Ecosystem Services in the Service-Dominant Logic Framework
The ecosystem services concept has become the predominant lens through which researchers and decision-makers view the relationship between natural ecosystems and human well-being. Over the past decades, a number of widely accepted classification systems, analytical methods, and a rich vocabulary around ecosystem services have evolved in the literature. Although there is widespread recognition that many ecosystem services are not exchanged in markets as commodities, many of these ecosystem service concepts and tools were built upon a theoretical foundation derived from neoclassical economics in which ecosystems are seen as passive production systems. Unfortunately, this perspective carries the potential to blind one to the complex interactions by which ecosystems, beneficiaries, and myriad other social actors interact to manage ecosystems and create human value. The service-dominant logic (S-D logic) framework, which views all value as being co-created by multiple actors engaged in the exchange of service, offers a valuable perspective by which the ecosystem services concept may be recast. Similarly, the ecosystem services lexicon can make important contributions to S-D logic by providing a means to describe and quantify the universal importance of natural ecosystems to human service systems. In this chapter, we briefly describe the ecosystem service concept and introduce the means for incorporating ecosystem services (as potential service offerings) into the S-D logic framework. We then use this modified framework to explore two case studies, recreation on U.S. family forests and a biodiversity market in Finland.
KeywordsBiodiversity markets Ecosystem services Family forests Integrated service value creation framework Value networks
- Boulter, J. (Ed). (2011). Approach for reporting on ecosystem services: Incorporating ecosystem services into an organization’s performance initiative. Global Reporting Initiative. ISBN: 978-90-8866-0528.Google Scholar
- Butler, B.J., Hewes, J.H., Dickinson, B., Andrejczyk, K., Butler, S.M., & Markowski-Lindsay, M. (2016). USDA forest service national woodland owner survey: National, regional, and state statistics for family forest and woodland ownerships with 10+ acres, 2011–2013. Res. Bull. NRS-99. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.Google Scholar
- Caputo, J., & Butler, B. (2017). Ecosystem service supply and capacity on U.S. family forestlands. Forests, 8(10), 395.Google Scholar
- Davies, L., Kwiatkowski, L., Gaston, K. J., Beck, H., Brett, H., et al. (2011). Urban, Chapter 10. UK National Ecosystem Assessment, The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report (pp. 361–410). Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.Google Scholar
- Eriksson, E., Gillespie, A. R., Gustavsson, L., Langvall, O., Olsson, et al. (2007). Integrated carbon analysis of forest management practices and wood substitution. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 37(3), 671–681.Google Scholar
- Finnish Forest Association. (2017). Forest ownership. Retrieved from January 19, 2018, from https://www.smy.fi/en/forest-fi/graphs/forest-owners/.
- GRI. (2011). Approach for reporting on ecosystem services: Incorporating ecosystem services into an organizational performance disclosure. The Global Reporting Initiative.Google Scholar
- Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2010). The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In D. Raffaelli & C. Frid (Eds.), Ecosystem ecology: A new synthesis. BES Ecological Reviews Series (pp. 110–139). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
- Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2013). CICES V4.3—Report prepared following consultation on CICES version 4. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003.Google Scholar
- Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J., Iceland, C., & Finisdore, J. (2012). The corporate ecosystem services review: Guidelines for identifying business risks and opportunities arising from ecosystem change. Version 2.0. World Business Council for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
- Hirsch, F., Clark, D., Vihervaara, P., & Primmer, E. (2011). Payments for forest-related ecosystem services: What role for a green economy (30 pp.)? A background paper for a workshop on “Payments for ecosystem services: What role for a green economy? Concept, approaches and case studies”, Geneva 4–5 July 2011. Geneva: UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Section. Retrieved June 29, 2019, from https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/meetings/20110704/06062011pes_background_paper.pdf.
- Jäppinen, J. P., & Heliölä, J. P. (2015). Towards a sustainable and genuinely green economy: The value and social significance of ecosystem services in Finland. Helsinki: The Finnish Ministry of Environment.Google Scholar
- Juutinen, A., & Ollikainen, M. (2010). Conservation contracts for forest biodiversity: Theory and experience from Finland. Forest Science, 56, 201–211.Google Scholar
- Kettunen, M., Vihervaara, P., Kinnunen, S., D’Amato, D., Badura, T., et al. (2012). Socio-economic importance of ecosystem services in the Nordic Countries: Synthesis in the context of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). Nordic Council of Ministers.Google Scholar
- Laininen, J., & Matthies, B. D. (2017). How private finance can raise efficiency in conservation markets. Environmental finance. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from https://www.environmental-finance.com/content/analysis/how-private-finance-can-raise-efficiency-in-conservation-markets.htm.
- Landers, D. H., & Nahlik, A. M. (2013). Final ecosystem goods and services classification system (FEGS-CS). Report number EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).Google Scholar
- Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). Service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives, possibilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Matthies, B. D., Kalliokoski, T., Eyvindson, K., Honkela, N., Hukkinen, J. I., et al. (2016b). Nudging service providers and assessing service trade-offs to reduce the social inefficiencies of payments for ecosystem services schemes. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 228–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Maxwell, D. (2017). Valuing natural capital: Future proofing business and finance. Routledge.Google Scholar
- Metsonpolku. (2016). METSO forest biodiversity. Retrieved January 19, 2018, from http://www.metsonpolku.fi/en-US.
- Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Potschin-Young, M., Haines-Young, R., Görg, C., Heink, U., Jax, K., et al. (2018). Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade. Ecosystem Services, 29, 428–440, Part C.Google Scholar
- Smith, A., & Cannan, E. (2000). The wealth of nations. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
- Storbacka, K., & Lehtinen, J. R. (2001). Customer relationship management: Creating competitive advantage through win-win relationship strategies. Singapore: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
- TEEB. (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity ecological and economic foundations. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
- TEEB. (2012). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity in business and enterprise. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
- Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2006). Service-dominant logic: What it is, what it is not, what it might be. In R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate and directions (pp. 43–56). Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe Inc.Google Scholar
- Waage, S., & Kester, C. (2014). Private sector engagement with ecosystem services: March 2014 update. BSR.Google Scholar