Cited by 753Land Use and Ecosystem ServicesConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementSocioeconomics of Resources and Conservation

An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development

Open access
Tallis, Heather, Kareiva, Peter, Marvier, Michelle, Chang, Amy·2008·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The core idea of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is that the human condition is tightly linked to environmental condition. This assertion suggests that conservation and development projects should be able to achieve both ecological and social progress without detracting from their primary objectives. Whereas “win–win” projects that achieve both conservation and economic gains are a commendable goal, they are not easy to attain. An analysis of World Bank projects with objectives of alleviating poverty and protecting biodiversity revealed that only 16% made major progress on both objectives. Here, we provide a framework for anticipating win–win, lose–lose, and win–lose outcomes as a result of how people manage their ecosystem services. This framework emerges from detailed explorations of several case studies in which biodiversity conservation and economic development coincide and cases in which there is joint failure. We emphasize that scientific advances around ecosystem service production functions, tradeoffs among multiple ecosystem services, and the design of appropriate monitoring programs are necessary for the implementation of conservation and development projects that will successfully advance both environmental and social goals. The potentially bright future of jointly advancing ecosystem services, conservation, and human well-being will be jeopardized unless a global monitoring effort is launched that uses the many ongoing projects as a grand experiment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0705797105

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Overall findings indicate that tropical forest conservation has a significant public health premium that has so far remained unaccounted for.

    “Overall, our findings indicate that tropical forest conservation has a significant public health premium that has so far remained unaccounted for 75 .”

    From Health benefits of reduced deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (2024) · cites this paper as [75]

    In “Scientific Understanding that Could Improve the Likelihood of Win-Win Outcomes” (page unavailable), the paper links landscape change to disease and says conservation projects have not yet made use of that health connection. It does not establish a significant public-health premium specifically for tropical forest conservation; the citing authors present that as their own finding. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [27]Heal GM, et al. (2005) Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision-Making (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).
  2. [29]Tilman D, Kareiva P (1997) Spatial Ecology: The Role of Space in Population Dynamics and Interspecific Interactions (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton).
  3. [32]Dasgupta P (2007) Economics: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tallis, H., Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., & Chang, A.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • The Nature Conservancy (US)
  • Santa Clara University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2008-07-15
Volume
105
Issue
28
Pages
9457-9464
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2141839736
Cited by
753
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 49 · 2012: 46
FWCI
2.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Issue Lab (Candid) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Socioeconomics of Resources and Conservation
Keywords
ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, economic development, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, poverty reduction, ecosystem service monitoring, human well-being, World Bank projects, conservation outcomes
MeSH terms
Conservation of Natural Resources, Economics, Humans, Poverty, Ecosystem

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review