Dimensiones de valor pluralistas de los servicios ecosistémicos como una oportunidad hacia la transdisciplina

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Claudia Loreto Cerda https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9478-9978
Anahí Ocampo-Melgar https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3135-6037
Iñigo Bidegain https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5470-4466

Resumen

En este artículo de reflexión argumentamos que el enfoque de servicios ecosistémicos (SE: aspectos de los ecosistemas que se utilizan activa o pasivamente, o importan a las personas y contribuyen a mantener el bienestar humano) ha permitido salir del lenguaje monetario y relevar las razones éticas o culturales por las cuales las personas valoran la naturaleza. Investigaciones recientes para América Latina reconocen la importancia del enfoque de SE para la gestión de los sistemas socio-ecológicos y la formulación de políticas, relevando la necesidad de integrar perspectivas plurales, i.e. aquellas que permiten analizar las muchas dimensiones de valor que las personas atribuyen a la naturaleza y a los SE que provee.
La valoración plural de SE constituye un desafío que requiere integrar distintos conocimientos y enfoques metodológicos. En este contexto, reposicionamos el enfoque de SE argumentando que su valoración plural permitirá visualizar relaciones fundamentales entre la biodiversidad y el bienestar humano, a la vez que fomentará la inter y la transdisciplina al establecer un terreno común para la investigación y las políticas públicas con participación de distintos tipos de actores sociales involucrados en la gestión del territorio. Presentamos ejemplos de valoración plural y planteamos la idea de que su puesta en práctica permitirá identificar dimensiones de valor conflictivas entre diferentes actores, abriendo espacios para la comprensión de cómo las comunidades locales e indígenas construyen narrativas hacia los ES dada su larga experiencia coexistiendo con la naturaleza.
Presentamos oportunidades que los enfoques actuales de SE brindan para orquestar esfuerzos inter y transdisciplinarios que integren motivaciones, relaciones de poder y visiones en la coproducción de conocimientos sobre SE en Chile. Finalizamos presentando desafíos relevantes para fortalecer el análisis de la relación de la multiplicidad de valores asociados a SE con el bienestar social. Esto puede contribuir a generar territorios más sostenibles y políticas más justas.



##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Sección
Artículos Generales

Citas

Arias-Arévalo, P., Martín-López, B. y Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2017). Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 22(4). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26799016



Benra, F. y Nahuelhual, L. (2019). A trilogy of inequalities: Land ownership, forest cover and ecosystem services distribution. Land Use Policy, 82, 247-257.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.020 





Berbés-Blázquez, M., González, J. y Pascual, U. (2016). Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 19, 134-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.02.003


Bidegain, I, Cerda, C., Tironi, A. y López-Santiago, C. (2019). Social preferences for ecosystem services in a biodiversity hotspot in South America. Plos One, 14(4), e0215715. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215715


Bremer, L., Brauman, KA., Nelson, S., Meza Prado, K., Wilburn, E. y Fiorini, ACO. (2018). Relational values in evaluations of upstream social outcomes of watershed Payment for Ecosystem Services: A review. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 116-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.024


Brewer, GD. y Stern, PC. (Eds.). (2005). Decision Making for the Environment:Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11186 


Cerda, C. y Tironi, A. (2017). La evaluación no monetaria de los servicios ecosistémicos: Perspectivas para la gestión del territorio. Revista Luna Azul, 45, 329-352.


Cerda C. y Bidegain, I. (2018). Spectrum of concepts associated with the term Biodiversity: a case study in a biodiversity hotspot in South America. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 190, 207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6588-4.


Chan, K MA., Satterfield, T. y Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking Ecosystem Services to Better Address and Navigate Cultural Values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011 


Chan, K. M. A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., Luck, G. W., Martín-López, B., Muraca, B., Norton, B., Ott, K., Pascual, U., Satterfield, T., Tadaki,
M., Taggart, J. y Turner, N. (2016). Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(6), 1462-1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113 


Chapman, M., Satterfield, T. y Chan, KMA. (2019). When value conflicts are barriers: can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs? Land use Policy, 82, 464-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.017 


Chaudhary, S., McGregor, A., Houston, D. y Chettri, N. (2018). Environmental justice and ecosystem services: A disaggregated analysis of community access to forest benefits in Nepal. Ecosystem Services, 29, 99-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.020 


Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S. y Turner, R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002 


De Clerck, F., Ingram, JC. y Rumbaitis del Rio, CM. (2006). The role of ecological theory and practice in poverty alleviation and environmental conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4, 533-540. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295 (2006)4[533:TROETA]2.0.CO;2 


De Groot, R., Brander, L., Der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F. y Braat, L. (2012). Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 50-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005 


Delgado, L. y Marin, V. (2019). Socioecological systems of Latin America: Complexities and challenges. Springer.


De Vos, A., Bezerra, JC. y Roux, D. (2018). Relational values about nature in protected area research. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.018 


Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R. T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R., Chan, K. M. A., Baste, I. A., Brauman, K. A., Polasky, S., Church, A., Lonsdale, M., Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P. W., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., van der Plaat, F., Schröter, M., Lavorel, S., ... Shirayama, Y. (2018). Assessingnature’s contributions to people. Science, 359(6373), 270–272. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.aap8826


Erwin, A., Ma, Z., Popovici, R., Salas O’Brien, E. P., Zanotti, L., Zeballos Zeballos, E., Bauchet, J., Ramirez Calderón, N. y Arce Larrea, G. R. (2021). Intersectionality shapes adaptation to social-ecological change. World Development, 138, 105282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105282 


Fisher, B., Turner, RK. y Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68, 643-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014


Gomez-Baggethun, E., Martín-Lopez, B., Barton, D., Braat, L., Saarikoski, H., Kelemen, E., García-Llorente, M., van den Bergh, J., Arias, P., Berry, P., Potschin, M., Keene, H., Dunford, R., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Harrison, P., 2014 State-of-the-art report on integrated valuation of ecosystem services, EU OpenNESS
Project Deliverable 4.1, European Commission FP7.


Gómez-Betancur, L., Vilardy, SP. y Torres, R. (2021). Ecosystem Services as a Promising Paradigm to Protect Environmental Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Latin America: the Constitutional Court Landmark Decision to Protect Arroyo Bruno in Colombia. Environmental Management, 69, 768-780; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01483-w


Gould, RK., Pai, M., Muraca, B. y Chan, KMA. (2019). He ‘ike ‘ana ia i ka pono (it is a recognizing of the right thing): how one indigenous worldview informs relational values and social values. Sustainability, 14, 1213–1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00721-9 


Himes, A. y Muraca, B. (2018). Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, 1-7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005 


IPBES, (2020). Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Daszak,P., das Neves, C., Amuasi, J., Hayman, D., Kuiken, T., Roche, B., Zambrana-Torrelio, C., Buss, P., Dundarova, H., Feferholtz, Y., Foldvari, G., Igbinosa, E., Junglen, S., Liu, Q., Suzan, G., Uhart, M., Wannous, C., Woolaston, K., Mosig Reidl, P., O’Brien, K., Pascual, U., Stoett, P., Li, H., Ngo, H. T., IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4158500 


IPBES (2022). Summary for Policymakers of the Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Christie, M., Baptiste, B., González-Jiménez, D., Anderson,
C.B., Athayde, S., Barton, D.N., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Jacobs, S., Kelemen, E., Kumar, R., Lazos, E., Martin, A., Mwampamba, T.H., Nakangu, B., O’Farrell, P., Raymond, C.M., Subramanian, S.M., Termansen, M., Van Noordwijk, M., and Vatn, A. (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522392 


Jax, K., Calestani, M., Chan, KMA., Eser, U., Keune, H., Muraca, B. y Brien, LO. (2018). Caring for nature matters: a relational approach for understanding nature’s contributions to human well-being. Current Opinion of Environmental Sustainability, 35, 22-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.009 


Jones, NA., Shaw, S., Ross, H., Witt, K. y Pinner, B. (2016). The study of human values in understanding and managing socio-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 21(1), 15. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26270349 


López-Santiago, C. A., Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., Plieninger, T., Martín, E. G. y A. González, J. (2014). Using visual stimuli to explore the social perceptions of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes: the case of transhumance in Mediterranean Spain. Ecology and Society, 19(2). http://www.jstor.org/stable/26269539 


Maes, J., Burkhard, B. y Geneletti, D. (2018). Ecosystem services are inclusive and deliver multiple values. A comment on the concept of nature’s contributions to people. One Ecosystem, 3, e24720. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e24720 


Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Amo, D. G. D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Oteros-Rozas, E., Palacios-Agundez, I., Willaarts, B., González, J. A., Santos-Martín, F., Onaindia, M.,
López-Santiago, C. y Montes, C. (2012). Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE, 7(6), Artículo e38970. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970 


Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press.


Nahuelhual, L., Saavedra, G., Henríquez, F., Benra, F., Vergara, X., Perugache, C. y Hasen, F. (2018). Opportunities and limits to ecosystem services governance in developing countries and indigenous territories: The case of water supply in Southern Chile. Environmental Science & Policy, 86, 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.04.012 


Ocampo-Melgar, A., Lutz-Ley, A., Zúñiga, A., Cerda, C. y Goirán, S. (2022). Zonas áridas de Latinoamérica: Desafíos y oportunidades para un desarrollo sostenible. Metode Science Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.7203/metode.13.21458 


Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of socialecological systems. Science, 325. 419-422. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20536694


Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R. T., Başak Dessane, E., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S. M., Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S., Al-Hafedh, Y. S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S. T., ... Yagi, N. (2017). Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26-27, 7–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006 


Paavola, J. y Hubacek, K. (2013). Ecosystem services, governance, and stakeholder participation: An introduction. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269381


Razeto, J., Skewes, JC. y Catalán, E. (2019). Prácticas de Conservación, Sistemas Naturales y Procesos Culturales: Apuntes Para Una Reflexión Crítica Desde La Etnografía. En C. Cerda, E. Silva-Rodríguez y C. Briceño (Eds.), Naturaleza En Sociedad. Una Mirada a La Dimensión Humana de La Conservación de La Biodiversidad. (pp. 125-157). Ocho Libros.


Redford, K H. y Adams, WM. (2009). Payment for Ecosystem Services and the Challenge of Saving Nature. Conservation Biology, 23(4), 785-787. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01271.x 


Reyers, B., O’Farrell, P J., Cowling, R M., Egoh, B N., Le Maitre, D C. y Vlok, J H J. (2009). Ecosystem Services, Land-Cover Change, and Stakeholders: Finding a Sustainable Foothold for a Semiarid Biodiversity Hotspot. Ecology and Society, 14(1). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268036 


Reyers, B., Folke, C., Lee Moore, M., Biggs, R. y Galaz, V. (2018). Social-Ecological Systems Insights for Navigating the Dynamics of the Anthropocene. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 43, 267–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085349


Riechers, M., Balazsi, A., Betz, L., Jiren, T. y Fischer, J. (2020). The erosion of relational values resulting from landscape simplification. Landscape Ecology, 35, 2601-2612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01012-w 


Sangha, KK., Preece, L., Villarreal, J., Kegamba, JJ., Warmenhoven, T. y Krishnan, PS. (2018). An ecosystem services framework to evaluate indigenous and local peoples’ connections with nature. Ecosystem Services, 31(A), 115-125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.017 


Scholte, S., Van Teeffelen, A. y Verburg, P. (2015). Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Ecological Economics, 114, 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007


Schröter, M., Başak, E., Christie, M., Church, A., Keune, H., Osipova, E., Oteros-Rozas, E., Sievers-Glotzbach, S., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Balvanera, P., González, D., Jacobs, S., Molnár, Z., Pascual, U. y Martín-López, B. (2020). Indicators for relational values of nature’s contributions to good quality of
life: The IPBES approach for Europe and Central Asia. Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 50-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1703039 


Spangenberg, J., Görg, C. y Settele, J. (2015). Stakeholder involvement in ESS research and governance: Between conceptual ambition and practical experiences – risks, challenges and tested tools. Ecosystem Services, 16, 201-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.006 


Stępniewska, M., Grunewald, K., Villoslada, M. y Mizgajski, A. (2022). The various faces of transdisciplinarity in research on ecosystem services: Editorial to Special Issue. Ecosystem Services, 56, 101451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101451


Suich, H., Howe, C. y Mace, G. (2015). Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: a review of the empirical links. Ecosystem Services, 12, 137-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.005


Umaña, P. (2017). Valoración sociocultural de la transformación territorial debido a la expansión forestal en la comuna de Pichilemu, Chile. [Tesis para optar al grado de Magíster en Gestión y Planificación Ambiental, Universidad de Chile].