1. Quantification of ecosystem services (ES) is an important step in operationalizing the concept for management and decision-making. With the exponential increase in ES research, ES have become a 'catch-all phrase', which some suggest has led to a poorly defined, impractical and ambiguous concept. An overview of the methods used in ES quantification is needed to examine their scientific rigour and provide guidelines for selecting appropriate measures. 2. We present a systematic review of 405 peer-reviewed ES research papers to address the question: 'Is the biophysical and socio-economic reality of ES adequately quantified? First, we considered whether ES measures are scientifically rigorous enough by considering four predefined criteria (the type of data used, quantification of uncertainty, validation done and data reported). Secondly, using a novel approach, we determined which part of the ES cascade was measured: the ecosystem property, function, service, benefit or value. 3. Our results showed that each of the 21 ES analysed had on average 24 different measures, which may indicate the complex reality of ES and/or suggest a potential lack of consensus on what constitutes an ES. We found that uncertainty is often not included and validation mostly missing. 4. When analysing which part(s) of the ES cascade each measure corresponded to, we found that for regulating ES, ecosystem properties and functions (ecological aspects) are more commonly quantified (67% of measures). Conversely for provisioning ES, benefits and values (socio-economic aspects) are more commonly quantified (68%). Cultural ES are predominantly quantified using scores (35%). 5. In conclusion, ES appear to be poorly quantified in many cases, as often only one side of the cascade is considered (either the ecological or socio-economic side) and oversimplified and variable indicators are often used. 6. Policy implications. This review provides a detailed overview of ecosystem services (ES) quantification (ranging from simple scores to advanced methods) with the aim to support future ES quantification and ultimately the successful application of the ES concept.

Valley-bottom wetlands are valuable assets as they provide many ecosystem services to mankind. Despite their value, valley-bottom wetlands are often exploited and land-use/land-cover (LULC) change results in trade-offs in ecosystem services. We coupled physically based hydrological modeling and spatial analysis to examine the effects of LULC change on water-related ecosystem services in the Kromme catchment: an important water-providing catchment for the city of Port Elizabeth. LULC scenarios were constructed to match 5 different decades in the last 50 years to explore the potential effects of restoring the catchment to different historic benchmarks. In the Kromme catchment, valley-bottom wetlands have declined by 84%, driven by key LULC changes: an increase in irrigated land (307 ha) and invasion by alien trees (336 ha). If the wetlands were restored to the relatively pristine extent and condition of the 1950s, riverflow could increase by approximately 1.13 million m 3 /a, about 6% of the current supply to Port Elizabeth. Wetland restoration would also significantly improve the catchment's ability to absorb extreme rainfall events, decreasing flood damage. We conclude that in the face of the water scarcity in this region, all ecosystem services, particularly those related to water flow regulation, should be taken into account by decision makers in charge of land zonation. Zonation decisions should not continue to be made on the basis of provisioning ecosystem services alone (i.e. food provision or dam yield). We recommend prioritization of the preservation and restoration of valley-bottom wetlands providing water-related ecosystem services to settlements downstream.

Can markets assist by providing support for ecological restoration, and if so, under what conditions? The first step in addressing this question is to develop a consistent methodology for economic evaluation of ecological restoration projects. A risk analysis process was followed in which a system dynamics model was constructed for eight diverse case study sites where ecological restoration is currently being pursued. Restoration costs vary across each of these sites, as do the benefits associated with restored ecosystem functioning. The system dynamics model simulates the ecological, hydrological and economic benefits of ecological restoration and informs a portfolio mapping exercise where payoffs are matched against the likelihood of success of a project, as well as a number of other factors (such as project costs and risk measures). This is the first known application that couples ecological restoration with system dynamics and portfolio mapping. The results suggest an approach that is able to move beyond traditional indicators of project success, since the effect of discounting is virtually eliminated. We conclude that systems dynamic modelling with portfolio mapping can guide decisions on when markets for restoration activities may be feasible.