A recent paper by Díaz et al. (2018a) presented “nature’s contributions to people,” a conceptual framework developed within the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The authors wrote that it could nurture a paradigm shift from the concept of ecosystem services. The paper has sparked quick reactions including a critical editorial response in the journal Ecosystem Services (Braat 2018) and several Science eLetters responses. Díaz et al. (2018a) and the responses generally disagree on whether the paradigm shift suggested by the original contribution is justified and whether the nature’s contributions to people framework represents a scientific advance that is broadly useful in contexts other than IPBES.
In this contribution, we call for a recognition of pluralism and the need for a richer process of articulation, translation, and discussion among many different perspectives on people’s relationship with nature.
Research news | 2018-11-09
The perception of cognition and other related terms easily get misunderstood in scientific processes, leading to frustration, communication breakdown and a collaboration impasse
Research news | 2018-11-08
The fourth in a series of seven "deep dives" looking into the connections between resilience and development
Research news | 2018-11-07
A handful of international investors linked to economic activities may influence the stability of some of the world’s largest forests and hence the global climate
Research news | 2018-11-03
How social-ecological systems research can transform sustainable development to match the challenges of the Anthropocene
Research news | 2018-11-02
Ghana’s unique female intermediaries are increasingly squeezed out by global seafood companies
Research news | 2018-11-01
The third in a series of seven "deep dives" looking into the connections between resilience and development