International Trade and Global Flows of Ecosystem Services

  • Thomas KoellnerEmail author
  • Nikolaus McLachlan
  • Sebastian Arnhold


Trade of biomass as food, fodder, and fibres has long had a place in human history, and was theoretically underpinned by David Ricardo’s book The Principles of Trade and Taxation in 1817


Comparative advantage Ecosystem services flows Trade Virtual water and land Erosion regulation Biodiversity 


  1. 1.
    Koellner T, editor. Ecosystem services and global trade of natural resources: ecology, economics and policies. Routledge explorations in environmental economics. Abingdon: Routledge; 2011.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moran DD, Wackernagel MC, Kitzes JA, Heumann BW, Phan D, Goldfinger SH. Trading spaces: calculating embodied ecological footprints in international trade using a Product Land Use Matrix (PLUM). Ecol Econ. 2009;68(7):1938–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bruckner M, Fischer G, Tramberend S, Giljum S. Measuring telecouplings in the global land system: a review and comparative evaluation of land footprint accounting methods. Ecol Econ. 2015;114:11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kissinger M, Rees W. An interregional ecological approach for modelling sustainability in a globalizing world--reviewing existing approaches and emerging directions. Ecol Model. 2010;221:2615–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Brien M, Schütz H, Bringezu S. The land footprint of the EU bioeconomy: monitoring tools. Land Use Policy. 2015;47:235–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kastner T, Kastner M, Nonhebel S. Tracing distant environmental impacts of agricultural products from a consumer perspective. Ecol Econ. 2011;70:1032–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lenzen M, Moran D, Kanemoto K, Foran B, Lobefaro L, Geschke A. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature. 2012;486(7401):109–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoekstra AY, Mekonnen MM. The water footprint of humanity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(9):3232–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Commission. Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Brussels; 2011. Accessed 25 Oct 2017.
  10. 10.
    Rabe S-E, Koellner T, Marzelli S, Schumacher P, Grêt-Regamey A. National ecosystem services mapping at multiple scales – the German exemplar. Ecol Indic. 2016;70:357–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schröter M, Albert C, Marques A, Tobon W, Lavorel S, Maes J, et al. National ecosystem assessments in Europe: a review. BioScience. 2016;66(10):813–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lassaletta L, Billen G, Grizzetti B, Garnier J, Leach AM, Galloway JN. Food and feed trade as a driver in the global nitrogen cycle: 50-year trends. Biogeochemistry. 2014;118(1–3):225–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weighell T. UK Dependence on non-UK ecosystem services. In: UK National Ecosystem assessment technical report. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC; 2011. p. 1045–66. Accessed 25 Oct 2017.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kreidenweis U, Lautenbach S, Koellner T. Regional or global? The question of low-emission food sourcing addressed with spatial optimization modelling. Environ Modell Softw. 2016;82:128–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Minard CJ. Carte figurative et approximative des quantités de vin français exportés par mer en 1864. lith. (835 x 547), 1865. Accessed 24 Oct 2016.
  16. 16.
    Thematic Working Group 11 Global Ecosystem Services Flows of the Ecosystem Services Partnership. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Koellner
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nikolaus McLachlan
    • 2
  • Sebastian Arnhold
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecological Services, Faculty of Biology, Chemistry and GeosciencesUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany
  2. 2.BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations