The political ecology of ecosystem services

Kull, Christian A.; Sartre, Xavier Arnauld de; Castro-Larranaga, Monica

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.03.004

Cited by 202 publications

(143 citation statements)

References 97 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

122

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It may also be the case that their relationship with nature does not conform to the concept of ES, an issue that was explicitly raised by one representative of the Coz-Coz Parliament. In this regard, researchers need to recognize that the ES approach entitles a specific ontology that frames the world in a particular way (Kull et al 2015), in which certain values simply do not fit naturally . Stakeholders' culture (shared knowledge, values, and practices), which in this case alludes to the Mapuche people, can enable or impede the application of the ES framework in general, as well as social value mapping in particular.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping social values of ecosystem services: What is behind the map?

Nahuelhual¹,

Ochoa²,

Rojas³

et al. 2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. A growing interest in mapping the social value of ecosystem services (ES) is not yet methodologically aligned with what is actually being mapped. We critically examine aspects of the social value mapping process that might influence map outcomes and limit their practical use in decision making. We rely on an empirical case of participatory mapping, for a single ES (recreation opportunities), which involves diverse stakeholders such as planners, researchers, and community representatives. Value elicitation relied on an individual open-ended interview and a mapping exercise. Interpretation of the narratives and GIS calculations of proximity, centrality, and dispersion helped in exploring the factors driving participants' answers. Narratives reveal diverse value types. Whereas planners highlighted utilitarian and aesthetic values, the answers from researchers revealed naturalistic values as well. In turn community representatives acknowledged symbolic values. When remitted to the map, these values were constrained to statements toward a much narrower set of features of the physical (e.g., volcanoes) and built landscape (e.g., roads). The results suggest that mapping, as an instrumental approach toward social valuation, may capture only a subset of relevant assigned values. This outcome is the interplay between participants' characteristics, including their acquaintance with the territory and their ability with maps, and the mapping procedure itself, including the proxies used to represent the ES and the value typology chosen, the elicitation question, the cartographic features displayed on the base map, and the spatial scale.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping social values of ecosystem services: What is behind the map?

Nahuelhual¹,

Ochoa²,

Rojas³

et al. 2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the one hand, the vagueness is the outcome of continuous, complex, and demanding negotiations (boundary work) about, for example, how the ES concept is defined, how implementation and application is interpreted, which foci are set, and which tools are used. With respect to policy and decision-making, these negotiations are not only a scientific exercise but-to some degree-also linked to political or societal interests [34][35][36]. Moreover, due to its nature as a boundary concept, knowledge claims concerning ES from different scientific disciplines are linked to certain fields of policy-making and may potentially conflict with other fields (e.g., conservation biology linked to nature protection conflicts vs. agricultural research which emphasises provisioning services [37,38]).…”

Section: Ecosystem Services As a Boundary Concept: Potential And Applmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecosystem Services as a Boundary Concept: Arguments from Social Ecology

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Some authors suggest the process can be influenced by expressing, unhiding or making visible the multiple values and benefits provided by nature to people (Fré-lichová et al 2014;Daily et al 2009). The concept of ecosystem services has successfully made its way into an increasingly popular research topic over the last decades (Kull et al 2015). It has also become an important framework describing values of nature, often in monetary terms (Costanza et al 2017;Bennett et al 2015).…”

Section: "Ecosystem Disservices (Eds) Are Functions or Properties Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic value of ecosystem services in Protected Landscape Areas in the Czech Republic

Daněk

Vačkář

Lorencová

2017

Beskydy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to explore spatially explicit economic values of ecosystem services provided by ecosystems and habitats in 25 Protected Landscape Areas (PLAs) in the Czech Republic, with a more detailed overview of three selected PLAs (Beskids Mountains, Český les Mountains and Odra River Basin). In the methodology, combination of the Consolidated Layer of Ecosystems of the Czech Republic (CLES) and the EKOSERV database allowed us to utilize the ecosystem and economic valuation data in a specific geographic context using a GIS-based approach. The total value of ecosystem services in all 25 PLAs reached € 51 billion/year, with the surface area significantly influencing the total average value of a particular PLA. When transformed to value per unit area, the values varied from €1.2 to €6.5 million/km 2 /year. The results suggest a dominant role of forest ecosystems in the composition of the economic value provided by ecosystem services in the PLAs. Economic valuation of benefits provided by protected areas can help to realize the social importance of these sites and to support policy and decisionmaking processes.

show abstract

The political ecology of ecosystem services

Cited by 202 publications

References 97 publications

Mapping social values of ecosystem services: What is behind the map?

Mapping social values of ecosystem services: What is behind the map?

Ecosystem Services as a Boundary Concept: Arguments from Social Ecology

Economic value of ecosystem services in Protected Landscape Areas in the Czech Republic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About