Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Biological Conservation 184 (2015) 229–238
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Biological Conservation
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate /biocon
Review
Making decisions for managing ecosystem services
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.0240006-3207/� 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 (0) 7 33652829.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.J. Martinez-Harms), [email protected] (B.A. Bryan), [email protected] (P. Balvanera), e.law@u
(E.A. Law), [email protected] (J.R. Rhodes), [email protected] (H.P. Possingham), [email protected] (K.A. Wilson).
Maria Jose Martinez-Harms a, Brett A. Bryan b, Patricia Balvanera c, Elizabeth A. Law a, Jonathan R. Rhodes d,Hugh P. Possingham a,e, Kerrie A. Wilson a,⇑a Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australiab CSIRO Land & Water Flagship, Waite Campus, Urrbrae, South Australia, Australiac Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia, Mexicod Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University ofQueensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australiae School of Life Sciences, Imperial College, Silwood Park, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history:Received 23 October 2014Received in revised form 15 January 2015Accepted 20 January 2015Available online 19 February 2015
Keywords:Ecosystem servicesStructured decision-makingObjectivesManagement actionsTrade-offs
Numerous assessments have quantified, mapped, and valued the services provided by ecosystems thatare important for human wellbeing. However, much of the literature does not clarify how the informationgathered in such assessments could be used to inform decisions that will impact ecosystem services. Wepropose that the process of making management decisions for ecosystem services comprises five coresteps: identification of the problem and its social–ecological context; specification of objectives and asso-ciated performance measures; defining alternative management actions and evaluating the conse-quences of these actions; assessment of trade-offs and prioritization of alternative managementactions; and making management decisions. We synthesize the degree to which the peer-reviewedecosystem services literature has captured these steps. For the ecosystem service paradigm to gain trac-tion in science and policy arenas, future ecosystem service assessments should have clearly articulatedobjectives, seek to evaluate the consequences of alternative management actions, and facilitate closerengagement between scientists and stakeholders.� 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2302. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2303. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
3.1. Identification of the problem and its social–ecological context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
3.1.1. Problem identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2313.1.2. Social–ecological context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2313.2. Objectives and performance measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
3.2.1. Specification of objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2343.2.2. Performance measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2353.3. Defining alternative management actions and their consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2353.4. Assessment of trade-offs and prioritization of actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
3.4.1. Trade-offs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2353.4.2. Prioritization of management actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
3.5. Making management decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236q.edu.au
230 M.J. Martinez-Harms et al. / Biological Conservation 184 (2015) 229–238
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236Appendix A. Supplementary material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
1. Introduction
In order to meet the demands of a growing population, humanactivities will continue to cause significant changes to land cover,climate, biogeochemical cycles, biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices (Foley et al., 2011). Ecosystem services are the processesand conditions derived from ecosystems that sustain and enhancehuman wellbeing (Daily, 1997; MEA, 2005; Reyers et al., 2013).Concern for the degradation of ecosystem services and conse-quences for human wellbeing is increasingly reflected in environ-mental policy (Bateman et al., 2013; Mace, 2013), with severalinternational initiatives bringing the ecosystem services paradigmto the attention of both scientists and policymakers (e.g. the Mil-lennium Ecosystem Assessment, MEA (MEA, 2005); Conventionon Biological Diversity Aichi Targets, CBD (CBD, 2010); The Eco-nomics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity TEEB (Sukhdev, 2010);and The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversityand Ecosystem Services, IPBES (Perrings et al., 2011)). Over the pasttwo decades there has also been a rapid growth in research relatedto ecosystem services (Nicholson et al., 2009; Seppelt et al., 2011)and widespread calls for integrating the ecosystem services para-digm into real-world management decisions (Daily et al., 2009;De Groot et al., 2010; Goldstein et al., 2012; Maes et al., 2013).
As an emerging field aligned with real world problems, theoperationalization of the ecosystem services paradigm could bene-fit from established principles and methods from other disciplines.The principles of structured decision-making are potentially pow-erful in this respect. Structured decision-making is defined as the‘‘collaborative and facilitated application of multiple objectivedecision making and group deliberation methods to environmentalmanagement and public policy problems’’ (Gregory et al., 2012).
Fig. 1. Decision tree for the identification
Structured decision-making provides sequential core steps toguide thinking about complex choices (Gregory et al., 2012;Guisan et al., 2013) delivering rigor and transparency to the pro-cess of making decisions.
Previous ecosystem service reviews have focused on particulartopics, including the extent of trade-offs between services (Howeet al., 2014), how priorities for ecosystem services have beenmapped (Luck et al., 2012), and valuation of ecosystem services(Laurans et al., 2013). While these are important and topical issues,how the information gathered in ecosystem service assessmentscould be used to inform decisions that will impact ecosystemservices has not been evaluated. We present a quantitative reviewof a sample of peer-reviewed publications in the context of fivecore steps for making management decisions for ecosystem ser-vices that are inspired by structured decision-making. We high-light current areas of strength in the ecosystem servicesliterature and identify areas that would benefit from more concert-ed attention.
2. Methods
We used the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database, andapplied five search filters. Our first filter identified the ecosystemservices literature; our second filter captured those studies focusedon planning, deciding upon management, influencing policy orinvesting in management of ecosystem services; our third filteridentified studies about decisions (a decision itself or the prioriti-zation of actions); our fourth and fifth filters excluded review arti-cles, conceptual papers and also articles that did not explicitlyaddress ecosystem services (Fig. 1). From the final filter, we ran-domly selected 60% of the papers for full review according to our
of peer-reviewed studies for review.
Fig. 2. Core steps in a decision making process for ecosystem services. The connection between the consequences of alternatives with the objectives represents the evaluationof the outcomes of the alternatives against the objectives with the possibility to update the objectives. The connection between the implementation of actions with theidentification of the problem represents the monitoring and adaptive management loop.
M.J. Martinez-Harms et al. / Biological Conservation 184 (2015) 229–238 231
conceptual framework (Fig. 2). We identified 144 English language,peer-reviewed papers published between 2003 and 2013. Wechose 2003 as the start date for the literature search as it coincideswith the publication of the MEA conceptual framework (MEA,2003) and the proliferation of publications on the topic of ecosys-tem services. Because most studies assessed multiple ecosystemservices, we considered each individual ecosystem service in apaper as a separate entry, creating 427 entries for review.
We synthesize the degree to which ecosystem service assess-ments include each of the core steps of the decision framework(adapted from Gregory et al., 2012): (i) identification of the prob-lem and its social–ecological context; (ii) specification of objectivesand associated performance measures; (iii) defining alternativemanagement actions and evaluating the consequences of theseactions; (iv) assessment of trade-offs and prioritization of alterna-tive actions; and (v) making management decisions (Fig. 2). Toassign the papers to the different steps of the conceptual frame-work we defined a set of criteria and categories for each step(Table 1). To perform the review, each paper was evaluated byone of seven reviewers who jointly reviewed an initial sample ofpapers to clarify the review criteria.
In the following sections we describe each step and synthesizethe results of the review, appraising the extent to which they havebeen addressed in the peer-reviewed literature.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Identification of the problem and its social–ecological context
3.1.1. Problem identificationThe need to make decisions for ecosystem services arises from
the identification of a conservation or management problem(Guisan et al., 2013). We find that ecosystem service assessmentshave predominately been focused on the quantification andmapping of ecosystem services (Fig. 3). Such studies can play an
important role in the identification of the conservation or manage-ment problem by highlighting important areas for the supply anddelivery of ecosystem services (Willemen et al., 2008; Polaskyet al., 2011). Nevertheless, ecosystem services research needs toalso provide information more closely linked to management deci-sions and provide insights for decision makers on alternative man-agement actions. This could be achieved through more concertedattention to evaluating trade-offs between ecosystem services(Chhatre and Agrawal, 2009), planning for the management ofecosystem services (Chan et al., 2006; Reyers et al., 2012), allocat-ing investments in ecosystem services management (Venter et al.,2013), and evaluating alternative policy options (Bryan andKandulu, 2011) (Fig. 3).
3.1.2. Social–ecological contextFundamental to ecosystem service assessments is an under-
standing of both the social and ecological context (Johnson et al.,2013; Reyers et al., 2013). According to the literature reviewed,ecosystem services research has incorporated a variety of eco-logical, social, abiotic, land use, and economic data (Fig. 4a),although it is unclear whether this reflects a desire to better under-stand the social–ecological context specifically. We observe prefer-ences toward particular types of data for estimating differentecosystem service categories. Economic data have been mainlyused for provisioning services; ecological data for regulating andhabitat related services; abiotic data for regulating services; socialdata for cultural services; and land use and land cover data havebeen frequently used for both provisioning and regulating services(Fig. 4a). Overall, we observe a strong preference toward incorpo-ration of land use and land cover data in ecosystem service assess-ments (Reyers et al., 2013).
The majority of these studies that have included land use andland cover data have assumed that the provision of ecosystem ser-vices changes linearly with changes in land use and land cover (e.g.Chan et al., 2006; Egoh et al., 2009; Koschke et al., 2012), thereby
Table 1Criteria and categories defined to perform the review and analyze the core steps of a decision framework for ecosystem services (ES).
Core step Criteria and rationale Categories considered
Problem identification (Fig. 2a) Types of problems and issues addressed in thesample of studies reviewed
Planning for the management of ES
Policy design/evaluating policies for ES managementAllocation of investments for ES managementTrade-offs between ESAssessment of threats to ESQuantification and mapping of ES
Social–ecological context (Fig. 2b) Spatial scale Patch (10–100 km2), Local (100–1000 km2), Regional (1000–100,000 km2),National (100,000–1,000,000 km2), Global (>1,000,000)
Type of ecosystem Terrestrial, freshwater, marineType of country by income Low-income economies, lower-middle-income economies, upper-middle-
income economies, high-income economies (http://data.worldbank.org/country)
Consideration of social–ecological context Land cover/land use, social (e.g. people’s opinions or attitudes throughinterviews), abiotic (topography, soil, hydrological), ecological (ecosystemattributes, species, vegetation), economic
Specification of objectives (Fig. 2c)and associated performancemeasures (Fig. 2d)
Types of objectives considered Fundamental objectives: describe the outcomes that are sought and theconcerns that are being addressed. Means objectives: detail how afundamental objective will be achieved
Are the objectives set through stakeholderconsultation?
Yes or no
Are the studies defining performance measuresfor the objectives or state indicators ofecosystem services?
Performance measures: thresholds for use or ratio of consumption/supply.State indicators: how much of the ES is being supplied and/or delivered
How ES have been defined and measured? ES defined and measured as the biophysical supply or the amount of servicesdelivered to society (Tallis et al., 2012)
Defining alternative managementactions (Fig. 2e) and theirconsequences (Fig. 2f)
Does the study define alternative managementactions?
Yes or no
Does the study evaluate the consequences ofalternative management actions?
Yes or no
Tools used to frame the evaluation ofconsequences
Scenario analysis, conservation planning scenarios, simulation analysis,multi-criteria analysis
Were the alternatives defined with stakeholderparticipation?
Yes or no
Assessment of trade-offs (Fig. 2g) Assessment of trade-offs Yes or noMethod to asses trade-offs Correlations between ES, Benefits and costs between alternatives,
production possibility frontier analysis
Prioritization of alternativemanagement actions (Fig. 2h)
The study prioritises actions Yes or no
Type of method that has been used to prioritiseactions
Conservation planning, multiple objective optimization, multi-criteriaanalysis, cost-benefit analysis
Making management decisions(Fig. 2i)
The study considers the implementation of adecision
Yes or no
Type of decision Financial incentives (e.g., payments for ES), governance-based instruments(e.g., enforcement of existing legislation, capacity-building), allocation offunding, and land acquisition
Fig. 3. Types of problems addressed in the literature review.
232 M.J. Martinez-Harms et al. / Biological Conservation 184 (2015) 229–238
Fig. 4. Socio-ecological context of the studies reviewed. (a) The socio-ecological variables employed; (b) the scale of the application of the studies: patch (10–100 km2); local(100–1000 km2); regional (1000–100,000 km2); national (100,000–1,000,000 km2); global (>1,000,000 km2); (c) type of system where the studies have been applied; (d) typeof economy of the country where the studies have been applied.
Fig. 5. Proportion of studies reviewed that address core steps of the conceptual framework (n: 144 studies).
M.J. Martinez-Harms et al. / Biological Conservation 184 (2015) 229–238 233
ignoring the spatial and temporal variability in biophysical andsocial processes that occurs in conjunction with changes in landuse (Anderson et al., 2009; Grêt-Regamey et al., 2014). A morecomprehensive evaluation of the social–ecological context wouldinvolve the identification of stakeholder preferences for different
services and the potential beneficiaries; evaluating access to capi-tal, technology, and labour (but see Priess et al., 2007; Birch et al.,2010; Lavorel et al., 2011), and appraising the broader institutional,political, governance, and legal regimes. These aspects ultimatelydetermine the provision or perceived value of many services (but
Table 2Examples of studies addressing the decision-making framework by type of problem addressed (ES: ecosystem services).
Problem identification Fundamentalobjective
Means objective Performancemeasures or stateindicators
Alternativemanagement actions
Assessment oftrade-offs
Managementdecision
Source
Planning for themanagement of ES
Maximize the netincrease inbenefits of a suiteof ES throughrestoration
Target sites forrestorationthrough cost-effectivenessanalysis
State indicators(expert knowledgeof expectedchanges in ESbenefits withincreasing coverageof invasive species)
Alternativemanagement actionsto control invasivespecies
Trade-offsbetweenrestoration sitessubject to budgetconstraintsthrough multipleobjectivesoptimization
No decisionimplemented,but financialincentives forrestoration wasrecommended
Waingeret al.(2010)
Policy design for ES/Application ofpolicies
Conservation ofareas forbiodiversity undera payment for ESscheme (e.g.REDD+)
Assessment ofbiodiversityoutcomes underpolicy scenariospaymentschemes forecosystemservices
Performancemeasures (securing10% and 50% ofbiodiversity andreduction of carbonemissions)
Conservationplanning scenarios(testing theachievement oftargets forbiodiversity undercarbon emissionreduction scenarios)
Trade-offsbetweenconservation anddevelopmentobjectivesfocusing onrelative benefitsand opportunitycosts
No decision, butthe potentialimpact offinancialincentivesalreadyimplemented inthe area wastested
Venteret al.(2013)
Allocation ofinvestments for ES
Enhance theprovision ofmultipleecosystem services
Identify the suiteof investmentsthat most cost-effectivelyenhance theprovision ofecosystemservices
State indicators(expert preferencesfor multipleecosystemservices)
Evaluatinginvestmentalternatives
Multi-criteriaanalysis and cost-benefit analysisfor prioritizinginvestmentdecisions
Yes, allocation ofregionalincentives forthe managementof ecosystemservices
Bryan(2010)
Trade-offs between ES Minimize conflictsbetween multipleuses andecosystem servicevalues
Undertake atrade-off analysistosimultaneouslyassess multipleecosystemservices
State indicators(habitat for fisheryspecies and areassuitable for windprojects)
Simulation analysisbetween differentalternatives forecosystem servicesand marine uses (e.g.development levelsfor wind farm)
Possibility frontieranalysis of thebenefits and costsbetween differentdevelopmentlevels forecosystemservices
No decision Whiteet al.(2012)
Assessment of threatsto ES
Increase thecapacity ofcommunities tocope with climatechange.
Analysis of thecontribution ofNon TimberForest Productsto identifyadaptationoptions toclimate change
State indicators(nutritional intakeof Non TimberForest Products inthe diet of localcommunities)
Participatoryscenario analysis toidentify resilientmanagementalternatives toclimate change
No analysis oftrade-offs
No decision Woittiezet al.(2013)
Quantification andmapping of ES
Balance economic,environmental,educational,cultural andcommunityreturns, ratherthan economicreturns alone
Evaluate theenvironmentaland financialimplications ofcontrasting land-use combinations
State indicators(e.g. carbonfractionaboveground andbelowground,export of totaldissolved nitrogenfor water quality)
Land use scenarios(e.g. Noimprovements in theirrigation system,Improvements in theirrigation system,sell land.)
No analysis oftrade-offs
Governancebased incentive(e.g. plan tosupportdiversifiedagriculture andforestry)
Goldsteinet al.(2012)
234 M.J. Martinez-Harms et al. / Biological Conservation 184 (2015) 229–238
see Bryan et al., 2011; Martin-Lopez et al., 2012), and would pro-vide a more explicit and thorough appraisal of the socio-ecologicalcontext.
The specific social–ecological context is determined by the scaleof analysis, type of ecosystem, and location of the assessment.Most of the studies we reviewed were applied at regional, local,and national scales, with few undertaken at global scales, and evenfewer at multiple spatial scales (Fig. 4b). Many environmentalproblems do not fit into the context of a single spatial scale and thissimplification ignores the ecological and social processes thatoperate across scales of management (Anderson et al., 2009;Johnson et al., 2013). For example, when managing ecosystem ser-vices, it is relevant to address both the spatial scale of the bio-physical processes underpinning the provision of ecosystemservices and the spatial scale at which management decisions aremade (Kremen and Ostfeld, 2005; Hein et al., 2006). The ecosystemservices literature exhibits similar biases to the field of conserva-tion science (Lawler et al., 2006) with only 14% and 20% of thestudies reviewed applied in marine and freshwater systems
respectively and only 11% applied in low-income economies(Fig. 4c and d respectively). A concerted effort to undertake ecosys-tem service assessments in diverse environmental and develop-ment contexts is needed and recent ecosystem serviceassessments in data poor regions provide useful examples (Lawet al., 2015).
3.2. Objectives and performance measures
3.2.1. Specification of objectivesObjectives describe the outcomes that are sought and the con-
cerns that are being addressed (also known as fundamental objec-tives; Marcot et al., 2012). The choice of objectives influences allaspects of the decision-making process (Johnson et al., 2013) andit is essential that the outcomes of alternative actions be evaluatedagainst the objectives. However, only 10% of the studies reviewedstated fundamental objectives, with the majority referring to speci-fic methods to achieve an unstated fundamental objective (alsoknown as means objectives; Marcot et al., 2012) (Fig. 5 and Table 2).
Fig. 6. The types of ecosystem services addressed in the literature review (because most of the studies consider several ecosystem services, the sum of entries in this figureexceeds the total number of studies reviewed). The category multiple ecosystem services (M) refer to those papers addressing lists of ecosystem services, treating them in thesame manner for methodological aspects (this category is not accounted in the final number of 20 ecosystem services).
M.J. Martinez-Harms et al. / Biological Conservation 184 (2015) 229–238 235
Ideally, stakeholders are involved when setting objectives to repre-sent their concerns and aspirations in the decision-making process(Runge et al., 2011; Gregory et al., 2012). Of the papers reviewedonly a small number of studies set objectives through stakeholderconsultation (8% of the studies, Fig. 5).
3.2.2. Performance measuresPerformance measures are quantitative expressions of the
objectives that are used to evaluate the performance of alternativemanagement actions with respect to the objectives (Marcot et al.,2012). Ideally performance measures would describe how muchof a service can be sustainably consumed in relation to the supply,or thresholds for use (De Groot et al., 2010). In the literature wereviewed only 8% of the studies applied performance measuresand this includes targets for the supply of ecosystem services(Fig. 5) (Moilanen et al., 2011; Thomas et al., 2013; Venter et al.,2013).
The majority of studies have quantified ecosystem services asstate indicators measured as the biophysical potential of ecosys-tems to supply services, irrespective of its use (Beier et al., 2008).Less commonly has the amount of services actually delivered andused by society been assessed, and this has predominately beenfor recreation and food provision (Fig. 6). By definition ecosystemservices provide benefits to people and therefore measuring onlythe potential supply of ecosystem services will deliver only partialinformation (Tallis et al., 2012). Quantification of the final servicesdelivered to and consumed by society will provide more realisticestimates of the value of ecosystem services (Fisher et al., 2009;De Groot et al., 2010).
3.3. Defining alternative management actions and their consequences
We found that 45% of the papers reviewed have defined andevaluated the consequences of alternative management actions,and only 13% of the studies reviewed selected the actions to beevaluated through consultation with decision-makers and otherstakeholders (Fig. 5) (Bohensky et al., 2006; Grêt-Regamey et al.,2008; Bryan, 2010). A consultative process of selecting and deliber-ating alternative actions would strengthen the dialogue withstakeholders, align the actions selected with the objective(s), andsupport an adaptive decision-making process (Bohensky et al.,2006; Carpenter et al., 2009). We found no examples where objec-tives were tested and updated after alternative managementactions had been evaluated.
3.4. Assessment of trade-offs and prioritization of actions
3.4.1. Trade-offsManaging for the sustainable and efficient provision of multiple
interacting ecosystem services is challenging as alternativesundertaken to deliver one service may divert resources from alter-native actions that could deliver other services (Lester et al., 2013).Management decisions often involve a range of possible actionsand multiple stakeholder perspectives that will result in eithertrade-offs between outcomes, the delivery of co-benefits, or per-verse or negative impacts (Lindenmayer et al., 2012; Johnsonet al., 2013).
We identified that 38% of the studies reviewed attempted toinvestigate synergies and trade-offs associated with ecosystem
236 M.J. Martinez-Harms et al. / Biological Conservation 184 (2015) 229–238
services (Fig. 5). The number of papers identified is consistent withresults reported in a comprehensive review specifically focused ontrade-offs (Howe et al., 2014). However, most of these studiesreviewed focused on evaluating the correlation and overlapbetween ecosystem services (Chan et al., 2006; Anderson et al.,2009; Lavorel et al., 2011). Such assessments can be extended toprovide information about the trade-offs that may arise as a conse-quence of implementing alternative management actions (e.g.changing land use scenarios). A limited number of studies haveaddressed trade-offs through analyzing the production possibilityfrontier, which identifies the sets of management alternatives thatwould maximize delivery of services across a range of preferences(and need not be couched in pure economic terms; examples of theevaluation of trade-offs between alternative management actionsfor ecosystem services can be found in: Nelson et al., 2008;Wainger et al., 2010; White et al., 2012). Ideally trade-off analysesshould consider not just the dimensions of contemporary trade-offs, but also how decisions made will affect future outcomesand opportunities. Further, while trade off analyses such as pro-duction possibility frontiers outline possibilities, decision-makingneeds to consider these in association with social preferencesand welfare (including sustainability, or intergenerationalwelfare).
3.4.2. Prioritization of management actionsThe prioritization phase provides information on the optimal or
near-optimal spatial location and temporal timing of implement-ing alternative management actions given available resources(Ferrier and Wintle, 2009). In the ecosystem services literature, pri-ority areas have been identified where investment will yield great-est return (Luck et al., 2012), but only 19% of studies havesystematically assessed how resources should be allocated to alter-native actions (Fig. 5). A variety of decision support tools have beenused to identify actions for managing ecosystem services includingconservation planning techniques (Chan et al., 2006; Egoh et al.,2010), multiple-objective optimization algorithms (Nelson et al.,2008; Wainger et al., 2010; Thomas et al., 2013), multi-criteriaanalysis (Bryan et al., 2011; Larsen et al., 2011) and cost-benefitanalysis (Birch et al., 2010). The selection of a decision support toolwill depend on the context of the problem and the objectives of theanalysis. For example, conservation planning software has general-ly been applied to the spatial allocation of alternatives across broadextents either focused on protected areas (Chan et al., 2006) or adiverse suite of land uses in multifunctional landscapes (Reyerset al., 2012; Venter et al., 2013). Tools such as multi-criteria analy-sis and cost-benefit analysis are commonly used to rank projects tocompare the cost and benefits (and other criteria) of alternativeactions.
3.5. Making management decisions
A decision occurs when an alternative action is selected andimplemented through its internalization in policy, plans or aninstitutional arrangement, and typically operationalized as someform of regulation or incentive. In this literature review a diversityof potential decisions have been identified, including the use offinancial incentives such as payments for ecosystem services(Chen et al., 2009; Reyers et al., 2012; Venter et al., 2013), gover-nance-based instruments (Naidoo et al., 2008; Goldstein et al.,2012), and the application of conservation strategies such as landacquisition (Kovacs et al., 2013). However, only 3% of our peer-re-viewed sample reported the on-ground implementation of anaction (Nelson et al., 2008; Naidoo et al., 2009; Bryan, 2010 andGoldstein et al., 2012). Some examples include the allocation ofregional funds for ecosystem services management (Bryan, 2010),a plan to support diversified agriculture and forestry to improve
the provision of ecosystem services (Goldstein et al., 2012), andthe provision of conservation payments (Nelson et al., 2008).
4. Conclusion
Governments and international policymakers are embracingthe concept of ecosystem services to provide new opportunitiesfor local economies and to safeguard natural capital for futuregenerations. Our review provides evidence that ecosystem serviceassessments do not capture the core steps of the decision makingprocess and much of the literature has been focused on quantify-ing and mapping the supply of ecosystem services. We identifyimportant priorities for future research and practice, includingthe articulation of objectives, the identification of performancemeasures, and the deliberation of alternative actions. Manage-ment decisions for ecosystem services should be underpinnedby the best available science by integrating primary researchand systematic reviews (Dicks et al., 2014). Management deci-sions should also account for the values and preferences of stake-holders. Deliberative and participatory methods could facilitatethis and enable the opportunities and constraints for effectivemanagement to be identified. We see these as key ingredientsfor the ecosystem services paradigm to gain traction in scienceand policy arenas.
Acknowledgements
We thank Peter Rankin, Felipe Suarez Castro, Jose Ponton,Tamara Homburg and Kathleen Yetka for their help reviewingthe scientific articles. MMH was supported by the Ministry ofEducation from the Chilean Government fellowship; MMH andEL were supported by the Australian Research Council Centre ofExcellence for Environmental Decisions scholarships and theUniversity of Queensland – Commonwealth Scientific and Industri-al Research Organization (CSIRO) Integrative Natural ResourceManagement Postgraduate Fellowship. KAW and HPP were sup-ported by the ARC Future Fellowship and Laureate Schemes respec-tively, the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence forEnvironmental Decisions, and the National EnvironmentalResearch Program Hub for Environmental Decisions. BAB was sup-ported by CSIROs Agriculture Flagship.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, inthe online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.024.
References
Anderson, B.J., Armsworth, P.R., Eigenbrod, F., Thomas, C.D., Gillings, S., Heinemeyer,A., Roy, D., Gaston, K.J., 2009. Spatial covariance between biodiversity and otherecosystem service priorities. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 888–896.
Bateman, I.J., Harwood, A.R., Mace, G.M., Watson, R.T., Abson, D.J., Andrews, B.,Binner, A., Crowe, A., Day, B.H., Dugdale, S., Fezzi, C., Foden, J., Hadley, D.,Haines-Young, R., Hulme, M., Kontoleon, A., Lovett, A.A., Munday, P., Pascual, U.,Paterson, J., Perino, G., Sen, A., Siriwardena, G., van Soest, D., Termansen, M.,2013. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use inthe United Kingdom. Science 341, 45–50.
Beier, C., Patterson, T., Chapin, F., 2008. Ecosystem services and emergentvulnerability in managed ecosystems: a geospatial decision-support tool.Ecosystems 11, 923–938.
Birch, J.C., Newton, A.C., Aquino, C.A., Cantarello, E., Echeverría, C., Kitzberger, T.,Schiappacasse, I., Garavito, N.T., 2010. Cost-effectiveness of dryland forestrestoration evaluated by spatial analysis of ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad.Sci. 107, 21925–21930.
Bohensky, E.L., Reyers, B., Van Jaarsveld, A.S., 2006. Future ecosystem services in aSouthern African river basin: a scenario planning approach to uncertainty.Conserv. Biol. 20, 1051–1061.
M.J. Martinez-Harms et al. / Biological Conservation 184 (2015) 229–238 237
Bryan, B., Kandulu, J., 2011. Designing a policy mix and sequence for mitigatingagricultural non-point source pollution in a water supply catchment. WaterResour. Manage 25, 875–892.
Bryan, B.A., 2010. Development and application of a model for robust, cost-effectiveinvestment in natural capital and ecosystem services. Biol. Conserv. 143, 1737–1750.
Bryan, B.A., Raymond, C.M., Crossman, N.D., King, D., 2011. Comparing spatiallyexplicit ecological and social values for natural areas to identify effectiveconservation strategies. Conserv. Biol. 25, 172–181.
Carpenter, S.R., Mooney, H.A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R.S., Díaz, S., Dietz, T.,Duraiappah, A.K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H.M., Perrings, C., Reid, W.V.,Sarukhan, J., Scholes, R.J., Whyte, A., 2009. Science for managing ecosystemservices: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.106, 1305–1312.
CBD, 2010. Decision X/2, The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and theAichi Biodiversity Targets, Nagoya, Japan, 18–20 October 2010.
Chan, K.M.A., Shaw, M.R., Cameron, D.R., Underwood, E.C., Daily, G.C., 2006.Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol. 4, e379.
Chen, X.D., Lupi, F., He, G.M., Liu, J.G., 2009. Linking social norms to efficientconservation investment in payments for ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad.Sci. U.S.A. 106, 11812–11817.
Chhatre, A., Agrawal, A., 2009. Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage andlivelihood benefits from forest commons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106,17667–17670.
Daily, G.C., 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems.Island Press.
Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts,T.H., Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R., 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making:time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 21–28.
De Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges inintegrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning,management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7, 260–272.
Dicks, L.V., Walsh, J., Sutherland, W.J., 2014. Organising evidence for environmentalmanagement decisions: a ‘4S’ hierarchy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 607–613.
Egoh, B., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Bode, M., Richardson, D.M., 2009. Spatial congruencebetween biodiversity and ecosystem services in South Africa. Biol. Conserv. 142,553–562.
Egoh, B.N., Reyers, B., Carwardine, J., Bode, M., O’Farrell, P.J., Wilson, K.A.,Possingham, H.P., Rouget, M., De Lange, W., Richardson, D.M., Cowling, R.M.,2010. Safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Little Karoo,South Africa. Conserv. Biol. 24, 1021–1030.
Ferrier, S., Wintle, B.A., 2009. Quantitative approaches to spatial conservationprioritization: matching the solution to the need. In: Moilanen, A., Possingham,H., Wilson, K. (Eds.), Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methodsand Computational Tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 1–15.
Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem servicesfor decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68, 643–653.
Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy, E.S., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M.,Mueller, N.D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D.K., West, P.C., 2011. Solutions for a cultivatedplanet. Nature 478, 337–342.
Goldstein, J.H., Caldarone, G., Duarte, T.K., Ennaanay, D., Hannahs, N., Mendoza, G.,Polasky, S., Wolny, S., Daily, G.C., 2012. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffsinto land-use decisions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 7565–7570.
Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T., Ohlson, D., 2012.Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental ManagementChoices. John Wiley & Sons.
Grêt-Regamey, A., Bebi, P., Bishop, I.D., Schmid, W.A., 2008. Linking GIS-basedmodels to value ecosystem services in an Alpine region. J. Environ. Manage. 89,197–208.
Grêt-Regamey, A., Rabe, S.-E., Crespo, R., Lautenbach, S., Ryffel, A., Schlup, B., 2014.On the importance of non-linear relationships between landscape patterns andthe sustainable provision of ecosystem services. Landscape Ecol. 29, 201–212.
Guisan, A., Tingley, R., Baumgartner, J.B., Naujokaitis-Lewis, I., Sutcliffe, P.R., Tulloch,A.I.T., Regan, T.J., Brotons, L., McDonald-Madden, E., Mantyka-Pringle, C., Martin,T.G., Rhodes, J.R., Maggini, R., Setterfield, S.A., Elith, J., Schwartz, M.W., Wintle,B.A., Broennimann, O., Austin, M., Ferrier, S., Kearney, M.R., Possingham, H.P.,Buckley, Y.M., 2013. Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions.Ecol. Lett. 16, 1424–1435.
Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R.S., van Ierland, E.C., 2006. Spatial scales,stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 57, 209–228.
Howe, C., Suich, H., Vira, B., Mace, G.M., 2014. Creating win-wins from trade-offs?Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem servicetrade-offs and synergies in the real world. Global Environ. Change 28, 263–275.
Johnson, F.A., Williams, B.K., Nichols, J.D., 2013. Resilience thinking and a decision-analytic approach to conservation: strange bedfellows or essential partners?Ecol. Soc., 18
Koschke, L., Furst, C., Frank, S., Makeschin, F., 2012. A multi-criteria approach for anintegrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision tosupport landscape planning. Ecol. Ind. 21, 54–66.
Kovacs, K., Polasky, S., Nelson, E., Keeler, B.L., Pennington, D., Plantinga, A.J., Taff, S.J.,2013. Evaluating the return in ecosystem services from investment in publicland acquisitions. PLoS ONE, 8.
Kremen, C., Ostfeld, R.S., 2005. A call to ecologists: measuring, analyzing, andmanaging ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3, 540–548.
Larsen, F.W., Londono-Murcia, M.C., Turner, W.R., 2011. Global priorities forconservation of threatened species, carbon storage, and freshwater services:scope for synergy? Conserv. Lett. 4, 355–363.
Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Billé, R., Pirard, R., Mermet, L., 2013. Use of ecosystemservices economic valuation for decision making: questioning a literatureblindspot. J. Environ. Manage. 119, 208–219.
Lavorel, S., Grigulis, K., Lamarque, P., Colace, M.P., Garden, D., Girel, J., Pellet, G.,Douzet, R., 2011. Using plant functional traits to understand the landscapedistribution of multiple ecosystem services. J. Ecol. 99, 135–147.
Law, E.A., Bryan, B.A., Meijaard, E., Mallawaarachchi, T., Struebig, M.J., Wilson, K.A.,2015. Ecosystem services from a degraded peatland of Central Kalimantan:implications for policy, planning, and management. Ecol. Appl. 25, 70–87.
Lawler, J.J., Aukema, J.E., Grant, J.B., Halpern, B.S., Kareiva, P., Nelson, C.R., Ohleth, K.,Olden, J.D., Schlaepfer, M.A., Silliman, B.R., Zaradic, P., 2006. Conservationscience: a 20-year report card. Front. Ecol. Environ. 4, 473–480.
Lester, S.E., Costello, C., Halpern, B.S., Gaines, S.D., White, C., Barth, J.A., 2013.Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatialplanning. Marine Policy 38, 80–89.
Lindenmayer, D.B., Hulvey, K.B., Hobbs, R.J., Colyvan, M., Felton, A., Possingham, H.,Steffen, W., Wilson, K., Youngentob, K., Gibbons, P., 2012. Avoiding bio-perversity from carbon sequestration solutions. Conserv. Lett. 5, 28–36.
Luck, G.W., Chan, K.M., Klein, C.J., 2012. Identifying spatial priorities for protectingecosystem services. F1000 Research 1.
Mace, G., 2013. Global change: ecology must evolve. Nature 503, 191–192.Maes, J., Hauck, J., Paracchini, M.L., Ratamaki, O., Hutchins, M., Termansen, M.,
Furman, E., Perez-Soba, M., Braat, L., Bidoglio, G., 2013. Mainstreamingecosystem services into EU policy. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 5, 128–134.
Marcot, B.G., Thompson, M.P., Runge, M.C., Thompson, F.R., McNulty, S., Cleaves, D.,Tomosy, M., Fisher, L.A., Bliss, A., 2012. Recent advances in applying decisionscience to managing national forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 285, 123–132.
Martin-Lopez, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Garcia-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga,I., Del Amo, D.G., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Oteros-Rozas, E., Palacios-Agundez, I.,Willaarts, B., Gonzalez, J.A., Santos-Martin, F., Onaindia, M., Lopez-Santiago, C.,Montes, C., 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through socialpreferences. PLoS ONE 7 (6), e38970.
MEA, 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment.Island Press, Washington, DC.
MEA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press,Washington, DC.
Moilanen, A., Anderson, B.J., Eigenbrod, F., Heinemeyer, A., Roy, D.B., Gillings, S.,Armsworth, P.R., Gaston, K.J., Thomas, C.D., 2011. Balancing alternative landuses in conservation prioritization. Ecol. Appl. 21, 1419–1426.
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., Lehner, B., Malcolm, T.R.,Ricketts, T.H., 2008. Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservationpriorities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 9495–9500.
Naidoo, R., Malcolm, T., Tomasek, A., 2009. Economic benefits of standing forests inhighland areas of Borneo: quantification and policy impacts. Conserv. Lett. 2,35–44.
Nelson, E., Polasky, S., Lewis, D.J., Plantinga, A.J., Lonsdorf, E., White, D., Bael, D.,Lawler, J.J., 2008. Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbonsequestration and species conservation on a landscape. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.U.S.A. 105, 9471–9476.
Nicholson, E., Mace, G.M., Armsworth, P.R., Atkinson, G., Buckle, S., Clements, T.,Ewers, R.M., Fa, J.E., Gardner, T.A., Gibbons, J., Grenyer, R., Metcalfe, R., Mourato,S., Muûls, M., Osborn, D., Reuman, D.C., Watson, C., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2009.Priority research areas for ecosystem services in a changing world. J. Appl. Ecol.46, 1139–1144.
Perrings, C., Duraiappah, A., Larigauderie, A., Mooney, H., 2011. The biodiversity andecosystem services science-policy interface. Science 331, 1139–1140.
Polasky, S., Nelson, E., Pennington, D., Johnson, K.A., 2011. The impact of land-usechange on ecosystem services, biodiversity and returns to landowners: a casestudy in the state of Minnesota. Environ. Resource Econ. 48, 219–242.
Priess, J., Mimler, M., Klein, A.-M., Schwarze, S., Tscharntke, T., Steffan-Dewenter, I.,2007. Linking deforestation scenarios to pollination services and economicreturns in coffee agroforestry systems. Ecol. Appl. 17, 407–417.
Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Cumming, G.S., Elmqvist, T., Hejnowicz, A.P., Polasky, S., 2013.Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological approach. Front.Ecol. Environ. 11, 268–273.
Reyers, B., O’Farrell, P., Nel, J., Wilson, K., 2012. Expanding the conservation toolbox:conservation planning of multifunctional landscapes. Landscape Ecol. 27, 1121–1134.
Runge, M.C., Converse, S.J., Lyons, J.E., 2011. Which uncertainty? Using expertelicitation and expected value of information to design an adaptive program.Biol. Conserv. 144, 1214–1223.
Seppelt, R., Dormann, C.F., Eppink, F.V., Lautenbach, S., Schmidt, S., 2011. Aquantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomingsand the road ahead. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 630–636.
Sukhdev, P., 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreamingthe economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions andrecommendations of TEEB. TEEB.
Tallis, H., Mooney, H., Andelman, S., Balvanera, P., Cramer, W., Karp, D., Polasky, S.,Reyers, B., Ricketts, T., Running, S., Thonicke, K., Tietjen, B., Walz, A., 2012. Aglobal system for monitoring ecosystem service change. Bioscience 62, 977–986.
238 M.J. Martinez-Harms et al. / Biological Conservation 184 (2015) 229–238
Thomas, C.D., Anderson, B.J., Moilanen, A., Eigenbrod, F., Heinemeyer, A., Quaife, T.,Roy, D.B., Gillings, S., Armsworth, P.R., Gaston, K.J., 2013. Reconcilingbiodiversity and carbon conservation. Ecol. Lett. 16, 39–47.
Venter, O., Hovani, L., Bode, M., Possingham, H.P., 2013. Acting optimally forbiodiversity in a world obsessed with REDD. Conserv. Lett. 6, 410–417.
Wainger, L.A., King, D.M., Mack, R.N., Price, E.W., Maslin, T., 2010. Can the concept ofecosystem services be practically applied to improve natural resourcemanagement decisions? Ecol. Econ. 69, 978–987.
White, C., Halpern, B.S., Kappel, C.V., 2012. Ecosystem service tradeoff analysisreveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. Proc. Natl.Acad. Sci. 109, 4696–4701.
Willemen, L., Verburg, P.H., Hein, L., van Mensvoort, M.E.F., 2008. Spatialcharacterization of landscape functions. Landscape Urban Plann. 88, 34–43.
Woittiez, L.S., Rufino, M.C., Giller, K.E., Mapfumo, P., 2013. The use of woodlandproducts to cope with climate variability in communal areas in Zimbabwe. Ecol.Soc., 18.
