Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services Defining and Measuring
This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 27 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK
Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services
Marion Potschin, Roy Haines-Young, Robert Fish, R. Kerry Turner
Defining and Measuring Ecosystem Services
Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315775302-4 Marion Potschin, Roy Haines-Young Published online on: 25 Jan 2016
How to cite :- Marion Potschin, Roy Haines-Young. 25 Jan 2016, Defining and Measuring Ecosystem Services from: Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services Routledge Accessed on: 27 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315775302-4
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT
Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms
This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4 complex, andattimes, puzzlingterrain. that there is a single, consistent way of thinking about them, but to provide a guide through a theideaofecosystem services, through surrounding journey theterminology not toconvince theminwaysunderpin thatcanbeanalysed. The aimofthischapteristotake thereader ona that way andprocesses structures theecological andecosystemcharacteristics ofcharacterising thatifwethe fact want how to understand ecosystemsprovide benefitsto people, we needa people are ‘getting at’, thatnature hasforpeople. namelytheimportance The difficultyliesin 2016). Sowhat’s theproblem withallthesedifferent perspectives? Inasense, we allknow what and thesame, andthatitis ‘services’ that are quitedistinct(seealsoMaceetal., 2012; Mace, Assessment (Mace et al., 2011), for example, suggests that it is ‘goods’ and ‘benefits’ that are one to thedebate, itisapparent thatnotallframetheideainthisway. The UKNationalEcosystem however, both regard andgoodsas beingsynonymous. ecosystemservices To addcomplexity vices, inotherwords, tobenefits; give rise they are notthesamething. Despitethesedifferences, as follow the guide of TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity), which views them themsimplyasthebenefitsthatecosystemsprovidetopeople .which describes Incontrast, others imately, with the definition provided by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) it is, infact, amicrocosm ofthewiderliterature onthetopic. Manystart, authors - quitelegit (seeforexample,services Ojeaetal., 2012)–thatis, toapplytheconceptinanormative lems of definition are amplified once to make we start a case for ecosystem valuing or managing people willnotbelieve whatissaid aboutthemoractontheevidence we collect. These prob- come tomeasure andmonitorthesethingscalledservices: ifwe whatthey cannotagree are then Note 7.1).Briefing On the other, is a disadvantage once characteristic that multi-faceted we retaining somesenseofcontinuity across thesedifferent viewpoints (Absonetal., 2014; seealso a of biodiversity and the environment. In this sense ‘ecosystem services’ might be thought of as this isanadvantage, becauseitcanengagepeopleinnew conversations abouttheimportance The term ‘ecosystem services’ can mean different things to different people. On the one hand boundary object,boundary that is, an idea that can be adapted to represent different perspectives while the direct and indirect contributions ofecosystemstohuman well-being (DeGrootthe directandindirectcontributions et This DEFINING ANDMEASURING Handbook demonstratesthedifferent ways thatpeoplethinkaboutecosystemservices; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Marion PotschinandRoyHaines-Young Introduction 3 25
al. 2010). Ser-
way . Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4 Source given thecomplexityofmostecosystems, ifwe justhow want tounderstand they tostart benefit and transfers, assomethingthatcanalsooccupy theleft-handsideofdiagram. Ineithercase, no reason why we cannotalsorefer tothingssuchas ‘the nitrogen cycle’, stores withits various for a habitat type, such as woodland or saltmarsh, as a catch-all to denote this box, but there is the setofecologicalstructuresandprocessesthatwe findinanarea. Often we simplyusesomelabel world. We are clearlyinterested inecosystems, andtheseare represented inthecascademodelas key setsofideasthatdefinetheecosystemservices ‘paradigm’; thatis, a way oflookingatthe thatwepurpose useit sidered relevant andsohelpplacework onastronger analyticalfooting. Itismainlyforthislast so thatthey canbeappliedtosolve problems; they identify the typesofevidence thatare con- laypeople. Additionally or alternatively they can be used as a way of mapping out basic concepts for example, asacommunication tool, ajumping-offpointfordiscussionbetween and experts end-points andthestepsbetween (Potschin andHaines-Young, 2011). it asa ‘cascade’ (Figure the well-being ofpeopleattheother. We have alsorepresented this ‘production line’, describing ecosystem services, whichgoesfrom andprocesses structures ecological atoneendthrough to et al., 2009). Despite their differences, that there all agree is some kind of ‘pathway’ for delivering vice is(see, forexample, Boyd andBanzhaf, 2007; Wallace, 2007; Fisherand Turner, haveA number ofcommentators notedtheproblems 2008; ofdefiningexactlywhatanecosystemser- Fisher Figure 3.1 Limit pressures via Thus, we suggest, thecascademodelcanhelpusthinkaboutrelationships between five Conceptual frameworks suchasthecascadeserve anumber ofpurposes. They canbeused, (e.g. woodland habitat policy acon? producvity) st Biop Σ Pressure : original, Haines-Young andPotschin, 2010; adaptedfrom Potschin and Haines-Young, ructur primar process intermediate services hy
or sica e y The cascade n or Supporting or s et l (e.g. slowpassage
model. 3.1). of water her Environment Funco biomas e. Its purpose istoteaseoutmore clearlythedifferences Itspurpose between these , or s n ) Marion PotschinandRoyHaines-Young The ecosystemservicecascade
Final services protecon, or harvestable (e.g. flood products Se CICES rv ice ) 26
aspects (e.g. co such ashealthand The socialandeconomicsystem Bene sa nt of wel fe ribuon to ty fit ) l- Goods andbenefits The ‘pr being boundar
oduco y’ or harvestableproducts for woodland (e.g. willingnesstopay or formorewoodland, n Va lu p
e 2011 rotecon )
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4 ultimately enjoy. A oftheecosystemsthatmake themuseful,functional characteristics andthebenefitsthatpeople people are linked. is,characteristics we suggest, how therefore stageinunderstanding ecosystemsand anecessary capacities (properties, behaviours) make itusefultopeople; identifyingtheseas ‘functional’ single ecosystemmay deliver anumber ofbenefits, tobeclearaboutjustwhat we needtotry harvestable crop. Given thecomplexnature andprocesses, ofecosystemstructures andthata these canbe manipulated withinthesamewoodland typetoimprove itsabilitytodeliver a istics ofwood thatmake by itmore orlessusefulfortimberaregrowth determined processes, byand thesearewoodland notsolelydetermined type. Similarly, character- whilethestructural for example, canbecontrolled theircapacitytomediaterunoff by theircanopy characteristics, especially helpfulifwe want tomanagetheseproperties insomeway. Inthecaseofwoodlands, asa orbehaviours apart these characteristics ‘subset’ canbehelpful. We would suggestthatitis thinking aboutwhatitisanecosystemthatenables ittoprovide aservice, and setting Jax also suggests that we even might want to avoid it. However, there are, some advantages in andcompositionarestructure adequatelydefined, theterm ‘function’ isactually not required; process. Indeed, Wallace asarguing thatifecosystemservices, (2007)hasgonesofar processes, ing thosewhoprepared toecological theMA)itisoftenjustusedasanotherway ofreferring or an ecosystemhasthatdetermine ‘underpin’ itsusefulnessforpeople. of the cascade model,terms these are or behaviours taken that to be the subset of characteristics are potentiallyusefultopeople. This iswhere theideaoffunctionsenterintodiscussion. In people, ofthesystem that toidentifythoseproperties andcharacteristics thenitisusefultostart people andsocieties chosetoact(ornot)modify ormanagethepressures on ecosystemsand to benefitsusingmoral, criteria. aestheticorspiritual Andit is by reference tothese values that ber ofdifferent ways. values,Alongside monetary they people canexpress attach theimportance cascade model, side, ontheright-hand and, assuggested, thesevalues canbeexpressed inanum- therefore expressed by thevalues they assigntothem. ‘Value’ is therefore thefinalbox inthe choices they canmake. topeople,These benefitsare thusimportant is andthatimportance stood tobethingslike people’s healthandsecurity, ortheirsocialrelations, orthekindsof range ofrecreational activities. ofshelteragainst winds,those same trees can offerbenefits interms dust or noise, as well asa types ofgoodsandbenefits. Inaddition toitscapacityslowrunoff, thepassageof forexample, the stand, stemdensityandstandage. Similarly, astandoftrees toseveral cangive rise different ofthewoody material,than thecharacteristics of suchasthebranchandstemcharacteristics For example, theutilityofastandingcrop oftrees isdependentonarangeofproperties other byfurther recognising may thataservice dependona number offunctionalcharacteristics. with ‘good’. interchangeably terms. or non-monetary expressed in monetary ‘Product’ that is sometimes used is another term Assessment, inthecascadegoodsandbenefitsare thethingsthathave value, whetherthatvalue is worked timberisthegoodorbenefit. Following usedintheUKNationalEcosystem thelogic andtheharvested, istheservice standing cropcharacteristics structural oftrees withparticular product orconditionthatcanbev that gave tothem; rise they are directly alsofinalinthesensethatthey tosome contribute from anecosystem. They are ‘final’ inthatthey are andprocesses stillconnectedtothestructures playEcosystem services a pivotal role in the cascade, which constitutes them as distinct from the As Jax (2016)notes, theterm ‘function’ isproblematic forecologists. For some(includ - A benefitisbasicallyseenassomethingthatcan ‘changepeople’s well-being’, whichisunder- The distinctionbetween functions, services, still andgoods andbenefitscanbeclarified
defining featur Defining, measuringecosystemservices alued by people. Thus, tothewoodland toreturn example, the e of services isthatthey are,e ofservices insomesense, thefinaloutputs 27 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4 of theserelationships. the cascadedogive ussomeofthevocabulary we needtorepresent therichness andunderstand andthesuiteofbenefitsthatultimatelyarises.tions they support Nevertheless, theelementsof linkages between anumber ofdifferent andprocesses, structures ecological thedifferent func- a simplemodelsuchasthis. Even forasingleecosystem, we canusuallyidentifyanetwork of other. Inthe ‘real world’, ofcourse, thingsare more complexandcannoteasilybecaptured in ship between andprocesses structures ecological ontheonehand, andbenefits values atthe from values backtothelefthandsideofcascademodel. ultimately thebenefitsthey deliver tosociety. This feedbackishighlightedinthearrowrunning lar ecosystems include those of Large and Gilvear (2014), who applied it to the analysis of needed by peopleandhencemanagementinputs, andtemporalspatialscalesensitivities. ments, by recognition but biophysicalalsotheservices thatsupplyisnotonlydetermined factors such mismatchesstudiesshould includemultiple stakeholder groupswiththeirdifferent require- the mismatchbetween thedemand andsupply. The latterconcludedthatto properly account for Spain, whileGeijzendorfferet system, ofsupplyanddemandintheDõnanasocial-ecological study ofpatterns insouth-west history. Elsewhere, et Martín-López overfor ecosystemservices timeinaSwiss landscape, oflandscape togainadeeperunderstanding settings, et whileBürgi cascade tolookatdemandandsupplyrelationships inrelation inurban infrastructure togreen for ecosystemservices. For example, HansenandPauleit (2014)have developed andmodifiedthe ofsupplyanddemand thepatterns analysis thatithasencouragedpeopletothinkaboutconcerns paradigmbytem service reference tosomeofthepublished literature. Oneofthekey areas of basic conceptsstillneedprobing more deeply(cf. Lamarque etal., 2011; Portman, 2013). issue.service-benefit ThelanguageusedintheMAhashelpedallofustomake astart, but the and theway preoccupation withthe –henceourparticular thatwell-being ischangedcritical Whatever we choose, terms thedistinction between thatanecosystemmakes thecontributions to helpmoretheways clearlyunderstand inwhichnature caninfluencepeople’s well-being. theother arrange ‘words’ (ideas)around which we story; canusetotelltheecosystemservice eachhasmeaningbyoftheway virtue we thinking. The ideasrepresented by the ‘boxes’ inthemodelare ratherlike words inasentence tothesesituationsis,the cascademodelbrings therefore, aframework our thatcanstructure live inthelake, thenitisthefishandnot water thatare thefinalecosystemservice. What we take potable water from alake, thewater isafinalservice, but ifinstead we eatthefishthat Boyd andBanzhaf(2007)memorably pointoutintheirdiscussionoffinalecosystemservices: if benefit, etc., becausehow theseideaswillchange withtheapplicationcontext.we interpret As difficult judgementstobemadeabout, forexample, ora whatcountsasafunctionorservice production chainlinkingnature andpeople. Inany real problem situationthere willbemany intothediscussion– as atoolforrepresenting elements inthe seen asanentry-point important toconnectthestudyofbiophysicalpractitioners andsocialsystems. The cascademodel canbe The novelty paradigmstemsfrom oftheecosystemservice thewillingnessofresearchers and The pointofthecascademodelisnottoputw Clearly, a limitation of the cascade model is that it seems to suggest a rather linear relation- - associated with particu the services Studies using the cascade to assist in understanding We canseehow thecascademodelhashelpedpeople work through oftheecosys- thelogic
al. (2015)have looked attheevolution ofsupplyanddemandinteractions Marion PotschinandRoyHaines-Young
al. (2015)have more generallyreviewed someoftheliterature on
al. Using thecascade (2014)have usedthecascadetoundertake anempirical
them. 28 orld into tightly prescribed boxes,orld intotightlyprescribed but Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4 vices associatedwithfreshw Ratamäki et that arewithecosystemproperties inarestored mostcorrelated China, wetland innorthern and in relation to our understanding of ecosystem services werein relation ofecosystem services toour understanding thelackofanalysesatscales relevant ping tools. From their review ofover 40published studiesthey concluded thatthemajorgaps an earlierversion ofthecascadetobuild a typologythedifferent forunderstanding typesofmap- develop broader theoretical understandings. Pagella andSinclair(2014), forexample, have used BBNs more generally. variables, outcomes, andprogramme value. identify programme need, program activities, pathway process variables, moderatingprocess co-management program inwesternKenya; thesuggestedframework helpeddecisionmakers andassessment work linked monitoring posed amodifiedcascadetosupport anadaptive tion for building a number of different assessment approaches. Thus Chapman (2014) has pro- have proposed astepwiseframework EUpoliciesinamore effective tosupport relevance ofwork onecosystemservices, andmapping isespeciallyimportant, indicators and in Environmental Impact ImpactandStrategic Analyses. As Maeset looking attherelationships between thecascadeconceptandenvironment assessed factors et (2015) intheirwork forthemanagementofEurope’s onindicators water resources, andHonrado between thecascadeandDIPSIRframework (seeMülleretal., 2016), et includingHering In thecontextofwork onindicators, have anumber ofauthors attemptedtomake alink of the Netherlands. part in thesouthern assess effects of land management on ecosystem services Oudenhoven et trade-offs between supply, ecosystemservice biodiversity andhabitatconservation, whilevan to develop ofpotentialandsupply, spatialindicators and withaview toidentifyingsynergies anthropogenic pressures onthecoastal zone. Maes et to propose three novel coastalprotection forEuropean indicators coastlinesthatcover themain of theway thecascadehasstimulated debateincludethatofLiqueteet to ofecosystemservices indicators ‘mainstream’ theconcept(seeMülleretal., 2016). Examples Zhang et the cascadetodevelop aframework water forstatutory allocationplanning in Australia, while ‘riverscapes’, andLiqueteet riparian buffer strips, andLanduytet riparian approach usingBayesian BeliefNetworks (BBNs)inthecontextofmodellingdynamics of McVittieet economic activities. Applications ofthecascadeinabroader modellingarena includethework andtheimpactofthesechangeson of economicactivities onchanges inecosystemsservices valuation oftheimpact monetary techniquesare totheunderstanding betterable tocontribute modelling. monetisationinecological-economic system services Their aimwas toensure that other developments, Cordier et landscape. fromon flows theagricultural and thatoriginate In values oftheecosystemservices markets andpolicies onthebehaviour andtheinfluenceofconsumerdemand oflandmanagers services. haveThese authors adaptedthecascadetohelpanalyse theinfluenceofcommodity of theCommon Policy landscapesandecosystem (CAP) onEuropeanAgricultural agricultural
al. In contrast to its use asan empirical, analyticalframework, the cascade hasbeenused to In otherpublished work, van Zanten et From suchwork itisclearthat, despiteitssimplicity, thecascadecanprovide afounda- There isconsiderable interest inthescientificpolicycommunities indevising appropriate (2013), who have that can sit within the DPSIR framework identified a set of indicators by
al. (2015)appliedtheframework tohelpidentifythecomponentsofplantdiversity
al.
(2015)usedcascadetoexplore pollinationfrom a multi-level policyperspective. al.
al. (2015), whousethecascadeinoperationalising anecosystemservices-based (2012)have usedthecascadetodevelop aframework forindicatorselectionto
aters inEurope.aters Inotherapplications, (2014)used PlantandPrior al. (2011)intheirwork onmappingandassessingecosystemser- Defining, measuringecosystemservices
al. (2014)have usedthecascadetodesignaframework foreco-
al. (2013), whoconsidertherelevance ofthecascadeto
al. (2014)have usedthecascadetoexplore theimpact 29
al. (2012b, 2013)have alsousedcascade
al. (2012a)argue, thepolicy
al. (2013a), whousedit
w ay.
al.
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4 et tions ofdecision-making, andthe potentially conflictingprivate and public interests. Von Haaren planning context, where we needto identify uncertainties, the legal and participative founda- generationandmanagement’.ecosystem services This, they suggest, helpful ina isparticularly for a ‘reverse application’ oftheunderlyingcascadelogic, the soastounderstand ‘full cycleof as toincludethenotionofpotentialasystemgenerateecosystemservices. They argued frommentally they theperception arise ofnature, ratherthanfrom nature itself. fromdistinguish culturalecosystemservices othertypes ofservice, because, they argued, funda- for peopleusinganurbanparkinRotterdam. They suggestedamodificationtothecascade pointtodevelopcascade asastarting amethodthatcanbeusedto ‘translate’ ecosystem services between andhumanwell-being. ecosystemservices BuchelandFrantzeskaki(2015)usedthe agriculture, andlandsparing. andprovide suchaslandsharing insightsintostrategies a dialougeabouthow andthenature toanalysebundles ofmulti-functional ofecosystemservices proposeauthors aconceptualframework basedonthecascadethatthey suggestcouldstimulate researchEach groupfaces challengesaccording toindependentlyoperatingparadigms. These perspective an analysis of the literature suggests there has been limited interaction and exchange. and thatwhilethey have thesameinteresttheselandscapesfrom inunderstanding aholistic perspective. They observe thatthesesystemshave beenstudiedby two scientificcommunities, Huang et from thepastinliterature canlearn dealingwith ecosystem services ‘economic ornithology’. network, andKronenberg debateon (2014)hasusedthecascadetolookatwhatcurrent research Long in relation tothe themes of the International Term Research Ecological (ILTER) uncertainty. Elsewhere, Vihervaara et vices; andtrade-offsbetween andtheinclusionofstakeholder synergies services knowledge and to managementinterventions; ofthepathways understandings linkingsupplyanduseofser- initiatives and service categories thatappearinonesystemareinitiatives notalways categories andservice includedelsewhere. upon,ing thatsuchendpointscanbe agreed isoftendifferent between thenamingofservices can be identified.services These kinds of difficulty are compounded fact that, by the even assum- unlessmeasurable ecosystem services ‘endpoints’ thatunambiguously represent finalecosystem classification. Elsewhere, Wong et the water associated withforests from services overlapping andambiguousdefinitions intheMA is provided by Ojeaet them so that we results can report clearly. An illustration of some of thedifficulties that canarise cussion, but itposesproblems whenwe tomeasure them, try ordesignasystemforclassifying canbeanadvantageThe fluidnature oftheconcept ofecosystemservices instimulating dis- fully specified– but inthecaseofgeneralusecascade, simplicityisperhapsavirtue. applications, frameworks forshowing thelinksbetween peopleandnature willneedtobemore with different perspectives needtohave inrelation totheideaofecosystemservices. For particular suggested here, itisintendedasaheuristic, away thekindsofconversation ofstarting thatpeople are ‘missing links’, itnever was proposed asacompletepicture oftheworld. Rather, aswe have help focusthinkingandstimulate discussion. becausethere While thecascadecanbecriticised to thecascade, againspecificallyadaptedtothe requirements planning. oflocaland regional
al. A modificationtothecascadehasalsobeensuggested by Spangenberget Finally, thecascadehasstimulated othertheoretical approaches orreadings ofthelinks The studiesthathave usedthecascadeillustratemotivation forproposing it, namelyto (2014) go on to describe a (2014)goontodescribe ‘practice-oriented’ ESevaluation model(PRESET)asareaction
al. (2015)have alsoconsidered agro-ecosystems, but thistimefrom amulti-functional
al. (2012), wholooked attheproblemsincontextofvaluing thatarise Marion PotschinandRoyHaines-Young Classifying ecosystemservices
al.
(2015) have highlightedthedifficulty of operationalising al. (2013) used the cascade to categorise ecosystem service ecosystemservice (2013)usedthecascadetocategorise 30
al. (2014, 2015)so Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4 tem services. Inlookingtodevelop thesemore standardised approaches, Buschet ofamore generalsystematicapproachas part or ‘blue print’ formappingandmodellingecosys- and integrate detailedlocalstudiesintoabroader understanding. and integrate geographical andhierarchically‘geographically consistent’ sothatwe between canmake regions, comparisons todevelopargued thatitisespeciallyimportant classificationsystems, suchasCICES, thatare al., 2014). Inotherwork, Crossman et meet the commitments made under Action 5 of the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (Maeset the EUMAESProcess, attheEuropean whichaimstomapecosystemservices scaleinorder to widely bycommunity, theecosystemservices andis, forexample, theframework beingusedin Notte etal., 2012). While developed initially in anaccounting context, ithas been taken up more around concept, theecosystemservice inastandardised andespeciallytoreport way (e.g. La andnavigatetuted afinalecosystemservice between thedifferent thathave typologies evolved (CICES, Haines-Young andPotschin, 2013), whichaimedtohelppeopleidentifywhatconsti- (UNSD). ClassificationofEcosystemServices Itresulted intheso-calledCommonInternational ronmental andEconomic Accounting (SEEA), ledby theUnitedNationsStatisticalDivision systems, work was ofthedevelopment undertaken aspart oftherevision oftheSystemEnvi- sion 4.3’ (Table thatpeople workedto accommodatethefact atdifferent thematicaswell asspatialscales. to identifywhatare considered tobe ‘final services’, and was designedaround theidea ofahierarchy, some ofthekey issuesidentifiedinthewider research literature. For example, itexplicitlyattempted suggestedintheMillennium Ecosystem services Assessment (MA, 2005), andrefined itto reflect cially inrelation toterminology. pointthetypology ofecosystem ThusCICEStookasitsstarting wherever possible thesystemshouldhave resonance withotherwidelyusedclassifications, espe- community.ecosystem service A environmentalgrated and economic accounting systems, but latterly by involvement of the wider solved inasingle of thecreation ofaclassificationsystemasprocess ratherthanadesignproblem thatcanbe ment ofCICESillustratesmany oftheissuesinvolved, thatwe andthefact must probably think that thedesignofaclassificationsystemmeetsallneedsismajorchallenge. Thedevelop- together arangeofdisciplines,with afieldthatbrings eachwiththeir own terminology, means The evolving andtheway nature ofthescienceecosystemservices itispracticed, together service typesare thatsitabove nested withinthebroaderservice categories them. Intheclassification through Division, Group and Class the ‘service’ is increasingly more specific, and these detailed ormore generalisedreports.results whenmakingcomparisons Thus moving down from Section, levelto the most appropriate of detail required by their application, but then group or combine gated andgeneralised. The hierarchical illustrated inFigure structure or ecosystemtypes. thesemay- needtobeaggre orcomparison ofreporting For thepurposes well-defined situations geographical whichare andcredible oftenspecifictoparticular metrics which thehierarchical works structure for Provisioning Services. ofin theclassificationare aseries ‘Divisions’, ‘Groups’ and ‘Classes’. Figure in theMA: provisioning, regulating andmaintenance, andcultural. Below thesemajor ‘Sections’ In anattempttoprovide aframework thatcouldatleastbeusedtotranslatebetween the The version ofCICESthatisnow widelyusedwas published in2013, andisknown as ‘ver- CICES was created through aconsultative process, todesigninte- oftheefforts initiallyaspart Ecosystem accounts, like more generalecosystemassessments, have tobe basedona
3.1).
step 1 At thehighestormostgenerallevel used are categories thethree familiar . Defining, measuringecosystemservices
k ey initialconsiderationin2009, whentheprocess began, was that The CICESframework
al. (2013) suggest that such a classification might be seen (2013)suggestthatsuchaclassificationmightbeseen 31
3.2 allo
3.2 sho ws users togodownws users
al. ws theway in (2012)have Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4
Table 3.1 The Common International Classification of Ecosystem services (CICES, V4.3).
Section Division Group Class MA TEEB
Provisioning Nutrition Biomass Cultivated crops Food Food Reared animals and their outputs Wild plants, algae and their outputs Wild animals and their outputs Plants and algae from in-situ aquaculture Animals from in-situ aquaculture Water Surface water for drinking Water Water Ground water for drinking Materials Biomass Fibres and other materials from plants, Fibre, timber, ornamental, Raw materials, medicinal algae and animals for direct use or biochemical resources processing Materials from plants, algae and animals for agricultural use Genetic materials from all biota Genetic materials Genetic materials Water Surface water for non-drinking purposes Water Water Ground water for non-drinking purposes Energy Biomass-based Plant-based resources Fibre Fuels and fibres energy sources Animal-based resources Mechanical energy Animal-based energy Regulation & Mediation of waste, Mediation by biota Bio-remediation by micro-organisms, Water purification and Waste treatment (water Maintenance toxics and other algae, plants, and animals water treatment, air purification), air quality nuisances quality regulation regulation Filtration/sequestration/storage/ accumulation by micro-organisms, algae, plants, and animals Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4
Section Division Group Class MA TEEB
Mediation by Filtration/sequestration/storage/ ecosystems accumulation by ecosystems Dilution by atmosphere, freshwater and marine ecosystems Mediation of smell/noise/visual impacts Mediation of flows Mass flows Mass stabilisation and control of erosion rates Erosion regulation Erosion prevention Buffering and attenuation of mass flows Liquid flows Hydrological cycle and water flow Water regulation Regulation of water maintenance flows, regulation of extreme events Flood protection Natural hazard regulation Gaseous / air flows Storm protection Ventilation and transpiration Air quality Air quality Maintenance of Lifecycle Pollination and seed dispersal Pollination Pollination physical, chemical, maintenance, biological habitat and gene conditions pool protection Maintaining nursery populations and habitats Pest and disease Pest control Pest regulation Biological control control Disease control Disease regulation Soil formation and Weathering processes Soil formation Maintenance of soil composition Decomposition and fixing processes (supporting services) fertility Water conditions Chemical condition of freshwaters Water regulation Water Chemical condition of salt waters Atmospheric Global climate regulation by reduction of Atmospheric regulation Climate regulation composition and greenhouse gas concentrations climate regulation Micro and regional climate regulation Air quality regulation Air quality regulation
(Continued) Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4
Table 3.1 (Continued)
Section Division Group Class MA TEEB
Cultural Physical and Physical and Experiential use of plants, animals and Recreation and Recreation and tourism intellectual experiential land-/seascapes in different environmental ecotourism interactions with interactions settings biota, ecosystems, and land-/seascapes [environmental settings] Physical use of land-/seascapes in different environmental settings Intellectual and Scientific Knowledge systems Inspiration for culture, representative and educational values, art and design, aesthetic interactions cultural diversity, aesthetic information values Educational Heritage, cultural Entertainment Aesthetic Spiritual, symbolic Spiritual and/or Symbolic Spiritual and religious Information and cognitive and other emblematic values development interactions with biota, ecosystems, and land-/seascapes [environmental settings] Sacred and/or religious Other cultural Existence outputs Bequest Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4 that are notexplicitlycovered by theothers. read-across at the group level, but included in thereCICES, are categories such as bioenergy, output islargely generatedby abiotic, hydro-physical processes. TEEB, water isregarded as a provisioning service, thatthe notwithstandingthefact ‘material’ Although living processes affectbothquantity andqualityissuesinboththeMA certainly that,fact used, inallthesystemscurrently ‘water’ isgenerallyincludedasaprovisioning service. CICES orany otherclassificationsystemisacomplexone, whichisnotmadeeasier by the for example, would we ofthingsthat nottendtoexcludeawholecategory ‘nature candofor puts ofecosystemssoclearly. Byexcludingrenewable energysources suchaswindandwave power, anecosystemassessment,during would notseethedistinctionbetween thebioticandabioticout- others. The counterargumentwas thatmany people, especiallythe ‘public’ whomightbeconsulted felt, was that if these were included their ‘values’ as ‘ecosystem services’ would outweigh many of the where would we stop–shouldfossil fuels, forexample, alsobe included? The dangerhere, people The positionwas reinforced by theargumentthatifabioticoutputfrom nature were included classification would ‘water down’ that the importance ‘biodiversity’ had in any future assessments. produced by ‘natural processes’, they were thefact not dependentonlivingprocesses, meantthatthe minerals suchassaltandsoon. On the onehandpeoplearguedthatalthoughsuchthingswere included abiotic outputssuch as hydroto which the notionof ecosystem services or wind power, and whatshoulditexclude? A A key problem –whatshouldCICEScover withany classificationsystemistosetitsboundaries oftheMAand usedinthetypologies categories TEEB. CICES canberegarded nomenclature. asaclassificationsystemratherthanan arbitrary level inthehierarchy are intendedtobeexclusive thecategories andnon-overlapping, sothat elsewhere intheclassification; Table 3.2setsoutthebasicdefinitionsatSection level. At any more similartoeachother, oftheways interms they are usedby people, thanthey are toservices also asenseof ‘taxonomy’ inthatelementswithinthesameGroup orClassare conceptually at thelower levels from are theSections, inherited Divisions andGroups above them. There is system there istherefore ‘dependency’, usedtodefineservices inthesensethatcharacteristics Figure 3.2 Table The argumentaboutwhether abioticecosystemser
3.1 sets The hierarchical str Class type Class Group Division Secon out the basic structure of CICES and also showsout the basic structure theequivalences withthe The problemofabioticecosystemoutputs ucture of
k Defining, measuringecosystemservices ey difference that emerged during theconsultationwasey difference theextent thatemergedduring Cereals
CICES Culvated crop . s Biomass 35 Nutrion Water 2 Inmany simple casesthere isafairly vice outputsshouldbeincluded in Provisioning Non-nutrional .... materials b .... ioc
us’? Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4 the trade-offs and synergies betweenthe trade-offsandsynergies thedifferent typesofoutputthatecosystemscanprovide. thatwefact stillprobably needtodevelop amore all-encompassingvocabulary fordiscussing the provisional classificationofabioticoutputsismerely intendedasa ‘marker’, tohighlightthe ‘renewable’ within the human time-frame, or to exclude ‘sub-soil’ assets. At this stage, however, living processes. There was thislisttoonlythoseabioticoutputsthatwere noattempttorestrict to define provisioning,logic dependent on regulating and cultural outputs as for the services although a parallel table covering theseelements was provided; it applied the same classification Cultural Regulating and Provisioning Definition CICES Section (after Haines, Young, andPotschin, 2013). Table 3.2 socio-economic components of an integrated socio-economic componentsofanintegrated system’. ‘socio-ecological between whichsitattheinterface thebiophysicalCICES attemptstoclassifyservices and the basis of valuationfrom and assessment. ecosystems that might form As Figure they were unimportant, but becauseforthemtheproblem was toidentifythe ‘final’ outputs does notinclude services’.‘supporting This isnotbecause thosedeveloping CICESfelt that A key difference between CICESandthetypology usedby theMA, forexample, itthat Maintenance In CICES V4.3, abioticecosystemoutputswere, in theend, excludedfrom theclassification,
Definition of the major categories ofecosystemser Definition ofthemajorcategories Cultural services are primarily regarded asthephysical aresettings, primarily Cultural services locationsorsituations All thenon-material, non-consumptive, andnormally outputsofecosystemsthat Regulation andmaintenancealsocovers themediationofflows insolids, liquidsand All theways inwhichliving organismscanmediateormoderatetheambient The Division forenergymakes adistinctionbetween biomassbasedenergysources, All nutritional, andenergeticoutputsfrom living material systems. Intheproposed may arise frommay people’s arise beliefsorunderstandings. recognised. The classificationalsocovers the ‘existence’ and ‘bequest’ that constructs symbolic andrepresentational activities. settingsare andreligious also Spiritual as hikingandangling, andintellectualormentalinteractionsinvolving analytical, between interactionsthatare usedforphysical settingsthatsupport activities such dependent oninsituliving processes. Intheclassification we make thedistinction as well asnaturalsettings(i.e. canincludeculturallandscapes)providing they are individual species, habitatsandwholeecosystems. The settingscanbesemi-natural character are fundamentallydependentonliving processes; they caninvolve tochangesin thephysicalthat give ormentalstatesofpeople, rise andwhose affect physical andmentalstatesofpeople. regulate thephysico-chemical environment andbiological ofpeople. gases thataffectpeople’s performance. aswell astheways living organismscan of wastes andtoxic substancesby exploitingliving processes. environment thataffectshumanperformance. Ittherefore covers thedegradation people by animals. isconsumed(e.g.where theorganicmaterial fuelwood) andpower provided to genetic structures. (biomass)andwater.from ororganicmaterials biological caninclude Materials adistinctionismadebetweenstructure provisioning outputsarising andmaterial Marion PotschinandRoyHaines-Young Supporting services 36 vices usedintheCICES V4.3 Classification
3.1 suggests,
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4 purpose towhichitisput–notonlythedesigner.purpose The responsibility ofavoiding ‘double counting’ isdown totheuserofclassificationand value ofalltherelevant foritsproduction. ecosystemoutputs(includingpollination)necessary delivered byecosystemiftheharvestable crop aparticular fruit was beingusedtosumup the intervention. Alternatively, itmight beregarded asa service’‘supporting function orecological its value were orimportance being compared with some alternative that depended on human made abouttheirstatus. Pollination mightindeedberegarded if, asafinalservice forexample, practice,largely onthebasisofcustomary assessmentajudgementhastobe inany particular orpollination.formation The pointhere isthatwhiletheclassification makes spaceforthem, CICES thatcouldberegarded role, insomesituationsashaving anunderpinning suchassoil and whenalake’s water oritsfish were the final service. Thusthere listedin are otherservices situation. isinaparticular service The difficulty was illustratedabove inthediscussionaboutif is relevant ofCICES, tothestructure anditrelates tothedifficultyofspecifyingwhatafinal ofanother part ‘conversation’. about how theseprocesses–onlythatitisprobably we andfunctionsisunnecessary describe tures, processes and functions that ‘support’ them. This is not to say that some kind of agreement helpfulinthisrespect;not particularly there are formostfinalservices probably- multiple struc of discussion, and it was felt that broad labels like cycling’‘nutrient or production’‘primary were tothem. thatgive rise teristics forthesekinds are seenastheentry-points Thus thefinalservices have andprocesses, tofocusontheunderlyingecosystemstructures andthefunctionalcharac- identified, managementstrategies would thendiscussionsaboutsustainabilityandappropriate is more difficulttovisualiseinthecaseofsomeother regulating services, especiallycultural streams are reconnected processes toecological totake advantage of ‘bio-remediation services’. It fit) –thethingthatcanbe valued. The ‘production boundary’ when isalsoeasytoimagine waste system),of thesocio-ecological inthecombineharvester isthegood(orbene- whilethegrain the ‘service’ (inthesensethatitisresult ofalltheactivities orfunctionsinthebiophysical part This iseasytovisualiseinthecasewhere acrop isharvested. Thus thewheatgrowing inafieldis ‘production boundary’ where structures, thelinktoecological processes andfunctionswas broken. ofcategories. and insomeareas there isablurring sultative process suchasthatwhichledtoCICESis thatdifferent peoplemixed theapproaches ecosystems viaecosystemservices’ (cf. Maceetal., 2012, italicsours). The problem withacon- to be ‘the many ways thathumanwellbeing isenhancedthrough theprocesses andfunctionsof defined asthe ‘activity orfunctionofanecosystemthatprovidesbenefit’ whilebenefits are taken that there isadifference between themthere isaproblem ofterminology, are becauseservices those whoregard asbenefitstherenoproblem. isofcourse services For thosewhoargue that isthedistinctionbetween andbenefits.classification systemsforecosystemservices services For difficultproblemA particularly thatthedesignofCICESillustratesforthoseinterested in more familiar terms usedto refer toculturalservices, terms more familiar suchas ‘recreation’ or ‘education’, attheclass ‘environmental settings’ at the higherlevels to frame cultural services intheclassification, andthe in theconsultative process, thedesignofCICEStooka mixed approach by usingthenotionof andbenefitscanbeillustrated.distinguishing services Inorder to resolve thedifferent positions There is, however, that services and intermediate one aspect of the debate about supporting In any ecosystemassessment, uponor hadbeenagreed finalservices oncetheimportant In thediscussionofcascademodel(seeabove), we suggestedthatfinalservices were atthe It isinthear ea of cultural services where manyea ofculturalservices theproblem oftheissuessurrounding of Distinguishing services,goodsandbenefits Defining, measuringecosystemservices 37
ones. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4 lenging, et CICES inthisway, between andbenefits, tolookattheinterface services isprovided by Staub tion oftheambientenvironment inwhichpeoplelive. An attempttouseaprevious version of equivalent benefits regulatory would includesuchthingsasprotection ormedia- from storms can includecapabilitiesandexperiences; by extension, regulating services tothenon-material their well-being insomeway. As Chanet is linked tosomekindofrelationship thatpeoplehave withanecosystemwhichthenchanges ecosystemoutputsthe for thenon-material ‘production boundary’ iscrossed whentheoutput watching’ mightsimilarlygenerateanumber ofculturalbenefits. These examplesillustratethat ‘recreation’ or fulfilment’‘spiritual ina woodland orcoastalsetting; theculturalpracticeof ‘bird also Church etal., 2014and Tratalos etal., 2015). Thus ‘walking’ mightgeneratethebenefitof features (e.g. species)thatgeneratesomebenefitofsetculturalpractices(see by virtue tem Assessment, where these ‘contributions’ tothelocations(settings)orecological are attributed relationships’ (Chan et al., 2012, p.9). This is also the approach taken in the UK National Ecosys- benefits(e.g. fromto thenon-material thatarise capabilitiesandexperiences) ‘human–ecosystem level. As Chanet et formanyappropriate uses, itisclearfrom the work of et Armstrong periods. However, framework whiletheseapplicationsofCICESsuggestthatthecurrent is things that we would now regard were as ecosystem services in past documented as important the classificationframework fromwas usedtocodethe reports achieve sources about whether to examinehow outputhaschangedforaSwisslandscapesinceabout1900; ecosystemservice (2013) andvon Haaren et supplyanddemand;service examplesincludethework ofCastro et ofecosystem CICES hasbeenusedtolookatthebasisfordeveloping indicators orcomparing forests of Finland. Accounting applications include those of Schröter et Saastamoinen et level tomeettherequirements (Turkelboom ofecosystem assessmentinBelgium etal., 2013). Assessment, etal., NEA-D(Albert 2014). Elsewhere ithasbeenrefined atthemostdetailedclass (Naturkapital Deutschland– TEEB DE, NationalEcosystem 2014)aswell astheGerman it was acceptedthatideasneedtobetestedandrefined. opinion. Comingfrom aninitiative thatsaw ecosystemaccountingas ‘experimental’ meantthat it in a practical way, so that future refinementsby could be informed evidence rather than just ofstabilisingtheframeworkthe purpose in2013as ‘version 4.3’ was toencouragepeople test theways vocabularies fordescribing peopleandnaturemuch richer are linked. As forCICES, suchasexcludabilityandrivalness.characteristics Itisindeedthecasethatwe needtodevelop ofspatialscale,and usefullypointedtohow interms they mightbedescribed oraccording to Costanza (2008) has argued that multiple ways are needed,of classifying ecosystem services complete picture of the service cascadecanbeestablished.complete picture oftheservice services, are alignedindifferent classificationsystemssothata benefitsandbeneficiaries more US-EPA etal., (seeLanders 2016)alsosuggests thatthere may besomescopetolookat theway underlyingecosystemfunction.describing The recent development ofthe FEGS systemby the andcoastalecosystems,assessment ofmarine more for closelywithtypologies orintegrated
al. al. In terms ofitsapplication,In terms CICEShasbeenusedasthebasisofGerman TEEB study (2011)inaninsightfulstudyundertaken by theSwissFederal OfficefortheEnvironment. (2013b), forexample, thatitmay needtobeadaptedensure thatitissuitable forthe and these authors suggestedthat they andtheseauthors mightberegarded asthe ‘ecosystems’ contributions
al. al. (2012) have noted, chal- is particularly theclassification ofculturalservices (2014) have associated with the boreal used it to classify ecosystem services Developing ourclassificationsystems
al. (2014). And, in otherwork, et Bürgi Marion PotschinandRoyHaines-Young
al. (2012)argue, culturalbenefits thesenon-material 38
al.
(2015)have usedCICES al.
(2014), Kosenius et al.
al. (2012), andLiquete (2014). Elsewhere,
al.
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4 2 (CICES)is,for EcosystemServices we suggest, ofthisevolutionary part process. animportant sion ofthecascademodelandattemptstodevelop Classification aCommonInternational paradigm. tooperationalisetheecosystemservice rather centraltoany efforts A Thus adiscussionofhow isnotsimplyanacademicmatter, todefineandclassifyservices but consistently. ecosystems and their services we and measuring need to find a means of describing that canhelpsustainhumanwell-being, itisclearthattoovercome someofthesechallenges policy iscomplex. Ifwe are todeliver naturalcapital in thepracticalbenefitsofmanaging ways issimpleinconcept,Although theideaofecosystemservices itsapplicationinmanagementand Chan, K. Buchel, S., andFrantzeskaki, N. (2015). Citizens’ voice: acasestudyaboutperceived by ecosystemservices Bo Abson, D. 1 No3421/B2014/EEA.55703/. for totheimplementationofecosystemaccounting’‘Support aswell asFramework contract European Environment Agency (EEA)Framework ContractNo. Service EEA/BSS/07/007 (OpenNESS)’ural CapitalandEcosystemServices no308428)andthe agreement (ECgrant The work by doneinthischapterwas supported theEUproject partly ‘Operationalising Nat- Church, A., Fish, R., Haines-Young, R., et Chapman, S. (2014). A Castro, A. Busch, M., LaNotte, A., Laporte, V., andErhard, M. (2012). Potentials ofquantitative andqualitative Bürgi, M., Silbernagel, J., Wu, J., andKienast, F. (2015). withlandscape history. Linkingecosystemservices Armstrong, C. Albert, C., Neßhöver, C., Wittmer, H., Hinzmann, M., andGörg, C. (2014). fürein Sondierungsstudie
A simpletoolforhelpingpeoplemake thetranslationisa www.cices.eu example/cices yd, J., andBanzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystemservices? The needforstandardized environmental ply tosocialdemand: alandscape-scalespatialanalysis. LandscapeandUrbanPlanning , vol 132, pp102–110. inRotterdam,urban parkusers theNetherlands.. EcosystemServices Available onlinesinceJanuary accounting units. EcologicalEconomics, vol 63, no2, pp616–626. valuation ofdeep seagoodsandservices., EcosystemServices vol 2, pp Evaluation andProgram Planning, vol 47, pp45–53. navigate culturalvalues. EcologicalEconomics, vol 74, pp8–18. approaches to assessingecosystemservices. EcologicalIndicators, vol 21, pp89–103. Landscape Ecology, vol 30, no1, pp11–20. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.014 und O. Bastian(IÖR), Leipzig. Deutschland. fürUmweltforschung –UFZ, Helmholtz-Zentrum unterMitarbeitvon K. Grunewald Nationales Assessment von Ökosystemen undihren Leistungenfür und Gesellschaftin Wirtschaft object forsustainability. EcologicalEconomics, vol 103, pp29–37. Available at: http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Resources/ Follow-on. Work Package 5: Report andIndicators. Cultural EcosystemServices UNEP-WCMC, LWEC.
M., Satterfield, J.,
J., von Wehrden, H., Baumgärtner, S., et Verburg, P. W., Foley, N.
H., Mar
frame T., andGoldstein, J. (2012). tobetteraddress and Rethinkingecosystemservices
S., work for monitoring socialprocesswork andoutcomesinenvironmental for monitoring programs. Tinch, R., andvan denHove, S. (2012). from Services thedeep: stepstowards tín-López, B., et Defining, measuringecosystemservices Acknowledgements
Conclusion
References al. al. (15author (7 authors) (2014). (7authors) trade-offsfrom Ecosystemservice sup-
Notes al. 39 (11 authors) (2014). (11authors) asaboundary Ecosystemservices s) (2014). vailable at: http://openness.hugin.com/
UK National Ecosystem Assessment 2–13.
cr itical discus-
2015,
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4 Crossman, N. Costanza, R. (2008). Ecosystemservices: multiple classificationsystemsare needed. BiologicalConservation, Cordier, M., Agúndez, J.A.P., Hecq, W., andHamaide, B. (2014). A Hansen, R., andPauleit, S. (2014). From multifunctionality tomultiple ecosystem services? A Haines-Young, R., and M. Potschin (2013). (CICES), ClassificationofEcosystemServices CommonInternational Haines-Young, R. andPotschin, M. (2010). The linksbetween biodiversity, andhuman ecosystemservices Fisher, B., and Turner, R. de Groot, R. Honrado, J. Hering, D., Carvalho, L., Argillier, C., et Geijzendorffer, I. Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., andMorling, P. (2009). fordecision Definingandclassifyingecosystemservices Liquete, C., Piroddi, C., Drakou, E. Liquete, C., Zulian, G., Delgado, I., Stips, A., andMaes, J. (2013a). Assessment ofcoastalprotection asan Liquete, C., Maes, J., LaNotte, A., andBidoglio, G. (2011). water asaresource Securing forsociety: an Large, A.R.G., andGilvear, D. Landuyt, D., Broekx, S., D’hondt, R., et Lamarque, P., Quétier, F., andLavorel, S. (2011). The diversity conceptandits oftheecosystemservices La Notte, A., Maes, J., Thieu, V., Bouraoui, F., andMasi, F. (2012). Biophysical Assessment andMonetary Kronenberg, J. (2014). from thepast?Lessonsfrom learn debateonecosystemservices What canthecurrent Kosenius, A. Jax, K. (2016). Ecosystemfunctions: perspective. acritical InPotschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., and Huang, J., Tichit, M., Poulot, M., et Lander vices monetizationinecolog vol 141, no2, pp350–352. frame Version 4.3. totheEuropean Report Environment Agency. Available at: www.cices.eu versity Press, Cambridge, pp110–139. well-being. In: Raffaelli, D.G andFrid, C.L.J. (eds)EcosystemEcology: A NewSynthesis . Uni- Cambridge assessments.in ecosystemservices EcologicalIndicators, vol 52, pp320–331. Earthscan, Londonand Washington Kumar, P. (ed.)TheEconomicsofEcosystemsandBiodiversity (TEEB): EcologicalandEconomicFoundations. andeconomicdimensionsinbiodiversity theecological valuation.Integrating andecosystemservice In ling ecosystemservices., EcosystemServices vol 4, pp4–14. vol 503, pp10–21. resources undermultiple stress Environment, –anintroduction ofTheTotal totheMARSproject. Science pp 516–529. making. EcologicalEconomics, vol 68, no3, pp643–653. vol 141, no5, pp1167–1169. ecosystem service inEurope.ecosystem service EcologicalIndicators, vol 30, pp205–217. perspective.ecosystem services Ecohydrology river assessment.tem services-based and River Research Applications. doi: 10.1002/rra.2798 modelling.ecosystem service EnvironmentalModelling vices. Routledge, LondonandNew York, pp74–87. Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., and Turner, R. K. (eds) Routledge Handbook ofEcosystem Ser- implications fortheirassessmentandmanagement. ComptesRendusBiologies , vol 334, no5, pp Union. Valuation of Ecosystem Services. JRC Science and Policy Reports, Publications Office of the European economic ornithology. Geoforum, vol 55, pp164–177. Papers 244. Pellervo EconomicResearch, Helsinki. onforests,Examples andexperiences peatlands, lands, agricultural PTT Working andfreshwaters inFinland. Turner, R. K.. (eds)RoutledgeHandbookofEcosystemServices Routledge, LondonandNew York, pp42–44. insustainable agriculture.ecosystem services ofEnvironmentalManagement, Journal vol 149, pp138–147. Assessment Review, vol 40, pp14–24. EIA and SEA practice? A assessment of marine andcoastalecosystemservices:assessment ofmarine a s, D., Nahil, M., andRhodes, C. R. (2016). perspectiveThe beneficiary –benefitsand beyond. In work formultifunctionalityplanningurbanareas. infrastructure ingreen Ambio, vol 43, no4,
P.,
K., Haltia,
D.,
Vieira, C., Soares, C., et D., Fisher, B., Christie, M., Aronson, J., Braat, L., Haines-Young, R., et Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., et
R., Mar E., Horne, P., Kniivilä, M., and Saastamoinen, O. (2013).Value ofecosystemservices? tín-López, B., andRoche, P.
K. (2008).
J. frame (2014). UsingGoogle Earth, platform, imaging avirtual-globe forecosys- ical–economic modeling., EcosystemServices vol 8, pp86–96. Marion PotschinandRoyHaines-Young
G., Ecosystemservices: classificationfor valuation. BiologicalConservation,
work for analysis and examplesfrom Portugal. EnvironmentalImpact al. et
al.
DC (6 authors) (2015).(6 authors) Comparative review of multifunctionality and
(7 authors) (2013). (7authors) Canwe from inferaboutecosystemservices al.
al. al. (7 authors) (2013b). (7authors) statusandfuture Current prospects forthe . (20 authors) (2015). (20authors) aquaticecosystemsandwater Managing (6 authors) (2013). (6authors) A
al.
& Hydrobiolog (14 authors) (2013). (14authors) A 40
K. (2015).
systematic r & Softw y, vol 11, no3, pp247–259. Improving theidentificationofmismatches are, vol 46, pp1–11.
r guiding framework forecosystemser- eview. PLoSOne, vol 8, no 7, e67737. eview ofBayesian beliefnetworks in
b lueprint formappingandmodel- lueprint
al. (12authors). (2010).
conceptual
441–449. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4 Pagella, T. Maes, J., Paracchini, M. Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., et Mace, G., Bateman, I., Albon, S., et Mace, G. (2016). Ecosystemservices: where isthedisciplineheading?InPotschin, M., Haines-Young, R., MA (2005). EcosystemsandHuman Well-being: Stateand Current Trends . IslandPress, Washington, Mace, G. Mar Portman, M. Ojea, E., Martin-Ortega, J., and Chiabai, A. (2012). for eco- Defining and classifying ecosystem services Naturkapital Deutschland– TEEB DE(2014). NaturkapitalundKlimapolitik–SynergienandKonflikte. Lang- Müller, M., Burkhard, B., Hou, Y., et McVittie, A., Norton, L., Martin-Ortega, J., et Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., et Maes, J., Hauck, J., Paracchini, M. Plant, R., andPrior, T. (2014). framework waterAn ecosystemservices statutory allocationplan- tosupport Schröter, M., Barton, D. Saastamoinen, O., Matero, J., Horne, P. et Spangenberg, J. Ratamäki, P Spangenberg, J. otschin, M., and Haines-Young, R. (2011). Ecosystemservices: perspective. a geographical exploring Pro- and decisionmakingintheEuropean Union., EcosystemServices vol 1, no1, pp31–39. tionship. Trends inEcology York, pp602–605. Fish, R. and Turner, R. K.. (eds)RoutledgeHandbookofEcosystemServices Routledge, LondonandNew Cambridge. UK NationalEcosystem Assessment Technical. Report UKNationalEcosystem Assessment, UNEP-WCMC, nomic valuation: thecaseofforest water services. EnvironmentalScience www.naturkapital-teeb.de fassung. Technische Universität Berlin, –UFZ, Helmholtz-ZentrumfürUmweltforschung Leipzig. Availableat: ledge, LondonandNew York, pp157–169. M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., and Turner, R. K.. (eds)RoutledgeHandbookofEcosystemServices Rout- ical Economics, vol 110, pp15–27. approachservices-based usingBayesian BeliefNetworks: buffer strips. Ecolog- anapplicationtoriparian value-domains assessment. inecosystemservices EcologicalIndicators, vol 37, pp220–228. European Union, February vices. Indicators for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020. 2nd final report, policy. OpinioninEnvironmentalSustainability, Current vol 5, no1, pp128–134. Conservation, vol 155, pp1–12. between supply, ecosystemservice biodiversity, andhabitatconservation statusinEurope. Biological ning in Australia.ning 383–399. provision. managementofecosystemservice fitness forsupporting LandscapeEcology, vol 29, no3, pp School ofForest Sciences. and NaturalForestry Sciences Number 11, University Finland, of Eastern Faculty of Science and Forestry, inFinland.goods andservices Publications oftheUniversityFinland. ofEastern andStudies in Reports related policies., EcosystemServices online. gress inPhysical Geography, vol 35, no5, pp pp across review.of ecosystem services multiple landscapes – a critical pp 539–551. system services: aconceptualmodelandcasestudyfor Telemark, Norway. EcologicalIndicators, vol 36, Science, EcosystemServices mined by humanagency, notecosystemfunctions. Four casestudies. ofBiodiversity Journal International of bioenergy. the metaphor. societalprocesses Integrating toaccommodatesocialprocesses andplanning, andthecase tín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., García-Llorente, M., andMontes, C. (2014). Trade-offs across
185–192.
M., Nor
F., O., Jokinen, P., Sørensen, P. andSinclair, F.
E. (2013).
H., Görg, H., v
Ecological Economics ris, K., andFitter, A. on Haaren, C., andSettele, J. (2014). cascade:The ecosystemservice developing further International Journal ofRiver BasinManagement, Journal International vol 12, no3, pp219–230.
L., Zulian,
N., C., Truong, D. Ecosystem services inpractice: Ecosystemservices challengestoreal world implementation
L. (2014). Remme, R.
& Management
& Ev
2014.
al.
Defining, measuringecosystemservices L., et
G., Dunbar, M.
olution, vol 27, no1, pp19–26. al. al. (45 authors) (2014). (45authors) Mappingand Assessment ofEcosystemsandtheirSer- , vol 104, pp22–32.
Development anduseof a typology ofmappingtoolstoassesstheir
(14 authors) (2012a). (14authors) forpolicysupport Mappingecosystemservices B., (11 authors) (2011).(11 authors) Conceptual framework and methodology. InThe al.
H. (2012).
T., al. (6 authors) (2016). (6authors) forecosystemservices. Indicators InPotschin, Breeze, T., andPotts, S. (2015). A
P., (10 authors) (2013). (10authors) intoEU Mainstreaming ecosystemservices et
andHein, L. (2014). Accounting forcapacityandflow ofeco- , vol 10, no1, pp40–53. al.
al. (7 authors) (2014). (7authors) Classificationofboreal forest ecosystem
575–594. (6 authors) (2015). (6authors) Provision isdeter- ofecosystem services Biodiversity andecosystemservices: a
al.
B., 41 (6 authors) (2015). (6authors) Operationalizinganecosystem and Alkemade, R. (2012b). andtrade-offs Synergies
m
& Policy ultilevel analysisonpollination- Applied Geography, no 45, ,
v ol 19, pp1–15.
m ultilayered rela-
DC . Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4 Turkelboom, F., Raquez, P., Dufrêne, M., et von Haaren, C., Albert, C., Barkmann, J., deGroot, R. Vihervaara, P., D’Amato, D., Forsius, M., et van Zanten, B. van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Petz, K., Alkemade, R., Hein, L., and de Groot, R. S. (2012). Framework for Tratalos, J. A., Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., Fish, R., and Church, A. (2015). Cultural ecosystem services Staub, C., Ott, W., Heusi, F. et Wallace, K. Wong, C. Zhang, Y., Wang, R., Kaplan, D., andLiu, J. (2015). Which componentsofplantdiversity are mostcorrelated [. pacity ofnaturalprocesses andcomponentstoprovide thatsatisfyhumanneeds goodsandservices of a capability:ecosystem function in terms “[W]e explicitly define ecosystem functions as ‘the ca- result.”abiotic elements of ecosystems that lead to a certain Other authors, however, understand state: “Ecosystem process: Synonymous with ecosystem function. The interactions among biotic and methodology andrecommendationsforawelf in theUK: managementandpolicy. toinform lessonsondesigningindicators EcologicalIndicators(inpress). the globalILTER sitesnetwork. OpinioninEnvironmentalSustainability, Current vol 5, no1, pp53–66. biodiversity data to study the impacts and adaptation options in response to climate change: insights from 34, no2, pp309–325. policyandecosystemservices:common agricultural areview. Agronomy forSustainable Development, vol Indicators, vol 21, pp110–122. systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. .Ecosystem Services Chicago. classification adaptedforahighlypopulatedcountry. In Jacobs, S., Dendoonker, N., and Keune, H. (eds) ment, Bern. Environmental studiesno. 2005, p. vices, andsecond, thecapacity(orpotential)ofecosystemstoprovide tohumans. services is usedintwo majormeanings. First, asdenotingecosystemprocesses tospecific ser- thatgive rise ofthebiophysical oftheframework. part part and forms Intheseframeworks thenotionoffunction e.g. the “cascade model” (Figure frameworks therelationships between usedtodescribe ecosystems, human benefitsand well-being, 2005 fordetails). context, Inanecosystemservices “ecosystem function” ofthe isfrequently part The term “function” isusedindifferent ways withintheenvironmental sciencesliterature (seeJax Different meaningsof“function”inanecosystemservices context Kurt Briefing Note3.1 Landscape Ecology, vol 29, no8, pp1335–1346. evaluationservices (PRESET)modeladaptedtothecontextoflandscapeplanningandmanagement. Hansjürgens, B. (2014). From explanationtoapplication: ecosystem introducing apractice-oriented 139, no3, pp235–246. with ecosystem properties? A forpublic policy.final ecosystemservices Ecology, Letters vol 18, no1, pp108–118. vol 49, pp228–236.
.
.]’ The first meaning corresponds tothatusedintheMillenniumEcosystem meaning corresponds The first Assessment(MA,
Jax ” (deGr
P.,
J. 895) and Jiang, B., Kinzig, A. (2007). Classificationofecosystemservices: problems andsolutions. BiologicalConservation, vol T., oot etal., 2002, p. Verburg, P. e.g. by Wallace (2007), or Luck et
Ecosystem functions:acriticalperspective
H., Espinosa,
al. (2011). (12authors) IndicatorsforEcosystemGoodsandServices: Framework,
P., Marion PotschinandRoyHaines-Young
case study Lee, K.
394). 3.1). Inthe TEEB report, “ecosystem function” as ischaracterised M., et Here it is usually situated on the “supply side” of the scheme
N., 1102:
.are-related environmentalreporting Federal OfficefortheEnviron - al.
al. andOuyang, Z. (2015). to Linkingecosystemcharacteristics in a restored China. wetland in northern EcologicalIndicators, (18 authors) (2013). (18authors) and ecosystemservice Usinglong-term (19 authors) (2013). (19authors) CICESgoinglocal: ecosystemservices 17
al. (15 authors) (2014). (15authors) landscapes, European agricultural
42 S .
al.
S., (2009). Luck et Spangenberg, J.
al.
H., Schröter-Schlaack, (2009, p.
249), for example, Ecological C., and
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4 ecosystem services assessments. ecosystem services (e.g.purposes asarguingfortheusefulnessofnature), beneededforquantitative but willcertainly hand. concept is just used for didactic when the ecosystem services It might not be necessary towhichtheconceptsused mustThe degree beoperationisable dependsonthespecifictaskat is,system attributes) incontrast, quitestraightforward andclosetotheeveryday work ofecologists. how itmightbeoperationalised(but seee.g. Schröteretal., 2014). functions asacapacityexplaininsomemore detailwhatismeantby “capacity” or “potential” and actual delivery isvery usefulandpractically relevant, toecosystem hardly anyreferring ofthe papers system services. While the fromidea of separating the potential of delivering ecosystem services its concept, ecosystemfunctionasdenotingcapacitiestoprovide especiallywhenunderstanding eco- and communication problems. meaning isnotexplainedorbecomesclearfrom thecontext, thiscan(anddoes) leadtoconfusion confusion.logical The sameword (“ecosystemfunctions”)signifiesdifferent things. Ifthespecific Y “purposes”. tional meaningof “functions” as “tasks whichanarea [orecosystem]istofulfil” forhumans, i.e. as humans, andultimatelyhumanwell-being. Likewise, Bastianet i.e. ecosystem functions have a specific purpose, involving the identificationof nature’s benefits for used [. (deGrootsame report etal., 2010, p. i.e. thecapacity. notasthecapacityitselfbut assomethingthatunderpins withinthe Inthegraph thecapacityofanecosystemtoprovidethat underpin ecosystemservices” (Kumar, 2010, p. xxxiii), “the subsetoftheinteractionsbetween biophysical structures, biodiversity andecosystemprocesses above, themainmeanings of “ecosystem function(s)” foundintheliterature As above described, different ideasonwhat “ecosystem function” meansexist. Based ontheanalysis A criticalevaluationoftheconceptinanecosystemservices context useful topeople process providing theservice”, toacapacityany more atall. thusnotreferring Potschin oung (2011, p. the “tasks” ofecosystemsforthebenefitshumans. thecapacities/potentialsto selected processes (andotherecosystemproperties) thatunderpin capacities/potentials ofanecosystemtoprovide ecosystemservices; selected processes (andotherecosystemproperties) thatare ecosystemservices; ecosystemservices; selected processes (andotherecosystemproperties) underpin (any) ecosystemprocesses (andotherecosystemproperties) (merely descriptive); Describing ecosystem functionsinthesenseofecosystemprocesses (andsometimesothereco- Describing A secondproblem forsomedefinitionsof “ecosystemfunction(s)” ishow tooperationalisethe One problem from thatobviously- thisdiversity arises ofmeaningsisthedangertermino
. provide ecosystemservices;
.] toindicatesomecapacityorcapabilityoftheecosystemdosomethingthatispotentially
.” Inalltheselatterdefinitions, “functions” already include anormative dimension, 578) tak e up the original definition by deGroot andstate:e uptheoriginal “ Defining, measuringecosystemservices
17), iteven refersto “the subsetofbiophysical or structure 43
al. (2012, p.
ar
9), e:
‘[F]unction’ isbeing emphasiseatradi-
and Haines Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 22:02 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781315775302, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315775302-4 et denoting oneoftheirbasicconceptsare thoseof Wallace (2007), Bastianet frameworksples ofecosystemservices which, forthesake ofclarity, explicitlyavoid as theterm shouldbeeitherdefinedexplicitlyandthenusedconsistently(!)or avoidedterm entirely. Exam- Given thehighambiguityofterm “ecosystem function(s)” context, inanecosystemservices the Conclusions Luck, G. de Groot, R. Bastian, O., Haase, D., and Grunewald, K. (2012). Ecosystemproperties, – potentialsandservices References no. Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme oftheproject “OpenNESS” (Grantagreement The research by leadingtothesethoughtswas inpart fundingfrom supported theEuropean Acknowledgements Jax, K. (2005). Functionand “functioning” inecology? What doesitmean?Oikos, vol 111, de Groot, R. Kumar, P. (ed.)(2010). TheEconomicsofEcosystemsandBiodiversity:. EcologicalandEconomicFoundations Potschin, M. MA (2005). EcosystemsandHuman Well-being: Synthesis, IslandPress, Washington Schröter, M., Barton, D. Wallace, K.
al.
pp 7–16. The EPPSconceptualframework andanurbanapplicationexample. EcologicalIndicators, vol 21, Bello, F., Diaz, S., Feld, C. making. EcologicalComplexity, vol 7, pp260–272. andvaluesthe conceptofecosystemservices inlandscapeplanning, management anddecision 41, pp393–408. andvaluation of ecosystemfunctions,description goodsandservices. EcologicalEconomics, vol Earthscan, Londonand Washington pp 641–648. M., Samways, M. Services. Bioscience, vol 59, pp223–235. Zobel, M. (2009). oforganismstotheprovision Quantifyingthecontribution ofecosystem vation, vol 139, pp235–246. perspective. ProgressinPhysical Geography, vol 35, pp575–594. tors, vol 36, pp539–551. ecosystem services: aconceptualmodelandcasestudyfor Telemark, Norway. EcologicalIndica- 308428). (2014). W.,
J. Harrington, R., Harrison, P., Kremen, C., Berry, P. M., Bugter, R., Dawson, T. Thanks tomy colleaguesfrom thisproject forseveral interesting discussionsontheissue. (2007). Classificationofecosystem services: problems andsolutions. BiologicalConser-
S., B.,
S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., and Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges inintegrating andHaines-Young, R. Wilson, M.
J., Sandin, L., Settele, J., Sykes, M.
N., Remme, R.
A., andBoumans, Marion PotschinandRoyHaines-Young
K., Haslett,
DC P.,
J. H. (2011). andHein, L. (2014). Accounting forcapacityandflow of
R., Her . R.M.J. (2002). A 44 ing, D., Kontogianni, A., Lavorel, S., Rounsevell, Ecosystemservices: ageographical exploring T., van denHove, S., Vandewalle, M., and
typolo gy fortheclassification,
al. (2012), andSchröter
DC .
P., de