Staff Publications

Staff Publications

  • external user (warningwarning)
  • Log in as
  • language uk
  • About

    'Staff publications' is the digital repository of Wageningen University & Research

    'Staff publications' contains references to publications authored by Wageningen University staff from 1976 onward.

    Publications authored by the staff of the Research Institutes are available from 1995 onwards.

    Full text documents are added when available. The database is updated daily and currently holds about 240,000 items, of which 72,000 in open access.

    We have a manual that explains all the features 

Record number 452076
Title Envisioning Ways Forward for the Ecosystem Services Debate
Author(s) Zanden, E.H. van der; Oudenhoven, A.P.E. van; Schröter, M.
Source Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative
Department(s) Environmental Systems Analysis Group
Publication type Web page aimed at the general public
Publication year 2014
Abstract Ecosystem services are a contested but useful concept for highlighting the benefits that humans get from healthy ecosystems and landscapes. A relatively new term, “ecosystem services” has become an increasingly popular concept to demonstrate how global biodiversity loss and land degradation have led to decreasing natural provision of critical services, such as fresh water, food and coastal protection. The origin of the ecosystem service concept can be traced back to the late 1970s – its science is a relatively young and continuously evolving field. Since the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, research on ecosystem services has skyrocketed all around the world, and we are also part of this ‘boom’. We have found that ecosystem services provide an increasingly useful framework, both within and outside of scientific disciplines. However, it remains heavily contested and criticized due, in part, to its interdisciplinary nature. Critical debates are essential for the development of the science and practices around ecosystem services, but critics often fail to contribute to possible answers or alternatives. The quality and outcome of an informed debate depends on inputs from both opponents and proponents of the concept. Therefore, we aimed to structure the debate, by compiling several recurring critiques as well as counter-arguments in a paper that was recently published in the journal Conservation Letters
There are no comments yet. You can post the first one!
Post a comment
Please log in to use this service. Login as Wageningen University & Research user or guest user in upper right hand corner of this page.