Copyright © 2019 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. Solé, L., and E. Ariza. 2019. A wider view of assessments of ecosystem services in coastal areas: the perspective of social-ecological complexity. Ecology and Society 24(2):24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10883-240224 Synthesis A wider view of assessments of ecosystem services in coastal areas: the perspective of social-ecological complexity Liliana Solé 1 and Eduard Ariza 1 ABSTRACT. Through complex interactions and feedback processes between coastal ecological and social components at different temporal and spatial scales, coastal environments coproduce a range of ecosystem services (ES) and benefit different social groups. In these highly populated areas, multiple actors, interests, and activities coexist, leading to intensified conflicts between stakeholders. The research presented here aims to understand how coastal social-ecological complexity is studied within coastal ES literature. A systematic review of the literature consisting of 199 manuscripts was performed using the PRISMA method (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). The results show that coastal ES research has been focused on understanding ecological processes for ES provision and value. Hence, coastal ES studies fall short of considering the social components and social-ecological interactions of coastal systems: ES flows, demand, coproduction, power relations, institutions and governance, temporal and spatial scales, value pluralism, uncertainty, and human well-being multidimensions and distribution. The partial integration of social-ecological complexity within coastal ES research limits coastal ES management because nonlinear interactions among social and ecological components are not well understood, particularly stakeholders’ relations, their roles, and the links to ES. Finally, we propose a conceptual framework that integrates the gaps identified during the review. The framework places coproduction and power relations as the core factors of assessments of coastal ES, as means to understand complex, nonlinear social-ecological interactions and feedback processes. Hence, it also provides necessary tools to address normative issues of coastal management such as control, access, trade-offs, and benefits. Key Words: coastal ecosystem services; coastal social-ecological complexity; coproduction; human well-being; power; systematic literature review INTRODUCTION things, in this paper called value (Potschin and Haines-young In the last decade, several ecosystem services (ES) frameworks 2016), and “the total amount of service needed or desired by have been developed aiming to comprehend social-ecological society,” in this paper called demand (Villamagna et al. 2013:116). system (SES) complexity such as the following: (1) the Millennium The cyclical part of ES frameworks generally includes natural or Ecosystem Assessment (MEA; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment human-induced drivers, such as decision making and 2005), which focuses on the links between ecosystem change and management, which in turn affect ecosystems and their flow (Van human well-being; (2) The cascade model (Haines-Young and Oudenhoven et al. 2012). Potschin 2009), which represents a “production line” from ES frameworks acknowledge that humans are part of the biophysical structures and processes to components of human environment and their role in ES is increasingly recognized well-being through a series of intermediate stages; (3) The (Burkhard et al. 2014, Jones et al. 2016). However, the social Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB; de Groot et dimension, stakeholders’ relations, and their roles, are still not al. 2010), which pays particular attention to the economic benefits sufficiently understood (Geijzendorffer et al. 2015). In this vein, of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and the costs linked with the role of humans as coproducers at different stages in the process their damage (Baral et al. 2016); (4) The Intergovernmental of ecosystem service delivery is still uncertain (Jones et al. 2016). Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (Díaz et al. 2015), which aims to bridge the science-policy gap by seeking Improvement is needed to understand ES coproduction processes to support decision making on how to stop the further (Palomo et al. 2016), i.e., identifying and analyzing the natural degradation of ecosystems (Baral et al. 2016); and (5) The ES and non-natural components and their interactions such as capacity and flow models (Villamagna et al. 2013, Burkhard et knowledge, infrastructures, technology, institution arrangements, al. 2014), which look to spatial distribution and assessment of governance systems, and social representations. Hence, grasping capacity, flow, and demand as means to inform policy making on the processes that make up a service, which are also embedded in potential ES mismatches (Geijzendorffer et al. 2015). past social and cultural legacies (Church et al. 2011, Outeiro et al. 2017). Sustainable environmental management needs to ES frameworks are set within a linear-cyclical approach, i.e., the embrace the complexity of ES coproduction processes, to flow from ecosystems to human benefits (Jones et al. 2016). This acknowledge when and how non-natural components assist or linear flow is composed of different parts; “the potential of an even substitute natural components (Palomo et al. 2016). ecosystem to deliver an ecosystem service,” in this paper called Furthermore, from an environmental-justice perspective, because capacity (Villamagna et al. 2013:116), “ecosystem services in certain human inputs and processes are demanded to coproduce point of fact received by people,” in this paper called flow ecosystem services, questions arise regarding the equal (Villamagna et al. 2013:116), contributions to aspects of human distribution and access of these inputs and related ecosystem well-being, in this paper called benefit (Potschin and Haines- services (Fischer and Eastwood 2016). young 2016), the criteria used by people to assign importance to 1 Department of Geography, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Ecology and Society 24(2): 24 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss2/art24/ Importantly, a fundamental aspect of the coproduction of Hence, humans will be, do, have and interact to achieve needs that ecosystem services is power (Felipe-Lucía et al. 2015). Power is they value (McGregor 2010). Remarkably, individuals are beings embedded within institutional arrangements and governance of multiple and interconnected needs that work as a system. systems, i.e., all formal and informal social organization systems Therefore, HWB not only depends on the satisfaction of and processes (Díaz et al. 2015). The interactions and feedbacks subsistence needs, but also on multiple interrelated dimensions of between biophysical processes and power relations embedded well-being: the objective, subjective, and relational dimensions of within institutional and governance systems (alongside knowledge, well-being. infrastructures, technology, and social representations) shape the All the above-mentioned aspects of social-ecological system (SES) coproduction process of ecosystems services. Power relations shape complexity are embedded with uncertainty, which is an essential not only the coproduction of ES, but which actors or groups benefit characteristic of social-ecological systems (Hou et al. 2013). Hence, from those ES (Ernstson 2013). For example, the creation of because of their high complexity, ES carry remarkable levels of terrestrial protected areas has, in some cases, excluded local uncertainty and generalization (Scolozzi et al. 2012), which comes communities and traditional uses in favor of recreation or from different sources (Grêt-Regamey et al. 2013, Hou et al. 2013). ecotourism (Berbés-Blázquez et al. 2016). Such management These sources include the complexity of natural and social systems decisions and linked trade-offs respond to certain institutional (inherent variability of ecological and social processes that arrangements and governance processes shaped by power, which underpin the services function), the complexity of social-ecological define ES access and benefit distribution, i.e., winners and losers. interactions (variability of social-ecological interactions that Thus, trade-offs between different ES also lead to trade-offs support ES provision), the complexity of values and HWB between the well-being of different social groups (Daw et al. 2011). conceptions (multiple understanding of what to value and HWB), Human well-being (HWB) is as a “positive physical, social and the imperfection or limitation of knowledge (how much we know mental state” (Summers et al. 2012:328). It is the outcome of social and understand), the deficiency of valuations and assessment processes, and varies with space and time (Jax and Heink 2016). methods (every method transfers a certain degree of uncertainty Actors might have different access to ES benefits and hence to to the results; Hou et al. 2013), and technical uncertainty (intrinsic HWB, or they might hold different conceptions of benefits to HWB probability of error in the results). (Butler and Oluoch-Kosura 2006, ESPA 2018). Local fishing communities may consider symbolic spaces to be part of the ES in coastal areas benefits for HWB, while other larger fishing companies may not Coastal zones are highly complex social-ecological systems consider these symbolic spaces to be relevant for HWB. resulting from the land and sea interface (Turner and Schaafsma Furthermore, well-being benefits might vary depending on spatial 2015). This interface is characterized by interactions, synergies, and temporal scales. On a global scale, marine protected areas and trade-offs between marine and terrestrial systems, e.g., the use produce benefits to humanity (enhance biodiversity), but at smaller of fertilizers in agriculture increases productivity, but means there temporal and spatial scales these can have little benefit or be costly is a nutrient surplus flowing to the sea, producing eutrophication for local communities, or they might need more time to be enjoyed (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Turner and Schaafsma by local communities (Daw et al. 2016). In fact, social-ecological 2015). The outcomes of these interactions are the products of a systems are characterized by multiscale and cross-scale vast number of important, even unique, ecosystem services that interactions and feedbacks, and hence, ecosystem services and directly or indirectly underpin human activities (Zaucha et al. associated benefits can be coproduced, used, and valued, all at 2016) different spatial and temporal scales (Scholes et al. 2013). Hence, Much of the world’s social, cultural, and economic development HWB is multidimensional, dynamic across time and space and is concentrated within coastal zones. Consequently, they contain context-dependent (Narayan et al. 2000, Pereira et al. 2005, Adams multiple and overlapping actors, activities, interests, values, and et al. 2016). Consequently, ES assessments cannot aggregate well- human well-being conceptions (Bremer 2011) which lead to being, i.e., considering humanity as a homogeneous group. ES conflict between stakeholder groups (Sas et al. 2010, Portman assessments need to develop a disaggregate analysis (Daw et al. 2013). These, in turn, are all articulated through institutions and 2011). They ought to account for multidimensional aspects of well- governance processes. Therefore, multiple governance tools and being among different social groups integrating intrinsic, institutions aim to administer over the same space, but these are instrumental, and relational aspects (Díaz et al. 2015) and assessing horizontally (sectorial division) or vertically fragmented different value dimensions (monetary, ecological, and socio- (subnational, national, regional, and local divisions; Powell et al. cultural; Jacobs et al. 2016, 2018). Disaggregate approaches must 2009, Sardà et al. 2014). In addition, the above-mentioned also include distributional spatial patterns and scale-context fragmentations do not usually correspond to the spatial and dependencies. temporal scales of coastal-system components and processes. HWB is maintained through the accomplishment of fundamental The complexity of coastal social-ecological systems also generates human needs (Max-Neef et al. 1998). These needs are constant vast uncertainty, which is intensified by the lack of or limited across time and space, but the means of accomplishing them vary knowledge of coastal and marine areas (Liquete et al. 2013, Zaucha depending on socio-cultural contexts (McGregor 2010). Therefore, et al. 2016), and which affects our understanding of current and this perspective embraces well-being dynamism, and context and future marine and terrestrial interactions, synergies, and trade-offs. scale dependency. Max-Neef's universal needs are divided into two Consequently, there are still important knowledge limitations categories: existential (four needs) and axiological (nine needs). regarding climate-change effects, decision making, and Existential needs refer to experiences, i.e., needs to be, do, have and management. interact, while axiological needs relate to values that humans hold. Ecology and Society 24(2): 24 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss2/art24/ Coastal ES research informs and enables coastal management. The omission of SES complexity diminishes management debates Fig. 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and interventions because nonlinear interactions and feedbacks Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow among social and ecological components are partially understood, especially stakeholders’ relations, their roles, and the links to ES. In this context, coastal ES assessment poses the particular need to take SES complexity into consideration. Through a systematic literature review, we study how coastal SES complexity is taken into account within coastal ES literature by (1) analyzing coastal SES complexity factors within coastal ES literature: integration of ecological and social components, ES coproduction, institutions and governance, power relations, uncertainty, spatial scales, value pluralism, and HWB links; (2) identifying gaps regarding social-ecological complexity within coastal ES literature; and (3) proposing a framework for coastal ES social-ecological complexity for future research by highlighting societal aspects as central components of the ES framework. METHODS This systematic literature review follows the PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses; Moher et al. 2009) to enhance robustness. The PRISMA statement provides a flow diagram and a checklist that are both used as a guide for the review process. Literature search To identify relevant literature, a bibliographic search of the Scopus database was conducted. Only papers explicitly using the concept of ecosystem services have been considered. The Data collection and analysis bibliographical search[1] was limited to any peer-reviewed The data in the systematic review included thirty variables and publication published from 1998 to December 2017 with the their corresponding response categories (Table 1) to assess the following terms in the title, keywords, or abstract, “ecosystem social-ecological complexity of coastal ES. One of the variables service“ or “environmental service,” and “coastal” or “littoral,” analyzed is HWB. To that aim we use the Max-Neef matrix (Max- and coastal habitats in all fields, including singular and plural Neef et al. 1998) because it provides the necessary tools to analyze forms of all key words. Coastal habitats were defined based on well-being as multidimensional, dynamic, and context and scale Liquete et al. (2013) European nature information system dependent. It is composed of nine axiological human needs, (EUNIS), and The Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification namely, subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, Standard (CMECS) classifications. A total of 373 papers were participation, leisure, creation, identity, and freedom, and four found, 366 after removing duplicates (Fig. 1). existential categories of human needs, namely, being (qualities), having (things), doing (actions), and interacting (settings). Using Selection criteria the above-mentioned categories, Max-Neef created a 36-cell The selection criteria defined for this review were the following: matrix. Each of these cells is completed with satisfiers, processes (1) evaluate/conceptualize/map/quantify/value coastal ecosystems; by which people can achieve axiological and existential needs. The (2) publications in refereed journals; (3) publications written in data collected was analyzed using descriptive statistics. A table English; and (4) papers on locations in a specific coastal area, was made to summarize the results (see Table A1.1 in Appendix 1). between 1 kilometer from the upper boundary of the coastline and the outer limit of territorial waters (12 nautical miles). This RESULTS boundary corresponds to the space generally included in many Since 2006, there has been an exponential increase in assessments regulatory coastal frameworks (Ariza et al. 2016). Taking these of coastal ES, which have mainly focused on provision and criteria into account and following the PRISMA statement, titles regulating services (Liquete et al. 2013). Furthermore, and abstracts of 366 publications were reviewed, resulting in the assessments of coastal ES have targeted ecological and economic rejection of 117 because they were not related to coastal ecosystem aspects, commonly through quantitative analysis. Our results services. The next full text screening was performed, discarding show that even though these features of ES assessments are still 50 publications because they use the term ecosystem service as valid, there are some changing trends: an increasing interest in justification or introduction (for example, in the first sentences of cultural services, mainly in recreation services, whereas symbolic the abstract or introduction, to contextualize or justify and aesthetic values and cognitive effects are often omitted or environmental research) without addressing the issue. ES has relegated to the background. The literature review also reveals a become a modish concept and is often cited as a reason for the growing interest in the social aspects of ES, such as the human research or as a fashionable keyword, but without being impact on ES conditions and rising qualitative and mixed analyses particularly applied or assessed (Liquete et al. 2013). The total (combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies), final number of articles was 199. Ecology and Society 24(2): 24 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss2/art24/ Table 1. Data variables and categories for data collection. Definition Variables Categories General Paper’s descriptive and contextual information Year E.g., 1999; 2003 information Author E.g., Barbier; Costanza Institution of first author E.g., Cardiff University; University of Wyoming Country of first author’s E.g., USA; Denmark institution Location of the study E.g., France; USA Costal ecosystem services (ES) E.g., provisioning; regulation and maintenance; cultural Coastal ES category Classification by Liquete et al., (2013) that integrates and harmonizes most common classifications, and provides a cross-reference table. E.g., food provision; climate regulation; recreation. Type of habitat E.g., dune; beach; mangroves; seagrass Type of study area E.g., coastal; marine; terrestrial Ecological and Links between ecological and social components of Does the article assess the Capacity as the potential of an ecosystem to deliver an social systems SES cascade model components? ecosystem service (Villamagna et al. 2013). Flow as service in point of fact received by people (service delivered; Villamagna et al. 2013). Benefit as contributions to aspects of human well-being (Potschin and Haines-Young 2016). Value as the criteria used by people to assign importance to things (Potschin and Haines-Young 2016). Does the article explicitly assess Demand as the total amount of service needed or desired demand? by society (Villamagna et al. 2013). Does the article assess the Assessment of (un)sustainable uptake or (un)satisfied differences between capacity, demand of ES (Villamagna et al. 2013, Baró et al. 2016). flow, and demand? Coproduction Contributions of natural and non-natural inputs to Historical analysis Yes; No the provision of ES. These contributions take place in the present and throughout time (heritages of past and present societies; Church et al. 2014, Outeiro et al. 2017) Time frame Long term (+1 year). Medium term (-1 year). Short term (1 month or less) Does the paper study drivers of E.g., land use change; urbanization; eutrophication; change affecting coastal ES overfishing Does the paper link coastal ES Yes; No to legislative frameworks, institutions, knowledge, technology, and values? Institutional All structures and process of social organization. Identification of actors involved Yes; No arrangements and Institutions include all formal and informal human governance systems relations and structures that define human behaviors. Governance systems are interacting bundles of institutions at different spatial scales (from local to regional; Díaz et al. 2015). Does the article identify and Yes; No analyze institutional arrangements (formal and informal)? Does the article identify and Yes; No analyze institutional governance systems? Does the article study links E.g., property rights of specific areas; traditional between institutions or agreements between local communities to access certain governance structures and ES or areas. coastal ES in terms of supply, delivery, use, and access? Does the article identify and Informal agreements between coastal local communities analyze conflicts between vs. national regulations limiting fishing activities informal and formal institutional arrangements? Power relations Unequal power relations support the production, Identification of actors involved E.g., fishermen, tourists, inhabitants distribution, and access of ES (Berbés-Blázquez et al. 2016), i.e., which actors have access to ES and how do they benefit from them, what interests are prioritized or excluded, what values are at stake, and also how value preferences are defined. (con'd) Ecology and Society 24(2): 24 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss2/art24/ Does the article analyze the Yes; No power relations between the actors? Identification of conflicts and E.g., negative impacts of energy production on aesthetics; trade-offs within coastal ES negative impacts of aquaculture on coastal protection Does the article analyze the Yes; No prioritization of values and interests? Does the article analyze actors’ E.g., large fishing companies vs. small fishing companies; access to the benefits of coastal private access vs. public access, social groups that benefit ES? from coastal protection vs. social groups that deal with negative effects Temporal and ES are produced, supplied, used, managed, and Spatial scale Local as social or ecological community. Regional as part spatial scales valued at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. of a country with similar social or ecological features. Need for multiscale and cross-scale analyses; National as national borders. Supra-regional as part of the Multiscale conducts the assessment at two or more world with similar social or ecological features. separate scales. Cross-scale analysis conducts a Supranational as more than one country. Global as world. multiscale assessment studying cross-scale interactions. Time frame Long term (+1 year). Medium term (-1 year). Short term (1 month or less) Are multiscale analyses Yes; No performed? Are cross-scale analyses Yes; No performed? Value pluralism Value pluralism aim for an inclusive approach to Types of valuation Monetary, environmental, and sociocultural values represent the diversity of the values held by classification, based on Gómez-Baggethun et al. (2014). different stakeholders, throughout diverse Monetary as assessments using money as a measurement valuation approaches and methods (Martín-López unit. Environmental as assessment of ecological function, et al. 2014, Díaz et al. 2015, Jacobs et al. 2016) processes, and components for ES, also assessment of inherent value of biodiversity and ecosystems. Sociocultural as nonmonetary methods to assess spiritual enrichment, cognitive effects, recreation, aesthetic experience, and people’s preferences regarding ecosystem service. Methodology for coastal ES E.g., hedonic pricing, indicators, travel cost method valuation Uncertainty Uncertainty “as any departure from the Does the paper assess Yes; No unachievable ideal of complete determinism” uncertainty? (Walker et al. 2003:8). Funtowicz and Ravetz (1990) state that uncertainty is driven from inadequate information for three different reasons: inexactness, unreliability, and border with ignorance (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1990). Nevertheless, new knowledge might either reduce or raise uncertainty, as in complex processes it can expose unknown or hidden uncertainties (Walker et al. 2003, Walker and Haasnoot 2011). Types of uncertainty Technical as state of affairs in which possible outcomes are known and the probabilities associated to such results can be calculated (Kovacic 2015). Methodological as imperfection of valuation methods used for coastal ES assessments. Epistemological as imperfection of our knowledge (Walker et al. 2003). Ontological as the inherent variability and complexity of social-ecological systems (Walker et al. 2003). Human well-being HWB is sustained by the accomplishment of Which needs and satisfiers of Max-Neef et al. (1998) matrix of human needs. Nine (HWB) fundamental human needs (Max-Neef et al. 1998). human well-being are axiological human needs, subsistence, protection, considered? affection, understanding, participation, idleness, creation, identity and freedom, and four existential categories of human needs, being (qualities), having (things), doing (actions), and interacting (settings). including participatory approaches and upward efforts for ES and interactions of non-natural components and the links mapping. between ES and HWB. The above-mentioned changes open coastal ES research up to Integration of social and ecological components multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research, embracing The analysis of the cascade-model categories for the articles manifold scientific disciplines, particularly social sciences, and reviewed demonstrates that, generally, assessments of coastal ES new methodologies. These have been fundamental changes in the focus their attention on capacity and value, while flow and benefit study of the social-ecological complexity of coastal ES. However, received less attention. Consequently, value and capacity are the the results prove that, largely, coastal ES research has yet to most common aspects of provisioning services; this is the case of capture coastal social-ecological complexity, especially the role food provision (fishing and increasingly also aquaculture) or Ecology and Society 24(2): 24 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss2/art24/ biotic materials (mangrove wood). In the case of regulating and aimed to integrate coproduction by studying the relationships maintenance services, the articles target the capacity assessment between human impacts (overfishing, nutrient inputs, global and values of, especially, water purification, climate regulation, warming) on coastal ES, such as articles applying the DPSIR life cycle maintenance, and coastal protection. Within cultural (drivers, pressures, state, impact, and response) framework. These services, the value part of the cascade model is the focal point, papers partly integrate the complexity of coproduction, as they most commonly for recreational services. Other cultural services, reduce social-ecological complexity to linear causal relations such as cognitive effects, aesthetic values, and symbolic services (Gari et al. 2015). Fourth, fundamental aspects of coproduction are also addressed through the value category. Therefore, in this such as the role of institutions and governance systems, review, the main gaps identified regarding ES cascade model knowledge, technology, socio-historical legacies, man-made components are capacity for provisioning and cultural services structures, and nonmaterial interactions (Reyers et al. 2013, and the flow and benefit of provisioning, regulating and Felipe-Lucía et al. 2015, Fischer and Eastwood 2016, Palomo et maintenance, and cultural services. al. 2016) are not commonly embraced in the reviewed papers. The link between institutions and governance systems and coastal ES Demand is another missing aspect in scientific papers on coastal is rather unexplored; some papers describe existing legislative ES, (considered only in 3% of the papers analyzed). Capacity, context but without accounting for its relations to coproduction. flow, and demand assessments are needed in order to understand Another often unexplored aspect is the role that man-made (un)sustainable uptake and (un)satisfied demand (Geijzendorffer structures play. Man-made structures, such as waterfronts, et al. 2015, Wei et al. 2017). Nonetheless, the links between harbors, dikes, breakwaters, wind energy farms, and artificial capacity, flow, and demand are also dynamic and complex. (Un) reefs, provide coastal ES, but at the same time replace previously sustainable uptake and (un)satisfied demand can be modified existing natural structures that also provided coastal ES (Garcia through technology (Rieb et al. 2017), or forms of social Rodrigues et al. 2017). Likewise, the roles of technology or organization (Wei et al. 2017), hence through dynamic loops of knowledge in coproduction are not assessed either, such as value coproduction. and value preference. Last, regarding the effects of socio- Coproduction historical legacies, the reviewed papers did not seek to understand The reviewed articles did not completely embrace the complex how past choices create path dependencies for the contemporary and dynamic loops of coproduction. First, the temporal context. perspective, highly relevant in coproduction processes, is included Institutions and governance only in some of the papers, mainly through medium-term scales, Institutions and governance are not central elements of coastal and exceptionally, through short-term and long-term scales. In ecosystem assessments. Nevertheless, some papers aim to include many cases, it refers solely to temporal evaluation of the ecological institutions and governance from a legislative perspective, status for specific ecosystems and the link to coastal ES capacity, explaining principal policies and policy bodies, although without i.e., the links between the ecological integrity of fisheries for food studying the relations with coastal ES capacity, flow, or benefit. provision, or wetlands and salt marshes for water purification, or The links between ES and institutional arrangements and mangroves and other biotic structures for coastal protection, or governance systems are poorly understood. Only a few papers nursery habitats for life cycle maintenance or marine biodiversity identify and analyze actors, their institutional arrangements for recreational services. However, the functional link between (formal and informal), their conflicts, and decision-making ecological integrity and ES capacity is not entirely understood processes. However, the literature reviewed does not assess how because of ecological complexity and lack of data, especially in institutional arrangements and governance structures shape the case of marine ecosystems (Liquete et al. 2013, Maes et al. coastal ES supply, delivery, use, and access, as the conflicts 2013) Furthermore, these papers assess the ecological integrity of between informal and formal institutional arrangements coastal ecosystems, but overlook the interplay with social (informal agreements between coastal local communities defining components. Second, there are papers that do take into spatial borders over fishing areas, formal agreements between consideration coproduction by social-ecological interaction. In governance structures limiting fishing activities over certain areas this regard, a common approach is the study of land-use without considering local communities’ agreements). Coastal ES evolution, as an illustration of social components, and the effects frameworks acknowledge the relevance of governance and on ES capacity. Some examples are changes in land and use in institutions; however, this is not translated into ES assessments. mangrove forests and ES capacity for wood production, or land- ES assessments need more guidance and effort to link governance use evolution in wetlands or salt marshes and water purification and institutions to ES. Although the link is still unclear, several capacity. Again, there is a gap in knowledge regarding the link articles (30), make policy recommendations. between land use and ES provision, i.e., the functional relationships between land use and ES are still imprecise (Maes Trade-offs and power et al. 2013). In addition, this approach reduces the complexity of Trade-offs are frequently cited in coastal ES literature, such as social-ecological systems because land use is one of the multiple those between food provision and water purification in wetlands, expressions of social-ecological systems, rather than a static one. or biotic material and coastal protection in mangroves, or Moreover, the papers describe changes in land use, but none recreation and tourism and life cycle maintenance. The provides an analysis of the social-ecological processes behind identification of trade-offs and the actors involved are these changes. Very few papers consider socioeconomic aspects, increasingly more common in the reviewed coastal ES literature, such as demographic trends or economic growth, as factors of but their assessment is less frequent. Hence, although an coproduction. Thus, the reviewed papers apply a descriptive increasing number of papers identify trade-offs and the actors approach rather than an analytical one. Third, other papers have involved, they do not analyze them. Furthermore, in some cases, Ecology and Society 24(2): 24 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss2/art24/ the approach concerns conflicts regarding ecosystem use, rather In the case of regulating and maintenance services, monetary, than trade-offs within coastal ecosystem services. The most particularly, and environmental valuations are again the most common example of conflicts regarding ecosystem use is common assessments of services such as water purification, aquaculture versus other traditional uses of mangroves. The morphodynamic coastal regulation, climate regulation, and life papers also identify conflicting situations between anthropic cycle maintenance. In the case of monetary valuations, this impacts on coastal ecosystems and coastal ES, for example, how focuses on avoided costs of property damage and the market value the urbanization of dunes obstructs coastal protection and life of carbon. Furthermore, in some cases there is confusion between cycle maintenance services. Similar to trade-offs, actors are the value of the regulating service and the support or benefit for identified but the conflicts are not actually analyzed. other services or activities. For example, water purification is in many cases valued as a benefit or cost for fishing, or even life cycle Although trade-offs and conflicts are acknowledged and maintenance services are valued as a means for supporting mentioned, very few case studies assess them or, consequently, recreation. Socio-cultural valuations are less commonly applied, aim to understand the forces and dynamics behind them. As a although there are some exceptions regarding actors’ preferences result, few papers study power relations between actors and how for coastal protection and life cycle maintenance. For example, they affect coastal ES, access to them, benefit distribution, and some papers aim to assess the recreational and aesthetic values value prioritization. of marine biodiversity. Temporal and spatial scales The most common valuations of cultural services are monetary Time and space are other overlooked aspects in terms of scale in and socio-cultural. For recreation services, monetary valuations the reviewed papers. The manuscripts typically locate the analysis are more common (economic value, income, jobs) than socio- on one singe spatial scale, particularly local and regional scales, cultural valuations. However, socio-cultural values are also and to a lesser extent, the national, supra-regional and in some considered, such as perceived benefits and preferences by cases global scales. However, there has been very little work that practitioners of tourism and recreation. Similar aesthetic services has combined different spatial scales, thereby understanding the are valued in monetary terms, typically sea views and coastal spatial differences and trans-scalar interactions of coastal ES. landscape beauty. Nevertheless, the socio-cultural values of Multiscale and cross-scale assessments are not common, only a aesthetic services are also considered, for example by assessing few examples can be found for services such as climate regulation, the public preferences and social perceptions of beach users. coastal regulation, and food provision, which consider the local Cognitive effects are also assessed by monetary and socio-cultural and regional scale in their assessments, but do not assess the values, commonly evaluated through the monetary value of interaction between the different scales. In terms of temporal research (e.g., financial expenditure, research funds), social scale, the articles also locate the analysis on one single scale, perception, and valuation of education and cognitive processes particularly medium-term, with very few exceptions focusing on (e.g., perceived benefit for education). Likewise, very few papers short and long term and multiscale assessment for regulating explore the socio-cultural values of symbolic services such as services. spiritual, religious, and social relations, cultural heritage, or sense The review also recognized a relevant gap regarding spatial and of place. temporal issues of coastal ES, as the temporal and spatial Sociocultural valuations are established by ranking methods to pathways of coastal ES are barely studied; coastal ES, capacity, study stakeholders’ priorities concerning coastal ES. Stakeholders flow, and demand might have different spatial locations and time individually or collectively express their preferences and frames. Local demand for ES is sometimes met by ES being perceptions on coastal ES via surveys, interviews, focus groups, provided in distant places (Rieb et al. 2017), yet the coastal or other participatory methods. It was noted that the most communities might bear the costs of distant benefits in time and common method of socio-cultural valuations is surveys, which is space, e.g., the air purifications service provided by mangroves not an open and inclusive method because answers are highly through carbon sequestration is produced locally or regionally restricted and might be subject to the values and perceptions of but delivered globally. the researchers. In addition, results have proven that the most Value pluralism questioned actors are politicians and experts, as well as Monetary and environmental valuations are the most common recreational users and tourists in the case of recreation-service type (Fig. 2). However, the results demonstrate an increase in valuations. Therefore, local stakeholders and communities are socio-cultural value assessments since 2012 (Fig. 2), particularly commonly excluded from such rankings. for cultural services in the form of rankings. Value assessment of Uncertainty provision services is mostly featured by defining monetary values The revised literature makes occasional reference to uncertainty. and methods: market values of fisheries and aquaculture However, in many such cases it is not assessed or quantified, except products, jobs, and income provided by fishing and aquaculture for technical uncertainty, i.e., quantification error, which usually activities, the market price of mangrove wood, employment and does carry out this assessment or quantification. In some cases, income created by wood extraction, or costs of water methodological uncertainty is discussed. Specifically, papers consumption and irrigation. Ecological valuations are also discussing this are concerned with methods for the economic and relevant, especially for food provisioning as a means to study cultural assessment of coastal ES, ecological assessment of biophysical processes and ecological functions that support regulating services in marine ecosystems, mapping coastal ES, service provision. Very few articles have studied the socio-cultural and the temporal dynamics of coastal ES. In these cases, values of these services (the few exceptions to this assess actors’ uncertainty is acknowledged but generally not assessed. preferences and social values regarding fishing and mangrove exploitation). Ecology and Society 24(2): 24 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss2/art24/ Fig. 2. The results of this systematic review are presented in this infographic figure. The top part of the figure presents the percentage of articles assessing demand, coproduction processes, institutions and governance, trade-offs and power, multiscale (temporal and spatial) processes, and uncertainty. The central-right pie graph represents the number of manuscripts that address each human well-being (HWB) axiological need defined by Max-Neef et al. (1998): subsistence, protection, recreation, understanding, identity, creation, freedom, participation, and affection. On the other side of the figure (central left-side), the column graph represents how many articles address each of the cascade-model components (capacity, flow, benefit, and value) by ecosystem services (ES) general categories (provision, regulating and maintenance, and cultural). Finally, the graph located on the lower part of the figure shows the number of articles and type of assessed values per year, from 1998 to 2017. Epistemological and ontological uncertainty is mentioned only Human well-being very exceptionally. Manuscripts also refer to epistemological Few articles have explicitly studied the role of SES complexity in uncertainty in terms of the lack of knowledge regarding ES and HWB links, namely how complex SES processes ecological, and to a lesser extent, complex social processes such determine HWB through access, social and individual as synergies, spatial and temporal dynamics, and value preference. conceptions of well-being, and spatial and temporal context. The aforementioned uncertainty could also be ontological HWB and ES linkages need to be further studied in assessments because a greater effort to create new knowledge might not reduce of coastal ES, such as how different social groups conceptualize uncertainty, but rather increase it. Complex SES systems are HWB and satisfy their HWB needs in coastal areas. characterized by an inherent ontological uncertainty (Biggs et al. By using the Max-Neef matrix (Max-Neef et al. 1998), this review 2015) because of their own complexity and variability, which is has identified the needs and satisfiers that are most commonly not analyzed in the reviewed manuscripts. Very few articles have addressed by the reviewed articles, those that refer to having considered or assessed the inherent uncertainty of social- material aspects related to subsistence, protection, and recreation, ecological complexity, apart from some exceptional cases that cite such as food, work, dwelling, and recreation (Fig. 2). The papers the complexity of cultural services. also mention interacting needs for subsistence, protection, and Results show that many papers discussing uncertainty use or recreation by addressing, from a materialistic perspective, conceptualize participation as a method to approach this. satisfiers such as living space, dwelling, seascape, and coastal Uncertainty is also a fundamental factor in decision making landscapes. Contrarily, nonmaterial aspects of subsistence, (Walker et al. 2003, Chisholm and Wintle 2012, Schlüter et al. protection and recreation are not commonly addressed. In terms 2012, Biggs et al. 2015). of subsistence, a fundamentally missing HWB aspect is adaptability. Humans need to develop adaptability and resilience to frequent and unexpected changes, especially taking into Ecology and Society 24(2): 24 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss2/art24/ account the social-ecological complexity and effects of climate which may be conflicting, but all of them must have the freedom change on coastal areas. Other fundamental but rather to defend what they stand for. unexplored HWB dimensions of subsistence needs are physical The review has also shown that satisfiers identified in the literature and mental health and social setting. Social setting is also are generally material, whereas nonmaterial satisfiers are unexplored, but essential because humans do not live as isolated overlooked. Logically, material satisfiers, such as food, may be individuals, but in socially interacting communities. considered vital for human subsistence. Coastal management and The protection of coastal areas is especially relevant for HWB. coastal ES literature have been characterized by addressing Although coastal areas are particularly vulnerable and affected humans and their well-being as uniform elements. They have by natural hazards, some strategic satisfiers are missing from the commonly been approached from materialistic perspectives, reviewed analysis: adaptability, insurance systems, cooperation, rather than from the more inclusive alternatives of human needs and planning. Protection from hazards requires adaptability, and dimensions of well-being. Thus, important gaps are still insurance systems, and the rights of those affected, and the need present in the literature that hinder the basic understanding for cooperation, planning, and help to cope with natural hazards. needed for sustainability. Similarly, recreation has become a key issue on coastal areas because they are central spaces of recreation and leisure. The DISCUSSION studied coastal ES literature has focused its attention on material This literature review has identified important gaps in coastal ES satisfiers. However, the important dimensions of leisure and research. First, the lack of integration with regard to ecological recreation are not only material, but also non-material such as and social components, particularly the analysis of cascade- curiosity, lack of worry, tranquility, privacy, for example, the model components, shows that flow and demand are significantly curiosity experienced by discovering new coastal cultural services, missing components. Second, a partial understanding of such as landscapes, or the tranquility that might be experienced coproduction as fundamental aspects of coproduction is not on a peaceful beach. The above-mentioned aspects of HWB are embraced (institutions and governance systems, knowledge, frequently unexplored issues. socio-historical legacies, social representations, technology, and infrastructures). Third, manuscripts did not study how power Furthermore, a remarkable gap regarding HWB is the absence of underpins coproduction, trade-offs, and access and distribution assessment of the needs of understanding, participation, creation, of ecosystem service benefits. Fourth, there is a lack of identity, affection, and freedom (Fig. 2). Even when these needs assessments that combine different scales, such as multiscale and are researched, it is mostly to refer to material aspects of HWB. cross-scale assessments. Fifth, there is a gap in the literature Understanding needs are approached through countable satisfiers concerning the intrinsic and relational dimensions of HWB, such (educational policies, schools, and universities), while omitting as an understanding of HWB distribution among social groups. being and doing from individual and collective cognitive processes Sixth and finally, uncertainty is a missing aspect in coastal ES (critical conscience, receptiveness, study), and omitting informal assessments, and receives only partial and superficial treatment spaces for understanding (groups, communities, family). in coastal ES research. Participation needs and satisfiers are also rarely considered in scientific literature on coastal ES, although some exceptions are It is beyond the scope of this manuscript to study whether these found. These articles mention having rights and responsibilities, gaps exist in more general ES literature. Nevertheless, we found or the integration of actors in organizations. a number of contradictions and similarities with previous general ES literature reviews and critical reflective manuscripts[2]. Similar The literature on coastal ES proposes a somewhat restricted view to coastal ES research, ES assessments have focused on economic of this by solely referring to creation through having skills and valuation and the ecological assessment of the capacity of work, while other satisfiers are excluded, such as imagination or ecosystems (Seppelt et al. 2011, Wei et al. 2017), while flow and inventiveness. Likewise, the reviewed literature provides a partial especially demand have been misrepresented. Nevertheless, in vision of identity. It discusses identity components, such as recent years, some authors have been working on ES capacity and symbols, language, religions, and values. But some of the satisfiers flow models that seek to define the spatial distribution and that were found to be missing are related to acknowledging assessment of capacity, flow, and demand (such as, Kroll et al. identity, such as sense of belonging, or differentiation. Finally, 2012, Villamagna et al. 2013, Burkhard et al. 2014, Geijzendorffer the revised scientific literature did not address the needs for et al. 2015, Baró et al. 2016). ES coproduction still remains unclear affection and freedom. Affection refers to social bonding and (Bennett et al. 2015); to the authors’ knowledge, coproduction is cooperation, which are important within coastal spaces as a rather unexplored aspect of ES, although frameworks such as multiple actors and social relations are at stake. Furthermore, the MEA and IPBES explicitly acknowledge the role of humans freedom features such as autonomy and temporal/spatial in the coproduction of ES. Some papers explore the issue of plasticity are also significant but ignored satisfiers. Autonomy is coproduction by recognizing how different social aspects a fundamental satisfier for coastal communities because they (institutions, governance systems, social representations and must be able to control decision making and management. values, technology and infrastructure, labor, financial capital, and Temporal and spatial plasticity is expressly relevant for coastal power relations) are linked to ES delivery. Such papers include communities because coastal social-ecological systems are highly those by Ernstson (2013), Spangenberg et al. (2014), Huntsinger reliant on temporal and spatial dynamics. Freedom and its and Oviedo (2014), Farhad et al. (2015), Felipe-Lucía et al. (2015), satisfiers should not only be considered a means for coastal Fischer and Eastwood (2016), Palomo et al. (2016), Berbés- management, but also as individual and collective ends in Blázquez et al. (2017), Outeiro et al. (2017). Power is also an aspect themselves. Actors might hold different values and preferences, that is left aside within ES literature (Felipe-Lucía et al. 2015, Ecology and Society 24(2): 24 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss2/art24/ Berbés-Blázquez et al. 2016), which has not paid attention to the that marine and coastal research on ecosystem services have lagged role that power plays in the coproduction of ES and in its benefits behind terrestrial ES research (Barbier 2012, Liquete et al. 2013, and cost distribution across social groups. The literature review Portman 2013) corresponding to a knowledge gap on marine conducted by Hamel and Bryant (2017) shows that uncertainty ecosystems (see Norse and Crowder 2005). Nevertheless, since has also been approached both superficially and partially. MEA of 2005 added ES marine, ES research has been supported, but as a separate body of literature to that of terrestrial ES Unlike ES coastal research, ES research increasingly (Portman 2013). Consequently, the coastal, as a single landscape acknowledges different scales (Schröter et al. 2018); a growing unit, has received little attention (Portman 2013). Land and sea body of literature focuses on the spatial linkages between systems are inextricably linked by flows of materials, energy, and providing to benefiting areas (such as Kroll et al. 2012, Bagstad knowledge. Some coastal animals and plants spend their life et al. 2013, García-Nieto et al. 2013, Serna-Chavez et al. 2014, between the land and the sea (Portman 2013). ES research needs Schröter et al. 2018). This body of literature conceptualizes and to consider coastal areas as a single unit of analysis at multiple quantifies flow as the spatial movement of material, energy, and temporal and spatial scales. information from the location that supplies ES to the location where benefits are enjoyed (Bagstad et al. 2013, Schröter et al. In addition to the above-mentioned aspects, the lack of social 2018). Such conceptualization serves to understand distributional dimension in noncoastal and coastal ES research also responds to spatial patterns and trade-offs. Nevertheless, temporal scales are the dominance of ecologically oriented scientists and economists, rarely embraced. i.e., through a revision of the most influential authors (Kull et al. 2015), identifying a network of researchers from the subfields In ES research there is a growing body of academic work on value ecological economics, systems ecology, and conservation biology. pluralism and disaggregate analysis, although ecosystem-service The ES concept has been built on the consensus among those research still fails to consider both aspects (Dawson and Martin disciplines on how to approach society and environment 2015). Several authors, such as Dendoncker et al. (2013, 2018), relationships, while not including other perspectives. This Iniesta-Arandia et al. (2014), Martín-López et al. (2014), Jacobs consensus is not impartial because ES is a political concept. Behind et al. (2016), have made great efforts to develop and apply value scientific objectivity, ES actually reflects specific ideas, values, pluralism. Additionally, relevant global science-policy interface power relations, and political-economic structures, which enable initiatives such as the IPBES are embracing and supporting value certain interventions and debates (Kull et al. 2015). The issue is, pluralism ES in valuations (Jacobs et al. 2018). Another growing then, what interventions and debates do we want to support as research field is the disaggregated analysis of HWB among social scientists? In our opinion, coastal and noncoastal ES research groups, by authors such as Daw et al. (2011, 2016), Bennett et al. should be informing the debates that societies face for resource (2015), Dawson and Martin (2015), Horcea-Milcu et al. (2016), management; who has or who controls access? Who are the winners Chaudhary et al. (2018), Hossain et al. (2017), Villamagna et al. and losers? What are the trade-offs? (2017), and initiatives such as IPBES and Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA). To this end we argue that current coastal ES literature needs to embrace social-ecological complexity and overcome the existing Despite these efforts, the social dimension is still misrepresented fragmentation of knowledge, which comes mostly from ecological in ES assessments. The lack of integration of social science in ES and economic disciplines. To do so, we suggest five fundamental and in environmental interdisciplinary research is very well aspects to consider. First, coastal ES research should pay special analyzed by several authors (Norgaard 2010, Mooney et al. 2013, attention to flows, studying the spatial and temporal pathways Castree et al. 2014, Stojanovic et al. 2016, Stenseke and from ES production areas to demand or benefiting areas at Larigauderie 2018). The integration between environmental and different temporal and spatial scales. In this way, all cascade-model social science has proved to be challenging (Mooney et al. 2013, components could be covered, and multiscale and cross-scale Milanez 2015, Stojanovic et al. 2016, Barthel and Seidl 2017) processes could be understood. Such information leads to more because these areas may have different and even opposing research on trade-offs and hence benefit and cost distribution. The philosophical approaches; a differing use of the same or similar tools and frames have already been developed by authors such as terminologies; existing uncertainties within present fields of Bagstad et al. (2013) and Schröter et al. (2018). Second, the study knowledge; and different social and political positions of of ES flows should be accompanied by coproduction assessment research. On this subject, Stojanovic et al. (2016) question whether —Palomo et al. (2016) suggested a possible framework—as a all social science aspects can be approached under a general means to understand natural and non-natural components that systems framework. System theory embraces complexity and coproduce the ES along the flow pathway. Third, power should be provides a holistic framework. However, the social sciences are included within ES analysis, i.e., how power mediates coproduction critical of the system conceptualization of certain aspects of processes and benefit distribution. With such knowledge it will be society because this simplifies and undertheorizes social objects possible to identify and understand the access or control of access and processes (Stojanovic et al. 2016). Furthermore, certain of ecosystems services and their derived benefits, hence when, authors have also stressed the issue of “the hegemony of natural where, by who, and how ecosystem service benefits are accessed. science,” whose disciplines tend to be more valued than the social Fourth, all dimensions of HWB should be considered. In free and sciences (Ledford 2015). Consequently, the social sciences are open spaces, participation stakeholders could express their values, dismissed and social and environmental integration is and trade-offs and conflicts would be exposed. Fifth, uncertainty asymmetrical in terms of power, funding, personnel, knowledge needs to be evaluated and communicated to stakeholders. production, and independence (Viseu 2015). Uncertainty assessments are relevant to decision making because Social misrepresentation is even more aggravated in coastal ES their results might shape a decision, but also they increase research. An important reason behind coastal ES gaps is the fact transparency and understanding of the issue at stake Ecology and Society 24(2): 24 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss2/art24/ Fig. 3. Conceptual framework that integrates the gaps identified during the review. The framework outlines coproduction and power relations as the core factors of assessments of coastal ecosystem services (ES). Relations of cascade-model components are bidirectional, not unidirectional. Cascade-model components are affected by human drivers of change (drivers that result from human decisions and interactions, such as institutions and governance, technology, market dynamics, etc.) and nonhuman drivers of change (drivers originated by natural dynamics, outside human control, such as natural climate phenomena). Note the mutual influence between human drivers of change, on the one hand, and institutions, governance, and other coproduction assets, on the other. ES services are not a free gift of nature, but are instead coproduced by human inputs. Although not all ES are coproduced equally, given that human contributions to ES might vary along the stages of ES production (Reyers et al. 2013, Guerry et al. 2015, Fischer and Eastwood 2016, Palomo et al. 2016, Outeiro et al. 2017). Power relations underpin access to ES, distribution of benefits, and definition and preference of values. All above-mentioned processes take place at different temporal and spatial scales and through interactions and feedback processes that operate at many scales. This complexity leads to high levels of uncertainty. (Pappenberger and Beven 2006, Hamel and Bryant 2017). and social justice issues: control, access, trade-offs, benefit, and Including uncertainty in decision making should also be cost distribution, i.e., winners and losers. Nevertheless, each considered a fundamental right because decision makers and coastal ES study has different needs and objectives, which might stakeholders involved have the right to know all knowledge not fully cover all the elements and relations described in the limitations in order to make up their own minds (Pappenberger framework. and Beven 2006, Hamel and Bryant 2017). __________ We propose a conceptual framework (Fig. 3) that integrates the [1] ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( “ecosystem service” OR “environmental five above-mentioned aspects: ES flows, coproduction, power service” ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( “coastal” OR “litoral” OR relations, temporal and spatial scales, value pluralism, and “littoral” ) ) AND ( “mangroves” OR “wetlands” OR “coral reefs” uncertainty. Our main contribution to the existing literature on OR “litoral forest” OR “beach” OR “dunes” OR “saltmarshes” coastal ES is to go further than the linear-cyclical approach of OR “seagrass” OR “littoral sedmiment” OR “coastal shores” OR general ES frameworks by focusing on coproduction and power, “cliffs” OR “coastal mudflat” OR “machair” OR “sandy shore” as means to understand the assemblage of complex and nonlinear OR “ledges and shores” OR “coastal lagoons” OR “Littoral rock” interactions and feedback processes of coastal ES production, OR “sublittoral rock” OR “sublittoral sediment” ) AND supply, demand, and use processes, i.e., sorting out social- ( “provisioning” OR “supporting” OR “regulating” OR ecological relations and feedback loops enabling ES processes. “regulation and maintenance” OR “cultural” ) AND The suggested framework is not solely an analytical tool, but is ( EXCLUDE ( PUBYEAR , 2018 ) ) AND ( EXCLUDE also a normative tool because it also seeks to guide coastal ( DOCTYPE , “ip” ) OR EXCLUDE ( DOCTYPE , “bk” ) OR management debates and interventions toward environmental Ecology and Society 24(2): 24 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss2/art24/ EXCLUDE ( DOCTYPE , “no” ) ) AND ( EXCLUDE Lebel, B. Martín-López, P. Meyfroidt, H. A. Mooney, J. L. Nel, ( LANGUAGE , “Chinese” ) OR EXCLUDE ( LANGUAGE , U. Pascual, K. Payet, N. P. Harguindeguy, G. D. Peterson, A. H. “Spanish” ) OR EXCLUDE ( LANGUAGE , “German” ) ). Prieur-Richard, B. Reyers, P. Roebeling, R. Seppelt, M. Solan, P. [2] Some exisitng general ES literature reviews: Seppelt et al. (2011), Tschakert, T. Tscharntke, B. L. Turner, P. H. Verburg, E. F. Martínez-Harms and Balvanera (2012), Summers et al. (2012), Viglizzo, P. C. L. White, and G. Woodward. 2015. Linking Portman 2013, Bennett et al. 2015, Costanza et al. 2017, Hamel biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three and Bryant 2017, Rieb et al. 2017, Wei et al. 2017. challenges for designing research for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:76-85. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007 Responses to this article can be read online at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses. Berbés-Blázquez, M., M. J. Bunch, P. R. Mulvihill, G. D. Peterson, and B. van Wendel de Joode. 2017. Understanding how access php/10883 shapes the transformation of ecosystem services to human well- being with an example from Costa Rica. Ecosystem Services 28:320-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.010 Acknowledgments: Berbés-Blázquez, M., J. A. González, and U. Pascual. 2016. This research was carried out under the framework of POLICLIMA Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social project (CSO2016-76842-C2-1-R). The first author was supported power relations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability by a PhD grant (FI-2017) from the Agència de Gestió d'Ajuts 19:134-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.02.003 Universitaris. The second author was supported by Ramón y Cajal Biggs, R., C. Rhode, S. Archibald, L. M. Kunene, S. S. Mutanga, contract (RYC-2013-13392) from the Ministerio de Economía y N. Nkuna, P. O. Ocholla, and L. J. Phadima. 2015. Strategies for Competitividad. managing complex social-ecological systems in the face of uncertainty: examples from South Africa and beyond. Ecology LITERATURE CITED and Society 20(1):52. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07380-200152 Adams, H., W. N. Adger, S. Ahmad, A. Ahmed, D. Begum, A. N. Bremer, S. R. 2011. Exploring a ‘post-normal’ science-policy Lázár, Z. Matthews, M. M. Rahman, and P. K. Streatfield. 2016. interface for integrated coastal management. Thesis. Massey Spatial and temporal dynamics of multidimensional well-being, University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. livelihoods and ecosystem services in coastal Bangladesh. Scientific Data 3:160094. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.94 Burkhard, B., M. Kandziora, Y. Hou, and F. Müller. 2014. Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands-concepts for Ariza, E., F. Pons, and F. Breton. 2016. Is “socio-ecological spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landscape culture” really being taken into account to manage conflicts in Online 34:1-32. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201434 the coastal zone? Inputs from Spanish Mediterranean beaches. Ocean and Coastal Management 134:183-193. https://doi. Butler, C. D., and W. Oluoch-Kosura. 2006. Linking future org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.10.006 ecosystem services and future human well-being. Ecology and Society 11(1):30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01602-110130 Bagstad, K. J., G. W. Johnson, B. Voigt, and F. Villa. 2013. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach Castree, N., W. M. Adams, J. Barry, D. Brockington, B. Büscher, to quantifying actual services. Ecosystem Services 4:117-125. E. Corbera, D. Demeritt, R. Duffy, U. Felt, K. Neves, P. Newell, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.012 L. Pellizzoni, K. Rigby, P. Robbins, L. Robin, D. B. Rose, A. Ross, D. Schlosberg, S. Sörlin, P. West, M. Whitehead, and B. Wynne. Baral, H., M. R. Guariguata, and R. J. Keenan. 2016. A proposed 2014. Changing the intellectual climate. Nature Climate Change framework for assessing ecosystem goods and services from 4(9):763-768. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2339 planted forests. Ecosystem Services 22:260-268. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.002 Chaudhary, S., A. McGregor, D. Houston, and N. Chettri. 2018. Environmental justice and ecosystem services: a disaggregated Barbier, E. B. 2012. Progress and challenges in valuing coastal analysis of community access to forest benefits in Nepal. and marine ecosystem services. Review of Environmental Ecosystem Services 29:99-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.020 Economics and Policy 6(1):1-19. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/ rer017 Chisholm, R. A., and B. A. Wintle. 2012. Choosing ecosystem service investments that are robust to uncertainty across multiple Baró, F., I. Palomo, G. Zulian, P. Vizcaino, D. Haase, and E. parameters. Ecological Applications 22(2):697-704. https://doi. Gómez-Baggethun. 2016. Mapping ecosystem service capacity, org/10.1890/11-0092.1 flow and demand for landscape and urban planning: a case study in the Barcelona metropolitan region. Land Use Policy Church, A., J. Burgess, and N. Ravenscroft. 2011. Chapter 16: 57:405-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.006 cultural services. UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Technical Report 633-692. Barthel, R., and R. Seidl. 2017. Interdisciplinary collaboration between natural and social sciences - status and trends exemplified Church, A., R. Fish, R. Haines-Young, S. Mourato, J. Tratalos, in groundwater research. PLoS ONE 12(1):e0170754. https://doi. L. Stapleton, C. Willis, P. Coates, S. Gibbons, C. Leyshon, M. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170754 Potschin, N. Ravenscroft, R. Sanchis-Guarner, M. Winter, and J. Kenter. 2014. UK national ecosystem assessment follow-on. Work Bennett, E. M., W. Cramer, A. Begossi, G. Cundill, S. Díaz, B. N. Package Report 5: cultural ecosystem services and indicators. UN Egoh, I. R. Geijzendorffer, C. B. Krug, S. Lavorel, E. Lazos, L. Ecology and Society 24(2): 24 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss2/art24/ Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre, LWEC, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:1-16. https:// UK. doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002 Costanza, R., R. de Groot, L. Braat, I. Kubiszewski, L. Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA). 2018. An Fioramonti, P. Sutton, S. Farber, and M. Grasso. 2017. Twenty environment for wellbeing : Pathways out of poverty Policy years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far messages from the ESPA programme. ESPA, Edinburgh, UK. do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services 28:1-16. https://doi. Ernstson, H. 2013. The social production of ecosystem services: org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008 a framework for studying environmental justice and ecological Daw, T., K. Brown, S. Rosendo, and R. Pomeroy. 2011. Applying complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landscape and Urban the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to Planning 109(1):7-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.005 disaggregate human well-being. Environmental Conservation 38 Farhad, S., M. A. Gual, and E. Ruiz-Ballesteros. 2015. Linking (4):370-379. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000506 governance and ecosystem services: the case of Isla Mayor Daw, T. M., C. Hicks, K. Brown, T. Chaigneau, F. Januchowski- (Andalusia, Spain). Land Use Policy 46:91-102. https://doi. Hartley, W. Cheung, S. Rosendo, B. Crona, S. Coulthard, C. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.019 Sandbrook, C. Perry, S. Bandeira, N. A. Muthiga, B. Schulte- Felipe-Lucía, M. R., B. Martín-López, S. Lavorel, L. Berraquero- Herbrüggen, J. Bosire, and T. R. McClanahan. 2016. Elasticity in Díaz, J. Escalera-Reyes, and F. A. Comín. 2015. Ecosystem ecosystem services: exploring the variable relationship between services flows: why stakeholders’ power relationships matter. ecosystems and human well-being. Ecology and Society 21(2):11. PLoS ONE 10(7):e0132232. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08173-210211 pone.0132232 Dawson, N., and A. Martin. 2015. Assessing the contribution of Fischer, A., and A. Eastwood. 2016. Coproduction of ecosystem ecosystem services to human wellbeing: a disaggregated study in services as human-nature interactions: an analytical framework. western Rwanda. Ecological Economics 117:62-72. https://doi. Land Use Policy 52:41-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.06.018 landusepol.2015.12.004 de Groot, R., B. Fisher, and M. Christie. 2010. Integrating the Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R. Ravetz. 1990. Uncertainty and quality ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and in science for policy. Vol. 15. Klumer Academic, Dordrecht, The ecosystem service valuation. Pages 1-40 in P. Kumar, editor. The Netherlands. economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB): ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London, UK. García-Nieto, A. P., M. García-Llorente, I. Iniesta-Arandia, and B. Martín-López. 2013. Mapping forest ecosystem services: from Dendoncker, N., F. Boeraeve, E. Crouzat, M. Dufrêne, A. König, providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosystem Services 4:126-138. and C. Barnaud. 2018. How can integrated valuation of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.03.003 ecosystem services help understanding and steering agroecological transitions? Ecology and Society 23(1):12. https://doi. Garcia Rodrigues, J., A. Conides, S. Rivero Rodriguez, S. org/10.5751/ES-09843-230112 Raicevich, P. Pita, K. Kleisner, C. Pita, P. Lopes, V. Alonso Roldán, S. Ramos, D. Klaoudatos, L. Outeiro, C. Armstrong, L. Dendoncker, N., H. Keune, S. Jacobs, and E. Gómez-Baggethun. Teneva, S. Stefanski, A. Böhnke-Henrichs, M. Kruse, A. Lillebø, 2013. Inclusive ecosystem services valuation. Pages 3-12 in S. E. Bennett, A. Belgrano, A. Murillas, I. Sousa Pinto, B. Burkhard, Jacobs, N. Dendoncker, and H. Keune, editors. Ecosystem and S. Villasante. 2017. Marine and coastal cultural ecosystem services: global issues, local practices. Elsevier, San Diego, services: knowledge gaps and research priorities. One Ecosystem California, USA. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-419964-4.00001-9 2:e12290. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.2.e12290 Díaz, S., S. Demissew, J. Carabias, C. Joly, M. Lonsdale, N. Ash, Gari, S. R., A. Newton, and J. D. Icely. 2015. A review of the A. Larigauderie, J. R. Adhikari, S. Arico, A. Báldi, A. Bartuska, application and evolution of the DPSIR framework with an I. A. Baste, A. Bilgin, E. Brondizio, K. M. Chan, V. E. Figueroa, emphasis on coastal social-ecological systems. Ocean and Coastal A. Duraiappah, M. Fischer, R. Hill, T. Koetz, P. Leadley, P. Lyver, Management 103:63-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.11.013 G. M. Mace, B. Martín-López, M. Okumura, D. Pacheco, U. Pascual, E. S. Pérez, B. Reyers, E. Roth, O. Saito, R. J. Scholes, Geijzendorffer, I. R., B. Martín-López, and P. K. Roche. 2015. N. Sharma, H. Tallis, R. Thaman, R. Watson, T. Yahara, Z. A. Improving the identification of mismatches in ecosystem services Hamid, C. Akosim, Y. Al-Hafedh, R. Allahverdiyev, E. assessments. Ecological Indicators 52:320-331. https://doi. Amankwah, T. S. Asah, Z. Asfaw, G. Bartus, A. L. Brooks, J. org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.016 Caillaux, G. Dalle, D. Darnaedi, A. Driver, G. Erpul, P. Escobar- Gómez-Baggethun, E., B. Martin-López, D. Barton, L. Braat, E. Eyzaguirre, P. Failler, A. M. M. Fouda, B. Fu, H. Gundimeda, S. Kelemen, M. Garcia-Llorente, H. Saarikoski, and J. van den Hashimoto, F. Homer, S. Lavorel, G. Lichtenstein, W. A. Mala, Bergh. 2014. State-of-the-art report on integrated valuation of W. Mandivenyi, P. Matczak, C. Mbizvo, M. Mehrdadi, J. P. ecosystem services. EU FP7 OpenNESS Project Deliverable 4.1 Metzger, J. B. Mikissa, H. Moller, H. A. Mooney, P. Mumby, H. (July):1–33. Nagendra, C. Nesshover, A. A. Oteng-Yeboah, G. Pataki, M. Roué, J. Rubis, M. Schultz, P. Smith, R. Sumaila, K. Takeuchi, S. Grêt-Regamey, A., S. H. Brunner, J. Altwegg, and P. Bebi. 2013. Thomas, M. Verma, Y. Yeo-Chang, and D. Zlatanova. 2015. The Facing uncertainty in ecosystem services-based resource IPBES conceptual framework - connecting nature and people. management. Journal of Environmental Management 127:S145- S154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.028 Ecology and Society 24(2): 24 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss2/art24/ Guerry, A. D., S. Polasky, J. Lubchenco, R. Chaplin-Kramer, G. Book. European Centre for Nature Conservation, Tilburg, The C. Daily, R. Griffin, M. Ruckelshaus, I. J. Bateman, A. Netherlands. [online] URL: http://www.openness-project.eu/ Duraiappah, T. Elmqvist, M. W. Feldman, C. Folke, J. Hoekstra, library/reference-book/sp-human-well-being P. M. Kareiva, B. L. Keeler, S. Li, E. McKenzie, Z. Ouyang, B. Jones, L., L. Norton, Z. Austin, A. L. Browne, D. Donovan, B. Reyers, T. H. Ricketts, J. Rockström, H. Tallis, and B. Vira. 2015. A. Emmett, Z. J. Grabowski, D. C. Howard, J. P. G. Jones, J. O. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from Kenter, W. Manley, C. Morris, D. A. Robinson, C. Short, G. M. promise to practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Siriwardena, C. J. Stevens, J. Storkey, R. D. Waters, and G. F. Sciences 112(24):7348-7355. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503751112 Willis. 2016. Stocks and flows of natural and human-derived Haines-Young, R. H., and M. B. Potschin. 2009. The links capital in ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 52:151-162. https:// between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.014 Pages 110-139 in D. G. Raffaelli and C. L. J. Frid, editors. Kovacic, Z. 2015. Complexity theory in quality assessment: case Ecosystems ecology: a new synthesis. Cambridge University Press, studies in sustainability science for governance. Dissertation. Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750458.007 Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Hamel, P., and B. P. Bryant. 2017. Uncertainty assessment in Kroll, F., F. Müller, D. Haase, and N. Fohrer. 2012. Rural-urban ecosystem services analyses: seven challenges and practical gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand responses. Ecosystem Services 24:1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. dynamics. Land Use Policy 29(3):521-535. https://doi. ecoser.2016.12.008 org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.07.008 Horcea-Milcu, A.-I., J. Leventon, J. Hanspach, and J. Fischer. Kull, C. A., X. A. de Sartre, and M. Castro-Larranaga. 2015. The 2016. Disaggregated contributions of ecosystem services to political ecology of ecosystem services. Geoforum 61:122-134. human well-being: a case study from Eastern Europe. Regional https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.03.004 Environmental Change 16(6):1779-1791. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10113-016-0926-2 Ledford, H. 2015. How to solve the world’s biggest problems. Nature 525(7569):308-311. https://doi.org/10.1038/525308a Hossain, M. S., F. Eigenbrod, F. Amoako Johnson, and J. A. Dearing. 2017. Unravelling the interrelationships between Liquete, C., C. Piroddi, E. G. Drakou, L. Gurney, S. Katsanevakis, ecosystem services and human wellbeing in the Bangladesh delta. A. Charef, and B. Egoh. 2013. Current status and future prospects International Journal of Sustainable Development and World for the assessment of marine and coastal ecosystem services: a Ecology 24(2):120-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2016.1182087 systematic review. PLoS ONE 8(7):e67737. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067737 Hou, Y., B. Burkhard, and F. Müller. 2013. Uncertainties in landscape analysis and ecosystem service assessment. Journal of Maes, J., A. Teller, M. Erhard, C. Liquete, L. Braat, P. Berry, B. Environmental Management 127:S117-S131. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Egoh, P. Puydarrieux, C. Fiorina, and F. Santos. 2013. Mapping j.jenvman.2012.12.002 and assessment of ecosystems and their services. European Union, Brussels, Belgium. [online] URL: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ Huntsinger, L., and J. L. Oviedo. 2014. Ecosystem services are nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/MAESWorkingPaper2013. social-ecological services in a traditional pastoral system: the case pdf of California’s Mediterranean rangelands. Ecology and Society 19(1):8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06143-190108 Martín-López, B., E. Gómez-Baggethun, M. García-Llorente, and C. Montes. 2014. Trade-offs across value-domains in Iniesta-Arandia, I., M. García-Llorente, P. A. Aguilera, C. ecosystem services assessment. Ecological Indicators 37:220-228. Montes, and B. Martín-López. 2014. Socio-cultural valuation of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003 ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecological Economics Martínez-Harms, M. J., and P. Balvanera. 2012. Methods for 108:36-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.028 mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 8 Jacobs, S., B. Martín-López, D. N. Barton, R. Dunford, P. A. (1-2):17-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.663792 Harrison, E. Kelemen, H. Saarikoski, M. Termansen, M. García- Llorente, E. Gómez-Baggethun, L. Kopperoinen, S. Luque, I. Max-Neef, M. A., A. Elizalde, and M. Hopenhayn. 1998. Palomo, J. A. Priess, G. M. Rusch, P. Tenerelli, F. Turkelboom, Desarrollo a escala humana: conceptos, aplicaciones y algunas R. Demeyer, J. Hauck, H. Keune, and R. Smith. 2018. The means reflexiones. Icaria, Barcelona, Spain. determine the end - pursuing integrated valuation in practice. McGregor, S. L. 2010. Well-being, wellness and basic human needs Ecosystem Services 29:515-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. in home economics. McGregor Consulting Group, Seabright, ecoser.2017.07.011 Nova Scotia, Canada. Jacobs, S., D. Nicolas, B. Martín-López, D. N. Barton, E. Gómez- Milanez, B. 2015. Dialogues between social and natural sciences: Baggethun, F. Boeraeve, F. L. McGrath, K. Vieikko, D. Geneletti, contribution to the debate on socio-environmental conflicts. K. J. Sevecke, et al. 2016. A new valuation school: integrating Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias 87(4):2335-2348. https:// diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201520140724 Ecosystem Services 22(Part B):213-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecoser.2016.11.007 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island, Washington, D.C., USA. Jax, K., and U. Heink. 2016. Human well-being. In M. Potschin and K. Jax, editors. OpenNESS Ecosystem Services Reference Ecology and Society 24(2): 24 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss2/art24/ Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. G. Altman, and P. Grp. Rieb, J. T., R. Chaplin-Kramer, G. C. Daily, P. R. Armsworth, K. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta- Böhning-Gaese, A. Bonn, G. S. Cumming, F. Eigenbrod, V. analyses: the PRISMA statement (Reprinted from Annals of Grimm, B. M. Jackson, A. Marques, S. K. Pattanayak, H. M. Internal Medicine). Physical Therapy 89(9):873-880. Pereira, G. D. Peterson, T. H. Ricketts, B. E. Robinson, M. Schröter, L. A. Schulte, R. Seppelt, M. G. Turner, and E. M. Mooney, H. A., A. Duraiappah, and A. Larigauderie. 2013. Bennett. 2017. When, where, and how nature matters for Evolution of natural and social science interactions in global ecosystem services: challenges for the next generation of change research programs. Proceedings of the National Academy ecosystem service models. BioScience 67(9):820-833. https://doi. of Sciences of the United States of America 110 Suppl(Suppl org/10.1093/biosci/bix075 1):3665-3672. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1107484110 Sardà, R., T. O'Higgins, R. Cormier, A. Diedrich, and J. Tintoré. Narayan, D., R. Chambers, M. K. Shah, and P. Petesch. 2000. 2014. A proposed ecosystem-based management system for Crying out for change. World Bank Publications, New York, New marine waters: linking the theory of environmental policy to the York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1596/0-1952-1602-4 practice of environmental management. Ecology and Society 19 Norgaard, R. B. 2010. Ecosystem services: from eye-opening (4):51. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07055-190451 metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics 69 Sas, E., I. Fischhendler, and M. E. Portman. 2010. The (6):1219-1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009 demarcation of arbitrary boundaries for coastal zone Norse, E., and L. Crowder. 2005. Why marine conservation management: the Israeli case. Journal of Environmental biology? Pages 1-18 in E. Norse and L. Crowder, editors. Marine Management 91(11):2358-2369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. conservation biology. Island, Washington, D.C., USA. jenvman.2010.06.027 Outeiro, L., E. Ojea, J. Garcia Rodrigues, A. Himes-Cornell, A. Schlüter, M., R. R. J. McaAllister, R. Arlinghaus, N. Bunnefeld, Belgrano, Y. Liu, E. Cabecinha, C. Pita, G. Macho, and S. K. Eisenack, F. Hölker, E. J. Milner-Gulland, B. Müller, E. Villasante. 2017. The role of non-natural capital in the co- Nicholson, M. Quaas, and M. Stöven. 2012. New horizons for production of marine ecosystem services. International Journal of managing: a review of coupled socio-ecological systems Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 13 modeling. Natural Resource Modeling 25(1):219-272. https://doi. (3):35-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1415973 org/10.1111/j.1939-7445.2011.00108.x Palomo, I., M. R. Felipe-Lucía, E. M. Bennett, B. Martín-López, Scholes, R. J., B. Reyers, R. Biggs, M. J. Spierenburg, and A. and U. Pascual. 2016. Disentangling the pathways and effects of Duriappah. 2013. Multi-scale and cross-scale assessments of ecosystem service co-production. Advances in Ecological Research social-ecological systems and their ecosystem services. Current 54:245-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2015.09.003 Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5(1):16-25. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.01.004 Pappenberger, F., and K. J. Beven. 2006. Ignorance is bliss: or seven reasons not to use uncertainty analysis. Water Resources Schröter, M., T. Koellner, R. Alkemade, S. Arnhold, K. J. Bagstad, Research 42(5). https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004820 K.-H. Erb, K. Frank, T. Kastner, M. Kissinger, J. Liu, L. López- Hoffman, J. Maes, A. Marques, B. Martín-López, C. Meyer, C. Pereira, E., C. Queirós, H. Pereira, and L. Vicente. 2005. J. E. Schulp, J. Thober, S. Wolff, and A. Bonn. 2018. Interregional Ecosystem services and human well-being: a participatory study flows of ecosystem services: concepts, typology and four cases. in a mountain community in Portugal. Ecology and Society 10 Ecosystem Services 31:231-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. (2):14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01353-100214 ecoser.2018.02.003 Portman, M. E. 2013. Ecosystem services in practice: challenges Scolozzi, R., E. Morri, and R. Santolini. 2012. Delphi-based to real world implementation of ecosystem services across change assessment in ecosystem service values to support strategic multiple landscapes - a critical review. Applied Geography spatial planning in Italian landscapes. Ecological Indicators 45:185-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.09.011 21:134-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.019 Potschin, M., and R. Haines-Young. 2016. Conceptual Seppelt, R., C. F. Dormann, F. V. Eppink, S. Lautenbach, and S. frameworks and the cascade model. In M. Potschin and K. Jax, Schmidt. 2011. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: editors. OpenNESS Ecosystem Services Reference Book. approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. Journal of Applied European Centre for Nature Conservation, Tilburg, The Ecology 48(3):630-636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952. Netherlands. [online] URL: http://www.openness-project.eu/ x library/reference-book/cascade-model Serna-Chavez, H. M., C. J. E. Schulp, P. M. Van Bodegom, W. Powell, R. B., A. Cuschnir, and P. Peiris. 2009. Overcoming Bouten, P. H. Verburg, and M. D. Davidson. 2014. A quantitative governance and institutional barriers to integrated coastal zone, framework for assessing spatial flows of ecosystem services. marine protected area, and tourism management in Sri Lanka. Ecological Indicators 39:24-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Coastal Management 37(6):633-655. https://doi.org/10.1080/089­ ecolind.2013.11.024 20750903194272 Spangenberg, J. H., C. Görg, D. T. Truong, V. Tekken, J. V. Reyers, B., R. Biggs, G. S. Cumming, T. Elmqvist, A. P. Hejnowicz, Bustamante, and J. Settele. 2014. Provision of ecosystem services and S. Polasky. 2013. Getting the measure of ecosystem services: is determined by human agency, not ecosystem functions. Four a social-ecological approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the case studies. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Environment 11(5):268-273. https://doi.org/10.1890/120144 Ecology and Society 24(2): 24 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss2/art24/ Ecosystem Services & Management 10(1):40-53. https://doi. org/10.1080/21513732.2014.884166 Stenseke, M., and A. Larigauderie. 2018. The role, importance and challenges of social sciences and humanities in the work of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES). Innovation 31(sup1):S10-S14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2017.1398076 Stojanovic, T., H. M. McNae, P. Tett, T. W. Potts, J. Reis, H. D. Smith, and I. Dillingham. 2016. The “social” aspect of social- ecological systems: a critique of analytical frameworks and findings from a multisite study of coastal sustainability. Ecology and Society 21(3):15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08633-210315 Summers, J. K., L. M. Smith, J. L. Case, and R. A. Linthurst. 2012. A review of the elements of human well-being with an emphasis on the contribution of ecosystem services. Ambio 41 (4):327-340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0256-7 Turner, R. K., and M. Schaafsma. 2015. Coastal zones ecosystem services. Valuation of Ecosystem Services 9:59-75. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-17214-9 Van Oudenhoven, A., K. Petz, R. Alkemade, L. Hein, and R. S. De Groot. 2012. Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators 21:110-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolind.2012.01.012 Villamagna, A. M., P. L. Angermeier, and E. M. Bennett. 2013. Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: a conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecological Complexity 15:114-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2013.07.004 Villamagna, A. M., B. Mogollón, and P. L. Angermeier. 2017. Inequity in ecosystem service delivery: socioeconomic gaps in the public-private conservation network. Ecology and Society 22 (1):36. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09021-220136 Viseu, A. 2015. Integration of social science into research is crucial. Nature 525(7569):291. https://doi.org/10.1038/525291a Walker, W. E., P. Harremoës, J. Rotmans, J. P. van der Sluijs, M. B. A. van Asselt, P. Janssen, and M. P. Krayer von Krauss. 2003. Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integrated Assessment 4(1):5-17. https://doi.org/10.1076/iaij.4.1.5.16466 Walker, W., and M. Haasnoot. 2011. White Paper. Uncertainty analysis and decision-making under uncertainty with the Deltamodel. Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands. Wei, H., W. Fan, X. Wang, N. Lu, X. Dong, Y. Y. Zhao, X. Ya, and Y. Zhao. 2017. Integrating supply and social demand in ecosystem services assessment: a review. Ecosystem Services 25:15-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.017 Zaucha, J., A. Conides, D. Klaoudatos, and K. Norén. 2016. Can the ecosystem services concept help in enhancing the resilience of land-sea social-ecological systems? Ocean and Coastal Management 124:33-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.01.015 Appendix 1 Table A1.1. Complete summary of the results of the literature review Socio-ecological Power relations Institutions and Temporal scale CES categories Co-production Spatial scale§ Uncertainty governance integration Pluralism| CES class Value Focus on benefit and Emphasis on: link Not common. Not T. Few MT L, R. Mon. Food provision capacity of fisheries between ecological Some papers common. M and Few and and increasingly also conditions and identify Few papers E MS, No Env. aquaculture. Some productivity of trade-offs identify CS Very papers also study fisheries; (provisioning actors and few SC flow through fishing anthropogenic vs. conflicts. catches and landings drivers and impacts regulating) Some on fisheries. Few and conflicts papers papers describe (traditional describe institutions and fishing vs. policy and regulations aquaculture). policy Very few bodies. study link Policy between recommend power ations. relations and Provisioning control of ES Focus on capacity and Not considered Not Not T MT L, R. No Mon. storage Water provision benefit of coastal and considered considered. MS, No and marine water for CS Env. consumption and irrigation Focus on benefits of Emphasis on link Not common. Not T MT L,R. Mon. Biotic materials and biofuels mangroves for wood between land use Few papers considered. very and production change and identify few N Env. capacity conflicts and SR. Very (mangroves) (aquaculture No MS, few SC vs. traditional No CS uses mangroves) and trade- offs (biotic materials vs. coastal protection). Focus on capacity and Emphasis on link Not Not T and L and Mon. Air quality regulation maintenance Regulation benefit of sea water between land use considered considered M R, Very and and coastal change and few SR. Env. and vegetation capacity No MS, (mangroves) for air (mangroves) No CS regulation Focus on capacity of Emphasis on: link Not common. Not T MT. L and Mon. Water purification concentration of between ecological Few papers common. Few R. Few and nutrients or conditions identify Few papers LT, ST N and Env. pollutants in (eutrophication) trade-offs identify and SR. No wetlands, salt and capacity. Link (water actors and MS MS, No marshes, benthic between land use purification conflicts. CS invertebrate species change (agriculture vs. Some and mangroves. and urban) and Food papers Some papers study capacity (wetlands provision and describe flow through and salt marshes) vs. coastal policy and retention of excessive recreation). policy nutrients and bodies. pollutants. Few Policy papers assess recommend benefits of water ations. purification (e.g. treatment costs) Focus on capacity of Not considered Not Not No No L. No No Weather regulation coastal vegetation for considered considered data data MS, No data local weather CS regulation Focus on capacity of Not considered Not Not T, M No L and Env. ent Ocean nourishm nutrient cycle (soil considered considered and E data R. No formation and MS, No nutrients) CS Focus on benefit and Emphasis on: link Not common. Not T and MT L and Mon. Coastal protection capacity of biotic between ecological Few papers common. M R. Very and structures such as conditions of biotic identify Few papers few Env. mangroves, wetlands, structures trade-offs identify MS, No Very coral reefs. Few (wetlands, (coastal actors and CS few SC. papers also asses mangroves, coral protection vs. conflicts. flow through coastal reef) and capacity; food exposure (e.g. wave link land use provision, vs. attenuation) change (agriculture biotic and urban) and materials and capacity vs. (mangroves) recreation) Focus on capacity and Emphasis on link Not common. Few papers T, E MT. L and Env. Climate regulation benefit of mangroves between land use Few identify identify Few R. Very and for CO2 change and conflicts and institutional LT few, N Mon. sequestration and capacity power arrangemen and and G. concentration. No (mangroves) relations in ts, policies, MS Very other climate active PES markets actor and few gases are assessed. conflicts MS, No Policy CS recommend ations. Focus on capacity and Emphasis on link Not common. Not T, E MT. L and Env. Lifecycle maintenance benefit of nursery between ecological Few identify common. Few R. Very and habitat on conditions of trade- ST few, N Mon. mangroves, seagrass habitats and offs/conflicts and G. and capacity. Few (lifecycle No MS, Few papers assess papers describe maintenance No CS flow through fish institutions and vs. production and regulations aquaculture, biodiversity in vs. fisheries nursery habitat and vs. tourism) Focus on flow of Not considered Not Not T No L and Env. Biological regulation invasive species and considered considered data R. very pathogens few G. No MS, No CS Focus on benefit of Emphasis on link Not Not M, E MT L and Mon. Symbolic and aesthetic values aesthetic values such between human considered considered and O R. very and SC as sea views, coastal pressures and few SR, landscape and impacts on N and heritage aesthetic values G. No (degradation of MS, No landscape wildness) CS Focus on benefits of Emphasis on: socio- Not common. Not T and MT L and Mon. Recreation and tourism tourism and tourist economic context; Few papers common. M R. No and SC value preferences. link between study value Few papers MS, No Some papers assess human pressures diversity identify CS flow of natural and impacts on conflicts actors and Cultural resources ecological among actors conflicts. (mangroves, conditions or (e.g. tourist biodiversity) for wildness vs. residents) tourism and recreational activities. Few papers assess capacity of ecosystem for bathing, biodiversity and naturalness Focus on benefit of Not considered Not Not M and MT L and Mon. Cognitive effects research and considered considered E R. No and SC education MS, No (institutions and CS public policy) Table 1. The majority of the reviewed manuscripts contain significant gaps regarding socio-ecological components. They fail to integrate some of the cascade components, especially flow. The papers do not completely embrace coproduction and power relations, and neither do they assess uncertainty, value pluralism and spatial and temporal scales interactions. † T= Technical; M=Methodological; E=Epistemological; O=Ontological ‡ MT= Medium-term; ST= Short-term; MS=Multiscale; CS=Cross-scale § L=Local; R=Regional; LT= Long-term. |Mon.= Monetary; Env.= Environmental; SC.= Sociocultural.