Ecosystem Services Flows: Why Stakeholders’ Power Relationships Matter

Many hope that the ecosystem services framework will provide a new and generous source of conservation funding. Heather Tallis and Peter Kareiva (2005) write that “realization of the market worth of ecosystem services has the potential to increase conservation funding by orders of magnitude”. This enthusiasm has sparked an impressive volume of work within the ecosystem service framework (Turner and Daily, 2008). Fisher and co-authors (2009) document an exponential increase in the number of published papers employing the terms “ecosystem services” or “ecological services”, beginning from essentially none in the early 1980s to more than 250 in 2007, the last year for which they have data. Some rough idea of the currency of the term can be gleaned from the fact that entering “ecosystem services” in the Google search engine returns about 4.7 million entries.2 The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), a multi-year, multi-million dollar international undertaking involving over 1,300 scientists from around the world was conducted to assess the consequences of ecosystem change, and consequent alterations in the flow of ecosystem services, for human well-being (MA, 2005). This work may continue under a recently proposed “intergovernmental platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services” (IPBES), modeled on the Nobel-prize-winning Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In November 2008 representatives of 78 nations and 25 international NGOs met to consider establishment of an IPBES (UNEP, 2008a). At the meeting a “program of work and budget” of approximately $18.4 million was presented (although not yet adopted) (UNEP, 2008b). Organizations around the world are adopting an ecosystem services approach to ecological decision-making. Yet the elements of that approach are not as settled as its widespread adoption might make it appear. One often encounters passages such as the following: “Although the societal benefits of native ecosystems are clearly immense, they remain largely unquantified for all but a few services” (Ricketts et al., 2004, emphasis added; see also Kareiva and Ruffo, 2009; Daily et al., 2009). But if benefits are “largely unquantified”, what is the basis for concluding that they are “clearly immense”? Is there really much evidence supporting the contention that the services supplied by natural ecosystems are of great value and that they are being squandered by unwise land-use decisions? In this chapter I suggest that evidence to that effect remains sparse. This is so for several reasons, and I will consider them in turn. The first is that many contributions to the literature on ecosystem service values would appear to be intended to motivate research on ecosystem services rather than to document the findings of such research. There are certainly numerous, and in many instances eloquent, statements of the hypothesis that natural ecosystems provide valuable services, but fewer careful tests of that hypothesis. In some studies the interpretation of evidence concerning ecosystem service values is problematic. It is worth underscoring that evidence of ecosystem service values will only motivate different conservation decisions if such values outweigh costs. It is not sufficient simply to note that there is some value to conserving what is already in place without comparing that value to other possibilities. Closely related to the above observation is the economic truism that “value is determined on the margin”. The relevant concern is typically not that biodiversity or ecosystem services will perish in their entirety. Any monetary estimate of such a calamity would necessarily be, to borrow Michael Toman’s (1998) characterization, a “serious underestimate of infinity”. The relevant policy question, then, is whether preserving specific components of ecosystems provides benefits in excess of those that would arise from their forgone uses. If ecosystem services are not assigned their true value in land-use decisionmaking, it is because such services are public goods; that is, they are benefits which, when supplied by one person are necessarily accessible to many. Yet the more compact the scale on which such public goods are provided – the fewer members of the “public” who benefit from their provision – the less likely it is that ecosystem services will be underprovided. Consequently, we should be most concerned about the provision of ecosystem services whose benefits are very widely dispersed. This observation, in turn, leads to a couple of other issues. First, there is what I call below a “paradox of valuation”. The things we would most like to be able to place an economic value on are those public goods whose benefits are themost widely dispersed. But these are precisely the goods whose value is most difficult to estimate. Second, the most compelling argument for conserving relatively pristine ecosystems may prove to be that they provide the global public goods of carbon sequestration and biodiversity protection. If this is, in fact, the most important argument for conservation, however, the ecosystem service framework does not appear to be adding much new to the debate on conservation policy. This last observation poses the main question motivating this chapter. How does adopting the ecosystem service framework alter the ways in which we think about conservation policy? If the point is simply that we ought to regard natural ecosystems as assets that provide value to society and should, therefore, compete with alternative land uses as we make choices about how to allocate the earth’s surface among our wants and needs, the argument is unexceptionable. It is also not novel, however. Underscoring such a fundamental principle is useful, but it alone cannot account for current enthusiasm for the ecosystem service framework. That enthusiasm derives, rather, from the sense that the ecosystem service framework has already demonstrated, or can soon be expected to demonstrate, the general economic superiority of conservation to alternative land uses. Most of the remainder of this chapter is devoted to considering and, generally, rebutting these assertions. As these are controversial points, I should hasten to point out a handful of caveats. I most certainly do not dispute that the services of natural ecosystems are valuable to humanity. Nor do I dispute that the services of some such ecosystems are more valuable than are any alternative uses that might be made of the areas they occupy. Consequently, there are surely instances in which land use could be made more rational and, generally, socially beneficial by undertaking public policy to preserve natural habitats. What has not been satisfactorily established is the generality of such propositions. In the body of this chapter I pursue two major themes. The first is that many well-known tracts on ecosystem services do not, in fact, make a general and compelling case for their economic value. The second is that there is a good reason for the first observation: valuing ecosystem services is an extraordinarily difficult undertaking. In the final section of the chapter I return to my main question in light of these observations. What does an ecosystem service framework imply for conservation policy, and does adopting it move the debate forward?

Research that connects the effects of urbanization on biodiversity and ecosystem services is lacking. Ants perform multifarious ecological functions that stabilize ecosystems and contribute to a number of ecosystem services. We studied responses of ant communities to urbanization in the Lake Tahoe basin by sampling sites along a gradient of urban land development. We sampled ant communities, measured vegetation characteristics, quantified human activities, and evaluated ant-community responses by grouping ants into service-providing units (SPUs), defined as a group of organisms and their populations that perform specific ecosystem services, to provide an understanding of urbanization impacts on biodiversity and their delivery of ecosystem services. Species richness and abundance peaked at intermediate levels of urban development, as did the richness of 3 types of ant SPUs (aerators, decomposers, and compilers). With increasing land development aerator and decomposer ants significantly declined in abundance, whereas compiler ants significantly increased in abundance. Competing models demonstrated that precipitation was frequently among the strongest influences on ant community structure; however, urban development and human activities also had a strong, negative influence on ants, appearing in most models with DeltaAIC(c) < 2 for species richness and abundance patterns of SPUs and generalists. Response diversity was observed within SPUs, which suggests that the corresponding ecosystem services were maintained until development reached 30-40%. Our data provide evidence that ecosystem functions, such as water infiltration and soil productivity, may be diminished at sites subject to greater levels of urbanization and that conserving ant communities and the ecosystem services they provide could be an important target in land-use planning and conservation efforts.

Environmental risks give urgency to the need to understand the society–nature relationship. While the ecosystem services (ES) framework allows analysis of interrelationships between biophysical supply and human demand for natural resources, further research is needed to understand what drives societal demand for ES. Here, I explore how incorporation of the key sociological theories of risk (systems theory, ‘world risk society’, and cultural theory of risk) can advance this understanding. By examining these theories, the following key insights were identified: (1) A deeper understanding of societal structures and risk perception helps to understand culturally driven patterns of ES demand; (2) sociological ES research must use inter- and transdisciplinary methods to understand the drivers of ES demand and risk perception. It must also link this understanding to the natural sciences’ knowledge of the drivers of ES supply if it is to identify new instruments of environmental governance; (3) while anthropocentric in character, the ES framework, especially one that is modified by the concept of risk, enables society to reflect on its role as a proactive part of a social–ecological system, rather than a passive victim of nature’s whims. This change in perspective may prove to be a key step in achieving sustainable development.

Land‐use change is known to affect biodiversity, and there is increasing concern regarding how these changes may impact the provision of ecosystem services. Although functional composition (diversity and identity) could influence ecosystem properties and services at the community level, there is little quantitative understanding of these relationships in the field. Here, we evaluate the direct and indirect effects (through ecosystem properties) of biodiversity on the provision of multiple ecosystem services in native mixed forest in north‐west Patagonia, and how land‐use intensity influences these relationships. We used structural equation modelling to test hypotheses regarding the relationship between understorey plant functional composition, two ecosystem properties, four ecosystem services and silvopastoral use intensity (SUI). We also evaluated two alternative models to assess the mechanism behind biodiversity and ecosystem properties relationships (biomass ratio and niche complementarity). Finally, we performed pairwise correlations to identify synergies and trade‐offs between ecosystem services. SUI affected functional composition, and the provision of three out of four ecosystem services was indirectly affected by land‐use intensity through changes in ecosystem properties. We found that this indirect effect of biodiversity on ecosystem services happens mainly through changes in functional identity rather than functional diversity. Under increasing land‐use intensity, functional composition changed towards a community characterized by a resource acquisition strategy. Trade‐offs between ecosystem services (provisioning vs. regulating) were enhanced under high SUI, while synergies where enhanced under low SUI (provisioning vs. cultural). Thus, although the strength of these relationships varied between SUI, its nature (trade‐off or synergy) stayed the same. Our results expand on previous studies by simultaneously considering the effect of land‐use intensification directly on functional composition and on the ecosystem processes underpinning ecosystem services, as well as on the relationship among them. We provide evidence of an indirect effect of land‐use intensification on multiple ecosystem services through biodiversity. Moreover, we found that functional identity is more important than diversity for ecosystem functionality. Land‐use intensification affects biodiversity, and thus, ecosystem properties, but does not change the relationship among ecosystem services. A plain language summary is available for this article.

Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services

Ecosystem services has been widely explored in various theoretical or practical studies since its emergence more than 20 years ago. The two big issues in the past golden era of ecosystem services research were: ecosystem services valuing and ecosystem services trade-offs. We analyzed advantages of ecosystem services in promoting the attention that government and the public pay to the natural capital and the management of ecosystem services, together with summarizing the shortcomings. It was found that ecosystem services valuing made the public aware of the importance of natural capital from an economic perspective, while ecosystem services trade-offs highlighted the relationship between various ecosystem services from an ecological perspective, which could be better applied to ecosystem services-based ecosystem management. With an increasing number of papers focusing on ecosystem services flows, it is believed that ecosystem services flows integrating ecology, economy, sociology and geography disciplines will become a new key direction after ecosystem services valuing and trade-offs. To further promote the study of ecosystem services flows that link human and nature within geographical context, we need to focus on the value of ecosystem services flows with payment and benefit accounting, the relationship of ecosystem services flows by trade-off and synergy analysis, and the direction of ecosystem services flows by spatial and temporal assessment. In addition, a more efficient and widely recognized method is also essential for the development of quantifying ecosystem services flow. This study contributes to understanding the development stage of ecosystem services research and highlights the importance of ecosystem services flow research.

Ecosystems supply goods and services to humans and are the basis for sustainable development of human society. The study of the supply of ecosystem services and the demand and consumption of ecosystem services by human society, and the analysis of the supply and demand characteristics and flow relationships of ecosystem service flows are of great significance for the management of regional ecosystems and the development of ecological compensation. Taking the Yangtze River Economic Belt as an example, this paper calculates the supply and demand indices of ecosystem services in 2015 and 2020, and determines the ecosystem spatial flow paths and flow volumes from the ecosystem supply area to the demand area based on various methods and models such as the minimum cumulative resistance (MCR) model and distance decay model. The results indicate that 1). In 2015 and 2020, the supply and demand of ecosystem services in the Yangtze River Economic Zone show an increasing trend numerically, and there is spatial heterogeneity in the spatial distribution. In terms of ecosystem service supply per unit area, the midstream region is higher than the upstream and downstream regions. In terms of the demand for ecosystem services per unit area, the downstream is higher than the midstream and upstream. 2). From the supply-demand balance of ecosystem services in the Yangtze River Economic Zone, the midstream region is mainly the area of surplus supply of ecosystem services, and the downstream region is mainly the area of deficit supply. From 2015 to 2020, the number of areas with balanced supply and demand of ecosystem services in the Yangtze River Economic Belt decreases and the number of areas with unbalanced supply and demand increases, which is related to the changes in the level of economic development and land use patterns. 3). The flow of ecosystem services in the Yangtze River Economic Belt shows an increasing trend, from 726.59 billion yuan in 2015 to 1,450.54 billion yuan in 2020, with Jiangxi Province being the main ecosystem service supply area and Zhejiang Province being the main ecosystem service demand area in the Yangtze River Economic Belt.

In this chapter, we propose a framework of analysis based on the ecosystem service cascade model, to describe and explore the distribution mechanisms of ecosystem services (ES) and their benefits and to inquire into the processes of co-production, capture and access to benefits. As a case study, we selected the Magallanes region in the southern Chilean Patagonia. We mapped five ES: sense of place, food from aquaculture, recreational opportunities, food from artisanal fisheries, and education and knowledge opportunities. For each ES, we determined the number and location of direct and indirect beneficiaries using the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS). Each ES showed a distinctive pattern of supply distribution, and most of the marine space presented low to very low values in all indicators. The areas where ES indicators increased corresponded to small areas and did not necessarily overlap, suggesting few spatial positive and negative synergies between ES. This dispersed distribution of the ES did not coincide with the highly concentrated locations of direct and indirect beneficiaries in the four cities of the region. Moreover, a large part of the ES supply were captured by foreign entities, either by foreign companies in the case of food from artisanal fisheries and aquaculture or by extra-regional beneficiaries in the case of recreation and education and knowledge opportunities. The analysis of co-production and access mechanisms evidences that past policies have favored a pattern where the regional population is deprived of accessing the direct benefits of these ES through consumption, enjoyment, or learning. Instead, the benefits that they receive are restricted to employment (sometimes low-quality employment such as at fish processing plants) and income. A better distribution of benefits requires deep transformations of preceding policies and institutions, which not only defined the concentration of people in certain territories but also defined the access mechanisms and power relations that determine who access ES benefits and who does not.

ContextLandscape planning to optimize ecosystem service (ES) provision requires an integrated understanding of different components of a provision chain (supply, demand, flow). However, the effects of landscape structure on ES flows remain poorly understood.ObjectivesThe objective is to assess how ES flows quantitatively respond to landscape structure.MethodsWe proposed a framework that emphasizes ES flows from supply to demand and then applied it to China’s Three-River Headwaters (TRH). A structural equation model was developed to reveal the mechanisms linking landscape changes to ES flows under environmental constraints.ResultsWe found an increasing trend for the water and soil retention services flowing out of the TRH during 2000 – 2020. The ES flows reached the maximum at a threshold with approximately equal areas for the supply and demand, but showed index-dependent variations with landscape structure. Specifically, ES flows increased with declined fragmentation and heterogeneity, and with enhanced connectivity of patches. The effects of precipitation and vegetation cover on ES flows were moderated by the variations in landscape structure.ConclusionsOur study highlights the role played by the dynamics of supply and demand areas and their spatial arrangement in modulating ES flows. This framework could inform landscape planning to sustain ES provision and facilitate transboundary management.

In urban areas, estimating the effect of land cover (LC) data spatial resolution on ecosystem services (ES) mapping remains a challenge. In particular, mapping spatial flows of ES, from greenspaces to beneficiaries, may be more sensitive to LC data resolution than mapping potential supply or demand separately. Our objectives were to compare the sensitivity of global- and local-flow ES maps to LC data resolution, and to assess the effect of LC data resolution within different types of urban land uses. A case study was conducted in the city of Laval, Canada. Carbon storage (a global-flow ES), urban cooling and pollination (two local-flow ES) were mapped using LC data aggregated from 1 to 15 m. Results were analyzed for districts (comprising various types of urban land uses), and for 480 x 480 m residential and commercial zones. Greenspace cover was generally underestimated at coarser spatial resolutions; as a result, so were ES potential supply and flow. For urban cooling and pollination, the effect of LC data spatial resolution on ES flow also depended on changes in the spatial configuration of ES potential supply relative to ES demand. The magnitude of the effect differed among land use types. However, the effect was also highly variable between similar landscapes, suggesting that it is very sensitive to LC structure. To adequately map the ES provided by the small greenspaces scattered throughout the urban matrix, using land cover data with a spatial resolution of 5 m or finer is recommended, especially for local-flow ES.

SummaryEcosystems have a critical role in regulating climate, and soil, water and air quality, but management to change an ecosystem process in support of one regulating ecosystem service can either provide co‐benefits to other services or can result in trade‐offs.We examine the role of ecosystems in delivering these regulating ecosystem services, using theUKas our case study region. We identify some of the main co‐benefits and trade‐offs of ecosystem management within, and across, the regulating services of climate regulation, and soil, water and air quality regulation, and where relevant, we also describe interactions with other ecosystem services. Our analysis clearly identifies the many important linkages between these different ecosystem services.However, soil, water and air quality regulation are often governed by different legislation or are under the jurisdiction of different regulators, which can make optimal management difficult to identify and to implement. Policies and legislation addressing air, water and soil are sometimes disconnected, with no integrated overview of how these policies interact. This can lead to conflicting messages regarding the use and management of soil, water and air. Similarly, climate change legislation is separate from that aiming to protect and enhance soil, water and air quality, leading to further potential for policy conflict.All regulating services, even if they are synergistic, may trade off against other ecosystem services. At a policy level, this may well be the biggest conflict. The fact that even individual regulating services comprise multiple and contrasting indicators (e.g. the various components of water quality such as nutrient levels, acidity, pathogens and sediments), adds to the complexity of the challenge.Synthesis and applications. We conclude that although there are some good examples of integrated ecosystem management, some aspects of ecosystem management could be better coordinated to deliver multiple ecosystem services, and that an ecosystem services framework to assess co‐benefits and trade‐offs would help regulators, policy‐makers and ecosystem managers to deliver more coherent ecosystem management strategies. In this way, an ecosystem services framework may improve the regulation of climate, and soil, water and air quality, even in the absence of economic valuation of the individual services.

Accurate assessment of ecosystem service (ES) supply, demand, and flow is essential for identifying and enhancing the ES supply-demand relationship and promoting regional sustainable development. Based on the InVEST model, supply-demand ratio, coupling coordination analysis, breakpoint and field strength model, and GIS spatial analysis method, we evaluated the supply and demand of water yield, food supply, carbon storage, and soil conservation service in the Loess Plateau in 2000 and 2020 and analyzed the supply-demand relationship before and after considering the interregional ecosystem service flow (ESF). The results showed that (1) from 2000 to 2020, the supply and demand of the four types of ESs in the Loess Plateau increased. Before considering ESF, the surplus degree in water yield, food supply, and soil conservation increased, and carbon storage decreased. In most counties, the coupling coordination between the supply and demand of the soil conservation is mostly extreme incoordination and moderate incoordination, and other types of ESs are mostly reluctant coordination and moderate incoordination. The degree of incoordination in water yield and soil conservation have eased, while food supply and carbon storage have strengthened. For the comprehensive supply-demand relationship of ES, the degree of surplus and coordination increased, with most counties were in a state of surplus and coordination. (2) Water yield and soil conservation services flow primarily to the western and northwestern portions of the Loess Plateau, with a decrease in the number of flow paths but an increase in the total flow rate for the former and a decrease in flow paths and total flow rate for the latter. The food supply and carbon storage flow in all directions and the total flow rate increases, with a significant increase in the number of flow paths for carbon storage. (3) After considering ESF, the supply-demand relationship of each type of ES and the comprehensive ES supply-demand relationship are changed, in which the degree of surplus and coordination of deficit counties are significantly improved, and some counties even become surplus or improve the level of coordination. After considering ESF, the supply-demand ratio changes even more relative to the degree of coupling coordination. This study is of great significance for identifying the cross-regional transfer pattern of ES, understanding in-depth the dynamic supply-demand relationship of ES, and mitigating the mismatch between supply and demand of ES. It provides a scientific and objective theoretical basis for promoting regional sustainable development.

Mangrove forests are broadly recognized to support a variety of ecosystem services on coastal margins worldwide. These services may significantly contribute to the wellbeing of millions of people, but there is limited information about their importance in the Global South. This study mapped for the first time the flow of ecosystem services in Brazilian Amazon mangroves, which represent over 700,000 ha of mangroves in the country. We also identified the spatial changes in the flow of services across coastal landscapes, including urban, agricultural upland areas and coastal natural protected areas. Our matrix model indicated that mangroves, waterbodies, sandflats and mudflats are critical to the flow of multiple ecosystem services, including provisioning (fish, mariculture), cultural (historical and intrinsic value, research, and education), and regulation (climate, flood control, nursery, and breeding grounds). Social economic context, occupation, education, and residence time are important factors influencing villagers to identify the flow of ecosystem services, which could be compared across other coastal marine reserves in South America that have similar management of natural resources. Adjacent coastal upland habitats such as forests and croplands are important to support many provisioning ecosystem services to coastal villagers that would otherwise be obtained from mangroves, suggesting that protecting these connected habitats and supporting small-scale agriculture may help to avoid deforestation of mangrove forests. As over 80% of the mangroves in the country are managed as extractive reserves and may support communities with comparable socio-economic characteristics, we provide a foundation for the development and replication of ecosystem services assessments in Brazilian mangroves, which cover an area of over 1 million hectares. Our work highlights the importance of mangrove forests in providing food, and cultural services and to increase local climate resilience of coastal villages in the Amazon coast.

Mapping ecosystem services: The supply and demand of flood regulation services in Europe

Arctic ecosystems are undergoing unprecedented environmental and societal change, driven by accelerated climate warming and expanding human activities. These transformations alter key ecological processes, reshape biodiversity, and directly affect the well-being, food security, and cultural heritage of Arctic Indigenous peoples and local communities. Despite the growing urgency of these changes, the ecosystem services (ES) concept (now widely used in biodiversity conservation, land-use planning, and policy-making elsewhere) remains underdeveloped and underutilized in the Arctic. Only a small fraction of global ES assessments explicitly address Arctic systems, reflecting both conceptual misconceptions and structural barriers to uptake.We argue that an appropriately adapted ES framework can provide an essential bridge between science, policy, and Indigenous and local priorities in the North. We identify three overarching reasons for the limited use of ES in the region: persistent misunderstandings of ES as primarily monetary valuation; fragmented, multi-level Arctic governance that limits coordinated policy integration; and existing ES frameworks that inadequately represent Arctic socio-ecological realities. Climate-driven ecological transitions, strong seasonal dynamics, and culturally embedded relationships with the land, all call for Arctic-specific approaches to ES assessment.Building on the well-established MAES framework, we propose a revised, Arctic-tailored approach that embeds Indigenous and Traditional Knowledge throughout the assessment process, adapts ES classifications to reflect Arctic-specific values and ecosystem functions, and incorporates seasonality and rapid ecological change. We also highlight opportunities for improving governance uptake, including the potential of Arctic Council bodies such as CAFF and AMAP to support co-developed ES initiatives, enhanced collaboration with Indigenous rights-holders, and greater visibility of Arctic ES in science-policy platforms such as IPBES, as well as in international statistical and accounting frameworks like the SEEA-EA. Integrating an ES lens into Arctic biodiversity research and decision-making is both timely and necessary, and a co-developed, context-aware ES framework can support more inclusive dialogues at the science–policy–decision-making interface, strengthen intercultural understanding, and contribute to more sustainable actions in a rapidly changing Arctic.