Abstract
The ecosystem service framework has been instrumental in navigating local to global sustainability issues. Yet as ecosystem services (ES) focus on nature’s positive contributions to people, some have argued that ‘ecosystem disservices’ (EDS), or nature’s negative contributions, should also be taken into account to better orient sustainability policies. However, joint ES and EDS assessments remain rare in sustainability research, partly because of the persisting conceptual ambiguity around the EDS concept. This study aimed to develop these joint assessments and test their relevance in addressing sustainability issues. To this end, we devised a novel cascade model that helps to define ES and EDS in a multi-level context that considers both as coproduced by ecosystems and people. In order to explore the potential and limitations of this model, we then applied it in a Brazilian landscape where reconciling agriculture and forest conservation is a critical sustainability challenge. Using the model in comprehensive interviews with farmers about their perceptions and management practices of forests, we found that they had an overall positive valuation of forests, but identified both positive and negative interactions between forests and farms at different organizational levels. The model also revealed a vicious circle between crop expansion, a resulting decrease in certain ES and an increase in certain EDS, which might exacerbate tensions between agriculture and forest conservation in the future. Additionally, the model allowed a window on the diverse preventive and regulating practices that the interviewed farmers have adopted to cope with increasing EDS without necessarily harming biodiversity. Based on this case study, this novel cascade model seems a promising conceptual tool to uncover the interactions between ES and EDS, opening new research and policy avenues to support sustainability.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ainscough J, de Vries LA, Metzger M et al (2019) Navigating pluralism: understanding perceptions of the ecosystem services concept. Ecosyst Serv 36:100892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.01.004
Allaire JJ, Gandrud C, Russell K, Yetman CJ (2017) networkD3: D3 JavaScript Network Graphs from R
Ango TG, Börjeson L, Senbeta F, Hylander K (2014) Balancing ecosystem services and disservices: smallholder farmers’ use and management of forest and trees in an agricultural landscape in southwestern Ethiopia. Ecol Soc 19:art30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06279-190130
Barnaud C, Antona M (2014) Deconstructing ecosystem services: uncertainties and controversies around a socially constructed concept. Geoforum 56:113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.07.003
Barnaud C, Corbera E, Muradian R et al (2018) Ecosystem services, social interdependencies, and collective action: a conceptual framework. Ecol Soc 23:art15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09848-230115
Barot S, Yé L, Abbadie L et al (2017) Ecosystem services must tackle anthropized ecosystems and ecological engineering. Ecol Eng 99:486–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.11.071
Blanco J, Dendoncker N, Barnaud C, Sirami C (2019a) Ecosystem disservices matter: Towards their systematic integration within ecosystem service research and policy. Ecosyst Serv 36:100913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100913
Blanco J, Sourdril A, Deconchat M et al (2019b) Social drivers of rural forest dynamics: a multi-scale approach combining ethnography, geomatic and mental model analysis. Landsc Urban Plan 188:132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.02.005
Blanco J, Moreau C, Guerbois C et al (2020a) La biodiversité, une ressource, mais aussi un fardeau ? Intérêt et limites des notions de services et disservices écosystémiques pour repenser les interactions nature-sociétés dans les territoires ruraux. VertigO. https://doi.org/10.4000/vertigo.29079
Blanco J, Sourdril A, Deconchat M et al (2020b) How farmers feel about trees: perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices associated with rural forests in southwestern France. Ecosyst Serv 42:101066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101066
Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63:616–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002
Buijs A, Jacobs M (2021) Avoiding negativity bias: towards a positive psychology of human–wildlife relationships. Ambio 50:281–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01394-w
Buijs AE, Arts BJM, Elands BHM, Lengkeek J (2011) Beyond environmental frames: the social representation and cultural resonance of nature in conflicts over a Dutch woodland. Geoforum 42:329–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.12.008
Cáceres NC, Bornschein MR, Lopes WH, Percequillo AR (2007) Mammals of the Bodoquena Mountains, southwestern Brazil: an ecological and conservation analysis. Rev Bras Zool 24:426–435. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-81752007000200021
Campagne CS, Roche PK, Salles JM (2018) Looking into Pandora’s Box: ecosystem disservices assessment and correlations with ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 30:126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.005
Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P et al (2012) Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62:744–756. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7
Costanza R, de Groot R, Braat L et al (2017) Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst Serv 28:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008
de Wit MP, Crookes DJ, van Wilgen BW (2001) Conflicts of interest in environmental management : estimating. Biol Invasions 3:167–178. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014563702261
Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M et al (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359:270–272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826
Dunn RR (2010) Global mapping of ecosystem disservices: the unspoken reality that nature sometimes kills us. Biotropica 42:555–557. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0340.F
Escobedo FJ, Kroeger T, Wagner JE (2011) Urban forests and pollution mitigation: analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ Pollut 159:2078–2087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.010
Fischer A, Eastwood A (2016) Coproduction of ecosystem services as human–nature interactions—an analytical framework. Land Use Policy 52:41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.004
Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014
Franco JBS (2001) O Papel Da Embrapa Nas Transformações Do Cerrado. Caminhos Geogr 2:31–40
Friess D (2016) Ecosystem services and disservices of mangrove forests: insights from historical colonial observations. Forests 7:183. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7090183
Genin D, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Balent G, Nasi R (2013) The multiple dimensions of rural forests: lessons from a comparative analysis. Ecol Soc 18:art27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05429-180127
Godoi MN, Laps RR, Ribeiro DB et al (2018) Bird species richness, composition and abundance in pastures are affected by vegetation structure and distance from natural habitats: a single tree in pastures matters. Emu - Austral Ornithol 118:201–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/01584197.2017.1398591
Haines-Young R, Potschin MB (2018) Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. 27
Harrington R, Anton C, Dawson TP et al (2010) Ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation: concepts and a glossary. Biodivers Conserv 19:2773–2790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9834-9
Hodgson ID, Redpath SM, Sandström C, Biggs D (2020) The state of knowledge and practice on human-wildlife conflicts. Luc Hoffmann Institute, Gland, Switzerland
Huang J, Tichit M, Poulot M et al (2015) Comparative review of multifunctionality and ecosystem services in sustainable agriculture. J Environ Manage 149:138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.10.020
Kansky R, Knight AT (2014) Key factors driving attitudes towards large mammals in conflict with humans. Biol Conserv 179:93–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.008
Koroiva R, Rodrigues ME, Valente-Neto F, Roque FO (2017) Odonates from bodoquena plateau: checklist and information about endangered species. Biota Neotrop. https://doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2016-0310
Landers DH, Nahlik AM (2013) Final ecosystem goods and services classification system (FEGS-CS). EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
Lyytimäki J (2015) Ecosystem disservices: embrace the catchword. Ecosyst Serv 12:136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.008
Lyytimäki J, Sipilä M (2009) Hopping on one leg—the challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban for Urban Green 8:309–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.09.003
Ma F, Eneji AE, Liu J (2015) Assessment of ecosystem services and dis-services of an agro-ecosystem based on extended emergy framework: a case study of Luancheng county, North China. Ecol Eng 82:241–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.04.100
Machado F (2016) Brazil’s new Forest Code: a guide for decision-makers in supply chains and governments. Brasilia, Brazil
Marchini S, Cavalcanti S, De Paula RC (2011) Predadores Silvestres e Animais Domésticos. Guia Prático de Convivência
McCauley DJ (2006) Selling out on nature. Nature 443:27–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/443027a
McElwee PD (2010) Resource use among rural agricultural households near protected areas in vietnam: the social costs of conservation and implications for enforcement. Environ Manage 45:113–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9394-5
Methorst J, Arbieu U, Bonn A et al (2020) Non-material contributions of wildlife to human well-being: a systematic review. Environ Res Lett 15:093005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9927
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG et al (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858
Norgaard RB (2010) Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol Econ 69:1219–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009
Norris CJ (2019) The negativity bias, revisited: evidence from neuroscience measures and an individual differences approach. Soc Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2019.1696225
Nyhus PJ, Tilson R, Sumianto (2000) Crop-raiding elephants and conservation implications at Way Kambas National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. Oryx 34:262–274. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00132.x
Palomo I, Felipe-Lucia MR, Bennett EM et al (2016) Disentangling the Pathways and Effects of Ecosystem Service Co-Production, 1st edn. Elsevier Ltd
Pinto L, Ferreira CSS, Pereira P (2021) Environmental and socioeconomic factors influencing the use of urban green spaces in Coimbra (Portugal). Sci Total Environ 792:148293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148293
Potschin MB, Haines-Young RH (2011) Ecosystem services: exploring a geographical perspective. Prog Phys Geogr 35:575–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133311423172
Potschin-Young M, Haines-Young R, Görg C et al (2018) Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade. Ecosyst Serv 29:428–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.015
Power AG (2010) Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 365:2959–2971. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0143
QSR International Pty Ltd. (2021) NVivo (release 1.5)
R Core Team (2018) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.
Russell BH (2011) Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches, 5th edn. AltaMira Press, Lanham
Saarikoski H, Jax K, Harrison PA et al (2015) Exploring operational ecosystem service definitions: the case of boreal forests. Ecosyst Serv 14:144–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.03.006
Sabino J, de Andrade LP (2003) Uso e conservação da ictiofauna no ecoturismo da região de Bonito, Mato Grosso do Sul: o mito da sustentabilidade ecológica no Rio baía bonita (aquário natural de Bonito). Biota Neotrop 3:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032003000200002
Saunders ME (2020) Conceptual ambiguity hinders measurement and management of ecosystem disservices. J Appl Ecol 1365–2664:13665. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13665
Schaubroeck T (2017) A need for equal consideration of ecosystem disservices and services when valuing nature; countering arguments against disservices. Ecosyst Serv 26:95–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOSER.2017.06.009
Schröter M, van der Zanden EH, van Oudenhoven APE et al (2014) Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conserv Lett 7:514–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12091
Shackleton CM, Ruwanza S, Sinasson Sanni GK et al (2016) Unpacking Pandora’s Box: understanding and categorising ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing. Ecosystems 19:587–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9952-z
Shapiro J, Báldi A (2014) Accurate accounting: How to balance ecosystem services and disservices. Ecosyst Serv 7:201–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.01.002
Simberloff D (2014) The “balance of nature”—evolution of a panchreston. PLoS Biol 12:e1001963. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001963
Spangenberg JH, Görg C, Truong DT et al (2014) Provision of ecosystem services is determined by human agency, not ecosystem functions. Four case studies. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 10:40–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2014.884166
Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, `translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci 19:387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
Stokely TD, Betts MG (2020) Deer-mediated ecosystem service versus disservice depends on forest management intensity. J Appl Ecol 57:31–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13532
Summers JK, Smith LM, Case JL, Linthurst RA (2012) A review of the elements of human well-being with an emphasis on the contribution of ecosystem services. Ambio 41:327–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0256-7
Teixeira L, Tisovec-Dufner KC, de Marin GL et al (2020) Linking human and ecological components to understand human–wildlife conflicts across landscapes and species. Conserv Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13537
Vaz AS, Kueffer C, Kull CA et al (2017) Integrating ecosystem services and disservices: insights from plant invasions. Ecosyst Serv 23:94–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.017
Vialatte A, Barnaud C, Blanco J et al (2019) A conceptual framework for the governance of multiple ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Landsc Ecol 34:1653–1673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00829-4
Von Döhren P, Haase D (2015) Ecosystem disservices research: a review of the state of the art with a focus on cities. Ecol Indic 52:490–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.027
Zhang W, Ricketts TH, Kremen C et al (2007) Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol Econ 64:253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024
Zhen H, Gao W, Yuan K et al (2021) Internalizing externalities through net ecosystem service analysis—a case study of greenhouse vegetable farms in Beijing. Ecosyst Serv 50:101323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101323
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (in particular through grants to FLS: Process 301306/2018-4, and to FOR), and by the Regional Council of the Pays de la Loire (France) through the CASEST (Anthropogenic Constraints to Tropical Savanna Socio-Ecological Systems) project. BB received a Rhodes University Postgraduate Scholarship (number: 2000108). We also received financial support from the Wetlands International office in Campo Grande and the MUPAN (Women in Action in the Pantanal) association. We would also like to thank all those from the farms we visited who accepted to be interviewed, as well as Sandro Roberto da Silva Pereira from the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) and Nino Rodrigo from the Brazilian Agency for Agricultural and Rural Development (AGRAER) for their valuable help in the field. Finally, we are grateful to all those who participated in the interviews with farmers, as translators or assistants, including Aurélie de Palmas, Inès Fillon, Fabio Bolzan, Guilherme Dalponti, Aline Giroux, and Dinah Madruga.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Handled by Giuseppe Feola, Utrecht University, Netherlands.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blanco, J., Bellón, B., Barthelemy, L. et al. A novel ecosystem (dis)service cascade model to navigate sustainability problems and its application in a changing agricultural landscape in Brazil. Sustain Sci 17, 105–119 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01049-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01049-z