Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Services in Family Forestry pp 21–47Cite as

Ecosystem Services in the Service-Dominant Logic Framework

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: World Forests ((WFSE,volume 24))

Abstract

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.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Because supporting services do not directly provide benefits to people, they have often been dismissed over concerns about double-counting benefits—especially in the context of monetary valuation and ecosystem service accounting (see, for example, Boyd and Banzhaf 2007). Consequently, supporting services have often been recast as intermediate (as opposed to final) services or treated as being synonymous with ecological functions or processes (Potschin-Young et al. 2017).

  2. 2.

    Although this presumption is likely to be broadly true for many different types of services (e.g., bird watching), the relationship between biodiversity and human welfare is complex and context-dependent. See, for example, Harrison et al. (2014).

References

  • Abson, D. J., von Wehrden, H., Baumgärtner, S., Fischer, J., Hanspach, J., et al. (2014). Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 103, 29–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, M. (2017). Fostering sustainability by linking co-creation and relationship management concepts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 179–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, I. J., Mace, G. M., Fezzi, C., Atkinson, G., & Turner, K. (2011). Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environmental & Resource Economics, 48, 177–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, E. M., Peterson, G. D., & Gordon, L. J. (2009). Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters, 12, 1394–1404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bocken, N. M. P., Rana, P., & Short, S. W. (2015). Value mapping for sustainable business thinking. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 32(1), 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63, 616–626.

    Article  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. (2012). Commoditization and the origins of American silviculture. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 32, 86–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caputo, J., & Butler, B. (2017). Ecosystem service supply and capacity on U.S. family forestlands. Forests, 8(10), 395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caputo, J., Beier, C. M., Groffman, P. M., Burns, D. A., Beall, F. D., et al. (2016). Effects of harvesting forest biomass on water and climate regulation services: A synthesis of long-term ecosystem experiments in Eastern North America. Ecosystems, 19, 271–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., Chen, J. M., Price, D. T., Cihlar, J., & Liu, J. (2000). Carbon offset potentials of four alternative forest management strategies in Canada: A simulation study. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 5(2), 143–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R. (2008). Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biological Conservation, 141, 350–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., et al. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., et al. (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services, 28, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily, G. C., Soderqvist, T., Aniyar, S., Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., et al. (2000). The value of nature and the nature of value. Science, 289, 395–396.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • D’Amato, D., Rekola, M., Wan, M., Cai, D., & Toppinen, A. (2017). Effects of industrial plantations on ecosystem services and livelihoods: Perspectives of rural communities in China. Land Use Policy, 63, 266–278.

    Article  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 

  • de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7, 260–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., et al. (2015). The IPBES conceptual framework—Connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16.

    Article  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/.

  • Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68, 643–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A. V., Reyers, B., & Rockström, J. (2016). Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society, 21(3), 41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froger, G., Boisvert, V., Méral, P., Le Coq, J. F., Caron, A., et al. (2015). Market-based instruments for ecosystem services between discourse and reality: An economic and narrative analysis. Sustainability, 7(9), 11595–11611.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 69, 1209–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GRI. (2011). Approach for reporting on ecosystem services: Incorporating ecosystem services into an organizational performance disclosure. The Global Reporting Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grönroos, C. (2008). Service logic revisited: Who creates value? And who co-creates? European Business Review, 20(4), 298–314.

    Article  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 

  • Hansjürgens, B., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Berghöfer, A., & Lienhoop, N. (2017). Justifying social values of nature: Economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences. Ecosystem Services, 23, 9–17.

    Article  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 

  • Harrison, P. A., Berry, P. M., Simpson, G., Haslett, J. R., Blicharska, M., Bucur, M., et al. (2014). Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosystem Services, 9, 191–203.

    Article  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 

  • Jax, K. (2005). Function and “functioning” in ecology: What does it mean? Oikos, 111(3), 641–648.

    Article  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 

  • Kosoy, N., & Corbera, E. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics, 69, 1228–1236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Notte, A., D’Amato, D., Mäkinen, H., Parracchini, M. L., Liquete, C., et al. (2017). Ecosystem services classification: A systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework. Ecological Indicators, 74, 1–11.

    Article  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 

  • Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2008). Fundamentals of service science. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 18–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maglio, P. P., Vargo, S. L., Caswell, N., & Spohrer, J. (2009). The service system is the basic abstraction of service science. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 7(4), 395–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthies, B. D., & Valsta, L. T. (2016). Optimal forest species mixture with carbon storage and albedo effect for climate change mitigation. Ecological Economics, 123, 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthies, B., D’Amato, D., Berghäll, S., Ekholm, T., Hoen, H., et al. (2016a). An ecosystem service-dominant logic?—Integrating the ecosystem service approach and the service-dominant logic. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 51–64.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthies, B. D., Vainio, A., & D’Amato, D. (2018). Not so biocentric—Environmental benefits and harm associated with the acceptance of forest management objectives by future environmental professionals. Ecosystem Services, 29, 128–136.

    Article  Google 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.

  • Milder, J. C., Scherr, S. J., & Bracer, C. (2010). Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, F., & Burkhard, B. (2012). The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 1, 26–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naeem, S. (2013). Ecosystem services: Is a planet servicing one species likely to function? In R. Rozzi (Ed.), Linking ecology and ethics for a changing world: Values, philosophy, and action (pp. 303–321). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Norgaard, R. B. (2010). Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics, 69, 1219–1227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., et al. (2017). Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peppard, J., & Rylander, A. (2006). From value chain to value network: Insights for mobile operators. European Management Journal, 24(2), 128–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M. J., Hall, D. M., Feldpausch-Parker, A. M., & Peterson, T. R. (2010). Obscuring ecosystem function with application of the ecosystem services concept: Essay. Conservation Biology, 24, 113–119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pingoud, K., Pohjola, J., & Valsta, L. (2010). Assessing the integrated climatic impacts of forestry and wood products. Silva Fennica, 44(1), 155–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polasky, S., & Segerson, K. (2009). Integrating ecology and economics in the study of ecosystem services: Some lessons learned. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1, 409–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potschin, M. B., Primmer, E., Furman, E., & Haines-Young, R. H. (2016). Have ecosystem services been oversold? A response to Silvertown. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31(5), 334–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potschin-Young, M., Czùcz, B., Liquete, C., Maes, J., Rusch, G. M., et al. (2017). Intermediate ecosystem services: An empty concept? Ecosystem Services, 27, 124–126.

    Article  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 

  • Primmer, E., Jokinen, P., Blicharska, M., Barton, D. N., Bugter, R., et al. (2015). Governance of ecosystem services: A framework for empirical analysis. Ecosystem Services, 16, 158–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez, R. (1999). Value co-production: Intellectual origins and implications for practice and research. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renard, D., Rhemtull, J. M., & Bennett, E. M. (2015). Historical dynamics in ecosystem service bundles. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences, The United States of America, 112, 13411–13416.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sandbrook, C. G., Fisher, J. A., & Vira, B. (2013). What do conservationists think about markets? Geoforum, 50, 232–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sathre, R., & O’Connor, J. (2010). Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(2), 104–114.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schröter, M., Stumpf, K. H., Loos, J., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Böhnke-Henrichs, A., et al. (2017). Refocusing ecosystem services towards sustainability. Ecosystem Services, 25, 35–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvertown, J. (2015). Have ecosystem services been oversold? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30(11), 641–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A., & Cannan, E. (2000). The wealth of nations. New York: Modern Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. C., Harrison, P. A., Pérez Soba, M., Archaux, F., Blicharska, M., et al. (2017). How natural capital delivers ecosystem services: A typology derived from a systematic review. Ecosystem Services, 26, 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spangenberg, J. H., von Haaren, C., & Settele, J. (2014). The ecosystem service cascade: Further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy. Ecological Economics, 104, 22–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spash, C. L. (2015). Bulldozing biodiversity: The economics of offsets and trading-in nature. Biological Conservation, 192, 541–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spohrer, J., Maglio, P. P., Bailey, J., & Gruhl, D. (2007). Steps toward a science of service systems. Computer, 40, 71–77.

    Article  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 

  • van den Belt, M., & Stevens, S. M. (2016). Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 22, 60–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L. (2009). Toward a transcending conceptualization of relationship: A service-dominant perspective. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 24(5–6), 373–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1–17.

    Article  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 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2011). It’s all B2B…and beyond: Toward a systems perspective of the market. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 181–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2017). Service-dominant logic 2025. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Morgan, F. W. (2005). Services in society and academic thought: An historical analysis. Journal of Macromarketing, 25(1), 42–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26, 145–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waage, S., & Kester, C. (2014). Private sector engagement with ecosystem services: March 2014 update. BSR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, K. J. (2007). Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions. Biological Conservation, 139(3–4), 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, K. J., & Jago, M. (2017). Category mistakes: A barrier to effective environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 199, 13–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zeithaml, V. A., Rust, R. T., & Lemon, K. N. (2001). The customer pyramid: Creating and serving profitable customers. California Management Review, 43(4), 118–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA

    Jesse Caputo

  2. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Dalia D’Amato & Brent D. Matthies

Authors
  1. Jesse Caputo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dalia D’Amato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brent D. Matthies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jesse Caputo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland

    Teppo Hujala

  2. Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Anne Toppinen

  3. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Amherst, MA, USA

    Brett J. Butler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Caputo, J., D’Amato, D., Matthies, B.D. (2019). Ecosystem Services in the Service-Dominant Logic Framework. In: Hujala, T., Toppinen, A., J. Butler, B. (eds) Services in Family Forestry. World Forests, vol 24. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28999-7_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation