environmental science & policy 25 (2013) 13–21

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in

environmental policy and decision making: Some
stakeholder perspectives

Jennifer Hauck a,*, Christoph Görg a, Riku Varjopuro b, Outi Ratamäki b, Kurt Jax c,d
a
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department of Environmental Politics, Germany
b
Finnish Environment Institute – SYKE, Environmental Policy Centre, Finland
c
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department of Conservation Biology, Germany
d
Technische Universität München – Chair for Restoration Ecology, Germany

abstract
article info
The concept of ecosystem services (ES) is increasingly being used in environmental policy
Published on line 8 November 2012 and decision making. We report here on the empirical results which emerged from
stakeholder discussions within the PRESS (PEER Research on EcoSystem Services) project
Keywords: on certain unresolved challenges related to the use of the ES concept in decision making.
Ecosystem services The results show that the occurrence of synergies and trade-offs between different ES and
Environmental policy their relevance for decision making depends significantly on the scale involved (in particular
Valuation regarding the levels of policy formulation and policy implementation respectively) and on
Participation the specific ways in which ecosystems are managed (e.g. different practices in forestry and
Stakeholder preferences agriculture). We conclude that using the concept of ecosystem services, would enable a
Trade-offs and synergies comprehensive evaluation of policy impacts. Such an evaluation would contribute to an
increased congruence between policies by uncovering and discussing trade-offs and realize
synergies. Crucial to this, however, is a sound assessment that incorporates the diversity of
stakeholder perceptions, knowledge and preferences at the different scales.
# 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

strategy, announced in May 2011, in which ES are not only

1. Introduction
In spite of substantial efforts to conserve biodiversity at global,
European and national levels the globally agreed 2010 target of
halting the loss of biodiversity has not been achieved (e.g.
European Commission, 2011; SCBD, 2010). The concept of
ecosystem services (ES) – broadly described as the ‘‘contribu-
tions of ecosystems to human well-being’’ (de Groot et al.,
2010, p. 25) – has been promoted as a new approach to tackling
the problem of biodiversity loss. Policy makers are starting to
include the concept of ES in their guidelines and strategies.
One example of this is the EU’s new post-2010 biodiversity
mentioned but are also linked to specific targets (European
Commission, 2011). The concept is increasingly being advo-
cated in other policy fields too, such as sustainable land and
water use, climate change mitigation, and ecosystem restora-
tion (TEEB, 2010).
There are a number of reasons for this recent turn to ES.
The concept has proven helpful in communicating the
benefits of ecosystem conservation to diverse stakeholder
groups (Reid et al., 2006). This is presumed to be because it
provides a new, anthropocentric justification for conserving
species and ecosystems, based on our dependence on the
goods and services they provide (Lamarque et al., 2011).

* Corresponding author at: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department of Environmental Politics, Permoserstraße 15,
04318 Leipzig, Germany. Tel.: +49 341 235 1932; fax: +49 341 235 1836.
E-mail address: jennifer.hauck@ufz.de (J. Hauck).
1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.08.001
14 environmental science & policy 25 (2013) 13–21
Similarly, as Daily and Ellison (2002) suggest, scholars and
practitioners hope that the concept of ES can render
conservation economically attractive and commonplace.
Another benefit of the concept lies in its potential to extend
biodiversity conservation beyond protected areas and to
integrate it into the management of a wider landscape,
including privately owned land (Nelson et al., 2008). This could
be done by means of payments for ecosystem services (e.g.
Jack et al., 2008).
However, there is no simple or established way of
integrating the ES concept into policies and decision making
processes. Building on results from the European project
PRESS (PEER Research on EcoSystem Services), in this paper we
describe two specific challenges which arise in the context of
policy formulation and implementation, namely the valuing of
ES across scales and the trade-offs that occur when one ES is
preferred over another (Cowling et al., 2008; Daily et al., 2009;
Menzel and Teng, 2010). The two challenges are described in
more detail in the subsequent chapter. The very nature of
these challenges necessitated a stakeholder consultation
process, allowing us to explore different perspectives and
perceptions about values and trade-offs at different scales.
Therefore we used a multi-level methodological approach
described in the third chapter. Our results include an analysis
of policies that already address ES at various levels (albeit
indirectly) and an outline of the challenges regarding valuing
and trade-offs. We go on to describe some stakeholders’
preferences regarding ES as well as their perceptions of the
synergies and trade-offs between ES at a regional level. We
conclude with a number of recommendations in order to
incorporate stakeholders’ needs and values in environmental
policy and decision making using the concept of ES.
2. Background: some challenges of including
the concept of ecosystem services in policy and
decision making
2.1. Valuing ecosystem services
Ecosystem services are not something given by ‘‘nature’’ (or
ecosystems) as such. Rather, they are the consequences of
ecosystem processes and components which humans consid-
ered to be valuable for their needs and desires. Only what is
valued, needed or required by humans can be called an
ecosystem service (Jax, 2010). The question regarding which of
these services is more important than the others – that is, the
value of an ES – depends to a large degree upon the views and
needs of stakeholders (Hein et al., 2006; Vermeulen and
Koziell, 2002). Ways of assessing the economic value of an ES
(e.g. Cowling et al., 2008; Nelson et al., 2009) and payments to
those who contribute to the provision of services (e.g. Engel
et al., 2008) are increasingly being addressed in current
research. The research is, based on the assumption, voiced
by, among others, Costanza and Farber (2002, p. 368), that
‘‘most societies have an intuitive notion of economic value’’.
However, economic valuation has well-known limitations (e.g.
Frame and O’Connor, 2011), first and foremost because many
ES have no market price (Cowling et al., 2008). The value of
non-marketed ecosystem services depends on the ways in
which such services are perceived and used by different
stakeholders, who often have diverging values (Cowling et al.,
2008). Menzel and Teng (2010) go even further and state that
the concept of ES strengthens the position of those who have
the power to define ES, i.e. formally educated experts or
powerful individuals with their own (economic) interests.
Issues to do with social equity and the fair treatment of
competing social groups are often ignored (Wilson and
Howarth, 2002). A more fundamental point is brought forward
by Sagoff (2011, p. 501) ‘‘A science of ecosystem services that
captures or measures economic production or value in ‘‘final
biophysical units’’ lies beyond our human potential. The
‘‘ecosystem services’’ project is bound to fail in its attempt to
substitute an in natura calculus of value for the artifice of
market price.’’
The challenges of placing a value on ES increase when we
consider that ES are available at a range of ecological scales
and are supplied to and by stakeholders at a range of
institutional levels (Hein et al., 2006). One example discussed
by Görg and Rauschmayer (2009) is the scale discordance often
involved in the conservation of biodiversity as a global good,
which sometimes occurs at the expense of local communities
whose use of the biological resources for food or shelter is then
restricted. In order to address these shortcomings in our study,
we pursued some recent suggestions for making more socially
embedded and open valuation assessments (Cowling et al.,
2008; Daily et al., 2009; Menzel and Teng, 2010), exploring the
reasons and explanations people provide when asked to
choose one ES over another.
2.2. Trade-offs and synergies across ecosystem services
Another significant challenge in assessing the economic
value of ES arises when we acknowledge that it is generally
not possible to valuate different ES independently from each
other. Ecosystems usually provide multiple (potential) ser-
vices which are interlinked. However, in many cases, an
increase in one service such as food production can
negatively affect the provision of other ES, e.g. drinking
water quality (cf. Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2010; Ring et al.,
2010; Rodriguez et al., 2006). Trade-offs may be deliberate and
intentional, but in many cases they are unintentional. They
might result from a lack of knowledge or understanding of the
interactions between ecosystem services, or from systematic
misrepresentation within economic processes or public
discourses (MA, 2005; Rodriguez et al., 2006; Tilman et al.,
2002).
While the task of identifying trade-offs has already begun
(e.g. Lautenbach et al., 2010; Power, 2010), most analyses
attempt to quantify trade-offs in a way that suggests they can
be dealt with ‘‘objectively’’, mainly on the basis of prevailing
biophysical conditions. Rodriguez et al. (2006), for example,
classify trade-offs according to spatial and temporal scales
and reversibility.
Following Ring et al. (2010), we argue that trade-offs can
also be interpersonal, where some lose while others gain. This
can be extended to stakeholder groups, as seen in an example
given by Sagoff (2011) involving the pollination of fruit trees by
bees. While this process is usually perceived as something
good and necessary that leads to an ecosystem service, for
 environmental science & policy 25 (2013) 13–21
some citrus tree farmers pollination by bees means consider-
able financial damage. This is because trees cross-pollinated
by bees produce fruits with seeds, which attract only a quarter
of the price of seedless ones. So while honey production and
fruit production are usually perceived to be synergetic, they
are not always so and one has to look at preferences,
perceptions, values, interests, norms and practices across
the range of stakeholders before making any management
decisions.
As with the valuation assessments, we decided to use more
open methods to assess trade-offs as well as synergies
between ecosystem services and to pay attention not only
to their scale dependence (specific to time and place) but, more
importantly, to socio-cultural factors as well, such as values,
interests, norms and practices.
3. Methods
This study is exploratory in character and was carried out in
the course of the research project PRESS (PEER Research on
EcoSystem Services), a joint initiative conducted by several
European environmental research institutes connected with
one another through the PEER network (www.peer.eu).
The study began with an analysis of EU policy documents
in early 2010, the aim being to assess the extent to which ES are
already implicitly covered in the fields of environmental
policy, agriculture, forestry, water and regional development.
This analysis was complemented by six key informant
interviews with nine interview partners in August 2010, at a
sub-national (i.e. policy implementation) level in three
regions: Satakunta in Finland, Saxony in Germany, and Silesia
in Poland. The regions were selected according to our
familiarity with the regions ES due to previous research and
contacts to experts relevant for the key informant interviews.
A description of the three regions can be found in Annex A.
As a next step, a focus group discussion was organised in
Brussels in September 2010 with policy makers from the
European Commission and member states. The aim of the
focus group was to explore the current implicit inclusion of ES
in various policy fields and the challenges that become
apparent when ES are to be included explicitly (as with the
new biodiversity strategy). Invited participants from the EU
level came from General Directorate Environment (biodiversi-
ty and water units) and General Directorate Agriculture
(forestry and agriculture units). Participants invited from EU
Member States represented national ministries of environ-
ment, forestry, agriculture and regional development in the
UK, Finland and Poland.
Finally, a regional survey was conducted in October 2010.
The aim of the survey was to explore the reasons for people’s
choices, in order to get an idea of what is important to them
and why. This helped to generate a better understanding of
synergies and trade-offs between different ecosystem services
in the context of real landscapes and how they are
comprehended by stakeholders. In total, seven questions
were asked about the following (see Annex B): the respon-
dents’ organisational background, their familiarity with the ES
concept, one asking them to identify the ES missing from a
prepared list (see Annex C), one asking them to select three
15
important ES from the list for the region, the number and
kinds of trade-offs and synergies between the ES selected and
other ES, and one inviting additional comments of any kind.
The list of ES (Annex B) was based on a list devised by the TEEB
project (TEEB, 2010) and was adjusted on the basis of our own
experience and the results from the key informant interviews.
We identified respondents via a stakeholder analysis
covering sectors related to the relevant ES: agriculture,
aquaculture, water, forestry, bioenergy, hunting, education
and research, landscape and regional planning, recreation and
tourism, social development and nature conservation. In order
to capture a regional (rather than a local) perspective we
addressed representatives of ‘‘organized’’ groups such as
companies, NGOs, state agencies, and planning associations,
covering the regional scale. The questionnaire was sent via
with a link to an online-questionnaire.
Response rates were rather low: 10.3% in Saxony (16
responses), 19.6% in Finland (29 responses) and 6.5% in Silesia
(7 responses). The responses were also unequally distributed
amongst sectors (see Annex C, C.1). The responses are not
representative and do not allow conclusions about prefer-
ences of the population in the three regions. However, since
we did not aim for representativeness, i.e. drawing conclu-
sions on a basic population, but rather aimed to explore
different lines of argumentations and perspectives, we do not
consider this as a problem.
4. Results
4.1. Ecosystem services in current and future policies
The document analysis of EU policy documents, the discus-
sions in the focus group in Brussels, as well as the key
informant interviews revealed that many ES are both targeted
and impacted by existing policies, even if ES were not
mentioned explicitly as such (with the exception of a few
conservation-related documents). In the following, the results
of the focus group discussion and the key informant inter-
views are presented together, highlighting important policy-
relevant services from different perspectives. The services
discussed in most detail related to agricultural policies, water
policies, forest policies as well as biodiversity and conserva-
tion policies.
Agricultural policies. Participants in the focus group discus-
sion pointed out that the service of agricultural food
production is addressed predominantly by the Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP). However, agricultural food produc-
tion is not the only service addressed (implicitly). Other
services that are the subject of EU agri-environmental
programmes in particular are erosion prevention, aesthetic
uses of landscapes, provisioning of water and habitats, genetic
resources, as well as tourism and recreation. While the EU
level is clearly the dominating policy level for agricultural food
production, there are complementary programmes on nation-
al levels as well. The key informants for Germany mentioned
the so-called Joint Task for the Improvement of Agricultural
Structures and Coastal Protection (GAK) as well as support
programmes at lower administrative levels. Finland and
Poland likewise have their national support programmes.
16 environmental science & policy 25 (2013) 13–21
Water policies. Several EU policies such as the Floods
Directive, the Bathing Water Directive and the Water
Framework Directive (WFD) were listed in the focus group
discussion as implicitly addressing ES. The examples given
were water purification, water provisioning, flood protection
and tourism. In the context of the WFD, ES become relevant
when costs and benefits are placed in relation to achieving
good status of water bodies. Moreover, the WFD necessitates
new land management practices that are beneficial for many
ES. Beyond the EU level, of course, national and regional
strategies, programmes and other measures exist that address
the above mentioned services, not least flood protection
measures. Participants pointed to well known conflicts
between the goals of the WFD and the CAP. Increased food
production is often achieved with an increase in fertilizer use,
which in turn can jeopardise the good status of water bodies.
These kinds of trade-offs between the goals of the two policies
can be considered a textbook example of trade-offs between
ES that are aggravated by specific policies.
Forestry policies. Forestry policy is mainly a matter for the
national level, where it usually addresses implicitly not only
timber production, but also tourism and recreation, climate
regulation, maintenance of soil fertility, water and habitat
provisioning, as well as protection from noise and pollution. In
Satakunta (Finland), where forestry is an important economic
sector and form of land use, the participants in the key
informant interviews emphasised the importance of the
national sustainable forestry policy and its financing instru-
ment as a means to level and mitigate trade-offs. The example
of payment to forest owners for the ES ‘‘water purification’’ by
private companies in the UK was given as one option for a
useful application of the ES concept by the participants of the
focus group discussion.
Biodiversity and nature conservation policies. It comes as no
surprise that in biodiversity and nature conservation policies,
such as Natura 2000 or the Birds Directive, ecosystem services
are prominent; they are even addressed explicitly in the new
(post-2010) EU biodiversity strategy (European Commission,
2011). The 2020 headline target, for instance, includes not only
‘‘halting the loss of biodiversity’’ but also ‘‘halting the
degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and
restoring both of them in so far as feasible’’ (European
Commission, 2011, p. 3). Furthermore, the assessment of ES
plays an important role. However, apart from targets 2 and 3,
ES are not addressed any further and the strategy remains
rather vague in terms of how to use the ecosystem services
concept.
Policies at EU level are complemented by a number of
measures and strategies at national and regional level, such as
national nature protection laws, national biodiversity strate-
gies, and support funding programmes, e.g. in the Free State of
Saxony. In Satakunta a new economic instrument named
‘METSO’ was mentioned as a process aimed at protecting
forest biodiversity. Under the METSO scheme forest owners
can offer to make parts of their forests with high conservation
values into protected areas. If their offer is accepted, they are
compensated.
Other policies. Other policy fields mentioned in the focus
group but not discussed in detail were marine and fisheries
policies, as well as strategies and programmes concerning
tourism and recreation via rural development, such as the
integrated rural development (ILE) programme, and national
and regional activities.
Energy policies, especially those concerning the use of
energy from renewable sources (such as Directive 2009/28/EC)
and national and regional policies for Satakunta, came up
during the key informant interviews in Finland. Participants in
the focus group discussion mentioned the trade-offs arising
between biomass production and agricultural food produc-
tion.
While some trade-offs were mentioned during the group
discussion, the participants stressed that conflicts between ES
that are visible at the local level are often not considered in EU
policy making. The participants emphasised that, while a
sound science base for political discussion and policy impact
assessment is necessary in practical terms, rural development
programmes and strategic approaches at the local level were
also important. They particularly mentioned stakeholder
consultations as a means of identifying ES important at the
local level and reconciling different, often conflicting targets.
In this context, participants also pointed out problematic
issues such as accounting for flows of services/benefits and
aspects of justice (e.g. between those who help to provide ES
and those who benefit from them).
4.2. Important ecosystem services
Given that a large number of ES are already covered by existing
policies, our next step was to identify the services perceived as
important at the level of implementation, that is, at the
regional level. For this, we used the regional survey.
A total of 52 individuals from a range of different sectors
responded to the questionnaire (see Annex D, D.1). The 16
respondents from Saxony came from the agricultural, forest-
ry, nature conservation, planning and water sectors. The
seven respondents from Poland came from the agriculture,
education and research, nature conservation and social
development sectors. From the Finnish region we received
29 responses from the agriculture, bioenergy, education and
research, fishing, forestry, hunting, nature conservation,
planning and recreation sectors. Familiarity with the ES
concept varied widely among the respondents (see Annex
D, D.2).
In Saxony the service of agriculturally produced food was
the most frequently selected ESS (Fig. 1). Reasons provided
were its importance for the provision of food for the region, its
high productivity and cultural values. Timber, the second
most important service, and agriculture cover almost 80% of
Saxony’s land use. Biomass production is similarly important
to timber production. Other important services were water
purification, flood prevention and protection of species. Clean
drinking water was pointed out to be indispensable for human
life, natural flood protection reduces the costs for technical
flood protection and flood areas also provide special habitats.
In Satakunta agricultural food production was, like in
Saxony, by far selected most frequently, not only due to its
importance for the region but also because the region is an
important link in the national food production of Finland, and
agriculture is very typical for the region. Timber was second to
food production due to its importance as an economic sector
 environmental science & policy 25 (2013) 13–21 17

Fig. 1 – Aggregated and weighted number of times the services were selected as important. The responses were weighted
because the number of respondents varied considerably across regions. Weighting was done by multiplying the results
from Silesia and Saxony to correspond to the number of respondents in Satakunta (see Bernard, 2006, p. 156). After
weighting, the figure shows the relative importance of ES (total and per region).

and employer. Timber is followed by tourism and recreation
and biomass for energy production. Biomass energy has
gained a lot of interest in the region, for instance in a recently
launched energy strategy for Satakunta. Respondents also
selected flood prevention, as people in the region are affected
by floods and anticipate an increase in their frequency.
The services most often selected as being important in
Silesia were flood prevention and air purification. Unfortu-
nately, hardly any explanations were given regarding the
choice of the various services. Still, one of the respondents
stated that polluted air is a major problem of life quality in
Silesia. Agriculturally produced food was, together with
tourism and recreation, only the second most selected service.
One respondent explained that the region has a high
population density (see Annex A), and recreation sites in
close distances are very important for the inhabitants of the
region. The third place is occupied by water purification and
protection of species. According to one respondents the
former is a huge problem due to the heavy industrialisation
of the region and because the quantity of municipal
wastewater is growing.
Taking the results from all three regions together (Fig. 1 in
the text), it becomes evident that the service of agricultural
food production dominates the other services. It is important
to note that respondents from almost all sectors selected
agricultural food production as one of the three most
important ES in the regions. Even in the group ‘nature
conservation’ it gained the highest score of all ES. Only one
group of respondents (’social development’) did not choose it
among the three most important ES. Further, it is interesting,
that although by far the most respondents (see Annex D, D.1)
had a background in nature and landscape conservation, the
provision of habitats for species conservation did not become
the most often selected service. However, the few respondents
who chose the service had mostly a conservation background
with the exception of one with a research and one with a
recreation background.
While there are some differences concerning the impor-
tance of ESS among the regions, respondents from all three
areas agree that the services of aquaculture, biochemicals,
medical and genetic resources, aesthetic and spiritual use of
landscapes, and the gain of scientific knowledge and educa-
tion are of very low importance.
4.3. Trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services
from a regional level perspective
The results from the regional survey concerning trade-offs
and synergies are based on the question of how the selected
important ES affect other services: positively or negatively. To
begin with, Fig. 2 in the text shows the impact of agricultural
food production on other services in Silesia, Saxony and
Satakunta (for more details on the tables calculation basis see
Annex E).
In Saxony (for complete results for Saxony see Annex E, E.1),
respondents indicated that the service ‘‘agriculturally pro-
duced food’’ had a rather negative impact on other services,
based on its land requirement as well as problems of soil
erosion, flood protection and protection of species, which was
mainly pointed out by respondents with expertise in nature
conservation and water pollution which was highlighted by
water experts. Yet not all respondents automatically assumed
negative consequences (as indicated by the exclamation
marks) and point out that the consequences for other services
depend on the type of agriculture. While negative conse-
quences are seen as resulting largely from conventional and
industrial farming, organic agriculture is considered to have
very positive consequences for biodiversity in cultural land-
scapes such as Saxony. The same applies to synergies with
tourism and recreation. Many people enjoy the beauty of
18 environmental science & policy 25 (2013) 13–21

Ecosystem Services Silesia Saxony Satakunta

Agriculturally produced food
Aquaculture x
Wild food
Timber x
Biomass energy
Biochem., med. and genetic resources x !!
Water purification !!
Flood protection !!
Erosion prevention and soil fertility ! !!
Air purification x
Protection of valued species ! !!
Climate regulation x !!
Aesthetic and spiritual !!
Tourism and recreation ! !!
Science and education x x

Fig. 2 – Impacts of agriculturally produced food on other ES as perceived in all three regions. White boxes indicate positive,
black boxes negative relationships. Grey boxes indicate an equal number of positive and negative relationships. Boxes
marked with an x indicate no impacts of ES on each other or that the respondents were not aware of any impacts. While the
white and black represent the average of the different responses, boxes marked with one exclamation mark indicate that
some respondents saw a different relationship than the majority of respondents. Boxes marked with two exclamation
marks indicate an even stronger disagreement between judgements.

structurally diverse cultural landscapes, which can be
destroyed by large areas of monocultures.
The multiple negative consequences of agricultural food
production on the provision of other ES might be the result of
there being a high proportion of respondents with a nature
conservation background. Indeed, negative consequences
were highlighted by them more often. Although respondents
in Satakunta found more synergies between agricultural food
production and other ES (for complete results for Satakunta
see Annex E, E.2), the high number of exclamation marks
indicates that many respondents had a different opinion.
While not as critical as in Saxony, mostly nature conserva-
tionists assumed a negative influence of agricultural food
production on other ES. Notably protection of species and
climate regulation had a lot of negative responses. However,
despite these problems agricultural food production is
perceived to be rather unproblematic by the respondents.
As can be seen in the regions description in Annex A, the
agricultural area is with 20% rather small, which might lead to
the different perceptions than in the other two regions. The
population density likewise is rather low, which might also
lead to a different perception.
It is interesting to note that the impact of timber
production on other ES depicted in Annex E.2 shows that
the respondents, mainly from the nature conservation and
forestry sector, found many more negative impacts of
timber production on other ES as in Saxony, where the
relationship was mostly evaluated positively. For example
some respondents explained that industrial forestry and
especially clear-cut forestry have negative consequences for
biodiversity and contribute to the degradation of water-
sheds and natural flood protection. Yet, in Saxony one
respondent with forestry background pointed out that
timber and flood protection do not necessarily need to be
in competition with one another: ‘‘flood protection areas
can take the form of riparian forests, so the services could
be synergetic too.’’
A distinct interpretation of synergies and trade-offs in
Silesia is much more difficult to achieve due to the limited
number of responses, the sectors represented, and because

Ecosystem Services Silesia Saxony Satakunta

Flood protection
Agriculturally produced food
Aquaculture x
Wild food x x
Timber
Biomass energy
Biochem., med. and genetic resources x
Water purification
Erosion prevention and soil fertility
Air purification x
Protection of valued species
Climate regulation !!
Aesthetic and spiritual
Tourism and recreation !!
Science and education x x

Fig. 3 – Impacts of flood protection on other ES as perceived in all three regions. For an explanation of the symbols, see Fig. 2.
 environmental science & policy 25 (2013) 13–21
Ecosystem Services
Agriculturally produced food
Aquaculture
Wild food
Timber
Biomass energy
Biochem., med. and genetic resources
Water purification
Flood protection
Erosion prevention and soil fertility
Air purification
Climate regulation
Aesthetic and spiritual
Tourism and recreation
Science and education
Fig. 4 – Impacts of the protection of valued species on other ES as perceived in all three regions. For an explanation of the
symbols, see Fig. 2.
respondents did not provide explanations or examples of the
synergies and trade-offs they selected.
Another example of heterogeneity in perceptions of
ecosystem services is the influence of natural flood protection
on other services, as shown in Fig. 3. The impact of flood
protection on agricultural food production was perceived to be
negative in Saxony, whereas it was seen as slightly synergetic
in Satakunta. In the Silesian case the respondents had
differing opinions about the effect of flood protection on
agriculture. The same applies to timber. In Saxony one
respondent explained that timber and flood protection do
not necessarily need to be in competition with one another:
flood protection areas can take the form of riparian forests, so
the services could be synergetic too. However, the impact on
water purification, erosion prevention, air purification and
climate regulation, as well as on the protection of valued
species, was identified as consistently positive over the three
regions.
Like agriculture, the protection of valued species (Fig. 4) can
be a very exclusive form of land use, and respondents from
Saxony and Satakunta, as pointed out above mostly with
conservation background, explained that trade-offs occur
when the protection of species excludes even non-extractive
uses, or when it is expanded and competes, for example, with
land for agricultural production. This is especially problematic
in nature conservation sites that protect species which are
very sensitive to human disturbance, as these areas are no
longer available for human uses such as recreation. However,
as respondents rightly pointed out, without agriculture many
cultural landscapes with their specific diversity would not
exist and therefore the two services are not necessarily
mutually exclusive. Respondents across regions agreed that
the specifics of agricultural practices and management are
crucial. The same applies to timber. In Satakunta, respondents
noted that conservation areas often prohibit timber harvesting
and that the larger the conservation areas are, the more the
forestry sector loses out. However, it was also mentioned that
industrial forestry (and especially clear-cut forestry) has
negative impacts on biodiversity and contributes to the
degradation of watersheds and natural flood protection. Other
respondents reflected that different forestry practices have
different influences on erosion and flood protection, yields of
19
Silesia Saxony Satakunta
Protection of valued species
!
x
x
!!
x x
! x
x
berries and mushrooms, cleaning of groundwater, and natural
carbon sinks.
5. Discussion
Although it became apparent from the above results that a
considerable number of ecosystem services are already
implicitly dealt within many policies and regional decision
making processes, the reasons and explanations for how and
why ES are valued were more difficult to identify. The online
survey approach did not result in representative figures of
preferences of certain services over the other. The high
number of respondents with a background in nature conser-
vation especially biased the results. Yet, the approach was not
chosen to produce representative results but to explore
different lines of argumentations and perspectives of experts
from very different sectors. With regards to this goal the
approach yielded very good results.
A somewhat surprising finding was that unlike in other
studies (e.g. Rodriguez et al., 2006) were provisioning services
were usually valued most – apart from agricultural food
production – services valued by the respondents in this study
varied from provisioning services to regulating and cultural
services (to use the terminology of the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment). However, this could well be result of the limited
representativeness of the study. Much more interesting are
the reasons for the selection of ES, which indeed varied
considerably. For example reasons given for the preference
for agricultural food production not only revolved around
food provision but had a strong cultural background, i.e.
respondents valued the man-made landscape, formed by
hundreds of years of agricultural practice. Argued this way,
agricultural food production would not be valued as a
provision services but rather as a cultural services. Cata-
strophic events such as floods also influenced the preference
for certain services. Other preferences again are triggered by
policies as in the case of biomass production. Especially the
later two reasons show that the services valued most cannot
only change over time. The reasons for the appreciation of
flood protection or air purifications are strongly place
dependent.
20 environmental science & policy 25 (2013) 13–21
Like the reasons for the valuing of services we found that it
is not at all self-evident how different ES relate to each other
and that generalisations are hard to draw on the European or
even national and regional levels. This is aggravated by the
fact that the concept is perceived to be still vague and limited
(Fisher et al., 2009) – a problem emphasised during the group
discussion as well as during the survey.
However, we found a common pattern, one also described
by Tilman et al. (2002) and by Rodriguez et al. (2006) that most
of the negative relationships pertain to – being either produced
or affected by – provisioning services (e.g. agriculture, timber,
biomass). The black boxes in our trade-off graphs are often
linked to provisioning services. One reason for this could be
the fact that provisioning services are utilised by extractive
uses of landscapes – and are often practised as rather
exclusive types of land use, where land-use conflicts are
pre-programmed. Another reason for the high number of
trade-offs is that these services are much more visible or
tangible, as Rodriguez et al. (2006) put it, while regulating and
cultural services are not always directly detectable – which
might also be true for the associated conflicts. An analysis and
visualisation of the trade-offs between easily detectable and
more abstract ecosystem services are important for mitigation
of trade-offs in land-use management, although this is not an
easy task.
However, respondents pointed out that different forms of
uses and practices lead to diverging outcomes for other
services. For example, organic farming can have very positive
consequences for biodiversity in cultural landscapes, as well
as for soil formation or erosion prevention and other ES also
described by Sandhu et al. (2008). In contrast, conventional
(industrial) farming can result in very negative impacts on all
of the ES mentioned, as described by Ruhl et al. (2007) and
Tilman et al. (2002).
Apart from the example of organic farming, we were able to
identify other ES with some synergetic potential. The impact
of natural flood protection on water purification, erosion
prevention, and climate regulation, as well as on the
protection of valued species, was consistently identified as
positive over the three regions. This may be an important
argument when comparing the costs and benefits of natural
and technical flood protection. Like natural flood protection,
the protection of valued species has a great deal of synergetic
potential as well.
The participants’ comments emphasise the need for
contextual knowledge as well as sensitivity to scale: on larger
scales certain generalisations may be valid for elucidating
synergies and trade-offs, but the final outcomes of relation-
ships between ecosystems services are produced on regional
or local levels, where relationships may differ from those
perceived on larger scales.
6. Conclusions
The analysis of EU policy documents, focus group discussions,
and interviews revealed that many ES are already implicitly
addressed by a large number of policies. More importantly,
apart from those ES targeted, many ES are unintentionally
affected by the policies often with negative consequences.
Using the concept of ecosystem services, i.e. making the
services explicit, would allow a comprehensive evaluation of
policy impacts, with regard not only to the ES explicitly
addressed but to other ES as well. Two examples of how such
an evaluation could be beneficial are the Water Framework
Directive and the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU.
Moreover, as the participants pointed out, these policies are
well known for their conflicting goals. Using the concept of ES
could provide a significant opportunity to make these and
goals of other policies more coherent and to realise synergies.
Policies concerning biomass production were also repeatedly
mentioned to be of importance.
However, as discussed above the possibilities to actually
tackle trade-offs between ES on policy formulation levels is
limited and a number of risks and challenges are associated
with the inclusion of ES in new political guidelines and
strategies. One general danger clearly indicated above is that
the concept of ES lends itself to oversimplification on a higher
level while situations on regional and local level are more
complex. This complexity is shown in the results of the
survey which offered a variety of perspectives on the values
attributed to ES. Further, many trade-offs depend on the
forms and uses of the ES, as explained by the example of
agriculture, where practices such as intensive farming raised
a lot of trade-offs with other ES, while some ‘‘softer’’
agricultural practices do not. Adding to the complexity is
the fact that many trade-offs seem to become apparent only
at the regional level and might even change with time. If this
complexity is to be adequately addressed, the rich fund of
regional and local knowledge and differing societal perspec-
tives needs to be included in policy development and decision
making.
Since values and trade-offs play out differently in different
contexts, high-level policies should be designed in such a way
that they set explicit requirements for lower level policy
implementation to be sensitive to multiple trade-offs between
ecosystem services. These requirements should include
developing a common understanding of ES in a specific
context and reaching agreements that consider the interests
of all stakeholder groups, especially when many different
actors with their different perceptions and needs are involved.
As suggested by the participants of the focus group discussion
and respondents of the survey, thought should also be given to
proper compensation strategies for those who contribute
greatly to helping ecosystems to provide ecosystem services,
as in organic farming, for example. Last but not least the
survey showed that depending on the management practices
considerable synergies between ES can be realised. While
some examples, such as organic farming and natural flood
protection were described by respondents in more detail other
synergies were not commented on. This, however, points to a
considerable knowledge about synergetic effects, which
should be explored further soon.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envsci.2012.08.001.
 environmental science & policy 25 (2013) 13–21
references
Bernard, H.R., 2006. Research Methods in Anthropology.
Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Altamira Press,
Lanham, MD, USA.
Costanza, R., Farber, S., 2002. Introduction to the special issue
on the dynamics and value of ecosystem services:
integrating economic and ecological perspectives. Ecological
Economics 41, 367–373.
Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knight, A.T., Reyers, B., Rouget, M.,
Roux, D., Welz, A.S., 2008. An operational model for
mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the
United States of America 105 (28), 9483–9488.
Daily, G., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A.,
Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H., Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R., 2009.
Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7 (1), 21–28.
Daily, G.C., Ellison, K., 2002. The New Economy of Nature: The
Quest to Make Conservation Profitable. Island Press,
Washington, DC.
de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L.,
2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem
services and values in landscape planning, management and
decision making. Ecological Complexity 7 (3), 260–272.
Engel, S., Pagiola, S., Wunder, S., 2008. Designing payments for
environmental services in theory and practice—an overview
of the issues. Ecological Economics 65, 663–674.
European Commission, 2011. Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions. Our life Insurance, Our Natural Capital: An EU
Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. COM(2011) 244 final.
Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and
classifying ecosystem services for decision making.
Ecological Economics 68, 643–653.
Frame, B., O’Connor, M., 2011. Integrating valuation and
deliberation: the purposes of sustainability assessment.
Environmental Science and Policy 14, 1–10.
Görg, C., Rauschmayer, F., 2009. Multi-level-governance and the
politics of scale—the challenge of the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment. In: Kütting, G., Lipschutz, R. (Eds.),
Environmental Governance, Power and Knowledge in a
Local-Global World. Routledge, London and New York, pp.
81–99.
Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R.S., van Ierland, E.C., 2006.
Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem
services. Ecological Economics 57, 209–228.
Jack, B.K., Kousky, C., Sims, K.E., 2008. Designing payments for
ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with
incentive-based mechanisms. Proceedings of the National
Academies of Sciences of the United States of America 105,
9465–9470.
Jax, K., 2010. Ecosystem Functioning. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Lamarque, P., Quétier, F., Lavorel, S., 2011. The diversity of
the ecosystem services concept and its implications for
their assessment and management. C.R. Biologies 11, 791–
804.
Lautenbach, S., Volk, M., Gruber, B., Dormann, C.F., Strauch, M.,
Seppelt, R., 2010. Quantifying Ecosystem Service Trade-offs,
International Environmental Modelling and Software Society
(iEMSs). In: 2010 International Congress on Environmental
Modelling and Software, Modelling for Environment’s Sake,
21
Fifth Biennial Meeting. Ottawa, Canada, August, 20 http://
www.iemss.org/iemss2010/index.php?n=Main.Proceedings.
Menzel, S., Teng, J., 2010. Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-
driven concept for conservation science. Conservation
Biology 24, 907–909.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and
Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources
Institute, Washington, DC.
Nelson, E., Polasky, S., Lewis, D., Plantinga, A., Lonsdorf, E., White,
D., Bael, D., Lawler, J., 2008. Efficiency of incentives to jointly
increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a
landscape. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of
the United States of America 105 (28), 9471–9476.
Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H.,
Cameron, D.R., Chan, K.M.A., Daily, G.C., Goldstein, J.,
Kareiva, P.M., Lonsdorf, E., Naidoo, R., Ricketts, T.H., Shaw,
M.R., 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services,
biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and
tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 7, 4–11.
Power, A.G., 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs
and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B 365, 2959–2971.
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D., Bennett, E.M., 2010.
Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse
landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science
107 (11), 5242–5247.
Reid, W.V., Mooney, H.A., Capistrano, D., Carpenter, S.R.,
Chopra, K., Cropper, A., Dasgupta, P., Hassan, R., Leemans,
R., May, R.M., Pingali, P., Samper, C., Scholes, R., Watson,
R.T., Zakri, A.H., Shidong, Z., 2006. Nature: the many benefits
of ecosystem services. Nature 443 (7113), 749–750.
Ring, I., Hansjürgens, B., Elmqvist, T., Wittmer, H., Sukhdev, P.,
2010. Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems
and biodiversity: the TEEB initiative. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability 2, 1–12.
Rodriguez, J.P., Beard Jr., T.D., Bennett, E.M., Cummings, G.S.,
Cork, S.J., Agard, J., Dobson, A.P., Peterson, G.D., 2006. Trade-
offs across space, time and ecosystem services. Ecology and
Society 11, 28 February, 3, http://
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art28/
Ruhl, J.B., Kraft, S.E., Lant, C.L., 2007. The Law and Policy of
Ecosystem Services. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Sagoff, M., 2011. The quantification and valuation of ecosystem
services. Ecological Economics 70, 497–502.
Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D., Cullen, R., Case, B., 2008. The future
of farming: the value of ecosystem services in conventional
and organic arable land: an experimental approach.
Ecological Economics 64, 835–848.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010.
Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, Montreal.
TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity:
Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the
Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB.
September, 15, http://www.teebweb.org.
Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., Polasky, S.,
2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production
practices. Nature 418, 671–677.
Vermeulen, S., Koziell, I., 2002. Integrating Global and Local
Values: A Review of Biodiversity Assessment. Natural
Resource Issues Paper. Institute for Environment and
Development, London, UK.
Wilson, M., Howarth, R., 2002. Discourse-based valuation of
ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through
group deliberation. Ecological Economics 41, 431–443.