Abstract
The ecosystem services concept has become the predominant lens through which researchers and decision-makers view the relationship between natural ecosystems and human well-being. Over the past decades, a number of widely accepted classification systems, analytical methods, and a rich vocabulary around ecosystem services have evolved in the literature. Although there is widespread recognition that many ecosystem services are not exchanged in markets as commodities, many of these ecosystem service concepts and tools were built upon a theoretical foundation derived from neoclassical economics in which ecosystems are seen as passive production systems. Unfortunately, this perspective carries the potential to blind one to the complex interactions by which ecosystems, beneficiaries, and myriad other social actors interact to manage ecosystems and create human value. The service-dominant logic (S-D logic) framework, which views all value as being co-created by multiple actors engaged in the exchange of service, offers a valuable perspective by which the ecosystem services concept may be recast. Similarly, the ecosystem services lexicon can make important contributions to S-D logic by providing a means to describe and quantify the universal importance of natural ecosystems to human service systems. In this chapter, we briefly describe the ecosystem service concept and introduce the means for incorporating ecosystem services (as potential service offerings) into the S-D logic framework. We then use this modified framework to explore two case studies, recreation on U.S. family forests and a biodiversity market in Finland.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Because supporting services do not directly provide benefits to people, they have often been dismissed over concerns about double-counting benefits—especially in the context of monetary valuation and ecosystem service accounting (see, for example, Boyd and Banzhaf 2007). Consequently, supporting services have often been recast as intermediate (as opposed to final) services or treated as being synonymous with ecological functions or processes (Potschin-Young et al. 2017).
- 2.
Although this presumption is likely to be broadly true for many different types of services (e.g., bird watching), the relationship between biodiversity and human welfare is complex and context-dependent. See, for example, Harrison et al. (2014).
References
Abson, D. J., von Wehrden, H., Baumgärtner, S., Fischer, J., Hanspach, J., et al. (2014). Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 103, 29–37.
Arnold, M. (2017). Fostering sustainability by linking co-creation and relationship management concepts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 179–188.
Bateman, I. J., Mace, G. M., Fezzi, C., Atkinson, G., & Turner, K. (2011). Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environmental & Resource Economics, 48, 177–218.
Bennett, E. M., Peterson, G. D., & Gordon, L. J. (2009). Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters, 12, 1394–1404.
Bocken, N. M. P., Rana, P., & Short, S. W. (2015). Value mapping for sustainable business thinking. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 32(1), 67–81.
Boulter, J. (Ed). (2011). Approach for reporting on ecosystem services: Incorporating ecosystem services into an organization’s performance initiative. Global Reporting Initiative. ISBN: 978-90-8866-0528.
Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63, 616–626.
Butler, B.J., Hewes, J.H., Dickinson, B., Andrejczyk, K., Butler, S.M., & Markowski-Lindsay, M. (2016). USDA forest service national woodland owner survey: National, regional, and state statistics for family forest and woodland ownerships with 10+ acres, 2011–2013. Res. Bull. NRS-99. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.
Caputo, J. (2012). Commoditization and the origins of American silviculture. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 32, 86–95.
Caputo, J., & Butler, B. (2017). Ecosystem service supply and capacity on U.S. family forestlands. Forests, 8(10), 395.
Caputo, J., Beier, C. M., Groffman, P. M., Burns, D. A., Beall, F. D., et al. (2016). Effects of harvesting forest biomass on water and climate regulation services: A synthesis of long-term ecosystem experiments in Eastern North America. Ecosystems, 19, 271–283.
Chen, W., Chen, J. M., Price, D. T., Cihlar, J., & Liu, J. (2000). Carbon offset potentials of four alternative forest management strategies in Canada: A simulation study. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 5(2), 143–169.
Costanza, R. (2008). Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biological Conservation, 141, 350–352.
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., et al. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152–158.
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., et al. (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services, 28, 1–16.
Daily, G. C., Soderqvist, T., Aniyar, S., Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., et al. (2000). The value of nature and the nature of value. Science, 289, 395–396.
D’Amato, D., Rekola, M., Wan, M., Cai, D., & Toppinen, A. (2017). Effects of industrial plantations on ecosystem services and livelihoods: Perspectives of rural communities in China. Land Use Policy, 63, 266–278.
Davies, L., Kwiatkowski, L., Gaston, K. J., Beck, H., Brett, H., et al. (2011). Urban, Chapter 10. UK National Ecosystem Assessment, The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report (pp. 361–410). Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.
de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7, 260–272.
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., et al. (2015). The IPBES conceptual framework—Connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16.
Eriksson, E., Gillespie, A. R., Gustavsson, L., Langvall, O., Olsson, et al. (2007). Integrated carbon analysis of forest management practices and wood substitution. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 37(3), 671–681.
Finnish Forest Association. (2017). Forest ownership. Retrieved from January 19, 2018, from https://www.smy.fi/en/forest-fi/graphs/forest-owners/.
Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68, 643–653.
Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A. V., Reyers, B., & Rockström, J. (2016). Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society, 21(3), 41.
Froger, G., Boisvert, V., Méral, P., Le Coq, J. F., Caron, A., et al. (2015). Market-based instruments for ecosystem services between discourse and reality: An economic and narrative analysis. Sustainability, 7(9), 11595–11611.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 69, 1209–1218.
GRI. (2011). Approach for reporting on ecosystem services: Incorporating ecosystem services into an organizational performance disclosure. The Global Reporting Initiative.
Grönroos, C. (2008). Service logic revisited: Who creates value? And who co-creates? European Business Review, 20(4), 298–314.
Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2010). The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In D. Raffaelli & C. Frid (Eds.), Ecosystem ecology: A new synthesis. BES Ecological Reviews Series (pp. 110–139). Cambridge: CUP.
Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2013). CICES V4.3—Report prepared following consultation on CICES version 4. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003.
Hansjürgens, B., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Berghöfer, A., & Lienhoop, N. (2017). Justifying social values of nature: Economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences. Ecosystem Services, 23, 9–17.
Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J., Iceland, C., & Finisdore, J. (2012). The corporate ecosystem services review: Guidelines for identifying business risks and opportunities arising from ecosystem change. Version 2.0. World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
Harrison, P. A., Berry, P. M., Simpson, G., Haslett, J. R., Blicharska, M., Bucur, M., et al. (2014). Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosystem Services, 9, 191–203.
Hirsch, F., Clark, D., Vihervaara, P., & Primmer, E. (2011). Payments for forest-related ecosystem services: What role for a green economy (30 pp.)? A background paper for a workshop on “Payments for ecosystem services: What role for a green economy? Concept, approaches and case studies”, Geneva 4–5 July 2011. Geneva: UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Section. Retrieved June 29, 2019, from https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/meetings/20110704/06062011pes_background_paper.pdf.
Jäppinen, J. P., & Heliölä, J. P. (2015). Towards a sustainable and genuinely green economy: The value and social significance of ecosystem services in Finland. Helsinki: The Finnish Ministry of Environment.
Jax, K. (2005). Function and “functioning” in ecology: What does it mean? Oikos, 111(3), 641–648.
Juutinen, A., & Ollikainen, M. (2010). Conservation contracts for forest biodiversity: Theory and experience from Finland. Forest Science, 56, 201–211.
Kettunen, M., Vihervaara, P., Kinnunen, S., D’Amato, D., Badura, T., et al. (2012). Socio-economic importance of ecosystem services in the Nordic Countries: Synthesis in the context of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). Nordic Council of Ministers.
Kosoy, N., & Corbera, E. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics, 69, 1228–1236.
La Notte, A., D’Amato, D., Mäkinen, H., Parracchini, M. L., Liquete, C., et al. (2017). Ecosystem services classification: A systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework. Ecological Indicators, 74, 1–11.
Laininen, J., & Matthies, B. D. (2017). How private finance can raise efficiency in conservation markets. Environmental finance. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from https://www.environmental-finance.com/content/analysis/how-private-finance-can-raise-efficiency-in-conservation-markets.htm.
Landers, D. H., & Nahlik, A. M. (2013). Final ecosystem goods and services classification system (FEGS-CS). Report number EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). Service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives, possibilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2008). Fundamentals of service science. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 18–20.
Maglio, P. P., Vargo, S. L., Caswell, N., & Spohrer, J. (2009). The service system is the basic abstraction of service science. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 7(4), 395–406.
Matthies, B. D., & Valsta, L. T. (2016). Optimal forest species mixture with carbon storage and albedo effect for climate change mitigation. Ecological Economics, 123, 95–105.
Matthies, B., D’Amato, D., Berghäll, S., Ekholm, T., Hoen, H., et al. (2016a). An ecosystem service-dominant logic?—Integrating the ecosystem service approach and the service-dominant logic. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 51–64.
Matthies, B. D., Kalliokoski, T., Eyvindson, K., Honkela, N., Hukkinen, J. I., et al. (2016b). Nudging service providers and assessing service trade-offs to reduce the social inefficiencies of payments for ecosystem services schemes. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 228–237.
Matthies, B. D., Vainio, A., & D’Amato, D. (2018). Not so biocentric—Environmental benefits and harm associated with the acceptance of forest management objectives by future environmental professionals. Ecosystem Services, 29, 128–136.
Maxwell, D. (2017). Valuing natural capital: Future proofing business and finance. Routledge.
Metsonpolku. (2016). METSO forest biodiversity. Retrieved January 19, 2018, from http://www.metsonpolku.fi/en-US.
Milder, J. C., Scherr, S. J., & Bracer, C. (2010). Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 4.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Müller, F., & Burkhard, B. (2012). The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 1, 26–30.
Naeem, S. (2013). Ecosystem services: Is a planet servicing one species likely to function? In R. Rozzi (Ed.), Linking ecology and ethics for a changing world: Values, philosophy, and action (pp. 303–321). New York: Springer.
Norgaard, R. B. (2010). Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics, 69, 1219–1227.
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., et al. (2017). Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 7–16.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 83–96.
Peppard, J., & Rylander, A. (2006). From value chain to value network: Insights for mobile operators. European Management Journal, 24(2), 128–141.
Peterson, M. J., Hall, D. M., Feldpausch-Parker, A. M., & Peterson, T. R. (2010). Obscuring ecosystem function with application of the ecosystem services concept: Essay. Conservation Biology, 24, 113–119.
Pingoud, K., Pohjola, J., & Valsta, L. (2010). Assessing the integrated climatic impacts of forestry and wood products. Silva Fennica, 44(1), 155–175.
Polasky, S., & Segerson, K. (2009). Integrating ecology and economics in the study of ecosystem services: Some lessons learned. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1, 409–434.
Potschin, M. B., Primmer, E., Furman, E., & Haines-Young, R. H. (2016). Have ecosystem services been oversold? A response to Silvertown. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31(5), 334–335.
Potschin-Young, M., Czùcz, B., Liquete, C., Maes, J., Rusch, G. M., et al. (2017). Intermediate ecosystem services: An empty concept? Ecosystem Services, 27, 124–126.
Potschin-Young, M., Haines-Young, R., Görg, C., Heink, U., Jax, K., et al. (2018). Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade. Ecosystem Services, 29, 428–440, Part C.
Primmer, E., Jokinen, P., Blicharska, M., Barton, D. N., Bugter, R., et al. (2015). Governance of ecosystem services: A framework for empirical analysis. Ecosystem Services, 16, 158–166.
Ramirez, R. (1999). Value co-production: Intellectual origins and implications for practice and research. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 49–65.
Renard, D., Rhemtull, J. M., & Bennett, E. M. (2015). Historical dynamics in ecosystem service bundles. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences, The United States of America, 112, 13411–13416.
Sandbrook, C. G., Fisher, J. A., & Vira, B. (2013). What do conservationists think about markets? Geoforum, 50, 232–240.
Sathre, R., & O’Connor, J. (2010). Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(2), 104–114.
Schröter, M., Stumpf, K. H., Loos, J., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Böhnke-Henrichs, A., et al. (2017). Refocusing ecosystem services towards sustainability. Ecosystem Services, 25, 35–43.
Silvertown, J. (2015). Have ecosystem services been oversold? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30(11), 641–648.
Smith, A., & Cannan, E. (2000). The wealth of nations. New York: Modern Library.
Smith, A. C., Harrison, P. A., Pérez Soba, M., Archaux, F., Blicharska, M., et al. (2017). How natural capital delivers ecosystem services: A typology derived from a systematic review. Ecosystem Services, 26, 111–126.
Spangenberg, J. H., von Haaren, C., & Settele, J. (2014). The ecosystem service cascade: Further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy. Ecological Economics, 104, 22–32.
Spash, C. L. (2015). Bulldozing biodiversity: The economics of offsets and trading-in nature. Biological Conservation, 192, 541–551.
Spohrer, J., Maglio, P. P., Bailey, J., & Gruhl, D. (2007). Steps toward a science of service systems. Computer, 40, 71–77.
Storbacka, K., & Lehtinen, J. R. (2001). Customer relationship management: Creating competitive advantage through win-win relationship strategies. Singapore: McGraw Hill.
TEEB. (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity ecological and economic foundations. London: Earthscan.
TEEB. (2012). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity in business and enterprise. London: Earthscan.
van den Belt, M., & Stevens, S. M. (2016). Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 22, 60–72.
Vargo, S. L. (2009). Toward a transcending conceptualization of relationship: A service-dominant perspective. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 24(5–6), 373–379.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1–17.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2006). Service-dominant logic: What it is, what it is not, what it might be. In R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate and directions (pp. 43–56). Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe Inc.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2011). It’s all B2B…and beyond: Toward a systems perspective of the market. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 181–187.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2017). Service-dominant logic 2025. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46–67.
Vargo, S. L., & Morgan, F. W. (2005). Services in society and academic thought: An historical analysis. Journal of Macromarketing, 25(1), 42–53.
Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26, 145–152.
Waage, S., & Kester, C. (2014). Private sector engagement with ecosystem services: March 2014 update. BSR.
Wallace, K. J. (2007). Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions. Biological Conservation, 139(3–4), 235–246.
Wallace, K. J., & Jago, M. (2017). Category mistakes: A barrier to effective environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 199, 13–20.
Zeithaml, V. A., Rust, R. T., & Lemon, K. N. (2001). The customer pyramid: Creating and serving profitable customers. California Management Review, 43(4), 118–142.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Caputo, J., D’Amato, D., Matthies, B.D. (2019). Ecosystem Services in the Service-Dominant Logic Framework. In: Hujala, T., Toppinen, A., J. Butler, B. (eds) Services in Family Forestry. World Forests, vol 24. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28999-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28999-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28998-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28999-7
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)