Boundary of ecosystem services: A response to Chen et al. (2023)

0582850 - ÚGN 2025 RIV GB eng J - Journal Article
Gray, M. - Fox, N. - Gordon, J. E. - Brilha, J. - Charkraborty, A. - Garcia, M. d G. - Hjort, J. - Kubalíková, Lucie - Seijmonsbergen, A. C. - Urban, J.
Boundary of ecosystem services: A response to Chen et al. (2023).
Journal of Environmental Management. Roč. 351, February 2024 (2024), č. článku 119666. ISSN 0301-4797. E-ISSN 1095-8630
Institutional support: RVO:68145535
Keywords : ecosystem services * natural capital * abiotic nature * geodiversity * geosystem services
OECD category: Environmental sciences (social aspects to be 5.7)
Impact factor: 8.7, year: 2022
Method of publishing: Open access
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479723024544?via%3Dihub

Chen et al. (2023) have proposed a scheme to define which services should be included as ecosystem services and which should be excluded so as to avoid “an all-encompassing metaphor that captures any benefit”. We discuss the proposals, drawing attention in particular to definitions of ‘natural capital’ and ‘ecosystems’, the complexities of separating biotic from abiotic flows, and the importance of geodiversity and geosystem services in delivering societal benefits. We conclude that rather than trying to separate out bits of nature in order to draw the boundary of ecosystem services, it is perhaps time to avoid using ‘nature’ and ‘biodiversity’ as synonyms and think instead of a more holistic and integrated approach involving ‘environmental’, ‘natural’ or ‘nature's services', in which the role of abiotic nature is fully recognised in both ecosystem services and non-ecosystem domains.
Permanent Link: https://hdl.handle.net/11104/0350901