Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

25 years of valuing ecosystems in decision-making

The economic value that the world’s ecosystems provide was first estimated in 1997, eliciting a wide range of reactions. How have such valuations advanced since then, and what are today’s frontiers in using these values for decision-making?
  1. Gretchen C. Daily

    1. Gretchen C. Daily is at the Natural Capital Project in the Department of Biology, Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research, Stanford Center for China’s Economy and Institutions, and the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

  2. Mary Ruckelshaus

    1. Mary Ruckelshaus is at the Natural Capital Project in the Department of Biology, Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research, Stanford Center for China’s Economy and Institutions, and the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

A quarter of a century ago, Costanza et al.1 put forward an estimate for the economic value of global ecosystem services — the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. The authors valued these at US$33 trillion per year. Objections to the exercise were raised on many grounds, from those involving technical matters to ethical concerns about pricing nature. And its utility was questioned, drawing comments2 such as, “there is little that can usefully be done with a serious underestimate of infinity.” Yet Costanza and colleagues’ bigger aim went far beyond merely producing a number. They wanted to reframe the way people think about nature, especially in the context of economic decision-making. As they stated in the paper, “We must begin to give the natural capital stock that produces these services adequate weight in the decision-making process, otherwise ... human welfare may drastically suffer.”

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 606, 465-466 (2022)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01480-x

Updates & Corrections

  • Correction 30 August 2023: This article incorrectly stated the year that the United Nations approved the System of Environmental–Economic Accounting framework for global deployment. It was approved in 2021, not 2012. The article has been updated to reflect this.

References

  1. Costanza, R. et al. Nature 387, 253–260 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Toman, M. Ecol. Econom. 25, 57–60 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barbier, E. B., Burgess, J. C. & Folke, C. (eds) Paradise Lost? The Ecological Economics of Biodiversity (Routledge, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Daily, G. C. (ed.) Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (Island, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Watson, R. T. et al. (eds) Global Biodiversity Assessment: Summary for Policy-Makers (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Reid, W. V. et al. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis (A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (Island, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chichilnisky, G. & Heal, G. Nature 391, 629–630 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Umaña Quesada, A. in Green Growth That Works: Natural Capital Policy and Finance Mechanisms from Around the World (eds Mandle, L. et al.) Ch. 13, 195–212 (Island, 2019).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ouyang, Z. et al. in Green Growth That Works: Natural Capital Policy and Finance Mechanisms from Around the World (eds Mandle, L. et al.) Ch. 12, 177–194 (Island, 2019).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Salzman, J., Bennett, G., Carroll, N., Goldstein, A. & Jenkins, M. Nature Sustain. 1, 136–144 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Summary for Policymakers (eds Díaz, S. et al.) (IPBES, 2019).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chaplin-Kramer, R. et al. Science 366, 255–258 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hamel, P. et al. npj Nature Urban Sustain. 1, 25 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mandle, L., Ouyang, Z., Salzman, J. & Daily, G. C. (eds) Green Growth That Works: Natural Capital Policy and Finance Mechanisms from Around the World (Island, 2019).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dasgupta, P. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. Abridged Version (HM Treasury, 2021).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Arkema, K. K. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7390–7395 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ouyang, Z. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 14593–14601 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Subjects

Latest on:

Nature Careers

Jobs

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing

Search

Advanced search

Quick links