Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘nature’s contributions to people’
Publikation: Beiträge in Zeitschriften › Übersichtsarbeiten › Forschung
Standard
Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘nature’s contributions to people’. / Kadykalo, Andrew N.; López-Rodriguez, María D.; Ainscough, Jacob et al.
in: Ecosystems and People, Jahrgang 15, Nr. 1, 01.01.2019, S. 269-287.Publikation: Beiträge in Zeitschriften › Übersichtsarbeiten › Forschung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘nature’s contributions to people’
AU - Kadykalo, Andrew N.
AU - López-Rodriguez, María D.
AU - Ainscough, Jacob
AU - Droste, Nils
AU - Ryu, Hyeonju
AU - Ávila-Flores, Giovanni
AU - Le Clec’h, Solen
AU - Muñoz, Marcia C.
AU - Nilsson, Lovisa
AU - Rana, Sakshi
AU - Sarkar, Priyanka
AU - Sevecke, Katharina J.
AU - Harmáčková, Zuzana V.
N1 - Funding Information: AK was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), [PGSD2 - 534299 - 2019]. JA was funded by a NERC doctoral training partnership grant (NE/L002558/1). We thank Shankar Adhikari, Lisa Mühlgassner, Graham Raby, and Peter Soroye for their review and helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. We also thank participants at IPBES-6 for constructive discussions around NCP and the IPBES conceptual framework, particularly Sandra Díaz. We also thank two anonymous reviewers whose comments on previous versions of this manuscript greatly improved this article. Publisher Copyright: © 2019, © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2019/1/1
Y1 - 2019/1/1
N2 - 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, multi-national 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.
AB - 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, multi-national 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.
KW - Ecosystem services
KW - IPBES
KW - nature’s benefits to people
KW - nature’s contributions to people
KW - NCP
KW - Patricia Balvanera
KW - people and nature
KW - science–policy interface
KW - Ecosystems Research
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073465419&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/a947eeaa-7e9b-3179-a9a7-9550c31fa836/
U2 - 10.1080/26395916.2019.1669713
DO - 10.1080/26395916.2019.1669713
M3 - Scientific review articles
AN - SCOPUS:85073465419
VL - 15
SP - 269
EP - 287
JO - Ecosystems and People
JF - Ecosystems and People
SN - 2639-5908
IS - 1
ER -