Elsevier

Ecosystem Services

Volume 37, June 2019, 100911
Ecosystem Services

Are stakeholders’ social representations of nature and landscape compatible with the ecosystem service concept?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100911Get rights and content

Highlights

  • ES concept is not sufficiently reflecting stakeholders’ representations of nature.

  • Representations of nature include an anthropocentric view, as does the ES concept.

  • But stakeholders’ representations of nature also refer to relational values.

  • We warn against applying the standard theoretical ES concept when this is not appropriate.

  • Social representations approach can help to get insight in shared and relational values.

Abstract

Background

Implementing ecosystem services (ES)-based planning and management processes in practice, and mainstreaming the results in decision-making, is limited. Literature suggests this can be explained by a limited overlap between the ES concept and stakeholders’ representations of nature.

Aims

We introduce social representations theory as an approach to discuss whether the theoretical ES concept is compatible with stakeholders’ social representations of nature.

Methods

Thirty-nine stakeholders actively involved in the use and management of a peri-urban study area in Belgium were interviewed about their representation of nature.

Conclusions

Like the ES concept, stakeholders’ representation of nature includes an anthropocentric view, but stakeholders also stress the role and responsibility of humans in sustaining ecosystems and regulating nature (which is a relational value). From the qualitative analysis we conclude that the theoretical ES concept and ES classifications are not sufficiently reflecting stakeholders’ representations of nature, mainly on the human-nature relationship. The social representations technique provides handles to design ES-based processes according to stakeholders’ representations. This can result in more effective ES-based planning and management processes and improved understanding among stakeholders and between stakeholders and process managers.

Introduction

The ecosystem services (ES) concept has been developed to strengthen the position of biodiversity and ecosystems in policy, development decisions and land-use planning (Costanza et al., 2017, van den Belt and Stevens, 2016). Despite its history of almost 40 years, this concept is still dealing with uncertainties in the knowledge base, conceptual fuzziness, social controversies and disentangled causal relationships (Barnaud and Antona, 2014, Costanza et al., 2017, Czúcz et al., 2018). The ES concept has been defined as a “boundary object” (Abson et al., 2014, van den Belt and Stevens, 2016): robust enough to bind (opposing) views and values within a communication, scientific or work process, while remaining adaptable or vague enough for participants to maintain their identities across themes, contexts, and networks. Although participative approaches to ES research and ES practice are increasing (Jacobs et al., 2016, Kenter, 2016a, Scholte et al., 2015), the convergence between stakeholders’ notions of nature and the theoretical ES concept remains rather unquestioned (e.g. Beery et al., 2016, Willcock et al., 2016; counterexamples include Flint et al., 2013, Raymond et al., 2014, Hansen et al., 2015).

We situate this manuscript in the context of recent insights on the role of relational (Arias-Arévalo et al., 2018, Chan et al., 2016, Díaz et al., 2015, Muraca, 2011), and shared values of ecosystems (Irvine et al., 2016, Kenter, 2016b, Kenter et al., 2015), and the role of these values in ES assessments and other ES-based processes. Kenter et al. (2015) define shared values as the values people hold in common and which are formed through a process of socialisation and through shared social and deliberative processes. Relational values have been introduced in the ES debate as a third class of values, beyond intrinsic and instrumental values (Arias-Arévalo et al., 2018, Berbés-Blázquez et al., 2016, Chan et al., 2016, Díaz et al., 2015). Relational values can be individual or collective, and are embedded in desirable (sought after) relationships, rather than in things or beings. Relationships include those among people and between people and nature (Chan et al., 2016). We propose that the recognition of relational and shared values helps to bring to light important aspects of people’s representation of nature that may otherwise remain hidden or ignored in conventional ES assessments.

Considering the above, this manuscript aims to contribute to research priority one for integrated ES valuation as formulated by Jacobs et al. (2016), which is dealing with achieving effective stakeholder inclusion in ES research, not only for knowledge co-production and increasing societal relevance of the results, but also with the aim of including hidden values. For this purpose, we use social representation theory as an approach that moves beyond reductionist distinctions (such as between instrumental and intrinsic values), to consider broader notions of value, which may also include relational and shared values related to nature. Social representation theory stems from social psychology and aims to explain how different social groups may develop different understandings of an issue based on their particular values, ideas, knowledge, metaphors, beliefs, and practices (Buijs et al., 2008, Moscovici, 2000). Social representations are not mere individual cognitive representations, but are socially constructed through social interaction within groups and shared among members of groups and communities. Social representations of nature influence communications about assessments of nature and actions towards nature (Buijs et al., 2011, Quétier et al., 2010), especially when used strategically (Blicharska and Van Herzele, 2015).

In a previous article we inductively analysed individual interviews to describe the palette of images of nature present in a peri-urban case study in central Belgium (De Vreese et al., 2016a). Images of nature are individual pronunciations of a shared social reality within groups (Anderson et al., 2013, Moscovici, 2000). In the present article, we focus on these social realities, by examining the social representations of nature of different stakeholder groups. Having insight in these social realities facilitates designing research processes and ES-based decision-making processes that have a societal impact (Folkersen, 2018, Jacobs et al., 2016).

This article is innovative in its focus on the convergence between stakeholders’ representations of nature and landscape and the theoretical ES concept that represents nature in terms of ecosystems providing services to people (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). This focus is underpinned by research suggesting that a lacking overlap between the ES concept and stakeholders’ representations of nature is potentially one of the reasons for the low uptake of ES-based processes in decision-making, planning and management in practice (Hauck et al., 2013, Laurans et al., 2013, Mascarenhas et al., 2014, Primmer and Furman, 2012).

The question addressed in this paper is whether the social representation of nature embedded in the theoretical ES concept converges with empirically derived social representations of nature by different stakeholders. This question is fundamental for bridging the often-mentioned science-practice gap, for example through involving stakeholders within ES research, ES assessments and ES-based management and planning (see also Barnaud et al., 2018). When there is no convergence between the ES concept and stakeholders’ representations of nature, stakeholders probably will not be interested to be involved in ES-based processes (Asah et al., 2014, Folkersen, 2018). And, if they are involved in such processes, conflicts may arise out of mutual incomprehension between stakeholders, experts, and/or planning staff. Furthermore, stakeholders may question the relevance, credibility and legitimacy of the results of the ES assessment or ES-based planning and management proposals (Jacobs et al., 2016). Based on our study, we discuss how the social representation approach may assist in operationalising participatory ES-based research.

Section snippets

Selection of study area and respondents

The case is situated in four contiguous municipalities in central Belgium (Bierbeek, Oud-Heverlee, Beauvechain & Grez-Doiceau) with a peri-urban to rural character (21% built-up area, 39.000 inhabitants, 164 km2, see Fig. 1 for a map situating the study area and the land use in the study area). The area was selected for its high agricultural, ecological and landscape quality, comprising narrowly interwoven but varied land uses (farmland, woods, treelines, wetland etc.), which is impacted by

Results

The social representations of nature stemming from the open questions are classified along two dimensions. The first dimension differentiates “nature” versus “culture”; the second dimension differentiates the relationship between humans and nature (including two relations: Relation 1. Nature & Landscape for People, versus Relation 2 People for Nature & Landscape). A more detailed discussion of the dimensions, including respondent quotes, is provided in De Vreese et al. (2016a). To increase

Empirical social representations of nature challenge the theoretical ES concept and classical ES classifications

This article analyses stakeholders’ social representations of nature and confronts these with the representation of nature implemented in the ES concept. Our results challenge the theoretical ES concept and classical ES classification schemes in several ways.

Firstly, salient elements of the social representations of nature with the stakeholders in the area studied are based on the Cultured Nature relation and perspectives from the N&L4P relation (wood and food production, creating opportunities

Conclusion

This paper demonstrates that and describes how the theoretical ES concept deviates markedly from empirically grounded social representations of nature across different stakeholders in a peri-urbanised study area in Western Europe. The social representations identified in our study are only in part compatible with the theoretical ES concept. This pertains in particular the anthropocentric, instrumental elements shared by all stakeholders. But other elements in stakeholders’ representations of

Acknowledgements

We thank the interviewees for participating in our research, as well as two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on a previous version of this manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards.

Funding: Data collection and analysis was funded by Belgian Science Policy (BelSpo) [contract number SD/TE/05A]. Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) funded the first author as teaching assistant.

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References (75)

  • K.M.A. Chan et al.

    Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2012)
  • N. Cooper et al.

    Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2016)
  • R. Costanza et al.

    Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2017)
  • G. Cundill et al.

    Beyond benefit sharing: Place attachment and the importance of access to protected areas for surrounding communities

    Ecosyst. Serv Protected area services

    (2017)
  • B. Czúcz et al.

    Where concepts meet the real world: a systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2018)
  • R. De Vreese et al.

    Images of nature as a boundary object in social and integrated ecosystem services assessments. Reflections from a Belgian case study

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2016)
  • R. De Vreese et al.

    Social mapping of perceived ecosystem services supply – the role of social landscape metrics and social hotspots for integrated ecosystem services assessment, landscape planning and management

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2016)
  • S. Díaz et al.

    The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people

    Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.

    (2015)
  • H. Ernstson et al.

    Ecosystem services as technology of globalization: on articulating values in urban nature

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2013)
  • A. Fischer et al.

    Coproduction of ecosystem services as human–nature interactions—an analytical framework

    Land Use Policy

    (2016)
  • R. Fish et al.

    Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: a novel framework for research and critical engagement

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2016)
  • C.G. Flint et al.

    Exploring empirical typologies of human–nature relationships and linkages to the ecosystem services concept

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2013)
  • M.V. Folkersen

    Ecosystem valuation: changing discourse in a time of climate change

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2018)
  • R.K. Gould et al.

    Expanding the suite of Cultural Ecosystem Services to include ingenuity, perspective, and life teaching

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2017)
  • R. Hansen et al.

    The uptake of the ecosystem services concept in planning discourses of European and American cities

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2015)
  • J. Hauck et al.

    Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: some stakeholder perspectives

    Environ. Sci. Policy

    (2013)
  • K.N. Irvine et al.

    Ecosystem services and the idea of shared values

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2016)
  • Sander Jacobs et al.

    A new valuation school: integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2016)
  • K. Jax et al.

    Ecosystem services and ethics

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2013)
  • Jasper O. Kenter

    Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2016)
  • Jasper O. Kenter

    Editorial: shared, plural and cultural values

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2016)
  • J.O. Kenter et al.

    Shared values and deliberative valuation: future directions

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2016)
  • J.O. Kenter et al.

    What are shared and social values of ecosystems?

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2015)
  • Y. Laurans et al.

    Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: questioning a literature blindspot

    J. Environ. Manage.

    (2013)
  • A. Lawrence et al.

    Urban forest governance: towards a framework for comparing approaches

    Urban For. Urban Green.

    (2013)
  • D.E. Orenstein et al.

    In the eye of the stakeholder: changes in perceptions of ecosystem services across an international border

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2014)
  • P. Pascua et al.

    Beyond services: a process and framework to incorporate cultural, genealogical, place-based, and indigenous relationships in ecosystem service assessments

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2017)
  • Cited by (25)

    • Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services of mountain lakes in the European Alps

      2022, Ecosystem Services
      Citation Excerpt :

      Also considering the previous discussion on place perceptions and relations, such particularities may complicate differentiation of discrete ES categories and, consequently, how people ascribe value to ES (Chan et al., 2012; Du Bray et al., 2019). Overall, these findings are consistent with the understanding that the diversity of human perceptions, relations and values towards nature and its contributions to human well-being challenges standardized scientific frameworks (Chan et al., 2012; Bieling et al., 2014; De Vreese et al., 2019; Du Bray et al., 2019; Maund et al., 2020). We observed that socio-cultural approaches, which reflect a pragmatic paradigm of value assessment (Raymond et al., 2014) and combine participatory ES selection with quantitative–qualitative valuation, can be helpful to elicit diverse perspectives on ES.

    • Achieving multiple socio-ecological institutional fits: The case of spiny lobster co-management in Wagu, Japan

      2021, Ecological Economics
      Citation Excerpt :

      This type of fit is crucial for designing the institution of co-management because it is only when an institution is aligned with the shared understanding that the resource users will perceive the institution as legitimate, leading to the resource users' compliance to the rules prescribed by the institution (Clement, 2013; DeCaro and Stokes, 2013). This shared understanding is constructed through the social interaction of stakeholders (Berger and Luckmann, 1966; De Vreese et al., 2019). Through the social interaction, the stakeholders learn and internalize different social norms and the underlying values that support these norms.

    • Understanding the dynamics and factors affecting cultural ecosystem services during urbanization through spatial pattern analysis and a mixed-methods approach

      2021, Journal of Cleaner Production
      Citation Excerpt :

      Second, CESs are experienced, understood, and appreciated by people much more explicitly than are other ecosystem services (Chen et al., 2019; Hirons et al., 2016; Satz et al., 2013). CESs are essential to explaining the quality of interactions (the services that satisfy people’s demands and the disturbances that humans impose on the environment) between humans and their ecosystem (Tekken et al., 2017; De Vreese et al., 2019). The inclusion of CESs in decision making is not only able to enhance public support but also supplement expert knowledge with place-based ecological ideas (Dou et al., 2019; Hirons et al., 2016; Shi et al., 2020).

    • Taking an environmental ethics perspective to understand what we should expect from EIA in terms of biodiversity protection

      2021, Environmental Impact Assessment Review
      Citation Excerpt :

      There have, therefore, been calls to embed ESA into EIA where it can better inform those trade-offs (Fothergill et al., 2012; Baker et al., 2013; Geneletti, 2013; Karjalainen et al., 2013; Landsberg et al., 2013; Geneletti et al., 2015; Hansen et al., 2018). ESA is by definition anthropocentric (Brauman et al., 2014; De Vreese et al., 2019), given that ecosystems are valued in the context of services for humans. Whilst different interpretations exist, the most common understanding stems from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003), that differentiated between four types of ecosystem services:

    • Understanding environmental conflicts through cultural ecosystem services - the case of agroecosystems in Bulgaria

      2021, Ecological Economics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Moreover, the approach also helps to foster relationships between different social groups (Barnaud et al., 2018) and trade-offs in the distribution of environmental benefits (Turkelboom et al., 2018). Nevertheless, within much ecosystem services literature there is an underrepresentation of diverging socio-cultural aspects and concerns of marginalized actors who are invisible in the socially-constructed processes of an uneven environmental benefits distribution (De Vreese et al., 2019; O'Connor and Martinez-Alier, 1998). There is also lack of studies on cultural contributions in the environmental conflict processes of a particular place (Jorda-Capdevila and Rodríguez-Labajos, 2014; Lele, 2013).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text