Relational values are values of desirable relationships between people and nature and among people (through nature). We report on the approach to capture relational values of nature’s contributions... Show moreRelational values are values of desirable relationships between people and nature and among people (through nature). We report on the approach to capture relational values of nature’s contributions to people in the regional assessment for Europe and Central Asia of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We present a framework considering indicators along four relational value dimensions about people’s relationships with nature: security and sovereignty; health; equity and justice; and heritage, social identity and stewardship. The framework has been operationalized for three nature’s contributions to people (NCP): regulation of freshwater quality and quantity, food and feed, and physical and psychological experiences derived from nature. We identify ways to empirically assess relational values of nature’s contributions to people at regional and continental scales with social-ecological indicators and proxies, ranging from biophysical indicators to indicators that intersect socio-economic with biophysical data. We conclude that many of the identified indicators can be considered as useful proxies of relational values in a quantitative way. The analysis shows that relational values are essential to consider at the science-policy interface as they are an important set of values that people hold about nature and that go beyond instrumental relations. Show less
This Editorial of the International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management (IJBESM) marks the end of this Journal’s publications under Rudolf de Groot. He has been... Show moreThis Editorial of the International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management (IJBESM) marks the end of this Journal’s publications under Rudolf de Groot. He has been instrumental in bringing the concept of ecosystem services to the fore, through seminal publications, books, lectures, through founding and chairing the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP); and finally, through ‘adding the ecosystem services to IJBESM’. After almost 8 years as Editor-in-Chief, he has decided to step down and hand over to a next generation.In the final part of this co-written Editorial, Rudolf de Groot will look back one last time at some highlights of the past years, partly together with his editorial team. The first part of this Editorial introduces the new co-Editors in Chief and how they envision the future of the Journal. Berta Martín-López (Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany) and Alexander van Oudenhoven (Leiden University, Netherlands) have gladly accepted to take over as co-Editors in Chief of IJBESM. They are interdisciplinary scientists at the forefront of research on social-ecological systems, ecosystem services, ecosystem management and sustainability transformation. Both are heavily involved in the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and both have been actively involved with this Journal for several years. While acknowledging and building on the achievements of the last couple of years, they suggest a way forward for publishing research on human–nature relationships. Show less
Díaz, S.; Pascual, U.; Stenseke, M.; Martín-López, B.; Watson, R.T.; Molnár, Z.; ... ; Shirayama, Y. 2018
We share many of the views of de Groot et al. on the relevance of ecosystem services (ES) and the constructive role they have played in highlighting the importance of nature to people. Here we aim... Show moreWe share many of the views of de Groot et al. on the relevance of ecosystem services (ES) and the constructive role they have played in highlighting the importance of nature to people. Here we aim to further clarify how the concept of Nature’s Contribution to People (NCP) contributes to science and policy.It was not the aim of our article to review the literature on ecosystem services (ES). The point of our article was to explain the concept of NCP not to review the extensive ES literature. We are in full agreement that the influence of ES has been long and rich, from its first mention in the peer-reviewed literature (1) to the present. As explicitly stated in our articles (2, 3) and further clarified in our figure S1, the IPBES approach owes much to the influence of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (4). The NCP framing has a number of elements that were present in the MA, as well as new elements.Ecosystem services are a subset of NCP, but there is more to NCP than ES. Beyond apparent similarities in definitions (e.g. services = contributions in some cases), the ES and NCP framings are different, with NCP being epistemologically, ontologically and methodologically more pluralistic. ES are part of NCP, that is, the ES approach represents an important subset of ways to understand nature’s diverse contributions to people. Show less
Díaz, S.; Pascual, U.; Stenseke, M.; Martín-López, B.; Watson, R.T.; Molnár, Z.; ... ; Shirayama, Y. 2018
Daniel Faith makes several very good points. We deal with only one of them in this short response, the role of biodiversity as a source of options for people now and in the future. We agree with... Show moreDaniel Faith makes several very good points. We deal with only one of them in this short response, the role of biodiversity as a source of options for people now and in the future. We agree with Faith that biodiversity at all scales, from local to global, is critically important for humans in the face of the unknown, and for the future production of nature’s contributions to people (NCP). We also agree that NCP in the face of the unknown should include both those associated with particular components of biodiversity, and those related to the continued existence of the variety of life. One of our categories of NCP indeed addresses these two aspects. “Maintenance of options” (NCP 18 within the generalizing perspective, Table S1) refers to the capacity of ecosystems, habitats, species or genotypes to keep options open in order to support a good quality of life. This includes the future benefits or threats derived from particular genes, organisms, groups of organisms or ecosystems, be they still unknown or already known but their future uses as yet undiscovered. NCP 18 also includes the contributions of all species, populations and genotypes to processes for coping with environmental uncertainty, such as the resilience and resistance of ecosystems in the face of environmental change and variability. Finally, it recognises future benefits or threats that may be anticipated from ongoing biological evolution, including rapid contemporary evolution. Using the eloquent metaphor of Faith et al., the existing global variety of life is a “storehouse”, and the on-going evolutionary process is a “factory” of new benefits and threats; both are included in the NCP framework. The NCP approach also seeks to integrate the various ways in which nature keeps our options open through the lens of other knowledge systems (context-specific perspective), from contributing to food autonomy at the household and local levels, to mutual enhancement of regional crop diversity and social networks, to the deliberate dispersal along “song-lines” of nutritious non-cultivated species enhancing the liveability of forests for future generations. Show less
Díaz, S.; Pascual, U.; Stenseke, M.; Martín-López, B.; Watson, R.T.; Molnár, Z.; ... ; Shirayama, Y. 2018
A major challenge today and into the future is to maintain or enhance beneficial contributions of nature to a good quality of life for all people. This is among the key motivations of the... Show moreA major challenge today and into the future is to maintain or enhance beneficial contributions of nature to a good quality of life for all people. This is among the key motivations of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a joint global effort by governments, academia, and civil society to assess and promote knowledge of Earth's biodiversity and ecosystems and their contribution to human societies in order to inform policy formulation. One of the more recent key elements of the IPBES conceptual framework (1) is the notion of nature's contributions to people (NCP), which builds on the ecosystem service concept popularized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2). But as we detail below, NCP as defined and put into practice in IPBES differs from earlier work in several important ways. First, the NCP approach recognizes the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining all links between people and nature. Second, use of NCP elevates, emphasizes, and operationalizes the role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding nature's contribution to people. Show less
Martín-López, B.; Church, A.; Başak Dessane, E.; Berry, P.; Chenu, C.; Christie, M.; ... ; Oudenhoven, A.P.E. van 2018
