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

Rik De Vreese, Ann Van Herzele, Nicolas Dendoncker, Corentin M. Fontaine, Mark Leys

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number100911
JournalEcosystem Services
Volume37
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2019

Fingerprint

ecosystem service
ecosystem services
stakeholders
Ecosystem
stakeholder
planning process
planning
management
social representation
Belgium
qualitative analysis
decision making
Decision Making
managers
manager
responsibility
ecosystems
ecosystem
methodology

Keywords

  • Ecosystem service valuation
  • Land-use planning
  • Natural resource management
  • Participatory ecosystem service assessment
  • Relational values
  • Shared values

Cite this

@article{62aebd668c1a429088c621be10856c87,
title = "Are stakeholders’ social representations of nature and landscape compatible with the ecosystem service concept?",
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.",
keywords = "Ecosystem service valuation, Land-use planning, Natural resource management, Participatory ecosystem service assessment, Relational values, Shared values",
author = "{De Vreese}, Rik and {Van Herzele}, Ann and Nicolas Dendoncker and Fontaine, {Corentin M.} and Mark Leys",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100911",
language = "English",
volume = "37",
journal = "Ecosystem Services",
issn = "2212-0416",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Are stakeholders’ social representations of nature and landscape compatible with the ecosystem service concept? / De Vreese, Rik; Van Herzele, Ann; Dendoncker, Nicolas; Fontaine, Corentin M.; Leys, Mark.

In: Ecosystem Services, Vol. 37, 100911, 01.06.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are stakeholders’ social representations of nature and landscape compatible with the ecosystem service concept?

AU - De Vreese, Rik

AU - Van Herzele, Ann

AU - Dendoncker, Nicolas

AU - Fontaine, Corentin M.

AU - Leys, Mark

PY - 2019/6/1

Y1 - 2019/6/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Ecosystem service valuation

KW - Land-use planning

KW - Natural resource management

KW - Participatory ecosystem service assessment

KW - Relational values

KW - Shared values

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063894773&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100911

DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100911

M3 - Article

VL - 37

JO - Ecosystem Services

JF - Ecosystem Services

SN - 2212-0416

M1 - 100911

ER -