Changes in the global value of ecosystem services
Changes in the global value of ecosystem services
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002
复制
发表时间：
2014-05-01
影响因子：
8.9
通讯作者：
Turner, R. Kerry
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Costanza, Robert;de Groot, Rudolf;Turner, R. Kerry
1997年，生态系统服务的全球价值估计在1995年为33万亿美元/年（2007年为46万亿美元/年）。在本文中，我们提供了一个更新的估计的基础上更新的单位生态系统服务价值和土地利用变化估计1997年至2011年。我们还解决了1997年文件的一些批评。使用与1997年论文相同的方法，但使用更新的数据，2011年全球生态系统服务总额的估计值为125万亿美元/年（假设更新的单位价值和生物群落区的变化）和145万亿美元/年（假设仅单位价值发生变化），均为2007年美元。据此，我们估计从1997年到2011年，由于土地利用变化造成的生态服务损失为4.3 -20.2万亿美元/年，这取决于使用的单位价值。以这种货币核算单位表示的全球估计数有助于突出生态服务的规模，但没有具体的决策背景。然而，基础数据和模型可以在多个尺度上应用，以评估各种情景和政策造成的变化。我们强调，生态服务的估值（无论以何种单位）不同于商品化或私有化。许多生态服务最好被视为公益物或共同资源，因此传统市场往往不是管理这些服务的最佳体制框架。然而，这些服务必须（并且正在）被评估，我们需要新的共同资产机构来更好地考虑这些价值。(C)2014爱思唯尔有限公司版权所有。
In 1997, the global value of ecosystem services was estimated to average $33 trillion/yr in 1995 $US ($46 trillion/yr in 2007 $US). In this paper, we provide an updated estimate based on updated unit ecosystem service values and land use change estimates between 1997 and 2011. We also address some of the critiques of the 1997 paper. Using the same methods as in the 1997 paper but with updated data, the estimate for the total global ecosystem services in 2011 is $125 trillion/yr (assuming updated unit values and changes to biome areas) and $145 trillion/yr (assuming only unit values changed), both in 2007 $US. From this we estimated the loss of eco-services from 1997 to 2011 due to land use change at $4.3-20.2 trillion/yr, depending on which unit values are used. Global estimates expressed in monetary accounting units, such as this, are useful to highlight the magnitude of eco-services, but have no specific decision-making context. However, the underlying data and models can be applied at multiple scales to assess changes resulting from various scenarios and policies. We emphasize that valuation of eco-services (in whatever units) is not the same as commodification or privatization. Many eco-services are best considered public goods or common pool resources, so conventional markets are often not the best institutional frameworks to manage them. However, these services must be (and are being) valued, and we need new, common asset institutions to better take these values into account. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.