Editorial: Operationalisation of natural capital and ecosystem services – Special issue

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 29, Issue , 2018, Pages 411-414

  van Dijk, Jiska ^a   Dick, Jan ^b   Harrison, Paula ^b   Jax, Kurt ^c,d   Saarikoski, Heli ^e   Furman, Eeva ^e  

^a NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR NATURE RESEARCH   (Norway)

^b CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY   (United Kingdom)

^c HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^d TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^e FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85036639636     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.013     Document Type: Editorial

References (29)

1. Bagstad, K.J., Semmens, D.J., Waage, S., Winthrop, R., A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 5 (2013), 27–39.
2. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farberk, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Suttonkk, P., van den Belt, M., The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387 (1997), 253–260.
3. Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go?. Ecosyst. Serv. 28 (2017), 1–16.
4. Daily, G., (eds.) Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, 1997, Island, Washington DC.
5. de Groot, R.S., Functions of Nature: Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Planning, Management, and Decision Making. 1992, Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen.
6. Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., Adhikari, J.R., Arico, S., Báldi, A., Bartuska, A., Baste, I.A., Bilgin, A., Brondizio, E., Chan, K.M.A., Figueroa, V.E., Duraiappah, A., Fischer, M., Hill, R., Koetz, T., Leadley, P., Lyver, P., Mace, G.M., Martin-Lopez, B., Okumura, M., Pacheco, D., Pascual, U., Pérez, E.S., Reyers, B., Roth, E., Saito, O., Scholes, R.J., Sharma, N., Tallis, H., Thaman, R., Watson, R., Yahara, T., Hamid, Z.A., Akosim, C., Al-Hafedh, Y., Allahverdiyev, R., Amankwah, E., Asah, S.T., Asfaw, Z., Bartus, G., Brooks, L.A., Caillaux, J., Dalle, G., Darnaedi, D., Driver, A., Erpul, G., Escobar-Eyzaguirre, P., Failler, P., Fouda, A.M.M., Fu, B., Gundimeda, H., Hashimoto, S., Homer, F., Lavorel, S., Lichtenstein, G., Mala, W.A., Mandivenyi, W., Matczak, P., Mbizvo, C., Mehrdadi, M., Metzger, J.P., Mikissa, J.B., Moller, H., Mooney, H.A., Mumby, P., Nagendra, H., Nesshover, C., Oteng-Yeboah, A.A., Pataki, G., Roué M., Rubis, J., Schultz, M., Smith, P., Sumaila, R., Takeuchi, K., Thomas, S., Verma, M., Yeo-Chang, Y., Zlatanova, D., The IPBES conceptual framework — connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14 (2015), 1–16.
7. E.C., Communication From the Commission – Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 – and Beyond – Sustaining Ecosystem Services for Human Well-being. 2006.
8. E.C., Communication From the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Our Life Insurance, Our Natural Capital: An EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. 2011.
9. IPBES, Preliminary Guide Regarding Diverse Conceptualization of Multiple Values of Nature and Its Benefits, Including Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functions and Services: Deliverable 3d to Plenary 4 (IPBES/4/INF/13). Available at, 2015 http://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/IPBES-4-INF-13_EN.pdf.
10. Jacobs, S., Dendoncker, N., Martín-López, B., Barton, D.N., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Boeraeve, F., McGrath, F.L., Vierikko, K., Geneletti, D., Sevecke, Katharina J., Pipart, N., Primmer, E., Mederly, P., Schmidt, S., Aragão, A., Baral, H., Bark, Rosalind H., Briceno, T., Brogna, D., Cabral, P., De Vreese, R., Liquete, C., Mueller, H., Peh, K.S.H., Phelan, A., Rincón, Alexander R., Rogers, S.H., Turkelboom, F., Van Reeth, W., van Zanten, B.T., Wam, H.K., Washbourne, C.-L., A new valuation school: integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosyst. Serv. 22 (2016), 213–220.
11. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC.
12. Peh, K.S.H., Balmford, A., Bradbury, R.B., Brown, C., Butchart, S.H.M., Hughes, F.M.R., Stattersfield, A., Thomas, D.H.L., Walpole, M., Bayliss, J., Gowing, D., Jones, J.P.G., Lewis, S.L., Mulligan, M., Pandeya, B., Stratford, C., Thompson, J.R., Turner, K., Vira, B., Willcock, S., Birch, J.C., TESSA: a toolkit for rapid assessment of ecosystem services at sites of biodiversity conservation importance. Ecosyst. Serv. 5 (2013), 51–57.
13. Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Defining and measuring ecosystem services. Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., Turner, R.K., (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services, 2016, Routledge, New York, 25–41.
14. Primmer, E., Furman, E., Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems?. Ecosyst. Serv. 1 (2012), 85–92.
15. TEEB, (eds.) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, 2010, Earthscan.
16. Jax, K., et al. Handling a messy world: lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 415–427.
17. Potschin-Young, et al. Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: reading the ecosystem service cascade. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 428–440.
18. Carmen, E., et al. Knowledge needs for the operationalisation of the concept of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 441–451.
19. Smith, R., et al. Operationalising ecosystem service assessment in Bayesian Belief Networks: experiences within the OpenNESS project. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 452–464.
20. Zulian, G., et al. The practical application of spatial ecosystem service models to aid management of nature-based resources. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 465–480.
21. Harrison, P., et al. Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: a decision tree approach. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 481–498.
22. Dunford, R., et al. Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment: experiences from real world situations. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 499–514.
23. Jacobs, S., et al. The means determine the end – pursuing integrated valuation in practice. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 515–528.
24. Barton, B., et al. (Dis) integrated valuation: narrowing the gap between ES appraisals and governance support. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 529–541.
25. Priess, J., et al. New EU-scale environmental scenarios until 2050 – scenario process and initial scenario applications. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 542–551.
26. Dick, J., et al. Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: results from 27 case studies. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 552–565.
27. Turkelboom, F., et al. When we cannot have it all: ecosystem services trade-offs in real-life planning contexts. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 566–578.
28. Saarikoski, H., et al. Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 579–598.
29. Pérez-Soba, M., et al. Maximising the value of research on ecosystem services: knowledge integration and guidance tools mediating the science, policy and practice interfaces. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 599–607.