We describe and reflect on seven recurring critiques of the concept of ecosystem services and respective counter‐arguments. First, the concept is criticized for being anthropocentric, whereas others ...argue that it goes beyond instrumental values. Second, some argue that the concept promotes an exploitative human–nature relationship, whereas others state that it reconnects society to ecosystems, emphasizing humanity's dependence on nature. Third, concerns exist that the concept may conflict with biodiversity conservation objectives, whereas others emphasize complementarity. Fourth, the concept is questioned because of its supposed focus on economic valuation, whereas others argue that ecosystem services science includes many values. Fifth, the concept is criticized for promoting commodification of nature, whereas others point out that most ecosystem services are not connected to market‐based instruments. Sixth, vagueness of definitions and classifications are stated to be a weakness, whereas others argue that vagueness enhances transdisciplinary collaboration. Seventh, some criticize the normative nature of the concept, implying that all outcomes of ecosystem processes are desirable. The normative nature is indeed typical for the concept, but should not be problematic when acknowledged. By disentangling and contrasting different arguments we hope to contribute to a more structured debate between opponents and proponents of the ecosystem services concept.
Recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments
A major challenge today and into the future is to maintain or enhance beneficial contributions of nature to a good ...quality of life for all people. This is among the key motivations of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a joint global effort by governments, academia, and civil society to assess and promote knowledge of Earth's biodiversity and ecosystems and their contribution to human societies in order to inform policy formulation. One of the more recent key elements of the IPBES conceptual framework (
1
) is the notion of nature's contributions to people (NCP), which builds on the ecosystem service concept popularized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (
2
). But as we detail below, NCP as defined and put into practice in IPBES differs from earlier work in several important ways. First, the NCP approach recognizes the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining all links between people and nature. Second, use of NCP elevates, emphasizes, and operationalizes the role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding nature's contribution to people.
Ecosystem service assessments rarely consider flows between distant regions. Hence, telecoupling effects such as conservation burdens in distant ecosystems are ignored. We identified ...service-providing species for two cultural ecosystem services (existence and bequest, and birdwatching) and two receiving, i.e. benefitting, regions (Germany, the Netherlands). We delineated and analysed sending, i.e. service-providing, regions on a global scale. The proportion of service-providing species with distant habitats was higher for birdwatching (Germany: 58.6%, Netherlands: 59.4%), than for existence and bequest (Germany: 49.3%, Netherlands: 57.1%). Hotspots of sending regions were predominantly situated in tropical and subtropical grasslands, savannas and shrublands and were significantly more threatened and poorer than the global mean. Hotspot protection levels for flows to Germany were higher than the global mean, and lower for the Dutch hotspots. Our findings increase understanding on how distant regions underpin ecosystem services and necessitate interregional assessment as well as conservation efforts.
In the face of uncertainties around coastal management and climate change, coastal engineering interventions need to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Nature-based solutions and other ...non-traditional, integrated interventions are gaining traction. However, system-based views are not yet embedded into coastal management strategies. Moreover, the differences in coastal interventions, ranging from hard (‘grey’) to nature-based (‘green’) infrastructure remain understudied. In coastal management it is therefore challenging to work with the grey-green spectrum of interventions with clarity and focus, and to produce results that can be evaluated. The objective of this paper was to examine whether there is a common understanding of: the characteristics and differences between grey and green infrastructure, where interventions sit on this spectrum, and the resilience of grey versus green infrastructure. We conducted an integrative literature review of the grey-green spectrum of coastal infrastructure. We examined 105 coastal protection case studies and expanded the double-insurance framework to ensure an integrative approach, looking at both external and internal factors of resilience. Our review showed that external factors are typically used to characterise the grey-green spectrum. However, although useful, they do not facilitate a holistic comparison of alternative interventions. The additional consideration of internal factors (response diversity, multifunctionality, modularity and adaptive, participatory governance) bridges this gap. The review showed that dikes, reefs, saltmarshes, sand nourishment and dunes span a wider segment of the grey-green spectrum than they are generally categorised in. Furthermore, resilient solutions for adaptation are unlikely to be exclusively engineered or natural, but tend to be a mix of the two at different spatial scales (micro, meso, macro and mega). Our review therefore suggests that coastal planners benefit from a more diverse range of options when they consider the incorporation of grey and green interventions in the context of each spatial scale. We propose that internal resilience should be accounted for when infrastructure options are comparatively evaluated. This consideration brings attention to the ways in which the grey-hybrid-green spectrum of infrastructure enhances value for people.
•Examination of case studies along the grey-green spectrum of coastal protection.•Grey infrastructure increasingly incorporates ecological processes at varying scales.•Dikes, reefs, saltmarshes, sand nourishment and dunes span a wide segment of spectrum.•Internal resilience clarifies how infrastructure can enhance value for people.
Display omitted
► We developed a framework for the systematic and stepwise selection of indicators for ecosystem services. ► Our framework distinguishes between land management, ecosystem properties, ...functions, and services. ► Indicators were evaluated through eight criteria, such as scalability, consistency, and sensitivity to management change. ► Land use management also affects the provision of other ecosystem services, mainly regulating and cultural services. ► Future ecosystem service assessments should select at least one state and performance indicator per ecosystem service
Land management is an important factor that affects ecosystem services provision. However, interactions between land management, ecological processes and ecosystem service provision are still not fully understood. Indicators can help to better understand these interactions and provide information for policy-makers to prioritise land management interventions. In this paper, we develop a framework for the systematic selection of indicators, to assess the link between land management and ecosystem services provision in a spatially explicit manner. Our framework distinguishes between ecosystem properties, ecosystem functions, and ecosystem services. We tested the framework in a case study in The Netherlands. For the case study, we identified 12 property indicators, 9 function indicators and 9 service indicators. The indicators were used to examine the effect of land management on food provision, air quality regulation and recreation opportunities. Land management was found to not only affect ecosystem properties, but also ecosystem functions and services directly. Several criteria were used to evaluate the usefulness of the selected indicators, including scalability, sensitivity to land management change, spatial explicitness, and portability. The results show that the proposed framework can be used to determine quantitative links between indicators, so that land management effects on ecosystem services provision can be modelled in a spatially explicit manner.
Over half of the mangroves in Indonesia have been degraded or converted for aquaculture. We assessed the consequences of management decisions by studying the effects of different management regimes ...on mangrove ecosystem services in Java, Indonesia. A novel typology of management regimes distinguishes five main categories: natural, low intensity use, high intensity use, mangroves converted for aquaculture and abandoned aquaculture. Eleven specific management regimes were distinguished, based on legal status, management activities and aquaculture indicators. We assessed and verified matching ecological characteristics per regime. We identified key ecosystem properties underpinning service provision and ‘state’ and ‘performance’ indicators for seven ecosystem services: food, raw materials, coastal protection, carbon sequestration, water purification, nursery and nature-based recreation. Service provision was estimated and scored for each regime by relating their ecological characteristics with ecosystem service indicators. Natural mangroves scored highest for most services, except for food. High food production in aquaculture occurs at the expense of other services. Transitions between management regimes were illustrated to show consequences of management decisions. This study shows the merits of quantifying multifunctionality of management regimes in mangrove systems. Our findings contributed to a common vision among Javanese decision makers to include mangrove ecosystem services in their sustainable coastal management plan.
Display omitted
•Typology of eleven management regimes to quantify mangrove ecosystem services.•Typology considers legislation, management activities and aquaculture indicators.•Ecosystem properties, state and performance indicators for seven ecosystem services.•Effects of land-use intensification, mangrove restoration, conservation, conversion.•Findings considered by decision makers in Java for sustainable coastal management.
Relational values are values of desirable relationships between people and nature and among people (through nature). We report on the approach to capture relational values of nature's contributions ...to people in the regional assessment for Europe and Central Asia of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We present a framework considering indicators along four relational value dimensions about people's relationships with nature: security and sovereignty; health; equity and justice; and heritage, social identity and stewardship. The framework has been operationalized for three nature's contributions to people (NCP): regulation of freshwater quality and quantity, food and feed, and physical and psychological experiences derived from nature. We identify ways to empirically assess relational values of nature's contributions to people at regional and continental scales with social-ecological indicators and proxies, ranging from biophysical indicators to indicators that intersect socio-economic with biophysical data. We conclude that many of the identified indicators can be considered as useful proxies of relational values in a quantitative way. The analysis shows that relational values are essential to consider at the science-policy interface as they are an important set of values that people hold about nature and that go beyond instrumental relations.
We compared and contrasted 11 European case studies to identify challenges and opportunities toward the operationalization of marine and coastal ecosystem service (MCES) assessments in Europe. This ...work is the output of a panel convened by the Marine Working Group of the Ecosystem Services Partnership in September 2016. The MCES assessments were used to (1) address multiple policy objectives simultaneously, (2) interpret EU-wide policies to smaller scales and (3) inform local decision-making. Most of the studies did inform decision makers, but only in a few cases, the outputs were applied or informed decision-making. Significant limitations among the 11 assessments were the absence of shared understanding of the ES concept, data and knowledge gaps, difficulties in accounting for marine social-ecological systems complexity and partial stakeholder involvement. The findings of the expert panel call for continuous involvement of MCES 'end users', integrated knowledge on marine social-ecological systems, defining thresholds to MCES use and raising awareness to the general public. Such improvements at the intersection of science, policy and practice are essential starting points toward building a stronger science foundation supporting management of European marine ecosystems.
EDITED BY Sebastian Villasante
•Spatial model to support planning of multifunctional Green Infrastructure (GI).•Environmental and GI characteristics explain ecosystem service (ES) variations.•Applying ES-specific weights affect ...“hotspots” for GI development priority.•The model can be deployed for other cities and for other ES.
Green infrastructure (GI) is increasingly addressed in urban planning and research to enhance urban sustainability and resilience through the provisioning of ecosystem services (ES). Yet, few applications exist of planning models for multifunctional GI in high spatial and thematic detail that simultaneously align with stakeholder interests. We address these gaps by developing and presenting a spatially explicit model to inform urban planners on priority areas for multifunctional GI development. This model was made possible by spatial analyses on multiple scales, enabling us to assess ES in sufficient detail, while simultaneously matching the preferences for scale and ES-indicators of decision makers and urban planners. The model involves a novel weighting scheme based upon the local capacity of GI to mitigate problems. We applied our model to the city of The Hague using a set of three policy-relevant problems: air pollution, the urban heat island effect and storm water flooding. Our results show that the capacity of GI to mitigate these problems varies spatially, both within and between ES, and depends on local characteristics of GI and the environmental context. We illustrate the relevance of using a multi-scale approach in spatial ES analysis, and underline that GI planning measures should be assessed in high spatial detail due to their often locally distinct ES capacity. Our approach makes important strides towards the deployment of nature-based solutions for urban challenges in the light of demands for increasing resilience and sustainability.
PDF
