Ecosystems generate a range of goods and services important for human well-being, collectively called ecosystem services. Over the past decade, progress has been made in understanding how ecosystems provide services and how service provision translates into economic value (Daily 1997; MA 2005; NRC 2005). Yet, it has proven difficult to move from general pronouncements about the tremendous benefits nature provides to people to credible, quantitative estimates of ecosystem service values. Spatially explicit values of services across landscapes that might inform land-use and management decisions are still lacking (Balmford et al. 2002; MA 2005).Without quantitative assessments, and some incentives for landowners to provide them, these services tend to be ignored by those making land-use and land-management decisions. Currently, there are two paradigms for generating ecosystem service assessments that are meant to influence policy decisions. Under the first paradigm, researchers use broad-scale assessments of multiple services to extrapolate a few estimates of values, based on habitat types, to entire regions or the entire planet (eg Costanza et al. 1997;Troy and Wilson 2006;Turner et al. 2007). Although simple, this "benefits transfer" approach incorrectly assumes that every hectare of a given habitat type is of equal value -regardless of its quality, rarity, spatial configuration, size, proximity to population centers, or the prevailing social practices and values. Furthermore, this approach does not allow for analyses of service provision and changes in value under new conditions. For example, if a wetland is converted to agricultural land, how will this affect the provision of clean drinking water, downstream flooding, climate regulation, and soil fertility? Without information on the impacts of land-use management practices on ecosystem services production, it is impossible to design policies or payment programs that will provide the desired ecosystem services.In contrast, under the second paradigm for generating policy-relevant ecosystem service assessments, researchers carefully model the production of a single service in a small area with an "ecological production function" -how provision of that service depends on local ecological variables (eg Kaiser and Roumasset 2002;Ricketts et al. 2004). Some of these production function approaches also use market prices and non-market valuation methods to estimate the economic value of the service and how that value changes under different ecological conditions. Although these methods are superior to the habitat assessment benefits transfer approach, these studies lack both the scope (number of services) and scale (geographic and temporal) to be relevant for most policy questions.What is needed are approaches that combine the rigor of the small-scale studies with the breadth of broad-scale assessments (see Boody et Nature provides a wide range of benefits to people. There is increasing consensus about the importance of incorporating these "ecosystem services" into r...

w ww ww w. .f fr ro on nt ti ie er rs si in ne ec co ol lo og gy y. .o or rg g T he Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) advanced a powerful vision for the future (MA 2005), and now it is time to deliver. The vision of the MA -and of the prescient ecologists and economists whose work formed its foundation -is a world in which people and institutions appreciate natural systems as vital assets, recognize the central roles these assets play in supporting human well-being, and routinely incorporate their material and intangible values into decision making. This vision is now beginning to take hold, fueled by innovations from around the world -from pioneering local leaders to government bureaucracies, and from traditional cultures to major corporations (eg a new experimental wing of Goldman Sachs; Daily and Ellison 2002;Bhagwat and Rutte 2006;Kareiva and Marvier 2007;Ostrom et al. 2007;Goldman et al. 2008). China, for instance, is investing over 700 billion yuan (about US$102.6 billion) in ecosystem service payments, in the current decade (Liu et al. 2008).The goal of the Natural Capital Project -a partnership between Stanford University, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund (www.naturalcapitalproject.org) -is to help integrate ecosystem services into everyday decision making around the world. This requires turning the valuation of ecosystem services into effective policy and finance mechanisms -a problem that, as yet, no one has solved on a large scale. A key challenge remains: relative to other forms of capital, assets embodied in ecosystems are often poorly understood, rarely monitored, and are undergoing rapid degradation (Heal 2000a; MA 2005;Mäler et al. 2008). The importance of ecosystem services is often recognized only after they have been lost, as was the case following Hurricane Katrina (Chambers et al. 2007). Natural capital, and the ecosystem services that flow from it, are usually undervalued -by governments, businesses, and the public -if indeed they are considered at all (Daily et al. 2000;Balmford et al. 2002; NRC 2005).Two fundamental changes need to occur in order to replicate, scale up, and sustain the pioneering efforts that are currently underway, to give ecosystem services weight in decision making. First, the science of ecosystem services needs to advance rapidly. In promising a return (of services) on investments in nature, the scientific community needs to deliver the knowledge and tools necessary to forecast and quantify this return. To help address this challenge, the Natural Capital Project has developed InVEST (a system for Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem I In n a a n nu ut ts sh he el ll l: : ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Ecosystem services in decision making• Valuing nature is central to mainstreaming conservation, but is not an end in itself • Success hinges on a better understanding of ecosystem production functions and on integrating research (and experimentation) into the development of new policies and institutions • The Natural Capital Pr...

Ecosystem service approaches have become a prominent basis for planning and management. Cultural services and non-use values are included in all major typologies and present some of the most compelling reasons for conserving ecosystems, though many barriers exist to their explicit characterization. The values that conform least well to economic assumptions-variously lumped together with/as cultural services-have proven elusive in part because valuation is complicated by the properties of intangibility and incommensurability, which has in turn led to their exclusion from economic valuation. We argue that the effectiveness of the ecosystem services framework in decision-making is thwarted by (i) conflation of services, values, and benefits, and (ii) failure to appropriately treat diverse kinds of values. We address this challenge by (1) distinguishing eight dimensions of values, which have implications for appropriate valuation and decision-making; (2) demonstrating the interconnected nature of benefits and services, and so the ubiquity of intangible values; (3) discussing the implications of these propositions for ecosystem-services research; and (4) outlining briefly a research agenda to enable decision-making that is ecologically appropriate and socially just. Because many ecosystem services (co-)produce "cultural" benefits, full characterization of services must address non-material values through methods from diverse social sciences.

As the demands on agricultural lands to produce food, fuel, and fiber continue to expand, effective strategies are urgently needed to balance biodiversity conservation and agricultural production. “Land sparing” and “wildlife‐friendly farming” have been proposed as seemingly opposing strategies to achieve this balance. In land sparing, homogeneous areas of farmland are managed to maximize yields, while separate reserves target biodiversity conservation. Wildlife‐friendly farming, in contrast, integrates conservation and production within more heterogeneous landscapes. Different scientific traditions underpin the two approaches. Land sparing is associated with an island model of modified landscapes, where islands of nature are seen as separate from human activities. This simple dichotomy makes land sparing easily compatible with optimization methods that attempt to allocate land uses in the most efficient way. In contrast, wildlife‐friendly farming emphasizes heterogeneity, resilience, and ecological interactions between farmed and unfarmed areas. Both social and biophysical factors influence which approach is feasible or appropriate in a given landscape. Drawing upon the strengths of each approach, we outline broad policy guidelines for conservation in agricultural landscapes.

Recent high-profile efforts have called for integrating ecosystemservice values into important societal decisions, but there are few demonstrations of this approach in practice. We quantified ecosystem-service values to help the largest private landowner in Hawaii, Kamehameha Schools, design a land-use development plan that balances multiple private and public values on its North Shore land holdings (Island of O'ahu) of ∼10,600 ha. We used the InVEST software tool to evaluate the environmental and financial implications of seven planning scenarios encompassing contrasting land-use combinations including biofuel feedstocks, food crops, forestry, livestock, and residential development. All scenarios had positive financial return relative to the status quo of negative return. However, tradeoffs existed between carbon storage and water quality as well as between environmental improvement and financial return. Based on this analysis and community input, Kamehameha Schools is implementing a plan to support diversified agriculture and forestry. This plan generates a positive financial return ($10.9 million) and improved carbon storage (0.5% increase relative to status quo) with negative relative effects on water quality (15.4% increase in potential nitrogen export relative to status quo). The effects on water quality could be mitigated partially (reduced to a 4.9% increase in potential nitrogen export) by establishing vegetation buffers on agricultural fields. This plan contributes to policy goals for climate change mitigation, food security, and diversifying rural economic opportunities. More broadly, our approach illustrates how information can help guide local land-use decisions that involve tradeoffs between private and public interests.conservation | mapping | private lands R ecent high-profile studies (1-4) have emphasized the importance of ecosystems in providing valuable services to humanity, and recent events have provided strong evidence of the value of flood-risk mitigation (5, 6), coastal protection (7, 8), and pollination (9). Global changes in land use and climate also have highlighted the role of ecosystems in food, water, and energy security and in climate change mitigation and adaption (10