Co‐production of nature's contributions to people: What evidence is out there?

Kachler, Jana; Isaac, Roman; Martín‐López, Berta; Bonn, Aletta; Felipe‐Lucia, María R.

doi:10.1002/pan3.10493

Cited by 10 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In urban areas, and depending on the different geographic and disciplinary contexts, the term green infrastructure is often used interchangeably with ecological infrastructure and includes greenspace planning or ecological networks, urban ecology and storm water management (Matsler et al, 2021). As ecosystem services are co-produced by nature and anthropocentric (human, social, physical, and financial) capital (IPBES, 2022;Kachler et al, 2023;Keeler et al, 2019;Palomo et al, 2016), interlinked human-nature well-being is dependent on both ecological and built infrastructure (Cumming et al, 2017;Roy et al, 2018). For example, a dam supplied with water from a natural catchment area but supported by pipes-the built or hard infrastructure-not only facilitates water provision (SANBI, 2014) but can also act as a habitat for local species.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inclusion of ecosystem services in the management of municipal natural open space systems

Wessels,

Sitas,

O'Farrell

et al. 2023

People and Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unprecedented urbanisation in the Global South is transforming natural urban landscapes, impacting on the ability of nature to provide essential ecosystem services. Within the context of pressures facing many urban natural open spaces, particularly in Africa, we used a local municipality in South Africa as a case study to (i) identify local government priorities for a natural open space system; (ii) develop an understanding of whether, and how, ecosystem services are considered by local government, and the reasons thereof; and (iii) ascertain the extent of proactive planning regarding regulating and other ecosystem services, including the temporal and spatial scales, and implications. In‐depth qualitative interviews (n = 12) were undertaken with senior municipal officials representing departments whose work impacts the environment. Municipal decision‐support documents were also analysed for any direct and/or indirect references to ecosystem services. Planning for, and management of, ecosystem services provided by natural open spaces is influenced by interwoven infrastructure, municipal service delivery and equity challenges, complex institutional constraints and poverty, with little focus on the socio‐economic opportunities and other benefits of natural open space systems. Values, perceptions and knowledge also influence the management of ecosystem services. The study contributes to understanding the opportunities and challenges for the future governance of natural open space in the Global South, which require explicit consideration in municipal planning, management and budgeting processes. Policy and management implications identified include prioritisation of the regulating functions provided by natural open space systems, pivotal to the urban resilience agenda; building on the inherent appreciation of nature features as city assets, while achieving socio‐economic upliftment; improved (on‐site) collaborative management of natural open spaces; and involvement of local government officials in the preparation and updating of environmental policies and decision‐support documents, to ensure skills and knowledge transfer and interest are entrenched in local government departments. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inclusion of ecosystem services in the management of municipal natural open space systems

Wessels,

Sitas,

O'Farrell

et al. 2023

People and Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Including the perspective of stakeholders in landscape planning through the Ecosystem Services co-production framework: an empirical exploration in Le Marche, Italy

Giacomelli,

Sargolini,

Felipe-Lucia

2024

Reg Environ Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on Ecosystem Services (ES) has become dominant in landscape planning to frame the relationship between people and nature. Increasingly, studies are stressing that most ES do not flow from nature alone but require a significant human contribution, known as ES co-production. However, there is a lack of understanding on how different stakeholders contribute to ES co-production. Here, we integrated stakeholders’ perspectives in landscape planning using questionnaires and focus groups in a case study in Le Marche, Italy. We found that respondents acknowledge co-production in a wide range of ES with a major share of cultural ES. Mostly self-perceived as users and managers, local stakeholders invest in their activities mainly human and social capitals, while physical and financial capitals gain importance in the case of provisioning services. Our findings embraced the multiple aspects of human-nature interactions, offering the opportunity to bridge different sectors, such as agriculture, eco-tourism, and resilience against extreme events, toward a multifunctional vision of landscapes. The integration of the ES co-production framework proved useful in fostering the access of stakeholders to decision-making.

show abstract

Can we have it all? The role of grassland conservation in supporting forage production and plant diversity

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context A key global challenge is to meet both the growing demand for food and feed while maintaining biodiversity’s supporting functions. Protected grasslands, such as Natura 2000 sites in Europe, may play an important role in harmonising productivity and biodiversity goals. This work contributes to an understanding of the relationship between forage production and plant diversity in protected and non-protected grasslands. Objectives We aimed to identify differences in plant diversity and forage production between protected and non-protected grasslands by assessing the effects of land-use intensity (i.e. mowing, grazing, fertilising) on these variables. Methods Data were available for 95 managed grassland plots (50 × 50 m) in real-managed landscapes. After controlling for site conditions in the analysis, we tested for significant differences between protected and non-protected grasslands and used a multi-group structural equation modelling (SEM) framework to investigate the linkages between land-use intensity, biomass and plant diversity. Results In protected grasslands, plant diversity was significantly higher while forage production was significantly lower. In non-protected grasslands we found significantly higher land-use intensity, particularly in relation to mowing and fertilisation. Grazing intensity did not significantly differ between protected and non-protected grasslands. In non-protected grasslands we found a significant negative association between forage production and plant diversity. However, this effect was not significant in protected grasslands. We also found a negative association between land-use and plant diversity in both grassland types that was related to mowing and fertilising intensity. These two management aspects also influenced the positive association between land-use intensity and forage production. Furthermore, environmental conditions had a positive effect on forage production and a negative effect on plant diversity in protected grasslands. Conclusions Our results confirm that the protection of grassland sites is successful in achieving higher plant diversity compared to non-protected grasslands and that protected grasslands do not necessarily trade-off with forage production. This is possible under moderate grazing intensities as higher land-use intensity has a negative effect on plant diversity, particularly on rare species. However, forage production is lower in protected sites as it is driven by mowing and fertilisation intensity. Future research needs to further investigate if the nature of these relationships depends on the livestock type or other management practices.

show abstract

Co‐production of nature's contributions to people: What evidence is out there?

Cited by 10 publications

References 81 publications

Inclusion of ecosystem services in the management of municipal natural open space systems

Inclusion of ecosystem services in the management of municipal natural open space systems

Including the perspective of stakeholders in landscape planning through the Ecosystem Services co-production framework: an empirical exploration in Le Marche, Italy

Can we have it all? The role of grassland conservation in supporting forage production and plant diversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About