Challenges in using valuation in ecosystem-based management in a marine context: the case of UK Marine Protected Area designation - Ocean Sustainability in the 21st Century - page 228

sistency, particularly as it relates to the non-provisioning services, has severely constrained
the adoption and operational use of the ecosystem service typologies published to date in
the literature.
In a recent review, Böhnke-Henrichs et al . ( 2013 ) find two extant typologies that are
marine focused (Beaumont et al ., 2007 ; Atkins et al ., 2011 ). Both are valid in their own
right and indeed the Beaumont et al . ( 2007 ) framework is applied in the case study of UK
marine protected areas that follows. But the MA ( 2005 ) and TEEB ( 2010 ) typologies re-
main ubiquitous in the policy arena. This would not be problematic were the differences
between these dominant typologies and the marine focus to be semantic, e.g. defining 'sea
food' as a marine-specific ecosystem service rather than 'food', or the removal of inapplic-
able services such as 'pollination' and 'maintenance of soil fertility'. The more substant-
ive issue is where to draw the boundaries around a service so as to avoid double-counting.
For instance, one source of carbon sequestration is via buried organic matter; so the higher
the TEEB ( 2010 ) provisioning service of 'food' (i.e. capture fisheries), the lower the avail-
able organic matter for 'climate regulation', all else being equal (Böhnke-Henrichs et al .,
2013 ) . Further, extracting fish for 'food' reduces their abundance and this could affect 'op-
portunities for recreation and leisure', for those wishing to go snorkelling or diving. These
boundary issues are not unique to marine ecosystems but the potential for double-counting
is greater in some cases as compared with terrestrial ecosystems .