Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder

By R. Norgaard. 2010

1,027 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Environmental Engineering, Global and Planetary Change, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/980ad8162494c9e513efc7f49efce12bd1209c3e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Environmental Engineering

In Global and Planetary Change

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Citations in the corpus

Elasticity in ecosystem services: exploring the variable relationship between ecosystems and human well-being (2016, background): “However it also risks a linear and isolated representation of different ecosystem services and blindness to complexity created by feedbacks and interactions between different ecosystem services as Norgaard (2010) warns.”
Market instruments, ecosystem services, and property rights: Assumptions and conditions for sustained social and ecological benefits (2013, background): “…rationalising failure as ymptomatic of ‘design flaws’ to be addressed through the appliation of more technical expertise rather than as the potential onsequence of inappropriate instrument choice and the need to mbed instrument choices in effective planning and governance egimes (Norgaard, 2010).”
Research, part of a Special Feature on Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Cultural Landscapes: Analysis and Management Options Balancing Ecosystem Services and Disservices: Smallholder Farmers' Use and Management of Forest and Trees in an Agricultural Landscape in Southwestern Ethiopia (2014, background): “This thinking has helped to mainstream the ecosystem services concept and increase political will and support for ecosystem conservation (Liu et al. 2008, Daily et al. 2009, Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2010, Norgaard 2010).”
Payments for Ecosystem Services: Rife With Problems and Potential—For Transformation Towards Sustainability (2017, background): “This is particularly evident in discussions around the ethical implications and social consequences of introducing incentive programs into a community setting (Brooks et al., 2012; Luck et al., 2012; McAfee & Shapiro, 2010; Norgaard, 2010).”
Contesting the market-based nature of Mexico’s national payments for ecosystem services programs: Four sites of articulation and hybridization (2013, background): “…focus and short-sightedness of the economic models employed to determine the ‘‘value’’ of ecosystem services (Costanza, 2000; Kumar and Kumar, 2008; Norgaard, 2010; Tacconi, 2012), and PES as a neoliberal policy destined to disenfranchise the poor and the global south (McAfee and Shapiro,…”
When, Where, and How Nature Matters for Ecosystem Services: Challenges for the Next Generation of Ecosystem Service Models (2017, background): “Because the fragmented knowledge obtained from disciplinary studies cannot simply be combined to better understand a complex system (Norgaard 2008), the interactions between social and ecological processes are not often incorporated in ES assessment tools (figure 3; Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010),…”
Ecosystem services as technology of globalization: On articulating values in urban nature (2013, background): “…” society of the complexity that make up the intricate relations between animals, plants, chemical compounds andhumans, as other (scienti ﬁ c) ways ofknowing complexity — for instance evolutionary theory or population theory — cannot be coded into a “ stock-ﬂ ow ” model of nature (Norgaard, 2010).”
Redefining payments for environmental services (2012, methodology): “Third, equity between generations needs to be addressed (Norgaard, 2010), and is related to the relationship between equity and efficiency.”
Strengthening conceptual foundations: Analysing frameworks for ecosystem services and poverty alleviation research (2013, background): “The ecology of services provision is itself a research frontier, encompassing live debates about the roles of diversity and resilience, for instance, in the production of services (Balvanera et al., 2006; Isbell et al., 2011; Norgaard, 2010; Paquette and Messier, 2011).”
Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global (2010, background): “…can lead us to seek narrow, market based solutions to ecological problems, blind us to the complexity of ecosystems, promote an inappropriate partial equilibrium framework for analysis, and detract our attention from the need for new institutions for environmental governance (Norgaard, 2010).”