Co-production activities are tightly linked to actors’ capabilities and their use and access to different capitals, also called resources (labour, technology, infrastructure,…) (Leach et al. social capital) inputs need to be considered along the several steps from ecosystems to benefits to people (Fedele et al. Co-production processes and society’s underpinning material (e.g. treatment plants, pipeline networks) (Palomo et al. For example, water quality can be improved by ecosystems along with human infrastructure to benefit society (e.g. Recent conceptual frameworks representing social-ecological interactions highlight that NCP often require society’s inputs, referred to as NCP co-production (Spangenberg et al. This is crucial to understand the complex choices people make, like trade-offs between dimensions of a good quality of life to align with their values (e.g.
Therefore, a good quality of life is not exclusively quantified by material outcomes but also “on one’s ability to choose the life one has reason to value” (Sen 2000), including in relation to others, as sense of place, belonging and identity are intrinsically collective. The various dimensions of a good quality of life supported by nature relate to the satisfaction of human needs, including material NCP like food and shelter, and often highly subjective non-material NCP like belonging or identity (Max-Neef et al. Nature’s contributions to people (NCP) are subjective and highly context-dependent, and the understanding of their intricate material and non-material dimensions stands out as an enduring knowledge gap in social-ecological science (Díaz et al. This study advances previous attempts to further investigate the role of intra-societal relations for NCP co-production.Įcosystems contribute to the multiple facets of people’s good quality of life (Russell et al. Further, the analysis suggests that collective capability relies on dense social interactions between actors that contribute to a good quality of life in itself. These can be viewed as the results of relational value construction. We found that collective capabilities involved in NCP co-production contributed to common perceptions and to specific dimensions of local identities. We analysed the interviews qualitatively and conducted quantitative analyses as well as content and sentiment analysis to identify the different levels and types of collective investment mobilised by actors to generate collective capabilities.
We conducted 44 semi-structured interviews with two distinct different actors’ groups in a French Alpine agricultural system surrounding the production of the quality labelled Beaufort cow cheese. Here, we specifically investigated linkages between collective capabilities and their contributions to common perceptions and local identities. Collective structures mobilise different types of social capitals in order to generate these collective capabilities. These are the benefits collective structures retrieve from social-ecological interactions that individuals could not have achieved on their own and which frequently exceed pure instrumental values. In this study, we used the collective capabilities approach to address the social dimensions of co-production of the material NCP of cheese. Nature’s contributions to people (NCP) do not flow automatically from ecosystems to society, but they result from a co-production process of interactions between societal and ecological systems.
0 kommentar(er)
