Ecosystem services in dynamic and contested landscapes: The case of UK uplands

Full text

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
1
Ecosystem services in dynamic and contested landscapes:
the case of UK uplands
Klaus Hubacek
1
, Nesha Beharry
1
, Aletta Bonn
2
, Tim Burt
3
, Joseph Holden
4
, Federica
Ravera
5
, Mark Reed
6
, Lindsay Stringer
1
, David Tarrasón
7
1 Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of
Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
2 Moors for the Future Partnership, Peak District National Park, The Moorland Centre,
Edale, S33 7ZA, UK.
3 Department of Geography, Durham University, Science Laboratories, South Road,
Durham, DH1 3LE, UK.
4 School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
5 Institute for Environmental Sciences and Technologies (ICTA), Autonomous
University of Barcelona, E-08193 Bellaterra, Spain
.6 Aberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability and Centre for Planning and
Environmental Management, School of Geosciences, University of Aberdeen, St Mary’s,
Aberdeen AB24 3UF, UK
7 Centre for Ecological Research and Forestry Applications (CREAF), Unit of Ecology,
Department of Animal and Plant Biology and Ecology, Autonomous University of
Barcelona, E-08193 Bellaterra, Spain.

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
2
Abstract
Upland areas are often recognized for their outstanding beauty and for their provision of
ecosystem services. Beyond the supply of food and fibre uplands are important for carbon
storage and sequestration or provision of drinking water and recreation opportunities.
Often the beneficiaries of these services live in distant urban areas. This can lead to a
mismatch of costs incurred by those who manage the land providing ecosystem services
and those who enjoy their benefits. Policies directed to sustain the long-term delivery of
ecosystem services and at the same time the provision for a vibrant rural community
therefore need to fully recognize the inseparable interaction between the bio-physical
environment and the economic activities taking place in the area. Failure to address the
socio-economic characteristics of the uplands and the driving forces influencing
behaviour of land managers may jeopardize the continued provision of ecosystem
services to society. This chapter discusses the main ecosystem services in UK uplands,
their interlinkages and multi-scale characteristics, including the different values placed on
different ecosystem services by different groups. It highlights the need for stakeholders to
work together to manage synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services and
discusses some of the mechanisms that may be used to achieve this.

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
3
1 Introduction
In future, society may increasingly question the ways in which uplands are used.
Growing populations will need to feed themselves under very different climatic
conditions, on a shrinking land base (as sea levels rise), and compete for food with the
rapidly growing middle classes of the developing world. In addition, they will need to
balance the economic incentives and impacts of policies that favour land use changes
towards, for example, the production of biofuels. At the same time, and under a changing
climate, upland areas must continue to provide the many other services we have come to
expect from them, for example, supplying surrounding cities with drinking water, without
compromising biodiversity and important landscape features. This dilemma is captured
well in the concept of ‘ecosystem services’, which in its simplest form refers to those
services provided by nature for human well-being.
Ecosystem services can be grouped as: provisioning services (ecosystem products e.g.
food and fibre); regulating services (including process such as climate stabilisation,
erosion regulation and pollination); cultural services (non-material benefits from
ecosystems e.g. spiritual fulfilment, cognitive development and recreation) and
supporting services (necessary for the production of other ecosystem services, e.g., soil
formation, photosynthesis and nutrient cycling). Ecosystem services are essential to
human existence and well-being (MA, 2005). They operate at different spatio-temporal
scales, ranging from global processes to impacts at a catchment scale to intricate
processes on small patches, which are little explored to date. Ecosystems services such as
the purification of water, mitigation of floods or pollination of plants ‘are pervasive’ and

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
4
often unnoticed by human beings (Daily, 1997). The importance of ecosystem services is
often only appreciated once they are lost or when they result in negative effects such as
flooding (Gowdy, 1997), and so the depreciation of ecosystem capital is typically
undervalued (Daily, 2000).
The ecosystem services concept promoted by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and
similar publications (e.g. Daily, 1997, MA, 2005), has been very stimulating and led to
significant debates. While there are still many open questions, the ecosystem services
concept has been widely adopted by research and policy. It aims to conceptualise the
‘complex links between ecosystems and human wellbeing’ (MA, 2005), and recognises
that different stakeholders are likely to value ecosystem services differently. As such, it
emphasises the need for the decentralisation of control over ecosystem service
management and has become en vogue as an important integrating concept for disparate
interest groups and research disciplines. For example, ecologists have long recognized
the service flows coming from functioning ecosystems and can now use a framework to
communicate this better to a wider community. At the same time, the ecosystem services
concept allows resource economists to see their framework of economic valuations
adopted and applied to the natural world. It may also present an opportunity to public
land managers and private land owners for additional income streams from the provision
of ecosystem services, especially in times of falling resource prices and increasing
restrictions on unfettered production (Brown et al., 2007). There is also evidence that the
concept can attract new funding and wider support for nature conservation (Goldman et
al., 2008).

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
5
While there is a strong support following the MA’s popularisation of the concept, and the
Ecosystem Approach has already been incorporated in UK legislation with the cross-
government public service agreement (PSA) target (DEFRA, 2007b), there are still
considerable scientific challenges to incorporate it into policy tools and agendas (e.g.
Kremen et al., 2008): For example, how can we maximise synergies and resolve trade-
offs and resulting conflicts between ecosystem services at different scales, as we
increasingly make new and diverse demands on our land? Who has the right and the
power to make decisions about how land is used in future? Should future land use be
shaped by a relatively small number of property rights owners (usually based on land
ownership or withdrawal rights), if this marginalises less powerful groups who are
significantly affected by the decisions that are made? Can new markets, fiscal schemes
and other incentives promote the delivery of ecosystem services?
British uplands offer a particularly interesting context in which to explore these questions
(Bonn et al., 2008). Upland areas are often recognized for their outstanding beauty and
for their supply of ecosystem services in addition to food and fibre, such as flood
prevention, carbon sequestration and water provision (Bonn et al., 2008; Wilby et al.,
2006). Often the beneficiaries of these services are in distant urban areas, leading to a
mismatch of costs incurred by those who manage ecosystems services (usually land
managers or farmers) and those who enjoy their benefits (e.g. tourists, local residents,
consumers of drinking water). The costs are often borne by the land owners who can
range from well-endowed private estates or industrial water companies owning large
areas of land, to hill-farming communities facing falling incomes and reductions in the
agricultural labour force, an ageing demographic structure and farmland abandonment

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
6
(Burton et al., 2005). Costs to support land management are to some degree borne by tax
payers through agri-environment schemes and costs of environmental degradation are, for
example, borne by water customers paying for water treatment costs through their water
bills. Any given parcel of upland may have multiple uses and users at any single point in
time. For example, a given upland area may concurrently play a role in sheep or timber
production, maintaining water supplies, provision of recreation opportunities through e.g.
walking, climbing or game shooting, biodiversity conservation, and at the same time,
delivery of important amenity values through relatively attractive landscapes and scenery.
Only with careful management and negotiation between different stakeholder groups with
different priorities, is it possible to deal with any trade-offs and maximise synergies. To
complicate the situation further, these synergies and trade-offs must be negotiated under
conditions of uncertainty, an ever-incomplete scientific knowledge base, and changing
environments, and in the context of evolving preferences and multiple (sometimes
conflicting) policies.
This chapter uses the UK uplands as a case study to explore how synergies and trade-offs
between ecosystem services and the different priorities accorded to them by different
actors may be managed, highlighting some of the key considerations that need to be taken
into account. The next section discusses how upland ecosystem services have changed,
and are likely to change in the future, in response to various environmental, economic
and policy drivers. In doing so, it explores some of the conflicts that may emerge as a
result. This then leads to an examination of the ecosystem services concept in relation to
uplands.

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
7
2 A land of many uses: dynamic and contested upland ecosystem
services
An environment shaped by human influence
The UK’s uplands, cherished by residents and visitors, have been shaped by millennia of
past human activity (Reed et al., under review). Indeed, ‘the major lineaments of the
landscape, its openness, its cover of peat and the confinement of improved land to the
values are a human creation’ (Simmons, 1989, p258). Mesolithic hunter-gatherers opened
the predominantly deciduous forest cover by burning the forest edge and openings, thus
creating patches and a more varied resource base for grazing animals and hunting. This
resulted in a mosaic of different land covers, and through changing hydrology and
favourable climatic conditions, led to peat formation (Simmons, 1989). With the onset of
agriculture in the Neolithic period a slash and burn type deforestation was practised. This
initially shifting process of forest clearing was later continued on a more permanent basis
by medieval farmers and monasteries to allow for grazing of large cattle and sheep
flocks. By then the forest cover had almost completely been replaced by grass and shrub
vegetation (Simmons, 1989) and created a patchwork associated with a diverse range of
animal species, becoming an important resource for livestock and game (Sotherton et al.,
2008) which is now cherished by locals and tourists for both aesthetic reasons and the
recreation opportunities such a diverse landscape brings.

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
8
The process of conversion of the upland ecosystem in response to human needs has
continued dramatically in the more recent past. Prior to the 19
th
century, much hill-
farming was extensive (Davies, 2008). Land use for most of the 20
th
century, however,
was influenced by a focus on intensified production. Post-war agricultural policy was
designed to promote food self-sufficiency and this goal was supported by both financial
and infrastructural measures. These included grants to finance the improvement of hill
farming land through the application of lime and fertilisers, and landscape drainage to
increase the area and condition of heather (Calluna vulgaris) for the benefit of increased
sheep and red grouse (Lagopus lagopus scoticus) production. Economic and social
incentives led in the 19
th
and 20
th
centuries to growing flock sizes, and in some places,
overgrazing by sheep (Anderson and Yalden, 1981; Condliffe, 2008). This was
subsequently combined with conflicting demands placed on the landscape by grouse-
moor owners, ramblers, and foresters. While in the second half of the 20th century sheep
numbers vastly increased, rising input costs and a lack of skilled labour meant that some
more extensive forms of management, like shepherding, became less widespread.
The tenor of agricultural policy in the UK over the last 60 years was firmly set on an aim
to meet the nation’s need for domestically produced food at reasonable prices with fair
rewards to farmers and agricultural workers. Agricultural support schemes such as
guaranteed prices and farm capital grants provided incentives for upland farmers to
increase output through improved grassland management and increased stocking rates.
As a result dramatic increases in sheep numbers can be observed between the 1950s and
1980s. This was followed by attempts to address market imbalances through ‘headage’
quotas (i.e. a limit on production based subsidy) and payments for ‘extensification’ in the

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
9
mid 1980s, although major reform did not begin until the early 1990s (Anderson and
Yalden, 1981; Condliffe, 2008; Gardner et al., 2008). The most recent Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform sought to remove production-based subsidies and
replace them with decoupled direct payments attached to cross-compliance with
environmental and health standards and ‘Good Environmental and Agricultural
Conditions’ (Gardner et al., 2008). It is still unclear whether the CAP reforms and other
schemes will encourage management that can deliver the desired ecosystems and
economic goods and services.
Other than those areas where there has been an emphasis on coniferous afforestation (e.g.
Galloway, mid-Wales), livestock production and grouse moor management has been the
main productive land use in the uplands (Hubacek et al., 2008). Hill farming has been
important in sustaining habitats and landscapes, for example through maintaining
traditional landscape features such as hedges and dry stone walls and traditional farm
buildings. On the other hand, hill farming can also have negative effects through the
creation of farm tracks, habitat deterioration and soil erosion arising from heavy grazing
pressure (Gardner et al., 2008). On a wider scale, grazing and burning, particularly of
heather moorland, can have major effects on the species composition of the uplands
(Crowle and McCormack, 2008; English Nature, 2001).
A number of specific policies (e.g. Less Favoured Area Scheme) were designed to
address the structural disadvantages of upland farming due to factors such as climate,
topography, altitude and remoteness. This is based on the assumption that if farming
ceased in these areas there would be further out-migration and land abandonment. There
is government commitment to continue the support for upland communities due to their

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
10
perceived contribution to: 1) the environment (wildlife and landscapes); 2) the social
fabric in relatively remote rural areas; and 3) the economy through livestock production
and maintaining the assets on which other economic activities such as tourism depend
(Burton et al., 2005; Defra, 2003).
Land Management and Ecosystems Services
Since 2001, agri-environment schemes have shifted from supporting solely provisioning
services, such as livestock production through headage payments, to include payments
linked to good farming practice aiming also at range of other ecosystem services.
Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) schemes aim to establish sustainable stocking
rates in sensitive uplands. The scheme is voluntary and farmers are paid to reduce their
stocks. While existing ESA agreements are beginning to reach the end of their term, they
have now been replaced by a two-tier ‘Environmental Stewardship Scheme’ where
farmers receive subsidies for developing and maintaining agro-environmental plans.
These policies to protect and enhance upland ecosystems are important, as uplands
support a range of internationally rare species, including birds like dunlin (Calidris
alpina) and peregrine (Falco peregrinus). Many upland areas are protected under national
and international conservation law due to their biodiversity value under the European
Birds and Habitats Directive (79/409/EEC, 92/43/EEC), leading to the UK Biodiversity
Action Plan in 1997 and the 2010 SSSI PSA target. In England, uplands cover 12% of
total land, of which 53% are designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
(Crowle and McCormack, 2008). In 2007, Natural England estimated, based on the

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
11
Common Standards Monitoring protocol, that only 17.3% of upland SSSIs in England
were in favourable condition. Unfavourable conditions were mainly due to overgrazing,
inappropriate burning and drainage (Crowle and McCormack, 2008), and management
agreements have therefore been put in place to improve current conditions in order to
achieve 2010 conservation targets.
A critical aspect of this debate is the role of rotational burning in sustaining cultural
services such as opportunities for recreational game shooting as well as provision for
upland biodiversity. Burning is used to maintain mosaics of heather at different stages of
maturity to provide habitat for red grouse. Regulations and codes regarding burning
extend back to the medieval period (Dodgshon and Olsson, 2006), and are regularly
revised (e.g. the Scottish Muirburn Code and the England and Wales Heather and Grass
Burning Code and Regulations (Defra, 2007a)). Appropriate burning of heather moorland
is claimed to protect against wildfire risk by reducing the quantity of combustible
material while creating a mixture of habitats that improves grouse densities. However, in
some areas, long-term grouse management has converted blanket bogs into dry heather
moorland and so reduced the diversity of shrubs and the moss and lichen layer (Chambers
et al., 2007). The impact of grouse moor management on breeding moorland birds is
debated. Whilst heather burning and predator control benefits some species, other species
with different habitat preferences are disadvantaged (Tharme et al., 2001, Sotherton et al.,
2008, Pearce-Higgins et al., 2008). .
Little is known about the effects of burning on regulating ecosystem services such as peat
erosion control or provision of water quantity and quality (Holden et al., 2007). However,
amongst other drivers of environmental change, recent data suggest that while burning

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
12
drives changes in vegetation patterns, it is the vegetation which can then have a strong
influence on water quality, in particular water discolouration (e.g. Armstrong et al., in
review; Neff and Hooper, 2002). Water discolouration associated with dissolved organic
carbon (DOC) is a growing problem in the UK with some studies showing a 65%
increase in DOC over the last 12 years (Worrall et al., 2006). Discolouration is a problem
because potable chlorination of DOC-rich waters can be associated with trihalomethanes,
which are strictly regulated as they are potential carcinogens. The relationship of
moorland management and run-off attenuation or flood mitigation remains unclear
(Holden et al., 2007). The EU’s Water Framework Directive, through the use of
integrated River Basin Management Plans, aims to protect and improve the
environmental status of all river catchments in the EU, promote sustainable use, and
reduce the effects of floods and droughts so that all catchments achieve ‘good ecological
status’ by 2015 (Wilby et al., 2006). Challenges to achieving this include effects of
changing agricultural subsidies on land use, the uncertain impacts of climate change and
scientific uncertainty around the controls of water discolouration in the uplands and how
it can be effectively managed.
Some upland areas saw a massive expansion in coniferous woodland production
especially after the First World War, as efforts sought to create a strategic reserve of
timber as a matter of national security (Condliffe, 2008). Whilst traditional practices
would probably have been relatively benign, the practice of deep ribbon ploughing meant
that there was increased vulnerability to soil erosion and a number of pollution events
occurred (Burt et al., 1983). New guidelines for forestry in upland catchments have
largely removed this threat of pollution but other concerns remain about upland

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
13
afforestation in some regions, notably stream water acidification in south west Scotland
(Puhr et al., 2000) and, more generally, concerns over decreased water yield.
Recently, in the context of climate regulating ecosystem services, wooded areas and
especially short-rotation coppice have become of interest for providing CO
2
-neutral
biofuels. But even more important is the role of upland peatlands as carbon stores, as they
represent the largest terrestrial carbon store in the UK. In addition, upland peatlands
represent one of the few long-term stores of carbon that can accumulate on the land
surface through good management. Models suggest that across the UK as much as
400,000 tonnes of carbon a year could be stored in this way (Worrall, personal
communication) or the equivalent of the carbon emissions of 2% of car traffic in England
and Wales per year. However, currently many degraded upland peatlands lose more
carbon than they absorb through gaseous and fluvial pathways (Holden, 2005), so the
identification and restoration of damaged peatlands to retain their carbon stores could
have significant beneficial impacts for climate regulation.
Finally, the uplands provide significant cultural services by e.g. offering important
opportunities for recreation. Much of the upland economy is based on the tourism
industry and in 2005 £9.4 billion was spent on tourism and leisure services in England
(Curry, 2008). During the Foot and Mouth crisis in 2001, when much of the uplands were
closed for visitor access, it is estimated that the tourism industry in the UK as a whole
lost as much as £8 billion and many businesses either closed or were severely scaled back
as a result (Curry, 2008). The range of tourism activities includes both active physical
exercise (e.g. mountain biking, walking) and more passive visits where the tourists stray

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
14
only a short distance from their cars but nevertheless enjoy the spectacular landscapes
(Davies, 2006).
3 Beyond ecosystem services: facilitating sustainable uplands
This section discusses a number of challenges that emerge from the application of the
ecosystem services framework to dynamic UK upland environments. These will then be
used to inform research and policy frameworks that could help enable future land use
changes to support and enhance the provision of multiple ecosystem services.
Ecosystem services are dynamic and complex. It is challenging to predict, value and
safeguard future ecosystem services that will emerge in response to changing human
needs and priorities.
Ecosystem services are an anthropocentric concept. As such, they change in response to
demands that people put on their environment. It is challenging to value aspects of the
natural environment that do not (currently) have human use or are not perceived as
valuable. There is a growing literature about synergies and trade-offs between existing
ecosystem services, but ecosystem services may transform over time as our needs and
perceptions change and our knowledge about them increases. The use of current
ecosystem services might compromise our ability to realise future uses. For example,

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
15
peatlands can provide fuel to heat people’s homes (Parish et al., 2007), but historic
removal of peat has compromised the ability of some former peatland ecosystems to
sequester carbon, provide for wildlife habitats, water purification and run-off attenuation.
As our needs and priorities change, new ecosystem services are realized and/or
prioritized over others. However, at best this is done through a complicated process of
negotiation between different land users and stakeholders; at worst it is driven by
optimizing a certain output (usually food, fibre and water) at the expense of other
services. When these multiple land uses occur together in space, this can sometimes lead
to trade-offs between ecosystem services that are impacting on each other or are even
mutually exclusive. For example, re-wilding conservation strategies may be compatible
with continued recreational use, but are not compatible with continued sheep grazing or
grouse management. As people adapt their livelihood strategies and governments alter
their policies in response to future drivers of change (or simply as a response to lobbying
or priorities spilling over from other policy arenas), we are likely to see shifts in the
priorities given to different ecosystem services. Indeed, we have witnessed the support of
farming interests in uplands over the last 60 years with CAP, and more recently, there has
been growing interest in carbon management and proactive water quality management in
upland catchments alongside more traditional uses such as recreation and conservation.
Given high fuel and food prices we might see a renewed interest in food security and
potential reversal of these trends.

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
16
Trade-offs between ecosystem services at different scales require coordination at the
landscape scale
Land use and land management practices may create trade-offs between ecosystem
services at different scales (Goldman et al., 2007). One example of the trade-offs at the
local level can be seen through the lens of heather burning, as management for
recreational game shooting interests may favour some species and disbenefit other
species of conservation concern. At a regional scale large-scale burning can have
potential implications for water quality erosion or wildfire control as well as for habitat
provision for wildlife.
At the regional level, management for flood prevention as well as for drinking water
might provide a useful lens as such hydrological services are most effectively influenced
at the catchment scale. Land management, such as creation of short sward vegetation
through sheep grazing, drainage through gripping or increasing surface roughness and
infiltration rates through re-vegetation of bare peat areas, can increase or attenuate run-
off from land parcels. But it is the spatial arrangement of flow paths and their
connectivity that determine flooding down stream, i.e. when the spatial arrangement of
flow paths cause flood peaks from sub-catchments to coincide to form a flood event
downstream or not (Lane et al., 2004). In addition, local saturation levels of land parcels
and their connectivity within the stream networks may determine water quality and
disease control across the catchment, e.g. concerning transport of bacteria in sheep dung
(such as Cryptosporidium) in the stream system. Some bacteria pose a significant health
risk and can be very difficult or expensive for water companies to treat. Thus, when

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
17
planning for water quality regulation, the location of fields and their stocking rates are
important, determining both the quantity of sheep dung as well as run-off properties
through sward height. This may lead to recommendations for some fields or farmers to
decrease sheep stocking densities, whereas for other fields there is less concern. So some
farmers, due to the location of their land, can operate in a certain way which can generate
a certain income but not result in downstream problems, whereas if others operated in the
same way this may lead to significant downstream problems.
This approach highlights the need for land parcels to be managed in a coordinated way
across landscapes rather than as independent units, especially if ecosystem services that
integrate entire drainage basins are to be sustained. Similar arguments have been made
with regards to nitrates (Burt and Haycock, 1992). Water protection zones would be
designated only localized whereas farming in other parts of the catchment would, by
implication, go on unhindered.
Despite the benefits of more integrated management, this level of coordination is
typically not encouraged and not automatically in the interest of the property right holder
(Goldman et al., 2007). Institutional or financial incentives for landowners need to be
designed in a way that takes account of the landscape nature of many ecosystem services.
This may involve spatial differentiation that aligns incentives to landowners'
heterogeneity in participation costs, involving opportunity, transaction and direct costs of
protection and thus avoiding efficiency losses (Wünscher et al., 2008). Policies would
need to pay attention to these emerging properties across scales and at the same time be
much more fine-grained, allowing intensive farming practices to be directed away from
vulnerable areas (e.g. from sub-catchments where impacts on water quality would be

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
18
disproportionate). Within a catchment, for example, differential payments/incentives
could be given based on priorities similar to the points system for landscape features for
the Entry Level Stewardship (it requires a basic level of environmental management from
a wide range of over 50 options, including hedgerow management, stone wall
maintenance, low input grassland, buffer strips, and arable options). On the other hand,
this means that some farmers fare better than others, depending where they are. This is
the inevitable result of managing heterogeneous units of land providing different services
as well as posing different risks depending on distance to waterways, soil types and
topography and other environmental properties.
Mapping and modelling ecosystem services offers a valuable way to assess the
sustainability of current land management and to evaluate proposed adaptations,
but can only be developed and applied in relation to the objectives of those using the
land
Until now, land has often been zoned based on ‘single-purpose policies’ and they have
tended to focus on land’s suitability for development, food and timber production, and
wildlife, landscape and recreation (Swales and Woods, 2008). A precondition for
evaluation and negotiation is a systematic characterization of ecosystem services in
biophysical terms. This may include, for example, a classification of ecosystem services
and their quantification and mapping for each location, taking into account current and
potential land use as well as local and global consumers (e.g. Daily, 2000; Naidoo et al.,

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
19
2008). This would allow the visualization of ecosystem service flows between different
regions, allowing the identification of ‘free riders’ (those obtaining the benefits provided
by ecosystem services without necessarily incurring the costs of their maintenance) as
well as the identification of areas accruing ‘ecological debts’ (an imbalance between
one's ‘fair share’ of natural resources and one's actual usage of those resources).
To assess the impacts of alternative land use and management options, scenario
modelling by providing information on potential ecosystem services for each location
and identifying synergies and trade-offs will be necessary. Currently we have not
reached this stage yet and projects mapping ecosystems services have only just started
(but see e.g. Chan et al., 2006; Naidoo and Ricketts, 2006; Troy and Wilson, 2006; van
Jaarsveld et al., 2005). One way forward is to assess ecosystem services in biophysical
terms. This means, for example, for provisioning services quantifying the flows of goods
harvested in an ecosystem in physical units; or for most regulation services, this requires
a spatially explicit analysis of the biophysical impact of the service on the environment in
or surrounding the ecosystem such as the reduction of peak flows downstream through
changes of land cover upstream (Hein et al., 2006). As cultural services such as
education, a sense of belonging, or spiritual values, are dependent on human
interpretation they cannot be easily expressed in biophysical terms (or in monetary
terms), while visitor numbers or number of shooting days may provide a proxy for
provision of recreational services.
Ecosystem service indicators offer a valuable way to assess the sustainability of current
land management and to evaluate proposed future management options and its
interactions with other services. However, such indicators can only be developed and

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
20
applied in relation to the objectives of those using the land. Since a single land parcel can
have multiple uses and values accorded to it by different actors, this results in trade-offs
amongst different groups. Sustainable management across all dimensions (environmental,
social and economic) also often relies on the substitution of different capital assets (e.g.
liquidating natural capital like forests to generate financial capital). If, as the ecosystem
service framework suggests, sustainability is ultimately dependent on the ecosystem
services provided by their natural capital, then upland management must maintain viable
stocks of natural capital that allow ecosystem services to function viably. This suggests
that to assess, for example, the sustainability of different potential adaptations to climate
change, it is necessary to determine whether they threaten the long-term viability of
ecosystem services, both singly and in conjunction with other potential adaptations.
Indicators with thresholds have been developed for a range of ecosystem services to date,
and could be used to ensure that adaptation does not simply delay or create new
problems. An example is nitrates in drinking water, which are strictly limited to
concentrations below 11 mg l
-1
N-NO
3
. The concentration of nitrates in groundwater
boreholes or surface water streams is therefore a good indicator with a clear threshold.
For waters with levels above the limit, dilution with less nitrate rich waters is the simplest
solution. However, if all the gathering areas for water have high nitrate concentrations
then dilution cannot occur locally and the problem becomes very difficult to deal with.
Solutions to the nitrate problem have therefore been to deal with the source of the
problem on the landscape and limit its application as fertiliser or use other management
techniques to limit leaching into water courses.

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
21
Such indicators can be used by stakeholders themselves (including regulatory bodies) or
they can be used in conjunction with simulation models. To avoid creating new problems
given the inherent interdependence of ecosystem services, the importance of identifying
interactions and modelling trade-offs for different management scenarios cannot be
emphasized enough. This is paramount to: (1) avoiding irreversible losses of some
services, which are not in use now, but which could be realised or re-established in the
future. This is in line with precautionary principles (Ciracy-Wantrup, 1968) aimed at
avoiding irreversible scenarios at any point). Avoiding irreversible actions is especially
important if flexibility is to be maintained, given the ever-changing preferences and
demands of society and the unknown needs of future generations; (2) Modelling trade-
offs can indicate how the focus on one ecosystem service may affect other services. For
example, it could show how managing the area for water purification could impair
livestock production, increase flood control and influence carbon sequestration: (3)
Modelling could also be used to forecast changes and to develop and assess future
scenarios with regard to the availability and quality of ecosystem services. This could
take into account land use and land management changes under, for example, conditions
of changing societal demand based on changing preferences, market conditions, and
prices.
Thus, while implementing new management activities and learning from the results of
these actions can sometimes take years to see the effects, formal computer models can be
used to inform stakeholders about the implications of their actions in terms of their own
economic situation and also environmental effects such as the impacts they are having on
biodiversity, soil erosion, water quality and carbon fluxes (Hubacek and Reed,

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
22
forthcoming). All environmental decisions produce a diversity of outcomes dependent on
the conditions of the land, the current uses and opportunity costs and most importantly
the perceptions of a wide range of stakeholders influenced by their own socio-cultural
backgrounds.
Payments for ecosystem services only provide partial solutions given the uncertainty
of future ecosystem services. Participatory adaptive management is necessary to
manage the trade-offs that will inevitably occur between ecosystem services for
different users.
Ecosystem services, especially regulating, cultural and supporting services can be
conceptualized as public goods and are thus most often underprovided. This is based on
the assumption that individuals acting in their own self-interest would under-provide
services not in their immediate interest. Thus incentives need to be offered to reward
property rights owners for providing such services. Their public benefits are often not
captured in market prices and thus over the last few decades, a growing body of literature
has emerged using sophisticated economic valuations to quantify costs and benefits for
maintenance of usually single ecosystem services. Markets for ecosystem services have
been developed to enhance direct use and commercialize ecosystem services in the areas
of water quality protection, biodiversity conservation, landscape protection/countryside
management and carbon sequestration. (e.g. Daily et al., 2000; Pagiola et al., 2002) and
thus increase income opportunities especially in the developing world (MA, 2005).

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
23
Consequently, incentive schemes for ecosystem services have been developed mainly
focusing on single value consideration of ecosystem services, single scale (temporal and
spatial) of analysis, and pursuing efficiency and effectiveness objectives over legitimacy
and equity objectives. However, there are limitations in applying a single (monetary)
exchange value to ecosystem services for designing and implementing measures through
markets (see, for example Corbera et al., 2007; Hubacek and Mauerhofer, 2008; O'Neill,
1996; Spash, 1994).
Firstly, scientists have only a limited understanding of the complex relationships between
different ecological and biophysical processes and functions. The process of causation is
complex and governed by the interaction of a series of variables that may affect one
another. For example, the presence of peatlands in some upland areas is determined by
the subtle interaction of key variables including: water, climate (temperature, rainfall),
altitude, topography and the presence of specific types of vegetation. If the balance
between peat, water or vegetation is disturbed, it can fundamentally change the nature of
the peatland (Parish et al., 2007). In addition, there is not only considerable uncertainty
that eludes the call of a firm scientific evidence base but there is also a disparity between
scientific understanding and public perceptions of systems interactions, making it even
more difficult to unpack the complexity (Tognetti et al., 2004).
Secondly, markets are not very well suited to efficiently allocate resources governed by
such complexity and uncertainties. The consequences of environmental degradation and
benefits from environmental improvement are heterogeneous and therefore in principle
incomparable. Neither the scope nor the tools of conventional economic analysis are
adapted to these types of interdependencies and complex causal sequences, as: ‘‘these

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
24
interdependencies have nothing to do with market transactions or exchanges of any kind,
nor are they the result of choices unless one is prepared to argue that they are caused by
the deliberate action of private firms which in full knowledge of the consequences decide
to shift part of their costs to third persons or to society’ (Kapp, 1970, p839). This makes
price setting for ecological services very hard to impossible. To assign prices based on an
exact evaluation demands a precisely demarcated object, i.e. one for which conceptual
boundaries can be drawn and property rights attached. Yet, ‘[m]any environmental goods
fail to conform to discrete units which can be broken into marginal changes for the
purpose of economic valuation’ (O'Neill and Spash, 2000, p527). Another set of
criticisms arises from the incommensurability of different qualities (i.e. they cannot
rationally be compared) through their translation into monetary values. The aggregation
of different types of values into one ‘supernumeraire’ hides rather than reveals underlying
values, and thus is an obstacle rather than a tool to support deliberative stakeholder
processes (Hubacek and Mauerhofer, 2008; O'Neill, 1996). Relying on simple monetary
evaluation is therefore inadequate to capture this complexity. Moreover, due to the public
good characteristics of ecosystem services, markets typically reward short-term values of
natural resources to the detriment of long-term ecological health (Turner and Daily,
2008).
Thirdly, different stakeholders at different scales perceive benefits from the ecosystem
services differently. Sometimes these perceptions can be complementary but frequently
they might be in conflict (Turner and Daily, 2008). An example of this is the utilitarian
value provided by the upland moorland system at the local level and national level to
support the pastoral farming systems and national production while at the same time there

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
25
is an intrinsic value attached to the same resources and landscape by second home owners
or people seeking recreation or spiritual benefits. To pursue the utilitarian value (i.e. short
term productivity or profitability), natural capital can be substituted with other forms of
capital, below the functional threshold of biodiversity or other ecological key functions of
the system. Given the public good characteristics of ecosystem services there is often
little incentive for land managers to provide for unpaid ecosystem services and invest in
them beyond their own perceived benefit. For example, grazing reduction in uplands
might benefit national stakeholders valuing improvement in species richness or run-off
attenuation or potential increases in carbon sequestration benefitting global stakeholders,
but this may be to the detriment of the land owner who might incur higher costs or
foregone benefits through such measures. While ecosystem services payments designed
to compensate for such ‘institutional and market failure’ have frequently increased
efficiency and effectiveness of environmental decisions (Chichilnisky and Heal, 1998),
they are not necessarily able to address issues of equity and legitimacy – considerations
that a number of authors have argued the need to explicitly incorporate. For example,
Corbera et al. (2007) argue that markets ignoring local contexts will reinforce existing
power structures, inequities and vulnerabilities, and see this as a product of the nature of
emerging markets. These markets are relatively new in comparison to established good
markets and lack a set of institutions that have evolved with them. These are usually
promoted by national or international agencies committed to market-based conservation
without proper acknowledgement of local socio-ecological contexts. Thus, markets for
ecosystem services are seen as being limited in promoting more legitimate forms of
decision-making and a more equitable distribution (Corbera et al., 2007). Similarly,

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
26
Turner and Daily (2008) recognize that payments for ecosystem services need to
incorporate local social, political, legal and cultural complexities into their design and
practice. ‘Economic incentives on their own are unlikely to transform local cultural,
ethical and behavioral traits towards environmental stewardship and citizenship’ (Turner
and Daily, 2008).
Finally, the anthropocentric nature of the ecosystem service concept means that services
can only be defined in relation to the needs and priorities of those who benefit from the
land. But who has the right and the power to decide what the land is used for? Despite the
right for the public to be involved in environmental decision-making enshrined in EU law
through the Aarhus Convention
1
, the public has little possibility for direct influence
(Swales and Woods, 2008). But should we just accept that those who hold greatest power
will shape future land use, if this marginalises groups of people who are significantly
affected by the decisions taken, but have little power to influence what happens (Swales
and Woods, 2008), especially when exchanges happen under monetary market systems
(Corbera et al., 2008)? Given the conflicting ways in which land is often used and valued
by different stakeholders with no equivalent scales and recognizing an inequity problem,
the management of ecosystem services must involve participation from the full range of
stakeholders, working together to design and test policies and practices that minimise
trade-offs, while creating and exploiting synergies between complementary ecosystem
services where possible.
1
UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to
Justice in Environmental Matters, see http://www.unece.org/env/pp/).

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
27
4 Conclusions
Ecosystem services may represent another shift in environmental policy paradigms. After
a perceived failure (or sustained dislike) of the top-down command and control policies
in the 1960s and 1970s, and various waves of subsidy schemes the emergence of
decentralized or ‘light-touch’ approaches have been observed. We are now starting to
enter a phase of markets for ecosystem services where we aim to encourage owners of
land or property rights to provide ecosystem services by paying them for it. We thus
effectively replaced the earlier doctrine of the ‘polluter pays principle’ (which includes
costs of regulatory measures) with the ‘beneficiary pays’ principle, in which the public
pays for environmental benefits. In doing so, this redistributes property rights from the
public to the land owner. In fact, the step was partly made already through granting
subsidies. The shift from conventional production subsidies to Higher Level Stewardship
(HLS) and other market incentives thus aims to replace the earlier relatively
unconditional support for provisioning services through payments for environmental
benefits attained through promotion of regulatory, cultural and supporting services.
More recently the debate has widened to question the market-philosophy of payments for
ecosystems services based on notions of legitimacy, fairness and power. Thus it is
important not only to look at how property rights owners can be incentivised to provide
protection for water quality or carbon stores but also to recognise that in paying for such
services the list of property rights has been extended from ownership of a parcel of land
to providing vital public goods of importance for a global community.
In response to this, a process is required that attempts to integrate these concerns more
fully, considering the social, economic and politico-cultural contexts of ecosystem

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
28
services and the distributional effects payment for ecosystems services may have.
Different stakeholders are likely to value ecosystem services differently, and this may
differ in different areas, and thus there is a need to emphasize the importance of
stakeholder perceptions, property rights and institutions in the management of ecosystem
services. This in turn stresses the need for participatory approaches and greater
decentralisation of control over ecosystem service management.
Uplands around the world are facing significant socio-economic and environmental
change and land managers and other decision-makers need to better understand the
implications of their actions with regards to environmental systems if they are to adapt
and maintain upland goods and services. The ecosystem service concept and associated
tools such as mapping of ecosystem services, modeling of scenarios and trade-offs and
sustainability indicators are important components to providing the required information.
While many upland regions have been coined severely disadvantaged areas with respect
to provisioning ecosystem services, they should now be recognised for their significant
potential to provide for regulating and cultural ecosystem services.

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
29
References
Anderson, P., and Yalden, D. W. (1981) ‘Increased sheep numbers and the loss of heather moorland in the
Peak District, England’, Biological Conservation vol20, pp195-213
Armstrong, A, Holden, J., Kay, P., McDonald A.T., Gledhill S, Foulger, M., and Walker, A. (in review)
‘Peatland drain blocking reduces dissolved organic carbon loss and discolouration of water; results
from a national survey’, Journal of Hydrology
Bonn, A , Rebane, M., and Reid, C. (2008) ‘Ecosystem services: a new rationale for conservation of upland
environments’, in A. Bonn, T. Allott, K. Hubacek and J. Stewart (eds) Drivers of Environmental
Change in Uplands, Routledge, Abingdon, pp448-474
Brown, T. C., Bergstrom, J. C., and Loomis, J. B. (2007) ‘Defining, Valuing, and Providing Ecosystem
Goods and Services’, Natural Resources Journal, vol47, pp329-376
Burt, T. P. and Haycock, N. E. (1992) ‘Catchment planning and the nitrate issue: a UK perspective’,
Progress in Physical Geography, vol16:379-404
Burt, T.P, Donohoe, M. A and Vann, A.R. (1983) ‘The effect of forestry drainage operations on upland
sediment yields: the results of a storm-based study’, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, vol
8, pp339-346
Burton, R., Mansfield, L., Schwarz, G., Brown, K., and Convery, I. (2005) ‘Social Capital in Hill Farming.
Report for the Upland Centre’, International Centre for the Uplands, Penrith
Chambers, F. M, Mauquoy, D., Gent, A., Pearson, F., Daniell, J. R. G. and Jones, P. S. (2007)
‘Palaeoecology of degraded blanket mire in South Wales: data to inform conservation
management’, Biological Conservation vol137, pp197-209
Chan, K. M. A, Shaw, M. R., Cameron, D. R., Underwood, E. C. and Daily, G. C. (2006) ‘Conservation
planning for ecosystem services’, Plos Biology, vol4, pp2138-2152
Chichilnisky, G. and Heal, G. (1998) ‘Economic returns from the biosphere’, Nature vol391, pp629-630
Ciracy-Wantrup, S. V. (1968) Resource Conservation: Economics and Policies, University of California
Division of Agricultural Sciences, University of California Press, Berkeley
Coase, D. (1960) ‘The problem of social cost’, Journal of Law and Economics vol3, pp1-44
Condliffe, I. (2008) ‘Policy change in the uplands’, in A. Bonn, T. Allott, K. Hubacek and J. Stewart (eds)
Drivers of Environmental Change in Uplands, Routledge, Abingdon, pp59-89
Corbera, E., Brown, K. and Adger, N. W. (2007) ‘The Equity and Legitimacy of Markets for Ecosystem
Services’, Development and Change vol38, pp587-613
Corbera, E., González Soberanis, C. and Brown, K. (In Press) ‘Institutional dimensions of Payments for
Ecosystem Services: An analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme’, Ecological Economics,
Corrected Proof
Crowle, A, and McCormack, F. (2008) ‘Condition of upland terrestrial habitats’, in A. Bonn, T. Allott, K.
Hubacek and J. Stewart (eds) Drivers of Environmental Change in Uplands, Routledge,
Abingdon, pp156-170
Curry, N. (2008) ‘Leisure in the landscape: rural incomes and public benefits’, in A. Bonn, T. Allott, K.
Hubacek and J. Stewart (eds) Drivers of Environmental Change in Uplands, Routledge,
Abingdon, pp277-290
Daily, G. C., Soederqvist, T., Aniyar, S., Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., Ehrlich, P. R., Folke, C., Jansson, A. M.,
Jansson, B. O., Kautsky, N., Levin, S., Lubchenco, J., Maeler, K. G. and Walker, B. (2000) ‘The
value of nature and the nature of value’, Science, vol 289, pp395-396
Daily, G. C. (1997) Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, Island Press,
Washington, D. C.
Daily, G. C. (2000) ‘Management objectives for the protection of ecosystem services’, Environmental
Science & Policy vol3, pp333–339
Davies, S. (2006) ‘Recreation and visitor attitudes in the Peak District moorlands’, Moors for the Future
report, no12, Moors for the Future Partnership, Edale.

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
30
Defra (2003) ‘Review of the Hill Farm Allowance in England. Consultation Document‘, Department for
the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), London
www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/hfa/consult.pdf
Defra (2007a) The Heather and Grass Burning Code, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Defra), London http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/pdfs/uplands/hg-burn2007.pdf
Defra (2007b) Securing a Healthy Natural Environment: An Action Plan for Embedding an Ecosystems
Approach, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), London,
http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/natres/pdf/eco_actionplan.pdf
Dodgshon, R. A and Olsson, G. A (2006) ‘Heather moorland in the Scottish Highlands: the history of a
cultural landscape, 1600-1880’, Journal of Historical Geography, vol32, pp21-37
English Nature (2001) The upland management handbook, English Nature, Peterborough
Gardner, S. M., Waterhouse, T. and Critchley, C. N. R. (2008) ‘Moorland management with livestock: the
effect of policy change on upland grazing, vegetation and farm economics’, in A. Bonn, T. Allott,
K. Hubacek and J. Stewart (eds) Drivers of Environmental Change in Uplands, Routledge,
Abingdon, pp186-208
Goldman, R. L., Tallis, H., Kareiva, P. and Daily, G. C. (2008) ‘Field evidence that ecosystem service
projects support biodiversity and diversify options’, Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences vol105, pp9445–9448
Goldman, R. L., Thompson, B. H. and Daily, G. C. (2007) ‘Institutional incentives for managing the
landscape: Inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services’, Ecological Economics,
vol64, pp333-343
Gowdy, J. M. (1997) ‘The Value of Biodiversity: Markets, Society, and Ecosystems’, Land Economics,
vol73, pp25-41
Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R. S. and van Ierland, E. C. (2006) ‘Spatial scales, stakeholders and
the valuation of ecosystem services’, Ecological Economics vol57, pp209-228
Holden, J. (2005) ‘Peatland hydrology and carbon cycling: why small-scale process matters’, Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol363, pp2891-2913
Holden, J., Shotbolt, L., Bonn, A., Burt, T. P., Chapman, P. J., Dougill, A. J., Fraser, E. D. G,. Hubacek, K.,
Irvine, B., Kirkby, M. J., Reed, M. S., Prell, C., Stagl, S., Stringer, L. C., Turner, A. and Worrall,
F. (2007) ‘Environmental change in moorland landscapes’, Earth-Science Reviews, vol82, pp75-
100
Hubacek, K. and Reed, M. S. (forthcoming) ‘Lessons learned from a computer-assisted participatory
planning and management process in the Peak District National Park, England’, in C. Allen and G.
Stankey (eds) Adapative Environmental Management: A practical guide, Springer, Heidelberg
Hubacek, K., Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Qasim, M. and Termansen, M. (2008) ‘Description of the upland
economy: areas of outstanding beauty and marginal economic performance’, in A. Bonn, T. Allott,
K. Hubacek and J. Stewart (eds) Drivers of Environmental Change in Uplands, Routledge,
Abingdon, pp293-308
Hubacek, K. and Mauerhofer, V. (2008) ‘Future generations: Economic, legal and institutional aspects’,
Futures, vol40, pp413–423
Kapp, K. W. (1970) ‘Environmental Disruption and Social Costs: A Challenge to Economics’, Kyklos,
vol23, pp843-847
Kremen, C., Daily, G. C., Klein, A.-M. and Scofield, D. (2008) ‘Inadequate Assessment of the Ecosystem
Service Rationale for Conservation: Reply to Ghazoul’, Conservation Biology, vol22, pp795-798
Lane, S. N., Brookes, C. J., Kirkby, M. .J. and Holden, J. (2004) ‘A network-index-based version of
TOPMODEL for use with high-resolution digital topographic data’, Hydrological Processes,
vol18, pp191-201
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2005) Millenium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human
well-being: Synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and Island Press, Washington DC
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R. E., Lehner, B., Malcolm, T. R. and Ricketts,
T. H. (2008) ‘Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities’, Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences vol105, pp9495-9500
Naidoo, R., and Ricketts, T. H. (2006) ‘Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation’, Plos
Biology, vol4, pp2153-2164
Neff, J. C., and Hooper, D. U. (2002) ‘Vegetation and climate controls on potential CO2, DOC and DON
production in northern latitude soils’, Global Change Biology, vol8, pp872-884

Forthcoming in: Winter, Michael and Matt Lobley (eds).
Land Use and Management: The New
Debate.
Earthscan. London.
31
O'Neill, J. (1996) ‘Cost-benefit analysis, rationality and the plurality of values’, The Ecologist, vol26,
pp98-103
O'Neill, J. and Spash C. L. (2000) ‘Appendix: Policy Research Brief Conceptions of Value in
Environmental Decision-Making’, Environmental Values, vol9, pp521-36
Orr, H. G., Wilby, R. L., McKenzie-Hedger, M. and Brown, I. (2008) ‘Climate change in the uplands: a
UK perspective on safeguarding regulatory ecosystem services’, Climate Research, vol37, pp77-
98
Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolsak, N., Stern, P., Stovich, S. and Weber, E. (eds) (2002) The Drama of the
Commons, National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Pagiola, S., Landel-Mills, N. and Bishop J. (eds) (2002) Selling Forest Environmental Services: Market-
Based Mechanisms for Conservation and Development, Earthscan, London
Parish, F., Sirin, A., Charman D., Joosten H., Minaeva T., and Silvius M. (eds.), (2007), Assessment on
peatlands, biodiversity and climate change: Global Environment Centre, Kuala Lumpur and
Wetlands International Wageningen
Pearce-Higgins, M. C., Grant, C. M., Beale, G., Buchanan, M. and Sim, I. M.W. (2008) ‘International
importance and drivers of change of upland bird populations’, in A. Bonn, T. Allott, K. Hubacek
and J. Stewart (eds) Drivers of Environmental Change in Uplands, Routledge, Abingdon, pp209-
227
Puhr, C. B., Donoghue, D. N. M., Stephen, A. B., Tervet, D. J., and Sinclair, C. (2000) ‘Regional Patterns
of Streamwater Acidity and Catchment Afforestation in Galloway, SW Scotland’, Water, Air, and
Soil Pollution, vol120, pp47-70
Reed, M. S., Arblaster, K., Bullock, C., Burton, R., Fraser, E. D. G., Hubacek, K., Mitchley, J., Morris, J.,
Potter, C., Quinn, C. H. and Swales V. (under review) ‘Using scenarios to explore UK upland
futures’, Futures
Simmons, I. G. (1989) ‘Prehistory and planning on the moorlands of England and Wales’, Landscape and
Urban Planning, vol17, pp251-260
Sotherton, N., May, R., Ewald, J., Fletcher, K. and Newborn, D. (2008) ‘Managing uplands for game and
sporting interest: an industry perspective’, in Drivers of Environmental Change in Uplands, edited
by Aletta Bonn, Tim Allott, Klaus Hubacek, and Jon Stewart. Routledge, pp241-260
Spash, C. L. (1994) ‘Double CO2 and beyond: benefits, costs and compensation’, Ecological Economics,
vol10, pp27-36
Swales, V. and Woods, A. (2008) ‘Rising to the land use challenge: key issues for policy-makers’,
unpublished discussion paper prepared for the Rural Economy and Land Use Programme
Tharme, A. P, Green, R. E., Baines, D., Bainbridge, I. P. and O’Brien, M. (2001) ‘The effect of
management for red grouse shooting on the population density of breeding birds on heather-
dominated moorland’, Journal of Applied Ecology, vol38, pp439-457
Tognetti, S., Mendoza, G., Ayward, B., Southgate, D. and Garcia, L. A. (2004) Knowledge and assessment
guide to support the development of payments arrangements for watershed ecosystem services,
Report prepared for the World Bank Environment Department,
http://www.flowsonline.net/data/pes_assmt_guide_en.pdf
Troy, A., and Wilson, M. A. (2006) ‘Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in
linking GIS and value transfer’, Ecological Economics, vol60, pp435-449
Turner, R. K., and Daily, G. C. (2008) ‘The Ecosystem Services Framework and Natural Capital
Conservation’, Environmental Resource Economics, vol39, pp25-35
van Jaarsveld, A. S., Biggs, R., Scholes, R. J., Bohensky, E., Reyers, B., Lynam, T., Musvoto, C. and
Fabricius, C. 2005 ‘Measuring conditions and trends in ecosystem services at multiple scales: the
Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (SAfMA) experience’, Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, vol360, pp425-441
Wilby, R. L., Orr, H. G., Hedger, M., Forrow, D. and Blackmore, M. (2006) ‘Risks posed by climate
change to the delivery of Water Framework Directive objectives in the UK’, Environment
International, vol32, pp1043-1055
Wünscher, T., Engel, S. and Wunder, S. (2008) ‘Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services:
A tool for boosting conservation benefits’, Ecological Economics, vol65, pp822-833