Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26201000›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Ecosystem Services Flows: Why Stakeholders' Power Relationships Matter.

María R Felipe-Lucia, Berta Martín-López, Sandra Lavorel, Luis Berraquero-Díaz, Javier Escalera-Reyes, Francisco A Comín

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Conservation and environmental management reimagined: Toward anti-oppressive futures.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The scope of empowerment for conservation and communities.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Co-producing ecosystem services for adapting to climate change.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

María R Felipe-LuciaInstituto Pirenaico de Ecología-CSIC, Av. Nuestra Señora de la Victoria, s/n, 22700 Jaca, Huesca, Spain.
Berta Martín-LópezSocial-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Edificio de Biología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, C/ Darwin 2, 28049, Madrid, Spain; Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, United Kingdom.
Sandra LavorelLaboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, CNRS, Université Grenoble Alpes, BP 53, 38041, Grenoble Cedex 9, France.
Luis Berraquero-DíazSocial and Participatory Action Research Group (GISAP), Department of Social Anthropology, Basic Psychology, and Public Health, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Carretera Utrera, km. 1, 41013, Sevilla, Spain.
Javier Escalera-ReyesSocial and Participatory Action Research Group (GISAP), Department of Social Anthropology, Basic Psychology, and Public Health, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Carretera Utrera, km. 1, 41013, Sevilla, Spain.
Francisco A ComínInstituto Pirenaico de Ecología-CSIC, Av. Montañana 1005, 50192, Zaragoza, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemHumansModels, TheoreticalRiversSpain

Identifiers

PMID26201000
PMCPMC4511803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.