Home       About us   Issues     Search     Submission Subscribe   Contact    Login 
Conservation and Society
An interdisciplinary journal exploring linkages between society, environment and development
Conservation and Society
Users Online: 2922 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size

REVIEW
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 343-358

Ecosystem Services: Origins, Contributions, Pitfalls, and Alternatives


1 Centre for Environment and Development, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bangalore, India
2 School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
3 Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
4 Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies, Kolkata, India
5 Vasundhara, Bhubaneswar, India

Correspondence Address:
Sharachchandra Lele
Centre for Environment and Development, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bangalore, India

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-4923.125752

Rights and Permissions

The concept of ecosystem services (ES) has taken the environmental science and policy literature by storm, and has become almost the approach to thinking about and assessing the nature-society relationship. In this review, we ask whether and in what way the ES concept is a useful way of organising research on the nature-society relationship. We trace the evolution of the different versions of the concept and identify key points of convergence and divergence. The essence of the concept nevertheless is that the contribution of biotic nature to human well-being is unrecognised and undervalued, which results in destruction of ecosystems. We discuss why this formulation has attracted ecologists and summarise the resultant contributions to research, particularly to the understanding of indirect or regulating services. We then outline three sets of weaknesses in the ES framework: confusion over ecosystem functions and biodiversity, omission of dis-services, trade-offs and abiotic nature, and the use of an economic valuation framework to measure and aggregate human well-being. Underlying these weaknesses is a narrow problem frame that is unidimensional in its environmental concern and techno-economic in its explanation of environmental degradation. We argue that an alternative framing that embraces broader concerns and incorporates multiple explanations would be more useful, and outline how this approach to understanding the nature-society relationship may be implemented.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed12639    
    Printed173    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded3500    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 19    

Recommend this journal