» Articles » PMID: 32915448

Assumptions in Ecosystem Service Assessments: Increasing Transparency for Conservation

Overview
Journal Ambio
Date 2020 Sep 11
PMID 32915448
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Conservation efforts are increasingly supported by ecosystem service assessments. These assessments depend on complex multi-disciplinary methods, and rely on a number of assumptions which reduce complexity. If assumptions are ambiguous or inadequate, misconceptions and misinterpretations may arise when interpreting results of assessments. An interdisciplinary understanding of assumptions in ecosystem service science is needed to provide consistent conservation recommendations. Here, we synthesise and elaborate on 12 prevalent types of assumptions in ecosystem service assessments. These comprise conceptual and ethical foundations of the ecosystem service concept, assumptions on data collection, indication, mapping, and modelling, on socio-economic valuation and value aggregation, as well as about using assessment results for decision-making. We recommend future assessments to increase transparency about assumptions, and to test and validate them and their potential consequences on assessment reliability. This will support the taking up of assessment results in conservation science, policy and practice.

Citing Articles

Climate change effects on ecosystem services: Disentangling drivers of mixed responses.

Delos M, Johnson C, Weiskopf S, Cushing J PLoS One. 2025; 20(2):e0306017.

PMID: 39928625 PMC: 11809903. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306017.


Smaller farm size and ruminant animals are associated with increased supply of non-provisioning ecosystem services.

Karlsson J, Tidaker P, Roos E Ambio. 2022; 51(9):2025-2042.

PMID: 35430721 PMC: 9287507. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-022-01726-y.


Universal scaling of robustness of ecosystem services to species loss.

Ross S, Arnoldi J, Loreau M, White C, Stout J, Jackson A Nat Commun. 2021; 12(1):5167.

PMID: 34453056 PMC: 8397752. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-25507-5.

References
1.
Gowdy J, Hall C, Klitgaard K, Krall L . What every conservation biologist should know about economic theory. Conserv Biol. 2010; 24(6):1440-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01563.x. View

2.
Gonzalez-Redin J, Luque S, Poggio L, Smith R, Gimona A . Spatial Bayesian belief networks as a planning decision tool for mapping ecosystem services trade-offs on forested landscapes. Environ Res. 2015; 144(Pt B):15-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2015.11.009. View

3.
Hsee C, Rottenstreich Y . Music, pandas, and muggers: on the affective psychology of value. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2004; 133(1):23-30. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.23. View

4.
Kremen C, Merenlender A . Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people. Science. 2018; 362(6412). DOI: 10.1126/science.aau6020. View

5.
Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson G, Bennett E . Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010; 107(11):5242-7. PMC: 2841950. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0907284107. View