The ecosystem service (ES) community aspires to illuminate how nature contributes to human well-being, and thereby elevate consideration of nature in decision making. So far, however, policy impact of ES research has been limited. To understand why, we identify five key elements of ES research that help inform decisions by connecting the supply of ES to those who benefit from them. Our structured review of the ES literature reveals that only 13% of assessments included the full ES chain from place to value. Only 7% of assessments considered the distribution of ES benefits explicitly across demographic or other beneficiary groups (for example, private landowners versus the broader public), although disaggregation across regions or spatial units was more common (44%). Finally, crucial mediating factors that affect who benefits and how (for example, the vulnerability of beneficiaries or the availability of substitutes for ES) were considered in only 35% of assessments. Our results suggest that increasing the decision relevance of ES research requires more effectively predicting the impacts of specific decisions on the value and distribution of ES across beneficiary groups. Such efforts will need to integrate ecological models with socioeconomic and cultural dimensions of ES more closely than does the current ES literature.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
IPBES Summary for Policymakers. In Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Díaz, S. et al.) (IPBES Secretariat, 2019).
Schaefer, M., Goldman, E., Bartuska, A. M., Sutton-Grier, A. & Lubchenco, J. Nature as capital: advancing and incorporating ecosystem services in United States federal policies and programs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7383–7389 (2015).
Mastrángelo, M. E. et al. Key knowledge gaps to achieve global sustainability goals. Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0412-1 (2019).
Olander, L. et al. So you want your research to be relevant? Building the bridge between ecosystem services research and practice. Ecosyst. Serv. 26, 170–182 (2017).
Polasky, S., Tallis, H. & Reyers, B. Setting the bar: standards for ecosystem services. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406490112 (2015).
Rieb, J. et al. When, where and how nature matters for ecosystem services: challenges for the next generation of ecosystem service models. BioScience 67, 820–833 (2017).
Natural Capital Protocol (Natural Capital Coalition, 2016).
Mandle, L., Ouyang, Z., Salzman, J. & Daily, G. C. Green Growth that Works: Natural Capital Policy and Finance Mechanisms from the World (Island Press, 2019).
Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015).
Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people: recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments. Science 359, 270–272 (2018).
Arkema, K. K. et al. Embedding ecosystem services in coastal planning leads to better outcomes for people and nature. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7390–7395 (2015).
Van Wensem, J. et al. Identifying and assessing the application of ecosystem services approaches in environmental policies and decision making. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 13, 41–51 (2017).
Ricketts, T. H. & Lonsdorf, E. Mapping the margin: comparing marginal values of tropical forest remnants for pollination services. Ecol. Appl. 23, 1113–1123 (2013).
Mandle, L., Tallis, H., Sotomayor, L. & Vogl, A. L. Who loses? Tracking ecosystem service redistribution from road development and mitigation in the Peruvian Amazon. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13, 309–315 (2015).
Wieland, R., Ravensbergen, S., Gregr, E. J., Satterfield, T. & Chan, K. M. A. Debunking trickle-down ecosystem services: the fallacy of omnipotent, homogeneous beneficiaries. Ecol. Econ. 121, 175–180 (2016).
Polasky, S. & Segerson, K. Integrating ecology and economics in the study of ecosystem services: some lessons learned. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 1, 409–434 (2009).
Keeler, B. L. et al. Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 18619–18624 (2012).
Vogl, A. L. et al. Valuing investments in sustainable land management in the Upper Tana River basin, Kenya. J. Environ. Manag. 195, 78–91 (2017).
Arkema, K., Guannel, G. & Verutes, G. Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 913–918 (2013).
Plummer, M. L. Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 38–45 (2009).
Tallis, H., Polasky, S., Lozano, J. S. & Wolny, S. in Inclusive Wealth Report 2012: Measuring Progress Toward Sustainability 195–214 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).
Costanza, R. et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002 (2014).
Granek, E. F. et al. Ecosystem services as a common language for coastal ecosystem-based management. Conserv. Biol. 24, 207–216 (2010).
Ruckelshaus, M. et al. Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol. Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009 (2013).
Ellis, A. M., Myers, S. S. & Ricketts, T. H. Do pollinators contribute to nutritional health? PLoS ONE 10, e114805 (2015).
Olsson, P., Folke, C. & Hughes, T. P. Navigating the Transition to Ecosystem-Based Management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 9489–9494 (2008).
Costanza, R. et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260 (1997).
SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting Revision (System of Environmental Economic Accounting, 2020); https://go.nature.com/2sqGqFn
Aburto-Oropeza, O. et al. Mangroves in the Gulf of California increase fishery yields. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804601105 (2008).
Keeler, B. L. et al. The social costs of nitrogen. Sci. Adv. 2, e1600219 (2016).
Kenter, J. O. et al. What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecol. Econ. 111, 86–99 (2015).
Pascual, U. et al. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 7–16 (2017).
Samberg, L. H., Gerber, J. S., Ramankutty, N., Herrero, M. & West, P. C. Subnational distribution of average farm size and smallholder contributions to global food production. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 124010 (2016).
Jean, N. et al. Combining satellite imagery and machine learning to predict poverty. Science 353, 790–794 (2016).
Wolff, S., Schulp, C. J. E. & Verburg, P. H. Mapping ecosystem services demand: a review of current research and future perspectives. Ecol. Indic. 55, 159–171 (2015).
Dawson, N. & Martin, A. Assessing the contribution of ecosystem services to human wellbeing: a disaggregated study in western Rwanda. Ecol. Econ. 117, 62–72 (2015).
Daw, T., Brown, K., Rosendo, S. & Pomeroy, R. Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ. Conserv. 38, 370–379 (2011).
Ruhl, J. B. & Salzman, J. The effects of wetland mitigation banking on people. Natl Wetl. Newsl. 28, 7–13 (2006).
Kabisch, N. & Haase, D. Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landsc. Urban Plan. 122, 129–139 (2014).
Farley, K. A. & Bremer, L. L. ‘Water Is Life’: local perceptions of páramo grasslands and land management strategies associated with payment for ecosystem services. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 107, 371–381 (2017).
Pascual, U. et al. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience 64, 1027–1036 (2014).
Mastrangelo, M. E. & Laterra, P. From biophysical to social-ecological trade-offs: integrating biodiversity conservation and agricultural production in the Argentine Dry Chaco. Ecol. Soc. 20, 20 (2015).
Guerry, A. D. et al. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to practice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7348–7355 (2015).
Rieb, J. T. et al. When, where, and how nature matters for ecosystem services: challenges for the next generation of ecosystem service models. BioScience 67, 820–833 (2017).
Villa, F., Bagstad, K. J., Voigt, B., Johnson, G. W. & Portela, R. A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PLoS ONE 9, e91001 (2014).
Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359, 270–272 (2018).
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment (Island Press, 2003).
Fleiss, J. L. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol. Bull. 76, 378–382 (1971).
Gamer, M., Lemon, J., Fellows, I. & Singh, P. irr: Various Coefficients of Interrater Reliability and Agreement (2012).
Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–174 (1977).
Tallis, H. et al. A global system for monitoring ecosystem service change. BioScience 62, 977–986 (2012).
Daily, G. C. et al. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 21–28 (2009).
This research was supported in part by the Scenarios Society and Solutions Research Coordination Network (grant no. NSF-DEB-13-38809), the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (430-2014-00861) and the Natural Capital Project–Stanford. We thank W. Bierbower for help with scripts for randomly selecting and downloading papers. We are grateful to E. Bennett, D. Guswa, K. Watson and the many Natural Capital Project members who provided helpful suggestions and feedback along the way.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Mandle, L., Shields-Estrada, A., Chaplin-Kramer, R. et al. Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science. Nat Sustain 4, 161–169 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00625-y
Exploring the Use of Ecosystem Services Conceptual Models to Account for the Benefits of Public Lands: An Example from National Forest Planning in the United States
The Extractive Industries and Society (2021)