Mainstreaming ecosystem services into policy and decision-making: lessons from New Zealand’s journey

Abstract

Since 2012 there has been an upsurge in New Zealand’s interest in how ecosystem service (ES) concepts can be used to assist decision-making. This paper outlines the progress New Zealand has made in integrating the ES concept into decision-making at government and business levels and provides insights into the challenges encountered. The observations and insights outlined in this paper are based on the interaction of the authors with the various actors in these dialogues and from their involvement in initiatives being undertaken by government and business. The key challenges discussed cover knowledge, indicators, indigenous cultural values, language and communication and decision-making. The paper also provides evidence to support or counter some of the ES critiques. While challenges exist with integrating ESs into decision-making, evidence to date suggests the approach is compelling and provides a structured, transparent and neutral mechanism to manage natural resources.

Keywords:

• ecosystem services
• policy
• decision-making
• business
• government
• natural resource management

1. Introduction

Human use of resources is globally unsustainable (MEA 2005). Increasing population and subsequent pressure on resources are projected to continue putting natural resources further at risk, making the sustainable use and management of these resources an important policy issue.

In New Zealand, ecosystem service (ES) approaches are being explored by government and business decision-makers to see how they may enhance natural resource management. ESs provide a structured, comprehensive and holistic approach for decision-making that puts a strong emphasis on the flow of benefits people receive from ecosystems and can provide arguments for their conservation, rehabilitation and/or enhancement (MEA 2003; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) 2005; TEEB 2010; UKNEA 2011).

In recent years, authors have begun to critique the use of ES concepts for decision-making (Seppelt et al. 2011; Baker et al. 2013; Schröter et al. 2014). Schröter et al. (2014) has synthesised much of this literature outlining seven critique areas and their arguments and counter-arguments (see Table 1). The critiques relate to environmental ethics, human–nature relationship, conflicts with the concept of biodiversity, ES valuation, commodification and payments for ecosystem services (PESs), vagueness and optimistic assumptions and normative aims.

Table 1. Overview of ecosystem services critiques.

Critique	Arguments	Counter-arguments
Environmental ethics	The ES concept excludes the intrinsic value of nature.	The concept bundles valid anthropocentric arguments.
	Nature conservation should be based on intrinsic instead of anthropogenic values.	The cultural ES domain includes values with elements of intrinsic values, e.g., existence value.
Human–nature relationships	The focus on ES could promote an exploitative human–nature relationship, which might contradict the holistic perspectives of indigenous people.	The ES concept could reconnect society to nature.
		Non-material values can be covered in the cultural ES domain, to include peoples’ values and needs.
Conflicts with the concept of biodiversity	The ES concept might replace biodiversity protection as a conservation goal.	There are conceptual overlaps between ESs and biodiversity.
	There is inconclusive evidence of a ‘win-win’ scenario between biodiversity and ES. ES might not safeguard biodiversity, but instead divert attention and resources.	There is a growing body of evidence that biodiversity underpins the ecosystem functions that give shape to ESs.
		Current initiatives based on ESs lead to a broad perspective on land management and conservation.
ES valuation	The ES concept comprises economic framing.ES assessments often involve economic valuation.	Monetary valuation provides additional information in decision-making processes.
		ES assessments do not necessarily involve monetisation.
Commodification and PES	The ES approach is based on the assumption that payment for ESs will ensure their provision.	Assessing ES in monetary terms does not necessarily equate to using market instruments.
Vagueness	‘ESs’ has become a ‘catch-all’ phrase because of its many vague definitions.	Imprecision of the ES can spur creativity and refinement of definitions.
		Use of the ES concept can facilitate multiple societal actors to interact without consensus on the precise meaning and can foster transdisciplinary research.
Optimistic assumptions and normative aims	The ES concept is too optimistic.Ecosystem outputs may not always be beneficial to humans.	Positive terminology shows the optimistic intentions and research interests.ES is one of the many normative concepts used within environmental science.Total value freedom is impossible for science embedded in sociocultural contexts.

Source: Adapted from Schröter et al. (2014). Reproduced with permission from John Wiley and Sons.

Despite these critiques, there has been a growing interest and application of the approach by business (e.g., World Resources Institute (WRI) 2014) and in public policy (UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UKNEA) 2011; Maynard et al. 2011; Plant & Prior 2014). The ES concept explicitly links ecosystems and well-being, considers all ESs and recognises that ES impacts and dependencies pose both risks and opportunities for successful decision-making (MEA 2005; Fauna and Flora International 2008; Ranganathan et al. 2008; WRI 2012). This information can then inform trade-offs by clarifying which persons and what ESs are affected either positively or negatively by a decision (Ranganathan et al. 2008; De Groot et al. 2010; Baker et al. 2013; Martín-López et al. 2014).

In this paper, we focus on the systematic assessment of the impacts and dependencies on all ESs (as defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2003)) for a given decision, and how this information is used during policy or strategy formulation within top-down and bottom-up processes. This has allowed us to provide evidence to support or counter some of the recent critiques outlined above.

We do not attempt to monetise ESs (see, for example, De Groot et al. 2012), which is not only becoming more commonplace but also highly debated (Spangenberg & Settele 2010; Baker et al. 2013; Ernstson & Sörlin 2013). Rather, we utilise what we consider key strengths of the concept – consistency, structure, transparency and integration – to engage, assess and identify solutions and actions for natural resource management.

This paper provides an overview of New Zealand’s resource management context, current ES dialogues and some of the challenges and insights the authors have noted from studies to integrate ESs into decision-making.

We posit that ESs is a concept that can enhance decisions that involve or affect natural resources by clarifying the extent of an issue, providing a non-confrontational method to engage stakeholders and helping to clarify the actions needed to protect or improve the condition of these resources and the services they supply.

2. The New Zealand context

2.1 Land-use intensification

New Zealand’s land-use and ecosystem-change patterns are not inconsistent with other parts of the world. It has a large primary industry sector (e.g., sheep, beef, dairy, grapes and timber) and dairy, in particular, is growing. These key economic sectors not only rely on well-functioning ecosystems and the services they supply, but also impact many of those same ecosystems negatively. While increasing the country’s productivity and income, the intensification and expansion of primary production are putting further pressure on ecosystems. With time, the cost of substituting the flow of services from these disrupted ecosystems is likely to increase. Urbanisation is also increasing with its own set of ES dependencies and impacts.

2.2 Legislative context

Each tier of New Zealand’s governance structure – central government, regional/unitary¹ (hereafter ‘regional’) councils and territorial authorities (i.e. City and District Councils) – has different resource management responsibilities.

The Resource Management Act (1991) (RMA) is the overriding legislation dealing with the use, development and protection of New Zealand’s resources. This effects-based legislation promotes the sustainable management of natural and physical resources (RMA 1991) through devolved and integrated resource management at a local level.

Under the RMA, central government agencies have a policy and advisory role, and develop National Environmental Standards (NESs) and National Policy Statements (NPSs) to provide national direction to decision-making. NESs prescribe nationally applied technical standards, methods or other requirements for environmental matters (MfE 2014a). NPSs prescribe policies on resource management matters of national significance, e.g., freshwater management.

Regional Policy Statements (RPSs), prepared by regional councils, give effect to NPSs and NESs. Regional plans sit below and give effect to the RPSs. Territorial authorities develop District Plans addressing land-use zoning and subdivision, and these must give effect to the RPSs and be consistent with regional plans.

The RMA has enabled a better understanding and consideration of the impacts of activities on ecosystems. However, the ‘effects’ focus largely overlooks the dependence of decisions and locally desired outcomes on well-functioning ecosystems and their services. Consent² applications, for instance, require information on the environmental impacts of an activity, but not dependencies.

The non-statutory New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (NZBS; DOC & MfE 2000) aims to ‘halt the decline of New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity’ through protecting a full range of habitats and maintaining viable populations of all indigenous species. The protection of indigenous ecosystems on private land is authorised via the RMA, under which regional councils and territorial authorities are currently required to recognise and provide for the protection of ‘areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna’ (Greenhalgh et al. 2010).

The Conservation Act (1987) also promotes the conservation of New Zealand’s natural and historic resources, including the management of national parks and other land under the stewardship of the Department of Conservation (DOC). Through statutes like the RMA, DOC also contributes to conservation and sustainable management in areas for which it is not directly responsible (DOC 2014).

2.3 The policy environment

New Zealand’s natural resource policy agenda is characterised by issues that dominate the agenda at any given point in time. Erosion rates from the removal of native forest were a major issue in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly in the North Island, where the hilly terrain is susceptible to erosion. The state of wild fisheries was another key issue that led to the establishment of the Quota Management System in 1986 (Ministry for Primary Industries 2014).

In the early 2000s, the climate agenda was arguably the most prominent natural resource issue. This culminated in The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Act and the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Act 2008, and established the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme. More recently, climate change has taken a back seat to freshwater management issues as well as the drive for economic growth, primarily through primary product exports. Policy direction, through the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFWM; New Zealand Government 2011, 2014), along with the increasing pressure that agricultural intensification is putting on water quality and availability, has meant that freshwater is New Zealand’s most pressing natural resource issue.

Freshwater dialogues use a ‘values’ approach, where decisions consider impacts on environmental, economic, social and cultural values (Tadaki & Sinner 2014; Berkett et al. 2013). The ‘values’ terminology, while not synonymous with ESs, is another approach to thinking more broadly about the impacts of a decision. However, dependencies are largely overlooked in this approach, except for freshwater needed for production, health, recreation and so on, and there is currently no systematic assessment to determine which values to consider. A list of values that should be considered during the deliberative process (e.g., collaborative processes) to set water limits³ has been developed (New Zealand government 2014; MfE 2014b), but they are not formalised and are not contained within a conceptual framework of how systems work. The lack of structure when eliciting values may lead to inadvertently overlooking some values, as the values identified often reflect the knowledge and interests of the stakeholders present, which may or may not cover the full range of values or ESs affected.

Through all this, biodiversity continues to decline (Walker 2013), largely due to invasive species and land-use intensification leading to habitat loss (DOC & MfE 2000), two drivers of change in ES assessments (MEA 2005).

3. National ES dialogues

3.1 Government actions

Regional councils in New Zealand are introducing ESs into planning provisions, and are now formalised in second-generation RPSs in four regions: Auckland (unitary authority), Waikato, Canterbury and Southland (Table 2). The Canterbury RPS is now operative, while the other RPSs are ‘proposed’, meaning they can change based on public submissions.

Table 2. ESs in regional and unitary planning documents.

Council	Planning document	Use and examples
Auckland Regional Council	The Auckland Plan (2012) (Auckland Council 2012b); Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) (2013) (Auckland Council 2013); Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy (2012) (Auckland Council 2012a)	The Auckland Plan’s directive 7.1 deals specifically with ESs. The PAUP sets objectives and policies specific to accounting for ESs in decisions. The Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy’s vision includes ESs as does Objective 3 of the strategy.
Waikato Regional Council	Proposed Waikato RPS (2012) (Waikato Regional Council 2013)	ESs are central to the Proposed Waikato RPS and are found throughout. Further, Objective 3.7 (high level goal for the region) is on maintaining and enhancing the region’s ESs.
Canterbury Regional Council	Operative Canterbury RPS (2013) (Canterbury Regional Council 2013)	ESs are identified in the issues section and included as part of the explanation in the biodiversity and ecosystems objective, but are not part of an objective or policy text.
Southland Regional Council	Proposed RPS (2012) (Southland Regional Council 2012)	ESs are included in introductions and explanation of objectives and methods, but not in the objective, policies, or method text itself.

The introduction of ESs into planning documents has left some councils with the challenge of implementing ES concepts in their decision-making processes and operations. While progress has been slow, some initiatives are underway. For example, Auckland Council has established an Ecosystem Services Working Group (ESWG) following the inclusion of ESs into its planning documents (Auckland Council 2012b). The ESWG group comprises staff from across the council, and is responsible for integrating ESs into decision-making within council processes, including identifying barriers and opportunities to achieving this.

Within central government, DOC is developing ES studies to demonstrate the value of the conservation estate to New Zealand.

3.2 Business actions

The business community in New Zealand is also exploring how ESs could assist internal decision-making, with Zespri International Limited, the world’s largest marketer of kiwi fruit, undertaking a Corporate Ecosystem Service Review in 2012 (Stancu 2014). This was followed by the Sustainable Business Council (SBC) focusing on ESs in their 2012 Future Leaders programme and their subsequent piloting of the Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (WRI 2012). These pilots⁴ demonstrated the importance of engaging senior management and stakeholders, and how to communicate the concept inside and outside organisations.

4. Approach

Our research follows the generalised ES assessment framework being adopted internationally (e.g., MEA 2005, Ranganathan et al. 2008, TEEB 2011, UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UKNEA) 2011, WRI 2012). This involves identifying relevant ESs, assessing conditions and trends, followed by scenario analysis. While the framework is relatively generic, its application tends to be fit-for-purpose to align with the circumstances of the assessment, in particular when, how and what stakeholders to involve and how the scenarios are devised. The scenarios and how they are assessed, for instance, will vary by type of organisation and what they are trying to achieve. For a government agency, this may involve a range of possible development scenarios, while business scenarios may explore ES risks and opportunities.

To avoid some of the pitfalls identified with the development and use of ES frameworks outlined in Nahlik et al. (2012), we used the Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (WRI 2012) and an adaptation of the World Resources Institute ES guidance manual for decision-makers (Ranganathan et al. 2008) to assess ES approaches in decision-making with businesses, communities and local government. The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review has been used by many companies to support internal decision-making (August 4, 2010 posting by J Finisdore to WRI blog; unreferenced, see “Notes”⁵).

Our research has introduced ESs to a wide range of new audiences and is based on a series of policy-relevant studies, including:

• Regional councils: a study with Auckland Council assessing the use an ES approach for council decision-making for housing development projects and another to prioritise ESs for inclusion in a regional council spatial model, the Waikato Integrated Scenario Explorer (WISE; Hart et al. 2013).

• Business: SBC pilot of the Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (WRI 2012) with five companies, covering the agricultural, fishing, consulting, natural products and energy sectors and ranging in size from a small start-up to national to international. The aim was to identify the risks and opportunities for a company’s operation or product and develop strategies to mitigate any risks and capitalise on opportunities.

• Community: workshops with the farming community to identify perceptions of biodiversity and the ESs they supply, depend on and impact, and another with local community stakeholders to assess the implications of urban development on agricultural land and ESs in their area.

As with any framework or approach, how it is put into operation is important. In our processes, a cross section of stakeholders and/or disciplines were involved in all assessments, which brought together a wide range of interests and knowledge. This engaged members of the community and utilised transdisciplinary approaches. Basic ES concepts and definitions were articulated early to reduce confusion. Using the tools above enabled us to design structured processes to lead workshop participants from ES identification through to solution formulation.

In all instances, a facilitated structured workshop was conducted to prioritise the key ESs to consider for the strategy, policy or management decision being assessed. These workshops used various adaptations of the spreadsheet tool that accompanies the Corporate Ecosystem Review (WRI 2012) as a method to organise and structure the workshops. The tool uses a series of questions (Table 3) to determine the priority (high, medium, low or not applicable) of each ES for the specified decision. From this, the key ESs are identified and these become the focus for the subsequent data collection and scenario analysis.

Table 3. Questions used to prioritise the importance of each ES for a specified decision.

Organisation	Dependency	Impacts
Business	Does this ES serve as an input or does it enable/enhance conditions for successful company performance?If yes,Does this ES have cost-effective substitutes?	Does the company affect the quantity or quality of this ES?If yes,Is the company’s impact positive or negative?Does the company’s impact limit or enhance the ability of others to benefit from this service?
Regional Councils	Does this ES serve as an input or does it enable/enhance conditions for successful implementation of the decision?If yes,Does this ES have cost-effective substitutes?	Would the proposed decision affect the quantity or quality of this ES?If yes,Is the decision’s impact positive or negative?Does the decision’s impact limit or enhance the ability of others to benefit from this service?

Note: Business questions based on WRI (2012), and council questions are adapted from WRI (2012), Ranganathan et al. (2008) and our knowledge of government decision-making. Reproduced with the permission of the authors.

We followed a different approach from that of Cowling et al. (2008), who suggest an assessment, planning and management phase for their ES operation model. We differ as stakeholders are involved before the assessment phase to ensure that appropriate information is collected and used for the decision. The planning phase (akin to strategy development or solution formulation) is similar and the management phases of our studies are still underway.

The observations and insights outlined below are largely based on the interactions and dialogues in these workshops and the findings from prioritisation and strategy exercises.

5. Challenges encountered along the ES pathway

Much has been learnt during New Zealand’s journey to integrate ES concepts into decision-making. We categorise these learnings into knowledge, indicators, indigenous cultural services, language and communication and decision-making, and outline the challenges and some learnings and recommendations for others.

5.1 Knowledge

One major challenge is accessing knowledge about all ESs, their interrelationships and who is affected (Carpenter et al. 2009; Reyers et al. 2013). Readily available, good-quality data on current status and trends exist for some ESs (e.g., food-provisioning services and water-related services) while for others, little or no information is available. Spatial and temporal ES data coverage is also variable. In New Zealand, data deficiencies are evident for some cultural (e.g., ethical and spiritual values⁶) and regulating (e.g., pollination, pest regulation, disease regulation) services. Attempts have been made to compile the status of ES knowledge in New Zealand (Dymond 2013), which has further highlighted the disparate and variable nature of information.

Knowledge gaps have implications for understanding the impact and dependencies of decisions on ESs, particularly for those services where little is known. One advantage we observed using an ES approach is the ability to better identify knowledge gaps and highlight where they are important.

While the lack and variable nature of information make decisions more difficult to judge, it does not mean that decisions cannot be improved. For example, expert and stakeholder judgement can supplement knowledge gaps (Maynard et al. 2011). Businesses, for instance, often focus on internal strategies for ES risks and opportunities related to resources or products they utilise, produce, own or control. Therefore, they utilise data of various levels of precision, accuracy and reliability, and may not necessarily rely on comprehensive data to make decisions.

Regional councils, however, will require more robust information to underpin decisions as their processes are publically scrutinised and must be defensible in court disputes. Some councils are proactively improving ES information, e.g., Waikato Regional Council inclusion of ES data layers in their WISE model (Huser et al. 2009).

Despite significant knowledge gaps, decisions were made and strategies developed in our processes. In reality, decisions are commonly made without all the information or even knowledge of information gaps. One advantage of using a structured approach was the early identification of data gaps, giving more time to address or acknowledge deficiencies.

5.2 Indicators

An assessment of MEA indicators and their capacity to support policy decisions determined that the overall ability of indicators to convey ES information was low, although there was variability between services (Layke 2009). Two challenges seemingly arise. First is indicator appropriateness for a decision and second is data availability – and often one is deficient.

Indicator choice should be specific to the policy or decision, but often data are not available. For instance, in the urbanisation study, water purification indicators that capture soil capacity to filter nutrients/contaminants as well as stream water quality tell a better story about urban development impacts than a single indicator. These indicators can also highlight which areas are more suited for agriculture (from a water purification perspective), as more efficient nutrient-filtering soils are better for agriculture, especially where stream eutrophication is increasing.

Articulating ESs in monetary terms is often seen in New Zealand as a way to improve local environmental outcomes⁷; however, there are challenges with monetisation that should not be overlooked. These include: paucity of data, inability to monetise all ESs, double counting, values are time- and space-bound, and the implications of aggregating values (Samarasinghe et al. 2013).⁸ Aggregation of values arguably poses the greatest challenge for decision-making. When values are monetised and aggregated, trade-offs between the costs and benefits of ES changes are masked. It is easier to overlook negative impacts, and when these impacts are not addressed during policy formulation, there may be unintended negative consequences. Double counting is also an issue when values are aggregated. In our studies, ES quantification tended to be non-monetary and did not hinder the decision-making processes.

These challenges are faced not only by those involved in mainstreaming ESs, but also by any person or agency wishing to monitor states and trends of any policy/decision, and the a priori and actual effect of policy and decisions on these states and trends.

Indicator choice is important for assessing impacts and dependencies as well as demonstrating the effectiveness of actions taken. A range of indicators may be needed and careful consideration of the need to monetise indicators is required.

5.3 Indigenous cultural values

Cultural services, particularly indigenous cultural values, are often the least well defined and integrated within ES frameworks (Daniel et al. 2012). In recent years, advances have been made in indigenous ESs for the New Zealand context. Recent work has outlined how Mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge systems) needs to be acknowledged as a parallel framework to ‘western’ approaches like ESs (Harmsworth & Awatere 2013); and Mātauranga Māori underpins such approaches, rather than fitting within them. Perhaps the clearest articulation of Māori values is within the context of freshwater resource management (Harmsworth & Awatere 2013), and from this it is evident that Māori values fall across all ES categories (Table 4).

Table 4. Māori values mapped to ESs.

Māori values	ES
Mahinga kai (resource sites)	Wildfoods
Kaitiakitanga (environmental guardianship)	Relates to all ESs
Wāhi tapu (sacred sites), wāhi tupuna (ancestral sites) and wāhi taonga (treasured sites)	Cultural heritage values
Tohungatanga (retention and use of knowledge)	Educational values
Whakapapa (ancestry, lineage)	Sense of place, spiritual values
Tikanga (custom, tradition), whānaungatanga (relationships)	Social relations
Wairuatanga (spiritual well-being)	Spiritual values
Manaakitanga (caring for), tau utu utu (reciprocity)	Knowledge systems
Taonga (flora and fauna)	Habitat supporting services

Note: Māori values adapted from Awatere (2012), Harmsworth and Awatere (2013), and Awatere and Harmsworth (2014). Reproduced with the permission of the authors.

Importantly, while Māori values may be similar across iwi (tribe), how these values are articulated can differ greatly between iwi, and within iwi, between hapῡ (subtribe) and whanau (family) (G. Harmsworth, Māori Researcher Landcare Research, personal communication). This should be acknowledged in any assessment and also relates to the appropriate choice of indicators. For example, we have observed that views regarding whakapapa (genealogy) can differ between iwi. The urbanisation study revealed that even in highly modified landscapes whakapapa still exists. Māori participants noted that the natural landscape would never be restored and acknowledging their whakapapa would allow them to maintain cultural ties and recognise whakapapa (e.g., placing a plaque). As these participants noted ‘you can’t take the place away, it is just different’. In another workshop involving a dammed river, the lost ability to travel along the original river path was considered as lost whakapapa.

Māori participation in workshops enabled the articulation of Māori-specific views across all ESs. However, one potential weakness of the ES approach may be that it does not specifically give weight to Māori values/views as a Treaty of Waitangi right (as articulated in some policy documents, e.g., NPSFWM). A strength, though, is that our ES assessments enabled Māori values to be identified from the outset and not as an afterthought, a criticism of New Zealand’s natural resource management to date. Others (e.g., Harmsworth et al. 2011; Huntington et al. 2011) also acknowledge the importance of recognising that working with traditional knowledge is a social process requiring an awareness of cultural differences and strong interpersonal relationships that better capture different perspectives. Harmsworth et al. (2013) outline six steps for the use of Mātauranga Māori to underpin freshwater management decisions. These steps reflect key considerations for working with Māori knowledge and holders of knowledge.

An ES approach could be useful to Māori organisations in their own decision-making processes as well as for non-Māori organisations wishing to underpin resource management decisions with Māori knowledge. Constructive Māori engagement in ES assessments would involve acknowledging Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities, establishing Mātauranga Māori as a parallel knowledge framework, considering Māori-/iwi-specific views across all ESs (not just cultural services), and developing the appropriate tikanga (protocols) for iwi engagement.

5.4 Language and communication

The language to describe and communicate ESs is a challenge (Define Research & Insight 2007; Baker et al. 2013). The ‘effects’ focus of the RMA in New Zealand means ecosystem impacts are fairly well understood and accounted for, but there is still a tendency to focus on single issues or overlook the dependencies of decisions affecting ecosystems and their services.

Terminology is also challenging, which was illustrated in one of our processes when one farmer commented ‘I struggle with your use of the word “service”’. In several other contexts, the term ‘ecosystem’ has caused confusion; in one case, an extended discussion to define the term ‘ecosystem’ was required before any discussion of ESs was possible.

One of the most common responses during workshops to prioritise ESs has been that ‘it [ES] took a while to get your head around but was really interesting and made you think differently once you had’. These comments indicate the importance of knowing your audience and adapting your vocabulary to their language while explaining the concept.

Our observations are consistent with those of Metz and Weigel (2010), who undertook an opinion poll in the United States to determine, among other things, the degree to which the public appreciated the diverse benefits nature provides to people, what indicators are most useful and how people reacted to the term ‘ESs’.

As we communicate and engage with different audiences, we are constantly reformulating both the language and the examples we use, so that they are relevant to the audience. Increasingly, we are also asking participants to describe their industry/business, region/catchment, operation and/or sphere of influence. This has the benefit of identifying the terms they commonly use and also how they see the world. This enables us to adapt our language to communicate ESs better during workshops, while still continuing to use the ES terminology. In all workshops, the ES concept resonated with participants.

5.5 Decision-making

Integrating the ES concept within decision-making is not without its own set of challenges. As with any new concept, existing systems and processes may not easily allow the introduction of new concepts and can cause confusion with existing approaches (Plant & Prior 2014).

Regional planning (e.g., RPS, regional plans) in New Zealand generally considers individual ESs, usually in isolation. However, until ES concepts and management approaches are formally incorporated into planning documents, the concept is not easily put into operation. For example, regional council consent staff⁹ have noted that they could not incorporate ESs into consent decisions until the regional plan articulated how ESs should be managed and the subsequent consenting requirements, given that consent decisions must give effect to the regional plan.

Being able to articulate clearly why decision-makers should use this new approach has emerged as an important step for integrating ES concepts into decision-making, as government agencies and businesses have existing processes they may consider adequate. Decision-makers frequently ask questions such as ‘what is the added value of taking an ES approach?’ or ‘how does this differ from what we already do?’ The answers vary depending on the organisation, different parts of an organisation, type of decision being made and the processes currently in place. Better understanding how to answer these questions involves careful exploration of the context in which the organisation operates and the decision being made. For instance, with legal staff, it may be how ESs fit with any legal obligations, while with farmers it is how ESs align with managing their land (e.g., by different land units).

We are also working to demonstrate how the ES concept can complement or enhance existing decision-making processes and tools, e.g., to scope cost–benefit analyses and for RMA consent applications. This will provide the evidence base needed for many decision-makers. Further, incorporating ESs into existing decision-making processes will likely require institutional change, capacity building and resourcing.

Terminology that differs between frameworks and disciplines can also cause confusion. Here we refer to how ES language relates to other concepts being used to manage natural resources. For example, the NPSFWM (New Zealand government 2011, 2014), which is driving widespread change in freshwater management decisions, uses ‘values’ terminology. A study to map ‘values’ to ‘ESs’ indicated there was alignment between the two approaches (Greenhalgh 2013) and ES were useful for identifying values where little information had been collected despite years of stakeholder engagement and policy planning processes. The ES concept allowed the systematic consideration of all impacts and dependencies on ESs, reducing the chance of overlooking a key service.

From our observations, knowing the roles and decision-making processes of participants and those interested in ESs enabled us to translate the ES approach into their specific context and area(s) of responsibility. A key finding has been that the ES concept and framework complement and enhance many existing processes. For instance, they can provide the rationale for what or what not to include in cost–benefit analysis. They also promote discussion and engagement between different groups of the same organisation that may not typically engage on an issue, and provide a more neutral forum for wider stakeholder engagement during policy development and/or formulation of strategies.

6. Informing ES critiques

From our observations of applying the ES concept to a range of decision-making contexts, we are able to provide some additional insights into the critiques summarised in Schröter et al. (2014).

The questioning of the anthropogenic nature of ESs arose in a number of processes, particularly from environmental stakeholders (environmental ethics critique). Despite this concern, the ES processes we followed provided numerous opportunities for the intrinsic values of nature to be discussed, during both ES prioritisation and strategy discussions. Our experiences suggest that the ES concept does include and allow for the integration of intrinsic values. When considering the critique regarding conflicts with biodiversity, the processes we draw from did not attempt to quantify these relationships. We did note, however, in strategy/solutions discussions that there was a tendency for indigenous biodiversity to be discussed when looking across a range of ESs, but often a wider definition of biodiversity (that included non-native biodiversity) was used when looking at individual ESs. Therefore, the ES concept could prove more valuable when managing ecosystems across landscapes.

In several instances, particularly with the farming community, there were realisations that marginal land was valuable, not for agricultural production but for other services on which they relied (human–nature relationship critique). One example was the aesthetic beauty valued by farm-stay guests, illustrated by the comment ‘I thought we all produced meat but now realise how much we all depend on aesthetics and ecotourism’ (Sheep and Beef farmer, Manuwatu catchment, New Zealand, personal communication). This indicates the ES concept can reconnect people with nature and prompt them to think more broadly across the range of ESs. We also noted that the historical and current contexts underpinned discussions of cultural services, particularly those where a major landscape change had happened or was planned. This differs from Ersnston & Sörlin (2013), where the historical context did not emerge during their ES discussions.

In response to the ES valuation and commodification and PES critiques, we cannot offer many insights, given we did not attempt to monetise ESs. We do note, however, that most participants in our processes did not request this information and were able to identify solutions using other forms of quantification, a finding similar to Maynard et al. (2011).

In terms of vagueness, we found that ESs provided a structured approach for people to articulate their values and to think more broadly about a decision’s impacts and dependencies. This may be due to the framing of our processes which outlined what we meant by ESs and how we defined them. While this may have constrained discussions, we saw little evidence of it as participants frequently raised values that concerned them, which either fitted directly or were associated with the ESs we defined. In fact, it may have led to a richer dialogue on each ES between stakeholders and disciplines. Again, our framing of the process is likely to have influenced how participants viewed ESs (optimistic assumptions and normative aims critique), as our introductory material talked about impacts and dependencies in both positive and negative frames in an attempt to demonstrate that decisions may involve trade-offs between services.

Overall, we found little evidence that the critiques outlined by Schröter et al. (2014) were a concern or a hindrance in our processes.

7. Conclusions and insights

In New Zealand, ESs are being explored as a concept to enhance decision-making by government and business. Experiences and learning to date provide useful insights for others beginning to work with decision-makers to utilise the ES concept and provide additional evidence to support or counter the critiques about the use of ESs in decision-making.

Significant ES knowledge gaps exist, and these gaps need to be systematically identified to develop programmes to fill them. Government is important to facilitating this to ensure information is publicly available. Indicators should also reflect the decision being made and not default to readily available data. This may mean that future government-facilitated data collection focuses on more common council decisions and relevant indicators. Understanding how data are going to be used is also important to determine the time and effort that should be invested to refine such data, especially where little information exists. Indigenous cultural values are one such area, and even though it is unlikely these values can be generalised, the holistic Māori world view can complement and underpin ES approaches.

ESs is a new language for many stakeholders and the general public, so providing the genesis and meaning of the terminology when introducing the concept is useful, as is using language that is familiar to the group. The appropriate descriptor language is likely to change between groups as individual knowledge and co-learning experiences will differ. Another barrier identified is that higher-level policy is often required before ESs can be operationalised within an organisation, particularly government agencies.

In general, the consideration of both impacts and dependencies was useful, and participants found this not only easy to understand but also compelling. For New Zealand, where the RMA focuses on impacts rather than dependencies, it can provide new insights. This was seen in our workshops with farmers when they realised that their less productive land was valuable, as it provided many regulating and/or cultural services. In another example, one company realised that their product had few impacts but depended heavily on ESs that were impacted by others.

The approach also stimulated new types of conversations between groups of people, for example, when external stakeholders to a decision were asked to participate, and by bringing together teams in organisations that did not normally interact. Our workshops also provided a more neutral space to discuss the implications of an organisational decision, and the structured nature of an ES framework helped many to think and engage outside their normal spheres of interest. This brought insights and realisations that many thought might not necessarily have been captured using other approaches.

Strengthening this emerging community of practice requires further application of these approaches to real decisions to determine if utilising ES concepts provides additional insights that may not emerge using existing approaches across a range of contexts, particularly where links between biodiversity and ESs can be tested. Tracking how decisions using this concept endure will also provide important information on the long-term value of using ESs in resource management decisions.

While this use of ESs is still in its infancy in New Zealand, it is proving to be a positive addition to the available natural resource management decision-making tools and processes.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [C09X1307 (BEST); core funding: Landcare Research NZ Ltd/CRI]; Waikato Regional Council; Auckland Council; New Zealand Sustainable Business Council.

Notes

1. In some instances, a unitary authority or council has been created in a region that has the combined functions of a regional and a district/city authority. There are 16 regional/unitary authorities in New Zealand.

2. Activities that need resource consents are classified as controlled, restricted discretionary, discretionary and non-complying. The council must grant a resource consent for a controlled activity (with a couple of exceptions), but can refuse to grant resource consent for a restricted discretionary, discretionary or non-complying activity. There are five types of resource consent: land-use consent, subdivision consent, water permit, discharge permit and coastal permit.

3. A limit is the maximum amount of resource use available, which allows a freshwater objective to be met (New Zealand government 2014).

4. The overview of these pilots is outlined in a series of short briefs and can be found at www.sbc.org.nz/resources-and-tools/case-studies [cited 2014 November 30].

5. Available from: www.wri.org/blog/2010/08/over-200-companies-now-use-corporate-ecosystem-services-review [cited 2014 November 30].

6. Much progress is being made on the articulation of Māori cultural values related to freshwater that provides better information on indigenous spiritual values.

7. This observation comes from the numerous interactions the authors have had with central government officials and regional council staff around resource management.

8. Each of these challenges with monetary values and ways to resolve the challenge has a substantial literature of their own, for example, paucity of data (see Johnston & Rosenburger 2010; Bateman 2011), monetising all ESs (see Awatere 2008; Bateman et al. 2011; Chan et al. 2011), double counting (Gren et al. 1994; Boyd & Banzhaf 2007; Fisher et al. 2009, 2011; Bateman 2011), values are time- and space-bound (see Fisher et al. 2011) and aggregating values (TEEB 2008; Slootweg & Van Beukering 2008; Laurans et al. 2013).

9. These are council staff responsible for assessing and approving resource consents. Consents are akin to permits.