Jump to content

Ecosystem service: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Reverting possible vandalism by 115.99.30.135 to version by EMsmile. Report False Positive? Thanks, ClueBot NG. (4340794) (Bot)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Benefits provided by intact ecosystems}}
{{Wikify|date=May 2007}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2020}}
Humankind benefits from a multitude of resources and processes that are supplied by natural [[ecosystems]]. Collectively, these benefits are known as '''ecosystem services''' and include products like clean drinking water and processes like the [[decomposition]] of wastes. Ecosystem services are distinct from other ecosystem products and functions because there is human demand for these natural assets. Services can be subdivided into five categories: ''provisioning'' such as the production of food and water; ''regulating'', such as the control of climate and disease; ''supporting'', such as nutrient cycles and crop pollination; ''cultural'', such as spiritual and recreational benefits; and ''preserving'', which includes guarding against uncertainty through the maintenance of diversity.
[[File:Honeybee (Apis mellifera) pollinating Avocado cv.jpg|thumb|An example of an ecosystem service is [[pollination]], here by a [[honey bee]] on [[avocado]] crop.]]'''Ecosystem services''' are the various benefits that humans derive from healthy [[Ecosystem|ecosystems]]. These ecosystems, when functioning well, offer such things as provision of food, natural [[pollination]] of crops, clean air and water, [[decomposition]] of wastes, or [[flood control]]. Ecosystem services are grouped into four broad categories of services. There are ''provisioning services'', such as the production of food and water. ''Regulating services'', such as the control of climate and disease. ''Supporting services'', such as [[nutrient cycles]] and [[oxygen]] production. And finally there are ''cultural services'', such as spiritual and recreational benefits.<ref name="MEA2">{{cite book |last1=Millennium Ecosystem Assessment |url=http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf |title=Ecosystems and human well-being : synthesis |date=2005 |publisher=Island Press |isbn=1-59726-040-1 |location=Washington, DC |access-date=7 August 2014}}</ref> Evaluations of ecosystem services may include assigning an economic value to them.


For example, [[Estuary|estuarine]] and coastal ecosystems are [[marine ecosystem]]s that perform the four categories of ecosystem services in several ways. Firstly, their provisioning services include [[marine resources]] and [[genetic resources]]. Secondly, their supporting services include [[Nutrient cycle|nutrient cycling]] and [[primary production]]. Thirdly, their regulating services include [[carbon sequestration]] (which helps with [[climate change mitigation]]) and flood control. Lastly, their cultural services include [[recreation]] and [[tourism]].
As human populations grow, so do the resource demand imposed on ecosystems and the impacts of our global footprint. Many people have been plagued with the misconception that these ecosystem services are free, invulnerable and infinitely available. However, the impacts of [[anthropogenic]] use and abuse are becoming evermore apparent – air and water quality are increasingly compromised, oceans are being over-fished, pests and diseases are extending beyond their historical boundaries, [[deforestation]] is eliminating flood control around human settlements. It has been reported that approximately 40-50% of Earth’s ice-free land surface has been heavily transformed or degraded by anthropogenic activities, 66% of marine [[fisheries]] are either overexploited or at their limit, atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> has increased more than 30% since the advent of [[industrialization]], and nearly 25% of Earth’s bird species have gone extinct in the last two thousand years <ref>Vitousek, P.M., J. Lubchenco, H.A. Mooney, J. Melillo. 1997. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277: 494-499.</ref>. Consequently, society is coming to realize that ecosystem services are not only threatened and limited, but that the pressure to evaluate trade-offs between immediate and long-term human needs is urgent. To help inform decision-makers, economic value is increasingly associated with many ecosystem services and often based on the cost of replacement with anthropogenically-driven alternatives. The on-going challenge of prescribing economic value to nature is prompting transdisciplinary shifts in how we recognize and manage the environment, social responsibility, business opportunities, and our future as a species.


The [[Millennium Ecosystem Assessment]] (MA) in the early 2000s has made this concept better known.<ref name="MEA">{{cite book |last1=Millennium Ecosystem Assessment |url=http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf |title=Ecosystems and human well-being : synthesis |date=2005 |publisher=Island Press |isbn=1-59726-040-1 |location=Washington, DC |access-date=7 August 2014}}</ref>
== A brief history ==
The simple notion of human dependence on Earth’s ecosystems probably reaches to the start of our species’ existence, when as hunter-gatherers we benefited from the products of nature to nourish our bodies and the habitats that provided shelter from harsh climates. Recognition of how ecosystems could provide even more complex services to humankind date back to at least [[Plato]] (c. 400 BC) who understood that [[deforestation]] could lead to soil [[erosion]] and the drying of springs <ref name="Daily1997">Daily, G.C. 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington. 392pp.</ref>. However, modern conceptualization of ecosystem services likely began with Marsh in 1864 <ref>Marsh, G.P. 1864 (1965). Man and Nature. Charles Scribner, New York. 472pp.</ref> when he challenged the idea that Earth’s natural resources are not infinite by pointing out changes in [[soil fertility]] along the Mediterranean. Unfortunately, his observations and cautioning passed largely unnoticed at the time and it wasn’t until the late 1940’s that society’s attention was again brought to the matter. During this era, three key authors – Osborn <ref>Osborn, F. 1948. Our Plundered Planet. Little, Brown and Company: Boston. 217pp.</ref>, Vogt <ref>Vogt, W. 1948. Road to Survival. William Sloan: New York. 335pp.</ref>, and Leopold <ref>Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches from Here and There. Oxford University Press, New York. 226pp. </ref> – awakened and promoted the recognition of human dependence on the environment with the idea of ‘natural capital’. In 1956, Sears <ref>Sears, P.B. 1956. “The processes of environmental change by man.” ''In'': W.L. Thomas, editor. Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth (Volume 2). University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1193pp.</ref> brought attention to the critical role of the ecosystem in processing wastes and recycling nutrients. An environmental science textbook <ref> Ehrlich, P.R. and A. Ehrlich. 1970. Population, Resources, Environment: Issues in Human Ecology. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco. 383pp. - see p.157</ref> called attention to “the most subtle and dangerous threat to man’s existence… is the potential destruction, by man’s own activities, of those ecological systems upon which the very existence of the human species depends”. The term ‘environmental services’ was finally introduced in a report of the ''Study of Critical Environmental Problems'' <ref> Study of Critical Environmental Problems (SCEP). 1970. Man’s Impact on the Global Environment. MIT Press, Cambridge. 319pp.</ref>, which listed services including insect [[pollination]], [[fisheries]], [[climate]] regulation and [[flood]] control. In following years, variations of the term were applied but eventually ‘ecosystem services’ became the standard among scientific literature. <ref>Ehrlich, P.R. and A. Ehrlich. 1981. Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species. Random House, New York. 305pp.</ref>


{{TOC level|3}}
Modern expansions of the ecosystem services concept have come to encompass [[socio-economic]] and [[Conservation ethic|conservation]] objectives, which are discussed below. For a more complete history of the concepts and terminology surrounding ecosystem services, see Daily (1997)<ref name="Daily1997"/>.


== Examples ==
==Definition==
Ecosystem services or eco-services are defined as the goods and services provided by [[ecosystem]]s to humans.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last=Austin |first=Troy |date=2009 |title=Estimating Ecosystem Services in Southern Ontario |url=https://alus.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/estimation-of-ecosystem.pdf |journal=}}</ref> Per the 2006 [[Millennium Ecosystem Assessment]] (MA), ecosystem services are "the benefits people obtain from ecosystems". The MA also delineated the four categories of ecosystem services into provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural.<ref name="MEA" />
Experts currently recognize five categories of ecosystem services <ref name="Daily2000">Daily, G.C. 2000. Management objectives for the protection of ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy 3: 333-339.</ref><ref>Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington. 155pp.</ref>. The following lists represent samples of each:
: ''Provisioning services''<br/>
::• foods (including seafood and game) and spices<br/>
::• precursors to pharmaceutical and industrial products<br/>
::• [[energy]] ([[hydropower]], [[biofuel|biomass fuels]]) <br/><br/>


By 2010, there had evolved various working definitions and descriptions of ecosystem services in the literature.<ref>{{cite conference |last1=Ojea |first1=Elena |first2=Aline |last2=Chiabai |first3=Julia |last3=Martin-Ortega |title=Classifying Ecosystem Services for Economic Valuation: The case of forest water services |conference=BIOCON Conference |date=September 2010 |url=http://bioecon-network.org/pages/12th_2010/Ojea.pdf |hdl=10810/14215 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> To prevent double-counting in ecosystem services audits, for instance, [[The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity]] (TEEB) replaced "Supporting Services" in the MA with "Habitat Services" and "ecosystem functions", defined as "a subset of the interactions between ecosystem structure and processes that underpin the capacity of an ecosystem to provide goods and services".<ref>[http://www.teebtest.org/wp-content/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/Ecological%20and%20Economic%20Foundations/TEEB%20Ecological%20and%20Economic%20Foundations%20report/TEEB%20Foundations.pdf The Ecological and Economic Foundation] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203063434/http://www.teebtest.org/wp-content/uploads/Study |date=3 December 2013 }}, chapter 1, p.19, [[The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity|TEEB]], 2010</ref>
: ''Regulating services''<br/>
::• [[carbon sequestration]] and [[climate]] regulation<br/>
::• waste [[decomposition]] and detoxification<br/>
::• nutrient dispersal and cycling<br/><br/>


While [[Gretchen Daily]]'s original definition distinguished between ''ecosystem goods'' and ''ecosystem services'', [[Robert Costanza]] and colleagues' later work and that of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment lumped all of these together as ''ecosystem services''.<ref name="Brown2007">{{cite journal |last1=Brown |first1=Thomas C. |author2=John C. Bergstrom |author3=John B. Loomis |year=2007 |title=Defining, valuing and providing ecosystem goods and services |url=http://lawlibrary.unm.edu/nrj/47/2/04_brown_goods.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=Natural Resources Journal |volume=47 |issue=2 |pages=329–376 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130525213257/http://lawlibrary.unm.edu/nrj/47/2/04_brown_goods.pdf |archive-date=2013-05-25}}</ref><ref name="Daily et al. 2000." />
: ''Supporting services''<br/>
::• purification of water and air<br/>
::• crop [[pollination]] and seed [[dispersal]] <br/>
::• [[Pest (organism)|pest]] and disease control<br/><br/>


==Categories==
: ''Cultural services''<br/>
[[File:Ecosystem_Services.png|thumb|Four categories of ecosystem services]]Four different types of ecosystem services have been distinguished by the scientific body: regulating services, provisioning services, cultural services and supporting services. An ecosystem does not necessarily offer all four types of services simultaneously; but given the intricate nature of any ecosystem, it is usually assumed that humans benefit from a combination of these services. The services offered by diverse types of ecosystems (forests, seas, coral reefs, mangroves, etc.) differ in nature and in consequence. In fact, some services directly affect the livelihood of neighboring human populations (such as fresh water, food or aesthetic value, etc.) while other services affect general environmental conditions by which humans are indirectly impacted (such as [[climate change]], [[erosion]] regulation or [[natural hazard]] regulation, etc.).<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Barbier |first1=Edward B. |last2=Hacker |first2=Sally D. |last3=Kennedy |first3=Chris |last4=Koch |first4=Evamaria W. |last5=Stier |first5=Adrian C. |last6=Silliman |first6=Brian R. |title=The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services |journal=Ecological Monographs |date=May 2011 |volume=81 |issue=2 |pages=169–193 |doi=10.1890/10-1510.1 |bibcode=2011EcoM...81..169B |hdl=20.500.11919/920 |s2cid=86155063 |url=https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/13678900 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>
::• cultural, intellectual and spiritual inspiration <br/>
::• recreational experiences (including [[ecotourism]]) <br/>
::• scientific discovery<br/><br/>


The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report 2005 defined ecosystem services as benefits people obtain from ecosystems and distinguishes four categories of ecosystem services, where the so-called supporting services are regarded as the basis for the services of the other three categories.<ref name="Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005">{{cite web |title=Tunza Eco-generation Eco-generation |url=https://tunza.eco-generation.org/m/view.jsp?board=ourActions&viewID=44521&searchType=&searchName=&pageNumber=1}}</ref>
: ''Preserving services''<br/>
::• genetic and [[species diversity]] for future use<br/>
::• accounting for uncertainty<br/>
::• protection of options<br/><br/>
<br/>
To understand the relationships between humans and natural ecosystems through the services derived from them, consider the following cases: <br/>
:• In New York City, where the quality of drinking water had fallen below standards required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), authorities opted to restore the polluted Catskill Watershed that had previously provided the city with the ecosystem service of water purification. Once the input of sewage and pesticides to the [[Drainage basin|watershed]] area was reduced, natural abiotic processes such as soil adsorption and filtration of chemicals, together with biotic recycling via root systems and soil microorganisms, water quality improved to levels that met government standards. The cost of this investment in natural capital was estimated between $1-1.5 billion, which contrasted dramatically with the estimated $6-8 billion cost of constructing a water filtration plant plus the $300 million annual running costs <ref>Chichilnisky, G. and G. Heal. 1998. Economic returns from the biosphere. Nature 391: 629-630.</ref>.<br/><br/>
:• [[Pollination]] of crops by bees is required for 15-30% of U.S. food production; most large-scale farmers import non-native honey bees to provide this service. One study <ref name="Kremen">Kremen, C. 2005. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecology Letters 8: 468-479.</ref> reports that in California’s agricultural region, it was found that wild bees alone could provide partial or complete pollination services or enhance the services provided by honey bees through behavioral interactions. However, intensified agricultural practices can quickly erode pollination services through the loss of species and those remaining are unable to compensate for the difference. The results of this study also indicate that the proportion of [[chaparral]] and oak-woodland habitat available for wild bees within 1-2 km of a farm can strongly stabilize and enhance the provision of pollination services, thereby providing a potential insurance policy for farmers of this region. <br/><br/>
:• In watersheds of the Yangtze River (China), spatial models for water flow through different forest habitats were created to determine potential contributions for [[hydroelectric power]] in the region. By quantifying the relative value of ecological parameters (vegetation-soil-slope complexes), researchers were able to estimate the annual economic benefit of maintaining forests in the watershed for power services to be 2.2 times that if it were harvested once for [[timber]] <ref>Guo, Z.W., X.M. Xio and D.M. Li. 2000. An assessment of ecosystem services: water flow regulation and hydroelectric power production. Ecological Applications 10: 925-936.</ref>.<br/><br/>


== Ecology ==
== Provisioning services ==
Provisioning services consist of all "the products obtained from ecosystems". The following services are also known as ''ecosystem goods'':<ref>Walter V. Reid, H. A. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being - A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington DC: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board. Retrieved from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf</ref>
Understanding of ecosystem services requires a strong foundation in [[ecology]], which describes the underlying principles and interactions of organisms and the [[Natural environment|environment]]. Since the scales at which these entities interact can vary from [[microbes]] to [[landscapes]], milliseconds to millions of years, one of the greatest remaining challenges is the descriptive characterization of energy and material flow between them. For example, the area of a forest floor, the [[detritus]] upon it, the microorganisms in the soil and characteristics of the soil itself will all contribute to the abilities of that forest for providing ecosystem services like carbon sequestration, water purification, and [[erosion]] prevention to other areas within the [[Drainage basin|watershed]]. Note that it is often possible for multiple services to be bundled together and when benefits of targeted objectives are secured, there may also be ancillary benefits – the same forest may provide [[habitat]] for other organisms as well as human recreation, which are also ecosystem services. <br/><br/>
* food (including [[seafood]] and [[Game (food)|game]]), crops, wild foods, and [[spice]]s
* raw materials (including lumber, skins, fuelwood, organic matter, fodder, and fertilizer)
The complexity of Earth’s ecosystems poses a challenge for scientists as they try to understand how relationships are interwoven among organisms, processes and their surroundings. As it relates to human ecology, a suggested research agenda <ref name="Kremen"/> for the study of ecosystem services includes the following steps: <br/>
* genetic resources (including crop improvement genes, and health care)
:1. identification of ''ecosystem service providers'' (''ESP''s) – [[species]] or populations that provide specific ecosystem services – and characterization their functional roles and relationships; <br/>
* [[biogenic minerals]]
:2. determination of community structure aspects that influence how ESPs function in their [[natural landscape]], such as compensatory responses that stabilize function and non-random extinction sequences which can erode it; <br/>
* [[Medication|medicinal resources]] (including pharmaceuticals, chemical models, and test and assay organisms)
:3. assessment of key environmental ([[abiotic]]) factors influencing the provision of services; <br/>
* [[energy]] ([[hydropower]], [[biofuel|biomass fuels]])
:4. measurement of the spatial and temporal scales ESPs and their services operate on. <br/><br/>
* ornamental resources (including fashion, handicrafts, jewelry, pets, worship, decoration, and souvenirs like furs, feathers, ivory, orchids, butterflies, aquarium fish, shells, etc.)


[[File: Mothugudem road near Chintoor.jpg|thumb|[[Social forestry in India|Social forestry]] in Andhra Pradesh, [[India]], providing fuel, soil protection, shade, and even well-being to travelers.]]Forests and [[forest management]] produce a large type and variety of timber products, including roundwood, sawnwood, panels, and engineered wood, e.g., cross-laminated timber, as well as pulp and paper.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Main report |publisher=FAO |year=2020 |isbn=978-92-5-132974-0 |location=Rome |doi=10.4060/ca9825en |s2cid=241774391}}</ref> Besides the production of timber, forestry activities may also result in products that undergo little processing, such as fire wood, charcoal, wood chips and roundwood used in an unprocessed form.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Key findings |publisher=FAO |year=2020 |isbn=978-92-5-132581-0 |doi=10.4060/ca8753en |s2cid=130116768}}</ref> Global production and trade of all major wood-based products recorded their highest ever values in 2018.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |url=http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca7415en |title=Global forest products facts and figures 2018 |publisher=FAO |year=2019}}</ref> Production, imports and exports of roundwood, sawnwood, wood-based panels, wood pulp, wood charcoal and pellets reached<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |title=The State of the World's Forests 2020. Forests, biodiversity and people – In brief |publisher=FAO & UNEP |year=2020 |isbn=978-92-5-132707-4 |location=Rome |doi=10.4060/ca8985en |s2cid=241416114}}</ref> their maximum quantities since 1947 when [[Food and Agriculture Organization|FAO]] started reporting global forest product statistics.<ref name=":0" /> In 2018, growth in production of the main wood-based product groups ranged from 1 percent (woodbased panels) to 5 percent (industrial roundwood).<ref name=":0" /> The fastest growth occurred in the Asia-Pacific, Northern American and European regions, likely due to positive economic growth in these areas.<ref name=":0" /> Over 40% of the territory in the European Union is covered by forests. This region has grown via [[afforestation]] by roughly 0.4% year in recent decades. In the [[European Union]], just 60% of the yearly forest growth is harvested.<ref name=":158">{{Cite web |title=What is an ecosystem service? |url=https://www.eib.org/en/stories/ecosystem-service-nature |access-date=2023-07-19 |website=European Investment Bank |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-03-31 |title=The European Union and forests {{!}} Fact Sheets on the European Union {{!}} European Parliament |url=https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/105/the-european-union-and-forests |access-date=2023-07-19 |website=www.europarl.europa.eu |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Over 40% of the EU covered with forests |url=https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/edn-20180321-1 |access-date=2023-07-19 |website=ec.europa.eu |language=en-GB}}</ref>
Recently, a technique has been developed to improve and standardize the evaluation of ESP functionality by quantifying the relative importance of different species in terms of their efficiency and abundance <ref name=”Balvanera”>Balvanera, P. C. Kremen, and M. Martinez. 2005. Applying community structure analysis to ecosystem function: examples from pollination and carbon storage. Ecological Applications 15: 360-375.</ref>. Such parameters provide indications of how species respond to changes in the environment (i.e. predators, resource availability, climate) and are useful for identifying species that are disproportionately important at providing ecosystem services. However, a critical drawback is that the technique does not account for the effects of interactions, which are often both complex and fundamental in maintaining an ecosystem and can involve species that are not readily detected as a priority. Even so, estimating the functional structure of an ecosystem and combining it with information about individual species traits can help us understand the [[resilience]] of an ecosystem amidst environmental change.


Forests also provide non-wood forest products, including fodder, aromatic and medicinal plants, and wild foods. Worldwide, around 1 billion people depend to some extent on wild foods such as wild meat, edible insects, edible plant products, mushrooms and fish, which often contain high levels of key micronutrients.<ref name=":1" /> The value of forest foods as a nutritional resource is not limited to low- and middle-income countries; more than 100 million people in the European Union (EU) regularly consume wild food.<ref name=":1" /> Some 2.4 billion people – in both urban and rural settings – use wood-based energy for cooking.<ref name=":1" />
==Ecosystem Function and Biodiversity==
Many ecologists also believe that the provision of ecosystem services can be stabilized with biodiversity. Also with increased biodiversity there would be a greater variety of different types of ecosystem services available to society.The link between biodiversity, species richness, and ecosystem stability is important to understand to be able to know how to conserve resources, as well as to create designs to utilize these resources.


== Regulating services ==
====The Redundancy and Rivet Hypotheses====
[[File:Upland bog which forms the official source of the Severn - geograph.org.uk - 1126228.jpg|thumb|Upland [[bog]] in [[Wales]], forming the official source of the [[River Severn]]. Healthy bogs [[Carbon sequestration|sequester carbon]], hold back water thereby reducing [[flood]] risk, and supply cleaned water better than degraded habitats do.]]
The redundancy (sometimes referred to as the Functional Compensation) and rivet hypotheses seek to explain how an ecosystem functions, based on the ecological role of organisms within it. The redundancy and rivet hypotheses are the most commonly used explanations for the link between ecosystem function and its [[biodiversity]], but others included the “idiosyncratic” and the “null” hypothesis.<ref name="Lawton 1994">Lawton, J.H. 1994. “What do species do in ecosystems?” Oikos l71: 368.</ref>
Regulating services are the "benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes".<ref>{{cite web |title=Millennium Ecosystem Assessment |url=http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180224041032/http://millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html |archive-date=24 February 2018 |access-date=28 April 2018 |website=www.millenniumassessment.org}}</ref> These include:


*Purification of [[water purification|water]] and [[air pollution|air]]
The redundancy hypothesis states that there are more than one species that share the same function in an ecosystem, thus each species' performance in the ecosystem is “redundant”<ref>Walker, B.H. 1992. "Biodiversity and ecological redundancy." Conservation Biology 6: 18-23.</ref>. As species are lost in an ecosystem, others with similar roles may satisfy the need for a certain process or action preformed by the lost species. However, as additional species are continually lost, the resilience of the ecosystem slowly wanes until it reaches a critical point where the surviving species are unable to compensate for the system losses. For the conservation of ecosystems this implies, “special attention to be paid to functional groups that are represented by only one or two species”.<ref>Ehrlich, P. and B. Walker. 1998. “Rivets and Redundancy”. BioScience 48: 387.</ref>. The redundancy hypothesis can be summarized as "species redundancy enhances ecosystem resilience".<ref>Naeem S. 1998. "Species redundancy and ecosystem reliability" Conservation Biology 12: 39–45.</ref>
*[[Carbon sequestration]] (this contributes to [[climate change mitigation]])
* Waste [[decomposition]] and detoxification
* [[Predation]] regulates prey populations
* Biological control [[Pest (organism)|pest]] and [[disease]] control
* [[Pollination]]
* Disturbance regulation, i.e. flood protection<ref>{{Cite web |author=Basic Biology |date=2016 |title=Wetlands |url=https://basicbiology.net/environment/land/wetlands}}</ref>


=== Water purification ===
In the rivet hypothesis, (sometimes called "rivet popping") “all species make a contribution to ecosystem performance”.<ref name="Lawton 1994"/> It uses the analogy of the rivets in an airplane wing to compare the exponential effect each species loss will have on the function of an ecosystem. If one species is lost there is only a small loss in the efficiency of ecosystem functioning; however if multiple species are lost, it will essentially fall apart as an airplane wing would if it lost too many rivets. This idea assumes that species are relatively specialized in their roles and that compensation is not as strong as in the redundancy theory, and therefore, each species is highly valuable to the ecosystem. The key difference between these two theories is the rate at which the loss of species affects the function of the ecosystem.
An example for water purification as an ecosystem service is as follows: In [[New York City]], where the quality of drinking water had fallen below standards required by the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)]], authorities opted to restore the polluted [[Catskill Park|Catskill Watershed]] that had previously provided the city with the ecosystem service of water purification. Once the input of sewage and pesticides to the [[Drainage basin|watershed]] area was reduced, natural [[abiotic]] processes such as soil [[absorption (chemistry)|absorption]] and [[filtration]] of chemicals, together with biotic recycling via root systems and soil [[microorganisms]], [[water quality]] improved to levels that met government standards. The cost of this investment in [[natural capital]] was estimated at $1–1.5 billion, which contrasted dramatically with the estimated $6–8 billion cost of constructing a [[water filtration]] plant plus the $300 million annual running costs.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Chichilnisky |first1=Graciela |last2=Heal |first2=Geoffrey |date=February 1998 |title=Economic returns from the biosphere |journal=Nature |volume=391 |issue=6668 |pages=629–630 |bibcode=1998Natur.391..629C |doi=10.1038/35481 |s2cid=4322093}}</ref>


=== Pollination ===
There are many experiments testing these differing hypotheses both in the field and the lab. In ECOTRON, a laboratory in the UK where many of the [[biotic]] and [[abiotic]] factors of nature can be simulated, there are studies on the effects of earthworms and symbiotic bacteria on plant roots.<ref name="Lawton 1994"/> These laboratory experiments seem to favor the rivet hypothesis. However, a study on grasslands at Cedar Creek Reserve in Minnesota seems to favor the redundancy hypothesis, as have other field studies.<ref>Grime, J.P. 1997. “Biodiversity and ecosystem function: The debate deepend.” Science 277</ref>
Pollination of [[crops]] by bees is required for 15–30% of U.S. [[food production]]; most large-scale farmers import non-native honey bees to provide this service. A 2005 study<ref name="Kremen 2005">{{cite journal |last1=Kremen |first1=Claire |date=May 2005 |title=Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology?: Ecology of ecosystem services |journal=Ecology Letters |volume=8 |issue=5 |pages=468–479 |doi=10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00751.x |pmid=21352450}}</ref> reported that in California's agricultural region, it was found that wild bees alone could provide partial or complete pollination services or enhance the services provided by honey bees through behavioral interactions. However, [[Intensive farming|intensified agricultural practices]] can quickly erode pollination services through the loss of species. The remaining species are unable to compensate this. The results of this study also indicate that the proportion of [[chaparral]] and [[California oak woodland|oak-woodland habitat]] available for wild bees within 1–2&nbsp;km of a [[farm]] can stabilize and enhance the provision of pollination services. The presence of such ecosystem elements functions almost like an insurance policy for farmers.


==== The Portfolio Effect====
=== Buffer zones ===
{{Main|Coastal management}}
One explanation, known as the ''portfolio effect'', compares biodiversity to stock holdings, where diversification minimizes the volatility of the investment, or in this case, the risk in stability of ecosystem services <ref>Tilman, D., C.L. Lehman, and C.E. Bristow. 1998. Diversity-stability relationships: statistical inevitability or ecological consequence? The American Naturalist 151: 277-282.</ref>. This is related to the idea of ''response diversity'' where a suite of species will exhibit differential responses to a given environmental perturbation and therefore when considered together, they create a stabilizing function that preserves the integrity of a service <ref>Elmqvist, T., C. Folke, M. Nyström, G. Peterson, J. Bengtsson, B. Walker and J. Norberg. 2003. Response diversity, ecosystem change and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1: 488-494.</ref>.


Coastal and estuarine ecosystems act as buffer zones against natural hazards and environmental disturbances, such as floods, cyclones, tidal surges and storms. The role they play is to "[absorb] a portion of the impact and thus [lessen] its effect on the land".<ref name="davidsuzuki.org">{{cite web |last1=Molnar |first1=Michelle |last2=Clarke-Murray |first2=Cathryn |last3=Whitworth |first3=John |last4=Tam |first4=Jordan |date=2009 |title=Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Services |url=http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/downloads/2009/marine_ecosystems_report_web.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303230158/http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/downloads/2009/marine_ecosystems_report_web.pdf |archive-date=3 March 2016 |access-date=2014-12-01}}</ref> [[Wetland]]s (which include [[saltwater swamp]]s, [[salt marsh]]es, ...) and the vegetation it supports – trees, root mats, etc. – retain large amounts of water (surface water, snowmelt, rain, groundwater) and then slowly releases them back, decreasing the likeliness of floods.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Campos C. |first1=Adolfo |last2=Hernández |first2=María E. |last3=Moreno-Casasola |first3=Patricia |last4=Cejudo Espinosa |first4=Eduardo |last5=Robledo R. |first5=Alezandra |last6=Infante Mata |first6=Dulce |date=December 2011 |title=Soil water retention and carbon pools in tropical forested wetlands and marshes of the Gulf of Mexico |journal=Hydrological Sciences Journal |volume=56 |issue=8 |pages=1388–1406 |doi=10.1080/02626667.2011.629786 |s2cid=85551159 |doi-access=free|bibcode=2011HydSJ..56.1388C }}</ref> [[Mangrove]] forests protect coastal shorelines from tidal erosion or erosion by currents; a process that was studied after the 1999 cyclone that hit India. Villages that were surrounded with mangrove forests encountered less damages than other villages that were not protected by mangroves.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Badola |first1=Ruchi |last2=Hussain |first2=S. A. |date=March 2005 |title=Valuing ecosystem functions: an empirical study on the storm protection function of Bhitarkanika mangrove ecosystem, India |journal=Environmental Conservation |volume=32 |issue=1 |pages=85–92 |doi=10.1017/S0376892905001967 |bibcode=2005EnvCo..32...85B |s2cid=54753792}}</ref>
====Functional Compensation====

''Functional compensation'', a third possibility, is characterized by a particular species increasing its efficiency at providing a service when conditions are stressed in order to maintain aggregate stability in the [[ecosystem]] <ref>Frost, T.M., S.R. Carpenter, A.R. Ives, and T.K. Kratz. 1995. “Species compensation and complementarity in ecosystem function.” ''In'': C. Jones and J. Lawton, editors. Linking species and ecosystems. Chapman and Hall, London. 387pp.</ref>. However, such increased dependence on a compensating species places additional stress on the ecosystem and often enhances its susceptibility to subsequent [[disturbance]]. The theory "congeneric homotaxis" by Hill and Wiegert proposes that a from of species redundancy, "contributes to regulatory control of ecosystems and is sensitive to ecosystem stress"<ref>Shahid Naeem (1998)
== Supporting services ==
Species Redundancy and Ecosystem Reliability,Conservation Biology 12 (1), 39–45.doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.96379.x</ref>.
Supporting services are the services that allow for the other ecosystem services to be present. They have indirect impacts on humans that last over a long period of time. Several services can be considered as being both supporting services and regulating/cultural/provisioning services.<ref>{{cite web |title=Ecosystem Services |url=https://www.nwf.org/Educational-Resources/Wildlife-Guide/Understanding-Conservation/Ecosystem-Services |access-date=19 July 2021 |website=National Wildlife Federation |language=en}}</ref>

Supporting services include for example [[Nutrient cycle|nutrient cycling]], [[primary production]], [[soil formation]], [[habitat]] provision. These services make it possible for the ecosystems to continue providing services such as food supply, flood regulation, and water purification.

=== Nutrient cycling ===
[[Image:Dungbeetle.jpg|right|thumb|[[Detritivore]]s like this [[dung beetle]] help to turn animal wastes into organic material that can be reused by primary producers.]]
Nutrient cycling is the movement of nutrients through an ecosystem by biotic and abiotic processes.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Nutrient Cycles: Recycling in Ecosystems, The Carbon and Nitrogen Cycles – ScienceAid |url=https://scienceaid.net/biology/ecology/nutrient.html |access-date=2018-05-16 |work=ScienceAid |language=en}}</ref> The ocean is a vast storage pool for these nutrients, such as carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus. The nutrients are absorbed by the basic organisms of the marine food web and are thus transferred from one organism to the other and from one ecosystem to the other. Nutrients are recycled through the life cycle of organisms as they die and decompose, releasing the nutrients into the neighboring environment. "The service of nutrient cycling eventually impacts all other ecosystem services as all living things require a constant supply of nutrients to survive".<ref name="davidsuzuki.org" />

=== Primary production ===
Primary production refers to the production of organic matter, i.e., chemically bound energy, through processes such as photosynthesis and chemosynthesis. The organic matter produced by primary producers forms the basis of all food webs. Further, it generates oxygen (O2), a molecule necessary to sustain animals and humans.<ref>{{cite web |title=ISBN1118506243 – Google zoeken |url=https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1118506243 |access-date=28 April 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Ecosystem Services |url=http://www.canr.msu.edu/nativeplants/ecosystem_services |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171228161544/http://www.canr.msu.edu/nativeplants/ecosystem_services/ |archive-date=28 December 2017 |access-date=28 April 2018 |website=msu.edu}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Oxygen and Human Requirements |url=http://www.geography.hunter.cuny.edu/tbw/wc.notes/1.atmosphere/oxygen_and_human_requirements.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171022082604/http://www.geography.hunter.cuny.edu/tbw/wc.notes/1.atmosphere/oxygen_and_human_requirements.htm |archive-date=22 October 2017 |access-date=28 April 2018 |website=www.geography.hunter.cuny.edu}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=BBC – GCSE Bitesize: Inhaled and exhaled air |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/pe/appliedanatomy/1_anatomy_respiratorysys_rev3.shtml |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171026150605/http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/pe/appliedanatomy/1_anatomy_respiratorysys_rev3.shtml |archive-date=26 October 2017 |access-date=28 April 2018 |website=bbc.co.uk}}</ref> On average, a human consumes about 550 liter of oxygen per day, whereas plants produce 1,5 liter of oxygen per 10 grams of growth.<ref>New Scientist, June 2019{{full citation needed|date=October 2021}}</ref>

== Cultural services ==
Cultural services relate to the non-material world, as they benefit the benefit recreational, aesthetic, cognitive and spiritual activities, which are not easily quantifiable in monetary terms.<ref>{{cite web |title=Cultural services |url=http://www.fao.org/ecosystem-services-biodiversity/background/cultural-services/en/ |access-date=19 July 2021 |website=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations |language=en}}</ref> They include:
* cultural (including use of nature as motif in books, film, painting, folklore, national symbols, advertising, etc.)
* spiritual and historical (including use of nature for religious or heritage value or natural)
* [[recreation]]al experiences (including [[ecotourism]], outdoor sports, and recreation)
* science and education (including use of natural systems for school excursions, and [[scientific discovery]])
* therapeutic (including eco-therapy, social forestry and animal assisted therapy)

As of 2012, there was a discussion as to how the concept of cultural ecosystem services could be operationalized, how landscape aesthetics, cultural heritage, outdoor recreation, and spiritual significance to define can fit into the ecosystem services approach.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Daniel |first1=T. C. |last2=Muhar |first2=A. |last3=Arnberger |first3=A. |last4=Aznar |first4=O. |last5=Boyd |first5=J. W. |last6=Chan |first6=K. M. A. |last7=Costanza |first7=R. |last8=Elmqvist |first8=T. |last9=Flint |first9=C. G. |last10=Gobster |first10=P. H. |last11=Gret-Regamey |first11=A. |last12=Lave |first12=R. |last13=Muhar |first13=S. |last14=Penker |first14=M. |last15=Ribe |first15=R. G. |last16=Schauppenlehner |first16=T. |last17=Sikor |first17=T. |last18=Soloviy |first18=I. |last19=Spierenburg |first19=M. |last20=Taczanowska |first20=K. |last21=Tam |first21=J. |last22=von der Dunk |first22=A. |title=Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=5 June 2012 |volume=109 |issue=23 |pages=8812–8819 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1114773109 |pmid=22615401 |pmc=3384142 |bibcode=2012PNAS..109.8812D |doi-access=free }}</ref> who vote for models that explicitly link ecological structures and functions with cultural values and benefits. Likewise, there has been a fundamental critique of the concept of cultural ecosystem services that builds on three arguments:<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kirchhoff |first1=Thomas |title=Pivotal cultural values of nature cannot be integrated into the ecosystem services framework |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=13 November 2012 |volume=109 |issue=46 |pages=E3146 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1212409109 |pmid=23012476 |pmc=3503173 |bibcode=2012PNAS..109E3146K |doi-access=free }}</ref>

# Pivotal cultural values attaching to the natural/cultivated environment rely on an area's unique character that cannot be addressed by methods that use universal scientific parameters to determine ecological structures and functions.
# If a natural/cultivated environment has symbolic meanings and cultural values the object of these values are not ecosystems but shaped phenomena like mountains, lakes, forests, and, mainly, symbolic landscapes.<ref>Cf. Cosgrove, D.E. 1984: ''Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape'', London; Schama, S. 1995: ''Landscape and memory''. New York; Kirchhoff, T./Trepl, L./Vicenzotti, V. 2012:''What is landscape ecology? An analysis and evaluation of six different conceptions''. Landscape Research iFirst.</ref>
# Cultural values do result not from properties produced by ecosystems but are the product of a specific way of seeing within the given cultural framework of symbolic experience.<ref>Cf. Cosgrove, D.E. 1984: ''Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape'', London; Schama, S. 1995: ''Landscape and memory''. New York; Backhaus, G./Murungi, J. (eds.): ''Symbolic Landscapes''. Dordrecht 2009.</ref>

The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) is a classification scheme developed to accounting systems (like National counts etc.), in order to avoid double-counting of Supporting Services with others Provisioning and Regulating Services.<ref>https://cices.eu/{{full citation needed|date=October 2021}}</ref>

=== Recreation and tourism ===
Sea sports are very popular among coastal populations: surfing, snorkeling, whale watching, kayaking, recreational fishing&nbsp;... a lot of tourists also travel to resorts close to the sea or rivers or lakes to be able to experience these activities, and relax near the water.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Westcott |first1=Morgan |last2=Wendy Anderson |first2=Eds |date=2021-06-04 |title=5.2 Recreation and Adventure Tourism in BC |url=https://opentextbc.ca/introtourism2e/chapter/recreation-and-adventure-tourism-in-bc/ |language=en}}</ref> The United Nations [[Sustainable Development Goal 14]] also has targets aimed at enhancing the use of ecosystem services for sustainable tourism especially in [[Small Island Developing States]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Goal 14 targets |url=https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-14-life-below-water/targets.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200930060036/https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-14-life-below-water/targets.html |archive-date=30 September 2020 |access-date=2020-09-24 |website=UNDP |language=en}}</ref>
==Estuarine and coastal ecosystem services==
[[Estuary|Estuarine]] and [[marine coastal ecosystem]]s are both [[marine ecosystem]]s. Together, these ecosystems perform the four categories of ecosystem services in a variety of ways: The ''provisioning services'' include forest products, marine products, [[fresh water]], raw materials, biochemical and genetic resources. ''Regulating services'' include [[carbon sequestration]] (contributing to [[climate change mitigation]]) as well as [[waste treatment]] and disease regulation and buffer zones. ''Supporting services'' of coastal ecosystems include [[Nutrient cycle|nutrient cycling]], biologically mediated habitats and [[primary production]]. ''Cultural services'' of coastal ecosystems include inspirational aspects, [[recreation]] and [[tourism]], science and education.

Coasts and their adjacent areas on and offshore are an important part of a local ecosystem. The mixture of fresh water and [[Seawater|salt water]] ([[brackish water]]) in estuaries provides many nutrients for [[marine life]]. [[Salt marsh]]es, [[mangroves]] and [[beach]]es also support a diversity of plants, animals and insects crucial to the [[food chain]]. The high level of [[biodiversity]] creates a high level of biological activity, which has attracted human activity for thousands of years. Coasts also create essential material for organisms to live by, including estuaries, [[wetland]], [[seagrass]], [[coral reef]]s, and mangroves. Coasts provide habitats for [[Bird migration|migratory birds]], sea turtles, marine mammals, and coral reefs.<ref>{{Cite web|last=US EPA|first=ORD|date=2017-11-02|title=Coastal Waters|url=https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/coastal-waters|access-date=2020-05-04|website=US EPA|language=en}}</ref>


== Economics ==
== Economics ==
{{Further|[[Environmental economics]]}}
{{further|Environmental economics|Ecological economics|Economic analysis of climate change|The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity}}
[[File:Suds pond at Cromar Drive - geograph.org.uk - 1756832.jpg|thumb|[[Sustainable urban drainage system|Sustainable urban drainage pond]] near housing in Scotland. The filtering and cleaning of surface and waste water by natural vegetation is a form of ecosystem service.]]
There is an extensive disparity between the actual and perceived values of ecosystem services. The reasons for such incongruence are probably related to society’s generally tardy and limited acknowledgment of our interrelatedness with the natural environment. Although environmental awareness is rapidly improving in our contemporary world, ecosystem capital and its flow are still poorly understood, threats continue to impose, and we suffer from the so-called ‘[[tragedy of the commons]]’ <ref> Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-1248.</ref>. Many efforts to inform decision-makers of current versus future costs and benefits now involve organizing and translating scientific knowledge to [[economics]], which articulate the consequences of our choices in comparable units of impact on human well-being <ref>Daily, G.C., T. Söderqvist, S. Aniyar, K. Arrow, P. Dasgupta, P.R. Ehrlich, C. Folke, A. Jansson, B. Jansson, N. Kautsky, S. Levin, J. Lubchenco, K. Mäler, D. Simpson, D. Starrett, D. Tilman, and B. Walker. 2000. The value of nature and the nature of value. Science 289: 395-396.</ref>. An especially challenging aspect of this process is that interpreting ecological information collected from one spatial-temporal scale does not necessarily mean it can be applied at another; understanding the dynamics of ecological processes relative to ecosystem services is essential in aiding economic decisions <ref>DeFries, R.S., J.A. Foley, and G.P. Asner. 2004. Land-use choices: balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2: 249-257.</ref>. Weighting factors such as a service’s irreplaceability or bundled services can also allocate economic value such that goal attainment becomes more efficient. <br/><br/>
There are questions regarding the environmental and economic values of ecosystem services.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Raudsepp-Hearne |first1=Ciara |last2=Peterson |first2=Garry D. |last3=Tengö |first3=Maria |last4=Bennett |first4=Elena M. |last5=Holland |first5=Tim |last6=Benessaiah |first6=Karina |last7=MacDonald |first7=Graham K. |last8=Pfeifer |first8=Laura |title=Untangling the Environmentalist's Paradox: Why Is Human Well-being Increasing as Ecosystem Services Degrade? |journal=BioScience |date=September 2010 |volume=60 |issue=8 |pages=576–589 |doi=10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.4 |s2cid=27270296 }}</ref> Some people may be unaware of the environment in general and humanity's interrelatedness with the natural environment, which may cause misconceptions. Although environmental awareness is rapidly improving in our contemporary world, ecosystem capital and its flow are still poorly understood, threats continue to impose, and we suffer from the so-called '[[tragedy of the commons]]'.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hardin |first1=Garrett |title=The Tragedy of the Commons: The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality. |journal=Science |date=13 December 1968 |volume=162 |issue=3859 |pages=1243–1248 |doi=10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 |pmid=17756331 |doi-access=free |bibcode=1968Sci...162.1243H }}</ref> Many efforts to inform decision-makers of current versus future costs and benefits now involve organizing and translating scientific knowledge to [[economics]], which articulate the consequences of our choices in comparable units of impact on human well-being.<ref name="Daily et al. 2000.">{{cite journal |last1=Daily |first1=Gretchen C. |last2=Söderqvist |first2=Tore |last3=Aniyar |first3=Sara |last4=Arrow |first4=Kenneth |last5=Dasgupta |first5=Partha |last6=Ehrlich |first6=Paul R. |last7=Folke |first7=Carl |last8=Jansson |first8=AnnMari |last9=Jansson |first9=Bengt-Owe |last10=Kautsky |first10=Nils |last11=Levin |first11=Simon |last12=Lubchenco |first12=Jane |last13=Mäler |first13=Karl-Göran |last14=Simpson |first14=David |last15=Starrett |first15=David |last16=Tilman |first16=David |last17=Walker |first17=Brian |title=The Value of Nature and the Nature of Value |journal=Science |date=21 July 2000 |volume=289 |issue=5478 |pages=395–396 |doi=10.1126/science.289.5478.395 |pmid=10939949 |s2cid=27639803 }}</ref> An especially challenging aspect of this process is that interpreting ecological information collected from one spatial-temporal scale does not necessarily mean it can be applied at another; understanding the dynamics of ecological processes relative to ecosystem services is essential in aiding economic decisions.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=DeFries |first1=Ruth S. |last2=Foley |first2=Jonathan A. |last3=Asner |first3=Gregory P. |title=Land-use choices: balancing human needs and ecosystem function |journal=Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment |date=June 2004 |volume=2 |issue=5 |pages=249–257 |doi=10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0249:LCBHNA]2.0.CO;2 }}</ref> Weighting factors such as a service's irreplaceability or bundled services can also allocate economic value such that goal attainment becomes more efficient.


The economic valuation of ecosystem services also involves social communication and information, areas that remain particularly challenging and are the focus of many researchers. In general, the idea is that although individuals make decisions for any variety of reasons, trends reveal the aggregative preferences of a society, from which the economic value of services can be inferred and assigned. The six major classifications of economic value for ecosystem services include <ref>Farber, S.C., R. Costanza and M.A. Wilson. 2002. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 41: 375-392.</ref>:
The economic valuation of ecosystem services also involves social communication and information, areas that remain particularly challenging and are the focus of many researchers.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Górriz-Mifsud |first1=Elena |last2=Varela |first2=Elsa |last3=Piqué |first3=Míriam |last4=Prokofieva |first4=Irina |title=Demand and supply of ecosystem services in a Mediterranean forest: Computing payment boundaries |journal=Ecosystem Services |date=February 2016 |volume=17 |pages=53–63 |doi=10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.006 |bibcode=2016EcoSv..17...53G }}</ref> In general, the idea is that although individuals make decisions for any variety of reasons, trends reveal the aggregated preferences of a society, from which the economic value of services can be inferred and assigned. The six major methods for valuing ecosystem services in monetary terms are:<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Farber |first1=Stephen C. |last2=Costanza |first2=Robert |last3=Wilson |first3=Matthew A. |title=Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services |journal=Ecological Economics |date=June 2002 |volume=41 |issue=3 |pages=375–392 |doi=10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00088-5 |bibcode=2002EcoEc..41..375F }}</ref>
* Avoided cost: Services allow society to avoid costs that would have been incurred in the absence of those services (e.g. waste treatment by [[wetland]] habitats avoids health costs)
* Replacement cost: Services could be replaced with human-made systems (e.g. [[Restoration Ecology|restoration]] of the [[Catskill Watershed]] cost less than the construction of a [[water purification]] plant)
* Factor income: Services provide for the enhancement of incomes (e.g. improved [[water quality]] increases the commercial take of a [[fishery]] and improves the income of fishers)
* Travel cost: Service demand may require travel, whose costs can reflect the implied value of the service (e.g. value of [[ecotourism]] experience is at least what a visitor is willing to pay to get there)
* Hedonic pricing: Service demand may be reflected in the prices people will pay for associated goods (e.g. coastal housing prices exceed that of inland homes)
* Contingent valuation: Service demand may be elicited by posing hypothetical scenarios that involve some valuation of alternatives (e.g. visitors willing to pay for increased access to national parks)


A peer-reviewed study published in 1997 estimated the value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital to be between US$16 and $54 trillion per year, with an average of US$33 trillion per year.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Costanza |first1=Robert |last2=d'Arge |first2=Ralph |last3=de Groot |first3=Rudolf |last4=Farber |first4=Stephen |last5=Grasso |first5=Monica |last6=Hannon |first6=Bruce |last7=Limburg |first7=Karin |last8=Naeem |first8=Shahid |last9=O'Neill |first9=Robert V. |last10=Paruelo |first10=Jose |last11=Raskin |first11=Robert G. |last12=Sutton |first12=Paul |last13=van den Belt |first13=Marjan |title=The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital |journal=Nature |date=May 1997 |volume=387 |issue=6630 |pages=253–260 |doi=10.1038/387253a0 |bibcode=1997Natur.387..253C |s2cid=672256 |url=http://condesan.org/mtnforum/sites/default/files/publication/files/constanza_et_al._1997_value_ecosystem_services_0.pdf |access-date=26 October 2021 |archive-date=22 September 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170922004908/http://condesan.org/mtnforum/sites/default/files/publication/files/constanza_et_al._1997_value_ecosystem_services_0.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> However, Salles (2011) indicated 'The total value of biodiversity is infinite, so having debate about what is the total value of nature is actually pointless because we can't live without it'.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Salles |first1=Jean-Michel |title=Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: Why put economic values on Nature? |journal=Comptes Rendus Biologies |date=May 2011 |volume=334 |issue=5–6 |pages=469–482 |doi=10.1016/j.crvi.2011.03.008 |pmid=21640956 |url=https://comptes-rendus.academie-sciences.fr/biologies/articles/10.1016/j.crvi.2011.03.008/ }}</ref>
# Avoided Cost – services allow society to avoid costs that would have been incurred in the absence of those services (e.g. waste treatment by [[wetland]] habitats avoids health costs)
# Replacement Cost – services could be replaced with man-made systems (e.g. [[Restoration Ecology|restoration]] of the Catskill Watershed cost less than the construction of a [[water purification]] plant)
# Factor Income – services provide for the enhancement of incomes (e.g. improved [[water quality]] increases the commercial take of a [[fishery]] and improves the income of fishers)
# Travel Cost – service demand may require travel, whose costs can reflect the implied value of the service (e.g. value of [[ecotourism]] experience is sufficient that a visitor is willing to pay to get there)
# Hedonic Pricing – service demand may be reflected in the prices people will pay for associated goods (e.g. coastal housing prices exceed that of inland homes)
# Contingent Valuation – service demand may be elicited by posing hypothetical scenarios that involve some valuation of alternatives (e.g. visitors willing to pay for increased access to national parks)


As of 2012, many companies were not fully aware of the extent of their dependence and impact on ecosystems and the possible ramifications. Likewise, environmental management systems and environmental due diligence tools are more suited to handle "traditional" issues of pollution and natural [[resource consumption]]. Most focus on [[environmental impacts]], not dependence. Several tools and methodologies can help the private sector value and assess ecosystem services, including Our Ecosystem,<ref>{{cite web|title=Our Ecosystem – Mapping & Data Sharing Software|url=http://ecometrica.com/products/our-ecosystem/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130617100654/http://ecometrica.com/products/our-ecosystem/|archive-date=17 June 2013|access-date=2012-07-09|publisher=Ecometrica}}</ref> the 2008 Corporate Ecosystem Services Review,<ref>Hanson, C, J Ranganathan, C Iceland, and J Finisdore. (2008) The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (Version 1.0). [[World Resources Institute]]. {{cite web|title=Ecosystem Services Review &#124; World Resources Institute|url=http://www.wri.org/project/ecosystem-services-review|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090401203436/http://www.wri.org/project/ecosystem-services-review|archive-date=1 April 2009|access-date=2009-03-17}}
==Management and policy==
</ref> the Artificial Intelligence for Environment & Sustainability (ARIES) project from 2007,<ref>{{cite web|title=ARIES :: ARtificial Intelligence for Environment & Sustainability|url=https://aries.integratedmodelling.org/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120607044742/https://aries.integratedmodelling.org/|archive-date=7 June 2012|access-date=2012-07-09|publisher=aries.integratedmodelling.org/}}</ref> the Natural Value Initiative (2012)<ref>{{cite web|title=Welcome|url=http://www.naturalvalueinitiative.org/|url-status=live|archive-url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160516073119/http://www.naturalvalueinitiative.org/|archive-date=16 May 2016|access-date=2012-07-09|publisher=Natural Value Initiative}}</ref> and InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services & Tradeoffs, 2012)<ref>{{cite web|title=Home|url=http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120628223946/http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/|archive-date=28 June 2012|access-date=2012-07-09|publisher=Natural Capital Project}}</ref>


To provide an example of a cost comparison: The land of the [[United States Department of Defense]] is said to provide substantial ecosystem services to local communities, including benefits to carbon storage, resiliency to climate, and [[endangered species]] habitat.<ref name="duke">{{Cite web |last=James Kagan |first=Mark Borsuk |date=2019-09-18 |title=Assessing Ecosystem Service Benefits from Military Installations |url=https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/publications/assessing-ecosystem-service-benefits-military-installations |access-date=2020-05-19 |website=Nicholas Institute, Duke University |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-05-19 |title=RC18-1605 Project Overview. Value and Resiliency of Ecosystem Services on Department of Defense (DoD) Lands |url=https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Resource-Conservation-and-Resiliency/Infrastructure-Resiliency/Vulnerability-and-Impact-Assessment/RC18-1605 |access-date=2020-05-19 |website=www.serdp-estcp.org Pacific Northwest National Laboratory}}</ref> As of 2020, the [[Eglin Air Force Base]] is said to provide about $110 million in ecosystem services per year, $40 million more than if no base was present.<ref name="duke" />
Although progress continues to be made on ecological and economic fronts with respect to the valuation of ecosystem services, the challenges in policy implementation and management are enormous. The administration of common pool resources is a subject of extensive academic pursuit. From defining the problems to finding solutions that can be applied in practical and sustainable ways, there is much to overcome. Considering options must balance present and future human needs, and decision-makers must frequently work from valid but incomplete information. Existing legal policies are often considered insufficient since they typically pertain to human health-based standards that are mismatched with necessary means to protect ecosystem health and services. To improve the information available, one suggestion has involved the implementation of an Ecosystem Services Framework (ESF), which integrates the biophysical and socio-economic dimensions of protecting the environment and is designed to guide institutions through multidisciplinary information and jargon, helping to direct strategic choices.

Novel and expedient methods are needed to deal with managing Earth’s ecosystem services. Local to regional collective management efforts might be considered appropriate for services like crop pollination or resources like water. Another approach that has become increasingly popular over the last decade is the marketing of ecosystem services protection. Payment and trading of services is an emerging world-wide small-scale solution where one can acquire credits for activities such as sponsoring the protection of carbon sequestration sources or the restoration of ecosystem service providers. In some cases, banks for handling such credits have been established and conservation companies have even gone public on stock exchanges, defining an evermore parallel link with economic endeavors and opportunities for tying into social perceptions (Daily et al. 2000). However, concerns for such global transactions include inconsistent compensation for services or resources sacrificed elsewhere and misconceived warrants for irresponsible use. Another approach has been focused on protecting ecosystem service ‘hotspots’. Recognition that the conservation of many ecosystem services aligns with more traditional conservation goals (i.e. biodiversity) has led to the suggested merging of objectives for maximizing their mutual success. This may be particularly strategic when employing networks that permit the flow of services across landscapes, and might also facilitate securing the financial means to protect services through a diversification of investors.
===Payments===
{{excerpt|Payment for ecosystem services}}

== Management and policy ==

[[File:City-Region-Landscape withsource.jpg|thumb|Ecosystem services in urban and rural areas]]

Although monetary pricing continues with respect to the valuation of ecosystem services, the challenges in policy implementation and management are significant and considerable. The administration of [[common pool resources]] has been a subject of extensive academic pursuit.<ref name="Ostrom 1990">{{cite book |last1=Ostrom |first1=Elinor |title=Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action |date=1990 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-40599-7 }}{{page needed|date=October 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dietz |first1=Thomas |last2=Ostrom |first2=Elinor |last3=Stern |first3=Paul C. |title=The Struggle to Govern the Commons |journal=Science |date=12 December 2003 |volume=302 |issue=5652 |pages=1907–1912 |doi=10.1126/science.1091015 |pmid=14671286 |bibcode=2003Sci...302.1907D |s2cid=2373413 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Pretty |first1=Jules |title=Social Capital and the Collective Management of Resources |journal=Science |date=12 December 2003 |volume=302 |issue=5652 |pages=1912–1914 |doi=10.1126/science.1090847 |pmid=14671287 |bibcode=2003Sci...302.1912P |hdl=10919/65915 |s2cid=25070261 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Heikkila |first1=Tanya |title=Institutional boundaries and common-pool resource management: A comparative analysis of water management programs in California |journal=Journal of Policy Analysis and Management |date=2004 |volume=23 |issue=1 |pages=97–117 |doi=10.1002/pam.10181 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gibson |first1=Clark C. |last2=Williams |first2=John T. |last3=Ostrom |first3=Elinor |title=Local Enforcement and Better Forests |journal=World Development |date=February 2005 |volume=33 |issue=2 |pages=273–284 |doi=10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.013 |s2cid=13025667 }}</ref> From defining the problems to finding solutions that can be applied in practical and sustainable ways, there is much to overcome. Considering options must balance present and future human needs, and decision-makers must frequently work from valid but incomplete information. Existing legal policies are often considered insufficient since they typically pertain to human health-based standards that are mismatched with necessary means to protect [[ecosystem health]] and services. In 2000, to improve the information available, the implementation of an ''Ecosystem Services Framework'' has been suggested (ESF<ref name="Daily 2000">{{cite journal |last1=Daily |first1=Gretchen C. |title=Management objectives for the protection of ecosystem services |journal=Environmental Science & Policy |date=December 2000 |volume=3 |issue=6 |pages=333–339 |doi=10.1016/S1462-9011(00)00102-7 |bibcode=2000ESPol...3..333D |citeseerx=10.1.1.463.824 }}</ref>), which integrates the biophysical and [[socio-economic]] dimensions of protecting the environment and is designed to guide institutions through multidisciplinary information and jargon, helping to direct strategic choices.

As of 2005 Local to regional collective management efforts were considered appropriate for services like crop [[pollination]] or resources like water.<ref name="Kremen 2005" /><ref name="Ostrom 1990" /> Another approach that has become increasingly popular during the 1990s is the marketing of ecosystem services protection. Payment and trading of services is an emerging worldwide small-scale solution where one can acquire credits for activities such as sponsoring the protection of carbon sequestration sources or the [[Restoration ecology|restoration]] of ecosystem service providers. In some cases, banks for handling such credits have been established and conservation companies have even gone public on stock exchanges, defining an evermore parallel link with economic endeavors and opportunities for tying into social perceptions.<ref name="Daily et al. 2000." /> However, crucial for implementation are clearly defined [[land rights]], which are often lacking in many [[developing countries]].<ref name="ODI1">Jessica Brown and Neil Bird 2010. [http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5049&title=costa-rica-sustainable-resource-management-successfully-tackling-tropical-deforestation Costa Rica sustainable resource management: Successfully tackling tropical deforestation] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110514083601/http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5049&title=costa-rica-sustainable-resource-management-successfully-tackling-tropical-deforestation|date=14 May 2011}}. London: [[Overseas Development Institute]]</ref> In particular, many forest-rich developing countries suffering [[deforestation]] experience conflict between different forest stakeholders.<ref name="ODI1" /> In addition, concerns for such global transactions include inconsistent compensation for services or resources sacrificed elsewhere and misconceived warrants for irresponsible use. As of 2001, another approach focused on protecting ecosystem service [[biodiversity hotspot]]s. Recognition that the conservation of many ecosystem services aligns with more traditional conservation goals (i.e. [[biodiversity]]) has led to the suggested merging of objectives for maximizing their mutual success. This may be particularly strategic when employing networks that permit the flow of services across [[landscapes]], and might also facilitate securing the financial means to protect services through a diversification of investors.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Balvanera |first1=Patricia |last2=Daily |first2=Gretchen C. |last3=Ehrlich |first3=Paul R. |last4=Ricketts |first4=Taylor H. |last5=Bailey |first5=Sallie-Anne |last6=Kark |first6=Salit |last7=Kremen |first7=Claire |last8=Pereira |first8=Henrique |title=Conserving Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services |journal=Science |date=16 March 2001 |volume=291 |issue=5511 |pages=2047 |doi=10.1126/science.291.5511.2047 |pmid=11256386 |s2cid=20296413 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Chan |first1=Kai M. A. |last2=Shaw |first2=M. Rebecca |last3=Cameron |first3=David R. |last4=Underwood |first4=Emma C. |last5=Daily |first5=Gretchen C. |title=Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services |journal=PLOS Biology |date=31 October 2006 |volume=4 |issue=11 |pages=e379 |doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379 |pmid=17076586 |pmc=1629036 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

For example, as of 2013, there had been interest in the valuation of ecosystem services provided by [[shellfish]] production and restoration.<ref>{{cite web|last=Northern Economics Inc|title=Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Shellfish Restoration, Enhancement and Management: A Review of the Literature|url=http://www.pacshell.org/pdf/ShellfishEcoServices.pdf|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203085756/http://www.pacshell.org/pdf/ShellfishEcoServices.pdf|archive-date=3 December 2013|publisher=Prepared for Pacific Shellfish Institute}}</ref> A keystone species, low in the food chain, bivalve shellfish such as oysters support a complex community of species by performing a number of functions essential to the diverse array of species that surround them. There is also increasing recognition that some shellfish species may impact or control many ecological processes; so much so that they are included on the list of "ecosystem engineers"—organisms that physically, biologically or chemically modify the environment around them in ways that influence the health of other organisms.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Jones|author2=Lawton, and Shachak|year=1994|title=Organisms as Ecosystem Engineers|journal=Oikos|volume=69|issue=3|pages=373–386|doi=10.2307/3545850|jstor=3545850|bibcode=1994Oikos..69..373J }}</ref> Many of the ecological functions and processes performed or affected by shellfish contribute to human well-being by providing a stream of valuable ecosystem services over time by filtering out particulate materials and potentially mitigating water quality issues by controlling [[nutrient pollution|excess nutrients]] in the water.
As of 2018, the concept of ecosystem services had not been properly implemented into international and regional legislation yet.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kistenkas |first1=Frederik H. |last2=Bouwma |first2=Irene M. |title=Barriers for the ecosystem services concept in European water and nature conservation law |journal=Ecosystem Services |date=February 2018 |volume=29 |pages=223–227 |doi=10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.013 |bibcode=2018EcoSv..29..223K }}</ref>

Notwithstanding, the United Nations [[Sustainable Development Goal 15]] has a target to ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of ecosystem services.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Goal 15 targets|url=https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-15-life-on-land/targets.html|access-date=2020-09-24|website=UNDP|language=en|archive-date=4 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170904001634/https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-15-life-on-land/targets.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>

An estimated $125 trillion to $140 trillion is added to the economy each year by all ecosystem services.<ref>{{Cite web |last=US EPA |first=OAR |date=2022-10-18 |title=Climate Change Impacts on Ecosystems |url=https://www.epa.gov/climateimpacts/climate-change-impacts-ecosystems |access-date=2023-07-19 |website=www.epa.gov |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":1582">{{Cite web |title=What is an ecosystem service? |url=https://www.eib.org/en/stories/ecosystem-service-nature |access-date=2023-07-19 |website=European Investment Bank |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2018-10-30 |title=How much is nature worth? $125 trillion, according to this report |url=https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/this-is-why-putting-a-price-on-the-value-of-nature-could-help-the-environment/ |access-date=2023-07-19 |website=World Economic Forum |language=en}}</ref> However, many of these services are at risk due to climate and other anthropogenic impacts. Climate-driven shifts in biome ranges is expected to cause a 9% decline in ecosystem services on average at global scale by 2100<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bastien-Olvera |first1=B. A. |last2=Conte |first2=M. N. |last3=Dong |first3=X. |last4=Briceno |first4=T. |last5=Batker |first5=D. |last6=Emmerling |first6=J. |last7=Tavoni |first7=M. |last8=Granella |first8=F. |last9=Moore |first9=F. C. |date=2023-12-18 |title=Unequal climate impacts on global values of natural capital |journal=Nature |volume=625 |issue=7996 |language=en |pages=722–727 |doi=10.1038/s41586-023-06769-z |issn=1476-4687|doi-access=free |pmid=38110573 |pmc=10808060 }}</ref>

===Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA)===
{{excerpt|Ecosystem-based adaptation|paragraphs=1-2}}

=== Land use change decisions ===

Ecosystem services decisions require making complex choices at the intersection of [[ecology]], [[technology]], [[society]], and the [[economy]]. The process of making ecosystem services decisions must consider the interaction of many types of information, honor all [[project stakeholder|stakeholder]] viewpoints, including [[regulatory agencies]], proposal proponents, decision makers, residents, [[non-governmental organization|NGO]]s, and measure the impacts on all four parts of the intersection. These decisions are usually [[spatial planning|spatial]], always [[multi-objective optimization|multi-objective]], and based on uncertain data, models, and estimates. Often it is the combination of the best science combined with the stakeholder values, estimates and opinions that drive the process.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gorriz-Misfud|first1=Elena|last2=Secco|first2=L|last3=Pisani|first3=E|title=Exploring the interlinkages between governance and social capital: A dynamic model for forestry.|journal=Forest Policy and Economics|volume=65|pages=25–36|date=2016|doi=10.1016/j.forpol.2016.01.006}}</ref>

One analytical study modeled the stakeholders as [[software agent|agents]] to support water resource management decisions in the Middle Rio Grande basin of New Mexico. This study focused on modeling the stakeholder inputs across a spatial decision, but ignored uncertainty.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Siirola |first1=John |last2=Tidwell |first2=Vincent |last3=Benz |first3=Zachary |last4=Stansbury |first4=Melanie |last5=Richards |first5=Elizabeth |last6=Turnley |first6=Jessica |last7=Warrender |first7=Christina |last8=Morrow |first8=James |title=Decision insight into stakeholder conflict for ERN. |date=1 February 2012 |doi=10.2172/1035334 |url=https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc845905/ |doi-access=free }}</ref> Another study used [[Monte Carlo method|Monte Carlo]] methods to exercise econometric models of landowner decisions in a study of the effects of [[land-use change]]. Here the stakeholder inputs were modeled as random effects to reflect the uncertainty.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lewis |first1=David |last2=Alig |first2=Ralph |title=Empirical methods for modeling landscape change, ecosystem services, and biodiversity |journal=Western Economics Forum |date=2009 |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=29–39 |url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/34933 }}</ref> A third study used a Bayesian [[decision support system]] to both model the uncertainty in the scientific information [[Bayes network|Bayes Nets]] and to assist collecting and fusing the input from stakeholders. This study was about siting wave energy devices off the Oregon Coast, but presents a general method for managing uncertain spatial science and stakeholder information in a decision making environment.<ref>{{ cite web |url=https://davidullman.com/uploads/Managing_Eco.pdf |author1=Ullman D. G. |author2=K. Halsey |author3=C. Goldfinger |title=Managing Eco-System Services Decisions |year=2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130606201318/https://davidullman.com/uploads/Managing_Eco.pdf |archive-date=6 June 2013}}</ref> [[Remote sensing]] data and analyses can be used to assess the health and extent of land cover classes that provide ecosystem services, which aids in planning, management, monitoring of stakeholders' actions, and communication between stakeholders.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Quoc Vo |first1=Tuan |last2=Kuenzer |first2=C. |last3=Oppelt |first3=N. |title=How remote sensing supports mangrove ecosystem service valuation: A case study in Ca Mau province, Vietnam |journal=Ecosystem Services |date=August 2015 |volume=14 |pages=67–75 |doi=10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.04.007 |bibcode=2015EcoSv..14...67Q }}</ref>

In Baltic countries scientists, nature conservationists and local authorities are implementing integrated planning approach for grassland ecosystems.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://vivagrass.eu/about-the-project/|title = About the project &#124; LIFE Viva Grass}}</ref> They are developing an integrated planning tool based on [[GIS]] (geographic information system) technology and put online that will help for planners to choose the best grassland management solution for concrete grassland. It will look holistically at the processes in the countryside and help to find best grassland management solutions by taking into account both natural and socioeconomic factors of the particular site.<ref>{{cite web |title=Sustainable grassland management efforts in the Baltics: interview with Žymantas Morkvėnas – GO-GRASS |url=https://www.go-grass.eu/sustainable-grassland-management-efforts-in-the-baltics-interview-with-zymantas-morkvenas/ |website=www.go-grass.eu |date=8 September 2020 |access-date=1 August 2021}}</ref>

== History ==
While the notion of human dependence on Earth's ecosystems reaches to the start of ''[[Homo sapiens]]''{{'}} existence, the term 'natural capital' was first coined by [[E. F. Schumacher]] in 1973 in his book ''[[Small Is Beautiful|Small is Beautiful]]''.<ref>Schumacher, E. F. (1973). ''Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered''.</ref> Recognition of how ecosystems could provide complex services to humankind date back to at least [[Plato]] (c. 400 BC) who understood that [[deforestation]] could lead to soil [[erosion]] and the drying of springs.<ref name="Daily1997">Daily, G. C. 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington. 392pp.</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hughes |first1=J. Donald |last2=Thirgood |first2=J. V. |date=1982-04-01 |title=Deforestation, Erosion, and Forest Management in Ancient Greece and Rome |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/4004530 |journal=Journal of Forest History |volume=26 |issue=2 |pages=60–75 |doi=10.2307/4004530 |jstor=4004530 |s2cid=130391537 |issn=0094-5080}}</ref> Modern ideas of ecosystem services probably began when Marsh challenged in 1864 the idea that Earth's natural resources are unbounded by pointing out changes in [[soil fertility]] in the Mediterranean.<ref>Marsh, G. P. 1864 (1965). Man and Nature. [[Charles Scribner's Sons]], New York. 472pp.</ref>{{page needed|date=February 2015}} It was not until the late 1940s that three key authors—[[Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr]],<ref>Osborn, F. 1948. [[Our Plundered Planet]]. Little, Brown and Company: Boston. 217pp.</ref> [[William Vogt]],<ref>Vogt, W. 1948. Road to Survival. William Sloan: New York. 335pp.</ref> and [[Aldo Leopold]]<ref>Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches from Here and There. [[Oxford University Press]], New York. 226pp.</ref>—promoted recognition of human dependence on the environment.

In 1956, [[Paul Sears]] drew attention to the critical role of the ecosystem in processing wastes and recycling nutrients.<ref>Sears, P. B. 1956. "The processes of environmental change by man." ''In'': W. L. Thomas, editor. Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth (Volume 2). [[University of Chicago Press]], Chicago. 1193pp.</ref> In 1970, [[Paul R. Ehrlich|Paul Ehrlich]] and Rosa Weigert called attention to "ecological systems" in their environmental science textbook<ref>Ehrlich, P. R., and A. Ehrlich. 1970. Population, Resources, Environment: Issues in Human Ecology. [[W. H. Freeman and Company|W. H. Freeman]], San Francisco. 383pp. – see p.157</ref> and "the most subtle and dangerous threat to man's existence&nbsp;... the potential destruction, by man's own activities, of those ecological systems upon which the very existence of the human species depends".

The term ''environmental services'' was introduced in a 1970 report of the ''Study of Critical Environmental Problems'',<ref>Study of Critical Environmental Problems (SCEP). 1970. Man's Impact on the Global Environment. MIT Press, Cambridge. 319pp.</ref> which listed services including insect pollination, [[fisheries]], [[climate]] regulation and [[flood]] control. In following years, variations of the term were used, but eventually 'ecosystem services' became the standard in scientific literature.<ref>Ehrlich, P. R., and A. Ehrlich. 1981. Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species. [[Random House]], New York. 305pp.</ref>

The ecosystem services concept has continued to expand and includes [[socio-economic]] and [[Conservation ethic|conservation]] objectives.<ref name="Daily1997" />


== See also ==
== See also ==
{{Portal|Sustainable development|Sustainable development.svg}}
{{Portal|Environment|Ecology|Earth sciences}}
{{Div col}}
* [[Nature's services]]
* [[Blue carbon]]
* [[Ecological goods and services]]
* [[Ecological effects of biodiversity]]
* [[Biodiversity]]
* [[Ecosystem Services]]
* [[Ecosystem]]
* [[Diversity-function debate]]
* [[Diversity-function debate]]
* [[Forest farming]]
* [[Earth Economics]]
* [[Ecological goods and services]]
* [[Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction]]
* [[Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services]]
* [[Natural capital]]
* [[Soil functions]]
* [[Nature Based Solutions]]
{{Div col end}}


== References ==
==References==
<references/>


{{Reflist|30em}}
==External links==
*[http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/ US Forest Service - Valuing Ecosystem Services]
*[http://www.cohabnet.org/ COHAB Initiative on Health and Biodiversity - Ecosystems and Human Well-being]
*[http://www.millenniumassessment.org/ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment]


=== Sources ===
{{Free-content attribution
| title = The State of the World’s Forests 2020. Forests, biodiversity and people – In brief
| author = FAO & UNEP
| publisher = FAO & UNEP
| page numbers =
| source =
| documentURL = https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8985en
| license statement URL = https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_State_of_the_World%E2%80%99s_Forests_2020._In_brief.pdf
| license = CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO
}}


{{Free-content attribution
[[Category:Ecology]]
| title = Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Key findings
[[Category:Environment]]
| author = FAO
[[Category:Systems ecology]]
| publisher = FAO
| page numbers =
| source =
| documentURL = https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8753en
| license statement URL = https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Forest_Resources_Assessment_2020_%E2%80%93_Key_findings.pdf
| license = CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO
}}


== External links ==
[[bs:Usluga ekosistema]]
* [http://www.millenniumassessment.org Millennium Ecosystem Assessment]
[[de:Ökosystemdienstleistung]]
* [http://www.eartheconomics.org/ Earth Economics]
[[hr:Usluga ekosustava]]
* [http://www.weap21.org/ Water Evaluation And Planning (WEAP) system] for modeling impacts on aquatic ecosystem services
[[simple:Ecosystem services]]
* [http://www.gecoserv.org/ GecoServ] – Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (includes studies from all over the world, but only coastal ecosystems relevant to the Gulf of Mexico)


{{Sustainability}}
{{Environmental social science}}
{{Natural resources}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ecosystem Services}}
[[Category:Ecological restoration]]
[[Category:Ecological economics]]
[[Category:Systems ecology]]
[[Category:Social ecology]]
[[Category:Human ecology]]
[[Category:Forestry and the environment]]
[[Category:Environmental social science concepts]]
[[Category:Ecological economics concepts]]

Latest revision as of 16:36, 20 August 2024

An example of an ecosystem service is pollination, here by a honey bee on avocado crop.

Ecosystem services are the various benefits that humans derive from healthy ecosystems. These ecosystems, when functioning well, offer such things as provision of food, natural pollination of crops, clean air and water, decomposition of wastes, or flood control. Ecosystem services are grouped into four broad categories of services. There are provisioning services, such as the production of food and water. Regulating services, such as the control of climate and disease. Supporting services, such as nutrient cycles and oxygen production. And finally there are cultural services, such as spiritual and recreational benefits.[1] Evaluations of ecosystem services may include assigning an economic value to them.

For example, estuarine and coastal ecosystems are marine ecosystems that perform the four categories of ecosystem services in several ways. Firstly, their provisioning services include marine resources and genetic resources. Secondly, their supporting services include nutrient cycling and primary production. Thirdly, their regulating services include carbon sequestration (which helps with climate change mitigation) and flood control. Lastly, their cultural services include recreation and tourism.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) in the early 2000s has made this concept better known.[2]

Definition

[edit]

Ecosystem services or eco-services are defined as the goods and services provided by ecosystems to humans.[3] Per the 2006 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), ecosystem services are "the benefits people obtain from ecosystems". The MA also delineated the four categories of ecosystem services into provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural.[2]

By 2010, there had evolved various working definitions and descriptions of ecosystem services in the literature.[4] To prevent double-counting in ecosystem services audits, for instance, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) replaced "Supporting Services" in the MA with "Habitat Services" and "ecosystem functions", defined as "a subset of the interactions between ecosystem structure and processes that underpin the capacity of an ecosystem to provide goods and services".[5]

While Gretchen Daily's original definition distinguished between ecosystem goods and ecosystem services, Robert Costanza and colleagues' later work and that of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment lumped all of these together as ecosystem services.[6][7]

Categories

[edit]
Four categories of ecosystem services

Four different types of ecosystem services have been distinguished by the scientific body: regulating services, provisioning services, cultural services and supporting services. An ecosystem does not necessarily offer all four types of services simultaneously; but given the intricate nature of any ecosystem, it is usually assumed that humans benefit from a combination of these services. The services offered by diverse types of ecosystems (forests, seas, coral reefs, mangroves, etc.) differ in nature and in consequence. In fact, some services directly affect the livelihood of neighboring human populations (such as fresh water, food or aesthetic value, etc.) while other services affect general environmental conditions by which humans are indirectly impacted (such as climate change, erosion regulation or natural hazard regulation, etc.).[8]

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report 2005 defined ecosystem services as benefits people obtain from ecosystems and distinguishes four categories of ecosystem services, where the so-called supporting services are regarded as the basis for the services of the other three categories.[9]

Provisioning services

[edit]

Provisioning services consist of all "the products obtained from ecosystems". The following services are also known as ecosystem goods:[10]

  • food (including seafood and game), crops, wild foods, and spices
  • raw materials (including lumber, skins, fuelwood, organic matter, fodder, and fertilizer)
  • genetic resources (including crop improvement genes, and health care)
  • biogenic minerals
  • medicinal resources (including pharmaceuticals, chemical models, and test and assay organisms)
  • energy (hydropower, biomass fuels)
  • ornamental resources (including fashion, handicrafts, jewelry, pets, worship, decoration, and souvenirs like furs, feathers, ivory, orchids, butterflies, aquarium fish, shells, etc.)
Social forestry in Andhra Pradesh, India, providing fuel, soil protection, shade, and even well-being to travelers.

Forests and forest management produce a large type and variety of timber products, including roundwood, sawnwood, panels, and engineered wood, e.g., cross-laminated timber, as well as pulp and paper.[11] Besides the production of timber, forestry activities may also result in products that undergo little processing, such as fire wood, charcoal, wood chips and roundwood used in an unprocessed form.[12] Global production and trade of all major wood-based products recorded their highest ever values in 2018.[13] Production, imports and exports of roundwood, sawnwood, wood-based panels, wood pulp, wood charcoal and pellets reached[14] their maximum quantities since 1947 when FAO started reporting global forest product statistics.[13] In 2018, growth in production of the main wood-based product groups ranged from 1 percent (woodbased panels) to 5 percent (industrial roundwood).[13] The fastest growth occurred in the Asia-Pacific, Northern American and European regions, likely due to positive economic growth in these areas.[13] Over 40% of the territory in the European Union is covered by forests. This region has grown via afforestation by roughly 0.4% year in recent decades. In the European Union, just 60% of the yearly forest growth is harvested.[15][16][17]

Forests also provide non-wood forest products, including fodder, aromatic and medicinal plants, and wild foods. Worldwide, around 1 billion people depend to some extent on wild foods such as wild meat, edible insects, edible plant products, mushrooms and fish, which often contain high levels of key micronutrients.[14] The value of forest foods as a nutritional resource is not limited to low- and middle-income countries; more than 100 million people in the European Union (EU) regularly consume wild food.[14] Some 2.4 billion people – in both urban and rural settings – use wood-based energy for cooking.[14]

Regulating services

[edit]
Upland bog in Wales, forming the official source of the River Severn. Healthy bogs sequester carbon, hold back water thereby reducing flood risk, and supply cleaned water better than degraded habitats do.

Regulating services are the "benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes".[18] These include:

Water purification

[edit]

An example for water purification as an ecosystem service is as follows: In New York City, where the quality of drinking water had fallen below standards required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), authorities opted to restore the polluted Catskill Watershed that had previously provided the city with the ecosystem service of water purification. Once the input of sewage and pesticides to the watershed area was reduced, natural abiotic processes such as soil absorption and filtration of chemicals, together with biotic recycling via root systems and soil microorganisms, water quality improved to levels that met government standards. The cost of this investment in natural capital was estimated at $1–1.5 billion, which contrasted dramatically with the estimated $6–8 billion cost of constructing a water filtration plant plus the $300 million annual running costs.[20]

Pollination

[edit]

Pollination of crops by bees is required for 15–30% of U.S. food production; most large-scale farmers import non-native honey bees to provide this service. A 2005 study[21] reported that in California's agricultural region, it was found that wild bees alone could provide partial or complete pollination services or enhance the services provided by honey bees through behavioral interactions. However, intensified agricultural practices can quickly erode pollination services through the loss of species. The remaining species are unable to compensate this. The results of this study also indicate that the proportion of chaparral and oak-woodland habitat available for wild bees within 1–2 km of a farm can stabilize and enhance the provision of pollination services. The presence of such ecosystem elements functions almost like an insurance policy for farmers.

Buffer zones

[edit]

Coastal and estuarine ecosystems act as buffer zones against natural hazards and environmental disturbances, such as floods, cyclones, tidal surges and storms. The role they play is to "[absorb] a portion of the impact and thus [lessen] its effect on the land".[22] Wetlands (which include saltwater swamps, salt marshes, ...) and the vegetation it supports – trees, root mats, etc. – retain large amounts of water (surface water, snowmelt, rain, groundwater) and then slowly releases them back, decreasing the likeliness of floods.[23] Mangrove forests protect coastal shorelines from tidal erosion or erosion by currents; a process that was studied after the 1999 cyclone that hit India. Villages that were surrounded with mangrove forests encountered less damages than other villages that were not protected by mangroves.[24]

Supporting services

[edit]

Supporting services are the services that allow for the other ecosystem services to be present. They have indirect impacts on humans that last over a long period of time. Several services can be considered as being both supporting services and regulating/cultural/provisioning services.[25]

Supporting services include for example nutrient cycling, primary production, soil formation, habitat provision. These services make it possible for the ecosystems to continue providing services such as food supply, flood regulation, and water purification.

Nutrient cycling

[edit]
Detritivores like this dung beetle help to turn animal wastes into organic material that can be reused by primary producers.

Nutrient cycling is the movement of nutrients through an ecosystem by biotic and abiotic processes.[26] The ocean is a vast storage pool for these nutrients, such as carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus. The nutrients are absorbed by the basic organisms of the marine food web and are thus transferred from one organism to the other and from one ecosystem to the other. Nutrients are recycled through the life cycle of organisms as they die and decompose, releasing the nutrients into the neighboring environment. "The service of nutrient cycling eventually impacts all other ecosystem services as all living things require a constant supply of nutrients to survive".[22]

Primary production

[edit]

Primary production refers to the production of organic matter, i.e., chemically bound energy, through processes such as photosynthesis and chemosynthesis. The organic matter produced by primary producers forms the basis of all food webs. Further, it generates oxygen (O2), a molecule necessary to sustain animals and humans.[27][28][29][30] On average, a human consumes about 550 liter of oxygen per day, whereas plants produce 1,5 liter of oxygen per 10 grams of growth.[31]

Cultural services

[edit]

Cultural services relate to the non-material world, as they benefit the benefit recreational, aesthetic, cognitive and spiritual activities, which are not easily quantifiable in monetary terms.[32] They include:

  • cultural (including use of nature as motif in books, film, painting, folklore, national symbols, advertising, etc.)
  • spiritual and historical (including use of nature for religious or heritage value or natural)
  • recreational experiences (including ecotourism, outdoor sports, and recreation)
  • science and education (including use of natural systems for school excursions, and scientific discovery)
  • therapeutic (including eco-therapy, social forestry and animal assisted therapy)

As of 2012, there was a discussion as to how the concept of cultural ecosystem services could be operationalized, how landscape aesthetics, cultural heritage, outdoor recreation, and spiritual significance to define can fit into the ecosystem services approach.[33] who vote for models that explicitly link ecological structures and functions with cultural values and benefits. Likewise, there has been a fundamental critique of the concept of cultural ecosystem services that builds on three arguments:[34]

  1. Pivotal cultural values attaching to the natural/cultivated environment rely on an area's unique character that cannot be addressed by methods that use universal scientific parameters to determine ecological structures and functions.
  2. If a natural/cultivated environment has symbolic meanings and cultural values the object of these values are not ecosystems but shaped phenomena like mountains, lakes, forests, and, mainly, symbolic landscapes.[35]
  3. Cultural values do result not from properties produced by ecosystems but are the product of a specific way of seeing within the given cultural framework of symbolic experience.[36]

The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) is a classification scheme developed to accounting systems (like National counts etc.), in order to avoid double-counting of Supporting Services with others Provisioning and Regulating Services.[37]

Recreation and tourism

[edit]

Sea sports are very popular among coastal populations: surfing, snorkeling, whale watching, kayaking, recreational fishing ... a lot of tourists also travel to resorts close to the sea or rivers or lakes to be able to experience these activities, and relax near the water.[38] The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14 also has targets aimed at enhancing the use of ecosystem services for sustainable tourism especially in Small Island Developing States.[39]

Estuarine and coastal ecosystem services

[edit]

Estuarine and marine coastal ecosystems are both marine ecosystems. Together, these ecosystems perform the four categories of ecosystem services in a variety of ways: The provisioning services include forest products, marine products, fresh water, raw materials, biochemical and genetic resources. Regulating services include carbon sequestration (contributing to climate change mitigation) as well as waste treatment and disease regulation and buffer zones. Supporting services of coastal ecosystems include nutrient cycling, biologically mediated habitats and primary production. Cultural services of coastal ecosystems include inspirational aspects, recreation and tourism, science and education.

Coasts and their adjacent areas on and offshore are an important part of a local ecosystem. The mixture of fresh water and salt water (brackish water) in estuaries provides many nutrients for marine life. Salt marshes, mangroves and beaches also support a diversity of plants, animals and insects crucial to the food chain. The high level of biodiversity creates a high level of biological activity, which has attracted human activity for thousands of years. Coasts also create essential material for organisms to live by, including estuaries, wetland, seagrass, coral reefs, and mangroves. Coasts provide habitats for migratory birds, sea turtles, marine mammals, and coral reefs.[40]

Economics

[edit]
Sustainable urban drainage pond near housing in Scotland. The filtering and cleaning of surface and waste water by natural vegetation is a form of ecosystem service.

There are questions regarding the environmental and economic values of ecosystem services.[41] Some people may be unaware of the environment in general and humanity's interrelatedness with the natural environment, which may cause misconceptions. Although environmental awareness is rapidly improving in our contemporary world, ecosystem capital and its flow are still poorly understood, threats continue to impose, and we suffer from the so-called 'tragedy of the commons'.[42] Many efforts to inform decision-makers of current versus future costs and benefits now involve organizing and translating scientific knowledge to economics, which articulate the consequences of our choices in comparable units of impact on human well-being.[7] An especially challenging aspect of this process is that interpreting ecological information collected from one spatial-temporal scale does not necessarily mean it can be applied at another; understanding the dynamics of ecological processes relative to ecosystem services is essential in aiding economic decisions.[43] Weighting factors such as a service's irreplaceability or bundled services can also allocate economic value such that goal attainment becomes more efficient.

The economic valuation of ecosystem services also involves social communication and information, areas that remain particularly challenging and are the focus of many researchers.[44] In general, the idea is that although individuals make decisions for any variety of reasons, trends reveal the aggregated preferences of a society, from which the economic value of services can be inferred and assigned. The six major methods for valuing ecosystem services in monetary terms are:[45]

  • Avoided cost: Services allow society to avoid costs that would have been incurred in the absence of those services (e.g. waste treatment by wetland habitats avoids health costs)
  • Replacement cost: Services could be replaced with human-made systems (e.g. restoration of the Catskill Watershed cost less than the construction of a water purification plant)
  • Factor income: Services provide for the enhancement of incomes (e.g. improved water quality increases the commercial take of a fishery and improves the income of fishers)
  • Travel cost: Service demand may require travel, whose costs can reflect the implied value of the service (e.g. value of ecotourism experience is at least what a visitor is willing to pay to get there)
  • Hedonic pricing: Service demand may be reflected in the prices people will pay for associated goods (e.g. coastal housing prices exceed that of inland homes)
  • Contingent valuation: Service demand may be elicited by posing hypothetical scenarios that involve some valuation of alternatives (e.g. visitors willing to pay for increased access to national parks)

A peer-reviewed study published in 1997 estimated the value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital to be between US$16 and $54 trillion per year, with an average of US$33 trillion per year.[46] However, Salles (2011) indicated 'The total value of biodiversity is infinite, so having debate about what is the total value of nature is actually pointless because we can't live without it'.[47]

As of 2012, many companies were not fully aware of the extent of their dependence and impact on ecosystems and the possible ramifications. Likewise, environmental management systems and environmental due diligence tools are more suited to handle "traditional" issues of pollution and natural resource consumption. Most focus on environmental impacts, not dependence. Several tools and methodologies can help the private sector value and assess ecosystem services, including Our Ecosystem,[48] the 2008 Corporate Ecosystem Services Review,[49] the Artificial Intelligence for Environment & Sustainability (ARIES) project from 2007,[50] the Natural Value Initiative (2012)[51] and InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services & Tradeoffs, 2012)[52]

To provide an example of a cost comparison: The land of the United States Department of Defense is said to provide substantial ecosystem services to local communities, including benefits to carbon storage, resiliency to climate, and endangered species habitat.[53][54] As of 2020, the Eglin Air Force Base is said to provide about $110 million in ecosystem services per year, $40 million more than if no base was present.[53]

Payments

[edit]
Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES)
Payments for ecosystem services (PES), also known as payments for environmental services (or benefits), are incentives offered to farmers or landowners in exchange for managing their land to provide some sort of ecological service. They have been defined as "a transparent system for the additional provision of environmental services through conditional payments to voluntary providers".[55] These programmes promote the conservation of natural resources in the marketplace.

Management and policy

[edit]
Ecosystem services in urban and rural areas

Although monetary pricing continues with respect to the valuation of ecosystem services, the challenges in policy implementation and management are significant and considerable. The administration of common pool resources has been a subject of extensive academic pursuit.[56][57][58][59][60] From defining the problems to finding solutions that can be applied in practical and sustainable ways, there is much to overcome. Considering options must balance present and future human needs, and decision-makers must frequently work from valid but incomplete information. Existing legal policies are often considered insufficient since they typically pertain to human health-based standards that are mismatched with necessary means to protect ecosystem health and services. In 2000, to improve the information available, the implementation of an Ecosystem Services Framework has been suggested (ESF[61]), which integrates the biophysical and socio-economic dimensions of protecting the environment and is designed to guide institutions through multidisciplinary information and jargon, helping to direct strategic choices.

As of 2005 Local to regional collective management efforts were considered appropriate for services like crop pollination or resources like water.[21][56] Another approach that has become increasingly popular during the 1990s is the marketing of ecosystem services protection. Payment and trading of services is an emerging worldwide small-scale solution where one can acquire credits for activities such as sponsoring the protection of carbon sequestration sources or the restoration of ecosystem service providers. In some cases, banks for handling such credits have been established and conservation companies have even gone public on stock exchanges, defining an evermore parallel link with economic endeavors and opportunities for tying into social perceptions.[7] However, crucial for implementation are clearly defined land rights, which are often lacking in many developing countries.[62] In particular, many forest-rich developing countries suffering deforestation experience conflict between different forest stakeholders.[62] In addition, concerns for such global transactions include inconsistent compensation for services or resources sacrificed elsewhere and misconceived warrants for irresponsible use. As of 2001, another approach focused on protecting ecosystem service biodiversity hotspots. Recognition that the conservation of many ecosystem services aligns with more traditional conservation goals (i.e. biodiversity) has led to the suggested merging of objectives for maximizing their mutual success. This may be particularly strategic when employing networks that permit the flow of services across landscapes, and might also facilitate securing the financial means to protect services through a diversification of investors.[63][64]

For example, as of 2013, there had been interest in the valuation of ecosystem services provided by shellfish production and restoration.[65] A keystone species, low in the food chain, bivalve shellfish such as oysters support a complex community of species by performing a number of functions essential to the diverse array of species that surround them. There is also increasing recognition that some shellfish species may impact or control many ecological processes; so much so that they are included on the list of "ecosystem engineers"—organisms that physically, biologically or chemically modify the environment around them in ways that influence the health of other organisms.[66] Many of the ecological functions and processes performed or affected by shellfish contribute to human well-being by providing a stream of valuable ecosystem services over time by filtering out particulate materials and potentially mitigating water quality issues by controlling excess nutrients in the water. As of 2018, the concept of ecosystem services had not been properly implemented into international and regional legislation yet.[67]

Notwithstanding, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 15 has a target to ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of ecosystem services.[68]

An estimated $125 trillion to $140 trillion is added to the economy each year by all ecosystem services.[69][70][71] However, many of these services are at risk due to climate and other anthropogenic impacts. Climate-driven shifts in biome ranges is expected to cause a 9% decline in ecosystem services on average at global scale by 2100[72]

Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA)

[edit]

Ecosystem-based adaptation (EBA or EbA) encompasses a broad set of approaches to adapt to climate change. They all involve the management of ecosystems and their services to reduce the vulnerability of human communities to the impacts of climate change. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines EBA as "the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of an overall adaptation strategy to help people to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change".[73][74]

EbA involves the conservation, sustainable management and restoration of ecosystems, such as forests, grasslands, wetlands, mangroves or coral reefs to reduce the harmful impacts of climate hazards including shifting patterns or levels of rainfall, changes in maximum and minimum temperatures, stronger storms, and increasingly variable climatic conditions. EbA measures can be implemented on their own or in combination with engineered approaches (such as the construction of water reservoirs or dykes), hybrid measures (such as artificial reefs) and approaches that strengthen the capacities of individuals and institutions to address climate risks (such as the introduction of early warning systems).

Land use change decisions

[edit]

Ecosystem services decisions require making complex choices at the intersection of ecology, technology, society, and the economy. The process of making ecosystem services decisions must consider the interaction of many types of information, honor all stakeholder viewpoints, including regulatory agencies, proposal proponents, decision makers, residents, NGOs, and measure the impacts on all four parts of the intersection. These decisions are usually spatial, always multi-objective, and based on uncertain data, models, and estimates. Often it is the combination of the best science combined with the stakeholder values, estimates and opinions that drive the process.[75]

One analytical study modeled the stakeholders as agents to support water resource management decisions in the Middle Rio Grande basin of New Mexico. This study focused on modeling the stakeholder inputs across a spatial decision, but ignored uncertainty.[76] Another study used Monte Carlo methods to exercise econometric models of landowner decisions in a study of the effects of land-use change. Here the stakeholder inputs were modeled as random effects to reflect the uncertainty.[77] A third study used a Bayesian decision support system to both model the uncertainty in the scientific information Bayes Nets and to assist collecting and fusing the input from stakeholders. This study was about siting wave energy devices off the Oregon Coast, but presents a general method for managing uncertain spatial science and stakeholder information in a decision making environment.[78] Remote sensing data and analyses can be used to assess the health and extent of land cover classes that provide ecosystem services, which aids in planning, management, monitoring of stakeholders' actions, and communication between stakeholders.[79]

In Baltic countries scientists, nature conservationists and local authorities are implementing integrated planning approach for grassland ecosystems.[80] They are developing an integrated planning tool based on GIS (geographic information system) technology and put online that will help for planners to choose the best grassland management solution for concrete grassland. It will look holistically at the processes in the countryside and help to find best grassland management solutions by taking into account both natural and socioeconomic factors of the particular site.[81]

History

[edit]

While the notion of human dependence on Earth's ecosystems reaches to the start of Homo sapiens' existence, the term 'natural capital' was first coined by E. F. Schumacher in 1973 in his book Small is Beautiful.[82] Recognition of how ecosystems could provide complex services to humankind date back to at least Plato (c. 400 BC) who understood that deforestation could lead to soil erosion and the drying of springs.[83][84] Modern ideas of ecosystem services probably began when Marsh challenged in 1864 the idea that Earth's natural resources are unbounded by pointing out changes in soil fertility in the Mediterranean.[85][page needed] It was not until the late 1940s that three key authors—Henry Fairfield Osborn, Jr,[86] William Vogt,[87] and Aldo Leopold[88]—promoted recognition of human dependence on the environment.

In 1956, Paul Sears drew attention to the critical role of the ecosystem in processing wastes and recycling nutrients.[89] In 1970, Paul Ehrlich and Rosa Weigert called attention to "ecological systems" in their environmental science textbook[90] and "the most subtle and dangerous threat to man's existence ... the potential destruction, by man's own activities, of those ecological systems upon which the very existence of the human species depends".

The term environmental services was introduced in a 1970 report of the Study of Critical Environmental Problems,[91] which listed services including insect pollination, fisheries, climate regulation and flood control. In following years, variations of the term were used, but eventually 'ecosystem services' became the standard in scientific literature.[92]

The ecosystem services concept has continued to expand and includes socio-economic and conservation objectives.[83]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being : synthesis (PDF). Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN 1-59726-040-1. Retrieved 7 August 2014.
  2. ^ a b Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being : synthesis (PDF). Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN 1-59726-040-1. Retrieved 7 August 2014.
  3. ^ Austin, Troy (2009). "Estimating Ecosystem Services in Southern Ontario" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  4. ^ Ojea, Elena; Chiabai, Aline; Martin-Ortega, Julia (September 2010). Classifying Ecosystem Services for Economic Valuation: The case of forest water services (PDF). BIOCON Conference. hdl:10810/14215.
  5. ^ The Ecological and Economic Foundation Archived 3 December 2013 at the Wayback Machine, chapter 1, p.19, TEEB, 2010
  6. ^ Brown, Thomas C.; John C. Bergstrom; John B. Loomis (2007). "Defining, valuing and providing ecosystem goods and services" (PDF). Natural Resources Journal. 47 (2): 329–376. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 May 2013.
  7. ^ a b c Daily, Gretchen C.; Söderqvist, Tore; Aniyar, Sara; Arrow, Kenneth; Dasgupta, Partha; Ehrlich, Paul R.; Folke, Carl; Jansson, AnnMari; Jansson, Bengt-Owe; Kautsky, Nils; Levin, Simon; Lubchenco, Jane; Mäler, Karl-Göran; Simpson, David; Starrett, David; Tilman, David; Walker, Brian (21 July 2000). "The Value of Nature and the Nature of Value". Science. 289 (5478): 395–396. doi:10.1126/science.289.5478.395. PMID 10939949. S2CID 27639803.
  8. ^ Barbier, Edward B.; Hacker, Sally D.; Kennedy, Chris; Koch, Evamaria W.; Stier, Adrian C.; Silliman, Brian R. (May 2011). "The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services". Ecological Monographs. 81 (2): 169–193. Bibcode:2011EcoM...81..169B. doi:10.1890/10-1510.1. hdl:20.500.11919/920. S2CID 86155063.
  9. ^ "Tunza Eco-generation Eco-generation".
  10. ^ Walter V. Reid, H. A. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being - A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington DC: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board. Retrieved from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf
  11. ^ Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Main report. Rome: FAO. 2020. doi:10.4060/ca9825en. ISBN 978-92-5-132974-0. S2CID 241774391.
  12. ^ Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Key findings. FAO. 2020. doi:10.4060/ca8753en. ISBN 978-92-5-132581-0. S2CID 130116768.
  13. ^ a b c d Global forest products facts and figures 2018. FAO. 2019.
  14. ^ a b c d The State of the World's Forests 2020. Forests, biodiversity and people – In brief. Rome: FAO & UNEP. 2020. doi:10.4060/ca8985en. ISBN 978-92-5-132707-4. S2CID 241416114.
  15. ^ "What is an ecosystem service?". European Investment Bank. Retrieved 19 July 2023.
  16. ^ "The European Union and forests | Fact Sheets on the European Union | European Parliament". www.europarl.europa.eu. 31 March 2023. Retrieved 19 July 2023.
  17. ^ "Over 40% of the EU covered with forests". ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 19 July 2023.
  18. ^ "Millennium Ecosystem Assessment". www.millenniumassessment.org. Archived from the original on 24 February 2018. Retrieved 28 April 2018.
  19. ^ Basic Biology (2016). "Wetlands".
  20. ^ Chichilnisky, Graciela; Heal, Geoffrey (February 1998). "Economic returns from the biosphere". Nature. 391 (6668): 629–630. Bibcode:1998Natur.391..629C. doi:10.1038/35481. S2CID 4322093.
  21. ^ a b Kremen, Claire (May 2005). "Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology?: Ecology of ecosystem services". Ecology Letters. 8 (5): 468–479. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00751.x. PMID 21352450.
  22. ^ a b Molnar, Michelle; Clarke-Murray, Cathryn; Whitworth, John; Tam, Jordan (2009). "Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Services" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
  23. ^ Campos C., Adolfo; Hernández, María E.; Moreno-Casasola, Patricia; Cejudo Espinosa, Eduardo; Robledo R., Alezandra; Infante Mata, Dulce (December 2011). "Soil water retention and carbon pools in tropical forested wetlands and marshes of the Gulf of Mexico". Hydrological Sciences Journal. 56 (8): 1388–1406. Bibcode:2011HydSJ..56.1388C. doi:10.1080/02626667.2011.629786. S2CID 85551159.
  24. ^ Badola, Ruchi; Hussain, S. A. (March 2005). "Valuing ecosystem functions: an empirical study on the storm protection function of Bhitarkanika mangrove ecosystem, India". Environmental Conservation. 32 (1): 85–92. Bibcode:2005EnvCo..32...85B. doi:10.1017/S0376892905001967. S2CID 54753792.
  25. ^ "Ecosystem Services". National Wildlife Federation. Retrieved 19 July 2021.
  26. ^ "Nutrient Cycles: Recycling in Ecosystems, The Carbon and Nitrogen Cycles – ScienceAid". ScienceAid. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
  27. ^ "ISBN1118506243 – Google zoeken". Retrieved 28 April 2018.
  28. ^ "Ecosystem Services". msu.edu. Archived from the original on 28 December 2017. Retrieved 28 April 2018.
  29. ^ "Oxygen and Human Requirements". www.geography.hunter.cuny.edu. Archived from the original on 22 October 2017. Retrieved 28 April 2018.
  30. ^ "BBC – GCSE Bitesize: Inhaled and exhaled air". bbc.co.uk. Archived from the original on 26 October 2017. Retrieved 28 April 2018.
  31. ^ New Scientist, June 2019[full citation needed]
  32. ^ "Cultural services". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 19 July 2021.
  33. ^ Daniel, T. C.; Muhar, A.; Arnberger, A.; Aznar, O.; Boyd, J. W.; Chan, K. M. A.; Costanza, R.; Elmqvist, T.; Flint, C. G.; Gobster, P. H.; Gret-Regamey, A.; Lave, R.; Muhar, S.; Penker, M.; Ribe, R. G.; Schauppenlehner, T.; Sikor, T.; Soloviy, I.; Spierenburg, M.; Taczanowska, K.; Tam, J.; von der Dunk, A. (5 June 2012). "Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109 (23): 8812–8819. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109.8812D. doi:10.1073/pnas.1114773109. PMC 3384142. PMID 22615401.
  34. ^ Kirchhoff, Thomas (13 November 2012). "Pivotal cultural values of nature cannot be integrated into the ecosystem services framework". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109 (46): E3146. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109E3146K. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212409109. PMC 3503173. PMID 23012476.
  35. ^ Cf. Cosgrove, D.E. 1984: Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape, London; Schama, S. 1995: Landscape and memory. New York; Kirchhoff, T./Trepl, L./Vicenzotti, V. 2012:What is landscape ecology? An analysis and evaluation of six different conceptions. Landscape Research iFirst.
  36. ^ Cf. Cosgrove, D.E. 1984: Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape, London; Schama, S. 1995: Landscape and memory. New York; Backhaus, G./Murungi, J. (eds.): Symbolic Landscapes. Dordrecht 2009.
  37. ^ https://cices.eu/[full citation needed]
  38. ^ Westcott, Morgan; Wendy Anderson, Eds (4 June 2021). "5.2 Recreation and Adventure Tourism in BC". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  39. ^ "Goal 14 targets". UNDP. Archived from the original on 30 September 2020. Retrieved 24 September 2020.
  40. ^ US EPA, ORD (2 November 2017). "Coastal Waters". US EPA. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  41. ^ Raudsepp-Hearne, Ciara; Peterson, Garry D.; Tengö, Maria; Bennett, Elena M.; Holland, Tim; Benessaiah, Karina; MacDonald, Graham K.; Pfeifer, Laura (September 2010). "Untangling the Environmentalist's Paradox: Why Is Human Well-being Increasing as Ecosystem Services Degrade?". BioScience. 60 (8): 576–589. doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.4. S2CID 27270296.
  42. ^ Hardin, Garrett (13 December 1968). "The Tragedy of the Commons: The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality". Science. 162 (3859): 1243–1248. Bibcode:1968Sci...162.1243H. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243. PMID 17756331.
  43. ^ DeFries, Ruth S.; Foley, Jonathan A.; Asner, Gregory P. (June 2004). "Land-use choices: balancing human needs and ecosystem function". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2 (5): 249–257. doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0249:LCBHNA]2.0.CO;2.
  44. ^ Górriz-Mifsud, Elena; Varela, Elsa; Piqué, Míriam; Prokofieva, Irina (February 2016). "Demand and supply of ecosystem services in a Mediterranean forest: Computing payment boundaries". Ecosystem Services. 17: 53–63. Bibcode:2016EcoSv..17...53G. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.006.
  45. ^ Farber, Stephen C.; Costanza, Robert; Wilson, Matthew A. (June 2002). "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services". Ecological Economics. 41 (3): 375–392. Bibcode:2002EcoEc..41..375F. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00088-5.
  46. ^ Costanza, Robert; d'Arge, Ralph; de Groot, Rudolf; Farber, Stephen; Grasso, Monica; Hannon, Bruce; Limburg, Karin; Naeem, Shahid; O'Neill, Robert V.; Paruelo, Jose; Raskin, Robert G.; Sutton, Paul; van den Belt, Marjan (May 1997). "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital" (PDF). Nature. 387 (6630): 253–260. Bibcode:1997Natur.387..253C. doi:10.1038/387253a0. S2CID 672256. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 September 2017. Retrieved 26 October 2021.
  47. ^ Salles, Jean-Michel (May 2011). "Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: Why put economic values on Nature?". Comptes Rendus Biologies. 334 (5–6): 469–482. doi:10.1016/j.crvi.2011.03.008. PMID 21640956.
  48. ^ "Our Ecosystem – Mapping & Data Sharing Software". Ecometrica. Archived from the original on 17 June 2013. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
  49. ^ Hanson, C, J Ranganathan, C Iceland, and J Finisdore. (2008) The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (Version 1.0). World Resources Institute. "Ecosystem Services Review | World Resources Institute". Archived from the original on 1 April 2009. Retrieved 17 March 2009.
  50. ^ "ARIES :: ARtificial Intelligence for Environment & Sustainability". aries.integratedmodelling.org/. Archived from the original on 7 June 2012. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
  51. ^ "Welcome". Natural Value Initiative. Archived from the original on 16 May 2016. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
  52. ^ "Home". Natural Capital Project. Archived from the original on 28 June 2012. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
  53. ^ a b James Kagan, Mark Borsuk (18 September 2019). "Assessing Ecosystem Service Benefits from Military Installations". Nicholas Institute, Duke University. Retrieved 19 May 2020.
  54. ^ "RC18-1605 Project Overview. Value and Resiliency of Ecosystem Services on Department of Defense (DoD) Lands". www.serdp-estcp.org Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 19 May 2020. Retrieved 19 May 2020.
  55. ^ Tacconi, L (2012). "Redefining payments for environmental services". Ecological Economics. 73 (1): 29–36. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.028.
  56. ^ a b Ostrom, Elinor (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-40599-7.[page needed]
  57. ^ Dietz, Thomas; Ostrom, Elinor; Stern, Paul C. (12 December 2003). "The Struggle to Govern the Commons". Science. 302 (5652): 1907–1912. Bibcode:2003Sci...302.1907D. doi:10.1126/science.1091015. PMID 14671286. S2CID 2373413.
  58. ^ Pretty, Jules (12 December 2003). "Social Capital and the Collective Management of Resources". Science. 302 (5652): 1912–1914. Bibcode:2003Sci...302.1912P. doi:10.1126/science.1090847. hdl:10919/65915. PMID 14671287. S2CID 25070261.
  59. ^ Heikkila, Tanya (2004). "Institutional boundaries and common-pool resource management: A comparative analysis of water management programs in California". Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 23 (1): 97–117. doi:10.1002/pam.10181.
  60. ^ Gibson, Clark C.; Williams, John T.; Ostrom, Elinor (February 2005). "Local Enforcement and Better Forests". World Development. 33 (2): 273–284. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.013. S2CID 13025667.
  61. ^ Daily, Gretchen C. (December 2000). "Management objectives for the protection of ecosystem services". Environmental Science & Policy. 3 (6): 333–339. Bibcode:2000ESPol...3..333D. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.463.824. doi:10.1016/S1462-9011(00)00102-7.
  62. ^ a b Jessica Brown and Neil Bird 2010. Costa Rica sustainable resource management: Successfully tackling tropical deforestation Archived 14 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine. London: Overseas Development Institute
  63. ^ Balvanera, Patricia; Daily, Gretchen C.; Ehrlich, Paul R.; Ricketts, Taylor H.; Bailey, Sallie-Anne; Kark, Salit; Kremen, Claire; Pereira, Henrique (16 March 2001). "Conserving Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services". Science. 291 (5511): 2047. doi:10.1126/science.291.5511.2047. PMID 11256386. S2CID 20296413.
  64. ^ Chan, Kai M. A.; Shaw, M. Rebecca; Cameron, David R.; Underwood, Emma C.; Daily, Gretchen C. (31 October 2006). "Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services". PLOS Biology. 4 (11): e379. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379. PMC 1629036. PMID 17076586.
  65. ^ Northern Economics Inc. "Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Shellfish Restoration, Enhancement and Management: A Review of the Literature" (PDF). Prepared for Pacific Shellfish Institute. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 December 2013.
  66. ^ Jones; Lawton, and Shachak (1994). "Organisms as Ecosystem Engineers". Oikos. 69 (3): 373–386. Bibcode:1994Oikos..69..373J. doi:10.2307/3545850. JSTOR 3545850.
  67. ^ Kistenkas, Frederik H.; Bouwma, Irene M. (February 2018). "Barriers for the ecosystem services concept in European water and nature conservation law". Ecosystem Services. 29: 223–227. Bibcode:2018EcoSv..29..223K. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.013.
  68. ^ "Goal 15 targets". UNDP. Archived from the original on 4 September 2017. Retrieved 24 September 2020.
  69. ^ US EPA, OAR (18 October 2022). "Climate Change Impacts on Ecosystems". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 19 July 2023.
  70. ^ "What is an ecosystem service?". European Investment Bank. Retrieved 19 July 2023.
  71. ^ "How much is nature worth? $125 trillion, according to this report". World Economic Forum. 30 October 2018. Retrieved 19 July 2023.
  72. ^ Bastien-Olvera, B. A.; Conte, M. N.; Dong, X.; Briceno, T.; Batker, D.; Emmerling, J.; Tavoni, M.; Granella, F.; Moore, F. C. (18 December 2023). "Unequal climate impacts on global values of natural capital". Nature. 625 (7996): 722–727. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06769-z. ISSN 1476-4687. PMC 10808060. PMID 38110573.
  73. ^ CBD (2009). Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change. Montreal, Technical Series No. 41, 126 pages.
  74. ^ "ebaflagship.org" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 February 2015. Retrieved 11 May 2015.
  75. ^ Gorriz-Misfud, Elena; Secco, L; Pisani, E (2016). "Exploring the interlinkages between governance and social capital: A dynamic model for forestry". Forest Policy and Economics. 65: 25–36. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.01.006.
  76. ^ Siirola, John; Tidwell, Vincent; Benz, Zachary; Stansbury, Melanie; Richards, Elizabeth; Turnley, Jessica; Warrender, Christina; Morrow, James (1 February 2012). "Decision insight into stakeholder conflict for ERN". doi:10.2172/1035334. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  77. ^ Lewis, David; Alig, Ralph (2009). "Empirical methods for modeling landscape change, ecosystem services, and biodiversity". Western Economics Forum. 8 (1): 29–39.
  78. ^ Ullman D. G.; K. Halsey; C. Goldfinger (2013). "Managing Eco-System Services Decisions" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 June 2013.
  79. ^ Quoc Vo, Tuan; Kuenzer, C.; Oppelt, N. (August 2015). "How remote sensing supports mangrove ecosystem service valuation: A case study in Ca Mau province, Vietnam". Ecosystem Services. 14: 67–75. Bibcode:2015EcoSv..14...67Q. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.04.007.
  80. ^ "About the project | LIFE Viva Grass".
  81. ^ "Sustainable grassland management efforts in the Baltics: interview with Žymantas Morkvėnas – GO-GRASS". www.go-grass.eu. 8 September 2020. Retrieved 1 August 2021.
  82. ^ Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered.
  83. ^ a b Daily, G. C. 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington. 392pp.
  84. ^ Hughes, J. Donald; Thirgood, J. V. (1 April 1982). "Deforestation, Erosion, and Forest Management in Ancient Greece and Rome". Journal of Forest History. 26 (2): 60–75. doi:10.2307/4004530. ISSN 0094-5080. JSTOR 4004530. S2CID 130391537.
  85. ^ Marsh, G. P. 1864 (1965). Man and Nature. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. 472pp.
  86. ^ Osborn, F. 1948. Our Plundered Planet. Little, Brown and Company: Boston. 217pp.
  87. ^ Vogt, W. 1948. Road to Survival. William Sloan: New York. 335pp.
  88. ^ Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches from Here and There. Oxford University Press, New York. 226pp.
  89. ^ Sears, P. B. 1956. "The processes of environmental change by man." In: W. L. Thomas, editor. Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth (Volume 2). University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1193pp.
  90. ^ Ehrlich, P. R., and A. Ehrlich. 1970. Population, Resources, Environment: Issues in Human Ecology. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco. 383pp. – see p.157
  91. ^ Study of Critical Environmental Problems (SCEP). 1970. Man's Impact on the Global Environment. MIT Press, Cambridge. 319pp.
  92. ^ Ehrlich, P. R., and A. Ehrlich. 1981. Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species. Random House, New York. 305pp.

Sources

[edit]

 This article incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken from The State of the World’s Forests 2020. Forests, biodiversity and people – In brief​, FAO & UNEP, FAO & UNEP.

 This article incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken from Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Key findings​, FAO, FAO.

[edit]