The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital¶
Costanza, d'Arge, Groot, d., Farber, Grasso, Hannon, Limburg, et al. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253-260.
Cited by¶
5 citations across 5 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Commensurability
- … Ecosystem-service valuation attempts to commensuralize nature's heterogeneous benefits (carbon sequestration, water filtration, pollination, aesthetic and cultural value) into monetary terms, as Costanza et al. (1997) demonstrated in their landmark global estimate of ecosystem-service value at US$33 trillion per year.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Costanza and colleagues value 17 ecosystem services across 16 biomes and put the figure for the entire biosphere "in the range of $16 - 54 trillion/yr., with an average of $33 trillion/yr", most of it outside the market. Heterogeneous benefits such as water supply, pollination, soil formation and aesthetic and cultural value are brought into a single monetary metric, which is the commensuration the sentence describes along with its headline number. The work calls the figure a minimum estimate given the nature of the uncertainties, and carbon sequestration is not among the services named in the passages that back the sentence.
“For the entire biosphere, the value (most of which is outside the market) is estimated to be in the range of $16 - 54 trillion/yr., with an average of $33 trillion/yr.”
- … Ecosystem-service valuation attempts to commensuralize nature's heterogeneous benefits (carbon sequestration, water filtration, pollination, aesthetic and cultural value) into monetary terms, as Costanza et al. (1997) demonstrated in their landmark global estimate of ecosystem-service value at US$33 trillion per year.
- Latent Service Bundle
- Ecosystems (the home case): a wetland delivers water filtration, flood buffering, biodiversity support, carbon sequestration, fisheries-nursery function, and recreational value to populations who never pay; the ecosystem-services literature exists to inventory and proxy-value the bundle so drainage decisions account for the whole.
This sourceFoundational inventory and proxy-valuation of multi-category ecosystem services (filtration, flood buffering, sequestration, recreation) delivered to diffuse unbilled beneficiaries.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Costanza et al. support valuing non-market ecosystem services so decisions weigh them, but the text has no wetland-specific bundle or drainage-decision case.
“We must begin to give the natural capital stock which produces these services adequate weight in the decision -making process”
- Ecosystems (the home case): a wetland delivers water filtration, flood buffering, biodiversity support, carbon sequestration, fisheries-nursery function, and recreational value to populations who never pay; the ecosystem-services literature exists to inventory and proxy-value the bundle so drainage decisions account for the whole.
- Value Commensuration
- … is appropriate for ecological goods) transfers to healthcare (where the monetary value of health is debated and varies by country) and to organizational resource allocation (where value from different functions—R&D, sales, operations, community relations—is heterogeneous and must be commensured to allocate budget).
This sourceInfluential and controversial estimate that the world's ecosystem services were worth ~US$33 trillion per year; sparked sustained debate over whether monetary commensuration is appropriate for ecological goods.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Costanza et al. supply the US$33 trillion per year ecosystem-services estimate, but not the controversy over commensuration or any transfer to healthcare or organizations.
“the value (most of which is outside the market) is estimated to be in the range of $16 - 54 trillion/yr., with an average of $33 trillion/yr.”
- … is appropriate for ecological goods) transfers to healthcare (where the monetary value of health is debated and varies by country) and to organizational resource allocation (where value from different functions—R&D, sales, operations, community relations—is heterogeneous and must be commensured to allocate budget).
Domain-specific¶
- Ecosystem Services
- The field-defining valuation is Costanza and colleagues' 1997 paper in Nature, "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital."
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R. et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital.”
- The field-defining valuation is Costanza and colleagues' 1997 paper in Nature, "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital."
- Ecosystem valuation
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 4 of 5 citations: 4 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:41d25a01cbb8 · see in the full table