Content uploaded by Nicole E. Martinez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nicole E. Martinez on Dec 26, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
ICRP 2021
+1
Proceeding
https://doi.org/10.54320/TORO1291
246
An introduction to ecosystem services for radiological protection
N.E. Martineza,b, A. Canobac, S.E. Donahera, J. Garnier-Laplaced,
S. Kinasee, A. Mayallf, K. Starkg, J. Whickerh
a Department of Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, Clemson University, 342 Computer Ct, Anderson, SC
29625, USA; email: nmarti3@clemson.edu
b Center for Radiation Protection Knowledge, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box
2008, Oak Ridge, TN, 37831, USA
c ARN Autoridad Regulatoria Nuclear, Av del Libertador 8250, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, CP 1429, Argentina
d OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 46 quai Alphonse le Gallo, 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France
e Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Tokai-mura, Ibaraki, 3191195, Japan
f Environment Agency, Ghyll Mount, Gillan Way, Penrith, Cumbria, CA11 9BP, UK
g Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, 171 16 Stockholm, Sweden
h Independent Consultant, 844 A 43rd Street, Los Alamos, NM, 87544, USA
Abstract–It is important that the system of radiological protection provides for an appropriate level of
human and environmental protection without unduly limiting desirable human actions, adversely
affecting sustainable development, or resulting in unintended consequences. As such, there has been
increasing interest in incorporating monitoring and assessment of ecosystem services in many
contexts related to environmental protection and policy making. Ecosystem services are the benefits
humankind derives from the workings of the natural world, i.e., from ecosystems, and are crucial to
human well-being by, for example, providing nutritious food and clean water; regulating air quality;
supporting crop pollination and soil formation; and offering recreational, cultural, and spiritual
benefits. The mandate of the recently formed Task Group 125 is to explore and share knowledge on
ecosystem services by providing background and recommendations on if and how ecosystem services
can support a more holistic approach to environmental radiological protection (ERP) and, as
specifically relevant to ERP, explore how the system of radiological protection contributes to the
delivery of sustainable development. This paper provides an overview of ecosystem services and an
introduction to the ongoing work of Task Group 125.
Keywords: Ecosystem services; Sustainable development; Environmental radiological protection
1. INTRODUCTION
The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recently initiated the
long-term process of revising the 2007 Recommendations for the System of Radiological
Protection (the System) (ICRP, 2007). Several new task groups, including Task Group (TG)
125 on Ecosystem Services (ES) in Environmental Radiological Protection (ERP), have been
formed in support of this objective. Additionally, the needs and challenges related to a new set
of recommendations was a central theme of the 2022 symposium on the System from which
these proceedings were developed. In this context, this paper provides a brief overview of ES
along with the intended scope of work of TG 125.
In the current recommendations, the primary aim of the System is to contribute to an
appropriate level of protection for people and the environment against the detrimental effects
of radiation exposure without unduly limiting the desirable human actions that may be
associated with such exposure (ICRP, 2007). For radiological protection of the environment
specifically, protection objectives include preventing or reducing the frequency of deleterious
radiation effects to a level where they would have a negligible impact on the maintenance of
biological diversity, the conservation of species, or the health and status of natural habitats,
ICRP 2021+1 Proceeding
247
communities, and ecosystems, recognising that radiation exposure is one factor to consider
among many in environmental protection (ICRP, 2007).
A significant body of ERP work within the ICRP has been completed since the last set of
recommendations (e.g., ICRP, 2008, 2009, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2021) that will help support a
robust ERP approach in revised recommendations. Of note is that the historical approach to
ERP has largely been rooted in conservation of species with focus on organisms in the natural
environment, with an acknowledgement by Commission leadership that this may not be
sufficient when considering ecosystems that are created and managed by people for the
purposes of delivering goods, services, and cultural value for human populations (Clement et
al., 2021). Moreover, there has generally been increasing interest in incorporating ES
monitoring and assessment in many contexts related to environmental protection and policy
making (Daily and Matson, 2008; Daily et al., 2009; Fisher et al., 2009; Costanza et al., 2017).
Given this, TG 125 was formed with the mandate to explore and share knowledge on ES by
providing background and recommendations on if and how ES could be used within a more
holistic approach to ERP with consideration given to how the System contributes to sustainable
development (e.g., UN, 2015; Mayall, this issue). Publication 91 (ICRP, 2003) highlights
sustainable development as an important principle in ERP, defining it as relating to the need to
recognise the interdependence of economic development, environmental protection, and social
equity, and thus the obligation also to protect and provide for both the human and
environmental needs of present and future generations. Moreover, sustainable development
has strong ties to System’s core ethical values of prudence and justice (ICRP, 2018, 2022).
Thus, sustainable development is not a new consideration within the System. However, related
practical guidance and more robust discussion is warranted.
2. WHAT ARE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES?
Ecosystems provide numerous services that combined are critical to human well-being and
are worthy of protection (MA, 2005; TEEB, 2010; IPBES, 2019). Although there are a variety
of definitions and descriptions, simply put, ES are the benefits humankind derives from the
workings of the natural world. The phrase ‘ecosystem services’ was popularised by the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), published in 2005, although the underlying science
has been around since at least the late 1980s (MA, 2005; Costanza et al., 2017). ES can be
loosely divided into four major categories that are highly interlinked: provisioning services,
regulating services, cultural services, and supporting services (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Four categories of ecosystem services.
ICRP 2021+1 Proceeding
248
Provisioning services refer to the furnishing of direct, tangible ecosystem products. This
would include food (e.g. fruits, vegetables, meat, eggs), drinking water, raw materials (e.g.
timber, natural fibres, fuel sources), and biologically derived medicines and pharmaceuticals.
Although beneficial to humans in the short term, excessive demand for provisioning services
beyond the sustainable capacity of the ecosystem can result in degradation of ecosystem
integrity and ultimately reduction in the services relied upon (Palacios-Agundez et al., 2015).
Moreover, modification of one ecosystem service is also likely to impact other ecosystem
services and trade-offs between ecosystem services (e.g., an increase in food production that is
detrimental to water quality) should ideally be considered in associated decision-making.
Regulating services are the processes that moderate natural phenomena. This would include
regulation of local climate, air quality, water flow, soil erosion and quality, pests, and disease.
Pollination, water purification, carbon sequestration, and moderation of natural disasters are
also regulating services. The degradation of regulating ecosystem services is of concern due to
the expected cascading impacts on the other categories (Carpenter et al., 2009). Regulating
services have proven difficult to quantify and remain largely unnoticed in the daily activities
of the individuals they benefit, even though they consist of the majority of the total value in
most ES economic valuations (TEEB, 2010).
Cultural services are those that contribute to the identity and cultural well-being of people,
including the aesthetic beauty of the environment, outdoor recreational opportunities, and
religious or spiritual benefits. These benefits are often non-material and include improved
mental health, physical health, learning, inspiration, sense of control, identity, and more
(Huynh et al., 2022). Cultural ES contribute to individual, indigenous, scientific, and societal
knowledge of the environment and the individual’s sense of connection to the natural world
(Barbier et al., 2009; TEEB, 2010; Fish et al., 2016). Cultural ES are often augmented with
human infrastructure to provide improved access and increased derived benefits (e.g. a trail
and dock providing access to a lake) (Costanza et al., 2017).
Supporting services are those that enable and sustain the other ES. Supporting services
include the natural, foundational processes of the planet (e.g. water, nutrient, carbon, and rock
cycles; photosynthesis and primary production) as well as the structural and functional
backbone of ecosystems (e.g. habitats) (MA, 2005; TEEB, 2010). Note that some services can
be categorised as multiple types of services, and in some cases supporting services are
classified under regulating services in a three-category organisational scheme (Carpenter et al.,
2009). Supporting services typically impact people indirectly or over comparatively longer
time periods, compared to other categories of services that may have more obvious or
immediate impact.
This suite of ES can be impacted by radiological contamination of the environment as well
as decisions made with respect to such contamination. Accidents or other events resulting in
contamination of the environment have the obvious potential of impacting provisioning
services through contamination of food and water. Environmental contamination can also
influence provisioning services through interruption or prevention of the ability to processes,
manufacture, and distribute environmentally derived products (Smith and Beresford 2005).
Similarly, cultural services can be impacted by environmental contamination through, for
example, loss of access to activities like swimming, hiking, foraging, or gardening (Mabon,
2019; Matsuura, 2021).
Responses to radiological contamination of the environment can also impact ES, and ideally,
related decisions will consider potential cascading impacts associated with implemented
interventions. Evacuation following a nuclear accident will impact cultural services for
communities with strong ties to the land, which is an important aspect to consider when
working towards rehabilitation. Where remediation strategies may be necessary to protect
human health from potentially harmful radiation effects, remedial action(s) can often result in
ICRP 2021+1 Proceeding
249
environmental degradation or indirect harm to human well-being. For example, removal of
topsoil can impact both regulating services, through reduction in erosion control and soil
nutrient availability, and supporting services, through alteration of habitats. Remediation
considerations are also discussed in TG 98, which is concerned with sites contaminated from
past activities.
These are simple, non-comprehensive examples; real scenarios have much greater
complexity and variability than described here. Additionally, an open question remains for TG
125 regarding the practical incorporation of ES concepts into the existing ERP framework, e.g.,
if and how metrics related to ES monitoring and assessment could be related to criteria such as
Derived Consideration Reference Levels (DCRLs), or how inclusion of ES might differ
between exposure situations (i.e., planned, existing, or emergency).
3. CONSIDERATIONS
Although ES have become a popular research focus among ecologists and economists,
many have not embraced the concept (Silvertown, 2015). Schröter et al. (2014) reviews several
major critiques of the ES concept. First, a focus on ES could be considered regressive from an
environmental ethics perspective due to the anthropocentric framing of the definition of ES.
Second, the robust body of work on the economic valuation of ES highlight the suspect
feasibility and ethics of the commodification of nature. Finally, the inconsistency of various
ES definitions and classification systems may potentially impede ES research or prohibit
comparisons among studies. These three major criticisms and respective counter arguments are
elaborated further below.
1.1. Environmental ethics
Given that radiation can have deleterious effects on non-human species, the Commission
recommends that an ethically-based radiological protection framework be applied to the
environment (ICRP, 2003, 2018). This recommendation is motivated by substantial science
showing that humanity is intertwined and dependent on nature whose resources are finite. Thus,
there has been emphasis on moral and scientific grounds that justify policies to protect the
environment. Since the 1960s, there has been a significant evolution of thought on
environmental ethics toward realising the value of nature goes beyond just the resources it
supplies to humans (anthropocentric view), but that nature contains an equal intrinsic value and
is by itself worthy of protection (biocentric and ecocentric views).
Critics often label the ES concept as anthropocentric, a regressive perspective compared to
the growing interest in protecting nature for nature’s own sake and recognition of the overall
intrinsic value of nature recently promoted in environmental protection (Gagnon Thompson
and Baron, 1994; Schröter et al., 2014). For example, the integrity of nature may not be
respected if the outcome of ecosystem services is specifically intended to be the promotion of
human well-being (Islam et al., 2019); the impacts of environmental pollution (including
radioactive materials) should be considered holistically and evaluated in terms of their effects
not only on humans but equally on other components within impacted ecosystems.
Advocates of the ES concept reject this criticism as an over-simplification and emphasise
that the intrinsic value of nature can be captured within the existing ES framework, as many of
the services within the cultural services category rely upon the simple existence of nature (e.g.,
the aesthetic beauty of nature). Additionally, supporters argue that ES can encourage
sustainable use of the biosphere by highlighting the connections between human populations
and nature and reinforcing the knowledge that human well-being is dependent upon ES (Folke
et al., 2011; Raymond et al., 2013; Schröter et al., 2014; Costanza et al., 2017).
ICRP 2021+1 Proceeding
250
1.2. Economic framing
In their seminal paper, Costanza et al. (1997) made an initial attempt at assigning a
monetary value to the world’s ES which garnered a significant amount of both admiration and
criticism among ecologists, economists, and decision-makers (Turner et al., 1998; Parks and
Gowdy, 2013). Debate surrounded the paper’s methodology, the accuracy of the final
calculated value ($33 trillion USD in 1997), and ultimately the ethics of valuating the biosphere
(Norgaard and Bode, 1998; Serafy, 1998). The authors and other proponents of economic
valuation of ES readily acknowledged the paper’s shortcomings, including assumptions of
unrealistic homogeneity across biomes and large uncertainties in the quantitative values used,
but maintained that the paper represented a much-needed preliminary effort at valuating the
environment (Costanza et al., 1998). Certainly, the study succeeded in opening avenues of
study within the context of ES and strengthening both positive and negative interest in ES.
Criticisms of the ES concept often include an overarching condemnation of the economic
valuation of nature. Some authors argue that the value of nature is infinite, thwarting any
attempt at valuation (McCauley, 2006). Others address that assigning monetary values to ES
can result in the commodification of nature and the subsequent ‘selling off’ of ecosystems and
biodiversity (Turnhout et al., 2013). Of particular concern is that commodification may create
equity issues wherein disparate access to ES can cause a cascading decline in other economic
well-being metrics among marginalised members of a community (Corbera et al., 2007;
Gómez-Baggethun and Ruiz-Pérez, 2011). Additional criticisms of the economic framing of
ES include assertions that the economic valuation methods commonly employed are
inappropriate and that the results can be misleading for policy makers (Serafy, 1998; Toman,
1998).
In response, ES proponents maintain that valuation does not necessarily equate to
monetisation and that monetary valuation is simply an additional tool used for environmental
protection and decision-making and is not intended to be the sole guiding metric (Costanza et
al., 2017). Additionally, ES supporters argue that valuation of nature occurs regardless of
whether deliberate monetary valuation assignment occurs and that both individuals and
organisations make environmental decisions and compromises based on their own internal
value of the environment (Costanza et al., 1998). While valuation is useful in decision-making
contexts, nonmarket indicators such as biophysical and social measurements could serve as
alternatives to traditional monetary valuation (Schröter et al., 2014). Dasgupta (2021) argues
that natural capital (i.e., natural assets or natural resources, stocks of which influence flows of
ecosystem services over time; Maseyuk et al., 2016) into national accounting systems would
be a critical step towards fully accounting for nature’s worth to society as the true value of ES
is not reflected in market prices leading to underinvestment in natural assets.
1.3. Clarity of ES concepts and approaches
The final major criticism is that many of the components of the ES concept are ambiguously
defined and injudiciously used. Importantly, the underlying philosophy behind the definitions
often differ, challenging the guiding principles behind the purpose of studying, assessing, and
managing ES (Nahlik et al., 2012). In particular, there is a discrepancy between whether
general ecosystem processes and functions or only human-derived benefits fall under the ES
category. This is one contributing factor to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) adopting the phrase ‘nature’s contributions to
people’, which is intended to be an expansion of the concept of ES (IPBES, 2019). Other
criticisms regarding ES terminology are concerned with the distinction between services and
goods, and whether the differentiation between the two is relevant when discussing
ICRP 2021+1 Proceeding
251
environmental protection. Vague definitions can be challenging from a regulatory perspective
with respect to consistency and equity in interpretation and application.
Others have argued the ambiguous definitions and varied classification systems in ES have
been beneficial, facilitating flexibility for contextualisation of various ES applications,
interdisciplinary collaboration, and creativity (Schröter et al., 2014). There is significant
overlap and similarities between some of the most common classification systems, permitting
comparisons between them (MA, 2005; TEEB, 2010; IPBES 2019). Proponents of ES accept
that the ambiguous definitions can make implementing ES ‘messy’ and suggest that the
meanings selected must be tailored to particular contexts and stakeholders and made clear when
applied to real-world scenario (Jax et al., 2018). The Environment Agency in England has
developed ES Case Studies and consolidates a list of practical lessons learned, ultimately
concluding that the ES can be a helpful tool within an overall assessment (EA 2009), in
particular by adopting a natural capital approach (HMT, 2022).
4. SCOPE OF ONGOING AND FUTURE WORK
The Commission recognises the importance of ecosystems and acknowledges that
corresponding elaboration on the current System would be useful to help clarify the
Commission’s philosophy toward protection of the environment beyond what is currently
discussed in the most recent recommendations. Moreover, the role of sustainable development,
recognised as an important ethical principle relevant in RP (ICRP, 2003, 2018), could use more
explicit discussion and elaboration. This may include revisiting the definition of ‘environment’
to be more robust. For example, the International Atomic Energy Agency has a broad definition
for protection of the environment (IAEA, 2022), consistent with ES and sustainable
development: Protection and conservation of: non-human species, both animal and plant, and
their biodiversity; environmental goods and services such as the production of food and feed;
resources used in agriculture, forestry, fisheries and tourism; amenities used in spiritual,
cultural and recreational activities; media such as soil, water and air; and natural processes such
as carbon, nitrogen and water cycles. A simpler expression of these ideas would be that ERP
refers broadly to protection of both natural and managed environments, prioritising but not
limited to non-human life, from the detrimental effects of ionising radiation exposure in support
of sustainable development and the overall well-being of humanity.
With respect to ERP, the System clearly seeks to support and promote good health and
well-being, life below water, and life on land, which are three of the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals (3, 15, and 15 respectively; UN, 2015), although the question remains how
the System can more clearly and robustly support specific aspects of these (and other) goals,
e.g. sustainable use of resources. ES has the potential to serve as a bridge between incorporation
of ecosystem endpoints and sustainable development. Of note is the role of the Commission is
not to prescribe valuation methods or similar; this type of determination is for ecologists,
economists, etc. Rather, the Commission is considering the potential for ES to be useful in RP
in support of a more robust approach to ERP. To that end, several TGs are actively and
collaboratively addressing complementary goals related to ERP (Garnier-Laplace, et al., this
issue). Among them is TG 125, within which the scope of work is to:
• Define ecosystem services in the context of ERP based on currently accepted definitions;
• Review and describe practical examples in which ecosystem services have been
incorporated into RP decision-making;
• Explore the link(s) between ERP, promotion of well-being, and sustainable development;
• Consult with organisations to understand how other similar protection frameworks consider
ecosystem services and/or sustainable development; and
ICRP 2021+1 Proceeding
252
• Provide recommendations for if and how ecosystem services (and other environmental
management tools or concepts as relevant) should be used to promote a holistic approach in
ERP with consideration of sustainable development and practical application, e.g., the
relationship to DCRLs or other potential assessment criteria.
REFERENCES
Barbier, E.B., Baumgärtner, S., Chopra, K., et al., 2009. The valuation of ecosystem services.
In: Naeem, S., Bunker, D.E., Hector, A., et al. (Eds.), Biodiversity, ecosystem functioning,
and human wellbeing: An ecological and economic perspective. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Carpenter, S.R., Mooney, H.A., Agard, J., et al., 2009. Science for managing ecosystem
services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 1305–1312.
Clement, C., Rühm, W., Harrison, J., et al., 2021. Keeping the ICRP recommendations fit for
purpose. J. Radiol. Prot. 41, 1390–1409.
Corbera, E., Kosoy, N., Martínez Tuna, M., 2007. Equity implications of marketing ecosystem
services in protected areas and rural communities: Case studies from Meso-America. Glob.
Environ. Change 17, 365–380.
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., et al., 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services
and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., et al., 1998. The value of ecosystem services: putting
the issues in perspective. Ecol. Econ. 25, 67–72.
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., et al., 2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far
have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 1–16.
Daily, G.C., Matson, P.A., 2008. Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation. P. Natl.
Acad. Sci. 105, 9455–9456.
Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., et al., 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making:
time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 21–28.
Dasgupta, P., 2021. The economics of biodiversity: The Dasgupta review. HM Treasury,
London.
EA, 2009. Ecosystem services case studies. UK Environment Agency, Bristol.
Fish, R., Church, A., Winter, M., 2016. Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: a novel
framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosyst. Serv. 21, 208–217.
Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for
decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68, 643–653.
Folke, C., Jansson, Å., Rockström, J., et al., 2011. Reconnecting to the biosphere. AMBIO 40,
719.
Gagnon Thompson, S.C., Barton, M.A., 1994. Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward
the environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 14, 149–157.
Garnier-Laplace, J., Martinez, N.E., Copplestone, D., Schneider, T., Mayall, A., Larsson, C.M.,
2023. Protection of the environment from exposure to ionising radiation: why and how
evolution is timely for the ICRP system. Ann. ICRP (this issue).
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Ruiz-Pérez, M., 2011. Economic valuation and the commodification of
ecosystem services. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth and Environment 35, 613–628.
HMT, 2022. The Green Book: Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation.
HM Treasury, London.
Huynh, L.T.M., Gasparatos, A., Su, J., et al., 2022. Linking the nonmaterial dimensions of
human-nature relations and human well-being through cultural ecosystem services. Sci.
Adv. 8, eabn8042.
ICRP 2021+1 Proceeding
253
IAEA, 2022. IAEA Nuclaer Safety and Security Glossary. 2022 (Interim) Edition. International
Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
ICRP, 2003. A Framework for Assessing the Impact of Ionising Radiation on Non-Human
Species. ICRP Publication 91. Ann. ICRP 33(3).
ICRP, 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 37(2–4).
ICRP, 2008. Environmental Protection - the Concept and Use of Reference Animals and Plants.
ICRP Publication 108. Ann. ICRP 38(4–6).
ICRP, 2009. Environmental Protection: Transfer Parameters for Reference Animals and Plants.
ICRP Publication 114. Ann. ICRP 39(6).
ICRP, 2014. Protection of the Environment Under Different Exposure Situations. ICRP
Publication 124. Ann. ICRP 43(1).
ICRP, 2017. Dose Coefficients for Non-Human Biota Environmentally Exposed to Radiation.
ICRP Publication 136. Ann. ICRP 46(2).
ICRP, 2018. Ethical Foundations of the System of Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication
138. Ann. ICRP 47(1).
ICRP, 2020. Radiological Protection of People and the Environment in the Event of a Large
Nuclear Accident: Update of ICRP Publications 109 and 111. ICRP Publication 146. Ann.
ICRP 49(4).
ICRP, 2021. Radiation Weighting for Reference Animals and Plants. ICRP Publication 148.
Ann. ICRP 50(2).
ICRP, 2022. Radiological Protection in Veterinary Practice. ICRP Publication 153. Ann. ICRP
51(4).
IPBES, 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
(version 1). Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services, Bonn.
Islam, M., Yamaguchi, R., Sugiawan, Y., et al., 2019. Valuing natural capital and ecosystem
services: A literature review. Sustain. Sci. 14, 159–174.
Jax, K., Furman, E., Saarikoski, H., et al., 2018. Handling a messy world: Lessons learned
when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 415–
427.
MA, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Millennium ecosystem assessment.
Island Press, Washington, DC.
Mabon, L., 2019. Enhancing post-disaster resilience by ‘building back greener’: Evaluating the
contribution of nature-based solutions to recovery planning in Futaba County, Fukushima
Prefecture, Japan. Landscape Urban Plan 187, 105–118.
Maseyk, F.J.F., Mackay, A.D., Possingham, H.P., et al., 2017. Managing Natural Capital
Stocks for the Provision of Ecosystem Services. Conserv. Lett. 10, 211–220.
Matsuura, T., 2021. Assessment of potentially reusable edible wild plant and mushroom
gathering sites in eastern Fukushima based on external radiation dose. J. Environ. Radioact.
227, 106465.
Mayall, A., 2023. Developing the system of radiological protection to enhance its contribution
to sustainable development. Ann. ICRP (this issue).
McCauley, D.J., 2006. Selling out on nature. Nature 443, 27–28.
Nahlik, A.M., Kentula, M.E., Fennessy, M.S., Landers, D.H., 2012. Where is the consensus?
A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice. Ecol. Econ.
77, 27–35.
Norgaard, R.B., Bode, C., 1998. Next, the value of God, and other reactions. Ecol. Econ. 25,
37–39.
ICRP 2021+1 Proceeding
254
Palacios-Agundez, I., Onaindia, M., Barraqueta, P., et al., 2015. Provisioning ecosystem
services supply and demand: The role of landscape management to reinforce supply and
promote synergies with other ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 47, 145–155.
Parks, S., Gowdy, J., 2013. What have economists learned about valuing nature? A review
essay. Ecosyst. Serv. 3, e1–e10.
Raymond, C.M., Singh, G.G., Benessaiah, K., et al., 2013. Ecosystem services and beyond:
using multiple metaphors to understand human-environment relationships. BioScience 63,
536–546.
Schröter, M., van der Zanden, E.H., van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., et al., 2014. Ecosystem services
as a contested concept: A synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conserv. Lett. 7,
514–523.
Serafy, S.E., 1998. Pricing the invaluable: the value of the world’s ecosystem services and
natural capital. Ecol. Econ. 25, 25–27.
Silvertown, J., 2015. Have ecosystem services been oversold? Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 641–648.
Smith, J.T., Beresford, N.A., 2005. Chernobyl: Catastrophe and consequences. Springer,
Berlin.
TEEB, 2010. Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach,
conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity, Geneva.
Toman, M., 1998. Why not to calculate the value of the world's ecosystem services and natural
capital. Ecol. Econ. 25, 57–60.
Turner, R.K., Adger, W.N., Brouwer, R., 1998. Ecosystem services value, research needs, and
policy relevance: A commentary. Ecol. Econ. 25, 61–65.
Turnhout, E., Waterton, C., Neves, K., et al., 2013. Rethinking biodiversity: From goods and
services to “living with”. Conserv. Lett. 6, 154–161.
UN, 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
A/RES/70/1. United Nations, New York. Available at https://sdgs.un.org/goals.
