Changes in the global value of ecosystem services
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)
- et al.
Modeling the dynamics of the integrated earth system and the value of global ecosystem services using the GUMBO model
Ecol. Econ.
(2002) - et al.
The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy
Ecosyst. Serv.
(2012) Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects
Ecol. Econ.
(2000)- et al.
The value of ecosystem services: putting the issues in perspective
Ecol. Econ.
(1998) - et al.
The authorship structure of ecosystem services as a transdisciplinary field of scholarship
Ecosyst. Serv.
(2012) The return of Lauderdale's paradox
Ecol. Econ.
(1998)- et al.
Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units
Ecosyst. Serv.
(2012) - et al.
Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services
Ecol. Econ.
(2002) - et al.
Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global
Ecol. Econ.
(2010) - et al.
Accounting for the value of ecosystem services
Ecol. Econ.
(2002)
An initial estimate of the value of ecosystem services in Bhutan
Ecosyst. Serv.
Beyond GDP: measuring and achieving global genuine progress
Ecol. Econ.
Valuing the European coastal blue carbon storage benefit
Mar. Pollut. Bull.
Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions
Ecol. Econ.
Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs
Econ. Policy
Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom
Science
Contrasting conventional with multi-level modelling approaches to meta-analysis: expectation consistency in UK woodland recreation values
Land Econ.
A New View of the Puget Sound Economy: The Economic Value of Nature's Services in the Puget Sound Basin
Mapping and modelling ecosystem services for science, policy and practice
Ecosyst. Serv.
Cosmic Evolution: The Rise of Complexity in Nature
Social goals and the valuation of ecosystem services
Ecosystems
Nature: ecosystems without commodifying them
Nature
Managing our environmental portfolio
Bioscience
The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital
Nature
Valuing ecological systems and services
F1000 Biol. Rep.
Time to leave GDP behind
Nature
The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection
AMBIO: J. Hum. Environ.
Response to George Monbiot: The Valuation of Nature and Ecosystem Services is Not Privatization
Landscape Simulation Modeling: A Spatially Explicit, Dynamic Approach
Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services
J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manage.
Cited by (3964)
Exploring the complex trade-offs and synergies of global ecosystem services
2024, Environmental Science and EcotechnologyLand cover changes and management effectiveness of protected areas in tropical coastal area of sub-Saharan Africa
2024, Environmental and Sustainability IndicatorsVariable leaf nitrogen-phosphorus ratios and stable resorption strategies of Kandelia obovata along the southeastern coast of China
2024, Forest Ecology and ManagementMechanisms for realizing the ecological products value: Green finance intervention and support
2024, International Journal of Production Economics