Experimental Ecosystem Accounting Research Articles

Ecosystem Assessment for Sustainable Management : A Case Study of Coringa Mangroves, Andhra Pradesh, India

Coastal ecosystems contribute to the economy by providing various goods and services. Ignorance about the economic importance of these goods and services leads to overexploitation and depletion of ecosystems in the long run, thereby affecting sustainability. This study attempted to estimate the economic value of goods and services of Coringa mangroves, Andhra Pradesh, by adopting the System of Environmental Economic Accounting – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting framework. The framework guides to assess the extent and condition of ecosystem assets and estimates the ecosystem service flows in physical and monetary terms for better decision making on sustainable management. The goods and services identified in Coringa mangroves were classified as provisioning, regulatory, and cultural services as specified in the framework. The study found that Coringa mangroves produce 11 goods and services with a total economic value of ₹549.6 crores per year. A meta-analysis study was conducted to compare the benefits of Coringa mangroves with other mangrove sites of the world. The study revealed that honey and medicinal benefits, with an estimated worth of ₹1.92 crores per year, have remained unutilized in Coringa. To exploit the unutilized potentials of Coringa mangroves in a sustainable way, this study recommends capacity-building activities that will help link the environment with economics and seed investments.

Methodological and empirical challenges of SEEA EEA in developing contexts: Towards ecosystem service accounts in the Kyrgyz Republic

The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA) represents a crucial approach to incorporate the assessment of the sustainable use of natural resources and ecosystems into decision- and policy-making. However, its application is constrained by challenges distinct across specific implementation contexts, including those present in developing nations. In this paper, we focus on a pilot SEEA EEA application in a local-scale case study in Kyzyl Unkur, Jalal-Abad region, the Kyrgyz Republic, characterized by a unique natural walnut forest. We summarize key methodological and empirical challenges identified through collaboration with local experts and stakeholders during the compilation of Supply and Use tables for selected ecosystem services (ES) relevant at local, national and global levels. Specifically, we focus on the methodological challenges related to a) defining and assigning benefits for own consumption; b) delineating the chain of ES flows (e.g., fodder for farm animals); c) uncovering the relevance of carbon sequestration in developing nation contexts which are often minor greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters and demand for the service lies mostly beyond their boundaries. Among empirical challenges, we highlight the issues of data collection and availability. The aim of this communication is to provide lessons learnt from building SEEA EEA accounts in a developing, data-scarce context, potentially transferable to other similar applications.

FEATURES OF THE ORGANIZATION AND ANALYSIS OF ACCOUNTING OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE BAIKAL NATURAL TERRITORY

The purpose of this work is to review the existing basic methodological approaches to experimental ecosystem accounting within the framework of the natural-economic accounting system, as well as their practical application in statistical analysis, taking into account existing information resources. The authors substantiate the choice of the object of research – the Baikal natural territory. The paper prepares a list of ecosystem services typical for the Baikal nature territory ecosystem, analyses the dynamics and structure of some of them in the period 2013 – 2017, assesses the contribution of the Baikal nature territory ecosystem to the total volume of ecosystem services in individual regions of Russia in physical terms, calculates the share of anthropogenic load obtained by the Baikal nature territory ecosystem from the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, formulates conclusions about the relevance of ecosystem accounting for the Russian Federation.

Piloting urban ecosystem accounting for the United States

In this study, we develop urban ecosystem accounts in the U.S., using the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA) framework. Most ecosystem accounts focus on regional and national scales, which are appropriate for many ecosystem services. However, ecosystems provide substantial services in cities, improving quality of life and contributing to resiliency for substantial parts of the population. Our models estimate energy savings for indoor cooling resulting from heat mitigated by trees and rainfall intercepted by trees. Both models cover major cities in the contiguous U.S. and report the results through physical supply and use tables for multiple accounting periods (2011 and 2016). Using conservative assumptions, urban trees provide substantial heat mitigation (4,098 and 4,229 GWh, valued at $523 and $539 million in 2011 and 2016, respectively) and rainfall interception (2,422 and 2,627 million m3, valued at $434 and $425 million for 2011 and 2016, respectively). Interannual differences largely reflect variations in weather patterns. Our work shows how Earth observation data can support urban ecosystem accounting. We provide model code within a public repository to facilitate model runs elsewhere, enabling the SEEA EEA and Earth observation user communities to reuse our models and provide feedback for improvement.

A common typology for ecosystem characteristics and ecosystem condition variables

The UN System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA) aims at regular and standardised stocktaking on the extent of ecosystems, their condition and the services they provide to society. Recording the condition of ecosystems is one of the most complex pieces in this exercise, needing to be supported by robust and consistent guidelines. SEEA EEA defines the condition of an ecosystem as its overall quality, measured in terms of quantitative metrics describing both abiotic and biotic characteristics. The main objective of this paper is to propose a simple universal classification (typology) for these ecosystem condition characteristics and metrics, based on long standing ecological concepts and traditions. The proposed SEEA EEA Ecosystem Condition Typology (SEEA ECT) is a hierarchical classification consisting of six classes grouped into three main groups (abiotic, biotic and landscape-level ecosystem characteristics). In order to facilitate practical applications, SEEA ECT is cross-linked to the most relevant existing typologies for ecosystem characteristics currently used for other purposes. To ensure clarity and practicality, we identified potential overlaps between classes and also identified the most important groups of ‘ancillary data’ that should not be considered as ecosystem condition characteristics. We consider that this new typology for ecosystem condition will create a meaningful reporting structure for ecosystem condition accounts, thus facilitating its standardisation and broad application.

Urban natural resource accounting based on the system of environmental economic accounting in Northwest China: A case study of Xi’an

Drawing lessons from the System of Environmental and Economic Accounting Central Framework (SEEA-CF) and Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA-EEA), China is carrying out a pilot project for ecosystem accounting at the provincial level. Compiling and applying the principles, methods and ecosystem accounts of natural capital accounting in Northwest cities are new explorations. This study considers the degradation and fragility of the urban ecosystem in Xi’an and discusses urban natural resource (NR) accounting in terms of the physical quantity and monetary value. We took Xi’an as a case to demonstrate how to use the SEEA to analyze NR changes and the effectiveness of local eco-environmental management policies based on the characteristics of cities. The results show that, compared with using the physical quantity, calculating the monetary value according to NR restoration obligation, NR maintenance obligation better reflects the utilization level of urban NR, measures resource depletion and degradation, and maximizes the utility of the accounting results. This study focuses on using NR accounting methods for urban water resources, land resources and mineral resources, and evaluating ecosystem services for purposes of ecological restoration. It lays a foundation for consolidating urban gross ecosystem product accounting results in line with the SEEA and provides support for future study.

Biophysical and economic assessment of four ecosystem services for natural capital accounting in Italy

We present methods and results of country-based natural capital assessments for four ecosystem services (ES) in Italy. The spatial mapping and the assessment have been carried out in both physical and monetary terms for (i) crop pollination, (ii) outdoor recreation, (iii) flood regulation (iv) and water provision, using the ARIES (Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services) technology, which provides and integrates the necessary data and models. Extent, supply and use accounting tables have been developed for the same ecosystem services in line with the United Nations System of Environmental Economic Accounting (UN-SEEA) guidelines and Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (EEA) initiative. This work represents a first official and nationwide assessment of ecosystem services for the Italian Government in accomplishment of the Italian law n. 221/2015, applying a variety of different models and economic valuation methods to provide systematic and replicable information on natural capital through national accounting tables. We find that land management and maintenance of the countryside and forestland, which represent the typical Italian landscape, are fundamental. Our application also identifies several modelling challenges that need to be addressed before a methodological path for integrated ecosystem and economic accounting may be considered rigorous and reliable.

Linking biodiversity into national economic accounting

Biodiversity underpins the supply of ecosystem services essential for well-being and economic development, yet biodiversity loss continues at a substantial rate. Linking biodiversity indicators with national economic accounts provides a means of mainstreaming biodiversity into economic planning and monitoring processes. Here we examine the various strategies for biodiversity indicators to be linked into national economic accounts, specifically the System of Environmental-Economic Accounts Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA) framework. We present what has been achieved in practice, using various case studies from across the world. These case studies demonstrate the potential of economic accounting as an integrating, mainstreaming framework that explicitly considers biodiversity. With the right indicators for the different components of biodiversity and scales of biological organisation, this can directly support more holistic economic planning approaches. This will be a significant step forward from relying on the traditional indicators of national economic accounts to guide national planning. It is also essential if society’s objectives for biodiversity and sustainable development are to be met.

A conceptual framework and practical structure for implementing ecosystem condition accounts

Ecosystem condition is a fundamental component in the ecosystem accounting framework as part of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA). Here, we develop a conceptual framework and present a practical structure for implementing ecosystem condition accounts to contribute to the revision process of the SEEA EEA, focussing on six core elements: (1) developing a common definition of ecosystem condition, (2) establishing a conceptual framing for ecosystem condition, (3) portraying the role of condition within the SEEA EEA accounting system, (4) deriving an inclusive multi-purpose approach, (5) describing the components of condition accounts and (6) developing a three-stage structure for reporting accounts. We develop a conceptual framework for an inclusive condition account, building on an ecological understanding of ecosystems upon which definitions, concepts, classifications and reporting structures were based. The framework encompasses the dual perspectives of first, the interdependencies of ecosystem composition, structure and function in maintaining ecosystem integrity and second, the capacity of ecosystems to supply services as benefits for humans. The following components of ecosystem condition accounts are recommended to provide comprehensive, consistent, repeatable and transparent accounts: (1) intrinsic and instrumental values, together with ecocentric and anthropocentric worldviews; (2) a formal typology or classification of characteristics, variables and indicators, based on selection criteria; (3) a reference condition used both to compare past, current and future levels of indicators of condition and as a basis for aggregation of indicators; and (4) a three-stage approach to compiling accounts with increasing levels of information and complexity that are appropriate for different purposes and applications. The recommended broad and inclusive scope of ecosystem condition and the demonstrated practical methods for implementation of accounts will enhance the ecosystem accounting framework and thus support a wider range of current and potential applications and users.

A sustainability scoreboard for crop provision in Europe

The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (SEEA AFF) offers the possibility to assess and report detailed accounts for primary industries while establishing important linkages with relevant ecosystem services, in line with the SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA). In this paper, crop products and crop provision as ecosystem service are coherently merged to build a sustainability scoreboard for selected crops in European countries. The sustainability scoreboard uses the SEEA AFF accounts for crop products with data inputs from FAOSTAT and the Integrated system of Natural Capital Accounts (INCA) of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) for ecosystem services. The combined FAO-JRC accounting table described in this paper provides a common ground and measurement tool towards a sustainability scoreboard, useful to analyse how relevant economic, social and environmental components behave by country. This newly derived sustainability scoreboard presents significant differences with respect to analyses based on standard agricultural statistics. Lack of sufficiently accurate data remains the major limitation to current fuller implementation of the sustainability scoreboard. However reasonable assumption can be made that ongoing international data collection processes (including FAO questionnaires) integrated with Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis will supply in the near future additional relevant and applicable information.

Accounting for land in the United States: Integrating physical land cover, land use, and monetary valuation

Land plays a critical role in both economic and environmental accounting. As an asset, it occupies a unique position at the intersection of the System of National Accounts (SNA), the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Central Framework (SEEA-CF), and (as a spatial unit) SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA-EEA), making land a natural starting point for developing natural capital accounts more generally. We develop a pilot set of national and subnational land accounts for the United States that are consistent with the SEEA-CF and SNA principles, quantified in both physical and monetary terms. The physical accounts utilize detailed land use (National Land Use Database) and land cover (National Land Cover Database) datasets, which provide insights into how land cover in the U.S. is changing over time. To provide aggregate estimates of land values, we use a hedonic approach that exploits fine-grain microdata (“big data” from Zillow) that contains detailed information from hundreds of millions of property transactions and their corresponding physical characteristics covering much of the U.S. Methodologically, we show that it is feasible to produce monetary accounts for land that can be directly linked to and integrated with physical land cover/use. Overall, U.S. land cover has shown declines in forests, cropland, and pasture with increases in barren, scrub/shrub, and developed classes, which are particularly concentrated in the U.S. Southeast. Nominal land values in the U.S. fell about 28% ($7 trillion) from the boom to bust periods in the prior decade, albeit with substantial regional variation, and have subsequently experienced a nearly full recovery in recent years. We estimate private land in the contiguous 48 states to be worth approximately $25.1 trillion in 2016.

Measuring environmental incomes beyond standard national and ecosystem accounting frameworks: testing and comparing the agroforestry Accounting System in a holm oak dehesa case study in Andalusia-Spain

The standard System of National Accounts (SNA) omits the costs of the environmental inputs from nature and the environmental fixed asset degradation from the national/sub-national natural working landscapes. The United Nations Statistic Division (UNSD) is currently drafting the standardization of the Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (EEA), as part of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA). The EEA- aims to mitigate some of the limitations of the SNA by extending the concept of economic activity and explicitly incorporating ecosystem services and environmental assets provided by nature in the estimates of net value added, adjusted according to the costs of the environmental inputs consumed and the environmental fixed asset degradations of ecosystem. However, the NVAad proposed in the ongoing draft of the EEA is inconsistent in that it omits the manufactured costs of the public economic activities of the new government institutional sub-sector of the ecosystem trustee. In addition, the ongoing methodological guidelines of the EEA do not propose to estimate the environmental income. This implies that there is not a single indicator that integrates the ecosystem services obtained and the evolution of the environmental assets in the natural working landscapes in which the private and public activities are valued. The objective of this research is to discuss conceptually and compare the measurements of ecosystem services and environmental incomes in the extended Agroforestry Accounting System (AAS), and in refined versions of the official SNA and the ongoing EEA methodologies, through a case study of privately-owned holm oak dehesas working landscapes in Andalusia-Spain. This comparison shows that the refined SNA and the refined EEA in their current state of development do not allow the complete visualization of the environmental income contribution to the total income of the natural working landscapes. We also discuss the advances provided by the AAS extended accounting methodology that would be relevant for the EEA next improvements.

A review of ecosystem condition accounts: lessons learned and options for further development

Ecosystem condition accounts are part of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA). An ecosystem condition account contains aggregated statistical information about the overall abiotic and biotic quality of an ecosystem at a policy relevant spatial scale. This article reviews 23 publicly-accessible reports undertaken or commissioned by government agencies, academic and non-government organisations that discuss or present an ecosystem condition account. This analysis revealed that ecosystem condition is usually reported for one or more ecosystem types, but there is little consistency in the terminology used to define ecosystem types. All case studies report variables or indicators that measure specific ecosystem characteristics in order to make inferences about the overall condition of ecosystems. All studies included biotic indicators and almost all studies included species-based indicators in the condition account. The thematic aggregation of indicators into a single composite index (or in a few composite sub-indices) is not a standard practice, but applied in about half of the studies. The definition and use of a reference condition or reference levels for specific indicators against which the reported condition can be evaluated is not a standard practice, but was applied in about half of the studies. Based on this analysis, we suggest the revision of the SEEA EEA to propose a globally-consistent typology of ecosystem types; to recommend a list of ecosystem condition indicators according to an agreed classification; to provide further guidance on aggregation methods and on the development of an ecosystem condition index that can be used to compare ecosystem condition across ecosystem types and across different accounting areas; to provide further guidance on how best to set reference levels and reference conditions against which the past, current and future ecosystem condition can be assessed; and to propose a standard set of statistical tables for reporting the condition account.

Ecosystem accounting in the Netherlands

In 2012, the Netherlands started the testing and production of high resolution, national scale ecosystem accounts following the methodology of the System of Environmental Economic Accounting – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA), in short ‘ecosystem accounting’. The SEEA is endorsed by the United Nations Statistical Commission as a comprehensive system for analysing and recording physical and monetary information on ecosystems and human dependencies on ecosystems. Many other countries have been developing natural capital accounts following the SEEA EEA, but the Netherlands work was novel in the sense that a comprehensive set of accounts has been developed for the whole country, including high resolution maps and accounting tables of ecosystem type, condition, services, assets, carbon and biodiversity. The work involved over 10 man-years of work, and was carried out in a collaboration by the Netherlands Statistical Office (CBS) and Wageningen University. This paper presents the methodologies followed and results obtained, and reflects on the policy applications of the accounts. Some further testing and development of the SEEA EEA is needed and also the Netherlands accounts are not yet complete. Nevertheless, the lessons learned in the Netherlands are relevant for other accounting efforts world-wide.

Refined Systems of National Accounts and Experimental Ecosystem Accounting Versus the Simplified Agroforestry Accounting System: Testing in Andalusian Holm Oak Open Woodlands

The scientific debate over how to make visible the connections between the standard System of National Accounts (SNA) and its ongoing satellite Environmental Economic Ecosystem Accounting–Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA–EEA) is a challenge that is still pending. The literature on environmental accounting of agroforestry and silvopastoral landscapes rarely values the multiple ecosystem services of an area, an economic unit (e.g., farm), or a vegetation type (e.g., holm oak—Quercus ilex L.—open woodland). Generally, the literature presents the market value of the products consumed directly or a correction of the latter that reduces their exchange values in order to approximate them to their resource rents. In our previous publications, we have applied and compared our Agroforestry Accounting System (AAS) with the System of National Accounts (SNA), and we refined the latter to avoid the lag between income generation and its accounting in the period in which the product is extracted. These previous publications did not develop experimental applications of the SEEA–EEA with comparisons to the SNA and it being integrated into the AAS. The main novelty of this article is that, for the first time, we present detailed applications and comparisons of our developments of the refined SEEA–EEA and refined SNA with a simplified version of the AAS. The accounting frameworks applied take the production and capital accounts in the process of being updated by the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) at the scale of the holm oak open woodlands of Andalusia into account. In this study, we compare three environmental accounting approaches for ecosystem services and environmental income measurements at basic and social prices: our slightly refined standard System of National Accounts (rSNA); our refined, updated and ongoing satellite System of Environmental Economic Accounting–Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (rSEEA–EEA); and our simplified Agroforestry Accounting System (sAAS). We tested them for 15 economic activities in 1408 thousand hectares of the predominantly mixed holm oak open woodland (HOW) land use tiles in the region of Andalusia, Spain. We considered the government institutional sector to be the collective owner of public economic activities, which we incorporated in the rSNA and the sAAS approaches. We discuss consistencies in environmental incomes identified from the results of the three ecosystem accounting frameworks applied to the HOW. The discrepancies in the measurement of ecosystem services of the government institutional sector between the rSEEA–EEA and the sAAS were due to the omission in the former of the government manufactured costs incurred in the supply of freely consumed public final products. The most notable finding of our comparison is that the ecosystem services and the environmental income results for individual market products offered the same values, whichever the ecosystem accounting framework applied. This was not the case with the ecosystem services of public products without market prices, due to the fact that the rSNA estimates these products at production cost and the rSEEA–EEA did not consider the government manufactured production costs and ordinary manufactured net operating margin of government final public product consumption. We also found that, according to modeling of the scheduled management of future biological resources of the HOW, the environmental income shows biological sustainability of the individual nature-based total product consumption.

Adjusted macroeconomic indicators to account for ecosystem degradation: an illustrative example

ABSTRACT Adjusting macroeconomic indicators to account for the depletion and degradation of natural capital has long been viewed as a way to show the linkages between nature and the economy and foster more sustainable paths of development. Here, we show how the System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA) Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (EEA) can be used to develop environmentally adjusted macroeconomic indicators. More specifically, we show how an enlargement of the production boundary to include the consideration of ecosystems as institutional units allows the development of a net value added metric that reflects depreciation and degradation of the natural capital assets. This measurement could be useful for policymaking: the linkage of ecosystem services to economic activities allows us to account for loss, repair and substitution of natural capital, and thus helps us to formulate and monitor environmental policies.

Beyond the economic boundaries to account for ecosystem services

Ecosystem services (ES) accounts are essential to quantify and monitor the contribution of ecosystems to human well-being. The System of Environmental and Economic Accounting – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA) is the first attempt to provide a set of standards to compile ecosystem accounts. We argue for the inclusion of an ecological perspective in the SEEA EEA that considers ecosystems to be more than input providers to the economy. Ecosystems can act as accounting units capable of producing, consuming and recording changes in regeneration and absorption rates. To account for that we propose (i) to identify ES typologies according to the way in which energy, biomass and information is released to generate services; (ii) to use these typologies to define the concepts of ES potential, ES potential flows, ES demand and ES actual flows; and (iii) to build the ES capacity accounts in monetary terms based on these concepts. These arguments are illustrated with case studies for water purification and crop pollination accounts in European countries. Extending the production boundary would allow the measurement of the sustainable use of ES and the establishment of causality between the use of ES and the value accrued by the economic actors and households.

Ecosystem services accounts: Valuing the actual flow of nature-based recreation from ecosystems to people

Natural capital accounting aims to measure changes in the stock of natural assets (i.e., soil, air, water and all living things) and to integrate the value of ecosystem services into accounting systems that will contribute to better ecosystems management. This study develops ecosystem services accounts at the European Union level, using nature-based recreation as a case study and following the current international accounting framework: System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA). We adapt and integrate different biophysical and socio-economic models, illustrating the workflow necessary for ecosystem services accounts: from a biophysical assessment of nature-based recreation to an economic valuation and compilation of the accounting tables. The biophysical assessment of nature-based recreation is based on spatially explicit models for assessing different components of ecosystem services: potential, demand and actual flow. Deriving maps of ecosystem service potential and demand is a key step in quantifying the actual flow of the service used, which is determined by the spatial relationship (i.e., proximity in the case of nature-based recreation) between service potential and demand. The nature-based recreation accounts for 2012 show an actual flow of 40 million potential visits to ‘high-quality areas for daily recreation’, with a total value of EUR 50 billion. This constitutes an important contribution of ecosystems to people's lives that has increased by 26% since 2000. Practical examples of ecosystem services accounts, as shown in this study, are required to derive recommendations and further develop the conceptual and methodological framework proposed by the SEEA EEA. This paper highlights the importance of using spatially explicit models for ecosystem services accounts. Mapping the different components of ecosystem services allows proper identification of the drivers of changes in the actual service flow derived from ecosystems, socio-economic systems and/or their spatial relationship. This will contribute to achieving one of the main goals of ecosystem accounts, namely measuring changes in natural capital, but it will also support decision-making that targets the enhancement of ecosystems, their services and the benefits they provide.

Experimental ecosystem accounting for coastal and marine areas: A pilot application of the SEEA-EEA in Long Island coastal bays

Recent international efforts have focused on the development of metrics to supplement or adjust Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to better account for the broader environmental and social impacts of economic development. In this regard, the United Nations System of Environmental-Economic Accounting, through its Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (EEA) work, is developing a standardized approach to accounting for the value of ecosystem services generated by ecosystems and documenting the relationships between ecosystem services and economic activity. Limited examples exist of the application of the EEA approach to coastal and marine habitats. The purpose of the current paper is therefore to develop a pilot process for applying the EEA within a coastal area, using South Shore Long Island Bays as a case study. Indicators of ecosystem condition and ecosystem services are proposed, data are compiled for the study site, and population of EEA tables as proposed by the United Nations is undertaken. Results indicate significant data gaps for marine and coastal areas that may limit the immediate ability to compile these ecosystem accounts. However, based on identified data gaps and implementation challenges, the process undertaken at the pilot site also provides guidance for potential future research activities.

A critical review of ecosystem accounting and services frameworks

Ecological economists currently face an important opportunity to influence national policies and global awareness regarding ecosystems. Ecosystem services (ES) frameworks, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the System of Environmental Economic Accounting Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA) will influence how national measurement systems integrate the value of ecosystems and their services into national planning and monitoring progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Decision-makers are, however, faced with an embarrassment of riches. There is a multitude of ES frameworks, but no formal and integrative evaluation of the entire set exists. We review the IPBES, the SEEA EEA and 14 other ES frameworks using criteria designed to address operational and convergence considerations for national ecosystem accounting. While the frameworks reviewed incorporate many strengths, none fulfils all the criteria of a comprehensive national ecosystem accounting framework. We conclude with suggestions for conceptual, measurement and process developments to broaden the appeal, utility and acceptance of future frameworks. Considering these suggestions could substantially contribute to the development of ecosystem accounting frameworks that foster a constructive dialogue amongst the many disciplines, national contexts and viewpoints involved in understanding, measuring and making decisions about ecosystems.