Nature’s services, often called ecosystem services, are the benefits humans derive from nature. They are a subset of ecosystem processes that directly or indirectly support and improve human wellbeing. However, we know almost nothing about how services are produced, who benefits from them, and how we should value them. An enormous, interdisciplinary research effort is required involving ecologists, economists, sociologists and others working with policy makers and stakeholders to identify service-providing organisms and systems, and the flow of services to people, to ensure ongoing delivery and appropriate valuation.

Ecosystem services can include carbon storage by vegetation to help regulate climate, pollination of crops by native insects, waste decomposition by bacteria and flood mitigation by forests – among many, many others. Regional and global estimates of the economic value of these services range from Billions to Trillions of dollars. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a major undertaking by the World’s scientists, acknowledged the importance of ecosystem services, but concluded that most were poorly understood and under substantial threat. ‘Service-speak’ increasingly permeates policy documents, yet we lack fundamental information about how services are generated, what affects their delivery, who the beneficiaries are (and how they benefit) and how services should be valued. In particular, we have little knowledge of the cost – benefit trade-offs of different land management strategies relative to production and conservation outcomes. There is little debate about the importance of nature’s services, but a huge effort is now required to develop a level of understanding that will lead to their protection.

A handful of studies have begun to address this issue that could be considered the pioneers of one of society’s most crucial research agendas. At local levels, case studies in Europe have demonstrated the importance of native birds in effecting waste decomposition in rice fields and dispersing seeds in urban parks. In North America and the tropics, native bees play a critical role in pollinating a variety of crops including watermelon, sunflower and coffee. Moreover, protecting native vegetation close to crops that provides habitat for bees can facilitate the delivery of this service, and managing for a diversity of bee species is crucial since the pollination importance of any one species changes in space and time.

To further this research, many more local case studies are needed in a variety of environments across the globe that focus on a diversity of organisms and services. We then need to synthesise this information to start developing general theories about how services are generated and what impacts their delivery. Such work is only just beginning.

However, time is short and management decisions need to be made now before a comprehensive set of case studies can be assembled. At regional levels, management of ecosystem services may be facilitated by focussing on the ecological characteristics of species and how these might contribute to service provision. For example, in orchards that might benefit from insect pest control by birds, we need to ensure that insect-eating bird species that are likely to forage in orchards are provided with the necessary resources to facilitate the delivery of this service. A case study in Europe has already demonstrated that certain birds control insects in apple orchards if provided with nest boxes for breeding in. In short, we need to ensure that the right types of species occur in the areas where they are most needed. Turning this on its head, we could also change land uses to take advantage of potential available services. Service potential could be ascertained from species’ ecological characteristics. Particular land uses would occur in regions where species already exist that have the greatest potential for providing desired services.

At national and global levels, research has focussed on generating dollar values for services, mapping the location of potential service-providing ecosystems and examining the congruence between priorities for protecting ecosystem services and biodiversity. Such mapping exercises are realistically all that can currently be achieved at such large scales, yet they can be improved by identifying more explicitly the human need for particular services, the actual beneficiaries of services, how services flow from ecosystems to people, what alternatives are available if this flow is disrupted, and the capacity of local communities to pay for these alternatives.

One of the most important questions in the research on ecosystem services is whether protecting services will also protect the majority of Earth’s biodiversity. Critics of the ecosystem-service approach argue that this question has never been adequately addressed, and the approach places too much emphasis on generating dollar values for organisms rather than accepting that nature is valueless and we have a moral or ethical duty to protect it.

I am unaware of any scientist who argues that the ecosystem-service approach should replace traditional strategies for protecting nature. However, it offers great promise as a value-adding tactic to secure conservation gains in regions dominated by humans. It is especially powerful in arguing for the importance of nature conservation in the spheres of society where moral and ethical responsibilities are sidelined – and money talks.

The concept of ecosystem services offers a fantastic opportunity to link research and land management agendas across disciplines, as it can incorporate ecological assessment of service-providing organisms, economic and social valuation, and cost – benefit trade-offs of different land management strategies for both the landholder and society. What we need now is a large, national-level, interdisciplinary research effort to fast-track our understanding and protection of the services that support human life.

Gary Luck is an Associate Professor in Ecology and Environmental Management and a Principal Researcher in the Institute for Land, Water and Society at Charles Sturt University. His research interests include relationships between human settlements and biodiversity conservation, fauna conservation in highly modified landscapes and ecosystem services.