You are here:
Are carrots, corn and cattle really provided by Nature- If not, how can we appropriately identify the goods and services derived from agroecosystems?
Citation:
Landers, D., A. Nahlik, AND M. Johnson. Are carrots, corn and cattle really provided by Nature- If not, how can we appropriately identify the goods and services derived from agroecosystems? ACES 2016, Jacksonville, FL, December 05 - 09, 2016.
Impact/Purpose:
This abstract introduces the notion of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) to the agricultural science community, many of whom believe that “crops” and “livestock” represent ecosystem services. The FEGS approach, as described in the FEGS Classification System, is a different and more logically sound way for this community to identify a set of ecosystems services, i.e. FEGS, that explicitly identify and focus on what the environment provides in agroecosystems and attempts to avoid what is attributable to human labor and capital. Importantly, the FEGS approach minimizes double counting and identifies beneficiaries of specific FEGS. This presentation is designed to initiate thoughtful contemplation of how best we should proceed with defining ecosystem services and applying them in agroecosystems. This presentation contributes to SHC 2.61.
Description:
People harbor different perspectives regarding the aspects of agroecosystems or cultivated lands that are or could be considered ecosystem services. The first issues that need to be addressed in this regard are to define agro-ecosystem services and to establish their potential purpose (or use) to human beneficiaries. This early decision provides the foundation for what ecosystem services are, who uses them, and if or how they can be quantified. An important point to consider is that agricultural activities, while performed in and on environments provided by nature, are characterized by human labor and capital originating in the human economy. There are inherent reasons to quantify (i.e., measure) ecosystem services in a relatively standard way across landscapes and even within political units, such as counties or nations. Standard approaches to defining and measuring can underpin a multitude of accounting activities such as assigning value to them using either monetary or non-monetary approaches. The ecosystem services community could benefit by applying an ecosystem services definition that embodies from where in the environment the “service” originates and, equally as important, the user or beneficiary of this service. If we focus on the subset of ecosystem services which are Final Ecosystem Goods and Services by adopting the definition of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (or FEGS), “components of nature, directly enjoyed, consumed or used to yield human well-being” (after Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007), the use of the service (by a specific potential human beneficiary) aids greatly in identifying metrics or indicators most suitable for quantifying the entity we are calling a FEGS. A FEGS in this regard could be the quantity or quality of the soil to the farmer beneficiary while a non-FEGS might be the cultivated crop or livestock that exists only because of the human inputs. Importantly, this Final Ecosystem Goods and Services approach minimizes double counting, which can be very problematic from an accounting perspective. We apply this concept to agroecosystems and provide a finite list of the potential beneficiaries that define a diverse set of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services within agroecosystems.