Ethical considerations in on-ground applications of the ecosystem services concept

The ecosystem services (ES) concept is one of the main avenues for conveying society's dependence on natural ecosystems. On-ground applications of the concept are now widespread and diverse and include its use as a communication tool, for policy guidance and priority setting, and for designing economic instruments for conservation. Each application raises ethical considerations beyond traditional controversies related to the monetary valuation of nature. We review ethical considerations across major on-ground applications and group them into the following categories: anthropocentric framing, economic metaphor, monetary valuation, commodification, sociocultural impact, changes in motivations, and equity implications. Different applications of the ES concept raise different suites of ethical issues, and we propose methods to address the issues most relevant to each application. We conclude that the ES concept should be considered as only one among various alternative approaches to valuing nature and that reliance on economic metaphors can exclude other motivations for protecting ecosystems

(Wild)fire is not an ecosystem service

In their paper entitled “Wildfires as an ecosystem service”, Pausas and Keeley (2019) summarize the benefits generated by – as well as the evolutionary and socioecological importance of – wildfires for humankind. Although we recognize the importance of wildfires in such a context, we argue that presenting wildfire per se as an ecosystem service is conceptually incorrect and can be misleading for policy makers and resource managers. Throughout their paper, the authors repeatedly refer to (wild)fire as a potential provider of multiple ecosystem services (and not as an ecosystem service itself, as indicated in their article’s title). We believe that this is more than a dispute over semantics, for such a contradiction could lead to misperceptions about the definition of the term “ ecosystem services”, which is especially concerning in light of its real-world applications to fire management.ÂS received support from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through PhD grant SFRH/BD/ 132838/2017, funded by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education, and by the European Social Fund–Operational Program Human Capital within the 2014–2020 EU Strategic Framework. AR is funded by Xunta de Galicia (post-doctoral fellowship ED481B2016/084-0). This research was developed as part of the project FirESmart (PCIF/MOG/0083/2017), which received funding from the FCT. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Ecosystem Services in the Service-Dominant Logic Framework.

Peer reviewe

Assessment of ecosystem services of an urbanized tropical estuary with a focus on habitats and scenarios

Tropical estuaries are one of the most valuable ecosystems on the planet because of the number of ecosystem services they provide. The increasing anthropogenic pressure to which these estuaries are subject has caused a reduction in their natural capital stock. Therefore, the application of a pragmatic and rational ecosystem-based management approach to sustainably manage the multiple ecosystem services provided by this ecosystem is necessary. The aim of our study is to present an approach that combines prospective scenarios with habitat-based perspective to assess the supply capacity of ecosystem services, plus determine the impact of protected areas in an urbanized tropical estuary. The current situation and two scenarios were generated to evaluate the capacity of habitats to supply ecosystem services. This type of assessment will allow the decision makers to visualize the effect of their choices or the occurrence of events which might produce significant changes in the estuary. Thus, over time, measures can be taken to sustain the supply of ecosystem services. We determined that the establishment of protected areas have a positive impact; however, the effect is not the same for all of them. Consequently, indicating that actions such as community participation, research, education, management planning and infrastructure development must accompany the development of a protected area