Elsevier

Global Environmental Change

Volume 26, May 2014, Pages 152-158
Global Environmental Change

Changes in the global value of ecosystem services

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Global loss of ecosystem services due to land use change is $US 4.3–20.2 trillion/yr.

  • Ecoservices contribute more than twice as much to human well-being as global GDP.

  • Estimates in monetary units are useful to show the relative magnitude of ecoservices.

  • Valuation of ecosystem services is not the same as commodification or privatization.

  • Ecosystem services are best considered public goods requiring new institutions.

Abstract

In 1997, the global value of ecosystem services was estimated to average $33 trillion/yr in 1995 $US ($46 trillion/yr in 2007 $US). In this paper, we provide an updated estimate based on updated unit ecosystem service values and land use change estimates between 1997 and 2011. We also address some of the critiques of the 1997 paper. Using the same methods as in the 1997 paper but with updated data, the estimate for the total global ecosystem services in 2011 is $125 trillion/yr (assuming updated unit values and changes to biome areas) and $145 trillion/yr (assuming only unit values changed), both in 2007 $US. From this we estimated the loss of eco-services from 1997 to 2011 due to land use change at $4.3–20.2 trillion/yr, depending on which unit values are used. Global estimates expressed in monetary accounting units, such as this, are useful to highlight the magnitude of eco-services, but have no specific decision-making context. However, the underlying data and models can be applied at multiple scales to assess changes resulting from various scenarios and policies. We emphasize that valuation of eco-services (in whatever units) is not the same as commodification or privatization. Many eco-services are best considered public goods or common pool resources, so conventional markets are often not the best institutional frameworks to manage them. However, these services must be (and are being) valued, and we need new, common asset institutions to better take these values into account.

Introduction

Ecosystems provide a range of services that are of fundamental importance to human well-being, health, livelihoods, and survival (Costanza et al., 1997, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005, TEEB Foundations, 2010, TEEB Synthesis, 2010). Interest in ecosystem services in both the research and policy communities has grown rapidly (Braat and de Groot, 2012, Costanza and Kubiszewski, 2012). In 1997, the value of global ecosystem services was estimated to be around US$ 33 trillion per year (in 1995 $US), a figure significantly larger than global gross domestic product (GDP) at the time. This admittedly crude underestimate of the welfare benefits of natural capital, and a few other early studies (Daily, 1997, de Groot, 1987, Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1981, Ehrlich and Mooney, 1983, Odum, 1971, Westman, 1977) stimulated a huge surge in interest in this topic.

In 2005, the concept of ecosystem services gained broader attention when the United Nations published its Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). The MEA was a four-year, 1300-scientist study for policymakers. Between 2007 and 2010, a second international initiative was undertaken by the UN Environment Programme, called the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) (TEEB Foundations, 2010). The TEEB report was picked up extensively by the mass media, bringing ecosystem services to a broader audience. Ecosystem services have now also entered the consciousness of mainstream media and business. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development has actively supported and developed the concept (WBCSD, 2011, WBCSD, 2012). Hundreds of projects and groups are currently working toward better understanding, modeling, valuation, and management of ecosystem services and natural capital. It would be impossible to list all of them here, but emerging regional, national, and global networks, like the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP), are doing just that and are coordinating their efforts (Braat and de Groot, 2012, de Groot et al., 2011).

Probably the most important contribution of the widespread recognition of ecosystem services is that it reframes the relationship between humans and the rest of nature. A better understanding of the role of ecosystem services emphasizes our natural assets as critical components of inclusive wealth, well-being, and sustainability. Sustaining and enhancing human well-being requires a balance of all of our assets—individual people, society, the built economy, and ecosystems. This reframing of the way we look at “nature” is essential to solving the problem of how to build a sustainable and desirable future for humanity.

Estimating the relative magnitude of the contributions of ecosystem services has been an important part of changing this framing. There has been an on-going debate about what some see as the “commodification” of nature that this approach supposedly implies (Costanza, 2006, McCauley, 2006) and what others see as the flawed methods and questionable wisdom of aggregating ecosystem services values to larger scales (Chaisson, 2002). We think that these critiques are largely misplaced once one understands the context and multiple potential uses of ecosystem services valuation, as we explain further on.

In this paper we (1) update estimates of the value of global ecosystem services based on new data from the TEEB study (de Groot et al., 2012, de Groot et al., 2010a, de Groot et al., 2010b); (2) compare those results with earlier estimates (Costanza et al., 1997) and with alternative methods (Boumans et al., 2002); (3) estimate the global changes in ecosystem service values from land use change over the period 1997–2011; and (4) review some of the objections to aggregate ecosystem services value estimates and provide some responses (Howarth and Farber, 2002).

We do not claim that these estimates are the only, or even the best way, to understand the value of ecosystem services. Quite the contrary, we advocate pluralism based on a broad range of approaches at multiple scales. However, within this range of approaches, estimates of aggregate accounting value for ecosystem services in monetary units have a critical role to play in heightening awareness and estimating the overall level of importance of ecosystem services relative to and in combination with other contributors to sustainable human well-being (Luisetti et al., 2013).

Section snippets

What is valuation?

Valuation is about assessing trade-offs toward achieving a goal (Farber et al., 2002). All decisions that involve trade-offs involve valuation, either implicitly or explicitly (Costanza et al., 2011). When assessing trade-offs, one must be clear about the goal. Ecosystem services are defined as the benefits people derive from ecosystems – the support of sustainable human well-being that ecosystems provide (Costanza et al., 1997, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005). The value of

Valuation is not privatization

It is a misconception to assume that valuing ecosystem services in monetary units is the same as privatizing them or commodifying them for trade in private markets (Costanza, 2006, Costanza et al., 2012, McCauley, 2006, Monbiot, 2012). Most ecosystem services are public goods (non-rival and non-excludable) or common pool resources (rival but non-excludable), which means that privatization and conventional markets work poorly, if at all. In addition, the non-market values estimated for these

Uses of valuation of ecosystem services

The valuation of ecosystem services can have many potential uses, at multiple time and space scales. Confusion can arise, however, if one is not clear about the distinctions between these uses. Table 1 lists some of the potential uses of ecosystem services valuation, ranging from simply raising awareness to detailed analysis of various policy choices and scenarios. For example, Costanza et al. (1997) was clearly an awareness raising exercise with no specific policy or decision in mind. As its

Aggregating values

Ecosystem services are often assessed and valued at specific sites for specific services. However some uses require aggregate values over larger spatial and temporal scales (Table 1). Producing such aggregates suffers from many of the same problems as producing any aggregate estimate, including macroeconomic aggregates such as GDP. Table 2 lists a range of possible approaches for aggregating ecosystem service values (Kubiszewski et al., 2013a). Basic benefit transfer, the technique used in

Estimates of global value

Costanza et al. (1997) estimated the value of 17 ecosystem services for 16 biomes and an aggregate global value expressed in monetary units. This estimate was based on a simple benefit transfer method described above.

Notwithstanding the limitations and restrictions in benefit transfer techniques (Brouwer, 2000, Defra, 2010, Johnston and Rosenberger, 2010) it is an attractive option for researchers and policy-makers facing time and budget constraints. Value transfer has been used for valuation

Caveats and misconceptions

We want to make clear that expressing the value of ecosystem services in monetary units does not mean that they should be treated as private commodities that can be traded in private markets. Many ecosystem services are public goods or the product of common assets that cannot (or should not) be privatized (Wood, 2014). Even if fish and other provisioning services enter the market as private goods, the ecosystems that produce them (i.e. coastal systems and oceans) are common assets. Their value

Conclusions

The concepts of ecosystem services flows and natural capital stocks are increasingly useful ways to highlight, measure, and value the degree of interdependence between humans and the rest of nature. This approach is complementary with other approaches to nature conservation, but provides conceptual and empirical tools that the others lack and it communicates with different audiences for different purposes. Estimates of the global accounting value of ecosystem services expressed in monetary

Acknowledgements

The TEEB study was funded by the German, UK, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian and Japanese governments, and coordinated by UNEP and the TEEB-offices (UFZ, Bonn, Germany and in Geneva, Switzerland) who provided financial and logistic support for the development of the database. We thank the Crawford School of Public Policy at Australian National University and the Barbara Hardy Institute at the University of South Australia for support during the preparation of this manuscript. We also thank four

References (60)

  • I. Kubiszewski et al.

    An initial estimate of the value of ecosystem services in Bhutan

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2013)
  • I. Kubiszewski et al.

    Beyond GDP: measuring and achieving global genuine progress

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2013)
  • T. Luisetti et al.

    Valuing the European coastal blue carbon storage benefit

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2013)
  • R.K. Turner et al.

    Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2003)
  • E.B. Barbier

    Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs

    Econ. Policy

    (2007)
  • I.J. Bateman et al.

    Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom

    Science

    (2013)
  • I.J. Bateman et al.

    Contrasting conventional with multi-level modelling approaches to meta-analysis: expectation consistency in UK woodland recreation values

    Land Econ.

    (2003)
  • D. Batker et al.

    A New View of the Puget Sound Economy: The Economic Value of Nature's Services in the Puget Sound Basin

    (2008)
  • B. Burkhard et al.

    Mapping and modelling ecosystem services for science, policy and practice

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2013)
  • E.J. Chaisson

    Cosmic Evolution: The Rise of Complexity in Nature

    (2002)
  • R. Costanza

    Social goals and the valuation of ecosystem services

    Ecosystems

    (2000)
  • R. Costanza

    Nature: ecosystems without commodifying them

    Nature

    (2006)
  • R. Costanza et al.

    Managing our environmental portfolio

    Bioscience

    (2000)
  • R. Costanza et al.

    The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital

    Nature

    (1997)
  • R. Costanza et al.

    Valuing ecological systems and services

    F1000 Biol. Rep.

    (2011)
  • R. Costanza et al.

    Time to leave GDP behind

    Nature

    (2014)
  • R. Costanza et al.

    The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection

    AMBIO: J. Hum. Environ.

    (2008)
  • R. Costanza et al.

    Response to George Monbiot: The Valuation of Nature and Ecosystem Services is Not Privatization

    (2012)
  • R. Costanza et al.

    Landscape Simulation Modeling: A Spatially Explicit, Dynamic Approach

    (2003)
  • N. Crossman et al.

    Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services

    J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manage.

    (2012)
  • Cited by (3964)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text