Ecosystem Services as a Contested Concept: a Synthesis of Critique and Counter‐Arguments

Abstract

We describe and reflect on seven recurring critiques of the concept of ecosystem services and respective counter‐arguments. First, the concept is criticized for being anthropocentric, whereas others argue that it goes beyond instrumental values. Second, some argue that the concept promotes an exploitative human–nature relationship, whereas others state that it reconnects society to ecosystems, emphasizing humanity's dependence on nature. Third, concerns exist that the concept may conflict with biodiversity conservation objectives, whereas others emphasize complementarity. Fourth, the concept is questioned because of its supposed focus on economic valuation, whereas others argue that ecosystem services science includes many values. Fifth, the concept is criticized for promoting commodification of nature, whereas others point out that most ecosystem services are not connected to market‐based instruments. Sixth, vagueness of definitions and classifications are stated to be a weakness, whereas others argue that vagueness enhances transdisciplinary collaboration. Seventh, some criticize the normative nature of the concept, implying that all outcomes of ecosystem processes are desirable. The normative nature is indeed typical for the concept, but should not be problematic when acknowledged. By disentangling and contrasting different arguments we hope to contribute to a more structured debate between opponents and proponents of the ecosystem services concept.

Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

“…As such it supports a consequentialist ethic that can be more successful than deontological approaches (see Glossary) in securing consensus and motivating action [1]. However, criticisms of the ESF as a tool for conservation raise doubts about its effectiveness and legitimacy [2,3]. The most controversial issue is probably that of monetisation, as laid out recently by Silvertown [4].…”

“…Parallel problems emerge for other concepts that might be used in a definition of ES, such as 'processes/functions; structural components; goods; human uses; securities' [11]. The hope is sometimes expressed that definitional problems will decline as definitions gradually improve [3].…”

Effects of different management regimes on mangrove ecosystem services in Java, Indonesia

“…The role of biodiversity in relation to ecosystem services has been debated heavily (c.f. Schröter et al 2014), and currently biodiversity is seen as a regulator of ecosystem processes, contributor to the potential of ecosystem services, and as an ecosystem service itself (Mace et al 2012). Reyers et al (2010) described how all other ecosystem services are underpinned by biodiversity in the second chapter of the TEEB report.…”

Public Support for Wetland Restoration: What is the Link With Ecosystem Service Values?

“…An explanation for this may be that people with a dominant negative attitude towards nature may put more emphasis on the costs of nature conservation instead of the benefits. One of the critiques on the ES framework is its positive framing, implying that all outcomes of ecological processes are desirable (McCauley 2006;Schröter et al 2014). Our results show that 22 % of the respondents had negative associations with marshes: respondents referred mostly to poor management, mosquitoes, and inaccessibility.…”

“…A person with a strong eco-centric value orientation may not be willing to evaluate nature in this manner. Although several scholars have argued that socio-cultural ES assessments may allow for the integration of eco-centric values (Jax et al 2013;Schröter et al 2014), most ES valuation studies have not attempted to explicitly address eco-centric values.…”