1. Quantification of ecosystem services (ES) is an important step in operationalizing the concept for management and decision-making. With the exponential increase in ES research, ES have become a 'catch-all phrase', which some suggest has led to a poorly defined, impractical and ambiguous concept. An overview of the methods used in ES quantification is needed to examine their scientific rigour and provide guidelines for selecting appropriate measures. 2. We present a systematic review of 405 peer-reviewed ES research papers to address the question: 'Is the biophysical and socio-economic reality of ES adequately quantified? First, we considered whether ES measures are scientifically rigorous enough by considering four predefined criteria (the type of data used, quantification of uncertainty, validation done and data reported). Secondly, using a novel approach, we determined which part of the ES cascade was measured: the ecosystem property, function, service, benefit or value. 3. Our results showed that each of the 21 ES analysed had on average 24 different measures, which may indicate the complex reality of ES and/or suggest a potential lack of consensus on what constitutes an ES. We found that uncertainty is often not included and validation mostly missing. 4. When analysing which part(s) of the ES cascade each measure corresponded to, we found that for regulating ES, ecosystem properties and functions (ecological aspects) are more commonly quantified (67% of measures). Conversely for provisioning ES, benefits and values (socio-economic aspects) are more commonly quantified (68%). Cultural ES are predominantly quantified using scores (35%). 5. In conclusion, ES appear to be poorly quantified in many cases, as often only one side of the cascade is considered (either the ecological or socio-economic side) and oversimplified and variable indicators are often used. 6. Policy implications. This review provides a detailed overview of ecosystem services (ES) quantification (ranging from simple scores to advanced methods) with the aim to support future ES quantification and ultimately the successful application of the ES concept.

The trade in soybean, an important animal feed product, exemplifies the environmental and socio-economic impact of global markets and global agricultural policy. This paper analyses the impact of increasing production of soybean in the exporting countries (deforestation and grassland conversion) as well as in importing regions (decrease in permanent grassland by substitution of grass as feed). Ecosystem services monetary values were used to calculate the environmental and socio-economic impact of observed land use changes. This is balanced against the economic value of the global soybean trade. The results prove that consumption choices in one region have real effects on the supply of ecosystem services at a large spatial scale. Conclusively, solutions to make this global market more sustainable are discussed.

While the general direction of ecosystems' responses to a variety of climate change scenarios has been well investigated, insights in the potential amplitude and dynamics of this response are scarce and the societal impacts often remain unquantified. Drawing on the expertise of researchers from a variety of disciplines, this paper outlines how methodological and technological advancements can help design climate experiments that better capture the dynamics and amplitude of ecosystem responses provoked by climate change and translate these responses into societal impacts.

The demand for pragmatic tools for mapping ecosystem services (ES) has led to the widespread application of land-use based proxy methods, mostly using coarse thematic resolution classification systems. Although various studies have demonstrated the limited reliability of land use as an indicator of service delivery, this does not prevent the method from being frequently applied on different institutional levels. It has recently been argued that a more detailed land use classification system may increase the accuracy of this approach. This research statistically compares maps of predicted ES delivery based on land use scoring for three different thematic resolutions (number of classes) with maps of ES delivery produced by biophysical models. Our results demonstrate that using a more detailed land use classification system does not significantly increase the accuracy of land-use based ES assessments for the majority of the considered ES. Correlations between land-use based assessments and biophysical model outcomes are relatively strong for provisioning services, independent of the classification system. However, large discrepancies occur frequently between the score and the model-based estimate. We conclude that land use, as a simple indicator, is not effective enough to be used in environmental management as it cannot capture differences in abiotic conditions and ecological processes that explain differences in service delivery. Using land use as a simple indicator will therefore result in inappropriate management decisions, even if a highly detailed land use classification system is used.

No abstract