Since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was published, a plethora of ecosystem service frameworks have been developed to conceptualise the links between the natural environment and society. The intended geographic scales of application, the policy/practice context, and the scientific disciplines involved have driven variations in how the frameworks are constructed. However, the frameworks are homogenous in that they have been created predominately based on expert opinions and views of how ecosystem services are structured. Here, we use the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) to examine the extent to which frameworks capture people’s values for British woodlands. Our findings reveal several disparities between how experts and the public conceptualise ecosystem services. The considerable refinement and specificity provided by CICES does not align with public values (e.g. some provisioning, and regulation and maintenance, services), which tend to be more generalised. We also demonstrate differences in values explained by social characteristics (e.g. ethnicity) that need to be accounted for in decision-making processes. Moving forwards, we need to consider how society views the services derived from nature and reflect this in frameworks to ensure ecosystem service approaches are effective, transparent and widely supported.

自《千年生态系统评估》发表以来，已经开发了众多的生态系统服务框架，以概念化自然环境与社会之间的联系。预期的应用地理范围，政策/实践背景以及所涉及的科学学科推动了框架构建方式的变化。但是，这些框架是同质的，主要是基于专家的意见和对生态系统服务的结构方式的看法而创建的。在这里，我们使用生态系统服务国际通用分类（CICES）来检验框架在多大程度上体现了人们对英国林地的价值。我们的发现揭示了专家和公众如何概念化生态系统服务之间的一些差异。CICES提供的相当多的细化和特殊性与公共价值（例如某些供应，法规和维护，服务）不一致，公共价值倾向于更普遍化。我们还展示了由社会特征（例如种族）解释的价值观差异，需要在决策过程中加以考虑。展望未来，我们需要考虑社会如何看待来自自然的服务，并将其反映在框架中，以确保生态系统服务方法有效，透明和得到广泛支持。种族），这需要在决策过程中加以考虑。展望未来，我们需要考虑社会如何看待来自自然的服务，并将其反映在框架中，以确保生态系统服务方法有效，透明和得到广泛支持。种族），这需要在决策过程中加以考虑。展望未来，我们需要考虑社会如何看待来自自然的服务，并将其反映在框架中，以确保生态系统服务方法有效，透明和得到广泛支持。