.2015 Jun 16;112(24):7348-55.

doi: 10.1073/pnas.1503751112.

Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice

Anne D Guerry¹, Stephen Polasky², Jane Lubchenco³, Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer⁴, Gretchen C Daily⁵, Robert Griffin⁶, Mary Ruckelshaus⁷, Ian J Bateman⁸, Anantha Duraiappah⁹, Thomas Elmqvist¹⁰, Marcus W Feldman¹¹, Carl Folke¹², Jon Hoekstra¹³, Peter M Kareiva¹⁴, Bonnie L Keeler¹⁵, Shuzhuo Li¹⁶, Emily McKenzie¹⁷, Zhiyun Ouyang¹⁸, Belinda Reyers¹⁹, Taylor H Ricketts²⁰, Johan Rockström¹⁰, Heather Tallis²¹, Bhaskar Vira²²

Affiliations

¹ The Natural Capital Project, c/o School of Environment and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195; Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; anne.guerry@stanford.edu.
² Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108; Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108; The Natural Capital Project, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108;
³ Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97333;
⁴ Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
⁵ The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; Department of Biology, Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; Global Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm SE-104 05, Sweden;
⁶ Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
⁷ The Natural Capital Project, c/o School of Environment and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195; Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
⁸ Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom;
⁹ Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development, New Delhi 110 029, India;
¹⁰ Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm SE-106 91, Sweden;
¹¹ Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
¹² Global Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm SE-104 05, Sweden; Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm SE-106 91, Sweden; Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm SE-104 05, Sweden;
¹³ World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC 20037;
¹⁴ The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, WA 91805;
¹⁵ Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108; The Natural Capital Project, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108;
¹⁶ Institute of Population and Development Studies, School of Public Policy and Administration, Xian Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province 710049, People's Republic of China;
¹⁷ World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC 20037; World Wildlife Fund-UK, The Living Planet Centre, Surrey GU21 4LL, United Kingdom;
¹⁸ State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, People's Republic of China;
¹⁹ Natural Resources and the Environment, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa;
²⁰ Gund Institute of Ecological Economics, and Rubenstein School for Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405;
²¹ The Nature Conservancy, Santa Cruz, CA 95060;
²² Department of Geography, and Conservation Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, United Kingdom.

PMID:26082539
PMCID: PMC4475956
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1503751112

Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice

Anne D Guerry et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.2015.

.2015 Jun 16;112(24):7348-55.

doi: 10.1073/pnas.1503751112.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ The Natural Capital Project, c/o School of Environment and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195; Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; anne.guerry@stanford.edu.
² Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108; Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108; The Natural Capital Project, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108;
³ Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97333;
⁴ Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
⁵ The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; Department of Biology, Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; Global Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm SE-104 05, Sweden;
⁶ Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
⁷ The Natural Capital Project, c/o School of Environment and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195; Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
⁸ Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom;
⁹ Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development, New Delhi 110 029, India;
¹⁰ Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm SE-106 91, Sweden;
¹¹ Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
¹² Global Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm SE-104 05, Sweden; Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm SE-106 91, Sweden; Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm SE-104 05, Sweden;
¹³ World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC 20037;
¹⁴ The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, WA 91805;
¹⁵ Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108; The Natural Capital Project, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108;
¹⁶ Institute of Population and Development Studies, School of Public Policy and Administration, Xian Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province 710049, People's Republic of China;
¹⁷ World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC 20037; World Wildlife Fund-UK, The Living Planet Centre, Surrey GU21 4LL, United Kingdom;
¹⁸ State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, People's Republic of China;
¹⁹ Natural Resources and the Environment, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa;
²⁰ Gund Institute of Ecological Economics, and Rubenstein School for Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405;
²¹ The Nature Conservancy, Santa Cruz, CA 95060;
²² Department of Geography, and Conservation Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, United Kingdom.

PMID:26082539
PMCID: PMC4475956
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1503751112

Abstract

The central challenge of the 21st century is to develop economic, social, and governance systems capable of ending poverty and achieving sustainable levels of population and consumption while securing the life-support systems underpinning current and future human well-being. Essential to meeting this challenge is the incorporation of natural capital and the ecosystem services it provides into decision-making. We explore progress and crucial gaps at this frontier, reflecting upon the 10 y since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. We focus on three key dimensions of progress and ongoing challenges: raising awareness of the interdependence of ecosystems and human well-being, advancing the fundamental interdisciplinary science of ecosystem services, and implementing this science in decisions to restore natural capital and use it sustainably. Awareness of human dependence on nature is at an all-time high, the science of ecosystem services is rapidly advancing, and talk of natural capital is now common from governments to corporate boardrooms. However, successful implementation is still in early stages. We explore why ecosystem service information has yet to fundamentally change decision-making and suggest a path forward that emphasizes: (i) developing solid evidence linking decisions to impacts on natural capital and ecosystem services, and then to human well-being; (ii) working closely with leaders in government, business, and civil society to develop the knowledge, tools, and practices necessary to integrate natural capital and ecosystem services into everyday decision-making; and (iii) reforming institutions to change policy and practices to better align private short-term goals with societal long-term goals.

Keywords: beneficiary; decision making; human well-being; resilience; sustainable development.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

**Fig. 1.**
A framework for including natural capital in the broader context of formal and informal decision-making institutions along with other forms of capital: financial, human, manufactured, and social. Formal and informal institutions influence decisions by both service providers and beneficiaries. Access to various forms of capital (“capabilities”) (115) and preferences affect the decisions of service suppliers and beneficiaries. The joint actions of service providers and beneficiaries determine the flow of goods and services (including ecosystem services). These change various capital stocks (including natural capital) and affect the well-being of different groups in society. Closing the loop from institutions to decisions to human well-being, and back to the top to inform institutional design and decision-making, has the potential to improve policy and management in ways that lead to improvements in human well-being. Components in italics indicate factors that change on relatively long timescales.

See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Reply to Phelps et al: Liability rules provide incentives to protect natural capital.
Polasky S, Guerry AD, Lubchenco J, Ruckelshaus M.Polasky S, et al.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Sep 29;112(39):E5380. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1516116112. Epub 2015 Sep 18.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015.PMID:26385970Free PMC article.No abstract available.
Environmental liability: A missing use for ecosystem services valuation.
Phelps J, Jones CA, Pendergrass JA, Gómez-Baggethun E.Phelps J, et al.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Sep 29;112(39):E5379. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1514893112. Epub 2015 Sep 18.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015.PMID:26385971Free PMC article.No abstract available.

References

1. Maddison A. Contours of the World Economy 1–2030 AD: Essays in Macro-Economic History. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford; 2007.
1. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Panel 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Series (Island Press, Washington, DC)
1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (IPCC). Available atwww.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/. Accessed May 21, 2015.
1. National Climate Assessment (NCA) 2014 National Climate Assessment. US Global Change Research Program; Washington, DC: 2014.
1. Risky Business Project 2014. Risky Business: The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States. Available atriskybusiness.org/reports/national-report/. Accessed May 21, 2015.

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
- H1 Connect - Access expert opinions and insights on biomedical research.
- scite Smart Citations

Movatterモバイル変換

Account

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

Full text links

Actions

Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice

Affiliations

Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement

Figures

Comment in

References

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Other Literature Sources