Concerns about the use of ecosystem services as a tool for nature conservation: From misleading concepts to providing a “price” for nature, but not a “value”
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1515/eje-2015-0009Keywords:
ecosystem servicesAbstract
1. By definition, ecosystem services (ES) are the “benefits that people obtain from ecosystems”, and this paradigm has been increasingly used in recent decades in ecological planning, for policy development and environmental management.
2. In this short commentary, we highlight the main criticisms suggested by several scientists against the currently used and abused ecosystem services (ES) approach.
3. We underline how this concept needs a more accurate scientific assessment and theoretical development, repeating that one of the most critical concerns is that this paradigm assigns a “price”, but not a “value” to nature.
4. We also discuss different theoretical concerns, as for example the replacement of natural “resource” by “service” promoted by the ES paradigm thereby changing the implications of such assessments. Conserving resources is essential for survival of several organisms, while conservation of a “service” is mainly related to the human species.
5. Finally, we warn against the mechanism of ‘crowding out’ behind the ES approach, which replaces intrinsic motivations (nature) against extrinsic ones (benefits), highlighting that people do not need to attach different values to ecosystems (monetary, cultural, aesthetic, etc.) to understand the value of nature.
References
Uncertainties and controversies around a socially constructed
concept. Geoforum, 56, 113-123.
Baró, F., Haase, D., Gómez-Baggethun, E. & Frantzeskaki, N. (2015)
Mismatches between ecosystem services supply and demand in
urban areas: A quantitative assessment in five European cities.
Ecol. Indic., 55, 146-158.
Bennett, E.M., Cramer, W., Begossi, A., Cundill, G., Díaz, S., Egoh, B.N.,
Geijzendorffer, I.R., Krug, C.B., Lavorel, S., Lazos, E., Lebel, L.,
Martín-López, B., Meyfroidt, P., Mooney, H. a, Nel, J.L., Pascual,
U., Payet, K., Harguindeguy, N.P., Peterson, G.D., Prieur-Richard,
A.-H., Reyers, B., Roebeling, P., Seppelt, R., Solan, M., Tschakert,
P., Tscharntke, T., Turner, B., Verburg, P.H., Viglizzo, E.F., White,
P.C. & Woodward, G. (2015) Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services,
and human well-being: three challenges for designing research
for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 14, 76-85.
Black, J., Hashimzade, N. & Myles, G. (2012) A dictionary of economics,
4th ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Carrasco, L.R., Nghiem, T.P.L., Sunderland, T. & Koh, L.P. (2014) Economic
valuation of ecosystem services fails to capture biodiversity
value of tropical forests. Biol. Conserv., 178, 163-170.
Currie, W.S. (2011) Units of nature or processes across scales? The ecosystem
concept at age 75. New Phytol., 190, 21-34.
Egoh, B., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Bode, M. & Richardson, D.M. (2009)
Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem services
in South Africa. Biol. Conserv., 142, 553-562.
Ferraro, P.J. & Kiss, A. (2002) Direct payments to conserve biodiversity.
Science, 298, 1718-1719.
Hawes, J., Barlow, J., Gardner, T. a. & Peres, C. a. (2008) The value of
forest strips for understory birds in an Amazonian plantation
landscape. Biol. Conserv., 141, 2262-2278.
MEA, 2005. Ecosystems and human well being — Biodiversity synthesis.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human
well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Washington, DC.
Norgaard, R.B. (2010) Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor
to complexity blinder. Ecol. Econ., 69, 1219-1227.
Qiu, J. & Turner, M.G. (2013) Spatial interactions among ecosystem services
in an urbanizing agricultural watershed. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U. S. A., 110, 12149-54.
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D. & Bennett, E.M. (2010) Ecosystem
service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 107, 5242-5247.
Rodríguez-Loinaz, G., Alday, J.G. & Onaindia, M. (2015) Multiple ecosystem
services landscape index: A tool for multifunctional landscapes
conservation. J. Environ. Manage. 147, 152-163.
Schröter, M., van der Zanden, E.H., van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Remme,
R.P., Serna-Chavez, H.M., de Groot, R.S. & Opdam, P. (2014) Ecosystem
Services as a Contested Concept: A Synthesis of Critique
and Counter-Arguments. Conserv. Lett., 7, 514-523.
Seppelt, R., Dormann, C.F., Eppink, F. V., Lautenbach, S. & Schmidt, S.
(2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: Approaches,
shortcomings and the road ahead. J. Appl. Ecol., 48,
630-636.
Steg, L., De Groot & J.I.M. (2015) Should biodiversity be useful? Scope
and limits of ecosystem services as an argument for biodiversity
conservation. Environ. Values, 24, 165-182.
Worthington, E.B. (1964) A definition of natural resources, in: United
nations educational, scientific and cultural organization (Ed.),
Conference on the Organization of Research and Training in
Africa in Relation to the Study, Conservation and Utilization of
Natural Resources. UNESCO/CORPSA/4.A, Paris, pp. 1-11.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2015 Federico Morelli, Anders Pape Møller
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright in their articles.
Articles in the European Journal of Ecology published 2020 and after are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.
Articles in the European Journal of Ecology published 2015-2019 are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 license.
