Locally-Provided and Globally-Relevant Ecosystem Services: A Needed Distinction for Quantification

Ecosystem services are defined as benefits obtained by humans from ecosys-tem functions and processes. Although the different types of ecosystem ser-vices are well defined, their measurement and quantification has remained controversial despite long last research efforts. A particularly elusive and of-ten neglected aspect of ecosystem services quantification has been a proper identification of the beneficiaries. We argue that a clear-cut distinction be-tween locally-provided and globally-relevant ecosystem services are neces-sary in order to manage a meaningful debate about ecosystem services quan-tification. Using a detailed spatial analysis of land-use change and residential location in The Netherlands over almost two decades, we operationalize the distinction between two types of services provided by “green” land uses (pro-tected natural areas, agricultural areas and parks). Recreational services available to nearby dwellers are used as an example of locally-provided eco-system services, while carbon sequestration exemplifies the globally-relevant category. The conclusion is that while monetary value can be justified as a proxy measure of globally-relevant ecosystem services, non-monetary ap-proaches are appropriate for locally-provided ecosystem services. The distinc-tion between both types of ecosystem services is useful also for policy-making purposes: Quantification of locally-provided services is well suited for spatial planning in general and urban planning in particular, but globally-relevant services assessment (specially its monetary approach) is more in-formative at national and supranational levels.