A variety of tools have emerged with the goal of mapping the current delivery of ecosystem services and quantifying the impact of environmental changes. An important and often overlooked question is how accurate the outputs of these models are in relation to empirical observations. In this paper we validate a hydrological ecosystem service model (InVEST Water Yield Model) using widely available data. We modelled annual water yield in 22 UK catchments with widely varying land cover, population and geology, and compared model outputs with gauged river flow data from the UK National River Flow Archive. Values for input parameters were selected from existing literature to reflect conditions in the UK and were subjected to sensitivity analyses. We also compared model performance between precipitation and potential evapotranspiration data sourced from global- and UK-scale datasets. We then tested the transferability of the results within the UK by additional validation in a further 20 catchments. Whilst the model performed only moderately with global-scale data (linear regression of modelled total water yield against empirical data; slope=0.763, intercept=54.45, R(2)=0.963) with wide variation in performance between catchments, the model performed much better when using UK-scale input data, with closer fit to the observed data (slope=1.07, intercept=3.07, R(2)=0.990). With UK data the majority of catchments showed <10% difference between measured and modelled water yield but there was a minor but consistent overestimate per hectare (86m(3)/ha/year). Additional validation on a further 20 UK catchments was similarly robust, indicating that these results are transferable within the UK. These results suggest that relatively simple models can give accurate measures of ecosystem services. However, the choice of input data is critical and there is a need for further validation in other parts of the world.

There is growing interest in the role that natural capital plays in underpinning ecosystem services. Yet, there remain differences and inconsistencies in the conceptualisation of capital and ecosystem services and the role that humans play in their delivery. Using worked examples in a stocks and flows systems approach, we show that both natural capital (NC) and human-derived (produced, human, social, cultural, financial) capital (HDC) are necessary to create ecosystem services at many levels. HDC plays a role at three stages of ecosystem service delivery. Firstly, as essential elements of a combined social-ecological system to create a potential ecosystem service. Secondly, through the beneficiaries in shaping the demand for that service. Thirdly, in the form of additional capital required to realise the ecosystem service flow. We show that it is possible, although not always easy, to separately identify how these forms of capital contribute to ecosystem service flow. We discuss how applying a systems approach can help identify critical natural capital and critical human-derived capital to guide sustainable management of the stocks and flows of all forms of capital which underpin provision of multiple ecosystem services. The amount of realised ecosystem service can be managed in several ways: via the NC & HDC which govern the potential service, and via factors which govern both the demand from the beneficiaries, and the efficiency of use of the potential service by those beneficiaries