Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed

By Robert Costanza. 2008

721 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/687fd6cf21ac9cda982e2cf39fc65d15a4948935

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration (2016, background): “While there has been a call for a unifying and standardized ecosystem service accounting framework that allows for transparent aggregation between scales and disciplines (Costanza, 2008; Lamarque et al., 2011), it is clear, however, that no one valuation framework will work for all purposes either (”
The Concept of Ecosystem Services Regarding Landscape Research: A Review (2011, background): “There exists a wide range of other useful ways to classify ecosystem functions, goods and services, like the suggestions from Costanza (2008) to classify by “spatial characteristics” or by the “excludability/rivalness” status of ecosystem services.”
Monetary accounting of ecosystem services: a test case for Limburg province, the Netherlands. (2015, methodology): “Themodelled ESwere alsomapped separately for serviceswith a public and private character, using rivalry and excludability as criteria (Costanza, 2008; Kemkes et al., 2010).”
The political ecology of ecosystem services (2015, neutral): “can be debated (Wallace, 2007; Costanza, 2008), but such transparency is often lacking.”
Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective (2014, background): “Costanza and Daly (1992) also proposed a distinction between stocks and flows by stating that stocks of natural capital generate a “natural income” in terms of flows of ecosystems services.”
Current Status and Future Prospects for the Assessment of Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review (2013, background): “However, it has been argued that a single classification scheme cannot be applicable for all habitats or assessments [37,38] [18,39].”
Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A conceptual framework (2014, neutral): “This is a widely employed and flexible categorization, although critique has been leveled that it fosters double-counting in valuation (Costanza, 2008; Fisher et al., 2009).”
Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services (2013, background): “Others described the difficulties presented by the ‘‘spatial mismatch’’ between the ecosystems that provide value and B.V. . people that enjoy services (Ruhl et al., 2007; Costanza, 2008; Fisher et al., 2009).”
Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services (2011, background): “This agenda includes international efforts to develop integrated systems of ecosystem and economic accounts (United Nations et al., 2003; Weber, 2007) and standardized classifications of ecosystem services (Costanza, 2008; HainesYoung and Potschin, 2010).”
Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands-concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification (2014, methodology): “Ecosystem service rivalry: the degree to which the use of one ecosystem service prevents other beneficiaries from using it (Schröter et al. 2014; Kemkes et al. 2010; Costanza 2008a).”
Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services (2012, background): “It has since been further elaborated by different authors (Wallace, 2007; Costanza, 2008; Fisher and Turner, 2008; Farley and Costanza, 2010).”