Ruckelshaus - Etal - 2014 - Notes From The Field - Lessons Learned From Using Ecosystem Service Approaches To

ECOLEC-04558; No of Pages 11
Ecological Economics xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecological Economics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon
Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to
inform real-world decisions☆
Mary Ruckelshaus a,⁎, Emily McKenzie b,c, Heather Tallis d, Anne Guerry a, Gretchen Daily e, Peter Kareiva f,
Stephen Polasky g, Taylor Ricketts h, Nirmal Bhagabati b, Spencer A. Wood a, Joanna Bernhardt i
a
The Natural Capital Project, Department of Biology and the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University; c/o School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, Univ. of Washington,
Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
b
WWF-US, Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th St NW, Washington, DC 20037, USA
c
WWF-UK, Panda House, Weyside Park, Godalming, Surrey GU7 1XR, UK
d
The Nature Conservancy, c/o California Program, 201 Mission Street, 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-1832, USA
e
Center for Conservation Biology and The Natural Capital Project, Department of Biology and the Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, 371 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
f
The Nature Conservancy, 4722 Latona Ave. NE, Seattle, WA 98105, USA
g
Departments of Applied Economics and Ecology, Evolution and Behavior 337E Ruttan Hall, University of Minnesota, 1994 Buford Ave, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA
h
Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, 617 Main Street, Burlington, VT 05405, USA
i
Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, 6270 University Boulevard, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: While there have been rapid advances in assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES), a critical
Received 27 October 2012 remaining challenge is how to move from scientific knowledge to real-world decision making. We offer 6 lessons
Received in revised form 23 July 2013 from our experiences applying new approaches and tools for quantifying BES in 20 pilot demonstrations:
Accepted 25 July 2013
(1) Applying a BES approach is most effective in leading to policy change as part of an iterative science-policy
Available online xxxx
process; (2) simple ecological production function models have been useful in a diverse set of decision contexts,
Keywords:
across a broad range of biophysical, social, and governance systems. Key limitations of simple models arise at very
Ecosystem services small scales, and in predicting specific future BES values; (3) training local experts in the approaches and tools is
Human development and conservation important for building local capacity, ownership, trust, and long-term success; (4) decision makers and stake-
Spatial planning holders prefer to use a variety of BES value metrics, not only monetary values; (5) an important science gap exists
PES in linking changes in BES to changes in livelihoods, health, cultural values, and other metrics of human wellbeing;
Decision support and (6) communicating uncertainty in useful and transparent ways remains challenging.
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction 2007; Cardinale et al., 2012; Egoh et al., 2008; Ehrlich et al., 2012;
Fisher et al., 2009, 2011; Mace et al., 2012; Naidoo et al., 2008; Nelson
There is growing science and policy attention on sustaining natural et al., 2009; Polasky et al., 2011; Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2010; Reyers
capital and the flow of ecosystem services that support human wellbeing. et al., 2012; Seppelt et al., 2011; Tallis and Polasky, 2011). These scien-
This attention has the potential to transform decision-making across vast tific advances have led to an explosion of interest in ecosystem services
resource-intensive sectors and human development efforts. Growth in in both the public and private sectors.
knowledge of ecosystem services has been rapid, from early academic Numerous efforts currently are underway to make the concept of
treatments (e.g., Daily, 1997; Ehrlich and Mooney, 1983) to the first ecosystem services operational and linked with decision-making. In
global assessment of ecosystem services (MA, 2005). More recently, 2012, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity
detailed work on definitions, metrics, and assessments have followed and Ecosystem Services was established to provide an interface between
(e.g., Bateman et al., 2011; Bennett et al., 2009; Boyd and Banzhaf, the scientific community and policy makers, and build capacity for and
strengthen the use of ecosystem service science and assessments in
policy making (www.ipbes.net/). National governments conducting
assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES)—such as those
☆ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons in China, Mexico and the UK—are breaking new ground in developing
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works License, which permits non-commercial approaches that work with available data, and identifying reporting
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source
indicators and other ways of communicating their findings to the public
are credited.
⁎ Corresponding author. (Bateman et al., 2013; CONABIO, 2006; Daily et al., 2013; Ehrlich et al.,
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Ruckelshaus). 2012; UK NEA, 2011).
0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009
Please cite this article as: Ruckelshaus, M., et al., Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-
world decisions, Ecological Economics (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009
2 M. Ruckelshaus et al. / Ecological Economics xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
On-going efforts at regional scales include those following on the Literature and tools describing the value of BES information in real-
sub-global assessments of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment world decisions are largely hypothetical treatments, or are based on
(Capistrano, 2005; Daily et al., 2013; Sub-global Assessment Network, general principles or guidelines (e.g., Hanson et al., 2008; McKenzie
2012), and to include ecosystem services in development policies and et al., 2011; TEEB, 2010; WBCSD, 2011). A recent review by Laurans
project evaluations (Goldman et al., 2008; McKenzie et al., 2011). Such et al. (2013) highlights how rarely the literature assesses whether BES
information has the potential to be helpful in a host of public-sector information is used effectively in decisions, even when ‘use’ is an impor-
management and policy decisions, such as land- and water-use plan- tant research objective.
ning; coastal zone and marine management; regulation and permitting We have applied, tested and refined our conceptual framework,
processes for extractive uses such as timber, fisheries, and mining; and approaches and InVEST models in a sufficient number of decision con-
hazard mitigation and adaptation planning, to name a few. In addition, texts, and over a long enough time period to begin to assess whether,
non-governmental organizations and development banks (e.g. World and how, they influence decisions. The examples to date include a
Wildlife Fund (WWF), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the World wide range of circumstances and ways to create change in decisions.
Resources Institute, Conservation International, the World Bank, Inter- The outcomes have also varied in terms of their success. While our sim-
American Development Bank) are working to incorporate ecosystem ple approaches and models can work in a diverse array of decision con-
services into their missions, strategies and work plans. Finally, an texts, we have also learned some of the limitations of such approaches
increasing number of businesses recognize that natural capital under- and the kinds of questions for which simple models are not sufficient
pins sustainable business practices to satisfy consumer demands, secure to provide information requested for informing decisions.
supply chains for long-term business success, operations and risk man- Our aims in this paper are to offer a framework for considering how
agement, and protect local communities in which companies operate such information can inform decisions, illustrate its use to describe
(CEF and TNC, 2012; Hanson et al., 2008; Natural Capital Declaration, progress in the influence of BES values in several decision contexts,
2012; WBCSD, 2011). Examples of businesses taking an active interest and qualitatively assess the strengths and weaknesses of this frame-
in ecosystem services include Dow Chemical, The Coca-Cola Company, work to date. We evaluate quantitatively the effects of BES information
and Unilever, among others. on decisions in just one case here for illustrative purposes, and to moti-
The promise that BES assessments will change policy, management, vate future work assessing impact by our team and others in this field.
or practice for public or private sector enterprises is not yet proven First we define what we mean by ‘success’ in using BES information,
(Goldman et al., 2008; Laurans et al, 2013). Most previous applications and briefly describe the diverse decision contexts in which we are testing
of BES information have focused on securing single ecosystem services our approach. We then delve into a specific test case to illustrate how we
(e.g., fisheries, water quality and quantity) through payments, manage- work and what we are learning; and close by distilling general lessons
ment or regulatory changes (EPA, 2009; NRC, 2005; TEEB, 2010). In and challenges from over 20 demonstration cases in which NatCap has
spite of individual triumphs, the pace at which the theory of ecosystem engaged around the world.
service valuation is being incorporated into real decisions has been
painstakingly slow, with disappointingly few success stories (Kushner 2. A diversity of successes
et al, 2012). Indeed, little evidence has yet been offered that BES finance
and policy mechanisms can be effectively replicated and scaled to yield There are many specific, measurable ways to advance beyond aspi-
desired outcomes. rations and account for biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES) in
The Natural Capital Project (NatCap) was formed in 2006 under the decisions. Because it may take months to years to decades for a policy
premise that BES information can be used to inform decisions and window to open that enables new technical information to influence
improve the wellbeing of both people and nature. NatCap's primary real decisions (Kingdon, 1995), we have identified several success
goal is to transform decisions affecting the environment and human points along which we can track change before the ultimate goals of
well-being by providing clear and credible ecosystem service informa- policy shifts and improvement in BES and human wellbeing are
tion for decision makers. To support our work, we are developing and achieved. This approach fits with previous findings in the knowledge
testing a set of standardized BES assessment tools, available in an open- utilization literature: information most often has indirect influence on
source software platform: InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem the long-term development of policy via impacts on who participates
Services and Tradeoffs). InVEST is a set of models spanning terrestrial, actively in discussions, how negotiations about an issue are framed,
freshwater, and marine environments, that use production functions to what goals, options, and technical knowledge are emphasized, and the
estimate changes in biodiversity and ecosystem services under different visibility of a particular issue relative to others (Mitchell et al., 2006;
demographic, land-use, and climate scenarios (Arkema et al., 2013; Weiss, 1977).
Guerry et al, 2012; Kareiva et al., 2011; Nelson et al., 2009; Tallis and Fig. 1 represents a framework for detailing the ways through which
Polasky, 2009; Tallis et al., 2013). While InVEST provides a basic template BES information can successfully inform decisions and create change.
designed to be used anywhere, our approach in specific cases is to The stages are based in part on the literature on joint knowledge pro-
co-develop applications with decision makers to ensure that inputs duction, knowledge utilization, and public policy, and in part on our
are tailored to local needs and data availability and that output metrics observations and experience working in over 20 countries. Each of the
and knowledge production processes are deemed credible, relevant and four columns represents a different ‘pathway’ constituting some form
legitimate by stakeholders (Cash et al., 2003; Cowling et al., 2008). of success in incorporating BES information into decisions and out-
We have selected decision contexts carefully. Transforming natural comes. Deeper impact is achieved as the process evolves from top to
resource decisions requires not only credible information, but also bottom down each pathway, and from left to right between the four
specific enabling conditions and institutional capacity (Kahneman, pathways. Our hypothesis is that each science-policy engagement will
1980; Ostrom, 2005; Salzman, 2005). We select places and decision traverse these pathways to a different extent, and the stages can be
contexts to test our approach where the chances of early success and used to track progress that is not always linear. In some cases, interaction
replication are high (because of strong leadership and partners; clearly among pathways allows progress to build on work sequentially along
defined authorities or decision-making pathways; and demonstrated them.
interest in using ecosystem service information in decisions). In some Pathway 1 represents a process in which scientists, local experts,
decision contexts—such as spatial planning—the challenges with imple- stakeholders and decision makers jointly provide data and information,
mentation are high because of many-layered authorities and interests; produce, analyze, and disseminate results, akin to joint knowledge pro-
but the promise is also high for replicating compelling examples duction (Andrews, 2002; Karl et al., 2007). Indicators of change here are
because of the widespread use of such planning around the world. relatively simple, including number of publications or communications
M. Ruckelshaus et al. / Ecological Economics xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 3
PATHWAY 1: PATHWAY 2: PATHWAY 3: PATHWAY 4:

Conduct Research Change Perspectives Generate Action Produce Outcomes
Alternative
People
Results choices
aware of, understand
Produced based on BES
and discuss BES
framework Enhanced &
balanced BES
provision
Published Stakeholders Plans & policies

articulate different consider
BES positions BES impacts
Improved outcomes
Disseminated for BES
Stakeholder & human wellbeing
differences made New policy and
transparent and finance
are mediated mechanisms
established
Increasing impact
Fig. 1. Pathways for and levels of impact of BES information on decisions. Each of the four columns represents a different ‘pathway’ that could constitute a level of success in informing
decisions. Deeper impact is achieved as the process evolves from top to bottom down each pathway, and left to right between the four pathways. Pathway 1 represents the creation
of BES outputs and research results that are published and disseminated. Pathway 2 represents impacts of BES information on the attitudes, beliefs, awareness and understanding of
stakeholders and decision-makers. Pathway 3 represents the influence of BES information on specific actions and the behavior of decision-makers, which may constitute commitments,
procedural change, or a specific decision about funding, continuing, amending, terminating or expanding a project, program or policy. Pathway 4 represents specific outcomes in terms of
developing new policy or finance mechanisms, and making measurable improvements in ecosystem service provision, biodiversity and human wellbeing.
on new knowledge and ways in which the new BES information is ultimately leads to improved states of biodiversity and human well-
disseminated. Progress on Pathway 1 may catalyze impact on Pathway being. As a first step towards evaluating impact of BES information on
2 as research builds new knowledge, understanding and awareness of decisions, we briefly summarize in a narrative form these pathways of
BES among stakeholders and decision makers; shaping the way people change in a diversity of decision contexts in which the Natural Capital
think about and interact around BES issues, akin to ‘conceptual’ or Project is applying and testing the notion that knowledge about
‘enlightenment’ use in the knowledge utilization literature (Weiss, BES values can change policy and management (Table 1; Appendix
1977). Measures of change in stakeholder perspectives can come from Table 1A). Appendix Table 1A provides the rationale for reported change
documented shifts in written or oral language and the ways in which along each impact pathway summarized in Table 1.
objectives or positions are articulated (e.g., Gregory et al., 1993; Rossi Our demonstration sites span Africa, the Americas, Asia, and the
et al., 2003; Reynolds et al., 2010). Pacific, and involve partnerships with public- and private-sector
Strides along Pathway 2 may lead to impact on Pathway 3 as new decision-makers in terrestrial, freshwater and marine settings (Fig. 2).
ways of thinking about BES lead stakeholders and decision makers to The generalized decision contexts in which we are applying BES analy-
make different choices and design new policy mechanisms, considering ses include: spatial planning, design of payments for ecosystem services
BES impacts and tradeoffs explicitly in decisions about investments, (PES); development impacts and permitting; hazard mitigation and
policy, or planning processes, akin to ‘instrumental’ use (Weiss, 1979). adaptation to climate change; restoration planning; and corporate risk
Documented changes in BES consideration in plans or policies, or the management (Table 1, Appendix Table 1A, & Fig. 2). Each engagement
emergence of new policy and finance mechanisms, are examples of has its own unique set of biophysical, social, economic, institutional,
useful metrics of tracking progress along Pathway 3. and political circumstances, but there are similarities across these
Advances along Pathway 3 in turn may lead to impact on Pathway 4 cases and broad lessons that emerge.
as implementation of new BES policy and finance mechanisms can lead In general, BES information is more readily incorporated into deci-
to improved outcomes for ecosystem services, biodiversity and/or sion contexts where models appropriate for the ES of interest already
human wellbeing. Indicators of the ultimate impacts in Pathway 4 are have been developed and where the decision process itself is well
standard BES metrics (e.g., Cardinale et al., 2012) and measures of defined. Decision makers in spatial planning processes and PES schemes
human health, livelihoods, income, and other dimensions of wellbeing in Latin American water funds were among our first partners in devel-
(e.g., Dasgupta, 2001; UNDP, 2013). The pathways framework thus oping our approach and testing the InVEST tools. Consequently, our
approximates our ‘theory of change’ for the links between: 1) specific models have been iteratively applied in several of these contexts, with
inputs and activities (joint production of BES information using simple clear impacts of BES information on spatial plans, PES decisions, and
tools in an iterative, interactive science-policy process); 2) intermediate actions (Table 1, Appendix Table 1A; Daily et al., 2012; Goldman-
outcomes in terms of shifting perspectives, generating awareness and Benner et al., 2012; Goldstein et al., 2012). BES information has pene-
buy-in; and 3) penultimate outcomes in terms of integrating the values trated deeply—to Pathway 4—within relatively short-term engagements
of nature into specific policies, plans and projects. over 1–2 years—such as developing a coastal zone management plan
in Belize—because of the well-defined and executed planning process
3. A diversity of decisions carried out by our government partners (CZMAI, 2012).
As we elaborate in the Colombia case and general lessons below,
The framework in Fig. 1 can be used to guide testing in qualitative or challenges arise in spatial planning and PES design when defining alter-
quantitative ways whether and how progress along these pathways natives for analysis (scenarios), interpreting results in multiple BES
Table 1 and incentives strongly favor commercial revenue-generating activities

Decision and geographic contexts where ecosystem service information generated by
such as palm oil production (Bardhan and Mookherjee, 2006; Tomich
InVEST models is being used. Impact levels are described in the Diversity of successes
section of the text. Dark gray boxes indicate evidence of impact at that level, light gray et al., 2001). Furthermore, adding BES information to newer decision
boxes indicate work towards impact at that level. The ‘To scale’ column is light gray if contexts that have no precedent—such as marine spatial planning in
the Natural Capital Project or our partners are actively working to scale up from the Vancouver Island, British Columbia—is challenging because of novelty
individual case to other political contexts, and dark gray if there is evidence of impact in both the decision process and the science to support it. Chances of
going to scale. See Table 1A in online Supporting materials for more detailed information
about each context and location.
success are likely stronger in cases like Belize (see Lesson 1. Include
BES information as part of an iterative science-policy process), where
Impact level a government agency is charged with developing the marine spatial
Decision To
Context Location makers 1 2 3 4 scale plan and implementation is the responsibility of several agencies
Sumatra, already vested with necessary authorities (Mitchell et al., 2006). Note
Government
Indonesia that none of the 10 spatial planning cases in which we have engaged
Belize Government (Table 1) have achieved success in the final pathway to date. We are
hopeful that many of them ultimately will, but there are significant
Oahu, Hawaii Government
time lags between multi-sector planning processes and measurable
Vancouver Government, change on the ground, so only time will tell.
Island, Canada Private
Permitting decisions made by governments typically involve an
Baoxing impact assessment and an estimate of whether and how impacts of
Government
Country, China
an activity can be mitigated. Including BES information in these well-
Upper Yangtze defined decision processes is just beginning (Geneletti, 2011;
Government
Basin, China
Spatial planning Landsberg et al., 2011). In our first applications (mining in Colombia,
Hainan Island, Strategic Environmental Assessments in Sumatra and the Greater
Government
China
Virungas landscape in Central Africa), BES information is beginning to
Kalimantan, influence impact, permitting and mitigation assessments (Table 1,
Government
Indonesia
Appendix Table 1A). For example, in Colombia, The Natural Capital
Department of Project and collaborators from The Nature Conservancy (TNC) are build-
Defense: WA, Government
VA, GA ing off of an initial analysis for mining concessions (Tallis and Wolny,
2010) and are working with the national government's Ministry of
Puget Sound,
Washington
Government the Environment to develop a standardized BES tool to inform all of
their impact assessment and permitting decisions on land and in the
Cauca Valley, Government,
Colombia Private, NGO ocean. In central Africa, BES information was used in early stages of
the Strategic Environmental Assessment required to assess the potential
Medellin, Government,
Colombia Private, NGO impacts of oil exploration in the Virungas National Park. There is great
promise for broad replication in this decision context because over
Government,
Amazon, Brazil
Private, NGO 190 governments apply standard approaches (Madsen et al., 2010) or
PES design processes in their permitting decisions (e.g., Strategic Environmental
Eastern Arc
Mountains, Government Assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment). Furthermore, efforts
Tanzania have begun for setting standards in the private lending sector with
Beijing, China Government similar requirements to those in government (IFC, 2012).
Similarly, including BES information in restoration planning has
Putumayo
region, Government great potential. In our first test in a restoration-planning context
Colombia (oyster reefs in the Gulf of Mexico), BES information proceeded in less
Monterey & than a year from results to action (Table 1, Appendix Table 1A) because
Santa Cruz Government basic models in our tools could be adapted to address specific needs,
Climate adaptation & Country, CA
Hazard mitigation
our TNC and local partners had a sophisticated understanding of the
Galveston Bay,
Government
issues, objectives were straightforward, and there was a relatively
Texas simple and well-defined decision process for oyster reef siting and
Cesar design.
Department, Government Incorporating climate change into planning for hazard mitigation is a
Development impacts Colombia
relatively new enterprise for governments and the private sector.
& permitting Virungas: Although innovative methodologies are emerging (e.g., Jones et al.,
DRC, Uganda Government
and Rwanda 2012; Shepard et al., 2011), it is not yet common practice to include
the role of ecosystems in models assessing vulnerability or in designing
Mobile Bay,
Restoration planning NGO alternative approaches to reduce risk to people, property, or infrastruc-
Alabama
ture. We have developed simple coastal vulnerability and protection
Corporate risk Freeport,
private models to support these decisions (Arkema et al., 2013; Guerry et al.,
management Texas
2012; Tallis et al., 2013), and are working with governments and
the private sector to produce relevant metrics at appropriate scales.
Both private and public sector leaders increasingly are interested in
incorporating such risk planning into practice (Table 1 and Table 1A in
Appendix).
metrics, and moving to the final pathway where management plans For all of the decision contexts in which we have worked, our simple
drive specific actions with measurable outcomes for people and the approach is not suited to answering questions about expected BES
environment (Appendix Table 1A). Implementing spatial planning is responses to human interventions over very small spatial scales. We
challenging in many places. This has been the case in Indonesia where elaborate on this and other limitations in the Colombia case and cross-
local government autonomy is high relative to the central government cutting lessons below.
S
SS
C P
CR S S
M
S S S
D
P
Legend P P D S S
P
S–Spatial Planning
P–Payment for
Ecosystem Services (PES)
C–Climate Adaptation
and Hazard Mitigation
D–Development Impacts
and Permitting
R–Restoration Planning
M–Corporate Risk
Management
Fig. 2. Geographic locations of demonstration sites where an ecosystem-services approach has been applied and tested in specific decision contexts. Decision contexts are denoted by
letters (S = spatial planning; P = design of payment for ecosystem services; D = development impacts & permitting; C = climate adaptation & hazard mitigation; R = restoration
planning; and M = corporate risk management).
4. Illustrative findings in Colombia: Payments for watershed services We started our scientific engagement with stakeholders via intro-
duction by TNC, who has long standing relationships in the area. This
In this section, we add color to one of the cases presented in Table 1 initial introduction revealed different objectives among stakeholders
to illustrate how we are applying and testing the use of BES information nested within the stated joint objective of the fund. Early in our engage-
in decisions. A new mechanism for protecting watershed services— ment, we led a broad stakeholder discussion about where investments
called a water fund—is steadily gaining ground in Latin America. In the could be made in two exemplary watersheds of the fund. We then
Andes region, a mix of high altitude wetlands (páramo) and forests made coarse scenarios during the meeting to reflect these options and
provide valuable water supply regulation (Buytaert et al., 2007) and used InVEST models over the lunch break to estimate likely improve-
erosion and nutrient retention that improves water quality (White ments in erosion control as one benefit of the set of proposed invest-
et al., 2009) to the millions of people in the mountains and inter- ments. We used dramatic alternatives, like restoring large areas
Andean valleys. Water funds are being developed as a means for water stakeholders thought were important, and protecting large areas of
users to pay upstream land managers to improve watershed manage- intact habitat versus converting all those areas to pasture. These were
ment as a way to regulate water flows and provide natural filtration meant to be illustrative scenarios, and they sparked interest in the
for water quality (Goldman-Benner et al., 2012). These payments for potential of using a science-based approach.
watershed services are created by a group of users who pay into a The next phase of the engagement was focused on how we could use
trust and then collectively decide how to invest in watershed manage- modeling to design the ideal set of investments for the fund. Left to our
ment changes they believe will meet their water-related objectives own research devices, we would have turned to spatially explicit
(Goldman-Benner et al., 2012). models of the processes underpinning each water fund objective to
One such water fund, Water For Life and Sustainability, has been complete a full optimization analysis, including feasibility of landscape
created in Cali, Colombia, with support from each watershed's local transitions and costs of implementation. Such an approach was not
environmental authority, the Cauca Valley sugar cane producer's associ- possible due to data and capacity limitations in most water fund areas.
ation (ASOCAÑA), a sugar cane grower's association (PROCAÑA), The In addition, we found that there were no quantitative objectives
Nature Conservancy, and Vallenpaz (a peace and justice organization). related to specific ecosystem services that we could use to construct
Their objective is to “maintain consistent water flows necessary for an optimization. For example, there is a broad objective to maintain
drinking water, biodiversity and agriculture through a coordinated consistent water supplies, but there is not a corresponding specific,
strategy.” When we were introduced to the workings of the fund in agreed-upon volume of water supply desired by each user group. We
2008, stakeholders already were well aware of the benefits they receive also learned through these conversations that water quality, especially
from nature (Fig. 1, Pathway 2). They had already committed to turbidity, is an important concern. But again, there is no explicit state-
investing in natural capital (Fig. 1, Pathway 3), but as with other payment of what level of turbidity is desired or acceptable under the
ment for ecosystem service (PES) programs, were struggling with how broad objectives of the fund.
to best target their investments. Some stakeholders had made ad hoc Lacking these two important components for optimization
investments in protection and restoration (e.g. fencing, silvopastoral (resources/data and quantitative objectives), we developed ranking
practices, revegetation) in the region over the preceding 20 years. As models that indicate where transition from the current landscape to a
the fund was formalized and new partners joined, they needed to new condition via a specific activity is likely to give the largest relative
decide collectively where and in how much of each activity to invest returns for several of the water fund's objectives: terrestrial biodiversity,
to most efficiently meet their objectives. erosion control, and groundwater recharge. We also used a quantitative
service estimation model for annual average water yield to indicate

where investments will give the largest benefits in annual water supply
(Kareiva et al., 2011; Tallis et al., 2013).
Finally, we allocated a fixed budget among four watersheds based on
area representation (e.g. a watershed with 50% of the total fund area got
50% of the total fund budget) and among activities based on the distri-
bution of land uses in each watershed. Each budget was then allocated
to the pixels ranked highest for BES provision in each watershed, using
local cost data to track expenditures. Because we could not identify the
amount of investment needed to reach specific quantitative goals, we
instead chose five potential budget levels that bracketed the current
(USD 3 million) and likely near-term future (USD 10 million) levels of
investment. By choosing five budgets, we also hoped to find a budget
level above which return on investment reached a plateau, signifying
no further need for watershed investment.
We presented the first “investment portfolios” with maps of where
activities would likely provide the greatest returns in BES for a given
budget level to the water fund stakeholders and experienced another
misstep. Large areas where our biophysical models had indicated good
possible returns in ecosystem service provision and biodiversity were
inaccessible, controlled by guerilla groups. Although we had included
some local knowledge on what kinds of investments would be feasible,
we had not gone far enough. In a second round of portfolio develop-
ment, stakeholders indicated on watershed maps those areas where
they preferred to see investments in different activities, and where
activities would not be possible. We included this additional local
knowledge in our second round of portfolio identification, and delivered
a set of maps more feasible for the fund's secretariat to implement. An
example of a selected investment portfolio is shown for the Tulua
watershed (Fig. 3A).
This generated action (Fig. 1, Pathway 4) by the fund, which now
mails the investment portfolio maps with requests for proposals to
potential fund recipients. Over USD 800,000 has been invested in
recommended portfolio areas to date.
Fig. 3. Results of water fund investment design in one of nine watersheds in the Water for
To answer the question of how much BES return to expect from the
Life and Sustainability Water Fund in the Cauca Valley, Colombia. Outputs of ranking
selected investment portfolios, we embedded each investment portfolio models of likely ecosystem service change for multiple objectives were combined with
in the current land use/land cover map to create scenarios. Each scenario stakeholder information on where investments were practical and economic data on
of possible future management was assessed for returns using two activity costs and budget to create an investment portfolio (A). This portfolio reflects
what the fund should invest in, and where, at a total fund level of $10 million. Estimated
annual average ecosystem service models in InVEST; sediment retention
levels of annual average sediment retention increase with increasing budget levels in the
and water yield (Kareiva et al., 2011; Tallis et al., 2013). It was not same watershed (B, black squares), while annual average water yield decreases slightly
possible to calibrate these models, as no local data were available on (B, black circles). Sediment retention improvements from our targeted portfolio (solid
sediment export rates or annual-river flows, so we reported all findings black line) are about twice as high as those expected from random investments (gray
as relative biophysical changes. We found no resistance to, or confusion dotted line).
around the reporting of relative, biophysical estimates of return on

investment. Although the InVEST models provide the option to take our targeted approach can lead to greater improvements in ecosystem
biophysical ecosystem service metrics to derive economic estimates of service delivery (Fig. 1, Pathway 5) before actions and monitoring pro-
service value, we found it difficult to access economic data associated grams were in place. This water fund and others have made investments
with ecosystem service values from some water users. These data are in the past based on willingness of participants. To reflect this ‘business
often not held centrally and in some cases are considered sensitive as usual’ approach, we kept the constraints on land use changes and
information by private sector investors. stakeholder preferences in place as specified in the first round, then
Estimated increases in sediment retention from the possible portfo- randomly selected portfolio sites, using the same cost data to track
lios ranged from about 4% at the lowest budget to about 58% at the high expenditures until each budget level was exhausted. We then embed-
end (average across four watersheds = 24%, example for one water- ded these more randomly selected portfolios in the current land use
shed in Fig. 3B). Because most activities that lead to erosion control and land cover and assessed them with the InVEST models as above.
increase vegetative cover, this reduction comes with a tradeoff in annual InVEST models estimate ecosystem service delivery as the amount of
average water supply due to increased evapo-transpiration. However, at good or service that actually flows to a beneficiary of interest, thus
all budget levels, this tradeoff is negligible, with less than a 1% reduction differentiating supply (all ecosystem processes and features) from ser-
in annual average water yield accompanying improvements in erosion vice (that which is enjoyed by people). Compared to the more random
control (Fig. 3B). Ideally, we would evaluate sub-annual water yield approach, our targeted investment portfolios provided an estimated
patterns, which are likely to show increased flow regulation and dry three-times-higher return on investment for sediment retention, on
season flows (another water fund objective) with increased vegetation, average across all watersheds and budget levels. An example of the
but data limitations did not allow such an assessment. difference in returns is shown for all budgets in the Desbaratado water-
Once we showed stakeholders the results of this targeted approach, shed (Fig. 3B). This very tangible estimate of ecosystem service change—
there was interest in understanding if, and how much this more data- economic return on investment for sediment retention service—is
and resource-intensive approach improved their projected returns over one indicator that can be modeled and measured in the future. TNC
their previous investment approach. We used models to ask whether and others are beginning formal monitoring programs (Higgins and
Zimmerling, 2013) to track changes in other elements of ecosystem the problem and how to use outputs to inform decisions (Fig. 1,
service delivery and related components of biodiversity and human Pathways 2–3); and providing a structured, facilitated process for
wellbeing resulting from the watershed investments, such as changes repeated input and negotiation that leads to agreement on a specific
in habitat quality, species occurrence, household income and livelihood policy or plan (Fig. 1, Pathway 3). An interactive science-policy
opportunities, that could accrue through the investments of the fund or process—meaningfully involving scientists, local experts, stakeholders
their outcomes. and decision makers to produce results (Fig. 1, Pathway 1)—enhances
Our engagement with the Water for Life and Sustainability water the credibility, salience and legitimacy of BES information, increasing
fund illustrates a common pattern in many of our projects. More often likelihood of use (Andrews, 2002; Cash et al., 2003; Cowling et al.,
than not, stakeholders already have a general understanding or appreci- 2008; Karl et al, 2007).
ation of BES values, but they lack spatially explicit information on their Working to inform spatial planning in Belize (Appendix Table 1A)
magnitude and how BES provision and value might change under policy highlighted the importance of this iterative science-policy process. In
interventions. Because the decision processes we enter often are itera- 2010, Belize's Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute
tive and ongoing, the BES analyses we provide facilitate impact along (CZMAI) began partnering with NatCap and WWF to support their effort
the pathways in Fig. 1 by improving the specificity of scientific informa- to create a national coastal zone management plan. NatCap and CZMAI
tion. As scientists, we lament the significant gaps in the science we worked together to collate existing information about habitat distribu-
are able to deliver to inform investment priorities. For example, in the tion and current and potential uses of Belize's coastal and marine areas.
water fund case, because of limitations in data or local capacity, we Without this collaboration, NatCap scientists would have missed critical
were unable to provide calibrated model results, sub-annual water local knowledge. A second key step was to co-develop alternative zon-
flow analyses, or tests of whether modeled effects of restoration and pro- ing schemes, producing scenarios that were salient to local stakeholders
tection activities are realized. Nevertheless, the water fund secretariats and that had the detail needed to provide inputs to InVEST models for
were guiding investments in watershed activities before we entered exploration of likely BES outcomes. One alternative scenario—honed
the collaboration, and are now incorporating the new BES information through several iterations by examining InVEST outputs—now serves
we generated into their priorities. Monitoring water quality outcomes as the cornerstone of the national Coastal Zone Management Plan that
and using the best available information to target ongoing investments is under public review and soon expected to be signed into law. Without
allow them to keep moving, in spite of the ongoing uncertainties in the close collaboration between CZMAI, NatCap, and WWF, CZMAI would
BES and human wellbeing outcomes they seek. have had significantly less scientific capacity to inform their planning
One of the greatest challenges is in replicating and scaling up models process, and NatCap would have conducted an academic exercise that
of success. For water funds, we are testing the potential for site-based would have been unlikely to find its way into the planning process.
approaches to yield generalized standards of practice. The Nature Because we participated in an iterative science-policy process, we
Conservancy, FEMSA, the Inter-American Development Bank and the were able to proceed through Pathways 1–4 (Fig. 1). The plan is not
World Bank's Global Environment Facility have created the Latin America yet implemented, thus we do not yet have evidence of it guiding specific
Water Funds Platform. Its intent is to develop over 30 new water funds activities on-the-ground or changing the delivery of ecosystem services
by 2016. We have worked with the Platform to translate our science, or human wellbeing (Fig. 1, Pathway 5).
and lessons from other water funds, into a new decision support tool A downside of iterative science-policy processes is that they are time
called RIOS (Resource Investment Optimization System) (Vogl et al., consuming. To support spatial planning in Sumatra (Appendix Table 1A),
2013), which will be applied in all of the newly developing funds. At the iterative scoping, data compilation and analysis took over 2 years,
the same time as the Platform is rapidly expanding the influence of which meant that final results were not available at the time that some
water funds in the region, rigorous monitoring programs are being of the district governments were developing their spatial plans. Scoping
installed to test the effectiveness of water fund investments in recovering the schedule of ecosystem service assessments, and resourcing them
BES and human wellbeing benefits. In the coming years, we will have appropriately, is critical to align with the timelines of policy decisions.
clearer answers as to whether our efforts in the Cauca Valley and now The long time-scale of successful implementation can also be a barrier
across Latin America have created useful science, tools, and approaches for academics who may need timely publications or NGOs who may
to inform decisions and whether those decisions do indeed create need to demonstrate progress to donors.
improved conditions for people and nature (Fig. 1, Pathway 5). For Success in a science-policy process demands sufficient capacity in
now, those questions of ultimate impact remain unanswered. both scientific and policy staff. In order for new scientific information
to result in substantive change in policy or management, it is also critical
5. Cross-cutting lessons that clear mechanisms exist for change. Whether a government,
company, or NGO can implement change depends in part on whether
Based on our experience in over 20 demonstrations around the effective policy or management levers exist to respond to new informa-
world, we reflect below on 6 emerging lessons about the kinds of prod- tion, and the nature of accountability mechanisms for implementation.
ucts and processes that are leading to progress in informing decisions, For example, shifts in investment policies in response to new BES infor-
and remaining challenges posed to further advancing BES information mation (e.g., Millennium Challenge Corporation targeting a diversity of
into practice. BES in Indonesia—see Lesson 5; water fund secretariats) can be faster
and easier to track accountability than are implementation of spatial
5.1. Lesson 1. Include BES information as part of an iterative science-policy plans requiring coordination among several levels of government and
process public–private stakeholder group support (e.g., in British Columbia,
Sumatra, and China).
In our experience, the process in which BES information is embed-
ded to engage decision makers and stakeholders is at least as important 5.2. Lesson 2. Keep it simple for now
as the scientific tools and outputs. An iterative and interactive approach
to define when and what kind of BES information is needed is critical No matter how much interdisciplinary scientists think they are over-
to create useful, credible science and change in a decision process and simplifying biophysical or socio-economic processes, decision-makers
outcomes. The iterative nature of developing alternative scenarios, typically ask for simpler, easy-to-use and understandable decision sup-
amassing inputs for assessment tools, interpreting early results and port tools that can be readily incorporated into science-policy processes.
repeating as needed is invaluable for building trust among scientists, In our experience, even simple tools are plenty complicated for param-
stakeholders and decision makers; creating a mutual understanding of eterizing and interpreting at early stages of applying BES information.
There is, however, a floor for how simple the approach can be. To be and can bring this insight into the modeling, which ensures that analy-
useful for most decisions, tools must have the ability to estimate how ses are relevant and sensitive to local issues (Cash et al., 2003). This local
changes in decisions lead to changes in BES and their values in terms of leadership is key to sustaining the influence of BES information in
human well-being and nature. Static estimates of value, such as those ultimate outcomes for human wellbeing and the environment (Fig. 1,
based on areas of land cover types and benefits transfer methods do Pathway 4).
not suffice (Plummer, 2009). In places where local partners have training in our tools (e.g., for
We have found that decision-makers are often best served by rela- water funds in Latin America, marine spatial planning on Vancouver
tively simple models, provided they are clearly documented, published, Island and in Belize, and for ecological zoning and PES schemes in
and validation tests reveal limitations (e.g., Arkema et al., 2013; Johnson China—see Table 1 and Appendix Table 1A for other examples), an
et al., 2012; Kareiva et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2012; Tallis et al., 2013; ecosystem services approach is spreading quickly, and BES information
Terrado et al., 2013; Wood et al., in review). In the first years of NatCap, is more rapidly being adopted in policy. For example, collaborators in
we discussed creating a tiered modeling approach with the simplest Tier China have been especially active and innovative in training new users
1 models providing mostly annual average outputs for single services, in BES modeling tools. For the national ecosystem services assessment,
with no consideration of interactions among services or feedbacks. We the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Environment trained
started at this level of complexity and imagined later developing Tier 2 over 200 people spanning 18 key state laboratories in InVEST. The num-
models that reflected daily time steps, allowed multi-service interaction ber of applications, and improvements to pre- and post-processing
and feedbacks and better reflected the complex interactions of social- methods, are growing rapidly throughout the country (most publica-
ecological systems. Although we have implemented some of these tions are in Chinese, e.g., Daily et al., 2013).
complexities in our suite of service models, our experience engaging In some places in which we have worked, there simply are not many
in real-world decision contexts has shifted our focus to the development resident scientists, and thus our ability to build local technical expertise
of even simpler ‘Tier 0’ models that produce relative ranking outputs, to has been limited (e.g., Virungas region in Africa). In those instances,
meet demand from decision-makers. NGO staff based in country interact with governments (see Appendix
In our spatial planning engagement on the West Coast of Vancouver Table 1A). Research on joint fact finding (Andrews, 2002; Karl et al.,
Island (Appendix Table 1A), for example, we initially began with a 2007) suggests that generating assessments with more participation
process-based model for exploring how a specific habitat in a particular and leadership by local governments and universities, particularly
location provides protection from erosion and flooding (with quantita- early on in the analysis, can create more buy-in and ownership of the
tive outputs estimating area eroded or flooded). But we quickly found results so that policy change occurs more broadly. Local scientists
that the protective services provided by coastal habitats such as ultimately are best equipped to make adjustments and improvements,
eelgrass, dunes and marshes were not initially on the radar of local and carry the work forward, and often in more interesting and promising
stakeholders and that results from this process-based model would directions than outsiders.
not resonate. What decision-makers needed first was a simple screen-
ing tool to rank and highlight areas most vulnerable to coastal hazards
under different scenarios of habitat presence (Arkema et al., 2013). 5.4. Lesson 4. It's not always about the money
Once we mapped the relative importance of protective role of natu-
ral habitats, many stakeholders were then interested in further An ecosystem services approach to supporting decisions is not
modeling of vulnerable areas to understand the protective services always and only about ascribing monetary values to environmental
and values of particular habitats. Thus, on Vancouver Island, and benefits. Having the ability to follow biophysical ecosystem service esti-
many other instances, even simple average annual or ranked outputs mates through to economic values has proven to be an important con-
from BES models can help open discussions about what are often un- ceptual advance that has opened many decision makers to discussions
familiar issues and ways to frame policy or management objectives they previously did not consider. However, actually using the valuation
(i.e. Pathway 2, Fig. 1). models and providing estimates of monetary benefits has been less
Especially in areas where local technical capacity is limited, providing important than we anticipated.
simple tools to explore interactions, trade-offs, or win–win opportuni- The widespread misconception that ecosystem service assessment
ties among objectives can lead to breakthroughs in returns on invest- requires economic valuation is an unnecessary barrier for both the
ments, such as what we saw in the water fund prioritizations. science development side (e.g., for those who imagine their work is
Furthermore, simple and transparent tools with a low barrier to entry not relevant if they are not interested in formal monetary valuation)
can enable stakeholders with limited scientific capacity to actively and on the practitioner side (e.g., for those who believe that an ecosys-
engage in a deliberative decision making process. We still see a major tem services approach excludes considering the value of biodiversity
role for more complex models when data and capacity allow, and expect for its own sake). In many of our demonstrations, decision makers are
this role to expand, but we have been surprised to learn the value and interested in examining the consequences of their actions for traditional
demand for robust, simple models to inform decisions in this relatively market commodities in monetary terms along with a host of non-market
young field of practice. benefits, typically in biophysical units, and including cultural values, and
biodiversity.
5.3. Lesson 3. Empower local experts with technical tools for on-going Conceptually, considering values of biodiversity for its own sake, in
learning addition to ecosystem services, is completely consistent with an ecosys-
tem services approach (Reyers et al., 2012; Satz et al., 2013). In many
We have found that our simple, open-source tool helps facilitate an cases, stakeholders have expressly asked that we not attach monetary
iterative process because local experts can be trained to use InVEST value to key benefits, such as existence value of orangutans or sacred
and take authorship and ownership of on-going technical support places. Often what decision-makers want is to understand how alterna-
needs. Where local scientists are able to take leadership of gathering tive decisions might affect where BES benefits are supplied and to
inputs and interpreting and translating outputs, the credibility of the whom they are delivered. One way in which we have captured the
BES information provided to decision makers is greatly enhanced, ‘priceless’ values ascribed to species or places is to consider such
increasing the likelihood that results (Fig. 1, Pathway 1) actually change locations as immutable in our analyses of alternative scenarios (e.g., in
perspectives (Fig. 1, Pathway 2) and generate action (Fig. 1, Pathway 3). Hawai'i case; references in Appendix Table 1A); in other cases, we
Local experts also have much deeper understanding of biophysical and express currencies as a mix of biophysical and economic metrics across
socio-economic conditions, and relationships with decision-makers, services.
On the West Coast of Vancouver Island (Appendix Table 1A), we 5.6. Lesson 6. Clearly and honestly report the degree of uncertainty
found that ecosystem-service outputs were useful in very different
currencies: from the net present value ($) of shellfish harvested, to Applications of models such as InVEST to assess BES require many
the spatial extent of recreational float-homes (m2), to concentration assumptions, and outputs of such models typically have considerable
(g/m3) of fecal coliform bacteria in the water (Guerry et al., 2012). Our uncertainty (Goldstein et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2012; Kareiva et al.,
partners did not want to express these values in one metric (e.g., $). 2011). We need better ways to represent uncertainty visually in maps
Indeed, the ability to produce outputs in metrics that are commonly and other outputs, without detracting from the key findings of an
used by regulatory agencies (e.g. fecal coliform concentrations regulated analysis. In most of our demonstration engagements, we discuss the
by the Province of BC), are particularly powerful. This has given local usefulness and limitations of our models; and the implications for
stakeholders (such as the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation) the power to decisions of what biophysical or social processes we can, and cannot
engage government agencies in new and substantive ways. represent. However, we still have far to go in developing quickly repli-
In other contexts, such as PES schemes, combining monetary values cable uncertainty analyses of multiple services and useful representa-
across multiple ecosystem services is most useful. Our Belizean collabo- tions of such analyses that can be understood in a decision context.
rators in marine spatial planning were interested in both biophysical The discussions we have about model limitations are useful for building
(e.g., pounds of lobster landed, amount of beach erosion, tourism visita- mutual understanding and trust, but they are not as transparent as
tion rates) and monetary metrics (i.e., lobster revenues, avoided dam- simple, rigorous depictions of the uncertainties in our estimates.
age costs from coastal storms, expenditures by tourists) for evaluating Sensitivity and robustness analyses that demonstrate how results
alternative scenarios. In general, decision makers are adept at consider- vary with model assumptions and parameter values should become a
ing ‘apples and oranges’ outputs and explicitly examining tradeoffs more routine part of BES assessments. Showing whether rankings of
of benefits expressed in different units. What we have learned for alternatives are affected by model assumptions and parameter values
producing relevant valuation outputs is just because one can calculate can also provide useful insights on the confidence that decision-makers
monetary metrics does not mean that one should or must do so in have about the analysis (e.g., Johnson et al., 2012). Similarly, there is
order to inform decisions. great scope for more rigorous policy assessments of what kind of BES
information works, and what is not as influential, in affecting choice of
actions and ultimately, outcomes for ecosystems and human wellbeing
5.5. Lesson 5. Relate biodiversity and ecosystem service change to livelihoods (e.g., Clark, 2007; Clark et al., 2002; Satz et al., 2013; Watson, 2005).
and other wellbeing metrics Perhaps the biggest lessons we have learned in our applications of
quantitative approaches around the world is the importance of building
A corollary of the lesson above is a broader request to trace the con- trust with decision makers; and having the patience to iteratively pro-
sequences of ecosystem change through to human wellbeing outcomes. duce results, refine them with input from partners who will use them,
For example, in both developing and developed country contexts in and take the time to train local scientists to be credible collaborators
which we are working, sustaining local jobs—beyond simple income as the science-policy processes continue. We see already that significant
tallies—is included in the list of desired objectives. Although some studies strides can be made in informing decisions using simple, quantitative
are beginning to illuminate how local livelihoods are affected by the spatial tools within a clear decision support process to help incorporate
condition of ecosystems and biodiversity (e.g., Ferraro et al., 2011; and interpret BES information.
Fisher et al., 2011; Halpern et al., 2012; Li et al., 2011; Liang et al., In summary, we see great potential for more widely incorporating
2012; Naidoo et al., 2011; Pattanayak et al., 2005), quantifying how BES information into a host of decision contexts, from spatial planning
changes in ecosystems and BES lead to changes in livelihoods is hard. to permitting impact assessment to PES schemes. Decisions around
This issue has come up in virtually all of our engagements. For exam- climate adaptation planning and corporate risk management offer
ple, in Sumatra, both the Indonesian government and the Millennium exciting new policy and business arenas with huge potential to influ-
Challenge Corporation (MCC) mentioned linking BES changes to liveli- ence investments and development across the globe. It is early days
hood and income metrics as important to achieving their poverty allevi- for implementation of BES information in real decisions, yet progress
ation objectives. The results from our BES modeling in Sumatra enabled is tangible and encouraging. Continuing the momentum depends on
district and provincial government representatives to identify and locate iterative approaches to implementation of novel policy and finance
specific opportunities for implementing forest carbon, restoration and mechanisms, perhaps more than science and tool needs. Thanks to a
watershed management projects that could provide alternative sources cadre of influential leaders in public and private institutions, the
of income (Bhagabati et al., 2012; Barano et al., 2010; Kementerian demand for continued good BES science incorporated into day-to-day
Dalam Negeri, 2011). The MCC recently signed a Compact Agreement policy processes should continue to grow.
with the Indonesian government worth $600 million, and after being Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.
presented with the results of our ecosystem service assessment in doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009.
Central Sumatra, the MCC decided that their future investments should
be guided by similar information to ensure that ecosystem services are Acknowledgments
sustained to support their development objectives.1
On Vancouver Island, a key human wellbeing concern is maintaining We are indebted to our many colleagues in the Natural Capital Project
access of First Nation communities to culturally important shellfish har- and partners in our demonstrations around the world for helping us learn
vest areas. We thus included metrics indicating which communities about putting ecosystem services into practice. The authors thank James
would have access to specific shellfish areas under alternative scenarios Salzman for his inspired early note taking from the ‘field’ of applied eco-
so that the stakeholders could include that objective (along with reve- system services. Silvia Benitez, Alejandro Calvache, Jorge Leon, Juan
nues and shellfish biomass harvested) in their deliberations. Sebastian Lozano, Aurelio Ramos, and Stacie Wolny were instrumental
These topics remain an important gap that needs addressing through in ensuring the work in the Colombia case highlighted here was of highest
new methodology development and testing (e.g., as part of HEAL, a con- quality. A host of equally insightful and industrious partners have allowed
sortium to link ecosystem change with health outcomes: www.wcs- us to learn as we go in our other engagements, and are listed in Appendix
heal.org). More work in this area is sorely needed to help guide policy Table 1A. Brad Eichelberger created Fig. 2. We are grateful for support
and management interventions for livelihoods and human health. from P Bing, H Bing, V Sant, R Sant, the Moore, Packard, Winslow, Summit,
Google, Rockefeller, and MacArthur foundations, the National Science
1
Personal communication, Sergio Feld, MCC. Foundation, the US Department of Defense, and NOAA.
References Fisher, B., Turner, R. Kerry, Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services
for decision making. Ecological Economics 68, 643–653.
Andrews, C.J., 2002. Humble Analysis: The Practice of Joint Fact-finding. Praeger Publishers, Fisher, B., Polasky, S., Sterner, T., 2011. Conservation and human welfare: economic
Westport, CT (216 pp.). analysis of ecosystem services. Environmental and Resource Economics 48,
Arkema, K.A., Guannel, G., Verutes, G., Wood, S.A., Guerry, A., Ruckelshaus, M., Kareiva, P., 151–159.
Lacayo, M., Silver, J.M., 2013. People and property shielded from sea level rise Geneletti, D., 2011. Reasons and options for integrating ecosystem services in strategic
and storms by coastal habitats. Nature Climate Change. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ environmental assessment of spatial planning. International Journal of Biodiversity
nclimate1944. Science, Ecosystem Services and Management 7, 143–149.
Barano, T., McKenzie, E., Bhagabati, N., Conte, M., Ennaanay, D., Hadian, O., Olwero, N., Goldman, R.L., Tallis, H., Kareiva, P., Daily, G.C., 2008. Field evidence that ecosystem
Tallis, H., Wolny, S., Ng, G., 2010. Integrating ecosystem services into spatial planning service projects support biodiversity and diversify options. Proceedings of the National
in Sumatra, Indonesia. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) Case Academy of Sciences 105, 9445–9448.
Study. (Available at www.teebweb.org). Goldman-Benner, R.L., Benitez, S., Boucher, T., Calvache, A., Daily, G., Kareiva, P., Kroeger,
Bardhan, P., Mookherjee, D., 2006. Decentralization and Local Governance in Developing T., Ramos, A., 2012. Water funds and payments for ecosystem services: practice learns
Countries: A Comparative Perspective. The MIT Press, Boston, MA (394 pp.). from theory and theory can learn from practice. Oryx 46, 55–63.
Bateman, I.J., Mace, G.M., Fezzi, C., Atkinson, G., Turner, K., 2011. Economic analysis for Goldstein, J.H., Caldarone, G., Duarte, T.K., Ennaanay, D., Hannahs, N., Mendoza, G., Polasky,
ecosystem service assessments. Environmental and Resource Economics 48, 177–218. S., Wolny, S., Daily, G.C., 2012. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use
Bateman, I.J., Harwood, A.R., Mace, G.M., Watson, R.T., Abson, D.J., Andrews, B., Binner, A., decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 19, 7565–7570.
Crowe, A., Day, B.H., Dugdale, S., Fezzi, C., Foden, J., Hadley, D., Haines-Young, R., Gregory, R., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., 1993. Valuing environmental resources: a construc-
Hulme, M., Kontoleon, A., Lovett, A.A., Munday, P., Pascual, U., Paterson, J., Perino, tive approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7, 177–197.
G., Sen, A., Siriwardena, G., van Soest, D., Termansen, M., 2013. Bringing ecosystem Guerry, A.D., Ruckelshaus, M.H., Arkema, K., Bernhardt, J.R., Guannel, G., Kim, C.K., Marsik,
services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science M., Papenfus, M., Toft, J.E., Verutes, G., Wood, S.A., Beck, M., Chan, F., Chan, K.M.A.,
341, 45–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1234379. Gelfenbaum, G., Gold, B.D., Halpern, B.S., Labiosa, W.B., Lester, S.E., Levin, P.S.,
Bennett, E.M., Peterson, G.D., Gordon, L., 2009. Understanding relationships among McField, M., Pinsky, M.L., Plummer, M., Polasky, S., Ruggiero, P., Sutherland, D.A.,
multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 12, 1394–1404. Tallis, H., Day, A., Spencer, J., 2012. Modeling benefits from nature; using ecosystem
Bhagabati, N., Barano, T., Conte, M., Ennaanay, D., Hadian, O., McKenzie, E., Olwero, N., services to inform coastal and marine spatial planning. International Journal of
Rosenthal, A., Suparmoko, A., Shapiro, H. Tallis, Wolny, S., 2012. A Green Vision for Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management 8, 107–121.
Sumatra: Using Ecosystem Services Information to Make Recommendations for Halpern, B.S., Klein, C.J., Brown, C.J., Beger, M., Grantham, H.S., Mangubhai, S., Ruckelshaus,
Sustainable Land Use Planning at the Province and District Level. Natural Capital M., Tulloch, V.J., Watts, M., White, C., Possingham, H.P., 2012. Achieving the triple
Project, WWF-US and WWF-Indonesia, Washington D.C. bottom line: inherent tradeoffs among social equity, economic return and conservation.
Boyd, J., Banzhaf, S., 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 63, 616–626. 1217689110.
Buytaert, W., Iñiguez, V., De Bièvre, B., 2007. The effects of afforestation and cultivation on Hanson, C., Finisdore, J., Ranganathan, J., Iceland, C., 2008. The Corporate Ecosystem
water yield in the Andean páramo. Forest Ecology and Management 251, 22–30. Services Review: Guidelines for Identifying Business Risks & Opportunities Arising
Ecosystems and human wellbeing, volume 4. Multiscale assessments. In: Capistrano, D. from Ecosystem Change. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
(Ed.), Findings of the Sub-Global Assessments Working Group. Millennium Ecosystem Higgins, J., Zimmerling, A., 2013. A Primer for Monitoring Water Funds. The Nature
Assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C. (381 pp.). Conservancy, Arlington, VA.
Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D.U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., International Finance Corporation (IFC), 2012. Performance Standards on Environmental
Mace, G.M., Tilman, D., Wardle, D.A., Kinzig, A.P., Daily, G.C., Loreau, M., Grace, J.B., and Social Sustainability. International Finance Corporation, Washington DC.
Larigauderie, A., Srivastava, D.S., Naeem, S., 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on Johnson, K.A., Polasky, S., Nelson, E., Pennington, D., 2012. Uncertainty in ecosystem
humanity. Nature 486, 59–67. services valuation and implications for assessing land use tradeoffs: an agricultural
Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jage, J., Mitchell, case study in the Minnesota River Basin. Ecological Economics 79, 71–79.
R.B., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the Jones, H.P., Hole, D.G., Zavaleta, E.S., 2012. Harnessing nature to help people adapt to
National Academy of Sciences 100 (14), 8086–8091. climate change. Nature Climate Change 2, 504–509.
CEF (Corporate EcoForum) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC), 2012. The New Business Kahneman, D., 1980. Human engineering of decisions. In: Kranzberg, M. (Ed.), Ethics in an
Imperative: Valuing Natural Capital. Report available at: www.corporateecoforum. Age of Pervasive Technology. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
com/valuingnaturalcapital/offline/download.pdf. Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T., Daily, G., Polasky, S., 2011. Natural Capital: Theory and
Clark, W.C., 2007. Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proceedings of the National Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Academy of Sciences 104 (6), 1737–1738. Karl, H.A., Susskind, L.E., Wallace, K.H., 2007. A dialogue, not a diatribe: effective integra-
Clark, W.C., Mitchel, R., Cash, D., Alcock, F., 2002. Information as influence: how institu- tion of science and policy through joint fact finding. Environment: Science and Policy
tions mediate the impact of scientific assessments on global environmental affairs. for Sustainable Development 49 (1), 20–34.
Faculty Research Working Paper RWP02-044. Kennedy School of Government, Kementerian Dalam Negeri (Home Affairs Ministry), 2011. Penerapan KLHA RTRW
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (Available at: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/ Provinsi Jambi. Kementerian Dalam Negeri, Sumatra, Indonesia.
centers/mrcbg/programs/sustsci/activities/program-initiatives/knowledge-systems/ Kim, C.-K., Toft, J.E., Papenfus, M., Verutes, G., Arkema, K., Bernhardt, J.R., Guannel, G.,
environmental-assessment/documents). Guerry, A.D., Ruckelshaus, M.H., Tallis, H., Wood, S.A., Beck, M., Chan, F., Chan,
CONABIO, 2006. Capital Natural y Bienestar Social. Comision Nacional para el K.M.A., Halpern, B.S., Labiosa, B., Levin, P.S., McField, M., Pinsky, M.L., Plummer, M.,
Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Mexico (Available at: www.conabio.gob. 2012. Catching the right wave: evaluating wave energy resources and potential
mx/2ep/images/3/37/capital_natural_2EP.pdf). conflicts with existing marine and coastal uses. PLoS One 7 (11), e47598. http://
Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knight, A.T., O'Farrell, P.J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Roux, D.J., Welz, dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047598.
A., Wilhelm-Rechman, A., 2008. An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem Kingdon, John W., 1995. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Addison Wesley
services for implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, Educational Publishers, Inc., United States.
9483–9488. Kushner, B., Waite, R., Jungwiwattanaporn, M., Burke, L., 2012. Influence of Coastal
CZMAI (Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute), 2012. Belize Integrated Economic Valuations in the Caribbean: Enabling Conditions and Lessons Learned.
Coastal Zone Management Plan. CZMAI, Belize City. Working Paper. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C.
Daily, Gretchen (Ed.), 1997. Nature's Services. Island Press, Washington, DC (375 pp.). Landsberg, F., Ozment, S., Stickler, M., Henninger, N., Treweek, J., Venn, O., Mock, G., 2011.
Daily, G.C., Tallis, H., Guerry, A., 2012. Investing in natural capital. In: Murray, J., Ecosystem Services Review for Impact Assessment. Working Paper. World Resources
Cawthorne, G., Dey, C., Andrew, C. (Eds.), Enough for All Forever: A Handbook for Institute, Washington D.C.
Learning about Sustainability. Common Ground Publishing LLC, Champaign, Illinois, Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Billé, R., Pirard, R., Mermet, L., 2013. Use of ecosystem services
pp. 105–119. economic valuation for decision making: questioning a literature blindspot. Journal
Daily, G.C., Ouyang, Z., Zheng, H., Li, S., Wang, Y., Feldman, M., Kareiva, P., Polasky, S., of Environmental Management 119, 208–219.
Ruckelshaus, M., 2013. Securing natural capital and human well-being: Innovation Li, Jie, Feldman, M.W., Li, Shuzhuo, Daily, G.C., 2011. Rural household income and inequal-
and impact in China. Acta Ecologica Sinica 33, 669–676. ity under the Sloping Land Conversion Program in western China. Proceedings of the
Dasgupta, P., 2001. Human Well-being and the Natural Environment. Oxford University National Academy of Sciences. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1101018108.
Press, Oxford, UK. Liang, Y., Li, Shuzhuo, Feldman, M.W., Daily, G.C., 2012. Does household composition
Egoh, B., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Richardson, D.M., Le Maitre, D.C., van Jaarsveld, A.S., 2008. matter? The impact of the Grain for Green Program on rural livelihoods in China.
Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agriculture, Ecosystems Ecological Economics 75, 152–160.
and Environment 127, 135–140. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: The
Ehrlich, P.R., Mooney, H.A., 1983. Extinction, substitution, and ecosystem services. BioScience Assessment Series (Four Volumes and Summary). Island Press, Washington, DC.
33, 248–254. Mace, G., Norris, K., Fitter, A., 2012. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered
Ehrlich, P., Kareiva, P.M., Daily, G.C., 2012. Securing natural capital and expanding equity relationship. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27 (1), 19–26.
to rescale civilization. Nature 486, 68–73 (June 7, 2012). Madsen, B., Carroll, N., Moore Brands, K., 2010. State of Biodiversity Markets Report: Offset
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 2009. Valuing the protection of ecological and Compensation Programs Worldwide. Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington DC.
systems and services. A Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board (138 pp. available McKenzie, E., Irwin, F., Ranganathan, J., Hanson, C., Kousky, C., Bennett, K., Ruffo, S., Conte,
at: www.epa.gov/sab). M., Salzman, J., Paavola, J., 2011. Incorporating ecosystem services in decisions. In:
Ferraro, P., Hanauera, M.M., Sims, K.R.E., 2011. Conditions associated with protected area Kareiva, P.M., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T., Daily, G.C., Polasky, S. (Eds.), Natural Capital:
success in conservation and poverty reduction. Proceedings of the National Academy Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
of Sciences 108, 13913–13918. pp. 339–355.
Mitchell, R., Clark, W.C., Cash, D.W., 2006. Information and influence. In: Mitchell, R.B., Sub-global Assessment Network, 2012. http://www.ecosystemassessments.net/about.
Clark, W.C., Cash, D.W., Dickson, N.M. (Eds.), Global Environmental Assessments: html.
Information, Institutions and Influence. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 307–338. Tallis, H., Polasky, S., 2009. Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., Lehner, B., Malcolm, T.R., conservation and natural resource management. Annals of the New York Academy
Ricketts, T.H., 2008. Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. of Sciences 1162, 265–283.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 9495–9500. Tallis, H., Polasky, S., 2011. Assessing multiple ecosystem services: an integrated tool for
Naidoo, R., Weaver, L.C., Stuart-Hill, G., Tagg, J., 2011. Effect of biodiversity on economic the real world. In: Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T., Daily, G., Polasky, S. (Eds.), Natural
benefits from communal lands in Namibia. Journal of Applied Ecology. http:// Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Oxford University Press,
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01955.x. Oxford, pp. 34–50.
National Research Council, N.R.C., 2005. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Tallis, H., Wolny, S., 2010. Including ecosystem services in mitigation. Report to the
Environmental Decision-making. National Academies Press, Washington DC. Colombian Ministry of the Environment, Mines and Territorial Development.Natural
Natural Capital Declaration, 2012. Available at: www.naturalcapitaldeclaration.org/ Capital Project, Stanford.
thedeclaration/. Tallis, H.T., Ricketts, T., Guerry, A.D., Wood, S.A., Sharp, R., Nelson, E., Ennaanay, D., Wolny,
Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D.R., Chan, K.M., Daily, G.C., S., Olwero, N., Vigerstol, K., Pennington, D., Mendoza, G., Aukema, J., Foster, J., Forrest,
Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Lonsdorf, E., Naidoo, R., Ricketts, T.H., Shaw, R.M., 2009. J., Cameron, D., Arkema, K., Lonsdorf, E., Kennedy, C., Verutes, G., Kim, C.K., Guannel,
Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity produc- G., Papenfus, M., Toft, J., Marsik, M., Bernhardt, J., Griffin, R., 2013. InVEST 2.5.3 User's
tion, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7, Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford (available at: http://ncp-dev.stanford.
4–11. edu/~dataportal/invest-releases/documentation/current_release/).
Ostrom, E., 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems Biodiversity), 2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and
Princeton, NJ. Biodiversity Report for Business (TEEB). (Report available at: www.teebweb.org).
Pattanayak, S.K., Yang, J.C., Whittington, D., Bal Kumar, K.C., 2005. Coping with unreliable Terrado, M., Acuna, V., Ennaanay, D., Tallis, H., Sabater, S., 2013. Impact of climate
public water supplies: averting expenditures by households in Kathmandu, Nepal. extremes on hydrological ecosystem services in a heavily humanized Mediterranean
Water Resources Research 41, W02012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003WR002443. basin. Ecological Indicators. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.016.
Plummer, M.L., 2009. Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services. Tomich, T.P., van Noordwijk, M., Budidarsono, S., Gillison, A., Kusumanto, T., Murdiyarso,
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7, 38–45. D., Stolle, F., Fagi, A.M., 2001. Agricultural intensification, deforestation and the
Polasky, S., Nelson, E., Pennington, D., Johnson, K., 2011. The impact of land-use change on environment: assessing tradeoffs in Sumatra, Indonesia. In: Lee, D.R., Barrett, C.B.
ecosystem services, biodiversity and returns to landowners: a case study in the state (Eds.), Tradeoffs and Synergies? Agricultural Intensification, Economic Development
of Minnesota. Environmental and Resource Economics 48 (2), 219–242. and the Environment. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G., Bennett, E., 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA), 2011. The UK National Ecosystem
analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.
Sciences 107, 5242–5247. United Nations Development Program (UNDP), 2013. Human Development Report 2013:
Reyers, B., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Mooney, H.A., Larigauderie, A., 2012. Finding common The Rise of the South. Human Progress in a Diverse World. UNDP, New York.
ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services. BioScience 62, 503–507. Vogl, A., Tallis, H., Douglass, J., Sharp, R., Veiga, F., Benitez, S., Leon, J., Game, E., Petry, P.,
Reynolds, T.W., Bostrom, A., Read, D., Morgan, M.G., 2010. Now what do people know Guimeraes, J., Lozano, J.S., 2013. Resource Investment Optimization System User's
about global climate change? Survey studies of educated laypeople. Risk Analysis Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford, CA.
30 (10), 1520–1538. Watson, R.T., 2005. Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the
Rossi, P.H., Lipsey, M.V., Freeman, H.E., 2003. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Sage science–policy interface. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society — Biological
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Sciences 360 (1454), 471–477.
Salzman, J., 2005. Creating markets for ecosystem services: notes from the field. New York WBCSD (World Business Council on Sustainable Development), 2011. Guide to
University Law Review 80, 870–961. Corporate Ecosystem Valuation. (Report available at: www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/
Satz, D., Gould, R.K., Chan, K.M.A., Guerry, A., Norton, B., Satterfield, T., Halpern, B.S., gslFp45ojmeO4e1QP2ZD/WBCSD_Guide_CEV_April_2011.pdf).
Levine, J., Woodside, U., Hannahs, N., Basurto, X., Klain, S., 2013. The challenges of Weiss, C., 1977. Research for policy's sake: the enlightenment function of social research.
incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental assessment. Ambio. Policy Analysis 3 (4), 531–545.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0386-6. Weiss, C., 1979. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review
Seppelt, R., Dormann, C.F., Eppink, F.V., Lautenback, S., Schmidt, S., 2011. A quantitative 39 (5), 426–431.
review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. White, D., Rubiano, J., Andersson, M., Garcia, J., Saenz, L., Jarvis, A., 2009. Análisis de
Journal of Applied Ecology 48 (3), 630–636. opotunidades de inversión en conservación por ahorros en tratamiento de aguas
Shepard, C., Agostini, V.N., Gilmer, B., Allen, T., Stone, J., Brooks, W., Beck, M.W., 2011. Sitio del estudio: El Páramo de Chingaza Colombia. CIAT, Colombia.
Assessing future risk: quantifying the effects of sea level rise on storm surge risk for Wood, S.A., Guerry, A.D., Silver, J.M., Lacayo, M., 2013w. Using social media to quantify
the southern shores of Long Island New York. Natural Hazards 1–19. nature-based tourism and recreation. Scientific Reports (in review).

Ruckelshaus - Etal - 2014 - Notes From The Field - Lessons Learned From Using Ecosystem Service Approaches To

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ruckelshaus - Etal - 2014 - Notes From The Field - Lessons Learned From Using Ecosystem Service Approaches To

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ruckelshaus - Etal - 2014 - Notes From The Field - Lessons Learned From Using Ecosystem Service Approaches To

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ECOLEC-04558; No of Pages 11

Ecological Economics xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

PATHWAY 1: PATHWAY 2: PATHWAY 3: PATHWAY 4:

Published Stakeholders Plans & policies

Table 1 and incentives strongly favor commercial revenue-generating activities

service estimation model for annual average water yield to indicate

around the reporting of relative, biophysical estimates of return on

You might also like