The use and abuse of ecosystem service concepts and terms

The language used in ecology and conservation shapes our understanding of and actions toward the natural world. Among the most commonly used terms, ‘ecosystem services’ has become central to conservation discourse, defined as the benefits humans derive from ecosystems. While the ‘ecosystem services’ framework has effectively communicated nature's contributions to human well-being, its anthropocentric focus raises concerns about conceptual accuracy and ethical implications. By prioritizing human utility, the term risks misrepresenting ecological roles and marginalizing conservation efforts for species and ecosystems without immediate economic value. Additionally, its misuse in research and policy has led to confusion by conflating ecological processes with human-centered benefits. Although Nature's Contributions to People (NCP) has been proposed as an alternative framework to address these concerns, it faces similar limitations. Rather than replacing one anthropocentric framework with another, we argue for a broader adoption of the already existing ‘ecosystem functions’ framework. This approach provides a more accurate descriptor of ecological processes while avoiding the conceptual and ethical pitfalls of reducing ecosystems to their benefits for humans. Thus, the ‘ecosystem functions’ framework offers a step toward a more holistic and inclusive approach that respects the complexity of ecological relationships and supports effective conservation practices.