249
energy availability is also at risk from the aggressive ability of fungi to decompose
both living and dead plant tissue. These dynamics, however, have unacceptable
impacts primarily when other stressors put ecosystems out of balance.
9.3 Valuing Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services
9.3.1 Why Do We Need to Evaluate the Value of Ecosystem
Services?
When values of ecosystem services are evaluated and incorporated into decisionmaking, we can make more informed decisions about managing the natural capital
(including biodiversity and ecosystem services) that underpins human well-being
and livelihoods. Specifically, we can use the values to choose desired management
practices, technologies, and policies to maximize social welfare, minimize unintended costs, or balance various societal objectives, including economic development, health, environmental protection, and conservation. This is especially important
for decision-making regarding the nexus, where there are often many “hidden” interdependencies, trade-offs, and synergies that need to be measured and evaluated.
For example, valuation studies reveal trade-offs between management options
(e.g., between the use of agrochemical inputs and regulating/supporting ecosystem
services that maintain agricultural productivity) and farming systems (e.g., conventional vs. organic). Economic valuation of ecosystem services through ecosystem
accounting can also highlight the potential appeal of changes in agricultural management that deliver enhanced ecosystem services—specifically those supporting
and regulating ecosystem services that lack markets.
Equally important is to evaluate and account for the impacts of varied agricultural systems on ecosystem services. Such an assessment can help illustrate the
long-term sustainability of production systems that supply nutritious food in
required quantities without negatively impacting on the environment and human
health. Sukhdev et al. (2016) demonstrate the challenges of this within the nexus,
stating that current metrics for agricultural performance do not recognize or account
for the hidden costs and benefits of the whole system and that food metrics must be
urgently overhauled, or the Sustainable Development Goals will never be achieved.
An important caveat is that the economic values are only useful to the extent that
they can capture the revealed or stated market and non-market benefits of ecosystem
services with monetary metrics. It is important to recognize that monetarization is
not feasible for many important contributions of ecosystem services to society
(social equity, distributional effects, intrinsic value, etc.) that need to be considered
when weighing options with respect to management of ecosystem services (or ecosystem management).
It is also critical to acknowledge that the diversity of values of nature and its contributions to people’s good quality of life are associated with different cultural and
institutional contexts and are hard to compare on the same yardstick. This makes it
9 Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services
energy availability is also at risk from the aggressive ability of fungi to decompose
both living and dead plant tissue. These dynamics, however, have unacceptable
impacts primarily when other stressors put ecosystems out of balance.
9.3 Valuing Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services
9.3.1 Why Do We Need to Evaluate the Value of Ecosystem
Services?
When values of ecosystem services are evaluated and incorporated into decisionmaking, we can make more informed decisions about managing the natural capital
(including biodiversity and ecosystem services) that underpins human well-being
and livelihoods. Specifically, we can use the values to choose desired management
practices, technologies, and policies to maximize social welfare, minimize unintended costs, or balance various societal objectives, including economic development, health, environmental protection, and conservation. This is especially important
for decision-making regarding the nexus, where there are often many “hidden” interdependencies, trade-offs, and synergies that need to be measured and evaluated.
For example, valuation studies reveal trade-offs between management options
(e.g., between the use of agrochemical inputs and regulating/supporting ecosystem
services that maintain agricultural productivity) and farming systems (e.g., conventional vs. organic). Economic valuation of ecosystem services through ecosystem
accounting can also highlight the potential appeal of changes in agricultural management that deliver enhanced ecosystem services—specifically those supporting
and regulating ecosystem services that lack markets.
Equally important is to evaluate and account for the impacts of varied agricultural systems on ecosystem services. Such an assessment can help illustrate the
long-term sustainability of production systems that supply nutritious food in
required quantities without negatively impacting on the environment and human
health. Sukhdev et al. (2016) demonstrate the challenges of this within the nexus,
stating that current metrics for agricultural performance do not recognize or account
for the hidden costs and benefits of the whole system and that food metrics must be
urgently overhauled, or the Sustainable Development Goals will never be achieved.
An important caveat is that the economic values are only useful to the extent that
they can capture the revealed or stated market and non-market benefits of ecosystem
services with monetary metrics. It is important to recognize that monetarization is
not feasible for many important contributions of ecosystem services to society
(social equity, distributional effects, intrinsic value, etc.) that need to be considered
when weighing options with respect to management of ecosystem services (or ecosystem management).
It is also critical to acknowledge that the diversity of values of nature and its contributions to people’s good quality of life are associated with different cultural and
institutional contexts and are hard to compare on the same yardstick. This makes it
9 Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services