Ecosystems (2016) 19: 661–673

DOI: 10.1007/s10021-016-9959-0
Ó 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York

Reinforcing the Ecosystem Services

Perspective: The Temporal
Component
John M. Heydinger1,2*

1
Program in the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine, University of Minnesota, 154 Shepard Labs, 100 Union Street SE,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA; 2Percy FitzPatrick Institute, DST/NRF Centre of Excellence, University of Cape Town, Ron-
debosch, 7701 Cape Town, South Africa

ABSTRACT
Founded upon sustainability science, the ecosystem
services concept is increasingly defined by an eco-
nomic valuation approach to natural capital. This
latter-day addition risks subsuming the central
message of the ecosystem services concept: that
humanity is reliant upon the natural world. Three
arenas of inappropriate application of the economic
valuation approach to ecosystem services are de-
tailed, these are defined as ecological, social-natu-
ral, and socioeconomic problems. Each problematic
arena suggests the primary shortcoming of the
economic valuation approach: it lacks an incorpo-
ration of the temporal component. More clearly
incorporating the natural conditions and processes
which compose and maintain human benefits into
the ecosystem services concept will more fully re-
flect contemporary economics and sustainability
science. The framework of Social-ecological Sys-
tems (SES) theory provides a broad foundation for
the economic valuation of ecosystem services.
Emphasizing the importance of human and envi-
ronmental change, SES theory encapsulates a
needed awareness of the dynamic interactions
which compose ecosystem services.
Key words: ecosystem service; social-ecological
systems; economic value; ecosystem science; tem-
poral dynamics; change.

INTRODUCTION processes with human well-being that the concept

Ecosystem services have become the preeminent
vocabulary of social and ecological exchange
(Wilson and Howarth 2002; Potschin and Haines-
Young 2011; Voosen 2013). Defined by the Mil-
lennium Ecosystem Assessment as the ‘‘benefits
people obtain from ecosystems’’ (MA 2005, p. 53),
ecosystem services are a form of lexical and con-
ceptual bricolage underscoring the importance of
ecological structures and functions to individuals
and society. Yet the linkage of environmental
Received 28 December 2014; accepted 2 December 2015;
published online 1 February 2016
*Corresponding author; e-mail: heydi002@umn.edu
characterizes has become tethered to an economic
valuation approach. Through this approach the
concept has achieved its greatest discursive power
(Gómez-Baggethun and others 2010; Potschin and
Haines-Young 2011). As it stands, economic valu-
ation of ecosystem services inadequately accounts
for the temporal dynamics which undergird
ecosystem services. Recognizing that change is
ever-present can help to spatially ground and
temporally contextualize both the components and
relationships which compose ecosystem services
(Levins and Lewontin 1985; Cronon 2000; Cum-
ming 2011). This recognition may support eco-
nomic valuations which are more fully reflective of
ecological processes.

661
662 J. M. Heydinger

The Ecosystem Services Concept ecosystem services at $125 trillion per year (2007
$US) (2014)). Although, predictably, many voices
Initially the term ecosystem services was coined to
have cried foul, variously labeling Costanza and
raise awareness that environmental degradation
others’ approach as ‘‘audacious,’’ ‘‘futile,’’ and ‘‘a
can compromise human life and livelihoods in di- serious underestimation of infinity’’ the efficacy of
verse contexts (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981). The the approach in stirring the scientific and political
concept sought to highlight the unaccounted-for
plot, both in the 90s and more recently, cannot be
benefits that people receive from natural processes
ignored (Masood and Garwin 1998; Rosen 2014;
(Daily 1997; Mooney and Ehrlich 1997; Norgaard
Zimmer 2014). Such analyses have made it evident
2010). Whereas ethics of stewardship and conser-
that the global economy cannot substitute for
vation are predicated upon tenets of human duty,
widespread ecosystem services shortfalls (Solow
the ecosystem services concept inverted this logic
1974).
(Goulder and Kennedy 1997; Kareiva and Marvier In 2005, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
2012). The development of a utilitarian paradigm (MA) ‘‘firmly placed the ecosystem services con-
defining humanity’s relationship to nature, placed
cept on the policy agenda’’, and gave the concept
anthropic benefit at the forefront of ecosystem
its greatest voice to-date (Gómez-Baggethun and
protection (Hardin 1974; Gómez-Baggethun and
others 2010, p. 1214; Potschin and Haines-Young
others 2010). Slowly a narrative of conservation for
2011). As a document founded upon the impera-
development began to supplant that of conserva-
tive of transforming policy, the MA sought prag-
tion against development (Folke 2006). Though
matic approaches to integrating ecosystem con-
human dependency upon natural processes has cerns into decision-making processes. The MA
long been acknowledged, more than forty years conceptual framework assumed that changing hu-
since the emergence of the modern conservation
man conditions both directly and indirectly drive
movement, environmental challenges such as bio-
changes in ecosystems, while changes in ecosys-
diversity loss, habitat destruction, and global cli-
tems likewise impact social prospects (MA 2005,
mate change continued to worsen (Brundtland
pp. 7–8). Such concerns were addressed via the
1987; Daily 1997; PCAST 1998). Ecosystem services
application of ecosystem services, both as a mea-
were initially one more attempt to arrest global
surement tool and focus of concern. Though
environmental degradation. ecosystems are initially identified as valuable ‘‘be-
Such increased awareness gave rise to large-scale cause they maintain life on earth and the services
institutional reviews addressing global environ-
needed to satisfy human material and nonmaterial
mental conditions (UNEP 1972; IPCC 1988;
needs’’, the manner of measuring this value is not
Brundtland 1987; Gómez-Baggethun and others
immediately apparent (MA Framework 2003, p.
2010). By 1997 the ecosystem services concept had
128). Because economic markets are seen to guide
moved into the mainstream of ecological scholar-
the choices of many individuals as well as public
ship. The publication of Daily’s edited volume Na-
and private decisions, the ‘common metric’ (MA
ture’s Services (1997) and Costanza and others’ Framework 2003, p. 128) of price, as the mode of
(Costanza and others 1997) paper, began the economic valuation of ecosystem services, has been
paradigmatic preeminence of the concept across
conceived as the premier method of integrating
the ecological scientific and policy realm (Mooney
environmental concerns into decision-making
and Ehrlich 1997; Peterson and others 2010).
arenas (Costanza and Daly 1992; Costanza 2000;
While Daily’s volume brought together noteworthy
MA 2005; PCAST 2011). Though not ‘‘an end in
environmental scientists around the theme of
itself,’’ the economic valuation of ecosystem ser-
ecosystem services, Costanza and others’ paper
vices has become widely recognized as ‘‘the first
pegged global ecosystem services to an average step in integrating these services into public deci-
value estimated at $33 trillion per year ($46 tril- sion-making and ensuring the continuity of
lion/y in 2007 $US). Comparatively measuring
ecosystems that provide these services’’ (Goulder
global GDP to be roughly $18 trillion per year, this
and Kennedy 1997; Sekercioglu 2010, p. 65).
synthesis sought to convey the global economic
value of ecosystem services, and proved to be a
Contesting Economic Valuation
‘‘watershed’’ in the expanding fields of environ-
mental sciences and ecological economics (Parks In its ascendance, the ecosystem services concept
and Gowdy 2013, p. e4). (More recently, Costanza became linked to an economic valuation of nature.
and others have published an upward revision of As one tool for incorporating ecological concerns
their 1997 figures, now placing the global value of into decision-making arenas, the economic
 Reinforcing the Ecosystem Service Perspective
valuation of ecosystem services is indeed poten-
tially powerful (Liu and others 2007; PCAST 2011;
Voosen 2013; Costanza and others 2014). How-
ever, both the process by which economic valua-
tions occur (Heal 2000; Boyd and Banzhaf 2005;
Kosoy and Corbera 2010), as well as concerns over
the ethical and physical impacts of applying eco-
nomic logic to the natural world have been con-
tested (Ludwig 2000; Robertson 2006; Soule 2013).
The preeminence of the economic valuation ap-
proach threatens to undermine the key insight of
the ecosystem services concept: that humanity is
reliant upon the natural world.
Though economic valuation, addressing both use
and non-use values, is both a useful and necessary
tool for integrating ecological perspectives into
decision-making practices, when applied in isola-
tion economic measurements threaten to overlook
the dynamic interplay existing between ecological
phenomena, between people and the natural
world, and between social actors. These highlight
shortcomings in the economic valuation approach
to ecosystem services. I respectively categorize
these shortcomings as ecological, social-natural,
and socioeconomic problems, and review each in
turn. This applied organizational structure provides
clarity to somewhat tangled arguments. Each arena
is not premised upon an a priori separation, but
rather expresses the character of interactions being
assessed. These critiques typify each arena as
inadequately accounting for the temporal dynamics
which undergird ecosystem services. Emphasizing
the temporal contingency of ecosystem services
and the importance of the conditions and processes
which undergird them (Daily 1997), can concep-
tually strengthen the ecosystem services concept,
reorienting it towards a discourse of praxis,
whereby interactive and creative processes across
social and ecological arenas are seen to be co-pro-
ductive of one linked world.
CRITIQUES OF THE ECONOMIC VALUATION OF
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Ecological Problems
Foremost among critiques of the economic valua-
tion approach is that it inadequately addresses the
functional and interactive nature of ecosystems.
Ecosystems are both heterogeneous and in a con-
tinuous process of evolutionary change (Leopold
1933; Golley 1993; Maler and others 2008). Tans-
ley (1935) set forth the idea that the physical uni-
verse, from the vast expanse to the tiniest atom, is
simultaneously composing and composed by a
663
hierarchy of interacting, nested systems (Golley
1993). ‘‘These ecosystems,’’ Tansely wrote, ‘‘are of
the most various kinds and sizes’’ (1935, p. 299).
Characterized by multi-scalar interactions which
yield the creation of complex, emergent entities,
ecosystems are both a basic unit and primary pro-
duct of ecological interactions (Limburg and others
2002). Component relationships are the drivers of
ecological processes (Golley 1993). Tracing rela-
tionships across and within organisms and physical
environments, the ecosystem perspective recog-
nizes these complex entities as both composed by
and transcendent of their constituent parts. Inher-
ently place based, ecosystems are simultaneously
linked to, and differentiated from their neighbors
through differing processes of interaction. Mea-
sures of ecosystem extent depend upon which as-
pect of the system is being examined. The
ecological sciences endeavor to study these com-
plex systems in their various forms and expressions
(Colyvan and others 2009).
The place-based interactions of ecological pro-
cesses suggest that components and interactions
cannot be meaningfully separated from their envi-
ronments without sacrificing crucial aspects of
identity (Levins and Lewontin 1985; Harvey 1996;
Vatn 2000). Though it may be feasible to value one
fish separately from its habitat, how can we hope to
value a stock of fish without simultaneously being
assured they will have water to live in? Economic
valuation approaches threaten to abstract ecological
relationships from their spatial and temporal con-
texts. A Cartesian approach—by which parts are
conceived to be separable from the whole—ad-
dresses only the end-products of natural processes
(see Panel 2), threatening to impose a factory-logic
onto the natural world (Boyd and Banzhaf 2005;
Maler and others 2008; Rogers and others 2013).
Although it has been posited that ecosystem ser-
vices align economics with conservation concerns
(Daily and Matson 2008), the converse seems
increasingly true: ecology is being straightjacketed
by economic dictates (Robertson 2004; Peterson
and others 2010). An imposition of market logic
threatens to mask ecological complexity and the
processes by which services are created (Kosoy and
Corbera 2010). This approach can involve consid-
erable risks to both people and the environment
(Beck 1992; Muradian and Rival 2012).
‘‘Bringing earth into the balance sheet’’ suggests
a narrowing down of ecological function to human
benefits comparable across time and space (Foster
2002, p. 16; Economist 2005). The development of
new approaches has been argued for by numer-
ous ecologists and economists (Vatn 2000;
664 J. M. Heydinger
Gomez-Baggethun and Ruiz-Perez 2011; Chan and
others 2012). As ecosystem functions are trans-
formed into deliverable ecosystem services, natural
processes become susceptible to logics of com-
modification and exchange (Vatn 2000; Daily and
others 2009). One-sided valuation approaches can
marginalize the interactive and multi-functional
nature of ecosystem processes (Myrdal 1953;
Gowdy and others 2013). The environmental sci-
ences suggest that there is no single, ideal state of
nature. Ecosystem processes are always evolving in
response to changing inputs and conditions (Dar-
win 1859; Tilman and others 1997; Gowdy and
others 2013). When applied without regard for the
transformative character of the conditions and
processes which compose ecosystems, economic
values threaten to freeze ecological interactions in
place. When ecosystem services are decoupled from
ecosystem processes, concerns of ends subsume an
awareness of means. The conceptual simplification
of natural processes creates problems in applying
our ecological understandings. When market logics
dictate desirable ecosystem function the central
thread of the ecosystem services concept—hu-
manity’s reliance upon ecosystems—is in danger.
Social-Natural Problems
Comprehensive assessment of natural processes
will recognize that ecosystems consist of human
components. Indeed, human mediation is required
before ecological processes are realized as ecosys-
tem services (Potschin and Haines-Young 2011;
Costanza and others 2014). Likewise, human ac-
tion impacts the environment, and the two realms
feedback upon each other in dynamic, and some-
times transformative, processes (Gunderson and
Holling 2002; Cumming 2011; Mann 2011). ‘So-
cial-natural problems’ highlight the extent to
which ecosystem service valuation exists within
and reinforces certain socio-technical interactions
with the natural world. Four distinct types of so-
cial-natural problems arise with ecosystem service
valuation.
First, ecosystem service valuation occurs within
our socio-technical present: transformative media-
tion is central to much of humanity’s ability to
derive valuable products or experiences from the
natural world (Marx 1867; Foster 2000; Henderson
2009); our relationship with natural capital is
contingent upon an array of social-natural rela-
tionships which are liable to change over time.
There is no guarantee that ecological phenomena
or processes will serve as a resource, nor is there
any guarantee that the natural products of today
will be similarly available tomorrow. Conversely,
an untold number of natural products are yet to be
developed. Natural capital becomes ecosystem ser-
vices only to the extent that it can be realized as
services to benefit people. Some ecosystem services
will be realized with little or no technical media-
tion, for example, water purification and organic
decomposition. Others, such as medicinal plants,
building materials, or hydropower, require vast
social and material technological assemblages to
transform and deliver these resources. Fixing a
price to any phenomenon relies upon a host of
social and contextual ties which are often obscured
in the application of the ecosystem services concept
(Kosoy and Corbera 2010).
Second, case and time sensitive, the economic
valuation of ecosystem services occurs within a
framework of unsustainable practices (Maler and
others 2008). Global assemblages of people and
things have fostered social-natural relationships
typified by the degradation and transformation of
life-supporting ecosystems (Daily 1997). The MA
recognizes that significant changes in policies,
institutions, and practices are required to meet
present ecosystem challenges; these are not cur-
rently underway (MA 2005). Such changes would
dramatically impact relative prices, rendering neo-
classical-style economic and political prescriptions
‘‘especially inappropriate’’ (Rammel and van den
Bergh 2015, p. 122). Technology and social value
co-evolve alongside society’s relationship with the
natural world (Rolston 1982; Rhodes 1988; Foster
2000); it must be questioned whether or not ours is
a society which, as currently constructed, can breed
economic valuations appropriate to realizing sus-
tainable ends (Costanza 2000; Foster 2002). Eco-
nomic valuation approaches derived from existing
institutions, policies, and wealth distributions, may
become untenable. The more serious our current
environmental difficulties, the less adequate cur-
rent valuation approaches are for moving towards a
sustainable future (Norgaard 2010).
Third, given the complex nature of social-natural
interactions, uncertainty and the unknown are
omnipresent in our valuations of ecosystem ser-
vices (Beck 1992; Norberg and Cumming 2008;
Cumming and others 2012). Although less-than-
perfect data are a universal problem within the
quantitative sciences, measurement difficulties and
the poor quality of environmental and social data
suggest that even the most widely recognized
ecosystem service markets have not reached a level
of maturity expected of commodity markets
(Robertson 2004). Natural resource measurement
requires a synthesis of numerous information
 Reinforcing the Ecosystem Service Perspective
types, many of which contain notable errors and
variability (Carpenter and Turner 2000). Such dif-
ficulties threaten to place certain services beyond
market parameters, thus compromising their im-
pacts upon environmental policy (Robertson 2006;
Kosoy and Corbera 2010). The persistence of
unforeseen outcomes demands an incorporation of
uncertainty into forecasts of social and natural
transformations (Leopold 1933; Funtowicz and
Ravetz 1994; Martinez-Alier and others 1998).
Technical limitations and our consequent uncer-
tainty imply that both our economic and moral
priorities are susceptible to radical alteration.
Fourth, the rights and obligations humans exer-
cise regarding the natural world have come under
frequent critique. As the discursive power of
ecosystem services grows, it is incumbent upon us
to assess whether or not economic valuation is
characteristic of a desirable relationship to the
natural world.
Though woven into the foundations of capital-
ism, the ‘triumphalist’ attitude implying that nat-
ural entities and processes shall be subject to
human ownership is both historically contingent
and variously contested (Hughes 1983; Gill 1987;
Callicott and Ames 1989; Harvey 1996, p. 131). At
least as early as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, western
thinkers have noted the problematic aspects of
owning the natural world:
The first man who, after enclosing a
piece of ground, took it into his head to
say, this is mine, and found people sim-
ple enough to believe him, was the true
founder of civil society. How many
crimes, how many wars, how many
murders, how many misfortunes and
horrors, would that man have saved the
human species, who by pulling up the
stakes, or filling up the ditches, should
have cried to his fellows: be sure not to
listen to this imposter; you are lost if you
forget that the fruits of the earth belong
equally to us all, and the earth itself to
nobody! (Rousseau 1761, p. 97).
Ownership rests upon our ability to exclude
others from equal access to, or enjoyment of, par-
ticular phenomena. The monetary valuation of
ecosystem services similarly suggests the possibility
that such services can be, perhaps ought to be,
exclusively owned.
The necessity of exclusion as a means of envi-
ronmental protection was given its most full-
665
throated endorsement by American ecologist Garrett
Hardin, in his ‘‘The Tragedy of the Commons’’
(1968). Establishing that you can never maximize
antagonistic variables, Hardin outlined his now fa-
mous theory in response to rising global population.
Arguing that selfish, though economically rational,
actions will degrade common-pool resources Hardin
noted that individual rational choices will not al-
ways yield the greatest good—a position known as
‘soft-utilitarianism’ (Goulder and Kennedy 1997;
Martinez-Alier and others 1998). This critique, pri-
marily executed as a broadside across Jeremy Ben-
tham’s utopian pursuit of the greatest good for the
greatest number, along with Hardin’s conclusions,
have become the ‘‘dominant paradigm’’ for balanc-
ing the right and obligations dictated by our envi-
ronmental present (Gómez-Baggethun and others
2010). Asserting that an action’s moral fitness ought
to be assessed in regards to desired outcomes, Hardin
believed that privatization of natural resources could
alone arrest environmental degradation.
Crucially, Hardin’s work fails to recognize the
contingency of his conclusions and feedbacks be-
tween social and natural systems. Ostrom (2007)
has shown that Hardin’s reliance upon individually
autonomous and anonymous actors provides a very
sparse view of the commons. In a world without
collective decision-making bodies, where idealized
individuals are free from broader societal concerns,
private ownership for conservation ends may be
necessary. This, however, is not the socio-political
world we inhabit, as evidenced by innumerable
organizations seeking to influence business and
governmental priorities. The extension of property
rights has the power to conceptually and physically
transform natural products and processes (Cronon
1983; Ludwig 2000; Foster 2002). Collectively we
may question how different means of environ-
mental valuation impact our attitudes towards each
other, and towards the natural environment.
The social-natural interface remains an achieve-
ment of differing, technological, scientific, and
societal transformations. The ubiquity of transfor-
mations demands a reflexivity to our approaches
(Norgaard 2010). The economic valuation ap-
proach to ecosystem services harnesses an interac-
tive dynamic of the social and the natural and leads
it down a one-way street of human benefit.
Socioeconomic Problems
The importance of clearly incorporating the tem-
poral component in assessing ecosystem services
is further highlighted when economic concepts
of value are interrogated. The application of
666 J. M. Heydinger
neoclassical concepts of economic value (Veblen
1900) are grounded within a framework of ‘strong
utilitarianism,’ whereby individual values aggre-
gate to form the broader social good (Goulder and
Kennedy 1997; MA 2005). Yet the assessment of
value in consequence, the assumption of ecological
and market equilibriums, and questions concerning
the economic values being assessed, each suggest
the socioeconomic difficulties of an economic val-
uation approach to ecosystem services.
The role that ecological products and processes
have on human well-being is the central focus of
the MA. The MA primarily assesses the value of
ecosystem services as value realized in consequence.
(Value in consequence is most frequently con-
trasted to Kant’s position that good is a pre-existing
factor and that an entity’s value is found not in its
use, but by virtue of its existence; Kant 1781). Such
a utilitarian value framework can be parsed into
both use and non-use values, as in the MA and The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Report
(TEEB). However, valuing ecological products and
processes solely in consequence threatens to
undermine a central aspect of the ecosystem ser-
vices concept as defined by Daily in 1997:
Ecosystem services are 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 pro-
duction of ecosystem goods, such as
seafood, forage, timber, biomass fuels,
natural fiber, and many pharmaceuticals,
industrial products, and their precursors
(1997, p. 3).
This earlier definition linking ecosystem services
not just to available goods, but to the conditions
and processes that compose and maintain them, in
contrast to the MA’s definition of ecosystem ser-
vices as ‘‘benefits people obtain from ecosystems’’
(2005, p. 53), reinforces the idea that benefits such
as seafood, forage, and so on are maintained by,
and cannot be meaningfully abstracted from, the
spatially and temporally grounded processes which
undergird them. While the MA does not deny that
people also accord the natural world intrinsic va-
lue, an emphasis on value in consequence risks
overlooking constitutive processes. Augmenting
value in consequence by a (re)incorporation of the
temporal component emphasizing the conditions
and processes which compose and maintain such
human benefits, may provide a more thorough
means for understanding and managing ecosystem
services.
Where the dynamic conditions and processes of
ecosystems are concerned, stable market equilibri-
ums cannot be assumed. Ecosystems have been
shown to be highly non-linear and the occurrence
of threshold crossings is often uncertain (Limburg
and others 2002; Groffman and others 2006): small
events can be the catalysts for large changes (Levin
1999; Farber and others 2002; Farley 2012). The
ability of the ecosystem services concept to mean-
ingfully address an uncertain ecological future
stumbles if stable market equilibriums are supposed
for ecosystem benefits. Marginal changes are well
accounted for by economic valuation methods
(Myrdal 1953; Ludwig 2000). However, the very
premises of the ecosystem services concept assert
the contingency of the ecological present and the
tenuousness of our ecological future. If ecosystem
service supplies are dramatically altered, economic
valuation exercises occurring in an outmoded status
quo will have limited application. ‘‘[T]he more
significant one thinks our environmental problems
are, the more inappropriate has been the partial
equilibrium model and project-by-project approach
for utilizing the concept of ecosystem services’’
(Norgaard 2010, 1220). A historical perspective on
any ecosystem service may reveal that the
arrangement of ecological and social components
aligned for a service to be realized rely upon
unsustainable interactions, contradicting notions of
equilibrium and marginal change.
Dovetailing with concerns of environmental and
market transformations, we are left wondering
whose values are being assessed in the economic
valuation of ecosystem services. For many people,
economic valuations occur in relation to economic
systems that are poorly understood. Unequal
opportunities to carefully interrogate ecosystem
valuation frameworks risk reproducing and com-
pounding existing socioeconomic inequalities.
Respondents participating in ecosystem service
valuations may historically have had limited access
to educational resources, putting them at a disad-
vantage when compared to scientists and policy
makers. As noted by Daily and others (2000),
economic valuations will be as well informed as the
people whose values are being assessed. This risks
exacerbating many of the justice issues which
ecosystem service valuation might help to address
(MA 2005). Here an incorporation of the temporal
component can inform our assessment of the eco-
nomic actors themselves. A people’s particular
history may influence their relationship to ecosys-
tem services and to valuation exercises. Moreover,
 Reinforcing the Ecosystem Service Perspective
we should expect that values concerning ecosystem
services will be transformed as access to both nat-
ural and social resources (such as education)
changes over time.
People will differentially benefit from ecosystem
services (Daily 1997; MA 2005). Going forward, an
explicit incorporation of temporal change into the
ecosystem services concept will aid policy makers
in assessing the socioeconomic impacts of ecosys-
tem services. As highlighted in TEEB, use and non-
use values are often contemporaneous. Hierarchies
of value between use and non-use, and between
monetary and non-monetary, are contingent in
relation to ecological, social-natural, and socioeco-
nomic assemblages and may be differentiated by
class, age, politics, and geography—among many
other variables. Weighing these in management
scenarios and political arenas will be an ethical as
well as an economic concern that should pay heed
to human historical factors. No matter how
ecosystem services are measured, accounting for a
diversity of human histories and values will be
difficult, but nonetheless important.
To continue to support the ecological processes
which undergird human well-being, the ecosystem
services concept is in need of a return to its foun-
dation upon the principles of sustainability science.
The application of the ecological, social-natural, and
socioeconomic typology places the focus squarely
on the interactions of system components, high-
lighting a particular shortcoming when ecosystem
services are abstracted from the conditions and
processes which compose and maintain them. The
inconsistencies detailed here are bound by an
inadequate accounting for the temporal component of
change. Ecological problems disregard the dynamics
of ecosystem processes, social-natural problems
suggest the importance of accounting for socio-
technical innovations and transforming human-
environmental relationships, and socioeconomic
problems abstract human values from non-equi-
librium ecosystem processes, important human
histories, and potential futures. In their turn these
each misrepresent the transformative element
which accompanies interaction (Whitehead 1929;
Levins and Lewontin 1985; Serres 1990; Foster
2000).
As the economic valuation approach to ecosystem
services has come to dominate ecosystem services
discourse, it has become increasingly necessary that
a transformation of kind regarding the concept takes
place. Anchored in both social and natural arenas,
the ecosystem services concept remains a crucial
tool for identifying, assessing, and managing hu-
man–environmental interactions (Daniel and others
667
2012). If returned to its foundation in sustainability
science the ecosystem services concept might fulfill
its promise as a tool for sustainable environmental
decision-making, and support the broader goal of a
future in which both environmental and human
well-being are possible. I close this review with a
brief examination of how the temporal dynamics of
ecosystem services can be supported through an
application of Social-Ecological Systems (SES)
Theory.
THE APPLICATION OF SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL
SYSTEMS THEORY
As a framework for assessing human and non-hu-
man interactions, both together and separately,
SES Theory is itself founded upon sustainability
science and can provide a more clear integration of
change as a dynamic constant in the linkage be-
tween ecosystem conditions and processes, and
human benefits. Recognizing that change is at the
heart of variable feedback, SES theory provides an
approach both descriptive of how the world func-
tions, and a heuristic lens to assess coupled social
and natural transformations (Cumming 2011).
Patterns of change in SESs are described through
five primary heuristics (Walker and others 2006).
(Panel 1) Set forth at a working conference of the
Resilience Alliance in 2003 and 2004, these
heuristics have evolved into the pith of SES theory.
Taken together, they represent the basis for novel
methodologies for addressing the co-production of
linked social and ecological phenomena and sys-
tems. Each heuristic orbits the central under-
standing that change is an inherent characteristic of
SESs. Contrasting these with the four primary
ontological commitments of the Cartesian approach
(Panel 2) brings the insights of the SES approach
into stark relief. When the ecosystem services
concept is applied without an accounting for
changing ecological and social dynamics, it is
reflective of the Cartesian approach. The temporal
component which serves as a foundation for the
key concepts of SES theory can support the
ecosystem services concept—itself already a pow-
erful descriptive and heuristic tool for relating hu-
man and environmental well-being (Reyers and
others 2013).
Many of the temporal aspects which imbue
ecosystem services risk being overlooked in the
economic valuation approach. As highlighted by
Carpenter and others (2009) the MA tacitly incor-
porated SES thinking into its framework of analy-
sis. A theoretic reinvigoration of the ecosystem
668 J. M. Heydinger

Panel 1. Key Concepts in Assessing Social-Ecological Systems

(i) Non-linearity, alternate configurations, and thresholds—Any system is composed of a roster of variables manifesting
different ‘states’ or values. As these variables interact in space and time, their values will change in ways both foreseen
and unforeseen. The dynamics of any system are displayed as the system moves through a three-dimensional space,
delineated by the possible combinations of its constituent variables. Social-ecological systems are demonstrative of
different characteristics emergent from the interactions of both biophysical and social variables in response to one
another. At any given time social-ecological systems will display certain configurations. Such systems can exhibit more
than one configuration. The interactions of variables over time can lead to changes in variable function and therefore
system structure. When the character of interactions is transformed systems are said to have crossed a ‘threshold.’
Threshold crossings can occur both within systems and can yield new systems.
(ii) Adaptive cycles—SESs exist in constant, dynamic interaction, demonstrating the characteristics outlined above. These
characteristics lead to four distinct phases of system dynamics. They are: (1) growth or exploitation; (2) conservation; (3)
collapse or release; and (4) reorganization. Nested within different hierarchies across space and time, these adaptive
cycles can generate novel recombination, which may be the catalyst for widespread variation, potentially leading to
system transformation. The inclusion of the collapse (or release), and reorganization phases, links a system’s organi-
zation and resilience to its dynamics.
(iii) Multiple scales and cross scale effects/‘‘Panarchy’’—Initially conceived in antithesis to hierarchy, panarchy is a
framework evoking unpredictable change in the dynamics arising from multi-scalar interactions and transformations.
Here adaptive cycles and the linkages between levels play a crucial role. The interplay between continuity and novelty
reflects the necessary balance found in sustainable development: the need to maintain possibility while addressing
present demands. Here part and whole interactively define one another and cross-pollinate change both upwards and
downwards. Nested adaptive cycles foster opportunity through their transformations, while maintaining integrity across
scales.
(iv) Adaptive capacity—Systems with high adaptive capacity are typified by a heterogeneity of variables and diversity of
functional possibilities. Highly adaptive systems are amenable to reconfiguration when necessary. Adaptive capacity can
be thought of as the existence of possibility for re-invention within a system. Resilience is key to enhancing adaptive
capacity.
(v) Resilience—Resilience is the capacity of a system to tolerate perturbations and disturbance without being forced into a
qualitatively different state. Resilient systems are able to change and respond through self-organization, learning, and
adaptation. A decline in resilience can mean that small shocks can cause larger shifts. The ability to recover and remain
flexible ensures that as systems become more complex and interactive they do not simultaneously become more fragile.
Resilience in social-ecological systems is often a function of that systems’ diversity. (adapted from: the Resilience
Alliance 2014)

Panel 2. Four Ontological Commitments of the Cartesian Approach

(1) There is a natural set of units or parts of which any system is made.
(2) These units are homogenous within themselves, at least insofar as they impact the whole of which they are a part.
(3) The parts are ontologically prior to the whole; that is, the parts exist in isolation and come together to make the wholes.
The parts have intrinsic properties, which they possess in isolation and which they lend to the whole. The whole is
nothing but the sum of its parts. The participation of parts within the whole does nothing to alter the parts.
(4) Causes are separate from effects, causes being the properties of subjects, and effects the properties of objects. There is
not ambiguity about which is which. (adapted from: Levins and Lewontin 1985)

services concept, for example, by returning to
Daily’s definition of ecosystem services and incor-
porating an SES framework, is thus less a re-cre-
ation than it is a reassertion of the linkage between
ecosystem conditions and processes and human
benefits. The ‘‘era of enormous change’’ (Carpenter
and others 2009, p. 1311) which characterizes our
biosphere suggests that an eye towards the tem-
poral will provide a more thorough appreciation for
the ‘‘linked iterative cycle’’ of human and natural
interactions (Reyers and others 2013, p. 272).
Whereas the economic valuation approach to
ecosystem services risks exculpating services from
the processes which compose them, an explicit
inclusion of the SES framework within the
ecosystem services concept recognizes that the
emergence of services occurs because of particular
interactions at the social and ecological interface.
Such interactions are susceptible to future trans-
formation. Three examples highlight how an
appreciation for temporal dynamics has already
begun to transform thinking focused on human–
natural interactions. The first takes Daily’s
definition of ecosystem services as indicative of
 Reinforcing the Ecosystem Service Perspective
the linkages between ecosystem conditions and
processes, and the benefits people obtain from
them. The second provides a brief glimpse of SES-
style thinking in the history of United States for-
estry management. The final comes from develop-
ments of ecosystem ‘insurance value’ set forth by
TEEB (2010). Incorporating SES thinking into each
further underscores the lessons from these exam-
ples and suggests future applications for assessing
human–natural interactions.
Ecological Change
As highlighted by Daily (1997), ecosystem services are
composed and maintained by ecosystem conditions
and processes. Because ecosystem conditions and
processes are heterogeneous and subject to change,
human benefits in the form of ecosystem services will
be similarly dynamic. Manifesting properties composed
of localized interactions between system components,
ecosystems bear all the hallmarks of complex systems
(Levin 1998). A particular ecosystem service will arise
from the components which compose that ecosystem,
the relationships between these components (Cum-
ming and Collier 2005), and the spatial and temporal
context in which the system resides. Within the SES
framework components are not treated in isolation.
Rather, they are assessed in relation to one another,
and in light of the system properties they compose
(Panel 1, iii). Such system properties—for example,
ecosystem services—can be assessed for their relative
stability as it pertains to the system’s proximity to
possible thresholds of change (Panel 1, i), the system’s
adaptive capacity (Panel 1, iv), and its resilience (Panel
1, v). The application of an SES framework not only
provides a heuristic lens for assessing relationships
between system components, but also helps to differ-
entiate between components and the ‘final’ ecosystem
services which emerge and are experienced as human
benefits. Rather than taking the existence of ecosystem
services as a given, the application of an SES frame-
work supports Daily’s recognition that human benefits
are contingent upon particular arrangements of
ecosystem conditions and processes, which result from
specific social and ecological histories. This framework
strengthens the ability of scientists and policy makers
to understand the conditions and processes forming
our ecological present, and allows them to more clearly
weigh trade-offs concerning possible ecosystem alter-
ations.
Social-Natural Change
Decisions made by social actors—institutions or
individuals—can impact the ecological processes
669
constitutive of ecosystem services. Applying the
SES framework to the history of US forestry pro-
vides an example of how an incorporation of the
temporal component can deepen and even trans-
form our understanding of social-natural problems.
Throughout the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century, industrial-scale timber extrac-
tions denuded much of the old-growth forests
across the Great Lakes region. Responding to an
economic demand for building materials (Cronon
1991), the timber industry transformed old-growth
forests, causing them to inhabit alternate ecosystem
configurations (Panel 1, i).
As massive trees were felled and taken away,
forest floors became littered with ‘slash,’ or the
limbs and branches which would have otherwise
hindered the transport of these woody giants. Slash
was usually left in place, leading to increased fuel
resources in forests (conservation of energy—Panel
1, ii). At the time it was not widely understood that
northern forests maintained a historic fire regime of
periodic, low-intensity burns, which effectively
limited standing loads of dry wood fuel. Here a
socially prescribed change in system components
yielded transformed ecological structures (Panel 1,
i)—increasing the risk of catastrophic wildfires
(USFWS 2012). This led to massive, and until re-
cently historically rare, turn-of-the-century wild-
fires forging the perspectives of top forestry officials
for generations to come (Pyne 1982). Not only
were forest fires seen to be dangerous, but they
destroyed timber, a vital economic resource. While
it would be apocryphal to label such concerns as
specifically worries over ecosystem services, much
of the logic deployed at the time is echoed in con-
temporary economic valuation approaches (Pyne
1982; Gómez-Baggethun and others 2010; Kosoy
and Corbera 2010). Declining resilience to once
relatively common system perturbations (Panel 1,
v) was, in this case, primarily caused by social ac-
tors operating on behalf of socioeconomic and
institutional forces.
Throughout much of the twentieth century, the
United States Forest Service and Department of the
Interior maintained a policy of active fire suppres-
sion on public lands (Pyne 1982; Forest History
Society 2015). Nevertheless, by the 1970s wide-
spread wildfires were an increasingly common
occurrence across the American West (Pyne 1982).
In time, the importance of low-level fires to his-
torical forest ecology became increasingly under-
stood and the region’s transformed ecology was
seen to be the result of human intervention. By the
end of the twentieth century periodic controlled
burning replaced outright suppression in forest
670 J. M. Heydinger
management policy (Forest History Society 2015).
Once again social forces yielded transformed
ecosystem dynamics.
By looking at historical system processes (low-
intensity burns), transformed system variables
(increased fuel supply), and an ecosystem’s sus-
ceptibility to widespread and possibly threshold-
crossing perturbations (massive wildfires), forestry
officials implemented fire policies incorporating
both social and ecological factors. SES theory pro-
vides a perspective for understanding this nexus of
historical forestry practices, the role of socioeco-
nomic factors, and transformed ecosystems.
Socioeconomic Change
Measuring ecosystem services solely as the benefits
people receive from ecosystems allows for the rel-
ative value of services to be assessed, but it does not
necessarily address how these benefits relate to
ecosystem functions. Accounting for the resilience
of an ecosystem (Panel 1, v) can help contextualize,
and may even help to form, measures of both use
and non-use values. Looking beyond the value
derived from present ecosystem services, TEEB uses
insurance value—that is, an ‘‘ecosystem’s capacity
to maintain a sustained flow of benefits’’ (TEEB
Foundations 2010, p. 234)—as a measurement of
an ecosystem’s resilience. An important part of
assessing an ecosystem’s Total Economic Value
(TEEB Synthesis 2010), insurance value falls
somewhat between the categories of use and non-
use values (TEEB Foundations 2010). Due to the
complexity of ecosystem functions, our incomplete
understanding of them, and our incomplete ability
to benefit from them, there is both a future human
use value and current intrinsic value to protect
ecosystem resilience. This may take the form of
sustainable or ‘wise’ use, or be realized by pro-
tecting natural capital—even if our current meth-
ods of measuring or extracting value from such
ecosystems do not yield immediate returns. In-
surance value recognizes that social-natural
assemblages transform, and that humans have a
vested interest in unforeseen and as yet unrealized
ecosystem services.
Because ‘‘[the] insurance value of an ecosystem
is dependent on and related to the system’s resi-
lience’’ (TEEB Foundations 2010, p. 40), assess-
ments of the insurance value of ecosystem services
will be strengthened by a further incorporation of
the temporal component into the ecosystem ser-
vices concept. Because insurance values are ‘‘dif-
ficult to measure’’ (TEEB Synthesis 2010, p. 25),
providing the insurance value concept with the
broadest possible foundation should aid attempts to
balance the value of current and future ecosystem
services. Rather than simply focusing on ecosystem
services as the benefits people obtain from ecosys-
tems, measures of insurance value which also
contextualize the flow of benefits in light of the
conditions and processes which compose them will
be better suited to account for system resilience. In
defining insurance value and highlighting its
importance, TEEB has made a crucial first step in
incorporating one aspect of temporal thinking into
the economic valuation approach to ecosystem
services—perhaps this approach is indicative of a
way forward.
CONCLUSION
The ecosystem services concept has played a key
role in the late twentieth and early twenty-first
century reimagining of humanity and the natural
world as linked (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981; Daily
1997; Rosen 2014). This review has highlighted
how the ecosystem services concept can suffer
when the benefits human obtain from ecosystems
are not linked to the temporally dynamic condi-
tions and processes which compose and maintain
ecosystem services. Initially the ecosystem services
concept emphasized humanity’s reliance upon
ecosystems; this emphasis should not be over-
shadowed. The literature reviewed here represents
varied perspectives concerning ecosystem ser-
vices—hopefully this literature will become increas
ingly familiar to practitioners and policy makers
working in the ecosystem services arena. There is
great hope that ecosystem services will remain a
positive force for conservation and sustainable
human–natural interactions going forward. As a
descriptive tool SES theory views the world as a
‘‘fully integrated system of people and nature’’
(Cumming 2011, p. 8). The contingent co-produc-
tion of ecosystem services and their linkages to
human welfare concerns becomes clarified via the
application of the SES approach. The historical
contingency and local specificity of social and eco-
logical interactions are latent within the ecosystem
services concept (Norgaard 2008). Going forward,
an SES foundation provides one avenue for sup-
porting both the ecosystem services concept and
human well-being.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank Professor Graeme
S. Cumming. Thanks also to two anonymous
reviewers for comments. This research was
 Reinforcing the Ecosystem Service Perspective
supported by the South Africa National Research
Foundation, a Centre for Excellence Bursary, the
James S. McDonnell Foundation, and the Univer-
sity of Minnesota Program in the History of Sci-
ence, Technology, and Medicine.
REFERENCES
Beck U. 1992. Risk society. London: Sage Publications.
Boyd JW, Banzhaf HS. 2005. Services and government
accountability: the need for a new way of judging nature’s
value. Resources Summer: 16–19.
Brundtland G. 1987. Our common future: the world commission
on environment and development. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Callicott JB, Ames RT, Eds. 1989. Nature in Asian traditions of
thought: essays in environmental philosophy. Albany, New
York: State of New York University Press.
Carpenter SR, Turner M. 2000. Opening the black boxes:
ecosystem science and economic valuation. Ecosystems
3(1):1–3.
Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, Defries RS,
Dı́az S, Dietz T and others 2009. Science for managing
ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem
assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(5):1305–12.
Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Klain S, Satterfield T,
Basurto X, Bostrom A and others 2012. Where are cultural
and social in ecosystem services? A framework for construc-
tive engagement. Bioscience 62(8):744–56.
Colyvan M, Linquist S, Grey W, Griffiths PE, Odenbaugh J.
2009. Philosophical issues in ecology: recent trends and future
directions. Ecol Soc 14(2):22–34.
Costanza R. 2000. Social goals and the valuation of ecosystem
services. Ecosystems 3(1):4–10.
Costanza R, Daly HE. 1992. Natural capital and sustainable
development. Conserv Biol 6(1):37–46.
Costanza R, Arge R, de Groot R, Farberk S, Grasso M, Hannon B,
Limburg K and others 1997. The value of the world’s
ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(May):253–
60.
Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, van der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ,
Kubiszewski I, Farber S, Turner RK. 2014. Changes in the
global value of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change
26:152–58.
Cronon W. 1983. Changes in the land: indians, colonists and the
ecology of New England. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
Cronon W. 1991. Nature’s metropolis: Chicago and the Great
West. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Co.
Cronon W. 2000. Resisting monoliths and tabulae rasae. Ecol
Appl 10(3):673–5.
Cumming GS. 2011. Spatial resilience in social-ecological sys-
tems. Dordrecht: Springer.
Cumming GS, Collier J. 2005. Change and identity in complex
systems. Ecol Soc 10(1).
Cumming GS, Olsson P, Chapin FS, Holling CS. 2012. Resilience,
experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological
landscapes. Landscape Ecol 28(6):1139–50.
Daily GC. 1997. Nature’s services: societal dependence on nat-
ural ecosystems. In: Daily GC, Ed. Nature’s services: societal
dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, Cavelo: Is-
land Press. p 1–10.
671
Daily GC, Matson PA. 2008. Ecosystem services: from theory to
implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(28):9455–6.
Daily GC, Söderqvist T, Aniyar S, Arrow K, Dasgupta P, Ehrlich
PR, Folke C and others 2000. The value of nature and the
nature of value. Science 289:395–6.
Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA,
Pejchar L, Ricketts TH, Salzman J, Shallenberger R. 2009.
Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front
Ecol Environ 7(1):21–8.
Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan
KMA, Costanza R and others 2012. Contributions of cultural
services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 109(23):8812–19.
Darwin C. 1859. The origin of species by means of natural
selection, or, the preservation of favoured races in the struggle
for life. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich A. 1981. Extinctions: the causes and con-
sequences of the disappearance of species. New York, NY:
Random House.
Farber SC, Costanza R, Wilson MA. 2002. Economic and eco-
logical concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol Econ
41(3):375–92.
Farley J. 2012. Ecosystem services: the economics debate. Eco-
systServ 1(1):40–49.
Folke C. 2006. The economic perspective: conservation against
development versus conservation for development. Conserv
Biol 20(3):686–8.
Forest History Society. 2015. U.S. Forest Service Fire Suppression.
http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Policy/Fire/Suppression/
Suppression.aspx.
Foster JB. 2000. Marx’s ecology: materialism and nature. New
York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
Foster JB. 2002. Ecology against capitalism. New York, NY:
Monthly Review Press.
Funtowicz S, Ravetz JR. 1994. The worth of a songbird: eco-
logical economics as a post-normal science. Ecol Econ 10:197–
207.
Gill SD. 1987. Mother earth: an American story. Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press.
Golley FB. 1993. A history of the ecosystem concept in ecology:
more than the sum of the part. New Haven and London: Yale
University Press.
Gomez-Baggethun E, Ruiz-Perez M. 2011. Economic valuation
and the commodification of ecosystem services. Prog Phys
Geogr 35(5):613–28.
Gómez-Baggethun E, de Groot R, Lomas PL, Montes C. 2010.
The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and
practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes.
Ecol Econ 69(6):1209–18.
Goulder LH, Kennedy D. 1997. Valuing ecosystem services:
philosophical bases and empirical methods. In: Daily GC, Ed.
Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems.
Washington, Cavelo: Island Press. p 23–48.
Gowdy JM, Dollimore DE, Wilson DS, Witt U. 2013. Economic
cosmology and the evolutionary challenge. J Econ Behav
Organ 90:S11–20.
Groffman PM, Baron JS, Blett T, Gold AJ, Goodman I, Gun-
derson LH, Levinson BM and others 2006. Ecological thresh-
olds: the key to successful environmental management or an
important concept with no practical application? Ecosystems
9:1–13.
672 J. M. Heydinger
Gunderson LH, Holling CS, Eds. 2002. Panarchy: understanding
transformations in human and natural systems. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Hardin G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science
162(3859):1243–8.
Hardin G. 1974. Living on a lifeboat. Bioscience 24(10):561–8.
Harvey D. 1996. Justice, nature and the geography of difference.
Cambridge and London: Blackwell Publishing.
Heal G. 2000. Valuing ecosystem services. Ecosystems 3(1):24–30.
Henderson G. 2009. Marxist political economy and the envi-
ronment. In: Castree Noel, Ed. A companion to environ-
mental geography. Chichister: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hughes JD. 1983. American Indian ecology. El Paso, Texas:
Texas Western Press.
(IPCC) International Panel on Climate Change. 1988. http://
www.ipcc.ch/.
Kant I. 1781. Critique of pure reason. Translated by Paul Guyer
and Allen W. Wood. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Kareiva P, Marvier M. 2012. What is conservation science?
Bioscience 62(11):962–9.
Koso N, Corbera E. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as
commodity fetishism. Ecol Econ 69(6):1228–36. doi:10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2009.11.002.
Leopold A. 1933. The conservation ethic. J Forest 31(6):634–43.
Levin SA. 1998. Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex
adaptive systems. Ecosystems 1(5):431–6.
Levin SA. 1999. Fragile dominion. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Perseus Publishing.
Levins R, Lewontin R. 1985. The dialectical biologist. Cambridge
and London: Harvard University Press.
Limburg KE, O’Neill RV, Costanza R, Farber S. 2002. Complex
systems and valuation. Ecol Econ 41(3):409–20.
Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, Pell
AN and others 2007. Complexity of coupled human and
natural systems. Science 317(5844):1513–16.
Ludwig D. 2000. Limitations of economic valuation of ecosys-
tems. Ecosystems 3(1):31–5.
Maler K, Aniyar S, Jansson A. 2008. Accounting for ecosystem
services as a way to understand the requirements for sus-
tainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(28):9501–6.
Mann C. 2011. 1493: uncovering the new world columbus
created. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Martinez-Alier J, Munda G, O’Neill J. 1998. Weak comparability
of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecol Econ
26(3):277–86.
Marx K. 1867 (1977). Capital: a critique of political economy.
Translated by Fowkes B. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Masood E, Garwin L. 1998. Audacious bid to value the planet
whips up a storm. Nature 395:430. (13/2/2014 http://www.
nature.com/nature/journal/v395/n6701/full/395430a0.
html).
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA): Ecosystems and Hu-
man Well-Being, Current States and Trends, Vol. 1. 2005.
Washington, DC.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA): Ecosystems and Hu-
man Well-Being: a framework for assessment. 2003. Wash-
ington, Cavelo, London.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA): Ecosystems and Well-
Being: Synthesis. 2005. Washington, DC.
Mooney HA, Ehrlich PR. 1997. Ecosystem services: a fragmen-
tary history. In: Daily GC, Ed. Nature’s services: societal
dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, Cavelo: Is-
land Press, pp 11–22.
Muradian R, Rival L. 2012. Between markets and hierarchies:
the challenge of governing ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv
1(1): 93–100.
Myrdal G. 1953. The political element in the development of
economic theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Norberg J, Cumming G, Eds. 2008. Complexity theory for a
sustainable future. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Norgaard RB. 2008. Finding hope in the millennium ecosystem
assessment. Conserv Biol 22(4):862–9.
Norgaard RB. 2010. Ecosystem services: from eye-opening me-
taphor to complexity blinder. Ecol Econ 69(6):1219–27.
Ostrom E. 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond pana-
ceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(39):15181–7. doi:10.1073/
pnas.0702288104.
Parks S, Gowdy J. 2013. What have economists learned about
valuing nature? A review essay. Ecosyst Serv 3(March):e1–10.
PCAST. Sustaining environmental capital: protecting society and
the economy, a report for the President. 2011. Washington,
DC.
PCAST. Teaming with life: investing in science to understand
and use America’s Living Captial. 1998. Vol. 1998. Washing-
ton, DC.
Peterson MJ, Hall DM, Feldpausch-Parker AM, Peterson TR.
2010. Obscuring ecosystem function with application of the
ecosystem services concept. Conserv Biol 24(1):113–19.
Potschin MB, Haines-Young RH. 2011. Ecosystem services:
exploring a geographical perspective. Prog Phys Geogr
35(5):575–94.
Pyne SJ. 1982. Fire in America: a cultural history of wildland
and rural fire. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press.
Rammel C, van den Bergh JCJM. 2015. Evolutionary policies for
sustainable development: adaptive flexibility and risk min-
imising. Ecol Econ 47:121–33.
Reyers B, Biggs R, Cumming GS, Elmqvist T, Hejnowicz AP,
Polasky S. 2013. Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a
social-ecological approach. Front Ecol Environ 11(5):268–73.
Rhodes R. 1988. The making of the atomic bomb. New York, NY:
Touchstone.
Robertson MM. 2004. The neoliberalization of ecosystem ser-
vices: wetland mitigation banking and problems in environ-
mental governance. Geoforum 35(3):361–73.
Robertson MM. 2006. The nature that capital can see: science,
state, and market in the commodification of ecosystem ser-
vices. Environ Planning D: Soc Space 55(1994):367–87.
Rogers KH, Luton R, Biggs H, Biggs R, Blignaut S, Choles AG,
Carolyn G. 2013. Fostering complexity thinking in action re-
search for change in social—ecological systems. Ecol Soc
18(2).
Rolston H. 1982. Are values in nature subjective or objective?
Environ Ethics 4:125–51.
Rosen RJ. 2014. How much are the world’s ecosystems worth? The
Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/
06/how-much-are-the-worlds-ecosystems-worth/372862/.
Rousseau JJ. 1754 (1761). A discourse upon the origin and
foundation of inequality among mankind. London: R. & J.
Dodsley. https://archive.org/details/discourseuponor00rous.
 Reinforcing the Ecosystem Service Perspective
Sekercioglu CH. 2010. Ecosystem functions and services. In:
Sodhi Navjot S, Ehrlich Paul R, Eds. Conservation biology for
all. New York and London: Oxford University Press. p 45–67.
Serres M. 1990. The natural contract. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
University of Michigan Press.
Solow RM. 1974. The economics of resources or the resources of
economics. Am Econ Rev 64(2):1–14.
Soule ME. 2013. The faith-based, trickle-down model of con-
servation 5.0. http://michaelsoule.com/.
Tansley AG. 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts
and terms. Ecology 16(3):284–307.
TEEB Foundations. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodi-
versity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations. 2010. The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and
Economic Foundations.
TEEB Synthesis. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity:
mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the
approach conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. 2010.
Environment. http://www.iges.or.jp/jp/news/topic/pdf/1103
teeb/teeb_synthesis_j.pdf.
The Econonmist. 2005. Are you being served? 21 (April): 76–78.
(13/2/2014 www.economist.com/node/3886849).
Tilman D, Knops J, Wedin D, Reich P, Ritchie M, Siemann E.
1997. The influence of functional diversity and composition
on ecosystem processes. Science 277(5330):1300–2.
673
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1972. http://
www.unep.org/.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) . 2012. Living with
Fire.’’ Fire Management. http://www.fws.gov/fire/living_
with_fire/.
Vatn A. 2000. The environment as a commodity. Environ Values
9:493–509.
Veblen T. 1900. The preconceptions of economic science. Q J
Econ 14(2):240–69.
Voosen P. 2013. Who is conservation for? The chronicle of
higher education, November 10. http://chronicle.com/article/
Who-Is-Conservation-For-/142853/.
Walker B, Gunderson L, Kinzig A, Folke C, Carpenter S, Schultz
L. 2006. A handful of heuristics and some propositions for
understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc
11(1).
Whitehead AN. 1929. Process and reality: an essay in cosmology.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Wilson MA, Howarth RB. 2002. Discourse-based valuation of
ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group
deliberation. Ecol Econ 74(2):371–443.
Zimmer C. 2014. Putting a price tag on nature’s defenses. The
New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/
science/earth/putting-a-price-tag-on-natures-defenses.html?