Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Ecosystem Services Framework and Natural Capital Conservation

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Work at the interface of ecology and economics has inspired a major transformation in the way people think about the environment. Increasingly, ecosystems are seen as capital assets, with the potential to generate a stream of vital life-support services meriting careful evaluation and investment. We first present the concepts underpinning the ecosystem services framework (ESF), laying out the scope and limitations of the approach. We then describe the major challenges in making the ESF operational: (i) detailed information at scales relevant to decision-making; (ii) practical know-how in the process of institutional design & implementation; and (iii) compelling models of success in which economic incentives are aligned with conservation. We close with a brief review of pioneering experiments now underway worldwide, which illustrate how these challenges can be overcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adger WN, Benjaminsen TA, Brown K and Svarstud H (2001). Advancing a political ecology of global environmental discourses. Dev Change 32: 681–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews J, Burgess D, Coombes E, Jickells T, Parks D and Turner RK (2006). Biogeochemical value of managed realignment, Humber Estuary, UK. Sci Total Environ 317: 19–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper P, Costanza R, Farber S, Green R, Jenkins M, Jefferis P, Jessamy V, Madden J, Munro K, Myers N, Naeem S, Paavola J, Raymnt M, Rosendo S, Roughgarden J, Trumper K and Turner RK (2002). Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297: 950–953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmford A, Gaston K, Blyth S, James A, Kapos V (2003) Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits and unmet conservation needs. PNAS (Proc Natl Acad Sci) 100:1046–1050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balvanera P, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Ricketts T, Bailey SA, Kark S, Kremen C, Pereira H (2001) Conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services. Science 291:2047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett S (2003). Environment and statecraft: the strategy of environmental treraty making. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Brauman KA (2006) Napa River flood project put to the test, The Katoomba Group’s Ecosystem Marketplace, 3 February, 2006. http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/

  • Brauman KA, Daily GC, Duarte TK, Mooney HA (in press) The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu Rev Environ Resour

  • Boone V (2005) River’s revival. Savor Summer:62–69

  • Boyd J and Banzhaf S (2007). What are ecosystem services?. Ecol Econ 63: 616–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceballos G and Ehrlich PR (2002). Mammal population losses and the extinction crisis. Science 296: 904–907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Soberón J, Salazar I and Fay JP (2005). Global mammal conservation: what must we manage?. Science 309: 603–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KMA, Shaw R, Cameron D, Underwood EC and Daily GC (2006). Conservation planning for ecosystem services. Public Library of Science Biol 4: 2138–2152

    Google Scholar 

  • Chichilnisky G and Heal G (1998). Securitizing the biosphere. Nature 391: 629–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot RS, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowards T (1998). Safe minimum standards: costs and opportunities. Ecol Econ 25: 303–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cusumano C (2004) Napa riverfront: gourmets, culture hounds, and wine lovers gather at the river. Via Sept–Oct:31–32

  • Daily GC (1997). Nature’s services. Island Press, Covelo California

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily GC and Ellison K (2002). The new economy of nature: the quest to make conservation profitable. Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily GC, Söderqvist T, Aniyar S, Arrow K, Dasgupta P, Ehrlich P, Folke C, Jansson A-M, Jansson B-O, Kautsky N, Levin S, Lubchenco J, Mäler K-G, Simpson D, Starrett D, Tilman D and Walker B (2000). The value of nature and the nature of value. Science 289: 395–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro P and Kiss A (2002). Ecology-direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 298: 1718–1719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman RL, Thompson BH, Daily GC (in press) Institutional incentives for managing the landscape: inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ

  • Goldstein J, Daily GC, Friday JB, Matson PA, Naylor RL and Vitousek PM (2006). Business strategies for conservation on private lands: Koa forestry as a case study. PNAS (Proc Natl Acad Sci) 103(26): 10140–10145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gren IM, Folke C, Turner RK and Bateman I (1994). Primary and secondary values of wetland ecosystems. Environ Resour Econ 4: 55–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holdren J and Ehrlich PR (1974). Human population and the global environment. Am Sci 62: 282–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutton J, Dickson B (eds) (2000). Endangered species, threatened convention: the past, present and future of CITES. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • James A, Gaston K and Balmford A (2001). Can we afford to conserve biodiversity?. Bioscience 51(1): 43–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C, Niles J, Dalton M, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Fay J, Grewal D and Guillery RP (2000). Economic incentives for rain forest conservation across scales. Science 288: 1828–1832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Island Press, Washington, DC

  • Naidoo R and Adamowicz WL (2005) Economic benefits of biodiversity exceed costs of conservation at an African rainforest reserve. PNAS (Proc Natl Acad Sci) 102:16712–16716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRC (National Research Council) (2000). Watershed Management for potable water supply. National Academy Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien TG and Kinnaird MF (2003). Caffeine and conservation. Science 300: 587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paavola J (2005) Interdependence, pluralism and globalism. Oxon, Routledge, pp 143–158

  • Pagiola S (2002) Paying for water services in Central America: learning from Costa Rica. In: Pagiola S et al (eds) Selling forest environmental services. Earthscan, pp 37–62

  • Pearce DW (2003). Will global warming be controlled? Reflections on the irresolution of humankind. In: Pethig, R and Rauscher, M (eds) Challenges to the World Economy: Festschrift for Horst Siebert, pp 367–382. Springer Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce DW (2007). Do we really care about biodiversity?. Environ Resour Econ 37: 313–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR and Michener C (2004). Economic value of tropical forest to coffee production. PNAS (Proc Natl Acad Sci) 101: 12579–12582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SFB (State Forestry Bureau) (2005) China’s Forestry Development Report, the State Forestry Bureau

  • Shogren JF (ed) (2005). Species at Risk: using economic incentives to shelter endangered species on private lands. University of Texas Press, Austin

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugden R (2005). Anomalies and stated preference techniques: a framework for a discussion of coping strategies. Environ Resour Econ 32: 1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner RK, Soderqvist T, Barendregt A, Maltby E, Bergh CJM, Straaten J and Ierland EC (2000). Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy. Ecol Econ 35: 7–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner RK, Paavola J, Cooper P, Farber S, Jessamy V and Georgiou S (2003). Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol Econ 46: 493–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNFAO (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization) (2004) Payment schemes for environmental services in watersheds. UNFAO, Rome

  • Westman W (1977). How much are nature’s services worth?. Science 197: 960–964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan-Farrell C and Kareiva P (2006a). Ecosystem services: status and summaries. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan-Farrell C and Kareiva P (2006b). Payment for ecosystem services: status and summaries. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, USA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environmental (CSERGE), School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK

    R. K. Turner

  2. Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, 371 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

    G. C. Daily

Authors
  1. R. K. Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. C. Daily
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. K. Turner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turner, R.K., Daily, G.C. The Ecosystem Services Framework and Natural Capital Conservation. Environ Resource Econ 39, 25–35 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9176-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9176-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation