An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
- [27]Heal GM, et al. (2005) Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision-Making (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).
- [29]Tilman D, Kareiva P (1997) Spatial Ecology: The Role of Space in Population Dynamics and Interspecific Interactions (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton).
- [32]Dasgupta P (2007) Economics: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R. S., Díaz, S., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A. K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H. M., et al. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0808772106 · Cited by 2,257 · see citing works
Vollmer, D., Pribadi, D. O., Remondi, F., Rustiadi, E., & Grêt-Regamey, A. (2016) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2015.10.004 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
A framework for monitoring social process and outcomes in environmental programs
Chapman, S. (2014) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.07.004 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Health benefits of reduced deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon
Damm, Y., Börner, J., Gerber, N., & Soares-Filho, B. (2024) · Communications Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43247-024-01840-7 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- 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
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2008-07-15
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 28
- Pages
- 9457-9464
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC2474523
- 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
- Update notices
- correction (2008-11-11)
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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