Ecosystem services (ES) | Lincoln University

Enrol online Skip to main content

Ecosystem services (ES)

Ecosystem Services (ES) comprise goods and services that have value to humans and which are derived from ecosystem functions (Costanza et al. 1997).  The global monetary value of ES is currently estimated at US$145 trillion/yr (Constanza et al. 2014). ES can be enhanced by human manipulation of the environment such as improved pest management by planting non-crop vegetation that benefits biological control agents.
 

However, many ES have substantial inherent value to humans, with no manipulation. Examples include earthworms aerating the soil and mineralising plant material in agriculture (Blouin et al. 2013) or pollination of orchards by insects (Földesi et al. 2015). The value of ecosystem services can be monetary, such as reduced costs and increased yield (Pywell et al. 2015; Tschumi et al. 2015). They can have cultural value, for instance protecting areas of importance to indigenous people and endangered wildlife as well as delivering aesthetic and spiritual value through enhanced human well-being (Roberts et al. 2015). They also maintain natural areas used for recreation. ES were first defined by Daily (1997) as, “the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems sustain and fulfil human life.” Also, in 1997, Constanza et al. (1997) redefined this concept more specifically as, goods and services derived directly or indirectly from ecosystem functions. This was then simplified further with ecosystem goods and services referred to as just ecosystem services.

Costanza et al. (1997) went on to describe 17 ES that they considered to be “major” categories that encompassed all ES on a global scale.

These can be found in Table 1.

Examples of multiple ecosystem services delivered by different ecosystems:

Multiple ecosystem services in salad crops

  • Flowering strips with sweet alyssum (Lobularia maritima) providing multiple ES, such as improved soil quality and resources for pollinating insects and biological control agents. Photo: Ryan Rayl.

Multiple ecosystem services in dairy farms

  • Miscanthus x giganteus (Greef et Deu.) shelterbelts on dairy farms can provide at least 15 ES such as biofuel production, shelter for livestock and increased pasture yield by 14% (Littlejohn et al. 2015; Chirino-Valle et al., 2016). Photo: Chris Littlejohn.

Multiple ecosystem services in natural areas

  • Mountainous areas in New Zealand provide multiple ES with monetary (e.g. tourism), cultural and recreational (e.g. hunting, walking, conservation) aesthetic and human well-being values, which are often undervalued. Photo: Morgan Shields.

 

European Union video explaining ecosystem services value in policy

 

References

Blouin M, Hodson M, Delgado E, Baker G, Brussaard L, Butt K, Dai J, Dendooven L, Peres G, Tondoh J, Cluzeau D, Brun J-J, 2013. A review of earthworm impact on soil function and ecosystem services. European Journal of Soil Science, 64: 161–182.

Chirino-Valle I, Kandula D, Littlejohn C, Hill R, Walker M, Shields M, Cummings N, Hettiarachchi D, Wratten S, 2016. Potential of the beneficial fungus Trichoderma to enhance ecosystem-service provision in the biofuel grass Miscanthus x giganteus in agriculture. Scientific Reports 6: 25109

Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso, M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill R, Paruelo J, Raskin R, Sutton P, van den Belt M, 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253 – 260.

Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, van der Ploeg S, Anderson S, Kubiszewski I, Farber S, Turner K, 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26: 152-158.

Daily C, 1997. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington D.C. 393p.

Földesi R, Kovács‐Hostyánszki A, Kőrösi Á, Somay L, Elek Z, Markó V, Sárospataki M, Bakos R, Varga A, Nyisztor K, Báldi A, 2015. Relationships between wild bees, hoverflies and pollination success in apple orchards with different landscape contexts. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 18: 68-75.

Littlejohn C, Curran T, Hofmann R, Wratten S, 2015. Farmland, food, and bioenergy crops need not compete for land. Solutions May-June Issue, 36-50. Available at: http://thesolutionsjournal.com/node/237359.

Pywell R, Heard M, Woodcock B, Hinsley S, Ridding L, Nowakowski M, Bullock J, 2015. Wild life friendly farming increases crop yield: evidence for ecological intensification. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282: 20151740.

Roberts L, Brower A, Kerr G, Lambert S, McWilliam W, Moore K, Quinn J, Simmons D, Thrush S, Townsend M, Blaschke P, Costanza R, Cullen R, Hughey K, Wratten S, 2015. The nature of wellbeing: How nature’s ecosystem services contribute to the wellbeing of New Zealanders. Department of Conservation, New Zealand Government, Wellington, NZ. 145p.

Tschumi M, Albrecht M, Entling M, Jacot K, 2015. High effectiveness of tailored flower strips in reducing pests and crop plant damage. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282: 20151369.

Lincoln University website redevelopment project 2014
Developers
Nick Goodey - C# back end and SharePoint Developer
Star Chen - Web Developer
Karaitiana Taiuru - Web Developer SharePoint administrator
Ting Wu - Front end Developer
Managers
Jeremy Baker - Senior managment
Tafflyn Bradford-James Marketing director
Richard Corby - Project manager
Suppliers
Pikselin - primary partner, web designers, UX design