Ecosystem services research in contrasting socio-ecological contexts of Argentina: Critical assessment and future directions

Published in Ecosystem Services, v. 16:63-73
Authors

Mastrangelo, M.E., Weyland, F., Herrera, L.P., Villarino, S.H., Barral, M.P. and Auer, A.D.
Publication year 2015
DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.001
Affiliations
  • Grupo de Estudio de Agroecosistemas y Paisajes Rurales (GEAP), Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Ruta 226 km 73,5, 7620 Balcarce, Argentina
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Av. Rivadavia 1917, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • EEA Balcarce, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Ruta 226 km 73,5, 7620 Balcarce, Argentina

 
IAI Program

CRN3
IAI Project CRN3095
Keywords
Ecosystem services
Argentina
Agriculture
Socio-ecological context
Policy relevant research
Pampas
Chaco

Highlights

•ES research grows in Argentina, yet environmental problems are unabated.

•We analyze 9 attributes in 24 ES studies of two contrasting socio-ecological contexts.

•Integrated ES assessment more frequent in expanding than in consolidated agriculture.

•Overemphasis on the ES supply side compromises understanding ES delivery and values.

•Articulation of research and policy is needed to produce transformative ES knowledge.

Abstract

In Argentina, agricultural expansion and intensification has stimulated the utilization of the ecosystem services (ES) approach to understand the consequences of land-use and land-cover changes. However, Argentina's increasing trends of environmental degradation and social conflict due to agriculture continue unabated. We qualitatively analyzed 24 published ES studies done in either the temperate Pampean (context of consolidated agriculture) or subtropical extra-Pampean regions (context of expanding agriculture), in order to identify country-level and context-specific research needs and gaps, and propose ways to address them. We observed that ES studies in both contexts: (i) tended to focus much more on the biophysical, supply-side of the ES cascade than on the assessment of cultural ES and benefits, (ii) invested more effort in describing coarse ecological patterns/processes than in producing locally-adapted knowledge through stakeholder participation, and (iii) were poorly articulated with decision-making processes regarding sustainable ecosystem management. Despite this, some ES studies performed in the context of expanding agriculture showed incipient efforts to recognize, disaggregate and involve stakeholders, and to understand ES values. To increase the applicability of ES knowledge in decision-making, &ldquostrong&rdquo transdisciplinary approaches should be implemented so that changes in ES delivery and values feedback on management decisions for reverting environmental degradation.