Ecosystems

DOI: 10.1007/s10021-016-0049-0
Ó 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York

20TH ANNIVERSARY PAPER

Research Frontiers in Ecosystem

Service Science
Elena M. Bennett*

Department of Natural Resource Sciences and McGill School of Environment, McGill University, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Montreal,
Quebec H9X 3V9, Canada

ABSTRACT
How are ecosystem services conceptualized, ana- sion of ecosystem services; and (3) employing
lyzed, and forecast into the future? How can stakeholder knowledge in co-designing research
ecosystem service science be advanced to improve that better addresses decision-makers’ most press-
environmental decision-making at all scales? In ing questions. Addressing these three challenges
this paper, I focus on three critical challenges in will advance ecosystem science and improve the
ecosystem service science that must be addressed to use of ecosystem services in understanding and
better understand, forecast, and manage ecosystem managing ecosystems.
services. These include (1) understanding the role
of nonlinearities, feedbacks, and legacies in the Key words: ecosystem services; research fron-
sustainable and resilient provision of ecosystem tiers; interdisciplinary science; systems ecology; co-
services; (2) understanding the role and interplay design; social–ecological systems.
of ecological and social components in the provi-

INTRODUCTION a valuable addition to the literature as a straight-

forward way to assess human impact ecosystems.
Ecosystem ecology, and its integration into the Although the term first emerged with the pub-
ecosystem services (ES, see Table 1 for definitions) lication of Nature’s Services in 1997 (Daily 1997),
literature, has led to good progress in mapping, its popularity skyrocketed during and after the
measuring, and modeling the provision of ES Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005).
(Carpenter and others 2009; Seppelt and others The MA aimed to assess the current state and
2012). Recent focus has been on understanding the trends in the provision of ES around the world,
mechanisms underlying the provision of ES, and understand the potential future provision of ES,
especially on the relationship between ecosystems, and how societies can respond to these changes
their processes and functions, and, ultimately, the with policies to help maintain, or even improve,
services provided by these ecosystems to humans the long-term provision of services. While previous
(Mitchell and others 2015). Much of this work is global assessments (for example, the Intergovern-
directed toward improving environmental deci- mental Panel on Climate Change) had focused
sion-making. Indeed, the concept of ES has become largely on the biophysical or biogeochemical envi-
ronment, the MA brought ecology and ecosystems
to center stage of a global assessment. In so doing, it
helped highlight the importance of nonlinearities,
Received 16 March 2016; accepted 4 August 2016; feedbacks, and interactions that are common
in the ecological literature, but were not fully
*Corresponding author; e-mail: [email protected]
E. M. Bennett

incorporated into the existing global assessments or But progress in some areas has been quicker than
their future scenarios at the time (Cumming and in others. Carpenter and others (2009) discussed
others 2005). the development of ES science and, importantly,
Since the MA, the concept of ES has grown in the remaining scientific gaps in our ability to use ES
popularity as an integrated and holistic way to to improve decision-making. These included the
understand and assess human impact on the pla- need to more fully incorporate the social–ecological
net, or on local or regional social–ecological system within which ES are produced, and
dynamics. Driving much of the uptake of ES sci- improving our ability to build quantitative models
ence is the thought that ES can lead to better that match our conceptual understanding of the
environmental decision-making, enabling com- linked social and ecological systems that produce
munities to undertake multifunctional planning, to and consume ES. That is, by 2009, some conceptual
understand the role of ecosystems in the provision ES models showed linked social–ecological systems
of services, and to forecast how changes in land use that incorporated diversity and included nonlinear
and land management might play out on the pro- relationships, feedbacks, and legacies; however,
vision of services in the future (Bennett and others quantitative models of ES provision rarely included
2015). It is important to note, though, that the is- more than one of these features, and our ability to
sue of trade-offs stemming from the demands we build models that quantitatively assessed these
make on ecosystems is not new. Ecologists and features of ES was limited. Carpenter and others
ecosystem managers have long dealt with trade-offs (2009) also discussed the need for a new kind of
in ecosystems, including through the multiple use interdisciplinary and integrated science to make ES
concept in forest management (Multiple Use Sus- knowledge practical and useable by land-use deci-
tained Yield Act 1960) and ecosystem management sion-makers.
in the 1990s (Christensen and others 1996). Encouraged by the potential for work on ES to
As its popularity has grown, scientists began to improve decision-making, publications in ES have
report on key ES research gaps that were impairing continued to increase dramatically in recent years
our ability to use ES science to improve decision- (Seppelt and others 2012). Yet, despite a growing
making. These included the lack of a robust theory body of work on ES, our understanding of their
linking diversity to ES, the scarcity of methods for ecological foundation—and especially the role that
cross-scale analysis of ES, poor or nonexistent ecosystems (including humans) play in the delivery
indicators and data for many services, especially of ES—remains incomplete. In the remainder of
data with adequate historical records, and the this paper, I outline three major challenges for
limited understanding of the role of policies, trade, improving our understanding of ES. In each sec-
technology, and other human actions on the pro- tion, I explain the challenge, list some of the most
vision of services (Carpenter and others 2006). provocative questions yet to be answered with re-
Others have called for deeper awareness of the gard to each challenge, and discuss why it is
interdependence of ecosystems and human well- important for the advancement of ES science to
being and more work with leaders in decision- take on these questions.
making context to develop the knowledge and tools
necessary to better integrate natural capital in
TAKING AN (ECO)SYSTEMS-BASED
decision-making (Guerry and others 2015).
The scientific community set about trying to fill APPROACH TO ES
these gaps and learned, among other things, that Many ES assessments assume a more or less linear,
certain forms of biodiversity play a key role in one-way flow from ecosystems to services to ben-
ecosystem function, and probably in the provision of efits for people. That is, ES science often starts from
services (Balvanera and others 2006). The scientific the position that services are the result of ecosys-
community also learned that the scale of analysis can tem function, which is, in turn, influenced by
alter our understanding of services provided (An- biophysical and biogeochemical aspects of the
derson and others 2009), that proxies for ES, espe- ecosystem, such as land cover (Haines-Young and
cially those based on land use, were inadequate Potschin, inpress). This assumption is the basis for
(Eigenbrod and others 2010), and that landscape benefits transfer quantifications of the provision of
configuration—and the tendency to overlook it in services based on land use (Costanza and others
our models—may be part of the answer to why land- 1997; Van der Ploeg and others 2010), as well as
use proxies are often inadequate (Mitchell and oth- more ecologically nuanced models, such as those
ers 2013; Chaplin-Kramer and others 2016). taking landscape configuration (Chaplin-Kramer
 Research Frontiers in Ecosystem Service Science

and others 2015) or simplification (Rusch and proach to understanding and quantifying ES.
others 2016) into account. Addressing these questions would improve our
Yet, ecosystem ecologists have made significant ability to use ES effectively in ecosystem manage-
progress in providing ecosystem-level evidence of ment for long-term sustainability and resilience.
multiple nonlinearities (Liu and others 2007), For example, Rocha and others (2015) investigate
feedbacks (Liu and others 2015), and legacies the impact of marine regime shifts on ES, discov-
(Foster and others 2003) in social and ecological ering that regime shifts are driven by food pro-
systems that can lead to critical thresholds (Biggs duction, climate change, and coastal development,
and others 2012), all of which can affect the resi- with impacts primarily on cultural services, biodi-
lience and sustainability of ES provision (Liu and versity, and primary production. These clusters
others 2015). Ecologists have also noted the highlight the need for coordinated actions across
importance of distinguishing between ES capacity, multiple drivers and scales to protect the resilience
demand, and flow to address questions of sustain- provision of ES. Gordon and others (2008) discov-
ability (Villamagna and others 2013). However, ered that changes in the blue water, green water,
these concepts are rarely addressed in the ES lit- and atmospheric parts of the hydrological cycle due
erature (but see Koch and others 2009 on nonlin- to human agriculture and land-use practices can
earities, Cumming and others 2014 on feedbacks, lead to sudden changes in the provision of agri-
and Renard and others 2015 or Navarro and Periera cultural services such as food production. Further
2012 on legacies). Incorporating this understanding exploration of the causes and consequences of re-
of systems from ecosystem ecology into ES science gime shifts in ES provision in other ecosystems is
should lead to important advances in our concep- needed.
tual understanding of ES as well as their accurate
quantification. Without considering nonlinearities,
BOX 1. QUESTIONS FOR ECOSYSTEM SCIENCE
feedbacks, and thresholds in social and ecological
systems, scientists and ecosystem managers are ABOUT ES
likely to misunderstand the mechanisms behind ES
provision and improperly forecast their future
provision under different management scenarios,  What are the patterns, causes, and consequences
ultimately failing to serve the purpose of using ES of spatial heterogeneity in ecosystem function
to improve ecosystem management. and the provision of ES?
Box 1 lists some of the most compelling, and as  How do multiple ES interact, and what do those
yet unanswered, questions that take a systems ap- interactions mean for ecosystem management?
 What is the role of historical legacies in the
provision of ES today?
Table 1. Glossary of Key Terms Used in This Pa-  What future legacies are we creating now as a
per consequence of the way we are using ES?
Biodiversity: ‘‘The variability among living organisms
 What are the feedbacks among fast and slow
from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine variables, and what is the impact of these
and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological com- interactions on the resilience of ES provision?
plexes of which they are part; this includes diversity  What is the role of regulating ES in the long-term
within species, between species and of ecosystems. sustainability of ecosystems?
Defined here following the 1993 Convention on Bio-  What causes regime shifts in the provision of ES,
logical Diversity (CBD) (http://www.cbd.int/ and what are the consequences of such regime
convention/articles).’’ (Mace and others 2012) shifts?
Ecosystem function: An interaction among organisms
and their ecosystem(s) that underpin the ability of an
ecosystem to provide ecosystem services. (Based on De FROM DISCIPLINARY TO INTERDISCIPLINARY
Groot and others 2010)
Ecosystem service: An ecosystem function from which ES SCIENCE
humans can derive benefits, often through additional The notion that ES are provided by ecosystems in a
inputs of other forms of capital. linear fashion quickly becomes complex when one
Ecosystem process: ‘‘Changes in the stocks and/or flows
tries to understand how the dynamics of the bio-
of materials in an ecosystem, resulting from interac-
tions among organisms and with their physical-chem-
logical system, and its interaction with the human
ical environment.’’ (Mace and others 2012) sphere, translate into the actual stocks and flows
of services (Reyers and others 2013). Yet, the
E. M. Bennett

tendency in ES science has been to frame work of decision-making: while decisions may brew for a
with respect to ecological processes or with respect long time, the need to take a particular one often
to human intervention rather than on under- comes up too quickly to be addressed by a scientific
standing the relative importance and interplay of study developed de novo to answer that particular
ecological and social components in the provision question. Additionally, most ES decisions are
of services. inherently interdisciplinary, focused on multiple
Thus, much of what scientists know about ES services, and change through time (Mauser and
remains disciplinary, often using ES to address key others 2013). So the relatively disciplinary, static,
questions important to a discipline, but perhaps not single-service knowledge produced thus far in ES
important to managing services themselves. For science is often ultimately not very helpful to many
example, ES-focused literature might map the decision-makers.
provision of ES, but does little to understand the How can science move forward to enhance on-
role of biodiversity in the provision of ES. The the-ground resilient and sustainable provision of
biodiversity-service literature, on the other hand, ES? One method may be through co-development
has tended to focus on communities whose struc- of knowledge (Future Earth 2013; UN 2012). That
ture differs from the communities providing ser- is, by engaging decision-makers in the process of
vices in real landscapes (Kremen 2005). As a result, scientific discovery about ES, both science pro-
the literature on ES tends to be isolated rather than duced and its uptake by users might be improved.
synthetic and it can be difficult to bring together Who knows better than the decision-makers the
information from the various parts of our knowl- type of information that would be useful for
edge about ES to improve decision-making, which improving their decisions? In fact, stakeholder
is, by nature, interdisciplinary. involvement is a better predictor of policy change
Box 2 lists some stimulating questions about the than the nature of the findings themselves (Posner
ecology of ES that show where a more interdisci- and others 2016). In situations of complex deci-
plinary ES science is needed. Answering these sion-making that must incorporate both scientific
questions would move ES science toward a more understanding and societal norms, values, and
thoughtful understanding of the role of people in perspectives, co-design is one way to avoid scien-
the provision of ecosystem services, as well as a tific production of answers that are not adequate
better ability to answer decision-makers’ questions solutions (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1990).
about ES. Increasingly, ES science is turning in this direc-
tion, focusing on stakeholder-designed scenarios
(Carpenter and others 2015; Oteros-Rozas and
BOX 2: QUESTIONS IN INTERDISCIPLINARY
others 2015; Malinga and others 2013) and science
ES SCIENCE (Mitchell and others 2015). Martinez-Harms and
others (2015) suggest that if ES science is to gain
traction in policy, scientists must better articulate
 What is the role of the ecosystem (including objectives, evaluate consequences of alternative
biodiversity) relative to human capital in the management actions, and work more closely with
provision of ES? stakeholders. Indeed, much of the learning and
 What are the key drivers and controls on ES benefit from co-designed science may be about
provision in different settings and for different building trusting relationships between scientists
services? What generalities can be drawn across and practitioners rather than about the delivery of
systems and services? facts from one to the other.
 How are ES provided to urban areas? Furthermore, engaging in this type of co-design
 What is the role of trade in the provision of ES? process in ES science encourages work at a scale
 Do poor countries and regions subsidize the small enough to connect to the people making key
provision of services to wealthier areas? And if decisions, enhancing linkages from knowledge to
so, for which services? action in the pursuit of sustainability (Matson and
others 2016). Working at this scale may be
important for other reasons: while ES scenarios will
CO-DEVELOPING KNOWLEDGE build on the well-known climate scenarios of the
Despite advances in ES science, research that truly IPCC, Kok and others (2016) argue that ES are
informs decisions and improves environmental uniquely and strongly influenced by local biodi-
decision-making has been limited (Kirchoff and versity and ES are strongly shaped by local geog-
others 2013). In part, this is because of the nature raphy, history, and society, which will require a
 Research Frontiers in Ecosystem Service Science

different kind of science, one that takes these local from ES, and when, where, and how ES are
factors into account more than current global sce- delivered. Here, ecologists and decision-makers
narios and global analyses do. need to recognize that ES are not provided by a
The challenging questions in co-design (listed in linear, one-way flow from ecosystems to people,
‘‘Box 3’’) revolve around improving our under- but that human societies invest in all forms of
standing of the type of learning that happens in co- capital in ways that affect the flow and mix of ES
designed projects, and how to ensure that co-de- provided in any given location. Finally, it is not
signed science leads to better decisions. Answering enough simply to make the best possible science
these questions can help scientists understand how available; engaging decision-makers in the process
best to undertake co-design and what can be ex- of scientific discovery about ES will increase
pected in terms of improved decision-making or appreciation of the improvements ES science might
increased engagement as a result of co-designing bring to environmental decision-making. Focused
our research projects. attention on these three ES science challenges can
lead to change the way people think about human
interaction with ecosystems and improve ecosys-
BOX 3. QUESTIONS ABOUT CO-DESIGN OF ES
tem management for environmental sustainability.
RESEARCH
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 Are stakeholders better informed or likely to Dr. Bennett is supported by an E.W.R. Steacie
make different decisions after participating in a Fellowship and a Discovery Grant (RGPIN 327077)
co-designed project on ES? from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Re-
 Are stakeholders more likely to reach out to ES search Council of Canada. She thanks her lab
researchers when facing a decision about which group, including the past and present members, for
they are unsure after participating in co-designed many hours of productive, fascinating, and fun
research projects? conversation about ecosystem services and ES sci-
ence that has led to some of the ideas presented in
this paper.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Ecosystem services are often promoted as a concept
that can revolutionize ecosystem management or REFERENCES
change the way people think about human inter-
Anderson BJ, Armsworth PR, Eigenbrod F, Thomas CD, Gillings
action with ecosystems. Yet the reality sometimes
S, Heinemeyer A, Roy DB, Gaston KJ. 2009. Spatial covari-
fails to live up to this lofty goal. I have highlighted ance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service pri-
three key challenges that ecosystem science must orities. Journal of Applied Ecology 46(4):888–96.
face to advance our understanding of ES and im- Balvanera P, Pfisterer AB, Buchmann N, He J-S, Nakashizuka T,
prove ecological management. Improving envi- Raffaelli D, Schmid B. 2006. Quantifying the evidence for
ronmental decision-making through ES starts with biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services.
Ecology Letters 9(10):1146–56.
deepening our ecosystem-level understanding of
Bennett, EM, W Cramer, A Begossi, G Cundill, B Egoh, IR
ES (‘‘Box 1’’), expands to include better addressing
Geijzendorffer, CB Krug, S Lavorel, L Lebel, B Martin-Lopez, P
transdisciplinary issues (‘‘Box 2’’), and delves even Meyfroidt, HA Mooney, JL Nel, U Pascual, K Payet-Lebourges,
further to fully engaging stakeholders in co-design N Perez Harguindeguy, GD Peterson, A-H, Prieur-Richard, B
to improve the uptake of ES understanding Reyers, P Roebeling, R Seppelt, M Solan, P Tschakert, T
(‘‘Box 3’’). Deepening our ecosystem-level under- Tschntke, BL Turner, PH Verburg, E Viglizzo, P White, and G
Woodward. 2015. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services
standing to improve decision-making will require
and human well-being for sustainability: Three Challenges for
the scientists to focus on the issues that determine designing research for sustainability. Current Opinion in
the sustainability of ES provision, including feed- Environmental Sustainability 14:76–85
backs and other ES interactions; historical legacies; Biggs R, Schlüter M, Biggs D, Bohensky EL, BurnSilver S,
regulating ES and their role in resilience; and ES Cundill G, Dakos V, Daw TM, Evans LS, Kotschy K, Leitch
quantification that distinguishes between capacity AM, Meek C, Quinlan A, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Robards MD,
Schoon ML, Schultz L, West PC. 2012. Toward Principles for
to provide ES, demand for ES, and flow of ES to
Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services. Annual Re-
people. Moving beyond ecosystem-level questions, view of Environment and Resources 37:421–48.
an interdisciplinary approach can help understand Carpenter SR, Booth EG, Gillon S, Kucharik CJ, Loheide S, Mase
the key role of trade and other human interven- AS, Motew M, Qiu J, Rissman AR, Seifert J, Soylu E,
tions that help determine who receives and benefits Turner MG, Wardropper CB. 2015. Plausible futures of a
E. M. Bennett

social-ecological system: Yahara watershed, Wisconsin. USA. Guerry, AD, S Polasky, J Lubchenko, R Chaplin-Kramer, GC
Ecology and Society 20(2):10. Daily, R Griffin, M Ruckelshaus, IJ Bateman, A Duraiappah, T
Carpenter SR, DeFries R, Dietz T, Mooney HA, Polasky S, Reid Elmqvist, MW Feldman, C Folke, J Hoekstra, PM Kareiva, BL
WV, Scholes RJ. 2006. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Keeler, S Li, E McKenzie, Z Ouyang, B Reyers, TH Ricketts, J
Research Needs Source: Science (314) 5797: 257–258 ROckstrom, H Tallia, and B Vira. 2015. Natural capital and
ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to
Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS,
Diaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM, practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Perrings C, Reid WV, Sarukhan J, Scholes RJ, Whyte A. 2009. 112: 7348–7355
Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Mil- Haines-Young R, Potschin M. in press. The links between bio-
lennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National diversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raf-
Academy of Sciences 106(5):1305–12. faelli D, Frid C, Eds. Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis.
Chaplin-Kramer R, Sharp RP, Mandle L, Sim S, Johnson J, BES Ecological Reviews Series, chap. 7. Cambridge: CUP.
Butnar I, Milà i Canals L, Eichelberger BA, Ramler I, Mueller Kirchhoff CJ, Lemos MC, Dessai S. 2013. Actionable Knowledge
C, McLachlan N, Yousefi A, King H, Kareiva PM. 2015. Spatial for Environmental Decision Making: Broadening the Usability
patterns of agricultural expansion determine impacts on bio- of Climate Science. Annual Review of Environment and Re-
diversity and carbon storage. Proceedings of the National sources 38:393–414.
Academy of Sciences 112(24): 7402–7407 Koch, EW, EB Barbier BR Silliman, DJ Reed, GM Perillo, SD
Chaplin-Kramer R, Hamel P, Sharp R, Kowal V, Wolny S, Sim S, Hacker, DF Granek, JH Primavera, N Muthiga, SPolasky, BS
Mueller C. 2016. Landscape configuration is the primary dri- Halpern, CJ Kennedy, CV Kappel, and E Wolanski. 2009.
ver of impacts on water quality associated with agricultural Non-linearity in ecosystem services: temporal and spatial
expansion. Environmental Research Letters 11(7): 074012 variability in coastal protection. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Christensen N, Bartuska AM, Brown JH, Carpenter S, D’Antonio Environment 7: 29–37.
C, Francis R, Franklin JF, MacMahon JA, Noss RF, Parsons DJ, Kok MTJ, Kok K, Peterson GD, Hill R, Agard J, Carpenter SR.
Peterson CH, Turner MG, Woodmansee TG. 1996. The report 2016. Biodiversity and ecosystem services require IPBES to
of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the sci- take novel approach to scenarios. Sustainability Science.
entific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applica- doi:10.1007/s11625-016-0354-8.
tions 6:665–91. Kremen, C. 2005. Managing ecosystem services: what do we
Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon need to know about their ecology? Ecology Letters 8(5): 468–
B, Naeem S, Limburg K, Paruelo J, O’Neill RV, Raskin R, 479.
Sutton P, van den Belt M. 1997. The value of the world’s Liu, J, HA Mooney, V Hull, SJ Davis, J Gaskell, T Hertel, J
ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–60. Lubchenco, KC Seto, P Gleick, C Kremen, and S Li. 2015.
Cumming GS, Alcamo J, Sala O, Swart R, Bennett EM, Zurek M. Systems integration for global sustainability. Science 347: 964
2005. Are existing global scenarios consistent with ecological Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, Pell
feedbacks? Ecosystems 8:143–52. AN, Deadman P, Kratz T, Lubchenco J, Ostrom E, Ouyang Z,
Cumming GS, Buerkert A, Hoffmann EM, Schlect E, von Cra- Provencher W, Redman CL, Schneider SH, Taylor WW. 2007.
mon-Taubadel S, Tscharntke T. 2014. Implications of agri- Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science
cultural transitions and urbanization for ecosystem services. 317:1513–16.
Nature 515:50–7. Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH. 2012. Biodiversity and ecosystem
Daily GC, Ed. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural services: A multi-layered relationship. Trends in Ecology and
Ecosystems. 1997. Washington DC: Island Press. Evolution 27:19–26.
De Groot R, Fisher B, Christie M, Aronson J, Braat L, Gowdy J, Malinga R, Gordon LJ, Lindborg R, Jewitt G. 2013. Using par-
Haines-Young R, Maltby E, Neuville A, Polasky S, Portela R, ticipatory scenario planning to identify ecosystem services in
Ring R. 2010. Chapter 1: Integrating the ecological and eco- changing landscapes. Ecology and Society 18(4):10. doi:10.
nomic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service val- 5751/ES-05494-180410.
uation. In: Kumar P, Ed. The Economics of Ecosystems and Martinez-Harms MJ, Bryan BA, Balvanera P, Law EA, Rhodes
Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. London JR, Possingham HP, Wilson KA. 2015. Making decisions for
and Washington: Earthscan. managing ecosystem services. Biological Conservation
Eigenbrod F, Armsworth PR, Anderson BJ, Heinemeyer A, 184:229–38.
Gillings S, Roy DB, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ. 2010. The impact Matson, P, WC Clark, and K Andersson. 2016. Pursuing Sus-
of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution tainability: A Guide to the Science and Practice. Princeton
of ecosystem services. Journal of Applied Ecology 47(2): University Press, 248 pp.
377–85. Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M, Schmalzbauer BS, Hackmann H,
Foster DR, Swanson F, Aber J, Burke I, Brokaw N, Tilman D, Leemans R, Moore H. 2013. Transdisciplinary global change
Knapp A. 2003. The Importance of Land-Use Legacies to research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Cur-
Ecology and Conservation. BioScience 53:77–88. rent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5(3–4):420–31.
Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR. 1990. Uncertainty and quality in science Mitchell MGE, Bennett EM, Gonzalez A. 2013. Linking land-
for policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. scape connectivity and ecosystem service provision: current
Future Earth 2013. Future Earth Intitial Design: Report of the knowledge and research gaps. Ecosystems 16:894–908.
Transition Team. International Council for Science (ICSU). Mitchell MGEEM, Bennett A Gonzalez, Lechowicz M, Rhem-
Gordon LJ, Peterson GD, Bennett EM. 2008. Agricultural mod- tulla J, Cardille JA, Vanderheyden K, Poirier-Ghys G, Renard
ifications of hydrological flows create ecological surprises. D, Delmotte S, Albert C, Rayfield B, Dumitru M, Huang H-H,
Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 23:211–19. Kipp R, Larouche M, Liss K, Maguire D, Martins K, Terrado M,
 Research Frontiers in Ecosystem Service Science

Ziter C, Taliana L, Dancose K. 2015. Montérégie Connection: services. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
Connecting landscape structure, biodiversity, ecosystem ser- London B: Biological Sciences 370(1659):1–12.
vices, and stakeholders at multiple scales for decision-making. Rusch A, Chaplin-Kramer R, Gardiner MM, Hawro V, Holland J,
Ecology and Society 20(4):15. Landis D, Thies C, Tscharntke T, Weisser WW, Winqvist C,
Navarro LM, Pereira HM. 2012. Rewilding abandoned land- Woltz M, Bommarco R. 2016. Agriculture. Ecosystems and
scapes in Europe. Ecosystems 15:900–12. Environment 221:198–204.
Oteros-Rozas E, Martin-Lopez B, Daw TM, Bohensiy EL, Butler Seppelt R, Fath B, Burkhard B, Fisher JL, Gret-Regamey A,
JRA, Hill R, Martin-Ortega J, Quinlan A, Ravera F, Ruiz- Lautenbach S, Pert P, Hotes S, Spangenberg J, Verburg PH,
Mallen I, Thyresson M, Mistry J, Palomo I, Peterson GD, Van Oudenhoven APE. 2012. Form follows function?
Plieninger T, Waylen KA, Beach DM, Bohnet IC, Hamann M, Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments based
Hanspach J, Hubacek K, Lavorel S, Vilardy SP. 2015. Partici- on reviews and case studies. Ecological Indicators 21:145–54.
patory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological re- United Nations (UN). UN (United Nations). The future we want.
search: insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecology Conference Outcome A/CONF.216/L.1, United Nations, New
and Society 20(4):32. York (2012).
Posner SM, McKenzie E, Ricketts TH. 2016. Policy impacts of Van der Ploeg, S and RS de Groot. 2010. The TEEB Valuation
ecosystem services knowledge. Proceedings of the National Database—a searchable database of 1310 estimates of mone-
Academy of Sciences 113(7):1760–5. tary values of ecosystem services. Foundation for Sustainable
Renard D, Rhemtulla JM, Bennett EM. 2015. Historical dynamics Development, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Available at:
in ecosystem service bundles. Proceedings of the National http://www.fsd.nl/esp/80763/5/0/50
Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.1502565112. Villamagna AM, Angermeier PL, Bennett EM. 2013. Capacity,
Reyers B, Biggs R, Cumming GS, Hejnowicz AP, Polasky S. 2013. pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for
Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social– ecological analyzing ecosystem service delivery. Ecological Complexity
approach. Front Ecol Environ 11:268–73. 15:114–21.
Rocha J, Yletyinen J, Biggs R, Blenckner T, Peterson GD. 2015.
Marine regime shifts: drivers and impacts on ecosystem