See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311406617

Ecosystem Services

Chapter · November 2016

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-27288-7_3

CITATIONS READS

24 26,134

33 authors, including:

Patricia Balvanera Sandra Quijas

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México University of Guadalajara
245 PUBLICATIONS 28,534 CITATIONS 64 PUBLICATIONS 1,401 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Daniel Karp Neville Ash

Stanford University UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre
95 PUBLICATIONS 5,237 CITATIONS 25 PUBLICATIONS 4,402 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jordi Honey-Rosés on 29 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 3
Ecosystem Services

Patricia Balvanera, Sandra Quijas, Daniel S. Karp, Neville Ash,

Elena M. Bennett, Roel Boumans, Claire Brown, Kai M.A. Chan,
Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer, Benjamin S. Halpern, Jordi Honey-Rosés,
Choong-Ki Kim, Wolfgang Cramer, Maria José Martínez-Harms,
Harold Mooney, Tuyeni Mwampamba, Jeanne Nel, Stephen Polasky,
Belinda Reyers, Joe Roman, Woody Turner, Robert J. Scholes,
Heather Tallis, Kirsten Thonicke, Ferdinando Villa, Matt Walpole
and Ariane Walz

Abstract Ecosystem services are increasingly incorporated into explicit policy

targets and can be an effective tool for informing decisions about the use and
management of the planet’s resources, especially when trade-offs and synergies
need to be taken into account. The challenge is to find meaningful and robust
indicators to quantify ecosystem services, measure changes in demand and supply
and predict future direction. This chapter addresses the basic requirements for

P. Balvanera (&)
S. Quijas
T. Mwampamba

Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México, AP 27-3, Mexico City, Michoacán, Mexico
e-mail: [email protected]
S. Quijas
e-mail: [email protected]
T. Mwampamba
e-mail: [email protected]
S. Quijas
Centro Universitario de la Costa, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico
D.S. Karp
Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]
N. Ash
Director, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road,
Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK
e-mail: [email protected]
E.M. Bennett
EWR Steacie Fellow, Associate Professor, Natural Resource Sciences and McGill School
of Environment, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2017 39

M. Walters and R.J. Scholes (eds.), The GEO Handbook on Biodiversity
Observation Networks, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-27288-7_3
40 P. Balvanera et al.

collecting such observations and data on ecosystem services. Biodiversity regulates

the ability of the ecosystem to supply ecosystem services, can be directly harvested
to meet people’s material needs, and are valued by societies for its non-tangible
contributions to well-being. Societies are deeply embedded within ecosystems,
depending on and influencing the ecosystem services they produce. The different
types of ecosystem services (provisioning, regulating, and cultural), and their dif-
ferent components (supply, delivery, contribution to well-being, and value) can be
monitored at global to local scales. Different data sources are best suited to account
for different components of ecosystem services and spatial scales and include:

R. Boumans
J. Roman
Afordable Futures, Charlotte, VT, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
J. Roman
e-mail: [email protected]
C. Brown
M. Walpole
Director, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road,
Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK
e-mail: [email protected]
M. Walpole
e-mail: [email protected]
K.M.A. Chan
Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]
R. Chaplin-Kramer
Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
B.S. Halpern
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California Santa
Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
B.S. Halpern
Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
B.S. Halpern
Silwood Park Campus, Imperial College London, Ascot, UK
J. Honey-Rosés
School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]
C.-K. Kim
Environmental Policy Research Group, Korea Environment Institute, Sejong,
Republic of Korea
e-mail: [email protected]
3 Ecosystem Services 41

census data at national scales, remote sensing, field-based estimations, community

monitoring, and models. Data availability, advantages and limitations of each are
discussed. Progress towards monitoring different types of services and gaps are
explored. Ways of exploring synergies and trade-offs among services and stake-
holders, using scenarios to predict future ecosystem services, and including
stakeholders in monitoring ecosystem services are discussed. The need of a network
for monitoring ecosystem services to synergise efforts is stressed. Monitoring
ecosystem services is vital for informing policy (or decision making) to protect
human well-being and the natural systems upon which it relies at different scales.
Using this information in decision making across all scales will be central to our
endeavours to transform to more sustainable and equitable futures.

W. Cramer
Mediterranean Institute for Biodiversity and Ecology, Aix Marseille University,
CNRS, IRD, Avignon University, Aix-en-Provence, France
e-mail: [email protected]
M.J. Martínez-Harms
Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Biological Sciences,
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
H. Mooney
Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
J. Nel
B. Reyers
Director, GRAID programme, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University,
Kräftriket 2B, George, Stockholm, Sweden
e-mail: [email protected]
B. Reyers
e-mail: [email protected]
S. Polasky
Departments of Ecology, Evolution, and Behaviour, University of Minnesota,
St. Paul, MN, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
S. Polasky
Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA
W. Turner
Earth Science Division, NASA Headquarters, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
R.J. Scholes
Global Change and Sustainability Research Institute, University of the Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg, South Africa
e-mail: [email protected]
H. Tallis
The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, CA, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
42 P. Balvanera et al.

Keywords Biodiversity Policy targets Trade-offs National statistics Remote




sensing Field estimations Community monitoring Models

3.1 Introduction

Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems and are
co-produced by the interactions between ecosystems and societies. Since the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005) governments have embedded
ecosystem services and natural capital in explicit policy targets. Globally, for
example, the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD; www.cbd.int)
have committed to ‘enhancing the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem
services’. The CBD Aichi Target 14 is of particular relevance to ecosystem ser-
vices: ‘By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services
related to water, and contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being, are restored
and safeguarded, taking into account the needs of women, indigenous and local
communities, and the poor and vulnerable’. Beyond the conservation sector,
interest in ecosystem services is increasingly aimed at the development of policies
at national and global scales (Griggs et al. 2013). Regionally, the European Union
Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, for example, aimed to halt the degradation of
ecosystem services, and to map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services
in their national territories by 2014 (Maes et al. 2016). This study also aimed to
assess the economic value of such services, and promote the integration of these
values into accounting and reporting systems at EU and national levels by 2020.
Non-EU governments of nations such as Australia, Canada and Mexico are also
incorporating ecosystem services and natural capital into national accounts.
At a national and sub-national scale, ecosystem services can be an effective tool
for informing decisions about the use and management of the planet’s resources,
especially when trade-offs and synergies need to be taken into account. Without this
information, decisions that determine the fate of terrestrial, coastal, and marine
systems and the benefits they provide, are made in the dark, with little under-
standing of the ecosystem services outcomes (benefits and costs) of any given

K. Thonicke
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
F. Villa
Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3); IKERBASQUE, Basque foundation for Science,
Burlington, Bilbao, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Walz
Institute of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
3 Ecosystem Services 43

decision or its consequences for the different stakeholders depending on these

services.
While many observations and datasets are available to measure progress towards
global, regional, and national goals for ecosystem services, and to ensure effective
decision-making for sustainable human use of the planet’s resources (Egoh et al.
2012), their coverage is patchy, incomplete and inconsistent. The challenge is to find
meaningful and robust indicators to quantify ecosystem services, measure changes in
demand and supply and predict future scenarios. At present, most governments are
not effectively measuring or monitoring ecosystem services. This chapter addresses
the basic requirements for collecting information on ecosystem services.

3.2 Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Biodiversity is related to ecosystem services through a variety of mechanisms

operating at different spatial scales (Fig. 3.1) (Mace et al. 2012). Biodiversity
regulates the state, the rates and in many cases the stability of ecosystem processes
fundamental to most ecosystem services (Cardinale et al. 2012). Components of
biodiversity are also directly harvested to meet people’s material needs, and are also
valued by societies for their non-tangible contributions to well-being, for example
to psychological health, people’s identity and the asset it can be for future gener-
ations. Fundamentally, biodiversity provides the evolutionary building blocks of

Biodiversity

Processes Is a provisioning service Is appreciated per se

underpinning services

Individual target species or

How? Biodiversity strongly influences Genes and species are directly
species groups appreciated as
ecosystem funcƟons consumed
such

Soil microorganisms, soil Birds, repƟles, mammals

Insects, repƟles, birds, mammals
invertebrates
Examples of
organisms Plants VegetaƟon
involved Plants
Insects, birds, mammals

Pest regulaƟon IdenƟty

Examples of Wild food, medicine
ecosystem Food and fiber producƟon AestheƟc enjoyment
services Clean water supply and Germplasm and pharmaceuƟcals
AppreciaƟon of wildlife
Flood regulaƟon for future opƟons

Soil ferƟlity regulaƟon

Fig. 3.1 Biodiversity is linked to ecosystem services in three different ways: (i) as a regulator of
the ecosystem functions that lead to the supply of provisioning, regulating or supporting services,
(ii) as a provisioning service, (iii) as something that is appreciated in itself rather than for the
benefits obtained from it. Selected examples are used to illustrate these linkages. Source Modified
from Mace et al. (2012), Reyers et al. (2012)
44 P. Balvanera et al.

life on Earth and therefore provides important adaptive capacity through its con-
tinued ability to support desired ecosystem services and processes in the face of
often rapidly changing selective pressures (Mace et al. 2014).
Due to the complexity of the links between biodiversity and ecosystem services,
as well as the important role played by other non-biophysical inputs into the goods
and benefits we obtain from ecosystems (Díaz et al. 2015), monitoring biodiversity
alone is not sufficient to understand the status and trends of the services it provides.
In fact, monitoring annual changes in the state of ecosystems and determining
trends in ecosystem services, can contribute to our understanding of changes in
biodiversity and inform on the underlying dynamics of the complex interactions
between societies and ecosystems.

3.3 Key Ecosystem Service Concepts

Societies are embedded within ecosystems, depending on and influencing the

ecosystem services they produce. The characteristics of ecosystems, such as species
composition, tree cover or growth conditions, modulate the type and magnitude of
ecosystem services that can flow to societies. Management regimes, technologies,
as well as tenure and access arrangements modulate the ways by which ecosystem
services are produced and benefit societies. In other words, ecosystem services
result from the interactions between ecosystems and societies, which together form
a social-ecological system.
Four types of ecosystem services can be distinguished (MA 2005), though we
focus only on three of them in this chapter. Provisioning services are the goods that
can be extracted and consumed from ecosystems and are often valued in markets:
for example, water, food, wood and biofuels. Regulating services are the benefits
derived from ecosystem processes that modulate the conditions which we experi-
ence: such as the regulation of climate, soil fertility or floods. They seldom have
markets, and must be valued indirectly. Cultural services are the real but not
physical (‘intangible’) benefits that emerge from interactions between humans and
ecosystems (Chan et al. 2012), for instance employment, sense of identity, spiritual
value, aesthetic value and cognitive development. Some cultural services, such as
recreation, do have markets, while others do not. The fourth category, which we do
not elaborate on, is supporting services, the fundamental ecosystem processes such
as photosynthesis, nutrient cycling and evolution, which permit the delivery of the
first three categories, and thus find societal benefit through them.
In order to fully understand ecosystem services, we need to measure and monitor
four different components: supply, delivery, contribution to well-being, and value
(Tallis et al. 2012). Table 3.1 provides a detailed examination of each of these
components across different categories of ecosystem services. The table includes a
definition and some popular metrics or indicators used in the quantification and
assessment of services. This list is not exhaustive since it does not cover all services
or potential indicators, but rather presents a range of different types of services that
have been found to be very relevant to societies.
Table 3.1 Examples of provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services, including descriptions, drivers and potential indicators for each of the four
components of the ecosystem service (supply, delivery, contribution to well-being and value)
Service Description Drivers Ecosystem service component
Supply Delivery Contributions to Economic value
well-being
Provisioning
3 Ecosystem Services

Crops All cultivated Biophysical (e.g. Potential amount Total production of % caloric or Market value of
edible plant climatic, soil), crop of important all commercial micronutrient all commercial
products (e.g. choice (e.g. species, crops crops (t), caloric or intake contributed crops (US$)
maize, wheat, olive, genetic micronutrient by crops, % income
apple) characteristics, content of all or number of jobs
amount of commercial crops contributed by
seed/plant), (g) crops
management (e.g.
fertilizers,
irrigation, labour
and machinery) and
societal (e.g.
agricultural
policies, crop
market price, land
tenure, agricultural
institutional
arrangements)
Fodder All vegetable tissue Similar to that of Amount of Total production of % contribution of Market value of
and grains grown in crops biomass available fodder (t), amount fodder (to support fodder (US$)
rangelands and for fodder of protein, number cattle) to protein
pastures as well as (pasture or of animals grazed consumed
in agricultural fields forage) (t)
to feed livestock
(continued)
45
Table 3.1 (continued)
46

Service Description Drivers Ecosystem service component

Supply Delivery Contributions to Economic value
well-being
Livestock Includes beef, pork, Biophysical Total production of % protein Market value of
goat and other (climatic, feed, meat, milk and consumption all livestock
species grown to fodder), livestock other livestock contributed by products (US$)
obtain meat, milk choice (e.g. species, products (t, m3), livestock, %
and skin genetic protein content of population reliant
characteristics), all livestock on livestock for
management (e.g. products income or food, %
number of animals, income or jobs
target age, type of contributed by
enclosure) and livestock
societal (e.g.
demand, livestock
policies, livestock
grower culture,
land tenure of
feeding grounds)
Aquaculture All fish and Biophysical (e.g. Total harvest (t), % protein Market value of
invertebrate species water temperature), total protein consumption all aquaculture
cultivated in species choice (e.g. content of landings contributed by products (US$)
continental, coastal taxonomic (kg), total aquaculture, %
or marine water identity), subsistence population reliant
bodies management (e.g. aquaculture on aquaculture for
target harvest production (t) food or income, %
weight, feed, use of income contributed
antibiotics), and by fishing, % jobs
societal (e.g. contributed by
legislation, market fishing
price, access to
P. Balvanera et al.

suitable areas)
(continued)
Table 3.1 (continued)
Service Description Drivers Ecosystem service component
Supply Delivery Contributions to Economic value
well-being
Fisheries Includes aquatic Biophysical (e.g. Biomass or Volume of weight % protein Market value of
invertebrate and biomass and abundance of of landings-harvest consumption all fisheries
fish species abundance of target (commercially) (t), protein content contributed by products (US$)
3 Ecosystem Services

harvested from species), important species of landings (kg), fisheries, %

continental, coastal management (e.g. total subsistence population reliant
or marine water vessel type, fishing fish catch (t) on fisheries for
bodies devices, fishing food or income, %
intensity), and income contributed
societal (e.g. by fishing, % jobs
demand, contributed by
institutional fishing
arrangements)
Wood Includes tree trunks Biophysical (e.g. Amount of Volume of % income Market value of
(normally with biomass and woody biomass harvested wood contributed by harvested wood
diameter at breast abundance of target generated per (m3) wood harvesting, % (US$)
height larger than species, land year (m3/y) jobs contributed by
30 cm) harvested cover), wood harvesting, %
from natural management (e.g. house constructed
forests, plantations, machinery, target with wood
or some size, forest
agro-ecosystems management), and
societal (e.g.
demand, market
price, institutional
arrangements for
forest management,
legal access to
forests)
47

(continued)
Table 3.1 (continued)
48

Service Description Drivers Ecosystem service component

Supply Delivery Contributions to Economic value
well-being
Biofuels Refers to fuels in Biophysical Weight or volume Amount of fossil Market value of
which energy is conditions (e.g. of biofuel, fuel use avoided (t), biofuels (US$)
derived from climate, soil), fuelwood or total GHG
photosynthesis biofuel choice (e.g. charcoal produced emissions avoided
including woody species), (kg, m3), amount of (t), % income or
materials, plant management (e.g. energy produced jobs contributed by
carbohydrates, harvested from wild (kJ) biofuel production,
vegetable oils and or cultivated), and % energy
crop seeds societal factors (e.g. consumptions
biofuel policies, contributed by
demand, market biofuels
price)
Harvested All goods harvested Biophysical (e.g. Biomass or Amount of wild % population Market value of
wild goods from ecosystems, biomass of abundance of all products harvested reliant on harvested harvested wild
(including including fisheries, abundance of target potentially (t), Amount of wild products for products (US$),
game meat, wild vertebrates species), biofuel harvestable wild game meat food, income and market value of
construction consumed for food, choice (e.g. food products harvested (t), other uses, % game meat (US$)
or weaving wood, poles and species), protein content of protein
materials, other uses (e.g. management (e.g. game meat (kg) consumption
medicinal honey, medicinal hunting intensity, contributed by
plants) plants) technology), and game meat, %
societal (e.g. legal population reliant
access to game on fisheries for
meat, demand, food or income
cultural
preferences)
(continued)
P. Balvanera et al.
Table 3.1 (continued)
Service Description Drivers Ecosystem service component
Supply Delivery Contributions to Economic value
well-being
Water Volume of surface Biophysical (e.g. Volume of Volume of % of population or Market value of
water flow and the climatic, land superficial or superficial or water user or water to
amount of water cover) and societal ground-water ground-water economic sector agriculture,
3 Ecosystem Services

stored in (e.g. location of available (m3) withdrawn per user with available tourism,
groundwater for user, demand per (agricultural water above water industry, etc.
domestic, industrial type of user) production, needs (US$), marginal
and agricultural use domestic and contribution of
industrial) irrigation to crop
market value
Hydropower Energy produced in Biophysical (water Potential energy Hydropower % energy needs Market value of
generation dams derived from yield, timing of produced by energy produced contributed by hydropower (US
water produced by water release) and hydropower (kW) wind hydropower, $), avoided water
the watershed societal (e.g. water (kW) % GHG emissions replacement
consumption, dam reduced by costs (US$)
location, energy production of
production per hydropower
dam, energy
policies)
Regulating
Climate Mediated by carbon Biophysical Amount of Amount of Reduced negative Market value of
regulation stored over the (climatic, soil, land emissions emissions avoided impacts (from maintained
(Carbon long-term in cover) avoided by by maintaining floods, wind, carbon stocks
stocks and vegetation that is maintaining carbon stocks (t of drought) on society and carbon
uptake) not released and carbon stocks (t C), amount of (% population, % uptake (US$),
carbon taken from of C), amount of carbon taken by more vulnerable avoided costs
the atmosphere via carbon taken by vegetation from the area or people) from climate
photosynthesis vegetation from atmosphere (t of C) from climate change (US$)
49

the atmosphere (t regulation

of C)
(continued)
Table 3.1 (continued)
50

Service Description Drivers Ecosystem service component

Supply Delivery Contributions to Economic value
well-being
Regulation of Can be impaired by Biophysical (e.g. Mass of Water conditions in Avoided disease by Avoided water
marine and nutrients land and sea bottom nutrients, organic relation to water treatment treatment costs
fresh water (phosphorus and cover, aquatic matter, standards for (US$); cost of
quality nitrogen), sediment, biodiversity), sediments, or different water wetland
dissolved organic management (e.g. toxic organisms users at or above construction for
carbon content, fertilization or or compounds withdrawal point nutrient removal
temperature, pH, sewage upstream, removed (kg), (US$)
and concentrations water treatment) changes in
of pathogens or and societal (e.g. temperature, pH
toxic compounds. sanitation
The abiotic and regulations, water
biotic components quality standards
of ecosystems can per type of use)
contribute to
mitigate such
contaminants
Regulation of Refers to the Biophysical (e.g. Soil nutrient Marginal Marginal Marginal
soil fertility physical, chemical, geologic, availability (mg) contribution of contribution of contribution of
and biological topographic, soil, soils to agricultural, soils to food, wood soils to economic
characteristics of land cover) and forestry and biofuel or biofuel value of
soils that underpin management (e.g. production consumption agricultural,
the amount of rotation cycles, soil forestry and
nutrients available preparation, biofuel
for agriculture, fertilizer, irrigation) production (US$)
fodder, forestry and
biofuel production
(continued)
P. Balvanera et al.
Table 3.1 (continued)
Service Description Drivers Ecosystem service component
Supply Delivery Contributions to Economic value
well-being
Regulation of Mediated by the Biophysical (e.g. Mass of retained Mass of soils Reduced negative Marginal
soil erosion characteristics of a rain intensity, soils (kg) retained to support impacts of soil loss contribution of
landscape, land topographic, soil, productive and of sediment soils retained to
3 Ecosystem Services

cover and soils that land cover), activities or to flows to different productive
regulate the amount management (e.g. avoid dams, stakeholders activities and
of soil loss driven soil preparation, reservoirs and avoided costs of
by rain and reduce fertilizer, irrigation) water canals; Mass dredging (US$)
the amount of and societal (e.g. of soils retained to
sediments characteristics of prevent soil
accumulated in dams and human sedimentation in
hydraulic made water canals) residential or
infrastructure industrial areas (kg)
Flood A function of the Biophysical (e.g. Flood volume Area of avoided Number of people Avoided
regulation vegetation and soils climate, soil, regulated by flood damage due protected from economic loss by
that increase aquatic vegetation), vegetation and to regulation by flood by regulation flood regulation
infiltration rates and management (e.g. soils (m3) vegetation and soils from vegetation from vegetation
thus reduce the hydraulic (ha) and soils and soils (US$)
amount of surface infrastructure) and
water flow that societal (e.g.
contributes to people’s location,
floods infrastructure
characteristics)
(continued)
51
Table 3.1 (continued)
52

Service Description Drivers Ecosystem service component

Supply Delivery Contributions to Economic value
well-being
Coastal Refers to the idea Biophysical (e.g. Area of avoided Number of people Avoided
protection that coastal habitats climatic, wave, land infrastructure loss, protected from economic loss by
can serve as natural and sea bottom flood and erosion infrastructure loss, coastal
shields against cover) and societal (ha) flooding and protection (US$)
waves, storms and (e.g. people’s erosion from
wind that may lead location, coastal protection
to infrastructure infrastructure
loss, flooding and characteristics)
erosion
Regulation of Mangroves, coral Biophysical (e.g. Marginal Marginal
commercially reefs and sea grass land and sea bottom contributions of contribution of
important provide nursery cover, dependence coastal habitats coastal habitats
marine grounds and refuge of target species on (e.g. mangroves) to (e.g. mangroves)
species for many these habitats) fisheries to market value
populations recreationally and conditions that production of fisheries
commercially contribute to production
valuable marine marginal increased (US$)
species fisheries yield
Pollination Bees, bats, birds Biophysical (e.g. Pollinator Marginal Marginal Marginal
and other animals pollinator identities abundances and contribution of contribution of contribution of
pollinate fruit and and abundances) pollination rates pollinators to crop pollinators to food pollination to
seed crops, and management production or biofuel crop market
contributing to (e.g. types and production value (US$)
increased yield, density of crops,
quality, and land use and land
stability cover type around
agricultural fields)
P. Balvanera et al.

(continued)
Table 3.1 (continued)
Service Description Drivers Ecosystem service component
Supply Delivery Contributions to Economic value
well-being
Pest control Insects, bats and Biophysical (e.g. Abundances of Regulation of pests Marginal Marginal
birds regulate the pest identity and pests and their by their natural contribution of pest contribution of
abundances of abundance, trophic natural enemies enemies control to food or pest control to
3 Ecosystem Services

agricultural pests interactions among biofuel production crop market

insects, birds and value (US$)
bats) and
management (e.g.
crop type,
landscape
configuration)
Cultural
All Includes a large A suite of Non-material benefits from ecosystems and the interactions among them
non-tangible array of biophysical (e.g.
benefits non-tangible biodiversity,
benefits from topography),
ecosystems that management (e.g.
include heritage dominant
(cultural or management
religious), activities) and
inspiration societal (e.g.
(spiritual or culture) conditions
artistic), sense of
place, identity,
social relations, and
education, among
others
(continued)
53
Table 3.1 (continued)
54

Service Description Drivers Ecosystem service component

Supply Delivery Contributions to Economic value
well-being
Aesthetic Refers to various Biophysical (e.g. Area that Area that is Marginal Economic
views landscape features topography), provides enjoyed by visitors contributions to revenues derived
that convey management (e.g. aesthetic views or local inhabitants income or from visits to
aesthetic land use and land for its aesthetic well-being of aesthetic areas or
characteristics that cover type), and views, number of visitors and to local marginal
are appreciated and societal (e.g. access visitors inhabitants derived contribution to
enjoyed roads or boating from aesthetic real estate prices
areas, number of views by aesthetic
visitors, cultural characteristics
preferences) (US$)
Nature-based A function of Biophysical (e.g. Area that is Area where Marginal Economic
tourism multiple bird richness, suitable for nature-based contributions to revenues derived
characteristics of characteristics of nature-based tourism occurs, income or from or costs
landscapes, water water bodies), tourisms number of visitors well-being of associated with
bodies and management (e.g. visitors and local undertaking
biodiversity that land use and land inhabitants derived nature-based
determine whether cover type), and from nature-based tourism (US$)
areas are attractive societal (e.g. tourism
to tourists protection status,
facilities to support
visits, distance from
cities)
(continued)
P. Balvanera et al.
Table 3.1 (continued)
Service Description Drivers Ecosystem service component
Supply Delivery Contributions to Economic value
well-being
Recreation Includes hiking, A suite of Areas that are Area where Marginal Economic
angling, cycling, biophysical (e.g. suitable for recreation-based contributions to revenues derived
birding, swimming, biodiversity, recreation-based tourism occurs, income or from or costs
3 Ecosystem Services

diving, and others topography), tourisms number of visitors well-being of associated with
management (e.g. visitors and local undertaking
land use and land inhabitants derived nature-based
cover type) and from recreation (US$)
societal (e.g. access recreation-based
roads or boating tourism
areas, number of
visitors, facilities to
support visits,
distance from
cities)
55
56 P. Balvanera et al.

Supply refers to the potential of a social-ecological system to generate a service,

typically quantified as a flow (i.e., an amount per unit time). Ecosystem condition
(e.g., intact or degraded, stressed or unstressed) and processes (e.g., primary pro-
ductivity), as well as the way ecosystems are managed, are taken into account when
determining supply. This is the component of ecosystem services that has been
most commonly measured.
Delivery accounts for how much of the service is actually extracted (e.g., amount
of timber harvested), used (e.g., area of avoided flood damage, area that is enjoyed
by visitors), and delivered to societies (e.g., spatial location of those benefiting from
flood regulation), and how societies have access to these services (e.g., laws rules,
norms and restrictions that limit access to a service). Delivery thus depends on the
links between ecosystem services supply and people’s location, activities and
societal factors determining access to services.
Contribution to well-being accounts for the change in people’s well-being, which
results from consuming, using, or having access to the service. Changes in living
standards, nutrition status, mortality rates, social conflicts, security in the face of
extreme environmental conditions, or happiness partially depend on the delivery of
ecosystem services. This component of ecosystem services is the least understood and
seldom quantified. One of the issues is that well-being typically has many components
and many causes, so it hard to isolate the contributions of a particular service.
Value refers here to the relative importance society attributes to the service. The
value of ecosystem services is often accounted in monetary terms, but other ways of
establishing the socio-cultural value are potentially equally valid, and may be more
appropriate than monetary valuation for some services. For instance, contributions to
longevity or perceived quality of life need not be expressed in monetary terms. The
monetary value of most provisioning services (e.g., timber) is provided by markets.
Where freely-traded markets do not exists (for instance, this is frequently the case for
water service), the value can be estimated through a variety of methods, such as the
cost of delivering a substitute, or the marginal value addition of the service to other
services which do have markets. Valuation approaches, based on willingness to pay,
damage costs avoided, travel costs, or hedonic values, have been used to attribute
economic value to many regulating and cultural services. Socio-cultural values of
ecosystem services to an individual can be assessed through various valuation
methods, such as through preference surveys, paired comparisons, and narrative or
participatory methods. What is frequently reported is the aggregate societal value
resulting from some combination of individual valuations.
These components of ecosystem services feed back into the way social-
ecological systems are managed and governed. Supply allows for delivery which
allows for contributions to well-being which, in turn, influences value. Ecosystem
service contributions to well-being, shape the status of and vision for the well-being
of individuals and societies, which directly influences the way formal and informal
institutions are designed to modulate interactions with the environment. Value
determines which services are fostered, and shape institutions and management
interventions, aimed at modifying social-ecological conditions to promote the
supply of the desired services at the cost of other services (Díaz et al. 2015).
3 Ecosystem Services 57

3.4 Monitoring Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services can be monitored at multiple spatial scales. For global obser-
vation systems, emphasizing the nation state as the focal unit allows for better
tracking of progress towards national targets for ecosystem services. In addition,
many key global policies, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD;
www.cbd.int), the Sustainable Development Goals (https://sustainabledevelopment.
un.org/), and the Commission on Climate Change and Development (www.
ccdcommission.org) are governed by mutual agreement of participating nations,
requiring monitoring of progress toward global targets. Monitoring, however, can
also take place at the local scale, and data can then be aggregated up to the national
and global scales, but this is not always a straightforward procedure (Scholes 2009).
A multiple scale approach makes it possible for information from one spatial scale
to be tested or refined using data produced at other scales. Such comprehensive
monitoring at different spatial scales can include national statistics and remote
sensing to cover national to global scales, as well as remote sensing and field-based
assessments to cover local scales. Models can be developed at all spatial scales.
Different data sources are best suited to account for different components and
spatial scales of ecosystem services (see Table 3.2). Supply is best characterised by
data sources that consider the condition of social-ecological systems, for example,
from remote sensing and models. Delivery is often based on societal characteristics
and can be accounted for from national statistics, field-assessment and models.
Contributions to well-being are documented in different ways (mostly field
assessments, national statistics and census) and have seldom been explicitly
incorporated into models. Economic value can be derived from markets, national
statistics or from economic models. Sociocultural value can be obtained from field
assessments of preferences, or from the analysis of cultural norms. Different types
of value have been incorporated into models.

3.5 National Statistics

Census data at national scales are readily available for several ecosystem services.
In most cases the census has been conducted at a much more resolved scale (the
census district, which may be as small as a neighbourhood). Sometimes such data is
available for local analysis, subject to special procedures designed to protect the
privacy of individual respondents. The United Nation’s Food and Agriculture
Organisation publishes a global database (http://faostat.fao.org/) of the amount
produced or extracted (delivery), traded, and the monetary value (value) of several
ecosystem services, for example, total production of all commercial crops for
countries or regions, export or import quantity of trade crops and their economic
value per unit. Other databases, such as that of the World Bank (http://data.
worldbank.org) report water withdrawals and water availability to people. Some of
 58

Table 3.2 Comparison between different ecosystem service data sources

National statistics Remote sensing Field estimations Models
FAOSTAT High Low TESSA Natura InVEST LPJmL ARIES ESTA MIMES
WORLD BANK resolution resolution
Ecosystem service component
Supply ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Delivery ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Contribution to ✓ ✓ ✓
well-being
Economic value ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Spatial scale
Local/landscape ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
National ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Global ✓ ✓ ✓
FAOSTAT: The Statistics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO 2012), TESSA: Toolkit for Ecosystem Service
Assessments (Peh et al. 2014), Natura: Assessing Socioeconomic Benefits (Kettunen et al. 2009), InVEST: Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services
and Tradeoffs (Tallis et al. 2013), LPJmL: Lund-Potsdam-Jena managed Land Dynamic Global Vegetation and Water Balance Model (Bondeau et al. 2007),
ARIES: ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (Bagstad et al. 2013a), ESTA: Ecosystem Service Tradeoff Analysis (White et al. 2012), and MIMES:
Multiscale Integrated Models of Ecosystem Services (Altman et al. 2014)
P. Balvanera et al.
3 Ecosystem Services 59

the services are monitored in most countries and updated annually (e.g., crops),
while others are only available for a small subset of nation states and updated
infrequently (*5 years; e.g., water withdrawal). While these statistics provide very
relevant information for assessing provisioning ecosystem services, they imper-
fectly reflect their delivery and economic value. They cannot, for instance, inform
on the supply of the services. They further inform only partially on the delivery of
the services, as they can only account for the fraction of the food production that
enters markets and national statistics. The stronger biases are for economic values,
which are the product of markets and incentives, and do not necessarily account for
the marginal contribution of ecosystems to food production through primary pro-
ductivity, water for irrigation, soil fertility, pollination, or pest regulation, relative to
those contributed by society. Also, these values do not include the negative impacts
of agricultural intensification and expansion, nor that of industrial fisheries, on
biodiversity conservation and the degradation of supporting and regulating
ecosystem services. The societal costs of intensive agriculture or fisheries are not
accounted for either.
Data accuracy in national statistics is quite variable and is dependent on national
monitoring infrastructure (human and technical capacity), relative importance of
informal activities (e.g., subsistence production or unreported extraction cannot be
accounted for), and governmental policies on transparent reporting. Temporal data
gaps are common for many countries and are often filled using a variety of tech-
niques, including interpolation, models or expert judgement, which all have
well-documented biases. In all cases, uncertainty analyses are needed to quantify
and help improve reliability of existing data.

3.6 Remote Sensing

Remote sensing (see Chap. 8) consists of data collection ‘at a distance’: from
sensors on the ground, in the water, on aircraft, or in space. Remote sensing of
ecosystem services relies on hybrid methods, that use models to combine in situ
information (collected either by humans or machines) with that collected at coarser
spatial scales (e.g., climate, landform, social or economic variables).
Remote sensing has not been used directly to measure ecosystem services, yet in
combination with other data sources it can contribute to the assessment of many
ecosystem services (e.g., water quantity and quality, erosion prevention, moderation
of extreme events; Horning et al. 2010). These data sources can either contribute to
assessing the potential supply of ecosystem services or to assess the
social-ecological drivers that influence the supply, delivery, contribution to
well-being, and value of ecosystem services (Andrew et al. 2015).
Products from multiple frequencies within the range of visible and near-infrared
bands contribute to vegetation indices, such as greenness measures like the
Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) that indicates plant vigour. Such
information can be used as one of several data sources to assess crop delivery
60 P. Balvanera et al.

(through potential productivity of known plant/crop species), carbon stocks and

carbon uptake, fisheries (through ocean productivity), water quality (through
changes in water colour), and land use change (a driver). High-resolution data can
inform on small-scale ecological features, such as individual trees. Information on
roads, fields and habitat patches can be used to provide information on drivers of
many ecosystem services. Products from radar devices provide high-resolution
information for topography, vegetation and water cover, and potentially on the
aboveground biomass. These can contribute to assessing land use change, crops, or
water cover (superficial water bodies) over a targeted region. Products based on
Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) devices provide high resolution
information on above-ground carbon stocks, water (water surface elevation, and in
combination with bathymetry, the volume of freshwater bodies), and ecosystem
structure, that can be used to model a range of provisioning, regulating and cultural
services. High resolution images (with individual pixels of around 1 m2) are
increasingly available from commercial satellites and can be used to refine infor-
mation for particular locations. The cost is currently high, but may still be
cost-effective if compared with manual mapping on the ground, and is being driven
down by the advent of unmanned autonomous vehicles or ‘drones’ (e.g., see www.
conservationdrones.org) equipped with cameras.

3.7 Field-Based Estimations

Field-based estimations contribute to local or site-based monitoring and assessment,

as well as to validation of models and remotely sensed data products. Ultimately,
field-based estimations are a principal source of new data on the supply, delivery,
contributions to well-being and value for all services. Some services, such as the
flow of water in rivers, are routinely monitored by in-field devices, and new
technologies such as eddy covariance are extending the range of in situ observations
of services such as carbon sequestration.
Conducting primary data collection can be costly, time consuming and techni-
cally specialised, and the methods and information from different data sources need
to be standardized. Toolkits are emerging to deal with these issues, and promote
standardized rapid assessments at the site scale. Such toolkits provide guidance on
the steps to be followed, the kind of data to be gathered and the methods suggested
to gather or model quantitative data at this scale that can then be used in an
assessment under a range of contexts. Assessments incorporate local knowledge,
basic local data collection and other data sources to create fine scale,
locally-relevant assessments of multiple ecosystem services.
Two of these toolkits have been particularly useful (Table 3.3). The Toolkit for
Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessments (TESSA; Peh et al. 2014) was devel-
oped to assist site-scale users with limited capacity and resources, to develop simple
estimates of ecosystem services. The Natura toolkit was developed for assessing the
3 Ecosystem Services 61

Table 3.3 Examples of toolkits available to assess ecosystem services and their advantages and
disadvantages
Model (website) Basic principles Advantages Disadvantages
TESSA: Toolkit for Field-based Aimed at local Applicable only at
Ecosystem Service estimations to decision-makers. local scales. Not
Assessments www. develop and deploy Easy to use. Allows scalable from local
birdlife.org/ a rapid assessment for the assessment of to regional as its use
datazone/info/ tool to understand multiple is highly context
estoolkit how far conserving components of dependent
sites for their ecosystem services.
biodiversity Can be applied to a
importance also range of conditions.
helps to conserve Emphasizes
different ecosystem alternative states and
services relative to a the identification of
converted state stakeholders that
win or lose from
these states
Natura: Assessing Practical guide for Aimed at local Mainly focused on
Socioeconomic practitioners (e.g. decision-makers. conservation
Benefits www. site managers, Easy to use. projects and thus
natura.org/ landowners and Applicable at local current and potential
other land users) to regional scales. protected areas.
involved in the Emphasizes what Emphasizes only
management of sites benefits are obtained economic and social
in Europe. Toolkit by which and cultural benefits
will help these stakeholders obtained from
practitioners in ecosystem services
exploring the
different values and
socio-economic
‘potential’ of their
sites, e.g. possible
socio-economic
benefits gained by
managing sites and
land in a sustainable
manner

socio-economic benefits associated with the ecosystem services of 200 conserved or

protected sites in Europe (Kettunen et al. 2009).

3.8 Community Monitoring of Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services that are locally relevant can be monitored by local stakeholders,
such as land owners and consumers (see Chap. 9 on Citizen Science). Several
studies have shown that local communities without conventional scientific training
62 P. Balvanera et al.

have successfully collected accurate data on a wide range of ecosystem services

such as forest carbon storage and sequestration, water quantity and quality, and
their links to well-being (Hein et al. 2006; Dinerstein et al. 2013).
Involving communities in data generation enables year-round, low cost gener-
ation of local data (plot to landscape level) and wide spatial coverage. It provides
information for local-level decision-making for ecosystem service management,
and it can also generate employment, enthusiasm, and personal investment in
ecosystem service based initiatives. Additionally, it can better incorporate tradi-
tional ecological knowledge and help maintain cultural heritage, identity, and
values. Community involvement in monitoring can increase local interest and
investment in the maintenance of ecosystems and the services they provide.
Information generated by locally-based monitoring systems, however, can be
influenced by power struggles and incentives surrounding the monitored resource
and validation mechanisms need to be implemented.
Numerous data collection and management tools have been developed in the last
5–10 years to facilitate gathering, storage, and sharing of data by communities.

3.9 Models

Numerical models, understood here as practical tools that predict how ecosystem
services change through time and space, are increasingly being used to support
decision-making. These models are often developed when data availability is
scarce, when spatially explicit information is needed, and in order to assess
trade-offs among services under alternative future management scenarios.
A wide variety of approaches have been used for building and applying such
models. Five of the more commonly used modelling platforms are described here
(Table 3.4).
• The Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST)
suite is a free and open-source software tool to help inform and improve natural
resource management and investment decisions (Tallis et al. 2013).
• The Lund-Potsdam-Jena managed Land Dynamic Global Vegetation and Water
Balance Model (LPJmL; www.pik-potsdam.de/research/climate-impacts-and-
vulnerabilities/models/lpjml) is a tool that was not specifically designed for
ecosystem service assessment, but still allows deducing a number of ecosystem
services consistently from the same process based model (Bondeau et al. 2007).
• The ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES; www.ariesonline.
org) can be used to model supply, demand (delivery), flow (the link between the
areas of supply and those of delivery), depletion (the balance between supply
and delivery), and values (differential preferences among stakeholders) of
ecosystem services (Bagstad et al. 2013b). A range of tools (www.ariesonline.
org/resources/toolkit.html) and models for a range of case studies (www.
ariesonline.org/resources.html) is available.
Table 3.4 Comparative table of the ecosystem services models described in this chapter and their individual advantages and disadvantages
Model (website) Basic principles Advantages Disadvantages
InVEST (www. Set of spatially-explicit Broadly applicable across a variety Models do not simultaneously
naturalcapitalproject.org/ process-based models. Predict of social-ecological contexts. Models feedback on one another. Simple
InVEST) services from social-ecological use the minimum data required models, assuming that the provision
conditions. User-defined future allowing application in many of ecosystem services change
scenarios. Biophysical and monetary data-scarce regions. Moderate time linearly with land use change. High
3 Ecosystem Services

assessments of ecosystem services. consuming models and not uncertainty when models are applied
Emphasis on relationships among technically specialized allowing its with coarse secondary data and no
multiple services broad use. Modules of either validation
biophysical modelling and economic
valuation
LPJmL (www.pik-potsdam. Simulates vegetation dynamics and Useful for modelling mid- to Models require high resolution
de/research/climate-impacts- their impacts on hydrological long-term change in ecosystem climate data that is only available in
and-vulnerabilities/models/ processes up to global scale; services provision under alternative few countries. Time consuming
lpjml) sensitive to land use and climatic climate change and land-use models requiring technically
change. 35 land cover classes scenarios. Variability estimates over specialized skills. Low resolution of
including potential natural time final outputs (50 km2) for most
vegetation, 9 plant functional types countries
and 13 crop types (irrigated or not)
ARIES (www.ariesonline.org) Models built from Bayesian belief Useful to quantify flows of the Time consuming models requiring
networks informed by user data. services to beneficiaries. Models technically specialized skills. Models
Uncertainty associated with its incorporate an uncertainty measure have a low level of generalization
estimates quantified. Generic models in its estimates done through (specific application at particular
adapted to specific applications at Bayesian networks and Monte Carlo social-ecological contexts)
different spatial scales and for simulation
particular social-ecological contexts
(continued)
63
Table 3.4 (continued)
64

Model (website) Basic principles Advantages Disadvantages

ESTA Coupled, dynamic bio-economic Models developed using best Time consuming models requiring
models to simulate the production available data for a region. Include technically specialized skills and
and value of multiple ecosystem direct and indirect interactions data-rich contexts
services. Focus on understanding the among services. Any number of
trade-offs that emerge when services can be assessed
management has multi-service simultaneously
objectives
MIMES (www.ebmtools.org/ Models simulate changes in Integrated dynamics and interactions Time consuming models requiring
mimes) biophysical conditions and economic among services. Values emerge from technically specialized skills. Models
activities over time and through space. trade-offs and impacts on human have a low level of generalization
Developed in collaboration with well-being. Incorporate an
stakeholders. Functional and dynamic uncertainty measure in its estimates
models over space and time developed
from multiple data sources
Co$ting Nature (www. Web-accessible tool to map Rapid analysis of indexed, bundled Models require high resolution
policysupport.org/ ecosystem services and conservation services based on global data, along biophysical and socio-economic data
costingnature) priority areas. Also analyses the with conservation priority maps. that is only available in few countries
benefits provided by the natural Models have a high level of
environment, the beneficiaries of generalization
those ecosystem services, and
assesses the impacts of possible
human interventions on the
continued provision of these benefits
WaterWorld (www. Details process-based modelling of Rapid analysis of bundled services The high resolution datasets needed
policysupport.org/waterworld) selected provisioning and regulating based on global data. The are only available for a few countries
hydrological services. It incorporates biophysical and socio-economic
high resolution spatial datasets for the consequences of alternative
entire world, spatial models for interventions (policy options) can be
biophysical and socio-economic modelled Models have a high level
P. Balvanera et al.

processes along with scenarios for of generalization

climate, land use and economic change
3 Ecosystem Services 65

• The Ecosystem Service Trade-off Analysis (ESTA) was initially developed to

inform and evaluate the trade-off between biodiversity and fisheries objectives,
and has been applied to an increasing number of case studies with a range of
ecosystem services, including offshore wind and wave energy, aquaculture, and
ecotourism (White et al. 2012).
• The Multi-scale Integrated Models of Ecosystem Services (MIMES; www.
ebmtools.org/mimes.html) platform is designed to address the magnitude,
dynamics, and spatial patterns of ecosystem service values (Altman et al. 2014).
• Co$ting Nature (www.policysupport.org/costingnature) is a web-based tool for
natural capital accounting and analysing the ecosystem services provided by
natural environments (i.e., nature’s benefits), identifying the beneficiaries of
these services and assessing the impacts of human interventions (Mulligan
2015a).
• WaterWorld (www.policysupport.org/waterworld) is a web-based tool can be
used to understand the hydrological and water resources baseline and water risk
factors associated with specific activities under current conditions and under
scenarios for land use, land management and climate change (Mulligan 2015b).

3.10 Current Tools to Monitor Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services can be monitored and assessed at different spatial scales using
readily available data sources (Table 3.5). However clear gaps exist, especially
when one considers all four components requiring data per ecosystem service (see
Table 3.6). We explore progress and gaps per ecosystem service category below.
Mismatches can occur between data sources and data needs. Some data sources,
such as LPJmL models or the older remote sensing data, are only available at low
spatial resolution (50 km2 grid cells in the case of LPJmL) and might not be
suitable for assessments at landscapes scales. Similarly, assessments of changes in
services within very short time frames are incompatible with some data sources that
are only available on a yearly basis, as is the case of national statistics, or those that
are modelled from data for which data sources are not updated regularly, as is the
case of governmental land use and land cover maps in Mexico. The converse
situation can also be true: changes in soil carbon or soil fertility within the same
land cover type through time could be estimated from repeated remote sensed data,
but changes would not be observed given the long time frame over which the
processes that regulate them operate.
The data needed for ecosystem service estimation is often the flow of service
rather than the particular conditions of the service in one point in time. This is the
case of water flowing from a river, or the amount of carbon being taken up by
vegetation. The most commonly found approach is for rates to be estimated from
differences in the magnitude of the stock which provides or receives the service
between two selected dates, as is the case of carbon uptake, most commonly
Table 3.5 Data sources for ecosystem services
66

Service Global and Remote Field Models Additional data sources and comments
National sensing estimations
statistics
Provisioning
Crop FAOSTAT ✓ TESSA ARIES, LPJmL, MIMES (www.teebweb.org/agriculture-and-food/) for
further discussion on limitations to FAOSTAT
data
Fodder ✓ MIMES
Livestock FAOSTAT MIMES
Aquaculture FAOSTAT ✓ InVEST, ESTA
Fisheries FAOSTAT ✓ ARIES, ESTA, MIMES Only subsistence fisheries from ARIES
Wood FAOSTAT ✓ InVEST, LPJmL, MIMES
Biofuels FAOSTAT ✓ MIMES IEA, CDM, ISO14040/44
Game meat FAOSTAT ✓ MIMES
Harvested wild goods ✓i Natura ARIES, MIMES
Water FAOSTAT, ✓i TESSA InVEST, LJPmL, ARIES,
WORLD MIMES, Co$ting Nature,
BANK WaterWorld
Hydropower energy ✓i InVEST, ESTA, MIMES
Regulating
Climate regulation WDCGG ✓ TESSA InVEST, LJPmL, ARIES, IPCC, National statistics available for selected
(Carbon stocks and MIMES, Co$ting Nature countries. Carbon uptake needs monitoring
uptake) through time
Regulation of marine ✓ Natura InVEST, ESTA, MIMES, Co Only nutrients-freshwater for Natura. Highly
and freshwater $ting Nature, WaterWorld patchy data availability. Quality defined with
quality respect to users
Regulation of soil MIMES Multiple local survey methods
fertility
P. Balvanera et al.

(continued)
Table 3.5 (continued)
Service Global and Remote Field Models Additional data sources and comments
National sensing estimations
statistics
Regulation of soil ✓i Natura InVEST, ARIES, MIMES, Marine/coastal and terrestrial erosion models
erosion WaterWorld from InVEST
Flood regulation ✓i ARIES, MIMES, Co$ting
3 Ecosystem Services

Nature
Coastal protection ✓i InVEST, ESTA, MIMES, Co
$ting Nature
Contribution of ✓i InVEST, ESTA, MIMES
coastal habitat to
fisheries
Pollination Natura InVEST
Pest control Natura,
IPM
Cultural
All non-tangible MIMES Growing literature available on this topic
benefits
Aesthetic views ✓i InVEST, ARIES
Nature-based tourism ✓i Natura, InVEST, ESTA, Co$ting
TESSA Nature
Recreation ✓i TESSA ARIES
This list of data sources is not exhaustive but rather refers to the data sources reviewed in this chapter. Additional sources: IEA: International Energy Agency
(www.iea.org/stats/prodresult.asp?PRODUCT=Renewables), provides information on land cover by biofuel crops, CDM: Methodologies developed by the
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM; http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/index.html), ISO14040/44: Standard methodologies for full life cycle assess-
ments of biofuels (Finkbeiner et al. 2006), TEEBAgFood: The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity for Agriculture and Food (http://www.teebweb.org/
agriculture-and-food/), WDCGG: World Data Centre for Green House Gases (WDCGG; http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/wdcgg), IPCC: Standards for measuring
carbon stocks and uptakes developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=7), IPM:
67

Integrated Pest Management protocols for field surveys developed by University of California, Davis (www.ipm.ucdavis.edu). i: Contribution of remote
sensing as one of the information layers
 68

Table 3.6 Ecosystem service data sources for different ecosystem services components
National Remote sensing Field estimations Models
statistics
FAOSTAT High Low TESSA Natura InVEST LPJmL ARIES ESTA MIMES Co$ting WaterWorld
resolution resolution nature
Ecosystem service component
Supply ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Delivery ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Contribution to ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
well-being
Value ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Spatial scale
Local/landscape ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
National ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Global ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
National statistics: FAOSTAT, The Statistics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO 2012). TESSA: Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Assessments (Peh
et al. 2014), Natura: Assessing Socioeconomic Benefits (Kettunen et al. 2009), InVEST: Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs (Tallis et al. 2013), LPJmL:
Lund-Potsdam-Jena managed Land Dynamic Global Vegetation and Water Balance Model (Bondeau et al. 2007), ARIES: ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (Bagstad et al. 2013b),
ESTA: Ecosystem Service Tradeoff Analysis (White et al. 2012), MIMES: Multi-scale Integrated Models of Ecosystem Services (Altman et al. 2014)
P. Balvanera et al.
3 Ecosystem Services 69

estimated from changes in carbon stocks. Actual flows of ecosystem services, such
as in the case of water, can be assessed by some of the models such as ARIES, or by
in situ flow measuring devices.

3.11 Provisioning Services

Most provisioning services are already observed at national and local scales in most
parts of the world using one or more of the data sources above. National statistics
are available (at least partially) for many provisioning services, but are typically
blind to subsistence (‘informal’, family consumption, not traded in monitored
markets) or illegal operations that can contribute to large proportions of delivery in
some countries. Remote sensing data are available for services related to vegetation
primary productivity, biomass harvest and water quantity. Field estimations are
available for provisioning services (from e.g., TESSA and Natura). Models are
available for most provisioning services, from at least one of the four platforms
described above.
Observations of supply, that largely depend on biophysical conditions are only
available for a few provisioning services. Instead, delivery data sources are com-
monly reported for services associated with commonly used goods, although only
those that are accounted for in statistics. As many provisioning services are com-
mercialised in markets, economic (especially monetary) values are also readily
available, but such values do not reflect all the contributions of the ecosystem to
these services, nor the consequences. Data on the contributions to well-being are
largely missing or in development for most services.
Information on the balance between the demand of the services and the supply,
or other estimators of the long-term ability of the ecosystem to sustain the supply of
these services are not currently available for most provisioning services.

3.12 Regulating Services

Data on regulating services is increasingly available from national statistics or from

remote sensing in conjunction with models, particularly for carbon stocks and
uptake (climate regulation). The emphasis has been put on carbon stocks and
carbon uptake through primary productivity, which is relatively easily measured
and quite relevant to climate change mitigation, while the links to actual carbon
dynamics and climate processes is largely absent. Models of regulating services
associated with hydrological processes (water quality, erosion regulation), those on
the impacts of extreme meteorological events (flood and coastal regulation), as well
as those for pest regulation and pollination are increasingly available. Today models
are available for most regulating services and most of these models have been
developed at landscape and regional scales, but seldom at national scales. Field
70 P. Balvanera et al.

estimations are available for services (most of which are available from TESSA or
Natura, and from a plethora of approaches).
Both supply and delivery of regulating services are accounted for in most
models. Data and models for contributions to well-being are absent or in devel-
opment. Economic values are largely related to avoided costs or marginal contri-
butions to economic activities from regulating services.
Given that regulating services depend on multiple social-ecological processes
operating at several spatial and temporal scales, data, models and field estimations
of regulating services are necessarily a simplification and, in some cases, they may
be an oversimplification which is more misleading than useful.

Box 3.1. The Demand for Ecosystem Services at Drinking Water

Treatment Facilities in Barcelona
Engagement with drinking water managers in Barcelona, Spain allowed for the
identification of ecosystem services relevant for decision-makers. Discussions
revealed that treatment costs were particularly sensitive to three water quality
parameters: stream temperature, ammonium and conductivity. In particular,
high stream temperature increased water treatment costs because of the water
treatment technology used and the high concentration of sterilisation products
during warm summer months (Valero and Arbós 2010). Understanding the
demand for reduced stream temperatures by water treatment managers allowed
for the development of a targeted research program focusing on ecosystem
structures that would reduce thermal heating in the Llobregat River. It was
found that the restoration of riparian forests upstream would be able to recover
ecosystem processes, reduce stream temperature in the summer and therefore
reduce water treatment costs. After modelling multiple restoration scenarios,
nearly half of the investment in riparian river restoration was estimated to be
recovered in a 20 year period through a reduction in water treatment costs
(Honey-Rosés et al. 2013). Understanding the demand for reduced stream
temperatures by water treatment managers allowed for the development of a
targeted research program focusing on ecosystem structures that would reduce
thermal heating in the Llobregat River.

3.13 Cultural Services

Cultural services present a challenge when it comes to observation and assessment

because some of them are not easily disentangled from other ecosystem services,
such as provisioning services. For instance many important cultural services are
co-produced by the same ecosystem components and human activities that produce
material objects for consumption (Chan et al. 2012), such as agricultural landscapes
or harvested forests. The different cultural services are highly intertwined, and
3 Ecosystem Services 71

unlike with provisioning or regulating services, it is not possible to clearly delineate

the different components of the services. Cultural services are highly context
dependent and thus information on these is often only available and relevant at local
scales. This is not true for all cultural services: some are well-defined, discrete and
routinely monitored, such as the use of national parks, or the income from
nature-based tourism and recreation.
Readily available sources of information on cultural services are very wide
ranging. These include local assessments of cultural preferences (for aesthetic
views; Bagstad et al. 2013c) (can be obtained from the above toolkits), and data-
bases on use of particular areas or ecosystems for ecotourism at national scales
(governmental database). Further sources of information on cultural services are
embedded into local artistic expression (e.g., poetry, music) or in social norms that
articulate a value or impact of nature on the human condition.

3.14 Observing Multiple Ecosystem Services

Historically, ecosystem management has often focused on delivery of a single

service from that ecosystem (often a provisioning service, such as timber or graz-
ing) without recognition that the same ecosystem produces multiple, often inter-
acting services which are also affected by management interventions. This often
leads to trade-offs (where one service decreases while the other increases), but can
also lead to synergies (where increasing the supply of one services also increases
the supply of another). Moving observation systems beyond single services to the
full bundle of services (a set of services that tend to co-occur in space or time), to
quantify and reflect the synergies (positive interactions) and trade-offs (negative
interactions) is a major challenge for current research efforts. Also, an under-
standing of the interactions among stakeholders that have differential preferences
for the traded-off services is needed.
The identification of bundles of services that arise under particular biophysical,
management, and societal conditions is particularly relevant. Data needed for these
assessments is hindered by the reduced replicability of the same measurements
across different social-ecological conditions. It is seldom that they supply exactly
the same sets of provisioning, regulating and cultural services, at the same spatial
and temporal scale, and measuring the same components (e.g., supply or value).
While still patchy, such datasets have been increasingly available in the past few
years. Comparisons across studies are nevertheless faced with the lack of inter-
operability among them.
Additional observations of biodiversity (see other chapters) and multiple
ecosystem services at different spatial scales will contribute to a better under-
standing of their inter-linkages, patterns of interactions across scales and time, and
common trade-offs and synergies.
72 P. Balvanera et al.

3.15 Using Scenarios in Modelling to Predict Future

Ecosystem Services

Scenarios are stories about plausible futures, with the power to capture public
attention and inform more sustainable decisions (Henrichs et al. 2010). They can
help communicate the outcomes of different choices for societies and ecosystems
while at the same time involving stakeholders in a powerful learning process. It is
important to consider the explicit goals for the use of scenarios in determining
which type of scenario will best address those goals and reach their intended
audience. Three main uses of scenarios include: (1) assessing the impact of deci-
sions under consideration, (2) exploring hypothetical but plausible futures, and
(3) building consensus around a shared vision for the future (e.g., see IPBES 2016).
Certain characteristics can make scenarios more effective. Scenarios that are
relevant to the decision context or stakeholder interests will align with the problems
and questions of interest to stakeholders. To be legitimate, the scenario develop-
ment process should include diverse stakeholder views and beliefs. To be credible,
scenario storylines should be developed using scientifically robust methods. To be
plausible, scenarios should tell coherent stories that could conceivably happen.
Finally, to tell a compelling story, scenarios should be distinct enough from one
another that they show contrasting ecosystem service impacts. Iteration of scenarios
can greatly enhance many of these characteristics, as they are refined over time to
incorporate stakeholder feedback, as well as emerging knowledge, trends and
issues.
Translating scenarios to decision-support tools requires that storylines be made
spatially-explicit, with each scenario corresponding to a map of land cover, or
coastal or marine habitats and uses that feed into the biophysical and/or economic
models underlying ecosystem service assessment. Converting scenario storylines
into maps can be accomplished by asking stakeholders to simply draw maps for
each scenario; more analytical methods of forecasting where change is most likely
to occur on the landscape or seascape are based on past trends; rule-based
approaches define which areas are likely to be most suitable for particular uses or
activities. Models of future supply, delivery, value and benefit of ecosystem ser-
vices into alternative scenarios are increasingly being developed.
All the modelling platforms described above may be used to predict ecosystem
services under different future scenarios for land/sea use and management patterns.
Different models have been built to be differentially sensitive to alternative future
issues. For instance, the LPJmL, is highly sensitive to climate change, which is
particularly helpful when looking for mid- to long-term effects.
3 Ecosystem Services 73

3.16 Linking Ecosystem Service Observations

to Decision-Making

Monitoring for ecosystem services to support decision-making is greatly enhanced

with early involvement of the actual stakeholders involved in the decisions. One
key advantage to examining ecosystem services with a stakeholder driven agenda
includes the easy identification of key services recognised and preferred by soci-
eties, as well as the identification of indicators that are most meaningful to them.
Stakeholders can also participate in community-based or citizen science-based
monitoring of ecosystem services. Successfully integrating decision-makers in the
assessment and valuation of services also allows for speedier adoption of the
ecosystem services framework in practice, and the use of ecosystem service data
into actual decision-making.
Emphasis has increasingly been put on the use of ecosystem service indicators
towards agreed upon policy goals. That is the case of indicators that can inform on
progress towards the Aichi Targets and more recently progress towards the
Sustainable Development Goals. The challenge is to identify those indicators that are
most relevant to measuring progress towards the goal, while at the same time being
supported by actually available data, conceptual understanding and credibility.
Monitoring for ecosystem services at local to national and global scales needs to
take into account how preferences and ecosystem services can change in space and
time. Services that are most relevant at national to global scales could be monitored
systematically, while locally relevant services could be assessed within particular
locations.

Box 3.2. Monitoring Ecosystem Services for Coastal Planning in Belize

The coast of Belize includes hundreds of kilometres of mangrove forests,
extensive seagrass beds, and the largest unbroken reef in the Western
Hemisphere. 800,000 tourists visit the area for its renowned snorkelling and
diving sites. Tourism, as well as commercial, recreational, and subsistence
fisheries, contribute to income and livelihoods, but at the same time threaten
the very ecosystems that make these activities possible. Efforts to put the
Belize Barrier Reef on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization’s list of World Heritage Sites in Danger and the cre-
ation of a visionary legislation in 1998 calling for cross-sector,
ecosystem-based management of coastal and marine ecosystems were
insufficient to halt degradation. In 2010 The Natural Capital Project (www.
naturalcapitalproject.org) partnered with the Coastal Management Authority
and Institute to use ecosystem-service approaches and models to design a
spatial plan (Arkema et al. 2015). Interactions with a range of stakeholders
and government agencies led to the identification of different categories of
human activities, a zoning scheme, and three alternative future scenarios. The
supply and economic value of lobster fisheries, tourism, coastal protection
74 P. Balvanera et al.

and habitat (to support fisheries) were modelled for current and future sce-
narios using InVEST. Data sources included: (i) field assessments of lobster
catch and revenue; (ii) high resolution land use cover maps developed from
remote sensed data, (iii) model of lobster migration, (iv) current visitation
data obtained from social media (e.g., flickr). Risk under alternative scenarios
for individual services as well as trade-offs among services across zones were
assessed using additional spatial data on human activities and habitats, as well
as information from the peer- reviewed and grey literature on the expected
impacts of human activities on the services and the habitats. The most
desirable future scenario was identified and further refined to increase
expected delivery of almost all services in all regions into 2025. The results
from this future scenario were incorporated into the Coastal Zone
Management plan for Belize in 2012. It was refined through further stake-
holder involvement and expert review during 2013 and led to changes in
national legislation such as the creation of marine reserves and the revocation
of offshore drilling contracts issued earlier by the government of Belize.

3.17 Creating a Network for Observing and Managing

Ecosystem Services

The ultimate goal of many efforts to monitor ecosystem services is to inform

decision-makers and policy to ensure the long-term supply of services and the flow
of benefits to societies. While progress has been made on the quantification and
mapping of services, less attention has been given to the needs of decision-makers
and resource users from local to global scales. Meaningful engagement with
resource users and policy makers should occur early, explicitly and formally when
monitoring services (Menzel and Teng 2010).
A network for monitoring ecosystem services is necessary to synergise work
done by multiple partners, taking advantage of others’ insights, increasing con-
sistency, and reducing duplication of efforts. Creating such a network for moni-
toring ecosystem services at local to global scales will require significant effort from
stakeholders from the research, policy and practice communities across the globe.
National monitoring systems could create mechanisms by which local stakeholders
can provide input and feed into the national system. City and regional governments
may help facilitate the engagement with local stakeholders, and help assess the
status of services at local scales. Stakeholder participation in monitoring activities
will vary widely depending on many factors including local relevance of the ser-
vices they are monitoring, and whether incentives are provided.
Local scale monitoring could dovetail into existing ecosystem services research
which may have very different objectives but could contribute to an observation
network. Examples of such on-going efforts include: the already existing networks
3 Ecosystem Services 75

associated with ARIES, and MIMES the Ecosystem Service Partnership (www.es-
partnership.org/esp), the International Long-Term Ecological Research Network
(www.ilternet.edu), the Natural Capital Project (www.naturalcapitalproject.org), the
Program for Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS; www.pecs-science.org), the
Sub-Global Assessment Network (www.unep-wcmc.org/sga-network_770.html),
the Tropical Ecology Assessment and Monitoring Network (www.teamnetwork.org),
the ESCom Scotland (http://escomscotland.wordpress.com/) and Vital Signs
(http://vitalsigns.org/).
One major challenge to date is that multi-scale cross-site comparisons are only
possible if comparable approaches and indicators are used. To date a wide diversity
of approaches and indicators complicate such comparisons. Great emphasis has
been given over the last decade to the development of new metrics, tools and
approaches, which has fostered creative solutions. Yet, standard procedures will
eventually need to be identified and practical examples be provided to opera-
tionalise the ecosystem services concept (e.g., OPERAs; www.operas-project.eu/).
Efforts through the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation
Network (GEO BON; www.geobon.org), to further develop and communicate
standards and protocols for the collection of new ecosystem services observations
to enhance comparability across scales and data sources, are on-going. Ecosystem
Service tools are being incorporated into GEO BON developed toolkits, namely
BON-in-a-Box.
Automated, remotely sensed Earth observations will increasingly be used in the
future to assess ecosystem services as well as the drivers that modify their supply
and delivery. Changes in environmental and socio-economic features are more
available than ever with the new sensors, such as those in the Sentinel fleet. The
critical issue is integration of the data in ways that make it readily usable for
ecosystem service assessments (Cord et al. 2015).

3.18 Monitoring to Support Policy Design

Ecosystem services monitoring can be directly linked to on-going assessments that

support policy design. Timely information from monitoring ecosystem services can
be useful to the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services (IPBES; www.ipbes.net) that aims to strengthen the science policy inter-
face for biodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable
use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being and sustainable development.
IPBES is aiming to establish strategic partnerships, such as with monitoring pro-
grammes, to assist in the delivery of its work programme.
Similarly, National governments are also signatories to Multilateral
Environmental Agreements. In most cases (for instance the CBD), these rely on
technical and scientific bodies to assess progress towards implementation of agreed
decisions. National progress reports and assessment of needs towards achieving
targets rely on monitoring ecosystem services.
76 P. Balvanera et al.

Agreements and commitments across different scales (national to global) on

biodiversity and ecosystem services would benefit greatly from the extension and
linking of various observing networks, which can promote the collection, access,
packaging and communication of data. This often will require engagement with
existing mechanisms such as the assessments to be performed by IPBES, CBD and
individual nations.

3.19 Conclusions

Monitoring ecosystem services is vital for informing policy (or decision-making) to

protect human well-being and the natural systems upon which it relies at different
scales. While ecosystem services are linked to biodiversity, the social factors
involved in their supply, delivery and value to human well-being implies that they
cannot be predicted from biodiversity monitoring initiatives alone. Here we
emphasise that monitoring systems for ecosystem services must take into account
provisioning, regulating and cultural services as well as their components of supply,
delivery, contribution to well-being and value. A wide variety of data sources is
available and relevant to ecosystem services monitoring, including national statis-
tics, field-based assessments, remote sensing and models. Their elaboration will
help ensure monitoring at relevant (and where necessary multiple) scales of interest.
Outputs from monitoring a range of ecosystem services and their components at
different spatial scales can actively support decision-making. Analyses of multiple
services and biodiversity can inform decision-makers such as land managers as to
trade-offs and synergies among them. Modelling and exploring future scenarios of
ecosystem services can then clarify the impacts of alternative policies on such
trade-offs and synergies.
Monitoring our life support systems and using this information in
decision-making across all scales will be central to our endeavours to transform to
more sustainable and equitable futures.

Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/) which
permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original author(s) and source are credited.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the work’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if such material is not included in
the work’s Creative Commons license and the respective action is not permitted by statutory
regulation, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to duplicate, adapt or
reproduce the material.
3 Ecosystem Services 77

References

Altman, I., Boumans, R., Roman, J., Gopal, S. & Kaufman, L. (2014). An ecosystem accounting
framework for marine ecosystem-based management. In: M. J. Fogarty & J. J. McCarthy
(Eds.), Marine ecosystem-based management. The sea: Ideas and observations on progress in
the study of the seas (Vol. 16, pp. 245–276). Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
Andrew, M. E., Wulder, M. A., Nelson, T. A., & Coops, N. C. (2015). Spatial data, analysis
approaches, and information needs for spatial ecosystem service assessments: a review.
GIScience & Remote Sensing, 52, 344–373.
Arkema, K. K., Verutes, G. M., Wood, S. A., Clarke-Samuels, C., Rosado, S., Canto, M., et al.
(2015). Embedding ecosystem services in coastal planning leads to better outcomes for people
and nature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 112, 7390–7395.
Bagstad, K. J., Johnson, G. W., Voigt, B. & Villa, F. (2013a). Spatial dynamics of ecosystem
service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosystem Services, 4,
117–125.
Bagstad, K. J., Semmens, D. J., Waage, S. & Winthrop, R. (2013b). A comparative assessment of
decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosystem Services,
5, 27–39.
Bagstad, K. J., Semmens, D. J. & Winthrop, R. (2013c). Comparing approaches to spatially
explicit ecosystem service modeling: A case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona.
Ecosystem Services, 5, 40–50.
Bondeau, A., Smith, P. C., Zaehle, S., Schaphoff, S., Lucht, W., Cramer, W., et al. (2007).
Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance. Global
Change Biology, 13, 679–706.
Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., et al. (2012).
Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486, 59–67.
Chan, K., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address
and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18.
Cord, A. F., Seppelt, R., & Turner, W. (2015). Monitor ecosystem services from space. Nature,
523, 27–28.
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., et al. (2015). The IPBES
conceptual framework—Connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 14, 1–16.
Dinerstein, E., Varma, K., Wikramanayake, E., Powell, G., Lumpkin, S., Naidoo, R., et al. (2013).
Enhancing conservation, ecosystem services, and local livelihoods through a wildlife premium
mechanism. Conservation Biology, 27, 14–23.
Egoh, B., Dunbar, M. B., Maes, J., Willemen, L., & Drakou, E. G. (2012). Indicators for mapping
ecosystem services: A review. Ispra, Italy: European Commission.
FAO. (2012). The state of food and agriculture. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations.
Finkbeiner, M., Inaba, A., Tan, R. B. H., Christiansen, K., & Kluppel, H. J. (2006). The new
international standards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11, 80–85.
Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockstrom, J., Ohman, M. C., Shyamsundar, P., et al.
(2013). Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, 495, 305–307.
Hein, L., Van Koppen, K., De Groot, R. S., & Van Ierland, E. C. (2006). Spatial scales,
stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 57, 209–228.
Henrichs, T., Zurek, M., Eickhout, B., Kok, K., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Ribeiro, T., et al. (2010).
Scenario development and analysis for forward-looking ecosystem assessments. In: N. Ash, H.
Blanco, C. Brown, K. Garcia, T. Henrichs, N. Lucas, C. Raudsepp-Hearne, R.D. Simpson, R.
Scholes, T. P. Tomich, B. Vira, M. Zurek (Eds.), Ecosystems and human well-being: A manual
for assessment practitioners (pp. 151–219). Washington, D.C., USA: Island Press.
 78 P. Balvanera et al.

Honey-Rosés, J., Acuna, V., Bardina, M., Brozovic, N., Marce, R., Munne, A., et al. (2013).
Examining the demand for ecosystem services: The value of stream restoration for drinking
water treatment managers in the Llobregat River, Spain. Ecological Economics, 90, 196–205.
Horning, N., Robinson, J. A., Sterling, E. J., Turner, W., & Spector, S. (2010). Remote sensing for
ecology and conservation: A handbook for techniques. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
IPBES (2016). Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment of scenarios and
models of biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In S. Ferrier, K. N. Ninan, P. Leadley, R.
Alkemade, L.A. Acosta, H. R. Akçakaya, L. Brotons, W. Cheung, V. Christensen, K.
A. Harhash, J. Kabubo-Mariara, C. Lundquist, M. Obersteiner, H. Pereira, G. Peterson, R.
Pichs-Madruga, N. H. Ravindranath, C. Rondinini, B. Wintle (Eds.). Secretariat of the
intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (pp. 1–32).
Germany:Bonn. ISBN: 978-92-807-3570-3.
Kettunen, M., Bassi, S., Gantioler, S. & Ten Brink, P. (2009). Assessing socio-economic benefits
of Natura 2000: A toolkit for practitioners. Brussels, Belgium: Institute for European
Environmental Policy (IEEP). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/
docs/benefits_toolkit.pdf
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis.
Washington, DC: Island Press. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.
356.aspx.pdf
Mace, G. M., Norris, K., & Fitter, A. H. (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A
multilayered relationship. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27, 19–26.
Mace, G. M., Reyers, B., Alkemade, R., Biggs, R., Chapin, F. S., III, Cornell, S. E., et al. (2014).
Approaches to defining a planetary boundary for biodiversity. Global Environmental Change,
28, 289–297.
Maes, J., Liquete, C., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Paracchini, M. L., Barredo, J., et al. (2016). An
indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity
Strategy to 2020. Ecosystem Services, 17, 14–23.
Menzel, S., & Teng, J. (2010). Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept for
conservation science. Conservation Biology, 24, 907.
Mulligan, M. (2015a). Trading off agriculture with nature’s other benefits. In: C. A. Zolin, R. de A.
R. Rodrigues (Eds.), Impact of climate change on water resources in agriculture (pp. 184–
204). Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Mulligan, M. (2015b). WaterWorld: a self-parameterising, physically based model for application
in data-poor but problem-rich environments globally. Hydrology Research, 44, 748–769.
Peh, K. S.-H., Balmford, A. P., Bradbury, R. B., Brown, C., Butchart, S. H. M., Hughes, F. M. R.,
et al. (2014). Toolkit for ecosystem service site-based assessment (TESSA). Version 1.2,
Cambridge, UK. http://tessa.tools/
Reyers, B., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Mooney, H. A., & Larigauderie, A. (2012). Finding common
ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services. BioScience, 62, 503–507.
Scholes, R. J. (2009). Ecosystem services: Issues of scale and trade-offs. In: S. A. Levin (Ed.), The
Princeton guide to ecology (pp. 579–583). Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.
Tallis, H., Mooney, H., Andelman, S., Balvanera, P., Cramer, W., Karp, D., et al. (2012). A global
system for monitoring ecosystem service change. BioScience, 62, 977–986.
Tallis, H. T., Ricketts, T., Guerry, A. D., Wood, S. A., Sharp, R., Nelson, E., et al. (2013). InVEST
3.0.0 user’s guide. Stanford, USA: The Natural Capital Project. http://ncp-dev.stanford.edu/
*dataportal/invest-releases/documentation/3_0_0/
Valero, F., & Arbós, R. (2010). Desalination of brackish river water using electrodialysis reversal
(EDR) control of the THMs formation in the Barcelona (NE Spain) area. Desalination, 253,
170–174.
White, C., Halpern, B. S., & Kappel, C. V. (2012). Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the
value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the USA, 109, 4696–4701.

View publication stats