Where communities intermingle, diversity grows – The evolution of topics in ecosystem service research

Droste, Nils; D'amato, Dalia; Goddard, Jessica J.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0204749

Cited by 49 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(81 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The word cloud shows that the term "ecosystem services" is the highest co-occurring keyword, followed by "biodiversity" and "conservation." Our results support the recent findings of a previous paper that explored publications in ecosystem services research (Droste et al 2018). Ecosystem services, i.e., the benefits we receive from nature, is closely linked to natural capital, i.e., the stock natural resources.…”

Section: Crossing Disciplines and Subject Areassupporting

confidence: 91%

Exploring natural capital using bibliometrics and social media data

Pan¹,

Vira²

2019

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research and interest into natural capital, i.e., the stock of the world's natural resources, is increasing as it links humans with nature within a social-ecological system, contributing to ecosystem sustainability. We collected publication data for 300 natural capital papers to explore academic networks and research trends. We used Twitter to collect 14,193 tweets about natural capital over nine months. Analyzing publication data shows three main research clusters, but few coauthorships between the clusters. The results show substantial international coauthorships, and the dominance of American and British academics as coauthors. Analyzing Twitter data, we identified a small community of key users that tweet about natural capital frequently. We found that a range of words is used in tweets about natural capital and the overall sentiment of tweets is positive. For both types of data, "ecosystem services" and "biodiversity" are keywords associated with natural capital. Our results have identified key communities of natural capital researchers, but highlight a potential disconnect between research clusters that needs to be addressed. Current communities surrounding natural capital in academia and on Twitter are relatively exclusive and small.

show abstract

Section: Crossing Disciplines and Subject Areassupporting

confidence: 91%

Exploring natural capital using bibliometrics and social media data

Pan¹,

Vira²

2019

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of the 2,497 study hits, 1,632 (65%) were ES assessment studies. Reviewing the remaining 1,632 studies revealed that a large portion (65%) embraced social sciences and humanities perspectives, mostly in combination with economic and/or ecological assessments; congruent with results in Droste et al (2018). Much of this literature is recent (appearing within approximately the last 4-5 years), suggesting that social sciences and humanities studies are increasing in ES research.…”

Section: Social Sciences and Humanitiesmentioning

confidence: 76%

Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘nature’s contributions to people’

Kadykalo

López‐Rodríguez

Ainscough

et al. 2019

Ecosystems and People

Self Cite

184

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People depend on functioning ecosystems, which provide benefits that support human existence and wellbeing. The relationship between people and nature has been experienced and conceptualized in multiple ways. Recently, ecosystem services (ES) concepts have permeated science, government policies, multinational environmental agreements, and science-policy interfaces. In 2017, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) introduced a new and closely related concept-Nature's Contributions to People (NCP). The introduction of NCP has sparked some lively discussion and confusion about the distinguishing characteristics between ES and NCP. In order to clarify their conceptual relation, we identify eleven specific claims about novel elements from the latest NCP literature and analyze how far ES research has already contributed to these corresponding conceptual claims in the existing ES literature. We find a mixed-picture, where on six specific conceptual claims (culture, social sciences and humanities, indigenous and local knowledge, negative contributions of nature, generalizing perspective, non-instrumental values and valuation) NCP does not differ greatly from past ES research, but we also find five conceptual claims (diverse worldviews, context-specific perspective, relational values, fuzzy and fluid reporting categories and groups, inclusive language and framing) where NCP provides novel conceptualizations of people and nature relations.

show abstract

“…More specifically, scholars have identified multiple concerns related to connecting ES science in particular to decision‐making, such as the importance of institutions equipped to support the use of ES data (Daily & Matson, ) and the multiple ways that ES data are used in policy processes (McKenzie et al, ). In general, ES scholars increasingly attend to ‘what happens’ with ES science; a computer‐aided review of over 14,000 ES publications found that since the ES term first entered widespread use in the 1990s, discussion of governance has increased markedly in ES‐related peer‐reviewed publications (Droste, D’Amato, & Goddard, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural ecosystem services and decision‐making: How researchers describe the applications of their work

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultural ecosystem services (CES) are some of the most difficult ecosystem services (ES) to characterize and connect to specific ecosystem processes. Given their connections to human emotion, deep meaning, fulfilment and motivation, they are also crucial for human well‐being. Scholars have published hundreds of peer‐reviewed articles addressing CES in myriad ways. In this systematic review, we analyse 232 peer‐reviewed articles on CES and examine how these studies discuss the interaction between CES research and decision‐making. We describe the primary ways that scholars have addressed the relationship between CES and decision‐making, and we characterize each study with respect to how thoroughly its authors attend to the possible applications of their results. We find that 27% of papers discuss connections to decision‐making in general terms, 28% discuss specific connections to decision‐making, and the remainder mention decision‐making links briefly or not at all. We also discuss patterns based on the particular CES studied (e.g. recreation, identity); methods used; change through time; and geographical location of authors and of study sites. We end with reflections on the current state of the interface between CES (and related concepts for approaching the non‐material values associated with ecosystems) and decision‐making, and we discuss future steps to increase connections between CES and decision‐making. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

show abstract

Where communities intermingle, diversity grows – The evolution of topics in ecosystem service research

Cited by 49 publications

References 48 publications

Exploring natural capital using bibliometrics and social media data

Exploring natural capital using bibliometrics and social media data

Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘nature’s contributions to people’

Cultural ecosystem services and decision‐making: How researchers describe the applications of their work

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About