Ecosystem service

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term ecosystem service (abbreviated OSD . English ecosystem service , abbreviated ESS or ES ; dt also:. Ecosystem services or ecosystem service ) refers to the most common definition, the "benefit foundations" and "benefits" (English. Benefits ), the people of ecosystems Respectively. Since the beginning of this millennium, the term has become a key concept at the interface between natural and social science environmental research.

Examples of ecosystem services are the pollination of fruit blossoms by insects , the provision of usable irrigation and drinking water through natural filtration of precipitation , the reproduction of fish populations as food, and the provision of fresh air and an appealing environment for leisure, recreation and aesthetic enjoyment.

The concept of ecosystem service is to be distinguished from that of ecosystem function . Although there are terminological overlaps, ecosystem functions are usually the ecosystem processes behind ecosystem services, for example, and more rarely the ecosystem structures and conditions behind them.

definition

The internationally relevant definition comes from the method volume of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment . Ecosystem services are defined here (Box 1, Key Definitions, p. 3) as

“The benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include provisioning services such as food and water; regulating services such as regulation of floods, drought, land degradation, and disease; supporting services such as soil formation and nutrient cycling; and cultural services such as recreational, spiritual, religious and other non-material benefits. "

Another influential definition comes from Gretchen Daily , who appeared in her anthology, Nature's Services . It defines ecosystem services as

“The conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfill human life. They maintain biodiversity and the production of ecosystem goods, such as seafood, forage, timber, biomass fuels, natural fiber, and many pharmaceuticals, industrial products, and their precursors. [...] In addition to the production of goods, ecosystem services are the actual life-support functions, such as cleansing, recycling, and renewal, and they confer many intangible aesthetic and cultural benefits as well. "

Due to criticism of both definitions, Roy Haines-Young and Marion Potschin proposed the influential concept of the ecosystem service cascade . In the usual form, the cascade includes the following stages: ecosystem processes / biodiversity, ecosystem functions , ecosystem services , benefits for people. The MEA definition mixes up the last two levels, while the daily definition does not clearly separate the first two.

In accordance with the distinction of the cascade model between services and benefits and to differentiate between contributions from ecosystems and other factors such as human labor, ecosystem services have then also been defined as "the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being."

Categories

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment , ecosystem services can be divided into four categories, whereby the so-called supporting services are viewed as the basis of the other services:

  • Support services
    • ecosystem services through processes such as soil formation, nutrient cycle and conservation of genetic diversity
  • Providing services
    • Provision of food, water, building materials (wood), fibers, raw materials for medicines
  • Regulatory services
    • Regulation of climatic conditions, runoff of surface water, population sizes of harmful organisms, water quality, pollutant concentrations (waste disposal), pollination
  • Cultural services
    • ecosystem services that promote recreation, nature tourism, aesthetic enjoyment and spiritual fulfillment

TEEB

An alternative classification of ecosystem services was suggested in the influential TEEB report The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations . This is largely congruent with the MEA classification, but the category of supporting services was dispensed with. This was Habitat Services ( Habitat Servies replaced), which include the maintenance of life cycles migrativer species and maintaining count of genetic diversity.

CICES

At the EU level, a new classification is being developed as part of the CICES ( Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services ) project of the European Environment Agency , which is intended to replace the MEA and TEEB classifications. The project is directly related to the attempts to set standards for environmental-economic accounting at EU level (within the framework of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting , SEEA). In the current version, the CICES contains only 3 categories:

  • Providing services
  • Cultural services
  • Regulatory and Maintenance Services (which summarizes the regulatory and habitat services of the TEEB classification).

Value to man

Human life on earth would not be possible without ecosystem services. Such statements seem to imply that ecosystem services have a value that goes far beyond any meaningful measure that can be quantified in monetary units. This is also true for the entirety of all ecosystem services. This has for example the detailed criticism of the article by Costanza et al. (1997) on the “value” of the biosphere . However, the entirety of ecosystem services is rarely the subject of human action decisions. Action-relevant evaluation questions with regard to ecosystem services only arise with regard to specific questions.

The term ecosystem service is defined by an anthroporelational (it is people who evaluate) and an anthropocentric perspective (only human interests count). This does not imply that there cannot be other relations or perspectives (see e.g. biocentrism ). When ecosystem services are mentioned, however, only benefit foundations for people are discussed. These benefit foundations can be assessed using various methods:

The calculation of net present values in the KNA assumes that the temporal flow of the economic advantages and disadvantages ( net benefits ) of the alternative courses of action can be adequately estimated. In the case of "environmentally relevant" alternative courses of action, this presupposes the assessment of the changes in the ecosystem services concerned and their monetization . There are, in turn, various methods available for converting into monetary units; In particular, survey methods (e.g. the contingent evaluation method ) are often easier to use for evaluating ecosystem services than for evaluating ecosystem functions . However, the monetary valuation of ecosystem services also remains difficult if, in the narrower sense, “essential” ecosystem services are affected to a large extent.

In order to ensure the provision of ecosystem services, special payment mechanisms ( Payments for Ecosystem Services , PES ) are used.

Hazard from environmental damage

The availability of ecosystem services can deteriorate rapidly as a result of pollution or other unsustainable management. Worldwide, 60% of the ecosystem services examined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment are in a state of degradation or unsustainable use, which is characterized by decreasing quantity and quality of ecosystem services. Of the 24 providing, regulatory and cultural services recorded, the pressure to use is currently increasing in 20.

In 2017, over 15,000 scientists published an urgent warning to mankind , which proves that ecosystem services are seriously endangered and that the chances of maintaining them are currently assessed negatively.

Discussion about application and application limits

General application limits

In their work, which summarizes more than 30 studies, Costanza et al. 1997 raised a number of issues that set limits to the practical implementation of valuations in ecosystem services.

  1. For many biomes (tundra, desert , arable land , seas, etc.) there is a lack of complete and valid data bases for many categories of services. If this data were included, an increase in the value of the ecosystems examined would be assumed.
  2. The current monetary valuation of many things and services is not universal. B. does not take into account the values ​​of ecosystems, the informal sector and other areas. The valuation of ecosystem services is based on the current monetary valuation of things and services.
  3. The assessment basis is partly the willingness to pay approach, i.e. H. the price people would be willing to pay for a service. Values ​​such as social fairness , ecological sustainability and other factors are not sufficiently taken into account in the individual assessment .
  4. The " infrastructure performance " of ecosystems is not taken into account and not included in the total value.
  5. There are trade-offs between the individual services , as they are sometimes in an antagonistic relationship to one another. The simultaneous maximization of all desired effects is difficult in the highly complex system. The calculation of services also.

Cultural ecosystem services

The operationalization of the concept of so-called cultural ecosystem services is still under discussion . It is about attempts to define, record and evaluate these services from research areas such as landscape aesthetics / landscape image evaluation , cultural landscape maintenance and recreation planning .

A fundamental criticism of the concept of cultural ecosystem services points to the following: Firstly, essential cultural values ​​of our natural or culturally reshaped environment are based on the unique character (peculiarity) of areas, which deal with the general, scientific parameters by which ecosystems are described, could not be grasped; secondly, when it comes to such valuations, the environment is not perceived as an ecosystem , but in an emotional and aesthetic-subjective manner as landscape , wilderness, etc .; Thirdly, these valuations were not based on ecological properties and processes, but on culturally shaped modes of perception and interpretation patterns.

In contrast to fundamentally negative requests to speak, other authors assess the applicability of the concept as an empirical question. For a large number of examples, research has shown a substantial contribution of specific ecosystems to the satisfaction of certain cultural needs and desires. This also applies to the aesthetic perception and evaluation of the landscape. In terms of legal regulations on landscape protection, the interaction between natural and cultural factors must be emphasized - otherwise there is a risk of further undervaluation of the cultural benefits of ecological systems.

See also

Web links

literature

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005): Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis [2] . Island Press , Washington. 155 pp.
  • Karsten Grunewald, Olaf Bastian (2013): Ecosystem Services: Concept, Methods and Case Studies. Springer: Heidelberg
  • Lasse Loft, Alexandra Lux (2010): Ecosystem Services - An Introduction. BiK-F Knowledge Flow Paper, 6. Frankfurt am Main

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b Alcamo, J., et al., 2003: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment - Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press , Washington, 245 pp.
  2. ↑ Gretchen Daily: Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems . Island Press, Washington DC / Covelo 1997, p. 3 .
  3. ↑ James Boyd, Spencer Banzhaf: What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units . In: Ecological Economics . tape 63 , no. 2-3 , 2007, pp. 616-626 , doi : 10.1016 / j.ecolecon.2007.01.002 .
  4. ↑ Task Force ES Cascade ( Memento of April 2, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) on the website of the Ecosystem Services Partnership, accessed on March 12, 2015.
  5. ^ The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): The Ecological and Economic Foundations. Chapter 1: Integrating the Ecological and Economic Dimensions in Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Valuation . Ed .: UNEP. Geneva 2010, p. 19 [emphasis added] .
  6. ↑ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005): Ecosystems and Human Well-being - Synthesis , p. 39ff. (PDF; 14.92 MB) .
  7. ^ The report on the TEEB website, accessed March 12, 2015.
  8. ↑ See CICES V4.3 on [1] , accessed on March 12, 2015.
  9. ^ A. Myrick Freeman III: On Valuing the Services and Functions of Ecosystems . In: The economic approach to environmental policy: the selected essays of A. Myrick Freeman III . Edward Elgar, Cheltenham 1998.
  10. ↑ Heal, GM, Barbier, EB, Boyle, KJ, Covich, AP, Gloss, SP, Hershner, CH, Hoehn, JP, Pringle, CM, Polasky, S., Segerson, K. and Shrader-Frechette, K. ( Committee on Assessing and Valuing the Services of Aquatic and Related Terrestrial Ecosystems): Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision-making . National Academies Press, 2005.
  11. ↑ Jan Barkmann, Klaus Glenk, Alwin Keil, Constanze Leemhuis, Nora Dietrich, Gerhard Gerold, Rainer Marggraf: Confronting unfamiliarity with ecosystem functions: The case for an ecosystem service approach to environmental valuation with stated preference methods . In: Ecological Economics . tape 65 , no. 1 , March 15, 2008, p. 48-62 , doi : 10.1016 / j.ecolecon.2007.12.002 .
  12. ↑ Jan Barkmann, Rainer Marggraf: Because we cannot eat money - on ecological disaster prevention through biological diversity . In: Negotiations of the Society of German Natural Scientists and Doctors . tape 138 , 2007, p. 175-191 .
  13. ↑ Cf. Bernd Klauer: What contribution can economics make to preserving biodiversity? In: UFZ discussion papers number = 2/2001 . 2001, p. 9 ( Econstor entry with reference to PDF full text ).
  14. ↑ William J. Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Thomas M. Newsome, Mauro Galetti, Mohammed Alamgir, Eileen Crist, Mahmoud I. Mahmoud, William F. Laurance and 15,364 life scientists from 184 countries: World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice . In: BioScience . tape 67 , no. 12 , 2017, p. 1026-1028 , doi : 10.1093 / biosci / bix125 .
  15. ↑ Robert Costanza et. al: The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital . In: Nature . tape 387 , May 1997, p. 253-260 , doi : 10.1038 / 387253a0 .
  16. ↑ Costanza lists a total of 12 "sources of errors, limitations and caveats" that apply to his work, but also come into play in many other calculations.
  17. ↑ Terry C. Daniel et al .: Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda . In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . tape 109 , no. 23 , 2012, p. 8812-8819 , doi : 10.1073 / pnas.1114773109 , PMID 22615401 .
  18. ↑ Thomas Kirchhoff: Pivotal cultural values ​​of nature cannot be integrated into the ecosystem services framework . In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . tape 109 , no. 46 , 2012, p. E3146 – E3146 , doi : 10.1073 / pnas.1212409109 , PMID 23012476 .
  19. ↑ Thomas Kirchhoff: 'Cultural Ecosystem Services'. A conceptual and methodological critique ['Cultural Ecosystem Services'. A Conceptual and Methodological Critique] . In: Gerald Hartung , Nicole C. Karafyllis , Kristian Köchy , Konrad Ott , Gregor Schiemann (eds.): PHYSIS . tape 4 . Alber, Freiburg / Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-495-48971-0 , p. 192 pages ( naturphilosophie.org [PDF]).
  20. ↑ See the criticism of the V-value method by Kiemstedt in Esser, P. & Lauruschkus, G .: Landscape image assessment in scientific landscape planning . In: Landscape planning between rationality and nature . Technical University of Berlin, Berlin 1993 .; Eisel, U .: Landscape diversity with and without meaning. About the benefits of a method in landscape planning and nature conservation . In: Landscape in a culture of sustainability. Volume I: The Scientificization of Cultural Quality . University of Kassel, Kassel 2006, p. 92-119 .
  21. ↑ Terry C. Daniel et al .: Reply to Kirchhoff: Cultural values ​​and ecosystem services . In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . tape 109 , no. 46 , 2012, p. E3147 – E3147 , doi : 10.1073 / pnas.1213520109 .