Jump to content

Talk:Ecosystem service

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rgardne (talk | contribs) at 04:56, 2 February 2017 (Update Environment, Society, and Culture assignment details). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

To merge or not to merge

I say nay. In my experience ecosystem services are referred to in quite a thorough ecological sense, at times even without mention of economics. I haven't encountered nature's services in what ecological literature I've read; it's seems to be used more by (environmental) economists. Daniel Collins 01:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I say nay as well. nature's services is not a common term in ecological literature. I did create a ecological goods and services page which would merge well with this one. I had not thought to search the term ecosystem services when I was checking around before starting the new page. wagors 04:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weigh in nay. not only are these distinct and of different origin, they are both vast topics and deserve separate articles. Anlace 05:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No! Since ‘ecosystem services’ is becoming a more and more utilized phrase with a technical and precise meaning — Especially since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment — it is better to leave it alone. Many ecological economist use it to contrast their field with environmental or resource economics. Compared to ecosystem services, ‘natures services’ sounds much more journalistic, loose and all inclusive. Ecosystem services also places emphasis on the biotic and ecological elements of ‘nature’. So lets leave it as a distinct phrase. Manoj

I have to say I find this human centric view of the definition "ecosystem services" quite strange. It seems that the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment hijacked the term for a very narrow description. Before the assessment the U.S. government actually defined this concept through the promulgation of regulations for the Oil Pollution Act. From the OPA regulations CFR 15 Part 990: Services Natural resource services are all functions that a natural resource provides for another natural resource(s) or for the public. Natural resource services may be classified as follows: (i) Ecological services-the physical, chemical, or biological functions that one natural resource provides for another. Examples include provision of food, protection from predation, and nesting habitat, among others; and (ii) Public services-the public uses of natural resources or functions of natural resources that provide value to the public. Examples include fishing, hunting, nature photography, and education, among others 208.252.206.34 (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drop the tags, given discussion. Cheers. Heds (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger with Ecological goods and services

I say "no" too these are clearly different concepts, an anthropocentric one, and an eco-centric one. Rich Farmbrough, 15:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I say no. Ecological Goods and Services are increasingly being discussed as the goods and services provided by land uses such as agriculture and other working lands, rather than services provided by forest or wetland ecosystems. Greeneracres (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding this Article

The first sentence under "A brief history" seems to indicate that at the start of our species' existence, we were all Serbians. I expect this needs to be edited, but I am not sure how to do so. If anyone can help out with this, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Bolo5000 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition for each type

I have briefly read through this article and I feel that some information can perhaps be added to what each type of ecosystem service means. Currently the article only states some examples. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resource: Ecosystem Services: How People Benefit from Nature

Of Natural capital Valuation/Environmental finance interest? Ecosystem Services: How People Benefit from Nature by Rebecca L. Goldman, currently in print.

Some excerpts: "... Economists refer to this full valuation as shadow pricing, but even an informal, “back-of-the envelope” calculation of all values can help to illustrate the importance of ecosystem services in our daily lives. ... due to Colony collapse disorder (CCD). The disappearance of the honey bee would have catastrophic financial outcomes, since it is the most economically valuable pollinator worldwide.[17] ... How Are Ecosystem Service Approaches Being Leveraged?... books such as The New Economy of Nature[40] and interdisciplinary scholarly investigations such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) demonstrating the ecosystem alternatives to resource problems. ... 14. W. Reid, “Nature: The Many Benefits of Ecosystem Services,” Nature (journal) 443 (2006): 749; R. L. Goldman, H. Tallis, P. Kareiva, and G. C. Daily, “Field Evidence That Ecosystem Service Projects Support Biodiversity and Diversify Options,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105 (2008): 9445–9448. ... [29.] J. Jowit, “UN Says Case for Saving Species ‘More Powerful Than Climate Change,’” May 21, 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/21/un-biodiversity-economic-report. ... E.B. Barbier, E.W. Koch, B.R. Silliman, S.D. Hacker, E. Wolanski, J. Primavera, E.F. Granek, S. Polasky, S. Aswani, L.A. Cramer, D.M. Stoms, C.J. Kennedy, D. Bael, C.V. Kappel, G.M. Perillo, D.J. Reed, “Coastal Ecosystem-Based Management with Nonlinear Ecological Functions and Values,” Science (journal) 319 (2008): 321–323 ... B. K. Jack, C. Kousky, and K. R. E. Sims, “Designing Payments for Ecosystem Services: Lessons from Previous Experience with Incentive-Based Mechanisms,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105 (2008): 9465–9470. [36.] D. Perrot-Maître, “The Vittel Payments for Ecosystem Services: A “Perfect” PES Case?” (London: International Institute for Environment and Development, 2006); N. Asquith and S. Wunder, Payments for Watershed Services: The Bellagio Conversations (Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia: Fundación Natura Bolivia, 2008); S. Engel, S. Pagiola, and S. Wunder, “Designing Payments for Environmental Services in Theory and Practice: An Overview of the Issues,” Ecological Economics 65 (2008): 663–674; Jack et al., note 35; G. C. Daily and P. Matson, “Ecosystem Services: From Theory to Implementation,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105 (2008): 9455–9456. [37.] K. A. Brauman, G. C. Daily, T. K. Duarte, and H. A. Mooney, “The Nature and Value of Ecosystem Services: An Overview Highlighting Hydrologic Services,” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32 (2007): 67–98; K. M. Krchnak, Watershed Valuation as a Tool for Biodiversity Conservation (Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy, 2007); Asquith and Wunder, note 36; I. Porras, M. Greig-Gran, and N. Neves, “All that Glitters: A Review of Payments for Watershed Services in Developing Countries,” Natural Resource Issues No. 11 (London: International Institute for Environment and Development, 2008). [39.] For more information on water funds, see R. L. Goldman, S. Benitez, A. Calvache, and A. Ramos, Water Funds: Protecting Watersheds for Nature and People (Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy, 2010). [40.] G. Daily and K. Ellison, The New Economy of Nature: The Quest to make Conservation Profitable (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002).

99.88.230.136 (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what is this in aid of? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This might be more plain User:A.R.The new green economy by Hillary Rosner 10.September.2010 Wired UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.183.67 (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add {{Portal box|Environment|Ecology|Earth sciences|Biology}} ?

Add {{Portal box|Environment|Ecology|Earth sciences|Biology}} ? 99.102.178.168 (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I can see, potentially, Environment or Ecology, but I'd be willing to allow above. The other two topics are, to the extent appropriate, contained in Environment or Ecology. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The multiheaded anon is still adding the material, without giving reasons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary to change our species to our species ... the same place?

Necessary to change [[Human|our species]] to [[homo sapiens|our species]] ... the same place? 99.181.129.120 (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be necessary, but "human" is not a species; "homo sapiens" is a species. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add resource from InterAcademy Panel on International Issues?

The Concept and Reality of Ecosystem Services by Neville Ash, IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) InterAcademy Panel Biodiversity Conference (InterAcademy Panel on International Issues) 12-14thJanuary 2010 The Royal Society, London

Neville Ash is associated with the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, UN Environment Programme, per wp article Planet Earth: The Future 99.56.121.111 (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeping changes to intro

"To help inform decision-makers, many ecosystem services are being assigned economic values, often based on the cost of replacement with anthropogenic alternatives. The ongoing challenge of prescribing economic value to nature, for example through biodiversity banking, is prompting transdisciplinary shifts in how we recognize and manage the environment, social responsibility, business opportunities, and our future as a species."

Dear friends, the above two sentences address ecosystem services only in passing. Any environmental good is - "to help decisionmakers" - being assigned economic values. So there is really no need to highlight this here. Furthermore, it would have to be shown that replacement costs play a particularly important role with respect to the valuation of ESS. From an economic theory point of view they certainly don't.

The second sentence focuses on a specific aspect of the debate on economic valuation itself, and has no specific bearing for ESS whatsoever. So it is a good idea to delete both sentences as they add nothing that needs to be addressed in the intro ecosystem services as both are peripherial aspects at best. Best regards, --Trinitrix (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am perplexed by what is going on here and I do not know where you are coming from. What is "Any environmental good is - 'to help decisionmakers' - being assigned economic values" supposed to mean? The assignment of economic consequences to ecosystem degradation would seem to me to be central to a rational management of ecosystems and their associated services. Nothing peripheral about it at all. I have restored the lead as it was before your latest edit.
I think also that your heavy-handed deletion of material to do with current anthropogenic threats to ecosystems and their associated services is also inappropriate. The material might be better positioned in the article, and it could be reworded and better cited. But some mention of the cloud that currently hangs over ecosystem services and ecosystems in general belongs in the article. I won't speculate, but please explain where you are really coming from. Unless you can offer some sort of acceptable rationale here for deleting all mention of the current status of world ecosystems, I will shortly reinstate the material you removed in an edited form. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Epi, this is an article on ecosystem services, not on the general ecological state of the world. I would not object to a few numbers of the state of ecosystem degradation if (and only if) expressed in ecosystem service terms and preferentiably referenced to one of the major international scientific endeavors that seek to quantify these degradations. Such material was not deleted by me and not reinstated by your, should I say "light-handed"? - revert. The same holds true for the delete later on.
May I now ask you to provide a specific rationale for highlighting the replacement cost method in the intro? Also, habitat/biodiveristy banking is one of several economic instruments to reduce ecological scarcity in general. Again, there is nothing specific them with in respect to the ecosystem service debate as they apply generally to instances to ecosystem degradation.
"The ongoing challenge of prescribing economic value to nature, for example through biodiversity banking, is prompting transdisciplinary shifts in how we recognize and manage the environment, social responsibility, business opportunities, and our future as a species" ... excuse me, this is really not material for the intro. "The challenge is promting transdisciplinary shifts in how ***we***..." At least I am not sure that I am experiencing the same shifts as you are ;-) This sentence violates about any second style and content rule of the project with respect to scientifc writing. We should really get rid of it in the intro. Source it respectively and look for a place where it may belong in an appropriate way.
Best regards, --Trinitrix (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: This does not make my points any better, but I was an invited reviewer of the MA framework volume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinitrix (talk • contribs) 00:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements per person

Perhaps we should note how much air, food, water, ... is required per person per day ? For air, we need about 7 to 8 trees per person. Calculation follows:

  • a human breathes in about 9500 kilos of air per year; 23% of this is O², and we only take out 1/3 with every breath, so there is a consumption of 700 kilos of O² per year. A mature tree produces 100 kilo per year, so we need 7 to 8 of these per person.

With this calculation, we can also calculate how much forest we need worldwide btw: 7 trees X 7,2 billion people = 50,2 billion trees needed I'm not sure how much trees there are currently today, and by which rate they are chopped, else we could calculate by which time we will no longer be able to attain sufficient air. KVDP (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Humankind benefits

The first sentence currently is: "Humankind benefits in a multitude of ways from ecosystems". True. BUT is this supposed to be an anthropocentric or an ecocentric article? This sentence makes a case for the former. I read all comments on this talk page and do realize the tension and different opinions on the 2 concepts, but if this is supposed to be an ecocentric (what a weird word) or better: inclusive article, as supposed to the anthropocentric economic viewpoints of nature's services or ecological goods and services it must be changed to encompass the living world.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The language in this article is flawed in many more places. For example "We" is unencyclopedic and sounds preaching. "Provisioning" is extremely stilted, turning a noun into a neo-verb, while a verb (provide) exists

The structure of the artcle needs improvement. E.g. Hiding definitions in teh middle of teh article under the erroneously termed section "notes" is a non-no.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ecosystem services concept is explicitly anthropocentric, isn't it? It's about things provided to humans by natural systems. Guettarda (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of ecosystem services approach

There are a number of criticisms levelled at the ecosystem services approach that aren't address in this entry currently. Examples include the challenge of valuing cultural services, and the difficulty in accounting for intrinsic or non-use value, as well as general criticisms of the anthropocentricity of the approach, including that taking an economic approach to value deprioritises remote and vulnerable ecosystems that humans don't interact with frequently. Does anyone else think a new section on criticism is needed for balance, if nothing else?

I absolutely agree. I did add a similar section to Natural Capital in order to add some balance. Whilst I work professionally in an area that regards the identification of the benefits of NC and ecosystem services as crucial in influencing decision-makers in planning to have much greater regard for the impact of their decisions on us and our environment, as a Wikipedian I am keen to see balanced articles, so adding a section to address published criticisms of the ecosystems services approach would be very welcome. Parkywiki (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generalized non-anthropocentric definitions of ecosystem services

Is it possible to change the intro to reflect the fact that organisms may provide services to other species besides humanity, and to the ecosystem as a whole?

We can definitely quantify the economic value of these non-human interactions, too, and such models may be useful!

This is an interesting suggestion, but I believe it would be a very big mistake, and indeed a misinterpretation of the topic, to attempt to modify the introduction as you suggest. The whole point of the Ecosystems Services approach is that it is intentionally 100% anthopocentric. It is an approach aimed at humans that is purposefully highlighting the services that the natural world gives us (humans) for free (and we have been rather prone to take it for granted in recent decades). You are, of course, right that the other 8.7 million species on this planet provide benefits and 'services' to all the other species(food/nesting sites/nest building materials/decomposition/food chains etc), but discussion of that should be reserved for the numerous other topics relating to ecology, and wouldn't be relevant to this article at all. If you can find reliable sources referring to this, it could make an interesting sub-section, but I am not personally aware of any Ecosystem Services publications which even mention this. And so I'm afraid I'm really not at all sure what you're getting at when you refer to us being able to "quantify the economic value of these non-human interactions". Economics is a human construct (is that the right term?), and the whole point of Ecosystem Services is that it is a concept that tries to identify (and sometimes even attempts to value) the services and economic benefits that all these non-human interactions (ie ecosystems) gives us. And by 'us', I mean us humans, and only us humans. Parkywiki (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on my previous response, I find there are actually a number of useful reviews of criticism, counter-arguments and pitfalls of Ecosystem Services which someone might wish to use in order to create a balanced 'criticisms' sub-section which could then be validly referred to in the Introduction. See here and here and here(p.7). Parkywiki (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ecosystem services. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ecosystem_service&oldid=763256257"