Welcoming different perspectives in IPBES: &amp;#8220;Nature&amp;#8217;s contributions to people&amp;#8221; and &amp;#8220;Ecosystem services&amp;#8221;

Peterson, Garry D.; Harmáčková, Zuzana V.; Meacham, Megan; Queiroz, Cibele; Jiménez-Aceituno, Amanda; Kuiper, Jan J.; Malmborg, Katja; Sitas, Nadia; Bennett, Elena M.

doi:10.5751/es-10134-230139

Cited by 134 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the IPBES conceptual framework is not without controversy. In particular, the introduction of the term 'nature's contribution to people' (NCP) has been subject to much debate (Braat 2018;de Groot et al 2018;Kenter 2018;Peterson et al 2018). In this paper, we do not enter into arguments as to which terminology (NCP or ecosystem services) is best; but rather focus on demonstrating the additional insights that the inclusion of sociocultural methods and ILK knowledge within assessments can bring in terms of uncovering the diversity of values.…”

Section: Concluding Commentsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Understanding the diversity of values of “Nature’s contributions to people”: insights from the IPBES Assessment of Europe and Central Asia

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessments of the value of nature (e.g., TEEB. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations, London, 2010) have tended to focus on the instrumental values of ecosystem services. However, recent academic and policy debate have highlighted a wider range of values (e.g., relational and intrinsic values), valuation methods (e.g., socio-cultural methods), and worldviews [e.g., indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) systems]. To account for these new perspectives, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has developed the concept of 'Nature's contributions to people' (NCP), which aims to be a more inclusive approach to understanding and accounting for the diversity of values held by different stakeholders. In this paper, we aim to critically appraise the merits of the IPBES conceptual framework by reviewing of the findings the IPBES Europe and Central Asia (ECA) assessment. Our objectives are: (1) To review and assess the instrumental and relational values of NCP in Europe and Central Asia? (2) To consider what additional insights into the value of NCP are gained through the inclusion of socio-cultural valuations and ILK? Our analysis demonstrates that the ECA assessment captures a wide range of instrumental and relational values of NCP; however, we acknowledge variation in the availability of this value evidence. We also highlight new insights that can be uncovered through the adoptions of socio-cultural valuation methods and analysis of ILK knowledge. We conclude that the NCP paradigm, with its focus on instrumental and relational values, treats values more holistically than previous assessments such as TEEB (2010). For example, by giving a 'voice' to ILK holders, we demonstrated new types of NCP such as carrion removal, along with evidence of relational values including sense of place, identity, symbolic values and sacredness. While the ECA assessments may be defined as an example of a 'Multiple evidence base' approach to valuation of ecosystem assessments, the ECA assessment fails to demonstrate how to incorporate this wider range of values in decision-making processes.

show abstract

Section: Concluding Commentsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Understanding the diversity of values of “Nature’s contributions to people”: insights from the IPBES Assessment of Europe and Central Asia

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ecosystem services research continues to develop, with active discussion ongoing as to its future direction (Braat, ; Díaz et al, ; Peterson et al, ). Similarly, in coral reef ecosystem services research there is no one conceptual or methodological leading edge.…”

Section: Ecosystem Services From Topical Coral Reefsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coral reef ecosystem services in the Anthropocene

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coral reefs underpin a range of ecosystem goods and services that contribute to the well‐being of millions of people. However, tropical coral reefs in the Anthropocene are likely to be functionally different from reefs in the past. In this perspective piece, we ask, what does the Anthropocene mean for the provision of ecosystem services from coral reefs? First, we provide examples of the provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services underpinned by coral reef ecosystems. We conclude that coral reef ecosystem service research has lagged behind multidisciplinary advances in broader ecosystem services science, such as an explicit recognition that interactions between social and ecological systems underpin ecosystem services. Second, drawing on tools from functional ecology, we outline how these social–ecological relationships can be incorporated into a mechanistic understanding of service provision and how this might be used to anticipate future changes in coral reef ecosystem services. Finally, we explore the emergence of novel reef ecosystem services, for example from tropicalized coastlines, or through changing technological connections to coral reefs. Indeed, when services are conceived as coming from social–ecological system dynamics, novelty in services can emerge from elements of the interactions between people and the ecosystem. This synthesis of the coral reef ecosystem services literature suggests the field is poorly prepared to understand the changing service provision anticipated in the Anthropocene. A new research agenda is needed that better connects reef functional ecology to ecosystem service provision. This research agenda should embrace more holistic approaches to ecosystem service research, recognizing them as co‐produced by ecosystems and society. Importantly, the likelihood of novel ecosystem service configurations requires further conceptualization and empirical assessment. As with current ecosystem services, the loss or gain of services will not affect all people equally and must be understood in the context in which they occur. With the uncertainty surrounding the future of coral reefs in the Anthropocene, research exploring how the benefits to people change will be of great importance. A http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.13318/suppinfo is available for this article.

show abstract

“…what to focus on and what not, and to what extent) but rather in how we abstract and conceptualize reality itself. Indeed, while the need for a plurality of perspectives has been highlighted (Bousquet, Robbins, Peloquin, & Bonato, ; Peterson et al, ), substance ontologies only allow for certain conceptualizations (i.e. those that mirror substances) and not others.…”

Section: Substance Ontologies: a World Of Objects Described With Nounsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From nouns to verbs: How process ontologies enhance our understanding of social‐ecological systems understood as complex adaptive systems

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Research on social-ecological systems (SES) has highlighted their complex and adaptive character and pointed to the importance of recognizing their intertwined nature.2. Yet, we often base our analysis and governance of SES on static and independent objects, such as actors and resources which are not well suited to address complexity and intertwinedness. This bias, which is largely implicit, has its roots in substance ontologies that have influenced most of contemporary science.3. This paper argues that it is useful to critically reflect on this ontological grounding and develop SES research from a process ontological perspective.4. Key insights are that process ontological concepts such as process, event and possibility space are able to overcome the dichotomy between the social and the ecological and allow for a conceptualization of continuous change (dynamism) that enhances our understanding of SES as truly intertwined and complex systems.5. This will enable SES researchers to conceptualize problems as well as corresponding solutions in novel ways which will ultimately support the development of novel governance approaches, from rethinking the aims of policies from managing people towards managing relations between and among people and the natural system. 6. To fully tap the potential which comes with a change in worldview towards a process ontology, changing research approaches and ways of abstracting are required. K E Y W O R D Scomplexity, dichotomies (or dichotomy nature/society), events, relational ontologies, social-ecological systems, substance ontologies, the practice of abstraction

show abstract

Welcoming different perspectives in IPBES: “Nature’s contributions to people” and “Ecosystem services”

Cited by 134 publications

References 28 publications

Understanding the diversity of values of “Nature’s contributions to people”: insights from the IPBES Assessment of Europe and Central Asia

Understanding the diversity of values of “Nature’s contributions to people”: insights from the IPBES Assessment of Europe and Central Asia

Coral reef ecosystem services in the Anthropocene

From nouns to verbs: How process ontologies enhance our understanding of social‐ecological systems understood as complex adaptive systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About