Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Conservation of Ecosystem Services : (Annotated bibliography) Echeverri Ochoa, Alejandra; Chan, Kai M. A. 2017-07-27

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


42591-Echeverri_A_et_al_Conservation_services.pdf [ 181.16kB ]
JSON: 42591-1.0354790.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0354790-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0354790-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0354790-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0354790-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0354790-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0354790-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

	 1	Conservation of Ecosystem Services (Annotated bibliography)  Alejandra Echeverri1 & Kai M.A. Chan1  1 Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 2202 Main Mall, V6T 1Z4  Introduction  As the processes by which nature renders benefits for people, ecosystem services are fundamental to healthy and thriving human life, and include climate regulation, flood mitigation, and clean water provision. At the turn of the 21st century, the “ecosystem services” term was coined to help the biological conservation movement broaden beyond its traditional reliance upon the intrinsic values of nature, and thus emerged a vibrant and burgeoning field of research and practice on the ecological provision of such services, their economic valuation, and management. The concept has become central to the quantification and communication of the consequences of environmental management generally. Assessments of legal frameworks and regulations have revealed the ways in which existing laws and policies protect some ecosystem services but do so in a patchy and incomplete manner. Accordingly, much attention has been focused on the development of new institutions for ecosystem services conservation, particularly incentive programs like payments for ecosystem services (PES). The ethical considerations of the concept and its application have been a constant source of passionate debate, including concerns associated with the underlying anthropocentric utilitarian framing, the appropriateness of a production metaphor for ecosystems, and the valuation and commodification of nature. Recently, a diverse swath of social scientists has contributed crucial insights regarding the cultural context for ecosystem services and the appropriate representation of the nonmaterial (or “extra-material”) values associated with nature. Perhaps the recent more inclusive engagement with values could enable ecosystem services to attain a long-sought normalization of conservation.   General Overviews  The notion that natural ecosystems help to support society traces back to at least Plato’s time, and the origins of the modern concern for ecosystems may be traced to George Perkins Marsh’s publication of Man and Nature in 1864, as this book was the first to contest the idea that natural resources are infinite. However, in the end of the 20th century, the term “ecosystem services” was born to encapsulate a range of contributions from nature to humanity. Daily 1997 defined ecosystem services as “the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems and the species that make them up sustain and fulfill human life” (p. 3). Mooney and Ehrlich 1997 told the fragmentary history of the conceptualization of ecosystem services, dating back millennia. More recently, Gómez-Baggethun, et al. 2010 reviewed the ascendance of the concept of ecosystem services to the central paradigm for the human consequences of conservation, and the role that its economic orientation played in attracting political support for conservation. With the publication of the report titled “Ecosystems and Human-Wellbeing” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005), ecosystem services were subsequently defined as “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems” (p. V). Importantly, this report described a typology for the classification of ecosystem services, which recognized four categories of services: 	 2	provisioning, supporting, regulating, and cultural. To date, it is still a commonly used typology for classifying ecosystem services. Since the inception of the term ecosystem services, its conceptualization has mostly followed an economic logic. In Costanza, et al. 1998, the researchers conducted the first economic valuation of ecosystem services at a global scale. The researchers estimated that the economic value of 17 ecosystem services for sixteen biomes ranged between US$16–54 trillion per year. This global economic valuation of ecosystem services was heavily criticized by several authors (see Boyd and Banzhaf 2007). These authors called for standardized environmental accounting units and provided a definition of ecological units of account with concrete examples. The rise of ecosystem services as a concept and as an academic field has been conflated with multiple similar terms and competing definitions. A synthesis of concepts was described in Daily, et al. 2009, which proposed a framework for operationalization of the concept of ecosystem services to inform decision making. This perspective culminated in Kareiva, et al. 2011, an edited volume that accompanied the development of a major new ecosystem services modeling tool of the Natural Capital Project. Potschin, et al. 2016 is a more recent edited volume, a comprehensive reference text including the natural and social sciences of ecosystem services. Díaz, et al. 2015 communicates and justifies the conceptual framework of IPBES, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, which represents an opening to diverse conceptualizations of nature and its benefits.  Boyd, J., and S. Banzhaf. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 63.2–3: 616–626. The authors defined ecosystem services as components of nature, directly enjoyed, consumed, or used; they suggested that services are end products of nature. They stated that practical units of measurement are stocks (e.g., number of bees), and that services are spatially explicit.  Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, and S. Farber. 1998. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecological Economics 25:3–15.	The authors estimated the economic value of seventeen ecosystem services for 16 biomes, based on published studies and some original calculations. The estimated value of the world’s ecosystems was US$33 trillion per year, and the authors suggested that this is a minimum estimate due to nature’s uncertainties.  Daily, G. C. 1997. Introduction: What are ecosystem services? In Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Edited by G. C. Daily, 1–10. Washington, DC: Island Press. This book chapter provided the first clear definition for ecosystem services. It explained that these maintain biodiversity and the production of ecosystem goods, such as seafood, forage, and timber. The authors stated that in addition to the production of goods, ecosystem services are life-support functions such as cleansing, recycling, and renewal, as well as aesthetic benefits.  Daily, G. C., S. Polasky, J. Goldstein, et al. 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7.1: 21–28.
This article operationalized the concept of ecosystem services to inform decision making. It created a conceptual framework that included the biological (i.e., ecosystems, services) and socioeconomic dimensions of ecosystem services (i.e., values, institutions, decisions).  Díaz, S., S. Demissew, J. Carabias, et al. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework—connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:1–16. The articulation of and justification for the IPBES Conceptual Framework, which will orient the work of the 	 3	Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. The framework features a diverse set of conceptualizations of nature and its benefits and associated values, including intrinsic, instrumental, and relational.  Gómez-Baggethun, E., R. de Groot, P. L. Lomas, and C. Montes. 2010. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics 69.6: 1209–1218. The authors summarized the history of the conceptualization of ecosystem services. The authors argued that the ecosystem services history started with the utilitarian framing of beneficial ecosystem functions as services to increase public interest in biodiversity conservation, and then moved toward the incorporation of ecosystem services into markets and payment schemes.  Kareiva, P., H. Tallis, T. H. Ricketts, G. C. Daily, and S. Polasky. 2011. Natural capital: Theory & practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
A comprehensive treatment of ecosystem service analysis from the perspective of the InVEST tool for Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs, of the Natural Capital Project.  Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington, DC: Island Press. This report from a major international assessment process defined ecosystem services as “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems” (p. V) and defined four categories of ecosystem services (i.e., provisioning, supporting, regulating, and cultural). This report analyzed the state of the earth’s ecosystems and ecosystem services in the period from 2001 to 2005. The analysis showed that 60 percent of ecosystem services (including 70 percent of cultural ecosystem services) have been degraded.  Mooney, H. A., and P. R. Ehrlich. 1997. Ecosystem services: A fragmentary history. In Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Edited by G. C. Daily, 11–19. Washington, DC: Island Press. This book chapter explained the fragmentary history of ecosystem services as a concept. The authors stated that while explicit recognition of ecosystem services was relatively new, the notion that natural ecosystems help to support society traces back to at least Plato. The authors indicated that the rise of the concept happened at a time when society was experiencing the growth of an environmental movement.  Potschin, M., R. Haines-Young, R. Fish, and R. K. Turner. 2016. Routledge handbook of ecosystem services. London and New York: Taylor & Francis. A comprehensive reference text on ecosystem services including their biophysical characterization, economic valuation, and inclusion in decision making.  Ecological Underpinnings of Ecosystem Services  The conceptual frameworks that link biodiversity to ecosystem services do so by connecting biodiversity with ecosystem functions and processes, and subsequently with ecosystem service provisioning. Loreau, et al. 2001 describes the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and presents insights on how experimental results may scale up to regional scales to be generalized across ecosystems. Balvanera, et al. 2006 presents a meta-analysis to show that more biodiverse systems exhibit greater ecological performance as compared to less biodiverse systems. 	 4	Similarly, Cadotte, et al. 2011 reviews the literature and explained how functional diversity differs from traditional measures of diversity, and how it is relevant for maintaining ecosystem processes, functions, and services. Luck, et al. 2003 introduces the idea that populations can be considered ecosystem service-providing units. Moreover, Kremen 2005 elaborates on the appropriate scales and units for analyzing ecosystem service provision, and introduces a conceptual framework to connect ecological concepts with those from ecosystem services. Following this logic, Díaz, et al. 2007 states that global environmental changes affect biodiversity by—for example—altering functional diversity, which consequently affects ecosystem service provisioning. The researchers developed a framework to integrate abiotic factors related to global environmental changes with functional diversity, to inform the assessment and management of ecosystem services. To clarify the dispute on scale with regard to ecosystem service provision, Luck, et al. 2009 introduces the idea of “service providing unit-ecosystem service provider continuum” (p. 224), which recognized that populations, species, communities, habitats, and ecosystems can all be considered ecosystem service-providing units, depending on the ecosystem service in question. Considering that functional diversity provides a mechanistic link between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, several authors have used this concept in ecosystem service assessments. For instance, Luck, et al. 2012 explains how functional traits can be applied for measuring the ecosystem services provided by vertebrates. In addition, de Bello, et al. 2010 summarizes the functional traits that can be used to measure a wide variety of ecosystem functions and ecosystem services. As one example of the application of ecosystem functions to the understanding of services, Ostfeld and LoGiudice 2003 tests how different patterns of biodiversity loss affected the lead to the erosion of ecosystem service provision with respect to human exposure to Lyme disease.  Balvanera, P., A. B. Pfisterer, N. Buchmann, et al. 2006. Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecology Letters 9.10: 1146– 1156. The authors analyzed 446 studies of biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning. Their analyses showed that biodiversity effects were stronger at the community level than the ecosystem level, and that productivity-related effects decline with increasing number of trophic links between the manipulated and the measured elements.  Cadotte, M. W., K. Carscadden, and N. Mirotchnick. 2011. Beyond species: Functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services. Journal of Applied Ecology 48.5: 1079–1087. The authors made a clear case for using functional diversity instead of species richness when analyzing the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. They stated that functional diversity should be incorporated into conservation and restoration analyses and decision making to ensure the maintenance of ecosystem processes and services.  de Bello, F., S. Lavorel, S. Díaz, et al. 2010. Towards an assessment of multiple ecosystem processes and services via functional traits. Biodiversity and Conservation 19.10: 2873–2893. This literature review synthesized the available information connecting functional traits with ecosystem processes and services. They introduced the term trait-service clusters to inform decision making regarding the conservation and management of ecosystem services.  Díaz, S., S. Lavorel, F. de Bello, F. Quétier, K. Grigulis, and T. M. Robson. 2007. Incorporating plant functional diversity effects in ecosystem service assessments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104.52: 20684–20689. The authors in this article launched a method that tests whether there are combinations of abiotic factors and functional diversity factors that explain 	 5	ecosystem processes for different ecosystem services. This method was applied to an ecosystem in the central French Alps.  Kremen, C. 2005. Managing ecosystem services: What do we need to know about their ecology? Ecology Letters 8.5: 468–479. The author introduced a conceptual framework with four components for linking biodiversity with ecosystem services: (1) identifying the ecosystem service providers, (2) determining community structure that influences functions in landscapes, (3) assessing environmental factors that influence service provisioning, and (4) assessing the spatiotemporal scale over which providers and services operate.  Loreau, M., S. Naeem, P. Inchausti, et al. 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294.5543: 804–808. This paper analyzed the relationship between ecological performance and diversity at different scales. They stated that while experiments have showed a positive linear relationship between species richness and ecological performance, scaling up to regional scales remains elusive. Species-area relations imply that the long-term maintenance of diversity at local scales requires a much higher diversity at regional scales.  Luck, G. W., G. C. Daily, and P. R. Ehrlich. 2003. Population diversity and ecosystem services. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18.7: 331–336.
The authors advocated for a more integrative approach for assessing biodiversity decline. They argued that considering population size, distribution, genetic differentiation, and population density are key to reflect the changes to biodiversity and the effects on ecosystem service provisioning. 	Luck, G. W., R. Harrington, P. A. Harrison, et al. 2009. Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services. BioScience 59.3: 223–235.
The purpose of this paper was to elaborate on the unit concept of ecosystem service providers. The authors introduced the concept of a continuum between service providing units and ecosystem service providers (SPU-ESP continuum). 	Luck, G. W., S. Lavorel, S. McIntyre, and K. Lumb. 2012. Improving the application of vertebrate trait-based frameworks to the study of ecosystem services. Journal of Animal Ecology 81.5: 1065–1076. This paper defined the concept of “trait” in the context of ecosystem services, and distinguished between “effect traits” and “response traits.” Response traits dictate the response of organisms to environmental change, and effect traits determine the effect an organism has on ecosystem functioning. The authors explained how to use effect and response traits when assessing ecosystem services provided by vertebrates.  Ostfeld, R. S., and K. LoGiudice. 2003. Community disassembly, biodiversity loss, and the erosion of an ecosystem service. Ecology 84.6: 1421–1427. The authors tested whether different sequences of species loss caused differences in the shape of the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. They evaluated the disassembly rules of a vertebrate community and the risks of human exposure to Lyme disease. They found a negative relationship between host species richness and nymphal infection prevalence when mice were present in the communities and the removal sequence of non-mouse hosts was randomized.  Environmental Management of Ecosystems  Broadly speaking, ecosystem services are provided by ecosystems (although recognizing that species, 	 6	populations, and communities that are part of such ecosystems are important service-providing units). Therefore, managing ecosystems and social-ecological systems (i.e., coupled human-natural systems) is crucial for the conservation and preservation of ecosystem services. But the management of ecosystems is often challenging because they are public goods and often suffer from the “tragedy of ecosystem services,” by which— according to Lant, et al. 2008—the open access of resources results in an under-provision of ecosystem services. The case of ecosystem services is similar to the case of common pool resources, and as described in Elinor Ostrom’s scholarship, institutions play a significant role in ensuring successful collective management in social-ecological systems. Folke, et al. 2005 went further to explain the concept of adaptive governance and how it can be applied to managing social-ecological systems. Additionally, Armitage, et al. 2008 describes the benefits of using adaptive comanagement for ecosystem management, and Olsson, et al. 2004 illustrates adaptive comanagement in practice, via examples from Sweden and Canada. Specifically, regarding the management of ecosystem services, Carpenter, et al. 2006 presents an overview of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Scenarios, and how these different scenarios affect the evaluation of ecosystem services trade-offs and their management. Following this, Chan, et al. 2006 presents the first multiservice analysis in a conservation planning context in a case study in central California. To fill the need for a dedicated planning tool for ecosystem services, Nelson, et al. 2009 demonstrates the application of InVEST (the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs tool). Meanwhile, following the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Carpenter, et al. 2009 points to the challenges faced by science informing ecosystem services management, and presents future research priorities and suggestions for improved relevance. In parallel, de Groot, et al. 2010 introduces a list of challenges associated with integrating ecosystem services into decision making, including reflecting the importance of social and cultural values. In order to improve the use of the concept, Bryan, et al. 2010 attempts to quantify the social values of ecosystems in a way similar to the ecological and economic values.  Armitage, D. R., R. Plummer, and F. Berkes. 2008. Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology 7.2: 95–102.
This paper introduced the concept and the method of adaptive comanagement, which is the result of merging comanagement with adaptive management. This method is appropriate for managing complex ecosystems, as it gives central attention to the learning process (including experiential and experimental learning) and collaborative actions between institutions. 	Bryan, B. A., C. M. Raymond, N. D. Crossman, and D. H. Macdonald. 2010. Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what, and how? Landscape and Urban Planning 97.2: 111–122. This study used methods from ecology to conduct a spatial analysis for conservation planning that considers social values. According to the authors, biophysical and economic values are mapped for spatial planning, but social values are rarely considered. This study illustrated how identifying and mapping social values might help manage ecosystem services at the landscape level.  Carpenter, S., E. Bennett, and G. Peterson. 2006. Scenarios for ecosystem services: An overview. Ecology and Society 11.1: 29. This paper evaluated the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment scenarios and their implications for the management of ecosystem services. After conducting quantitative and qualitative analyses, the authors concluded that the MEA scenarios are a tool for analyzing trade-offs between ecosystem services and exploring logical consequences for 	 7	different policies that manage ecosystem services.  Carpenter, S. R., H. A. Mooney, J. Agard, et al. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106.5: 1305–1312. This paper argues that the current science evaluating ecosystem services is fragmented. The authors advocated for science that elaborates on a social-ecological systems approach, claiming that policies and practices for ecosystem services could be enhanced by evaluating the feedbacks between biophysical and social systems.  Chan, K. M. A., M. R. Shaw, D. R. Cameron, E. C. Underwood, and G. C. Daily. 2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biology 4.11: 2138–2152.
The first incorporation of multiple ecosystem services targets alongside biodiversity in a conservation planning analysis. The case study in the central coast ecoregion of California included crop pollination, forage production, water provision, carbon storage, outdoor recreation, and flood mitigation alongside biodiversity targets using the Marxan planning tool.  de Groot, R. S., R. Alkemade, L. Braat, L. Hein, and L. Willemen. 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity 7.3: 260–272. The authors described the main challenges associated with the integration of ecosystem services in environmental management, including (1) a lack of indicators to test the capacity of ecosystems to provide services, (2) a lack of methods that apprehend the importance of the value of ecosystem services, and (3) a lack of management institutions that deal with multiple ecosystem services.  Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30.1: 441–473. This paper reviewed the literature on ecosystem-based management by highlighting the importance of the social dimensions in the governance of ecosystems. Adaptive governance is required to manage ecological systems that provide ecosystem services. Good governance for these systems connects individuals, organizations, agencies, and institutions across governance scales. And key persons and social networks are crucial in developing a common understanding of management policies.  Lant, C. L., J. B. Ruhl, and S. E. Kraft. 2008. The tragedy of ecosystem services. BioScience 58.10: 969–974. The authors stated that managing ecosystem services reflects the tragedy of the commons. They stated that ecosystem services fell in a social trap due to the institutions that govern them and the law that applies to them (for example, property law reinforcing privatization). This paper presented some ideas on how to better manage and address the administration of ecosystem services, for example via ecosystem services districts.  Nelson, E., G. Mendoza, J. Regetz, et al. 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7.1: 4–11. The first application of the spatially explicit InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs). The case study in the Willamette Basin, Oregon, assessed tradeoffs between a suite of ecosystem services (carbon sequestration, soil conservation, water quality, and storm peak mitigation), biodiversity, and commodity production via stakeholder- defined scenarios.  	 8	Olsson, P., C. Folke, and F. Berkes. 2004. Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management 34.1: 75–90. This paper presented examples from Sweden and Canada to show how local groups self-organized for ecosystem management and adapted to changing conditions. The authors recognized that adaptive comanagement of ecosystems depended on each of the following: leaders with vision, enabling legislation to create social space for ecosystem management, capacity for monitoring environmental feedback, and combining various sources of knowledge. Adaptive comanagement can be applied to the management of ecosystem services.  Valuation of Ecosystem Goods and Services  Conserving and managing ecosystem services depends critically on the integration of these services into policies and management decisions. For this, appropriate methods for valuating ecosystem goods and services appear to be imperative. Importantly, these valuation methods should address the economic, social, and cultural values of ecosystems. Bockstael, et al. 2000 describes the concept of economic values, and TEEB 2010 presents a guide to calculate the economic value of ecosystem services. Other authors, however, recognized that the valuation of ecosystem goods and services encompasses more than just the economic values. For instance, Goulder and Kennedy 1997 presents the philosophical bases of value and advocates for the application of a utilitarian framing of nature to ecosystem services, and de Groot, et al. 2002 introduces a typology to classify ecosystem services and methodologies for the valuation of different services that consider different notions of values. Naidoo and Ricketts 2006 undertakes first multiservice evaluation of ecosystem services in a conservation context, using a cost-benefit framework. Regarding the social and cultural dimensions of values, Kumar and Kumar 2008 describes the challenges of applying an economic logic to the valuation of ecosystem services, and Kenter 2016 stresses the importance of including cultural, shared, and plural values in ecosystem services valuations. In addition, Martín-López, et al. 2007 shows the importance of affective motives when evaluating the willingness to pay for the conservation of biodiversity. More recently, Satterfield, et al. 2013 presents qualitative- quantitative methods for valuating ecosystem services, and Chan, et al. 2012 proposes a framework for valuation and decision making that accounts for a suite of challenges surrounding the intangibility and incommensurability of some values.  Bockstael, N. E., A. M. Freeman, R. J. Kopp, P. R. Portney, and V. K. Smith. 2000. On measuring economic values for nature. Environmental Science & Technology 34.8: 1384–1389. The authors explained the concept of “values” in so far as it applies to economics, and presented methods to measure the economic values of nature. They explained that the economic value for an ecosystem service relates to the contribution it makes to human well-being.  Chan, K. M. A., A. Guerry, P. Balvanera, et al. 2012. Where are “cultural” and “social” in ecosystem services: A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience 6.8: 744–756. This article presents a proposed framework for interdisciplinary research for decision making about ecosystem services, explicitly accounting for the complexities that arise from social and cultural values including intangibility and incommensurability. Strategies and valuation methods are presented for each complexity.  de Groot, R. S., M. A. Wilson, and R. M. J. Boumans. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 	 9	41.3: 393–408. This paper presented a typology for describing, classifying, and valuing ecosystem services. The typology differentiates ecosystem functions from the goods and services that result, and links to suitable valuation methods.  Goulder, L. H., and D. Kennedy. 1997. Valuing ecosystem services: Philosophical bases and empirical methods. In Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Edited by G. C. Daily, 23–47. Washington, DC: Island Press. This chapter discussed the philosophical perspectives and economic methods underlying the valuation of ecosystem services. The authors stated that in order to assess ecosystem services, we must choose among philosophical bases of value. They advocated for a utilitarian basis of value and associated methods (e.g., in cost-benefit analyses), and argued that the utilitarian approach does not eliminate the consideration of nonuse values of nature.  Kenter, J. O. 2016. Editorial: Shared, plural, and cultural values. Ecosystem Services 21 (Part B): 175–183. This is an editorial that introduced the special issue of Ecosystem Services, which arose from the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2012–2014). The author raises awareness on shared and cultural values. Shared values are considered as the values we hold in common that communities and societies formed through a long-term process of socialization. Cultural values are considered as the values that reflect the importance of culture in managing and valuing ecosystems.  Kumar, M., and P. Kumar. 2008. Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective. Ecological Economics 64.4: 808–819. The authors offered a rationale for economic valuation of ecosystem services and presented the challenges economists face in the process. The authors argued that economic valuation helps inform management decisions, but only when decision makers are aware of the objectives and limitations of valuations. Valuation of ecosystem services relies on bold assumptions like centrality of market, utilitarian framework, substitutability, and resource fungibility, which are not always met.  Martín-López, B., C. Montes, and J. Benayas. 2007. The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 139.1–2: 67–82. The authors explored attitudes toward biodiversity using a contingent valuation survey in the Doñana National Park in Spain. Their analyses showed that willingness to pay for the conservation of biodiversity was associated with affective factors, rather than ecological factors. People valued species that were phylogenetically closer to humans and those that provided utilitarian values to humans, and perceived less value in species important for ecosystem functioning.  Naidoo, R., and T. H. Ricketts. 2006. Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation. PLoS Biology 4.11: 2153–2164. The first comprehensive valuation of multiple ecosystem services in a conservation context, this article characterized the costs and benefits of conservation surrounding a protected area in the Atlantic forests of Paraguay. Ecosystem services included sustainable bushmeat harvest, sustainable timber harvest, bioproaspecting, existence value, and carbon storage.  Satterfield, T., R. Gregory, S. Klain, M. Roberts, and K. M. A. Chan. 2013. Culture, intangibles and metrics in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 117:103–114. This article addresses the difficult but necessary collaboration of researchers of culture in the valuation of ecosystem services and environmental management. The authors propose and describe a suite of alternative methodologies for valuation in quantitative-qualitative terms, borrowing from risk 	 10	assessment.  TEEB. 2010. Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Geneva: TEEB. This report synthesized the incorporation of economic concepts in decision making regarding environmental management. TEEB presented an approach that captures multiple economic values of nature, including various techniques for their assessment. The authors made the case for systematic appraisal of the economic contribution of biodiversity and ecosystem services to human well-being.  Conservation through Cultural Lenses  Academics and practitioners have increasingly recognized that successful conservation efforts—including conservation of ecosystem services—are those that integrate the cultural values of local communities, as expressed in Peterson, et al. 2010. Accordingly, the relatively slow development of methods to investigate cultural ecosystem services and nonmaterial (or “extra-material”) values has been followed by a burst of attention in this area. Church, et al. 2011 via the UK National Ecosystem Assessment argues that cultural services are not benefits but rather “environmental settings” coproduced by interactions between nature and people over millennia. Chan, et al. 2012 points out that virtually all ecosystem services are in some sense “cultural,” and that cultural services are not a separate class but rather fundamentally intertwined with material ecosystem services. Accordingly, the researchers propose a typology for connecting ecosystem services to diverse benefits and understanding benefits through eight dimensions of values, which dictates appropriate methods of valuation. In line with this notion of ecosystem services bundles, a variety of research has revealed the perceptions of such bundles via novel participatory methods of ecosystem services quantification and mapping: Klain and Chan 2012 in coastal Pacific Canada; Martín-López, et al. 2012 in Spain; Plieninger, et al. 2013 in Eastern Germany; Gould, et al. 2014 in Hawaiian forests; and Cáceres, et al. 2015 in Argentina. All reveal that the perceptions of services and bundles vary predictably across people based on the context and the respondent’s sociodemographic characteristics. Acknowledging an early dearth of formal attention in ecosystem services research to cultural services, Daniel, et al. 2012 points to the ample existing evidence regarding landscape aesthetics, cultural heritage, outdoor recreation, and spiritual significance. In response to the relatively limited focus of conservation on the instrumental and intrinsic values of nature, Chan, et al. 2016 characterizes a crucial third class of values—relational values—which are preferences, principles, and virtues pertaining to the relationships between people and nature. The researchers argue that by understanding local concerns in these relational terms, researchers and practitioners could reach a much broader set of constituents and unleash latent popular forces for conservation.  Cáceres, D. M., E. Tapella, F. Quétier, and S. Díaz. 2015. The social value of biodiversity and ecosystem services from the perspectives of different social actors. Ecology and Society 20.1: 62. This paper quantified how different social actors perceive the ecosystem services associated with six ecosystem types in Argentina. The authors found that subsistence farmers and extension officers valued more ecosystem services associated with pristine forests than the other social actors. In addition, conservation officers and policymakers identified many more ecosystem services than cattle ranchers and large farmers.  Chan, K. M. A., P. Balvanera, K. Benessaiah, et al. 2016. Opinion: Why protect nature? 	 11	Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113.6: 1462–1465. The authors argued that conservation has mostly focused on instrumental or intrinsic values of nature, but that it is time to engage with a third class of values that they term relational values. Relational values are preferences, principles, and virtues associated with relationships, both interpersonal and as articulated by policies and social norms, between people and nature.  Chan, K. M. A., T. Satterfield, and J. Goldstein. 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics 74:8–18.
The authors argued that the effectiveness of the ecosystem services framework in decision making is hindered by the conflation of services, values, and benefits, and a failure to treat diverse kinds of values. The authors distinguished eight dimensions of values, and proposed a typology for the classification of the nonuse and cultural values of ecosystem services.  Church, A., J. Burgess, N. Ravenscroft, et al. 2011. Cultural services. In The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. Edited by UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 633–692. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment’s chapter on cultural ecosystem services, as “the environmental settings that give rise to the cultural goods and benefits that people obtain from ecosystems”(p. 634). As such, the authors argue that cultural services are coproduced by the interactions between people and nature over millennia.  Daniel, T. C., A. Muhar, A. Arnberger, et al. 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109.23: 8812–8819. This paper stressed the importance for integrating social science methods in the assessment of cultural ecosystem services. The authors linked ecological structures and functions to various cultural ecosystem services.  Gould, R. K., N. M. Ardoin, U. Woodside, and T. Satterfield. 2014. The forest has a story: Cultural ecosystem services in Kona, Hawai‘i. Ecology and Society 19.3: 55–73. This paper presented an empirical case study in Hawaii that addressed people’s connections with the landscape and the Kona Forests. The authors found that although people of various backgrounds reported strong spirituality and heritage-related values, Native Hawaiians rated heritage connections as deeper, and lifetime residents portrayed ecosystem-identity connections as more integral to their well-being than did people from other backgrounds.  Klain, S. C., and K. M. A. Chan. 2012. Navigating coastal values: Participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning. Ecological Economics 82:104–113. A spatially explicit participatory mapping of marine ecosystem services on Vancouver Island, Canada. The authors document the impediments to the mapping and quantification of cultural services, and the bundling of ecosystem services by respondents according to activities and experiences.  Martín-López, B., I. Iniesta-Arandia, M. García-Llorente, et al. 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 7.6: e38970. A major empirical effort to understand the perceptions of ecosystem services across eight studies in Spain. Regulating services were often identified, and social preferences suggested tradeoffs between hunting and a cadre of services including most regulating and cultural services.  	 12	Peterson, R. B., D. Russell, P. West, and J. P. Brosius. 2010. Seeing (and doing) conservation through cultural lenses. Environmental Management 45.1: 5–18. This paper critiqued the traditional ways of doing conservation. The authors asked for the inclusion of cultural lenses and anthropologists to conservation. They explained how local communities and local context shape conservation. The paper mostly criticized the permanent exclusion of social dimensions to conservation, and gave some insights on how these can be integrated.  Plieninger, T., S. Dijks, E. Oteros-Rozas, and C. Bieling. 2013. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33:118–129. A spatially explicit participatory mapping of cultural ecosystem services and several “disservices” in Eastern Germany. Results reveal perceptions of bundles of services that vary according to respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics.  Legal Frameworks and Regulatory Mechanisms  A fundamental form of protecting natural resources, ecosystems, and ecosystem services is via legal and regulatory mechanisms. Across the world, governments, scientists, NGOs, and policymakers are increasingly using the language of ecosystem services when referring to conservation and resource management. Ruhl and Salzman 2007 summarizes how ecosystem services grew as a concept and got later integrated into environmental laws and policies. The researchers also discussed the importance of national and local governments regarding their protection. Moreover, Salzman 2011 expresses that the law that protects ecosystem services has been slow in protecting them directly, but that much legislation protects them indirectly (e.g., public nuisance and property rights law). Heal, et al. 2001 stresses that the protection of ecosystem services and environmental resources is fragmented across legal frameworks because, for example, legislation either focuses on protecting water or on protecting endangered species. Examples from different parts of the world provide evidence for the arguments in Heal, et al. 2001, for instance, regarding endangered species and the potential ecosystem services they provide, Wilcove and Lee 2004 shows how three economic incentive-based programs protect endangered species in the United States. Benidickson 2009 summarizes the applicable legislation for the protection of Canadian ecosystems considering protected areas and the Species at Risk Act. Also, Ruhl and Gregg 2001 shows that the protection of United States’ wetlands and their services has mostly stemmed from the Clean Water Act. Some policies and mechanisms that protect natural resources have more recently been designed to protect a broader scope of services. Moreover, Hauck, et al. 2013 presents the benefits and limitations associated with the laws and policies that protect ecosystem services in the European Union. Hirokawa 2011 stresses the importance of the local scale in the legislation that protects ecosystem services, given that the impacts of ecosystem services losses are mostly felt at local scales. In response to the public concern for biodiversity and ecosystem services, some countries have started to include ecosystem services in their legal frameworks. For example, Ecuador’s 2008 constitution (see Constitución de la República del Ecuador 2008) explains the role of the State in regulating ecosystem services and the importance of such services for allowing people to have a good life. Additionally, in June 2016, the Peruvian congress passed a national law (Ley N 30215, Decreto Supremo No 009-2016-MINAM) to promote, regulate, and supervise the design of payments for ecosystem services, with the purpose of conserving and restoring ecosystems and the services these provide to people.  Benidickson, J. 2009. Endangered spaces and species. In Environmental Law. 3d ed. By J. 	 13	Benidickson, 297–320. Toronto: Irwin Law. This book chapter considered various approaches that offer potential avenues of protection to spaces and species in general legislation. It also summarized the legal mechanisms intended to safeguard spaces and species, ecosystems, and biodiversity in Canada. Some examples include protected areas legislation, British Columbia’s Ecological Reserves Act, endangered species legislation such as the Species at Risk Act, and conservation mechanisms in private lands.  Constitución de la República del Ecuador 2008, art. 74, §6. The new constitution of Ecuador stipulates that the state ought to regulate the use, harvesting, and production of ecosystem services. The constitution recognizes that people and local communities have the right to benefit from the environment and the natural resources, which allows them to have a good life. Available online in Spanish.  Hauck, J., C. Görg, R. Varjopuro, O. Ratamäki, and K. Jax. 2013. Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: Some stakeholder perspectives. Environmental Science & Policy 25:13–21. This article summarized the policies that address ecosystem services at various levels within the European Union. The authors described two challenges that arose when formulating and implementing policies related to ecosystem services: (1) valuing ecosystem services across scales and (2) analyzing trade-offs that occur when one ecosystem service is preferred over another.  Heal, G., G. C. Daily, P. R. Ehrlich, et al. 2001. Protecting natural capital through ecosystem service districts. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20:333–364. This article presented the idea of “ecosystem services districts” as a mechanism to protect ecosystem services. Based on US legislation, the authors stated that there are few explicit protections for ecosystem services because the legal protection of ecosystems was not the primary objective when drafting environmental laws. For example, the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act were based on health standards, and the Endangered Species Act is species specific.  Hirokawa, K. H. 2011. Sustaining ecosystem services through local environmental law. Pace Environmental Law Review 28:760–826.
The author argued that the value embedded in ecosystem services is relevant to local regulation and local governance. Claiming that the impacts of ecosystem services losses are pronounced at a local level, the author suggested that regulation by local governments may be the most effective way to slow or mitigate such ecosystem services losses.  Peru. 2016. Law N° 30215—Law of Mechanisms for Payments for Ecosystem Services. Decreto Supremo N° 009-2016-MINAM. The newly approved law promotes, regulates, and supervises the mechanisms for payments for ecosystem services in Peru. This law recognizes that payments for ecosystem services have the purpose of safeguarding the benefits generated by ecosystems. It also describes the roles of different stakeholders in the payments for ecosystem services schemes. Available online.  Ruhl, J. B., and R. J. Gregg. 2001. Integrating ecosystem services into environmental law: A case study of wetlands mitigation banking. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20:365–392. The authors summarized some of the policy and legal background on wetlands mitigation in the United States, particularly the Clean Water Act. The authors also commented on the roles of institutions and regulatory bodies that enable wetlands mitigation banking.  	 14	Ruhl, J. B., and J. Salzman. 2007. The law and policy beginnings of ecosystem services. Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law 22.2: 157–172.
This article is a review on the development of ecosystem services as it grew from a concept to become a central way of understanding and doing conservation. It also discussed the roles of national governments and international organizations in the policies that protect ecosystem services. Available online.  Salzman, J. 2011. What is the emperor wearing? The secret lives of ecosystem services. Pace Environmental Law Review 28:591–613.
The author addressed payments for ecosystem services, planning for ecosystem services, and ecosystem services and the law. Regarding the law, the author concluded that there is no law of ecosystem services, but that several laws pertain, including those that are related to property rights and public nuisance.  Wilcove, D. S., and J. Lee. 2004. Using economic and regulatory incentives to restore endangered species: Lessons learned from three new programs. Conservation Biology 18.3: 639–645. This article investigated the effectiveness of three incentive-based programs for restoring endangered species on private lands in the United States. The authors found that the “safe harbor” provision of the US Endangered Species Act and Environmental Defense’s Landowner Conservation Assistance program both yielded conservation on private lands.  Payments for Ecosystem Services  The use of incentive schemes has coincided with the forces that have favored ecosystem services thinking. Wunder 2005 defines a special class of incentive programs, payments for ecosystem services (PES), as “a voluntary, conditional transaction between at least one buyer and one seller of a well-defined service” (p. 3). Similarly, Engel, et al. 2008 defines PES as “a voluntary transaction where a well-defined ecosystem service is bought by a buyer from a service provider, if and only if, the provider secures its provision” (p. 664) and identifies three necessary conditions for a genuine PES scheme. Several authors have criticized PES programs for different reasons, while recognizing that these may be useful mechanisms to protect biodiversity. For example, Muradian, et al. 2013 warns about the overreliance on PES schemes as a conservation tool, referring to their potential to erode intrinsic motivations to conserve biodiversity. Kinzig, et al. 2011 elaborates on these ideas and presents the promises and challenges associated with PES, in particular to match program design to the properties of the service. Similarly, Naeem, et al. 2015 points to the widespread lack of evaluation and monitoring of PES programs and proposes a set of guidelines and principles for scientifically rigorous PES design and evaluation. Additionally, Pascual, et al. 2014 discusses the problems associated with PES and social equity, and presents the opportunities and challenges for designing programs that consider social equity of various groups. Other authors have a more positive view toward the PES programs, and their research has centered on improving the design of future PES. For instance, Wunder 2013 states that PES schemes are a sophisticated and promising tool to conserve biodiversity, but that for them to be successful, they require a trustful negotiation climate and well-defined property rights. Moreover, empirical studies have evaluated different aspects of the PES programs in various contexts. For example, Bremer, et al. 2014 addresses the factors that motivate participation to PES programs in the Ecuadorian highlands. In empirical investigation of particular programs, Goldman-Benner, et al. 2012 evaluates water-related PES programs and identifies recommendations on how to improve these programs based on theoretical best practices. The implications of PES programs for motivations were reviewed empirically in Rode, et al. 2015, which found evidence that 	 15	incentives both “crowd out” and can “crowd in” other motivations for conservation.  Bremer, L. L., K. A. Farley, and D. Lopez-Carr. 2014. What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador’s SocioPáramo program. Land Use Policy 36:122–133. The authors evaluated the factors facilitating and constraining participation in the Ecuador’s SocioPámaro program, which is a PES program that intends to protect the páramos (Andean highlands). They found that while the program is attracting participation among rural farmers and communities, legal or biophysical land-use restrictions and a need for existing social, human, and financial capital make this program more accessible to larger and wealthier landowners.  Engel, S., S. Pagiola, and S. Wunder. 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 65.4: 663–674. This paper described payments for ecosystem services programs and their scope. It summarized the characteristics of PES programs and how PES compared to other policy instruments. The authors concluded that PES is attractive in situations where ecosystem service providers are poor, marginalized landholders, given the association with the beneficiary- pays rather than the polluter-pays principle.  Goldman-Benner, R. L., S. Benitez, T. Boucher, et al. 2012. Water funds and payments for ecosystem services: Practice learns from theory and theory can learn from practice. Oryx 46.1: 55–63. This paper addressed water funds and water-oriented payments for ecosystem services (PES) and examined how the theoretical best practices in the PES literatures could inform and improve practical efforts. The authors concluded that requiring additionality can exclude benefits from social diffusion and result in the inefficient targeting of PES funds.  Kinzig, A. P., C. Perrings, F. S. Chapin, et al. 2011. Paying for ecosystem services—promise and peril. Science 334.6056: 603–604. The authors summarized the promises and limitations of the payment for ecosystem services schemes. They stated that markets are useful for addressing environmental issues, but are not a panacea. Effective mechanism design requires a deep understanding of the linkages between biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and ecosystem services. Moreover, they listed four mechanisms that protect ecosystem services: (1) regulation and penalty, (2) cap and trade, (3) direct payments, and (4) self-regulation.  Muradian, R., M. Arsel, L. Pellegrini, et al. 2013. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win‐win solutions. Conservation Letters 6.4: 274–279. The authors presented the limitations of the payments for ecosystem services and stated that relying on these payments as win-win solutions might lead to ineffective outcomes. They discussed that monetary incentives for conservation might crowd out intrinsic motivations. Moreover, the expectation to counteract highly profitable economic activities with payments may create scenarios where the protection of ecosystems is only possible with increased levels of monetary compensation.  Naeem, S., J. C. Ingram, A. Varga, et al. 2015. Get the science right when paying for nature’s services. Science 347.6227: 1206–1207. This article pointed to the weakness of natural sciences in the design and evaluation of payments for ecosystem services, and provided a suite of principles and guidelines for such programs to be successful from a natural-science perspective. Principles included ecological dynamics, baselines, inclusion of multiple services, monitoring, metrics, and ecological sustainability.  	 16	Pascual, U., J. Phelps, E. Garmendia, et al. 2014. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience 64.11: 1027–1036.
This paper presented how the payment for ecosystem services are, for the most part, blind to social equity. The authors introduced a conceptual framework that presents the risks and opportunities for the conservation of ecosystem services when considering distributional, procedural, and recognitional dimensions of social equity.  Rode, J., E. Gómez-Baggethun, and T. Krause. 2015. Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: A review of the empirical evidence. Ecological Economics 117:270–282. A comprehensive review of the empirical evidence for the theory of motivational crowding out, by which the addition of monetary incentives undermine existing motivations for conservation. The authors found evidence of “crowding out” and, to a lesser extent, of “crowding in.”  Wunder, S. 2005. Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper 1–24. This report defined the payments for ecosystem services and provides suggestions for PES design. It is an assessment based on a literature review with observation from field research conducted in Latin America and Asia. The conclusions on the report state that users will continue to drive PES, but their willingness to pay will only increase if schemes can demonstrate clear additionality.  Wunder, S. 2013. When payments for environmental services will work for conservation. Conservation Letters 6.4: 230–237. In this paper, the author argued that PES are the best suited instruments to deliver equitable conservation outcomes. The author criticized the work presented in Muradian, et al. 2013 by stating that whether PES would crowd-in or crowd-out is highly context specific. That PES incentives are promising but require a payment culture, a trustful negotiation climate, and well- defined land tenure regime for providers.  Ethical Considerations for the Ecosystem Services Framework  As ecosystem services have become a prevailing framework for quantifying and communicating the consequences of nature conservation, the concept has also been subject to considerable critique and debate. Many concerns are associated with ethical issues associated with “putting a price tag on nature” and with the social justice implications of ecosystem services programs. Gómez-Baggethun and Ruiz-Pérez 2011 argues that valuation of ecosystem services should not be equated with commodification, but that valuation should be understood in the context of prevailing neoliberal discourses and sociopolitical processes as the first stage in the commodification of nature. Including but not limited to commodification, Luck, et al. 2012 reviews a diverse set of ethical issues raised by various applications of the ecosystem services concept. Child 2009 presents a concern with the utilitarian framing of nature and argues that conservation for future generations will not be accomplished through ecosystem services, but through a shift in societal thinking. Similarly, Turnhout, et al. 2013 argues for a shift in engagement away from efforts that translate multiple values of nature into a single currency and toward a focus on diverse social-natural relations. In addition, Jackson and Palmer 2015 states that the relationship between humans and nature should not be valued in fixed stocks of ecosystem services, but rather in the reconfiguration of sociocultural relations between people and nature as the valued stock. Specifically, regarding economic valuations of ecosystem services, Ludwig 2000 presents four main limitations of this method and states that personal and social values of nature are more important than the economic values. In addition, Rees 1998 also criticizes the valuation of ecosystem services by presenting the metaphor that humans are the Earth’s parasites, and 	 17	that measuring the value of the Earth is purposeless because the value of a host to its parasite is infinite. Many other critiques to the ecosystem services framing refer to the issue of social justice and equity. For instance, Jax, et al. 2013 argues that ecosystem services are value laden and that the decisions to conserve or manage them often require trade-offs that allude to social justice issues. Moreover, Soulé 2013 states that the “New Conservation” paradigm, which is one that considers conservation for people, not for nature only, poses a major threat to the world’s ecosystems. Sikor 2013 provides a compilation of studies examining ecosystem services programs and arrangements from a justice perspective.  Child, M. F. 2009. The Thoreau ideal as a unifying thread in the conservation movement. Conservation Biology 23.2: 241–243.
The author presented a critique of the utilitarian framing for conservation. The author stated that conservation of biodiversity is mostly a belief. That it is a culture-first, science-second endeavor.  Gómez-Baggethun, E., and M. Ruiz-Pérez. 2011. Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography 35.5: 613–628. The article considers the debate regarding economic valuation in the context of the institutional settings in which it is embedded. In this light, the authors argue that valuation is not equivalent to commodification but should be understood as the first stage in a process of commodification currently favored by prevailing neoliberal discourses and sociopolitical processes.  Jackson, S., and L. R. Palmer. 2015. Reconceptualizing ecosystem services: Possibilities for cultivating and valuing the ethics and practices of care. Progress in Human Geography 39.2: 122–145. The authors rejected the conventional notion of payments for ecosystem services (PES) as either an economic or an environmental strategy. They suggested that nature is valued in so far as it relates to actual human and nonhuman interrelations and practices, and that the relationship between people and nature should be the valued stock instead of the “fixed stock of ecosystem services.”  Jax, K., D. N. Barton, K. M. A. Chan, et al. 2013. Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecological Economics 93.C: 260–268. This paper is a reflection on the ethics of ecosystem services. It described the different types of values, such as eudaimonistic values, fundamental values, and economic values. It explained that the metaphor of ecosystem services includes all types of values, and that it is therefore value-laden. They also stated that it touches on questions on justice because the assessment of ecosystem services always entails analyzing trade-offs.  Luck, G., K. M. A. Chan, U. Eser, et al. 2012. Ethical considerations in on-ground applications of the ecosystem services concept. BioScience 62.12: 1020–1029. The first comprehensive consideration of ethical implications of a diverse set of applications of the ecosystem services concept, including as a communication tool, for policy guidance and priority setting, and for designing economic instruments for conservation. Concerns discussed include the anthropocentric framing, economic metaphor, monetary valuation, commodification, sociocultural impacts, changes in motivations, and equity implications.  Ludwig, D. 2000. Limitations of economic valuation of ecosystems. Ecosystems 3.1: 31–35. The author presented four main objections to the economic valuation of ecosystems: (1) that economic values are often of tertiary importance compared to personal and social values, (2) that economic theories often rely on very simplistic assumptions of questioning validity, (3) that market measures are 	 18	inappropriate for answering ecological questions, and (4) that the methods used for valuation are deeply flawed and therefore the results have little significance.  Rees, W. E. 1998. How should a parasite value its host? Ecological Economics 25.1: 49–52. The author presented a critique to the valuation of ecosystem services by drawing a parallel between humans and parasites. The author argued that ascribing money values to nature is only a partial solution to the conservation dilemma, and that it may be counterproductive. Instead, humans need to live in harmony with nature, which may require an adoption of a purely ecocentric ethic. Available online by subscription.  Sikor, T., ed. 2013. The justices and injustices of ecosystem services. New York: Taylor & Francis.
This edited volume argues that environmental management cannot be separated from justice concerns, and provides a suite of international case studies examining justice and ecosystem services in the context of protected areas and climate payments. Available online by subscription.  Soulé, M. 2013. The “new conservation.” Conservation Biology 27.5: 895–897.
This editorial describes the new conservation as a movement that goes beyond the protection of biodiversity and instead seeks to enhance those natural systems that benefit the widest number of people, especially the poor. The author criticized this approach, and stated that if implemented, this type of conservation would hasten ecological collapse globally.  Turnhout, E., C. Waterton, K. Neves, and M. Buizer. 2013. Rethinking biodiversity: From goods and services to “living with.” Conservation Letters 6.3: 154–161.
The article reviewed the trend within environmental protection toward counting and mapping in single measures, arguing that conservation will require fostering a more diverse set of relationships between nature and people. 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items