Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

Ecosystem accounts define explicit and spatial trade-offs for managing natural resources


Decisions about natural resource management are frequently complex and vexed, often leading to public policy compromises. Discord between environmental and economic metrics creates problems in assessing trade-offs between different current or potential resource uses. Ecosystem accounts, which quantify ecosystems and their benefits for human well-being consistent with national economic accounts, provide exciting opportunities to contribute significantly to the policy process. We advanced the application of ecosystem accounts in a regional case study by explicitly and spatially linking impacts of human and natural activities on ecosystem assets and services to their associated industries. This demonstrated contributions of ecosystems beyond the traditional national accounts. Our results revealed that native forests would provide greater benefits from their ecosystem services of carbon sequestration, water yield, habitat provisioning and recreational amenity if harvesting for timber production ceased, thus allowing forests to continue growing to older ages.

Fig. 1: The environmental–economic system showing the stocks and flows of natural resources.
Fig. 2: Landscape context of ecosystem assets and services.
Fig. 3: Value of ecosystem services and IVA generated in the Central Highlands.
Fig. 4: Value of ecosystem services and IVA (2013–2014) and the potential changes if native forest harvesting ceased.
Fig. 5: Spatial distribution of the interaction index of ecosystem service values.


  1. 1.

    Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Merchants of Doubt (Bloomsbury Press, New York, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Pielke, R. S. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Saner, M. A. & Bordt, M. Building the consensus: the moral space of earth measurement. Ecol. Econ. 130, 74–81 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015);

  5. 5.

    System of Environmental–Economic Accounting 2012: Central Framework (United Nations, 2014);

  6. 6.

    System of Environmental–Economic Accounting 2012: Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (United Nations, 2014);

  7. 7.

    System of National Accounts 2008 (United Nations, 2009);

  8. 8.

    Repetto, R. Wasting assets: the need for national resource accounting. Tech. Rev. 93, 38–45 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ouyang, Z. et al. Improvements in ecosystems services from investments in natural capital. Science 352, 1455–1459 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Vardon, M., Burnett, P. & Dovers, S. The accounting push and pull: balancing environment and economic decisions. Ecol. Econ. 124, 145–155 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Ruckelshaus, M. et al. Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol. Econ. 115, 11–21 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L. & Willemen, L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7, 260–272 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Costanza, R. et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260 (1997).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Daily, G. C. et al. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Ecosys. Serv. 7, 21–28 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Ma, S. et al. Valuation of ecosystem services to inform management of multiple-use landscapes. Ecosys. Serv. 19, 6–18 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Bateman, I. et al. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341, 45–50 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Obst, C., Edens, B. & Hein, L. Ecosystem services: accounting standards. Science 342, 420 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Fisher, B., Turner, R. K. & Morling, P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econom. 68, 643–653 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    European Environment Agency CICES: Towards a Common Classification of Ecosystem Services (Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services, 2016);

  20. 20.

    Lindenmayer, D. B. et al. Interacting factors driving a major loss of large trees with cavities in a forest ecosystem. PLoS ONE 7, e41864 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Great Forest National Park: Economic Contribution of Park Establishment, Park Management, and Visitor Expenditure (Nous Group, 2017);

  22. 22.

    Jakobsson, K. M. & Dragun, A. K. The worth of a possum: valuing species with the contingent valuation method. Environ. Res. Econ. 19, 211–227 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Vira, B. & Adams, W. M. Ecosystem services and conservation strategy: beware the silver bullet. Conserv. Lett. 2, 158–162 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Chee, Y. E. An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biol. Conserv. 120, 549–565 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Petz, K., Alkemande, R., Hein, L. & de Groot, R. S. Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. Ecol. Indicators 21, 110–122 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Lindenmayer, D. B. et al. An empirical assessment and comparison of species-based and habitat-based surrogates: a case study of forest vertebrates and large old trees. PLoS ONE 9, e89807 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Ajani, J., Keith, H., Blakers, M., Mackey, B. G. & King, H. P. Comprehensive carbon stock and flow accounting: a national framework to support climate change mitigation policy. Ecol. Econ. 89, 61–72 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Mackey, B. et al. Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 552–557 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Obst, C., Hein, L. & Edens, B. National accounting and the valuation of ecosystem assets and their services. Environ. Res. Econ. 64, 1–23 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Castañeda, J. P., Obst, C., Varela, E., Barrios, J. M. & Narloch, U. Forest Accounting Sourcebook. Policy Applications and Basic Compilation. (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Tol, R. S. J. The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties. Energy Pol. 33, 2064–2074 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide (The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2017);

  33. 33.

    Regional Forest Agreements (Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, 2016);

  34. 34.

    Viggers, J. L., Weaver, H. J. & Lindenmayer, D. B. Melbourne’s Water Catchments Perspectives on a World-Class Water Supply. (CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Keith, H., Mackey, B. G. & Lindenmayer, D. B. Re-evaluation of forest biomass carbon stocks and lessons from the world’s most carbon-dense forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 11635–11640 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Value of Tourism to Victoria’s Regions 2013–14 (Tourism Victoria, 2015);

  37. 37.

    Victorian Land Use Information System 2014/2015 (Government of Victoria, 2015);

  38. 38.

    Guo, S., Wang, J., Xiong, L., Ying, A. & Li, D. A macro-scale and semi-distributed monthly water balance model to predict climate change impacts in China. J. Hydrol. 268, 1–15 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    eMAST R-package 2.0 (TERN, 2016);

  40. 40.

    Feikema, P. M. et al. Hydrolgical Studies into the Impact of Timber Harvesting on Water Yield in State Forests Supplying Water to Melbourne (eWater Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Feikema, P. M., Sherwin, C. B. & Lane, P. N. J. Influence of climate, fire severity and forest mortality on predictions of long term streamflow: potential effect of the 2009 wildfire on Melbourne’s water supply catchments. J. Hydrol. 488, 1–16 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Vertessy, R. A., Watson, F. G. R. & O’Sullivan, S. K. Factors determining relations between stand age and catchment water balance in mountain ash forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 143, 13–26 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Kuczera, G. Prediction of Water Yield Reductions Following a Bushfire in Ash – Mixed Species Eucalypt Forest Report No. MMBW-W-0014 (Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works, 1985).

  44. 44.

    Kuczera, G. Prediction of water yield reductions following a bushfire in ash-mixed species eucalypt forest. J. Hydrol. 94, 215–236 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Vertessy, R. A., Hatton, T. J., Benyon, R. G. & Dawes, W. R. Long-term growth and water balance predictions for a mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans) forest catchment subject to clear-felling and regeneration. Tree Physiol. 16, 221–232 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Watson, F. G. R., Vertessy, R. A. & Grayson, R. B. Large-scale modelling of forest hydrological processes and their long-term effect on water yield. Hydrol. Proc. 13, 689–700 (1999a).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Watson, F., Vertessy, R., McMahon, T., Rhodes, B. & Watson, I. Improved methods to assess water yield changes from paired-catchment studies: application to the Maroondah catchments. For. Ecol. Manage. 143, 189–204 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Lane, P. N. J., Feikema, P. M., Sherwin, C. B., Peel, M. C. & Freebairn, A. C. Modelling the long term water yield impact of wildfire and other forest disturbance in Eucalypt forests. Environ. Mod. Soft. 25, 467–478 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Buckley, T. N., Turnbull, T. L., Pfautsch, S., Gharun, M. & Adams, M. A. Differences in water use between mature and post-fire regrowth stands of subalpine Eucalyptus delegatensis R. Baker. For. Ecol. Manage. 270, 1–10 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Keith, H., Mackey, B. G., Berry, S., Lindenmayer, D. B. & Gibbons, P. Estimating carbon carrying capacity in natural forest ecosystems across heterogeneous landscapes: addressing sources of error. Global Change Biol. 16, 2971–2989 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Land Sector Reporting: Full Carbon Accounting Model (FullCAM) (Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, 2015);

  52. 52.

    Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences Australian Plantation Statistics 2016 (Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra, 2016);

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    2016/17 Forest Management Plan (HVP Plantations, 2016);

  54. 54.

    Varcoe, T., O’Shea, H. B. & Contreras, Z. Valuing Victoria’s Parks: Accounting for Ecosystems and Valuing their Benefits: Report of the First Phase Findings (Parks Victoria & Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Victorian Government, 2015).

  55. 55.

    Lindenmayer, D. B., Cunningham, R. B., Tanton, M. T., Smith, A. P. & Nix, H. A. Characteristics of hollow-bearing trees occupied by arboreal marsupials in the montane ash forests of the Central Highlands of Victoria, south-east Australia. For. Ecol. Manage. 40, 289–308 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Edens, B. & Graveland, C. Experimental valuation of Dutch water resources according to SNA and SEEA. Water Res. Econ. 7, 66–81 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    2008 Waterways Water Plan (Melbourne Water, 2008);

  58. 58.

    Auction – November 2015. Clean Energy Regulator (21 November, 2016);

  59. 59.

    Corporate Reporting: Annual Reports 2007-2015 (VicForests, 2015);

  60. 60.

    5204.0 - Australian System of National Accounts, 2015-16. Table 58 Capital Stock by Industry and Table 65 Consumption of Fixed Capital by Industry by Type of Asset (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017); Disaggregated data for Subdivision 03 Forestry and Logging available on request from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

  61. 61.

    Australian Environmental–Economic Accounts (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014);

  62. 62.

    2010–11: Value of Principal Agricultural Commodities Produced: Australia, Preliminary (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011);$File/75010_2010_11.pdf.

  63. 63.

    Value of Agricultural Commodities Produced, Australia. (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016);

  64. 64.

    An Experimental Ecosystem Account for the Great Barrier Reef Region, 2015 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2015);

  65. 65.

    Australian System of National Accounts (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016); (ABS Cat. No. 5204.0);

  66. 66.

    Annual Report Archive (Melbourne Water, 2000-2015);

  67. 67.

    Sequestration Decision Tree. Emissions Reduction Fund, Opportunities for the Land Sector (Clean Energy Regulator, (2016);

  68. 68.

    Annual Report 2013-2014 (Parks Victoria, State Government of Victoria);

Download references


Support for this project was provided by research funding from Fujitsu Laboratories, Japan, and the National Environmental Science Programme of the Australian Department of the Environment and Energy and is gratefully acknowledged. We thank staff at the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, and VicForests for assistance with access to data and its interpretation. This research was undertaken with the assistance of resources from the Australian Government’s National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy through its Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network programme and the National Computational Infrastructure programme. We thank participants who attended a workshop in Melbourne in August 2016 for constructive feedback on the study, C. Hilliker for expert assistance with graphics and P. Burnett for helpful comments on a draft of the manuscript.

Author information




H.K., M.V. and D.L. designed the study. H.K. and M.V. performed the calculations. J.A.S. performed the spatial analysis. J.L.S. performed the hydrological modelling. The manuscript was written by H.K. with contributions from M.V. and D.L.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heather Keith.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Figures 1–4, Supplementary Tables 1–3, Supplementary Glossary, Supplementary References

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Keith, H., Vardon, M., Stein, J.A. et al. Ecosystem accounts define explicit and spatial trade-offs for managing natural resources. Nat Ecol Evol 1, 1683–1692 (2017).

Download citation


Quick links

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