Ecosystem Services 37 (2019) 100924

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecosystem Services
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser

Ecosystem services as an inclusive social metaphor for the analysis and T

management of environmental conflicts in Colombia
Alexander Rincón-Ruiza, , Johnny Rojas-Padillab, Catherine Agudelo-Ricoc, Mario Perez-Rincond,
⁎

Simón Vieira-Sampere, Jorge Rubiano-Paezf

a
Escuela de Economía – Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, sede Bogotá, Colombia
b
Universidad del Valle-Escuela EIDENAR, Cali, Colombia
c
Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas, Bogotá, Colombia
d
Universidad del Valle-Instituto CINARA, Cali, Colombia
e
Consultor Independiente, Colombia
f
Corporación semillas de Agua, Colombia

ABSTRACT

Few studies have analyzed the relationships between the ecosystems services (ES) approach and the analysis of environmental conflicts (EC) in Latin American
contexts. This article demonstrates the importance of incorporating some aspects of the recent developments in the ecosystem services framework in order to improve
the analysis and management of environmental conflicts. We created a general analytical framework with which to identify the links between these two approaches.
We also proposed using two key elements in the ES framework in order to strengthen the analysis of EC: a) new perspectives on ES valuation and b) an ES trade-off
analysis. We presented our results on two scales: 1) at the national level, we described the general links between ecosystem services and environmental conflicts, and
2) at the local level, we developed a more detailed analysis of these elements based on a case study in Cajamarca, Tolima. We believe that both frameworks can
strengthen each other in complex and conflicting contexts such as those in Colombia and in Latin America in general.

1. Introduction
Environmental conflicts (EC) can be understood as social conflicts over
the environment (Le Billon, 2015). However, a more structured under-
standing of EC, provided by Robbins (2004), suggests that the “increasing
scarcities produced through resource enclosure or appropriation by state
authorities, private firms, or social elites accelerate conflict between groups
(gender, class, or ethnicity).” These conflicts arise due to a lack of en-
vironmental justice (EJ), that is, when those who are identified as suitable
receptors of justice are not given what they are due (Riechmann, 2003), not
only in purely social terms (among humans) but also in terms of other living
beings. In this sense, the source of environmental conflicts is distributive
(Martínez-Alier, 2002; Martinez-Alier et al., 2010), since they involve in-
equalities and asymmetries.
Two key features of EC are: i) the politicization of environmental pro-
blems, which occurs when some actors are left out while others gain control
over collective natural resources by influencing management decisions and
interventions, and ii) the ecologization of pre-existing conflicts stemming
from induced changes in conservation or natural resources development
policy (Robbins, 2004). Another characteristic of EC is the confrontation or
dispute among different social groups that are either in favor or opposed to
developments, interventions, or projects that impact the environment
(Pérez-Rincón et al., 2019; Padilla, 2002). EJ was born precisely within the
context of an emblematic EC that occurred in 1982 at Warrent County,
where the black community mobilized against the creation of a landfill site
near their homes (Mohai et al., 2009). The academic study of environmental
conflicts and environmental justice has played a very important role in the
development and coordination of social movements (Schlosberg, 2013) by
providing them with the conceptual foundations needed to support their
positions. EJ is both theory and practice simultaneously, embedded in a
constant feedback loop (Sze and London, 2008). Researchers use EJ as a
conceptual framework with which to analyze EC, while social movements
use it as political discourse to justify their positions and disputes. As EC
develop, social movements devise new types of claims, languages, and
protests, which are incorporated into EJ theory. These new theories can in
turn become embedded in the discourse of social movements. In brief, EC
are the empirical expression of environmental injustices, while EJ is the
intersection of social mobilization/activism (where it was born), theoretical
frameworks, and guidelines for the design of policies (Sze and London,
2008).
Early definitions of EJ and its struggles were based on the notion of an
equitable distribution (Schlosberg, 2004, 2013) of 1) the benefits provided
by nature and ecosystems (similar to the notion of ecosystem services) and
2) the environmental hazards and burdens produced by pollution.

⁎
Corresponding author at: Escuela de Economía – Universidad Nacional de Colombia (sede Bogotá), Carrera 30 No 45-03/Edificio 311, Colombia.
E-mail address: alrinconru@unal.edu.co (A. Rincón-Ruiz).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100924
Received 29 August 2017; Received in revised form 31 January 2019; Accepted 28 March 2019
2212-0416/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
Nevertheless, the concept has evolved to incorporate two more dimensions:
participation (or procedural justice) and recognition. Martin et al. (2016)
defined participation as the way in which environmental decisions are
made, that is, who is participating and how they do so. Recognition refers to
how different and divergent identities and cultures are valued and re-
spected, not only in personal encounters, but also in public practices and
discourses related to the environment. In sum, EJ is composed of three di-
mensions: distributive, procedural, and recognition equity (Schlosberg,
2004; Sikor, 2013; Martin et al., 2016).
The ES approach has made several important contributions that high-
light the way human life and well-being are connected to the dynamics of
ecosystems. First, it has changed the way humans perceive the relationship
between society and nature (Fisher et al., 2014) by providing an anthro-
pocentric justification for conserving ecosystems and their biodiversity
(Lamarque et al., 2011). Second, it has added to the current list of goods and
services provided by ecosystems by including benefits such as raw materials
(e.g. fibers and fruits), intangible benefits (e.g. sense of identity, inspiration,
cognitive development), and regulation processes (e.g. flood control and
climate regulation) (Gómez-Baggethun and Ruiz-Pérez, 2011). Third, the ES
approach has helped to advance the possibility of simultaneously taking into
account both nature conservation and social development in the manage-
ment of ecosystems (Tallis et al., 2008), including challenging conservation
strategies that displace humans from natural environments. Lastly, the ES
approach is interdisciplinary in nature (Burkhard et al., 2009; Reyers et al.,
2013), and has thereby managed to incorporate different academic view-
points into the study of complex interactions among the social, economic,
and environmental processes that are involved in ecosystem services. These
contributions also relate to the many other purposes for which this approach
is being used: as a theoretical framework, as a discursive tool, and even as
an alternative paradigm for environmental management (Muradian and
Rival, 2012).
Because of the current status of ES as the dominant approach for un-
derstanding interactions between society and nature, critical observers have
scrutinized it scientifically as well as politically. The ES approach was re-
cently criticized for its theoretical conception as well as for a lack of en-
vironmental justice elements in the empirical research (Ernstson, 2013; Lele,
2013; Jax et al., 2013; Luck et al., 2012; Marshall and Gonzalez-Meler,
2016; Aragão et al., 2016; Jacobs et al., 2016; Schröter et al., 2014). Perhaps
the most limiting factor in the analysis of how ES contribute to the well-
being of different stakeholders is the assumption that by increasing the
supply of ES, they will trickle down to society as a whole, as if there were an
omnipotent, homogeneous beneficiary (Daw et al., 2011; Dawson and
Martin, 2015). This is what Daw et al. (2011, pag. 370) called the “ag-
gregation problem,” which occurs when “the benefits to human well-being
are considered, measured or valued without explicit reference to different
groups of humans who unevenly share the different benefits and costs of
ES” (idib. Op. Cit). This assumption is very problematic, as it disregards
some of the issues that explain the inequitable distribution of ES and the
benefits they provide to different social groups (Daw et al., 2011). One of
those issues is that the quantity and quality of the benefits that someone
might get from ES depend on their current ability to access those services,
where access is defined by Ribot and Peluso (2003) as the ability to obtain
benefits from things. The assumption of aggregated well-being creates an-
other problem, namely, it does not recognize the winners and losers in the
distribution of ES (Dawson and Martin, 2015). It will be quite difficult to
prevent winners and losers from occurring as long as individuals and groups
of stakeholders face different access barriers to ES and enjoy and value
different types of ES because of those barriers. Denying this reality may be
especially unjust to poor and marginalized people whose livelihoods are
disproportionately dependant on ES (Daw et al., 2011), and “whose status
differs from the average” (Dawson and Martin, 2015, pag. 70). Social actors
not only have different preferences for ES, or different values, but also
different degrees of power, which may cause social conflicts and reinforce
unequal access to certain ES (Bennett et al., 2015).
Given this context, the main objective of our article was to use an
analytical framework to analyze how the ES approach contributes to the
2
Ecosystem Services 37 (2019) 100924
analysis and management of environmental conflicts. Two points have
recently been used in the ES approach: 1) an integrated valuation and
2) a trade-off analysis. These can strengthen and improve the analysis of
environmental conflicts, and along with elements of environmental
justice, could provide more robust solutions to environmental conflicts,
which continue to grow along with the inequalities and asymmetries in
the distribution of ecosystem services.
First, recent literature on ES has begun to use an integrated valuation of
biodiversity along with ES approaches. This includes social, ecological, and
economic values, with decisions that lead to a deliberative analysis that
surpasses traditional cost-benefit analyses that reduce multiple values to a
monetary unit (Jacobs et al., 2016; Pascual et al., 2016; Palomo et al., 2013;
Iniesta-Arandia et al., 2014; Rincón-Ruiz et al., 2019). Even though human
well-being is clearly central to the ES approach, and it is recognized by
virtually every definition of ecosystem services produced in different aca-
demic and political contexts (Daw et al., 2011; Polishchuk and
Rauschmayer, 2012), amazingly, our understanding of how ES contribute to
human well-being is still limited (Summers et al., 2012; Abunge et al., 2013;
Bennett et al., 2015). With an integrated valuation that does not reduce
values to a monetary unit, it is possible to see multiple valuation languages.
And even with deliberative aggregation methods, an integrated valuation
can decrease power asymmetries (Jacobs et al., 2016; Pascual et al., 2017).
Works such as those by Rincón-Ruiz et al. (2019), which analyze case stu-
dies of integrated valuation in Latin America, suggest that this type of
method is important for analyzing environmental conflicts.
Second, the analysis of trade-offs is a concept that is crucial to the
equitable distribution of ES among different social groups. While it may
seem very appealing to talk about win–win solutions to show that
conservation and development can be simultaneously achieved, eco-
system management usually involves competition among different
economic, social, and environmental goals (McShane et al., 2011). This
means that ecosystems can provide multiple services, but their man-
agement cannot maximize the offer of all the services at the same time,
resulting in trade-offs (King et al., 2015).
The analysis presented in this article centers on these two elements,
an integrated valuation of ES and a trade-off analysis. The first part of
the paper describes an analytical framework. The second part presents
empirical evidence of the relationship between the ecosystem services
framework and the analysis of environmental conflicts. We approach
this by presenting a national and local analysis of how these elements
can contribute to understanding environmental conflicts.
2. Ecosystem services and environmental conflicts — an
analytical framework
For the first Latin American conference on ecosystem services, organized
by the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP) and held in Colombia in 2016,
we coordinated a symposium on environmental conflicts and ecosystem
services. At that symposium, 10 related works were presented and the
elements in ES that support the analysis of environmental conflicts were
identified.1 We also conducted interviews of environmental conflict ob-
servatories in Colombia (Universidad del Valle and Universidad Nacional de
Colombia) in order to complement these early hypotheses from the sym-
posium, and inquired as to whether they used the ecosystems services ap-
proach and the potential they saw in it. Lastly, we performed a literature
review of documents that explicitly addressed the topic of environmental
conflicts and ecosystem services, and found very little literature on the
subject (Sikor et al. may be the most related and most widely mentioned
work). Based on the interviews and the works reviewed on environmental
conflicts, we found that the inclusion of ecosystem services is quite unusual,
1
Latin American and Caribbean Conference - Ecosystem Services Partnership
(ESP) - Cali, Colombia / 18–21 October 2016/Special Session “Environmental
conflicts and ecosystem services”: https://www.espconference.org/
latinamerica2016/wiki/229335/presentations.
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
Fig. 1. Links between the ecosystem services analysis and the environmental conflicts analysis (analytical framework).
since it is primarily thought of as a framework for commercializing nature.
Nevertheless, based on the case studies presented at the symposium, we
found that the ES approach can make a contribution without engaging in
the idea of commercializing nature, as we had also demonstrated in our
previous studies (Rincon-Ruiz et al., 2016; Rincón-Ruiz, 2017).
In Fig. 1, the left side presents the cascade model of ecosystem services
(Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010) a key framework for the ES approach.
This is less common in the literature and is analyzed herein. The right side
presents the contributions associated with the topic of environmental jus-
tice, which is traditionally found in the literature. We did not analyze this,
though we mentioned it in the discussion. As is seen in this figure, both
approaches together can contribute to improving the analysis and man-
agement of environmental conflicts. We analyzed two specific ways in
which the ecosystem services approach contributes to the analysis of en-
vironmental conflicts (as mentioned previously): integrated and multiple
valuation (Jacobs et al., 2016; Pascual et al., 2017; Rincón-Ruiz et al., 2019)
and the trade-off analysis (Mach et al., 2015; Daw et al., 2015).
While an EJ analysis can also contribute to the ES approach, for ex-
ample, through the analysis of power asymmetries, these elements will not
be the focus of this paper. Instead, we will only use them as analytical
references and as part of the discussion. Authors such as Berbés-Blázquez
et al. (2016) analyzed these relationships in detail, particularly the inclusion
of the topic of power asymmetries in the ecosystem services framework,
which we mention in the final discussion.
The conceptual framework proposed herein helps us to expand our
field of work (the ES approach’s contributions to the analysis of en-
vironmental conflicts), while also acknowledging that more complexity
could be included (for example, the contributions by the environmental
justice framework to the analysis of ecosystem services, which is not the
objective of this article).
3
Ecosystem Services 37 (2019) 100924
2.1. Ecological and social values of ecosystem services: new approaches for
integrated valuation
Ecosystems do not respond to pressures in a linear way. Those that
seem to respond in a stable way to gradual and cumulative pressure
may suddenly undergo non-linear behaviors and changes in state that
affect their structure and functioning (Walker and Meyers, 2004). All
the elements in an ecosystem are constantly interacting to create
complex systems with emerging properties: the whole is more than the
sum of its parts. These interactions result in ecological functions, which
in turn generate ES that benefit humans (TEEB, 2015)
Understanding the importance of ecosystems as a basis for ES is
fundamental to human well-being, as it allows us to strengthen deci-
sion-making processes and facilitate discussions that involve EC. By
providing the technical bases for the impacts that economic activities
have on the provision of ES, we can better understand how these
changes affect the well-being of communities. Once an ecosystem un-
dergoes a change in state, its structure usually becomes less able to
perform ecologic functions. The result is the generation of fewer ser-
vices (Folke et al., 2004). These concepts, usually called ecological va-
lues (De Groot et al., 2010), reflect an ecosystem’s capacity to maintain
a sustained flow of benefits (TEEB, 2010). These concepts are taken
from the analysis of ES and significantly contribute to the study of EC
and environmental justice (Rincón-Ruiz et al., 2016, 2019). Under-
standing technical elements such as ecological values, ecosystem resi-
lience, and environmental thresholds serves as a key step towards
empowering local communities in their quest for environmental justice.
Another important contribution of the ES framework is its inclusion of
social values in ecosystem valuation, which can relate to the demand for
ecosystem services (in our case) as well as to a more holistic approach.
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
Rather than discussing “instrumental values,” this would focus on “shared”,
”social,” or “shared social” values as distinguishable categories. Kenter et al.
(2015) found good arguments in favor of these new ideas, and showed how
government is also interested in analytical methods and quantitative mea-
sures of social and shared values of nature (Fish et al., 2011a,b; Fujiwara
and Campbell, 2011; Maxwell et al., 2011). Deliberative and participatory
approaches to environmental valuation and appraisal are increasingly ad-
vocated as a way to include multidimensional values in decision-making
processes. The IPBES also made an important contribution in this area by
incorporating the concept of “diverse values,” and with this, the idea of
relational values of ES (Pascual et al., 2017). Relational values are not present
in things (including nature), but rather, they are derived from relationships
with them and responsibilities to them. In this regard, the identity of some
people is rooted in their long-term stewardship of nature, such as volunteer
stream keepers and urban and rural farmers. In other cases, the worldviews
of communities and social organizations encompass a kinship between
people and nature, subscribing to notions such as “Mother Nature,” “Mother
Earth,” “Gaia,” and so forth. Many people believe that their cultural identity
and well-being are derived from their relationships with both humans and
nonhumans, which are mediated by particular environments (Chan et al.,
2012a,b).
Important advances were found in the literature with regard to the
inclusion of new values associated with ES (Small et al., 2017; Hackbart
et al., 2017; Sangha et al., 2017), including work by the Ecosystem
Services Partnership (Jacobs et al., 2016; Jacobs and Burkhard, 2017),
an integrated valuation of ES group. And more recently, in the case of
Latin America, Rincón-Ruiz et al. (2019) showed that this region has
made progress in the inclusion of new values. All of these works
(Rincón-Ruiz et al., 2015; Pascual et al., 2016; Jacobs et al., 2016,
2018; Rincón-Ruiz et al., 2019) demonstrate that an integrated and
multiple valuation of ES is important to environmental justice and to
the analysis of environmental conflicts.
2.2. Trade-offs in the ecosystem service analysis and environmental
conflicts
The use of an ecosystem service for one purpose can affect the use of
other ecosystem services for other purposes. This is known as an ES trade-off
(Metcalf et al., 2010). Trade-offs describe what happens when land use or
management decisions lead to increasing the supply of one service and
decreasing the availability of others (King et al., 2015). This can be un-
derstood as a balance between two contradictory or incompatible traits as a
result of management choices that, intentionally or not, alter the quantity or
quality of an ES in order to fulfill a specific objective. In this light, EC are
clearly part of the study of ES when analyzed using the trade-off approach.
An example of this is the conflict between some of the values underlying an
ES, such as the monetary value vs. the sacred value (Daw et al., 2015)
The ES literature describes how trade-offs arise when the offer of one
service decreases due to the increased use or supply of another (Rodríguez
et al., 2006). Howe et al. (2014) recently reviewed 92 research papers that
contained 108 case studies, and registered three times more ES trade-offs
than synergies, thereby demonstrating the complex and conflicting nature
of ecosystem management. Nevertheless, it is important to mention that
other papers have suggested the existence of a larger number of synergies
(Li and Wang, 2018; Lin et al., 2018; Kearney et al., 2017).
The limited use of the ES trade-off analysis has made it difficult to de-
termine winning and losing social groups, and has limited the potential
benefit of using a socio-environmental conflict analysis in the ES approach.
Howe et al. (2014) showed that the winners and losers in trade-off situa-
tions have very different profiles. Winners usually have a private interest in
ES, they act at a local level, and they make use of provisioning services such
as crops, fish, and wood. On the other hand, losers usually have a public
interest in ES, they act on diverse spatial scales, and use a wider variety of
services. Furthermore, the level of wealth of winners and losers is clearly
different. It is paradoxical and socially unjust that the ones who usually
suffer from a loss of well-being as a result of ES trade-offs are the
4
Ecosystem Services 37 (2019) 100924
stakeholders who perceive ES as public goods (Howe et al., 2014), and who
are more vulnerable due to their marginal condition (Arias-Arévalo et al.,
2018; Daw et al., 2015).
ES trade-offs are clearly central to the development of environmental
conflicts, since disputes between groups of stakeholders arise due to changes
in ES availability (Kovács et al., 2015). As part of an equity analysis, the
winners and losers in a new distribution of the ES can be predicted based on
the trade-offs that result from changes in the flow of various ES (Sikor,
2013). Furthermore, recognizing winners and losers can help to identify the
elements and power relationships involved in the decisions about how to
manage ecosystem services trade-offs. As was previously mentioned, EC
stem from situations in which power asymmetries lead to ES trade-offs that
benefit one group of actors while negatively affecting another. With a trade-
off analysis, it is possible to understand the needs of all the stakeholders in a
conflict, since these confrontations reflect each group’s level of priority with
regard to each ES. Thus, the main causes of the conflict can be elucidated
and the degree of compatibility between the current situation and the
priorities of each actor can be determined. For example, when trade-offs
decrease the availability of an ES that is a priority for certain actors, the
probability that groups will reach agreement is lower than when the priority
and availability of a service are compatible. Therefore, a trade-off analysis is
important for understanding EC because it allows policy makers to re-
cognize the long-term effects of preferring one ES over another, and the
consequences of focusing only on the present provision of a service rather
than on its future. It is important to point out that the literature has reported
significant advances in recent years in the use of the ES trade-off analysis
(Langner et al., 2017; Fernández-Campo et al., 2017). For example, Kovács
et al., (2015) explored how the ES approach was useful for identifying the
main losses and gains (trade-offs) resulting from land use changes that oc-
curred due to conservation measures in a protected area.
3. Methodology
3.1. Analysis at the national level: trade-offs and environmental conflicts
The Colombian case studies selected for this paper were taken from
the Environmental Justice Atlas (www.ejatlas.org). This atlas can be
described as a broad sample, obtained by experts, of recent ecological
distribution conflicts that were visible and reported by communications
media throughout the world (although with unequal geographic cov-
erage). These cases were collected through an online form that has
enabled constructing a large database.
Each form contains the name, location, and general description of the
conflict, and the project or activity that generated it. It also contains a series
of coded variables related to the products or sectors associated with the
conflict in question, as well as the environmental, health, and socio-
economic impacts, the social actors and how they were mobilized, and the
conflicts’ outcomes. The forms also contain a section about the sources of
the information and links to photos and videos. Roughly 2,700 environ-
mental conflicts worldwide are currently registered in EJAtlas (Pérez-
Rincón et al., 2019). At the time of this investigation, 115 conflicts were
listed for Colombia. The survey developed by EJAtlas has obtained in-
formation about conflicts from websites, media reports, environmental
NGOs, and social activists. The environmental conflict was considered to be
the central category, and different discourse variables were analyzed, in-
cluding the origin and causes of the conflicts, the positions of the stake-
holders, and the types of impacts generated, amongst other aspects of in-
terest to this research. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the
information gathered by the surveys and to create a database to classify,
characterize, and typify the conflicts.
The variables related to the conflicts in the inventory were: types of
projects, specific economic activities that generated the impacts, and the
responses by the affected communities, represented by protests against the
unequal distribution of costs and benefits (Schlosberg, 2004). Disputes
usually become visible through legal cases, campaigns, petitions, meetings,
protests, boycotts, strikes, threats, civil disobedience, and collective
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
Fig. 2. Geographic location of the Coello River Basin, department of Tolima, Colombia (Source: COMPANDES, 2012).
violence, among other actions (Tilly, 1993).
Two key criteria were used by EJAtlas to identify the conflicts. One was
the economic activity or project having real or potential negative social and
environmental implications. EJAtlas classifies these as sources of conflict
and categorizes them according to the following economic-metabolic sec-
tors: fossil fuels, mining, biomass and land conflicts, water management,
biodiversity and conservation conflicts, waste management, infrastructure,
industry, and tourism. The other criterion was the claims by environmental
justice organizations that exposed the real or potential impacts of a devel-
opment project (Temper et al., 2015). The following criteria were used to
select each conflict: demand and degree of visibility of each claim, criticism,
protests by the affected stakeholders, and product-specific projects (e.g. an
oil extraction site, a landfill, etc). In order to analyze the relationship be-
tween environmental conflicts and ecosystem services, two additional
variables related to the 115 conflicts were introduced: the main ES affected
and the main three ES affected by the projects or economic activities that
generated the conflicts.
Based on the above information, the present study established three
analytical schemes: 1) mapping, in order identify the geographic loca-
tion of the conflicts and cross-reference the information with other
variables and maps, so as to improve the conflict analysis; 2) descriptive
statistics, in order to enhance the knowledge about the conflicts and
complement the analytical framework; and 3) identification of re-
lationships between EC and ES in order to demonstrate that EC can be
analyzed based on their impact on ES trade-offs.
It is worth noting that the list of conflicts does not include every
existing conflict, since it represents a regional census, and a specific
temporal analysis was not applied, given that the purpose of this study
was to identify the main conflicts, regardless of when they took place.
However, we believe that the present work represents an inventory of
5
Ecosystem Services 37 (2019) 100924
the main environmental conflicts in Colombia, and it provides an
overview of the conflict-generating activities as well as the geo-
graphical scope of the environmental conflicts associated with eco-
system services in this country (trade-off analysis).
3.2. Case study: the Coello River basin
We identified and analyzed a case study in the Coello River Basin (in
the department of Tolima, Colombia) in order to show the potential of
using the ES approach to analyze EC. When examining this case study,
we used the two aspects of the ES approach that have been previously
discussed: ES valuation and trade-off analysis. The valuation of ES was
based on ecological values (the offer of a good or service or the capacity
of the ecosystem to maintain a sustained flow of benefits) as well as
social values (society’s recognition of and demand for a service)
(Rincón-Ruiz et al., 2015; de Groot et al., 2010). Given the specific EC
occurring in the Coello River Basin, the study treated regulation and
provision services as a priority. The analysis was based on secondary
information obtained from official sources in Colombia (Pulido, 1985;
Nuñez and Murillo, 1982; Cortolima, 2006; IGAC, 2014a,b; DANE,
2016; IDEAM, 2013, 2014a,b).
3.2.1. Study area
The case study is located in the Coello River Basin, in the north-
central region of the department of Tolima, Colombia, between
4°33′02.50N − 75°30′17.32″W and 4°18′51.78N – 75°04′37.01″W. The
basin begins in the central mountain range, at “Los Nevados” National
Nature Park, with a riverbed of 114 km flowing into the Magdalena
River (Fig. 2). The basin’s physiography varies greatly, from 4650 masl
at its highest peak to 296 masl at the mouth of the river, and it contains
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
a variety of ecosystems that range from dry forests to wetlands. The
basin’s area is 185,000 ha and covers the seven largest urban and agro-
industrial centers in the department of Tolima (Cajamarca, Ibagué,
Rovira, San Luis, Espinal, Coello and Flandes). Its total population is
over 1.8 million people.
Coello is the most important river basin in the department of
Tolima. Its strategic significance is due to the ES it provides, such as
water regulation and food provision for the central part of the country.
The Coello River receives water form five other rivers that originate in
the Páramo de Anaime and the Nevado del Tolima. It has an annual
potential water supply of 1452 million m3 (IDEAM, 2014), and it sup-
plies an estimated 60% of the domestic (rural and urban aqueducts) and
agro-industrial water demanded by the department of Tolima. The
Coello River is also the main supplier of water for the largest irrigation
system in the country (Usocoello), whose current maximum possible
area is 25,000 ha for the production of rice, sorghum, cotton, and fruits,
providing water for 80% of the department’s small and medium agri-
cultural systems (Cortolima, 2005). Several types of wetlands exist in
the basin’s highlands, including glacier lakes and peatlands. With re-
gard to the subsoil, the aquifer recharge zones occupy roughly 40% of
the total area of the basin (Fig. 5-A)
The Coello River Basin is located in a region with high biodiversity.
According to current studies, this region is home to 40% of the Andean
birds in the country (Losada-Prado et al, 2005) and 30% of the fish in
the Magdalena system (Cortolima, 2005). Studies performed in 2003 by
the Corporación Semilla de Agua report that high mountain ecosystems
are strategically important to the Coello Basin (Corp. Semillas de Agua –
WWF, 2003). Research on the supply and demand of water in the
Páramo de Anaime shows that, if this ecosystem is conserved, it can
provide 74 million m3 of water/year to the Anaime River sub-basin.
That amount of water contributes $500 million dollars/year to the local
economy as a result of its use in irrigation, energy generation, agri-
culture, and domestic activities (Corp. Semillas de Agua – WWF, 2003).
3.2.2. Trade-off analysis and ecological and social values
Water regulation services are understood as a river basin’s potential
to capture, store, and distribute rainwater (Le maitre et al, 2014). A
multi-criteria evaluation was used for the valuation of these services in
order to identify the zones with more water regulation potential, ac-
cording to abiotic characteristics such as geology (Velez, 1999; Torres
et al., 2004), geomorphology, soil types (Quintas-Soriano et al, 2014),
slope gradients, and land cover (Bruijnzeel, 2004; Buytaert et al, 2004;
Podwojewski and Poulenard, 2004; Buytaert et al, 2007; García, 2007;
Ataroff and Naranjo, 2009; Célleri and Feyen, 2009; Tobón, 2009). The
information used for this valuation was obtained from official carto-
graphic sources in Colombia, at a scale of 1:100,000. With regard to the
geology, maps 244, 245, 263, and 264 were used ((Pulido, 1985; Nuñez
and Murillo, 1882). Information related to the geomorphology and soils
was obtained from the geopedology map developed by the Instituto
Geográfico Agustín Codazzi (IGAC, 2014a,b). The gradient was calcu-
lated using 30 m digital elevation data for Colombia, and land cover
was estimated based on shapefiles generated by IDEAM (2016) for the
period 2010 to 2012. All of the above information was used to rank the
water regulation services in the basin according to high, medium, and
low supply zones. Each variable was ranked according to its contribu-
tion to water regulation. For example, land cover was ranked according
to the functions of different covers in ecological water regulation pro-
cesses (interception, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and runoff). Based
on a literature view of their functions, these were assigned values of 1
to 5 (Table 4–35) according to their importance to the water inputs and
outputs of the system (Nieto et al, 2015). They were then spatially
summed.
Social values in this case were associated with the demand for
ecosystem services. Two factors had to be identified in order to evaluate
the provision services associated with the consumption of water by
households, industry, and agriculture (de Groot et al, 2002): 1) the
6
Ecosystem Services 37 (2019) 100924
water sources available in the study area (lotic and lentic water sys-
tems), determined using base cartography at a scale of 1:100,000
(IGAC, 2014a,b) and cartography of the water recharge zones (IDEAM,
2014), and 2) areas in the study area where there was demand and the
types of water usage. This information was obtained from the National
Water Study produced by IDEAM (2014), the basin management map
(Cortolima, 2006), and available land planning programs (Secretaría de
Planeación municipal de Ibague, 2014). The following information was
identified for each of the above sources: municipal aqueducts, total
amount of water collected, number of beneficiaries, and use of water.
Food provision services were associated with the land use cover
areas corresponding to the production of food (agricultural zones, crop/
grassland mosaics, and crop/natural cover mosaics). This analysis was
based on official information from the local environmental organization
(Cortolima, 2006) that is the authority on the types of crops and yields
in the region, and on land cover information obtained from IDEAM
(2016). With respect to food demand, a literature review was performed
in order to obtain data on commercialization channels, markets for the
main products, and amount of products sold in the region.
After identifying and analyzing all the regulation and provision
services in the case study, trade-offs and possible EC were identified by
linking the economic activities with the ecosystem services affected.
4. Results
4.1. Environmental conflicts and ecosystem services at the national level
(Trade-offs)
In recent years, a wide variety of EC has emerged in Colombia (such as
disputes over the natural wealth of the country). When analyzing these
conflicts, all of them are clearly associated with ES. In fact, most of the
conflicts have stemmed from an increase in the vulnerability of the supply
of ES and their uneven use and appropriation. This can occur in a direct
way, when projects are aimed at extracting ES (such as water, wood, and
food), or in an indirect way, when the extraction of abiotic elements (such
as gold, oil, etc.) produces environmental liabilities that are clearly related
to a decrease in the supply of ES. The frequency of EC between local
communities and the productive sector is constantly increasing, driven by
power asymmetries in the use of natural resources and access to them, as
well as in the ownership of large areas of land. Furthermore, these effects
are magnified by the limited capacity of the state to properly manage the
country’s land and environment.
The establishment and expansion of certain productive activities
(e.g. mining, oil extraction, and agro-industry) can increase social and
environmental vulnerability, which is driven by power asymmetries
among economic stakeholders, local communities, and environmental
authorities. These asymmetries usually result in the degradation of
territories that have a high supply of ES, such as wetlands, watersheds,
and forests, thereby producing environmental liabilities.
Most of the 115 EC analyzed in Colombia have arisen in response to
mining activities, especially gold mining. Other significant conflicts
have involved the extraction of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, as well
as biomass extraction, which has involved disputes over extensive
monocultures (particularly oil palm) and intensive forest exploitation.
While conflicts related to energy generation projects, especially hy-
droelectric plants, did not represent a large percentage (8%), they did
significantly impact the environment and local communities (see
Fig. 3). Most of these activities represent major economic interests and
are often supported by local politicians. Fig. 3 shows that water pro-
vision and regulation are the most affected ES, and that nearly all the
economic activities impact these services.
As seen in Fig. 3, nearly all EC identified by EJOLT (2015) are as-
sociated with one or more ES, which supports the use of the ES ap-
proach as a key tool for understanding EC.
The ecosystems that have been most affected are forests and wa-
tersheds, and the natural resources that have been most greatly
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
Fig. 3. Environmental conflicts and ecosystem services trade-offs in Colombia.
This figure shows the main economic activities that impact ecosystem services,
and their spatial distribution in Colombia. Source: Based on Rincón et al., 2016.
impacted are water, soil, and biodiversity. EC arise as a result of natural
resources becoming less available due to the dispossession of water,
land, communal territories, and biodiversity. Local communities strive
to resist mega-projects and to regain their rights to a healthy environ-
ment, nature conservation, and the ethical and esthetical values related
to the interaction of communities with their environment. Farming,
Indigenous, and Afro-Colombian communities are most vulnerable to
negative environmental impacts (Pérez Rincón, 2014). ES trade-offs
resulting from productive activities affect their way of life by limiting
cultural development, social relationships, traditions, and access to
sustainable livelihoods.
For example, according to the perception of local communities,
mining activities (such as the case study analyzed in the next section)
greatly impact the availability of water, thereby affecting their main
economic activity, which is agriculture. This example illustrates a
classic trade-off between mining and ES, which can result in EC as the
supply of services for local communities decreases, such as water
7
Ecosystem Services 37 (2019) 100924
availability and regulation (Fig. 4). As shown in Fig. 4, this is why the
community prefers a development model without mining in their ter-
ritory.2
The effects of productive activities such as mining, fossil fuel ex-
traction, and infrastructure on ES have been shown to pose a significant
challenge for the adequate management and conservation of ecosys-
tems. In this sense, the use of interdisciplinary instruments and tech-
nical information about the available ES to address conflicts provides a
good opportunity for improving environmental sustainability.
4.2. Ecosystem services and environmental conflicts: a case study in the
Coello River Basin.
4.2.1. Ecological and social Values: Capacity to supply ecosystem services
(Water Regulation) and water Demand.
According to the multi-criteria analysis of biophysical factors, the
level of water regulation potential is medium in the majority (67%) of
the Coello River Basin, followed by a low potential (in 23% of the
basin). Most of the areas with potential water regulation are found in
the middle and lower portions of the basin. Although the geological
formations in these areas have a high infiltration capacity and the soils
and slopes are favorable to regulation, there is very little land cover,
and it is constantly changing (according to the multi-temporal analysis
of land cover for the period 2002 to 2012). Only the upper basin has a
high potential water regulation (15% of the basin). And while the slope
gradients are steeper (> 45%) there than in the mid and lower basins,
larger patches of natural cover are also present in the upper basin
(mainly forests and wetlands), and the aquifer recharge zones cover
roughly 50% of this area and favor regulation processes (Fig. 5-B).
The total water demand in the Coello Basin is 117 million m2, 57%
of which is consumed by agriculture, 23% by livestock farms, 12% by
construction projects, 8% by households and the service sector (mainly
hotels and hospitals), and less than 1% is consumed by aquiculture
activities and mining. The surface water in the basin is the main supply
for the municipal aqueducts, which provide water to over 535,000
people (Fig. 5-C).
Most of the water stored in the basin’s aquifers is used for crop ir-
rigation (52%), followed by domestic use (26%) and industries (12%)
such as the textile sector (data based on 59 wells that were surveyed
throughout the department of Tolima, only 10% of which were located
in the Coello Basin) (INGEOMINAS, 1997; Perez, 2016).
Another service supplied by this ecosystem is the provision of food
(including agricultural zones and grasslands). In 2012, croplands cov-
ered 73,541 ha (IDEAM, 2016) and contained a wide variety of pro-
ducts. The upper basin is mostly occupied by small and medium
farmers, covering an area of 7080 ha with more than 17 different types
of crops, which produce 38,800 tons of food per year. In the middle
portion of the basin, small and medium farmers grow more than 9
different types of crops (predominantly sugar cane and coffee), which
produce 95,611 tons of food per year on an area of 17,261 ha.
In the lower basin, the productive systems mostly belong to medium
and large farmers, which produce a smaller diversity of products
(mainly rice and sorghum). They produce over 8250 tons per year and
cover approximately 6500 ha of land (Secretaria Agricultura
Departamental del Tolima, 2011; Cortolima, 2005, DANE, 2016)
(Fig. 6). Although livestock grasslands are not one of the main
2
This perception analysis was based on interviews, some of which became
part of a documentary that we produced, called: “Dialogues with Nature:
Building Bridges of Life”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5OE7X52574
&t=1943s. It was also based on the results from a public consultation process
that took place in 2017 in Cajamarca, Colombia, in which 97% of the popu-
lation (6,165 people) voted against the mining project. The results of the con-
sultation reflect concerns about the possible effects the project could have on
the availability of water and the agricultural economy of the region.
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
Fig. 5. Water supply and demand in the Coello River Basin. A) Surface water supply and aquifer recharge zones, B) potential water regulation, C) demand for water
resources.
productive activities in the Coello Basin, they cover 26,855 ha of land
and belong to small, medium, and large producers (IDEAM, 2016). This
activity serves a double purpose of producing both meat and milk for
self-consumption and for sale in nearby cities (Cortolima, 2005).
4.2.2. Trade-off analysis
The previous section described the demand and supply of the ES
available in the Coello River Basin. Water regulation and provision
services are mostly generated in the upper basin and consumed in the
mid and lower portions of the basin. A significant amount of the water
generated in the basin is used by the main irrigation district
(Usocoello), benefiting the lower regions and adjacent municipalities
(Fig. 7). Furthermore, since the Coello River is a tributary of the even
larger Magdalena River Basin, the benefits provided by water regula-
tion and provision services could be considered on a national scale.
In the case of food provision, most of the products are grown in the
middle basin and are transported to Bogota, the country’s capital,
8
Ecosystem Services 37 (2019) 100924
Fig. 4. Trade-offs perceived by the commu-
nity between mining and ecosystem services
(Cajamarca case study, Colombia). The dia-
gram on the left shows that the community
perceives a relationship between gold
mining activities and a decrease in the
supply of ES. The diagram on the right il-
lustrates the ideal situation desired by the
community.
leaving only a small amount for self-consumption. In the upper basin,
food production takes place on a smaller scale and primarily supplies
local consumption (Fig. 7).
Coello Basin stakeholders have used different strategies to manage
ecosystems, especially government entities looking to keep a steady
flow of water resources. One of the main strategies is the creation of
protected areas for the conservation of springs in the upper basin,
which restricts human activities in wetlands and other high mountain
ecosystems. However, ecosystem management is a complex process that
requires complex solutions. In the upper basin, favoring water provision
and regulation services has limited other productive activities such as
agriculture and livestock farming, while in the lower basin, favoring
food provision services has significantly reduced natural land cover,
which affects all other services (e.g. water cycle regulation, air quality
improvement, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity, among others).
Water resource management strategies aimed at food provision, espe-
cially the construction of the irrigation district, have mostly favored
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al. Ecosystem Services 37 (2019) 100924

Fig. 6. Food supply in the Coello River Basin. Left: land cover in 2012 (IDEAM, 2016). Right: types of crops in the river basin (Cortolima, 2005).

Fig. 7. A) Flows and scales of the supply of water regulation and water provision services in the Coello Basin. The brown lines mark the distribution of the service. B)
Flows and scales of the supply of food provision services in the Coello basin. The brown lines mark the distribution of the service.

large rice producers without taking into consideration small and
medium farmers, resulting in conflicts due to the uneven distribution
and access to water resource services.
4.2.3. Using the ecosystem services approach for conflict management
From the perspective of the ES approach, the EC identified in the
Coello Basin are primarily associated with two fundamental services:
provision of food and water. For example, situations were identified
where rural communities lacked permanent access to enough quality
water for irrigation and domestic use, especially in the lower part of the
basin. This example is a clear case of an ES trade-off stemming from an
inequitable distribution of water between the agro-industry sector and
the local community. Additionally, because of power asymmetries,
weak policies have prioritized large economic interests, thereby re-
sulting in a lack of aqueducts and wastewater management systems in
rural areas, and failing to guarantee basic rights to local farming
communities.
Furthermore, the use of the command and control approach to im-
plement government policies and programs has permanently degraded
natural protected areas that are strategic to the regulation and provi-
sion of water in the basin. These strategies have been centered on ac-
quiring land without any complementary planning and management
strategies to protect the area.
The above situations, which have been driven by power asymme-
tries and weak government policies, have generated a sense of en-
vironmental injustice in the community, and eventually resulted in an
EC. A conflict management process took place between 2005 and 2012
in order to resolve the situation. That process was financed by the
Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) and was carried out in
two phases: the first was the “Collective Action Mechanisms”
(Mecanismos de Acción Colectiva in Spanish) and the second phase was
the “Benefit Sharing Mechanisms” (Mecanismos para Compartir
Beneficios, in Spanish) (Coorporación semillas de agua, 2015, 2016;
COMPANDES, 2012). These efforts focused on the two main ES that
were previously mentioned, water supply and food provision. At a local
scale (micro-basins), several agreements were reached with the local
municipalities, including: the adoption of the Municipal System of
Protected Area (SIMAP in Spanish), the development of management
plans for strategic areas with high water provision value, support for
productive reconversion processes, and installation of wastewater
treatment systems and water purification systems for the communities.
These improvements were aimed at guaranteeing an adequate quality
and quantity of water for domestic and agricultural use in marginal
rural communities. The above example illustrates how ecological values
are fundamental to the analysis of EC, in order to understand why the
needs of the community are not being fulfilled and how that can be

9
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
resolved.
At the ecosystem level, the mechanisms implemented in the Coello
Basin were chosen in order to strengthen the management of biodi-
versity in areas that have high natural and hydrological value. Several
agreements were also reached at this level, including: adoption of the
Departmental System of Protected Areas (SIDAP-Tolima), support for
the creation of a Regional Nature Park in the upper Coello Basin
(Páramo de Anaime), acquisition of plots of land with the support of the
main irrigation district (Usocoello), development of co-management
plans for natural areas, design and management of a payment structure
for water provision services, and the development of economic co-
operation instruments in order to strengthen conservation initiatives in
areas in the Coello and Cucuana basins that are managed by civil so-
ciety. In this case, the trade-off analysis was key to identifying better
options, such as co-management plans for natural areas.
Lastly, the Benefit Sharing Mechanisms (MCBCs) that were im-
plemented by the conflict management process are currently providing
suitable spaces to hold conversations that contribute to more structured
and inclusive decision-making processes among communities, institu-
tions, and guilds. These processes help to decrease conflicts and con-
tribute to the development of comprehensive water management ap-
proaches in the Central Andean region of Colombia.
4.2.4. Non-Negotiable conflicts associated with ecosystem Services: Mining
and social resistance in Cajamarca
The development of mining projects in the Coello River Basin’s high
mountain ecosystems led to one of the largest social resistance move-
ments in the central Andean region of Colombia. Civil groups set in
motion legal actions to stop the “social license” of a major mining
project and to enforce the “prevention and precautionary” principle
that is part of Colombia’s environmental legislation. This movement
was in response to the high risks associated with a large-scale open-pit
mining project called “La Colosa Regional” (belonging to the multi-
national South African company AngloGold Ashanti). Some of the most
important risks perceived by the community were: significant en-
vironmental degradation, loss of local territorial autonomy, human
rights violations, and disrespect for the culture of more than 4 million
people in central Colombia. Given the significance of the above-men-
tioned risks, on March 26, 2017, in an almost unanimous decision
(roughly 97%), residents in the municipality of Cajamarca (department
of Tolima) voted against AngloGold Ashanti’s largest mining project in
Colombia, and banned all mining in their territory.
In this study, we did not examine social values or perceptions in
depth, however, the community’s decision to reject mining projects in
their territory can be considered an expression of a social value, which
contributed to decreasing power asymmetries. Thus, the above case
represents another important example of how including other valuation
methods (social and ecological values) can affect decisions in such a
way that land management takes into account the needs of local com-
munities.
5. Discussion
While this paper has mainly focuses on aspects of the ES framework
that can contribute to the analysis of EC, it is important to note that the
relation is reciprocal, and the study of EC can also contribute to the ES
approach. In the literature review, we found that most of the ES studies
did not consider topics such as environmental justice or power asym-
metries, which should be considered since they are fundamental to
understanding ES trade-offs. A recent study that referred to these ideas
was developed by the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP), an in-
tegrated valuation group (Daw et al., 2011; Aragão et al., 2016; Jacobs
et al., 2016; Berbés-Blázquez et al., 2016). Furthermore, Abson et al.
(2014) reported on major gaps in the incorporation of environmental
justice elements in the ES approach, for example: i) more emphasis has
been placed on studying the operation of the natural system than on
10
Ecosystem Services 37 (2019) 100924
analyzing how that system can achieve certain goals in terms of con-
servation, human well-being, efficiency, ethics, and justice; ii) since few
papers used the terms “justice” and “ethics” in their vocabulary, an
explicit discussion of these issues has been lacking; and iii) there has
been a slight tendency to shift the focus of research from ethics and
justice to efficiency. Additionally, many of the studies on ES can be
considered to be depoliticized, that is, they do not include aspects as-
sociated with power asymmetries, which in the case of Latin America
strongly influence the analysis of ES tradeoffs. In this sense, the analysis
of EC and environmental justice significantly contributes to the study of
ES.
The ways in which ES benefit society are closely related to the three
dimensions of environmental justice proposed by Schlosberg (2004):
distributive, procedural, and recognition. Distributive justice focuses on
the distribution in society of the goods and services generated by eco-
systems, and the problems caused by their degradation. This dimension
is at the center of debates about environmental justice, while the other
two dimensions are strongly tied to it (Schlosberg, 2004). Martin et al.
(2014) described procedural justice as concerned with equal partici-
pation in decision-making processes that determine the distribution of
environmental benefits and/or problems. Given that procedural justice
is an important precondition for distributive justice (Martin et al.,
2014), it is connected to the goods and services provided by ecosystems.
Lastly, recognition justice may seem to be unrelated to ES because it
focuses on the acceptance of cultural differences and the elimination of
dominance, nevertheless, it is important to understand that issues and/
or problems arising from the unjust distribution of environmental
benefits are often the result of not understanding or respecting differ-
ences among social groups.
When power asymmetries result in a situation in which a group of
actors perceive a lack of environmental justice, people who are affected
tend to openly protest, thereby revealing the existence of an environ-
mental conflict (Delgado et al., 2009). Understanding each stake-
holder’s notion of justice is essential for clarifying the causes of the
conflicts, since they often result from opposing ideas about what is fair
and what is not (Redpath et al., 2013). EC usually arise between three
subjects: local communities, productive sectors, and governmental en-
tities. EC can arise among these three subjects when a group of actors
perceives an unjust situation due to different factors, such as: i) when
ES are exploited or degraded by a productive activity (e.g. mining); ii)
when communities are affected by conservation policies (e.g. delimi-
tation of nature reserves); or iii) when the productive sector believes
that a government decision that affects them is unjust (e.g. im-
plementation of an environmental policy that restricts productive ac-
tivities). Nonetheless, regardless of the subjects involved, situations
where environmental justice is lacking tend to affect vulnerable com-
munities that are more directly dependent on ES than the other actors
in the conflict (Martin et al., 2014).
Some authors have studied scenarios in which EC arise from situa-
tions of resource scarcity (for a complete review see Bernauer et al.,
2012). On this subject, there is an ongoing debate between two groups:
those known as “neo-Malthusians” and those who are referred to as
“Cornucopians.” The neo-Malthusians argue that decreasing access to
ES increases people’s frustration, who in turn make the state un-
comfortable, and the probability of insurgency increases (Homer-Dixon,
1994). The “Cornucopians” are resource optimists, believing that even
though resource scarcity diminishes well-being, humanity will be able
to adapt to environmental problems through market mechanisms, social
institutions, or technological innovations (Lomborg, 2003). Similarly,
other studies on social conflicts caused by environmental changes found
conflicts to be based on the scarcity of a good or service that is gen-
erated by ecosystems (primarily land degradation and availability of
fresh water). For example, Hendrix & Glaser (2007) studied various
social problems stemming from climate change in Africa and concluded
that only water scarcity could significantly increase the probability of
violent conflicts. However, after a thorough review, Bernauer et al.
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
(2012) concluded that changes in the availability of ES could increase
the risk of violent conflicts but it is not the only cause, and other po-
litical, economic, and social factors could be equally or even more in-
fluential. These factors are especially relevant in Latin America, and
specifically in Colombia, where power asymmetries have led to the
appropriation of vast territories for the purpose of large infrastructure
and extraction projects, such as hydroelectric plants, monocultures, and
open-pit mines. In these cases, not only are ES at risk, but the local way
of life and culture are as well. This provides an opportunity to under-
stand development from a different point of view.
6. Conclusions
We identified two key elements with which the ES approach can
contribute to the analysis of EC: 1) the social and ecological valuation of
ES, for a more integrated and multiple valuation, and 2) a trade-off
analysis. Our results are based on analyses at the national level as well
as the local level. At the national level, we analyzed 115 EC in Colombia
and found that the ecosystem services approach can be used to analyze
the various environmental conflicts registered in the EJOLT Atlas in
Colombia. This was accomplished by identifying the different trade-offs
between economic activities (mining, fossil fuel, agro-industry) and
ecosystem services (water provision and water regulation). At the na-
tional level, provision services are the ecosystem services that are most
affected (present in 46% of the cases), particularly the provision of food
and water. Regulation is the next most affected ES (in 28% of cases),
especially water regulation, air quality, and protection against erosion.
Cultural services are also important and were found to be the principal
ES affected in 21 of the cases, particularly esthetic services and a sense
of identity. As previously mentioned, the sectors with the greatest im-
pact on ES were mining, fossil fuels, agro-industry, and projects asso-
ciated with water resources such as dams, aqueducts, and hydroelectric
plants.
Based on our analysis of the case study in Cajamarca, we determined
that the ES approach is a useful tool for understanding the different
elements in a conflict, and using it can help to empower local com-
munities. In this regard, identifying ecological values and trade-offs,
and understanding their relevance to the community, can help to find
solutions to EC in a more technical manner, without undermining the
political components. Obtaining information about ecosystem services
and their distribution can significantly contribute to the analysis of
conflicts. In the case of Cajamarca, we identified the importance of the
upper basin and the ways in which it differed from the lower and
middle basins in terms of services such as water regulation and water
and food provision, which made it possible to identify trade-offs.
Furthermore, initiatives such as Benefit Sharing Mechanisms, which
was implemented in Cajamarca, can help to better structure govern-
ment policies aimed at decreasing conflicts and improving compre-
hensive management of water resources and other ES. In our case study,
we showed how identifying ecological values and trade-offs within the
framework of ecosystem services can be very useful for understanding
an environmental conflict. A good deal of work is still needed in this
area, and it is important to continue to make progress in this type of
interdisciplinary research, so as to increase our understanding of
complex problems that involve social, political, economic, and en-
vironmental elements. Global development initiatives such as the IPBES
framework can provide a good opportunity for furthering our work on
the contributions of the ES framework to the analysis and management
of environmental conflicts. And in Latin America, where there are large
power asymmetries, the ES framework can improve the technical cap-
abilities of the weakest actors in environmental conflicts.
Acknowledgment
Special thanks to Koulfrozter for your inspiration, to Blanca and
Ignacio for you continue support, to the Humboldt Institute for your
11
Ecosystem Services 37 (2019) 100924
support at the beginning of this idea, to Clementine and to all local
communities in Colombia who definitely inspired this work.
References
Abson, D.J., von Wehrden, H., Baumgärtner, S., Fischer, J., Hanspach, J., Härdtle, W.,
Heinrichs, H., Klein, A.M., Lang, D.J., Martens, P., Walmsley, D., 2014. Ecosystem
services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 103, 29–37.
Abunge, C., Coulthard, S., Daw, T.M., 2013. Connecting marine ecosystem services to
human well-being: insights from participatory well-being assessment in Kenya.
Ambio 42 (8), 1010–1021.
Aragão, A., Jacobs, S., Cliquet, A., 2016. What's law got to do with it? Why environmental
justice is essential to ecosystem service valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 22, 221–227.
Arias-Arévalo, P., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Pérez-Rincón, M., 2018.
Widening the evaluative space for ecosystem services: a taxonomy of plural values
and valuation methods. Environ. Values 27 (1), 29–53.
Ataroff, M., Naranjo, M.E., 2009. Interception of water by pastures of Pennisetum clan-
destinum Hochst. ex Chiov. and Melinis minutiflora Beauv. Agric. For. Meteorol. 149
(10), 1616–1620.
Bennett, E.M., Cramer, W., Begossi, A., Cundill, G., Díaz, S., Egoh, B.N., Geijzendorffer,
I.R., Krug, C.B., Lavorel, S., Lazos, E., Lebel, L., 2015. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem
services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustain-
ability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 14, 76–85.
Berbés-Blázquez, M., González, J.A., Pascual, U., 2016. Towards an ecosystem services
approach that addresses social power relations. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability
19, 134–143.
Bernauer, T., Böhmelt, T., Koubi, V., 2012. Environmental changes and violent conflict.
Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (1), 015601.
Bruijnzeel, L.A., 2004. Hydrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the soil for
the trees? Agric, Ecosyst. Environ. 104 (1), 185–228.
Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Müller, F., Windhorst, W., 2009. Landscapes’ capacities to provide
ecosystem services–a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landscape Online 15
(1), 1–22.
Buytaert, W., Bièvre, B.D., Wyseure, G., Deckers, J., 2004. The use of the linear reservoir
concept to quantify the impact of changes in land use on the hydrology of catchments
in the Andes. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 8 (1), 108–114.
Buytaert, W., Iniguez, V., De Bievre, B., 2007. The effects of afforestation and cultivation
on water yield in the Andean páramo. For. Ecol. Manage. 251 (1–2), 22–30.
Célleri, R., Feyen, J., 2009. The hydrology of tropical Andean ecosystems: importance,
knowledge status, and perspectives. Mt. Res. Dev. 29 (4), 350–356.
Chan, K.M., Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., 2012b. Rethinking ecosystem services to better
address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74, 8–18.
Chan, K.M., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., Bostrom, A.,
Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern, B.S., Hannahs, N., 2012a. Where are cultural
and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement.
BioScience 62 (8), 744–756.
COMPANDES 2012, Proyecto COMPANDES, alianza interinstitucional conformada por el
King’s College de Londres – KCL, el Instituto Ambiental de Estocolmo – SEI, Centro
Internacional de Agricultura Tropical –CIAT, WWF-Colombia, Universidad Nacional
de Colombia-Sede Palmira, y la Corporación Semillas de Agua.
Corp. Semillas de agua y fondo mundial para la vida silvestre – WWF. 2003. estudio sobre
oferta con énfasis en demanda de agua en el páramo de Anaime. 150 pág. Cali-
Colombia.
Corp. Semillas de Agua. 2015. Análisis Balances Hídricos en la cuenca del río Coello.
(Documento Institucional basado en el Plan de Manejo de la Reserva Natural Semillas
de Agua). Cajamarca - Dpto del Tolima.
Corp. Semillas de Agua. 2016. Análisis de vulnerabilidad al cambio climático a nivel de
ecosistemas, Fauna y Flora en el páramo de Anaime. (Documento (Documento
Institucional basado en el Plan de Manejo de la Reserva Natural Semillas de Agua).
Cajamarca - Dpto del Tolima.
Cortolima. 2005. I Fase aprestamiento río Coello. Plan ordenación y manejo de Cuencas
Hidrográficas. Ibague.
Cortolima. 2006. II Fase diagnostico río Coello. Plan ordenación y manejo de Cuencas
Hidrográficas. Ibague.
DANE. 2016. Encuesta Nacional Agropecuaria. Departamento Administrativo Nacional de
Estadística. Bogotá.
Daw, T.I.M., Brown, K., Rosendo, S., Pomeroy, R., 2011. Applying the ecosystem services
concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ.
Conserv. 38 (4), 370–379.
Daw, T.M., Coulthard, S., Cheung, W.W., Brown, K., Abunge, C., Galafassi, D., Peterson,
G.D., McClanahan, T.R., Omukoto, J.O., Munyi, L., 2015. Evaluating taboo trade-offs
in ecosystems services and human well-being. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112 (22),
6949–6954.
Dawson, N., Martin, A., 2015. Assessing the contribution of ecosystem services to human
wellbeing: a disaggregated study in western Rwanda. Ecol. Econ. 117, 62–72.
De Groot, R., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in in-
tegrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, man-
agement and decision making. Ecol. Complexity 7, 260–272.
De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M., 2002. A typology for the classification,
description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41
(3), 393–408.
Delgado, L., Marín, V., Bachmann, P. and Torres Gómez, M., 2009. Conceptual models for
ecosystem management through the participation of local social actors: the Río
Cruces wetland conflict.
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
EJOLT, 2015. Environmental Justice Atlas. Available at: http://ejatlas.org/ (Accessed
September 14, 2015).
Ernstson, H., 2013. The social production of ecosystem services: a framework for studying
environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landscape
Urban Plann. 109 (1), 7–17.
Fernández-Campo, M., Rodríguez-Morales, B., Dramstad, W.E., Fjellstad, W., Diaz-Varela,
E.R., 2017. Ecosystem services mapping for detection of bundles, synergies and trade-
offs: examples from two Norwegian municipalities. Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 283–297.
Fish, R., Burgess, J., Chilvers, J., Footitt, A., Haines-Young, R., Russel, D., Turner, K. and
Winter, D.M., 2011a. Participatory and deliberative techniques to embed an eco-
systems approach into decision making: an introductory guide.
Fish, R., Burgess, J., Church, A. and Turner, K., 2011b. Shared values for the contributions
ecosystem systems make to human wellbeing.
Fisher, J.A., Patenaude, G., Giri, K., Lewis, K., Meir, P., Pinho, P., Rounsevell, M.D.,
Williams, M., 2014. Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and
poverty alleviation: a conceptual framework. Ecosyst. Serv. 7, 34–45.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling,
C.S., 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management.
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35, 557–581.
Fujiwara, D., Campbell, R., 2011. Valuation Techniques for Social Cost-benefit Analysis:
Stated Preference, Revealed Preference and Subjective Well-being Approaches: A
Discussion of the Current Issues. HM Treasury.
García, C., 2007. Regulación Hídrica Bajo Tres Coberturas Vegetales en la Cuenca del Río
San Cristóbal. Bogotá DC Revista Colombia Forestal 10 (20), 141.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Ruiz-Pérez, M., 2011. Economic valuation and the commodifica-
tion of ecosystem services. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 35 (5), 613–628.
Hackbart, V.C., de Lima, G.T., dos Santos, R.F., 2017. Theory and practice of water
ecosystem services valuation: where are we going? Ecosyst. Serv. 23, 218–227.
Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services
and human well-being. In: Raffaelli, D., Frid, C. (Eds.), Ecosystem Ecology: A New
Synthesis (Ecological Reviewss). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.
110–139. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750458.007.
Hendrix, C.S., Glaser, S.M., 2007. Trends and triggers: climate, climate change and civil
conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa. Political Geogr. 26 (6), 695–715.
Homer-Dixon, T.F., 1994. Environmental scarcities and violent conflict: evidence from
cases. Int. Secur. 19 (1), 5–40.
Howe, C., Suich, H., Vira, B., Mace, G.M., 2014. Creating win-wins from trade-offs?
Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-
offs and synergies in the real world. Global Environ. Change 28, 263–275.
IDEAM. 2013. Coberturas de la tierra para Colombia siguiendo la metodología Corine
Land Cover, periodo 2010-2012, escala 1:100.000. Formato shapefile. Instituto de
Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales. Bogotá, D. C.
IDEAM. 2014a. Estudio nacional del agua 2014. Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y
Estudios Ambientales. Bogotá, D. C.
IDEAM. 2014b. Zonas de recarga hidrica, escala 1:100.000. Formato shapefile. Instituto
de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales. Bogotá, D. C.
IDEAM. 2016. Coberturas de la tierra para Colombia siguiendo la metodología Corine
Land Cover, escala 1:100.000. Formato shapefile. Instituto de Hidrología,
Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales. Bogotá, D. C.
IGAC, 2014a. Mapas de Geopedología del Territorio Colombiano a escala 1:100.000.
Formato Shapefile. Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi. Bogotá D. C., Colombia.
IGAC, 2014b. Cartografía base 1:100.000 de Colombia. Formato Geodatabase. Instituto
Geográfico Agustín Codazzi. Bogotá D. C., Colombia.
INGEOMINAS, C., 1997. Evaluación hidrogeológica del abanico de Ibagué.
Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Aguilera, P.A., Montes, C., Martín-López, B.,
2014. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between
values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecol. Econ. 108, 36–48.
Jacobs, S., Burkhard, B., 2017. 4.6. Applying expert knowledge for ecosystem services-
quantification. In: Mapping Ecosystem Services, pp. 142.
Jacobs, S., Dendoncker, N., Martín-López, B., Barton, D.N., Gomez-Baggethun, E.,
Boeraeve, F., McGrath, F.L., Vierikko, K., Geneletti, D., Sevecke, K.J., Pipart, N.,
2016. A new valuation school: integrating diverse values of nature in resource and
land use decisions. Ecosyst. Serv. 22, 213–220.
Jacobs, S., Martín-López, B., Barton, D.N., Dunford, R., Harrison, P.A., Kelemen, E.,
Saarikoski, H., Termansen, M., García-Llorente, M., Gómez-Baggethun, E.,
Kopperoinen, L., 2018. The means determine the end–Pursuing integrated valuation
in practice. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 515–528.
Jax, K., Barton, D.N., Chan, K.M., De Groot, R., Doyle, U., Eser, U., Görg, C., Gómez-
Baggethun, E., Griewald, Y., Haber, W., Haines-Young, R., 2013. Ecosystem services
and ethics. Ecol. Econ. 93, 260–268.
Kearney, S.P., Fonte, S.J., García, E., Siles, P., Chan, K.M.A., Smukler, S.M., 2017.
Evaluating ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies from slash-and-mulch agro-
forestry systems in El Salvador. Ecol. Ind.
Kenter, J.O., O'Brien, L., Hockley, N., Ravenscroft, N., Fazey, I., Irvine, K.N., Reed, M.S.,
Christie, M., Brady, E., Bryce, R., Church, A., 2015. What are shared and social values
of ecosystems? Ecol. Econ. 111, 86–99.
King, E., Cavender-Bares, J., Balvanera, P., Mwampamba, T., Polasky, S., 2015. Trade-offs
in ecosystem services and varying stakeholder preferences: evaluating conflicts, ob-
stacles, and opportunities. Ecol. Soc. 20 (3).
Kovács, E., Kelemen, E., Kalóczkai, Á., Margóczi, K., Pataki, G., Gébert, J., Málovics, G.,
Balázs, B., Roboz, Á., Kovács, E.K., Mihók, B., 2015. Understanding the links between
ecosystem service trade-offs and conflicts in protected areas. Ecosyst. Serv. 12,
117–127.
Lamarque, P., Quetier, F., Lavorel, S., 2011. The diversity of the ecosystem services
concept and its implications for their assessment and management. C.R. Biol. 334
(5–6), 441–449.
12
Ecosystem Services 37 (2019) 100924
Langner, A., Irauschek, F., Perez, S., Pardos, M., Zlatanov, T., Öhman, K., Nordström,
E.M., Lexer, M.J., 2017. Value-based ecosystem service trade-offs in multi-objective
management in European mountain forests. Ecosyst. Serv. 26, 245–257.
Le Billon, P., 2015. Environmental conflict. In: The Routledge Handbook of Political
Ecology, pp. 598–608.
Le Maitre, D.C., Kotzee, I.M., O’Farrell, P.J., 2014. Impacts of land-cover change on the
water flow regulation ecosystem service: invasive alien plants, fire and their policy
implications. Land Use Policy 36, 171–181.
Lele, S., 2013. Environmentalisms, justices and the limits of ecosystem services frame-
works. In: The Justices and Injustices of Ecosystem Services. Earthscan, London, pp.
119–139.
Li, B., Wang, W., 2018. Trade-offs and synergies in ecosystem services for the Yinchuan
Basin in China. Ecol. Ind. 84, 837–846.
Lin, S., Wu, R., Yang, F., Wang, J., Wu, W., 2018. Spatial trade-offs and synergies among
ecosystem services within a global biodiversity hotspot. Ecol. Ind. 84, 371–381.
Lomborg, B., 2003. The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the
World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Losada-Prado, S., Gonzalez-Prieto, A.M., Carvajal-Lozano, A.M., Molina-Martínez, Y.G.,
2005. Especies endémicas y amenazadas registradas en la cuenca del río Coello
(Tolima) durante estudios rápidos en 2003. Ornitología Colomb. 3, 76–80.
Luck, G.W., Chan, K.M., Eser, U., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Matzdorf, B., Norton, B.,
Potschin, M.B., 2012. Ethical considerations in on-ground applications of the eco-
system services concept. Bioscience 62 (12), 1020–1029.
Mach, M.E., Martone, R.G., Chan, K.M., 2015. Human impacts and ecosystem services:
insufficient research for trade-off evaluation. Ecosyst. Serv. 16, 112–120.
Marshall, K.A., Gonzalez-Meler, M.A., 2016. Can ecosystem services be part of the solu-
tion to environmental justice? Ecosyst. Serv. 22, 202–203.
Martin, A., Gross-Camp, N., Kebede, B., McGuire, S., Munyarukaza, J., 2014. Whose en-
vironmental justice? Exploring local and global perspectives in a payments for eco-
system services scheme in Rwanda. Geoforum 54, 167–177.
Martin, A., Coolsaet, B., Corbera, E., Dawson, N.M., Fraser, J.A., Lehmann, I., Rodriguez,
I., 2016. Justice and conservation: the need to incorporate recognition. Biol. Conserv.
197, 254–261.
Martínez-Alier, J., 2002. The Environmentalism of the Poor: a study of ecological conflicts
and valuation. Edward Elgar publishing, pp. pages.
Martinez-Alier, J., Kallis, G., Veuthey, S., Walter, M., Temper, L., 2010. Social metabo-
lism, ecological distribution conflicts, and valuation languages. Ecol. Econ. 70,
53–58.
Maxwell, S., Henderson, D., McCloy, R., Harper, G., 2011. Social Impacts and Wellbeing:
multi-criteria analysis techniques for integrating non-monetary evidence in valuation
and appraisal. In: Defra Evidence and Analysis Series, pp. 5.
McShane, T.O., Hirsch, P.D., Trung, T.C., Songorwa, A.N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B.,
Mutekanga, D., Van Thang, H., Dammert, J.L., Pulgar-Vidal, M., Welch-Devine, M.,
2011. Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human
well-being. Biol. Conserv. 144 (3), 966–972.
Metcalf, S.S., Wheeler, E., BenDor, T.K., Lubinski, K.S., Hannon, B.M., 2010. Sharing the
floodplain: mediated modeling for environmental management. Environ. Modell.
Software 25 (11), 1282–1290.
Mohai, P., Pellow, D., Roberts, J.T., 2009. Environmental justice. Annu. Rev. Environ.
Resour. 34, 405–430.
Muradian, R., Rival, L., 2012. Between markets and hierarchies: the challenge of gov-
erning ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 1 (1), 93–100.
Nieto, M., Cardona, L.F. and Agudelo, C., 2015. Servicios ecosistémicos. Provisión y
regulación hídrica en los páramos. Guías Para El Estudio Socioecológico De La Alta
Montaña En Colombia. Hojas de ruta. Guías para el estudio socioecológico de la alta
montaña en Colombia.
Nuñez, A. and Murillo, A., 1982. Geología y prospección geoquímica de las Planchas 244
Ibagué y 363 Ortega. INGEOMINAS (Ibgue) Informe.
Padilla, E., 2002. Intergenerational equity and sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 41 (1), 69–83.
Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Montes, C., 2013. National
Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosyst.
Serv. 4, 104–116.
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R.T.,
Dessane, E.B., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., 2017. Valuing nature’s contributions
to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 26, 7–16.
Pascual, M., Miñana, E.P., Giacomello, E., 2016. Integrating knowledge on biodiversity
and ecosystem services: mind-mapping and Bayesian Network modelling. Ecosyst.
Serv. 17, 112–122.
Perez, C., 2016. Clasificación de acuíferos mediante la determinación de parámetros
hidráulicos en el abanico aluvial de Ibagué Tolima. (Trabajo de grado). Universidad
Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia, Sogamoso. http://repositorio.uptc.edu.co/
handle/001/1873.
Pérez Rincón, M.A., 2014. Conflictos ambientales en Colombia: inventario,
caracterización y análisis. Estrategia de manejo ambiental de la zona media y baja de
la subcuenca del Río Pance.
Pérez-Rincón, M., Vargas-Morales, J., Martinez-Alier, J., 2019. Mapping and analyzing
ecological distribution conflicts in Andean countries. Ecol. Econ. 157, 80–91.
Podwojewski, P., Poulenard, J., 2004. Paramos soils. Encycl. Soil Sci. 1–4.
Polishchuk, Y., Rauschmayer, F., 2012. Beyond “benefits”? Looking at ecosystem services
through the capability approach. Ecol. Econ. 81, 103–111.
Pulido, O., 1985. Reseña explicativa del mapa geológico preliminar, Plancha 151 Charalá.
Ingeominas. Ingeominas, Bogota, pp. 25.
Quintas-Soriano, C., Castro, A.J., García-Llorente, M., Cabello, J., Castro, H., 2014. From
supply to social demand: a landscape-scale analysis of the water regulation service.
Landscape Ecol. 29 (6), 1069–1082.
Redpath, S.M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W.M., Sutherland, W.J., Whitehouse, A.,
A. Rincón-Ruiz, et al.
Amar, A., Lambert, R.A., Linnell, J.D., Watt, A., Gutierrez, R.J., 2013. Understanding
and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28 (2), 100–109.
Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Cumming, G.S., Elmqvist, T., Hejnowicz, A.P., Polasky, S., 2013.
Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological approach. Front. Ecol.
Environ. 11 (5), 268–273.
Ribot, J.C., Peluso, N.L., 2003. A theory of access. Rural Sociol. 68 (2), 153–181.
Riechmann, J., 2003. Tres principios básicos de justicia ambiental. Rev. Int. filosofía
política 21, 103–120.
Rincón-Ruiz, A., 2017. ¿Cómo incluir los valores de la biodiversidad y los servicios
ecosistémicos en el análisis de un conflicto ambiental? – Capitulo 4. In: Castro, L.G.
(Ed.), Preguntas y respuestas sobre conflictos ambientales: Aprendizajes del río
Orotoy. Instituto Alexander von Humboldt. Unillanos. IDRC.
Rincón-Ruiz, A., Echeverry-Duque, M., Piñeros, A.M., Tapia, C.H., David, A., Arias-
Arévalo, P., Zuluaga, P.A., 2015. Integrated valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem
services: conceptual and methodological aspects. Instituto de Investigación de
Recursos Biologicos Alexander von Humboldt, Bogotá-Colombia.
Rincón-Ruiz, A., Lara, D., Castro, L., Rojas, C., 2016. Conflictos socioambientales y ser-
vicios ecosistémicos en la cuenca del río Orotoy: Reflexiones para su gestión. Revista
Ambiente y Sostenibilidad. Universidad del Valle.
Rincón-Ruiz, A., Arias-Arévalo, P., Hernández, J.M.N., Cotler, H., Caso, M.A., Meli, P.,
Tauro, A., Akerberg, V.D.Á., Avila-Foucat, V.S., Cardenas, J.P., Hernández, L.A.C.,
2019. Applying integrated valuation of ecosystem services in Latin America: insights
from 21 case studies. Ecosyst. Serv. 36, 100901.
Robbins, P., 2004. Political ecology: A critical introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
Rodríguez, J., Beard Jr, T.D., Bennett, E., Cumming, G., Cork, S., Agard, J., Dobson, A.,
Peterson, G., 2006. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc.
11 (1).
Sangha, K.K., Russell-Smith, J., Morrison, S.C., Costanza, R., Edwards, A., 2017.
Challenges for valuing ecosystem services from an Indigenous estate in northern
Australia. Ecosyst. Serv. 25, 167–178.
Schlosberg, D., 2004. Reconceiving environmental justice: global movements and poli-
tical theories. Environ. Politics 13 (3), 517–540.
Schlosberg, D., 2013. Theorising environmental justice: the expanding sphere of a dis-
course. Environ. Politics 22 (1), 37–55.
Schröter, M., van der Zanden, E.H., van Oudenhoven, A.P., Remme, R.P., Serna-Chavez,
13
Ecosystem Services 37 (2019) 100924
H.M., De Groot, R.S., Opdam, P., 2014. Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a
synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conserv. Lett. 7 (6), 514–523.
Secretaria Agricultura Departamental del Tolima. 2011. Tolima en cifras 2011. Secretaría
de Planeación y Tic-Dirección Gestión Pública Territorial, Ibagué.
Secretaría de Planeación municipal de Ibague. 2014. Revisión y ajuste del Plan de
Ordenamiento Territorial.
Sikor, T., 2013. The justices and injustices of ecosystem services. In: The Justices and
Injustices of Ecosystem Services. Routledge, pp. 24–28.
Small, N., Munday, M., Durance, I., 2017. The challenge of valuing ecosystem services
that have no material benefits. Global Environ. Change 44, 57–67.
Summers, J.K., Smith, L.M., Case, J.L., Linthurst, R.A., 2012. A review of the elements of
human well-being with an emphasis on the contribution of ecosystem services. Ambio
41 (4), 327–340.
Sze, J., London, J.K., 2008. Environmental justice at the crossroads. Sociol. Compass 2
(4), 1331–1354.
Tallis, H., Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., Chang, A., 2008. An ecosystem services framework to
support both practical conservation and economic development. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. 105 (28), 9457–9464.
TEEB, 2010. In: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic
Foundations. Earthscan, London and Washington, pp. 456.
TEEB, 2015. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). Available at: http://
www.teebweb.org/ [Accessed June 15, 2015].
Temper, L., Del Bene, D., Martinez-Alier, J., 2015. Mapping the frontiers and front lines of
global environmental justice: the EJAtlas. J. Political Ecol. 22 (1), 255–278.
Tilly, C., 1993. Contentious repertoires in Great Britain, 1758–1834. Soc. Sci. History 17
(2), 253–280.
Tobón, C., 2009. Los bosques andinos y el agua, Serie Investigacion y Sistematizacion# 4
(Bert de Bi., p. 64).
Torres, R.L., García-Casco, A., Molina-Palma, J., 2004. Petrología Metamórfica, Asistente
de Prácticas. Departamento de Mineralogía y Petrografía Universidad de Granada
Versión 2004a.
Velez, M.V., 1999. Hidráulica de aguas subterráneas. Medellin, Antioquia, Colombia.
Walker, B., Meyers, J., 2004. Thresholds in ecological and social–ecological systems: a
developing database. Ecol. Soc. 9 (2).