Advertisement

Social-ecological Systems and Human Well-Being

  • Luisa E. DelgadoEmail author
  • Iskra Alejandra Rojo Negrete
  • Marcela Torres-Gómez
  • Amanda Alfonso
  • Francisco Zorondo-Rodríguez
Chapter

Abstract

Human well-being is a socio-cultural construct, originated within human experiences, that changes through time. The current literature shows a renewed interest to develop new measures and approaches to relate it to the progress of nations. One of the challenges is whether inequality is a key component and how to measure it. Furthermore, are indicators appropriate for the realities and diversity of environments of Latin American countries? In this chapter, we analyze human well-being and its subjective and objective dimensions in social-ecological systems. We propose that one way to study the relationships between both concepts is through an ecosystem services perspective. This includes the social-ecological interactions reflecting human-nature dependencies and their contributions to the well-being of local people and local and national economies. Its application shows a direct dependence of subsistence economies within Latin American rural zones on those services. One consequence is that these zones will be more affected by the degradation of ecosystems than populations from developed countries. Latin American countries still have important groups of ancestral populations whose social, cultural, and economic development has occurred within society-nature interactions for hundreds of years, shaping their well-being. We assert that their co-evolution and adaptations to maintain their interactions are of worldwide interest since they represent learning experiences for contemporary cultures that may help on the generation of co-learning and management structures.

Keywords

Social-ecological systems Latin America Complexity Human well-being Ecosystem services Traditional ecological knowledge Shifting baseline syndrome 

References

  1. Agrawal A (1995) Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Dev Change 26:413–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguado M, Calvo D, Dessal C et al (2012) La necesidad de repensar el bienestar humano en un mundo cambiante. PAPELES de relaciones ecosociales y cambio global 119:49–76Google Scholar
  3. Alcorn JB, Toledo VM (1998) Resilient resource management in Mexico’s forest ecosystems: the contribution of property rights. In: Berkes F, Folke C (eds) Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 216–249Google Scholar
  4. Alvarez R, Ther F (2016) Fragmentos de una cosmovisión del Entorno Costero en el Archipielago de Chiloé. Diálogo Andino 49:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andam KS, Ferraro PJ, Sims KRE et al (2010) Protected areas reduced poverty in Costa Rica and Thailand. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(22):9996–10001PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Bachmann P, de la Barrera F, Tironi A (2016) Recopilación y sistematización de información relativa a estudios de evaluación, mapeo y valorización de servicios ecosistémicos en Chile. Informe final. Ciencia Ambiental, SantiagoGoogle Scholar
  7. Barthel S, Folke C, Colding J (2010) Social–ecological memory in urban gardens—retaining the capacity for management of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Chang 20(2):255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Basurto X, Gelcich S, Ostrom E (2013) The social ecological system framework as a knowledge classificatory system for benthic small-scale fisheries. Glob Environ Change Human Policy Dimen 23(6):1366–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bentacourt R, Nahuelhual L (2017) Servicios ecosistémicos y bienestar local: caso de estudio sobre productos de medicina natural en Pannguilli, sur de Chile. Ecol Austral 27:1–14Google Scholar
  10. Berdegué JA, Bebbington A, Escobar J (2015) Conceptualizando la Diversidad espacial en el Desarrollo Rural Latinoamericano: Estructuras, Instituciones y Coaliciones. Serie documentos de trabajo N° 164. Grupo de trabajo Cohesión Territorial para el Desarrollo. Rimisp, SantiagoGoogle Scholar
  11. Berkes F (1993) Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. Traditional ecological knowledge concepts and cases. In: Traditional ecological knowledge: concepts and cases, vol 1. Canadian Museum of Nature/International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  12. Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manage 90(5):1692–1702PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Berkes F, Folke C (1998) Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. In: Berkes F, Folke C (eds) Linking social and ecological systems. Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  14. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl 10(5):1251–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Berr E, Diemer A (2016) De l’écodéveloppement au Buen Vivir, ou comment replacer les savoirs locaux au cœur des processus de coopération décentralisée dans les pays du Sud. Mondes en développement 175(3):23–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Binder CR, Hinkel J, Bots PWG et al (2013) Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 18(4):26.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05551-180426. Accessed 9 Jun 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bonny E, Berkes F (2008) Communicating traditional environmental knowledge: addressing the diversity of knowledge, audiences and media types. Polar Record 44:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brondizio ES, Ostrom E, Young OR (2009) Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: the role of social capital. Annu Rev Env Resour 34:253–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Charnley S, Fischer AP, Jones ET (2007) Integrating traditional and local ecological knowledge into forest biodiversity conservation in the Pacific northwest. For Ecol Manage 246(1):14–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. CICES (2018) Common International Classification of Ecosystem services. European Environment Agency. https://CICES.EU. Accessed 9 Jun 2019
  21. Clavero M (2014) Shifting baselines and the conservation of non-native species. Conserv Biol 28:1434–1436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Costanza R, de Groot R, Braat L et al (2017) Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst Serv 28:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cruz-García G, Sachet E, Blundo-Canto G et al (2017) To what extent have the links between ecosystem services and human well-being been researched in Africa, Asia, and Latin America? Ecosyst Serv 25:201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davidson-Hunt IJ, O’Flaherty RM (2007) Researchers, indigenous peoples and place-based learning communities. Soc Nat Resour 20:291–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. De Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RNJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 21:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Delgado LE, Marín VH (2017) Human well-being and historical ecosystems: the environmentalist’s paradox revisited. Bioscience 67:5–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Delgado LE, Bachmann PL, Oñate B (2007) Gobernanza ambiental: una estrategia orientada al desarrollo sustentable local a través de la participación ciudadana. Revista Ambiente y Desarrollo de CIPMA 23:68–73Google Scholar
  29. Delgado LE, Sepúlveda MB, Marín VH (2013) Provision of ecosystem services by the Aysén watershed, Chilean Patagonia, to rural households. Ecosyst Serv 5:102–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Delgado LE, Torres-Gomez M, Tironi A et al (2015) Estrategia de Adaptación Local al cambio Climático para el acceso equitativo al agua en zonas rurales de Chile. Rev Am Latina Hoy 69:113–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Delgado LE, Tironi-Silva A, Marín VH (2019) Sistemas socioecológicos y servicios ecosistémicos: modelos conceptuales para el humedal del Río Cruces (Valdivia, Chile). In: Cerda C, Silva-Rodriguez E, Briceño C (eds) Naturaleza en sociedad: Una mirada a la dimensión humana de la conservación de la biodiversidad. Editorial OchoLibros, Santiago, pp 177–205Google Scholar
  32. Diaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J et al (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework—connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Doubleday NC (1993) Finding common ground: natural law and collective wisdom. In: Inglis JT (ed) Traditional ecological knowledge: concepts and cases. IDRC, Ottawa, pp 41–53Google Scholar
  34. Easterlin RA (1974) Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In: David PA, Reder MW (eds) Nations and households in economic growth. Essays in honor of Moses Abramovitz. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 89–125Google Scholar
  35. Ellis F (2000) Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Fernández-Llamazares Á, Díaz-Reviriego I, Luz AC et al (2015) Rapid ecosystem change challenges the adaptive capacity of local environmental knowledge. Glob Environ Change 31:272–284PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ferraro PJ, Hanauer MM (2014) Quantifying causal mechanisms to determine how protected areas affect poverty through changes in ecosystem services and infrastructure. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(11):4332–4337PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak SK (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol 4(4):482–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ferraro PJ, Hanauer MM, Sims KRE (2011) Conditions associated with protected area success in conservation and poverty reduction. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(34):13913–13918PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Folke C, Carpenter S, Elmqvist T et al (2002) Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio 31:437–440PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Galindo LM, Samaniego JL, Alatorre JE et al. (2014) Paradojas y riesgos del crecimiento económico en América Latina y el Caribe. Una visión ambiental de largo plazo. Serie Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo 156. CEPAL Naciones UnidasGoogle Scholar
  43. Garcia C, Mane-Vivien D, Kushalappa CG et al (2007) Geographical indications and biodiversity in the Western Ghats, India: can labeling benefit producers and the environment in a mountain agroforestry landscape? Mt Res Dev 27(3):206–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Garcia CA, Bhagwat SA, Ghazoul J et al (2009) Biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes: challenges and opportunities of coffee agroforests in the Western Ghats. India Conserv Biol 24(2):479–488PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Gastó J, Rodrigo P, Aránguiz I et al (2002) Ordenación territorial rural en escala comunal: Bases conceptuales y metodología. Facultad de Agronomía e Ingeniería Forestal, Pontifica Universidad Católica, Santiago http://www.cartografia.cl/download/05-Territorio_Rural.pdf. Accessed 9 Jun 2019
  46. Giday M, Asfaw Z, Woldu Z (2010) Ethnomedicinal study of plants used by Sheko ethnic group of Ethiopia. J Ethnopharmacol 132:75–85PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Gomez-Baggethun E, Olsson P, Montes C (2009) Learning with crises: building resilience to secure ecosystem services in Mediterranean resource management systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, 29 June–2 July, 2009Google Scholar
  48. Guerrero-Gatica M, Aliste E, Simonetti JA (2019) Shifting gears for the use of the shifting baseline syndrome in ecological restoration. Sustainability 11(5):1458.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051458. Accessed 9 Jun 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hanazaki N, Herbst DF, Marques MS et al (2013) Evidence of the shifting baseline syndrome in ethnobotanical research. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 9:75PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Humphries P, Winemiller KO (2009) Historical impacts on river Fauna, shifting baselines, and challenges for restoration. Bioscience 59:673–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. IPBES (2019) The International Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Science and policy for people and nature. https://www.ipbes.net/. Accessed 9 Jun 2019
  52. Kandziora M, Burkhard B, Müller F (2013) Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators. A theoretical matrix exercises. Ecol Indic 28:54–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Laterra P, Barral P, Carmona A et al (2016) Focusing conservation efforts on ecosystem service supply may increase vulnerability of socio-ecological systems. PLoS One 11:e0155019PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Leff E (ed) (2006) Manifiesto por la Vida. Por una Ética para la Sustentabilidad. Red de Formación Ambiental. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente, Oficina Regional para América Latina y el Caribe, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  55. Maass M (2018) Los Sistemas Socio-Ecologicos (SSE) desde el enfoque socioecosistémico (SES). In: Avila S, Perevochtchikova M (eds) Sistemas Socio-Ecologicos: Marcos Analítico y Estudios de Caso en Oaxaca, México. Editoral Universidad Autonoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas, Ciudad de MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  56. Marín VH, Delgado LE (2008) Modelos conceptuales en ecología de ecosistemas: descubriendo al elefante. Rev Chil Hist Nat 81:437–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Marín VH, Tironi A, Delgado LE et al (2009) On the sudden disappearance of Egeria densa from Ramsar wetland site of southern Chile: a climate event trigger model. Ecol Model 220:1752–1763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McGinnis MD, Ostrom E (2014) Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol Soc 19(2):30.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230. Accessed 9 June 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis report. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  60. Natenzon C (2007) La vulnerabilidad social como dimensión del Riesgo: Analisis de la Zona Costera del río de la Plata. In: Betocello R, Banco J, Ciccolella P et al (eds) Geografia y Territorios en Transformación. Ed. Noveduc, Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar
  61. Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJGoogle Scholar
  62. Ostrom E (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. PNAS 104:15181–15187PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419–422PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Papworth SK, Rist J, Coad L et al (2009) Evidence for shifting baseline syndrome in conservation. Conserv Lett 2:93–100Google Scholar
  65. Piccolo JJ (2017) Intrinsic values in nature: objective good or simply half of an unhelpful dichotomy. J Nat Conserv 27:8–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pinnegar JK, Engelhard GH (2008) The ‘shifting baseline’ phenomenon: a global perspective. Rev Fish Biol Fish 18:1–16Google Scholar
  67. Quiñones D, Caro J, Marín VH et al (2017) Manejo resiliente de cuencas forestales de Chile: La cuenca de Cayucupil (Cañete) como caso de estudio. Boletín Nahuelbuta Natura 1:7–30Google Scholar
  68. Ramsar COP (2008) Estrategia Regional de Conservación y Uso Sostenible de los Humedales Altoandinos. Ramsar COP9 DOC.26 http://ramsar.rgis.ch/pdf/cop9/cop9_doc26_s.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2019
  69. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Tengö M et al (2010) Untangling the environmentalist’s paradox: why is human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade? Bioscience 60:756–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Reyes del Villar S (2017) La Felicidad de los Chilenos. Una aproximación a la “Paradoja Latinoamericana”. Análisis 24:1–17Google Scholar
  71. Ruddle K, Chesterfield R (1977) Education for Traditional Food Procurement in the Orinoco Delta. Ibero-Americana 53. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  72. Saarikoski H, Primmer E, Saarela SR et al (2018) Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice. Ecosyst Serv 29:579–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sáenz-Arroyo A, Roberts Callum M, Torre J et al (2005) Rapidly shifting environmental baselines among fishers of the Gulf of California. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 272:1957–1962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sánchez-Zamora P, Gallardo-Cobos R, Ceña F (2016) La noción de resiliencia en el análisis de las dinámicas territoriales rurales: Una aproximación al concepto mediante un enfoque territorial. Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural 13(77):93–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Santos M (1993) Los espacios de la globalización. Anales de Geografía de La Universidad Complutense 13:69–77Google Scholar
  76. Sarkki S (2017) Governance services: co-producing human well-being with ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 27:82–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sayer J, Sunderland T, Ghazoul J et al (2013) Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110(21):8349–8356PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Scholes RJ, Reyers B, Biggs R et al (2013) Multi-scale and cross-scale assessments of social–ecological systems and their ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5(1):16–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sheppard C (1995) The shifting baseline syndrome. Mar Pollut Bull 30:766–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Silva R (2010) Multifuncionalidad agraria y territorio. Algunas reflexiones y propuestas de análisis. EURE 36(109):5–33Google Scholar
  81. Silvetti F (2011) Una revisión conceptual sobre la relación entre campesinos y servicios ecosistémicos. Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural 8(66):19–45Google Scholar
  82. Soga M, Gaston KJ (2018) Shifting baseline syndrome: causes, consequences, and implications. Front Ecol Environ 16:222–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tansley AG (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16:284–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Teubal M (2001) Globalización y nueva ruralidad en América Latina. CLACSO (ed) Una nueva ruralidad en América Latina? http://goo.gl/EVDBBM. Accessed 9 Jun 2019
  85. Weyland F, Mastrangelo ME, Auer AD et al (2019) Ecosystem services approach in Latin America: from theoretical promises to real applications. Ecosyst Serv 35:280–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zorondo-Rodríguez F, Grau-Satorras M, Kalla J et al (2016) Contribution of natural and economic capital to subjective well-being: Empirical evidence from a small-scale society in Kodagu (Karnataka), India. Soc Indic Res 127:919–937Google Scholar
  87. Zorondo-Rodriguez 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. Ocholibros, Santiago, pp 207–239Google Scholar
  88. Zuindeau B (2007) Territorial equity and sustainable development. Environ Values 16:253–268.  https://doi.org/10.3197/096327107780474564CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luisa E. Delgado
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Iskra Alejandra Rojo Negrete
    • 3
  • Marcela Torres-Gómez
    • 2
  • Amanda Alfonso
    • 4
  • Francisco Zorondo-Rodríguez
    • 4
  1. 1.Escuela de Ciencias, Facultad de CienciasUniversidad de ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Fundación Centro Transdisciplinario de Estudios FES-SistémicosSantiagoChile
  3. 3.CEDUA (Centro De Estudios Demográficos, Urbanos y Ambientales)El Colegio de México A. CMexico CityMexico
  4. 4.Departamento de Gestión Agraria, Facultad TecnológicaUniversidad de Santiago de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations