Natalie Stoeckl , Robert Costanza , Namgay Dorji , Ida Kubiszewski , Bassie Limenih , Jing Tian , Satoshi Yamazaki
{"title":"Valuing the reciprocating services that humans can provide to ecosystems","authors":"Natalie Stoeckl , Robert Costanza , Namgay Dorji , Ida Kubiszewski , Bassie Limenih , Jing Tian , Satoshi Yamazaki","doi":"10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113496","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Long-term sustainability requires that humans consider not only what ecosystems can do for them, but also how humans can ‘give back’ or reciprocate. Indigenous Australians call this ‘caring for country’. Industrial societies have routinely undervalued both the ecosystem services (ES) that nature provides to humans and the reciprocating services (RS) that humans provide to ecosystems. The policy challenge is to find ways of encouraging more RS in industrial societies. The practice of monetarily valuing ES helps highlight their importance and has brought the environment to the forefront of many international policy discussions. We argue that sustainability could be further enhanced by better valuing RS. First, the simple acknowledgement and celebration of RS (without monetary valuation<em>)</em> could change institutions, social norms, and behaviours. Second, numerous institutions now provide financial incentives for people to undertake nature-positive projects (a type of RS), but nature-positive investments are hampered by information failures. Comprehensive assessments of the expected value of proposed projects, could fill information gaps and guide investments towards projects that are likely to generate the most benefit. But these are difficult to do well. We discuss some of the particular difficulties of generating meaningful value estimates for RS that generate diverse benefits at large scale, or that create change in highly connected systems. We note the need for more transdisciplinary research to further improve methods; arguing that if we only do what we are currently good at (valuing discrete benefits at small scale and using crude approaches to scale upwards) then we will continue to overlook, undervalue and under resource many of the critically important RS that support us all.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11459,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Indicators","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 113496"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Indicators","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X25004261","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Long-term sustainability requires that humans consider not only what ecosystems can do for them, but also how humans can ‘give back’ or reciprocate. Indigenous Australians call this ‘caring for country’. Industrial societies have routinely undervalued both the ecosystem services (ES) that nature provides to humans and the reciprocating services (RS) that humans provide to ecosystems. The policy challenge is to find ways of encouraging more RS in industrial societies. The practice of monetarily valuing ES helps highlight their importance and has brought the environment to the forefront of many international policy discussions. We argue that sustainability could be further enhanced by better valuing RS. First, the simple acknowledgement and celebration of RS (without monetary valuation) could change institutions, social norms, and behaviours. Second, numerous institutions now provide financial incentives for people to undertake nature-positive projects (a type of RS), but nature-positive investments are hampered by information failures. Comprehensive assessments of the expected value of proposed projects, could fill information gaps and guide investments towards projects that are likely to generate the most benefit. But these are difficult to do well. We discuss some of the particular difficulties of generating meaningful value estimates for RS that generate diverse benefits at large scale, or that create change in highly connected systems. We note the need for more transdisciplinary research to further improve methods; arguing that if we only do what we are currently good at (valuing discrete benefits at small scale and using crude approaches to scale upwards) then we will continue to overlook, undervalue and under resource many of the critically important RS that support us all.
期刊介绍:
The ultimate aim of Ecological Indicators is to integrate the monitoring and assessment of ecological and environmental indicators with management practices. The journal provides a forum for the discussion of the applied scientific development and review of traditional indicator approaches as well as for theoretical, modelling and quantitative applications such as index development. Research into the following areas will be published.
• All aspects of ecological and environmental indicators and indices.
• New indicators, and new approaches and methods for indicator development, testing and use.
• Development and modelling of indices, e.g. application of indicator suites across multiple scales and resources.
• Analysis and research of resource, system- and scale-specific indicators.
• Methods for integration of social and other valuation metrics for the production of scientifically rigorous and politically-relevant assessments using indicator-based monitoring and assessment programs.
• How research indicators can be transformed into direct application for management purposes.
• Broader assessment objectives and methods, e.g. biodiversity, biological integrity, and sustainability, through the use of indicators.
• Resource-specific indicators such as landscape, agroecosystems, forests, wetlands, etc.