Advanced

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

Kadykalo, Andrew N. ; López-rodriguez, María D. ; Ainscough, Jacob ; Droste, Nils LU ; Ryu, Hyeonju ; Ávila-flores, Giovanni ; Le Clec’h, Solen ; Muñoz, Marcia C. ; Nilsson, Lovisa LU and Rana, Sakshi , et al. (2019) In Ecosystems and People 15(1). p.269-287
Abstract
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... (More)
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. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
, et al. (More)
(Less)
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Ecosystems and People
volume
15
issue
1
pages
269 - 287
publisher
Taylor & Francis
external identifiers
  • scopus:85073465419
ISSN
2639-5908
DOI
10.1080/26395916.2019.1669713
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
3b58581e-2c74-4b50-8b94-1eeaa0c3826f
date added to LUP
2019-10-09 08:20:57
date last changed
2020-01-22 07:47:24
@article{3b58581e-2c74-4b50-8b94-1eeaa0c3826f,
  abstract     = {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.},
  author       = {Kadykalo, Andrew N. and López-rodriguez, María D. and Ainscough, Jacob and Droste, Nils and Ryu, Hyeonju and Ávila-flores, Giovanni and Le Clec’h, Solen and Muñoz, Marcia C. and Nilsson, Lovisa and Rana, Sakshi and Sarkar, Priyanka and Sevecke, Katharina J. and Harmáčková, Zuzana V.},
  issn         = {2639-5908},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {1},
  pages        = {269--287},
  publisher    = {Taylor & Francis},
  series       = {Ecosystems and People},
  title        = {Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘nature’s contributions to people’},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1669713},
  doi          = {10.1080/26395916.2019.1669713},
  volume       = {15},
  year         = {2019},
}