An interdisciplinary methodological guide for quantifying associations between ecosystem services

Mouchet, Maud; Lamarque, Pénélope; Martín‐López, Berta; Crouzat, Émilie; Gos, Pierre; Byczek, Coline; Lavorel, Sandra

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.012

Cited by 329 publications

(278 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

248

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this case, reconciling stakeholders' divergent preferences over ecosystem services with explicit recognition of the nature of biophysically based trade-offs is crucial to identify sustainable solutions . With stakeholders' preferences being valued and added into the trade-off analysis, it makes the values intrinsic to ecosystem services (Brauman et al, 2007), and most researchers recently thought that the values as sources of conflicts that should be separated with biophysical constraints (Mouchet et al, 2014;Yahdjian et al, 2015). Especially, Cavender-Bares et al (2015) presented a sustainability framework that characterizes ecosystem services trade-offs in terms of two dimensions of ecosystem service conflicts: biophysical constraints, and divergent preferences and values of stakeholders.…”

Section: Trade-offs Of Ecosystem Services At Different Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review on trade-off analysis of ecosystem services for sustainable land-use management

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem services are substantial elements for human society. The central challenge to meet the human needs from ecosystems while sustain the Earth's life support systems makes it urgent to enhance efficient natural resource management for sustainable ecological and socioeconomic development. Trade-off analysis of ecosystem services can help to identify optimal decision points to balance the costs and benefits of the diverse human uses of ecosystems. In this sense, the aim of this paper is to provide key insights into ecosystem services trade-off analysis at different scales from a land use perspective, by comprehensively reviewing the trade-offs analysis tools and approaches that addressed in ecology, economics and other fields. The review will significantly contribute to future research on trade-off analysis to avoid inferior management options and offer a win-win solution based on comprehensive and efficient planning for interacting multiple ecosystem services.

show abstract

Section: Trade-offs Of Ecosystem Services At Different Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review on trade-off analysis of ecosystem services for sustainable land-use management

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It also explores how these methods can provide the basis for studying trade-offs. Further research challenges include understanding trade-offs within a temporal context to compare temporal trends, application of additional methods to better examine spatially explicit variations, and the exploration of causalities between different management strategies and ecosystem service supply (Mouchet et al 2014). Although there are several scientific challenges in ecosystem service trade-off research, conceptually this study advances knowledge through the demonstration of those biophysical and socio-cultural factors that coproduce and determining ecosystem services and tradeoffs in semiarid SESs (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, it allows the study of (1) supply-supply trade-offs where the provision of one or several services compromises the provision of others and supply-supply synergies where ecosystem services are provided concurrently; (2) demand-demand trade-offs between beneficiaries where the demand for one or various ecosystem services negatively affects the interest or needs of other stakeholders and demand-demand synergies where stakeholders share a common interest; and (3) supply-demand trade-offs/ synergies where there is a temporal or spatial mismatch/match between ecosystem service supply and the derived social demand (Mouchet et al 2014). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biophysical and sociocultural factors underlying spatial trade-offs of ecosystem services in semiarid watersheds

García‐Llorente¹,

Iniesta-Arandia²,

Willaarts³

et al. 2015

E&S

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Martín-López. 2015. Biophysical and sociocultural factors underlying spatial trade-offs of ecosystem services in semiarid watersheds. ABSTRACT. Biophysical and social systems are linked to form social-ecological systems whose sustainability depends on their capacity to absorb uncertainty and cope with disturbances. In this study, we explored the key biophysical and socio-cultural factors underlying ecosystem service supply in two semiarid watersheds of southern Spain. These included variables associated with the role that freshwater flows and biodiversity play in securing the system's capacity to sustain essential ecosystem services and their relationship with social demand for services, local water governance, and land-use intensification. Our results reveal the importance of considering the invisible dimensions of water and biodiversity, i.e. green freshwater flows and trait-based indicators, because of their relevance to the supply of ecosystem services. Furthermore, they uncover the importance of traditional irrigation canals, a local water governance system, in maintaining the ecosystems' capacity to supply services. The study also highlights the complex trade-offs that occur because of the spatial mismatch between ecosystem service supply (upstream) and ecosystem service demand (downstream) in watersheds. Finally, we found that land-use intensification generally resulted in losses of the biophysical factors that underpin the supply of some ecosystem services, increases in social demand for less diversified services, and the abandonment of local governance practices. Attempts to manage social-ecological systems toward sustainability at the local scale should identify the key biophysical and socio-cultural factors that are essential for maintaining ecosystem services and should recognize existing interrelationships between them. Land-use management should also take into account ecosystem service trade-offs and the consequences resulting from land-use intensification.

show abstract

“…In particular, addressing ES trade-offs and synergies, respectively, consistent negative and positive covariations (Mouchet et al 2014), could support more sustainable management of environmental resources, required both for maintaining desired ecosystem functioning and enhancing human well-being (Rodríguez et al 2006, Kareiva et al 2007, Luck et al 2012.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, ES use of facets has been considered to characterize the (mis)matches between supply and demand (Bagstad et al 2014, Van der Biest et al 2014). However, although ES facets are part of the many criteria proposed to characterize and classify trade-offs and synergies between ES (Mouchet et al 2014, Van der Biest et al 2014), most assessments have been carried out irrespective of the distinction between ES facets.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disentangling trade-offs and synergies around ecosystem services with the influence network framework: illustration from a consultative process over the French Alps

Crouzat¹,

Martín‐López²,

Turkelboom³

2016

E&S

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. An important aspect of sustainability is to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem functioning while improving human well-being. For this, the ecosystem service (ES) approach has the potential to bridge the still existing gap between ecological management and social development, especially by focusing on trade-offs and synergies between ES and between their beneficiaries. Several frameworks have been proposed to account for trade-offs and synergies between ES, and between ES and other components of socialecological systems. However, to date, insufficient explicit attention has been paid to the three facets encompassed in the ES concept, namely potential supply, demand, and use, leading to incomplete descriptions of ES interactions. We expand on previous frameworks by proposing a new influence network framework (INF) based on an explicit consideration of influence relationships between these three ES facets, biodiversity, and external driving variables. We tested its ability to provide a comprehensive view of complex socialecological interactions around ES through a consultative process focused on environmental management in the French Alps. We synthetized the interactions mentioned during this consultative process and grouped variables according to their overall propensity to influence or be influenced by the system. The resulting directed sequence of influences distinguished between: (1) mostly influential variables (dynamic social variables and ecological state variables), (2) target variables (provisioning and cultural services), and (3) mostly impacted variables (regulating services and biodiversity parameters). We discussed possible reasons for the discrepancies between actual and perceived influences and proposed options to overcome them. We demonstrated that the INF holds the potential to deliver collective assessments of ES relations by: (1) including ecological as well as social aspects, (2) providing opportunities for colearning processes between stakeholder groups, and (3) supporting communication about complex social-ecological systems and consequences for environmental management.

show abstract

An interdisciplinary methodological guide for quantifying associations between ecosystem services

Cited by 329 publications

References 88 publications

A review on trade-off analysis of ecosystem services for sustainable land-use management

A review on trade-off analysis of ecosystem services for sustainable land-use management

Biophysical and sociocultural factors underlying spatial trade-offs of ecosystem services in semiarid watersheds

Disentangling trade-offs and synergies around ecosystem services with the influence network framework: illustration from a consultative process over the French Alps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About