Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100901

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecosystem Services
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser

Applying integrated valuation of ecosystem services in Latin America: T

Insights from 21 case studies
⁎
Alexander Rincón-Ruiza, , Paola Arias-Arévalob, Juan Manuel Núñez Hernándezc, Helena Cotlerc,
Mateo Aguado Casod, Paula Melie, Alejandra Taurof, Víctor Daniel Ávila Akerbergg,
V. Sophie Avila-Foucath, Johanna Paola Cardenasi, Luis Alfonso Castillo Hernándezf,
Luis Guillermo Castroj, Victor Alfonso Cerón Hernándezk, Andrea Contreras Araquel,
Jimena Deschamps-Lomelic, J. Mauricio Galeana-Pizañac, Keila Guillén Oñatel,
José Antonio Hernández Aguilarm, Aldo Daniel Jimenezc, Luis Ángel López Mathambag,
Lizbeth Márquez Pérezf, Mary Luz Moreno Díazn, Wilmer Marín Marínj, Vivian Ochoaj,
Miguel Ángel Sarmientoo, Alejandra Taurof, Julián Díaz Timotej, Luisa Lorena Tique Cardozop,
Angélica Trujillo Acostaq, Talía Waldronj
a
Escuela de Economía – Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad Nacional de Colombia – sede Bogotá, Colombia
b
Departamento de Economía, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y Económicas, Universidad del Valle – Cali, Colombia
c
Centro de Investigación en Ciencias de Información Geoespacial – Ciudad de México, Mexico
d
Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain
e
Laboratório de Silvicultura Tropical, Departamento de Ciências Florestais, Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz” Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil
f
Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, IIES – UNAM, Mexico
g
Instituto de Ciencias Agropecuarias y Rurales, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México
h
Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas (IIEC), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
i
Universidad Pedagógica de Colombia
j
Instituto Alexander von Humboldt – Colombia
k
Universidad del Cauca y Universidad Santiago de Cali, Colombia
l
Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras INVEMAR, Colombia
m
Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigación para el Desarrollo Integral Regional (CIIDIR) Unidad Oaxaca, Instituto Politécnico Nacional – México
n
Centro Internacional de Política Económica para el Desarollo Sostenible (CINPE) – Universidad Nacional, Costa Rica
o
Facultad de Ciencias Forestales – Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero, Argentina
p
Pontificia Universidad Javeriana – Sede Bogotá, Colombia
q
Jardín Botánico de Bogotá José Celestino Mutis, Colombia

A B S T R A C T

Recent progress in the ecosystem services (ES) approach has been made through the application of integrated valuations of ecosystem services (IVES), which
emphasizes social inclusion and incorporates a plurality of values in ES valuations. Given that most of the empirical experience with IVES practice has been in the
Global North, we need to understand this practice in other contexts such as the Global South and Latin America. Based on 21 studies that applied IVES approaches, we
evaluated how IVES is being implemented in socio-ecological contexts in Latin America and the challenges and ways forward for implementing it in this region.
Leaders of the case studies completed a questionnaire that addressed these questions based on an analytical framework. Our case studies demonstrated advances in:
integrating socio-cultural and monetary valuations, developing interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches, communicating results, and providing policy
recommendations that go beyond economic incentives. However, more efforts are still needed to engage some of the social actors, integrate ecological values, and
address value trade-offs and power relations. Challenges and ways forward for implementing IVES approaches can be grouped into five areas: (i) building a culture of
transdisciplinary research; (ii) promoting holistic versus split disciplinary valuations; (iii) engaging with environmental and civil society organizations and local
leaders; (iv) supporting less powerful social actors and bringing out their voices through the IVES process; and (v) generating new means of communicating multiple
perspectives at multiple scales. Our study empirically shows how new paths in socio-ecological contexts in Latin America are opening up to include the complex,
conflicting, and diverse views of the importance of nature. We believe that in Latin America, IVES could be framed as participatory action research that empowers
less powerful social actors through transdisciplinary and participatory valuation approaches.

⁎
Corresponding author at: Escuela de Economía – Universidad Nacional de Colombia (sede Bogotá), Carrera 30 No 45-03/Edificio 311, Colombia.
E-mail addresses: alexander.risvid@gmail.com, alrinconru@unal.edu.co (A. Rincón-Ruiz).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100901
Received 20 May 2018; Received in revised form 3 January 2019; Accepted 23 February 2019
Available online 06 March 2019
2212-0416/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
1. Introduction
The ecosystem services (ES) approach emphasizes the relationships
among biodiversity, ecosystems, and their contributions to people (Díaz
et al., 2018; MEA, 2005), including social, environmental, material,
spiritual, emotional, and moral (Agarwala et al., 2014; Cruz-Garcia
et al., 2017; Sandifer et al., 2015; Sangha et al., 2015; Summers et al.,
2012). Under the ES approach, ecosystems are considered to be im-
portant because of the multiple values they offer. They provide in-
dividual utility and economic development (i.e. instrumental value),
help to build meaningful relationships between humans and nature (i.e.
relational values), and serve as ends in themselves (i.e. intrinsic values)
(Arias-Arévalo et al., 2017, 2018; Chan et al., 2016; Jax et al., 2013).
Therefore, ES valuations are crucial since they attempt to reflect these
multiple values.
While monistic valuations have typically dominated the field of ES
valuation (e.g. Costanza et al., 2014), they may obscure the complexity
of the issues at stake and exclude other valuation languages (Arias-
Arévalo et al., 2018; Chan et al., 2012; Jacobs et al., 2016), especially
since these valuations consider nature’s importance only in instru-
mental or monetary terms. Over recent years, various Integrated Va-
luation of Ecosystem Services (IVES) approaches have been promoted
as part of the ES approach (Arias-Arévalo et al., 2018; Gómez-
Baggethun et al., 2014; Jacobs et al., 2016; Kenter et al., 2016; Pascual
et al., 2017; Rincón-Ruiz et al., 2015). The IVES approach treats ES
valuation as a science-policy process that assesses the multiple values
attributed to nature by social actors, i.e. actors with a stake, as well as
how these values relate to each other, and how this information can
guide decision-making. The multiple values are articulated through a
context-specific process that takes into account worldviews, socio-eco-
logical interactions, power relations, and the valuation process itself
(Arias-Arévalo et al., 2018; Jacobs et al., 2016; Rincón-Ruiz et al.,
2015). Thus, IVES promotes the participation of social actors by in-
corporating their voices, which are usually left out of decision-making
processes (Jacobs et al., 2016; Rincón-Ruiz et al., 2015). It also em-
phasizes the need to understand how conflicts and power asymmetries
may influence the distribution of ES and the related benefits and costs
(Arias-Arévalo et al., 2017, 2018; Jacobs et al., 2016; Pascual et al.,
2017; Rincón-Ruíz et al., 2016).
IVES may potentially become mainstream in valuation fields
Dendoncker et al., 2018; Dunford et al., 2018; Pascual et al., 2017)
given that it recognizes multiple values that relevant political arenas
have attributed to nature, such as the application of a pluralistic va-
luation approach by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (Pascual et al., 2017). To
this end, it is necessary to learn from applications of IVES in context-
specific and real-world situations. There is little research on the prac-
tical challenges of IVES, and the few studies that exist have focused on
the Global North (Dendoncker et al., 2018; Dunford et al.. 2018; Jacobs
et al., 2018; Kenter et al., 2016). Thus, the Global South is in need of
empirically grounded knowledge about the application of IVES, parti-
cularly since this region contains a high degree of global biodiversity
and is also characterized by social inequalities.
Even though IVES is a relatively new field of research, some ad-
vances have been made in Latin America, such as the first Symposium
on Integrated Valuation held in Colombia (2014), and two other sym-
posiums at two international congresses on ES, which were held in
Colombia (2016) and Mexico (2017).1 Latin America faces different
challenges to implementing IVES because of the multiple worldviews in
1
Primera Conferencia Regional de la Alianza de Servicios Ecosistémicos (ESP)
en Latinoamérica y el Caribe, Cali, Colombia (Octubre 2016) http://www.
espconference.org/latinamerica2016/wiki/190829/inicio#.WnHYZajibIU; V
Congreso Internacional de Servicios Ecosistémicos en los Neotrópicos (CISEN)
Oaxaca, México (Noviembre 2017) https://www.cisenv.org/.
2
Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100901
this region of the human-nature relationship (De la Cadena, 2010;
Escobar, 2018; Toledo et al., 2008). Latin America is home to a high
biodiversity (UNEP-WCMC, 2016), and is also the most unequal region
in the world in terms of economic income (CEPAL, 2017) and land
distribution (Oxfam, 2016), which generates strongly polarized social
structures. In addition, extractivist development has intensified in this
region over the past few decades (Gudynas, 2011a; Svampa, 2012),
resulting in deep socio-environmental conflicts, especially in territories
that are home to indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants, and campesinos
(small farmers) (Pérez-Rincón et al., 2019; Rincón-Ruiz, 2017; Rincón-
Ruiz et al., 2017). These socio-environmental conflicts reflect con-
flicting values, in which actors employ different valuation languages
that are considered to be incommensurable insofar as they cannot be
reduced to any single measure (e.g., monetary or utilitarian) (Martinez-
Alier, 2002).
In this context, we explored the practice of IVES and the challenges
and ways forward for its implementation in this region. We analyzed 21
case studies from Latin America using an analytical framework to
specifically address how IVES is being implemented in the different
socio-ecological contexts in this region, and to identify the challenges
and ways forward for implementing IVES in Latin America. We believe
that the analytical framework we developed may be useful for char-
acterizing and comparing IVES practices, especially in Latin America.
Furthermore, this research serves as a starting point for discussing and
documenting the practice and the challenges and ways forward for
applying IVES in Latin America. It may also encourage those who share
our vision of transforming the role of academia into one that advocates
for the inclusion of a plurality of values of nature, especially those held
by less powerful social actors.
2. Analytical framework
While there is a great deal of literature on ES valuation methods
(Gómez-Baggethun and Martín-López, 2015; Harrison et al., 2016), few
studies have proposed using an IVES approach (Braat et al., 2014;
Jacobs et al., 2016; Pascual et al., 2017; Rincón-Ruiz et al., 2015). Thus,
we characterized the practice of IVES in the case studies using an
analytical framework to explore two complementary IVES approaches:
IPBES and the approach by Rincón-Ruiz et al. (2015) (Fig. 1). The
IPBES approach (Pascual et al., 2017) emphasizes the need to in-
corporate a plurality of values besides monetary ones. IPBES was de-
veloped based on a global perspective that enables analyzing ES va-
luations in diverse socio-ecological contexts. This valuation approach
frames IVES as a process that can be carried out in five phases: purpose,
scope, pluralistic valuation, integration and bridging, and commu-
nication and review of the process (1–5 in Fig. 1). Given the inter-
connectedness of these phases, IVES is a mid- to long-term process that
may require several loops before the multiple values are finally in-
tegrated into ecosystem management. We also acknowledge that other
ES valuation approaches developed within a science-policy context
have called for the inclusion of multiple values in ES valuation, such as
the MA (2005) and TEEB (2011). However, in practice, utilitarian and
monetary valuations have been emphasized more than others.
The second IVES approach on which we based our analytical fra-
mework is the one presented by Rincón-Ruiz et al. (2015), which was
used in four of the case studies reviewed. We analyzed this IVES ap-
proach because it was one of the first initiatives to present a conceptual
and methodological framework to address ES valuation and land
planning in a conflictive and heterogeneous social context, such as in
Colombia. With the Rincón-Ruíz approach, the IVES process can in-
corporate actors through different levels of social participation (6 in
Fig. 1), with the goal of influencing decision-making (7 in Fig. 1).
Lastly, given that social exclusion and inequity are widespread in socio-
ecological contexts in Latin America, we also included power relations
as a transversal dimension that impacts the entire IVES process (8 in
Fig. 1).
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
The first phase, to identify the valuation purpose (1), provides re-
levant and specific contextual information (Pascual et al., 2017). Va-
luation purposes may be quite diverse. They can include promoting
environmental awareness and education, developing projects, evalu-
ating policies (e.g. Payment for Ecosystem Services), defining con-
servation goals and priorities (e.g. strategic areas for ES conservation),
aiding litigation/mediation and conflict resolution related to access and
use of ES, and supporting the analysis of decisions about management
alternatives or land uses, among other objectives. Valuation purposes
affect the degree of accuracy and reliability that is required, the se-
lection of valuation methods, and valuation costs (Gómez-Baggethun
and Barton, 2013).
The second phase, defining the valuation scope (2), defines the va-
luation process (Pascual et al., 2017) in terms of value domains (i.e.
economic, ecological, socio-cultural) (Gómez-Baggethun and Martín-
López, 2015), the foci of the values (e.g., nature, ecosystem services,
quality of life), and the worldviews that are represented. The values to
be evaluated will largely depend on the scope of the valuation process,
for instance, deciding which values will be reflected in the valuation
process and whether to include non-anthropocentric values and mul-
tiple metaphors for human-nature relationships (e.g., Pachamama,
Buen Vivir, and Territorio; see Acosta, 2013; Borie and Hulme, 2015;
Gudynas, 2011b).
Phase three, pluralistic valuation (3), requires selecting and applying
valuation methods from different valuation domains or fields of
knowledge (e.g. economic, ecological, socio-cultural) and choosing how
to integrate them (i.e. multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdis-
ciplinary approaches).2 In addition, pluralistic valuations should
2
Multidisciplinary research draws on exchanges among the points of views of
different scientific disciplines on a common problem, while remaining within
the boundaries of each field’s epistemology, concepts, and methodologies (Plaz
and Vessuri, 2007; Alvargonzález, 2011). Interdisciplinary research consists of
merging and integrating different scientific disciplines into new fields so as to
broaden the understanding of problems by transferring methodologies and
concepts (Schoot Uiterkamp and Vlek 2007; Plaz and Vessuri 2007). Lastly, the
transdisciplinary approach crosses the boundaries of the different scientific
3
Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100901
Fig. 1. Analytical Framework – Integrated
Valuation of Ecosystem Services. Analytical
framework for the analysis of IVES applica-
tions in Latin America (adapted from
Pascual et al. 2017 and Rincón-Ruiz et al.,
2015). Boxes 1 through 5 represent the
phases of the IVES process. The outer green
axis represents the dimensions of the IVES
processes, where higher levels of participa-
tion by social actors are related to a positive
influence of IVES on decision-making.
Power relations are considered to be a
transversal dimension that affects the entire
process.
attempt to address trade-offs and synergies among the values (Gómez-
Baggethun et al., 2014). For instance, while natural protected areas
conserve biodiversity, they may also affect the livelihoods of local
people (Brenner, 2010; Peterson, 2010, 2014). Addressing these trade-
offs is crucial to the decision-making process (7) because it clarifies the
values that are being sacrificed and those that are enhanced by the
various alternatives or management approaches.
The fourth phase of the IVES valuation process, integration and
bridging (4), is aimed at synthesizing valuation outcomes and bridging
incommensurable value domains in a coherent and transparent way
(Pascual et al., 2017). Some of the methodologies used for this purpose
are scenario analysis (Rincón-Ruiz, 2017; Walz et al., 2007), cost-ben-
efit analysis (Greenhalgh et al., 2017), multicriteria decision analysis
(Langemeyer et al., 2016; Saarikoski et al., 2016), deliberative valua-
tion (Kenter et al., 2016), and narrative analysis (Harmáčková et al.,
2018; Klain et al., 2014). Since value integration approaches involve
normative positions, researchers and practitioners should consider how
these approaches may influence the main messages or policy re-
commendations that result from the valuation processes (Pascual et al.,
2017).
The fifth phase (5) is to communicate valuation results and review the
process among stakeholders (Pascual et al., 2017). In this phase, re-
searchers should be transparent about the limitations and normative
positions embedded in the valuation process (Jacobs et al. 2016). This
is when the entire IVES process can be evaluated, and when stake-
holders provide their views on the strengths and weaknesses of the
process. It thereby serves as a stepping-stone for a new iteration of the
valuation process.
Lastly, three dimensions encompass and influence decision-making
during these five phases. First, the participation of social actors (6) is
crucial for reflecting multiple values. The normative position of IVES
(footnote continued)
disciplines, as well as systems of knowledge and societal practices, thereby
transcending the framework established by traditional academic disciplines
(Bernstein, 2015).
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
Fig. 2. Location of selected case studies of Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Latin America. Geographic location of the selected case studies that
implemented Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services approaches in Latin America. See Table 1 for the full list of case studies.
should contribute to enhancing the empowerment of social actors in
decision-making, especially for those who are less powerful (Rincón-
Ruiz et al., 2015; Jacobs et al., 2016). Nonetheless, since early itera-
tions of IVES may not attain this goal, social participation may be
achieved in degrees, such as: (i) consulting (i.e. social actors provide
information without receiving feedback); (ii) informing (i.e. social ac-
tors provide information and also receive feedback from those leading
the research); and iii) involving (i.e. social actors are involved
throughout most of the process so that their ideas about the issue at
stake are included). iv) Empowering: (social actors are empowered and
can have incidence in decision making)
Secondly, IVES should be oriented towards influencing decision-
making (7), and thus, it should use a transdisciplinary research ap-
proach (Lang et al., 2012; Marshall et al., 2018) to actively incorporate
input from stakeholders who are outside academia (Scholz et al., 2015).
In this way, they not only work together on a common problem but also
create a shared conceptual framework through which they can collec-
tively address a concern (RosenFeld, 1992). In light of the power dif-
ferences and asymmetries that exist among social groups (Vessuri et al.,
2014), this collective work can be challenging, and essentially results in
facilitating dialogue and negotiating conflicting values (Apgar et al.,
2009).
Lastly, the IVES process is also critical for uncovering and addres-
sing power relations (8) (Arias-Arévalo et al., 2018; Garmendia and
Pascual, 2013; Jacobs et al., 2016; Rincón-Ruiz et al., 2015). These
relations often mediate access to ES and its management and use among
4
Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100901
social groups that differ in their ability to influence the behavior of
other groups and, consequently, to impact the outcomes of ecosystem
management for their own benefit (Berbés-Blásquez et al., 2016). This
produces inequalities in the provision of ES (Felipe-Lucia et al., 2015).
By analyzing power relations as part of IVES, questions can be ad-
dressed such as whose values are represented in the valuation process,
who decides which values will be enhanced, and who will bear the
costs. Thus, the analysis of trade-offs is intricately related to the notion
of power relations. A value trade-off may have different consequences
for different social groups (e.g., nature reserve visitors vs. local people)
and may contribute to socio-environmental conflicts (e.g., Arias-
Arévalo et al., 2017).
In summary, an IVES valuation approach requires giving voice to
the different views about human-nature relationships and the values at
stake, as well as analyzing value trade-offs and power relations.
Through these lenses, IVES is viewed as a transdisciplinary process that
ultimately influences decision-making. However, the IVES process may
require several loops and a large amount of financial and human re-
sources (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013; Jacobs et al., 2016).
Therefore, our analytical framework is presented with the under-
standing that IVES researchers may obtain valuation outcomes that are
not ‘complete’ or ‘ideal,’ as suggested above, but that capture a plur-
alistic ‘spirit’ —a shared normative vision of the need to reflect the
multiple values that are held by social actors and to strengthen the
voices of those who are less powerful. These types of valuations can
reveal what has been left out and how to include those aspects in future
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
valuation loops.
An assessment of the optimal way to develop ES valuations falls
outside the scope of our work. Rather, our analytical approach is aimed
at understanding how IVES is being implemented in Latin America (1–5
in Fig. 1), the progress that has been made in participatory and trans-
disciplinary processes (6 in Fig. 1), and how IVES influences decision-
making (7 in Fig. 1). We also discuss the need to include power rela-
tions (8 in Fig. 1) as well as the challenges and ways forward for ef-
fectively using IVES to support advocacy for greater social inclusion and
environmental justice, particularly in Latin America.
3. Methodology
3.1. Selection of case studies
Due to the lack of peer-reviewed research about the practice of IVES
in Latin America (Aldana-Domínguez et al., 2017), we identified em-
pirical IVES case studies from two symposiums on this topic, held in
Colombia (2016) and Mexico (2017). We selected 21 case studies that
met any of the following criteria: i) integration of two or more value
domains (i.e. ecological, socio-cultural, monetary); ii) integration of
multiple values through multicriteria evaluation, scenario analysis, or
spatial analysis, or iii) development of participatory approaches such as
consultation through interviews, surveys, or deliberative valuation
processes (Fig. 2; Table 1). While some of the 21 case studies corre-
sponded to research that was published as scientific papers (e.g.,
Aguado et al., 2018; Arias-Arévalo et al., 2017; Tauro et al., 2018),
others were presented as theses, manuscripts, and reports on research
projects. However, exploring those works is useful for understanding
how ES valuations are being applied by practice communities that share
the normative position of needing pluralistic valuations rather than
monistic ones (see Fig. 2 and table 1).
We recognize that the case studies selected may not statistically
represent IVES practices throughout the region, and that many of them
come from Colombia and Mexico, the two countries where the sym-
posiums were held. We decided to include these case studies because
those researchers were willing to share information that they did not
report or publish, as well as to discuss and reflect on the practice of
IVES in Latin America and participate as members of the IVES Latin
America Research Group.
3.2. Data collection and analysis
In order to answer our first research question about how IVES is
being implemented, the four leading authors developed an online
questionnaire that addressed the components (i.e. phases and dimen-
sions) of the IVES process (Appendix 1). The specific questions related
to each component were developed based on previous works (Arias-
Arévalo et al., 2018; Díaz et al., 2018; Dick et al., 2016; Gómez-
Baggethun et al., 2014; Jacobs et al., 2016; Pascual et al., 2017; Rincón-
Ruiz et al., 2015). An additional open-ended question was formulated
to address our second question about the challenges and ways forward
for implementing IVES (see components 7 and 8 in Appendix 1). Power
relations were not explicitly included in the questionnaire. Instead, we
decided to invite the authors to provide non-restricted answers about
challenges and ways forward, and that we would explore further if
power relations were mentioned in their answers. We also asked case
study leaders whether they had included an analysis of power relations
in their pluralistic valuation approach (Component 3, Appendix 1). Due
to the space limitation of this manuscript, we did not present all of the
topics in the analytical framework (Fig. 1) (i.e. foci of values and
worldviews from phase 1 and confidence limits from phase 5)
The case study leaders responded to the questionnaire. Since we
considered these researchers to be experts in their empirical application
of IVES, they completed it based on their own experience. Closed-ended
questions were analyzed with descriptive statistics in order to identify
5
Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100901
general trends, while open-ended questions were analyzed based on a
content analysis. Each of the four leading authors reviewed and dis-
cussed the qualitative data so as to reach a consensus on the themes and
codes identified. Furthermore, the case study leaders (who also co-au-
thored this paper) provided feedback on the results, discussion, and
conclusion sections.
4. Results
4.1. How IVES is being implemented in socio-ecological contexts in Latin
America
In terms of the purposes of IVES, the most frequent ones mentioned
by the case studies were ‘environmental education and awareness,’
‘analysis and decision-making among land uses and management al-
ternatives (e.g. ES trade-offs),’ and ‘definition of conservation objec-
tives or priorities’ (Fig. 3). Only one case study dealt with conflict re-
solution/litigation. Regarding the context in which the valuation
processes were implemented, the majority of the case studies were
academic research projects (e.g. PhD and Master’s theses). Only one-
third of the case studies corresponded to research projects conducted
with other social actors, such as local NGOs or governmental institu-
tions.
In terms of the value domains that were addressed (i.e. ecological,
economic, and socio-cultural), more than half of the case studies cov-
ered socio-cultural or economic domains. Only a few studies included
the ecological value domain or all three. In addition, just one-third of
the case studies reported having included an intrinsic value in their ES
valuations, which was primarily done in an implicit manner. For ex-
ample, as an ecosystem service, one case included 'the existence of life
and nature' as a proxy for the intrinsic value. And in a fewer number of
cases, the concept of intrinsic value was more directly addressed using
metaphors other than 'ecosystem services,' or by including open-ended
questions. For example, in one case the researchers included the me-
taphor described by Sumak Kawsay,3 used by Andean indigenous
people, which refers to the notion of nature’s rights. Indeed, nearly half
of the case studies did not use complementary metaphors for the notion
of ES, except, for example, benefits of nature, landscape, the commons,
beliefs and emotions related to nature, territorial disputes, Pachamama
(Mother Earth), and well-being. These complementary metaphors were
used in case studies that applied a socio-cultural valuation approach.
Most of the case studies used an interdisciplinary or transdisci-
plinary approach to integrate different knowledge systems. The most
frequent disciplines included in the valuations were economics,
ecology, sociology, and anthropology. Regarding the methods asso-
ciated with each value domain (i.e. ecological, socio-cultural, and
monetary), the case studies with a socio-cultural valuation more often
relied on interviews, narrative analyses, participatory mapping, and ES
preference ranking. Case studies based on an economic valuation more
often relied on market prices and cost-based approaches. And those that
applied ecological valuation methods more frequently used biophysical
modeling along with land use analyses and ecological models.
It is also desirable to incorporate ES trade-offs and analyses of
power relations into pluralistic valuation approaches (Fig. 1). Less than
half of the case studies analyzed ES trade-offs. Those that did based
their analyses on narratives, value correlations, and spatial analyses of
land use changes. Similarly, less than half of the studies analyzed power
relations or distributional issues, although most of them reported the
existence of an environmental conflict, such as conservation vs. devel-
opment projects, tourism development, water access and distribution,
conflicts among productive activities, pressure on ES due to climate
variability, land tenure and land use, conflicting worldviews on man-
agement approaches, and mining and dam projects. In terms of
3
See a discussion on this metaphor in Acosta (2013).
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
Table 1
Selected case studies of the implementation of Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Latin America.
No Case study
1 Valuation of ecosystem services in the Orinoquia with participation of
local community.
2 Social valuation of ecosystem services as perceived by social actors in the
Jaboque’s basin, Bogotá-Colombia.
3 Assessing human well-being and ecosystem services based on social
perceptions in a rural-urban region of the high Andes, Ecuador
4 Understanding ecological, legal, and social aspects of the importance of
forest–water relations to ecosystem services
5 Economic and social values of the provision of services in forest
communities in Mixteca Alta, Oaxaca, Mexico
6 Integrated valuation and scenarios analysis in the Orotoy river basin.
7 Unravelling heterogeneity in the importance of ecosystem services:
individual views of small landholders
8 Integrated valuation of ecosystem services in relation to the area of
influence of the Ituango hydroelectric project
9 Values and uses of the water supply as an ecosystem service, Mondomo,
Cauca.
10 Integrated valuation of mangroves with an emphasis on coastal ecosystem
services and erosion
11 Ecosystem services provide by the mangrove ecosystem in the Laguna de
Celestún, Yucatán; a partial integrated valuation: socio-cultural values and
use values
12 Consumption of the firewood supply service and its relation to changes in
land use and vegetation in two rural locations on the coast of Oaxaca.
13 Economic Valuation of Environmental Services provided by medicinal,
aromatic and dye plants
14 Synergies and compensations between multiple ecosystem services: the
case of livestock and useful plants in oak forests managed to produce
charcoal.
15 Methodological guide for identification and valuation of goods and
services provided by biodiversity.
16 Economic valuation of ecosystem services in the Izta-Popo protected
natural areas.
17 Integrated valuation of environmental services provided by the landscape
in the Guadalupe dam basin.
18 Valuation of ecosystem services in the complex of Protected Natural Areas
in the Sierra Madre de Chiapas.
19 Valuation of ecosystem services related to productive and extractive use
systems in the municipality of Ataco-Tolima.
20 Educational incorporation of ES valuation.
21 Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values attributed to
ecosystems in the Otún River basin, in the Colombian Andes.
integration approaches, more than half of the case studies developed
value approaches that were aimed at understanding how multiple va-
lues were related. Those that were most widely used were development
scenarios, narrative analysis, and deliberative valuation (Fig. 4).
In terms of communications, most of the case studies communicated
the valuation results to the social actors, and in over half of the case
studies, researchers believed that the valuation exercise facilitated
dialogue among social actors. In addition, over half of the case studies
included policy and decision-making recommendations, which mainly
focused on strengthening local actors and their participation in eco-
systems management, identifying the distribution among the different
actors of positive and negative impacts associated with conservation
Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100901
Country Description
Colombia Performs an integrated social and ecological diagnosis in the territory. For this
purpose, the main ecosystem services were identified for the purpose of
establishing management guidelines.
Colombia Provides inputs on how social actors perceive ecosystem services, as well as their
perceptions regarding the basin’s main problems and the presence of institutions.
Ecuador Explores the factors that influence subjective well-being and the perception of
ecosystem services in a region of the high Andes, Ecuador (constituted by four
rural villages and one medium-sized city).
Brazil Developed a land-use ordering process jointly with local communities. This
ordering included the valuation by residents of the ecosystem services provided for
each type of land use and a regional assessment of how communities are integrated
in the sub-basin and the municipality
México Identifies the economic and social importance of wood provision services in forest
communities in the Mixteca Alta region, Oaxaca, Mexico.
Colombia Develops an integrated valuation of ecosystem services aimed at territory
management in a context of environmental conflicts.
México Analyzes how individuals prioritize ecosystem services and explores how priorities
are linked to their lifestyles, unravelling the importance attributed to these
services.
Colombia Conducts an ecosystem services valuation as an input for integrated territorial
management.
Colombia Identifies the values attributed and uses of the water supply as an ecosystem
service in the Mondomo River basin, using a socio-ecological system approach.
Colombia Assesses the importance of mangroves in the Bay of Cispata and the Estuarine Delta
of the Sinú River, Colombia, through the integrated valuation of the erosion
control service provided by the edge mangrove.
México Develops a valuation of the ecosystem services provided by the mangrove
ecosystem in a coastal community in Mexico, from an ecological, economic and
sociocultural perspective.
México Assessment of the ecosystem service of firewood, a resource that is used as the
main source of energy in food preparation and heating in the rural areas of Mexico.
Argentina Develops an economic valuation of the ecosystem services that natural resources
provide to local productive systems.
México The valuation process has three aims: i) to understand the synergies and trade-offs
between multiple ecosystem services (i.e. livestock, collection of useful plants,
maintenance of plant diversity); ii) to evaluate economic costs and benefits to
farmers from livestock roaming free in oak forests; and iii) elicit farmers’
perceptions about forest management.
Costa Rica Analyzes the collaboration between universities and government towards
structuring a Methodological Guide for the Valuation of the Ecosystem Services
provided by biodiversity.
México Assesses the services produced by implementing a soil conservation program in a
protected natural area.
México Develops an economic, ecological, and cultural valuation of the phytodiversity
based on the ecosystem services provided by the different landscape areas around
the Guadeloupe Dam, State of Mexico.
México Develops an economic and ecological valuation of ecosystem services in the Sierra
Madre de Chiapas complex, which contributes to the conservation of the Protected
Natural Areas.
Colombia Identifies the ecosystem services associated with the current use of ecosystems in
the municipality of Ataco (Tolima) and analyzes how productive and extractive
associations affect and value ecosystem services.
Colombia Develops an educational intervention program for children and youth in order to
identify main environmental conflicts in Colombia, analyzing the ecosystem
services involved.
Colombia Assesses the environmental motivations and values that people attribute to the
ecosystems in the mid-upper the Otún River basin, central Andes (Colombia) with
the aim of informing environmental management.
land use planning, designing management plans, and restoring eco-
systems. It is noteworthy that only two case studies recommended the
use of economic incentives for ES conservation.
The studies also described a diverse range of participation by the
social actors. More than half reported that social actors were involved
in the IVES process or empowered by it. Decision making was impacted
in almost half of the case studies, while case studies that reported not
having an impact recognized the possibility of having influence in the
future. For instance, management plans were modified in some cases
(e.g., changes in the operational rules of a forest soil program and water
use plan). And in another case, integrated valuation results influenced
land use planning and the conservation of critical ecosystems (e.g.,
6
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al. Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100901

Fig. 3. Purpose of the Integrated Valuations of Ecosystem Services. Purposes of the Integrated Valuations of Ecosystem Services in the 21 case studies. The ranking
represents the number of case studies that stated the item as a purpose of the valuation process (multiple choice answer).

Fig. 5. Relationships between the valuation approach, participation level, and

Fig. 4. Value integration approaches. Approaches used by the case studies that
developed a value integration phase as part of the IVES process (n = 14).
riverbanks). The studies also reported that decision-making was influ-
enced by communication among actors, the involvement of government
institutions, and the degree to which local communities were orga-
nized.
An important finding was that the majority of the cases that re-
ported having influenced decision-making had analyzed trade-offs and
promoted the involvement and empowerment of social actors. We also
found that the case studies we reviewed tended to use interdisciplinary
or transdisciplinary research, and they highly involved or empowered
actors (Fig. 5).
4.2. Challenges and ways forward for implementing IVES in Latin America
The responses reflected a variety of challenges and ways forward for
implementing IVES approaches in Latin America, which may hinder or
advance any phase of the IVES process. These can be grouped into five
main topics, as described below.
incidence on decision making. Classification of IVES case studies in terms of the
knowledge integration approach, social actor’s participation level, and influ-
ence on decision-making.
Building a culture of transdisciplinary research. According to the re-
searchers, a significant challenge for IVES is the implementation of
transdisciplinary research, which incorporates the values and view-
points of less empowered social actors. They also recognized the lack of
a transdisciplinary research culture, especially among policy-makers.
To this end, educational institutions and research centers can offer
formal and informal training programs on interdisciplinary and trans-
disciplinary valuation approaches, especially targeted to local leaders,
policy-makers, and officials. Additionally, topics related to integrated
valuation and contemporary regional environmental dynamics can be
included in educational curriculums (e.g. economics, biology, geo-
graphy, and sociology), and communication spaces in which actors
outside the academia participate are fundamental, such as congresses
and seminars. Lastly, funding institutions and organizations can prior-
itize interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research projects over dis-
ciplinary ones.
Promoting holistic valuations vs. split disciplinary valuations. The re-
searchers recognized the challenge of moving from valuations where

7
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
issues are addressed individually, or split disciplinary valuations, to
holistic valuations that enable identifying relationships and feedback
among subsystems (e.g. ecological, economic, socio-cultural). The no-
tion of socio-ecological systems as a unit of analysis (with special em-
phasis on flows among systems) can help researchers to work in a more
coordinated manner by generating complementary and non-fragmented
information about the territory. The researchers also suggested that
having the team conduct field work during valuation processes, in an
ethnographic research spirit, could help overcome this challenge.
Fieldwork exposes researchers to the everyday life of local social actors,
which may enhance their understanding of the multiple and complex
worldviews that converge in a territory.
Engaging with environmental organizations, civil society organizations,
and local leaders.
The researchers acknowledged that the time they spent in the field
was frequently limited, given that research tends to be subject to
budgets, and often to political interests as well. Therefore, they re-
cognized the importance of including environmental NGOs, civil society
organizations, and local leaders in the IVES process from the outset.
Since these actors tend to remain in the territory and provide political
leadership, they can make an effort to request policy makers to conduct
second valuation loops or integrate early findings into decision-making
processes.
Supporting less powerful actors and bringing out their voices through the
IVES process. Power asymmetries were mentioned as one of the main
obstacles to developing an effective IVES approach, thereby confirming
the influence presented in our analytical framework (8 in Fig. 1). In
valuation and management processes, the most powerful actors tend to
impose values that align with their own interests. Researchers believed
that these asymmetries could not be brought into balance without
strong and cohesive local communities. They stressed the important
role of academia in addressing power relations, for instance, by offering
educational programs to local leaders and by supporting environmental
leadership networks. The researchers also recommended using analy-
tical frameworks and notions such as environmental justice, the com-
mons, and equity to bring power relations and their consequences to the
forefront. Nevertheless, they acknowledged the difficulty of “getting all
the social actors around the same table” and achieving equal partici-
pation during the process. A key to facilitating dialogue and mediating
conflicts is applying valuation techniques to promote working en-
vironments that encourage respect and trust among the social actors.
Corruption also emerged as a cause of unequal power relations, which
limits the availability of financial resources and creates distrust among
social actors. Moreover, researchers recognized that distrust and weak
social capital negatively affected local community organizations and
their opportunities to mobilize on behalf of their own interests.
Creating new means of communications in order to encompass multiple
perspectives at multiple scales. Researchers identified the prioritization of
national agendas over local agendas as a limiting factor, given that
national agendas often do not acknowledge local complexities and
multi-scale dynamics. For instance, policy-makers typically lacked in-
terest in participatory process because they did not always highly be-
lieve in collective and transdisciplinary valuation processes. Policy-
makers may also avoid supporting and joining a process that would not
result in votes, or whose impacts would be felt in future political-ad-
ministrative periods. Thus, IVES practices should enhance the influence
of participation in decision-making by decentralizing decision making
and promoting the participation of new stakeholders who are directly
or indirectly involved in the conservation or use of ES. IVES should
attempt to engage decision-makers at the outset of the process, and
invite the private sector to engage as well.
8
Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100901
5. Discussion
5.1. How IVES approaches are being implemented in Latin America
The case studies reviewed were conducted in different types of lo-
cations and socio-economic conditions, and involved ecosystems and
stakeholders. They also used diverse methodological approaches to
conduct IVES. Instead of relying on a hegemonic method (e.g. monetary
valuation methods), the researchers were flexible in their selection of
methods that enabled integrating multiple stakeholders and context-
specific values. This research shows that multiple methodological ap-
proaches have been used to implement the IVES approach.
With respect to the purpose of the valuations, the case studies were
oriented towards generating information that could be useful to policy
makers, such as analyses and decisions about land uses and manage-
ment alternatives (e.g. ES trade-offs) and definitions of conservation
goals or priorities. This demonstrates how IVES has been applied in
order to influence decision making, which is a principle of integrated
valuation (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2014; Jacobs et al. 2016) and the
ES approach (Daily and Matson, 2009; Martinez-Harms et al., 2015).
Although few studies were oriented towards conflict resolution,
environmental conflict was present in most of them. Indeed, the ES
approach has recently been used in the context of environmental con-
flicts (Kovács et al., 2015; Rincón-Ruíz et al., 2016). Using IVES to
resolve conflicts would entail incorporating social scientists with ex-
pertise in conflict resolution and using deliberative approaches and
analytical frameworks such as environmental justice (Chaudhary et al.,
2018; Dawson et al., 2017; Ernstson, 2013) and human rights (Turner,
2015). To this end, it is important that assessments are made colla-
boratively with decision-makers, influential institutions such as NGOs,
and local leaders. However, only some of the case studies conducted the
valuation process jointly with government institutions and NGOs. The
role of IVES in environmental conflicts is a priority challenge given the
large megaprojects and extractive production activities in Latin
America (Martinez-Alier et al., 2016; Perez-Rincón et al., 2018;
Raftopoulos, 2017). It is also of concern that Latin American countries
(i.e. Colombia, Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, Brazil, and Peru) have
had the highest homicide rates of environmental advocates and land
defenders in recent years (Global Witness, 2015).
With regard to the scope of the valuations, we found that an effort
was made to integrate multiple values and disciplines. This demon-
strates that the IVES practitioners who we consulted were aware of the
need to integrate multiple values in order to make better environmental
decisions and to reflect the different interests of the stakeholders
(Pascual et al., 2017). However, biologists and professionals in en-
vironmental sciences also need to be involved when IVES is used to
address ecological values, which were the least evaluated in this
sample. The emphasis placed on the monetary and socio-cultural va-
luation approach in our case studies contrasted with other reviews of
ES, which reported more reliance on biology or environmental sciences
than on social or economic disciplines (Abson et al., 2014; McDonough
et al., 2017).
Due to the anthropocentric nature of the ecosystem services con-
cept, ES researchers have highlighted the need to use multiple meta-
phors for the human-nature relationship in order to move beyond uti-
litarian and instrumental values (Arias-Arévalo et al., 2018; Klain et al.,
2014; Raymond et al., 2013) and give voice to intrinsic values in ES
valuations (Arias-Arévalo et al., 2017, 2018; Batavia and Nelson, 2017;
Jacobs et al., 2018; O’Connor and Kenter, 2018; Vucetich et al., 2015).
Almost half of the case studies applied complementary metaphors or
elicited intrinsic values. The inclusion of multiple metaphors and in-
trinsic values in IVES is a crucial step towards reflecting a non-universal
view of nature, representing the context-specific ways in which nature
is important to people, and envisioning Latin America’s own path to-
ward sustainability. Complementary metaphors are needed in order to
prevent the imposition of western views and framings on a region
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
where rich and relational worldviews coexist.
The case studies we reviewed applied diverse methods to elicit the
multiple values of ecosystem services. Socio-cultural methods such as
interviews and narrative approaches were frequently used, as were cost-
based methods in order to assess monetary values. Given that socio-
cultural methods are suitable for assessing intrinsic, instrumental, and
relational values, they are crucial to the field of integrated valuation
(Jacobs et al., 2018). Moreover, the interviews and cost-based methods
used by our case studies were important because they enabled the re-
searchers to optimize limited financial resources in order to provide a
richer picture of the values of nature. Regarding types of assessments,
more effort should be placed on identifying trade-offs, power re-
lationships, and distributional outcomes. IVES is not about summing up
multiple disciplinary outputs but about assessing how different values
interconnect in terms of coexistence and trade-offs (Gómez-Baggethun
et al., 2014). This approach enables making decisions about ecosystems
in an environment where conflicting values may emerge, which can
then be addressed through participatory and democratic decision-
making platforms.
The case studies also demonstrated an effort to integrate values
through scenario or narrative analyses. The use of scenario analysis by
the case studies is relevant because this approach may be able to elicit
values (e.g. ecological, social, and economic) through a deliberative
platform. In ES approaches, scenario analysis is now being used for
environmental conflicts (e.g. Rincón-Ruiz et al., 2017), and we consider
it to be a worthwhile method for Latin America since it helps to engage
stakeholders in the valuation process and in decision-making. This is
valuable for a context that has been characterized by social exclusion
and power asymmetries.
Most of the case studies reported valuation results and included
policy recommendations, which highlights the user-oriented approach
of these IVES applications in terms of communicating and bridging.
Nevertheless, while the results need to be communicated (Enayati,
2002), good communication strategies are not sufficient for influencing
decision-making given that they may not effectively impact decisions
when deep power asymmetries exist. It is worth mentioning that almost
all the case studies included policy recommendations and only a few of
those recommendations were oriented towards designing or im-
plementing market-based instruments. This empirical finding is con-
sistent with the IPBES pluralistic valuation approach, in which holistic
valuations are also expected to result in a plurality of policy re-
commendations (Pascual et al., 2017). Lastly, almost half of the cases
included in our research reported having influenced decision-making.
And in order to do so, they identified the need to implement i) trans-
disciplinary approaches in which “diálogo de saberes” (knowledge dia-
logue) is applied through ii) participatory processes, and iii) imbalances
in power relationships are acknowledged and an attempt to change
those imbalances is made by empowering less powerful social groups.
5.2. Challenges and ways forward for implementing IVES
With regard to the challenges presented, it is important to mention
that political will and support on the part of academia are key to
creating a culture of transdisciplinary research and engaging with en-
vironmental organizations, civil society organizations, and local lea-
ders, as well as to supporting less powerful actors. Participation pro-
cesses have been criticized when social actors only provide useful
information for researches without being significantly involved (Innes
and Booher, 2004). Some of the case studies reviewed are notable for
their efforts to promote transdisciplinary research that gives stake-
holders a more active role. Although more engagement with policy-
makers and local organizations is still needed, the case studies made an
effort to communicate their results and to influence the management of
ecosystems and biodiversity.
9
Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100901
In order to guide environmental policy in delivering sustainable but
also socially fair outcomes, IVES needs to identify and address the un-
equal power relations that underpin the production and distribution of
ES. Valuation goes beyond the mere act of estimating values.
In fact, power asymmetries were deemed to be one of the main
obstacles to obtaining effective ES valuations. This study recognized the
pivotal role of academia in empowering less powerful stakeholders (e.g.
indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants, and campesino communities),
and IVES may help to make these power asymmetries visible. Not only
may it promote the inclusion of the diverse values held by all the sta-
keholders, but it may also uncover the hidden and often neglected in-
tangible ways that people may be connected to ecosystems and the
multiple perceptions of complex social-ecological dynamics, as well as
issues regarding access to ecosystem benefits and their distribution,
particularly for those who are marginalized (Mistry and Berardi, 2016;
Tengö et al., 2007). Through action research, pluralistic valuation
methods can capture diverse values and support social and environ-
mental justice (Jacobs et al. 2016; Himes and Muraca, 2018).
We hope to find more peer-reviewed literature on the practice of
IVES in Latin America in the future. And while we recognize that our
findings are not representative of the practice of IVES, given that much
of the information was documented in grey literature and academic
theses, we believe our study is a good starting point for reflecting on the
practice of IVES in contexts where there is a convergence of high bio-
diversity, power asymmetries, and environmental conflicts. Our study
provides a positive outlook for the future. Based on the local socio-
ecological context in Latin America, it empirically shows how new
paths are being built to include complex, conflicting, and diverse views
regarding the importance of nature. In this sense, ES practitioners in
Latin America can contribute to the global field of IVES, as well as to
other efforts that have followed a holistic valuation approach, such as
IPBES. Through the creation of the IVES research group, in which the
authors of this study participate, we can to continue to analyze the
influence of pluralistic valuation approaches in the region, as well as
their progress. We all share the notion that IVES is not only an alter-
native technical answer for providing better information for ecosystems
management, but it is also a normative science-policy process in which
practitioners share a set of values that favors transdisciplinary-episte-
mological justice, environmental justice, and equity. We encourage
other Latin American ES practitioners to engage in this community and
in the practice of IVES.
6. Conclusions
The high degree of social exclusion and inequity in Latin America
presents particular challenges to those working with ES assessments
and sustainability. In light of the environmental conflicts that are
common in this region, the application of IVES in ES valuations can
contribute to understanding local realities such as power relations and
the distribution of ES. Given the predominantly extractivist develop-
mental path in Latin America, we believe that the IVES approach may
offer a means to mediate socio-environmental conflict. But the greatest
challenge for IVES —or for democratic and pluralistic assessments and
decision-making in general— is becoming a mainstream working
strategy for governments. In order to move forward in the face of this
great challenge, we recommend integrating analytical frameworks such
as environmental justice, environmental conflicts, and human rights
into IVES so as to identify the conflicts and inequalities that exist in the
management of ecosystems and biodiversity in Latin America.
Furthermore, we believe it may be helpful to understand IVES in terms
of a science-policy process rather than a technical output, in which
practitioners who share a normative position facilitate and advocate for
the incorporation of multiple values of nature and the voices of less
powerful social groups.
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al. Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100901

Appendix A. Components, categories, and types of answers in the characterization of case studies that implemented Integrated valuation
of ecosystem services approaches.

Components Category Answer type

1. Purpose Valuation purpose Multiple choice:

Research context in which the valuation was made
• Environmental awareness and education
• Definition of conservation objectives or priorities (planning)
• ES risk assessments
• Project and policy evaluation
• Litigation/Mediation, conflict resolution
• Environmental accounting
• Quantification and mapping of ES
• Search for financing and investment resources
• Decision analysis among management alternatives or landscape uses (trade-offs
of ES)
• Policy design
• Compensation of environmental damages
• Undergraduate thesis, master’s thesis or doctoral thesis
• Research project with local actors

2. Valuation Scope Value dimensions included in the valuation process Multiple choice
• Ecological
• Economic
• Socio-cultural
Integration of the notion of intrinsic value • Yes, No
• IfYes,yes,Nohow it was addressed?
Use of other metaphors of human-nature relationships • If yes: Which ones? (e.g. Territory, Pachamama, Buen Vivir, Landscape)
•
3. Pluralistic valua- Knowledge integration approach Multiple choice
tion • Disciplinary
• Interdisciplinary
• Transdisciplinary
Disciplines addressed in the valuation processes • Open
others)
answer (e.g. ecology, economics, anthropology, psychology, sociology,

Biophysical valuation methods Multiple choice

• Biophysical modelling based on land use analysis
• Ecological models (structure and ecological functions modelling)
• Hydrological models
• State and transition models
• Integrated mapping and modelling approaches (e.g. INVEST)

Economic valuation methods

• Land use ranking
Multiple choice
• Market prices
• Cost-based approaches
• Revealed preference (hedonic prices, travel cost methods)
• State preference (contingent valuation, choice modelling)
• Benefit transfer

Socio-cultural valuation methods

• Other
Multiple choice
• Photo-series
• Deliberative valuation
• Narratives analysis
• Surveys of 'photo-elicitation'
• ES preference ranking
• Time use analysis (willingness to give up time)
• Participatory mapping
• Interviews
• Focus groups
Analysis of ES and value trade-offs • Yes, No
• If yes, which approach was used: correlations of values, narratives, spatial
analysis associated with land use changes; Others
Did the valuation include an analysis of power relationships • Yes; No
Presence of a socio-environmental conflict in the context of the case
study
• Yes; No

4. Integration and B- Values Integration • Yes; No

ridging • multicriteria
If yes, which approach was used: scenario analysis, cost-benefit analysis,
valuation, deliberative valuation, narrative analysis

5. Communication a- Results were reported to social actors • Yes, No

Yes, No
bout values Valuation processes facilitated dialogue between actors •
6. Participation level Multiple choice
of social actors • Consulted
• Informed
• Involved
• Empowered

10
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
7. Influence on deci- Policy or decision making recommendations were included
sion making
The valuation influenced decision making
What facilitated or hindered the impact on decision-making?
8. Challenges and w- From your experience, what are the main challenges of IVES and ways
ay forwards forward for its implementation in Latin America?
Appendix B. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100901.
References
Abson, D.J., von Wehrden, H., Baumgärtner, S., Fischer, J., Hanspach, J., Härdtle, W.,
Heinrichs, H., Klein, A.M., Lang, D.J., Martens, P., Walmsley, D., 2014. Ecosystem
services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 103, 29–37. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.012.
Acosta, A., 2013. El Buen Vivir: Sumak Kawsay, una oportunidad para imaginar otros
mundos. Icaria, Barcelona.
Agarwala, M., Atkinson, G., Fry, B., Homewood, K., Mourato, S., Rowcliffe, Jm, Wallace,
G., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2014. Assessing the relationship between human well-being
and ecosystem services: a review of frameworks. Conserv. Soc. 12 (4), 437. https://
doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.155592.
Aguado, M., González, J.A., Bellott, K., López-Santiago, C., Montes, C., 2018. Exploring
subjective well-being and ecosystem services perception along a rural–urban gradient
in the high Andes of Ecuador. Ecosyst. Serv. 34, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoser.2018.09.002.
Aldana-Domínguez, J., Montes, C., Martínez, M., Medina, N., Hahn, J., Duque, M., 2017.
Biodiversity and ecosystem services knowledge in the Colombian Caribbean. Tropical
Conserv. Sci. 10https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082917714229. 194008291771422.
Alvargonzález, D., 2011. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and
the sciences. Int. Stud. Philos. Sci. 25 (4), 387–403.
Apgar, J.M., Argumedo, A., Allen, W., 2009. Building transdisciplinarity for managing
complexity: lessons from indigenous practice. Int. J. Interdisciplinary Soc. Sci. 4 (5),
255–270.
Arias-Arévalo, P., Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., 2017. Exploring intrinsic, in-
strumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological
systems. Ecol. Soc. 22 (4), 43. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09812-220443.
Arias-Arévalo, P., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Pérez-Rincón, M., 2018.
Widening the evaluative space for ecosystem services: a taxonomy of plural values
and valuation methods. Environ. Values 27 (1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.3197/
096327118X15144698637513.
Batavia, C., Nelson, M.P., 2017. For goodness sake! What is intrinsic value and why
should we care? Biol. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.003.
Berbés-Blázquez, M., González, J.A., Pascual, U., 2016. Towards an ecosystem services
approach that addresses social power relations. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.02.003.
Bernstein, J.H., 2015. Transdisciplinarity: a review of its origins, development, and cur-
rent issues. J. Res. Practice 11 (1) Article R1. Retrieved from http://jrp.icaap.org/
index.php/jrp/article/view/510/412.
Borie, M., Hulme, M., 2015. Framing global biodiversity: IPBES between mother earth
and ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 487–496.
Braat, L.C., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Barton, D.N., García-Llorente, M.,
Kelemen, E., Saarikoski., H., 2014. Framework for integration of valuation methods
to assess ecosystem service policies. EU FP7 OpenNESS Project Deliverable 4.2,
European Commission FP7.
Brenner, L., 2010. Gobernanza ambiental, actores sociales y conflictos en las Áreas
Naturales Protegidas mexicanas. Revista mexicana de sociología 72 (2), 283–310.
CEPAL (Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe), 2017. Estudio Económico
de América latina y el Caribe: la dinámica del ciclo económico actual y los desafíos de
política para dinamizarla inversión y el crecimiento: 217. Available: https://www.
cepal.org/es/publicaciones/42001-estudio-economico-america-latina-caribe-2017-
la-dinamica-ciclo-economico-actual.
Chan, K.M.A., Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to better
address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2011.11.011.
Chan, K.M.A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E.,
Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., Luck, Gary W., Martín-López, B., Muraca,
B., Norton, B., Ott, K., Pascual, U., Satterfield, T., Tadaki, M., Taggart, J., Turner, N.,
2016. Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. 113 (6), 1462–1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113.
Chaudhary, S., McGregor, A., Houston, D., Chettri, N., 2018. Environmental justice and
ecosystem services: a disaggregated analysis of community access to forest benefits in
Nepal. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 99–115.
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I.,
Farber, S., Turner, R.K., 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services.
Global Environ. Change 26, 152–158.
Cruz-Garcia, G.S., Sachet, E., Blundo-Canto, G., Vanegas, M., Quintero, M., 2017. To what
extent have the links between ecosystem services and human well-being been
11
Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100901
• Yes, No
• What type of recommendations were made?
• Yes, No
• How did it influence decision-making?
Open answer
Open answer
researched in Africa, Asia, and Latin America? Ecosyst. Serv. 25, 201–212. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.04.005.
Daily, G.C., Matson, P.A., 2008. Ecosystem services: From theory to implementation.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105 (28), 9455–9456. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
0804960105.
Dawson, N.M., Grogan, K., Martin, A., Mertz, O., Pasgaard, M., Rasmussen, L.V., 2017.
Environmental justice research shows the importance of social feedbacks in eco-
system service trade-offs. Ecol. Soc. 22.
De La Cadena, M., 2010. Indigenous cosmopolitics in the andes: conceptual reflections
beyond “politics”. Cult. Anthropol. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.
01061.x.
Dendoncker, N., Turkelboom, F., Boeraeve, F., Boerema, A., Broekx, S., Fontaine, C.,
Demeyer, R., De Vreese, R., Devillet, G., Keune, H., Janssens, L., 2018. Integrating
Ecosystem Services values for sustainability? Evidence from the Belgium Ecosystem
Services community of practice. Ecosyst. Serv. 31, 68–76.
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R.T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R.,
Chan, K.M.A., Baste, I.A., Brauman, K.A., Polasky, S., Church, A., Lonsdale, M.,
Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P.W., Van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Van Der Plaat, F., Schröter,
M., Lavorel, S., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bukvareva, E., Davies, K., Demissew, S.,
Erpul, G., Failler, P., Guerra, C.A., Hewitt, C.L., Keune, H., Lindley, S., Shirayama, Y.,
2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people: recognizing culture, and diverse
sources of knowledge, can improve assessments. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.aap8826.
Dick, J., Andrews, C., Beaumont, D.A., Benham, S., Dodd, N., Pallett, D., Rose, R., Scott,
T., Smith, R., Schäfer, S.M., Turner, A., Watson, H., 2016. Analysis of temporal
change in delivery of ecosystem services over 20 years at long term monitoring sites
of the UK Environmental Change Network. Ecol. Ind. 68, 115–125. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.021.
Dunford, R., Harrison, P., Smith, A., Dick, J., Barton, D.N., Martin-Lopez, B., Kelemen, E.,
Jacobs, S., Saarikoski, H., Turkelboom, F., Verheyden, W., Hauck, J., Antunes, P.,
Aszalós, R., Badea, O., Baró, F., Berry, P., Carvalho, L., Conte, G., Czúcz, B., Garcia
Blanco, G., Howard, D., Giuca, R., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Grizetti, B., Izakovicova, Z.,
Kopperoinen, L., Langemeyer, J., Luque, S., Lapola, D.M., Martinez-Pastur, G.,
Mukhopadhyay, R., Roy, S.B., Niemelä, J., Norton, L., Ochieng, J., Odee, D., Palomo,
I., Pinho, P., Priess, J., Rusch, G., Saarela, S.R., Santos, R., van der Wal, J.T.,
Vadineanu, A., Vári, Á., Woods, H., Yli-Pelkonen, V., 2018. Integrating methods for
ecosystem service assessment: Experiences from real world situations. Ecosyst. Serv.
29, 499–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.014.
Enayati, J., 2002. The research: effective communication and decision-making in diverse
groups. In: Hemmati, M. (Ed.), Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and
Sustainability – Beyond Dead-lock and Conflict. Earthscan, London, pp. 73–95.
Ernstson, H., 2013. The social production of ecosystem services: a framework for studying
environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landscape
Urban Plann. 109, 7–17.
Escobar, A., 2018. Territorios de Diferencia: Lugar, Movimientos, Vida, Redes. Duke
University Press Envión Editores.
Felipe-Lucia, M.R., Martín-López, B., Lavorel, S., Berraquero-Díaz, L., Escalera-Reyes, J.,
Comín, F.A., 2015. Ecosystem services flows: why stakeholders’ power relationships
matter. PLoS ONE 10 (7), e0132232.
Garmendia, E., Pascual, U., 2013. A justice critique of environmental valuation for eco-
system governance. Justices Injustices Ecosyst. Serv. 161–186. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1468-2435.1975.tb00930.x.
Global Witness, 2015. En terreno peligroso.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for
urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86, 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.
08.019.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Barton, D., Braat, L., Saarikoski, H., Kelemen, E.,
García-Llorente, M., Bergh, J. van den, Arias, P., Berry, P., Potschin, M., Keene, H.,
Dunford, R., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Harrison, P., 2014. State-of-the-art report on in-
tegrated valuation of ecosystem services. EU FP7 OpenNESS Project Deliverable 4.1,
(July), 33.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., 2015. 11. Ecological economics perspectives on
ecosystem services valuation. Handb. Ecol. Econ. 260.
Greenhalgh, S., Samarasinghe, O., Curran-Cournane, F., Wright, W., Brown, P., 2017.
Using ecosystem services to underpin cost–benefit analysis: is it a way to protect
finite soil resources? Ecosyst. Serv. 27, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.
07.005.
Gudynas, E., 2011a. Alcances y contenidos de las transiciones al post-extractivismo.
Ecuador Debate 82, 61–79.
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
Gudynas, E., 2011b. Buen Vivir: today’s tomorrow. Development 54 (4), 441–447.
Harmáčková, Z., Vačkář, D., 2018. Future uncertainty in scenarios of ecosystem services
provision: linking differences among narratives and outcomes. Ecosyst. Services 33
(Part B).
Harrison, P.A., Dunford, R., Berry, P., Barton, D.N., Gómez-Baggethun, E., 2016. Concepts
and methods in ecosystem services valuation. In: Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem
Services. Routledge, pp. 127–139.
Himes, A., Muraca, B., 2018. Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of eco-
system services. Current opinion in Environmental Sustainability 35, 1–7.
Innes, J.E., Booher, D.E., 2004. Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st
century. Planning Theory & Practice 5 (4), 419–436.
Jacobs, S., Dendoncker, N., Martín-López, B., Barton, D.N., Gomez-Baggethun, E.,
Boeraeve, F., McGrath, F.L., Vierikko, K., Geneletti, D., Sevecke, K.J., Pipart, N.,
Primmer, E., Mederly, P., Schmidt, S., Aragão, A., Baral, H., Bark, R.H., Briceno, T.,
Brogna, D., Cabral, P., De Vreese, R., Liquete, C., Mueller, H., Peh, K.S.H., Phelan, A.,
Rincón, A.R., Rogers, S.H., Turkelboom, F., Van Reeth, W., van Zanten, B.T., Wam,
H.K., Washbourn, C.L., 2016. A new valuation school: integrating diverse values of
nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosyst. Serv. 22, 213–220. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.007.
Jacobs, S., Martín-López, B., Barton, D.N., Dunford, R., Harrison, P.A., Kelemen, E.,
Saarikoski, H., Termansen, M., García-Llorente, M., Gómez-Baggethun, E.,
Kopperoinen, L., Luque, S., Palomo, I., Priess, J.A., Rusch, G.M., Tenerelli, P.,
Turkelboom, F., Demeyer, R., Hauck, J., Keune, H., Smith, R., 2018. The means de-
termine the end – pursuing integrated valuation in practice. Ecosyst. Serv. 29,
515–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011.
Jax, K., Barton, D.N., Chan, K.M.A., de Groot, R., Doyle, U., Eser, U., Görg, C., Gómez-
Baggethun, E., Griewald, Y., Haber, W., Haines-Young, R., Heink, U., Jahn, T.,
Joosten, H., Kerschbaumer, L., Korn, H., Luck, G.W., Matzdorf, B., Muraca, B.,
Neßhöver, C., Norton, B., Ott, K., Potschin, M., Rauschmayer, F., von Haaren, C.,
Wichmann, S., 2013. Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecol. Econ. 93, 260–268. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.06.008.
Kenter, J.O., Bryce, R., Christie, M., Cooper, N., Hockley, N., Irvine, K.N., Fazey, I.,
O'Brien, L., Orchard-Webb, J., Ravenscroft, N., Raymond, C.M., Reed, M.S., Tett, P.,
Watson, V., 2016. Shared values and deliberative valuation: future directions.
Ecosyst. Serv. 21, 358–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.006.
Klain, S.C., Satterfield, T.A., Chan, K.M.A., 2014. What matters and why? Ecosystem
services and their bundled qualities. Ecol. Econ. 107, 310–320.
Kovács, E., Kelemen, E., Kalóczkai, Á., Margóczi, K., Pataki, G., et al., 2015.
Understanding the links between ecosystem service trade-offs and conflicts in pro-
tected areas. Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 117–127.
Lang, D.J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M.,
Thomas, C.J., 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice,
principles, and challenges. Sustain. Sci. 7 (Suppl. 1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11625-011-0149-x.
Langemeyer, J., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Haase, D., Scheuer, S., Elmqvist, T., 2016.
Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning
through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Environ. Sci. Policy 62, 45–56.
Marshall, F., Dolley, J., Priya, R., 2018. Transdisciplinary research as transformative
space making for sustainability: enhancing propoor transformative agency in peri-
urban contexts. Ecol. Soc. 23 (3), 8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10249-230308.
Martinez-Alier, J., 2002. The environmentalism of the poor: a study of ecological conflicts
and value. In: The Environmentalism of the Poorpp. 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781107415324.004.
Martinez-Alier, J., Demaria, F., Walter, M., 2016. Changing social metabolism and en-
vironmental conflicts in India and South America. J. Political Ecol. 23 (May 2017),
467–491.
Martinez-Harms, M.J., Bryan, B.A., Balvanera, P., Law, E.A., Rhodes, J.R., Possingham,
H.P., Wilson, K.A., 2015. Making decisions for managing ecosystem services. Biol.
Conserv. 184, 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.024.
McDonough, K., Hutchinson, S., Moore, T., Hutchinson, J.M.S., 2017. Analysis of pub-
lication trends in ecosystem services research. Ecosyst. Serv. 25, 82–88. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.022.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.
Ecosystems (Vol. 5). doi: 10.1196/annals.1439.003.
Mistry, J., Berardi, A., 2016. Bridging indigenous and scientific knowledge. Science 352
(6291), 1274–1275. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf1160.
O'Connor, S., Kenter, J., 2018. Making intrinsic values work; a communicative approach
to integrating intrinsic values of non-human nature with ecosystem services.
Oxfam, 2016. Desterrados: tierra, poder y desigualdad en América latina: 99. Available:
https://d1tn3vj7xz9fdh.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/file_attachments/desterrados-
full-es-29nov-web_0.pdf.
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R.T., Başak
Dessane, E., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S.M., Wittmer,
H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S., Al-Hafedh, Y.S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S.T., Berry, P., Bilgin, A.,
Breslow, S.J., Bullock, C., Cáceres, D., Daly-Hassen, H., Figueroa, E., Golden, C.D.,
Gómez-Baggethun, E., González-Jiménez, D., Houdet, J., Keune, H., Kumar, R., Ma,
K., May, P.H., Mead, A., O’Farrell, P., Pandit, R., Pengue, W., Pichis-Madruga, R.,
Popa, F., Preston, S., Pacheco-Balanza, D., Saarikoski, H., Strassburg, B.B., van den
Belt, M., Verma, M., Wickson, F., Yagi, N., 2017. Valuing nature’s contributions to
people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 26–27, 7–16. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006.
12
Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100901
Pérez-Rincón, M., Vargas-Morales, J., Martinez-Alier, J., 2019. Mapping and analyzing
ecological distribution conflicts in Andean Countries. Ecol. Econ. 157.
Peterson, N.D., 2010. Choices, options, and constraints: decision making and decision
spaces in natural resource management. Human Organization 54–64.
Peterson, N.D., 2014. Breaking the bounds of rationality: values, relationships, and de-
cision-making in Mexican fishing communities. Conserv. Soc. 12 (3), 245–256.
Plaz, I., Vessuri, H., 2007. Espacios para el aprendizaje intercultural y transdisciplinario
en una sociedad en transformación. Polis. Revista Latinoamericana, (16). https://
journals.openedition.org/polis/4651.
Raftopoulos, M., 2017. Contemporary debates on social-environmental conflicts, extra-
ctivism and human rights in Latin America. Int. J. Human Rights 21, 387–404.
Raymond, C.M., Singh, G.G., Benessaiah, K., Bernhardt, J.R., Levine, J., et al., 2013.
Ecosystem services and beyond: using multiple metaphors to understand human-
environment relationships. Bioscience 63, 536–546.
Rincón-Ruiz, A., Echeverry-Duque, M., Piñeros, A.M., Tapia, C.H., David, A., Arias-
Arévalo, P., Zuluaga, P.A., 2015. Integrated valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem
services: conceptual and methodological aspects. Instituto de Investigación de
Recursos Biologicos Alexander von Humboldt, Bogotá-Colombia.
Rincón-Ruiz, A., Lara, D., Tique L., 2017. Análisis de escenarios: Instrumento para la
gestión territorial en contextos de conflictos socioambientales. En: Andrade et al. (Ed.
), Biodiversidad 2016. Estado y tendencias de la biodiversidad continental en
Colombia. Instituto Alexander von Humboldt. Bogotá D.C., Colombia.
Rincón-Ruiz, A., Lara D., Castro L., Rojas C., 2016. Conflictos socioambientales y servicios
ecosistémicos en la cuenca del río Orotoy: Reflexiones para su gestión. Revista
Ambiente y Sostenibilidad. Universidad del Valle.
Rincón-Ruiz, A., 2017. ¿Cómo incluir los valores de la biodiversidad y los servicios
ecosistémicos en el análisis de un conflicto ambiental? – Capitulo 4. Publicado en:
Castro, L.G (Ed.), 2017. Preguntas y respuestas sobre conflictos ambientales:
Aprendizajes del río Orotoy. Instituto Alexander von Humboldt. Unillanos. IDRC.
RosenFeld, P., 1992. The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and ex-
tending linkages between the health and social sciences. Soc. Sci. Med. 35,
1343–1357.
Saarikoski, H., Mustajoki, J., Barton, D., Geneletti, D., Langemeyer, J., Gomez-Baggethun,
E., Marttunen, M., Antunes, P., Keune, H., Santos, R., 2016. Multi-criteria decision
analysis and cost-benefit analysis: comparing alternative frameworks for integrated
valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 22 (Part B).
Sandifer, P.A., Sutton-Grier, A.E., Ward, B.P., 2015. Exploring connections among nature,
biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: opportunities to
enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 1–15.
Sangha, K.K., Le Brocque, A., Costanza, R., Cadet-James, Y., 2015. Application of cap-
ability approach to assess the role of ecosystem services in the well-being of
Indigenous Australians. Global Ecol. Conserv. 4, 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gecco.2015.09.001.
Scholz, R.W., Kiaschenko, L.-P., Bazhanov, V.A., 2015. Introduction. Transdisciplinarity:
a roadmap. In: Bazhanov, V., Scholz, R.W. (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity in Philosophy
and Science: Approaches, Problems, Prospects. “Navigator” Publishing House,
Moscow, pp. 564.
Summers, J.K., Smith, L.M., Case, J.L., Linthurst, R.A., 2012. A review of the elements of
human well-being with an emphasis on the contribution of ecosystem services. Ambio
41 (4), 327–340.
Svampa, M., 2012. Resource extractivism and alternatives: Latin American perspectives
on development. J. Für Entwicklungspolitik 28 (3), 43–73. https://doi.org/10.
20446/JEP-2414-3197-28-3-43.
Tauro, A., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Garcia-Frapolli, E., Lazos Chavero, E., Balvanera, P.,
2018. Unraveling heterogeneity in the importance of ecosystem services: individual
views of smallholders. Ecol. Soc in press.
Tengö, M., Johansson, K., Rakotondrasoa, F., Lundberg, J., Andriamaherilala, J.-A.,
RakotoarisoaJ, -A., Elmqvist, T., 2007. Taboos and forest governance: informal pro-
tection of hot spot dry forest in Southern Madagascar. Ambio 36 (8), 683–691 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[683:TAFGIP]2.0.CO;2.
Toledo, V., Barrera-Bassols, N., 2008. La memoria biocultural: la importancia ecológica
de las sabidurías tradicionales. Icaria.
Turner, S., 2015. The interface between human rights and ecosystem services.
International Hydrology Series In: Martin-Ortega, J., Ferrier, R., Gordon, I., Khan, S.
(Eds.), Water Ecosystem Services: A Global Perspective. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316178904.020.
UNEP-WCMC, 2016. The State of Biodiversity in Latin America and the Caribbean: A mid-
term review of progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. UNEP-WCMC,
Cambridge, UK.
Vessuri, H., Sánchez-Rose, I., Hernández-Valencia, I., Hernández, L., Bravo, L. Rodríguez,
I., 2014. Desigualdades de conocimiento y estrategias para reducir las asimetrías. El
trabajo de campo compartido y la negociación transdisciplinaria. desiguALdades.net
Working Paper Series 62, Berlin: desiguALdades.net International Research Network
on Interdependent Inequalities in Latin America. http://www.desigualdades.net/
Resources/Working_Paper/62-WP-Vessuri-et-al-Online.pdf.
Vucetich, J.A., Bruskotter, J.T., Nelson, M.P., 2015. Evaluating whether nature’s intrinsic
value is an axiom of or anathema to conservation. Conserv. Biol. https://doi.org/10.
1111/cobi.12464.
Walz, A., Lardelli, C., Behrendt, H., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lundström, C., Kytzia, S., Bebi, P.,
2007. Participatory scenario analysis for integrated regional modelling. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 81, 114–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.11.001.