You are here:
The Beneficiary Perspective - Benefits and Beyond
Citation:
Landers, D., A. Nahlik, AND C. Rhodes. The Beneficiary Perspective - Benefits and Beyond. Potchin, M., R. Haines-Young, R. Fish and R.K. Turner (ed.), Routledge Handbook on Ecosystem Services. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY, , 74-87, (2016).
Impact/Purpose:
The Handbook on Ecosystem Services seeks to cover both the science and social dimension of ecosystem services and their applied relevance to the field, with explicit attention to how new concepts build on, or differ from, other established ideas of ecosystem services, so that the contribution of new thinking can be understood. Part B: Conceptualising Ecosystem Services, in which the chapter The Beneficiary Perspective will be published, aims to reach as broad an audience as possible, covering topics from a conceptual and methodological viewpoint. In this chapter, we adopt a beneficiary approach by expressing ecosystem services in terms of use-user combinations, as opposed to a benefits approach, which lists myriad potential uses of ecosystem services while implying, but in no way empirically identifying, users (a la MA 2005). We introduce the use of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) as the underlying definition and concept for a beneficiary approach, and the FEGS Classification System (FEGS-CS), which appears to meet the needs of a variety of different users interested in quantifying and valuing nature’s benefits in a defined, non-duplicative way that incorporates the perspectives of beneficiaries, and therefore directly links to human well-being. Finally, we discuss merging the FEGS-CS with an economic approach (a National Ecosystem Service Classification System, NESCS) to allow mapping of flows of FEGS through economic production functions to human well-being.
Description:
In this chapter of the Handbook on Ecosystem Services, we first explore distinctions between nature’s benefits and human beneficiaries of nature, and how seemingly slight differences in the definition of ecosystem services can lead to vastly different outcomes. We adopt a beneficiary approach by expressing ecosystem services in terms of use-user combinations, as opposed to a benefits approach, which lists myriad potential uses of ecosystem services while implying, but in no way empirically identifying, users (a la MA 2005). Second, we introduce the use of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) as the underlying definition and concept for a beneficiary approach. Distinguishing intermediate ecosystem services from FEGS is a useful foundation for classification that serves both natural and social science objectives. Finally, we provide a detailed description and potential use of a Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS) that appears to meet the needs of a variety of different users interested in quantifying and valuing nature’s benefits in a defined, non-duplicative way that incorporates the perspectives of beneficiaries, and therefore directly links to human well-being. One category of likely users of the FEGS-CS is the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Offices of Water and of Air and Radiation, as they seek to improve mandated cost-benefit analyses by incorporating a wider range of environmental considerations. Merging the FEGS-CS with an economic approach (a National Ecosystem Service Classification System, NESCS) allows the mapping of flows of FEGS through economic production functions to human well-being. The NESCS approach is introduced and briefly discussed.