Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Trends in Ecosystem Service Research: Early Steps and Current Drivers

  • Report
  • Published:
AMBIO Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the past 50 years, human beings have influenced ecosystems more rapidly than at any similar time in human history, drastically altering ecosystem functioning. Along with ecosystem transformation and degradation, a number of studies have addressed the functioning, assessment and management of ecosystems. The concept of ecosystem services has been developed in the scientific literature since the end of the 1970s. However, ecosystem service research has focused on certain service categories, ecosystem types, and geographical areas, while substantial knowledge gaps remain concerning several aspects. We assess the development and current status of ecosystem service research on the basis of publications collected from the Web of Science. The material consists of (1) articles (n = 353) from all the years included in the Web of Science down to the completion of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and (2) more recent articles (n = 687) published between 2006 and 2008. We also assess the importance of international processes, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Kyoto Protocol and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, as drivers of ecosystem service research. Finally, we identify future prospects and research needs concerning the assessment and management of ecosystem services.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen-Wardell, G., P. Bernhardt, R. Bitner, A. Burquez, S. Buchmann, J. Cane, P.A. Cox, V. Dalton, et al. 1998. The potential consequences of pollinator declines on the conservation of biodiversity and stability of food crop yields. Conservation Biology 12 (1): 8–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allkin, R. 1998. Effective management and delivery of natural resource information. In Information technology, plant pathology and biodiversity, ed. P. Bridge, P. Jeffries, D.R. Morse, and P.R. Scott, 87–102. Wallingford: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrén, O., H. Kirchmann, T. Kätterer, J. Magid, A. Paul, and D.C. Coleman. 2008. Visions of a more precise soil biology. European Journal of Soil Science 59: 380–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmford, A., and W. Bond. 2005. Trends in the state of nature and their implications for human well-being. Ecology Letters 8: 1218–1234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, J., and S. Banzhaf. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 63: 616–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K.M.A., M.R. Shaw, D.R. Cameron, E.C. Underwood, and G.C. Daily. 2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PlosBiology 4: e379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chivian, E., and A. Bernstein, eds. 2008. Sustaining life—how human health depends on biodiversity, 542 pp. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, K.D., and P.J. Burton. 1997. A gap-based approach for development of silvicultural systems to address ecosystem management objectives. Forest Ecology and Management 99 (3): 337–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, M.A. 2003. Fire science for rainforests. Nature 421 (6926): 913–919.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Daily, G., ed. 1997. Nature’s services. Societal dependence on natural ecosystems, 392 pp. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily, G., and K. Ellison. 2002. The new economy of nature. The quest to make conservation profitable, 260 pp. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debinski, D.M., and R.D. Holt. 2000. A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conservation Biology 14 (2): 342–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Groot, R.S., M.A. Wilson, and R.M.J. Boumans. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41: 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, P.R., and H.A. Mooney. 1983. Extinction, substitution and ecosystem services. BioScience 33: 248–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, P.R., and E.O. Wilson. 1991. Biodiversity studies: Science and policy. Science 253 (5021): 758–762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fearnside, P.M. 1999. Biodiversity as an environmental service in Brazil’s Amazonian forests: Risks, value and conservation. Environmental Conservation 26: 305–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folke, C., S. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, C.S. Holling, and B. Walker. 2002. Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio 31: 437–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatto, M., and G.A. De Leo. 2000. Pricing biodiversity and ecosystem services: The never-ending story. BioScience 50: 347–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glowka, L., F. Burhenne-Guilmin, H. Synge, J. McNeely, and L. Gündling. 1994. A guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 161 pp. Cambridge: IUCN Gland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfray, H.C.J., O.T. Lewis, and J. Memmot. 1999. Studying insect diversity in the tropics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 254: 1811–1824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heal, G. 2000. Valuing ecosystem services. Ecosystems 3: 24–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecology systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C.S., and G.K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10: 328–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, D.U., F.S. Chapin III, J.J. Ewel, A. Hector, P. Inchausti, S. Lavorel, J.H. Lawton, D.M. Lodge, et al. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: A consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75: 3–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, R.B., S.R. Carpenter, C.N. Dahm, D.M. McKnight, R.J. Naiman, S.L. Postel, and S.W. Running. 2001. Water in a changing world. Ecological applications 11: 1027–1045.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juma, C. 1997. The role of information in the operation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. In Biodiversity information—needs and options, ed. D.L. Hawksworth, P.M. Kirk, and S. Dextre Clarke, 125–128. Wallingford: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearns, C.A., D.W. Inouye, and N.M. Waser. 1998. Endangered mutualisms: The conservation of plant-pollinator interactions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 83–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremen, C. 2005. Managing ecosystem services: What do we need to know about their ecology? Ecology Letters 8 (5): 468–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions, 1st ed, 168 pp. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laihonen, P., M. Rönkä, H. Tolvanen, and R. Kalliola. 2003. Geospatially structured biodiversity information as a component of a regional biodiversity clearing house. Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 103–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambin, E.F., H.J. Geist, and E. Lepers. 2003. Dynamics of land-use and land-cover change in tropical regions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28: 205–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamoreux, J.F., J.C. Morrison, T.H. Ricketts, D.M. Olson, E. Dinerstein, M.W. McKnight, and H.H. Shugart. 2005. Global tests of biodiversity concordance and the importance of endemism. Nature 440: 212–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loreau, M., S. Naeem, P. Inchausti, J. Bengtsson, J.P. Grime, A. Hector, D.U. Hooper, M.A. Huston, et al. 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294: 804–808.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J.L., L. Fahrig, D. Kirk, K. Lindsay, A.C. Smith, and M.A. Villard. 2009. Selection of cultural landscapes by birds: Do things look different across continents and, if so, why? In: 7th Conference of the European Ornithologists’ Union 21–26 August 2009, University of Zurich, Switzerland, Abstracts, ed. V. Keller and J. O’Halloran, 152 pp. Sempach: Swiss Ornithological Institute.

  • Mezger, M.J., D. Schröter, R. Leemans, and W. Cramer. 2008. A spatially explicit and quantitative vulnerability assessment of ecosystem service change in Europe. Regional Environmental Change 8: 91–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis, 160 pp. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naidoo, R., A. Balmford, R. Costanza, B. Fisher, R.E. Green, B. Lehner, T.R. Malcolm, and T.H. Ricketts. 2008. Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 105: 9495–9500.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, D. 1979. Environmental services and the optimum rotation problem in forest management. Journal of Environmental Management 8: 127–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, B.G. 2000. Biodiversity and environmental values: In search of a universal earth ethic. Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 1029–1044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odum, E.P. 1959. Fundamentals of ecology, 2nd ed, 546 pp. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action, 280 pp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rounsevell, M.D.A., F. Ewert, I. Reginster, R. Leemans, and T.R. Carter. 2005. Future scenarios of European agricultural land use II: Projecting changes in cropland and grassland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 107: 117–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schalk, P.H. 1998. Archiving biodiversity: Information technology applied to biodiversity information management. In Information technology, plant pathology and biodiversity, ed. P. Bridge, P. Jeffries, D.R. Morse, and P.R. Scott, 213–220. Wallingford: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheffer, M., W. Brock, and F. Westley. 2000. Socioeconomic mechanisms preventing optimum use of ecosystem services: An interdisciplinary theoretical analysis. Ecosystems 3: 451–471.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, N. 2007. The economics of climate change. The Stern review, 692 pp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • TEEB. 2009. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and international policy makers. Summary report: Responding to the value of nature 2009, 47 pp.

  • UNEP. 1997. Introduction to the clearing-house mechanisms of the Convention on Biological Diversity to facilitate and promote technical and scientific co-operation. UNEP, UNEP/CBD/CHM/RW/3/2, 21 October 1997.

  • United Nations. 1993. Multilateral Convention on Biological Diversity (with annexes), concluded at the Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992. United Nations Treaty Series vol. 1760, no. 30619.

  • United Nations. 1998. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change.

  • United Nations. 2006a. The millennium development goals report. New York.

  • United Nations. 2006b. World population prospects. The 2006 revision population database.

  • Vatn, A., and D.W. Bromley. 1994. Choices without prices without apologies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26: 129–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vihervaara, P., T. Kumpula, A. Tanskanen, and B. Burkhard. 2009. Ecosystem services—a tool for sustainable management of human–environment systems. Case study Finnish Forest Lapland. Ecological Complexity. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.12.002.

  • Wallace, K.J. 2007. Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions. Biological Conservation 139: 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Ollikainen and M. Kettunen for assistance in the early phases of the study. E. Valle and M. Vieno kindly checked the language. The study profited greatly from comments by the anonymous referees. The study was financed by the Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation and by the Finnish Cultural Foundation, and was conducted in cooperation with the CORECO (grant number 111152) and the REGSUS (grant number 131893) projects funded by the Academy of Finland.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Biodiversity and Environmental Science, Department of Biology, University of Turku, 20014, Turku, Finland

    Petteri Vihervaara

  2. Section of Ecology, Department of Biology, University of Turku, 20014, Turku, Finland

    Mia Rönkä

  3. Finnish Environment Institute SYKE, P.O. Box 140, 00251, Helsinki, Finland

    Mari Walls

Authors
  1. Petteri Vihervaara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mia Rönkä
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mari Walls
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petteri Vihervaara.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vihervaara, P., Rönkä, M. & Walls, M. Trends in Ecosystem Service Research: Early Steps and Current Drivers. AMBIO 39, 314–324 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0048-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0048-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation