Talk:Ecosystem service

message: I say nay. In my experience ecosystem services are referred to in quite a thorough ecological sense, at times even without mention of economics. I haven't encountered nature's services in what ecological literature I've read; it's seems to be used more by (environmental) economists. Daniel Collins 01:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I say nay as well.  nature's services is not a common term in ecological literature.  I did create a ecological goods and services page which would merge well with this one.  I had not thought to search the term ecosystem services when I was checking around before starting the new page. wagors 04:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weigh in nay.  not only are these distinct and of different origin, they are both vast topics and deserve separate articles.  Anlace 05:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To merge or not to merge

message: I say "no" too these are clearly different concepts, an anthropocentric one, and an eco-centric one. Rich Farmbrough, 15:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger with [[Ecological goods and services]] 

message: The first sentence under "A brief history" seems to indicate that at the start of our species' existence, we were all Serbians.  I expect this needs to be edited, but I am not sure how to do so.  If anyone can help out with this, I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks,
Bolo5000 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment Regarding this Article 

message: I have briefly read through this article and I feel that some information can perhaps be added to what each type of ecosystem service means. Currently the article only states some examples. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition for each type 

message: Of  Natural capital Valuation/Environmental finance interest?  
Ecosystem Services: How People Benefit from Nature by Rebecca L. Goldman, currently in print.  
  99.88.230.136 (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And what is this in aid of?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be more plain User:A.R.The new green economy by Hillary Rosner 10.September.2010 Wired UK  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.183.67 (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resource: [http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/September-October%202010/ecosystem-services-full.html Ecosystem Services: How People Benefit from Nature] 

message: Add  ?  99.102.178.168 (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  I can see, potentially, Environment or Ecology, but I'd be willing to allow above.  The other two topics are, to the extent appropriate, contained in Environment or Ecology.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

text: The multiheaded anon is still adding the material, without giving reasons.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add {{tlx|Portal box|Environment|Ecology|Earth sciences|Biology}} ? 

message: Necessary to change our species to our species ... the same place?  99.181.129.120 (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be necessary, but "human" is not a species; "homo sapiens" is a species.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necessary to change [[Human|our species]] to [[homo sapiens|our species]] ... the same place? 

message: The Concept and Reality of Ecosystem Services by Neville Ash, IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) 
InterAcademy Panel Biodiversity Conference (InterAcademy Panel on International Issues) 12-14thJanuary 2010 The Royal Society, London  
Neville Ash is associated with the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, UN Environment Programme, per wp article Planet Earth: The Future
99.56.121.111 (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add resource from [[InterAcademy Panel on International Issues]]? 

message: Perhaps we should note how much air, food, water, ... is required per person per day ?
For air, we need about 7 to 8 trees per person. Calculation follows:
* a human breathes in about 9500 kilos of air per year; 23% of this is O², and we only take out 1/3 with every breath, so there is a consumption of 700 kilos of O² per year. A mature tree produces 100 kilo per year, so we need 7 to 8 of these per person.
With this calculation, we can also calculate how much forest we need worldwide btw:
7 trees X 7,2 billion people = 50,2 billion trees needed
I'm not sure how much trees there are currently today, and by which rate they are chopped, else we could calculate by which time we will no longer be able to attain sufficient air.
KVDP (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Requirements per person

message: The first sentence currently is: "Humankind benefits in a multitude of ways from ecosystems". True.
BUT is this supposed to be an anthropocentric or an ecocentric article? This sentence makes a case for the former. I read all comments on this talk page and do realize the tension and different opinions on the 2 concepts, but if this is supposed to be an ecocentric (what a weird word) or better: inclusive article, as supposed to the anthropocentric economic viewpoints of nature's services or ecological goods and services it must be changed to encompass the living world.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The ecosystem services concept is explicitly anthropocentric, isn't it? It's about things provided to humans by natural systems. Guettarda (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humankind benefits 

message: There are a number of criticisms levelled at the ecosystem services approach that aren't address in this entry currently. Examples include the challenge of valuing cultural services, and the difficulty in accounting for intrinsic or non-use value, as well as general criticisms of the anthropocentricity of the approach, including that taking an economic approach to value deprioritises remote and vulnerable ecosystems that humans don't interact with frequently. Does anyone else think a new section on criticism is needed for balance, if nothing else?
:I absolutely agree. I did add a similar section to Natural Capital in order to add some balance. Whilst I work professionally in an area that regards the identification of the benefits of NC and ecosystem services as crucial in influencing decision-makers in planning to have much greater regard for the impact of their decisions on us and our environment, as a Wikipedian I am keen to see balanced articles, so adding a section to address published criticisms of the ecosystems services approach would be very welcome. User:Nick Moyes (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! Very much so. This article is completely uncritical towards a very disputed theory - if you can even call it a theory. It is more like an idea or hypothesis, now being implemented and invested in, further entrenching the highly problematic notion that nature does not have intrinsic value, and that a monetary value can actually be estimated for species and ecosystems. 78.55.85.11 (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of ecosystem services approach 

message: Is it possible to change the intro to reflect the fact that organisms may provide services to other species besides humanity, and to the ecosystem as a whole?
We can definitely quantify the economic value of these non-human interactions, too, and such models may be useful!
:This is an interesting suggestion, but I believe it would be a very big mistake, and indeed a misinterpretation of the topic, to attempt to modify the introduction as you suggest. The whole point of the Ecosystems Services approach is that it is intentionally 100% anthopocentric. It is an approach aimed at humans that is purposefully highlighting the services that the natural world gives us (humans) for free (and we have been rather prone to take it for granted in recent decades). You are, of course, right that the other 8.7 million species on this planet provide benefits and 'services' to all the other species(food/nesting sites/nest building materials/decomposition/food chains etc), but discussion of that should be reserved for the numerous other topics relating to ecology, and wouldn't be relevant to this article at all. If you can find reliable sources referring to this, it could make an interesting sub-section, but I am not personally aware of any Ecosystem Services publications which even mention this. And so I'm afraid I'm really not at all sure what you're getting at when you refer to us being able to "quantify the economic value of these non-human interactions". Economics is a human construct (is that the right term?), and the whole point of Ecosystem Services is that it is a concept that tries to identify (and sometimes even attempts to value) the services and economic benefits that all these non-human interactions (ie ecosystems) gives us. And by 'us', I mean us humans, and only us humans. Parkywiki (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Following up on my previous response, I find there are actually a number of useful reviews of criticism, counter-arguments and pitfalls of Ecosystem Services which someone might wish to use in order to create a balanced 'criticisms' sub-section which could then be validly referred to in the Introduction. See here and here and here(p.7). Parkywiki (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generalized non-anthropocentric definitions of ecosystem services 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ecosystem services. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514083601/http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5049&title=costa-rica-sustainable-resource-management-successfully-tackling-tropical-deforestation to http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5049&title=costa-rica-sustainable-resource-management-successfully-tackling-tropical-deforestation
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: After reading this article, a question came to mind:
The article mentioned shows that there breathing produces following reaction:
- 5% O2 --> + 3,96% CO2
As I understand it, C is thus bound with the O2,
the human body also loses some C (carbon) -> how much ?
also some oxygen (about 1,04%; 5-3,96) is added to the human body (and removed from the ambient air)
So bottom line is that the ambient air does lose O (oxygen). In time, this could make a significant change, if it's not replenished by plants (which produce oxygen). The thing here is that the amount of plants we have has dropped hugely in the last 100 years.Last Frontier Forests Also, the type of vegetation changed hugely (many forests have given way to grasses, ... and this are said to generate less O2, see here. 
The page Geological_history_of_oxygen states that oxygen amounts have changed little over time, but it doesn't zoom in on the last 100 years. My guess here is that oxygen levels have dropped in these last 100 years, and since we're affected even by a drop of 2% (see here) that could have real-life consequences to us.
Can someone look into this and alter the appropriate pages if needed ?
KVDP (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Oxygen availability falling ?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ecosystem services. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120730185431/http://www.esd.ornl.gov/benefits_conference/nature_paper.pdf to http://www.esd.ornl.gov/benefits_conference/nature_paper.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090401203436/http://www.wri.org/project/ecosystem-services-review to http://www.wri.org/project/ecosystem-services-review
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose that Biodiversity#Ecosystem_services section be merged into Ecosystem services here. 
I think that the content in the Biodiversity article can easily be explained in the context here, and the Biodiversity article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Foo will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.--Wuerzele (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section merger proposal  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ecosystem services. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203063434/http://www.teebtest.org/wp-content/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/Ecological%20and%20Economic%20Foundations/TEEB%20Ecological%20and%20Economic%20Foundations%20report/TEEB%20Foundations.pdf to http://www.teebtest.org/wp-content/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/Ecological%20and%20Economic%20Foundations/TEEB%20Ecological%20and%20Economic%20Foundations%20report/TEEB%20Foundations.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150211032928/http://ebaflagship.org/images/ContentsForPublications/eba%20policy%20brochure%20web.pdf to http://ebaflagship.org/images/ContentsForPublications/eba%20policy%20brochure%20web.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: According to the Millennium Assessment report found on http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Framework.html#download chapter 2, pollination is not a supporting service, but a regulating service. Should I change the article? Mehinger (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Pollination is considered a "regulating ecosystem service" in chapter 2:  Prof. James Bullock from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (UK) recently tweeted a challenge to the established view that pollination is an ecosystem service. See this February 25, 2019 blog post. None of this warrants changing the article. -- Paleorthid (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Pollination, not a supporting service?

message: The lede sentence says: <BR> "Ecosystem services are the many and varied benefits to humans gifted by the natural environment and from healthy ecosystems."  <BR>  Since we are excluding benefits to wildlife and such, we should explicitly say we are not talking about ecology, but about human economics.  That is; "ecosystem services" is economics jargon, not ecological. If otherwise, that should be made explicit.  That's because while the jargon may be precise, those terms typically carry luggage for most lay readers.
Does "gifted" imply silviculture and other ag is excluded, or is that dependent on the (say,) logger's needs, culture, and definition of "healthy" ecosystem?  (But that's not for the lede section, is it?)
We have a sticky knot here, on one hand the term natural means non-human, but the benefits are exclusively human by this definition.  Trying to imagine that, I see a natural forest or marsh draining clean water into a city or thru farmland, and the river exiting still healthy.  That seems rare, here in dry California, it's laughable (Rivers unnaturally only intermittently reach the sea in flood years,(and only in canals and channels), forget: ecologically healthful.).
Bringing human economics, a social science, and ecology, a natural science together into a unified theory is long overdue, but what I have described is unsound.  For example, it is unscientific (and  logically knotty) to speak of benefits to humans but to exclude benefits to (say) wildlife.  It is a social construct, not a scientific one.
I presume by "gifted," absence of plunder, violence and theft is implied, —all words directed toward humans, —but when done to non-humans our English language and culture is a gaping hole.  That's what sentences are for solving.  The concept of market externality comes to mind, but economists are not likely to cooperate having their jargon bent to fit other applications like non-humans and say, Intrinsic value (ethics). Compare that to https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/intrinsicvalue.asp and you may laugh, or cry. <BR> --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:1D41:CC1A:4331:110C (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: the word "gifted" is no longer mentioned in the article now. EMsmile (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclusively Jargon of "Human Economics?" 

message: The section on "Estuarine and coastal ecosystem services" has a tag "This section may be too long to read and navigate comfortably." I am trying to improve this section. As a starting point, I find it a bit problematic that the four section headings repeat again the same section headings that are under categories just a bit above, namely these: 2.1	Regulating services, 2.2	Provisioning services, 2.3	Cultural services, 2.4	Supporting service. We are meant to have unique section headings per article. How can we improve on that? Does anyone have any good ideas? EMsmile (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My only idea so far is to change them to "Regulating services of estuarine and coastal ecosystems", "Provisioning services of estuarine and coastal ecosystems" and so forth. But that would result in rather long section headings. Not ideal. EMsmile (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've now resolved this problem by moving the coastal examples back into the section where the different categories are listed and explained. I think it works better like this. EMsmile (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section on "Estuarine and coastal ecosystem services" 

message: There is a lot of criticism of ecosystem services as a concept, and this is not represented in this article, thus making it biased. Please see,for example, https://manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9781526162632/ 78.55.85.11 (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it would be good to add content along these lines. It would be better if we used more accessible sources though. EMsmile (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced article 

message: I've removed the "further reading" list, as I don't think it was adding value:
* 
* 
* 
* 
EMsmile (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the "further reading" list 

message: The article mentions "climate regulation" a few times but without being specific about it. There is no Wikipedia article on climate regulation so I think the term or concept doesn't really exist under that name. I find it mentioned in the forest canopy article here: Canopy_(biology)#Climate_regulation. There is also the term "climate services", could we mention and integrate some content about it in this article? Pinging User:Richarit who may have expertise in this area. EMsmile (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we be more specific about climate regulation services? 

message: I've removed the section on ecology as I felt it didn't really fit. It was using primary sources and was written more like an opinion or academic essay. If there is something worth saving, please indicate and we can put that part back in:
 +++++++
Ecology:
Understanding of ecosystem services requires a strong foundation in ecology, which describes the underlying principles and interactions of organisms and the environment. Since the scales at which these entities interact can vary from microbes to landscapes, milliseconds to millions of years, one of the greatest remaining challenges is the descriptive characterization of energy and material flow between them.  For example, the area of a forest floor, the detritus upon it, the micro organisms in the soil, the soil biodiversity, and characteristics of the soil itself will all contribute to the abilities of that forest for providing ecosystem services like carbon sequestration, water purification, and erosion prevention to other areas within the watershed. Note that it is often possible for multiple services to be bundled together and when benefits of targeted objectives are secured, there may also be ancillary benefits—the same forest may provide habitat for other organisms as well as human recreation, which are also ecosystem services.
The complexity of Earth's ecosystems poses a challenge for scientists as they try to understand how relationships are interwoven among organisms, processes and their surroundings. As it relates to human ecology, a suggested research agenda for the study of ecosystem services includes the following steps:
# identification of ecosystem service providers (ESPs)—species or populations that provide specific ecosystem services—and characterization of their functional roles and relationships;
# determination of community structure aspects that influence how ESPs function in their natural landscape, such as compensatory responses that stabilize function and non-random extinction sequences which can erode it;
# assessment of key environmental (abiotic) factors influencing the provision of services;
# measurement of the spatial and temporal scales ESPs and their services operate on.
Recently, a technique has been developed to improve and standardize the evaluation of ESP functionality by quantifying the relative importance of different species in terms of their efficiency and abundance. Such parameters provide indications of how species respond to changes in the environment (i.e. predators, resource availability, climate) and are useful for identifying species that are disproportionately important at providing ecosystem services. However, a critical drawback is that the technique does not account for the effects of interactions, which are often both complex and fundamental in maintaining an ecosystem and can involve species that are not readily detected as a priority. Even so, estimating the functional structure of an ecosystem and combining it with information about individual species traits can help us understand the resilience of an ecosystem amidst environmental change.
Many ecologists also believe that the provision of ecosystem services can be stabilized with biodiversity. Increasing biodiversity also benefits the variety of ecosystem services available to society. Understanding the relationship between biodiversity and an ecosystem's stability is essential to the management of natural resources and their services. The concept of ecological redundancy is sometimes referred to as functional compensation and assumes that more than one species performs a given role within an ecosystem. EMsmile (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on ecology