Ecosystem Services as a Boundary Concept: Arguments from Social Ecology

Abstract

Ecosystem services (ES) are defined as the interdependencies between society and nature. Despite several years of conceptual discussions, some challenges of the ES concept are far from being resolved. In particular, the usefulness of the concept for nature protection is questioned, and a strong critique is expressed concerning its contribution towards the neoliberal commodification of nature. This paper argues that these challenges can be addressed by dealing more carefully with ES as a boundary concept between different disciplines and between science and society. ES are neither about nature nor about human wellbeing, but about the mutual dependencies between nature and human wellbeing. These mutual interdependencies, however, create tensions and contradictions that manifest themselves in the boundary negotiations between different scientific disciplines and between science and society. This paper shows that approaches from Social Ecology can address these boundary negotiations and the power relations involved more explicitly. Finally, this implies the urgent need for more inter-and transdisciplinary collaboration in ES research. We conclude (1) that the social-ecological nature of ES must be elaborated more carefully while explicitly focussing on the interdependencies between nature and society; (2) to better implement inter-and transdisciplinary methods into ES research; and (3) that such ES research can-and to some extent already does-substantially enhance international research programmes such as Future Earth.

Improving Representation of Human Well-Being and Cultural Importance in Conceptualizing the West Hawai‘i Ecosystem

“…The conceptualization chosen has implications for identifying and monitoring indicators, as well as planning and implementing management interventions. Spangenberg et al (2014) and Schleyer et al (2017) discuss ecosystem services as anthropogenically defined and produced, where the actual benefits received depend on the social and ecological interactions. It may be important to consider the reflexive influence of human well-being conditions (as one aspect of the state of the social system), or to view ecosystem cascade models as representing multiple time steps related to state of the social system.…”

OMIA-RAPPORT 2: Omgevingskwaliteit en Ecosysteemdiensten: een conceptuele en praktijkgerichte vergelijking van twee systeembenaderingen

“… Het inbrengen van focus of concrete streefdoelen in een (ruimtelijk) planningsproces of gebiedsgericht project, bv. door de diverse kernkwaliteiten of ecosysteemdiensten te expliciteren… Tegelijkertijd bestaat ook het risico dat deze concepten als een "complexity-blinder" worden ervaren wanneer deze onzorgvuldig worden toegepast of onvoldoende rekening wordt gehouden met de uitdagingen en limieten (Schleyer et al 2017). Zo'n "complexity-blinder" kan op twee manieren worden geïnterpreteerd.…”

“…Een grensconcept kan zo de communicatie en de samenwerking vergemakkelijken tussen verschillende beleidsniveaus, disciplines, beleidsmakers en andere belanghebbenden, zonder dat zij zich bedreigd voelen door sectorale taal en/of jargon. De belanghebbenden kunnen expertise en kennis integreren in het grensconcept, maar ze kunnen ook samen context-specifieke kennis genereren (Lowy, 1992;Allen, 2009;Schleyer et al 2017;van Herzele et al (in druk)).…”

“…Ten slotte kan het gebruik van grensconcepten ook soms leiden tot spanningen en dubbelzinnigheid, wanneer de concepten te losjes -niet in fijn detail -zijn afgebakend en wanneer verschillende (sectorale) kennis samenkomt. Belanghebbenden kunnen hierdoor ook het toegepaste concept zelf in vraag gaan stellen (Schleyer et al 2017).…”

Building Adaptive Capacity in Changing Social-Ecological Systems: Integrating Knowledge in Communal Land-Use Planning in the Peruvian Amazon

“…First, the knowledge-presented either by the community or by CIMA's technical team-was incorporated into the participatory mapping process. During the process, participants refer to the "territorial vision" (as a vision for the landscape) and perceptions of ecosystem functions as important concepts for guiding knowledge exchange; also referred to as "boundary objects" in literature [62,63]. Secondly, the knowledge on ecosystem management as well as technical information on soils and other elements of the ecosystem were explicitly introduced into the process and reflected by community participants.…”