Elsevier

Biological Conservation

Volume 224, August 2018, Pages 71-74
Biological Conservation

Perspective
Ask not what nature can do for you: A critique of ecosystem services as a communication strategy

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.05.017Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Ecosystem services were devised in the 1970s to generate interest in biodiversity conservation.

  • Framing nature as a “service” might be decreasing public engagement in conservation.

  • Positive messages of nature's aesthetic, cultural and spiritual aspects may be more beneficial.

  • Communicators should think carefully about their audience when framing messages about nature.

Abstract

Given the urgent need to raise public awareness on biodiversity issues, we review the effectiveness of “ecosystem services” as a frame for promoting biodiversity conservation. Since its inception as a communications tool in the 1970s, the concept of ecosystem services has become pervasive in biodiversity policy. While the goal of securing ecosystem services is absolutely legitimate, we argue that it has had limited success as a vehicle for securing public interest and support for nature, which is crucial to securing long-term social mandates for protection. Emerging evidence suggests that focusing on ecosystem services rather than the intrinsic value of nature is unlikely to be effective in bolstering public support for nature conservation. Theory to guide effective communication about nature is urgently needed. In the mean-time, communicators should reflect on their objectives and intended audience and revisit the way nature is framed to ensure maximum resonance.

Section snippets

The rise of ecosystem services

The concept of ecosystem services was developed as a communication tool in the 1970s to attract public interest in biodiversity conservation (e.g. Westman, 1977). Highlighting humanity's dependence on the services provided by nature was thought to be a way of “telling stories that link biodiversity to the things that matter to people” (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 2014).

Since then, the term has achieved global prominence and has evolved an economic focus,

The effectiveness of ecosystem services as a communications tool

Research in communication, sociology, psychology, and political science has shown that the way in which an issue is “framed” can influence the judgments an individual might make in relation to this issue. In reframing nature as a set of specific and quantifiable services, ecosystem services reinforces the market-driven view that nature is important only to the extent that it provides goods and services of (economic) value to humans (McCauley, 2006; Coffey, 2015). This ignores any intrinsic

Why ecosystem services may not be the best frame for public engagement

The concept of ecosystem services has arguably been very successful at integrating conservation in mainstream economics and sustainable development ideology and convincing academics to engage with concept (Norgaard, 2010). Other analyses have focused on the failure of the concept to deliver effective conservation action, particularly with respect to payment for ecosystem services schemes (e.g. Büscher, 2012; Wynne-Jones, 2012). Here we are focusing on the success of the term at engaging the

Ecosystem services may undermine intrinsic values

The intention behind the use of ecosystem services to promote conservations is that representing arguments for nature as services that nature provides ultimately leads to a deeper appreciation of the intrinsic value of biodiversity (Goldman and Tallis, 2009). This argument suggests that such an approach may engage people who do not already have high levels of intrinsic care for nature. We know of no evidence that indicates that reinforcing instrumental values can actually generate intrinsic

How should we frame biodiversity messages?

There is surprisingly little research into how people respond to biodiversity messages, but this information is important to understanding why our policies, management approaches and campaigns succeed or fail. The potential for a strong correlation between public concern and conservation policy and priorities (Martín-López et al., 2009) makes communicating biodiversity issues in ways that resonate with the general public a critical task.

So what do we know about how the conservation of nature

Room for ecosystem services

We do not suggest that ecosystem services must always be counter-productive or offer zero value for conservation advocacy, instead we argue that there are better and more strategic ways to frame biodiversity conservation messages. We do ultimately rely on the multitude of ecosystem services that nature provides: clean air, clean water, pollination, recreation, and so many others. We should attend to the properties of the natural world that provide these services. In some instances, a focus on

Acknowledgments

SB, BW and AK were supported by the Australian Government through the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions (CE11001000104) and the Australian Government's National Environmental Science Program (NESP), Threatened Species Recovery Hub. SB was additionally funded by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT130101225). MR was supported by NESP and the US Geological Survey. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only

References (40)

  • B. Büscher

    Payments for ecosystem services as neoliberal conservation: (reinterpreting) evidence from the Maloti-Drakensberg. South Africa

    Conserv. Soc.

    (2012)
  • S. Christmas et al.

    Engaging People in Biodiversity Issues. Final Unpublished Report of the Biodiversity Segmentation Scoping Study

    (2013)
  • B. Coffey

    Unpacking the politics of natural capital and economic metaphors in environmental policy discourse

    Environmental Politics

    (2015)
  • R. Costanza et al.

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

    Nature

    (1997)
  • T. Crompton

    Common cause: the case for working with our cultural values

    UK: WWF-UK (World Wildlife Fund for Nature-UK).

    (2010)
  • G. Deliege et al.

    Should biodiversity be useful? Scope and limits of ecosystem services as an argument for biodiversity conservation

    Environ Value

    (2015)
  • S. Díaz et al.

    The IPBES conceptual framework — connecting nature and people

    Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.

    (2015)
  • Ecosystem Marketplace
  • European Commission

    The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. European Commission Website

  • B.S. Frey et al.

    Motivation crowding theory

    J. Econ. Surv.

    (2001)
  • Cited by (55)

    • Communication of ecosystem services and disservices in local newspapers in Winnipeg, Canada

      2022, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening
      Citation Excerpt :

      This has been noted in the framing of forest management terminology (Raffa et al., 2009) and critiqued in environmental communication (Bekessy et al., 2018), as well as being presented as a colonial view of ecosystems (Friess, 2016). Shifting the narrative to include the holistic benefits of trees on the urban ecosystem may help increase public participation in conservation endeavours (Bekessy et al., 2018). However, more positively for holistic framing of the urban forest, only four items of economic benefits appeared in the newspaper articles (Table 6) and no article made reference to the overall dollar figure attributed to Winnipeg’s urban forest, despite the prominence of economic and financial benefits of trees in the City of Winnipeg’s State of the Urban Forest report (Needoba et al., 2021).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text