ChapterPDF Available

CICES Going Local: Ecosystem Services Classification Adapted for a Highly Populated Country


Abstract and Figures

Multiple classification systems for ecosystem services (ES) make comparison and integration between studies and assessments very difficult. With the fast-growing number of ecosystem services assessment and valuation studies, there is a need to identify generally agreed definitions and to design a common base that will enable comparisons between ecosystem services assessments at different places. The recently developed Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES) is aiming to fill this gap. One advantage of the CICES approach is that it allows adjustment to local conditions. Through an iterative consultation round with Belgian experts from administrations, policy support units, and research centers CICES has been adapted to the needs of a highly populated country, where multifunctional land use is very common. The goal of CICES-Be is to introduce a common reference base for ecosystem services in Belgium, which is locally adapted and compatible with an international standard.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ecosystem Services
This page intentionally left blank
Ecosystem Services
Global Issues, Local Practices
Edited by
Sander Jacobs
Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO);
University of Antwerp. Department of Biology,
Ecosystem Management Research Group (ECOBE)
Nicolas Dendoncker
Department of Geography, University of Namur (UNamur).
Namur Research Centre on Sustainable Development (NAGRIDD).
Namur Centre for Complex Systems (naXys)
Hans Keune
Belgian Biodiversity Platform;
Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO);
Faculty of Applied Economics – University of Antwerp;
naXys, Namur Center for Complex Systems – University of Namur
525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, USA
225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451, USA
First edition 2014
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted
in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise
without the prior written permission of the publisher.
Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science & Technology Rights
Department in Oxford, UK: phone (+44) (0) 1865 843830; fax (+44) (0) 1865 853333;
email: Alternatively you can submit your request online by
visiting the Elsevier web site at, and selecting
Obtaining permission to use Elsevier material.
No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons
or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or
operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein.
Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, in particular, independent verification
of diagnoses and drug dosages should be made.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Printed and bound in China
14 15 16 17 18 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
ISBN: 978-0-12-419964-4
For information on all Elsevier publications
visit our web site at
Foreword xiii
Contributors xv
Editorial xix
Introduction xxix
Part I
Ecosystem Service Basics
1. Inclusive Ecosystem Services Valuation
Nicolas Dendoncker, Hans Keune, Sander Jacobs and
Erik Gómez-Baggethun
1. Introduction: On Value and Valuation 3
2. Why Do We Value? 4
3. Valuation for Sustainable Development—A Three-Pillar
Valuation Framework 6
4. Is Valuation of ES Enough for Proper Environmental
Decision Making? 9
References 10
2. Ecosystem Services and Their Monetary Value
Inge Liekens, Leo De Nocker, Steven Broekx,
Joris Aertsens and Anil Markandya
1. Why Should We Monetize ES? 13
2. What is Monetary Valuation? 14
3. What are We Valuing? 15
4. The Economist Toolbox 17
5. Monetary Valuation of ES In Belgium 22
6. Conclusion 22
References 25
3. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Sander Jacobs, Birgen Haest, Tom de Bie, Glenn Deliège,
Anik Schneiders and Francis Turkelboom
1. Introduction 29
2. Biodiversity 30
3. Biodiversity within the Framework of Ecosystem Services 32
4. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning 33
References 37
4. Ecosystem Service Indicators: Are We Measuring
What We Want to Manage?
Wouter Van Reeth
1. Introduction 41
2. A Systems Approach for the Development, Interpretation,
and Assessment of Indicators 43
3. Case Study: Ecosystem Service Indicators in Flanders 46
4. Conclusions and Recommendations 56
List of Abbreviations 58
References 58
5. Inquiring into the Governance of Ecosystem Services:
An Introduction
Hans Keune, Tom Bauler and Heidi Wittmer
1. Introduction 63
2. What is Governance? 64
3. The Practice of Governance 65
4. Knowledge: Diversity, Ethics, and Power 67
References 68
Part II
Ecosystem Services: Conceptual Reflections
6. Monetary Valuation of Ecosystem Services: Unresolvable
Problems with the Standard Economic Model
John Gowdy and Philippe C. Baveye
7. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Opposed Visions,
Opposed Paradigms
Martin Sharman
8. Earth System Services—A Global Science Perspective
on Ecosystem Services
Sarah Cornell
Contents vii
9. Ecosystem Services in a Societal Context
Joachim H. Spangenberg
10. The Value of the Ecosystem Services Concept in
Economic and Biodiversity Policy
Leon C. Braat
Part III
Ecosystem Service Debates
11. Valuation of ES: Challenges and Policy Use
Inge Liekens and Leo De Nocker
1. Introduction 107
2. Uncertainty and Complexity in Quantification and Valuation 108
3. Challenges in Using Monetary Values for Policy Appraisal 113
4. Conclusion 116
References 117
12. Ecosystem Services in Belgian Environmental Policy
Making: Expectations and Challenges Linked to the
Conceptualization and Valuation of Ecosystem Services
Tom Bauler and Nathalie Pipart
1. Introduction 121
2. The Adoption of Ecosystem Services in Belgian
Environmental Policy Making 123
3. Challenges of ES-Based Policy Making: A Discussion of
Monetary Valuation 128
4. Perspectives: Governance Of ES and Governance with ES 131
Acknowledgment 132
References 132
13. Ecosystem Services Governance: Managing Complexity?
Hans Keune, Tom Bauler and Heidi Wittmer
1. Framing Ecosystem Governance 135
2. Ecosystem Governance Approaches: Some Examples 144
3. Hybridization 149
4. Conclusion 151
References 152
14. Ecosystem Service Assessments: Science or Pragmatism?
Sander Jacobs, Hans Keune, Dirk Vrebos, Olivier Beauchard,
Ferdinando Villa and Patrick Meire
1. Introduction 157
2. Methods 159
3. Ten Drivers of Uncertainty 159
4. Three Parallel Strategies 161
5. Science and Pragmatism 163
References 164
15. Negotiated Complexity in Ecosystem Services Science
and Policy Making
Hans Keune and Nicolas Dendoncker
1. Introduction 167
2. Complexity 169
3. Analytical Deliberative Multicriteria Decision Support 172
4. Relevance for Belgium 174
5. Conclusion 178
References 178
16. The Natural Relation between Biodiversity and Public
Health: An Ecosystem Services Perspective
Hans Keune, Pim Martens, Conor Kretsch, and
Anne-hélène Prieur-Richard
1. Introduction 181
2. Public Health-Related Ecosystem Services and Disservices 183
3. The Emerging Community of Practice on Biodiversity and
Public Health In Belgium 186
References 187
17. Global Trade Impacts on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Alain Peeters
1. Introduction 191
2. Global Trade and Its Impacts on Ecosystems 193
3. Case Studies of Economic Activities Having Major Impacts
on Ecosystems 196
4. Conclusions and Recommendations 209
Acknowledgment 215
References 215
Contents ix
Part IV
Ecosystem Services: Tools & Practices
18. CICES Going Local: Ecosystem Services Classification
Adapted for a Highly Populated Country
Francis Turkelboom, Perrine Raquez, Marc Dufrêne,
Leander Raes, Ilse Simoens, Sander Jacobs, Maarten
Stevens, Rik De Vreese, Jeroen A.E. Panis, Martin Hermy,
Marijke Thoonen, Inge Liekens, Corentin Fontaine, Nicolas
Dendoncker, Katrien van der Biest, Jim Casaer, Hilde
Heyrman, Linda Meiresonne, and Hans Keune
1. Why We Need a Common Classification System for
Ecosystem Services In Belgium? 224
2. CICES-Be: Goal and Consultation Approach 225
3. ES Definitions and ES Cascade 225
4. An ES Classification System for Belgium: CICES-Be 229
5. Conclusion 243
References 245
19. The Ecosystem Services Valuation Tool and its Future
Inge Liekens, Steven Broekx, Nele Smeets, Jan Staes,
Katrien Van der Biest, Marije Schaafsma, Leo De Nocker,
Patrick Meire and Tanya Cerulus
1. Introduction 249
2. User Requirements 251
3. Methodology 251
4. Using the Information 258
5. Conclusion 259
References 259
20. EBI—An Index for Delivery of Ecosystem Service
Katrien Van der Biest, Rob D’Hondt, Sander Jacobs,
Dries Landuyt, Jan Staes, Peter Goethals and Patrick Meire
1. Introduction 263
2. Development of the Index 265
3. Model Application 268
4. Discussion 271
References 272
21. ES Thinking and Some of Its Implications: A Critical
Note from a Rural Development Perspective
Frédéric Huybrechs, Johan Bastiaensen and Gert Van Hecken
1. Influence of ES Thinking on Development and
Land-Use Policy 274
2. Example of the PES Approach and Motivations Related to
Land-Use Management 275
3. Ecosystem Services and Socioecological Systems 281
References 282
22. Enhancing Ecosystem Services in Belgian Agriculture
through Agroecology: A Vision for a Farming with
a Future
Alain Peeters, Nicolas Dendoncker and Sander Jacobs
1. Introduction 285
2. Agroecology, Integrated Farming, and Ecosystem Services 287
3. Agroecological Researches 290
4. Strengths and Weaknesses of Agroecology 292
5. Discussion and Recommendations 294
6. The Way Ahead 295
7. Links with EU Policy Instruments 297
8. Conclusion 299
Acknowledgment 300
References 300
Annex: Method for The Design, Development, and
Dissemination of Prototypes of Farms 304
Part V
Ecosystem Service Reflections from Practice
23. Ecosystem Service Practices
Hans Keune, Nicolas Dendoncker and Sander Jacobs
1. Introduction 307
2. Usefulness of the Ecosystem Services Concept 308
3. How is the Ecosystem Services Concept Used in
Practice? 309
4. Risks of the Use of The Ecosystem Services Concept 311
5. Challenges Regarding the Use of the Ecosystem
Services Concept 313
6. The Importance of a Local Ecosystem Service
Community of Practice 314
7. Conclusions 314
Contents xi
24. Reflections from Policy Practice
Anne Teller
25. (how) Can Financial Institutions Contribute to
Sustainable Use of Ecosystem Services?
Frederic Ghys
26. Making Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services
Operational in Europe through Biodiversity
Offsetting and Habitat Banking
Guy Duke
27. SKB, Snowman,and Ecosystem Services
Simon W. Moolenaar and Jos Brils
28. Contribution of DG Environment of Federal Public
Service Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment
Lucette Flandroy, Sabine Wallens, Kelly Hertenweg and
Saskia Van Gaever
29. Relevance of an Ecosystem Services Approach in
Southern Belgium
Marc Dufrêne
30. A Participatory Approach to Wildlife Management
in Walloon Farmlands
Layla Saad
31. Ecosystem Services for Wallonia
Cédric Chevalier
32. Relevance of the Concept of Ecosystem Services in the
Practice of Brussels Environment (BE)
Machteld Gryseels
33. Contribution of the Agency for Nature and Forests
Jeroen A.E. Panis
34. Integrating Ecosystem Services in Rural Development
Projects in Flanders
Jan Verboven and Paula Ulenaers
35. Reflection on the Relevance and Use of Ecosystem
Services to the LNE Department
Tanya Cerulus
36. Obstacles to use an Ecosystem Services Concept in
Sylvie Danckaert and Dirk Van Gijseghem
37. The Concept of Ecosystem Services
Leen Franchois
38. Ecosystem Services in Natuurpunt
Wim Van Gils
39. Ecosystem Services in Nature Education in the
Province of West Flanders
Kris Struyf and Leo Declercq
40. Integrating the Concept of Ecosystem Services in the
Province of Antwerp: The Inland Dunes Project
Lieve Janssens
41. Bosland: Application of the Ecosystem Services
Concept in a New Style of Forest Management
Pieter Vangansbeke, Leen Gorissen and Kris Verheyen
Colophon 405
Index 407
Ecosystem Services.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
CICES Going Local
Ecosystem Services Classification Adapted for a
Highly Populated Country
Francis Turkelboom1, Perrine Raquez2, Marc Dufrêne3, Leander Raes4,
Ilse Simoens1, Sander Jacobs5,6, Maarten Stevens1, Rik De Vreese7, Jeroen
A.E. Panis8, Martin Hermy9, Marijke Thoonen1, Inge Liekens10, Corentin
Fontaine2, Nicolas Dendoncker11, Katrien van der Biest12, Jim Casaer1,
Hilde Heyrman13, Linda Meiresonne1 and Hans Keune14,15,16,17
1Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), 2University of Namur (UNamur),
3ULG-GxABT, 4UG, 5Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), 6University of Antwerp.
Department of Biology, Ecosystem Management Research Group (ECOBE), 7VUB, 8Agency for
Nature and Forests, Government of Flanders, 9KULeuven, 10Flemish Research and Technology
Organisation (VITO), 11Department of Geography, University of Namur (UNamur). Namur
Research Centre on Sustainable Development (NAGRIDD). Namur Centre for Complex Systems
(naXys), 12University of Antwerp, Ecosystem Management Research Group (ECOBE), 13VLM,
14Belgian Biodiversity Platform, 15Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), 16Faculty of
Applied Economics – University of Antwerp, 17naXys, Namur Center for Complex
Systems – University of Namur
Chapter 18
Chapter Outline
1. Why We Need a Common
Classification System
for Ecosystem Services in
Belgium? 224
2. CICES-Be: Goal and
Consultation Approach 225
3. ES Definitions and
ES Cascade 225
3.1. What are Ecosystems
Services? 225
3.2. The Ecosystem Services
Cascade 226
3.3. Do Ecosystems also
Produce Disservices? 228
4. An ES Classification System
for Belgium: CICES-Be 229
4.1. Key Principles
of CICES 229
4.2. Role of Supporting
Services and Abiotic
Resources in CICES 230
4.3. Modifications of CICES
for the Belgian Context 232
5. Conclusion 243
224 PART | IV Ecosystem Services: Tools & Practices
Although the concept of ecosystem services (ES) has been popularized widely
since publication of the Millennium Assessment (MA) in 2005 [1], different
classification schemes have been proposed by several authors, such as Costanza
et al. [2], Daily [3], de Groot et al. [4], Wallace [5], and TEEB [6]. Costanza [7]
argued that due to the dynamic complexity of ecosystem processes, the inherent
characteristics of ecosystem services, and the diverse decision contexts, differ-
ent types of classification schemes should be considered. He concludes: “Any
attempt to come up with a single or ‘universal’ classification system should be
approached with caution.”
Although it is recognized that a diversity of approaches is probably nec-
essary, the use of multiple classifications makes comparison and integration
between studies and assessments more difficult. With the fast-growing number
of ES assessment and valuation studies around the world, the need to design
a common base that enables comparison between ES assessments at differ-
ent places has become more urgent [8]. This common base should be specific
enough to be operational, while remaining relevant to a multitude of objectives
for which frameworks and implementation plans may be developed [9].
This need has become especially acute since the new European Biodiversity
strategy requires all EU member states to map and assess the state of the ecosys-
tems and their services in their national territory by 2014 (Target 2, Action 5).
For that reason, a working group on Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems
and their Services (MAES) has been set up to support European member states
in undertaking the necessary work. The MAES working group decided to apply
Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES) v4.3,
which will be used throughout Europe [10].
CICES was initiated by the European Environment Agency (EEA) and is coor-
dinated by the University of Nottingham [11–13]. One advantage of the CICES
approach is that it allows adjustment to local conditions. In highly populated and
developed areas, such as Belgium (337 inhabitants/km²), open space is rapidly
declining and fragmenting, and the natural water cycle is getting disturbed (e.g.,
peak flows due to compaction, nutrient loads). In 2009, built-up areas (e.g., resi-
dential housing and transport infrastructure) covered 20% of the Belgian surface,
while forest and wooded land covered only 23%. The high population density
and the recent land-use changes have caused several environmental pressures,
such as flooding risk, drought, air pollution, eutrophication, and loss of biodi-
versity. These pressures have had a negative effect on health and well-being, and
are increasing the cost of environmental management measures. Consequently,
the demand for specific services that can be provided by nature is increasing,
while claims from different sectors often overlap or are contradicting. To adapt
and fine-tune the latest CICES classification to the specific Belgian conditions, it
was decided to design a Belgian version of CICES (CICES-Be).
Chapter | 18 CICES Going Local
The purpose of CICES-Be is to provide a standardized, but flexible, ES clas-
sification system that can accommodate different kinds of use in Belgium, but
that can be further adapted in the future. It must be usable for the upcoming
regional ecosystem services assessments for Wallonia and Flanders (respec-
tively, for 2013 and 2014), valuation studies, payments for ecosystem services
(PES) schemes, local planning exercises based on ES, and others. The aim is
also for a robust list of ES that can be used as a basis for studies at different
spatial scales. For example, if an ES assessment is conducted on a local scale,
the CICES-Be classification can be further refined by adding another sublevel
with more specific ES. For the national scale, the classification can be limited to
a few broad classes (e.g., division or group level).
The initiative for CICES-Be was taken by the Research Institute for Nature
and Forests (INBO) and the Université de Namur. The starting point was CICES
v3 [12]. Where discrepancies with the Belgium context were found, modifica-
tions were made. Where important ES for Belgium were missing, new ES were
added. In order to improve the classification from different perspectives and to
increase support for the final product, the resulting CICES-Be v1 was then sent
to Belgian experts who showed interest in this topic. Through iterative feed-
back loops, CICES-Be was further improved until consensus was reached with
CICES-Be v6. The consultation lasted one year, from May 2012 until April
2013. In total, 19 experts from 11 organizations contributed to CICES-Be. The
contributing experts are based at research centers, administrations, and policy-
support units, have diverse disciplinary backgrounds, and come from both the
Flemish and Walloon regions. The results of this Belgian consultation process
were also used as an input to the international e-consultation process to improve
the international CICES classification (
Before we could embark on the development of CICES-Be, however, we first
needed a common understanding about the framework and definitions.
3.1. What are Ecosystems Services?
The concept of ecosystem services is inherently anthropocentric. Human beings
are value-expressing agents who translate basic ecological structures and pro-
cesses into value-laden entities [4]. One can visualize this with a simple thought
experiment: in an Earth-like planet with no humans, there could be a wide array
of ecosystem structures and processes, but there would be no services [14].
CICES defines ecosystem services as “the contributions that ecosystems
make to human well-being,” and that arise from the interaction of biotic and
abiotic processes. Ecosystem services refer to the final outputs or products from
ecological systems, which are the items directly consumed or used by people
226 PART | IV Ecosystem Services: Tools & Practices
[12]. In other words, ecosystem services are actually conceptualizations of the
useful things ecosystems provide for people. As for consistency with the MA,
the term services is generally taken to include both goods and services.
3.2. The Ecosystem Services Cascade
The definition makes it clear that ES cannot stand by themselves, but that there
is something of a production chain linking ecological and biophysical structures
and processes on the one hand and elements of human well-being on the other,
and that there is potentially a series of intermediate stages between them. To dis-
entangle the pathway from ecosystems and biodiversity to human well-being,
a conceptual framework was proposed: the ES cascade structure (Figure 18-1;
12). The advantage of this construct is that it clearly demonstrates to decision
makers and ecosystem service users that functional ecosystem structures and
processes are required before services and benefits can be provided. In addition,
the cascade adequately shows that, in order to maintain the sustainable flow of
services, it requires the protection of and investment in the supporting ecosys-
tems and biodiversity. The cascade also helps to frame a number of important
questions about relationships between people and nature, such as: What are the
critical levels or stocks of natural capital1 needed to sustain the flow of ecosys-
tem services?; Can natural capital be restored once damaged?; What are the
limits to the supply of ecosystem services in different situations?; How do we
value the contributions that ecosystem services provide to human well-being?
The judgment made about the seriousness of these issues or pressures partly
shapes policy action (= the feedback arrow in the diagram) [12].
Although the cascade model is a useful conceptual device for understand-
ing the links between ecosystems and people, it is of course a simplification of
1. Natural capital is defined as the stock of natural ecosystems that yields a flow of valuable ecosys-
tem goods or services into the future [2].
structure or
(e.g. woodland
habitat or net
producvity )
(e.g. flood
protecon, or
(e.g. slow
passage of
water, or
(e.g. contribuon to
aspects of well-being
such as health and
Σ Pressures
Limit pressures via
policy acon?
(e.g. willingness to pay
for woodland
protecon or for more
woodland, or
harvestable products)
FIGURE 18-1 The ecosystem service cascade model, showing the relationship between biophysi-
cal structures and processes and benefits and values for human well-being [18].
Chapter | 18 CICES Going Local
the real world [8]. For example, it should be realized that ecosystem processes
and services do not always show a one-to-one correspondence: sometimes
a single ecosystem service is the product of two or more processes, whereas
a single process can contribute to more than one service [4]. For example,
the function wave regulation provides services, such as flood prevention,
drinking water, and recreation potential. Also, the benefits of a certain service
can be manifold: for example, the provision of food has multiple benefits, such
as health, employment, pleasure, and even cultural identity [15, 16]. These
multiple linkages between both processes and structures on the one hand, and
services and benefits on the other make the decision-making process complex
[5]. The cascade model also does not really clarify the fact that ecosystems are
usually not capable of generating all potential services simultaneously [8].
To make practical use of the ES cascade, all the steps need to be defined
l The actual use of goods or services provides benefits to humans, such as nutri-
tion, health, and pleasure. Benefits are defined as “the gains in welfare and
well-being generated by ecosystem services” [17].
l Value is defined as the measurement of the benefit, which can be expressed
in monetary or nonmonetary terms. Metrics from various scientific disci-
plines can be used (e.g., economics, sociology, ecology). In economics, value
is always associated with trade-offs, that is, something has (economic) value
only if we are willing to give up something else to get it or enjoy it. Benefits
and values are separated because the way we value these benefits is subjective:
Different groups may value these gains in different ways at different times
and at different places. Thus, different values can be attached to a particular
benefit. When we try to measure an overall value, these different appreciations
should be included [14]. Benefits are usually generated by ecosystem services
in combination with human inputs, such as labor, institutions, knowledge, or
equipment (e.g., hydroelectric power is dependent on water regulation services
of nature, but also needs human engineering and construction materials). So
attributing a value entirely to ecosystems would be misleading. Any attempt to
value nature’s services would have to try to disentangle the contribution that
natural and human-made capital make to the benefit being considered [18].
l For many years, the terms ecosystem function and ecosystem service have
been used interchangeably by some authors, creating a confusion that still
exists today. Ecosystem function is defined as the “capacity or capability of
the ecosystem to do something that is potentially useful to people” [2–4, 19,
20]. Or more specifically: “a subset of the interactions between ecosystem
structure and processes that underpin the capacity of an ecosystem to provide
goods and services” [6]. The capacity to deliver a service exists independently
of whether anyone wants or needs that service. That capacity only becomes
a service when some beneficiary can be identified. For example: The pres-
ence of ecological structures like woodlands or wetlands in a catchment area
may have the capacity (function) of slowing the passage of surface water. This
228 PART | IV Ecosystem Services: Tools & Practices
function of the ecosystem becomes a service, when it modifies the intensity of
flooding in downstream residential areas [8, 17].
l The building blocks of ecosystem functions are the interactions between struc-
ture and processes. Ecosystem structure is the biophysical architecture of
an ecosystem.” The composition of species making up this architecture may
vary. Ecosystem process is defined as any change or reaction which occurs
within ecosystems” [1]. Processes may be physical (e.g., infiltration of water,
sediment movement), chemical (e.g., reduction, oxidation), or biological (e.g.,
photosynthesis, denitrification), whereby biodiversity is more or less involved
in all of them [17]. Although there are still quite a lot of knowledge gaps about
the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services, scientific under-
standing has improved over the last decade and existing knowledge has been
reviewed in a few recent papers (e.g., [21–23]).
While these definitions help us further, the application of these definitions is
situation-dependent. Whether or not something is called a service depends often
on the perspective of the beneficiary [15, 24, 25]. For example, if someone is
interested in the benefit of timber, then primary productivity is a service, but for
someone who is interested in drinking water, primary production can be consid-
ered an ecosystem process.
3.3. Do Ecosystems also Produce Disservices?
By definition, ES refers only to the goods and services produced by biodiver-
sity and ecosystems benefiting human well-being. However, not all impacts of
nature on human well-being are positive [26, 27]. Ecosystems may also (or are
perceived to) provide disservices. In urban settings, Lyytimaki and Sipila [28]
argued that it may be counterproductive to frame ecosystem services only in a
positive way, without paying adequate attention to the various nuisances and
disservices that ecosystems inevitably produce. Consequently, they argue that
green spaces in urban settings should be managed not only to generate more
services and biodiversity, but also to produce fewer disservices.
As no widely agreed definition of ecosystem disservices exists, we propose
the following definition: “functions of ecosystems that are (or are perceived) as
negative for human well-being”2 [28]. Ecosystem disservices can be subdivided
into four categories:
l Species negatively affecting human health: Some type of biodiversity is directly
deleterious for human health—for example, wetlands providing habitat for
2. Some literature uses the term disservices to indicate the negative effects of ecosystem degradation
caused directly by human activities. For example in the context of agriculture, the term ecological
disservices is typically understood as disturbed or missing services as the consequence of loss of
biodiversity by agricultural practice, such as nutrient runoff and erosion, loss of wildlife habitat,
greenhouse gas emissions, and pesticide poisoning of humans and nontarget species. As this defini-
tion of disservices covers quite a varying content, it is suggested that this second interpretation of
the definition of disservices be included.
Chapter | 18 CICES Going Local
malarial mosquitoes, pathogen populations, and toxic plants. As biodiversity is
a necessary component of healthy, well-functioning ecosystems, conversion of
natural habitats to managed or disturbed habitats can increase the prevalence
of disease. In this way, habitats can become worse for humans in terms of their
disservices [29, 30].
l Species causing production damage: An example is damage to crops and live-
stock by pests and wild animals [31, 32].
l Discomfort caused by nature: Biodiversity elements can cause distress to
human welfare. Examples are species generating nuisance [33], natural areas
in urban setting that generate a feeling of fear at night [34], presence of large
carnivores that cause a feeling of insecurity, and insects that cause discomfort.
l Natural disasters: Natural phenomena, such as damages caused by floods and
natural occurring wildfires.
Assessing disservices can, however, be complicated: First, the same ecosystem
function can be perceived as a service or disservice depending on the context or
the person. The balance between disservice and service can be subtle and there-
fore requires a concerted effort to understand the involved species in detail [35].
Second, a certain ecosystem function that generates a positive ecosystem service
can negatively affect another ES. For example, the existence of a roe deer popula-
tion in a certain area can contribute to opportunities for hunting and recreation
(nature experience and wildlife photography), but they can be negative for the
regeneration of a tree species, thereby negatively impacting timber production;
natural areas in cities are positive for recreation and quality of life, but can cause
slippery roads in autumn or feelings of insecurity at night; water regulation pro-
vided by a vegetated landscape might be valued by someone who is dependent on
a steady water supply, but for someone interested in using the water for boating,
this vegetation can be a burden. Finally, ecosystem disservices can be perceived
as a result of changes in biodiversity, or because of changes in human percep-
tions alone. On the other hand, adverse effects for human health can be caused by
ecosystem services that are not noticed at all or are not perceived as negative. Dif-
ferentiating perceived disservices from actual disservices can be challenging [28].
The issue of disservices is to a large extent a matter of positive or negative
appreciation by humans. Depending on the situation and stakeholders, an ES can
provide either a benefit or a liability. When it is important to look at the whole pic-
ture (for example, for a management plan of a specific region), disservices should
be included as well. However, as both positive and negative impacts are part of
the same continuum, they can be linked to the list of services below. We therefore
have chosen not to make a separate category for disservices within CICES-Be.
4.1. Key Principles of CICES
The proposal for CICES was based on the requirement that any new classi-
fication has to be consistent with accepted typologies of ecosystem goods and
230 PART | IV Ecosystem Services: Tools & Practices
services currently being used in the international literature, and that it should
be compatible with the design of the System of Integrated Environmental and
Economic Accounting (SEEA) methods and UN standard classifications (ISIC4,
CPC, COICOP). In constructing CICES, three main principles were applied [11, 12]:
l Hierarchical structure: In the present one-dimensional ES listings, each time
a new service is identified, the list has to be updated. Therefore, a hierarchi-
cal structure was proposed into which new and specific elements can be fit-
ted without disrupting the general structure of the classification. A hierarchical
classification also enables summaries of services’ outputs at different levels of
generality, a feature that is difficult to accomplish with a simple listing. At the
highest level, the three usual “service themes” are listed: provisioning, regulat-
ing and maintenance, and cultural ES (called Sections). Below the Sections
level, different service groups are nested (i.e., Division, Group, and Class). The
labels of the classes used in CICES have been selected to be as generic as pos-
sible, so that other more specific or detailed categories can progressively be
defined, according to the interests of the user or country, or the concerned scale.
l Final outputs only: CICES refers specifically to the “final” outputs or products
from ecosystems. Following common usage in the ES literature, the classifica-
tion recognizes these outputs to be provisioning, regulating and maintenance,
and cultural services, but it does not cover the so-called supporting services
originally defined in the MA. As the supporting services are only indirectly
consumed or used, they are treated as part of the underlying structures, pro-
cesses, and functions that characterize ecosystems. The distinction between
final and intermediate products was also proposed to avoid the problem of
double-counting when undertaking monetary valuation. Valuation should only
be applied to the item directly consumed or used by a beneficiary because the
value of the ecological structures and processes that contribute to it is already
wrapped up in this estimate [24, 25, 36]. It was therefore proposed that sup-
porting services are best dealt with in other ways in environmental accounts
[11–13]. In reality, this division between final and intermediate outputs is not
always clear. Some of the ES can be intermediate as well as final services,
depending on the user of the service. For example, pollination is a final service
for the fruit grower (as it is an essential production factor for the producer) and
a supporting service for the fruit consumer. But as this is a generic classifica-
tion system, this type of ES is included as long as at least one stakeholder can
be identified that directly benefits from a certain ES.
l Finally, a key point of CICES is that it is a classification of services and not of
benefits [13].
4.2. Role of Supporting Services and Abiotic Resources in CICES
The fact that supporting services are not included in CICES should not be taken
to mean they are unimportant. Any given ES depends on a range of interact-
ing and overlapping ecosystem functions, and one supporting service may
Chapter | 18 CICES Going Local
simultaneously facilitate the delivery of many final outputs. Typical examples
of supporting services are nutrient cycling, photosynthesis, water cycling, and
maintenance of the gene pool. As the category supporting services comprises
every function and structure that is somehow involved in sustaining service
flow, providing resilience, energy, and substrate; then it will probably include
nearly “all biophysical complexity. A consequence is that any attempt to seri-
ously define the set of supporting services is likely to oversimplify the role
of nature. So, every list will be necessarily incomplete and illustrative, and
any valuation will be incomplete [12]. A second implication is that each plan
or intervention that changes land use and its related supporting services will
have profound implications for delivery of related ecosystem services. In other
words, lists of desirable ES should not be goals by themselves, but a starting
point to reflect on the underlying processes and functions and on how to achieve
sustainable ecosystem management.
The inclusion or exclusion of abiotic materials (e.g., minerals, salt) and
renewable abiotic energies (e.g., wind, hydro, solar, waves, tides, thermal
energy) was quite a controversial issue within the CICES and Belgium ES com-
munities. The most important points that were raised during the Belgian discus-
sion are summarized below:
l The first perspective is related to the definitions. If ecosystems are defined
as the interactions between living organisms and their abiotic environment,
then it is argued that ecosystem services have to be traceable back to some
living process, that is, be dependent on biodiversity [25]. Others argue that
the ecosystem consists of biotic and abiotic processes. Many included eco-
system services, such as flood control, hydrology-related services, but also
water and air purification de facto depending (partly) on abiotic structures
and processes. The latter is used as an argument for including abiotic-based
services in the ES classification.
l The second perspective is related to the renewability of the resource. Most
authors agree that nonrenewable materials that are mined, such as fossil fuels,
gold, and uranium, should not be included. For renewable natural resources,
the opinions are divided. Some argue that the level of renewability could be
a distinguishing feature for inclusion in CICES. This requires a consensus
about the renewal period. If this period is set, for instance, at 100 years,
this means that ES would include the extraction of sand in dynamic rivers
and salt mines, but not the mining of fossil fuels [4]. However, defining a
renewal period is always controversial. Therefore, some have suggested bas-
ing the argument on extraction rate versus delivery rate. For example, in the
case of petroleum, it is the speed of extraction that makes its use unsustain-
able. If oil would only be extracted at the rate at which it can be replaced,
it could be considered a renewable resource. This approach is consistent
with the idea of sustainable resource use: Only those goods and services are
included that can be used on a sustainable basis.
232 PART | IV Ecosystem Services: Tools & Practices
l The third perspective is related to abundance. Wind, solar, tidal, and other
energies are abundant and nondepletable. If the ES framework is aimed to be
a tool that assists society in making decisions about scarce or limited natural
resources and their services, it could be argued that it is not very useful to
include them in the context of an ES analysis.
l Fourth, there is the aspect of attribution. As the origin of wind and solar energy
cannot be attributed to a certain ecosystem type, it is proposed to exclude them
[4]. Others argue including them, based on the fact that the amount of gener-
ated energy depends on topography, orientation, and local climate.
l A final argument for inclusion is that abiotic resources play an essential role in
the transition to sustainability.
For CICES v4.3, it was decided to leave the “pure” abiotic resources out of the
classification system of ES [13], and for the time being, CICES-Be will follow
CICES. Nevertheless, when abiotic resources and energies play an important
role in the issues at stake, it makes a lot of sense to include them in mapping
and planning exercises.
4.3. Modifications of CICES for the Belgian Context
When the final international CICES v4.3 was published in January 2013, it was
decided to harmonize CICES-Be v5 as much as possible with CICES v4.3. The
purpose of this exercise was twofold: on the one hand, to keep the classification
adapted to Belgian conditions; on the other hand, to keep the system compatible
with the international one, at least at the section and division level. This resulted
in CICES-Be v6 with 8 divisions, 18 groups, and 41 classes. Where we felt it was
relevant for Belgium, additional subclasses were defined (34 in total). All the ele-
ments of CICES-Be that differ with CICES are marked In blue colour in Table 18-1.
The major differences between CICES-Be and CICES are the following:
Additional ES in CICES-Be: Where important ES for Belgium were missing,
new ES were added, such as: prevention and control of fire, control of invasive
species, control of nature-borne human diseases, moderation of certain diseases by
exposure to nature, and some specific cultural services (see below).
Modified ES in CICES-Be:
l Biomass production for nutrition in CICES-Be is split up according their ori-
gin: terrestrial, freshwater, or marine. This is done because these ES can be
associated with very distinct professional and recreational activities.
l The ES division mediation of waste, toxics and other nuisances in CICES
is split up according to media (biota versus ecosystems) and processes (e.g.,
bioremediation, dilution, filtration, sequestration). For CICES-Be, we did not
find this division to be practical, as in reality many of these processes inter-
act. Therefore, it was decided to subdivide them based on the type of service
they provide (soil and water quality regulation, air quality regulation, shield-
ing). Consequently, the group “water conditions” in CICES was omitted in
Chapter | 18 CICES Going Local
TABLE 18-1 ES Classification for Belgium CICES-Be v6
Section Division Group Class Subclass for Belgium
Examples of Service
Providing Units
Benefits (non exhaustive)
Availability of:
Provisioning Nutrition Biomass Terrestrial
plants, fungi,
and animals for
Commercial crops Cereals, vegetables, fruits Food
Kitchen garden crops Vegetables, fruit
Land-based commercial
Free-range dairy and meat
cows, chickens
Hobby animals for food Sheep, goat, chicken,
rabbit, bees
Edible wild animals, plants,
and fungi
Game, wild honey,
mushrooms, berries, nuts,
wild plants (e.g., young
nettle branches)
plants and
animals for
Freshwater fish and shellfish Freshwater fish (trout, eel)
Cultivated freshwater fish Carp
Edible water plants Water cress
Marine algae
and animals for
Sea fish and shellfish Marine fish (sea bass)
Cultivated seafood and
Mussel culture
Edible plants from salt and
brackish waters
Macro and microalgae,
Surface water
for drinking
Rivers, lakes, reservoirs,
collected precipitation
Drinking water for
domestic use
for drinking
Springs, (nonfossil)
234 PART | IV Ecosystem Services: Tools & Practices
TABLE 18-1 ES Classification for Belgium CICES-Be v6—cont’d
Materials Biomass Fibere and
other materials
from plants,
algae, and
animals for
direct use or
Ornamental plants and
Bulbs, cut flowers,
decorative plants, shells,
feathers, pearls
Ornamental plants & animal
Plant fibers and materials Timber trees, flax, straw,
herbs, resins,
Timber, paper, natural
medicines, dyes, clothes
Animal fibers and materials Animal parts (skin, bones) Soap, leather, gelatine, wool
Materials from
plants, algae,
and animals for
agricultural and
aquaculture use
Organic matter for
fertilization and/or soil
Manure, litter, bark,
algae, “plaggen”
Fertilizer for crop production,
improved soil structure
Fodder and forage Maize, grasses Food for animal raising
materials from
all biota
Genetic material (DNA)
from wild plants, algae
and animals
Medicines, breeding
Surface water
for nondrinking
Rivers, lakes, reservoirs,
collected precipitation
Water for irrigation, industrial
production, cooling
for nondrinking
Springs, (nonfossil)
Section Division Group Class Subclass for Belgium
Examples of Service
Providing Units
Benefits (non exhaustive)
Availability of:
Chapter | 18 CICES Going Local
Energy Biomass-
Energy crops and plant
Yellow mustard, wheat,
beetroot, straw, grass
and herb residues form
nature and roadside
Energy trees and woody
Fuel wood (e.g., poplar,
willow trees), woody
residues form nature
based energy
Dung, fat, oils, biogas
Section Division Group Class
Sub-class for
Examples of Service
Providing Units
Benefits (non
Mediation of
waste, toxics
and other
Soil and
water quality
Bioremediation of polluted
soils (phyto-accumulation/
Plants & micro-
Less polluted soils
Water purification and
Wetlands, lagoons,
Improved water
Nutrient regulation Buffer strips, soils,
water bodies, estuaries,
coastal zones
Stable nutrient levels
Air quality
Capturing (fine) dust,
chemicals and smells
Trees, shrubs, forests Improved air quality
Shielding Mitigation of noise &
visual impacts
Vegetative buffers,
landscape structures
Quieter environment
236 PART | IV Ecosystem Services: Tools & Practices
TABLE 18-1 ES Classification for Belgium CICES-Be v6—cont’d
Mediation of
Mass flow Mass stabilization and
control of erosion
Gravity flow
protection (e.g.
landslides, creep)
Land coverage, roots of
large trees
Land stability
Protection against
water and wind
Cover crops, buffer
strips, vegetation
along the hydrological
network, woodlands
Mudflow protection
less dredging costs,
less impact of wind
Buffering and attenuation
of mass flows
Rivers, lakes, sea Transport and storage
of sediment
Liquid flow Hydrological cycle and
water flow maintenance
Permanent vegetation,
land coverage
Secure navigation,
drought prevention,
protection against
salt intrusion, hydro-
Flood protection Natural flood
& sediment
Natural flood plains,
Flood safety, less
dredging costs,
Coastal protection
to waves, currents
energy & sea level
Dunes, marshlands,
sea grass
Coastal safety
Section Division Group Class
Sub-class for
Examples of Service
Providing Units
Benefits (non
Chapter | 18 CICES Going Local
of physical,
habitat and
gene pool
Pollination Bees, butterflies (Better) fruit setting
Seed dispersal Birds, insects and
Improved tree
Maintaining nursery
populations and habitats
Wetlands suitable for
spawning grounds
Bigger commercial
fish and shellfish
Prevention and control
of fire
Fire resistant vegetation
buffers, wetlands, wet
Fire safety
Control of (alien and/or
local) invasive species
Competing plants and
animal species
Reduced impact of
undesirable invasive
Pest and
Pest control Beetle banks,
hedgerows, vegetation
strips, heterogeneous
Better health of
agricultural plants
and animals
Disease control
Control of nature-borne
human diseases
Diversity of plants
and animals result in
dilution of competition
with vectors
Lower risk for
nature-borne human
Moderation of certain
diseases by exposure to
Trees, pollen, plants,
animals, micro-
Less susceptible
to allergies, better
resistance to
formation &
Weathering processes,
decomposition and fixing
Green mulches,
N-fixing plants, soil
Fertile soils
238 PART | IV Ecosystem Services: Tools & Practices
and climate
Global climate
regulation by reduction
of greenhouse gas
Vegetation, soils,
sediments, oceans
More stable global
Micro and regional
climate regulation
Regional climate
regulation (e.g.
of regional
patterns &
Forests More stable regional
Rural micro-
climatic regulation
Windbreaks, shelter
belts, shading trees,
Buffered micro-
climate, air
Urban micro-
climatic regulation
Shading trees, parks,
green roofs
Section Division Group Class
for Belgium
Examples of Service
Providing Units
Benefits (non
Benefits for
Cultural Physical and
with biota,
ecosystems, and
land-& seascapes
suitable for
Area for non-
for daily
Neighbourhood green,
shading trees, park,
natural play area,
green schoolyard
drove, cemetery,
fallow land, dike, trail
Daily displacements by
foot or bike, walking
the dog, playing, local
Physical, social
and mental well-
being, motoric
and creative
development of
TABLE 18-1 ES Classification for Belgium CICES-Be v6—cont’d
Section Division Group Class
Sub-class for
Examples of Service
Providing Units
Benefits (non
Chapter | 18 CICES Going Local
for outdoor
Forest, beach,
agricultural landscape,
river, areas with wild
food, pick-nick spot in
nature, sport facility
Walking, jogging,
cycling, horse riding in
forest, mountain biking,
surfing, canoeing,
skiing, motorized
activities, pick-nick,
collecting natural
Physical, social
and mental
and species
for nature
& education
Area of outstanding
natural beauty (e.g.
nature reserve,
natural spring, lake,
river, rare species,
natural smell &
noises), attractive and
charismatic species,
area and species with
educational value
Eco-tourism, bird
watching, nature
conservation activities,
nature photographing
and filming, landscape
painting, spiritual
activities, eco-therapy,
nature education
Physical, social,
mental, spiritual
suitable for
Ecological patterns,
pollen, tree rings,
genetic patterns
Understanding of
natural processes,
understanding of
our dependency
and relationship
to nature
240 PART | IV Ecosystem Services: Tools & Practices
Area for
Area for
Private land: Private
garden, pasture for
hobby animals
Areas with entrance
fees: Camping site,
zoo, botanical garden,
safari park, golf course,
horse riding school,
licensed fishing areas
Relax and playing in
gardens, golf, camping,
riding horse, relaxation
in theme park, non-
consumptive angling
Physical, social,
mental well-
being, motoric
and creative
development of
Area for
Farm land, pasture,
kitchen garden, leased
land for hunting,
licensed fishing areas
Outdoor work for
farming, forestry, firewood
collection, vegetable
growing for home
consumption, hunting,
consumptive angling
Physical, social
and mental well-
being, nature
TABLE 18-1 ES Classification for Belgium CICES-Be v6—cont’d
Section Division Group Class
for Belgium
Examples of Service
Providing Units
Benefits (non
Benefits for
Chapter | 18 CICES Going Local
buildings for
living, working
and studying
Green/blue views from
residences, schools,
offices, elderly homes
Positively influence
on living, working and
indoor learning (better
concentration, more
creative, less stress)
Higher prices of real
Physical, social,
mental well-
institutions for
recovery and
Green/blue views from
hospitals, psychiatric
institutes, revalidation
Recovering from mental
or physical illness
positively influenced by
the green environment,
mental and/or
physical health
and other
with biota,
ecosystems, and
and species
with cultural
and symbolic
Typical cultural
landscape (e.g.
heath, pine forests,
hedgerows), symbolic/
emblematic species
(e.g. stork, sky lark,
wild boar)
Cultural heritage,
folklore, flagship
species for promoting
regional identity
Hunting, fishing,
photographing and
observing emblematic
Sense of place/
Sense of
possession of
Note: Text in blue font indicates where CICES-Be differs from CICES v4.3.
242 PART | IV Ecosystem Services: Tools & Practices
CICES-Be because they are considered to be part of “soil and water quality
regulation” in CICES-Be.
l Under the group soil formation and composition, the classes weathering
processes and decomposition and fixing processes were merged in CICES-Be,
as these processes are closely related to each other.
l The services under group gaseous/air flows in CICES are very much related
to the microclimate and were therefore included under the class micro and
regional climate regulation in CICES-Be.The cultural services section is con-
ceptualized quite differently under CICES-Be:
Cultural services are primarily regarded as the “environmental settings, loca-
tions or situations that give rise to changes in the physical or mental states of
people, and whose character are fundamentally dependent on living processes.”
Over millennia these environmental settings have been co-produced by the con-
stant interactions between humans and nature [13, 37].
Following this logic, all cultural service classes in CICES-Be refer to a bio-
physical setting that provides cultural services (e.g., landscapes, individual spe-
cies, and whole ecosystems). The direct benefits we derive from these cultural
services are recreation, nature exploration, living in a nice environment, nature
education, and others. These activities provide consequential benefits, such as
physical, social, and mental well-being, and motoric and creative development
for children. These benefits for well-being are mentioned in the last column
of CICES-Be. This is in contrast to CICES, where benefits (e.g., use, educa-
tion, entertainment, and symbolic) are categorized as ES themselves. CICES
also lists bequest value (importance for future generations) and existence value
(right of existence) as cultural services. They are not, however, included as ES
in CICES-Be, as they are considered part of a valuation analysis.
The CICES Division Physical and Intellectual Interactions is subdivided in
two groups within CICES-Be: natural environment suitable for outdoor activi-
ties and natural surroundings of built-up areas:
l For the group natural environment suitable for outdoor activities, we made a
distinction between two service classes based on the concept of excludability.
To be excludable means that “one person/party (can) keep another person/
party from using a certain good or service” [14]. For CICES-Be, two classes
are distinguished:
1. Area for nonexcludable outdoor activities: These are public areas that
everyone can use. Examples are green environment suitable for daily
outdoor activities (e.g., daily stroll, cycling to work), landscape for out-
door recreation (e.g., jogging, mushroom picking), natural landscapes
and species for nature experience and education (e.g., bird watching,
landscape painting, and spiritual activities), and landscape and biodiver-
sity suitable for research.
2. Area for excludable outdoor activities: These are the areas where one
group can exclude another group. We distinguish this as a separate
Chapter | 18 CICES Going Local
class, as some categories of this class are rapidly expanding in Belgium,
and as excludability controls to a large extent how many people can
benefit from them. The level of excludability can, however, vary,
ranging from nonaccessible land (e.g., private gardens) to areas with
restricted access (e.g., land accessible to only club members or paying
visitors). We distinguish two subclasses: land that is occupied to make
a certain type of recreation possible (such as private gardens or graz-
ing land for hobby horses) and land that is used for productive activi-
ties (such as farming and kitchen-garden). The benefit of the latest
type is the satisfaction and mental well-being one gets from outdoor
work; the agricultural products are classified under the provisioning
l Natural surroundings around built-up areas: This is the passive use of
natural settings and does not require any outdoor activity—for example,
the view on green environment from residences, offices, and therapeutic
institutions. This service is not included in CICES, but for Belgium it was
chosen to give this a separate group in the cultural ES section. The reason
is that owing to the high population pressure in Belgium, this service is
becoming a more and more scarce—and therefore highly valued—resource.
l Finally, there is the Division/Group/Class that focuses on the cultural and
symbolic values of landscapes and species. For this ES, it is not essential to
visit these places, but the mere fact that these landscapes and species exist in
people’s mind is sufficient to generate a benefit for them.
The advantage of an inventory of ecosystem goods and services (and disservices) is
that it shows in a systematic way the contributions of ecosystems to human well-being.
This can assist in sensitizing policy makers, administrations, and the general public
to the significance of ecosystems and enable giving suitable weight to environmental
considerations within political decision making [38]. On the scientific side, the process
of drawing up the classification among experts boosted discussion on definitions and
conceptual assumptions regarding ecosystem services and on their application in a
Belgian context..
The inventory list of CICES-Be aims to provide a complete overview of all
the potential ecosystem goods and services that can be relevant in the Belgian
context (summarized in Table 18-2). The hierarchical approach makes it pos-
sible to adapt the classification to more general uses (e.g., mapping on scale
Belgium) or to more specific uses (e.g., sustainable management planning at the
level of a municipality or a park). It is important to note that a list of (desirable)
ES is not a goal by itself, but is rather a starting point to reflect on the under-
lying functions, processes, and structures, and on how to achieve sustainable
ecosystem management.
244 PART | IV Ecosystem Services: Tools & Practices
On the one hand, the link to the internationally accepted CICES classifica-
tion is a great advantage for future international reporting and comparisons. On
the other hand, the operationalization of CICES-Be will require further work,
such as the development of proper ES indicators, integration of ES and their
indicators into environmental reports, consideration of ES in specific sector
reports and in debates about societal “hot” issues. It is expected that by apply-
ing the CICES-Be inventory in practical cases, additional improvements to the
classification scheme will be made in the future.
TABLE 18-2 Summary of CICES-Be v6
Section Division Group
Provisioning Nutrition Biomass
Potable water
Materials Biomass
Nonpotable water
Energy Biomass-based energy sources
Regulation and
Mediation of waste, toxics,
and other nuisances
Soil and water-quality regulation
Air-quality regulation
Mediation of flows Mass flow
Liquid flow
Maintenance of physical,
chemical, and biological
Lifecycle maintenance, habitat,
and gene pool protection
Pest and disease control
Soil formation and composition
Atmospheric composition and
climate regulation
Cultural Physical and intellectual
interactions with biota,
ecosystems, and land-
and seascapes
Natural environment suitable for
outdoor activities
Spiritual, symbolic, and
other interactions with
biota, ecosystems, and
Natural surroundings of built-up
Spiritual and/or emblematic
Chapter | 18 CICES Going Local
1. MA [Millennium Ecosystem Assessment]. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthe-
sis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
2. Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. 1997. The
value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260.
3. Daily, G.C. 1997. Introduction: What are ecosystem services? In Daily GC (ed.), Nature’s Ser-
vices: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 1–10.
4. De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., and Boumans, R.M.J. 2002. A typology for the classification,
description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics
41(3), 393–408.
5. Wallace, K.J. 2007. Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions. Biological
Conservation 139(3–4), 235–246.
6. TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foun-
dations. London: Earthscan.
7. Costanza, R. 2008. Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biological
Conservation 141(2), 350–352.
8. Haines-Young. R., and Potschin, M. 2009. Methodologies for defining ecosystem services.
CEM report No.14.
9. Nahlik, A.M., Kentula, M.E., Fennessy, M.S., and Lander, D.H. 2011. Where is the consensus?
A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice. Ecological Eco-
nomics 77, 27–35.
10. Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Liquete, C., Braat, L., Berry, P., Egoh, B., Puydarrieux, P., Fio-
rina, F, Santos, F., Paracchini, M.L., Keune, H., Wittmer, H., Hauck, J., Fiala, I., Verburg, P.H.,
Condé, S., Schägner, J.P., San Miguel, J., Estreguil, C., Ostermann, O., Barredo, J.I., Pereira,
H.M., Stott, A., Laporte, V., Meiner, A., Olah, B., Royo Gelabert, E., Spyropoulou, R., Petersen,
J.E., Maguire, C., Zal, N., Achilleos, E., Rubin, A., Ledoux, L., Brown, C., Raes, C., Jacobs, S.,
Vandewalle, M., Connor, D., and Bidoglio, G. 2013. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems
and Their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the
EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
11. Haines-Young, R., and Potschin, M. 2010a. Proposal for a common international classification
of ecosystem goods and services (CICES) for integrated environmental and economic account-
ing. European Environment Agency.
12. Potschin, M., and Haines-Young, R.H. Common International Classification of Ecosys tem
S ervices (CICES): 2011 Update. Paper prepared for discussion at the expert meeting on eco-
system accounts organised by the UNSD, the EEA and the World Bank, London, December
2011. Centre for Environmental Management School of Geography, University of Nottingham/
European Environment Agency.
13. Haines-Young, R., and Potschin, M. 2013. CICES V4.3—Revised report prepared following
consultation on CICES Version 4, August–December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No
14. Fisher B., Turner R. K., and Morling, P. 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for
decision making. Ecological Economics 68(3), 643–653.
15. Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Zylstra, M., Brouwer, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Ferraro, P., Green,
R., Hadley, D., Harlow, J., Jefferiss, P., Kirkby, C., Morling, P., Mowatt, S., Naidoo, R., Paavola,
J., Strassburg, B., Yu, D. and Balmford, A. 2008. Ecosystem services and economic theory:
Integration for policy-relevant research. Ecological Applications 18(8), 2050–2067.
16. Chan, K.M.A., Satterfield, T., and Goldstein, J. 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to better
address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics 74, 8–18.
246 PART | IV Ecosystem Services: Tools & Practices
17. Haines-Young, R., and Potschin, M. 2010a. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem
services and human well-being. In Raffaelli, D., and C. Frid (eds.), Ecosystem Ecology:A
New Synthesis. BES Ecological Reviews Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
18. Potschin, M., and Haines-Young, R. 2011. Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical per-
spective. Progress in Physical Geography 35(5), 575–594.
19. De Groot, R.S. (1992). Functions of Nature: Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Planning,
Management and Decision Making. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
20. Brown, T.C., Bergstrom, J.C., and Loomis, J.B. 2007. Defining, valuing, and providing ecosys-
tem goods and services. Natural Resources Journal 47(2), 329–376.
21. Hooper, D.U., Chapin, F. S., Ewel, J.J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J.H.,
Lodge, D.M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Schmid, B., Setälä, H., Symstad, A. J., Vandermeer, J.
and Wardle, D.A. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: A consensus of cur-
rent knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75, 3–35.
22. Mace, G.M., Norris, K., and Fitter, A.H. 2011. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multi-
layered relationship. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27(1), 19–26.
23. Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D.U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A.,
Mace, G.M., Tilman, D., Wardle, D.A., Kinzig, A.P., Daily, G.C., Loreau, M., Grace, J.B.,
Larigauderie, A., Srivastava, D.S., and Naeem, S. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on
humanity. Nature 486, 59–67.
24. Boyd, J., and Banzhaf, S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized envi-
ronmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 63, 616–626.
25. Fisher, B., and Turner, K. 2008. Ecosystem services: Classification for valuation. Biological
Conservation 141, 1167–1169.
26. Relph, E. 1985. Geographical experiences and being-in-the-world: The phenomenological ori-
gins of geography. In Seamon, D., and Mugerauer, R. (eds.), Dwelling, Place and Environment,
pp. 15–31. New York: Columbia University Press.
27. Manzo, L. 2005. For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning. Journal
of Environmental Psychology 25, 67–86.
28. Lyytima, J.J., and Sipila, M. (2009). Hopping on one leg–The challenge of ecosystem disser-
vices for urban green management. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 8, 309–315.
29. Schmidt, K.A., and Ostfeld, R.S. 2001. Biodiversity and the dilution effect in disease ecology.
Ecology 82, 609–619.
30. Vanwambeke, S.O., Lambin, E.F., Eichhorn, M.P., Flasse, S.P., Harbach, R.E., Oskam, L.,
Somboon, P., Van Beers, S., Van Benthem, B.H.B., Walton, C., and Butlin, R.K. 2007. Impact of
land-use change on dengue and malaria in northern Thailand. Ecohealth 4, 37–51.
31. De Boer, W.F., and Baquete, D.S. 1998. Natural Resource use, crop damage and attitudes of
rural people in the vicinity of the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Environmental Con-
servation 25(3), 208–218.
32. Rao, K.S, Maikhuri, R.K., Nautiyal, S., and Saxena, K.G. 2002. Crop damage and livestock
depredation by wildlife: A case study from nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Journal of
Environmental Management 66(3), 317–327.
33. DeStefano, S., and Deblinger, R.D. 2005. Wildlife as valuable natural resources vs intolerable
pests: a suburban wildlife management mode. Urban Ecosystems 8, 131–137.
34. Koskela, H., and Pain, R. 2000. Revisiting fear and place: Women’s fear of attack and the built
environment. Geoforum 31, 269–280.
35. Dunn, R.R. 2010. Global mapping of ecosystem disservices: The unspoken reality that nature
sometimes kills us. BIOTROPICA 42(5), 555–557.
Chapter | 18 CICES Going Local
36. Wallace, K.J. (2008). Ecosystem services: Multiple classifications or confusion? Biological
Conservation 141, 353–354.
37. Church, A., Burgess, J., Ravenscroft, N., Bird, W., Blackstock, K., Brady, E., Crang, M., Fish
R., Gruffudd, P., Mourato, S., Pretty, J., Tolia-Kelly, D., Turner, K., and M. Winter. 2011. Cul-
tural Services. In The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. UK National
Ecosystem Assessment, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, 633–692.
38. Staub, C., Ott, W., Heusi, F., Klingler, G., Jenny, A., Häcki, M., and Hauser, A. 2011. Indica-
tors for Ecosystem Goods and Services: Framework, methodology and recommendations for
a welfare-related environmental reporting. Federal Office for the Environment, Bern. Environ-
mental Studies, no. 1102, 17 S.
... This illustrates that vegetation plays a very important role through the NDVI in the EQI, which is consistent with habitat evaluations that use NDVI (Wiegand et al., 2008), such as the InVEST model (Berta Aneseyee et al., 2020). Indicators of ecological quality were based on the concept of ecosystem functions, and was defined as the "capacity or capability of the ecosystem to do something that is potentially useful to people" (Turkelboom et al., 2013), and were used to quantify ecosystem multifunctionality. However, the EQI in this study considered more aspects of ecosystems by considering more reasonable indicators and produced a more objective indication of ecological quality. ...
Widespread concern about ecological degradation has prompted development of concepts and exploration of methods to quantify ecological quality with the aim of measuring ecosystem changes to contribute to future policy-making. This paper proposes a conceptual framework for ecological quality measurement based on current ecosystem functions and biodiverse habitat, compared with pixel-scale historical baselines. The framework was applied to evaluate the changes and driving factors of ecological quality for Chinese terrestrial ecosystems through remote sensing-based and ecosystem process modeled data at 1 km spatial resolution from 2000 to 2018. The results demonstrated the ecological quality index (EQI) had a very different spatial pattern based upon vegetation distribution. An upward trend in EQI was found over most areas, and variability of 46.95% in EQI can be explained well by change in climate, with an additional 10.64% explained by changing human activities, quantified by population density. This study demonstrated a practical and objective approach for quantifying and assessing ecological quality, which has application potential in ecosystem assessments on scales from local to region and nation, yet would provide a new scientific concept and paradigm for macro ecosystems management and decision-making by governments.
... Photosynthesis itself is not valued when people eat rice, rather its results are. The CICES framework has been widely used to conduct ES assessments in particular locations (Turkelboom et al., 2013;Raheem et al., 2015), and is part of an ongoing effort to read ES as a fairly flexible framework. CICES is regularly updated and the team provides a spreadsheet on their website which can be used to conduct a range of assessments. ...
Ecosystem Services are the benefits humans derive from nature. Just like ecosystems or wild species throughout the world, ecosystem services are imperiled globally by a range of drivers and pressures, such as climate change, land use change, and invasive species. This chapter provides an overview of what ecosystem services are, how they are classified, what imperils them, and how the section is organized within the context of the Encyclopedia.
... An ES inventory is an organized list or table of ES by category in a given landscape. ES inventories have been completed in the United States (Raheem et al., 2015), Belgium (Turkelboom et al., 2014), and Portugal (Sousa, Sousa, Alves, & Lillebø, 2016). We developed the ES inventory through a participatory workshop based on the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), to ensure participants could choose from a wide range of services, and to work with an internationally recognized framework (Environment and Natural Resources Code, 2016; Eurostat, n.d.; Victoria Parks, n.d.). ...
Full-text available
As research recognizes the importance of ecological impacts of drought to natural and human communities, drought planning processes need to better incorporate ecological impacts. Drought planning currently recognizes the vulnerability of some ecological impacts from drought (e.g., loss of instream flow affecting fish populations). However, planning often does not identify all the ecological aspects in a landscape that stakeholders value, nor does it examine the extent to which those aspects are vulnerable to drought. One approach for identifying ecological aspects is ecosystem services (ES)—that is, the benefits humans receive from nature. To incorporate ecological impacts into drought planning in the Upper Missouri Headwaters (UMH) region (Montana, USA), we combined ES elicitation using the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services and a vulnerability assessment using semi‐structured interviews. We juxtaposed results from the interviews and the ES elicitation to assess which ES might be vulnerable to drought and which impacts from interviews were associated with losses of ES. While both methods suggested common drought vulnerabilities, each method also suggested drought vulnerabilities not reported using the other method. The ES elicitation produced more detail about services present in the UMH ecosystem today while interviews resulted in more discussion about ecological transformation from future droughts. Results suggest that some combination of open‐ended vulnerability assessment methods and ES elicitation using a structured framework can result in greater understanding of ecological drought vulnerability in a given region. This article is categorized under: • Water and Life > Stresses and Pressures on Ecosystems • Water and Life > Conservation, Management, and Awareness • Water and Life > Methods • Engineering Water > Planning Water
... Another benefi t is the feeling of having skills, described in the CICES-Be (Turkelboom et al., 2013 ) assessment on the example of photographs, which in the case of wastelands include gardening skills, knowledge of herbs, craftwork and small construction works as well as the skill to build new artefacts if needed (Gawryszewska et al., 2016 ). Wastelands seem to be a perfect tool in shaping the need to participate in the decision-making process and grassroots management, as well as in encouraging creative attitudes that are indispensable in order to build vernacular democracy. ...
... Another benefi t is the feeling of having skills, described in the CICES-Be (Turkelboom et al., 2013 ) assessment on the example of photographs, which in the case of wastelands include gardening skills, knowledge of herbs, craftwork and small construction works as well as the skill to build new artefacts if needed (Gawryszewska et al., 2016 ). Wastelands seem to be a perfect tool in shaping the need to participate in the decision-making process and grassroots management, as well as in encouraging creative attitudes that are indispensable in order to build vernacular democracy. ...
...Warsaw still has a relatively great number of wastelands being the result of uneven development of the city after its destruction during the Second World War, industrial collapse, absorption of agricultural lands as well as changes connected with railway infrastructure, etc. Many of these areas have taken over the function of developed urban green areas as an alternative and a complement (Trzaskowska 2008, Łepkowski et al. 2016). In land use plans (SUiKZP) and local development plans, an overwhelming number of these areas are intended for housing development, which either makes the existing city structure more populated or leads to the establishment of new areas of urban development (Land Use Plan for the Capital City of Warsaw 2014) (Fig.1). This hunger for new residential premises does not decrease while there is a growing pressure for sensible state policy and undertaking real actions aimed at its reduction. The Polish government states that in the nearest future development investments are going to be joined by a gigantic state housing scheme “Mieszkanie Plus”, which means that both the capital city and other big cities in Poland await another giant wave of investments. As a result, the majority of today’s wastelands will be developed and new residential quarters will entail building new roads, schools, churches as well as parks and other green areas. In the future they will become green islands in the density of newly developed residential quarters and housing estates (Fig. 2). Today, they can be only distinguished from among hundreds of hectares of Warsaw’s wastelands by a recording in planning documents, i.e. PG (public greenery). However, these areas have their users who treat them as their everyday landscape. Wastelands are an important element of the structure of the inhabited space and are used as the third place (Łepkowski et al. 2016). Finally, they render a great number of ecosystem services (Gawryszewska et al. 2016). ...
... It has, for example, been used as the basis for the German TEEB study (Naturkapital Deutschland -TEEB DE, 2014) as well as the German National Ecosystem Assessment screening study, NEA-D . It has also been refined at the most detailed class level to meet the requirements of the ecosystem assessment in Belgium (Turkelboom et al., 2013). Mononen et al. (2015) While being useful in their own right, the studies that have used CICES V4.3 as an indicator framework are valuable more generally because they provide evidence on the extent to which the classification captures the full range of services; key design criteria for CICES have been that, for at least in the upper levels of the hierarchy, the categories should be 'comprehensive ' and 'complete' (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2013). ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
The aim of this Deliverable is to report on the use of the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) to characterise the biophysical, social and economic methods of ecosystem assessments, and to identify how it can be further developed to support the needs of the user community. A first draft of this Deliverable was made available in 2016 and used to shape discussion in the various ESMERALDA workshops that took place during 2016-17. The objective of these meetings was to test a first version of the methodology for mapping and assessment of ecosystem services, and so close engagement with this work was necessary to ensure that the development and use of CICES was eventually integrated into the wider outcomes of ESMERALDA. This final Deliverable, prepared at the end of the Project, now describes both the preliminary work and the further developments that have taken place. CICES V4.3 was developed in the context of work on the revision of the System of Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA) that is being led by the United Nations Statistical Division (UNSD). However, it has also been used widely in ecosystem services research for designing indicators, mapping and for valuation. In the EU, it is being used as the basis of the mapping work that is being done in support of Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, under the MAES Programme. This report describes the structure and conceptual underpinning of CICES V4.3, and reviews the challenges that arise in designing a classification system of this kind. These challenges include the problem of scope, the extent to which ‘final ecosystem services’ can be defined operationally, and how benefits and uses of services can be distinguished from services so that assessments can be based on sound quantitative data. The review of CICES draws on a review of the published literature and a survey of users. The conclusions drawn from this review were both extended and tested through two workshops with the user community in 2016. The results of our work show that there is an extensive and established user base for CICES V4.3, and that it has a number of advantages for users in terms of its hierarchical structure, logic and coverage, as well as the potential it offers as a standard. The review has identified some shortcomings, however, many of which can be overcome by the development of guidelines and the provision of examples of different applications. These shortcomings, nevertheless, also point to the need to revise the present structure of the Classification, especially in the area of cultural ecosystem services. A systematic review of the wider ecosystem service literature has provided further insights into the ways in which CICES might be improved. This work has looked at whether the CICES classes are to narrow or too broad, and whether there is a need to provide better guidance at sub-class (Class-type level). Taken in conjunction with the other work discussed here, the review demonstrates that CICES V4.3 could nevertheless serve as an effective indicator framework, and that this function should also be supported in any revision. On the basis of the work done in ESMERALDA and in the wider user community, CICES V4.3 has been revised during 2017 on the basis of parallel work supported by the European Environment Agency. The outcome of the revision process (Version 5.1) are described also here together with the implications for ESMERALDA with its focus on the role of mapping in integrated assessment. The key recommendations we make are: • That just as V4.3 of CICES has been tested for its coverage and completeness, effort should now be made to critically examine the structure of the new CICES version V5.1. • The extent to which CICES 5.1 can support the clear description of the way ecosystem services are defined and measured should be examined and its use as a reference system based on concept matching techniques further explored. • That the CICES 5.1 ‘indicator’ and ‘methods’ library developed out of the work done in ESMERALDA should be published and used to facilitate the transfer of knowledge within the context of the MAES Process. • That future work should look at how CICES 5.1 can link to the ways we classify and characterise the condition of ecosystems, so that we can better understand the biophysical underpinnings of ecosystem services. • Future work should also look at the way we describe and classify benefits and beneficiaries, so that we can better document how people depend on or engage with nature over space and time. • That the relationship between CICES V5.1 and other classification systems is tested and its reference function developed further.
Technical Report
Free to download @ This report from the British Ecological Society (published 22 April 2022) examines the Prime Minister’s pledge to protect 30% of UK land and seas by 2030 to support nature recovery.
Full-text available
There is a need, in the ecosystem valuation literature to compliment the economic methods with sociocultural valuation methods that capture and facilitate a better understanding nuanced social and cultural values that are difficult to measure. Yet, sociocultural valuation methods are often critiqued for their lack of structured and replicable procedures and for often maintaining limited internal research validity. Accordingly, this paper demonstrates the development and application of a mixed-methods valuation approach to better recognize non-use social and cultural values by integrating the triad of deliberation, local ecological knowledge, and value quantification. We operationalized this method in Amman, Jordan where we analyzed how local experts value, based on their local ecological knowledge, the ecosystem services supplied by the City's urban water features (fountains, ponds, and streams). •The method adapts the conventional Q-method from an individual to a group activity by combining it with the deliberations of the focus group •The ensuing deliberative Q-method facilitates a structured valuation framework •The deliberative Q-method method produces rich qualitative data while using rigorous statistical analysis which: 1) improves internal research validity; 2) streamlines qualitative data coding; and 3) weighs competing values to better understand polarized and consensus views.
Full-text available
Os processos ecológicos dos ecossistemas são responsáveis pelo funcionamento dos sistemas ambientais e prestação de serviços para manutenção do bem-estar humano, denominados de Serviços Ecossistêmicos (SE). Compreender as interrelações entre processos e funções dos ecossistemas para os serviços prestados à sociedade, apresenta-se como um desafio para a Geografia, posto que está ciência tem como objeto de estudo a relação do homem com a natureza considerando a dinâmica espacial em que o primeiro está inserido. A presente proposta teve como objetivo discutir como a ciência geográfica embasa e contribui de forma teórico-metodológica para a discussão da dinâmica espacial dos Serviços Ecossistêmicos. O principal procedimento metodológico utilizado foi o levantamento, revisão e análise de material bibliográfico referente a temática abordada. Os conceitos, teorias e métodos presentes na Geografia podem contribuir em diferentes perspectivas para análise, identificação e classificação dos SE, como por exemplo, o conceito de paisagem e as abordagens das teorias Geossistêmica e da Ecologia da Paisagem. Desse modo, é notória a necessidade da integração de abordagens dentro do estudo dos Serviços Ecossistêmicos, visto a complexidade que envolve a dinâmica entre os ecossistemas e a sociedade.
Full-text available
In the context of considering natural capital in decision-making, the ecosystem services concept is steadily increasing in importance. This also holds for the forest sector in Germany. This development calls for a harmonisation of approaches and terms used in the forest sector, as well as being made compatible with the ecosystem services concept and relevant classifications. In Germany, and a number of Central European countries, a common way to assess the multifunctional benefits of forests is the forest function mapping method. Due to the federal multi-level governance system in Germany, each state has its own classification of forest functions and mapping. A first objective of this paper is to align the various forest function categories across German states as a basis to relate them to the ecosystem services concept. Second, this bottom-up approach is combined with a top-down approach, building on the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). The aim is to develop a harmonised, methodological framework, suitable for accounting forest-related ecosystem services, as a step towards future ecosystem services monitoring and reporting commitments in the forest sector. Finally, the challenges and opportunities of the ecosystem services concept for forest management are discussed and ways forward are elaborated.
Full-text available
This report synthesizes the findings from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment's (MA) global and sub-global assessments of how ecosystem changes do, or could, affect human health and well-being. Main topics covered are: Food, fresh water, timber, fibre, and fuel, nutrient and waste management, pollution, processing and detoxification, cultural, spiritual and recreational services, climate regulation, and extreme weather events. <br /
Full-text available
An increasing amount of information is being collected on the ecological and socio-economic value of goods and services provided by natural and semi-natural ecosystems. However, much of this information appears scattered throughout a disciplinary academic literature, unpublished government agency reports, and across the World Wide Web. In addition, data on ecosystem goods and services often appears at incompatible scales of analysis and is classified differently by different authors. In order to make comparative ecological economic analysis possible, a standardized framework for the comprehensive assessment of ecosystem functions, goods and services is needed. In response to this challenge, this paper presents a conceptual framework and typology for describing, classifying and valuing ecosystem functions, goods and services in a clear and consistent manner. In the following analysis, a classification is given for the fullest possible range of 23 ecosystem functions that provide a much larger number of goods and services. In the second part of the paper, a checklist and matrix is provided, linking these ecosystem functions to the main ecological, socio–cultural and economic valuation methods.
The relationship between biodiversity and the rapidly expanding research and policy field of ecosystem services is confused and is damaging efforts to create coherent policy. Using the widely accepted Convention on Biological Diversity definition of biodiversity and work for the U.K. National Ecosystem Assessment we show that biodiversity has key roles at all levels of the ecosystem service hierarchy: as a regulator of underpinning ecosystem processes, as a final ecosystem service and as a good that is subject to valuation, whether economic or otherwise. Ecosystem science and practice has not yet absorbed the lessons of this complex relationship, which suggests an urgent need to develop the interdisciplinary science of ecosystem management bringing together ecologists, conservation biologists, resource economists and others.
The beginning of academic disciplines lies in curiosity about the nature of the world, and especially in attempts to give order to this curiosity by finding ways to direct it. Such efforts can often be traced back to the philosophers and scientists of ancient Greece, and certainly the first formulation of geography as a coherent body of knowledge can be ascribed to Eratosthenes, the Greek librarian at Alexandria from about 234 to 196 B.C., who apparently coined the term to refer to the description of the earth.1 While there are doubts about whether the ‘geography’ of Eratosthenes meant the whole earth or just regions of it, and about whether descriptions were to be written or presented cartographically, it is clear that from its inception geography has served to satisfy a deep curiosity about what the world is like elsewhere.
Ecosystem services are the specific results of ecosystem processes that either directly sustain or enhance human life (as does natural protection from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays) or maintain the quality of ecosystem goods (as water purification maintains the quality of streamflow). "Ecosystem service" has come to represent several related topics ranging from the measurement to the marketing of ecosystem service flows. In this article we examine several of these topics by first clarifying the meaning of "ecosystem service" and then (1) placing ecosystem goods and services within an economic framework, emphasizing the role and limitations of substitutes; (2) summarizing the methods for valuation of ecosystem goods and services; and (3) reviewing the various approaches for their provision and financing. Many ecosystem services and some ecosystem goods are received without monetary payment. The "marketing" of ecosystem goods and services is basically an effort to turn such recipients - those who benefit without ownership - into buyers, thereby providing market signals that serve to help protect valuable goods and services. We review various formal arrangements for making this happen.