Ecosystem services flows: Why stakeholders' power relationships matter

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 7, 2015, Pages

  Felipe Lucia, María R ^a   Martín López, Berta ^b,c   Lavorel, Sandra ^d   Berraquero Díaz, Luis ^e   Escalera Reyes, Javier ^e   Comín, Francisco A ^a  

^a INSTITUTO PIRENAICO DE ECOLOGÍA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIV GRENOBLE ALPES   (France)

^e UNIVERSIDAD PABLO DE OLAVIDE   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FRESH WATER;

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL PEST CONTROL; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; ECOSYSTEM; ECOSYSTEM MONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; FLOODPLAIN; FOOD INDUSTRY; HABITAT QUALITY; HUMAN; LAND USE; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; SPAIN; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; WATER QUALITY; WATER SUPPLY; WELLBEING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; PROCEDURES; RIVER; THEORETICAL MODEL;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; RIVERS; SPAIN;

EID: 84941313024     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132232     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Our Human Planet: Summary for Decision Makers. Island Press; 2005.
2. Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, van der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ, Kubiszewski I, et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change. 2014; 26: 152-158. doi: 10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2014.04.002.
3. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ. 2009; 68: 643-653. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014.
4. Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ. 2006; 57: 209-228.
5. Bagstad KJ, Villa F, Batker D, Harrison-Cox J, Voigt B, Johnson GW. From theoretical to actual ecosystem services: mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows in ecosystem service assessments. Ecol Soc. 2014; 19. doi:10.5751/ES-06523-190264.
6. Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC. Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services. PLoS Biol. 2006; 4: E379. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379 PMID: 17076586.
7. Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, Lomas PL, Montes C. Effects of spatial and temporal scales on cultural services valuation. J Environ Manage. 2009; 90: 1050-1059. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.03.013 PMID: 18486302.
8. Naidoo R, Ricketts TH. Mapping the Economic Costs and Benefits of Conservation. PLoS Biol. 2006; 4: E360. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040360 PMID: 17076583.
9. Rodriguez JP, Beard TD, Bennett EM, Cumming GS, Cork SJ, Agard J, et al. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol Soc. 2006; 11.
10. Reyers B, Biggs R, Cumming GS, Elmqvist T, Hejnowicz AP, Polasky S. Getting the measure of ecosystem services: A social-ecological approach. Front Ecol Environ. 2013; 11: 268-273. doi: 10.1890/120144.
11. Villa F, Voigt B, Erickson JD. New perspectives in ecosystem services science as instruments to understand environmental securities. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2014; 369: 20120286. doi: 10.1098/rstb. 2012.0286.
12. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett. 2009; 12: 1394-1404. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x PMID: 19845725.
13. Akbulut B, Soylu C. An inquiry into power and participatory natural resource management. Camb J Econ. 2012; 36: 1143-1162. doi: 10.1093/cje/bes034.
14. Barnaud C, Van Paassen A. Equity, Power Games, and Legitimacy: Dilemmas of Participatory Natural Resource Management. Ecol Soc. 2013; 18. doi:10.5751/ES-05459-180221 PMID: 25170339.
15. Crona B, Bodin O. Power asymmetries in small-scale fisheries: A barrier to governance transformability. Ecol Soc. 2010; 15: 32.
16. Raik DB, Wilson AL, Decker DJ. Power in Natural Resources Management: An Application of Theory. Soc Amp Nat Resour. 2008; 21: 729-739. doi: 10.1080/08941920801905195.
17. Reed MS, Bonn A, Slee W, Beharry-Borg N, Birch J, Brown I, et al. The future of the uplands. Land Use Policy. 2009; 26: S204-S216. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.09.013.
18. Ribot JC, Peluso NL. A Theory of Access. Rural Sociol. 2003; 68: 153-181. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x.
19. Escalera-Reyes J, Ruiz-Ballesteros E. Resiliencia Socioecológica: Aportaciones y retos desde la Antropología. Rev Antropol Soc. 2011; 20: 109-135.
20. Emerson RM. Power-dependence relations. Am Sociol Rev. 1962; 31-41.
21. Stone CN. Preemptive Power: Floyd Hunter's "Community Power Structure" Reconsidered. Am J Polit Sci. 1988; 32: 82-104. doi: 10.2307/2111311.
22. Foucault M. El sujeto y el poder. Rev Mex Sociol. 1988; 50: 3-20. doi: 10.2307/3540551.
23. Gliscynski P. Reflexiones metodológicas en torno a la investigación del Community-Power y su posible aplicación al caso andaluz. In: López-Casero Olmedo, F., editor. La agrociudad mediterránea. Madrid, Spain: Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación; 1989.
24. Fabinyi M, Evans L, Foale SJ. Social-ecological systems, social diversity, and power: insights from anthropology and political ecology. Ecol Soc. 2014; 19. doi: 10.5751/ES-07029-190428.
25. Corbera E, Brown K, Adger WN. The Equity and Legitimacy of Markets for Ecosystem Services. Dev Change. 2007; 38: 587-613. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00425.x.
26. Vatn A. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ. 2010; 69: 1245- 1252. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.018.
27. Turner RK, Paavola J, Cooper P, Farber S, Jessamy V, Georgiou S. Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol Econ. 2003; 46: 493-510. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00189-7.
28. Daw T, Brown K, Rosendo S, Pomeroy R. Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: The need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ Conserv. 2011; 38: 370-379. doi: 10.1017/S0376892911000506.
29. Felipe-Lucia MR, Comín FA, Bennett EM. Interactions Among Ecosystem Services Across Land Uses in a Floodplain Agroecosystem. Ecol Soc. 2014; 19. doi: 10.5751/ES-06249-190120.
30. Harrington R, Anton C, Dawson TP, Bello F, Feld CK, Haslett JR, et al. Ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation: concepts and a glossary. Biodivers Conserv. 2010; 19: 2773-2790. doi: 10.1007/s10531-010-9834-9.
31. Barnaud C, Antona M. Deconstructing ecosystem services: Uncertainties and controversies around a socially constructed concept. Geoforum. 2014; 56: 113-123. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.07.003.
32. Haines-Young R, Potschin M. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human wellbeing. Ecosystem Ecology. Cambridge University Press; 2010. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511750458.007.
33. De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex. 2010; 7: 260-272. doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006.
34. Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, García-Llorente M, Montes C. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol Indic. 2014; 37, Part A: 220-228. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013. 03.003.
35. Kandziora M, Burkhard B, Müller F. Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators-A theoretical matrix exercise. Ecol Indic. 2013; 28: 54-78. doi: 10.1016/j. ecolind.2012.09.006.
36. Spangenberg JH, von Haaren C, Settele J. The ecosystem service cascade: Further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy. Ecol Econ. 2014; 104: 22-32. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.025.
37. Villamagna AM, Angermeier PL, Bennett EM. Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecol Complex. 2013; 15: 114-121. doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2013.07.004.
38. Haase D, Schwarz N, Strohbach M, Kroll F, Seppelt R. Synergies, Trade-offs, and Losses of Ecosystem Services in Urban Regions: An Integrated Multiscale Framework Applied to the Leipzig-Halle Region, Germany. Ecol Soc. 2012; 17. doi: 10.5751/ES-04853-170322.
39. Hauck J, Saarikoski H, Turkelboom F, Keune H. Stakeholder involvement in ecosystem service decision- making and research. Bruss OpenNESS. 2014; Available: http://www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-book/sp-stakeholder-involvement.
40. Hicks CC, Graham NAJ, Cinner JE. Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value coral reef ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change. 2013; 23: 1444-1453. doi: 10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2013.07.028.
41. Lamarque P, Tappeiner U, Turner C, Steinbacher M, Bardgett RD, Szukics U, et al. Stakeholder perceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowledge on soil fertility and biodiversity. Reg Environ Change. 2011; 11: 791-804. doi: 10.1007/s10113-011-0214-0.
42. Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Amo DGD, et al. Uncovering Ecosystem Service Bundles through Social Preferences. PLoS ONE. 2012; 7: E38970doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038970PMID: 22720006.
43. Bryan BA, Grandgirard A, Ward JR. Quantifying and Exploring Strategic Regional Priorities for Managing Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services Given Multiple Stakeholder Perspectives. Ecosystems. 2010; 13: 539-555. doi: 10.1007/s10021-010-9339-0.
44. Bryan BA, Raymond CM, Crossman ND, Macdonald DH. Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what, and how? Landsc Urban Plan. 2010; 97: 111-122. doi: 10. 1016/j.landurbplan.2010.05.002.
45. Nagendra H, Reyers B, Lavorel S. Impacts of land change on biodiversity: Making the link to ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2013; 5: 503-508. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.05.010.
46. Van Oudenhoven APE, Petz K, Alkemade R, Hein L, de Groot RS. Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. Ecol Indic. 2012; 21: 110-122. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.012.
47. Harrison PA, Van de walle M, Sykes MT, Berry PM, Bugter R, de Bello F, et al. Identifying and prioritising services in European terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. Biodivers Conserv. 2010; 19: 2791-2821. doi: 10.1007/s10531-010-9789-x.
48. Vidal-Abarca Gutiérrez MR, Suárez Alonso ML. Which are, what is their status and what can we expect from ecosystem services provided by Spanish rivers and riparian areas? Biodivers Conserv. 2013; 22: 2469-2503. doi: 10.1007/s10531-013-0532-2.
49. González del Tánago M, García de Jalón D. Riparian Quality Index (RQI): A methodology for characterising and assessing the environmental conditions of riparian zones. Limnetica. 2011; 30: 235-254.
50. Nelson DW, Sommers LE. Total Carbon, organic Carbon and Organic Matter. In: Bartels JM, editor. Methods of soil analysis: chemical methods. Soil society of America; 1996. pp. 961-1010.
51. Daily GC. Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press; 1997.
52. APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th ed. Washington, D.C.: American Public Health Association; 1998.
53. Forouzangohar M, Crossman ND, MacEwan RJ, Wallace DD, Bennett LT. Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Landscapes: A Spatially Explicit Approach to Support Sustainable Soil Management. Sci World J. 2014; 2014: E483298. doi: 10.1155/2014/483298.
54. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Dean LA. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. Washington D.C.: Gov. Printing Office; 1954.
55. Goodall DW. Quantitative Aspects of Plant Distribution. Biol Rev. 1952; 27: 194-242. doi: 10.1111/j. 1469-185X.1952.tb01393.x.
56. Montero G, Ruiz-Peinado R, Muñoz M. Producción de biomasa y fijación de CO2 por los bosques españoles. Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Técnica Agraria y Alimentaria. Madrid 2005. Available: http://www.inia.es/gcontrec/pub/Forestal-13-1140078211046.pdf.
57. Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro. Concesiones del río Piedra y tributarios. Available: http://iber.chebro.es/webche/raInfo.aspx.
58. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Anuario Estadístico Agrario. Available: http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estad-publicaciones/anuario-de-estadistica/2010/default.aspx?parte=3&capitulo=13&grupo=1&seccion=2.
59. Gobierno de Aragón. Indice de precios Agrarios. Available: http://www.aragon.es/DepartamentosOrganismosPublicos/Departamentos/AgriculturaGanaderiaMedioAmbiente/AreasTematicas/EstadisticasAgrarias/ci.10-Anuario-estad%C3%ADstico-agrario.detalleDepartamento?channelSelected=1cfbc8548b73a210VgnVCM100000450a15acRCRD#section2.
60. Casalegno S, Inger R, DeSilvey C, Gaston KJ. Spatial Covariance between Aesthetic Value & Other Ecosystem Services. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8: E68437. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068437 PMID: 23840853.
61. Boletín Oficial de Aragón (BOA). ORDEN de 25 de enero de 2012, del Departamento de Agricultura, Ganadería y Medio Ambiente, por la que se aprueba el Plan General de Pesca de Aragón para el año 2012. Núm. 19.; 2012.
62. Trabucchi M, O'Farrell PJ, Notivol E, Comín FA. Mapping Ecological Processes and Ecosystem Services for Prioritizing Restoration Efforts in a Semi-arid Mediterranean River Basin. Environ Manage. 2014; 1-14. doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0264-4.
63. Instituto Aragonés de Estadística. Gobierno de Aragón, Zaragoza, Spain. Padron Municipal of Inhabitants. 2011. Available: http://www.aragon.es/DepartamentosOrganismosPublicos/Organismos/InstitutoAragonesEstadistica/AreasTematicas/02-Demografia-Y-Poblacion/01-CifrasPoblacion-Y-Censos/01-Padron/ci.01-Cifras-oficiales-poblacion.detalleDepartamento?channelSelected=cb5ca856c66de310VgnVCM2000002f551bacRCRD.
64. Valles M. Técnicas cualitativas de investigación social. Reflexión metodológica y práctica profesional. Ed. Síntesis. Madrid; 1999.
65. Grace JB. Structural equation modeling and natural systems. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press.; 2006.
66. Esposito Vinzi V, Chin WW, Henseler J, Wang H, editors. Handbook of Partial Least Squares. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2010. Available: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8.
67. Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. 3rd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
68. Chin WW. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; pp. 295-336.
69. Amato S, Esposito Vinzi V, Tenenhaus M. A global goodness-of-fit index for PLSstructural equation modeling. France: Technical report HEC School of Management; 2005.
70. Balzano S, Trinchera L. Structural equation models and student evaluation of teaching: A PLS path modeling study. Statistical Methods for the Evaluation of University Systems. Berlin, Germany: SpringerVerlag Heidelberg; 2010. pp. 55-66.
71. Costanza R. Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biol Conserv. 2008; 141: 350-352. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.020.
72. Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Aguilera PA, Montes C, Martín-López B. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecol Econ. 2014; 108: 36-48. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.028.
73. Geijzendorffer IR, Martín-López B, Roche PK. Improving the identification of mismatches in ecosystem services assessments. Ecol Indic. 2015; 52: 320-331. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.016.
74. Schröter M, Barton DN, Remme RP, Hein L. Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway. Ecol Indic. 2014; 36: 539-551. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.018.
75. Villa F, Bagstad KJ, Voigt B, Johnson GW, Portela R, Honzák M, et al. A Methodology for Adaptable and Robust Ecosystem Services Assessment. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9: E91001. doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0091001 PMID: 24625496.
76. Fisher JA, Patenaude G, Giri K, Lewis K, Meir P, Pinho P, et al. Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A conceptual framework. Ecosyst Serv. 2014; 7: 34-45. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.08.002.
77. Lavorel S, Grigulis K. How fundamental plant functional trait relationships scale-up to trade-offs and synergies in ecosystem services. J Ecol. 2012; 100: 128-140. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01914.x.
78. Santos-Martín F, Martín-López B, García-Llorente M, Aguado M, Benayas J, Montes C. Unraveling the Relationships between Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing in Spain. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8: E73249. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073249 PMID: 24039894.
79. Fisher JA, Patenaude G, Meir P, Nightingale AJ, Rounsevell MDA, Williams M, et al. Strengthening conceptual foundations: Analysing frameworks for ecosystem services and poverty alleviation research. Glob Environ Change. 2013; 23: 1098-1111. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.04.002.
80. Bagstad KJ, Johnson GW, Voigt B, Villa F. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosyst Serv. 2013; 4: 117-125. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser 2012.07.012.
81. Palm C, Blanco-Canqui H, DeClerck F, Gatere L, Grace P. Conservation agriculture and ecosystem services: An overview. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2014; 187: 87-105. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.010.
82. Berbes-Blazquez M. A Participatory Assessment of Ecosystem Services and Human Wellbeing in Rural Costa Rica Using Photo-Voice. Environ Manage. 2012; 49: 862-875. doi:10.1007/s00267-012-9822-9 PMID: 22402931.
83. Biggs R, Schlüter M, Biggs D, Bohensky EL, BurnSilver S, Cundill G, et al. Toward Principles for Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2012; 37: 421-448. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836.
84. Holling CS, Meffe GK. Command and Control and the Pathology of Natural Resource Management. Conserv Biol. 1996; 10: 328-337. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020328.x.
85. Gómez-Baggethun E, Kelemen E, Martín-López B, Palomo I, Montes C. Scale Misfit in Ecosystem Service Governance as a Source of Environmental Conflict. Soc Nat Resour. 2013; 26: 1202-1216. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2013.820817.
86. Lund JF, Treue T. Are We Getting There? Evidence of Decentralized Forest Management from the Tanzanian Miombo Woodlands. World Dev. 2008; 36: 2780-2800. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.01.014.
87. Forrester J, Greaves R, Noble H, Taylor R. Modeling social-ecological problems in coastal ecosystems: A case study. Complexity. 2014; n/a-n/a. doi:10.1002/cplx.21524.
88. Bowd R, Quinn N, Kotze DC, Hay DG, Mander M. The Identification of Potential Resilient Estuarybased Enterprises to Encourage Economic Empowerment in South Africa: A Toolkit Approach. Ecol Soc. 2012; 17. doi: 10.5751/ES-04840-170315.
89. Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC. The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science. 2003; 302: 1907-1912. doi:10.1126/science.1091015 PMID: 14671286.
90. Kenward RE, Whittingham MJ, Arampatzis S, Manos BD, Hahn T, Terry A, et al. Identifying governance strategies that effectively support ecosystem services, resource sustainability, and biodiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011; 108: 5308-5312. doi:10.1073/pnas.1007933108 PMID: 21402916.
91. Martín-López B, Montes C. Restoring the human capacity for conserving biodiversity: A social-ecological approach. Sustain Sci. 2014; 1-8. doi: 10.1007/s11625-014-0283-3.