8/12/2019 Finding Common Ground for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.pdf

1/6

Forum

Finding Common Ground for iodiversity and EcosystemServicesBELINDA REY ERS STEPHEN POLASKY HEATHER TAL LIS HAROLD A. MOONEY AN D ANNE LARIGAUDERIE

Recently, some m embers of the conservation commun ity have used ecosystem services as a strategy to conserve biodiversity. O thers in the com-munity have criticized this strategy as a distraction from the mission of biodiversity conserva tion. The debate continues, and it remains unclearwhether the concerns expressed are significant enough to merit the opposition. Through an exploration of the science of biodiversity an d ecosystemservices, we find that narrow interpretations of metrics, values, and manag ement drive much of the tension and make the common ground appearsmall. The size of this common ground depends on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services and how they respond to manage-ment interventions. We demonstrate how understanding this response can be used to delimit comm on ground but highlight the importance ofdifferentiating between objectives and approache s to meeting those objectives in conservation projects.Keywo rds: conservation, trade-offs, economic value, intrinsic value

D espite appeals about the intrinsic value of nature andimportant gains in some areas, the dominant flow ofhuman activity has continued moving in directions detri-mental to biodiversity conservation (Butchart et al. 2010).In response, some within the conservation community haveattempted to broaden the base of support for biodiversityconservation by adopting the concept of ecosystem servicesand by arguing that th e conservation of biodiversity mattersnot only because ofitsintrinsic value but because it is essen-tial for hum an well-being. Examples include the Conventionon Biological Diversity's ecosystem-services approach andthe targets adopted in their Strategic Plan for Biodiversity2011-2020 wwvi/.cbd.int/sp) and the new mission state-ment of Conservation International (CI), which states that CI empowers societies to responsibly and sustainably carefor nature, our global biodiversity, for the well-being ofhumanity (www.conservation.org/about/mission_strategy/pages/mission.aspx . The move to embrace ecosystem ser-vices has raised concerns among some in the conservationcommunity who argue that putting ecosystem services atthe heart of biodiversity-conservation strategies is at besta distraction and at worst a dangerous diversion fi-om thetrue mission of conservation (e.g., McCauley 2006, Ghazoul2007,Redford and Adam s 2009). O thers, however, argue thatwe can better conserve biodiversity un der the big tent ofeco-system services (e.g., Skroch and Lopez-Hoffman 2009).

The debate about the role that ecosystem services shouldplay in biodiversity conservation has gone back and forth

without resolution. This debate, if it divides the conserva-tion community, would hamper efforts to stem the tide thatis sweeping away biodiversity and the very foundations ofour life-support systems. However, it is not clear whetherthe concerns around ecosystem services are large enoughto merit the opposition expressed or whether they are per-haps linked to confusion and narrow interpretations of thecomplex concepts involved (Norgaard 2010). This article isan attempt to explore the science and values that underhebiodiversity and ecosystem services, in an effort to betterunderstand these concerns and to work toward a commonunderstanding and appreciation of ecosystem services andtheir place within the conservation community.Clarifying the concepts and values of biodiversityand ecosystem servicesAlthough they are relatively simple to define in theory,biodiversity an d ecosystem services are both complex concepts. The complexity makes it difficult to provide con-cise operational definitions and to measure the successof conservation strategies in attaining their stated goals.Biodiversity,which literally means the variety oflife,includesnot only the variety of structures at the genetic, species, andecosystem levels but also the variety in their compositionand function. There is no single measure or approach thatcan represent the full spectrum of biodiversity. Ecosystemservicesare broadly defined as being the benefits that peopleobtain from ecosystems and include wide array of benefits.

BioScience62 :503 -507. ISSN 0006-3568, electronic ISSN 1525-3244. 2012 by American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights reserved. R equestpermission to photo copy or reprodu ce article content at the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions Web site at www.ucpressjournals.com/

8/12/2019 Finding Common Ground for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.pdf

2/6

Forumincluding products such as food, fuel, and fiber, regulatingservices such as fiood protection and pollination, and themyriad of ctiltural benefits and values that people enjoyfrom nature. Similar to biodiversity, there is no generallyaccepted approach to measure the complete bundle of eco-system services provided by an area.

The complexity of the two concepts, the challenges ofunderstanding and communicating them, and the limitedaccuracy and difficulty of complete measurement have prac-tical implications. Narrower interpretations of the conceptsare often used as proxies for the more complete and complexconcept. For example, biodiversity is often interpreted andmeasured in terms of higher-taxon species richness, and thefocus of ecosystem-services analyses is often on provisio ningservices that lend themselves to economic valuation, such astimber and food. Use of these narrow definitions and mea-surements can make it appear that there is less connectionand greater divergence between strategies to conserve bio-diversity and strategies to promote ecosystem services thanmay in fact be the case.At a deeper level, the underlying motivations for bio-diversity conservation and the provision of ecosystemservices are often associated with what appear to be fun-damentally different value systems (Colyvan et al. 2009).Biodiversity conservation is often associated with a biocen-tric perspective that assigns an intrinsic value to all life onEarth (Nor ton 1986, Rolston 1988). Something has intrinsicvaluewhen it is an end initself Ecosystem services, however,are associated with an anthro pocen tric perspective in which

biodiversity has instrumental value because it contrib-utes services that improve human well-being. Somethingthat has instrumental value is a means to a valuable end.Instrum ental values from ecosystem services include a broadrange of values, from direct use of food and timber speciesto the nonuse of cultural and spiritual values associated w ithspecies or habitats.The different underlying philosophies behind intrinsic andinstrumental values make it appear that there is little com-mon ground between approaches targeting biodiversity con-servation for its own sake and approaches for promoting theprovision of ecosystem services. But this need not be the case.

Although we wl not address the ethical and philosophicaldebates surrou ndin g in trinsic value covered elsewhere (Justuset al. 2008, Colyvan et al. 2009), it appears that it is often thecomplexity of intrinsic and instrumental valuesand thenarrow interpretations of the latterthat makes the com-mon ground they share appear smaller than it actuallyis.Forexample, although the concept of biodiversityemerges froman intrinsic context, the conservation of biodiversity is usu-ally motivated by wide variety of huma n values and choices,including existence value which is the benefit that peoplereceive from knowing a species, habitat, or landscapeor, infact, all of biodiversityexists. The Millennium EcosystemAssessment defines existence value as a cultural ecosystemservice because it is linked to the deeply held historical,

to ecosystems (MA2005,p.34),highlighting that instrumetal values include a wider variety of values than one woulexpect from the usual focus on use values only. Thereforalthough existence values come quite close to what manpeople think of as intrinsic values, they are in fact a formof instrumental value and serve to illustrate a broader vieof ecosystem services that goes beyond the market value ocommodities, and even beyond human-use values, to includnonuse and existence values.

Therefore, the outcomes of biodiversity-conservatiostrategies motivated by intrinsic and existence values, or ban ecosystem-services approach based on the instrument(including existence) values of ecosystem services, manot be as different as is feared. In recognizing this broadview of the common ground, Maquire and Justus (2008suggested that we will not only capture what many in thconservation community ascribe to the intrinsic value obiodiversity but we will also capture it in a way that cabe evaluated comparatively [against other Instrumentvalues] and used in decisionmaking (p. 911). This view ana clearer understanding ofexistence valuebrings the valassociated with biodiversity conservation and ecosystemservices closer together, and the common ground betweebiodiversity conservation and ecosystem services becommore apparent.There are also real and perceived difterences in policand management approaches for biodiversity conservatiocompared with approaches designed to enhance the provsion of ecosystem services. Biodiversity-conservation strat

gies are often perceived to be focused on protected areaand other strategies that minimize human disturbances oecosystems. Ecosystem-services strategies, however, requiconnections between people and ecosystems and are oftefocused on interventions in human-dominated landscapewith the perception that these strategies rely on paymenand markets. Again, this narrow interpretation of biodivesity conservation and ecosystem-services management manot refiect the wide diversity of management approachecurrently being used in the conservation of biodiversiand the manag ement of ecosystem services. Although mucbiodiversity conservation does target largely uninhabiteprotected areas, this is certainly not true of all biodiversitconservation, which is increasingly conducted in humandominated systems (Redford etal.2003); similarly, the m aagement of ecosystem services can range from protected-aremanagement to global markets for carbon, water, and otheservices. Within this wide diversity of possible managemeinterventions, Coldman and Tallis (2009) found that iecosystem-services projects employed by the world's twlargest conservation organizations, the protection of intasystems and associated management approaches were usejust as often as in projects in which only biodiversity was tageted. Although this will certainly not be the case in all proects, narrow interpretations of what management is usefor biodiversity and for ecosystem services are not helpful finding common ground.

8/12/2019 Finding Common Ground for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.pdf

3/6

ForumOne such narrow interpretation around ecosystem-services management comes from particular strategies thatare focused on markets and incentives for the provision ofservices, such as paymen ts for ecosystem services PES). InPES,services are transformed into com modities and the logicof markets and monetary payments guides actions, which

strikes some in the conservation community as moving inthe wrong direction e.g., McCauley 2006). PES schemes,however, cover a wide array of payments, and once again anarrow focus on a limited set of these schemes is problem-atic.Furtherm ore, there are ways other than PES to prom otethe sustainable supply of ecosystem services, including plan-ning, regulatory approaches, and com mun ity self-regulation Ostrom 1990). Again, a narrow focus on concerns aroundmarkets, payment schemes, and the economic paradigmignores the large diversity of ecosystem-services strategiesand aesthetic, spiritual, educational, scientific, and existencevalues associated with ecosystem services e.g., Frber et al.2002,MA 2005, USEPA 2 009).In reviewing the concepts, values, and managementoptions of biodiversity and ecosystem services, it appearsthat it is ofien differences in interpretation and a narrowunderstanding of the full complexity of biodiversity andecosystem services, as well their values and managementapproaches, that have caused the current tension in the con-servation community. Although this does not do away withall the concerns around ecosystem-services approaches toconservation, it does mean that the conservation commu-nity needs a greater appreciation of how narrow interpreta-tions, unsupported assumptions, different value systems,and different policy approaches factor into this debate. Howimportant these differences are in practice depends in largepart on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystemservices.el tionshipsBecause both biodiversity and ecosystem services are com-plex concepts, it can be difficult to untangle all of the linksbetween them. In attempting to understand the relationshipbetween biodiversity and ecosystem services and the role ofecosystem services in biodiversity conservation, it is per-haps useful to differentiate between the innate relationshipbetween biodiversity and ecosystem services on one hand i.e., the exact mechanisms by which biodiversity supportsor provides ecosystem services; e.g.. Mace etal.2011) and , onthe other hand, their responses to a particular managementaction e.g., Benn ett et al. 2009). In exploring the innaterelationship between the two, we know that all ecosystemservices require some level of biodiversity to function, butthe exact nature of the relationship is not well understoodfor most services, and the current evidence base remainsweak Diaz et al. 2006). In understand ing how biodiversityand ecosystem services respond to a particular manag ementaction, our knowledge and the evidence base, althoughthey are far from complete, are better and can be readilysupplemented through systematic review or meta-analysis

e.g., Naeem et al. 2009). Although neither a review nor ameta-analysis is the purpose here, we explore a selected setof case studies and existing reviews below, using a trade-offstypology of win-win, win-lose, and win-neutral, to illus-trate the utility of such an evidence base in finding com monground.Win win Mutually beneficial relationships exist betweenbiodiversity and many regulating, supporting, and culturalservices for which the aggregate stock of natural capital ismore valuable than the extraction of a flow of materials orenergy Vira and Adams 2009). Managem ent actions to con-serve ecosystem processes that prom ote regulating, support -ing, and cultural ecosystem services are often also good forbiodiversity conservationa win win scenario. For exam-ple, conserving forests to sequester carbon, prevent erosion,and filter water will also conserve forest-dependent species.Nelson and colleagues 2009) com pared the consequencesof alternative land-use change scenarios and showed thatthe scenario that conserved the greatest amount of naturalhabitat was best for a suite of regulating ecosystem services carbon sequestration, water quality, flood control) andfor the conservation of a set of habitat-sensitive vertebratespecies. Similarly, Reyers and colleagues 2009) illus tratedhow actions to restore biodiversity in overgrazed areas in theLittle Karoo of South Africa were also beneficial for the eco -system services of water regulation, carbon storage, erosionprevention, and tourism . These and similar studies generateresults fi^om specific regions and are limited in the range ofecosystem services and biodiversity that they include andare therefore not proof that win-win situations always exist.However, these studies do illustrate that actions that main-tain ecosystems and their processes e.g., habitat co nserva-tion or restor ation ) can be good for biodiversity Cowhn get al. 1999) and for the ecosystem services reliant on thoseprocesses Diaz et al. 2006). Clearly, mo re effort is needed inbuilding the evidence bas of the impacts of managementinterventions on biodiversity and ecosystem services acrossa broad range of contexts before large-scale extrapolationsbecome possible. In such mutualistic situations, biodiversityproponents and groups who wish to promote ecosystemservices will be ready allies, and the common ground will beclear Gold ma n and Tallis 2009).Win lose Many authors have highlighted the potential fortrade-offs between biodiversity and ecosystem services e.g.,Chan etal.2007,Redford an d Adam s 2009). In w-/ose situ-ations, a management intervention promoting ecosystemservices will be bad for biodiversity, and conserving biodi-versity will be bad for the provision of ecosystem services.Most examples of win-lose interventions involve conflictsbetween provisioning services and biodiversity. Examplesinclude damming a river to improve the consistency of awater supply, plowing up natural vegetation to plant foodcrops, or using pesticides to increase food production. TheMillennium Ecosystem Assessment found that trade-offs

8/12/2019 Finding Common Ground for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.pdf

4/6

Forumbetween provisioning services and biodiversity have beenthe largest driver of biodiversity loss over the last 50 years MA 2005). Actions to conserve biodiversity can also havenegative effects on ecosystem services and may conflictwith hu m an intere sts and well-being e.g., fencing off ofprotected areas that limits access to hunting, the gatheringof medicinal plants, the grazing of land, and o ther benefits).In these win-lose cases, biodiversity proponents will face aneven h arder task, because biodiversity-conservation actionswill run counter to promoting ecosystem services andhuman well-being, and the common ground between thetwo will be very limited. In the same way, people managingfor ecosystem services in these conditions will not have thesupport of biodiversity proponents.Win neutral Although win-win and win-lose situations areapparent, there may be some cases in which an action toconserve biodiversity will not change the net benefits ftomecosystem services or, conversely, in which an action thatpromotes an ecosystem service will have no net impact onbiodiversity. Examples of such relationships that are posi-tive for biodiversity an d n eutra l for ecosystem services cotildexist where there is no apparent human benefit from bio-diversity conservation. Examples could include biodiversityconservation that affects pollination functions where thereare no pollination-dependent food crops or wetland regula-tion of water fiows in uninhabited catchments. Such casesmay prove hard to find in the real world, since there are fewplaces where protected areas provide absolutely no benefitsto people, especially when one considers existence valuesor globally distributed benefits, such as climate regulation.Examples of unidirectional benefits that are positive forecosystem services and neutral for biodiversity may be easierto find where the flow of the service is decoupled ftom thenatural stocks throug h a technological intervention e.g.,increased agricultural yields from improved management)or where cultural appreciation for a landscape or ecosys-tem is independent of the biodiversity within it. In thesewin neutral situations, biodiversity proponents will not beable to use the ecosystem-services argument and frameworkand must continue to rely on using traditional approachesto conservation. Alternatively, there could be the possibilityof finding the com mon ground in these situations e.g., bypromoting the existence value of protected areas or untan-gling and demonstrating the links between biodiversity andecosystem services in production landscapes), which couldchange these into win-win cases.

onservation means and endsAlthough it is by no means a meta-analysis of the evi-dence base, this exploration demonstrates the value ofsuch an evidence base and trade-offs typology in help-ing to identify the borders of the common ground whereecosystem-services approaches may be a useful means toachieving a biodiversity-conservation objective and where

Even where ecosystem services can be a useful meafor achieving conservation objectives, biodiversity consevationistswhose primary objective is to conserve bidiversityshould be clear about their goals. Where m utualbeneficial relationships between biodiversity and ecosysteservices exist win -win ), there will be much larger anmore powerful sets of potential partners in conservatiowhen ecosystem-services arguments are promoted thacan be found just within the conservation community. Fexample, conservation organizations can partner with othgroups to provide clean, reliable sources of water. Gooexamples of this approach are water-fund projects in SouAmerica, where the partners include hydropower compan iebeverage-bottling companies including beer breweries anCoca-Cola), water municipalities, and large agribusiness including sugarcane growers and processors). Howevthis does not mean that ecosystem services should replabiodiversity conservation as the objective of biodiversitconservation organizations. Not all cases will be win-wiand there is still a vital role for conservation organizatioto play in conserving biodiversity. Biodiversity conservatiis still the end, but ecosystem services can be a useful meato further this end in some cases.

In addition to sometimes being a useful means to mebiodiversity-conservation objectives, ecosystem services cbe helpful in reconciling many sustainabilitygoals,includipoverty alleviation and the improvement of human webeing through biodiversity conservation. This is relevato individuals or projects in the conservation commnity whose objectives go beyond biodiversity conservatioMultiple goals, however, do not always align perfectly. tough cases in which they do not win-lo se), careful judment and a clear-eyed evaluation of trade-offs is needin order to decide how much to push each goal. Thehard choices abound, as they do in the trade-offs betweincreased food provision to alleviate hunger and poverty aincreased habitat p rotection for biodiversity conservation onclusionsThe current debate between proponents and detractors ecosystem-services approaches in biodiversity conservtion has helped raise a number of crucial issues about tconcepts of biodiversity and ecosystem services, their retionships, the proper goals of biodiversity conservatioand the means to attain these goals. However, if this debaleads to polarization of the conservation comm unity, it mprevent the emergence of common understanding of hobest to push forward with conservation, which in our exprience, is what all sides of the current debate desire. In oview, there is an urgent need for the community to mobeyond the either biodiversity or ecosystem services debateone that acknowledges that both biodiversity and ecosytem servicesboth intrinsic and instrumental valuesaimportant arguments in stemming the tide of biodiversloss.Being clear about ends and means in each unique cawill allow the conservation community to usefully enga

8/12/2019 Finding Common Ground for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.pdf

5/6

Forumwith other sectors for the achievement of societal goals(Ludwig et al. 2001). However, in pursuing multiple goals, itis critical that the intrinsic value of biodiversity and the goalsof biodiversity conservation are not dismissed in the conser-vation co mm unity s search for relevance and buy in thro ughan ecosystem-services alignm ent. ewill always need peo pleand agencies dedicated to the cause of biodiversity if weare to achieve the goals set forth in policies such as theConvention on Biological Diversity. The common groundthat exists between biodiversity and ecosystem services hasthe potential to playapowerful role in evolving our ability toaddress the sustainability challenges that we faceif we usethese concepts correctly and carefully. eferences citedBennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. 2009. Understanding relationships

among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 12: 1394-1404.Butchart SHM , et al. 2010. Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines.

Science 328: 1164 -1168.Chan KMA, Pringle RM, Ranganathan J, Boggs CL, Chan YL, Ehrlich PR,Hafif PK, Heller NE , Al-Khafaji K, Macm ynowski DP 2007. When agen-das collide: Human welfare and biological conservation. ConservationBiology 21 : 59-68.

Colyvan M , Linquist S, Grey W, Griffiths PE, Odenbaugh J, PossinghamHP. 2009. Philosophical issues in ecology: Recent trends and fiituredirections. Ecology and Society 14 (Art. 22). (28 February 2012;www.ecologyandso qiety. org/voll 4/iss2/art22)

Cowling RM, Pressey RL, Lombard AT, Desmet PG, Ellis AG. 1999. Fromrepresentation to persistence: Requirements for a sustainable system ofconservation areas in the species-rich Mediterranean-climate desert ofsouthern Africa. Diversity and Distributions 5: 51-71.

Diaz S, Fargione J, Chapin FS III, Tilman D. 2006. Biodiversity loss threat-ens hum an well-being. PLoS Biology 4: 1300-1305. (28 February 2012;www.plosbiologyorg/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277)

FrberSC , Costanza R Wilson MA. 2002. Economic and ecological conceptsfor valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 41 : 375-392.

Ghazoul J. 2007. Challenges to the u ptake of the ecosystem service rationalefor conserva tion. Conservation Biology 21: 1651-1652.

Goldman RL, Tallis H. 2009. Critical analysis of ecosystem services as a toolin conservation projects. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences1162:63-78.

Justus J, Colyvan M , Regan H, M aguire L. 2008. Buying into conservation:Intrinsic versus instrumental value. Trends in Ecology and Evolution24: 187-191.

Ludwig D, Mangel M, Haddad B. 2001. Ecology, conservation, and publicpolicy. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 32: 481-517.

[MA] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and HumanWell-being: Our Human Planet. Island Press.

Mace GM , Norris K, Fitter AH. 2011. Biodiversity and ecosystem services:A multUayered relationship. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27: 19-26.doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006

Maquire LA, JustusJ.2008. Why intrinsic value is a poor basis for conserva-tion decisions. BioScience 58: 910-911.

McCauley DJ. 2006. Selling out o n nature. Natu re 443: 27-28.Naeem S Bunker DE, Hector A, Loreau M , PerringsC eds. 2009. Biodiversity,

Ecosystem Functioning, and Human Wellbeing: An Ecological andEconomic Perspective. Oxford University Press.Nelson E, et al. 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity

conservation, comm odity pr oductio n, and tradeoffs at landscape scales.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 4-11.

Norgaard RB. 2010. Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor tocomplexity blinder. Ecological Economics 68: 1219-1227.

Norton BG. 1986. The Preservation of Species: The Value of BiologicalDiversity. Princeton University Press.

Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutionsfor Collective Action. Oxford University Press.

Redford KH, Adams WM. 2009. Payment for ecosystem services and thechallenge of saving natu re. Conservation Biology2 3: 785-787.

Redford KH, et al. 2003. Mapping the conservation landscape. ConservationBiology 17:116-131.

Reyers B, O Farrell PJ, Cowling RM , Egoh B N, Le Maitre D C, VIok JHJ.2009. Ecosystem services, land cover change, and stakeholders: Findinga sustainable foothold for a semiarid biodiversity ho tspot. Ecology andSociety 14 (Art. 38). (28 February 2012; www.ecologyandsociety.orgvoll4/issl/art38)

Rolston H III. 1988. Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in theNatural World. Temple University Press.

Skroch M, Lopez-Hoffman L. 2009. Saving nature under the big tent ofecosystem services: A response to Adams and Redford. ConservationBiology 24: 325-327 .

[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board.2009. Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services. USEPA. Report no. EPA-SAB-09-012.

Vira B, Adams WM. 2009. Ecosystem services and conservation strategy:Beware the silver bullet. Conservation Letters 2: 158-162.

Belinda Reyers breyers@csir.co.za) is affiliated with the Natural Resourcan dEnvironment divisionof the Coun cil forScientificand IndustrialResearchin Stellenbosch, and with the Department of ConservationEcology andEntomology at theUniversity of Stellenbosch, both in South Africa. StephePolasky is affiliated with the Department of AppliedEconomicsand w ith theDepartment ofEcology,Evolutionan dBehavioratthe Universityof Minnesotain St.Paul.Heather Tallis is ajfiliatedw ith the NaturalCapitalProject at tWood s Institute for the Environment, at Stanford University, in StanfordCalijornia. HaroldA. Mooney isajfiliated with the Department of BiologicaSciences, atStanfordUniversity, in Stanford Calijornia.AnneLarigauderiaffiliated with DIVERSITAS, at the Museum National d Histoire Naturelle,in Paris, France.

8/12/2019 Finding Common Ground for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.pdf

6/6

Copyright of BioScience is the property of American Institute of Biological Sciences and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.