FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3200599583> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3200599583 endingPage "76" @default.
• W3200599583 startingPage "52" @default.
• W3200599583 abstract "Many hope that the ecosystem services framework will provide a new and generous source of conservation funding. Heather Tallis and Peter Kareiva (2005) write that “realization of the market worth of ecosystem services has the potential to increase conservation funding by orders of magnitude”. This enthusiasm has sparked an impressive volume of work within the ecosystem service framework (Turner and Daily, 2008). Fisher and co-authors (2009) document an exponential increase in the number of published papers employing the terms “ecosystem services” or “ecological services”, beginning from essentially none in the early 1980s to more than 250 in 2007, the last year for which they have data. Some rough idea of the currency of the term can be gleaned from the fact that entering “ecosystem services” in the Google search engine returns about 4.7 million entries.2 The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), a multi-year, multi-million dollar international undertaking involving over 1,300 scientists from around the world was conducted to assess the consequences of ecosystem change, and consequent alterations in the flow of ecosystem services, for human well-being (MA, 2005). This work may continue under a recently proposed “intergovernmental platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services” (IPBES), modeled on the Nobel-prize-winning Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In November 2008 representatives of 78 nations and 25 international NGOs met to consider establishment of an IPBES (UNEP, 2008a). At the meeting a “program of work and budget” of approximately $18.4 million was presented (although not yet adopted) (UNEP, 2008b). Organizations around the world are adopting an ecosystem services approach to ecological decision-making. Yet the elements of that approach are not as settled as its widespread adoption might make it appear. One often encounters passages such as the following: “Although the societal benefits of native ecosystems are clearly immense, they remain largely unquantified for all but a few services” (Ricketts et al., 2004, emphasis added; see also Kareiva and Ruffo, 2009; Daily et al., 2009). But if benefits are “largely unquantified”, what is the basis for concluding that they are “clearly immense”? Is there really much evidence supporting the contention that the services supplied by natural ecosystems are of great value and that they are being squandered by unwise land-use decisions? In this chapter I suggest that evidence to that effect remains sparse. This is so for several reasons, and I will consider them in turn. The first is that many contributions to the literature on ecosystem service values would appear to be intended to motivate research on ecosystem services rather than to document the findings of such research. There are certainly numerous, and in many instances eloquent, statements of the hypothesis that natural ecosystems provide valuable services, but fewer careful tests of that hypothesis. In some studies the interpretation of evidence concerning ecosystem service values is problematic. It is worth underscoring that evidence of ecosystem service values will only motivate different conservation decisions if such values outweigh costs. It is not sufficient simply to note that there is some value to conserving what is already in place without comparing that value to other possibilities. Closely related to the above observation is the economic truism that “value is determined on the margin”. The relevant concern is typically not that biodiversity or ecosystem services will perish in their entirety. Any monetary estimate of such a calamity would necessarily be, to borrow Michael Toman’s (1998) characterization, a “serious underestimate of infinity”. The relevant policy question, then, is whether preserving specific components of ecosystems provides benefits in excess of those that would arise from their forgone uses. If ecosystem services are not assigned their true value in land-use decisionmaking, it is because such services are public goods; that is, they are benefits which, when supplied by one person are necessarily accessible to many. Yet the more compact the scale on which such public goods are provided – the fewer members of the “public” who benefit from their provision – the less likely it is that ecosystem services will be underprovided. Consequently, we should be most concerned about the provision of ecosystem services whose benefits are very widely dispersed. This observation, in turn, leads to a couple of other issues. First, there is what I call below a “paradox of valuation”. The things we would most like to be able to place an economic value on are those public goods whose benefits are themost widely dispersed. But these are precisely the goods whose value is most difficult to estimate. Second, the most compelling argument for conserving relatively pristine ecosystems may prove to be that they provide the global public goods of carbon sequestration and biodiversity protection. If this is, in fact, the most important argument for conservation, however, the ecosystem service framework does not appear to be adding much new to the debate on conservation policy. This last observation poses the main question motivating this chapter. How does adopting the ecosystem service framework alter the ways in which we think about conservation policy? If the point is simply that we ought to regard natural ecosystems as assets that provide value to society and should, therefore, compete with alternative land uses as we make choices about how to allocate the earth’s surface among our wants and needs, the argument is unexceptionable. It is also not novel, however. Underscoring such a fundamental principle is useful, but it alone cannot account for current enthusiasm for the ecosystem service framework. That enthusiasm derives, rather, from the sense that the ecosystem service framework has already demonstrated, or can soon be expected to demonstrate, the general economic superiority of conservation to alternative land uses. Most of the remainder of this chapter is devoted to considering and, generally, rebutting these assertions. As these are controversial points, I should hasten to point out a handful of caveats. I most certainly do not dispute that the services of natural ecosystems are valuable to humanity. Nor do I dispute that the services of some such ecosystems are more valuable than are any alternative uses that might be made of the areas they occupy. Consequently, there are surely instances in which land use could be made more rational and, generally, socially beneficial by undertaking public policy to preserve natural habitats. What has not been satisfactorily established is the generality of such propositions. In the body of this chapter I pursue two major themes. The first is that many well-known tracts on ecosystem services do not, in fact, make a general and compelling case for their economic value. The second is that there is a good reason for the first observation: valuing ecosystem services is an extraordinarily difficult undertaking. In the final section of the chapter I return to my main question in light of these observations. What does an ecosystem service framework imply for conservation policy, and does adopting it move the debate forward?" @default.
• W3200599583 created "2021-09-27" @default.
• W3200599583 creator A5025903211 @default.
• W3200599583 date "2010-07-13" @default.
• W3200599583 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W3200599583 title "The “ecosystem service framework”: A critical assessment" @default.
• W3200599583 cites W1483294716 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W1513198557 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W1517147141 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W1527884994 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W1533809201 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W1544682703 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W1547354418 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W1564957762 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W1565693361 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W1579679186 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W1580064442 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W176498584 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W1806637242 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W183534010 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W1974780586 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W1985662772 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W1987422726 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W1991538680 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2023122141 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2023369990 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2031104472 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2031679747 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2034076134 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2041127477 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2046268078 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2058576347 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2073309704 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2076644678 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2081413263 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2083722668 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2088979675 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2091639395 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2095172557 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2096246734 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2108173127 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2109760194 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2110787586 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2111124924 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W211313381 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2116725855 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2119653503 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2123810646 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2131740028 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2134126383 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2137268092 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2139355960 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2140213892 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2144892231 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2148130241 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2149089374 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2149799184 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2165273458 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2171530553 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2264557509 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2474968657 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2746485780 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2913357818 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W3006661074 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W3121503710 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W3121962086 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W3124081164 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W3125364203 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W57926453 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W599715933 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2112627858 @default.
• W3200599583 cites W2781187043 @default.
• W3200599583 doi "https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203847602-10" @default.
• W3200599583 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W3200599583 type Work @default.
• W3200599583 sameAs 3200599583 @default.
• W3200599583 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W3200599583 countsByYear W32005995832015 @default.
• W3200599583 countsByYear W32005995832016 @default.
• W3200599583 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3200599583 hasAuthorship W3200599583A5025903211 @default.
• W3200599583 hasConcept C107826830 @default.
• W3200599583 hasConcept C110872660 @default.
• W3200599583 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W3200599583 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W3200599583 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W3200599583 hasConcept C2780378061 @default.
• W3200599583 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W3200599583 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3200599583 hasConcept C58941895 @default.
• W3200599583 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W3200599583 hasConcept C91375879 @default.
• W3200599583 hasConceptScore W3200599583C107826830 @default.
• W3200599583 hasConceptScore W3200599583C110872660 @default.
• W3200599583 hasConceptScore W3200599583C144133560 @default.
• W3200599583 hasConceptScore W3200599583C162853370 @default.
• W3200599583 hasConceptScore W3200599583C18903297 @default.
• W3200599583 hasConceptScore W3200599583C2780378061 @default.

• next