17 Upcoming Challenges in Land Use Science—An International Perspective
321
addressing ecosystems and their services increased exponentially (Fisher et al. 2009;
Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2010; Vihervaara et al. 2010). Ecosystem services found
their entrance in political agenda setting through the UN science-policy process
“Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IBPBES), which
was established in 2012 in Panama (Larigauderie and Mooney 2010; Larigauderie
et al. 2012) and is currently (2019) ratified by 132 countries. Since the introduction of ecosystem services as an assessment framework e.g. in the context of the
European Biodiversity Strategy (Maes et al. 2012a, b; Schägner et al. 2013), a
multitude of definitions have been developed and discussed (Fisher et al. 2009).
Definitions that reached highest interest, are, “Conditions and Processes through
which natural ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfill
human life” (Daily 1997); “Benefits human populations derive directly or indirectly
from ecosystem functions” (Costanza et al. 1997); “Components of nature, directly
enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield human well-being” (Boyd und Banzhaf 2007);
“Aspects of ecosystems utilised actively or passively to produce human well-being”
(Fisher et al. 2009); “Direct or indirect contributions of ecosystems to human wellbeing” (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, see e.g. Ring et al. 2010).
Still, the definition formulated in MEA (2005) is acknowledged as most important
one, defining ecosystem services 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 nonmaterial benefits.”
However, the division of ecosystem services as suggested by MEA (2005) is
critically discussed and, for instance, The Common International Classification of
Ecosystem services (CICES, Potschin and Haines-Young 2011; Haines-Young and
Potschin 2012) suggest reducing the number of groups to regulating, provisioning
and cultural services. They suggest assessing separately bio-geophysical structures,
processes and ecosystem functions along a cascade that facilitates separating intrinsic
values of nature from yielded services. Among the diverse suggestions how to best
implement ecosystem services in support of policy consulting, the CICES cascade
in combination with the DPSIR (Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Responses) framework (Müller and Burkhard 2012) and the IPBES framework (Díaz et al. 2015a,
b) are promising and acknowledged suggestions. Both support strongly to separate
the assessment of intrinsic values of nature and their benefits for human well-being,
based on indicator sets, but also accounting for qualitative information. Anyhow, most
recent terminological discussions on the use of “Nature´s contributions to people”
(Díaz et al. 2018) instead ecosystem services and resulting critical responses (Braat
2018; de Groot et al. 2018) indicate that the concept as such is not yet in its final
stage to really support the assessment of outcomes of land use systems.
Consequently, there were attempts to make the concept suitable for a more integrative systemic perspective referring to landscapes as a holistic entity were multiple
land uses are meeting (Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009; Termorshuizen et al. 2007)
to address better human-nature interactions and landscape configuration as decisive
321
addressing ecosystems and their services increased exponentially (Fisher et al. 2009;
Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2010; Vihervaara et al. 2010). Ecosystem services found
their entrance in political agenda setting through the UN science-policy process
“Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IBPBES), which
was established in 2012 in Panama (Larigauderie and Mooney 2010; Larigauderie
et al. 2012) and is currently (2019) ratified by 132 countries. Since the introduction of ecosystem services as an assessment framework e.g. in the context of the
European Biodiversity Strategy (Maes et al. 2012a, b; Schägner et al. 2013), a
multitude of definitions have been developed and discussed (Fisher et al. 2009).
Definitions that reached highest interest, are, “Conditions and Processes through
which natural ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfill
human life” (Daily 1997); “Benefits human populations derive directly or indirectly
from ecosystem functions” (Costanza et al. 1997); “Components of nature, directly
enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield human well-being” (Boyd und Banzhaf 2007);
“Aspects of ecosystems utilised actively or passively to produce human well-being”
(Fisher et al. 2009); “Direct or indirect contributions of ecosystems to human wellbeing” (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, see e.g. Ring et al. 2010).
Still, the definition formulated in MEA (2005) is acknowledged as most important
one, defining ecosystem services 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 nonmaterial benefits.”
However, the division of ecosystem services as suggested by MEA (2005) is
critically discussed and, for instance, The Common International Classification of
Ecosystem services (CICES, Potschin and Haines-Young 2011; Haines-Young and
Potschin 2012) suggest reducing the number of groups to regulating, provisioning
and cultural services. They suggest assessing separately bio-geophysical structures,
processes and ecosystem functions along a cascade that facilitates separating intrinsic
values of nature from yielded services. Among the diverse suggestions how to best
implement ecosystem services in support of policy consulting, the CICES cascade
in combination with the DPSIR (Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Responses) framework (Müller and Burkhard 2012) and the IPBES framework (Díaz et al. 2015a,
b) are promising and acknowledged suggestions. Both support strongly to separate
the assessment of intrinsic values of nature and their benefits for human well-being,
based on indicator sets, but also accounting for qualitative information. Anyhow, most
recent terminological discussions on the use of “Nature´s contributions to people”
(Díaz et al. 2018) instead ecosystem services and resulting critical responses (Braat
2018; de Groot et al. 2018) indicate that the concept as such is not yet in its final
stage to really support the assessment of outcomes of land use systems.
Consequently, there were attempts to make the concept suitable for a more integrative systemic perspective referring to landscapes as a holistic entity were multiple
land uses are meeting (Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009; Termorshuizen et al. 2007)
to address better human-nature interactions and landscape configuration as decisive