Advanced search
Publication Cover
Ecosystems and People Volume 19, 2023 - Issue 1
Submit an article Journal homepage
1,276
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Paper

Mismatches in the ecosystem services-wellbeing nexus: a case study for Chilean Patagonia

Felipe Benraa Department of Ecosystem Services, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany;b Institute of Biodiversity, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany;c German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany;d Faculty of Sustainability, Social-Ecological Systems Institute, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, GermanyCorrespondence[email protected]
ORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2189-2186View further author information
ORCID Icon,
Laura Nahuelhuale Departamento de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de Los Lagos, Osorno, Chile;f Centro de Investigación en Dinámica de Ecosistemas Marinos de Altas Latitudes (IDEAL), Chile;g Instituto Milenio en Socio-Ecología Costera (SECOS), ChileORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-0298-3648View further author information
ORCID Icon,
María R. Felipe-Luciaa Department of Ecosystem Services, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany;c German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany;h Departamento de Conservación de la Biodiversidad y Restauración de Ecosistemas, Instituto Pirenaico de Ecología (IPE-CSIC), Jaca (Huesca), SpainORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1915-8169View further author information
ORCID Icon,
Rachel R. Y. Oha Department of Ecosystem Services, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany;c German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, GermanyORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2716-7727View further author information
ORCID Icon,
Jana Kachlera Department of Ecosystem Services, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany;b Institute of Biodiversity, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany;c German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, GermanyORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-0536-2820View further author information
ORCID Icon &
Aletta Bonna Department of Ecosystem Services, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany;b Institute of Biodiversity, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany;c German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, GermanyORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8345-4600View further author information
ORCID Icon
Article: 2224448 | Received 06 Jun 2022, Accepted 05 Jun 2023, Published online: 26 Jun 2023

References

  • Abunge C, Coulthard S, Daw TM. 2013. Connecting marine ecosystem services to human well-being: insights from participatory well-being assessment in Kenya. Ambio. 42(8):1010–19. doi: 10.1007/s13280-013-0456-9.
  • Acuña V, Díez JR, Flores L, Meleason M, Elosegi A, Jones J. 2013. Does it make economic sense to restore rivers for their ecosystem services? J Appl Ecol. 50(4):988–997. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12107.
  • Agostini CA, Brown PH. 2010. Inequality at low levels of aggregation in Chile. Rev Dev Econ. 14(2):213–226. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9361.2010.00548.x.
  • Araos F, Anbleyth-Evans J, Riquelme W, Hidalgo C, Brañas F, Catalán E, Núñez D, Diestre F. 2020. Marine indigenous areas: conservation assemblages for sustainability in Southern Chile. Coast Manage. 48(4):289–307. doi: 10.1080/08920753.2020.1773212.
  • Atkinson G, Ovando P. 2021. Distributional issues in natural capital accounting: an application to land ownership and ecosystem services in Scotland. Environ Resource Econ. 81(2):215–241. doi: 10.1007/s10640-021-00613-6.
  • Balvanera P, Calderón-Contreras R, Castro AJ, Felipe-Lucia MR, Geijzendorffer IR, Jacobs S, Martín-López B, Arbieu U, Speranza CI, Locatelli B, et al. 2017. Interconnected place-based social–ecological research can inform global sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability. 29:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.09.005.
  • Bennett EM, Cramer W, Begossi A, Cundill G, Díaz S, Egoh BN, Geijzendorffer IR, Krug CB, Lavorel S, Lazos E, et al. 2015. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 14:76–85. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007.
  • Benra F, de Frutos A, Gaglio M, Álvarez-Garretón C, Felipe-Lucia M, Bonn A. 2021. Mapping water ecosystem services: evaluating InVEST model predictions in data scarce regions. Environ Model Soft. 138:138. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.104982.
  • Benra F, Nahuelhual L. 2019. A trilogy of inequalities: land ownership, forest cover and ecosystem services distribution. Land Use Policy. 82:247–257. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.020.
  • Benra F, Nahuelhual L, Felipe-Lucia M, Jaramillo A, Jullian A, Bonn C. 2022. Balancing ecological and social goals in PES design – Single objective strategies are not sufficient. Ecosyst Serv. 53:101385. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101385.
  • Binder CR, Hinkel J, Bots PWG, Pahl-Wostl C. 2013. Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc. 18(4). doi: 10.5751/ES-05551-180426.
  • Bivand R, Keitt T, Rowlingson B. 2019. Rgdal: bindings for the ’geospatial’ data abstraction library. R package version 1.4-8. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rgdal.
  • Blythe J, Armitage D, Alonso G, Campbell D, Esteves Dias AC, Epstein G, Marschke M, Nayak P. 2020. Frontiers in coastal well-being and ecosystem services research: a systematic review. Ocean Coast Manag. 185:105028. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105028.
  • Bopp C, Engler A, Jara-Rojas R, Arriagada R. 2020. Are forest plantation subsidies affecting land use change and off-farm income? A farm-level analysis of Chilean small forest landowners. Land Use Policy. 91:104308. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104308.
  • Bravo C, Loriaux T, Rivera A, Brock BW. 2017. Assessing glacier melt contribution to streamflow at Universidad Glacier, central Andes of Chile. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 21(7):3249–3266. doi: 10.5194/hess-21-3249-2017.
  • Brück M, Abson DJ, Fischer J, Schultner J. 2022. Broadening the scope of ecosystem services research: disaggregation as a powerful concept for sustainable natural resource management. Ecosyst Serv. 53:101399. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101399.
  • Bruley E, Locatelli B, Lavorel S. 2021. Nature’s contributions to people: coproducing quality of life from multifunctional landscapes. Ecol Soc. 26(1). doi: 10.5751/ES-12031-260112.
  • Cabezas J, Galleguillos M, Valdés A, Fuentes JP, Pérez C, Perez-Quezada JF. 2015. Evaluation of impacts of management in an anthropogenic peatland using field and remote sensing data. Ecosphere. 6(12):1–24. doi: 10.1890/ES15-00232.1.
  • Carpenter SR, Defries R, Dietz T, Mooney HA, Polasky S, Reid WV, Scholes RJ. 2006. Assessment: research needs. Science (1979). 314(5797):257–258. doi: 10.1126/science.1131946.
  • Chanza N, Musakwa W. 2021. Indigenous practices of ecosystem management in a changing climate: prospects for ecosystem-based adaptation. Environ Sci Policy. 126:142–151. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.10.005.
  • Chettri N, Aryal K, Thapa S, Uddin K, Kandel P, Karki S. 2021. Contribution of ecosystem services to rural livelihoods in a changing landscape: a case study from the Eastern Himalaya. Land Use Policy. 109:105643. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105643.
  • CIREN CORFO. 1999. Digital cartography of rural properties.
  • Comberti C, Thornton TF, Wylliede Echeverria V, Patterson T. 2015. Ecosystem services or services to ecosystems? Valuing cultivation and reciprocal relationships between humans and ecosystems. Glob Environ Change. 34:247–262. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.007.
  • Cooper NA, Kainer KA. 2018. To log or not to log: local perceptions of timber management and its implications for well-being within a sustainable-use protected area. Ecol Soc. 23(2). doi: 10.5751/ES-09995-230204.
  • Cruz-Garcia GS, Sachet E, Blundo-Canto G, Vanegas M, Quintero M. 2017. To what extent have the links between ecosystem services and human well-being been researched in Africa, Asia, and Latin America? Ecosyst Serv. 25:201–212. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.04.005.
  • Cuni-Sanchez A, Pfeifer M, Marchant R, Burgess ND. 2016. Ethnic and locational differences in ecosystem service values: insights from the communities in forest islands in the desert. Ecosyst Serv. 19:42–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.04.004.
  • Dade MC, Robinson BE, Bennett EM, Robinson BE, Bennett EM, Bennett EM, Robinson BE, Dade MC. 2022. Property rights play a pivotal role in the distribution of ecosystem services among beneficiaries among beneficiaries. Ecosyst People. 18(1):131–145. doi: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2037715.
  • Das M, Das A, Seikh S, Pandey R. 2022. Nexus between indigenous ecological knowledge and ecosystem services: a socio-ecological analysis for sustainable ecosystem management. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 29:61561–61578. doi:10.1007/s11356-021-15605-8.
  • Daw T, Brown K, Rosendo S, Pomeroy R. 2011. Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ Conserv. 38(4):370–379. doi: 10.1017/S0376892911000506.
  • Delgado LE, Marín VH. 2016. Well-being and the use of ecosystem services by rural households of the Río Cruces watershed, southern Chile. Ecosyst Serv. 21:81–91. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.017.
  • Delgado LE, Rojo Negrete IA, Torres-Gómez M, Alfonso A, Francisco Z-R. 2019. Social-ecological systems and human well-being. In: Delgado LE Marin VH, editors. Social-Ecological systems of Latin America: complexities and challenges. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG; p. 53–69. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-28452-7_4
  • Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, et al. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework - connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Env Sust. 14:1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002.
  • Eigenbrod F, Tang Z, Eisner S, Flörke M, Zhao G. 2017. Spatial covariance of ecosystem services and poverty in China. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag. 13(1):422–433. doi: 10.1080/21513732.2017.1397750.
  • Ernstson H. 2013. The social production of ecosystem services: a framework for studying environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan. 109(1):7–17. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.005.
  • ESRI. 2022. ArcGIS pro: release 3.0.0. Redlands (CA): Environmental Systems Research Institute.
  • Fan Y, Chen J, Shirkey G, John R, Wu SR, Park H, Shao C. 2016. Applications of structural equation modeling (SEM) in ecological studies: an updated review. Ecol process. Ecol Process. 5(1). doi: 10.1186/s13717-016-0063-3.
  • Fang X, Wu J, He C. 2021. Assessing human-environment system sustainability based on regional safe and just operating space: the case of the inner mongolia grassland. Environ Sci Policy. 116:276–286. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.12.007.
  • Fedele G, Locatelli B, Djoudi H. 2017. Mechanisms mediating the contribution of ecosystem services to human well-being and resilience. Ecosyst Serv. 28:43–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.011.
  • Felipe-Lucia MR, Guerrero AM, Alexander SM, Ashander J, Baggio JA, Barnes ML, Bodin Ö, Bonn A, Fortin M, Friedman RS, et al. 2022. Conceptualizing ecosystem services using social–ecological networks. Trends Ecol Evol. 37(3):211–222. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2021.11.012.
  • Fischer A, Eastwood A. 2016. Coproduction of ecosystem services as human-nature interactions-An analytical framework. Land Use Policy. 52:41–50. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.004.
  • Fischer J, Riechers M. 2019. A leverage points perspective on sustainability. People Nat. 1(1):115–120. doi: 10.1002/pan3.13.
  • Folke C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social – ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Change. 16(3):253–267. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002.
  • Gadgil M, Berkes F, Folke C. 2019. Indigenous knowledge for conservation. Ambio. 22:151–156. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0341-z.
  • Garnett ST, Burgess ND, Fa JE, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Molnár Z, Robinson CJ, Watson JEM, Zander KK, Austin B, Brondizio ES, et al. 2018. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat Sustain. 1(7):369–374. doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6.
  • Gomes Lopes LF, dos Santos Bento JMR, Arede Correia Cristovão AF, Baptista FO. 2015. Exploring the effect of land use on ecosystem services: the distributive issues. Land Use Policy. 45:141–149. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.12.008.
  • Guswa AJ, Asce AM, Hamel P, Meyer K. 2018. Curve number approach to estimate monthly and annual direct runoff. J Hydrol Eng. 23(2):1–10. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001606.
  • Haines-Young R, Potschin M. 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Ecosyst Ecol. 110–139. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511750458.007.
  • Hijmans RJ. 2020. Raster: geographic data analysis and modeling. R package version 3.0-12. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=raster.
  • Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Harris JA. 2009. Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. Trends Ecol Evol. 24(11):599–605. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.05.012.
  • Holling CS. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems. 4(5):390–405. doi: 10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5.
  • Hossain S, Dearing JA, Rahman MM, Salehin M. 2016. Recent changes in ecosystem services and human well-being in the Bangladesh coastal zone. Reg Environ Change. 16(2):429–443. doi: 10.1007/s10113-014-0748-z.
  • Hossain MS, Eigenbrod F, Amoako Johnson F, Dearing JA. 2017. Unravelling the interrelationships between ecosystem services and human wellbeing in the Bangladesh delta. Int J Sust Dev World. 24(2):120–134. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2016.1182087.
  • Hoyle RH. 2011. Structural equation modeling for social and personality psychology. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781446287965.
  • Hu LT, Bentler PM. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 6(1):1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.
  • Hull V, Liu J. 2018. Telecoupling: a new frontier for global sustainability. Ecol Soc. 23(4). doi: 10.5751/ES-10494-230441.
  • INE. 2007. VII Censo nacional agropecuario y forestal. Resultados preliminares 2006-2007. Santiago, Chile: INE. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas.
  • INE. 2018. Síntesis de Resultados CENSO 2017.
  • INFOR. 2018. Anuario forestal 2018. Boletin Estadístico N 163. Santiago de Chile.
  • Inostroza L, Zasada I, König HJ. 2016. Last of the wild revisited: assessing spatial patterns of human impact on landscapes in Southern Patagonia, Chile. Reg Environ Change. 16(7):2071–2085. doi: 10.1007/s10113-016-0935-1.
  • IPBES. 2019. Global Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity, IPBES secretariat.
  • Jenkins M, Salzman J, Bennett G, Granfors J. 2020. Making the priceless valuable: forests and ecosystem services. Int Forest Rev. 22(1):104–112. doi: 10.1505/146554820829523998.
  • Jullian C, Nahuelhual L. 2021. Land Size, Native Forests, and Ecosystem Service Inequalities in the Rural Chilean Patagonia. In: P. L. Peri, L. Nahuelhual, G. Martinez Pastur, editors. Springer Nature Switzerland; p. 379–396. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-69166-0_18
  • Kang H, Ahn JW. 2021. Model setting and interpretation of results in research using structural equation modeling: a checklist with guiding questions for reporting. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 15(3):157–162. doi: 10.1016/j.anr.2021.06.001.
  • Keesstra S, Nunes J, Novara A, Finger D, Avelar D, Kalantari Z, Cerdà A. 2018. The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Sci Total Environ. 610-611:997–1009. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.077.
  • Killingsworth MA. 2021. Experienced well-being rises with income, even above $75,000 per year. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 118(4). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2016976118/-/DCSupplemental.
  • King MF, Renó VF, Novo EMLM. 2014. The concept, dimensions and methods of assessment of human well-being within a socioecological context: a literature review. Soc Indic Res. 116(3):681–698. doi: 10.1007/s11205-013-0320-0.
  • Kline RB. 2010. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
  • Lakerveld RP, Lele S, Crane TA, Fortuin KPJ, Springate-Baginski O. 2015. The social distribution of provisioning forest ecosystem services: evidence and insights from Odisha, India. Ecosyst Serv. 14:56–66. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.04.001.
  • Lapointe M, Cumming GS, Gurney GG. 2019. Comparing ecosystem service preferences between urban and rural dwellers. Bioscience. 69(2):108–116. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biy151.
  • Lau JD, Hicks CC, Gurney GG, Cinner JE. 2018. Disaggregating ecosystem service values and priorities by wealth, age, and education. Ecosyst Serv. 29:91–98. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.12.005.
  • Leviston Z, Walker I, Green M, Price J. 2018. Linkages between ecosystem services and human wellbeing: a nexus webs approach. Ecol Indic. 93:658–668. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.052.
  • Lima FP, Bastos RP. 2019. Perceiving the invisible: formal education affects the perception of ecosystem services provided by native areas. Ecosyst Serv. 40:101029. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101029.
  • Liu J, Hull V, Batistella M, deFries R, Dietz T, Fu F, Hertel TW, Cesar Izaurralde R, Lambin EF, Li S, et al. 2013. Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecol Soc. 18(2). doi: 10.5751/ES-05873-180226.
  • Liu J, Hull V, Luo J, Yang W, Liu W, Viña A, Vogt C, Xu Z, Yang H, Zhang J, et al. 2015. Multiple telecouplings and their complex interrelationships. Ecol Soc. 20(3). doi: 10.5751/ES-07868-200344.
  • Liu L, Fang X, Wu J. 2022. How does the local-scale relationship between ecosystem services and human wellbeing vary across broad regions? Sci Total Environ. 816:151493. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151493.
  • Liu L, Wu J. 2021. Ecosystem services-human wellbeing relationships vary with spatial scales and indicators: the case of China. Resour Conserv Recycl. 172:105662. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105662.
  • Lloret F, Escudero A, Iriondo JM, Martínez-Vilalta J, Valladares F. 2012. Extreme climatic events and vegetation: the role of stabilizing processes. Glob Chang Biol. 18(3):797–805. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02624.x.
  • Locher-Krause KE, Lautenbach S, Volk M. 2017. Spatio-temporal change of ecosystem services as a key to understand natural resource utilization in Southern Chile 2477–2493. Reg Environ Change. 17(8):2477–2493. doi: 10.1007/s10113-017-1180-y.
  • Martínez-Harms MJ, Armesto JJ, Castilla JC, Astorga A, Aylwin J, Buschmann AH, Castro V, Daneri G, Fernández M, Fuentes-Castillo T, et al. 2022. A systematic evidence map of conservation knowledge in Chilean Patagonia. Conservat Sci And Prac. 4(1). doi: 10.1111/csp2.575.
  • Max-Neef M. 1991. Human scale development: conception, application and further reflections. New York: The Apex Press.
  • Metzger JP, Villarreal-Rosas J, Suárez-Castro AF, López-Cubillos S, González-Chaves A, Runting RK, Hohlenwerger C, Rhodes JR. 2021. Considering landscape-level processes in ecosystem service assessments. Sci Total Environ. 796:149028. doi: 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2021.149028.
  • Michalski F, Metzger JP, Peres CA. 2010. Rural property size drives patterns of upland and riparian forest retention in a tropical deforestation frontier. Glob Environ Change. 20(4):705–712. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.04.010.
  • Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: synthesis. Washington: Island Press.
  • Ministerio de Desarrollo Social y Familia. 2015. Base de datos Encuesta Casen 2015.
  • Nahuelhual L, Benra F, Laterra P, Marin S, Arriagada R, Jullian C. 2018. Patterns of ecosystem services supply across farm properties: implications for ecosystem services-based policy incentives. Sci Total Environ. 634:941–950. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.042.
  • Nahuelhual L, Carmona A, Lozada P, Jaramillo A, Aguayo M. 2013. Mapping recreation and ecotourism as a cultural ecosystem service: an application at the local level in Southern Chile. Appl Geogr. 40:71–82. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.12.004.
  • Norström AV, Agarwal B, Balvanera P, Baptiste B, Bennett EM, Brondízio E, Biggs R, Campbell B, Carpenter SR, Castilla JC, et al. 2022. The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS)–a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus. Ecosyst People. 18(1):598–608. doi: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2133173.
  • Nyelele C, Kroll CN. 2020. The equity of urban forest ecosystem services and benefits in the Bronx, NY. Urban For Urban Green. 53:126723. doi: 10.1016/J.UFUG.2020.126723.
  • ODEPA. 2019. Panorama de la Agricultura Chilena.152.
  • Otsuka K, Liu Y, Yamauchi F. 2016. Growing advantage of large farms in Asia and its implications for global food security. Glob Food Sec. 11:5–10. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2016.03.001.
  • Otto IM, Wiedermann M, Cremades R, Donges JF, Auer C, Lucht W. 2020. Human agency in the anthropocene. Ecol Econ. 167:167. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106463.
  • Paes Ferreira MD, Féres JG. 2020. Farm size and Land use efficiency in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy. 99:104901. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104901.
  • Palomo I, Felipe-Lucia MR, Bennett EM, Martín-López B, Pascual U. 2016. Disentangling the pathways and effects of ecosystem service co-production. In: Advances in ecological research. Academic Press Inc; p. 245–283. doi: 10.1016/bs.aecr.2015.09.003.
  • Peterson RA. 2021. Finding optimal normalizing transformations via bestNormalize. R J. 13(1):310–329. doi: 10.32614/RJ-2021-041.
  • Potschin MB, Haines-Young RH. 2011. Ecosystem services: exploring a geographical perspective. Prog Phys Geogr. 35(5):575–594. doi: 10.1177/0309133311423172.
  • Puhakka R. 2021. University students’ participation in outdoor recreation and the perceived well-being effects of nature. J Outdoor Recr Tour. 36:100425. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2021.100425.
  • Ramirez-Gomez SOI, van Laerhoven F, Boot R, Biermann F, Verweij PA. 2020. Assessing spatial equity in access to service-provisioning hotspots in data-scarce tropical forests regions under external pressure. Ecosyst Serv. 45:101151. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101151.
  • Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Teng M, Bennett EM, Holland T, Benessaiah K, MacDonald GK, Pfeifer L. 2010. Untangling the environmentalist’s paradox: why is human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade? Bioscience. 60:576–589. doi: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.4.
  • R Core Team. 2018. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  • Reyers B, Biggs R, Cumming GS, Elmqvist T, Hejnowicz AP, Polasky S. 2013. Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological approach. Front Ecol Environ. 11(5):268–273. doi: 10.1890/120144.
  • Reyes R, Blanco G, Lagarrigue A, Rojas F. 2016. Ley de Bosque Nativo: Desafíos Socioculturales para su Implementación. Instituto Forestal y Universidad Austral de Chile.
  • Rey-Valette H, Blayac T, Salles JM. 2022. Evaluating the contribution of nature to well-being: the case of ecosystem services related to fish-farming ponds in France. Ecol Econ. 191:107217. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107217.
  • Ribot JC, Peluso NL. 2003. A theory of access. Rural Sociol. 68(2):153–181. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x.
  • Robinson BE, Holland MB, Naughton-Treves L. 2014. Does secure land tenure save forests? A meta-analysis of the relationship between land tenure and tropical deforestation. Glob Environ Change. 29:281–293. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.012.
  • Robinson BE, Masuda YJ, Kelly A, Holland MB, Bedford C, Childress M, Fletschner D, Game ET, Ginsburg C, Hilhorst T, et al. 2018. Incorporating land tenure security into conservation. Conserv Lett. 11(2):1–12. doi: 10.1111/conl.12383.
  • Rosseel Y. 2012. Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 48(2):1–36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02.
  • Santos-Martín F, Martín-López B, García-Llorente M, Aguado M, Benayas J, Montes C, Thrush S. 2013. Unraveling the relationships between ecosystems and human wellbeing in spain. PLos One. 8(9):e73249. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073249.
  • Schlosser M. 2015. The neuroscience of agency and free will. In: Gruber C, Clark M, Klempe S Valsiner J, editors. Constraints of agency. Annals of theoretical psychology. Vol. 12. Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10130-9_7.
  • Schreiber J, Nora A, Stage F, Barlow E, Jing J. 2006. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a Review. J Educ Res. 99(6):323–338. doi: 10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338.
  • Schröter M, Egli L, Brüning L, Seppelt R. 2021. Distinguishing anthropogenic and natural contributions to coproduction of national crop yields globally. Sci Rep. 11(1):11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-90340-1.
  • Serenari C, Peterson MN, Leung YF, Stowhas P, Wallace T, Sills EO. 2015. Private development-based forest conservation in patagonia: comparing mental models and revealing cultural truths. Ecol Soc. 20(3). doi: 10.5751/ES-07696-200304.
  • Serenari C, Peterson MN, Wallace T, Stowhas P. 2017. Indigenous perspectives on private protected areas in Chile. Nat Areas J. 37(1):98–107. doi: 10.3375/043.037.0112.
  • Spangenberg JH, Görg C, Truong DT, Tekken V, Bustamante JV, Settele J. 2014a. Provision of ecosystem services is determined by human agency, not ecosystem functions. Four case studies. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag. 10(1):40–53. doi: 10.1080/21513732.2014.884166.
  • Spangenberg JH, von Haaren C, Settele J. 2014b. The ecosystem service cascade: further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy. Ecol Econ. 104:22–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.025.
  • SUBDERE. 2016. Estudios de Política Rural de la OCDE - Chile. 206
  • Suich H, Howe C, Mace G. 2015. Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A review of the empirical links. Iss Environ Sci Tech. 12:137–147. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.005.
  • Summers JK, Smith LM, Case JL, Linthurst RA. 2012. A review of the elements of human well-being with an emphasis on the contribution of ecosystem services. Ambio. 41(4):327–340. doi: 10.1007/s13280-012-0256-7.
  • Summers JK, Smith LM, Fulford RS, Crespo RDJ. 2018. The role of ecosystem services in community well-being. Ecosyst Serv Global Ecol. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.74068.
  • Szaboova L, Brown K, Fisher JA. 2020. Access to ecosystem benefits: more than proximity. Soc Nat. 33(2):244–260. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2018.1556759.
  • Valdés AA. 2012. Estimación del contenido y balance de carbono en un bosque de Nothofagus pumilio y una turbera de Sphagnum magellanicum en Tierra del Fuego, Chile. Universidad de Chile.
  • Völker S, Kistemann T. 2011. The impact of blue space on human health and well-being – Salutogenetic health effects of inland surface waters: a review. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 214(6):449–460. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2011.05.001.
  • Wang X, Dong X, Liu H, Wei H, Fan W, Lu N, Xu Z, Ren J, Xing K. 2017. Linking land use change, ecosystem services and human well-being: a case study of the manas river basin of Xinjiang, China. Ecosyst Serv. 27:113–123. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.013.
  • Wang Y, Hong S, Wang J, Lin J, Mu H, Wei L, Wang Z, Bryan BA. 2022. Complex regional telecoupling between people and nature revealed via quantification of trans-boundary ecosystem service flows. People Nat. 4(1):274–292. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10298.
  • Ward RC, Robinson M. 2000. Principles of Hydrology. London: McGraw-Hill.
  • Wei H, Liu H, Xu Z, Ren J, Lu N, Fan W, Zhang P, Dong X. 2018. Linking ecosystem services supply, social demand and human well-being in a typical mountain–oasis–desert area, Xinjiang, China. Ecosyst Serv. 31:44–57. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.012.
  • Whittaker TA. 2013. The impact of noninvariant intercepts in latent means models. Struct Equ Model. 20(1):108–130. doi:10.1080/10705511.2013.742397.
  • Wickham H, Seidel D. 2020. Scales: scale Functions for Visualization. R package version 1.1.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=scales.
  • Wilkerson ML, Mitchell MGE, Shanahan D, Wilson KA, Ives CD, Lovelock CE, Rhodes JR. 2018. The role of socio-economic factors in planning and managing urban ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv. 31:102–110. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.017.
  • Yamauchi F. 2016. Rising real wages, mechanization and growing advantage of large farms: evidence from Indonesia. Food Policy. 58:62–69. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.11.004.
  • Yang W, Dietz T, Kramer DB, Chen X, Liu J. 2013. Going beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment: an index system of human well-being. PLos One. 8(5):e64582. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064582.
  • Yang Y, Xu Y. 2019. Land endowment and education investment behavior of rural households: a field survey based on 887 administrative villages in 31 provinces of China. J Chin Sociol. 6(1):1–19. doi: 10.1186/s40711-019-0093-1.
  • Yan Y, Zhao C, Quan Y, Lu H, Rong Y, Wu G. 2017. Interrelations of ecosystem services and rural population wellbeing in an ecologically-fragile area in North China. Sustainability (Switzerland). 9(5):9. doi: 10.3390/su9050709.
  • Zafra-Calvo N, Balvanera P, Pascual U, Merçon J, Martín-López B, van Noordwijk M, Mwampamba TH, Lele S, Ifejika Speranza C, Arias-Arévalo P, et al. 2020. Plural valuation of nature for equity and sustainability: insights from the Global South. Glob Environ Change. 63:102115. doi: 10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2020.102115.
  • Zhao S, Wu X, Zhou J, Pereira P. 2021. Spatiotemporal tradeoffs and synergies in vegetation vitality and poverty transition in rocky desertification area. Sci Total Environ. 752:141770. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141770.
  • Zimmerer KS, Lambin EF, Vanek SJ. 2018. Smallholder telecoupling and potential sustainability. Ecol Soc. 23(1). doi: 10.5751/ES-09935-230130.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.