Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science

Lisa Mandle, Analisa Shields-Estrada (), Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer, Matthew G. E. Mitchell, Leah L. Bremer, Jesse D. Gourevitch, Peter Hawthorne, Justin A. Johnson, Brian E. Robinson, Jeffrey R. Smith, Laura J. Sonter, Gregory M. Verutes, Adrian L. Vogl, Gretchen C. Daily and Taylor H. Ricketts
Additional contact information
Lisa Mandle: Stanford University
Analisa Shields-Estrada: The University of Texas at Austin
Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer: Stanford University
Matthew G. E. Mitchell: University of British Columbia
Leah L. Bremer: University of Hawaiʻi Economic Research Organization
Jesse D. Gourevitch: University of Vermont
Peter Hawthorne: University of Minnesota
Justin A. Johnson: University of Minnesota
Brian E. Robinson: McGill University
Jeffrey R. Smith: Stanford University
Laura J. Sonter: University of Vermont
Gregory M. Verutes: Stanford University
Adrian L. Vogl: Stanford University
Gretchen C. Daily: Stanford University
Taylor H. Ricketts: University of Vermont

Nature Sustainability, 2021, vol. 4, issue 2, 161-169

Abstract: Abstract The ecosystem service (ES) community aspires to illuminate how nature contributes to human well-being, and thereby elevate consideration of nature in decision making. So far, however, policy impact of ES research has been limited. To understand why, we identify five key elements of ES research that help inform decisions by connecting the supply of ES to those who benefit from them. Our structured review of the ES literature reveals that only 13% of assessments included the full ES chain from place to value. Only 7% of assessments considered the distribution of ES benefits explicitly across demographic or other beneficiary groups (for example, private landowners versus the broader public), although disaggregation across regions or spatial units was more common (44%). Finally, crucial mediating factors that affect who benefits and how (for example, the vulnerability of beneficiaries or the availability of substitutes for ES) were considered in only 35% of assessments. Our results suggest that increasing the decision relevance of ES research requires more effectively predicting the impacts of specific decisions on the value and distribution of ES across beneficiary groups. Such efforts will need to integrate ecological models with socioeconomic and cultural dimensions of ES more closely than does the current ES literature.

Date: 2021
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (35)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00625-y Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nat:natsus:v:4:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1038_s41893-020-00625-y

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/natsustain/

DOI: 10.1038/s41893-020-00625-y

Access Statistics for this article

Nature Sustainability is currently edited by Monica Contestabile

More articles in Nature Sustainability from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().