What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units

Boyd, James; Banzhaf, H. Spencer

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002

Cited by 1,612 publications

(1,001 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

877

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…of seeds) of some species are much greater than others. An economically rigorous approach must consider the contributions of ecosystem functions to the quantity, quality or variability of particular "end products" that people value directly (17). The value of changes in the quantity, quality or variability of such end products must be assessed with respect to individuals' own subjective preferences to back out the economic value of changes in biodiversity (18).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grassland biodiversity can pay

Binder

Isbell

Polasky

et al. 2018

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SignificanceEcological research suggests that greater biodiversity could lead to greater economic value, even for private owners of "working" land. But the studies from which such a conclusion might be inferred do not account for all relevant information in a coherent economic framework. Our paper applies standard economic theory to rigorously account for costs, quality and risk. Results indicate that higher levels of biodiversity than typically observed on commercial grasslands would maximize landowner value in the experimental grassland we study. Greater private benefits from biodiversity could encourage private investment in biodiversity and reduce the cost of public conservation efforts. AbstractThe biodiversity-ecosystem functioning (BEF) literature provides strong evidence of the biophysical basis for the potential profitability of greater diversity but does not address questions of optimal management. BEF studies typically focus on the ecosystem outputs produced by randomly-assembled communities that only differ in their biodiversity levels, measured by indices like species richness. Landholders, however, do not randomly select species to plant; they choose particular species that collectively maximize profits. As such, their interest is not in comparing the average performance of randomly-assembled communities at each level of biodiversity but rather comparing the best-performing communities at each diversity level. Assessing the best-performing mixture requires detailed accounting of species' identities and relative abundances. It also requires accounting for the financial cost of individual species' seeds, and the economic value of changes in the quality, quantity and variability of the species' collective output--something that existing multifunctionality indices fail to do. This study presents an assessment approach that integrates the relevant factors into a single, coherent framework. It uses ecological production functions to inform an economic model consistent with the utilitymaximizing decisions of a potentially risk-averse private landowner. We demonstrate the salience and applicability of the framework using data from an experimental grassland to estimate production relationships for hay and carbon storage. For that case, our results suggest that even a risk-neutral, profit-maximizing landowner would favor a highly diverse mix of species, with optimal species richness falling between the low levels currently found in commercial grasslands and the high levels found in natural grasslands.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grassland biodiversity can pay

Binder

Isbell

Polasky

et al. 2018

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Numerous economists and ecologists have tried to embrace aspects of ecosystem services within more traditional economic methods-cost-benefit ratios, economics of choice, contingent valuation, return on investment, discount rates and willingness to pay, valuation of non-market goods, attribute-based choice, production function, equity, credits, benefits-based transfer functions, and modeling (Englin et al 1997;Chichilnisky and Heal 1998;Boyd et al 2001;Chambers and Whitehead 2003;Poudyal et al 2003;Ackerman et al 2007;Fisher and Erickson 2007;Boyd 2008;Arana and Leon 2009;Bond et al 2009;Colombo et al 2009;Hoyos et al 2009). Some economists believe the pricing structure for valuing ecosystems and their services are simply limited or wrong (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007;Boyd 2008). Existing neo-classical economic approaches have been deemed inadequate by some to address current environmental policy needs (Cropper 2000) and new approaches for determining the value of nature have been necessary (Faber et al 2006;Boyd and Banzhaf 2007).…”

Section: Valuation Of Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some economists believe the pricing structure for valuing ecosystems and their services are simply limited or wrong (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007;Boyd 2008). Existing neo-classical economic approaches have been deemed inadequate by some to address current environmental policy needs (Cropper 2000) and new approaches for determining the value of nature have been necessary (Faber et al 2006;Boyd and Banzhaf 2007). Alternative non-monetary value metrics have emerged such as emergy, exergy, happiness, and life satisfaction (Jørgensen et al 1995 …”

Section: Valuation Of Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of the Elements of Human Well-Being with an Emphasis on the Contribution of Ecosystem Services

Summers

Smith

Case

et al. 2012

AMBIO

306

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural ecosystems perform fundamental lifesupport services upon which human civilization depends. However, many people believe that nature provides these services for free and therefore, they are of little or no value. While we do not pay for them, we pay significantly for their loss in terms of wastewater treatment facilities, moratoriums on greenhouse gases, increased illnesses, reduced soil fertility and losses in those images of nature that contribute to our basic happiness. Little is understood about the well-being benefits of the natural environment and its ecosystem services. The interwoven relationship of ecosystems and human well-being is insufficiently acknowledged in the wider philosophical, social, and economic well-being literature. In this article, we discuss an approach to examine human well-being and the interactions of its four primary elements-basic human needs, economic needs, environmental needs, and subjective wellbeing-and ecosystem services.

show abstract

“…The provisional Russian classification should be discussed in this context, since many different conditions in other ES play a role here. Here, we have the phenomenon of intermediate ES (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007). It would be beneficial in the future to evaluate only final ES and to show their relationship to welfare categories.…”

Section: Complex-es By Example Of Recreationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The current state of knowledge of ecosystems and ecosystem services in Russia: A status report

Bukvareva

Grunewald

Бобылев

et al. 2015

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focusses on a conceptual overview of ways to address a comprehensive analysis of ecosystem services (ES) in a country as large and heterogeneous as Russia. As a first step, a methodology for assessing the services for the federal subjects of Russia was chosen, i.e., its constituent provinces and similar entities, in physical terms. Russia harbors a great diversity of natural conditions and ecosystems which are suppliers of ES, and likewise a variety of the socio-economic conditions that shape the demand for these services and their consumption. The methodological approach described permits several important tasks to be addressed: the evaluation of the degree of satisfaction of people's needs for ES, the identification of ecological donor and acceptor regions, and zoning of the country's territory for ES assessment. The next step is to prepare a prototype of a National Report on ES in Russia, for which we are presenting the planned structure.

show abstract

What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units

Abstract: Discussion papers are research materials circulated by their authors for purposes of information and discussion. They have not necessarily undergone formal peer review.

Cited by 1,612 publications

References 7 publications

Grassland biodiversity can pay

Grassland biodiversity can pay

A Review of the Elements of Human Well-Being with an Emphasis on the Contribution of Ecosystem Services

The current state of knowledge of ecosystems and ecosystem services in Russia: A status report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About