Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice

Nahlik, Amanda M.; Kentula, Mary E.; Fennessy, M. Siobhan; Landers, Dixon H.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.01.001

Cited by 240 publications

(173 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

166

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, it has the potential to meet various recommendations previously made for implementation of the ESF, including resilience, promotion of interdisciplinary collaboration and involvement of stakeholders [11], focus on direct human encounters with ecosystems and attention to both local and off-site effects [43]. Second, the EVF should function well in non-Western cultures (often found in parts of the world of great conservation importance [38]) by downplaying the 'humans vs. nature' [44] and 'cultural vs. material' [36] dualisms typical of Western worldviews and recognising instead how people's cultural identity and well-being may be closely bound up in relationships with the non-human world [10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Definitions of ES [11] range from "the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems…sustain and fulfil human life" [12] through "the outputs of ecosystems from which people derive benefits" [13] to "the benefits people obtain from ecosystems" [14]; cf [15]. The variety of focal nouns in this sample of definitions (conditions, processes, outputs and benefits) reveals the difficulty of finding a logical category for things that motivate humans to protect natural habitats and places [16].…”

Section: What Exactly Is An Ecosystem Service?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The value of such concepts of biodiversity is not in question, but to construe any of them as a process, output or human benefit seems illogical. Parallel problems emerge for other concepts that might be used in a definition of ES, such as 'processes/functions; structural components; goods; human uses; securities' [11]. The hope is sometimes expressed that definitional problems will decline as definitions gradually improve [3].…”

Section: What Exactly Is An Ecosystem Service?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

Gunton

Asperen

Basden

et al. 2017

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights •Ecosystem services help itemise how we value natural places, but the concept is not robust.• A more robust framework should focus on aspects of human appreciation of places.• We propose an ecosystem valuing framework with 12 universal aspects of appreciation.• This can be unambiguously complemented by ecological analyses where necessary. AbstractThe ecosystem services framework (ESF) is advantageous and widely used for itemising and quantifying ways in which humans benefit from natural places. However, it suffers from two important problems: (i) incoherence of definitions and (ii) a narrow approach to valuation, inadequate to represent the full range of human motives for conservation and the diverse interests of different stakeholders. These shortcomings can lead to a range of problems including doublecounting, blind spots and unintended consequencest. Here we propose an ecosystem valuing framework (EVF) as a broader and more rigorous way to deliver the benefits currently sought from the ESF, without the conceptual problems. The flawed genius of ecosystem servicesThe ecosystem services framework (ESF) is a very popular approach to incentivising nature conservation, increasingly used by conservation campaigners and policy makers around the world as well as by scientists contributing to this cause. Its genius is to facilitate a multi-dimensional analysis of the benefits that humans may derive from natural places, allowing a wide range of interests and conservation concerns to be considered and integrated with a broad view of sustainable development 3 and human wellbeing. As such it supports a consequentialist ethic that can be more successful than deontological approaches (see Glossary) in securing consensus and motivating action [1]. However, criticisms of the ESF as a tool for conservation raise doubts about its effectiveness and legitimacy [2,3]. The most controversial issue is probably that of monetisation, as laid out recently by Silvertown [4]. One set of responses to such problems would continue using the ESF as a general tool for assessing habitats while recognising its multilayered structure [5], supervising it to avoid unintended consequences [6], perhaps discouraging monetisation [7], and even attempting to subjugate intrinsic value under the category of services [8]. Yet there are more profound problems with the ESF that call for a radical shift if we wish to contribute to conservation as part of a sustainable development agenda. Two outstanding issues are sufficient, in our opinion, to demand an overhaul of the ESF so radical as to require a new name. First, the definitions do not work. The fact that definitions of 'ecosystem services' (ES) and of specific categories are often vague, tautologous and/or at variance with the concepts actually employed is symptomatic of deep-seated problems, as we shall explain.Second, collapsing multiple human value judgments into one or a few numerical values is a form of devaluation. We unpack this claim by exploring the inescapably cultural foundation of ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: What Exactly Is An Ecosystem Service?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: What Exactly Is An Ecosystem Service?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

Gunton

Asperen

Basden

et al. 2017

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Social demands and ecological supplies are not independent variables, but interact, and it is necessary to raise stakeholders' awareness of these linkages. The guideline presented in this paper delivers such an approach, required for adaptive spatial planning (Chan et al, 2012;de Groot et al, 2010;Esteves et al, 2012;Nahlik et al, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Generally, a separation of ecosystem services and the related social impact on communities is likely to generate problems and incomplete impact assessments (Slootweg et al, 2001;Chan et al, 2012;de Groot et al, 2010;Nahlik et al, 2012). To overcome this problem, this paper reports on an effort to develop guidelines that allow for a consideration of social and environmental issues in an integrated manner.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking the ecosystem services approach to social preferences and needs in integrated coastal land use management – A planning approach

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coastal zones with their natural and societal sub-systems are exposed to rapid changes and pressures on resources. Scarcity of space and impacts of climate change are prominent drivers of land use and adaptation management today. Necessary modifications to present land use management strategies and schemes influence both the structures of coastal communities and the ecosystems involved. Approaches to identify the impacts and account for (i) the linkages between social preferences and needs and (ii) ecosystem services in coastal zones have been largely absent. The presented method focuses on improving the inclusion of ecosystem services in planning processes and clarifies the linkages with social impacts. In this study, fourteen stakeholders in decision-making on land use planning in the region of Krummhörn (northwestern Germany, southern North Sea coastal region) conducted a regional participative and informal process for local planning capable to adapt to climate driven changes. It is argued that scientific and practical implications of this integrated assessment focus on multi-functional options and contribute to more sustainable practices in future land use planning. The method operationalizes the ecosystem service approach and social impact analysis and demonstrates that social demands and provision of ecosystem services are inherently connected.

show abstract

Incorporating Multiple Ecological Scales into the Governance of Landscape Services

Opdam¹

2014

Scale‐sensitive Governance of the Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice

Cited by 240 publications

References 39 publications

Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

Linking the ecosystem services approach to social preferences and needs in integrated coastal land use management – A planning approach

Incorporating Multiple Ecological Scales into the Governance of Landscape Services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About