SPECIAL FEATURE: INTRODUCTORY PERSPECTIVE Ecosystem services: From theory to implementation Gretchen C. Daily*† and Pamela A. Matson‡ *Center for Conservation Biology (Department of Biology) and Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020; and ‡Environmental Earth System Science, Stanford University, CA 94305-2210 Around the world, leaders are increasingly recognizing ecosystems as natural capital assets that supply life-support services of tremendous value. The challenge is to turn this recognition into incentives and institutions that will guide wise investments in natural capital, on a large scale. Advances are required on three key fronts, each featured here: the science of ecosystem production functions and service map- ping; the design of appropriate finance, policy, and governance systems; and the art of implementing these in diverse biophysical and so- cial contexts. Scientific understanding of ecosystem production functions is improving rapidly but remains a limiting factor in incorporating natural capital into decisions, via systems of national accounting and other mechanisms. Novel institutional structures are being estab- lished for a broad array of services and places, creating a need and opportunity for systematic assessment of their scope and limitations. Finally, it is clear that formal sharing of experience, and defining of priorities for future work, could greatly accelerate the rate of innova- tion and uptake of new approaches. ven in the face of intensifying conservation and human development, creasing carbon sequestration do not pressures and risks on the global and for incorporating material and in- necessarily increase species conservation environmental front, there is a tangible values of natural capital into (and vice versa). A clear finding is that growing feeling of Renaissance decision-making. Tallis et al. (10) ana- if payments for ecosystem services are Ein the conservation community. This lyze World Bank projects with win–win not carefully designed, they may yield flows from the promise in reaching, to- objectives of alleviating poverty and pro- minimal gains in services of interest, gether with a much more diverse and tecting biodiversity, and find a success and may well harm the production of powerful set of leaders than in the past, rate of one in six. Using case studies, other services and biodiversity conserva- for new approaches that align economic they then propose a framework for an- tion. However, the authors demonstrate forces with conservation, and that ex- ticipating and improving the outcomes how new tools can enable good design plicitly link human and environmental of such projects. and progress toward multiple, poten- well-being (1). And this promise is flow- Ma¨ler et al. (11) review the history of tially competing objectives. ering thanks to substantial recent ad- green accounting and identify two major Naidoo et al. (13) attempt to quantify vances in key areas of inquiry, such as challenges to incorporating natural capital and map the production of ecosystem ser- ecology, economics, and institutions, systematically into economic accounts: (i) vices globally, to compare service produc- and their integration (2–5). the characterization of production func- tion with priority sites for biodiversity Conservation efforts now are expanding tions for ecosystems, i.e., dynamic models conservation. They find that spatial con- into realms well beyond reserves, beyond that translate the structure and function cordance among different services and charity, and beyond biodiversity—and of ecosystems into the provision of ser- between ecosystem services and conserva- into the mainstream (6). While retaining a vices; and (ii) the development of institu- tion priorities varies widely. Nonetheless, core focus on protected areas designed to tions whose reach and strength is tightly their analysis permits clear identification sustain biodiversity, the new arenas of knitted to the estimation of accounting of areas in which payments for ecosystem conservation are much bigger and much prices for ecosystem services. Under weak services (PES) are more likely than else- more complex than the old. They encom- institutions, accounting prices will be low where to achieve biodiversity conservation pass new places dominated by human ac- (or even negative); as institutions improve, objectives. tivity, new revenue streams from public one expects (all else equal) accounting and private sectors, and new goals of eco- prices to increase. Challenges of Implementation system service provision. In fact, they en- Tallis et al. (10) and Ma¨ler et al. (11) The special issue then turns to policy compass important elements of tradi- both make compelling calls for intensive, design and implementation. Jack et al. tional, non-Western approaches (7, 8). interdisciplinary study of priority ecosys- (14) systematically review the history of Scholars and practitioners are seeking to tems and ecosystem service-oriented incentive-based mechanisms for environ- make conservation economically attractive projects, in which the potential for rapid mental policy, drawing lessons and in- and commonplace, routine in the deci- general advances in understanding is high. sights for the design of PES schemes. sion-making of individuals, communities, They also call for standardized techniques Such schemes compensate individuals or corporations, and governments (9). and metrics for valuing and monitoring communities for undertaking actions Here, we feature contributions that services. that increase the provision of ecosystem span the fundamental science of ecosys- services. The authors illustrate how the tem services through to the design, im- Modeling Provision of Ecosystem effectiveness of PES schemes is influ- plementation, and assessment of finance Services and Biodiversity Conservation enced by the biophysical, socioeconomic, and policy mechanisms and systems of The next two contributions take big political, and general dynamic context, governance. Each contribution is ori- steps in the directions suggested. Nelson giving concrete examples. ented around decisions, often cast in et al. (12) present a model that inte- Cowling et al. (15) go a step further, terms of tradeoffs among alternative grates the effects of policy on land-use proposing a pragmatic, operational future scenarios of change, whether in decisions and the resulting consequences natural resource management, popula- for the joint provision of ecosystem ser- tion, climate, or other key drivers. vices and biodiversity conservation Author contributions: G.C.D. and P.A.M. wrote the paper. across a landscape. They use data from The authors declare no conflict of interest. Linking Conservation and Development the Willammette Basin in Oregon, †To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: We open with two pieces that set the United States, a very well studied re- [email protected]. stage, presenting frameworks for linking gion, and find that policies aimed at in- © 2008 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA www.pnas.org͞cgi͞doi͞10.1073͞pnas.0804960105 PNAS ͉ July 15, 2008 ͉ vol. 105 ͉ no. 28 ͉ 9455–9456 model for achieving the safeguarding of and involvement, and maneuvering of frameworks and theory to practical in- ecosystem services in a given place. the political system at critical times. Al- tegration of ecosystem services into They focus on internalizing ecosystem though enabling legislation was essential, decision-making, in a way that is credi- service concerns into land- and water- it was not sufficient for shifting gover- ble, replicable, scalable, and sustain- use planning sectors, based on experi- nance toward adaptive co-management able. There remain many highly of the marine system. ence in South Africa. At the core of nuanced scientific challenges for ecolo- their model are three key elements, all Finally, we turn to China, with the world’s largest population and fastest gists, economists, and other social sci- very challenging but important to growing economy among major na- entists to understand how human achieve: socially relevant, user-inspired tions. Planned investments in ecosys- actions affect ecosystems, the provision research, stakeholder empowerment, tem service payments in China exceed of ecosystem services, and the value of and adaptive management embedded in 700 billion Yuan (1 US$ Ϸ 7.4 Yuan), those services. At least as demanding learning organizations. With these, one a magnitude matched by the ambition are the social and political challenges can establish the necessary enabling in their goals, the massive scales over associated with incorporating this un- conditions, windows of opportunity, which they operate, and their poten- derstanding into effective and enduring tially enormous impacts. Liu et al. (17) mechanisms for change, and outcomes institutions, to manage, monitor, and of effectiveness. review China’s foremost two ecosystem provide incentives that accurately re- Through a contrasting point of entry, service programs, the Natural Forest flect the social values of ecosystem ser- Olsson et al. (16) explore the strategies Conservation Program and the Grain vices to society. The candid analyses and actions that enabled the case of a to Green Program. To realize the po- recent transition to ecosystem-based tential for these programs to benefit presented here help light the way. management by the Great Barrier Reef China and the rest of the world, Liu et al. call for more systematic planning,