Ecosystem services classification: A systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Ecological

Indicators

j ou rn a l h om ep a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e /e c o l i n d

Original

Articles

Ecosystem

services

classiﬁcation:

A

systems

ecology

perspective

of

the

cascade

framework

Alessandra

La

Notte

a,∗

_,

_Dalia

_D’Amato

b,∗

_,

_Hanna

_Mäkinen

c

_,

_Maria

_Luisa

_Paracchini

a

_,

Camino

Liquete

a

_,

_Benis

_Egoh

d,e

_,

_Davide

_Geneletti

f

_,

_Neville

_D.

_Crossman

g

a_European_Commission_-_Joint_Research_Centre,_Directorate_D_–_Sustainable_Resources,_Via_Enrico_Fermi_2749,₂₁₀₂₇_Ispra,_VA,_Italy b_University_of_Helsinki,_Department_of_Forest_Sciences,_{Latokartanonkaari}_7,_Helsinki,_00014,_Finland

c_Lappeenranta_University_of_Technology,_School_of_Energy_Systems,_{Sustainability}_Science,_Saimaankatu_11,₁₅₁₄₀_Lahti,_Finland d_Council_for_Scientiﬁc_and_Industrial_Research,_Natural_Resources_and_The_Environment,_PO_Box_320,_Stellenbosch_7599,_South_Africa e_School_of_{Agricultural,}_Earth_and_{Environmental}_Sciences,_University_of_{KwaZulu-Natal,}₂₇_Private_Bag_X01,_Scottsville_3209,_South_Africa f_University_of_Trento,_Department_of_Civil,_{Environmental}_and_Mechanical_Engineering,_Via_Mesiano_77,₃₈₁₂₃_Trento,_Italy

g_CSIRO_Land_and_Water,_Waite_Campus,_Adelaide,_South_Australia,_5064,_Australia

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory: Received18April2016 Receivedinrevisedform 17November2016 Accepted18November2016 Availableonline9December2016 Keywords:

Systemsecology Ecosystemfunctioning Cascadeframework Ecologicaltheory

Ecosystemserviceclassiﬁcation

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Ecosystemservicesresearchfacesseveralchallengesstemmingfromthepluralityofinterpretationsof classificationsandterminologies.Inthispaperweidentifytwomainchallengeswithcurrentecosystem servicesclassificationsystems:i)theinconsistencyacrossconcepts,terminologyanddefinitions,and;ii) themixupofprocessesandend-statebenefits,orflowsandassets.Althoughdifferentecosystemservice definitionsandinterpretationscanbevaluableforenrichingtheresearchlandscape,itisnecessaryto addresstheexistingambiguitytoimprovecomparabilityamongecosystem-service-basedapproaches. Usingthecascadeframeworkasareference,andSystemsEcologyasatheoreticalunderpinning,we aimtoaddresstheambiguityacrosstypologies.Thecascadeframeworklinksecologicalprocesseswith elementsofhumanwell-beingfollowingapatternsimilartoaproductionchain.SystemsEcologyisa long-establisheddisciplinewhichprovidesinsightintocomplexrelationshipsbetweenpeopleandthe environment.Wepresentarefreshedconceptualizationofecosystemserviceswhichcansupport ecosys-temserviceassessmenttechniquesandmeasurement.Wecombinethenotionsofbiomass,information andinteractionfromsystemecology,withtheecosystemservicesconceptualizationtoimprove defini-tionsandclarifyterminology.Wearguethatecosystemservicesshouldbedefinedastheinteractions(i.e. processes)oftheecosystemthatproduceachangeinhumanwell-being,whileecosystemcomponentsor goods,i.e.countableasbiomassunits,areonlyproxiesintheassessmentofsuchchanges.Furthermore, SystemsEcologycansupportare-interpretationoftheecosystemservicesconceptualizationandrelated appliedresearch,wheremoreemphasisisneededontheunderpinningcomplexityoftheecological system.

1. Introduction

Ecosystem services is now widely used among scientists

and policymakers tohighlight the importanceof the

environ-ment (including biodiversity) in sustaining human livelihoods

(Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010, 1998; Costanza and Kubiszewski,2012;Maesetal.,2016).Animportantmilestoneof

ecosystemserviceresearchwastheMillenniumEcosystem

Assess-∗ Correspondingauthors.

E-mailaddresses:alessandra.la-notte@jrc.ec.europa.eu(A.LaNotte),

dalia.damato@helsinki.ﬁ(D.D’Amato).

ment (MA, 2005)which made prominentthe idea that human

well-being depends on ecosystems,and that suchlinkages can

betrackedandframedthroughthenotionofecosystemservices.

TheMAfoundthatmorethan60%ofecosystemservicesisbeing

degradedortransformedendangeringfuturehumanwell-being.

Ecosystemservicesresearchhassinceprogressedatdifferent

levels—fromtheoreticalconceptualizationtopracticalapplications

(seeBraatanddeGroot,2012;Egohetal.,2012;Seppeltetal.,2011; Potschinetal.,2016forareview).Thisworkhasbeensupportedby

severalinternationalinitiativessuchasTheEconomicsof

Ecosys-tem and Biodiversity(TEEB, 2010), the UK National Ecosystem

Assessment(UKNEA,2011)andseveralEuropeanUnionresearch

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.030

(2)

projects.1_In_addition,_some_{organizations}_have_supported_this

pro-cesswithmodelingtoolssuchastheUSNaturalCapitalProject

withtheIntegrated ValuationofEcosystemServicesand

Trade-offs(InVEST)tool.Theprivatesectorhavealsoadoptedtheconcept

throughinitiativessuchastheNaturalCapitalCoalition(NCC),the

WorldBank’sWealthAccountingandtheValuationofEcosystem

Services(WAVES),theaccountingsystemdevelopedbytheLondon

Group,whichisalsobeingadoptedbytheUnitedNations

Environ-mentalProgram(UNEP).

However,therehasbeeninconsistencyindevelopinga

frame-work within which such research and policy assessments are

carriedout.TheheMA(2005)andsubsequentecosystemservices

literature(BoydandBanzhaf,2007; Fisheretal., 2009;

Haines-YoungandPotschin,2012;LandersandNahlik,2013;Staubetal., 2011;Wallace,2007)havedevelopedmanydifferentconceptual

andempiricalframeworksandassessmentofchangesin

ecosys-tems,theirconsequencesforhumans,andactionsforsustainable

useof these ecosystems(Albert et al., 2015). The existence of

numerousecosystemserviceconceptualizationsandclassiﬁcation

systemshasledtoapluralityintheinterpretationofecosystem

servicesandrelatedterminologyanddeﬁnitionswhenitcomesto

applications(Boeremaetal.,2016).Largedifferencesin

interpreta-tionarefoundinthemeaningofbiophysicalstructure,ecological

functions,intermediateservicesandﬁnalservices(e.g.Landersand

Nahlik,2013;Mononenetal.,2016;Spangenbergetal.,2014;UK NEA,2011;TEEB,2010).Theconsequenceofsuchdifferencesisthe

ecosystemserviceclassiﬁcationsystemshavepoorcorrespondence

ofserviceswithbeneﬁtsandblurreddistinctionsbetween

interme-diateandﬁnalservices.Amongthese,theCommonInternational

ClassiﬁcationforEcosystemServices(CICES),proposedbythe

Euro-pean Environment Agency, hasbecome an important frame of

referenceforecosystemservicesresearch(Maesetal.,2014).CICES

andmostecosystemservicesliteraturearebasedonandinﬂuenced

bythecascadeframeworkproposedbyHaines-Young&Potschin

in2010(Haines-YoungandPotschin,2010;Potschinand Haines-Young,2016).Thepurposeofthecascadeframeworkisinfactto

showthepathwayofecosystemservicesfromecologicalstructures

andprocessestohumanwell-being.

In this context, theneed to develop a framework to assess

ecosystemservices isa priorityin ecosystemservices research.

Althoughindividualinterpretationsenrichtheresearchlandscape,

theambiguitymustbeaddressedsothatamorerigorous

frame-workforecosystemservicescanbedevelopedandadopted.Such

a framework would improve comparability among

ecosystem-service-based approaches and would provide a standardized

approachforecosystemassessmentsatglobalandnationalscales.

Thefurtherevolutionofecosystemservicesconceptsand

frame-workscoulddrawfromtheﬁeld ofsystemsecology whichcan

provideinsightsintoourunderstandingofthedifferentaspectsof

ecosystemfunctioningthatcontributestoecosystemservices.This

interdisciplinaryﬁeldofsystemsecologyadoptsaholisticapproach

tothestudyofecologicalandhumansystems.Conceptsfrom

eco-logicaltheoryhavebeenalreadydiscussedinpreviousliterature

inrelationtoecosystemservices,e.g.ecologicalintegrityand

com-plexity,resilience(Kremen,2005;Brand,2008).Ourpaperaims

tosystematicallyadoptkeyconceptsfromsystemsecologyto

re-deﬁneecosystemservicesandtherelatedcascadeframework.The

contributionofourpaperistopresentarefreshed

conceptualiza-tionofecosystemservicesthroughthelensofsystemsecology.

1_e.g._RUBICODE_{(Rationalizing}_Biodiversity_Conservation_in_Dynamic

Ecosys-tems),SCALES(SecuringtheConservationofbiodiversityacrossAdministrative Levelsandspatial,temporal,andEcologicalScales),OpenNESS(Operationalization ofNaturalCapitalandEcosystemServices)andESMERALDA(EnhancingecoSysteM sERvicesmAppingforpoLicyandDecisionmAking)

Weﬁrstlyidentifythemainchallengesassociatedwiththe

var-iousinterpretationsofthecascadeframework(Section2.1)andof

theexistingclassiﬁcationsystemswhosestructureandmeaning

doesdependonthechosentheoreticalframework(Section2.2).

Secondly,weintroducekeyconceptsfromthedisciplineofsystems

ecology(Section3)toaddresstheidentiﬁedchallenges(Section4).

Weﬁnallyconcludebydiscussingthecontributionofourrefreshed

conceptualizationofecosystemservices(Section5).

2. Currentchallengesinecosystemservicesresearch

2.1. Challengeswiththeuseoftheecosystemservicescascade

The cascade framework proposed by Haines-Young and

Potschin(2010)linksnaturalsystemstoelementsofhuman

well-being, following a pattern similar to a production chain: from

ecologicalstructuresandprocessesgeneratedbyecosystems,tothe

servicesandbeneﬁtseventuallyderivedbyhumans.Theadvantage

ofthisframework istoeffectivelycommunicatesocietal

depen-denceonecosystems.

Challenges arise when applying this cascade framework in

practice,duetothesimultaneouspresenceintheframeworkof

bio-centeredandhuman-centeredspheres.Thismeansthatecosystem

servicesassessmentsinclude:

• observationsfroma bio-centredor holisticapproach-i.e.

bio-physical structures and processes/functions belonging to the

ecologicalsphereandwhichareconsideredasawhole,

• observationsfromareductionist orhuman-centred

approach-i.e.ecosystemserviceswhichareprojectedtowardsthehuman

end-usesideindividually.

Thischallengeisevidentwhenwetrytomeasureecosystem

services,whicharecategorizedandaccountedforindividually.2

Inaddition,differentdeﬁnitionsofecosystemservicesandin

particular oftheelements inthe cascadeframework are found

intheliterature:biophysicalstructure,process,function,service,

beneﬁt.3_As_an_example,_Table₁_summarizes_the_deﬁnitions

pro-videdinrecentecosystemservicesstudies.Forinstance,ecosystem

structure is often poorlydistinguishedfrom processes. Wallace

(2007,p.237)proposesthat‘animportantdistinction[between

thetwo]isthattheformeraregenerallytangibleentitiesdescribed

intermsofamount,whilethelatterare[...]generallydescribedin

termsofrates’.

Furthermore,thewordfunctionisgenerallyused

interchange-ablywithecologicalprocessand/orecosystemservice.According

toJax(2005),theterm‘function’isoftenusedtooambiguously.

Ecosystemservicesaregenerallydeﬁnedas theecosystem

pro-cessesconsideredusefultohumans(MA,2005;TEEB, 2010).In

the same light, some studies(ref. Table1) that have assessed,

mappedorvaluedecosystemservices,useservicesand beneﬁts

assynonyms. Beneﬁtsarein somecasesconsideredastangible

naturalresourcesderived fromprovisioningservices(e.g.crops,

wood,water),orsomeregulatingservices(e.g.cleanwaterfor

mul-tipleusesprovidedbywaterpuriﬁcation).Beneﬁts,however,can

alsobeintangible(e.g.recreationopportunitiesofferedbynature).

2_Note_that_some_authors,_e.g._Mononen_et_al.₍₂₀₁₆₎_have_suggested_to_highlight

theprocess-likenatureofecosystemservicesdeliveryassocio-ecologicalsystems, thusmaintainingtheholisticapproachonthefocus.

3_The_cascade_model_does_indeed_include,_after_{‘beneﬁt’,}_also_the_‘value’_step_that

assignstobenefitsaquantificationinmonetaryterms.Theeconomicvaluationof ecosystemservicesisafieldofresearchandapplicationsthatdoesnotaffectthe specificconceptualanalysisproposedinthispaper.Inordertokeepfocusedonthe mainobjectivesofthepaper,wethuschoosenottoincludethe‘value’boxatthis stage.

(3)

Table1

Deﬁnitionsandexamplesofecosystemservicesterminologyaccordingtoselectedpeer-reviewedliterature.

Author& proposed application

Biophysicalstructure Process Function Ecosystemservices Good Beneﬁt

Batemanetal. (2011)

e.g.animals,birds, plantsandtheir connections,etc.

e.g.nutrientcycling Primaryecological processes Flowofservices (outcomeofstructure andprocesses) providedbyecological assetsinsome assessmentperiod. Anyobjector constructwhich generateshuman wellbeing(physical andnon).

Thechangeinhuman well-beinggeneratedbya good(use-valueandnon). Thesamegoodcan generatedifferentvalues, dependingonthecontext.

Boydand Banzhaf(2007)

Seedeﬁnitionfor ‘process’ Biological,chemical, andphysical interactionsbetween ecosystem components.Functions andprocessesarenot end-products;theyare intermediatetothe productionofﬁnal ecosystemservices.

Seedeﬁnitionfor ‘process’

Theuseofecological assetoversometime period.

Thingsdirectly enjoyedor consumedby households.

Abeneﬁte.g.recreation, arisesfromthejointuseof ﬁnalecosystemservices andconventionalgoods andservices.

Fisheretal. (2009)

Seedeﬁnitionfor ‘ecosystemservices’

Theyareecologicalin nature,inthat aestheticvalues, culturalcontentment andrecreationarenot ecosystemservices. Ecosystemservicesare ecologicalcomponents, functionsand/or processes,aslongas therearehuman beneﬁciaries.

na Abenefithasanexplicit impactonchangesin humanwellfare,likemore food,betterhiking,less flooding.Forexample, aesthethicvalues,cultural contentmentand recreationarebenefitand notjustafunctionofthe ecosystem,butinclude otherinputslikehuman capital,builtcapital,etc.

Maesetal. (2016)

Thearchitectureofan ecosystemasaresultof theinteraction betweentheabiotic, physicalenvironment andthebiotic communities,in particularvegetation

Anychangeorreaction whichoccurswithin ecosystems,physical, chemicalorbiological. Ecosystemprocesses includedecomposition, production,nutrient cycling,andﬂuxesof nutrientsandenergy

Subsetofthe interactionsbetween biophysicalstructures, biodiversityand ecosystemprocesses thatunderpinthe capacityofan ecosystemtoprovide ecosystemservices

Thedirectandindirect contributionsof ecosystemstohuman wellbeing(TEEB,2010). Theactuallyused service. Theconcept ’ecosystemgoods andservices’is synonymouswith ecosystemservices. Positivechangein wellbeingfromthe fulﬁlmentofneedsand wants(TEEB,2010) Müllerand Burkhard (2012) Biophysicalstructures andprocesses (ecosystemproperties) arelinkedinthe cascadecomponentof ecosystemfunctions. Theyareunderstoodas thebasicproducersof ecosystemservices.

Seedeﬁnitionfor ‘biophysicalstrucuture’

Ecologicalintegrity Directandindirect contributionsof ecosystemstructures andfunctions

na intendedassocial, economicandpersonal well-being

Mononenetal. (2016)

Biophysicalstructures thatcreatethebasisfor functioningofthe ecosystem.Spatial perspective. na Functioningof ecosystemthatis neededtoproduce ecosystemservices. Temporalperspective.

na Theusedshareof thepotentialof ecosystemservices. Beneftscanbealso non-material.

Economic,social,health (physicalorspiritual)and intrinsicvalueofthe beneﬁt. Spanenberg etal.(2014) Biophysicalstructure orprocessincludes habitattype

Seedeﬁnitionfor ‘biophysicalstrucuture’

e.g.woodproduction Collectingor harvestingwood(that isthehumanactivityof withdrawingthe naturalasset)

Contributionto aspectsof well-beingsuchas healthandsafety

Willingnesstopayfor morewoodlandor harvestableproducts.

TEEB(2010) Biophysicalstructure orprocess=vegetation coverorNetPrimary Productivity

seeBiophysical structure

Thepotentialthat ecosystemshaveto deliveraservicewhich inturndependson ecologicalstructure andprocesses.

Conceptualizationsof the“usefulthings” ecosystems“do”for people,directlyand indirectly

na Welfaregainsgeneratedby ecosystemservices

Wallace(2007) na Thecomplex interactions(events, recreationsor operations)among bioticandabiotic elementsof

ecosystemsthatleadto adeﬁniteresult.

Seedeﬁnitionfor ‘process’

Beneﬁtsthatpeople obtainfrom ecosystems;the outcomessought throughecosystem management. na Preferredend-statesof existence,includingthose requiredforhuman survivalandreproductive success,whichtaken togethercircumscribe humanwell-being.These excludeintrinsicvalue.

(4)

Haines-YoungandPotschin(2009,p.17)proposea‘pragmaticway

forward’,statingthat‘themainissueistoensuretherigorofthe

outputsfromouranalysisandnotbecomepreoccupiedwith

def-initions,henceeffortsshouldbedirectedto:achievingconsistent

valuationandnodoublecounting’.

Moreuniﬁedandshareddeﬁnitions,however,canbehelpfulin

ensuringtherigorofpracticalassessments,andallowadegreeof

comparabilityamongstudies.Inparticular,itisimportantto

dis-tinguishbetweenservice,process,andbeneﬁt.BraatanddeGroot

(2012)arguedthatecosystemservicescontain‘theproduct

com-ponent(traditionallycalled“goods”)’,buttheysuggestthat‘inthe

nextstageofdevelopmentoftheconcept,thedistinctionbetween

goodsandservicesshouldbere-established’.Whenreferringto

thecascadeframework,theterminologyincludesbeneﬁtsrather

thangoods.Thechallengeofseparatingservicesfromgoodsand/or

beneﬁtsisfurtherexploredinthenextsection.

2.2. Challengesinthecurrentecosystemservicesclassiﬁcations

Anyapplicationofanecosystemservice-basedapproachstarts

withchoosing the servicestobe assessed (and valued)from a

listofservices,i.eaclassiﬁcation system.Classiﬁcationsystems

areusually based ona theoretical framework whoseprinciples

and conceptsare reﬂected inthemeaning andstructure ofthe

itemspresented. It is thusimportant toexplore themain

clas-siﬁcation systems, in order to highlight the embeddednotions

theystate.Forexample, theMillenniumEcosystemAssessment

(2005)wastheﬁrsttoattempttogroupecosystemservicesinto

fourcategories:provisioningservices(e.g.food,ﬁbers,fuel,genetic

resources);regulatingservices(e.g.,waterpuriﬁcationand

regula-tion,climateregulation,extremeeventsanddiseasemitigation);

supportingservices(e.g.,primaryproductionandnutrientcycling);

andculturalservices(e.g.,eco-tourismandrecreation,aesthetic

andspiritualvalues).Thiscategorizationprovidedasoundbasisto

launchecosystemservicesresearchandapplications,butitdoesnot

constituteapropertaxonomy.Inthecascadeframework

(Haines-YoungandPotschin,2012),supportingservicesareconsidereda

‘function’ratherthana‘service’.FollowingtheMA,theTEEB

clas-siﬁcation(2010)alsoexplicitlyreferredtothecascadeframework

butreﬁnedthedistinctionbetweenservicesandbeneﬁts.Theidea

ofsupportingservicesinTEEBwasnotfurtherdeveloped.Instead

anew‘habitatservices’groupwasintroduced,including

‘mainte-nanceoflifecycles’and‘maintenanceofgeneticdiversity’

Sincesomeecosystemservicecategoriesoverlap,thereisarisk

of double countingin valuation,which therefore requiresclear

separationbetweenintermediateandﬁnalservice.TheUS

Environ-mentalProtectionAgencyhasproposedadditionalclassiﬁcations

toavoiddouble counting.Theseinclude FinalEcosystemGoods

andServicesClassiﬁcationSystem(FEGS-CS)(LandersandNahlik,

2013)andtheNationalEcosystemServicesClassiﬁcationSystem

(NESCS)(Rhodes,2015).In bothclassiﬁcationsystemsthemain

focusisonbeneﬁtsandbeneﬁciaries.Thisisinlinewiththestudy

byBoydandBanzhaf(2007)thatsuggesttoaccountfor

‘compo-nentsofnaturedirectlyenjoyed,consumedorusedtoyieldhuman

well-being’.FEGS-CSclassiﬁcationproposestwocriteriatodeﬁne

goodsandservices:i)thepotentialgoodorserviceisvaluedbya

beneﬁciary,and;ii)thepotentialgoodorserviceisconnectedtoat

leastthehydrosphereandlithosphere.InFEGS-CSprocessessuchas

photosynthesisorcarbonsequestrationarelabeledalltogetheras

‘ecosystemstructuralcomponents’andconsideredasintermediate

goodsandservices.Theseareexcludedbecausetheyarenotdirectly

usedbyhumans.Similarly,NESCSclassiﬁcationrepresentsdistinct

pathwaysthroughwhichﬁnalecosystemservicesenterhuman

sys-tems.Thisclassiﬁcationapproachfocusesonendcategoriesofuses

andusers,andisalignedwiththeNorthAmericanationalaccounts

classiﬁcationsystem.NESCSemphasizestheconnectionbetween

the‘end-productofnature’andthehuman‘directuses’astangible

andintangiblebeneﬁts.

CICESisoneofthemostpopularclassiﬁcationscurrentlyand

is beingusedbyscientists and policymakersaroundtheglobe

but particularlyfromEurope.Similartothe TEEBclassiﬁcation,

CICESdoesnotincludetheMA(2005)‘supportingservices’,but

mergestheTEEB(2010)‘habitatservices’withregulatingservices,

inacategorycalled‘regulatingandmaintenanceservices’.

Com-paredtoFEGS-CSandNESCS,CICESdoespromoteacleardistinction

betweenecosystemservicesandecosystembeneﬁts.Inthelatest

versionofthecascadeframeworkthatunderpinsCICES(Potschin

andHaines-Young,2016),ecosystemservicesareexplicitly

indi-catedasﬁnal services,whilebiophysicalstructure andfunction

areindicatedassupportingorintermediateservices.Final

ecosys-temservicesarethecontributionsthatecosystemsmaketohuman

well-beingasﬂows.Ecosystemgoodsandbeneﬁtsarecreatedor

derivedbypeoplefromﬁnalecosystemservices.

ThedifferencesbetweenFEGS-CSandCICESaresubtleandare

explainedwiththeassistanceofFig.1:a)thecascadeframework

thatconstitutesthetheoreticalbackgroundofCICES,and;b)the

conceptualframeworkoftheFEGS-CS.FEGS-CSplacesemphasis

onthebeneﬁts,beneﬁciariesandthesocio-economicsystem,while

CICESplacesgreateremphasisontheecologicalsystem.Infactwe

needtoaddanadditionalbox(i.e.assets/commodities)inthe

cas-cadeframeworktohaveamoreconsistentviewofthetwomodels.

Inthisadditionalboxthebeneﬁtsenterintoaproductionprocess

thatmakesitamarketablegood,aneconomicasset,a

commod-ity.Althoughecosystemservicesareidentiﬁedconsideringhuman

needsanddemand,wechooseinFig.1atohavethesocio-economic

systemsstartingatthe‘beneﬁt’boxbecauseatthisstagethereal

usecantakeplaceandbecausethisistheonlywaytoconsistently

comparethetwotheoreticalframeworks.Bycomparingthesetwo

classiﬁcationstoeach otherand tothe cascadeframework, we

observethatFEGS-CSclassiﬁcationregardsdifferentbeneﬁtsrather

thanecosystemservices.

Themostappropriateclassiﬁcationsystemshouldbechosen

basedonitsﬁt-for-purpose(Heinketal.,2015;Spangenbergand

Settele,2010),i.e.whethertheecosystemserviceanalysisintends

tofocusmoreonecologicalsystems(e.g.consideringimpactson

andpressuresfromthesocio-economicside)oronsocio-economic

systems(e.g.thebeneﬁtsderivedbysociety).Itishowever

impor-tanttobeawareoftheexistinglimitationsofeachclassiﬁcation

system.

3. Thenatureofecosystemservices:asystemsecology perspective

Inthetheoryofsystemsecology,Jørgensen(2012)proposed

threefundamentalnotionsasthebasisofecologicalsystems:1)

biomass,2)interactionand3)informationinecologicalnetworks.

In this section we argue that ecosystem services have in fact

beenconceptualizedaseither(bio)mass,informationorinteraction

(Fig.2).Weadoptthefollowingdeﬁnitionsofthesekeyconcepts.

Biomass is biological material derived from living or dead

organisms.Thequalityaspectofbiomassisalsorelevant,e.g.

basedonproteinsynthesisandevolution.

Interactionoccursinanetworkascomponentshaveaneffect

upononeanother.Interactionsarethereforetherelationships

betweenandamongbioticandabioticcomponents,sometimes

characterizedbyatemporalpattern;suchrelationshipscanbe

bi-ormulti-directional,asopposedtotheunidirectionalcausal

effectofinformation.Inecologicalnetworks,interactionsmight

resultinemergentpropertiesofthesystem.Emerging

(5)

Fig.1. AcomparisonofCICESandFEGSclassiﬁcations.

Fig.2. Aschematicrepresentationofbiomass,information,interaction.

of thecomponents alone, because the latter do not exhibit

suchpropertiesthemselves(Edsonetal.,1981;Odum,1977).

Social behaviourin animalsisanexample,suchas‘the

abil-ityoflargepopulationsofsimple,identicalunits(forexample,

spinmagnets)toself-organize,formpatterns,storeinformation,

andreach“collectivedecisions”(ParrishandEdelstein-Keshet,

1999).Interactionsinanecologicalnetworkcanalsobedeﬁned

asecologicalprocesses.

Informationcanbeconsideredasub-categoryofinteraction;

informationis“conveyedorrepresentedbyaparticular

arrange-mentorsequenceofthings,includingforexample,genetically

transmitted information” (Oxford Dictionary Online, 2014).

Information can inﬂuence (intentionally or not) the

forma-tion ortransformation of other patterns.Organismsinteract

withtheirenvironment notjust byexchangingmaterial and

energyastraditionallyviewedinEcology,butalsoby

exchang-inginformation (Dusenbery,1992).Theprocess ofacquiring

informationinvolvesamechanisticphaseofinformation

cap-turebyareceptor,suchasasensoryorgan,andafunctional

phaseofinformationde-codiﬁcation.Thisistheabilityto

recog-nizeandprocessthatinformationas‘knowledge’(Guilfordand

Dawkins,1991).Consequently,exchangeofinformationoccurs

betweentwo(ormore)organismswhenthe‘receiver’

organ-ism(s)is abletocaptureand processtheinformation ofthe

‘sender’.Whileinformationplaysaroleinthegenerationofall

ecosystemservices(e.g.geneticinformation),inthisarticlewe

speciﬁcallydeﬁneinformationastheonehumansreceiveand

process.

Anorganismexpressesandconveysbiomass,informationand

interactionsviaitsgenotypeand/orphenotype(Fig.2).Werefer

heretotheextendedphenotype(Dawkins,1982),whichincludes

(6)

bio-Fig.3. Thenatureofbiomass,informationandinteractioninSystemsEcology,and thehumanunderstandingandmastershipoftheseconcepts.

chemicalandphysiological processes,etc.)aswellasproperties

externaltothebody(phenology,behaviour,productsofbehaviour).

Forexample,thesilkproducedbythesilkworm(Bombyxmori)is

essentiallybiomass,derivedfromitschrysalisduringthe

meta-morphosis.Therefore,theecosystemservice(inthiscasethesilk

producedbythesilkworm)isnotadirectproductofitsbodymass,

butratheranexpressionofitsphenotype.

Based on the given deﬁnitions of biomass, information and

interaction,wecanexaminethecurrentclassiﬁcationof

ecosys-tem services.Most provisioning services are conceptualized as

(bio)masse.g.food,ﬁber,water(deGrootetal.,2002;MA,2005;

TEEB, 2010). Genetic resources represent an exception among

provisioningservices,sinceweconsiderthemasinformation.In

fact,the genotypeor phenotypeofan organismcancontribute

to develop drugs or to bioengineering. Regulating services are

basedoninteractions amongbiotic andabioticelementsofthe

ecosystems:forexamplewaterpuriﬁcationderivesfromthe

over-allmechanicalandchemicalcapacityofabioticsoil,soilbiotaand

vegetationtotrapand‘convert’sediments,nutrients,pollutantsor

pathogens.Culturalservicesderivefrominformation.Forexample,

we are able toreceive the information from an amenity

land-scapegiventhehumanabilitytoperceive(receptor)andappreciate

beauty(decodiﬁcationandinterpretation).Thisinformationmight

inﬂuencehumans,forexampletriggeringinspiration,a

physiolog-icalrelaxation,asenseoffulﬁlment,oraspiritualexperience.

Drawingfromthermo-dynamics,Jørgensen(2012,chapter13)

proposesthefollowingideas:growthofmatterislimitedbyenergy

inputandavailabilityofinorganicelements.Thegrowthof

infor-mationandinteractionsinnetworksisdrivenbyevolution(thus

linkedtodiversity)andhaspotentialtoexpand(Faithetal.,2010)

(Fig.3):informationandinteractionshaveoverallincreasedinthe

historyoflivingorganisms.Unlikematterandenergy,information

andinteractionscandisappearwithouttracewhenthematerial

support(biomass)isdestroyed.4 _Thus,_biomass,_information_and

interactionsarecharacterizedbyincreasingcomplexityand

oper-ateatdifferenthierarchicallevels.Biodiversityisatthebasisofthis

complexity:themorediversity,themoreinformationand

interac-tions.TheverydeﬁnitionofBiodiversity(ConventiononBiological

Diversity,1992)referstothehierarchicalorganizationofall

organ-isms aswellasthefunctional characteristicsof each level.The

processesatoneleveloforganizationdeterminetheconditionsin

thenextlevel,whilehigherlevelsregulateandcontrollowerlevels

byfeedback.Forexample,speciesdiversityinﬂuencesecosystem

propertiesandfunctioning,andviceversa.Ithastobenotedthat

4_Note_that_genetic_information_is_stored_in_DNA_and_transmitted_across

genera-tions.

thisisanartiﬁcialcategorization,sinceinnaturethehierarchyis

notclearlydeﬁned,butmoreﬂuid.

4. Refreshingtheconceptualapproachtoecosystem services

4.1. Re-deﬁningthecascadeframeworkbasedonsystemecology

Basedonthedeﬁnitionsabove,weaddressthechallengesin

ecosystemservicesresearchidentiﬁedinsection2.Wecombine

thenotionsofbiomass,informationandinteractionwith

ecosys-temservicesconceptualizationtoimprovedeﬁnitionsandclarify

terminology.WerecallPalmerandFebria(2012)toshowthe

link-agesthroughthecascadechain:thecomponentsofanecosystem

(thatrepresentthestructure)interactwithdynamicbiophysical

processes(thatarefunctions)toproducegoodsandservicesthat

peoplerelyon.Weargue thatecosystemservicesshould

exclu-sively beconsideredas theinteractions of theecosystemsthat

producea changeinhumanwell-being (Table 2).Wetherefore

proposethatecosystemservicesarenotindividualecosystem

com-ponents or goods.In addition,while allecosystem servicesare

derived fromecologicalprocesses(orsocio-ecologicalprocesses

Mononenetal.,2016)notallprocessesproduceecosystem

ser-vices.Someprocessesmaynotbeofusetohumans,butthisdoes

notnegate theirimportance.Ecosystemfunctionandecological

processesareconsideredhereassynonyms.

Duetotheutilitarian natureofecosystem services,research

and policytend toemphasize end-use beneﬁtsrather than the

underpinningecosystemstructuresandprocesses(see‘Traditional

understanding of the cascade framework’ in Fig. 4). We

pro-poseamodiﬁed cascadeframeworktoshiftperspectivetoward

ecosystems(see‘systemsecologyre-interpretationofthecascade

framework’inFig.4).InFig.4werepresenttheﬂowfroman

eco-logicalperspective.Theelementsofthecascadearenot‘equal’.Itis

thusnotenoughtoestablishacausalsequenceamongtheelements

ofthecascadebecausetheinherentcomplexityofeachstagemust

behighlighted.

Toacknowledgethiscomplexity,thehierarchicalorganization

isacrucialconceptinsystemsecology.Hierarchicallevelsinclude

atoms,cells,organs,species,populations,ecosystems,landscape,

regionsandtheecosphere(Jørgensen,2012).Eachlevelintegrates

thefunctionsofthelowerlevel.5_When_we_consider_the_hierarchy

fromaverticalperspective,eachlevelisconstrainedfromtheupper

levelandfromthelowerlevel.However,thereisalsoahorizontal

perspective.Thereiscooperationamongthecomponents,which

createsnetworks,whereinteractionstakeplace.

Inmanyrepresentationsofthecascadeframeworknatural

cap-italisconsideredasexamplesof beneﬁts(reported asassetsor

commoditiesdependingonthedegreeofhumaninterventionin

theproductionprocess).Naturalcapital,suchasﬁberandfood,are

biomass.Fromavertical(hierarchical)perspectivethese

compo-nentsrepresentalowerlevel,whilepopulationsoforganismsarea

higherlevel.Populationsinturnrepresentsalowerlevelcompared

totheecosystem.Differentlevelsinteractbetweeneachother

verti-cally.Inaddition,interactionsamongbioticandabioticcomponents

existalsoathorizontallevel.Verticalandhorizontalinteractions

constitutetheservice.

Based on the hierarchicalorganization drawn from systems

ecology, it is possibleto highlight the differencebetween

ser-5_For_example:_at_cell_level_on_the_one_hand_the_integrated_cell_processes

deter-minethefunctionalityoftheorgans,ontheotherhandorganscontroltheﬁnal biochemicalresultsofcells;atthelevelofpopulationsontheonehandthe individ-ualsandtheirinteractionsdeterminethepropertiesofthepopulations,andonthe otherhandpopulationdeterminesthelivingframeworkfortheindividuals.

(7)

Table2

Proposeddeﬁnitionsofthecascadeframeworkterminology.

Term Deﬁnition Examplesa

Biophysicalstructureb _The_setting_for_ecosystem_components_(biotic_and_abiotic).

Thisalsorelatestotheecologicalpattern

Foresttreecover Inlandwaterbodies Processorfunction Anecologicalinteractionamongcomponentsinan

ecosystemovertime.Processesmaygenerateseveral ecosystemservices.

Netprimaryproduction Carboncycling Nutrientcycling Ecosystemservice Aﬂowgeneratedbytheecosystemincludingecological

interactionsandinformationwhichareusefultohuman beings.Wethereforeproposethatecosystemservicesdo notincludeecosystemcomponentsorgoods,i.e.countable as(bio)massunit.Inaddition,ecosystemservices sometimesrequirehumaninput,whichdoesnot necessarilymeanhuman-madeconstructslikelabour, industrialprocessing,benchesorﬁshingroads.a

Generationofmaterialfromplants Carbonsequestration

Waterpuriﬁcation

Aestheticbeautyoflandscape

Good Countableasa(bio)massunit,itisavehicleforecosystem serviceenjoyment.

Woodbiomass

AmountofCO2retainedfromtheatmosphere

Amountofpollutantsretainedfromwaterbodies Peopleenjoyingoutdoorrecreationactivities Beneﬁt Whatisgeneratedbytheserviceandleadstoachangein

humanwell-being.

Availabilityofwoodformultipleuses

Healthierairtobreath/climatechangemitigation Availabilityofcleanerwater(insteadofwaterpollutedby economicactivities)

a_Example_of_human_input_includes_existence_of_a_human_being_with_his/her_sensory_and_perceptional_experiences.

b _Existing_literature_often_uses_the_term_ecological_structure_as_a_synonym_for_biophysical_structure._We_however_prefer_the_later_term,_because_it_also_includes_{non-vegetated}

structures,suchasdunes,aquifersorRockyMountains.

viceandbeneﬁts.Aserviceisaprocessandisdeterminedbythe

horizontalandverticalnetworkingactivity.Beneﬁtsare

individ-ualcomponents,countableas abiomass unit,and a vehiclefor

ecosystemserviceenjoyment(Matthiesetal.,2016).Inthecurrent

cascadeframework,greatemphasisisconvergingonthebeneﬁt,

becausethis ismostrelevanttohumans.Itisnotourintention

todownplaytheimportanceofbeneﬁts(andthusthe‘humans’

roleinco-producingecosystemservices).We,however,arguefor

ashiftofperspectivefroma‘twodimensional’toa‘telescopic’

cas-cadeframeworkwhichemphasizestheecologicaldimensionsand

complexreality.

Theimplicationsofahierarchicalorganizationareinlinewith

the understanding of ecosystems at the basis of the cascade

framework:upperlevelschangemoreslowlythanlowerlevels.

Variationsanddisturbancesofupperlevelsmayaffectthelower

levels;theotherwayround, however, isless frequent,because

lowerleveldisturbancesaremitigatedatupperlevel(Jørgensen,

2012).6_For_example,_assuming_an_initial_healthy_state_of_the

ecosys-tem,whenasinglecomponentofthepopulationisremoved(e.g.

atreefromaforestoroneanimalfromapopulation),the

regen-erationcapacityisnotaffected,thefunctioningoftheecosystem

ismaintainedatahealthystate.Whenaclear-cuttakesplaceor

thespeciesbecomerareorextinct,thentheentirehabitatwillbe

affected(e.g.theforestwillnotbethereanymoreandthefoodchain

willchange).

Anyassessmentandvaluationintendedtoprovideasustainable

policyforthemediumandlongtermcannotignorethe

ecologi-calsystemsideofthecascade.Theexistenceofthesocialsystem

isguaranteedbytheproperfunctioningoftheecologicalsystem.

Thevalueoftheecologicalsystemisintrinsic,andtheapproachis

holistic,bio-centricandpositivist.Theecosystemservices

narra-tiveispartofthehumansystemwhosevalueisutilitarian,andits

approachreductionistandhuman-centered.

6 _A_malfunction_of_one_level_can_be_eliminated_by_replacing_a_few_components_on

thelowerlevel.e.gcells,organsandspeciescanbereplacedtobetterﬁtthenew emergentconditions.Thus,thehigherthelevelis,thelessvulnerableitbecomes.

4.2. Comparingthereneweddeﬁnitionofecosystemservicesto

CICESclassiﬁcation

Weproceedbycomparingtheconceptsintroducedfromsystem

ecologytotheCICESclassiﬁcationandthecascadeframework.In

Table3welistthecorrespondencebetweenCICESclassesandour

terminology.Thisanalysisdoesnotintendtoaddanewlevelof

complicationtotheecosystemservicesconceptualization.Rather

itaimsatclarifyingthedifferencebetweenecosystemservicesand

beneﬁtsandtoimproveconsistencyintheclassiﬁcationof

ecosys-temservices.

AmongthelistofecosystemservicesproposedbyCICES,someof

themdonotmeettherequirementsforourdeﬁnitionofecosystem

services(i.e.processes)(Table3).For example, allCICES

provi-sioningservicesarebeneﬁts(i.e.biomass).Provisioningservices

includeforexamplecultivatedcrops.However,theecosystem

ser-viceisinfacttheprocesstogeneratecropsandplants,ratherthan

thecropsandplantsthemselves.Theuseofthebeneﬁtasaproxy

fortheserviceisacommonpractice,butitmightresultindouble

counting.Thus,theresultingbeneﬁtfrome.g.regulatingservices

shouldbearticulatedclearly,sothatoverlapswithprovisioning

servicesare known.Forexample,beneﬁtsfrompollinationmay

overlapwithcultivatedcrops;waterﬂowmaintenancemay

over-lapwithwatersupplied;ormaintainingnurserypopulationsand

habitatsmayoverlapwithfood(ﬁsh)provisioning(Liqueteetal.,

2016a).Whenperformingthetrade-offassessment,wedonot

sug-gestignoringregulatingservices,butrathertocarefullyconsider

betweenprovisioningandregulatingservices.

In CICES the list of services (in particular regulating

ser-vices)sometimesincludesfunctionsandbiophysicalstructures.For

instance,‘chemicalcondition’isapropertyorcomponentofthe

sys-temandnotaprocess.Itisthuspartofthebiophysicalstructure.

Theecologicalinteractionsamongcomponents,suchas

‘hydrologi-calcycle’and‘ventilationandtranspiration’areprocessesthattake

placewithintheecosystem,andnottheﬂowofanindividual

ser-vicethatproducesadirectchangeinhumanwell-being.Differently

(8)

Table3

Classiﬁcationofecosystemservices(CICES)includingthenatureofecosystemservices,thecascadeframeworkstep,theSystemsEcologycategory,themostlogic/common assessmenttechniqueandtheirdegreeofcomplexity.

ListofecosystemservicesaccordingtoCICES Cascade frameworkstep

SystemsEcology category

Assessmenttechnique

Provisioning Cultivatedcrops Beneﬁt Biomass Statisticaldatasets

Wildplants,algaeandtheiroutputs Beneﬁt Biomass Statisticaldatasets

Wildanimalsandtheiroutputs Beneﬁt Biomass Statisticaldatasets

Plantsandalgaefromin-situaquaculture Beneﬁt Biomass Statisticaldatasets

Animalsfromin-situaquaculture Beneﬁt Biomass Statisticaldatasets

Materialsfromplants,algaeandanimalsfor agriculturaluse

Beneﬁt Biomass Statisticaldatasets

Geneticmaterialsfromallbiota Beneﬁt Biomass/information Statisticaldatasets

Rearedanimalsandtheiroutputs Beneﬁt Biomass Statisticaldatasets

Surfacewaterfordrinking Beneﬁt Biomass Statisticaldatasets

Groundwaterfordrinking Beneﬁt Biomass Statisticaldatasets

Fibersandothermaterialsfromplants,algae andanimalsfordirectuseorprocessing

Beneﬁt Biomass Statisticaldatasets

Surfacewaterfornon-drinkingpurposes Beneﬁt Mass Mainlystatisticaldatasets

Groundwaterfornon-drinkingpurposes Beneﬁt Mass Mainlystatisticaldatasets

Plant-basedresources Beneﬁt Biomass Statisticaldatasets

Animal-basedresources Beneﬁt Biomass Mainlystatisticaldatasets

Animal-basedenergy Beneﬁt Biomass Mainlystatisticaldatasets

Regulatingand maintenance

Bio-remediationbymicro-organisms,algae, plants,andanimals

Service Interaction Biophysicalmodelsand/or

measures Filtration/sequestration/storage/accumulation

bymicro-organisms,algae,plants,andanimals

measures Filtration/sequestration/storage/accumulation

byecosystems

measures

Mediationofsmell/noise/visualimpacts Service Interaction Biophysicalmodelsand/or measures

Dilutionbyatmosphere,freshwaterand marineecosystems

Function

Hydrologicalcycle Function

Waterﬂowmaintenance Service Interaction Biophysicalmodels

Massstabilizationandcontroloferosionrates Service Interaction Biophysicalmodels Globalclimateregulationbyreductionof

greenhousegasconcentrations

Service Interaction Biophysicalmodels

Microandregionalclimateregulation Service Interaction Biophysicalmodels

Bufferingandattenuationofmassﬂows Service Interaction Biophysicalmodelsand/or measures;Geospatialmodels

Floodprotection Service Interaction Biophysicalmodelsand/or

measures;Geospatialmodels

Stormprotection Service Interaction Biophysicalmodelsand/or

measures;Geospatialmodels

Pollinationandseeddispersal Service Interaction Biophysicalmodelsand/or

measures;Geospatialmodels Maintainingnurserypopulationsandhabitats Service Interaction Biophysicalmodelsand/or

measures;Complexindicators integratedwithgeospatialmodels

Pestanddiseasecontrol Service Interaction Biophysicalmodelsand/or

measures;Geospatialmodels Ventilationandtranspiration Function

Weatheringprocesses Function

Decompositionandﬁxingprocesses Function

Chemicalconditionoffreshwaters Biophysicalstructure Chemicalconditionofsaltwaters Biophysicalstructure Cultural Experientialuseofplants,animalsand

land-/seascapesindifferentenvironmental settings

Service Information Geospatialmodels/complex

indicators Physicaluseofland-/seascapesindifferent

environmentalsettings

Service Information Geospatialmodels/complex

indicators

Aesthetic Service Information Geospatialmodels/complex

indicators

Education Service Information Complexindicators

Heritage,cultural Service Information Complexindicators

Entertainment Service Information Complexindicators

Scientiﬁc Service Information Complexindicators

Symbolic Service Information Complexindicators

Sacredand/orreligious Service Information Complexindicators

Existence Value

Bequest Value

Theattemptistodevelopthesameexamplesthroughoutthe‘terminologychain’toshowthattheyareindeeddifferentstageofthesameprocess.E.g.todifferentiatethe carboncyclingasfunctionfromcarbonsequestrationasservicefromCO2tonswill(ifever)bethetaskofthebiophysicalmodel,i.e.onlyoneofthosestageswillbemapped andassessed,itwilldependonthetechniqueusedtoassess(modelorindicatororstatistics).

(9)

Fig.4. Froma2Dtoatelescopiccascadeframework(a)Traditionalunderstandingofthecascadeframeworkwithemphasisonend-usebeneﬁts;(b)SystemsEcology re-interpretationofthecascadeframework,withemphasisontheunderpinningcomplexityoftheecologicalsystem.

service7_:_they_are_what_allows_the_service_ﬂow_to_be_generated_(cf.

Mononenetal.,2016).InCICESexistenceandbequestvaluesare

listedasservices:whenattemptingamonetaryvaluation,existence

andbequestnon-usevaluesareconceptsthatfacilitatethechoice

ofthevaluationtechniquetobeadopted,buttheyarenot

them-selvesecosystemservices.Systemsecologytheorycanthusprovide

guidancefor ecosystemserviceassessments: Table3 presentsa

newclassiﬁcationapproachfor ecosystemservicesassessments.

InTable3weattempttotrackcorrespondencewiththedifferent

typologiesofmodelingtechniques.Byreferringtothesystems

ecol-ogycategoriesofbiomass,interactionandinformationwecould

statehowcomplexthelevelofmodelingshouldbe.

Whenecosystemservicesareidentiﬁedasbiomass,

measure-mentwillrequirethecollectionofenvironmentalstatistics and

inventories.Thisisthecaseformanyprovisioningservices,where

7 _This_is_the_reason_why_in_Table₃_what_corresponds_to_{‘Biophysical}_structure’_and

‘Function’isnotclassiﬁedintermsofSystemsEcologycategory,andAssessment techniquearethusreportedasgreycells.

data is usually extracted fromagriculture and forestry

statisti-caldatabasesandinventories,orfrommarkettransactions,rather

thanbiophysicalprocesses.Simpleandavailableindicatorscanbe

used,suchasland-useandland-coverdata,biodiversity

monitor-ingmaps,ornationalforestinventories.Inthiscase,ratherthan

assessingtheservice itself,thebeneﬁt is usedasproxy forthe

ecosystemservice.Thisismostrelevanttoprovisioningservices

andthecurrentpracticeofassessment.

Whenecosystemservicesareidentiﬁedasinteraction,then

eco-logicalmodelingormonitoringisneeded.Tocorrectlyassessthe

service,thenatureoftheprocessshouldbeunderstood,described

analyticallyandmeasured.Thisisthecaseforsomeregulating

ser-vices(i.e.allthoseservicesthatdirectlyinvolvebiogeochemical

cycles)whereprocess-basedmodeling wouldbetterﬁtthe

pur-pose,becausethemodelshouldbeabletorepresent/replicatethe

ecosystemfunctioning(e.g.Liqueteetal.,2016b).Thereare,

how-ever,casesinwhichspatialmodelingandstatisticalmodelingcould

servetheassessmentpurpose.Inspatialmodelingalgorithmsbased

onspatialfeaturesareusedand/ordifferentindicatorsarelinked

(10)

exam-pleZulianetal.,2013).Instatisticalmodelsecosystemservicesare

estimatedbasedonknownexplanatoryvariablessuchassoils,

cli-mate,etc.,usingastatisticalrelation.Thiscanbethecaseforthose

servicesin whichthemorphologicalfeatures doplayan

impor-tantrole(e.g.stormandﬂoodprotection,soilerosionprotection)

orthepresenceofspeciesdeterminesthe‘amount’oftheservice

(e.g.maintainingnurserypopulationsandhabitats).

When theecosystem services are identiﬁed as information,

theassessment techniquemight requirecalculationof spatially

explicit, complex indicators. Information does not require

bio-physicalmodeling,butspatialmodelingcouldbeused.Allcultural

services involve information, and they are generally assessed

throughquestionnairesandmentalmodels.Insomecases(e.g.

out-doorrecreation)thespatialcomponentcouldplayanimportant

roleintermsofdistance;inothercasesitmayjustbeamatterof

linkingdifferentindicatorstomakethemspatiallyexplicit.

5. Discussionandconclusion:advantagesofapplyingthe revisedconceptualframework

Thetiminginclarifyingandoperationalizeecosystemservices

classiﬁcationandmeasurementshasneverbeenmorecritical.As

ecosystemservicesbecomeintegratedintopolicyinstruments,the

needtostandardizedeﬁnitionsisessentialformonitoringand

com-paringpolicyoutcomesfollowingdifferentscalesofinvestment

(Bennett etal.,2015;Guerryet al.,2015).Our intentionin this

articleistoprovidesomeclaritytoaddressissuesrelatedto

ecosys-temservicesdeﬁnitionandconceptualizationhighlightedbyothers

(Boyd and Banzaf,2007; Fisherand Turner,2008; Fisheret al., 2009;Wallace,2007).Drawingfromsystemsecology,weadopt

thekeyconceptsofbiomass,interactionandinformation,including

theideaofdifferentlevelsofcomplexityamongthese(Jørgensen,

2012).Inthisstudy,wehaveusedourunderstandingfromsystems

ecologytoapplyittotheecosystemservicesconceptualization.We

believethattheconceptsfromsystemecologycansupportamore

consistentdeﬁnitionofecosystemservicesandotherelementsof

thecascadeframeworkdevelopedbyHaines-YoungandPotschin

(2010).

Thecascadeframeworkandrelatedecosystemservices

deﬁni-tionisoftenapproachedwithanemphasisonservicesandbeneﬁts.

Severalauthors have identiﬁed the need todelineate between

directandindirectecosystemservices(intermediateandﬁnal)for

thesake of economic valuation and natural capital accounting,

where only beneﬁtsfromﬁnal services canbe aggregated(e.g.

Fisheret al.,2009; Heinket al.,2015).Thisapproach mitigates

therisk ofdoublecounting,butitmightbeoverlyreductionist.

Furthermore,distinctionsbetweenecosystemcapacityandactual

supplyoruseoftheecosystemserviceshasbeenproposed(Albert

etal.,2015;Burkhardetal.,2014;Villamagnaetal.,2013).By

con-sideringcomplexity andtheverticalandhorizontalhierarchical

organizationofecosystems,weproposearevisitedinterpretation

ofthecascade frameworkasthree-dimensional.Moreemphasis

isattributedtothecorrectfunctioningofthecomplexsystemthat

generatesindividualecosystemservicesandassociatedbeneﬁtsfor

humans.

Tofurtherdeveloptheconceptofecosystemserviceswe

pro-posethatecosystem servicesarenot thebeneﬁts,butgenerate

beneﬁtsasanoutput,oftenexpressedintermsofbiomass.Aservice

impliesthatthereisexchangeofinformationand/orinteraction.

Goods are thus interpreted as material vehicles for ecosystem

service enjoyment. We also propose that ecosystem functions

arenot services,but ecologicalprocessesthat act atecosystem

leveland generateﬂowsofservices.Functionsshouldbe

main-tained toensure a sustainable ﬂow of services. It is important

toacknowledgethatfunctionsshouldbeconceivedwithamore

holisticandbio-centricapproachcomparedtoecosystemservices,

which canbe individuallyidentiﬁed and assessed.We also call

forgreaterattentiontowardecosystemsciencesforunderstanding

long-termecosystemintegrityandecosystemfunctioning,andthus

theresilienceofanecosystemagainsthumandrivendisturbances,

inordertosecurethevitalecosystemservicesandsustainableuse

ofnaturalresources(Currie,2011;Mülleretal.,2010).Theconcepts

ofresiliencescience(resilience,adaptabilityandvulnerability)in

relationtoecosystemservicesrepresentanimportantareafor

fur-therstudies(Brand,2008;Mülleretal.,2010).Forsuchpurposes,

ourclariﬁcationcouldbeadvantageous.

Adoptingamorecomprehensiveviewonthedeﬁnitionsinthe

cascadeframeworkgivesincreasedrigortocriticalecosystem

ser-vicesissuessuchasthetechniquestomap andassess services.

For example,EUmember statesneedconsistentdeﬁnitionsand

measurementsforeasycomparisonofecosystemservicesstatus,

gainorlossacrosscountries.Followingtheadoptionofthe

analyt-icalframework,includingaconceptualmodelandtwotypologies,

fortheEU,Maesetal.(2016)presentedaﬁrsttestofthe

frame-workandanassessmentofexistingindicatorstomap(orquantify)

ecosystemservicesatthenationalscale(seealsoMaesetal.,2014).

Theserecentstudies,aswellasthatbyEgohetal.(2012),showthat

nationalstatisticspresentthebestdataoptionsformapping

pro-visioningecosystemservicessuchasagriculturalproduction.This

approach,wherebeneﬁtsgenerated(biomass)areusedasaproxy

oftheservice,ishighlysimpliﬁed.Theunitofassessmentisthe

beneﬁtandnottheservice.Choosingaproxysuchasbiomassas

representativeofacertainserviceiscommonpractice,whereasa

modelthatsimulatesthegenerationofthegood/resource,which

involvestheinteractionfunctioning,isoftenleftout.Wesuggest

thatthisapproachisnotfullyconsistentwiththetheoretical

frame-work.However,it isacceptablein thiscase becausebiomassis

conditionedbyecologicalstructureandfunctioning.

Wehopetheinsightintosystemsecologyprovidedinthisarticle

willoffersomegroundforreﬂection,fuelingfurtheradvancement

oftheclassiﬁcation,conceptualization andoperationalizationof

ecosystem services.Considering thegrowinginterest innatural

capitalaccounting,8_it_is_important_to_establish_a_consistent

con-ceptualgroundtohighlightthedifferencebetweenintermediate

functioningwithintheecosystem(function),ﬁnalﬂows(services)

and assets(beneﬁts)and theirrespectivedegreeofcomplexity.

Giventheneedforeconomicvaluationofecosystemservices,it

isimportanttochoosetheappropriatevaluationtechniqueswhich

explicitlytargettherealobjectofvaluationandthusavoidto

con-sider thesingle,simple assetbeingequal tothemorecomplex

servicethatgeneratesthatasset.

References

Albert,C.,Galler,C.,Hermes,J.,Neuendorf,F.,vonHaaren,C.,Lovett,A.,2015. Applyingecosystemservicesindicatorsinlandscapeplanningand

management:theES-in-Planningframework.Ecol.Indic.60,100–113,http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.029.

Bateman,I.J.,Mace,G.M.,Fezzi,C.,Atkinson,G.,Turner,K.,2011.Economicanalysis forecosystemserviceassessments.Environ.Resour.Econ.48,177–218.

Bennett,E.M.,Cramer,W.,Begossi,A.,Cundill,G.,Díaz,S.,Egoh,B.N.,

Geijzendorffer,I.R.,Krug,C.B.,Lavorel,S.,Lazos,E.,Lebel,L.,Martín-López,B., Meyfroidt,P.,Mooney,H.A.,Nel,J.L.,Pascual,U.,Payet,K.,Harguindeguy,N.P., Peterson,G.D.,Prieur-Richard,A.H.,Reyers,B.,Roebeling,P.,Seppelt,R.,Solan, M.,Tschakert,P.,Tscharntke,T.,Turner,B.L.,Verburg,P.H.,Viglizzo,E.F.,White, P.C.L.,Woodward,G.,2015.Linkingbiodiversity,ecosystemservices,and humanwell-being:threechallengesfordesigningresearchforsustainability. Curr.Opin.Environ.Sustain.14,76–85.

8_Ref._{http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/eea}_{project/default.asp,} _http:// ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/capitalaccounting/indexen.htm, http://www. naturalcapitalcommittee.org/,and http://www.wavespartnership.org/en/natural-capital-accounting.

(11)

Boerema,A.,Rebelo,A.J.,Bodi,M.B.,Esler,K.J.,Meire,P.,2016.Areecosystem servicesadequatelyquantiﬁed?J.Appl.Ecol., http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12696.

Boyd,J.,Banzhaf,S.,2007.Whatareecosystemservices?Theneedforstandardized environmentalaccountingunits.Ecol.Econ.63,616–626.

Braat,L.C.,deGroot,R.,2012.Theecosystemservicesagenda:bridgingtheworlds ofnaturalscienceandeconomicsconservationanddevelopment,andpublic andprivatepolicy.Ecosyst.Serv.1,4–15.

Brand,F.,2008.Criticalnaturalcapitalrevisited:ecologicalresilienceand sustainabledevelopment.Ecol.Econ.68,605–612,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2008.09.013.

Burkhard,B.,Kandziora,M.,Hou,Y.,Müller,F.,2014.Ecosystemservicepotentials, ﬂowsanddemands-conceptsforspatiallocalisation,indicationand quantiﬁcation.Landsc34,1–32,http://dx.doi.org/10.3097/LO.201434. ConventiononBiologicalDiversity,1992.UnitedNations.https://www.cbd.int/

doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf.

ConventiononBiologicalDiversity,1998.Reportontheworkingofecosystem approach.UNEPconferenceofthepartiestotheConventiononBiological Diversity.

ConventiononBiologicalDiversity,2010.ConventiononBiologicalDiversity.COP DecisionX/2.

Costanza,R.,Kubiszewski,I.,2012.Theauthorshipstructureofecosystemservices asatransdisciplinaryﬁeldofscholarship.Ecosyst.Serv.1,16–25.

Currie,W.S.,2011.TansleyreviewUnitsofnatureorprocessesacrossscales?The ecosystemconceptatage75.N.Phytol.,21–34.

Dawkins,R.,1982.TheExtendedPhenotype.OxfordUniversityPressInc.,New York.

deGroot,RudolfS.,Wilson,MatthewA.,Boumans,RoelofM.J.,2002.Atypologyfor theclassiﬁcation,descriptionandvaluationofecosystemfunctions,goodsand services.Ecol.Econ.41(3),393–408.

Dusenbery,B.,1992.SensoryEcology:HowOrganismsAcquireandRespondto Information.

Edson,M.M.,Foin,T.C.,Knapp,C.M.,1981.Emergentpropertiesandecological research.Am.Nat.118,593–596.

Egoh,B.,Drakou,E.G.,Dunbar,M.B.,Maes,J.,Willemen,L.,2012.Indicatorsfor MappingEcosystemServices:AReview.PublicationsOfﬁceoftheEuropean Union,Luxembourg.

Faith,D.P.,Magallón,S.,Hendry,A.P.,Conti,E.,Yahara,T.,Donoghue,M.J.,2010.

Evosystemservices:anevolutionaryperspectiveonthelinksbetween biodiversityandhumanwell-being.Curr.Opin.Environ.Sustain.2(1–2), 66–74.

Fisher,B.,Turner,R.K.,2008.Ecosystemservices:classiﬁcationforvaluation.Biol. Conserv.141,1167–1169.

Fisher,B.,Turner,R.K.,Morling,P.,2009.Deﬁningandclassifyingecosystem servicesfordecisionmaking.Ecol.Econ.68,643–653.

Guerry,A.D.,Polasky,S.,Lubchenco,J.,Chaplin-Kramer,R.,Daily,G.C.,Grifﬁn,R., Ruckelshaus,M.,Bateman,I.J.,Duraiappah,A.,Elmqvist,T.,Feldman,M.W., Folke,C.,Hoekstra,J.,Kareiva,P.M.,Keeler,B.L.,Li,S.,McKenzie,E.,Ouyang,Z., Reyers,B.,Ricketts,T.H.,Rockström,J.,Tallis,H.,Vira,B.,2015.Naturalcapital andecosystemservicesinformingdecisions:frompromisetopractice.PNAS 112,7348–7355.

Guilford,T.,Dawkins,M.S.,1991.Receiverpsychologyandtheevolutionofanimal signals.Anim.Behav.42,1–14.

Haines-Young,R.,Potschin,M.,2009.MethodologiesforDeﬁningandAssessing EcosystemServices.FinalReport.JNCC.

Haines-Young,R.,Potschin,M.,2010.Thelinksbetweenbiodiversity,ecosystem servicesandhumanwell-being.In:Raffaelli,D.,Frid,C.(Eds.),Ecosystem Ecology:ANewSynthesis,BESEcologicalReviewsSeries.CUP,Cambridge.

Heink,U.,Hauck,J.,Jax,K.,Sukopp,U.,2015.Requirementsfortheselectionof ecosystemserviceindicators—thecaseofMAESindicators.Ecol.Indic.61, 18–26.

Jørgensen,S.,2012.IntroductiontoSystemsEcology.CRCPress.

Jax,K.,2005.Functionandfunctioninginecology:whatdoesitmean?Oikos111, 641–648.

Kremen,C.,2005.Managingecosystemservices:whatdoweneedtoknowabout theirecology?Ecol.Lett.8,468–479.

Landers,D.H.,Nahlik,A.M.,2013.Finalecosystemgoodsandservicesclassiﬁcation system(FEGS-CS),inAnonymousEPAUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtection Agency.ReportNumberEPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914.

Liquete,C.,Cid,N.,Lanzanova,D.,Grizzetti,B.,Reynaud,A.,2016a.Perspectiveson thelinkbetweenecosystemservicesandbiodiversity:theassessmentofthe nurseryfunction.Ecol.Indic.63,249–257.

Liquete,C.,Piroddi,C.,Macías,D.,Druon,J.-N.,Zulian,G.,2016b.Ecosystem servicessustainabilityintheMediterraneanSea:assessmentofstatusand trendsusingmultiplemodellingapproaches.Sci.Rep.6,34162.

Müller,F.,Burkhard,B.,2012.Theindicatorsideofecosystemservices.Ecosyst. Serv.1,26–30.

Müller,F.,Burkhard,B.,Kroll,F.,2010.Resilience,integrityandecosystem dynamics:bridgingecosystemtheoryandmanagement.In:Otto,J.-C.,Dikau, R.(Eds.),Landform—Structure,Evolution,ProcessControl,LectureNotesin EarthSciences115.Springer-Verlag,Berlin,Heidelberg,pp.221–242,http://dx. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75761-0.

MA,2005.MillenniumEcosystemAssessment.WorldResourcesInstitute, Washington,DC.

Maes,J.,Teller,A.,Erhard,M.,Murphy,P.,Paracchini,M.,Barredo,J.,Grizzetti,B., Cardoso,A.,Somma,F.,Petersen,J.,2014.MappingandAssessmentof EcosystemsandTheirServices—IndicatorsforEcosystemAssessmentsUnder Action5oftheEUBiodiversityStrategyto2020.EuropeanCommission,ISBN, pp.978–992.

Maes,J.,Liquete,C.,Teller,A.,Erhard,M.,Paracchini,M.L.,Barredo,J.I.,Grizzetti,B., Cardoso,A.,Somma,F.,Petersen,J.,2016.Anindicatorframeworkforassessing ecosystemservicesinsupportoftheEUBiodiversityStrategyto2020.Ecosyst. Serv.17,14–23.

Matthies,B.,D’Amato,D.,Berghäll,S.,Ekholm,T.,Hoen,H.,Holopainen,J., Korhonen,J.,Lähtinen,J.,Mattila,O.,Toppinen,A.,Valsta,L.,Wang,L., Yousefpour,R.,2016.AnEcosystemService-DominantLogic?Integratingthe ecosystemserviceapproachandtheservice-dominantlogic.J.Clean.Prod.124, 51–64.

Mononen,L.,Auvinen,A.P.,Ahokumpu,A.L.,Rönka,M.,Aarras,N.,Tolvanen,G., Kamppinen,M.,Viirret,E.,Kumpula,T.,Vihervaara,P.,2016.National ecosystemserviceindicators:measuresofsocial-ecologicalsustainability.Ecol. Indic.1,26–37.

Odum,E.P.,1977.Theemergenceofecologyasanewintegrativediscipline. Science195,1289–1293.

OxfordDictionaryonline,2014.www.oxforddictionaries.com.

Palmer,M.A.,Febria,C.M.,2012.Theheartbeatofecosystems.Science(80-)336, 1393–1394,http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1223250.

Parrish,J.K.,Edelstein-Keshet,L.,1999.Complexity,pattern,andevolutionary trade-offsinanimalaggregation.Science284,99–101.

Potschin,M.,Haines-Young,R.,2016.Deﬁningandmeasuringecosystemservices. In:Potschin,M.,Haines-Young,R.,Fish,R.,Turner,R.K.(Eds.),Routledge HandbookofEcosystemServices.Routledge,Taylor&FrancisGroup,London; NewYork,p.2016.

Potschin,M.,Haines-Young,R.,Fish,R.,Turner,R.K.,2016.RoutledgeHandbookof EcosystemServices.Routledge,Taylor&FrancisGroup,London;NewYork.

Rhodes,C.,2015.Nationalecosystemservicesclassiﬁcationsystem.http://unstats. un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaRev/meeting2013/EG13-BG-13.pdf. Seppelt,R.,Dormann,C.F.,Eppink,F.V.,Lautenbach,S.,Schmidt,S.,2011.A

quantitativereviewofecosystemservicestudies:approaches,shortcomings andtheroadahead.J.Appl.Ecol.48,630–636.

Spangenberg,J.H.,vonHaaren,C.,Settele,J.,2014.Theecosystemservicecascade: Furtherdevelopingthemetaphor.Integratingsocietalprocessesto

accommodatesocialprocessesandplanning,andthecaseofbioenergy.Ecol. Econ.104,22–32.

Spangenberg,J.H.,Settele,J.,2010.Preciselyincorrect?Monetisingthevalueof ecosystemservices.Ecol.Compl.7,327–337.

Staub,C.,Ott,W.,Heusi,F.,Klingler,G.,Jenny,A.,Hacki,M.,Hauser,A.,2011.

IndicatorsforEcosystemGoodsandServices:Framework,Methodologyand RecommendationsforaWelfare-relatedEnvironmentalReporting EnvironmentalStudiesNo.1102.FederalOfﬁcefortheEnvironment,Bern, Switzerland.

TEEB,2010.TheEconomicsofEcosystemsandBiodiversity.Ecologicaland EconomicFoundations,RoutledgeAbingdon,UK(410p.).

UKNEA,2011.UKNationalEcosystemAssessment:TechnicalReport. UNEP-WCMC.

Villamagna,A.M.,Angermeier,P.L.,Bennett,E.M.,2013.Capacity,pressure, demand,andﬂow:aconceptualframeworkforanalyzingecosystemservice provisionanddelivery.Ecol.Compl.15,114–121,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ecocom.2013.07.004.

Wallace,K.J.,2007.Classiﬁcationofecosystemservices:problemsandsolutions. Biol.Cons.139,235–246.

Zulian,G.,Maes,J.,Paracchini,M.L.,2013.Linkinglandcoverdataandcropyields formappingandassessmentofpollinationservicesineurope.Land2(3), 472–492,http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land2030472.