Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26082539›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2015

Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice.

Anne D Guerry, Stephen Polasky, Jane Lubchenco, Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer, Gretchen C Daily, Robert Griffin, Mary Ruckelshaus, Ian J Bateman, Anantha Duraiappah, Thomas Elmqvist and 13 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
62.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

94 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 973 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Emerging design principles for environmental, economic, and equity successes in land conservation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Overcoming barriers to build partnerships for managing plant invasions under global change.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. One landscape does not fit all: Diverse arthropod responses to land use.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Natural capital approaches for the optimal design of policies for nature recovery.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Land-Use Decisions Have Substantial Air Quality Health Effects.Environmental science & technology · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 14 institutions in 6 countries.

Anne D GuerryThe Natural Capital Project, c/o School of Environment and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195; Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; anne.guerry@stanford.edu.
Stephen PolaskyInstitute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108; Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108; The Natural Capital Project, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108;
Jane LubchencoDepartment of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97333;
Rebecca Chaplin-KramerWoods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
Gretchen C DailyThe Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; Department of Biology, Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; Global Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm SE-104 05, Sweden;
Robert GriffinWoods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
Mary RuckelshausThe Natural Capital Project, c/o School of Environment and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195; Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
Ian J BatemanCentre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom;
Anantha DuraiappahMahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development, New Delhi 110 029, India;
Thomas ElmqvistStockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm SE-106 91, Sweden;
Marcus W FeldmanDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
Carl FolkeGlobal Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm SE-104 05, Sweden; Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm SE-106 91, Sweden; Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm SE-104 05, Sweden;
Jon HoekstraWorld Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC 20037;
Peter M KareivaThe Nature Conservancy, Seattle, WA 91805;
Bonnie L KeelerInstitute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108; The Natural Capital Project, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108;
Shuzhuo LiInstitute of Population and Development Studies, School of Public Policy and Administration, Xian Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province 710049, People's Republic of China;
Emily McKenzieWorld Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC 20037; World Wildlife Fund-UK, The Living Planet Centre, Surrey GU21 4LL, United Kingdom;
Zhiyun OuyangState Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, People's Republic of China;
Belinda ReyersNatural Resources and the Environment, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa;
Taylor H RickettsGund Institute of Ecological Economics, and Rubenstein School for Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405;
Johan RockströmStockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm SE-106 91, Sweden;
Heather TallisThe Nature Conservancy, Santa Cruz, CA 95060;
Bhaskar ViraDepartment of Geography, and Conservation Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, United Kingdom.
Palo Alto Institute · USStockholm University · SEStanford University · USThe Nature Conservancy · USUniversity of Minnesota · USWorld Wildlife Fund · USCapital University · USCouncil for Scientific and Industrial Research · ZAOregon State University · USResearch Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences · CNUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GBUniversity of Vermont · USXi'an Jiaotong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The central challenge of the 21st century is to develop economic, social, and governance systems capable of ending poverty and achieving sustainable levels of population and consumption while securing the life-support systems underpinning current and future human well-being. Essential to meeting this challenge is the incorporation of natural capital and the ecosystem services it provides into decision-making. We explore progress and crucial gaps at this frontier, reflecting upon the 10 y since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. We focus on three key dimensions of progress and ongoing challenges: raising awareness of the interdependence of ecosystems and human well-being, advancing the fundamental interdisciplinary science of ecosystem services, and implementing this science in decisions to restore natural capital and use it sustainably. Awareness of human dependence on nature is at an all-time high, the science of ecosystem services is rapidly advancing, and talk of natural capital is now common from governments to corporate boardrooms. However, successful implementation is still in early stages. We explore why ecosystem service information has yet to fundamentally change decision-making and suggest a path forward that emphasizes: (i) developing solid evidence linking decisions to impacts on natural capital and ecosystem services, and then to human well-being; (ii) working closely with leaders in government, business, and civil society to develop the knowledge, tools, and practices necessary to integrate natural capital and ecosystem services into everyday decision-making; and (iii) reforming institutions to change policy and practices to better align private short-term goals with societal long-term goals.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemAnimalsDecision MakingEcologyHumansPublic Policybeneficiarydecision makinghuman well-beingresiliencesustainable development

Identifiers

PMID26082539
PMCPMC4475956
OpenAlexW1540250989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.