How ecosystem services are co-produced: a critical review identifying multiple research framings

IF 6.1 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
A.J. Woodhead , J.O. Kenter , C.D. Thomas , L.C. Stringer
{"title":"How ecosystem services are co-produced: a critical review identifying multiple research framings","authors":"A.J. Woodhead ,&nbsp;J.O. Kenter ,&nbsp;C.D. Thomas ,&nbsp;L.C. Stringer","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>How ecosystem services are produced remains a critical research gap that must be addressed if services are to persist under on-going and future environmental change. Interest in this area is coalescing under the term ‘co-production’, which recognises that services are generated through interactions between social and ecological processes. Here we conduct a critical review of academic research into the co-production of ecosystem services, aiming to understand the foundations of this emergent field. Despite its recent origins, we identify four different framings as to how ecosystem services are co-produced and discuss their different epistemological bases and applications. The four framings are: <em>input focused</em>, which identifies and measures the inputs underpinning co-production; <em>actor focused</em>, understanding who is involved in co-production; <em>context focused</em> that situates co-production in social relations and place; and a more disparate <em>disciplines focused</em> approach, which highlights alternative conceptualisations of co-production based on diverse disciplinary and conceptual perspectives. There is overlap and dialogue between the four approaches, and we identify examples of how and where to operationalise these framings together to achieve a more holistic understanding of co-production processes. Nevertheless, behind these different framings are differences over what is or is not considered co-produced, and thus what is considered a valid field of inquiry within co-production research. This indicates ontological differences on the social construction of ecosystem services and the role of people therein. We argue that diversity in co-production research is important for representing the complexity of human-environment interactions, but that a more explicit acknowledgement of the ontological assumptions underpinning co-production is crucial if this area of research is to be analytically useful for the management of current and future ecosystem services.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51312,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystem Services","volume":"71 ","pages":"Article 101694"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecosystem Services","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624001013","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How ecosystem services are produced remains a critical research gap that must be addressed if services are to persist under on-going and future environmental change. Interest in this area is coalescing under the term ‘co-production’, which recognises that services are generated through interactions between social and ecological processes. Here we conduct a critical review of academic research into the co-production of ecosystem services, aiming to understand the foundations of this emergent field. Despite its recent origins, we identify four different framings as to how ecosystem services are co-produced and discuss their different epistemological bases and applications. The four framings are: input focused, which identifies and measures the inputs underpinning co-production; actor focused, understanding who is involved in co-production; context focused that situates co-production in social relations and place; and a more disparate disciplines focused approach, which highlights alternative conceptualisations of co-production based on diverse disciplinary and conceptual perspectives. There is overlap and dialogue between the four approaches, and we identify examples of how and where to operationalise these framings together to achieve a more holistic understanding of co-production processes. Nevertheless, behind these different framings are differences over what is or is not considered co-produced, and thus what is considered a valid field of inquiry within co-production research. This indicates ontological differences on the social construction of ecosystem services and the role of people therein. We argue that diversity in co-production research is important for representing the complexity of human-environment interactions, but that a more explicit acknowledgement of the ontological assumptions underpinning co-production is crucial if this area of research is to be analytically useful for the management of current and future ecosystem services.
生态系统服务如何共同产生:确定多种研究框架的批判性审查
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem Services ECOLOGYENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES&-ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
CiteScore
14.90
自引率
7.90%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: Ecosystem Services is an international, interdisciplinary journal that is associated with the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP). The journal is dedicated to exploring the science, policy, and practice related to ecosystem services, which are the various ways in which ecosystems contribute to human well-being, both directly and indirectly. Ecosystem Services contributes to the broader goal of ensuring that the benefits of ecosystems are recognized, valued, and sustainably managed for the well-being of current and future generations. The journal serves as a platform for scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders to share their findings and insights, fostering collaboration and innovation in the field of ecosystem services.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信