{"id":224,"date":"2022-04-14T04:42:50","date_gmt":"2022-04-14T04:42:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/?post_type=chapter&p=224"},"modified":"2022-05-10T19:11:48","modified_gmt":"2022-05-10T19:11:48","slug":"ecosystem-services","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/chapter\/ecosystem-services\/","title":{"raw":"Ecosystem Services","rendered":"Ecosystem Services"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n\r\nThe third topic in the holistic techniques group is ecosystem services. Natural ecosystems provide humans with many and diverse\u00a0benefits and products. These benefits are called ecosystem services. In theory, recognizing the value of nature through the services it provides should greatly increase investments in conservation, while at the same time fostering human well-being. In other words, if we align economic forces with conservation principles that explicitly link human and environmental well-being then theory can become practice. In this chapter we will cover the background and justification for emphasizing ecosystem services as a technique for conservation, and the attempts made to place economic value on those services. We will end with a case study on payments for ecosystem services to ranchers in Central and Southern Florida.\r\n\r\nBACKGROUND ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES<\/strong>\r\n\r\nNatural ecosystems provide humans with many diverse products and benefits (Daily 1997). Recognition of these products and benefits, known as ecosystem services, is considered important for increasing investments in conservation (De Groot et al. 2010). Often in the process of engineering ecosystems for valued products like food, wood, and fiber, many other less valued benefits become diminished or eliminated. The importance of ecosystem services has been growing in science, conservation, and government policies since the late 1990s with the publication of Nature\u2019s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, edited by Gretchen Daily of Stanford University (1997). This book made the argument that society should invest in the conservation of ecosystems to secure a diversity of services that support human well-being. Fish (2011) expanded on this idea by saying that we need to think holistically about how any given project, proposal or plan impacts the provisioning of ecosystem services and human well-being. Altogether, the basic idea is to identify and assign values to ecosystem services for justifying conservation efforts, and making the protection of natural ecosystems important and appealing to the public, businesses, and the government. Or, put more simply, that \u201cnature provides humans with benefits\u201d (Persson et al. 2015).\r\n\r\nEcosystem services may be defined in slightly different ways, but the central idea is that natural ecosystems support human well-being (Millennium ecosystem assessment 2005). Ecosystem services may be used actively or passively to benefit people (Fisher et al. 2009). These services depend on ecosystem organization, functions, and products. Some common services, such as timber, water supply, and recreation, already have market value, so the benefit can be easily estimated. Other services like air pollution removal, carbon sequestration, soil development, and local-climate mitigation are challenging to convert to a monetary value, but they are nevertheless seen as important benefits to people (Example in Figure 12.1).\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_225\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"531\"]\"\" Figure 12.1: Illustration of ecosystem services across a forested river valley. Source: Brauman et al. 2007[\/caption]\r\n\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n\r\nThe ecosystem services technique for ecological conservation (also termed integrated conservation\u2013development, and community-based natural resource management) includes concepts from both ecology and economics to define benefits, determine valuations, and guide investments in conservation (Braat and De Groot 2012). Capital is defined as a stock of materials or information that exists at a point in time. There are three forms of capital: natural, manufactured, and human. Natural capital can be seen as trees, minerals, clean air and water, and natural lands. Natural capital, or an intact ecosystem, provides a diverse flow of ecosystem services (Fisher et al. 2013). Changes in natural capital will change the benefits to people, and can be thought of as an alteration of the flow of services. Human capital is defined as people that have the capacity to produce valued items. Manufactured capital are things such as machines, buildings, factories, and equipment. Services are flows that transform materials, or the spatial configuration of materials, to enhance the welfare of humans. Ecosystem services consist of flows of materials, energy, and information from natural capital stocks, which combine with manufactured and human capital services to produce human welfare (Costanza et al. 1997). Changes in the particular forms of natural capital and ecosystem services will alter the costs or benefits of maintaining human welfare.\r\n\r\nPolitical leaders, conversation organizations, and scientists around the world are increasingly recognizing ecosystems as natural assets that supply life-support services of tremendous value, and are striving to merge conservation with economic systems (Guerry et al. 2015). The ending statement from a paper by Daily et al. (2009) concisely summarizes the approach and aim: \"If we can get the price closer to being \u201cright,\u201d everyday behavior and decisions will be channeled toward a future in which nature is no longer seen as a luxury we cannot afford, but as something essential for sustaining and improving human well-being everywhere.\" This fundamental concept of the ecosystem services technique is now\u00a0working to attract the public, policy-makers, and scientists to advance conservation on an ecosystem scale.<\/span>\r\n
Table 12.1: Ecosystem services used in two studies and one review of policy cases. Sources: Costanza et al. 1997, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, and Fisher et al. 2009.<\/em><\/pre>\r\n\"\"\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n\r\nThe United Nations launched the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2001, and this effort became a standard-setting application of the ecosystem services concept (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). The goal was to assess the consequences ecosystem change can have on human well-being (Figure 12.2) (Alcamo 2003). Thousands of scientists from all over the world were involved, and together they developed a methodology of ecosystem services analysis. This framework for ecosystem services is commonly used today, and sets the standard for identifying and categorizing these services. Ecosystem services were organized into three classes, with a fourth class that supports the production of services (Table 12.1). The first class is provisioning services that are directly used by people such as food, fiber, fuel, clean water, space for recreation, and others. These goods and services are commonly marketed, and estimations of their values are easily calculated. A second class is cultural services that include religious values, heritage, social relations, aesthetics, and other societal values. These services benefit people in many ways, but are largely noneconomic and their monetary values are often difficult to estimate. The third class is regulating services, which shape and modify local climate, erosion, pests, water quality, and other ecosystem features. The benefits provided by regulating services can be hard to estimate and quantify, so ascribing a monetary value for them is challenging. The final category is supporting services, which create the conditions necessary for the production of the other three classes of services that people directly use. Most of these supporting services involve cycling or production of biologically-linked compounds like water, nutrients, oxygen, biomolecules, and biomass. These are essential components of ecosystems, though assigning monetary values for them can be difficult. The relationship between these services with human well-being has been described, which is informative as to why these services are important (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Monetary values were not featured in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment reporting, but increasing and decreasing trends in services production were identified to communicate the impact of ecosystem change on human well-being. Overall, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment stimulated efforts to include ecosystem services practices in ecological conservation.<\/span>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_227\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"405\"]\"\" Figure 12.2: Linkages between ecosystem services and human well-being. Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005[\/caption]\r\n\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n\r\nA few other applications of the ecosystem services technique sought to identify and classify services. Costanza et al. (1997) estimated the value of biomes across 17 ecosystem services (Table 12.1). This list of ecosystem services predated the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework and is simpler by comparison. Fisher et al. (2009) reviewed thirty-four cases where ecosystem services were included in environmental management policy-making (Table 12.1). They classified ecosystem services into broad categories of: water, forests, cultural, climate, natural threats, erosion, products, biodiversity, and ecosystem processes. Shepherd et al. (2016) charted the global trend (positive trend, negative trend, no trend, ambiguous trend, or no indicators detected) for a variety of provisioning, regulating, and cultural service (Table 12.2). These applications of ecosystem services highlight potential services for consideration in actual conservation cases. Examples such as these have been useful to practitioners (wetland example in Figure 12.3).\r\n
Table 12.2: Global status of ecosystem services. Source: Shepherd et al. 2016<\/em><\/pre>\r\n\"\"\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n\r\nMANAGEMENT OF ECOSYSTEMS FOR SERVICES<\/strong>\r\n\r\nFor effective management and conservation of ecosystems that provide natural services, there is a need to engage the local society in the planning process. The approach for how to address this need has not yet been established for ecosystem services support. First, the ecosystem has to be assessed to identify ecosystem services, beneficiaries, and responsible management organizations. These issues must be resolved to allow the ecosystem services process to be incorporated into local land use planning. How should an ecosystem\u2019s structure and function be maintained in order to sustain the flow of services that are in demand? The valuation of services can be important for assessing tradeoffs related to the costs of ecosystem maintenance and the production of services. Then the engaged group of stakeholders,\u00a0managers, conservationists, and the public can debate the possibilities and limitations of what can be done to maintain the ecosystems and their valued services. This step starts the planning of a vision and strategy for protecting a natural ecosystem and the services it provides. Also, an agenda of objectives and actions are needed to form policies and practices to maintain the ecosystem. With the management plan in place and with local support, the process of coordinating actions across parties to pursue the vision and strategy for ecosystem protection can begin.<\/span>\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_229\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"292\"]\"\" Figure 12.3: Wetlands provide a multitude of ecosystem services. Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 2017.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nWhile there has been much interest in ecosystem services for ecological conservation, it has\u00a0not received much attention in\u00a0the scientific literature (Laurans\u00a0et al. 2013). This begs the question: to what degree is it actually used in mainstream applications? The impact of ecosystem services concepts on environmental decision-making is\u00a0not evident, with marketed\u00a0goods and services being the\u00a0more predominant factor in\u00a0most cases (National Research Council 2005). Ecosystem services ideas have more recently\u00a0found their way into discussions\u00a0of conservation and management programs. Non-governmental conservation organizations have been out in front of\u00a0this issue by adopting the spirit\u00a0of ecosystem services. The true merger of ecosystem ecology\u00a0and economics has begun, and\u00a0there have been several prominent applications of ecosystem services practices with the vision of ecosystems benefiting mankind.\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n\r\nINCREASING RESEARCH FOCUS ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES<\/strong>\r\n\r\nScientific investigation into ecosystem services has increased greatly in recent years (Cowling et al. 2008; McDonough et al. 2017). One avenue of research has focused on the need to learn more about the species and properties of ecosystems that are important for producing ecosystem services (Kremen 2005). There is also a need to characterize and specify the conditions that are important for supporting individual services. And, there is a need to understand how to protect service providers within an ecosystem. There can be multiple species that are important for providing services, and we need to know how redundancy of service providers works. Drivers of ecosystem function may provide services with similar dynamics, making it easier to manage the flow of services. If that commonly holds, then ecosystem services could be managed together as components of an ecosystem. The structure of ecosystems which support a variety of services needs to be identified in order to maintain efficiently functioning ecosystems, stabilize the flow of services, and enhance resilience of the ecosystem to disturbances. Much research is focused on these points to understand the dynamics of ecosystems and the services they provide (Costanza and Farber 2002).<\/span>\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n\r\nAt the ecosystem scale, there is a concern that optimizing some services can change ecosystem functions, leading to a transition to a new ecosystem with much different service production (Elmqvist et al. 2003). For example, converting a prairie landscape into a largely agricultural production zone will terminate many ecosystem services. This scale of service reorientation results in a new domesticated ecosystem that lacks a high variety of services. More subtly, the concern is that managing ecosystem services could alter the ecosystem through time and reduce levels of other desirable services. Research on this concern needs to identify thresholds or tipping points that are associated with a transition to a new ecosystem with a different set of services. The goal of this research is to consider managing ecosystem services in a way that does not diminish the resilience of the ecosystem to maintain its basic nature.\r\n\r\nSPATIAL AND TEMPORAL FACTORS SHAPING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES<\/strong>\r\n\r\nAt the ecosystem services level, information is being generated on ecosystem attributes that shape the distribution, production, and persistence of services. Much attention has been aimed at spatial distribution of ecosystem services and when service benefits are generated in time (Naidoo et al. 2008; Fisher et al. 2013). With this information, conservationists and environmental managers can specify landscape locations and times that produce specific services and maintain the requirements for service production. Also, management organizations must be matched to the ecosystem scales that are important for maintaining services production. Mapping of ecosystem service locations and times has been a research priority for maintaining service hot spots in a landscape context (Schro\u0308ter and Remme 2016).\r\n\r\nSome studies have related ecosystem services to land cover classes in an effort to map ecosystem services patterns across a landscape (Chan et al. 2006; Koschke et al. 2012). This is a way to design conservation plans which maintain land cover classes in an effort to sustain service production. A thorough study of this type was done by Chan et al. (2006) across the Central Coast Ecoregion of California. Six ecosystem services were mapped (carbon storage, crop pollination, flood control, forage production, recreation, and water provision) and planning units of 500 ha were tracked across the ecoregion. Almost all spatial correlations among ecosystem services were low, indicating that services were not sharing the same spatial patterns on the landscape. One moderate correlation was between carbon storage and water provisioning, since higher elevations were forested and received more precipitation. Cities and human population centers influenced the distribution of demand for some services, and shaped some service maps. This study and others point to the need for multidisciplinary teams in planning ecosystem service strategies due to the complex pattern of service production and its inconsistent distribution. For planning ecosystem services across large landscapes, there have to be broad conservation goals and a variety of stakeholders and experts involved.\r\n\r\nA current priority for science is to improve our understanding of the relationships among ecosystem services within an ecosystem (Bennett et al. 2009). Recent studies indicate that many services respond differently to changing conditions and will not respond in synchrony (Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010).<\/span>\r\n\r\nThus, there is a real risk that managing ecosystem to maximize some of the more desirable services will lead to tradeoffs in other services (Abson and Termansen 2010). In contrast, there are some findings that indicate that some ecosystem services responses are linked together with some drivers, which raises the prospect of synergies among sets of services (Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010). A better understanding of service tradeoffs and synergies can yield efficiencies in managing sets of services and avoiding undesirable tradeoffs. Ecosystem services that have common response patterns are often called service bundles (Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010). These service bundles have been identified by both spatial distribution and homogeneous response patterns, indicating coincidence of both location and behavior. This knowledge can help to support better management and conservation efforts, since bundling ecosystem services broadens and simplifies planning for maintaining the flow of services.<\/span>\r\n\r\nECONOMIC VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES<\/strong>\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n\r\nResearch on the methods for economic valuation of individual ecosystem services is ongoing (Costanza et al. 1997; Pimm 1997; Mendelsohn and Olmstead 2009). This level of investigation requires merging ecology and economics, which is a new challenge. Also, estimates of services valuations need to be presented to decision-makers and the public, and explained in a way that justifies efforts to conserve these services. The greatest challenge is for non-market based ecosystem services, as these need novel and creative methods for determining valuations. Research on monetary valuation of ecosystem services is ongoing and is critical to the science-based agenda for promoting this ecological conservation technique.\r\n\r\nThe economic justification for maintaining ecosystem services is the other dimension of this ecological conservation technique. Mechanisms for incentivizing ecosystem conservation are often based on economic values (Jack et al. 2008). Natural ecosystems are commonly exploited and greatly altered for production of goods and services for markets (Farnworth et al. 1981). However, research by Balmford et al. (2002) on the values of goods and services delivered by a relatively intact biome, and one which has been converted to typical forms for human use, showed that the loss of non-marketed goods and services may commonly surpass the economic worth of the marketed products (Figure 12.4). For example, the research showed that there were high initial benefits when destructive fishing techniques were used, such as blasting, but sustainable fishing yielded benefits over the long-term (Balmford et al. 2002). The social benefits of sustainable exploitation (e.g., coastal protection and tourism) were also lost through blasting. The economic value of retaining an essentially intact reef was almost 75% higher than that of destructive fishing (at $3300\/ha compared with $870\/ha) (Balmford et al. 2002). This example argues for better economic valuation of natural ecosystem services which confronts short-term private gains with long-term public loss of natural services. There are three rationales that underlie this short-term perspective on economic gains: 1) Lack of fair valuations for ecosystem services leads to domination of market-based actions; 2) Ecosystem conversions and degradation are commonly justified by tangible local-scale gains rather than losses to society at an expansive scale in space and time; 3) Finally, government policies often encourage short-term economic benefits. The private benefits of conversion are often exaggerated by interventions such as government tax incentives and subsidies. These pressures promote the loss of natural ecosystems, foil sustainable use of natural landscapes, and encourage decision-makers to favor programs which support near term economic gains (Balmford et al. 2002). In short, \"Our relentless conversion and degradation of remaining natural habitats is eroding overall human welfare for short-term private gain\" (Balmford et al. 2002). An effective merger of ecological science with economics may stop or slow these trends and justify new thinking about ways we approach the conservation of natural landscapes and ecosystems. Retaining as much as possible of\u00a0what remains of nature through a combination of sustainable use, conservation, and compensation for attendant opportunity\u00a0<\/span>costs, makes economic\u00a0<\/span>as well as moral sense (<\/span>Balmford et al. 2002).<\/span>\r\n\r\n \r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_231\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"424\"]\"\" Figure 12.4: Loss of non-marketed services (green) outweighs the\u00a0marketed benefits of conversion (red), often by a considerable amount. Source: Balmford et al. 2002[\/caption]\r\n\r\nThere are many challenges to fully valuing a\u00a0wide range of ecosystem\r\nservices. Methods are\u00a0available for valuing\u00a0both marketed goods\u00a0and direct benefits to\u00a0people. However, most\u00a0services do not contribute directly to human\u00a0needs (e.g., food production) because most services have indirect benefits (e.g., nutrient cycling). These indirect\u00a0benefits are diffuse and\u00a0usually not directly used\u00a0by people. Such services are often time delayed, and difficult to\u00a0quantify. Another challenge is that valuations\u00a0are often specified and\u00a0considered as stable so\u00a0they are viewed as independent of the dynamics\u00a0of ecosystems. Another issue is the risk that follows from the loss of some services. For example, mangroves provide flood protection from coastal storms, but their removal makes space for shrimp farms. Floods are considered rare events, but when they occur the safety and protection that mangroves provide is a clear benefit. Thus, the timing of benefits are often distant from decisions and threats. Placing valuations on cultural benefits poses another challenge because they are difficult to quantify. There are often mismatches between the temporal and spatial scales of ecosystem services and the scales that human institutions follow. All these issues diminish confidence in many of the valuations placed on ecosystem services, and make this a challenging part of the ecosystem services technique.\r\n\r\nTo accomplish ecosystem services valuation, there are many needs. Data should be available on the timing of service benefits, location of benefits, rates and flows of benefits, demand for human use, relevant government policies and incentives, and importance to human well-being. The economic frame-work used to determine values for ecosystem services must also meet these criteria. Values can be ascribed to or associated with a service. How can values be estimated under varying supply and demand conditions (i.e., marginal valuation)? Can the benefits be exchanged with other more confidently valued benefits? What is the cost of maintaining ecosystems to provide a set of services? Currently there\u00a0are scientists and economists taking on the challenge of accurately assessing diverse ecosystem services\u00a0valuations.\r\n\r\nValuing ecosystem services is not easily accomplished (Balmford et al. 2002), yet information on the\u00a0economic estimates of benefits is seen as important for justifying protecting natural ecosystems (Cimon-Morin et al. 2013). Several conventional economic valuation tools are being used to estimate the\u00a0monetary values of these services. Revealed-preference approaches are tools that can be used to estimate\u00a0the amount paid for goods and services that directly shows their value (Lovett 2019). Travel costs\u00a0indicate how much monetary value is incurred to enjoy services that are associated with an ecosystem.\u00a0Hedonic methods are used to estimate economic values for ecosystem services that directly affect market prices. Hedonic methods are most commonly applied to variations in housing prices that reflect the\u00a0value of local environmental attributes. Production costs indicate the value of services that can be used\u00a0to increase output as in farming. Stated-preference approaches ask people about either their willingness\u00a0to pay for an ecosystem service (contingent-valuation method), or their choice among scenarios\u00a0with different services and costs (conjoint analysis) (Lovett 2019). Cost-based approaches can also be\u00a0used to estimate the value of some services (Lovett 2019). The cost to replace a habitat that provided a\u00a0needed service, such as a riparian buffer that provided water filtration from agricultural fields. Avoidance\u00a0or insurance costs can be used to estimate the monetary value of services that, if removed or re duced, would increase exposure to harm, like coastal flooding when marshes are removed. These estimation\u00a0methods have been used for natural resource services to estimate costs of damage to public\u00a0goods, and for crafting policies that are environmentally efficient. They can also be applied to ecosystem\u00a0services for estimating values that can be used to justify protecting natural ecosystems (Cimon-Morin et al. 2013).\r\n\r\nAcceptance of the use of techniques for determining monetary values of ecosystem services has been\u00a0slow (G\u2000mez-Baggethun et al. 2010), but other values can be attributed to ecosystem services. The importance\u00a0of ecosystem services to the public can be ascertained through focus groups, stakeholder engagement,\u00a0rating and voting actions, and expert opinions (Christie et al. 2012). Results from these estimates\u00a0of importance can be used to draw attention of decision-makers to ecosystem services. Monetary\u00a0valuation can be helpful, but often this information is not heavily used in public policy debates (Fisher\u00a0et al. 2008). Often leaders do not like to rely entirely on money in controversial public issues. Importance\u00a0estimates can be used to support conservation policies that protect natural ecosystems much like\u00a0monetary valuations can support natural ecosystems benefits (Christie et al. 2012).\r\n\r\nPAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES<\/strong>\r\n\r\nOne application of valuing ecosystem services is to compensate people or communities for undertaking\u00a0conservation actions that protect the flow or increase the provision of ecosystem services (e.g., water\u00a0purification, flood mitigation, carbon sequestration; example in Figure 12.5) (Jack et al. 2008; Redford\u00a0and Adams 2009; Farley and Costanza 2010; Hein et al. 2013). Payments could come in the form of\u00a0lump sums for their efforts (e.g., planting a buffer strip), or a set rate for scalable actions (e.g., number\u00a0of trees planted). These payments for ecosystem services are a practical way to incentivize the maintenance\u00a0of ecosystem services (Nelson et al. 2010). Payments can address market deficiencies where\u00a0there are non-marketed services that do not provide an economic benefit for maintaining these\u00a0services. Local people that do not have options to promote ecosystem services are often attracted to\u00a0payments as inducements to practice conservation. The payments can help promote protection of some\u00a0ecosystem services, and payments can be tied to ecosystem service production levels.\r\n\r\nFunds that are used to pay for ecosystem services in general depend on the demand for those services.\u00a0Recipients of the services can be charged for access to the services, or their willingness to pay can\u00a0monetarily support the charges. However, in general, donations and voluntary purchases have not generated\u00a0funding close to the level at which the services are valued. Funds for payments can be raised by\u00a0taxes, user fees, fees on development rights, and public subsidies (Farley and Costanza 2010). Also,\u00a0tradable permits for development can include fees or mitigation arrangements that can pay for ecosystem\u00a0services (Farley and Costanza 2010). Environmental groups and government agencies can arrange\u00a0for development mitigation programs that generate funds or conservation actions for protecting the\u00a0ecosystems and the services provided. These methods work by making developers pay to set aside land\u00a0in one location in exchange for development rights elsewhere. Also, ecolabeling can reduce market\u00a0friction by providing information about the origin of products. Demand-driven benefits of services require\u00a0complex and variable methods of payment.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_230\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"477\"]\"\" Figure 12.5: Representation of a payment for ecosystem services scheme in which downstream water\u00a0users pay upstream land owners to provide watershed services. Source: Wagner et al. 2019[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nIncentive programs for promoting natural ecosystems and the services they provide can be complicated.\u00a0Often secondary measures for service benefits are used because they are easier to estimate and track.\u00a0For example, forested riparian zones are often counted as water purification systems in agricultural settings, but the actual service is clean water. Secondary measures need to be well understood and effective\u00a0for estimating actual service benefits. When incentive programs address many ecosystem services,\u00a0then an agency or managing organization must issue rules and criteria for payments. Also, ecosystem\u00a0protection where many people live, like a community, adds complexity and calls for a central authority\u00a0to arrange incentives. That leads to top-down control of ecosystem protection and diminishes community-based strategies. Surrogate measures, a multitude of services, and involvement of numerous people\u00a0can lead to complicated incentive and conservation programs. These complications could stifle innovative\u00a0methods and increase the cost of administration.\r\n\r\nThere are some conservationists opposed to the idea of merging economics and ecology to maintain\u00a0natural ecosystems which provide services for nature and people (McCauley 2006; Sandbrook et al.\u00a02013), yet the idea has received considerable interest in recent years (Salzman et al. 2018) . Paying for\u00a0ecosystem services can be interpreted as payment for not damaging nature and curtailing bad behavior.\u00a0They feel that landowners should be expected to support society and natural features without compensation.\u00a0There are risks associated with paying for ecosystem services. Markets exist for some goods\u00a0and services and they can command a large share of attention because they are easy to value. Easily\u00a0valued services can outweigh other services, and lead to a diminished scope of ecosystem service benefits.\u00a0Engineered ecosystems may be better at producing select valued goods and diverse services.\u00a0Ecosystem services have been promoted on the notion that everyone comes out ahead, and little debate\u00a0has been conducted about the consequences of the technique.\r\n\r\nEXAMPLES OF PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROGRAMS<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe United States Department of Agriculture\u2019s Conservation Reserve Program provides payments to\u00a0farmers to take highly erodible and environmentally sensitive land out of production and undertake resource\u00a0conserving practices (e.g., planting permanent vegetation on environmentally sensitive cropland)\u00a0for 10 or more years (Stubbs 2014; Conservation Reserve Program 2021). Even though this program\u00a0was established in the mid-1980s prior to the concept of ecosystem services, the aim was to restore\u00a0agricultural lands for production of a variety of ecosystem services. The program is large and has\u00a0paid more than $1.8 billion to take 36 million acres out of agricultural production (Nelson et al. 2008).\u00a0In addition, grassland signups are increasing (Conservation Reserve Program 2021). The Conservation\u00a0Reserve Program promotes ecosystem service benefits like restoring natural habitats and carbon sequestration\u00a0from restoring forests. Payments are important for getting private landowners in the Conservation\u00a0Reserve Program, but the program is unclear on what ecosystem services are attained. Monitoring\u00a0and evaluation of restored agricultural lands are needed to demonstrate the gains in specific\u00a0ecosystem services.\r\n\r\nMIXED SUCCESS AT IMPLEMENTING VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe World Bank has a lengthy record of designing development projects that are aimed at improving\u00a0both economic and environmental conditions for people. Success on both goals is termed a \u201cwin-win\u00a0outcome. Tallis et al. (2008) reviewed 32 World Bank projects that had a goal of \u201cwin-win\u201d between\u00a01993 and 2007. Only five of 32 had clear gains in terms of environmental conservation and poverty alleviation,\u00a0thus indicating a very low success rate (Figure 12.6). A full accounting of ecosystem services might improve evaluation of both human and ecosystem well being. However, there are complications\u00a0in doing this. Most World Bank projects focused on one environmental benefit at a time, rather\u00a0than a whole ecosystem service agenda. Economic returns respond quickly, but ecosystem changes\u00a0may take many years before benefits are visible. Also, different ecosystem services respond on different\u00a0spatial and temporal scales making a comprehensive accounting difficult. World Bank development\u00a0projects that address conservation and human benefits could take into account the use of ecosystem\u00a0services, tradeoffs among services, and economic returns from service markets. This strategy fits\u00a0with the concept of integrating human\u00a0and ecosystem processes for mutual\u00a0benefit (Farber et al. 2006).\r\n\r\nCostanza et al. (2017) published a\u00a0paper titled: \u201cTwenty years of\u00a0ecosystem services: How far have we\u00a0come and how far do we still need to\u00a0go?\u201d The authors reviewed the\u00a0history leading up to two 1997\u00a0publications on ecosystem services,\u00a0outlined subsequent debates, research,\u00a0and institutions they triggered,\u00a0summarized lessons learned during\u00a0the twenty years since 1997, and\u00a0provided recommendations for the\u00a0future of research and practice. The\u00a0authors concluded that \u201cthe\u00a0substantial contributions of\u00a0ecosystem services to the sustainable\u00a0well-being of humans and the rest of\u00a0nature should be at the core of the\u00a0fundamental change needed in economic theory and practice if we are to achieve a societal\u00a0transformation to a sustainable and desirable future\u201d (Costanza et al. 2017).\r\n\r\nCASE STUDY: PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES TO RANCHERS IN CENTRAL AND\u00a0<\/strong>SOUTHERN FLORIDA<\/strong>\r\n\r\nCentral and Southern Florida has been transformed from a landscape that was dominated by wetlands\u00a0(Everglades) to an intensively developed region (Anderson and Rosendahl 1998). Most land not in\u00a0parks or preserves has been converted to agriculture and urban or suburban development. With the demand\u00a0for developable land, a massive engineering effort was built to drain land and move water to the\u00a0coast and Lake Okeechobee. Water control structures were common, an extensive canal system was\u00a0built, and then flood control structures were needed. Fast flowing water carries high nutrient concentrations\u00a0into Lake Okeechobee and nearby coastal waters. Lake waters have doubled in phosphorus\u00a0concentration since the 1970s (Bohlen et al. 2009). This led to eutrophication and increased algal\u00a0blooms that degraded waters for aquatic life and recreational use. The lake drains southward into the\u00a0Everglades and has changed in flood flows, low flows, and nutrient concentrations. The Comprehensive\u00a0Everglades Restoration Plan (United States Department of the Interior 2021), developed in 2000,\u00a0aimed to restore, protect, and preserve the water resources of Central and Southern Florida, including\u00a0the Everglades. The projected cost was estimated at about $7.8 billion of public funds from the United\u00a0States government and the State of Florida to enact 68 projects over 36 years (Carter and Sheikh 2003).\u00a0Many of the canals and flood protection barriers were slated to be removed and modified to restore\u00a0more natural water flows across the landscape. The restoration effort also included buying land to restore\u00a0wetlands for treating land drainage to remove phosphorus, constructing reservoirs to retain water\u00a0and slowly release it, and developing aquifer storage wells. In short, the aim was \u201cgetting the water\u00a0right\u201d at a great cost to the public (Clarke and Dalrymple 2003).\r\n\r\nLarge cattle ranches dominate the landscape north of Lake Okeechobee and their runoff drains rapidly\u00a0to the lake (Flaig and Reddy 1995). These ranches have changed the land cover and disrupted the water\u00a0regime with drainage canals. In 2005, Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project (FRESP)\u00a0was established to develop a cost effective approach for ranch owners to produce ecosystem services\u00a0that would retain water on their property and reduce nutrient concentrations (The Florida Ranchlands\u00a0Environmental Services Project 2011). The project was initiated through a partnership between The\u00a0World Wildlife Fund and a regional government agency (South Florida Water Management District)\u00a0which jointly recognized that existing approaches to water quality management were not delivering desired\u00a0water quality outcomes in Lake Okeechobee and downstream estuaries in Florida (Lynch and\u00a0Shabman 2011). The vision of the FRESP was to attract ranch owners with service payment contracts\u00a0to modify water management on their properties for storage and nutrient load reductions (Lynch and\u00a0Shabman 2007; Bohlen et al. 2009). The buyer was the state agency and the sellers were ranchers who\u00a0were willing to modify the structure and management of existing water control devices. Modifications\u00a0allowed higher water retention on fields and wetlands, and prevented phosphorus runoff (Wainger and\u00a0Shortle 2013). The program\u2019s administrative objectives were to be cost-effective for governments,\u00a0profitable for ranch owners, provide needed ecosystem services, and feasible to administer. The\u00a0FRESP included cattle ranchers, environmental organizations, academic scientists, and agencies of the\u00a0United States government and the State of Florida. The potential environmental benefits were intended\u00a0to contribute to efforts to restore major waterways in Central and Southern Florida, serve the interests\u00a0of ranching businesses, and serve as a model for cost-effective provisioning of ecosystem services.\r\n\r\nRanchers who joined the FRESP worked to meet the needed services on their ranches. Drained wetlands were restored, and canal water was pumped into wetlands for natural nutrient reductions. Pastures\u00a0were used to store water (Figure 12.7), and minor water retention structures were built to impound\u00a0surface runoff. The FRESP measured ecosystem service performance to ensure payments were justified.\u00a0Ranch lands were not taken out of production, and payments contributed to the financial stability\u00a0of the ranch. One aim was to retain ranchlands in operation because other developments were often\u00a0more environmentally damaging to waterway protection. Also, compatible water conservation practices\u00a0on ranches were less costly to the public, and maintained agricultural production for economic\u00a0benefits.\r\n\r\nThe FRESP was successful in its recruiting of participating ranch owners and subsequent implementation\u00a0of water management practices (Cheatum et al. 2011; Meyer et al. 2016). Getting the interested\u00a0people involved in FRESP was essential. Ranchers that were interested in Florida\u2019s environment were\u00a0critical in exploring the program\u2019s benefits and practices. Agency leaders that were critical to the\u00a0FRESP were the ones that departed from normal agency practices and expanded their methods. Also,\u00a0scientists were important for designing evaluation methods for ranch practices and program documentation.\u00a0However, some ranchers resisted involvement in the FRESP, because the program required additional\u00a0practices above and beyond current practices for water and waste management. Some ranch\u00a0owners wanted to concentrate on intensive production, which would interfere with water storage and\u00a0elevated nutrient runoff. Finally, Florida was experiencing rapid population growth and some ranchers\u00a0were interested in selling land for development. For success, the interested people had to be engaged,\u00a0though not all parties went along with the FRESP.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_232\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"404\"]\"\" Figure 12.7: Wet prairie pasture used to store water in South-Central Florida. Source: Bohlen\u00a0et al. 2009[\/caption]\r\n\r\nFRESP needs were diverse and it was a challenge to get it established (Wainger and Shortle 2013).\u00a0Program leaders had to depart from normal practices and face policy and regulatory issues. Also, leaders\u00a0were responsible for political support and initial startup financing. The payments had to be justified, and an evaluation system was needed to document ranch-generated environmental benefits. There\u00a0were state and federal permit issues that needed to be resolved, and initial cost-sharing investments.\u00a0Record keeping was novel for ecosystem service payments but required. Negotiating and executing\u00a0contracts was new, and these often ranged from 5 to 20 years to accommodate wet and dry years for\u00a0steady ranch payments. The processes for establishing prices for ecosystem services was new and demanded\u00a0accountability. Finally, financing for the long-term needed to be secured.\r\n\r\nThe FRESP achieved two important goals. The program demonstrated that public investment can be\u00a0cost effective for water retention and nutrient treatment on agriculturally productive ranches. The program\u00a0also contributed to economic sustainability of cattle ranching in a region that was under intensive\u00a0development and posed great threats to Florida\u2019s waterways. This program became a role model for\u00a0other payments for ecosystem services programs in the United States (Shabman and Lynch 2013). The\u00a0program demonstrated that this ecological conservation technique can be practical and effective when\u00a0ecosystem services are truly needed.\r\n\r\nSUMMARY<\/strong>\r\n\r\nCommon study topics related to ecosystem services are patterns of the response of services to change,\u00a0distribution of service flows in space and time, conditions that promote stability of services, tradeoffs\u00a0and synergies among services, and resilience of ecosystems when managed for some services (Carpenter\u00a0et al. 2009). Valuation of ecosystem services requires collaboration among ecologists and economists\u00a0and holistic thinking. Some notable conservation efforts and analyses have used the ecosystem\u00a0services technique. The priority has been to identify a broad range of ecosystem services that benefit\u00a0people, and to ascertain practical measures of service benefits. Payment for providing ecosystem services\u00a0has been implemented to promote conservation, and provide direct benefits to local people who\u00a0control ecosystems. The record on payment success has been mixed (Bussiere et al. 2015), but there is\u00a0optimism that this strategy can work for conservation and people. Overall, ecosystem services as a\u00a0conservation strategy has potential but, as expected, the challenge is working through impediments\u00a0(Daily and Matson 2008).\r\n\r\nREFERENCES<\/strong>\r\n\r\nAbson, D.J. and Termansen, M., 2011. Valuing ecosystem services in terms of ecological risks and\u00a0returns. Conservation Biology, 25<\/em>(2), pp.250-258.\r\n\r\nAlcamo, J., 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment. Millennium\u00a0Ecosystem Assessment, Island Press, Washington, DC.\r\n\r\nAnderson, D.L. and Rosendahl, P.C., 1998. Development and management of land\/water resources:\u00a0The Everglades, agriculture and South Florida. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources\u00a0Association, 34<\/em>(2), pp.235-249.\r\n\r\nBalmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Green, R.E., Jenkins, M., Jefferiss, P.,\u00a0Jessamy, V., Madden, J. and Munro, K., 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science,\u00a0297<\/em>(5583), pp.950-953.\r\n\r\nBennett, E.M., Peterson, G.D. and Gordon, L.J., 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple\u00a0ecosystem services. Ecology letters, 12<\/em>(12), pp.1394-1404.\r\n\r\nBohlen, P.J., Lynch, S., Shabman, L., Clark, M., Shukla, S. and Swain, H., 2009. Paying for\u00a0environmental services from agricultural lands: An example from the northern Everglades. Frontiers in\u00a0Ecology and the Environment, 7<\/em>(1), pp.46-55.\r\n\r\nBraat, L.C. and De Groot, R., 2012. The ecosystem services agenda: Bridging the worlds of natural\u00a0science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem\u00a0services, 1<\/em>(1), pp.4-15.\r\n\r\nBrauman, K.A., Daily, G.C., Duarte, T.K.E. and Mooney, H.A., 2007. The nature and value of\u00a0ecosystem services: An overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 32<\/em>,\u00a0pp.67-98.\r\n\r\nBussiere, E.T., Casis, J.A., Deen, S., Hofmeister, K., Leitgeb, A., Li, S., McPhillips, L., Reyes-Retana,\u00a0G., Sand, M. and Smith, J., 2015. Recommendations for Development of a Payment for Ecosystem\u00a0Services Project for Coonoor, India. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.\r\n\r\nCarpenter, S.R., Mooney, H.A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R.S., D\u2000az, S., Dietz, T.,\u00a0Duraiappah, A.K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H.M. and Perrings, C., 2009. Science for managing\u00a0ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National\u00a0Academy of Sciences, 106<\/em>(5), pp.1305-1312.\r\n\r\nCarter, N.T. and Sheikh, P.A., 2003, January. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the\u00a0Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress,\u00a0Washington, DC.\r\n\r\nChan, K.M.A., Shaw, M.R., Cameron, D.R., Underwood, E.C. and Daily, G.C., 2006. Conservation\u00a0planning for ecosystem services. PLoS biology, 4<\/em>(11), p.e379.\r\n\r\nCheatum, M., Casey, F., Alvarez, P. and Parkhurst, B., 2011. Payments for ecosystem services: A\u00a0California rancher perspective. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University.\u00a0Washington, DC.\r\n\r\nChristie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T. and Kenter, J.O., 2012. An evaluation of monetary and\u00a0non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people\u00a0in countries with developing economies. Ecological economics, 83<\/em>, pp.67-78.\r\n\r\nCimon-Morin, J., Darveau, M. and Poulin, M., 2013. Fostering synergies between ecosystem services\u00a0and biodiversity in conservation planning: A review. Biological Conservation, 166<\/em>, pp.144-154.\r\n\r\nClarke, A.L. and Dalrymple, G.H., 2003. $7.8 billion for Everglades restoration: Why do\u00a0environmentalists look so worried? Population and Environment, 24<\/em>(6), pp.541-569.\r\n\r\nConservation Reserve Program, 2021. About the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Available:\u00a0https:\/\/www.fsa.usda.gov\/programs-and-services\/conservation-programs\/conservation-reserveprogram\/index (September 2021).\r\n\r\nCostanza, R., d'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S.,\u00a0O'neill, R.V., Paruelo, J. and Raskin, R.G., 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and\u00a0natural capital. nature, 387(<\/em>6630), pp.253-260.\r\n\r\nCostanza, R. and Farber, S., 2002. Introduction to the special issue on the dynamics and value of\u00a0ecosystem services: Integrating economic and ecological perspectives.\r\n\r\nCostanza, R., De Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S. and Grasso,\u00a0M., 2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to\u00a0go? Ecosystem services, 28<\/em>, pp.1-16.\r\n\r\nCowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knight, A.T., O'Farrell, P.J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Roux, D.J., Welz, A. and\u00a0Wilhelm-Rechman, A., 2008. An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for\u00a0implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105<\/em>(28), pp.9483-9488.\r\n\r\nDaily, G.C., 1997. Nature\u2019s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington,\u00a0DC.\r\n\r\nDaily, G.C. and Matson, P.A., 2008. Ecosystem services: From theory to implementation. Proceedings\u00a0of the national academy of sciences, 105<\/em>(28), pp.9455-9456.\r\n\r\nDaily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H.,\u00a0Salzman, J. and Shallenberger, R., 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver.\u00a0Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7<\/em>(1), pp.21-28.\r\n\r\nDe Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L. and Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in integrating the\u00a0concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making.\u00a0Ecological complexity, 7<\/em>(3), pp.260-272.\r\n\r\nElmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nystr\u2000m, M., Peterson, G., Bengtsson, J., Walker, B. and Norberg, J., 2003.\u00a0Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1<\/em>(9),\u00a0pp.488-494.\r\n\r\nFarber, S., Costanza, R., Childers, D.L., Erickson, J.O.N., Gross, K., Grove, M., Hopkinson, C.S.,\u00a0Kahn, J., Pincetl, S., Troy, A. and Warren, P., 2006. Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem\u00a0management. Bioscience, 56<\/em>(2), pp.121-133.\r\n\r\nFarley, J. and Costanza, R., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecological\u00a0economics, 69<\/em>(11), pp.2060-2068.\r\n\r\nFarnworth, E.G., Tidrick, T.H., Jordan, C.F. and Smathers, W.M., 1981. The value of natural\u00a0ecosystems: An economic and ecological framework. Environmental Conservation, 8<\/em>(4), pp.275-282.\r\n\r\nFish, R.D., 2011. Environmental decision making and an ecosystems approach: Some challenges from\u00a0the perspective of social science. Progress in Physical Geography, 35<\/em>(5), pp.671-680.\r\n\r\nFisher, B., Turner, K., Zylstra, M., Brouwer, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Ferraro, P., Green, R., Hadley,\u00a0D., Harlow, J. and Jefferiss, P., 2008. Ecosystem services and economic theory: Integration for policyrelevant\u00a0research. Ecological applications, 18<\/em>(8), pp.2050-2067.\r\n\r\nFisher, B., Turner, R.K. and Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision\u00a0making. Ecological economics, 68<\/em>(3), pp.643-653.\r\n\r\nFisher, B., Bateman, I. and Turner, R.K., 2013. Valuing ecosystem services: Benefits, values, space and\u00a0time. In Values, Payments and Institutions for Ecosystem Management. Edward Elgar Publishing.\r\n\r\nFlaig, E.G. and Reddy, K.R., 1995. Fate of phosphorus in the Lake Okeechobee watershed, Florida,\u00a0USA: Overview and recommendations.\r\n\r\nGomez-Baggethun, E., De Groot, R., Lomas, P.L. and Montes, C., 2010. The history of ecosystem\u00a0services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes.\u00a0Ecological economics, 69<\/em>(6), pp.1209-1218.\r\n\r\nGuerry, A.D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Daily, G.C., Griffin, R., Ruckelshaus,\u00a0M., Bateman, I.J., Duraiappah, A., Elmqvist, T. and Feldman, M.W., 2015. Natural capital and\u00a0ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice. Proceedings of the National\u00a0academy of Sciences, 112<\/em>(24), pp.7348-7355.\r\n\r\nHein, L., Miller, D.C. and De Groot, R., 2013. Payments for ecosystem services and the financing of\u00a0global biodiversity conservation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5<\/em>(1), pp.87-93.\r\n\r\nJack, B.K., Kousky, C. and Sims, K.R., 2008. Designing payments for ecosystem services: Lessons\u00a0from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proceedings of the national Academy of\u00a0Sciences, 105<\/em>(28), pp.9465-9470.\r\n\r\nKoschke, L., Fu\u0308rst, C., Frank, S. and Makeschin, F., 2012. A multi-criteria approach for an integrated\u00a0land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning.\u00a0Ecological indicators, 21<\/em>, pp.54-66.\r\n\r\nKremen, C., 2005. Managing ecosystem services: What do we need to know about their ecology?\u00a0Ecology letters, 8<\/em>(5), pp.468-479.\r\n\r\nLaurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Bill\u2000, R., Pirard, R. and Mermet, L., 2013. Use of ecosystem services\u00a0economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a literature blindspot. Journal of environmental\u00a0management, 119,<\/em> pp.208-219.\r\n\r\nLovett, A.A., 2019. Economic Valuation of Services. In Landscape Planning with Ecosystem Services\u00a0(pp. 315-326). Springer, Dordrecht.\r\n\r\nLynch, S., and Shabman, L., 2007. The Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project: Field Testing\u00a0a Pay-for-Environmental-Services Program. Resource for the Future, Resources 165:17-19.\r\n\r\nLynch, S., and Shabman, L., 2011. Designing a payment for environmental services program for the\u00a0Northern Everglades. National Wetlands Newsletter, July\/August, pp. 12\u201315.\r\n\r\nMcCauley, D.J., 2006. Selling out on nature. Nature, 443<\/em>(7107), pp.27-28.\r\n\r\nMcDonough, K., Hutchinson, S., Moore, T. and Hutchinson, J.S., 2017. Analysis of publication trends\u00a0in ecosystem services research. Ecosystem Services, 25,<\/em> pp.82-88.\r\n\r\nMendelsohn, R. and Olmstead, S., 2009. The economic valuation of environmental amenities and\u00a0disamenities: Methods and applications. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34<\/em>, pp.325-347.\r\n\r\nMeyer, C., Schomers, S., Matzdorf, B., Biedermann, C. and Sattler, C., 2016. Civil society actors at the\u00a0nexus of the ecosystem services concept and agri-environmental policies. Land Use Policy, 55<\/em>, pp.352-356.\r\n\r\nMillennium ecosystem assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being (Vol. 5). Island press,\u00a0Washington, DC.\r\n\r\nNaidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., Lehner, B., Malcolm, T.R. and\u00a0Ricketts, T.H., 2008. Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proceedings of\u00a0the National Academy of Sciences, 105<\/em>(28), pp.9495-9500.\r\n\r\nNational Research Council, 2005. Valuing ecosystem services: Toward better environmental decisionmaking.\u00a0National Academies Press, Washington, DC.\r\n\r\nNelson, E., Polasky, S., Lewis, D.J., Plantinga, A.J., Lonsdorf, E., White, D., Bael, D. and Lawler, J.J.,\u00a02008. Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a\u00a0landscape. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105<\/em>(28), pp.9471-9476.\r\n\r\nNelson, F., Foley, C., Foley, L.S., Leposo, A., Loure, E., Peterson, D., Peterson, M., Peterson, T.,\u00a0Sachedina, H. and Williams, A., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as a framework for\u00a0community\u2010based conservation in northern Tanzania. Conservation Biology, 24<\/em>(1), pp.78-85.\r\n\r\nPersson, J., Larsson, A. and Villarroya, A., 2015. Compensation in Swedish infrastructure projects and\u00a0suggestions on policy improvements. Nature Conservation, 11<\/em>, p.113.\r\n\r\nPimm, S.L., 1997. The value of everything. Nature, 387<\/em>(6630), pp.231-232.\r\n\r\nRaudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D. and Bennett, E.M., 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for\u00a0analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107<\/em>(11),\u00a0pp.5242-5247.\r\n\r\nRedford, K.H., and Adams, W.M., 2009. Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving\u00a0nature. Conservation Biology 23<\/em>:785\u2013787.\r\n\r\nSalzman, J., Bennett, G., Carroll, N., Goldstein, A. and Jenkins, M., 2018. The global status and trends\u00a0of Payments for Ecosystem Services. Nature Sustainability, 1<\/em>(3), pp.136-144.\r\n\r\nSandbrook, C.G., Fisher, J.A. and Vira, B., 2013. What do conservationists think about markets?\u00a0Geoforum, 50<\/em>, pp.232-240.\r\n\r\nSchroter, M. and Remme, R.P., 2016. Spatial prioritisation for conserving ecosystem services:\u00a0Comparing hotspots with heuristic optimisation. Landscape Ecology, 31<\/em>(2), pp.431-450.\r\n\r\nShabman, L. and Lynch, S., 2013. Moving from concept to implementation: The emergence of the\u00a0Northern Everglades Payment for Environmental Services program. Resources for the Future\u00a0Discussion Paper, pp.13-27.\r\n\r\nShepherd, E., Milner\u2010Gulland, E.J., Knight, A.T., Ling, M.A., Darrah, S., van Soesbergen, A. and\u00a0Burgess, N.D., 2016. Status and trends in global ecosystem services and natural capital: Assessing\u00a0progress toward Aichi Biodiversity Target 14. Conservation Letters, 9<\/em>(6), pp.429-437.\r\n\r\nStubbs, M., 2014. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and issues. Library of Congress,\u00a0Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC.\r\n\r\nTallis, H., Kareiva, P., Marvier, M. and Chang, A., 2008. An ecosystem services framework to support\u00a0both practical conservation and economic development. Proceedings of the National Academy of\u00a0Sciences, 105<\/em>(28), pp.9457-9464.\r\n\r\nThe Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project, 2011. The Florida Ranchlands Environmental\u00a0Services Project. Available: http:\/\/www.fresp.org\/ (April 2011).\r\n\r\nUnited States Department of the Interior, 2021. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP).\u00a0Available: https:\/\/www.evergladesrestoration.gov\/comprehensive-everglades-restoration-plan (September\u00a02021).\r\n\r\nWagner, C.H., Gourevitch, J., Hormer, K., Kinnebrew, E., Maden, B., Recchia, E., White, A., Wiegman,\u00a0A., Ricketts, T., and Roy, E., 2019. Payment for Ecosystem Services for Vermont. Issue Paper\u00a019-01. Gund Institute for Environment, Burlington, VT.\r\n\r\nWainger, L.A. and Shortle, J.S., 2013. Local innovations in water protection: Experiments with economic\u00a0incentives. Choices, 28(<\/em>316-2016-7670).\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
The third topic in the holistic techniques group is ecosystem services. Natural ecosystems provide humans with many and diverse\u00a0benefits and products. These benefits are called ecosystem services. In theory, recognizing the value of nature through the services it provides should greatly increase investments in conservation, while at the same time fostering human well-being. In other words, if we align economic forces with conservation principles that explicitly link human and environmental well-being then theory can become practice. In this chapter we will cover the background and justification for emphasizing ecosystem services as a technique for conservation, and the attempts made to place economic value on those services. We will end with a case study on payments for ecosystem services to ranchers in Central and Southern Florida.<\/p>\n
BACKGROUND ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES<\/strong><\/p>\n
Natural ecosystems provide humans with many diverse products and benefits (Daily 1997). Recognition of these products and benefits, known as ecosystem services, is considered important for increasing investments in conservation (De Groot et al. 2010). Often in the process of engineering ecosystems for valued products like food, wood, and fiber, many other less valued benefits become diminished or eliminated. The importance of ecosystem services has been growing in science, conservation, and government policies since the late 1990s with the publication of Nature\u2019s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, edited by Gretchen Daily of Stanford University (1997). This book made the argument that society should invest in the conservation of ecosystems to secure a diversity of services that support human well-being. Fish (2011) expanded on this idea by saying that we need to think holistically about how any given project, proposal or plan impacts the provisioning of ecosystem services and human well-being. Altogether, the basic idea is to identify and assign values to ecosystem services for justifying conservation efforts, and making the protection of natural ecosystems important and appealing to the public, businesses, and the government. Or, put more simply, that \u201cnature provides humans with benefits\u201d (Persson et al. 2015).<\/p>\n
Ecosystem services may be defined in slightly different ways, but the central idea is that natural ecosystems support human well-being (Millennium ecosystem assessment 2005). Ecosystem services may be used actively or passively to benefit people (Fisher et al. 2009). These services depend on ecosystem organization, functions, and products. Some common services, such as timber, water supply, and recreation, already have market value, so the benefit can be easily estimated. Other services like air pollution removal, carbon sequestration, soil development, and local-climate mitigation are challenging to convert to a monetary value, but they are nevertheless seen as important benefits to people (Example in Figure 12.1).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\"\"
Figure 12.1: Illustration of ecosystem services across a forested river valley. Source: Brauman et al. 2007<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\n
\n
\n
The ecosystem services technique for ecological conservation (also termed integrated conservation\u2013development, and community-based natural resource management) includes concepts from both ecology and economics to define benefits, determine valuations, and guide investments in conservation (Braat and De Groot 2012). Capital is defined as a stock of materials or information that exists at a point in time. There are three forms of capital: natural, manufactured, and human. Natural capital can be seen as trees, minerals, clean air and water, and natural lands. Natural capital, or an intact ecosystem, provides a diverse flow of ecosystem services (Fisher et al. 2013). Changes in natural capital will change the benefits to people, and can be thought of as an alteration of the flow of services. Human capital is defined as people that have the capacity to produce valued items. Manufactured capital are things such as machines, buildings, factories, and equipment. Services are flows that transform materials, or the spatial configuration of materials, to enhance the welfare of humans. Ecosystem services consist of flows of materials, energy, and information from natural capital stocks, which combine with manufactured and human capital services to produce human welfare (Costanza et al. 1997). Changes in the particular forms of natural capital and ecosystem services will alter the costs or benefits of maintaining human welfare.<\/p>\n
Political leaders, conversation organizations, and scientists around the world are increasingly recognizing ecosystems as natural assets that supply life-support services of tremendous value, and are striving to merge conservation with economic systems (Guerry et al. 2015). The ending statement from a paper by Daily et al. (2009) concisely summarizes the approach and aim: “If we can get the price closer to being \u201cright,\u201d everyday behavior and decisions will be channeled toward a future in which nature is no longer seen as a luxury we cannot afford, but as something essential for sustaining and improving human well-being everywhere.” This fundamental concept of the ecosystem services technique is now\u00a0working to attract the public, policy-makers, and scientists to advance conservation on an ecosystem scale.<\/span><\/p>\n
Table 12.1: Ecosystem services used in two studies and one review of policy cases. Sources: Costanza et al. 1997, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, and Fisher et al. 2009.<\/em><\/pre>\n
\"\"<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
The United Nations launched the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2001, and this effort became a standard-setting application of the ecosystem services concept (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). The goal was to assess the consequences ecosystem change can have on human well-being (Figure 12.2) (Alcamo 2003). Thousands of scientists from all over the world were involved, and together they developed a methodology of ecosystem services analysis. This framework for ecosystem services is commonly used today, and sets the standard for identifying and categorizing these services. Ecosystem services were organized into three classes, with a fourth class that supports the production of services (Table 12.1). The first class is provisioning services that are directly used by people such as food, fiber, fuel, clean water, space for recreation, and others. These goods and services are commonly marketed, and estimations of their values are easily calculated. A second class is cultural services that include religious values, heritage, social relations, aesthetics, and other societal values. These services benefit people in many ways, but are largely noneconomic and their monetary values are often difficult to estimate. The third class is regulating services, which shape and modify local climate, erosion, pests, water quality, and other ecosystem features. The benefits provided by regulating services can be hard to estimate and quantify, so ascribing a monetary value for them is challenging. The final category is supporting services, which create the conditions necessary for the production of the other three classes of services that people directly use. Most of these supporting services involve cycling or production of biologically-linked compounds like water, nutrients, oxygen, biomolecules, and biomass. These are essential components of ecosystems, though assigning monetary values for them can be difficult. The relationship between these services with human well-being has been described, which is informative as to why these services are important (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Monetary values were not featured in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment reporting, but increasing and decreasing trends in services production were identified to communicate the impact of ecosystem change on human well-being. Overall, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment stimulated efforts to include ecosystem services practices in ecological conservation.<\/span><\/p>\n
 <\/p>\n
\"\"
Figure 12.2: Linkages between ecosystem services and human well-being. Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\n
\n
\n
A few other applications of the ecosystem services technique sought to identify and classify services. Costanza et al. (1997) estimated the value of biomes across 17 ecosystem services (Table 12.1). This list of ecosystem services predated the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework and is simpler by comparison. Fisher et al. (2009) reviewed thirty-four cases where ecosystem services were included in environmental management policy-making (Table 12.1). They classified ecosystem services into broad categories of: water, forests, cultural, climate, natural threats, erosion, products, biodiversity, and ecosystem processes. Shepherd et al. (2016) charted the global trend (positive trend, negative trend, no trend, ambiguous trend, or no indicators detected) for a variety of provisioning, regulating, and cultural service (Table 12.2). These applications of ecosystem services highlight potential services for consideration in actual conservation cases. Examples such as these have been useful to practitioners (wetland example in Figure 12.3).<\/p>\n
Table 12.2: Global status of ecosystem services. Source: Shepherd et al. 2016<\/em><\/pre>\n
\"\"<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
MANAGEMENT OF ECOSYSTEMS FOR SERVICES<\/strong><\/p>\n
For effective management and conservation of ecosystems that provide natural services, there is a need to engage the local society in the planning process. The approach for how to address this need has not yet been established for ecosystem services support. First, the ecosystem has to be assessed to identify ecosystem services, beneficiaries, and responsible management organizations. These issues must be resolved to allow the ecosystem services process to be incorporated into local land use planning. How should an ecosystem\u2019s structure and function be maintained in order to sustain the flow of services that are in demand? The valuation of services can be important for assessing tradeoffs related to the costs of ecosystem maintenance and the production of services. Then the engaged group of stakeholders,\u00a0managers, conservationists, and the public can debate the possibilities and limitations of what can be done to maintain the ecosystems and their valued services. This step starts the planning of a vision and strategy for protecting a natural ecosystem and the services it provides. Also, an agenda of objectives and actions are needed to form policies and practices to maintain the ecosystem. With the management plan in place and with local support, the process of coordinating actions across parties to pursue the vision and strategy for ecosystem protection can begin.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\"\"
Figure 12.3: Wetlands provide a multitude of ecosystem services. Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 2017.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
While there has been much interest in ecosystem services for ecological conservation, it has\u00a0not received much attention in\u00a0the scientific literature (Laurans\u00a0et al. 2013). This begs the question: to what degree is it actually used in mainstream applications? The impact of ecosystem services concepts on environmental decision-making is\u00a0not evident, with marketed\u00a0goods and services being the\u00a0more predominant factor in\u00a0most cases (National Research Council 2005). Ecosystem services ideas have more recently\u00a0found their way into discussions\u00a0of conservation and management programs. Non-governmental conservation organizations have been out in front of\u00a0this issue by adopting the spirit\u00a0of ecosystem services. The true merger of ecosystem ecology\u00a0and economics has begun, and\u00a0there have been several prominent applications of ecosystem services practices with the vision of ecosystems benefiting mankind.<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
INCREASING RESEARCH FOCUS ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES<\/strong><\/p>\n
Scientific investigation into ecosystem services has increased greatly in recent years (Cowling et al. 2008; McDonough et al. 2017). One avenue of research has focused on the need to learn more about the species and properties of ecosystems that are important for producing ecosystem services (Kremen 2005). There is also a need to characterize and specify the conditions that are important for supporting individual services. And, there is a need to understand how to protect service providers within an ecosystem. There can be multiple species that are important for providing services, and we need to know how redundancy of service providers works. Drivers of ecosystem function may provide services with similar dynamics, making it easier to manage the flow of services. If that commonly holds, then ecosystem services could be managed together as components of an ecosystem. The structure of ecosystems which support a variety of services needs to be identified in order to maintain efficiently functioning ecosystems, stabilize the flow of services, and enhance resilience of the ecosystem to disturbances. Much research is focused on these points to understand the dynamics of ecosystems and the services they provide (Costanza and Farber 2002).<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
At the ecosystem scale, there is a concern that optimizing some services can change ecosystem functions, leading to a transition to a new ecosystem with much different service production (Elmqvist et al. 2003). For example, converting a prairie landscape into a largely agricultural production zone will terminate many ecosystem services. This scale of service reorientation results in a new domesticated ecosystem that lacks a high variety of services. More subtly, the concern is that managing ecosystem services could alter the ecosystem through time and reduce levels of other desirable services. Research on this concern needs to identify thresholds or tipping points that are associated with a transition to a new ecosystem with a different set of services. The goal of this research is to consider managing ecosystem services in a way that does not diminish the resilience of the ecosystem to maintain its basic nature.<\/p>\n
SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL FACTORS SHAPING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES<\/strong><\/p>\n
At the ecosystem services level, information is being generated on ecosystem attributes that shape the distribution, production, and persistence of services. Much attention has been aimed at spatial distribution of ecosystem services and when service benefits are generated in time (Naidoo et al. 2008; Fisher et al. 2013). With this information, conservationists and environmental managers can specify landscape locations and times that produce specific services and maintain the requirements for service production. Also, management organizations must be matched to the ecosystem scales that are important for maintaining services production. Mapping of ecosystem service locations and times has been a research priority for maintaining service hot spots in a landscape context (Schro\u0308ter and Remme 2016).<\/p>\n
Some studies have related ecosystem services to land cover classes in an effort to map ecosystem services patterns across a landscape (Chan et al. 2006; Koschke et al. 2012). This is a way to design conservation plans which maintain land cover classes in an effort to sustain service production. A thorough study of this type was done by Chan et al. (2006) across the Central Coast Ecoregion of California. Six ecosystem services were mapped (carbon storage, crop pollination, flood control, forage production, recreation, and water provision) and planning units of 500 ha were tracked across the ecoregion. Almost all spatial correlations among ecosystem services were low, indicating that services were not sharing the same spatial patterns on the landscape. One moderate correlation was between carbon storage and water provisioning, since higher elevations were forested and received more precipitation. Cities and human population centers influenced the distribution of demand for some services, and shaped some service maps. This study and others point to the need for multidisciplinary teams in planning ecosystem service strategies due to the complex pattern of service production and its inconsistent distribution. For planning ecosystem services across large landscapes, there have to be broad conservation goals and a variety of stakeholders and experts involved.<\/p>\n
A current priority for science is to improve our understanding of the relationships among ecosystem services within an ecosystem (Bennett et al. 2009). Recent studies indicate that many services respond differently to changing conditions and will not respond in synchrony (Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010).<\/span><\/p>\n
Thus, there is a real risk that managing ecosystem to maximize some of the more desirable services will lead to tradeoffs in other services (Abson and Termansen 2010). In contrast, there are some findings that indicate that some ecosystem services responses are linked together with some drivers, which raises the prospect of synergies among sets of services (Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010). A better understanding of service tradeoffs and synergies can yield efficiencies in managing sets of services and avoiding undesirable tradeoffs. Ecosystem services that have common response patterns are often called service bundles (Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010). These service bundles have been identified by both spatial distribution and homogeneous response patterns, indicating coincidence of both location and behavior. This knowledge can help to support better management and conservation efforts, since bundling ecosystem services broadens and simplifies planning for maintaining the flow of services.<\/span><\/p>\n
ECONOMIC VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Research on the methods for economic valuation of individual ecosystem services is ongoing (Costanza et al. 1997; Pimm 1997; Mendelsohn and Olmstead 2009). This level of investigation requires merging ecology and economics, which is a new challenge. Also, estimates of services valuations need to be presented to decision-makers and the public, and explained in a way that justifies efforts to conserve these services. The greatest challenge is for non-market based ecosystem services, as these need novel and creative methods for determining valuations. Research on monetary valuation of ecosystem services is ongoing and is critical to the science-based agenda for promoting this ecological conservation technique.<\/p>\n
The economic justification for maintaining ecosystem services is the other dimension of this ecological conservation technique. Mechanisms for incentivizing ecosystem conservation are often based on economic values (Jack et al. 2008). Natural ecosystems are commonly exploited and greatly altered for production of goods and services for markets (Farnworth et al. 1981). However, research by Balmford et al. (2002) on the values of goods and services delivered by a relatively intact biome, and one which has been converted to typical forms for human use, showed that the loss of non-marketed goods and services may commonly surpass the economic worth of the marketed products (Figure 12.4). For example, the research showed that there were high initial benefits when destructive fishing techniques were used, such as blasting, but sustainable fishing yielded benefits over the long-term (Balmford et al. 2002). The social benefits of sustainable exploitation (e.g., coastal protection and tourism) were also lost through blasting. The economic value of retaining an essentially intact reef was almost 75% higher than that of destructive fishing (at $3300\/ha compared with $870\/ha) (Balmford et al. 2002). This example argues for better economic valuation of natural ecosystem services which confronts short-term private gains with long-term public loss of natural services. There are three rationales that underlie this short-term perspective on economic gains: 1) Lack of fair valuations for ecosystem services leads to domination of market-based actions; 2) Ecosystem conversions and degradation are commonly justified by tangible local-scale gains rather than losses to society at an expansive scale in space and time; 3) Finally, government policies often encourage short-term economic benefits. The private benefits of conversion are often exaggerated by interventions such as government tax incentives and subsidies. These pressures promote the loss of natural ecosystems, foil sustainable use of natural landscapes, and encourage decision-makers to favor programs which support near term economic gains (Balmford et al. 2002). In short, “Our relentless conversion and degradation of remaining natural habitats is eroding overall human welfare for short-term private gain” (Balmford et al. 2002). An effective merger of ecological science with economics may stop or slow these trends and justify new thinking about ways we approach the conservation of natural landscapes and ecosystems. Retaining as much as possible of\u00a0what remains of nature through a combination of sustainable use, conservation, and compensation for attendant opportunity\u00a0<\/span>costs, makes economic\u00a0<\/span>as well as moral sense (<\/span>Balmford et al. 2002).<\/span><\/p>\n
 <\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\"\"
Figure 12.4: Loss of non-marketed services (green) outweighs the\u00a0marketed benefits of conversion (red), often by a considerable amount. Source: Balmford et al. 2002<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
There are many challenges to fully valuing a\u00a0wide range of ecosystem
\nservices. Methods are\u00a0available for valuing\u00a0both marketed goods\u00a0and direct benefits to\u00a0people. However, most\u00a0services do not contribute directly to human\u00a0needs (e.g., food production) because most services have indirect benefits (e.g., nutrient cycling). These indirect\u00a0benefits are diffuse and\u00a0usually not directly used\u00a0by people. Such services are often time delayed, and difficult to\u00a0quantify. Another challenge is that valuations\u00a0are often specified and\u00a0considered as stable so\u00a0they are viewed as independent of the dynamics\u00a0of ecosystems. Another issue is the risk that follows from the loss of some services. For example, mangroves provide flood protection from coastal storms, but their removal makes space for shrimp farms. Floods are considered rare events, but when they occur the safety and protection that mangroves provide is a clear benefit. Thus, the timing of benefits are often distant from decisions and threats. Placing valuations on cultural benefits poses another challenge because they are difficult to quantify. There are often mismatches between the temporal and spatial scales of ecosystem services and the scales that human institutions follow. All these issues diminish confidence in many of the valuations placed on ecosystem services, and make this a challenging part of the ecosystem services technique.<\/p>\n
To accomplish ecosystem services valuation, there are many needs. Data should be available on the timing of service benefits, location of benefits, rates and flows of benefits, demand for human use, relevant government policies and incentives, and importance to human well-being. The economic frame-work used to determine values for ecosystem services must also meet these criteria. Values can be ascribed to or associated with a service. How can values be estimated under varying supply and demand conditions (i.e., marginal valuation)? Can the benefits be exchanged with other more confidently valued benefits? What is the cost of maintaining ecosystems to provide a set of services? Currently there\u00a0are scientists and economists taking on the challenge of accurately assessing diverse ecosystem services\u00a0valuations.<\/p>\n
Valuing ecosystem services is not easily accomplished (Balmford et al. 2002), yet information on the\u00a0economic estimates of benefits is seen as important for justifying protecting natural ecosystems (Cimon-Morin et al. 2013). Several conventional economic valuation tools are being used to estimate the\u00a0monetary values of these services. Revealed-preference approaches are tools that can be used to estimate\u00a0the amount paid for goods and services that directly shows their value (Lovett 2019). Travel costs\u00a0indicate how much monetary value is incurred to enjoy services that are associated with an ecosystem.\u00a0Hedonic methods are used to estimate economic values for ecosystem services that directly affect market prices. Hedonic methods are most commonly applied to variations in housing prices that reflect the\u00a0value of local environmental attributes. Production costs indicate the value of services that can be used\u00a0to increase output as in farming. Stated-preference approaches ask people about either their willingness\u00a0to pay for an ecosystem service (contingent-valuation method), or their choice among scenarios\u00a0with different services and costs (conjoint analysis) (Lovett 2019). Cost-based approaches can also be\u00a0used to estimate the value of some services (Lovett 2019). The cost to replace a habitat that provided a\u00a0needed service, such as a riparian buffer that provided water filtration from agricultural fields. Avoidance\u00a0or insurance costs can be used to estimate the monetary value of services that, if removed or re duced, would increase exposure to harm, like coastal flooding when marshes are removed. These estimation\u00a0methods have been used for natural resource services to estimate costs of damage to public\u00a0goods, and for crafting policies that are environmentally efficient. They can also be applied to ecosystem\u00a0services for estimating values that can be used to justify protecting natural ecosystems (Cimon-Morin et al. 2013).<\/p>\n
Acceptance of the use of techniques for determining monetary values of ecosystem services has been\u00a0slow (G\u2000mez-Baggethun et al. 2010), but other values can be attributed to ecosystem services. The importance\u00a0of ecosystem services to the public can be ascertained through focus groups, stakeholder engagement,\u00a0rating and voting actions, and expert opinions (Christie et al. 2012). Results from these estimates\u00a0of importance can be used to draw attention of decision-makers to ecosystem services. Monetary\u00a0valuation can be helpful, but often this information is not heavily used in public policy debates (Fisher\u00a0et al. 2008). Often leaders do not like to rely entirely on money in controversial public issues. Importance\u00a0estimates can be used to support conservation policies that protect natural ecosystems much like\u00a0monetary valuations can support natural ecosystems benefits (Christie et al. 2012).<\/p>\n
PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES<\/strong><\/p>\n
One application of valuing ecosystem services is to compensate people or communities for undertaking\u00a0conservation actions that protect the flow or increase the provision of ecosystem services (e.g., water\u00a0purification, flood mitigation, carbon sequestration; example in Figure 12.5) (Jack et al. 2008; Redford\u00a0and Adams 2009; Farley and Costanza 2010; Hein et al. 2013). Payments could come in the form of\u00a0lump sums for their efforts (e.g., planting a buffer strip), or a set rate for scalable actions (e.g., number\u00a0of trees planted). These payments for ecosystem services are a practical way to incentivize the maintenance\u00a0of ecosystem services (Nelson et al. 2010). Payments can address market deficiencies where\u00a0there are non-marketed services that do not provide an economic benefit for maintaining these\u00a0services. Local people that do not have options to promote ecosystem services are often attracted to\u00a0payments as inducements to practice conservation. The payments can help promote protection of some\u00a0ecosystem services, and payments can be tied to ecosystem service production levels.<\/p>\n
Funds that are used to pay for ecosystem services in general depend on the demand for those services.\u00a0Recipients of the services can be charged for access to the services, or their willingness to pay can\u00a0monetarily support the charges. However, in general, donations and voluntary purchases have not generated\u00a0funding close to the level at which the services are valued. Funds for payments can be raised by\u00a0taxes, user fees, fees on development rights, and public subsidies (Farley and Costanza 2010). Also,\u00a0tradable permits for development can include fees or mitigation arrangements that can pay for ecosystem\u00a0services (Farley and Costanza 2010). Environmental groups and government agencies can arrange\u00a0for development mitigation programs that generate funds or conservation actions for protecting the\u00a0ecosystems and the services provided. These methods work by making developers pay to set aside land\u00a0in one location in exchange for development rights elsewhere. Also, ecolabeling can reduce market\u00a0friction by providing information about the origin of products. Demand-driven benefits of services require\u00a0complex and variable methods of payment.<\/p>\n
\"\"
Figure 12.5: Representation of a payment for ecosystem services scheme in which downstream water\u00a0users pay upstream land owners to provide watershed services. Source: Wagner et al. 2019<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Incentive programs for promoting natural ecosystems and the services they provide can be complicated.\u00a0Often secondary measures for service benefits are used because they are easier to estimate and track.\u00a0For example, forested riparian zones are often counted as water purification systems in agricultural settings, but the actual service is clean water. Secondary measures need to be well understood and effective\u00a0for estimating actual service benefits. When incentive programs address many ecosystem services,\u00a0then an agency or managing organization must issue rules and criteria for payments. Also, ecosystem\u00a0protection where many people live, like a community, adds complexity and calls for a central authority\u00a0to arrange incentives. That leads to top-down control of ecosystem protection and diminishes community-based strategies. Surrogate measures, a multitude of services, and involvement of numerous people\u00a0can lead to complicated incentive and conservation programs. These complications could stifle innovative\u00a0methods and increase the cost of administration.<\/p>\n
There are some conservationists opposed to the idea of merging economics and ecology to maintain\u00a0natural ecosystems which provide services for nature and people (McCauley 2006; Sandbrook et al.\u00a02013), yet the idea has received considerable interest in recent years (Salzman et al. 2018) . Paying for\u00a0ecosystem services can be interpreted as payment for not damaging nature and curtailing bad behavior.\u00a0They feel that landowners should be expected to support society and natural features without compensation.\u00a0There are risks associated with paying for ecosystem services. Markets exist for some goods\u00a0and services and they can command a large share of attention because they are easy to value. Easily\u00a0valued services can outweigh other services, and lead to a diminished scope of ecosystem service benefits.\u00a0Engineered ecosystems may be better at producing select valued goods and diverse services.\u00a0Ecosystem services have been promoted on the notion that everyone comes out ahead, and little debate\u00a0has been conducted about the consequences of the technique.<\/p>\n
EXAMPLES OF PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROGRAMS<\/strong><\/p>\n
The United States Department of Agriculture\u2019s Conservation Reserve Program provides payments to\u00a0farmers to take highly erodible and environmentally sensitive land out of production and undertake resource\u00a0conserving practices (e.g., planting permanent vegetation on environmentally sensitive cropland)\u00a0for 10 or more years (Stubbs 2014; Conservation Reserve Program 2021). Even though this program\u00a0was established in the mid-1980s prior to the concept of ecosystem services, the aim was to restore\u00a0agricultural lands for production of a variety of ecosystem services. The program is large and has\u00a0paid more than $1.8 billion to take 36 million acres out of agricultural production (Nelson et al. 2008).\u00a0In addition, grassland signups are increasing (Conservation Reserve Program 2021). The Conservation\u00a0Reserve Program promotes ecosystem service benefits like restoring natural habitats and carbon sequestration\u00a0from restoring forests. Payments are important for getting private landowners in the Conservation\u00a0Reserve Program, but the program is unclear on what ecosystem services are attained. Monitoring\u00a0and evaluation of restored agricultural lands are needed to demonstrate the gains in specific\u00a0ecosystem services.<\/p>\n
MIXED SUCCESS AT IMPLEMENTING VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES<\/strong><\/p>\n
The World Bank has a lengthy record of designing development projects that are aimed at improving\u00a0both economic and environmental conditions for people. Success on both goals is termed a \u201cwin-win\u00a0outcome. Tallis et al. (2008) reviewed 32 World Bank projects that had a goal of \u201cwin-win\u201d between\u00a01993 and 2007. Only five of 32 had clear gains in terms of environmental conservation and poverty alleviation,\u00a0thus indicating a very low success rate (Figure 12.6). A full accounting of ecosystem services might improve evaluation of both human and ecosystem well being. However, there are complications\u00a0in doing this. Most World Bank projects focused on one environmental benefit at a time, rather\u00a0than a whole ecosystem service agenda. Economic returns respond quickly, but ecosystem changes\u00a0may take many years before benefits are visible. Also, different ecosystem services respond on different\u00a0spatial and temporal scales making a comprehensive accounting difficult. World Bank development\u00a0projects that address conservation and human benefits could take into account the use of ecosystem\u00a0services, tradeoffs among services, and economic returns from service markets. This strategy fits\u00a0with the concept of integrating human\u00a0and ecosystem processes for mutual\u00a0benefit (Farber et al. 2006).<\/p>\n
Costanza et al. (2017) published a\u00a0paper titled: \u201cTwenty years of\u00a0ecosystem services: How far have we\u00a0come and how far do we still need to\u00a0go?\u201d The authors reviewed the\u00a0history leading up to two 1997\u00a0publications on ecosystem services,\u00a0outlined subsequent debates, research,\u00a0and institutions they triggered,\u00a0summarized lessons learned during\u00a0the twenty years since 1997, and\u00a0provided recommendations for the\u00a0future of research and practice. The\u00a0authors concluded that \u201cthe\u00a0substantial contributions of\u00a0ecosystem services to the sustainable\u00a0well-being of humans and the rest of\u00a0nature should be at the core of the\u00a0fundamental change needed in economic theory and practice if we are to achieve a societal\u00a0transformation to a sustainable and desirable future\u201d (Costanza et al. 2017).<\/p>\n
CASE STUDY: PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES TO RANCHERS IN CENTRAL AND\u00a0<\/strong>SOUTHERN FLORIDA<\/strong><\/p>\n
Central and Southern Florida has been transformed from a landscape that was dominated by wetlands\u00a0(Everglades) to an intensively developed region (Anderson and Rosendahl 1998). Most land not in\u00a0parks or preserves has been converted to agriculture and urban or suburban development. With the demand\u00a0for developable land, a massive engineering effort was built to drain land and move water to the\u00a0coast and Lake Okeechobee. Water control structures were common, an extensive canal system was\u00a0built, and then flood control structures were needed. Fast flowing water carries high nutrient concentrations\u00a0into Lake Okeechobee and nearby coastal waters. Lake waters have doubled in phosphorus\u00a0concentration since the 1970s (Bohlen et al. 2009). This led to eutrophication and increased algal\u00a0blooms that degraded waters for aquatic life and recreational use. The lake drains southward into the\u00a0Everglades and has changed in flood flows, low flows, and nutrient concentrations. The Comprehensive\u00a0Everglades Restoration Plan (United States Department of the Interior 2021), developed in 2000,\u00a0aimed to restore, protect, and preserve the water resources of Central and Southern Florida, including\u00a0the Everglades. The projected cost was estimated at about $7.8 billion of public funds from the United\u00a0States government and the State of Florida to enact 68 projects over 36 years (Carter and Sheikh 2003).\u00a0Many of the canals and flood protection barriers were slated to be removed and modified to restore\u00a0more natural water flows across the landscape. The restoration effort also included buying land to restore\u00a0wetlands for treating land drainage to remove phosphorus, constructing reservoirs to retain water\u00a0and slowly release it, and developing aquifer storage wells. In short, the aim was \u201cgetting the water\u00a0right\u201d at a great cost to the public (Clarke and Dalrymple 2003).<\/p>\n
Large cattle ranches dominate the landscape north of Lake Okeechobee and their runoff drains rapidly\u00a0to the lake (Flaig and Reddy 1995). These ranches have changed the land cover and disrupted the water\u00a0regime with drainage canals. In 2005, Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project (FRESP)\u00a0was established to develop a cost effective approach for ranch owners to produce ecosystem services\u00a0that would retain water on their property and reduce nutrient concentrations (The Florida Ranchlands\u00a0Environmental Services Project 2011). The project was initiated through a partnership between The\u00a0World Wildlife Fund and a regional government agency (South Florida Water Management District)\u00a0which jointly recognized that existing approaches to water quality management were not delivering desired\u00a0water quality outcomes in Lake Okeechobee and downstream estuaries in Florida (Lynch and\u00a0Shabman 2011). The vision of the FRESP was to attract ranch owners with service payment contracts\u00a0to modify water management on their properties for storage and nutrient load reductions (Lynch and\u00a0Shabman 2007; Bohlen et al. 2009). The buyer was the state agency and the sellers were ranchers who\u00a0were willing to modify the structure and management of existing water control devices. Modifications\u00a0allowed higher water retention on fields and wetlands, and prevented phosphorus runoff (Wainger and\u00a0Shortle 2013). The program\u2019s administrative objectives were to be cost-effective for governments,\u00a0profitable for ranch owners, provide needed ecosystem services, and feasible to administer. The\u00a0FRESP included cattle ranchers, environmental organizations, academic scientists, and agencies of the\u00a0United States government and the State of Florida. The potential environmental benefits were intended\u00a0to contribute to efforts to restore major waterways in Central and Southern Florida, serve the interests\u00a0of ranching businesses, and serve as a model for cost-effective provisioning of ecosystem services.<\/p>\n
Ranchers who joined the FRESP worked to meet the needed services on their ranches. Drained wetlands were restored, and canal water was pumped into wetlands for natural nutrient reductions. Pastures\u00a0were used to store water (Figure 12.7), and minor water retention structures were built to impound\u00a0surface runoff. The FRESP measured ecosystem service performance to ensure payments were justified.\u00a0Ranch lands were not taken out of production, and payments contributed to the financial stability\u00a0of the ranch. One aim was to retain ranchlands in operation because other developments were often\u00a0more environmentally damaging to waterway protection. Also, compatible water conservation practices\u00a0on ranches were less costly to the public, and maintained agricultural production for economic\u00a0benefits.<\/p>\n
The FRESP was successful in its recruiting of participating ranch owners and subsequent implementation\u00a0of water management practices (Cheatum et al. 2011; Meyer et al. 2016). Getting the interested\u00a0people involved in FRESP was essential. Ranchers that were interested in Florida\u2019s environment were\u00a0critical in exploring the program\u2019s benefits and practices. Agency leaders that were critical to the\u00a0FRESP were the ones that departed from normal agency practices and expanded their methods. Also,\u00a0scientists were important for designing evaluation methods for ranch practices and program documentation.\u00a0However, some ranchers resisted involvement in the FRESP, because the program required additional\u00a0practices above and beyond current practices for water and waste management. Some ranch\u00a0owners wanted to concentrate on intensive production, which would interfere with water storage and\u00a0elevated nutrient runoff. Finally, Florida was experiencing rapid population growth and some ranchers\u00a0were interested in selling land for development. For success, the interested people had to be engaged,\u00a0though not all parties went along with the FRESP.<\/p>\n
 <\/p>\n
\"\"
Figure 12.7: Wet prairie pasture used to store water in South-Central Florida. Source: Bohlen\u00a0et al. 2009<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
FRESP needs were diverse and it was a challenge to get it established (Wainger and Shortle 2013).\u00a0Program leaders had to depart from normal practices and face policy and regulatory issues. Also, leaders\u00a0were responsible for political support and initial startup financing. The payments had to be justified, and an evaluation system was needed to document ranch-generated environmental benefits. There\u00a0were state and federal permit issues that needed to be resolved, and initial cost-sharing investments.\u00a0Record keeping was novel for ecosystem service payments but required. Negotiating and executing\u00a0contracts was new, and these often ranged from 5 to 20 years to accommodate wet and dry years for\u00a0steady ranch payments. The processes for establishing prices for ecosystem services was new and demanded\u00a0accountability. Finally, financing for the long-term needed to be secured.<\/p>\n
The FRESP achieved two important goals. The program demonstrated that public investment can be\u00a0cost effective for water retention and nutrient treatment on agriculturally productive ranches. The program\u00a0also contributed to economic sustainability of cattle ranching in a region that was under intensive\u00a0development and posed great threats to Florida\u2019s waterways. This program became a role model for\u00a0other payments for ecosystem services programs in the United States (Shabman and Lynch 2013). The\u00a0program demonstrated that this ecological conservation technique can be practical and effective when\u00a0ecosystem services are truly needed.<\/p>\n
SUMMARY<\/strong><\/p>\n
Common study topics related to ecosystem services are patterns of the response of services to change,\u00a0distribution of service flows in space and time, conditions that promote stability of services, tradeoffs\u00a0and synergies among services, and resilience of ecosystems when managed for some services (Carpenter\u00a0et al. 2009). Valuation of ecosystem services requires collaboration among ecologists and economists\u00a0and holistic thinking. Some notable conservation efforts and analyses have used the ecosystem\u00a0services technique. The priority has been to identify a broad range of ecosystem services that benefit\u00a0people, and to ascertain practical measures of service benefits. Payment for providing ecosystem services\u00a0has been implemented to promote conservation, and provide direct benefits to local people who\u00a0control ecosystems. The record on payment success has been mixed (Bussiere et al. 2015), but there is\u00a0optimism that this strategy can work for conservation and people. Overall, ecosystem services as a\u00a0conservation strategy has potential but, as expected, the challenge is working through impediments\u00a0(Daily and Matson 2008).<\/p>\n
REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n
Abson, D.J. and Termansen, M., 2011. Valuing ecosystem services in terms of ecological risks and\u00a0returns. Conservation Biology, 25<\/em>(2), pp.250-258.<\/p>\n
Alcamo, J., 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment. Millennium\u00a0Ecosystem Assessment, Island Press, Washington, DC.<\/p>\n
Anderson, D.L. and Rosendahl, P.C., 1998. Development and management of land\/water resources:\u00a0The Everglades, agriculture and South Florida. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources\u00a0Association, 34<\/em>(2), pp.235-249.<\/p>\n
Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Green, R.E., Jenkins, M., Jefferiss, P.,\u00a0Jessamy, V., Madden, J. and Munro, K., 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science,\u00a0297<\/em>(5583), pp.950-953.<\/p>\n
Bennett, E.M., Peterson, G.D. and Gordon, L.J., 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple\u00a0ecosystem services. Ecology letters, 12<\/em>(12), pp.1394-1404.<\/p>\n
Bohlen, P.J., Lynch, S., Shabman, L., Clark, M., Shukla, S. and Swain, H., 2009. Paying for\u00a0environmental services from agricultural lands: An example from the northern Everglades. Frontiers in\u00a0Ecology and the Environment, 7<\/em>(1), pp.46-55.<\/p>\n
Braat, L.C. and De Groot, R., 2012. The ecosystem services agenda: Bridging the worlds of natural\u00a0science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem\u00a0services, 1<\/em>(1), pp.4-15.<\/p>\n
Brauman, K.A., Daily, G.C., Duarte, T.K.E. and Mooney, H.A., 2007. The nature and value of\u00a0ecosystem services: An overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 32<\/em>,\u00a0pp.67-98.<\/p>\n
Bussiere, E.T., Casis, J.A., Deen, S., Hofmeister, K., Leitgeb, A., Li, S., McPhillips, L., Reyes-Retana,\u00a0G., Sand, M. and Smith, J., 2015. Recommendations for Development of a Payment for Ecosystem\u00a0Services Project for Coonoor, India. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.<\/p>\n
Carpenter, S.R., Mooney, H.A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R.S., D\u2000az, S., Dietz, T.,\u00a0Duraiappah, A.K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H.M. and Perrings, C., 2009. Science for managing\u00a0ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National\u00a0Academy of Sciences, 106<\/em>(5), pp.1305-1312.<\/p>\n
Carter, N.T. and Sheikh, P.A., 2003, January. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the\u00a0Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress,\u00a0Washington, DC.<\/p>\n
Chan, K.M.A., Shaw, M.R., Cameron, D.R., Underwood, E.C. and Daily, G.C., 2006. Conservation\u00a0planning for ecosystem services. PLoS biology, 4<\/em>(11), p.e379.<\/p>\n
Cheatum, M., Casey, F., Alvarez, P. and Parkhurst, B., 2011. Payments for ecosystem services: A\u00a0California rancher perspective. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University.\u00a0Washington, DC.<\/p>\n
Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T. and Kenter, J.O., 2012. An evaluation of monetary and\u00a0non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people\u00a0in countries with developing economies. Ecological economics, 83<\/em>, pp.67-78.<\/p>\n
Cimon-Morin, J., Darveau, M. and Poulin, M., 2013. Fostering synergies between ecosystem services\u00a0and biodiversity in conservation planning: A review. Biological Conservation, 166<\/em>, pp.144-154.<\/p>\n
Clarke, A.L. and Dalrymple, G.H., 2003. $7.8 billion for Everglades restoration: Why do\u00a0environmentalists look so worried? Population and Environment, 24<\/em>(6), pp.541-569.<\/p>\n
Conservation Reserve Program, 2021. About the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Available:\u00a0https:\/\/www.fsa.usda.gov\/programs-and-services\/conservation-programs\/conservation-reserveprogram\/index (September 2021).<\/p>\n
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S.,\u00a0O’neill, R.V., Paruelo, J. and Raskin, R.G., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and\u00a0natural capital. nature, 387(<\/em>6630), pp.253-260.<\/p>\n
Costanza, R. and Farber, S., 2002. Introduction to the special issue on the dynamics and value of\u00a0ecosystem services: Integrating economic and ecological perspectives.<\/p>\n
Costanza, R., De Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S. and Grasso,\u00a0M., 2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to\u00a0go? Ecosystem services, 28<\/em>, pp.1-16.<\/p>\n
Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knight, A.T., O’Farrell, P.J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Roux, D.J., Welz, A. and\u00a0Wilhelm-Rechman, A., 2008. An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for\u00a0implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105<\/em>(28), pp.9483-9488.<\/p>\n
Daily, G.C., 1997. Nature\u2019s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington,\u00a0DC.<\/p>\n
Daily, G.C. and Matson, P.A., 2008. Ecosystem services: From theory to implementation. Proceedings\u00a0of the national academy of sciences, 105<\/em>(28), pp.9455-9456.<\/p>\n
Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H.,\u00a0Salzman, J. and Shallenberger, R., 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver.\u00a0Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7<\/em>(1), pp.21-28.<\/p>\n
De Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L. and Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in integrating the\u00a0concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making.\u00a0Ecological complexity, 7<\/em>(3), pp.260-272.<\/p>\n
Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nystr\u2000m, M., Peterson, G., Bengtsson, J., Walker, B. and Norberg, J., 2003.\u00a0Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1<\/em>(9),\u00a0pp.488-494.<\/p>\n
Farber, S., Costanza, R., Childers, D.L., Erickson, J.O.N., Gross, K., Grove, M., Hopkinson, C.S.,\u00a0Kahn, J., Pincetl, S., Troy, A. and Warren, P., 2006. Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem\u00a0management. Bioscience, 56<\/em>(2), pp.121-133.<\/p>\n
Farley, J. and Costanza, R., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecological\u00a0economics, 69<\/em>(11), pp.2060-2068.<\/p>\n
Farnworth, E.G., Tidrick, T.H., Jordan, C.F. and Smathers, W.M., 1981. The value of natural\u00a0ecosystems: An economic and ecological framework. Environmental Conservation, 8<\/em>(4), pp.275-282.<\/p>\n
Fish, R.D., 2011. Environmental decision making and an ecosystems approach: Some challenges from\u00a0the perspective of social science. Progress in Physical Geography, 35<\/em>(5), pp.671-680.<\/p>\n
Fisher, B., Turner, K., Zylstra, M., Brouwer, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Ferraro, P., Green, R., Hadley,\u00a0D., Harlow, J. and Jefferiss, P., 2008. Ecosystem services and economic theory: Integration for policyrelevant\u00a0research. Ecological applications, 18<\/em>(8), pp.2050-2067.<\/p>\n
Fisher, B., Turner, R.K. and Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision\u00a0making. Ecological economics, 68<\/em>(3), pp.643-653.<\/p>\n
Fisher, B., Bateman, I. and Turner, R.K., 2013. Valuing ecosystem services: Benefits, values, space and\u00a0time. In Values, Payments and Institutions for Ecosystem Management. Edward Elgar Publishing.<\/p>\n
Flaig, E.G. and Reddy, K.R., 1995. Fate of phosphorus in the Lake Okeechobee watershed, Florida,\u00a0USA: Overview and recommendations.<\/p>\n
Gomez-Baggethun, E., De Groot, R., Lomas, P.L. and Montes, C., 2010. The history of ecosystem\u00a0services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes.\u00a0Ecological economics, 69<\/em>(6), pp.1209-1218.<\/p>\n
Guerry, A.D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Daily, G.C., Griffin, R., Ruckelshaus,\u00a0M., Bateman, I.J., Duraiappah, A., Elmqvist, T. and Feldman, M.W., 2015. Natural capital and\u00a0ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice. Proceedings of the National\u00a0academy of Sciences, 112<\/em>(24), pp.7348-7355.<\/p>\n
Hein, L., Miller, D.C. and De Groot, R., 2013. Payments for ecosystem services and the financing of\u00a0global biodiversity conservation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5<\/em>(1), pp.87-93.<\/p>\n
Jack, B.K., Kousky, C. and Sims, K.R., 2008. Designing payments for ecosystem services: Lessons\u00a0from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proceedings of the national Academy of\u00a0Sciences, 105<\/em>(28), pp.9465-9470.<\/p>\n
Koschke, L., Fu\u0308rst, C., Frank, S. and Makeschin, F., 2012. A multi-criteria approach for an integrated\u00a0land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning.\u00a0Ecological indicators, 21<\/em>, pp.54-66.<\/p>\n
Kremen, C., 2005. Managing ecosystem services: What do we need to know about their ecology?\u00a0Ecology letters, 8<\/em>(5), pp.468-479.<\/p>\n
Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Bill\u2000, R., Pirard, R. and Mermet, L., 2013. Use of ecosystem services\u00a0economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a literature blindspot. Journal of environmental\u00a0management, 119,<\/em> pp.208-219.<\/p>\n
Lovett, A.A., 2019. Economic Valuation of Services. In Landscape Planning with Ecosystem Services\u00a0(pp. 315-326). Springer, Dordrecht.<\/p>\n
Lynch, S., and Shabman, L., 2007. The Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project: Field Testing\u00a0a Pay-for-Environmental-Services Program. Resource for the Future, Resources 165:17-19.<\/p>\n
Lynch, S., and Shabman, L., 2011. Designing a payment for environmental services program for the\u00a0Northern Everglades. National Wetlands Newsletter, July\/August, pp. 12\u201315.<\/p>\n
McCauley, D.J., 2006. Selling out on nature. Nature, 443<\/em>(7107), pp.27-28.<\/p>\n
McDonough, K., Hutchinson, S., Moore, T. and Hutchinson, J.S., 2017. Analysis of publication trends\u00a0in ecosystem services research. Ecosystem Services, 25,<\/em> pp.82-88.<\/p>\n
Mendelsohn, R. and Olmstead, S., 2009. The economic valuation of environmental amenities and\u00a0disamenities: Methods and applications. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34<\/em>, pp.325-347.<\/p>\n
Meyer, C., Schomers, S., Matzdorf, B., Biedermann, C. and Sattler, C., 2016. Civil society actors at the\u00a0nexus of the ecosystem services concept and agri-environmental policies. Land Use Policy, 55<\/em>, pp.352-356.<\/p>\n
Millennium ecosystem assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being (Vol. 5). Island press,\u00a0Washington, DC.<\/p>\n
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., Lehner, B., Malcolm, T.R. and\u00a0Ricketts, T.H., 2008. Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proceedings of\u00a0the National Academy of Sciences, 105<\/em>(28), pp.9495-9500.<\/p>\n
National Research Council, 2005. Valuing ecosystem services: Toward better environmental decisionmaking.\u00a0National Academies Press, Washington, DC.<\/p>\n
Nelson, E., Polasky, S., Lewis, D.J., Plantinga, A.J., Lonsdorf, E., White, D., Bael, D. and Lawler, J.J.,\u00a02008. Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a\u00a0landscape. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105<\/em>(28), pp.9471-9476.<\/p>\n
Nelson, F., Foley, C., Foley, L.S., Leposo, A., Loure, E., Peterson, D., Peterson, M., Peterson, T.,\u00a0Sachedina, H. and Williams, A., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as a framework for\u00a0community\u2010based conservation in northern Tanzania. Conservation Biology, 24<\/em>(1), pp.78-85.<\/p>\n
Persson, J., Larsson, A. and Villarroya, A., 2015. Compensation in Swedish infrastructure projects and\u00a0suggestions on policy improvements. Nature Conservation, 11<\/em>, p.113.<\/p>\n
Pimm, S.L., 1997. The value of everything. Nature, 387<\/em>(6630), pp.231-232.<\/p>\n
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D. and Bennett, E.M., 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for\u00a0analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107<\/em>(11),\u00a0pp.5242-5247.<\/p>\n
Redford, K.H., and Adams, W.M., 2009. Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving\u00a0nature. Conservation Biology 23<\/em>:785\u2013787.<\/p>\n
Salzman, J., Bennett, G., Carroll, N., Goldstein, A. and Jenkins, M., 2018. The global status and trends\u00a0of Payments for Ecosystem Services. Nature Sustainability, 1<\/em>(3), pp.136-144.<\/p>\n
Sandbrook, C.G., Fisher, J.A. and Vira, B., 2013. What do conservationists think about markets?\u00a0Geoforum, 50<\/em>, pp.232-240.<\/p>\n
Schroter, M. and Remme, R.P., 2016. Spatial prioritisation for conserving ecosystem services:\u00a0Comparing hotspots with heuristic optimisation. Landscape Ecology, 31<\/em>(2), pp.431-450.<\/p>\n
Shabman, L. and Lynch, S., 2013. Moving from concept to implementation: The emergence of the\u00a0Northern Everglades Payment for Environmental Services program. Resources for the Future\u00a0Discussion Paper, pp.13-27.<\/p>\n
Shepherd, E., Milner\u2010Gulland, E.J., Knight, A.T., Ling, M.A., Darrah, S., van Soesbergen, A. and\u00a0Burgess, N.D., 2016. Status and trends in global ecosystem services and natural capital: Assessing\u00a0progress toward Aichi Biodiversity Target 14. Conservation Letters, 9<\/em>(6), pp.429-437.<\/p>\n
Stubbs, M., 2014. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Status and issues. Library of Congress,\u00a0Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC.<\/p>\n
Tallis, H., Kareiva, P., Marvier, M. and Chang, A., 2008. An ecosystem services framework to support\u00a0both practical conservation and economic development. Proceedings of the National Academy of\u00a0Sciences, 105<\/em>(28), pp.9457-9464.<\/p>\n
The Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project, 2011. The Florida Ranchlands Environmental\u00a0Services Project. Available: http:\/\/www.fresp.org\/ (April 2011).<\/p>\n
United States Department of the Interior, 2021. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP).\u00a0Available: https:\/\/www.evergladesrestoration.gov\/comprehensive-everglades-restoration-plan (September\u00a02021).<\/p>\n
Wagner, C.H., Gourevitch, J., Hormer, K., Kinnebrew, E., Maden, B., Recchia, E., White, A., Wiegman,\u00a0A., Ricketts, T., and Roy, E., 2019. Payment for Ecosystem Services for Vermont. Issue Paper\u00a019-01. Gund Institute for Environment, Burlington, VT.<\/p>\n
Wainger, L.A. and Shortle, J.S., 2013. Local innovations in water protection: Experiments with economic\u00a0incentives. Choices, 28(<\/em>316-2016-7670).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":20,"menu_order":6,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-224","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":210,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/224","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/20"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/224\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":330,"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/224\/revisions\/330"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/210"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/224\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=224"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=224"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/conservationtechniques\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=224"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}