Rudolf de Groot

A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services

Abstract An increasing amount of information is being collected on the ecological and socio-economic value of goods and services provided by natural and semi-natural ecosystems. However, much of this information appears scattered throughout a disciplinary academic literature, unpublished government agency reports, and across the World Wide Web. In addition, data on ecosystem goods and services often appears at incompatible scales of analysis and is classified differently by different authors. In order to make comparative ecological economic analysis possible, a standardized framework for the comprehensive assessment of ecosystem functions, goods and services is needed. In response to this challenge, this paper presents a conceptual framework and typology for describing, classifying and valuing ecosystem functions, goods and services in a clear and consistent manner. In the following analysis, a classification is given for the fullest possible range of 23 ecosystem functions that provide a much larger number of goods and services. In the second part of the paper, a checklist and matrix is provided, linking these ecosystem functions to the main ecological, socio–cultural and economic valuation methods.

The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital

This article provides a crude initial estimate of the value of ecosystem services to the economy. Using data from previous published studies and a few original calculations the current economic value of 17 ecosystem services for 16 biomes was estimated. The services of ecological systems and the natural capital stocks that produce them are critical to the functioning of the Earths life-support system. They contribute to human welfare both directly and indirectly and therefore represent part of the total economic value of the planet. It was estimated that for the entire biosphere the value (most of which is outside the market) ranges US

A framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability

16-54 trillion/year with an average of US

Critical natural capital: a socio-cultural perspective

33 trillion/year. Due to the nature of uncertainties this must be considered a minimum estimate. In addition the global gross national product total is around US

The value of ecosystem services: putting the issues in perspective

18 trillion/year.

Assessing Landscape Functions with Broad-Scale Environmental Data: Insights Gained from a Prototype Development for Europe

This paper develops a methodology for identifying that natural capital—called critical natural capital (CNC)—the maintenance of which is essential for environmental sustainability. By consideration of the characteristics of natural capital, of the environmental functions that these characteristics enable natural capital to perform and of the importance of these functions to humans and the biosphere, it shows how sustainability standards in respect of these environmental functions may be derived. The difference between the current situation and these standards is termed the sustainability gap. The methodology that emerges from bringing these ideas together into a single analytical framework enables policy makers to identify the extent of current unsustainability, the principal causes of it, the elements and processes of natural capital (the CNC) which need to be maintained or restored to close the sustainability gap and the costs of so doing. The framework should therefore be of use in identifying priorities and policies for moving towards environmental sustainability.

Importance and threat as determining factors for criticality of natural capital

Abstract Critical natural capital (CNC) is commonly defined as that part of the natural environment, which performs important and irreplaceable functions. So far, the challenge to determine the criticality of natural capital (NC) has mainly been taken up by the natural sciences, and the critical functions of nature mainly associated with its life-support and ecological services. Little attention has been paid to the socio-cultural functions of NC and to their values for the health and well being of human societies. The aim of this paper is to encourage a more complete accounting of the critical functions of NC and its associated values, by highlighting the importance of the information functions (health, recreation, amenity, education, heritage, etc.) for the quality and sustainability of human life. It is argued that, despite their immaterial and often intangible nature, these functions provide many, socio–economic benefits, which might be assessed through both qualitative and quantitative valuation methodologies. Integration of ecology, sociology and economics is essential to operationalize the concept of CNC as a tool for more balanced environmental planning and decision making.

Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration

a Department of Zoology, Center for En6ironmental Science, Uni6ersity of Maryland, Box 38, Solomons, MD 20688, USA b Institute for Ecological Economics, Uni6ersity of Maryland, PO Box 38, Solomons, MD 20688, USA c Department of Economics (emeritus), Uni6ersity of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, 82070, USA d Center for En6ironment and Climate Studies, Wageningen Agricultural Uni6ersity, PO Box 9101, 6700 HB Wageningen, The Netherlands e Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, Uni6ersity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA f Institute for Ecological Economics, Uni6ersity of Maryland, PO Box 38, Solomons, MD 20688, USA g Department of Geography, Uni6ersity of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA h NCSA, Uni6ersity of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA i Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, USA j Department of Ecology, E6olution and Beha6ior, Uni6ersity of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA k En6ironmental Sciences Di6ision, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA l Department of Ecology, Faculty of Agronomy, Uni6ersity of Buenos Aires, A6. San Martin 4453, 1417 Buenos Aires, Argentina m Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA n Department of Geography, National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Uni6ersity of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA o Ecological Economics Research and Applications, PO Box 1589, Solomons, MD 20688, USA

Identifying critical natural capital

We examine the advantages and disadvantages of a methodological framework designed to analyze the poorly understood relationships between the ecosystem properties of large portions of land, and their capacities (stocks) to provide goods and services (flows). These capacities (stocks) are referred to as landscape functions. The core of our assessment is a set of expert- and literature-driven binary links, expressing whether specific land uses or other environmental properties have a supportive or neutral role for given landscape functions. The binary links were applied to the environmental properties of 581 administrative units of Europe with widely differing environmental conditions and this resulted in a spatially explicit landscape function assessment. To check under what circumstances the binary links are able to replace complex interrelations, we compared the landscape function maps with independently generated continent-wide assessments (maps of ecosystem services or environmental parameters/indicators). This rigorous testing revealed that for 9 out of 15 functions the straightforward binary links work satisfactorily and generate plausible geographical patterns. This conclusion holds primarily for production functions. The sensitivity of the nine landscape functions to changes in land use was assessed with four land use scenarios (IPCC SRES). It was found that most European regions maintain their capacity to provide the selected services under any of the four scenarios, although in some cases at other locations within the region. At the proposed continental scale, the selected input parameters are thus valid proxies which can be used to assess the mid-term potential of landscapes to provide goods and services.

Typology and indicators of ecosystem services for marine spatial planning and management

Abstract An important issue in the debate about the use and conservation of natural ecosystems is the degree to which these ecosystems and their functions should be considered ‘critical’. This paper presents some guidelines to determine the criticality of natural capital, based on two main criteria. The first criterion is the ‘importance’ of natural ecosystems (ecological, socio-cultural and economic) and the second is the degree of ‘threat’ based on the quantity and quality of the (remaining) natural areas in a given region. It is argued that the two criteria are complementary and need to be taken into account simultaneously when determining the criticality of natural capital. Finally, the paper presents and discusses some possibilities for the development of a (critical) natural capital index for Europe.