Kindler, ElisabethElisabethKindler2018-11-072018-11-072016https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/40489Ecosystems, such as forests and their associated processes, provide numerous goods and services to human societies. These so called. ecosystem services, have recently gained a lot of scientific interest, also in the field of forest science. This approach is not new to the forest sector, as forest ecosystems have been used in the past for many different purposes besides wood production and even their non-consumptive benefits have been well known for more than one hundred years. Central European forest scientists summarized these diverse services under the term forest functions, a widely accepted approach in the region. Since both concepts have developed separately this paper aims at creating a base to enable interdisciplinary scientific exchange among forest scientists and other disciplines by reviewing and comparing the concepts of ecosystem services and forest functions systematically. This review uses scientific publications (generally in English) to encompass the ecosystem service concept and textbooks as well as legislation and forest management guidelines (predominantly German), for the forest functions concept. Additionally a meta-analysis was conducted to examine their publication patterns. The review shows that despite their different backgrounds, both concepts developed similar definitions and classification schemes. Both consider the valuation of services or functions using similar methods, although their motivations for valuation differ. Interactions of functions and services are more intensely investigated within the ecosystem service concept, whereas forest functions have been more management orientated and consider aspects of sustainability two points that have been criticized to be insufficiently considered within the ecosystem service concept. Merging the ideas of ecosystem services and forest functions can therefore contribute to science in general, forest policy as well as forest management (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.journal_article10.1016/j.forpol.2016.03.011000376544400007