This is a repository copy of Getting the measure of ecosystem services : a
social–ecological approach.
White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/165332/
Version: Published Version
Article:
Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Cumming, G.S. et al. (3 more authors) (2013) Getting the measure
of ecosystem services : a social–ecological approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 11 (5). pp. 268-273. ISSN 1540-9295
https://doi.org/10.1890/120144
© 2013 The Ecological Society of America. Reproduced in accordance with the publisher's
self-archiving policy. (Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Cumming, G.S., Elmqvist, T., Hejnowicz, A.P.
and Polasky, S. (2013), Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological
approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11: 268-273. doi:10.1890/120144).
eprints@whiterose.ac.uk
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/
Reuse
Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless
indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by
national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of
the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record
for the item.
Takedown
If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by
emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.
Frontiers in Ecology
and the
Environment
Getting the measure of ecosystem
services: a social–ecological approach
Belinda Reyers, Reinette Biggs, Graeme S Cumming, Thomas Elmqvist, Adam P Hejnowicz,
and Stephen Polasky
Front Ecol Environ 2013; doi:10.1890/120144
This article is citable (as shown above) and is released from embargo once it is posted to the
Frontiers e-View site (www.frontiersinecology.org).
© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org
Please note: This article was downloaded from Frontiers e-View, a service that publishes fully edited
and formatted manuscripts before they appear in print in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.
Readers are strongly advised to check the final print version in case any changes have been made.
esa
esa
© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org
G
alileo once wrote, “Count what is countable, measure
what is measurable, and what is not measurable,
make measurable”, a dictum that has set the course for
empirical science across the disciplines. This axiom has
recently become central to sustainability science and pol-
icy, where greater recognition of the world’s environmen-
tal and development challenges has fostered efforts to
make complex concepts such as biodiversity and poverty
“measurable”, to set policy targets and measure progress in
reaching those targets (eg targets associated with the
Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD] and the
United Nations Millennium Development Goals).
Although there have been advances toward making
these multidimensional policy targets measurable, much
work remains to be done (eg Attaran 2005; McArthur et
al. 2005; Walpole et al. 2009). In principle, there are two
major obstacles impeding further progress: (1) inadequate
data with which to measure changes in biodiversity,
poverty, and other components relevant to policy targets
(Scholes et al. 2008), and (2) the general immeasurability
of the policy target of interest, often on account of poorly
understood, unquantified, and complex concepts (eg
biodiversity, poverty, and well-being). In the rush to
address data inadequacy issues, the latter has been largely
overlooked, resulting in a plethora of measures and indi-
cators (based on existing data) that frequently fall short
of their intended purpose (Mace and Baillie 2007).
As ecosystem services increasingly take center stage in
the global conservation and development arenas, a prolif-
eration of measures (Egoh et al. 2007), values (Liu et al.
2010), and indicators (Layke et al. 2012) has emerged
(Panel 1). However, scant attention has been paid to
what it is we should be measuring. Ecosystem services
represent a complex and diverse concept, with broad and
often conflicting definitions (see Nahlik et al. [2012] for a
review); this has inhibited the development of concise
operational definitions and measures (Reyers et al. 2012),
as well as coherent and comprehensive policy objectives
and targets (Perrings et al. 2010, 2011).
In response, several frameworks aimed at advancing the
operational understanding of ecosystem services have
been developed (eg Fisher and Turner 2008; de Groot et
al. 2010; Haines-Young and Potschin 2010; Rounsevell et
CONCEPTS AND QUESTIONS
Getting the measure of ecosystem services:
a social–ecological approach
Belinda Reyers
1,2*
, Reinette Biggs
2,3
, Graeme S Cumming
4
, Thomas Elmqvist
5
, Adam P Hejnowicz
6
,
and Stephen Polasky
7
Despite growing interest and investment in ecosystem services across global science and policy arenas, it
remains unclear how ecosystem services – and particularly changes in those services – should be measured.
The social and ecological factors, and their interactions, that create and alter ecosystem services are inher-
ently complex. Measuring and managing ecosystem services requires a sophisticated systems-based
approach that accounts for how these services are generated by interconnected social–ecological systems
(SES), how different services interact with each other, and how changes in the total bundle of services influ-
ence human well-being (HWB). Furthermore, there is a need to understand how changes in HWB feedback
and affect the generation of ecosystem services. Here, we outline an SES-based approach for measuring
ecosystem services and explore its value for setting policy targets, developing indicators, and establishing
monitoring and assessment programs.
Front Ecol Environ 2013; doi:10.1890/120144
1
Natural Resources and Environment, Council for Scientific and
Industrial Research, Stellenbosch, South Africa
*
(breyers@csir.co.za);
2
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm,
Sweden;
3
Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study, Wallenberg
Research Centre, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa;
4
Percy FitzPatrick Institute, DST/NRF Centre of Excellence,
University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa;
5
Department of
Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden;
6
Ecosystems and Society Research Cluster, Environment Department,
University of York, York, UK;
7
Department of Applied Economics/
Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of
Minnesota, St Paul, MN
In a nutshell:
• When measuring ecosystem services, it is important to account
for the social and ecological factors, and their interactions,
involved in service production
• Ecosystem service measurement should capture the conse-
quences of changes in social and ecological factors for multiple
services, their benefit flows to different beneficiaries, and corre-
sponding feedbacks
• If ecosystem services are measured through the use of a
social–ecological systems-based approach, it is possible to
develop improved policy targets and indicators capable of
accounting for the dynamic and complex nature of ecosystem
services
Measuring ecosystem services B Reyers et al.
www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America
al. 2010; Mace et al. 2011). These frameworks have
helped to clarify ecosystem service definitions and classi-
fications, especially in the context of the economic valu-
ation of single services. However, the complex, intercon-
nected, dynamic nature of ecosystem services has so far
prevented researchers from measuring them in a way that
clarifies the consequences of ecosystem service change for
human well-being (HWB), which has impeded informing
the complex trade-offs associated with sustainability-
related policy and management decisions.
We believe that what is required is an evolution of these
frameworks and the current simplistic measures of ecosys-
tem services, which dominate policy formulation, toward a
framework and a set of measures that make explicit the
dynamic linkages between the social and ecological struc-
tures and processes (hereafter “factors”) associated with
ecosystem services, HWB, and their interactions (Web-
Panel 1). Although such an integrated framework has yet
to be developed, we suggest that advances in our under-
standing of coupled social–ecological systems (SES; Berkes
et al. 2003) will promote its creation. An SES-based
approach adopts a more integrated view of the social and
ecological factors related to ecosystem services and HWB,
including non-linear feedbacks, trade-offs, and interactions
associated with service provision. Here, we explore how a
better understanding of SES can help to improve current
and develop new measurements of ecosystem services, as
well as contributing to more explicit policy targets.
n
An SES approach for ecosystem services
measurement and management
An SES approach to ecosystem services measurement
(Figure 1) highlights the importance of measuring: (1)
the social and ecological factors that produce ecosystem
services, (2) the bundles of services produced and their
benefit flows, (3) the changes in HWB and their influ-
ence on SES management, and (4) the
changes in SES management and their effect
on (1). Below, we explore each of these
stages.
Social–ecological production of
ecosystem services
Current practice in ecosystem service-related
studies focuses on the concept of ecological
production functions, which combine a set of
biophysical variables (eg soil type, tree cover)
to model the production of an ecosystem ser-
vice. This practice emphasizes the ecological
factors associated with ecosystem service pro-
duction, and often excludes the social factors
also involved. The studies that include social
factors tend to do so after service production,
as measures of use or value (eg Nahlik et al.
2012). An SES approach broadens the con-
cept of ecological production functions by recognizing that
in the human-dominated environment, social factors such
as skills, management regimes, and technology are also
involved in ecosystem services production (Walker and Salt
2006; Easdale and Aguiar 2012) – a fact that, while broadly
understood, is currently not apparent in ecosystem services
frameworks. For example, to model the production of cereal
crops, one needs to incorporate biophysical conditions of
soil and rainfall, as well as the application of technologies
like irrigation and fertilizer, plus the skills of the farmer.
Even beyond technologically enhanced provisioning ser-
vices, there are few services that do not involve social fac-
tors in their production (eg built infrastructure for water ser-
vices, societal capacity to manage and govern communal
resource productivity, or beneficial species management
and enhancement; Figure 2). Cultural services have partic-
ularly strong social factors involved in their production (eg
recreational infrastructure and preferences, sacred site tradi-
tions and management) and have for the most part not
been successfully modeled using ecological production
functions (Daniel et al. 2012).
Land use – which reflects the interactions between the
biophysical characteristics of the land and the human man-
agement thereof – provides a relatively uncomplicated start-
ing point for exploring these social–ecological production
functions and is already included in several production func-
tions currently in use (eg flood regulation and sediment
retention; Kareiva et al. 2011). However, for many ecosys-
tem services, more work is required to identify the social fac-
tors, and their interactions with ecological factors, needed to
develop social–ecological production functions that can sat-
isfactorily model the production of these services.
Bundles of services and benefit flows
As with many existing ecosystem services frameworks, an
SES approach highlights the importance of moving
Panel 1. Selected definitions
Several related terms are used in the establishment and monitoring of policy
targets. The term measure (or measurement) is used to refer to the actual
assignment of a number to a state, quantity, or process derived from observa-
tions or monitoring. For example, bird counts are a measure derived from an
observation. An indicator is defined as a measure (or index made up of several
measures) that conveys information about more than itself and serves as an
indication of a feature of interest. For instance, bird counts compared over
time exhibit a trend that can be used as an indicator of the success of con-
servation actions for birds. Similarly, counts across different vertebrate groups
worldwide can be combined into a composite index to form an indicator of
the success of conservation actions for species. The Living Planet Index is an
example of such a broad indicator. Indicators are typically used for a specific
purpose (eg to provide a policy maker with information about progress
toward a target). Targets refer broadly to goals or objectives. The CBD has
several targets in its new strategy, including Target 14, which states that: “By
2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to
water, and contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being, are restored and
safeguarded, taking into account the needs of women, indigenous and local
communities, and the poor and vulnerable”.
B Reyers et al. Measuring ecosystem services
© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org
beyond measuring the supply of ser-
vices provided by an area (eg crop pro-
duction, water regulation) to metrics
that provide an indication of the
actual benefits gained by people (eg
drinking water, food, flood protec-
tion). These include economic, social,
and cultural benefits, which are often
referred to as goods or final services in
other frameworks (see Nahlik et al.
2012). Measuring benefits requires an
in-depth understanding of SES to
identify how the benefits from ecosys-
tem services are distributed to, or
accessed by, different groups of benefi-
ciaries (Cowling et al. 2008). Despite
their importance in ecosystem service
definitions and frameworks, ecosystem
service benefits, as well as their flow to
beneficiaries, remain a poorly under-
stood and quantified component of
measurement and monitoring pro-
grams (Carpenter et al. 2009).
In contrast to existing frameworks,
an SES approach aims to identify the
benefits associated with a bundle of
interacting services and to see how
those benefits flow to different bene-
ficiary groups (Daw et al. 2011; Syrbe
and Walz 2012). Few existing frame-
works focus on evaluating the consequences of a particu-
lar intervention on the total bundle of ecosystem ser-
vices, although services interact with one another and
decisions to enhance a particular service will affect the
type, mix, and magnitude of other services provided by
an SES (Bennett et al. 2009). An SES approach empha-
sizes that (1) understanding changes in the total bundle
is the only way to assess the consequences of changes in
SES for HWB and whether and how greatly changes in
ecosystem services matter to people, and (2) a meaning-
ful assessment of trade-offs between services requires an
evaluation of the net benefit flow changes and their con-
sequences for HWB, rather than simply an assessment of
the changes in specific services.
Human well-being – consequences and responses
Many ecosystem service programs only measure the bene-
fits provided by services. However, understanding the
impacts of these benefits on HWB across different groups
of beneficiaries is central to most policy and management
choices. Like ecosystem services, HWB is a complex and
multivariate concept, dependent not only on ecosystem
services but also on a multitude of other ecological and
social factors and their interactions. While many frame-
works make the link to HWB, few have advanced our
ability to measure HWB and untangle its links to ecosys-
tem services, making current practices reliant on eco-
nomic valuation or broad qualitative statements about
well-being. An SES approach clarifies the need to: (1)
stipulate the beneficiary groups being considered, (2)
identify and measure the relevant dimensions of HWB
(eg security, health), and (3) link changes in different
HWB dimensions to the benefit flows from the ecosystem
services bundle (Daw et al. 2011; Rogers et al. 2012).
The SES approach also highlights the need to move
beyond changes in HWB to explore how these changes
feed back to influence governance and policy and, conse-
quently, SES and their services. Existing frameworks
require simply monitoring the indirect drivers of change
(eg sociopolitical and economic; MA 2003; TEEB 2010)
or indicators of governance and management (eg pro-
tected area extent, restoration programs implemented)
without an understanding of what drives these changes
and what constituents of well-being are most important
in motivating changes in governance and policy. A better
understanding of how to achieve these changes to
encourage more sustainable management of SES has been
identified as a key gap in transitioning to more sustain-
able development trajectories (Folke and Rockström
2011; Westley et al. 2011). This gap in understanding will
hamper progress in the learning processes that are funda-
mental to building resilience and addressing uncertainty
in SES (Cundill et al. 2012). Recent frameworks for the
Figure 1. An SES approach to identifying social–ecological factors and interactions is
needed to measure and manage ecosystem services and HWB. Such an approach
highlights the importance of measuring: (1) the social–ecological factors involved in the
production of ecosystem services, (2) the benefits that flow from bundles of interacting
ecosystem services, (3) the impacts of these benefit flows on specific dimensions of
HWB across beneficiary groups and the impact of these changes on SES management
and governance, and (4) the influence of management and governance on the SES
factors that underpin ecosystem services.
Dimensions of
human well-being
Bundle of ecosystem
services
SES management
and governance
Social–ecological
factors
Benefit flows
2
Perceptions and
responses
Beneficiary groups
3
Social–ecological
production functions
14
Production-function-specific
drivers of change