Concerns about the use of ecosystem services as a tool for nature conservation: From misleading concepts to providing a “price” for nature, but not a “value”


1. By definition, ecosystem services (ES) are the “benefits that people obtain from ecosystems”, and this paradigm has been increasingly used in recent decades in ecological planning, for policy development and environmental management.

2. In this short commentary, we highlight the main criticisms suggested by several scientists against the currently used and abused ecosystem services (ES) approach.

3. We underline how this concept needs a more accurate scientific assessment and theoretical development, repeating that one of the most critical concerns is that this paradigm assigns a “price”, but not a “value” to nature.

4. We also discuss different theoretical concerns, as for example the replacement of natural “resource” by “service” promoted by the ES paradigm thereby changing the implications of such assessments. Conserving resources is essential for survival of several organisms, while conservation of a “service” is mainly related to the human species.

5. Finally, we warn against the mechanism of ‘crowding out’ behind the ES approach, which replaces intrinsic motivations (nature) against extrinsic ones (benefits), highlighting that people do not need to attach different values to ecosystems (monetary, cultural, aesthetic, etc.) to understand the value of nature.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Barnaud, C. & Antona, M. (2014) Deconstructing ecosystem services: Uncertainties and controversies around a socially constructed concept. Geoforum, 56, 113-123.

  • Baró, F., Haase, D., Gómez-Baggethun, E. & Frantzeskaki, N. (2015) Mismatches between ecosystem services supply and demand in urban areas: A quantitative assessment in five European cities. Ecol. Indic., 55, 146-158.

  • Bennett, E.M., Cramer, W., Begossi, A., Cundill, G., Díaz, S., Egoh, B.N., Geijzendorffer, I.R., Krug, C.B., Lavorel, S., Lazos, E., Lebel, L., Martín-López, B., Meyfroidt, P., Mooney, H. a, Nel, J.L., Pascual, U., Payet, K., Harguindeguy, N.P., Peterson, G.D., Prieur-Richard, A.-H., Reyers, B., Roebeling, P., Seppelt, R., Solan, M., Tschakert, P., Tscharntke, T., Turner, B., Verburg, P.H., Viglizzo, E.F., White, P.C. & Woodward, G. (2015) Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 14, 76-85.

  • Black, J., Hashimzade, N. & Myles, G. (2012) A dictionary of economics, 4th ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

  • Carrasco, L.R., Nghiem, T.P.L., Sunderland, T. & Koh, L.P. (2014) Economic valuation of ecosystem services fails to capture biodiversity value of tropical forests. Biol. Conserv., 178, 163-170.

  • Currie, W.S. (2011) Units of nature or processes across scales? The ecosystem concept at age 75. New Phytol., 190, 21-34.

  • Egoh, B., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Bode, M. & Richardson, D.M. (2009) Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem services in South Africa. Biol. Conserv., 142, 553-562.

  • Ferraro, P.J. & Kiss, A. (2002) Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science, 298, 1718-1719.

  • Hawes, J., Barlow, J., Gardner, T. a. & Peres, C. a. (2008) The value of forest strips for understory birds in an Amazonian plantation landscape. Biol. Conserv., 141, 2262-2278.

  • MEA, 2005. Ecosystems and human well being — Biodiversity synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Washington, DC.

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

  • Qiu, J. & Turner, M.G. (2013) Spatial interactions among ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural watershed. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 110, 12149-54.

  • Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D. & Bennett, E.M. (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 107, 5242-5247.

  • Rodríguez-Loinaz, G., Alday, J.G. & Onaindia, M. (2015) Multiple ecosystem services landscape index: A tool for multifunctional landscapes conservation. J. Environ. Manage. 147, 152-163.

  • Schröter, M., van der Zanden, E.H., van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Remme, R.P., Serna-Chavez, H.M., de Groot, R.S. & Opdam, P. (2014) Ecosystem Services as a Contested Concept: A Synthesis of Critique and Counter-Arguments. Conserv. Lett., 7, 514-523.

  • Seppelt, R., Dormann, C.F., Eppink, F. V., Lautenbach, S. & Schmidt, S. (2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: Approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J. Appl. Ecol., 48, 630-636.

  • Steg, L., De Groot & J.I.M. (2015) Should biodiversity be useful? Scope and limits of ecosystem services as an argument for biodiversity conservation. Environ. Values, 24, 165-182.

  • Worthington, E.B. (1964) A definition of natural resources, in: United nations educational, scientific and cultural organization (Ed.), Conference on the Organization of Research and Training in Africa in Relation to the Study, Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources. UNESCO/CORPSA/4.A, Paris, pp. 1-11.


Journal + Issues