Ecosystem Services in Decision Making: Time to Deliver

Ecosystem Services in Decision Making: Time to Deliver
Author(s): Gretchen C. Daily, Stephen Polasky, Joshua Goldstein, Peter M. Kareiva, Harold A.
Mooney, Liba Pejchar, Taylor H. Ricketts, James Salzman and Robert Shallenberger
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 7, No. 1, The Role of Ecosystem
Services in Conservation and Resource Management (Feb., 2009), pp. 21-28
Published by: Ecological Society of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25595034 .
Accessed: 12/09/2012 10:38
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Ecological Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment.
http://www.jstor.org
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES_
21
in decision
services
Ecosystem
time to deliver
making:
Gretchen C Daily1*, Stephen Polasky2, Joshua Goldstein1, Peter M Kareiva3, Harold
Taylor H Ricketts4, James Salzman5, and Robert Shallenberger6
A Mooney1,
Liba Pejchar1,
Over the past decade, efforts to value and protect ecosystem services have been promoted by many as the last,
In theory, ifwe can
best hope formaking conservation mainstream - attractive and commonplace worldwide.
help individuals and institutions to recognize the value of nature, then this should greatly increase investments
I
In practice, however, we have not yet
in conservation, while at the same time fostering human well-being.
nor
the
scientific
the
and
finance
for incorporating natural capital into
basis,
mechanisms,
developed
policy
resource- and land-use decisions on a large scale. Here, we propose a conceptual framework and sketch out a
strategic plan for delivering on the promise of ecosystem services, drawing on emerging examples from
Hawai'i. We describe key advances in the science and practice of accounting for natural capital in the decisions
of individuals, communities,
corporations, and governments.
Front Ecol Environ 2009; 7(1): 21-28, doi: 10.1890/080025
Assessment
Millennium
(MA)
Ecosystem
a
vision
for
advanced
the future (MA
powerful
The
2005), and now it is time to deliver. The vision of the
MA - and of the prescient ecologists and economists
whose work formed its foundation - is a world inwhich
people and institutions appreciate natural systems as vital
assets,
the
recognize
central
roles
assets
these
play
in sup
and routinely incorporate
porting human well-being,
their material and intangible values into decision mak
ing.This vision isnow beginning to take hold, fueled by
innovations from around the world - from pioneering
local
to government
leaders
ditional cultures tomajor
bureaucracies,
corporations
and
from
tra
(eg a new experi
In a nutshell:
nature
Valuing
not an end
Success
conservation,
is
but
in itself
on a better understanding
of ecosystem produc
integrating research (and experimenta
into the development
of new policies and institutions
hinges
tion functions
and on
tion)
The Natural
is designing practical
tools for this
Project
Capital
a system for quantifying ecosystem
purpose,
including InVEST,
services produced under different scenarios
use of these tools in contrasting
The
up
settings is opening
conservation
important
between Stanford University, The Nature Conservancy,
andWorld Wildlife Fund (www.naturalcapitalproject.org)
- is to
help integrate ecosystem services into everyday
decision making around the world. This requires turning
the valuation of ecosystem services into effective policy
and
finance
are
are
in decision
University,
Stanford,
CA
*([email protected]);2AppliedEconomics and Ecology, Evolution
and Behavior,UniversityofMinnesota, St Paul, MN; The Nature
Seattle, WA;
US, Washington,DC;
Sciences,
Conservancy,
? The
Duke
Science
Program, WWF
Nicholas School of Environmentand Earth
University,
Kamuela,
Ecological
^Conservation
Durham,
HI
Society of
as yet, no
one
often
understood,
poorly
and
rarely monitored,
Two fundamental changes need to occur in order to
replicate, scale up, and sustain the pioneering efforts that
Institute for
Conservancy,
that,
problem
are undergoing rapid degradation
(Heal 2000a; MA
2005; Maler et al. 2008). The importance of ecosystem
services isoften recognized only after they have been lost,
as was the case following Hurricane Katrina (Chambers
et al. 2007). Natural capital, and the ecosystem services
that flow from it, are usually undervalued - by govern
- if
indeed they are
ments, businesses, and the public
considered at all (Daily et al. 2000; Balmford et al. 2002;
1
Center forConservationBiology (DepartmentofBiology)andWoods
Stanford
a
NRC2005).
opportunities
the Environment,
-
mechanisms
has solved on a large scale. A key challenge remains: rel
ative to other forms of capital, assets embodied in ecosys
tems
to mainstreaming
is central
mental wing of Goldman Sachs; Daily and Ellison 2002;
Bhagwat and Rutte 2006; Kareiva and Marvier 2007;
et al. 2008). China,
Ostrom et al. 2007; Goldman
for
over
is
700 billion yuan (about
instance,
investing
US$102.6
billion) in ecosystem service payments, in the
current decade (Liu et al. 2008).
The goal of theNatural Capital Project - a partnership
America
NC;
6The
Nature
currently
to give
underway,
making.
First,
vices needs to advance
services)
on
investments
the
services
ecosystem
science
of
ecosystem
weight
ser
rapidly. In promising a return (of
in nature,
the
scientific
commu
nity needs to deliver the knowledge and tools necessary to
forecast and quantify this return. To help address this
Project has developed
challenge, the Natural Capital
InVEST (a system for Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem
www.frontiersinecology.org
o
Ecosystem services in decision making
22
GC Daily et al.
Panel 1. A tool for Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem
Services
and Tradeoffs (InVEST)
is a partnership
Capital
Project
(www.naturalcapitalproject.org)
Stanford University, The Nature
and
World
Wildlife
Conservancy,
institutions. The Project's mission
is
Fund, working together with many other
to align economic
forces with conservation,
tools
that
make
by developing
The
Natural
natural
agers
ment
capital
parts of a watershed
provide the greatest carbon
values? Where
would
reforestation
versity, and tourism
downstream water quality benefits?
How would
affect a downstream
agricultural expansion
supply? How will climate change
to those
response
services.
and population
growth
Willamette
outputs
as well
scenarios,
c,jm?e
stability
_,
Flood
contra|
Biophysical,
Community
cultural
economic,
Tradeoff
Balance
curves
sheets
on
scenarios
alternative
realistic,
for
the future.
The modeling is shaped by stakeholders,and typically
focuses on the(subsetofpossible) servicesand scenarios
deemed most important.Outputs are displayed in
accordance with stakeholderpreferences,in theform of
maps, tradeoffcurves, and/or balance sheets.These
can be expressed in biophysical (eg tons of carbon),
economic (eg dollars), or cultural (eg visitor-days)
terms(seeNelson et al. page 4 in thisissue).
in ecosystem
investments
costs, benefits, trade-offs, and synergies of alternative
et al. (page 4 in this issue).
is given inNelson
Valley, OR,
-
Maps
p
focus
city's drinking water
impact these effects?
as to changing climate,
population, and so
a set of models
and
maps ecosystem
quantifies
of these models
provide decision makers with informa
decisions,
on these
The
tion about
O
Freshwater
Cultural Supporting
Recreation Pollination
Tradition
processfor integrating
ecosystem
Figure 1*An iterative
services intodecisions. The process beginswith stake
holder engagementaround impendingdecisions,with a
biodi
sequestration,
achieve the greatest
is designed
InVEST
for use as part of an active decision-making
process
involves working with decision mak
(Figure I). The first phase of the approach
ers and other stakeholders
to identify critical management
decisions
and to
to project how the provision of services
scenarios
in
develop
might change
forth. Based
2
O
mm
Food
TimKnr
Timber
Species
u i_-*j.
Habitats
55
can help answer
of urgent
that InVEST
include:
Examples
questions
How does a proposed
forestry management
plan affect timber yields, biodi
versity, water quality, and recreation?
o
Biodiversity Provisioning Regulating
_g Outputs
integrated way.
population)
en Models
O)
C
2
climate,
(A Management,
?
?_
into decisions
resource manage
and policy makers
about the impacts of alternative
choices on the economy, human well-being,
in an
and the environment,
Which
c Scenarios
0)
the power
easy, by demonstrating
in important, contrasting places, and by engaging leaders globally.
a software system for
ser
is developing
The Project
quantifying ecosystem
vice values across
land- and seascapes,
called InVEST This tool informs man
incorporating
of these tools
Staging [1
~|
between
service
provision.
A
detailed
case
study of the
InVEST uses a flexible, modular,
to ensure that the models
are useful worldwide,
and "tiered" modeling
approach
including in places with
to
across
a landscape, and
data
estimate
the
relative
of
services
sparse
ecosystem
requirements
production
can inform prioritization exercises and
eco
2
models
service
absolute
and
levels
compute
general management
planning.Tier
corresponding
nomic values, to support more
information-rich planning processes,
such as payment for ecosystem
services schemes. Finally,Tier 3 inte
in the over
that include time steps and feedbacks
grates more complex models, developed
by other research teams (eg hydrology models),
all ecosystem
service analysis.
dataTier
4o
Imodels
have modest
Services and Tradeoffs; see Panel 1 and Nelson et al. page
4 in this issue). Second, ecosystem services must be explic
itlyand systematically integrated into decision making by
individuals, corporations, and governments (Levin 1999;
Heal 2000a; NRC
these advances, the
2005). Without
value of nature will remain littlemore than an interesting
idea, represented
in scattered,
local, and
idiosyncratic
efforts.
Here,
we
of services
ate
to
propose
a framework
It does
simultaneously.
local-,
regional-,
and
that
considers
so over
national-level
a number
scales
appropri
resource-man
agement decisions; it connects the science of quantifying
services with valuation and policy work to devise payment
schemes and management
actions; and it helps in the
and
of
successful models, thereby
up
replication
scaling
confidence
and
creating
providing inspiration for future
initiatives.We also highlight the advances in research and
that will be necessary to take this
implementation
forward
(see also Carpenter et al. in review).
approach
to illustrate
We draw upon experiences from Hawai'i
each step in our framework. Hawai'i
is a microcosm of the
a result of a rapidly
at
As
forces
worldwide.
important
play
and
growing population
intensifying development pres
the
sure,
of Hawaii's
future
is in question,
lands
culture.
There
forests,
as are other
is, however,
renewed
and
croplands,
aspects
of its economy
ranch
and
for tradi
appreciation
in which watersheds
tional Hawaiian
land management,
are recognized for all the goods and services they produce,
from
the mountains
to the sea.
Today,
diverse
leaders
across
the public, private, and non-profit sectors are mobilizing to
incorporate the values of natural capital into land-use and
policy decisions. By highlighting some of the active works
in-progress there, we illustrate the promise and challenge
of creating the broader institutional and cultural changes
that are needed worldwide.
What's
An
new?
appreciation
of ecosystems
as
valuable
capital
assets
traces back to Plato, or even earlier (Mooney and Ehrlich
www.frontier8inecology.org
? The Ecological
Society of America
GC Daily et al.
Ecosystem services in decision making
1997), and the current research agenda on
services
ecosystem
a
continues
field of
inquiry. For
resources
have
long-standing
area
active
of
at
since
lncent.ves^\^
study
least the 1950s, when Gordon
characterized the problems of
first
(1954)
fisheries. In the 1960s and
open-access
value
services
of
out
to measure
natural
areas
set
economists
1970s,
that
and
and
policy,
cially their integration (eg Dasgupta
espe
to
values
ascribing
ecosystem
Economic
and
cultural models
version
simplest
goods
ecosystem services into everyday decisions. This
on
focus
services
requires
an
services;
provisioning
beyond
understanding of the interlinked production of services; a
grasp of the decision-making
processes of individual
stakeholders; integration of research into institutional
design and policy implementation; and the introduction
of experimentally based policy interventions designed for
evaluation
performance
and
over
improvement
here.
right institutions can create incentives, so that the deci
sions made by individuals, communities, corporations,
and governments promote widely shared values. The
links
between
motivate
Making
ecosystem
as
is shown
a continuous
loop,
we
start with
the "decisions" oval to emphasize our focus. The main
aim in understanding and valuing natural capital and
ecosystem services is to make better decisions, resulting
in better actions relating to the use of land, water, and
other elements of natural capital.
The biophysical sciences are central to elucidating the
link between actions and ecosystems, and that between
ecosystems and services (biophysical models of "ecologi
cal production functions")- The social sciences are cen
tral
to measuring
nomic
and
multidimensional,
the
value
of
to
services
Because
cultural models").
it makes
sense
to
people
("eco
this value
characterize
is
it as
fully and systematically as possible, in ways that will be
meaningful tomany different audiences.
Finally, valuing ecosystem services provides useful
information that can help design the institutions that
will guide resource management and policy. Having the
? The
Ecological
Society of
and
"institutions",
"values",
"decisions"
of
integration
services
ecosystem
into
and policy decisions, and inspire a research
to support
this change.
operational
Figure 2 presents a framework for the role that ecosystem
services can play in decision making. Although
the
framework
the
management
agenda
services
the
ovals are much more representative of the art and politics
of social change than of science, although scientists can
inform these debates if they concentrate on specific deci
sions and are attuned to the social and political contexts.
In the following sections, we move
around
the
schematic of Figure 2 to explore how a focus on decisions
can
time.
are a lot of devils in the details of this work.
There
Services
Values Y^h!
f
and services isnot an end in itself,but rather
one small step in the much larger and dynamic arena of
political decision making (Daily et al. 2000). Our chal
lenge today is to build on this foundation and integrate
a new
^
Information ^
Figure 2* A framework showinghow ecosystem services can be integratedinto
decisionmaking. One could linkany twoovals, inany direction;we present the
2001;
MA 2005;NRC 2005;Ruhl etal. 2007).
Yet,
f Ecosystems 1
J
provide"
(Dasgupta and Heal 1979), and environmen
tal amenities (Freeman 1993). More recent
advances have been seen in a broad range of
areas, including ecology and global change,
institutions
Actionsand
^/^scenarios
Institutions
f
"the
(Krutilla and Fisher 1975); they focused on
agricultural production (Beattie and Taylor
1985), renewable resources (Krutilla 1967;
resources
Clark
non-renewable
1990),
economics,
I Decisions J
renewable
example,
an
been
23
America
->
Decisions
ecosystems
In Figure 2, the science needed to inform the link that
connects decisions and ecosystems is a huge challenge in
itself.
We do not detail this here, since readers of Frontiers
have built a vast literature connecting past human deci
sions
and
activities
to
their
impacts
on
ecosystems
and
landscapes, and the species that inhabit them. Looking
forward
is also
essential,
however,
and
scenarios
that
describe plausible futures, combining alternative deci
sions with projected changes in demographics, climate,
and other factors, have become both more common and
more sophisticated (eg Peterson et al. 2003).
In Hawai'i,
there has been extensive work on how
land-management
decisions
affect
ecosystems.
For
exam
to introduce
ple, we have learned that the decision
exotic pasture grasses has dramatically changed fire fre
and
quency and intensity across landscapes (D'Antonio
Vitousek 1992), and that the introduction of cattle, non
native game, and feral ungulates has further transformed
www.frontiersinecology.org
Sri
O
Ecosystem services in decision making
GC Daily et al.
requires a focus on different questions than are
traditional in ecology (Boyd and Banzhaf
2005). The MA
synthesizes our existing
knowledge (MA 2005), often at the global
24
I
1
/'
J
i*
-
4
^JL
scale.
are
There
ecosystem
on
focusing
also many
a
fine-scale
service
single
studies
functions,
production
of
typically
et al.
(Kremen
2002; Ricketts et al. 2004; Jackson et al. 2005;
et al. 2006). Much more work is
Hougner
needed now, on integrating multiple services
at regional and global scales (eg Nelson et al.
page 4 in this issue; Chan et al. 2006; Naidoo
and Ricketts 2006; Brauman et al. 2007).
as
In Hawai'i,
duction
in most
functions
efforts
However,
are
places,
are now
pro
ecological
largely undescribed.
to
underway
quantify
production functions for a range of policy-rele
vant
ecosystem
in fine
services,
across
detail,
heterogeneous
landscapes, and to elucidate
the tradeoffs and synergies among services
under
alternative
management
options.
Historically, the production of goods through
ranching and forestry has been the best
described of terrestrial services. Today, there is
growing interest in managing forests of the
endemic hardwood Acacia koa as a "win-win"
station /or quantifying the roles of pasture
Figure 3* A microrrteteorofogica!
and nearby forest in recharginggroundwater supplies for local water users.
Palani
Ranch,
Hawaii.
Kona,
native ecosystems (Cuddihy and Stone 1990; Maguire et
al. 1997). Conservation
and restoration are a key focus
today (Manning et al. 2006; Goldstein et al. 2008), as are
new
remote
sity and
sensing
ecosystem
systems
structure
for characterizing
and
function
biodiver
at
large
scales
(Asner et al. 2008).
The scientific foundation for informing decisions that
affect ecosystems could be greatly enhanced by: (1) col
laborating with stakeholders to define important scenar
ios of alternative
rO
future
uses
of
land, water,
and
other
nat
ural resources (eg MA
2005, "Scenarios" volume);
(2)
improving methods for assessing the current condition,
and predicting the future condition, of ecosystems (eg
Heinz Center 2008); and (3) establishing state-of-the-art
programs for long-term monitoring of biodiversity and
other ecosystem attributes (eg Scholes et al. 2008).
Ecosystems
-? services
Ecological production functions translate the structure
and function of ecosystems into the provision of impor
tant services (Heal 2000b; NRC 2005). Production func
tions have a long tradition in agriculture and manufactur
ing,where the amount produced of a given commodity (eg
grain) is related to the quantities and quality of the vari
ous inputs (eg seeds, labor, chemicals,
irrigation).
Estimating these functions for ecosystem services often
projects
-
land use, providing high-value timber as well
as other ecosystem services (eg Pejchar et al.
2005; Goldstein et al. 2006; Litton et al. 2006;
Scowcroft et al. 2007). Multiple reforestation
some
spanning
thousands
acres
of
-
have
recently been launched, allowing further research on pro
duction
for services
functions
such
as carbon
sequestration
(eg Litton et al. 2006; Scowcroft et al. 2007) and ground
water recharge (K Brauman unpublished data; Figure 3).
The
translation of ecosystem condition
into ecosystem
services
requires
and function
interdisciplinary
and
user
oriented research, including: (1) collaborating with stake
holders to define services that people care about (eg
Carpenter et al. 2006; Cowling et al. 2008); (2) developing
transparent, flexible models of ecological production func
tions at scales relevant to decision making (Panel 1); and
(3) testing and refining thesemodels in systems around the
world, to derive general insights (eg Ricketts et al. 2008).
-> values
Services
The promise of ecosystem service analyses is that they
will make explicit the costs and benefits of alternative
actions to people
valuation
(NRC
2005). Economic
methods take changes in the supply of ecosystem services
as input and translate these into changes in human wel
fare, inmonetary terms (Repetto et al. 1987; Daily et al.
2000; Arrow et al. 2004). Cost-benefit analyses and other
express
methodologies
monetary
compare.
currencies,
In
certain
alternative
making
cases,
www.frontiersinecology.org
however,
?
in
comparisons
apples-to-oranges
options
service
The Ecological
easier
values
to
may
Society ofAmerica
GC Daily et al.
Ecosystem services in decision making
25
1
,^
in^
nil
i
^i*i"ir.ii
"
y^
Ti^^T^^^iwwrrw'iffi
EflM^H^^^^lBiKI^^Hilv^i^^^^^^^^^HBlHf^^l
E^ii^v^B^ft^?^^^BLLtf^H^UM*jHBZ^i^^^^^^H
^E3^^^i^^T^^m^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B
H^^^^VK^^^^Ht^^i^^B?^^^BMr
^^^BJ^piri^^^^^B
^BI^^^^^^^^B^^ii^'i^kM^^^Ki^^^BI^^B^^BI^H
Bi^^^B^B^^BBr ?ffin?~v^^^BBB^M^BEJ^^^^^B
Figure 4. Using InVEST to hefpassess management options for (a) a land-holdingofKamehameha Schools (Kawailoa, Olahu).
This 26 000-acre parcel has (b) prime undeveloped coastline, (c) an ancient fishpondand other importantcultural assets, (d) a highly
productive agriculturalbeltwith water resources, (e) biodiversenative upland forest,and (f) commercialand residentialareas.
best be conveyed in other ways (eg the cultural impor
tance of natural places), because assigning credible mon
etary values is difficult or lessmeaningful.
In Hawai'i,
are
both
important
monetary
to decision
and
makers.
metrics
non-monetary
Kaiser
and
Roumasset
(2002), for example, examined themonetary contribution
in enhancing
of a forested watershed
groundwater
a
metric
and
clear
forweighing the costs
present
recharge,
and benefits of alternative approaches to watershed man
a major educational
agement. Kamehameha
Schools,
a multi-dimensional
trust, is developing
perspective,
including
? The
economic,
Ecological
environmental,
Society of America
educational,
www.frontiersmecology.org
and
community elements, with an underlying cultural founda
tion.
To
evaluate
land-management
decisions,
the
trust
considers the number of student activity-days per year, the
number of areas available for gathering traditional plants
(eg for lei making), and access to sites of spiritual impor
tance,
in addition
to monetary
estimates
of
value.
The
Natural Capital Project is working with Kamehameha
Schools to apply InVEST to a key tract of land on O'ahu,
to determine the impacts of alternative land uses on bio
physical and cultural ecosystem services (Figure 4).
More
research is needed to build the credibility of
ecosystem service approaches,
by: (1) combining
direct
O
Ecosystem services in decision making
26
biophysical measurements
estimate
the monetary
GC Daily et al.
with economic
value
to
valuation
at
services
of ecosystem
the
scale of decisions; (2) developing non-monetary methods
for valuing human health and security, and cultural ser
vices,
and
in
these
incorporating
easy-to-use,
exacerbating existing social inequities with policy incen
tives (eg Pagiola et al. 2005).
O
cial institutional change is difficult and requires careful
attention to the distribution of the costs and benefits of
change (in terms of power, status,wealth, etc). Many such
are
possible,
from
monetary
creating
to
incentives
altering cultural norms (eg in attitudes to smoking). There
isno magic recipe for initiating change, and itmakes sense
to experiment with a wide variety of possible mechanisms
(egOlsson et al. 2008). In some cases, the firststep toward
institutional change has been in the form of a demonstra
tion "pilot project" (eg Pagiola et al. 2002; Salzman 2005).
In this process, it is important that researchers are linked
with key leaders as well as public and private organizations
from the beginning, to design policy in stages and, ideally,
to improve itsform and implementation as knowledge and
increase.
understanding
government initiatives are helping to bring
stakeholders together and creating opportunities
for
In
the
House
Hawai'i
of
2006,
change.
Representatives
passed a resolution requesting an analysis of incentives to
In Hawai'i,
conservation
promote
activities
on
private
lands
(House
Concurrent Resolution 200, 23rd Legislature, 2006). The
resolution emphasized the valuable economic and cultural
contribution
of
ecosystem
services
to Hawai'i
s residents,
reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by
2020 (House Bill 226, 24th Legislature, 2007). Motivated
by this legislation, the Natural Capital Project isworking
to launch a pilot project, focused initially on payments for
range
carbon
of other
sequestration,
environmental,
while
economic,
aiming
and
to achieve
cultural
capital
for
the
a
ben
efits. Being ready to infuse policy discussions with relevant
scientific, economic, and cultural information is key to
making effective use of these policy opportunities.
a view
to cultivate
of
protection
of
as
ecosystems
initiatives
(1) piloting
that include
services
ecosystem
and
fostering recognition of the value of these services (eg
Olsson et al. 2008); (2) determining the merits and limi
tations of various policy and finance mechanisms,
in dif
ferent
economic,
and
governance,
other
social
contexts
(eg Berkes et al. 2003; Ostrom 2005); and (3) developing
institutions that achieve representation and participation
by stakeholders as part of adaptive governance systems
and Reed
et al. 2008).
2002; Cowling
Institutions -? decisions
In concrete terms, this arrow in Figure 2 represents finan
cial flows and other tangible incentives. However, our
model of change begs an important question: what actu
in decisions
and behavior
changes
ally motivates
and
Kahneman
1981) monetary rewards, legal
(Tversky
sanctions, guilt, approval by peers? How can these be
included in a conscious process of cultural evolution
societies have values consis
(Kahneman
1980)? When
tent with the approach laid out here, we can foster these
values.
societies
When
services
ecosystem
either
do
not
short-term economic
obsessed with
to
incorporate
or
nature
value
are
growth, the use of
in main
conservation
stream decision making may be much more difficult.
There are many different nuances in even the most basic
decisions involved in setting up payments for ecosystem
services (eg contract duration, payment level, and specifi
cation and monitoring of desired outcomes).
It is impor
tant to integrate social psychology and other sources of
experience and insight into this work (eg Ross and
Nisbett 1991;McMillan 2002).
The complexity of social change, and the diversity of
values and decisions facing stakeholders inHawai'i, high
light the need for a multi-pronged approach. For busi
ness-minded landowners, developing a suite of financial
incentives linked with different ecosystem service values
is of prime importance. Many
landowners will require
multiple
revenue
streams
conservation-oriented
urging state policy reform "by thinking of the environment
not as a 'freegood,' but as a capital resource thatwill depre
ciate without appropriate care". In 2007, Hawai'i passed
the nations second state-level climate bill, mandating a
land-based
help
assets by:
(eg Rickenbach
-> institutions
To bring about a change in decision making (Figure 1), it is
important to embed the values of natural capital in institu
tions. Without
institutional change, communities may
well continue to carry on with behaviors that are widely
known to be harmful to society over the long term (eg
overfishing, high use of fossil fuels). Bringing about benefi
changes
can
face. We
incentives
easy-to
understand, but rigorous tools for valuing ecosystem ser
vices; and (3) developing methods for identifying who
benefits from ecosystem services, and where and when
those who benefit live relative to the lands and waters in
this information, we risk creating or
question. Without
Values
Influencing existing institutions, or building new ones
as needed, is one of the most important challenges we
in order
management
to move
toward
(Goldstein
more
et
al.
2006). Cultural and educational effortsare also underway,
to (re)connect
to the land. The Waipa
people
Foundation
for example,
(www.waipafoundation.org/),
a modern approach to the traditional
has developed
ahupuaa management
mountaintop
to
system (subdivisions of land, from
seashore,
using
streams
as
boundaries)
through activities with the local community, school chil
Futures Program
dren, and others. The First Nations'
values-based
(www.fnfp.org/) develops
leadership for
to
natural
achieve
managing
capital. Finally,
landscape
scale management
(Goldman et al. 2007), new institu
tions are being developed,
involving cross-boundary
cooperation
between public and private
www.frontiersinecology.org
? The Ecological
land managers.
Society of America
GC Daily et al.
For
the recently created Three Mountain
example,
now facilitates collaboration among groups of
Alliance
in
landowners,
the
conservation
and
of
management
nearly one million acres of land on the island of Hawai'i.
The integration of conservation into decision-making
processes will be aided by: (1) broad discussion and
inquiry into what motivates people and how social norms
evolve, especially in the context of nature (eg Ehrlich
and Kennedy
2005; Pergams and Zaradic 2008);
(2)
into
traditional
and
incorporating
practices
knowledge
modern conservation approaches (eg Berkes and Folke
1998); and (3) developing a broader vision for conserva
tion,
and
that
approaches
move
from
to
confrontation
participatory efforts seeking a wide range of benefits (eg
Theobald et al. 2005; Manning et al. 2006; Goldman et al.
2007; PejcharetaL
2007).
Ecosystem services in decision making
References
27
too
L, et al 2004- Are we consuming
K, Dasgupta
P, Goulder
much? J Econ Perspect 18: HI-12.
Asner GP, Hughes
Invasive plants
RF, Vitousek
PM, et al 2008.
structure of rain forests. P Natl
transform the three-dimensional
Arrow
Acad Sci 105: 4519-23.
Baker PJ and Scowcroft PG. 2005. Stocking guidelines for the
Hawaiian
endemic
Acacia
hardwood,
For
koa. ] Trop
Sci
17:
610-24.
reasons for
A, Bruner A, Cooper
P, et al 2002. Economic
conserving wild nature. Science 297: 950-53.
Beattie B and Taylor CR.
1985. The economics
of production.
New
York, NY: Wiley.
Balmford
F and Folke C.
1998. Linking
social and ecological
systems.
UK: Cambridge
Press.
Cambridge,
University
Berkes F, Colding
J, and Folke C. 2003. Navigating
social-ecologi
cal systems. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge
Press.
University
Berkes
Bhagwat
and Rutte
SA
C.
versity management.
Boyd JW and Banzhaf
2006. Sacred groves: potential
Front Ecol Environ 4: 519-24
for biodi
HS.
2005. Ecosystem
services and govern
the need
for a new way of judging
accountability:
Nature's
16-19.
value. Resources Summer:
ment
Conclusions
Brauman
The challenge we face is to make the ecosystem services
framework credible, replicable, scalable, and sustainable.
There are many hurdles to implementing the agenda out
lined in Figure 2. There are scientific challenges for ecolo
gists,
economists,
standing how
provision
and
human
of ecosystem
other
social
actions
services,
scientists,
in under
affect ecosystems,
and
the value
of those
the
ser
vices. At least as difficult are the social and political ques
tions associated with incorporating this understanding into
decision making. We must design effective and enduring
institutions
to manage,
monitor,
and
provide
incentives
that reflect the social values of ecosystem services. Ideally,
individuals, corporate managers, and government officials
who make decisions that affect ecosystems and the services
they provide will pay the prices that reflect these impacts.
Price is by no means the only thing that affects peoples'
decisions. However, ifwe can get the price closer to being
"right", everyday behavior and decisions will be channeled
toward a future inwhich nature isno longer seen as a lux
ury we cannot afford, but as something essential for sus
taining and improving human well-being everywhere.
These ideas trace tomany people, including A Balmford,
P Bing, S Carpenter, P Ehrlich, C Folke, JGreenwell, N
G Heal, C Katz, M Kleeman,
S Levin, P
Hannahs,
D
W
V
Matson,
Matsuura,
Reid,
Sant, R Sant, J
B
K
K
Sarukhan,
Turner,
Thompson,
Unger, P Vitousek,
K Wirth, T Wirth,
and W Wirth,
and the Beijer
Institute. We thank the Hawai'i
landowners and leaders
in the private, public, and nonprofit sectors, who are fos
tering this joint work. We appreciate the comments of J
P Ehrlich, R Goldman,
C Katz, N
Boyd, M Conte,
are
H
P
Timmer.
and
We
Lincoln,
Tallis,
grateful for sup
P
from
H
V
R
Sant,
Sant, B Hammett,
port
Bing,
Bing,
and
the Koret, MacArthur, Moore
foundations.
Sherwood, andWinslow
Ecological
Society of
America
Family, Packard,
Bennett
S,
Carpenter
E, and Peterson
an overview. Ecol
services:
ecosystem
G.
2006.
Soc
11: 29
Scenarios
for
for global stew
S, Mooney
H, Agard
J, et al. Research
P Natl
Ecosystem Assessment.
ardship: beyond the Millennium
Acad Sci. In review.
Carpenter
Katrina's
JI, Zeng H, et al 2007. Hurricane
carbon footprint on US Gulf Coast
forests. Science 318:
1107.
Chan
K, Shaw R, Cameron
D, et al 2006. Conservation
planning
Chambers
Clark
JQ, Fisher
services. PLoS Biology 4: 2138-52.
for ecosystem
G
1990. Mathematical
2nd edn. New
bioeconomics,
NY: Wiley.
r-t
York,
model
R, Egoh B, Knight AT, et al 2008. An operational
Cowling
services for implementation.
P
for mainstreaming
ecosystem
Natl Acad Sci 105: 9483-88.
LW
Cuddihy
and Stone
CP.
of native
1990. Alteration
Hawaiian
effects of humans,
their activities
and
introduc
vegetation:
tions. Honolulu,
HI: University
Press.
of Hawaii
and Ellison K. 2002. The new economy
of nature:
the
Daily GC
quest to make
Press.
Daily
conservation
DAntonio
C
and Vitousek
P. 2001. Human
of nature
P. 1992. Biological
invasions
and global change. Annul
by exotic
Rev Ecol
Economic
1979.
UK:
Cambridge
and
well-being
theory and
University
the natural
Press.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University
PR and Kennedy
D.
Ehrlich
2005. Millennium
human
Freeman
AM
resource
Resources
Goldman
dence
Science
behavior.
III.
1993. The
values:
Island
value
the grass/fire cycle,
63-87.
P and Heal G.
Dasgupta
resources. Cambridge,
Dasgupta
DC:
profitable. Washington,
GC,
T, Aniyar
S, et al. 2000. The
Soderqvist
and the nature of value. Science 289: 395-96.
grasses,
Syst 23:
Acknowledgements
? The
HA.
2007. The
KA, Daily GC, Duarte TK, and Mooney
services: an overview highlight
and value of ecosystem
services. Annu Rev Env Resour 32: 67-98.
ing hydrologic
nature
theory
for the Future.
309:
environment.
assessment
of
562-63.
measurement
and
exhaustible
Press.
of environmental
methods.
P, and Daily GC.
RL, Tallis H, Kareiva
service projects
that ecosystem
support
2008.
and
DC:
Washington,
Field
biodiversity
evi
and
diversifyoptions. P Natl Acad Sci 105: 9445-48.
Institutional
2007.
BH, and Daily GC.
Thompson
for managing
the landscape:
inducing cooperation
services. Ecol Econ 64: 333-43.
for the production
of ecosystem
return-on
Goldstein
2008. Using
L, and Daily GC.
JH, Pejchar
Goldman
RL,
incentives
investment
to guide
Lett 1: 236-43
restoration:
a case
study from Hawaii.
www.frontiersinecology.org
Cons
O
GC Daily et al.
Ecosystem services in decision making
28
strategies for
J,Daily GC, Friday JB, et al. 2006. Business
on private
conservation
lands: Koa
forestry as a case study. P
tary history. In: Daily
DC:
Island Press.
Goldstein
Natl Acad Sci 103: 10140-45.
HS.
Gordon
resource:
G.
Heal
2000a.
the fishery. J Polit Econ
Nature
and the marketplace:
benefits
of
Press.
DC: National
Academies
Washington,
Olsson
P, Folke C, and Hughes TP. 2008. Navigating
to ecosystem-based
of the Great
management
services. Washington,
DC:
ecosystem
services. Ecosystems 3: 24-30.
G. 2000b. Valuing
ecosystem
state of the nation's
2008. The
Heinz Center.
ecosystems: measur
Heal
ing the land, water, and living resources
DC:
Island Press.
Washington,
of the United
States.
Jackson RB, Jobbagy EG, Avissar R, et al. 2005. Trading water
Science 310:
carbon with biological
1944-47.
sequestration.
of decisions.
D.
1980. Human
Kahneman
engineering
for
In:
in an age of pervasive
M
(Ed). Ethics
technology.
Press.
Boulder, CO: Westview
ser
Kaiser B and Roumasset
indirect ecosystem
]. 2002. Valuing
Econ
Environ Dev
vices:
the case of tropical watershed.
7:
Kranzberg
701-14.
M.
P and Marvier
2007.
C, Williams
from native bees
Sci
for the people.
Conservation
Am 297: 50-57.
Kremen
RW.
and Thorp
2002. Crop pollination
NM,
at risk from agricultural
P Natl
intensification.
Acad Sci 99: 16812-16.
Krutilla
JV
777-86.
1967. Conservation
Am
reconsidered.
1975. The
JV and Fisher AC.
ronments:
studies in the valuation
Krutilla
o
resources.
economics
Econ
Rev
of natural
of commodity
and
57:
envi
amenity
Press.
E. 2005. Understanding
institutional
diversity. Princeton,
Press.
NJ: Princeton University
and Anderies
Ostrom
E, Janssen MA,
JM. 2007. Going
beyond
panaceas:
special feature. P Natl Acad Sci 104: 15176-223.
for envi
A, and Platais G. 2005. Can payments
Pagiola S, Arcenas
services help reduce poverty? World Dev 33: 237-53.
ronmental
N. 2002. Selling
forest envi
S, Bishop
J, and Landell-Mills
Pagiola
services. London, UK: Earthscan.
ronmental
et al 2007.
the
M,
P, Caldwell
L, Morgan
Evaluating
Pejchar
eco
for conservation
development:
biophysical,
potential
Biol 21: 69-78.
Conserv
nomic, and institutional perspectives.
and Lockwood
KD,
L, Holl
JL. 2005. Hawaiian
honey
Pejchar
for
range size varies with habitat:
creeper home
implications
Acacia
koa forestry. Ecol Appl 15: 1053-61.
PA. 2008. Evidence
and Zaradic
Pergams ORW
shift away from nature-based
and pervasive
for a fundamental
recreation.
P Natl
Acad Sci 105: 2295-2300.
SR.
and Carpenter
GS,
GD, Cumming
a tool for conservation
planning:
planning
world. Conserv Biol 17: 358-66.
2003.
Scenario
in an
uncertain
Peterson
M, Beer G,
for Indonesia.
R, Wells
Repetto
accounting
Institute.
and Rossini
F
resource
1987. Natural
DC:
Washington,
Resources
World
S. 2006. Effects
and Cordell
CM,
DR,
Sandquist
native
carbon pools and tree
grass invasion on aboveground
structure in a tropical dry forest of Hawaii.
Forest
population
231:
Ecol Manage
105-13.
Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, and Michener C.
Z, et al.
Sci 105: 9489-94.
policies
2008.
Ecological
and
socioeconomic
services.
for ecosystem
P Natl
2005. Ecosystems
Assessment).
(Millennium
Ecosystem
series (four volumes
human
the assessment
well-being:
DC:
Island Press.
summary). Washington,
Acad
and
and
as a route to
LA, Jenkins P, and Nugent G. 1997. Research
Maguire
in Hawaii.
Transactions
of
control
consensus?
Feral ungulate
Resource
American
Wildlife
the 62nd North
and Natural
and Reed
MG
in a watershed
of non
J, Li S, Ouyang
effects of China's
2002. Cross-boundary
sentiments
of
of tropical
value
Acad Sci 101: 12579-82.
30:
forest to coffee production.
T, Regetz
J, Steffan-Dewenter
services:
effects on crop pollination
Ecol Lett 11: 499-515.
L and Nisbett
tives of social
R.
1991. The
psychology.
private
584-94.
Ricketts
Ross
cooperation
forest
the
Environ Manage
landowners.
Economic
AS.
context:
person
New
Ruhl JB,Kraft SE, and Lant CL.
services. Washington,
ecosystem
markets
Salzman
J. 2005. Creating
and
the situation:
2007. The
DC:
law and policy of
Island Press.
for ecosystem
services:
Turner W, et al. 2008. Towards
1044-45.
system. Science 321:
diversity observing
Theobald
DM,
J, et al. 2005. Ecological
Spies T, Kline
the bazaar:
J. 2002. Reinventing
kets. New York, NY: Norton.
Mooney
HA
and Ehrlich
PR.
a natural
1997. Ecosystem
history of mar
services:
a fragmen
notes
fromthe field.New YorkU Law Rev 80: 870-961.
D. 2006. Scattered
AD, Fischer J, and Lindenmayer
Manning
are keystone
structures - implications
for conservation.
Consent
132: 311-21.
Biol
perspec
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Scowcroft
trees
2004.
P Natl
I, et al 2008. Landscape
are there general patterns?
135-45.
Conference,
for ecosys
Maler KG, Aniyar S, and Jansson A. 2008. Accounting
tem services as a way to understand
for sus
the requirements
P Natl Acad Sci 105: 9501-06.
tainable development.
McMillan
Reef,
Australia. P Natl Acad Sci 105: 9489-94.
Rickenbach
S.
Litton
MA
the transition
Barrier
Baltimore, MD:
University
Johns Hopkins
1999. Fragile dominion:
and the commons.
complexity
MA:
Perseus
Books.
Reading,
Levin
Liu
costs and
Ostrom
T. 2006. Economic
valua
C, Colding
J, and Soderqvist
Hougner
in the Stockholm
service
tion of a seed dispersal
National
Ecol Econ 59: 364-74.
Urban
Park, Sweden.
Kareiva
of conservation.
ser
2005. Valuing
Research
Council).
(National
ecosystem
vices:
better
environmental
decision
toward
making.
NRC
the value
capturing
Island Press.
services. Washington,
(Ed). Nature's
2006. Mapping
the economic
PLoS Biology 4: e360.
TH.
R and Ricketts
Naidoo
theory of a common-property
62: 124-42.
economic
1954. The
GC
response of
PG, Friday JB, Idol T, et al. 2007. Growth
fer
koa trees to thinning, grass control, and phosphorus
in a secondary
Forest Ecol Manage
forest in Hawai'i.
tilization
Acacia
239:
Scholes
69-80.
RJ, Mace
GM,
a global
bio
support for
Ecol Appl 15: 1906-14.
planning.
D.
1981. The
and
framing of decisions
Tversky A and Kahneman
of choice. Science 211: 453-58.
the psychology
rural land-use
www.fronderainecology.org
? The
Ecological
Society of America