‘Nature’s contributions to people’ and ‘ecosystem services’: a conversation with Andrew Kadykalo
Our YESS member Andrew Kadykalo has recently published a paper called “Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘nature’s contributions to people’” (open access) in Ecosystems and People.
For this paper, he led a group of early-career researchers who he met through YESS. Andrew is a PhD candidate at the Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Lab at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. Here, we talk with him about the paper, its content, but also the process, and his perspective about the next steps needed in research.
How did you come up with the idea for the paper?
This paper is a direct output from YESS’ participation as an observer organization at the IPBES-6 plenary in Medellín, Colombia of March 2018. Ten YESSers attended in-person and several others not able to join in-person were also actively involved in pre-plenary and post-plenary activities. As early as December 2017 the YESS delegation identified an objective of our IPBES participation to be a team-based perspective, review, or synthesis paper.
Initially we were focused on writing a paper on early-career researcher/professional engagement in IPBES, but right before heading to Colombia a group of IPBES fellows beat us to the punch. So, instead, on March 21st our YESS delegation hosted a workshop in my tiny AirBnb apartment to brainstorm other paper ideas. We walked away with three paper ideas and operational platforms (e.g. leads, participants, schedule etc.), one of which was an evidence-based investigation of NCP vs. ES rather than another perspective article. The motivation behind this was the confusion we witnessed and heard from delegates throughout the plenary about the difference between the two concepts/terms which was concerning to us. Admittedly, we were a little hesitant at first to stick our noses into this one because we didn’t consider ourselves the ‘expert/thought leaders’ per se, but I’m glad we did :)
What is the main message of your paper?
On six specific conceptual claims (culture, social sciences and humanities, indigenous and local knowledge, negative contributions of nature, generalizing perspective, non-instrumental values and valuation) nature’s contributions to people (NCP) does not differ greatly from past ecosystem services (ES) research, but we also found 5 conceptual claims (worldviews, context-specific perspective, relational values, fuzzy and fluid reporting categories and groups, inclusive language and framing) where NCP provides novel conceptualizations of people-nature relations.
We found that ES has been more integrative than acknowledged by the NCP literature, but also that some NCP conceptualizations may provide a more comprehensive perspective on the relationship between people and nature. In other words, NCP is theoretically pushing existing trends in ES research to newer and broader boundaries. I’m going to echo Nils Droste’s tweet that while according to our analysis, NCP may be broader than ES, they place different emphasis on different things and are thus complementary.
You are 13 (co-)authors of the paper. What was the process of writing the paper?
It took a little bit for this to get off the ground. Initially we just wanted to produce a short review with a conceptual figure using ecological function cascades of how NCP and ES link and overlap to reduce immediate confusions. During this phase several co-authors and myself read the NCP literature thoroughly and coded the different themes which were claimed to be novel. After this step, we decided to expand the scope and instead chose to do a more thorough review using literature searches of how ES address those themes to date. I was busy with summer field work and we almost let this thing die quietly but Katharina rallied the troops and organized a skype call after which we all got back on track. Based on a previous collaborative paper I was a part of I came up with the idea that we assign the different themes (elements of NCP claimed to be novel) to different co-authors. Thus, co-authors were responsible for doing the initial searches and writing up the results for their particular assignment. Zuzana helped write the introduction and the discussion section and provided IPBES insight and expertise. Others also doubled-up and were very active in review and as idea-bouncers.
Huge shout outs to all the authors since this project would be impossible without a team-based approach. I think it might also be worthwhile to note for transparency that some people initially interested in the process at project outset were dropped at various points along the way for not contributing but were definitely important to the overall scoping process.
How did you decide the journal?
We didn’t really have any specific journal in mind to target but when Alexander van Oudenhoven (editor of Ecosystems and People) sent over the YESS mailing list a call for a Special-Issue on IPBES and science-policy interfaces in October 2018 we were well underway in drafting the paper and it seemed like a no-brainer! I got in touch with Alexander and he and Berta Martín-López worked closely with us throughout the submission process. They were very supportive of our contribution, especially of the fact that our authorship team was fully comprised of early-career folks! 10 out of 10 would recommend.
What is your recommendation for ECRs in handling NCP and ES? How to use them: in parallel, only one?
Based on our analysis, I think we’d recommend ECRs to handle NCP or ES based on their context, especially on their audience. In general, Díaz, Pascual et al. framed NCP as an extension of ES. Picture a Matryoshka doll having multiple ‘tiers’. I think in most academic/ scientific contexts the use of ES should be encouraged in recognition of the great strides it has made as a framework for sustainability science. On the other hand, if you are dealing with the general public and non-western-science audiences (i.e. those not overtly familiar or comfortable with ES) our analysis suggests NCP might be a better boundary concept and term than ES in those cases. Overall, based on the above and our analysis I would recommend using one or the other on the premise that they are not mutually exclusive but are in fact related concepts. Using both in the same contexts (without distinguishing the two) risks perpetuating confusion and limiting progress.
Do you see a way to integrate the five claims that aren’t in ES (yet) into the ES concept?
Hmm, really good question. I guess we’ll see in time. Personally, I don’t see ES embracing ‘fuzzy and fluid reporting categories and groups’ (which is linked to the “context-specific perspective”). I base this on the direction the ES field has taken without at least partially undermining the huge amount of work on ES to date, so there’s definitely some advantage there to NCP. I think ES has and is making progress on ‘relational values’ beaconed by this SI in Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability and I think with the progress on relational values, “diverse worldviews” will follow. It’s difficult to see ES become a more “inclusive term and framing” beyond what it’s currently achieved. If this is a barrier, switching to NCP language may be recommended.
In your opinion, what should be the next steps of the research community concerning the two framing be?
I think there’s a couple of things. IPBES and others in the ‘people and nature’ space should work towards developing operational guidance for NCP assessments (e.g. empirical case studies, step by step guidance, tools etc.) that go beyond the rather common NCP reporting categories. I.e. how can we assess ‘context-specific perspectives’ or work towards ‘knowledge co-production with ILK holders’? Currently, these are real gaps in research. Particularly, empirical research using an NCP framework will really allow us to evaluate the benefit and additionality of NCP (beyond ES). Our review found that ES and NCP in the IPBES assessments were used as synonyms which is not really helpful in and of itself. A study evaluating the resonance of NCP vs. ES to different audiences would be a good place to start, any takers?
Speaking of next steps, check out the call for papers in a Special Feature in Sustainability Science on developing guidance/research on NCP: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-019-00732-6
By Klara Winkler
Postdoctoral fellow, ResNet Deputy Science Director, Sustainability Science lab, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, Canada
