ArticlePloS one2015
Ecosystem Services Flows: Why Stakeholders' Power Relationships Matter.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conservation and environmental management reimagined: Toward anti-oppressive futures.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Article
- Reconciling ecosystem service supply-demand mismatches through ecological compensation in the Tibetan plateau.Carbon balance and management · 2025Article
- Integrated Water Resource Management under Ecosystem Services Approach-The Chimulala Micro-watershed, Peru.Environmental management · 2025Article
- The scope of empowerment for conservation and communities.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Review
- Article
- Perceptions of ecosystem services: Comparing socio-cultural and environmental influences.PloS one · 2022Article
- Deconstructing Ecosystem Service Conflicts through the Prisms of Political Ecology and Game Theory in a North-Western Mediterranean River Basin.Human ecology: an interdisciplinary journal · 2022Article
- Research on Mediating Mechanisms and the Impact on Food Provision Services in Poor Areas from the Perspective of Stakeholders.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Beyond 'trees are good': Disservices, management costs, and tradeoffs in urban forestry.Ambio · 2021Article
- Adaptive Capacity of Households to Degradation of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study in the Colombian Andes.Environmental management · 2020Article
- A conceptual framework to untangle the concept of urban ecosystem services.Landscape and urban planning · 2020Review
- Co-producing ecosystem services for adapting to climate change.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020Article
- Influence of Agropastoral System Components on Mountain Grassland Vulnerability Estimated by Connectivity Loss.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ecosystem services framework has enabled the broader public to acknowledge the benefits nature provides to different stakeholders. However, not all stakeholders benefit equally from these services. Rather, power relationships are a key factor influencing the access of individuals or groups to ecosystem services. In this paper, we propose an adaptation of the "cascade" framework for ecosystem services to integrate the analysis of ecological interactions among ecosystem services and stakeholders' interactions, reflecting power relationships that mediate ecosystem services flows. We illustrate its application using the floodplain of the River Piedra (Spain) as a case study. First, we used structural equation modelling (SEM) to model the dependence relationships among ecosystem services. Second, we performed semi-structured interviews to identify formal power relationships among stakeholders. Third, we depicted ecosystem services according to stakeholders' ability to use, manage or impair ecosystem services in order to expose how power relationships mediate access to ecosystem services. Our results revealed that the strongest power was held by those stakeholders who managed (although did not use) those keystone ecosystem properties and services that determine the provision of other services (i.e., intermediate regulating and final services). In contrast, non-empowered stakeholders were only able to access the remaining non-excludable and non-rival ecosystem services (i.e., some of the cultural services, freshwater supply, water quality, and biological control). In addition, land stewardship, access rights, and governance appeared as critical factors determining the status of ecosystem services. Finally, we stress the need to analyse the role of stakeholders and their relationships to foster equal access to ecosystem services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.