Ecosystem services flows: Why stakeholders' power relationships matter

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 ec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Felipe-Lucia, María R., Martín-López, Berta, Lavorel, Sandra, Berraquero-Díaz, Luis, Escalera-Reyes, Javier, Comín, Francisco A.
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2015
País:España
Institución:Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Repositorio:Biblos-e Archivo. Repositorio Institucional de la UAM
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:repositorio.uam.es:10486/673116
Acceso en línea:http://hdl.handle.net/10486/673116
https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132232
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Biological pest control
Conceptual framework
Ecosystem
Ecosystem monitoring
Environmental management
Floodplain
Food industry
Habitat quality
Human
Land use
Semi structured interview
Spain
Water quality
Water supply
Wellbeing
Biología y Biomedicina / Biología
Descripción
Sumario: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