Earlier this year Science published a paper by Diaz et al. titled Assessing nature’s contributions to people which sparked an ongoing debate among the ecosystem services global community. Below we have listed some of the responses from the science community. If you would like to discuss this topic with your fellow ESP members, we have provided the space in our online community portal – click here to join the discussion.
The article presented a new conceptual framework developed by IPBES – nature’s contributions to people (NCP) – proposing that this new framework could facilitate a paradigm shift from the ecosystem services (ES) concept. NCP was presented as a more inclusive and broader concept which could be used better to inform policy and decision-making.
The article has since invoked multiple responses, including several Science eLetters responses. Among them, a response by de Groot et al. argues that the introduction of a new term risks unnecessary debates among the science community and confusion among policy makers and practitioners and proposes that “to strengthen scientific cohesion and societal impact, the terms NCP and ES must be regarded as the synonyms they are, and used appropriately for different audiences and purposes”.
Diaz et al. added their own response to the discussion as well, highlighting the new elements which the NCP concept brings to the table, such as broadening “the space for the social sciences, humanities and indigenous and local knowledge systems”.
Other critical responses include an editorial response in the journal Ecosystem Services (Braat 2018) citing five reasons why the Diaz et al. paper would not have been accepted in the journal and challenging several claims posed in the original paper; and a commentary in the journal One Ecosystem (Maes et al. 2018), arguing that “the science, policy and practice of ecosystem services have progressed much beyond a mere economic and ecological rationale”, as is stated by Diaz et al.
A guest editorial in the journal Ecology and Society (Peterson et al. 2018) examines advantages and shortcomings of the NCP concept and calls for recognition of pluralism and discussion between the different perspectives.
We are certain there are more responses to this discussion out there and we aim to update this post as the dialogue continues.
If you would like to discuss this topic with your fellow ESP members, we have provided the space in our online community portal – click here to join the discussion.