CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 466Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesEnvironmental Conservation and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Payment for Ecosystem Services and the Challenge of Saving Nature

Redford, Kent H., Adams, William M.·2009·Conservation Biology
DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01271.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In a seminal and underappreciated book, Green Imperialism, Grove (1995) explains the rise of a global environmental consciousness as a result of European colonial expansion. Grove details how, by the mid-seventeenth century, “… a coherent and relatively organized awareness of the ecological impact of the demands of emergent capitalism and colonial rule started to develop, to grow into a fully fledged understanding of the limited nature of the earth's natural resources and to stimulate a concomitant awareness of a need for conservation” (p. 6). In particular he documents the growing belief that loss of forests, particularly in island settings, could negatively affect shipping, agriculture, and even the local climate. The colonial powers awoke to the importance of what today would be called ecosystem services and set about trying to restore them and diminish their further degradation. In recent decades humankind's reliance on the natural world has increasingly been expressed through the concept of ecosystem services. In the time period covered by Grove, ecosystem services were seen as vital for maintaining the economic output of the colonies. Today they are judged important as a way of framing conservation imperatives to convince humans of the value of the natural world. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment began a rapid shift in the concept of ecosystem services from an academic backwater to the mainstream of conservation and environmental policy. Nature noted how recent developments “seem to herald ecosystem services entry into mainstream scientific and political thinking” (Nature 2009:764). Ecosystem services have now become the central metaphor within which to express humanity's need for the rest of living nature. As the Global Environment Outlook-4 report rightly points out, “As the basis for all ecosystem services, and the foundation for truly sustainable development, biodiversity plays fundamental roles in maintaining and enhancing the well-being of the world's more than 6.7 billion people, rich and poor, rural and urban alike” (UNEP 2008:160). Important research is being undertaken to establish empirically the value of ecosystem services and their distribution in space and time. The concept of ecosystem services increasingly structures the way conservationists think, the ways they explain the importance of nature to often skeptical policy makers, and the ways they propose to promote its conservation. Is this a good thing? Not entirely. There are risks to the current enthusiasm for the ecosystem services concept. Conservation has a history of placing great faith in new ideas and approaches that appear to offer dramatic solutions to humanity's chronic disregard for nature (e.g., sustainable development, community conservation, sustainable use, wilderness), only to become disillusioned with them a few years later. The payment for ecosystem services framework fits this model disturbingly well. Like the seductive ideas that preceded it, it is being adopted with great speed, and often without much critical discussion, across the spectrum of conservation policy debate and developing a life of its own independent of its promulgators. There is particular risk with the idea of payments for ecosystem services as an effective way of achieving conservation. The argument goes that people depend on the services provided by ecosystems and that the way to ensure their continued provision is to pay for them—thus ensuring services are sustained and the species and ecosystems providing the services are conserved. Arguments for the importance of conserving ecosystem services and value of payment for ecosystem services as a tool for conservation are typically compelling and carefully crafted. Yet we are worried about the approach of payment for ecosystem services as a conservation strategy. In the spirit of constructive criticism, we outline here seven problems with ecosystem services. If these are addressed, the role of payment for ecosystems services in conservation will be clearer and arguments for conservation itself made stronger. If not, all the research and policy enthusiasm for ecosystem services may turn sour, in the process costing time and invaluable support. First, in a world of relentless pursuit of economic logic, there is a real risk that economic arguments about services valued by humans will overwrite and outweigh noneconomic justifications for conservation. As many advocates for the approach point out, payments for ecosystem services should be one of a set of tools used in pursuit of conservation. Multiple arguments for conservation are likely to be more resilient and persuasive than single ones. Strategy development and implementation that responds to stakeholder needs from the outset and is collaborative may make it possible to take proper account of the intrinsic values of nature, which, given contemporary realpolitik, are often too easily lost. Second, there is a widespread but erroneous assumption tha

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01271.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2008, Global environment outlook: environment for development

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Redford, K. H., & Adams, W. M.
Affiliations
  • Wildlife Conservation Society (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-07-13
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
785-787
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
DOI
10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01271.x
OpenAlex
W1594416166
Cited by
466
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Conservation Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Conservation and Management
Keywords
payment for ecosystem services, ecosystem services, conservation, conservation history, green imperialism, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, biodiversity, sustainable development, commodification of nature, conservation policy, value of nature, ecosystem services valuation, sustainable use of nature, community-based conservation, wilderness preservation
MeSH terms
Conservation of Natural Resources, 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