment (Borgstr
¨
om Hansson &
Wackernagel 1999; Folke et al. 2011; Raymond et al.
2013). Nonmaterial, intangible values that are important
in holistic perspectives of nature can be captured by the
cultural services domain, to include peoples’ diverse val-
ues and needs.
Conflicts with the concept
of biodiversity
Critique
An important concern is that ES are used as a conser-
vation goal at the expense of biodiversity-based conser-
vation. For instance, planning and executing conserva-
tion strategies that are based on ES provision might not
safeguard biodiversity, but only divert attention and in-
terest (e.g., McCauley 2006; Ridder 2008; Vira & Adams
2009). Some see inconclusive evidence of a “win–win”
scenario for ES and biodiversity protection (Thompson &
Starzomski 2007; Vira & Adams 2009). Empirical proof
of relationships between ES provision and components
of biodiversity is perceived as weak, which is a cause for
concern (Cardinale et al. 2006; Ridder 2008; Norgaard
2010).
Counter-arguments
(a) Conceptual overlaps between ES
and biodiversity
Biodiversity and ES are two complex concepts, neither
of which can be fully captured in a single measure. How-
ever, there are important overlaps between both concepts
(Mace et al. 2012; Reyers et al. 2012). The frameworks
by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) and
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)
have been influential in ES science and communica-
tion to policy-makers. Both frameworks have acknowl-
edged overlaps between biodiversity and ES by includ-
ing aspects of biodiversity within the habitat, support-
ing, and cultural service categories (MA 2005; De Groot
et al. 2010). For instance, the habitat service category of
TEEB includes the maintenance of life cycles and migra-
tory species, and of genetic diversity. In addition, other
components of biodiversity are included in the cultural
and amenity service category of TEEB and MA, through
the components’ r oles in the ES cultural heritage, spiri-
tual and artistic inspiration, and aesthetic appreciation.
(b) Biodiversity underpins ES
Clarifying biodiversity–ES relationships is a complex task.
This is because of the stochastic environment in which
they are embedded, and the difficulty to identify and
measure various components of biodiversity and ecosys-
tem conditions and processes that underlie ES provision.
Nevertheless, there is a solid, growing body of empirical
evidence on how different components of biodiversity
underpin the ecosystem conditions and processes that in-
fluence ES provision ( e.g., Balvanera et al. 2006; Cardi-
nale et al. 2006; Hector & Bagchi 2007). Evidence suggests
that high levels of biodiversity are necessary to maintain
multiple processes at multiple locations and over time (Is-
bell et al. 2011). Cardinale et al. (2012) suggest that for
certain provisioning and regulating services there is suffi-
cient evidence that biodiversity directly influences these
or strongly correlates with them. However, they also state
that for some ES there is still insufficient data to assess
their relationship with biodiversity.
(c) The ES concept can support biodiversity
conservation
Several ES-based initiatives aim to broaden biodiver-
sity conservation practices, which can help strengthen
arguments and tools for protecting ecosystems (e.g.,
Balvanera et al. 2001; Armsworth et al. 2007). Some of
these initiatives, including international agreements such
as REDD+ and the CBD’s Biodiversity 2020 targets, com-
prise the principle that biodiversity can be, directly or
indirectly, safeguarded by managing, restoring or en-
hancing ES provision. This principle is based on the
identified conceptual overlaps, the effect of biodiver-
sity on ecosystem functioning, geographical overlaps be-
tween hotspots of biodiversity and ES, and evidence
that restoring degraded ecosystems can have positive
effects on biodiversity and ES provision (e.g., Benayas
et al. 2009). In practice, however, most ES-based projects
do not monitor whether their actions also safeguard
biodiversity.
ES valuation
Critique
The ES concept is contested because it comprises eco-
nomic framing, and ES assessments often involve eco-
nomic valuation (e.g., McCauley 2006; Sagoff 2008;
Turnhout et al. 2013). A summary of this critique can be
found in Gom
´
ez-Baggethun & Ruiz-P
´
erez (2011). Some
argue that if we start to value ES we might as well eco-
nomically value the sun, wind, and gravity (Sagoff 2008).
There is also considerable critique on specific economic
valuation methods (e.g., Chee 2004), which we do not
address here.
516 Conservation Letters, November/December 2014, 7(6), 514–523 Copyright and Photocopying:
C
2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

M. Schr
¨
oter et al. Ecosystem services as a contested concept
Counter-arguments
(a) Valuation of ES leads to more informed decisions
Humans make choices and thus implicit value judgments
about the state of ecosystems every day. Economic as-
pects are involved in these choices, because economists
study the choices people make on how to utilize re-
sources that have alternative uses (Robbins 1932). Ar-
guments that compare ES valuation with the valuation
of wind, sun or gravity can be dismissed, because these
phenomena are not scarce and humans usually cannot
make choices about their availability. Different types of
economic valuation can be applied to ES, of which mon-
etary valuation is the most common. It helps to raise
awareness about the relative importance of ES compared
to man-made services, and highlights the undervalua-
tion of positive and negative externalities. Monetary val-
uation thus provides additional arguments for decision-
making processes and does not replace ethical, ecolog-
ical, or other nonmonetary arguments (De Groot et al.
2012). Despite its methodological shortcomings, mone-
tary valuation enables the calculation of the total sum of
multiple ES, because of the same unit of measurement.
This enables comparisons, for example between the value
of multiple ES from a natural ecosystem (e.g., forest,
wetland) and that of a converted ecosystem (e.g., crop-
land, aquaculture farms). Such comparisons can help to
highlight trade-offs between private benefits and public
costs as well as short-term and long-term consequences.
(b) Alternatives to economic valuation
It is a common misconception that monetary valuation is
the only method to compare ES, and that monetization is
included in each ES assessment (Chan et al. 2012a; Chan
et al. 2012b). Biophysical assessments of ES can also be
used as an input for deliberative decision-making. The ES
concept can be used to assess human well-being accord-
ing to the capability approach, which deals with people’s
freedom to live a good life (Polishchuk & Rauschmayer
2012).
In several settings, such as community-based gover-
nance, trade-off analyses with both monetary and socio-
cultural (i.e., nonmonetary) valuation of nature are being
used to account for the limitations of a single method of
valuation and different economic views in multiple ge-
ographies (G
´
omez-Baggethun & Ruiz-P
´
erez 2011). The
concept can be used to involve stakeholder perceptions
about ES in decision-making without economic valua-
tion (Lamarque et al. 2011), while considering carefully
that these perceptions vary with context and scale (Hauck
et al. 2013).
Commodification and PES
Critique
There are fears that economic valuation would lead to
“selling out on nature” (McCauley 2006) and commodi-
fication (Turnhout et al. 2013). Some see an increased fo-
cus on PES schemes, stating that the ES approach is based
on “the assumption that such remuneration will ensure
their provision” (Fairhead et al. 2012), whereas others
consider the ES concept and PES as the same (Redford
& Adams 2009).
Counter-arguments
ES are not the same as PES
Contrasting common misunderstandings, Wunder (2013)
argues that PES schemes seldom use economic valuation,
nor do they depend on markets. Instead, PES schemes en-
able participation and equitable conservation outcomes
through their negotiated compensation logic. Further-
more, ES can be used as a basis for different policy instru-
ments, and PES is just one way (Skroch & L
´
opez-Hoffman
2010). Other policy instruments exist for the regulation
of benefits and associated losses from ecosystems. Eco-
nomics can help in designing experiments that study how
policy instruments might work (e.g., incentives for col-
laboration between farmers to produce ES, or taxes paid
by landowners for ES lost through land-use change). This
is not necessarily connected to marketization.
Vagueness
Critique
Most definitions and classifications of ES are based on
the MA (2005). Although many authors have proposed
ways to define ES more consistently, these attempts have
been criticized for being impractical, open to interpreta-
tion, and inconsistent (Nahlik et al. 2012). As a result of
the ambiguity around the concept, the term ES has be-
come a popular “catch-all” phrase that is used to rep-
resent ecosystem functions or properties, goods, contri-
butions to human well-being, or even economic benefits
(Nahlik et al. 2012).
Counter-arguments
(a) Definitions tend to continuously improve
The MA has kept the definition of ES intentionally vague
(Carpenter et al. 2009) and this tends to be appropriate for
most ES assessments (Costanza 2008). Imprecision has
often spurred creativity and led to r efined or new ideas
Conservation Letters, November/December 2014, 7(6), 514–523 Copyright and Photocopying:
C
2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
517

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What have the authors contributed in "Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counterarguments" ?

In this paper, the authors present three types of critical arguments against the ecosystem services ( ES ) concept: ethical considerations, which relate to how humans interact with nature, issues related to valuation, and commodification and payments for Ecosystem Services ( PES ). 

Q2. What is the anthropocentric framing of the ES concept?

The anthropocentric framing of the ES concept could be used for broad argumentation in support of conservation and sustainable use. 

Q3. What is the main characteristic of ES?

Whether ES will play a role as a boundary object depends on whether it can be taken up by societal actors and incorporated in local environmental governance processes. 

Q4. What can be done to help in designing experiments?

Economics can help in designing experiments that study how policy instruments might work (e.g., incentives for collaboration between farmers to produce ES, or taxes paid by landowners for ES lost through land-use change). 

Q5. What role do scientists play in the design of suitable policy instruments?

Alternatives to monetary valuation based on the ES conceptScientists have an important role in contributing to the design of suitable policy instruments. 

Q6. What is needed to elucidate the relationships between the provision of ES and biodiversity?

More long-term research, such as biodiversity monitoring embedded in ES management and restoration schemes, is needed to elucidate the relationships between the provision of ES and biodiversity. 

Q7. What is the purpose of the ES concept?

A form of valuation by humans is needed to establish the existence and importance of ES so that relevant ES can be selected for a scientific assessment or in participative planning processes. 

Q8. What does the author think of ES?

for instance, see products resulting from intensive agriculture and aquaculture as an ES, although the contribution of natural processes (fertile soil, available water) here is relatively low. 

Q9. What are the main frameworks used in ES science?

The frameworks by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) have been influential in ES science and communication to policy-makers.