Ecosystem services: Classification for valuation

By B. Fisher, R. Turner. 2008

607 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f187f55fc1248960a440a69069b34cb0f81dc63c

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

1. J. Kenter
2. Stephen Polasky
3. E. Corbera
4. I. Fazey
5. Michael Christie
6. G. Atkinson
7. Ian J. Bateman
8. T. Luisetti

In Global and Planetary Change

1. J. Kenter
2. E. Corbera
3. Stephen Polasky
4. I. Fazey
5. Michael Christie
6. Nicolás Kosoy
7. Ian J. Bateman
8. E. Nelson

Citations in the corpus

• How to value biodiversity in environmental management (2015, background): “Consequently, there is growing discusion about the precise definition and classifications of ecosystem ervices, which provide a solid foundation for future work (Boyd nd Banzhaf, 2007; Fisher and Turner, 2008; TEEB, 2010a; Böhnkeenrichs et al., 2013).”
• Uncertainty in ecosystem services valuation and implications for assessing land use tradeoffs: An agricultural case study in the Minnesota River Basin (2012, background): “…ecosystem services of direct benefit to society rather than “intermediate” services could establish explicit connections between biophysical changes and changes in human welfare and help avoid incorrectly double-counting ecosystem service benefits (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; Fisher and Turner, 2008).”
• Ecosystem services (2011, unknown): “Thus Wallace (2007) prefers to regard functions and processes as the same thing, to avoid confusion, and commentators like Fisher and Turner (2008) and Fisher et al. (2009) simply label all the elements on the left-hand side of the cascade diagram, that ultimately give rise to some service and…”
• Coastal and marine ecosystem services valuation for policy and management: Managed realignment case studies in England (2011, methodology): “The section concludes by reporting on and comparing the results of the two case studies in which an ecosystem services approach (Fisher and Turner, 2008) is used.”
• Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management (2016, background): “Fisher et al. (2009), Fisher and Turner (2008) argued that it is the easiest way to perform a valuation exercise avoiding any double counting.”
• Classifying Ecosystem Services for Economic Valuation: The case of forest water services (2010, background): “Other studies have avoided the complexity of ecosystem functioning by focussing on the final benefit that connects to human well-being (Fisher and Turner, 2008).”
• A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning (2012, background): “To prevent further abatement of the quality of ecosysems, the ecosystem services concept has become a central issue n conservation planning and environmental impact assessment Burkhard et al., 2010; Fisher and Turner, 2008).”
• The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation (2015, unknown): “produce human well-being (Fisher and Turner, 2008).”
• Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments (2011, background): “Fisher and Turner (2008) expand on this definition to propose that “ecosystem services are the aspects of ecosystems utilized (actively or passively) to produce human well-being” (p.2051).”
• The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations (TEEB D0). (2010, background): “7 (1874), Leopold (1949), Carson (1962), Krutilla and Fisher (1975) to mention but a few.”
• 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).”