Book•
The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity : mainstreaming the economics of nature : a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB
01 Jan 2010-
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors highlight and illustrate the approach adopted by TEEB: namely to show how economic concepts and tools can help equip society with the means to incorporate the values of nature into decision making at all levels.
Abstract: The aim of this synthesis is to highlight and illustrate the approach adopted by TEEB: namely to show how economic concepts and tools can help equip society with the means to incorporate the values of nature into decision making at all levels.
Citations
More filters
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
Wageningen University and Research Centre1, VU University Amsterdam2, Portland State University3, World Agroforestry Centre4, Aberystwyth University5, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation6, Saint Petersburg State University7, Scottish Agricultural College8, United Nations Environment Programme9, Conservation International10, Institute for European Environmental Policy11
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors presented an overview of the value of ecosystem services of 10 main biomes expressed in monetary units and showed that most of this value is outside the market and best considered as nontradable public benefits.
Abstract: This paper gives an overview of the value of ecosystem services of 10 main biomes expressed in monetary units. In total, over 320 publications were screened covering over 300 case study locations. Approximately 1350 value estimates were coded and stored in a searchable Ecosystem Service Value Database (ESVD). A selection of 665 value estimates was used for the analysis. Acknowledging the uncertainties and contextual nature of any valuation, the analysis shows that the total value of ecosystem services is considerable and ranges between 490 int$/year for the total bundle of ecosystem services that can potentially be provided by an ‘average’ hectare of open oceans to almost 350,000 int$/year for the potential services of an ‘average’ hectare of coral reefs. More importantly, our results show that most of this value is outside the market and best considered as non-tradable public benefits. The continued over-exploitation of ecosystems thus comes at the expense of the livelihood of the poor and future generations. Given that many of the positive externalities of ecosystems are lost or strongly reduced after land use conversion better accounting for the public goods and services provided by ecosystems is crucial to improve decision making and institutions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable ecosystem management.
1,815 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors trace the history leading up to these publications and the subsequent debates, research, institutions, policies, on-the-ground actions, and controversies they triggered.
Abstract: 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.
1,514 citations
Cites background or methods from "The economics of ecosystems and bio..."
...The following categorization of ecosystem services into four broad types was proposed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), adopted but changed in The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity project (TEEB, 2010) and constitutes the core of most other recent classifications (see Table 2)....
[...]
...…of natural capital and ecosystem services have been broadly accepted and their potential contribution to better environmental management widely acknowledged (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005); TEEB, 2010; UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011), practical applications are still limited....
[...]
...This category of ecosystem services was the least developed one, when the MEA (2005) and TEEB (2010) were published....
[...]
TL;DR: Biodiversity has key roles at all levels of the ecosystem service hierarchy: as a regulator of underpinning ecosystem processes, as a final ecosystem service and as a good that is subject to valuation, whether economic or otherwise.
Abstract: The relationship between biodiversity and the rapidly expanding research and policy field of ecosystem services is confused and is damaging efforts to create coherent policy. Using the widely accepted Convention on Biological Diversity definition of biodiversity and work for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment we show that biodiversity has key roles at all levels of the ecosystem service hierarchy: as a regulator of underpinning ecosystem processes, as a final ecosystem service and as a good that is subject to valuation, whether economic or otherwise. Ecosystem science and practice has not yet absorbed the lessons of this complex relationship, which suggests an urgent need to develop the interdisciplinary science of ecosystem management bringing together ecologists, conservation biologists, resource economists and others.
1,412 citations
TL;DR: This article assessed the state of knowledge on relationships between human health and nature and biodiversity, and prepared a comprehensive listing of reported health effects, finding strong evidence linking biodiversity with production of ecosystem services and between nature exposure and human health, but many of these studies were limited in rigor and often only correlative.
Abstract: We are at a key juncture in history where biodiversity loss is occurring daily and accelerating in the face of population growth, climate change, and rampant development. Simultaneously, we are just beginning to appreciate the wealth of human health benefits that stem from experiencing nature and biodiversity. Here we assessed the state of knowledge on relationships between human health and nature and biodiversity, and prepared a comprehensive listing of reported health effects. We found strong evidence linking biodiversity with production of ecosystem services and between nature exposure and human health, but many of these studies were limited in rigor and often only correlative. Much less information is available to link biodiversity and health. However, some robust studies indicate that exposure to microbial biodiversity can improve health, specifically in reducing certain allergic and respiratory diseases. Overall, much more research is needed on mechanisms of causation. Also needed are a re-envisioning of land-use planning that places human well-being at the center and a new coalition of ecologists, health and social scientists and planners to conduct research and develop policies that promote human interaction with nature and biodiversity. Improvements in these areas should enhance human health and ecosystem, community, as well as human resilience.
752 citations
References
More filters
Stockholm University1, Stockholm Environment Institute2, Australian National University3, University of Alaska Fairbanks4, Université catholique de Louvain5, University of East Anglia6, Wageningen University and Research Centre7, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences8, University of Oxford9, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research10, James Cook University11, Arizona State University12, Royal Institute of Technology13, University of Minnesota14, University of Vermont15, Stockholm International Water Institute16, California State University San Marcos17, Goddard Institute for Space Studies18, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation19, University of Arizona20, Max Planck Society21
TL;DR: Identifying and quantifying planetary boundaries that must not be transgressed could help prevent human activities from causing unacceptable environmental change, argue Johan Rockstrom and colleagues.
Abstract: Identifying and quantifying planetary boundaries that must not be transgressed could help prevent human activities from causing unacceptable environmental change, argue Johan Rockstrom and colleagues.
8,837 citations
Book•
01 Jan 2000
1,916 citations
"The economics of ecosystems and bio..." refers background in this paper
...Some 30 million people in coastal and island communities are totally reliant on reef-based resources as their primary means of food production, income and livelihood (Gomez et al. 1994, Wilkinson 2004)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the second largest anthropogenic source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, after fossil fuel combustion, is revised downwards, but tropical peatlands emerge as a notable carbon dioxide source.
Abstract: Deforestation is the second largest anthropogenic source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, after fossil fuel combustion. Following a budget reanalysis, the contribution from deforestation is revised downwards, but tropical peatlands emerge as a notable carbon dioxide source.
1,304 citations
"The economics of ecosystems and bio..." refers background in this paper
...Human-induced deforestation, which accounts for about 12 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, is an issue that must be addressed as part of the international response to climate change (van der Werf et al. 2009)....
[...]
TL;DR: The value of tropical forest in supplying pollination services to agriculture translates into approximately 60,000 USD per year for one Costa Rican farm during 2000-2003, which is commensurate with expected revenues from competing land uses and far exceeds current conservation incentive payments.
Abstract: Can economic forces be harnessed for biodiversity conservation? The answer hinges on characterizing the value of nature, a tricky business from biophysical, socioeconomic, and ethical perspectives. Although the societal benefits of native ecosystems are clearly immense, they remain largely unquantified for all but a few services. Here, we estimate the value of tropical forest in supplying pollination services to agriculture. We focus on coffee because it is one of the world's most valuable export commodities and is grown in many of the world's most biodiverse regions. Using pollination experiments along replicated distance gradients, we found that forest-based pollinators increased coffee yields by 20% within ≈1 km of forest. Pollination also improved coffee quality near forest by reducing the frequency of “peaberries” (i.e., small misshapen seeds) by 27%. During 2000–2003, pollination services from two forest fragments (46 and 111 hectares) translated into ≈$60,000 (U.S.) per year for one Costa Rican farm. This value is commensurate with expected revenues from competing land uses and far exceeds current conservation incentive payments. Conservation investments in human-dominated landscapes can therefore yield double benefits: for biodiversity and agriculture.
699 citations
TL;DR: The Payment for Hydrological Environmental Services (PSAH) Program as mentioned in this paper was designed to complement other policy responses to the crisis at the interface of these problems, where the Mexican federal government pays participating forest owners for the benefits of watershed protection and aquifer recharge in areas where commercial forestry is not currently competitive.
571 citations