Ecosystem services flows: Why stakeholders' power relationships matter

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Standard

Ecosystem services flows: Why stakeholders' power relationships matter. / Felipe-Lucia, María R.; Martín-López, Berta; Lavorel, Sandra et al.
in: PLoS ONE, Jahrgang 10, Nr. 7, e0132232, 22.07.2015.

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Harvard

Felipe-Lucia, MR, Martín-López, B, Lavorel, S, Berraquero-Díaz, L, Escalera-Reyes, J & Comín, FA 2015, 'Ecosystem services flows: Why stakeholders' power relationships matter', PLoS ONE, Jg. 10, Nr. 7, e0132232. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132232

APA

Felipe-Lucia, M. R., Martín-López, B., Lavorel, S., Berraquero-Díaz, L., Escalera-Reyes, J., & Comín, F. A. (2015). Ecosystem services flows: Why stakeholders' power relationships matter. PLoS ONE, 10(7), Artikel e0132232. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132232

Vancouver

Felipe-Lucia MR, Martín-López B, Lavorel S, Berraquero-Díaz L, Escalera-Reyes J, Comín FA. Ecosystem services flows: Why stakeholders' power relationships matter. PLoS ONE. 2015 Jul 22;10(7):e0132232. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132232

Bibtex

@article{00bd9c22aab04eddbf9defe3cd7a1c0a,
title = "Ecosystem services flows: Why stakeholders' power relationships matter",
abstract = "The ecosystem services framework has enabled the broader public to acknowledge the benefits nature provides to different stakeholders. However, not all stakeholders benefit equally from these services. Rather, power relationships are a key factor influencing the access of individuals or groups to ecosystem services. In this paper, we propose an adaptation of the {"}cascade{"} framework for ecosystem services to integrate the analysis of ecological interactions among ecosystem services and stakeholders' interactions, reflecting power relationships that mediate ecosystem services flows. We illustrate its application using the floodplain of the River Piedra (Spain) as a case study. First, we used structural equation modelling (SEM) to model the dependence relationships among ecosystem services. Second, we performed semi-structured interviews to identify formal power relationships among stakeholders. Third, we depicted ecosystem services according to stakeholders' ability to use, manage or impair ecosystem services in order to expose how power relationships mediate access to ecosystem services. Our results revealed that the strongest power was held by those stakeholders who managed (although did not use) those keystone ecosystem properties and services that determine the provision of other services (i.e., intermediate regulating and final services). In contrast, non-empowered stakeholders were only able to access the remaining non-excludable and non-rival ecosystem services (i.e., some of the cultural services, freshwater supply, water quality, and biological control). In addition, land stewardship, access rights, and governance appeared as critical factors determining the status of ecosystem services. Finally, we stress the need to analyse the role of stakeholders and their relationships to foster equal access to ecosystem services.",
keywords = "Sustainability Science, water quality, Fresh Water, Ecosystems Research, ecosystem functioning, Raw materials",
author = "Felipe-Lucia, {Mar{\'i}a R.} and Berta Mart{\'i}n-L{\'o}pez and Sandra Lavorel and Luis Berraquero-D{\'i}az and Javier Escalera-Reyes and Com{\'i}n, {Francisco A.}",
year = "2015",
month = jul,
day = "22",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0132232",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
journal = "PLoS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "7",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ecosystem services flows

T2 - Why stakeholders' power relationships matter

AU - Felipe-Lucia, María R.

AU - Martín-López, Berta

AU - Lavorel, Sandra

AU - Berraquero-Díaz, Luis

AU - Escalera-Reyes, Javier

AU - Comín, Francisco A.

PY - 2015/7/22

Y1 - 2015/7/22

N2 - The ecosystem services framework has enabled the broader public to acknowledge the benefits nature provides to different stakeholders. However, not all stakeholders benefit equally from these services. Rather, power relationships are a key factor influencing the access of individuals or groups to ecosystem services. In this paper, we propose an adaptation of the "cascade" framework for ecosystem services to integrate the analysis of ecological interactions among ecosystem services and stakeholders' interactions, reflecting power relationships that mediate ecosystem services flows. We illustrate its application using the floodplain of the River Piedra (Spain) as a case study. First, we used structural equation modelling (SEM) to model the dependence relationships among ecosystem services. Second, we performed semi-structured interviews to identify formal power relationships among stakeholders. Third, we depicted ecosystem services according to stakeholders' ability to use, manage or impair ecosystem services in order to expose how power relationships mediate access to ecosystem services. Our results revealed that the strongest power was held by those stakeholders who managed (although did not use) those keystone ecosystem properties and services that determine the provision of other services (i.e., intermediate regulating and final services). In contrast, non-empowered stakeholders were only able to access the remaining non-excludable and non-rival ecosystem services (i.e., some of the cultural services, freshwater supply, water quality, and biological control). In addition, land stewardship, access rights, and governance appeared as critical factors determining the status of ecosystem services. Finally, we stress the need to analyse the role of stakeholders and their relationships to foster equal access to ecosystem services.

AB - The ecosystem services framework has enabled the broader public to acknowledge the benefits nature provides to different stakeholders. However, not all stakeholders benefit equally from these services. Rather, power relationships are a key factor influencing the access of individuals or groups to ecosystem services. In this paper, we propose an adaptation of the "cascade" framework for ecosystem services to integrate the analysis of ecological interactions among ecosystem services and stakeholders' interactions, reflecting power relationships that mediate ecosystem services flows. We illustrate its application using the floodplain of the River Piedra (Spain) as a case study. First, we used structural equation modelling (SEM) to model the dependence relationships among ecosystem services. Second, we performed semi-structured interviews to identify formal power relationships among stakeholders. Third, we depicted ecosystem services according to stakeholders' ability to use, manage or impair ecosystem services in order to expose how power relationships mediate access to ecosystem services. Our results revealed that the strongest power was held by those stakeholders who managed (although did not use) those keystone ecosystem properties and services that determine the provision of other services (i.e., intermediate regulating and final services). In contrast, non-empowered stakeholders were only able to access the remaining non-excludable and non-rival ecosystem services (i.e., some of the cultural services, freshwater supply, water quality, and biological control). In addition, land stewardship, access rights, and governance appeared as critical factors determining the status of ecosystem services. Finally, we stress the need to analyse the role of stakeholders and their relationships to foster equal access to ecosystem services.

KW - Sustainability Science

KW - water quality

KW - Fresh Water

KW - Ecosystems Research

KW - ecosystem functioning

KW - Raw materials

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84941313024&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/6e37dd03-d9a5-3307-82bc-b53ddc03b1be/

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0132232

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0132232

M3 - Journal articles

C2 - 26201000

AN - SCOPUS:84941313024

VL - 10

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 7

M1 - e0132232

ER -

Dokumente

DOI