Politics and the resilience of ecosystem services

Michael Schoon, Martin D. Robards, Katrina Brown, Nathan Engle, Chanda L. Meek

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Different sectors of society typically value, need and demand different bundles of ecosystem services. At the same time, important trade-offs exist between the production of different services, and it is not possible to increase the resilience of all ecosystem services simultaneously. Decisions about which services to sustain in a particular social–ecological system therefore require trade-offs that are inherently political. Politics can be described as ‘the authoritative allocation of values for a society’ (Easton 1965). To further complicate matters, the desired mix of services will evolve with changing societal values and preferences, and the resilience of ecosystem services is only one among many desired outcomes (e.g. equality, human rights, democracy) of social–ecological systems. Resolving these trade-offs requires resolution of collective-action dilemmas and intergroup conflicts, a process that comes replete with power inequalities, asymmetric resource bases and unequal outcomes. This chapter discusses some of the asymmetries and power dynamics that underlie decisions of which ecosystem services should form the focus for resiliencebuilding initiatives; the remainder of the book assumes these choices have been made and focuses on how the resilience of some agreed-on mix of ecosystem services may be enhanced. Here, we focus specifically on the social consequences of trade-offs between ecosystem services; asymmetries in the distribution of ecosystem services; and we briefly discuss the broad literature of how these may be addressed through wider deliberative processes. We find that issues associated with the allocation of ecosystem services are poorly integrated into the resilience literature, and suggest that an improved understanding of allocation trade-offs could result from more applied research on use of ecosystem services that integrates perspectives from the social sciences about how and why people make and respond to decisions concerning ecosystem services. Prompted by escalating rates of environmental change, resilience thinking is one emerging applied field that explicitly seeks to inform managers and policy-makers in the governance of social-ecological systems (SES) and the ecosystem services they produce (Berkes et al. 2000; Walker and Salt 2006).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationPrinciples for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages32-49
Number of pages18
ISBN (Print)9781316014240, 9781107082656
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015

Fingerprint

ecosystem service
politics
asymmetry
collective action
human rights
democracy
environmental change
salt

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Earth and Planetary Sciences(all)
  • Environmental Science(all)

Cite this

Schoon, M., Robards, M. D., Brown, K., Engle, N., & Meek, C. L. (2015). Politics and the resilience of ecosystem services. In Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems (pp. 32-49). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014240.003

Politics and the resilience of ecosystem services. / Schoon, Michael; Robards, Martin D.; Brown, Katrina; Engle, Nathan; Meek, Chanda L.

Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge University Press, 2015. p. 32-49.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Schoon, M, Robards, MD, Brown, K, Engle, N & Meek, CL 2015, Politics and the resilience of ecosystem services. in Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge University Press, pp. 32-49. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014240.003
Schoon M, Robards MD, Brown K, Engle N, Meek CL. Politics and the resilience of ecosystem services. In Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge University Press. 2015. p. 32-49 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014240.003
Schoon, Michael ; Robards, Martin D. ; Brown, Katrina ; Engle, Nathan ; Meek, Chanda L. / Politics and the resilience of ecosystem services. Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge University Press, 2015. pp. 32-49
@inbook{b121cf7c19e04cf59b9125c59b3ddf8b,
title = "Politics and the resilience of ecosystem services",
abstract = "Different sectors of society typically value, need and demand different bundles of ecosystem services. At the same time, important trade-offs exist between the production of different services, and it is not possible to increase the resilience of all ecosystem services simultaneously. Decisions about which services to sustain in a particular social–ecological system therefore require trade-offs that are inherently political. Politics can be described as ‘the authoritative allocation of values for a society’ (Easton 1965). To further complicate matters, the desired mix of services will evolve with changing societal values and preferences, and the resilience of ecosystem services is only one among many desired outcomes (e.g. equality, human rights, democracy) of social–ecological systems. Resolving these trade-offs requires resolution of collective-action dilemmas and intergroup conflicts, a process that comes replete with power inequalities, asymmetric resource bases and unequal outcomes. This chapter discusses some of the asymmetries and power dynamics that underlie decisions of which ecosystem services should form the focus for resiliencebuilding initiatives; the remainder of the book assumes these choices have been made and focuses on how the resilience of some agreed-on mix of ecosystem services may be enhanced. Here, we focus specifically on the social consequences of trade-offs between ecosystem services; asymmetries in the distribution of ecosystem services; and we briefly discuss the broad literature of how these may be addressed through wider deliberative processes. We find that issues associated with the allocation of ecosystem services are poorly integrated into the resilience literature, and suggest that an improved understanding of allocation trade-offs could result from more applied research on use of ecosystem services that integrates perspectives from the social sciences about how and why people make and respond to decisions concerning ecosystem services. Prompted by escalating rates of environmental change, resilience thinking is one emerging applied field that explicitly seeks to inform managers and policy-makers in the governance of social-ecological systems (SES) and the ecosystem services they produce (Berkes et al. 2000; Walker and Salt 2006).",
author = "Michael Schoon and Robards, {Martin D.} and Katrina Brown and Nathan Engle and Meek, {Chanda L.}",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/CBO9781316014240.003",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781316014240",
pages = "32--49",
booktitle = "Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Politics and the resilience of ecosystem services

AU - Schoon, Michael

AU - Robards, Martin D.

AU - Brown, Katrina

AU - Engle, Nathan

AU - Meek, Chanda L.

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - Different sectors of society typically value, need and demand different bundles of ecosystem services. At the same time, important trade-offs exist between the production of different services, and it is not possible to increase the resilience of all ecosystem services simultaneously. Decisions about which services to sustain in a particular social–ecological system therefore require trade-offs that are inherently political. Politics can be described as ‘the authoritative allocation of values for a society’ (Easton 1965). To further complicate matters, the desired mix of services will evolve with changing societal values and preferences, and the resilience of ecosystem services is only one among many desired outcomes (e.g. equality, human rights, democracy) of social–ecological systems. Resolving these trade-offs requires resolution of collective-action dilemmas and intergroup conflicts, a process that comes replete with power inequalities, asymmetric resource bases and unequal outcomes. This chapter discusses some of the asymmetries and power dynamics that underlie decisions of which ecosystem services should form the focus for resiliencebuilding initiatives; the remainder of the book assumes these choices have been made and focuses on how the resilience of some agreed-on mix of ecosystem services may be enhanced. Here, we focus specifically on the social consequences of trade-offs between ecosystem services; asymmetries in the distribution of ecosystem services; and we briefly discuss the broad literature of how these may be addressed through wider deliberative processes. We find that issues associated with the allocation of ecosystem services are poorly integrated into the resilience literature, and suggest that an improved understanding of allocation trade-offs could result from more applied research on use of ecosystem services that integrates perspectives from the social sciences about how and why people make and respond to decisions concerning ecosystem services. Prompted by escalating rates of environmental change, resilience thinking is one emerging applied field that explicitly seeks to inform managers and policy-makers in the governance of social-ecological systems (SES) and the ecosystem services they produce (Berkes et al. 2000; Walker and Salt 2006).

AB - Different sectors of society typically value, need and demand different bundles of ecosystem services. At the same time, important trade-offs exist between the production of different services, and it is not possible to increase the resilience of all ecosystem services simultaneously. Decisions about which services to sustain in a particular social–ecological system therefore require trade-offs that are inherently political. Politics can be described as ‘the authoritative allocation of values for a society’ (Easton 1965). To further complicate matters, the desired mix of services will evolve with changing societal values and preferences, and the resilience of ecosystem services is only one among many desired outcomes (e.g. equality, human rights, democracy) of social–ecological systems. Resolving these trade-offs requires resolution of collective-action dilemmas and intergroup conflicts, a process that comes replete with power inequalities, asymmetric resource bases and unequal outcomes. This chapter discusses some of the asymmetries and power dynamics that underlie decisions of which ecosystem services should form the focus for resiliencebuilding initiatives; the remainder of the book assumes these choices have been made and focuses on how the resilience of some agreed-on mix of ecosystem services may be enhanced. Here, we focus specifically on the social consequences of trade-offs between ecosystem services; asymmetries in the distribution of ecosystem services; and we briefly discuss the broad literature of how these may be addressed through wider deliberative processes. We find that issues associated with the allocation of ecosystem services are poorly integrated into the resilience literature, and suggest that an improved understanding of allocation trade-offs could result from more applied research on use of ecosystem services that integrates perspectives from the social sciences about how and why people make and respond to decisions concerning ecosystem services. Prompted by escalating rates of environmental change, resilience thinking is one emerging applied field that explicitly seeks to inform managers and policy-makers in the governance of social-ecological systems (SES) and the ecosystem services they produce (Berkes et al. 2000; Walker and Salt 2006).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84953268040&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84953268040&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/CBO9781316014240.003

DO - 10.1017/CBO9781316014240.003

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9781316014240

SN - 9781107082656

SP - 32

EP - 49

BT - Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -