A Name by the Numbers

EKO ECO Guest Blogger on August 10, 2010 Comment

According to a recent national opinion poll on "ecosystem services" the vast majority (90%) of Americans believe the ecosystem services are "very" to "extremely important," and conversely only one percent (1%) deeming them "not important." The poll was co-conducted by polling firms Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) and Public Opinion Strategies (POS) for The Nature Conservancy (TNC),

The poll showed support for putting a dollar-value on these services, but even stronger support for measuring ecosystem services by non-dollar metrics, such as: number of jobs created, number of people benefiting, and additional clean air and water. Regardless of metrics, there was interest in factoring nature's benefits into decisions about the use and management of natural resources.

What's in a name? Well, a lot it would seem. According to the poll, voters found the term "ecosystem services" one of the least appealing among a list of 15 other alternatives. "Nature's benefits" or "nature's value" seemed to resonate more widely with people.

What does this imply for payment for ecosystem services? Well, conceptually people generally seem to support the notion, and more importantly, the end objective: protecting and conserving nature.

Some believe there need be no other reason for conservation other than the value of nature in and of itself; however, that is a substantial minority. The remaining majority prefer to be able to see the benefits for humans when it comes to giving their support to "ecosystem services." When the language is talking in terms of human benefit - public health and safety - the reception becomes more ample.

Then perhaps, paying for carbon credits from a REDD project, for example, would rouse more backing (financially and politically) by making more of the public health and safety benefits rather than the quantity of emissions absorbed or mitigated. As such, rather than part of the sales pitch saying one will 'pay to save part of a forest and absorb emissions,' it will point out the 'health benefits from preserving and protecting a forest, while subsequently creating jobs and maintaining communities' safety.' This way, the focus is on something that touches home more acutely, and doesn't diminish the "intangible" benefits nature provides, either.

In the end, the poll seems to indicate that "ecosystem services" have a broad base of support. From staunch conservative to resolute liberal, people across the spectrum understand (and support) the inherent value of nature for them, their communities, and people in general - as well as the need to protect it. It is a matter of how it is framed and phrased, however, that influences the extent of its acceptance. With that in mind, as the results of the poll may indicate, payment for ecosystem services is not a far-fetched concept or impractical possibility. If the concept and metrics are made more relevant to the general audience, and tailored to specific ones, "payment for ecosystem services" or "supporting nature's benefits" will presumably garner more support from the get-go, and for the long run.