Are ecosystem services adequately quantified?

Abstract

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.

An ecosystem services approach to the ecological effects of salvage logging: valuation of seed dispersal

“…, van den Belt and Stevens ), yet they are scarcely implemented for non‐provisioning services (Boerema et al. ) and their absence is especially notorious in the literature regarding salvage logging. Linking the effects of post‐disturbance management on ecosystem processes with effects on human welfare is therefore critical to provide a more comprehensive basis for decision‐making beyond the simplistic focus on burned‐wood revenues.…”

Planning for the conservation and management of ecosystem services in Central Chile

“…There has been a substantial growth in ecosystem service studies: for example if we look on the web of science between 2003 and 2016 there are almost 15,000 peerreviewed publications containing the word ecosystem services. This popularity has led to significant progress in quantifying, mapping and modeling the provision of ecosystem services (Seppelt et al 2011, Martínez-Harms and Balvanera 2012, Boerema et al 2016. Much of this work has been purportedly directed toward improving environmental decision-making (Bennett et al 2015, Martinez-Harms et al 2015, Runting et al 2016.…”

“…These have included the lack of a robust theory linking biodiversity to ecosystem services ; poor quantification of ecosystem services without distinguishing between capacity of ecosystems to provide services, demand for services, and flow of services to people (Boerema et al 2016); quantification that is still based on static analyses, ignoring uncertainty and feedbacks between ecosystem services and drivers of change (Nicholson et al 2009, Runting et al 2016; lack of empirical data to assess services especially with adequate historical records (De Groot et al 2010); tendency to overlook the role of landscape configuration in providing ecosystem services (Mitchell et al 2015), and the limited understanding of the role of policies, trade, technology, and other human actions on the provision of ecosystem services ).…”

“…Ecosystem services maps highlight key areas of ecosystem services supply, demand and flow (Burkhard et al 2012, Wolff et al 2015. They also allow the assessment of spatial trade-offs and synergies among multiple options to prioritize alternatives that meet acceptable levels of ecosystem services and biodiversity to ultimately improve land-use management (Seppelt et al 2011, Martínez-Harms and Balvanera 2012, Boerema et al 2016.…”

“…Although central to sustainability, the assessment of how ecosystem services benefits and values are distributed has not frequently been addressed in the ecosystem services literature (Boerema et al 2016). Equity in the distribution of ecosystem services must be addressed in future efforts to respond and contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) such as the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies (SDG 16), ending poverty (SDG 1) and promoting protection and restoration of ecosystems (SDG 15) (Griggs et al 2013).…”