The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors review the problems associated with defining and quantifying cultural ecosystem services and suggest there could be merit in discarding this term for the simpler non-material ecosystem services, and suggest that if we are to keep ecosystem service definition focused on the beneficiary, we need to further classify these challenging services, for example by differentiating services to individuals from services to communities.
Abstract: Since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, ecosystem service science has made much progress in framing core concepts and approaches, but there is still debate around the notion of cultural services, and a growing consensus that ecosystem use and ecosystem service use should be clearly differentiated. Part of the debate resides in the fact that the most significant sources of conflict around natural resource management arise from the multiple managements (uses) of ecosystems, rather than from the multiple uses of ecosystem services.
If the ecosystem approach or the ecosystem service paradigm are to be implemented at national levels, there is an urgent need to disentangle what are often semantic issues, revise the notion of cultural services, and more broadly, practically define the less tangible ecosystem services on which we depend. This is a critical step to identifying suitable ways to manage trade-offs and promote adaptive management.
Here we briefly review the problems associated with defining and quantifying cultural ecosystem services and suggest there could be merit in discarding this term for the simpler non-material ecosystem services. We also discuss the challenges in valuing the invaluable, and suggest that if we are to keep ecosystem service definition focused on the beneficiary, we need to further classify these challenging services, for example by differentiating services to individuals from services to communities. Also, we suggest that focussing on ecosystem service change rather than simply service delivery, and identifying common boundaries relevant for both people and ecosystems, would help meet some of these challenges.
Citations
More filters
01 Oct 2018
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss challenges and opportunities for the use of social media data in sustainability research and practice at the city level, and identify useful directions for future research, and suggest that solutions to most SMD challenges already exist.
Abstract: A voluminous and complex amount of information — ‘big data’ — from social media such as Twitter and Flickr is now ubiquitous and of increasing interest to researchers studying human behaviour in cities. Yet the value of social-media data (SMD) for urban-sustainability research is still poorly understood. Here, we discuss key opportunities and challenges for the use of SMD by sustainability scholars in the natural and social sciences as well as by practitioners making daily decisions about urban systems. Evidence suggests that the vast scale and near-real-time observation are unique advantages of SMD and that solutions to most SMD challenges already exist. In this Review, the authors discuss challenges and opportunities for the use of social-media data in sustainability research and practice at the city level, and identify useful directions for future research.
161 citations
01 Nov 2018
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors estimate spatially explicit economic values for a range of ecosystem services provided by the Brazilian Amazon forest, including food production (Brazil nut), raw material provision (rubber and timber), greenhouse gas mitigation (CO2 emissions) and climate regulation (rent losses to soybean, beef and hydroelectricity production due to reduced rainfall).
Abstract: The Brazilian Amazon forest is tremendously important for its ecosystem services but attribution of economically measurable values remains scarce. Mapping these values is essential for designing conservation strategies that suitably combine regional forest protection with sustainable forest use. We estimate spatially explicit economic values for a range of ecosystem services provided by the Brazilian Amazon forest, including food production (Brazil nut), raw material provision (rubber and timber), greenhouse gas mitigation (CO2 emissions) and climate regulation (rent losses to soybean, beef and hydroelectricity production due to reduced rainfall). Our work also includes the mapping of biodiversity resources and of rent losses to timber production by fire-induced degradation. Highest values range from US$56.72 ± 10 ha−1 yr−1 to US$737 ± 134 ha−1 yr−1 but are restricted to only 12% of the remaining forest. Our results, presented on a web platform, identify regions where high ecosystem services values cluster together as potential information to support decision-making. This study spatially maps the economic value of some major ecosystem services provided by the Brazilian Amazon. It also estimates changes in these values under scenarios of degradation and low-impact logging.
109 citations
TL;DR: An innovative methodology using a quasi-dynamic Fuzzy Cognitive Map approach based on multiple-time-steps was developed in order to assess NBS effectiveness, and to detect and analyze trade-offs among stakeholders due to differences in co-benefits perception.
82 citations
University of Copenhagen1, University of Turku2, University of Kassel3, University of Extremadura4, University of the Azores5, Institut national de la recherche agronomique6, Cranfield University7, University of Lisbon8, University of Santiago de Compostela9, Babeș-Bolyai University10, Agricultural University of Athens11
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present an assessment of ES benefits perceived and mapped by residents across 13 multifunctional (deep rural to peri-urban) landscapes in Europe and identify the most intensively perceived ES benefits, their spatial patterns, and the respondent and landscape characteristics that determine ES benefit perception.
Abstract: Rural development policies in many Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries promote sustainable landscape management with the intention of providing multiple ecosystem services (ES). Yet, it remains unclear which ES benefits are perceived in different landscapes and by different people. We present an assessment of ES benefits perceived and mapped by residents (n = 2,301) across 13 multifunctional (deep rural to peri-urban) landscapes in Europe. We identify the most intensively perceived ES benefits, their spatial patterns, and the respondent and landscape characteristics that determine ES benefit perception. We find outdoor recreation, aesthetic values and social interactions are the key ES benefits at local scales. Settlement areas are ES benefit hotspots but many benefits are also related to forests, waters and mosaic landscapes. We find some ES benefits (e.g. culture and heritage values) are spatially clustered, while many others (e.g. aesthetic values) are dispersed. ES benefit perception is linked to people’s relationship with and accessibility to a landscape. Our study discusses how a local perspective can contribute to the development of contextualized and socially acceptable policies for sustainable ES management. We also address conceptual confusion in ES framework and present argumentation regarding the links from services to benefits, and from benefits to different types of values.
72 citations
Cites background from "The challenge of valuing ecosystem ..."
...…land use systems, where landscapes and their components have120 multiple uses and purposes (Sayer et al., 2013; Scholte et al., 2015; Small et al., 2017).121 Understanding the spatially explicit patterns of ES benefits is crucial for integrated ES122 assessments and for the…...
[...]
...…and ecosystems provide to humans, the lack of which has been a617 recurring criticism of the ES framework (Daniel et al., 2012; Setten et al., 2012; Small et al., 2017).618 In our PPGIS approach the mapped individual benefits are aggregated without group deliberation.619 However, as these mapped…...
[...]
TL;DR: JAH received funding from The Oceans of Change Project (OOCP) as mentioned in this paper and DMP received support from the MASTS pooling initiative (The Marine Alliance for Science and Technology for Scotland) and their support is gratefully acknowledged.
Abstract: JAH received funding from The Oceans of Change Project. DMP received funding from the MASTS pooling initiative (The Marine Alliance for Science and Technology for Scotland) and their support is gratefully acknowledged. MASTS is funded by the Scottish Funding Council (grant reference HR09011) and contributing institutions".
71 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors have estimated the current economic value of 17 ecosystem services for 16 biomes, based on published studies and a few original calculations, for the entire biosphere, the value (most of which is outside the market) is estimated to be in the range of US$16-54 trillion (10^(12)) per year, with an average of US $33 trillion per year.
Abstract: The services of ecological systems and the natural capital stocks that produce them are critical to the functioning of the Earth's life-support system. They contribute to human welfare, both directly and indirectly, and therefore represent part of the total economic value of the planet. We have estimated the current economic value of 17 ecosystem services for 16 biomes, based on published studies and a few original calculations. For the entire biosphere, the value (most of which is outside the market) is estimated to be in the range of US$16-54 trillion (10^(12)) per year, with an average of US$33 trillion per year. Because of the nature of the uncertainties, this must be considered a minimum estimate. Global gross national product total is around US$18 trillion per year.
18,139 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a conceptual framework and typology for describing, classifying and valuing ecosystem functions, goods and services in a clear and consistent manner is presented. And a classification is given for the fullest possible range of 23 ecosystem functions.
4,081 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provided an updated estimate based on updated unit ecosystem service values and land use change estimates between 1997 and 2011, 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).
Abstract: 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.
3,932 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors provide an overview of the challenges involved in applying ecosystem service assessment and valuation to environmental management and discuss some solutions to come to a comprehensive and practical framework.
2,840 citations