Print PageWhile the dominant ecosystem services framework may assist diverse stakeholders in making trade-off decisions in socio-ecological systems, it is not without limitation. Existing critiques of the dominant ecosystem services framework bring attention to some of its shortcomings, such as its reliance on a stock-flow framework, its lack of focus on institutional change, and its inattention to the loss of social and ecological complexity that stems from the commodification and instrumentation of ecosystem services. While this literature raises important questions, it nevertheless stays silent on questions of power, specifically on the power dynamics that result in the unequal distribution of the benefits and burdens of ecosystem services—particularly in urban areas. By failing to address these power differentials and recognize their historical and geographic origins, the dominant ecosystem services framework risks perpetuating unequal distribution of benefits and burdens. The implications of this oversight are particularly visible when examining food as a provisioning service, since most literature addresses production as opposed to distribution and access.
Results/Conclusions
In this poster, we demonstrate how integrating theoretical and methodological insights from urban political ecology into the existing ecosystem services framework can address many of these lacunae. Using the case of access to healthy food in East Portland, Oregon, as an example, we present an outline of the analytical contributions that an integrated framework may make. By explicitly addressing the historical processes shaping power dynamics and equity, a more critical framework emerges. As environmental planners, ecologists, and other decision-makers adopt an ecosystem services framework, an integrated approach can help assess the distribution of benefits and burdens of ecosystems services and foster a more just sustainability.
phone 202-833-8773