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.

How can integrated valuation of ecosystem services help understanding and steering agroecological transitions?

“…This provides a thorough understanding regarding socioeconomic values borne by the different stakeholders (also referred to as the "ES demand") and how they relate to the idea of an agroecological transition. Including stakeholders' values in the assessment and decision process allows accounting for power asymmetries and increases chances of equity (Felipe-Lucia et al 2015). The method can rely on individual interviews and collective valuation (e.g., focus groups, participative workshops).…”

“…Diachronic feedbacks from other experiments, although still too scarce (Dendoncker and Crouzat 2018), could be used to help grasp the diversity and magnitude of transformations that could be locally projected. Among necessary features to identify, manageable drivers of change should be pinpointed, as well as the existing influence relationships among actors (Felipe-Lucia et al 2015) and their consequences on sustainability transition. Stakeholders could be invited to identify the key bottlenecks that might hinder the agroecological transition, considering among other issues knowledge, technical options, social acceptability, as well as administrative or regulatory frames.…”

Disentangling trade-offs and synergies around ecosystem services with the influence network framework: illustration from a consultative process over the French Alps

“…Indeed, these are often intermediate services contributing to the supply of other ES rather than ES from which stakeholders directly benefit (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007, Fisher et al 2009, Felipe-Lucía et al 2015. The same reasoning could apply to biodiversity.…”

“…Using the INF as a supporting tool to share the collective pool of knowledge among stakeholders, including that of scientists, appears as a necessary step to raise environmental awareness, overcome biased perceptions, and ultimately develop a shared understanding of the system. For instance, although we sometimes aggregated contrasting influences expressed by stakeholders as "varying," exposing explicitly differing opinions on the nature of a given influence represents an alternative entry point on territorial conflicts that could be used as a tool for collective learning , Felipe-Lucía et al 2015. Building a common understanding of the social-ecological system could facilitate subsequent collective management processes.…”

Ecosystem Service Supply and Capacity on U.S. Family Forestlands

“…All ecosystem services can be located on spectra defined by the "rivalness" and "excludability" of those services [3,6,13]. Rival goods and services are those which cannot easily be shared among multiple beneficiaries; they are "used up" or bound to a particular beneficiary in the process of improving that person's wellbeing (e.g., wild foods).…”