|
|
|
|
|
| Ruoso, Laure-Elise; Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia; UMR TETIS, AgroParisTech, CIRAD, IRSTEA, Montpellier, France ; laure-elise.ruoso@student.uts.edu.au; Plant, Roel; Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia; roel.plant@uts.edu.au; Maurel, Pierre; UMR TETIS, AgroParisTech, CIRAD, IRSTEA, Montpellier, France ; pierre.maurel@irstea.fr; Dupaquier, Claire; UMR TETIS, AgroParisTech, CIRAD, IRSTEA, Montpellier, France ; claire.dupaquier@teledetection.fr; Roche, Philip K.; UR EMAX, TR SEDYVIN, IRSTEA Aix en Provence, France; philip.roche@irstea.fr; Bonin, Muriel; UMR TETIS, CIRAD Montpellier, France; muriel.bonin@cirad.fr. |
| In recent years, the ecosystem services (ES) concept has become a major paradigm for natural resource management. While policy-makers demand “hard” monetary evidence that nature conservation would be worth investing in, ongoing attempts are being made to formalize the concept as a scientifically robust “one size fits all” analytical framework. These attempts have highlighted several major limitations of the ES concept. First, to date, the concept has paid little attention to the role of humans in the production of ES. Second, the ongoing formalization of the ES concept is turning it into a “technology of globalization,” thereby increasingly ignoring the socio-cultural context and history within... |
| Tipo: Peer-Reviewed Insight |
Palavras-chave: Ecosystem services; Local land use planning; Participatory methods; Stakeholder perception; Territorial approach; Thau lagoon. |
| Ano: 2015 |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
