Locally-Provided and Globally-Relevant Ecosystem Services: A Needed Distinction for Quantification

Abstract

Ecosystem services are defined as benefits obtained by humans from ecosystem functions and processes. Although the different types of ecosystem services are well defined, their measurement and quantification has remained controversial despite long last research efforts. A particularly elusive and often neglected aspect of ecosystem services quantification has been a proper identification of the beneficiaries. We argue that a clear-cut distinction between locally-provided and globally-relevant ecosystem services are necessary in order to manage a meaningful debate about ecosystem services quantification. Using a detailed spatial analysis of land-use change and residential location in The Netherlands over almost two decades, we operationalize the distinction between two types of services provided by “green” land uses (protected natural areas, agricultural areas and parks). Recreational services available to nearby dwellers are used as an example of locally-provided ecosystem services, while carbon sequestration exemplifies the globally-relevant category. The conclusion is that while monetary value can be justified as a proxy measure of globally-relevant ecosystem services, non-monetary approaches are appropriate for locally-provided ecosystem services. The distinction between both types of ecosystem services is useful also for policy-making purposes: Quantification of locally-provided services is well suited for spatial planning in general and urban planning in particular, but globally-relevant services assessment (specially its monetary approach) is more informative at national and supranational levels.