Ecosystem Services from a Multi-Stakeholder Perspective: A Case Study of a Biosphere Reserve in Central Chile

  • Claudia CerdaEmail author
  • Iñigo Bidegain


When assessing ecosystem services, it is essential to identify which services are relevant to different stakeholders as well as their perception of those services, in order to make informed decisions about land use management. Divergent social interests may lead to conflicts over the use of a territory, stressing the tension between conservation needs and economic activities, which may be productive but nevertheless threatening the achievement of conservation goals. In this chapter, we present an assessment of social preferences for ecosystem services in a globally relevant biosphere reserve in South America; a region that requires more research on how to conserve ecosystems while incorporating human needs and values. Using a semi-structured approach, we found differences among stakeholders about the importance they attribute to different ecosystem services. On one side, local farmers and members of local organizations give higher value to provisioning services and cultural services of symbolic plants. On the other, scientists, environmentally concerned people, teachers, NGOs, and employees of the local government lend more importance to regulating and cultural services, revealing contrasting preferences for ecosystem services.


Social-ecological systems Latin America Complexity Chile Ecosystem services Stakeholders Biosphere reserve 



We thank Sebastián Saa for contributing to editing the manuscript. Funding was provided by Fondecyt Grant N° 1151063 (CONICYT-Chile).


  1. Alfonso A, Zorondo-Rodríguez F, Simonetti J (2017) Perceived changes in environmental degradation and loss of ecosystem services, and their implications in human well-being. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol 24:561–574Google Scholar
  2. Asah ST, Guerry AD, Blahna DJ et al (2014) Perception, acquisition and use of ecosystem services: human behavior, and ecosystem management and policy implications. Ecosyst Serv 10:180–186Google Scholar
  3. Balvanera P, Uriarte M, Almeida-Leñero L et al (2012) Ecosystem services research in Latin America: the state of the art. Ecosyst Serv 2:56–70Google Scholar
  4. Bidegain I, Cerda C, Catalán E et al (2019) Social preferences for ecosystem services in a biodiversity hotspot in South America. PLoS One 14(4):e0215715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blondel M, Fernández I (2012) Efectos de la fragmentación del paisaje en el tamaño y frecuencia de incendios forestales en la zona central de Chile. Revista de Conservación Ambiental 2(1):7–16Google Scholar
  6. Carmona A, Nahuelhual L, Echeverría C et al (2010) Linking farming systems to landscape change: an empirical and spatially explicit study in southern Chile. Agric Ecosyst Environ 139:40–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carrasco LR, Papworth SK, Reed J et al (2016) Five challenges to reconcile agricultural land use and forest ecosystem services in Southeast Asia. Conserv Biol 30:962–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Catalán E (2015) Relaciones humano-ambiente en el Parque Nacional La Campana. Una trayectoria de encuentros y desencuentros entre Comunidades Locales y el Área Protegida. Universidad de Chile, Santiago, MemoriaGoogle Scholar
  9. Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR (2006) Global mammal distributions, biodiversity hotspots, and conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:19374–19379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cerda C, Ponce A, Zappi M (2013) Using choice experiments to understand public demand for the conservation of nature: a case study in Central Chile. J Nat Conserv 21:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cerda C, Losada T (2013) Assessing the value of species: a case study on the willingness to pay for species protection in Chile. Environ Monit Assess 185:10479–10493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan KM, Shaw MR, Cameron DR et al (2012) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol 4:E379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crouzat E, Martín-López B, Lavorel S (2016) Disentangling trade-offs and synergies around ecosystem services with the influence network framework: illustration from a consultative process over the French Alps. Ecol Soc 21(2):32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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):370–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Delgado L, Sepúlveda MB, Marín VH (2013) Provision of ecosystem services by the Aysén watershed, Chilean Patagonia, to rural households. Ecosyst Serv 5:102–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Díaz S, Quétier F, Cáceres D et al (2011) Linking functional diversity and social actor strategies in a framework for interdisciplinary analysis of nature’s benefits to society. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:895–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M et al (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359:270–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Estévez R, Martínez P, Sepúlveda M et al (2019) Gobernanza y participación en la gestión de las áreas silvestres protegidas del Estado de Chile. In: Cerda C, Silva-Rodríguez E, Briceño C (eds) Naturaleza en Sociedad: Una mirada a la dimensión humana de la conservación de la biodiversidad. Ocho Libros, Santiago, pp 381–403Google Scholar
  19. Fisher B, Turner RK (2008) Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biol Conserv 141(5):1167–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. García-Llorente M, Iniesta-Arandia I, Willaarts BA et al (2015) Biophysical and sociocultural factors underlying spatial trade-offs of ecosystem services in semiarid watersheds. Ecol Soc 20:39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hevia V, Martín-López B, Palomo S et al (2017) Trait-based approaches to analyze links between the drivers of change and ecosystem services: synthesizing existing evidence and future challenges. Ecol Evol 7:831–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Howe C, Vira B, Switch H et al (2014) Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Global Environ Chang 28:263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Aguilera PA et al (2014) Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecol Econ 108:36–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. IPBES (2018) Summary for policymakers of the assessment report on the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services on regional assessment for the Americas. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, BonnGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacobs S, Dendoncker N, Martín-López B et al (2016) A new valuation school: integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosyst Serv 22:213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kok MTJ, Kok K, Peterson GD et al (2017) Biodiversity and ecosystem services require IPBES to take novel approach to scenarios. Sustain Sci 426:177–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laterra P, Martin-López B, Mastrangelo M, Garibaldi L (2017) Servicios Ecosistémicos en Latinoamérica. De la investigación a la acción. Ecol Austral 27:94–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. López-Santiago C, Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B et al (2014) Using visual stimuli to explore the social perceptions of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes: the case of transhumance in mediterranean Spain. Ecol Soc 19Google Scholar
  29. López-Santiago C, Aguado M, González-Novoa JA et al (2019) Evaluación sociocultural del paisaje: Una necesidad para la planificación y gestión sostenible de los sistemas socioecológicos. Aportaciones y utilidad de los métodos visuales. In: Cerda C, Silva-Rodríguez E, Briceño C (eds) Naturaleza en Sociedad: Una mirada a la dimensión humana de la conservación de la biodiversidad. Ocho Libros, Santiago, pp 107–141Google Scholar
  30. Martínez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P (2012) Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 8:17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, Garcia-Llorente M et al (2012) Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One 7:E38970Google Scholar
  32. Mastrangelo ME, Weyland F, Herrera LP et al (2015) Ecosystem services research in contrasting socio-ecological contexts of Argentina: critical assessment and future directions. Ecosyst Serv 16:63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Menzel S, Teng J (2010) Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept for conservation science. Conserv Biol 24:907–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mittermeier R, Gil P, Hoffman M et al (2005) Hotspots revisited: Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. Conservation International and Agrupation Sierra Madre, MonterreyGoogle Scholar
  35. Moreira A, Barsdorf A (2014) Reservas de la Biósfera de Chile: Laboratorios para la Sustentabilidad. Academia de Ciencias Austríaca, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Instituto de Geografía, Santiago de Chile. Serie Geolibros N° 17Google Scholar
  36. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG et al (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Brien K, Leichenko R (2003) Winners and losers in the context of global change. Ann Am Assoc Geogr 93:99–113Google Scholar
  38. Razeto J, Skewes JC, Catalán E (2019) Prácticas de conservación, sistemas naturales y procesos culturales: apuntes para una reflexión crítica desde la etnografía. In: Cerda C, Silva-Rodríguez E, Briceño C (eds) Naturaleza en Sociedad: Una mirada a la dimensión humana de la conservación de la biodiversidad. Ocho Libros, Santiago, Chile, pp 75–106Google Scholar
  39. Ramírez-Gómez S, Torres-Vitolas C, Schreckenberg K et al (2015) Analysis of ecosystem services provision in the Colombian Amazon using participatory research and mapping techniques. Ecosyst Serv 13:93–107Google Scholar
  40. Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV et al (2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol 48:630–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sepúlveda M, Estévez RA, Silva-Rodríguez E (2015) Manual para la planificación del manejo de las áreas silvestres protegidas del SNASPE. Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD), SantiagoGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith-Ramírez C, Armesto JJ, Valdovinos C (2005) Historia, Biodiversidad y Ecología de los Bosques Costeros de Chile. Editorial Universitaria, SantiagoGoogle Scholar
  43. Stoll-Kleemann S, O’Riordan T (2017) The challenges of the anthropocene for biosphere reserves. Parks 23(1):89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tallis H, Kareiva P, Marvier M et al (2008) An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105(28):9457–9464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. United Nations General Assembly (UN) (2015) Resolution 70/1. Accessed 26 Feb 2019
  46. Villamor GB, Palomo I, López-Santiago C et al (2014) Assessing stakeholders’ perceptions and values towards social-ecological systems using participatory methods. Ecol Process 3:22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilson MA, Howarth RB (2002) Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecol Econ 41:431–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zorondo-Rodríguez F, Carrasco-Oliva G, Alfonso A et al (2019) Vinculando bienestar humano y servicios ecosistémicos: Ganancias y pérdidas de bienestar de comunidades rurales por cambios ecosistémicos. In: Cerda C, Silva-Rodríguez E, Briceño C (eds) Naturaleza en Sociedad: Una mirada a la dimensión humana de la conservación de la biodiversidad. Ocho Libros, Santiago, pp 207–239Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest Management, Faculty of Forest Sciences and Conservation of NatureUniversity of ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations