See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331440564

Systematic review of integrated studies on functional and thematic ecosystem

services in Latin America 1992-2017

Article  in  Ecosystem Services · April 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100900

CITATIONS READS

0 31

7 authors, including:

Maria Perevochtchikova José Alvaro Hernández Flores

The College of Mexico The College of Mexico
35 PUBLICATIONS   110 CITATIONS    41 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alfonso Langle
University of Guadalajara-CUCOSTA
7 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

www.cisenv.org View project

Structure and monitoring social-ecological research network. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alfonso Langle on 01 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100900

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Systematic review of integrated studies on functional and thematic T

ecosystem services in Latin America, 1992–2017
⁎
María Perevochtchikovaa, , Gabriela De la Mora-De la Morab, José Álvaro Hernández Floresa,
Wilmer Marínc, Alfonso Langle Floresd, Arturo Ramos Buenoe, Iskra Alejandra Rojo Negretea
a
Centro de Estudios Demográficos, Urbanos y Ambientales, El Colegio de México A.C., Carretera Picacho Ajusco 20, Col. Ampliación Fuentes del Pedregal, Del. Tlalpan, CP
14110 Ciudad de México, Mexico
b
Centro Regional de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (CRIM-UNAM), Av. Universidad s/n, Circuito 2, Col. Chamilpa,
Cuernavaca, Morelos CP 62210, Mexico
c
Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Avenida Paseo Bolivar 16–20, Bogotá, Colombia
d
Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE), Circuito Tecnopolo Norte s/n, CP 20313 Aguascalientes, Mexico
e
Posgrado en Geografía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito de Posgrado s/n, Del. Coyoacán, Col. Ciudad Universitaria, CP 04510 Ciudad de México,
Mexico

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This article presents a systematic review of scientific publications on the ecosystem services topic with an in-
Literature review tegrated approach in Latin American countries for the period 1992–2017. Ecosystem services were subdivided
Ecosystem services into functional (provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural) and thematic (biodiversity, hydrological,
Functional and thematic ecosystem services carbon capture, landscape, soil) classifications to demonstrate their mutual interconnection. An integrated ap-
Integrated studies
proach was assumed when ecological, social, economic, and political dimensions converged within studies. As a
Latin America
Semantic network analysis
methodological procedure, the sequence of the PRISMA protocol and a semantic network analysis were con-
ducted to select and review scientific articles from two international scientific databases. The articles were
characterized according their evolution over time, geographical location and predetermined analysis variables.
The results highlight that the most frequently analyzed services were provisioning and regulating ecosystem
services related to hydrological and biodiversity. The timeline showed an increasing number of integrated
studies since 2009, with most case studies developed at regional and local scales for forest and fishing socio-
ecological systems in Brazil, Mexico and Costa Rica. The studies were predominantly multidisciplinary, with
clear public policy demand and governmental funding. Transdisciplinary studies have the potential to build
plural and inclusive knowledge to improve the decision-making process and offer support for solutions to
complex socio-environmental problems.

1. Introduction valuation (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010).

The concept of ecosystem services (ES) refers to the multiple ben-
efits obtained by society from nature (Daily, 1997; Balvanera and
Cotler, 2007). This concept has been widely accepted and included in
the international public agenda since the Rio Earth Summit (CNUMAD,
1992). Before the Summit, literature contributions concerning nature
for human well-being and the viability of economic processes were
presented through concepts such as ecodevelopment, ecosystem func-
tions and ecological cycles (Mooney and Ehrlich, 1987; Naredo and
Gómez-Baggethun, 2012; Rojo Negrete, 2018). The adoption of the ES
concept has allowed a better level of integration while conceptualizing
socio-environmental problems and methodologies used for their
The international public policy agenda has been impacted by the ES
concept, surpassing the integrative principles of sustainable develop-
ment (Bartlett, 1999). This concept has also been used to design con-
servation instruments, ranging from state-based regulations to market
mechanisms (De Groot et al., 2002; Mayran and Paquin, 2004; Wunder,
2005; McElwee, 2012). Academically, ES have stimulated an extremely
rich agenda (Balvanera and Cotler, 2007; Cornejo-Latorre et al., 2014;
Martinez-Harms et al., 2015), including discussions about the lack of a
unique classification, as well as the need for evolved categorizations to
enable more integrated assessment frameworks for these services
(Camacho Valdez and Ruiz Luna, 2012). Theoretical-conceptual and
methodological frameworks have evolved from biological studies

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mperevochtchikova@colmex.mx (M. Perevochtchikova).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100900
Received 10 May 2018; Received in revised form 13 February 2019; Accepted 23 February 2019
2212-0416/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.
M. Perevochtchikova, et al.
(Myers, 1996) to integrated approaches of the natural and social sci-
ences (Costanza and Daly, 1992; Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997).
This evolution has incorporated the ES concept within the systemic
analysis of anthropogenic impacts (MEA, 2005; Martin-López et al.,
2009; Cardinale et al., 2012; Binder et al., 2013).
Despite the proliferation of studies explicitly outlining an in-
tegrative or systematic approach from different disciplinary fields to
analyze ES (Ewel, 2001; Jakobsen et al., 2004; NRC, 2005; Müller et al.,
2010; Perevochtchikova, 2016), there is no consensus about the scope
and meaning of integration. This situation has limited the collection,
analysis, and data interpretation stemming from diverse research pro-
jects, therefore inhibiting the possibility of comparing and evaluating
different results as well as their influence regarding the decision-
making process in public policy (Tress et al., 2004; Jakobsen et al.,
2004). One useful example of an integrated conceptual framework to
study ecosystem services has been developed from The Intergovern-
mental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
(IPBES). This framework intends to generate knowledge, supporting
policies, and build capacities at different levels through the identifica-
tion of three elements: i) nature, ii) nature benefits to people (named
nature contributions to people by Díaz et al., 2018), and iii) life quality
(Díaz et al., 2015a, 2015b; Pascual et al., 2017).
The present work aims to contribute to the analysis of studies em-
ploying an integrated approach concerning ES (according to two dif-
ferent classifications) in Latin America. This approach includes the in-
corporation of ecological, social, economic, and political dimensions
within case studies (Perevochtchikova, 2016). The Latin American re-
gion was selected due to its extensive ecological and cultural diversity,
accounting for more than 40% of the flora and fauna worldwide
(PNUMA, 2007). It was decided to apply a systematic review method to
gather scientific publications as recommended by Grant and Booth
(2009) and Booth et al. (2012) to seek general trends in the studies of
this region. Hence, an analysis of articles available on SCOPUS and
SCIELO international databases was conducted for the 1992–2017
period to characterize ES research evolution on a timeline, its geo-
graphical distribution, and its thematic and functional perspectives,
including methodological frameworks and foci (multi-, inter- or trans-
disciplinary) as well as their potential applications, funding sources,
and difficulties.
2. Conceptual framework
The concept of ES first appeared during the 1990s when ecologists
and economists collaborated to incorporate natural and social sciences
to better understand complex problems and propose measures for sus-
tainability (CNUMAD, 1992; MEA, 2005; Fischer et al., 2009). This
concept has its origins at the environmental movement of the 1960s and
1970s, and it had been previously studied with different terminologies
(Mooney and Ehrlich, 1987; Camacho Valdez and Ruiz Luna, 2012).
Some pioneering scientific publications about this topic have high-
lighted the importance and value of monetary and not natural services
for society (Costanza and Daly, 1992; Costanza et al., 1997; Daily,
1997; Postel and Carpenter, 1997). These studies have had important
repercussions on the international public agenda and academic pro-
duction, including the development of different compensation me-
chanisms (Wunder, 2005). As part of this impact, many Latin American
countries have incorporated the ES concept into their public policy
instruments (Ocampo, 1999; Moller, 2010).
Due to their complexity, ES incorporate diverse dimensions, namely
i) environmental; ii) economic; iii) social and/or human (health and
wellbeing); iv) landscape; v) recreational; and vi) cultural (De Groot
et al., 2002; MEA, 2005; Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; Balvanera and Cotler,
2007; Fischer et al., 2009; Balvanera et al., 2012). This is the under-
lying reason for the diverse classifications and categorization regarding
the conceptual definition of ES, resulting in a lack of understanding
about the interrelations among diverse categories (Carpenter et al.,
2
Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100900
2006; Camacho Valdez and Ruiz Luna, 2012). This situation should
evolve to a more integrated comprehension of complex socio-
environmental problems where an inter- and transdisciplinary focus are
needed to generate concrete actions for sustainability.
For example, Costanza et al. (1997) defined 17 ES associated with
ecosystem functions that were later grouped into 5 categories related to
their spatial characteristics (Costanza, 2008). De Groot et al. (2002)
identified 23 ES according to their structure and ecosystem functions
while also covering their contribution as goods and values to society.
This classification is based on biophysical functions, grouping ES into
regulating, habitat, production and information. This proposal has been
widely accepted internationally, being used during the evaluation of
MEA (2005), which grouped ES as provisioning, regulating, cultural,
and supporting. These groups of ES have also served as supporting
frameworks for initiatives such as TEEB (2010), IPBES (Díaz et al.,
2015a), and partially in the case of CICES (2018).
In parallel, alternative classifications of ES have emerged (Boyd and
Banzhaf, 2007; Camacho Valdez and Ruiz Luna, 2012). In this sense,
Wallace (2007) offered a subdivision of ES according to their ecosystem
structure and composition, mixing these functions with ES per se, par-
ticularly those having “human value”. This scheme has been adapted by
authors such as Turner et al. (2008) and Fischer et al. (2009), who
developed a chain of ES production, including a) intermediate ES re-
lated to ecosystem functions; b) final ES referring to ecosystem goods
and services; and c) benefits of ES consumption by a social actor. These
stages were considered a “cascade model” by Potschin and Haines-
Young (2011) and currently by La Nottea et al. (2017).
It is important to note that within each category of ES determined
by their ecosystem functions, the ES related to natural elements are
present (such as water, soil, biomass, species). In this sense, Wunder
(2005:2) recognized four groups of ES to create payment mechanisms as
public policy instruments: i) carbon sequestration and storage, ii) pro-
tection of biodiversity, iii) protection of watersheds, and iv) scenic
beauty. These categories were designated as thematic ES in
Perevochtchikova (2016).
In this work, two classifications of ES were used to analyze general
trends and interconnections among services and studies (Fig. 1): a)
functional ecosystem services determined according to ecosystem
functions based on the MEA (2005); and b) thematic ecosystem services
defined in relation to natural elements as mentioned in Wunder (2005)
and Perevochtchikova (2016). Specifically, functional ES were cate-
gorized as follows: i) provisioning of goods (food, fibers, fuel or
drinkable water); ii) regulating, referring to ecological processes and
dynamics (water and nutrients cycles, etc.); iii) cultural services (re-
creational, aesthetic or spiritual values); and iv) supporting services
(nutrient cycling, primary production, and soil formation). Among
thematic ES, the following were considered: i) carbon capture (by soil
and vegetation, as part of climate regulation); ii) hydrological (climate
and hydrological regulating, erosion control, preservation of quality
and quantity of surface and groundwater); iii) biodiversity (preserva-
tion of flora and fauna); iv) landscape services (natural habitat of spe-
cies, pollination, landscape beauty, and recreation); and v) soil (soil
formation).
Given the various ways in which the ES concept has been oper-
ationalized, the notion of an “integrated approach” has been referred to
as necessary (Ewel, 2001; Jakobsen et al., 2004; Tress et al., 2004; NRC,
2005; Müller et al., 2010; Perevochtchikova, 2016). Historically, the
dimensions of integrated approaches (Fig. 1) have evolved differently
over time:
i) The ecological dimension constituted the predominant focus until
the 1970s with recognition of environmental impacts at multiple
scales and the formulation of functional ecological production in
scientific publications (Mooney and Ehrlich, 1987);
ii) The social dimension was institutionalized after the Stockholm
Conference in 1972; this dimension was incorporated to analyze the
M. Perevochtchikova, et al.
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of integrated ES studies (Source: self-elaboration).
society-nature relation (Berkes and Folke, 2014);
iii) The economic dimension mainly spread during the 1990s with the
research works of Costanza and Daly (1992); and
iv) The political dimension appeared and gained momentum in 2005
after the proposals of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Mora-
Vega et al., 2012).
Considering these points, the integrated approach applied in this
work seeks theoretical and conceptual positions along with methodo-
logical procedures and/or empirical implications within Latin America
scientific content. Therefore, the systematic literature review includes
only the studies assembling the ecological, social, economic and poli-
tical dimensions. Integrated approaches have modified the con-
ceptualization of society-nature relations, evolving from a single eco-
system view to the emergence of the socioecological system framework,
which introduced theoretical and practical instruments useful for the
academic field and for public policy as part of the decision-making
process to manage natural resources (Martin-López et al., 2009;
Ostrom, 2009; Anderies and Janssen, 2013). Specifically, current con-
ceptual frameworks, such as IPBES, seek to incorporate pluralistic ap-
proaches within the knowledge-policy interface with a multi-, inter-,
and transdisciplinary focus (Díaz et al., 2015a; Pascual et al., 2017).
Despite the change in conceptualization of the society-nature rela-
tion and the need for discipline integration, ES studies present different
stages of development. There are still some studies being carried out
with a disciplinary and unidirectional approach, exhaustively analyzing
a single dimension and/or variable. In contrast, some others have
adopted a multi- and interdisciplinary focus to study diverse relation-
ships among heterogeneous components of a complex system (Scholz
and Binder, 2003; Binder et al., 2013). In this sense, multidisciplinarity
refers to different efforts looking for a common purpose through the
integration of multiple disciplinary objectives allowing the generation
of new insights (Tress et al., 2004:485). On the other hand, inter-
disciplinarity offers a common framework for debate and methodolo-
gical progress in different scientific fields considering ecological, eco-
nomic, social and political aspects as part of its analysis (Schröter et al.,
2014:519).
Transdisciplinarity brings together academics from different dis-
ciplines and nonacademic actors via the formulation of common re-
search questions (Tress et al., 2004:487; Gibbons et al., 1999; Van
Manen, 2001). Transdisciplinary knowledge is complex since it seeks to
confront problems whose solution requires the participation of different
people with diverse cultural backgrounds, educational levels, metho-
dological preferences, and professional experiences. Integrating these
aspects requires time to structure viable solutions in a combined way
3
Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100900
(Stojanovic et al., 2016; Binder et al., 2013). In addition, Pascual et al.
(2017:13) noted that transdisciplinarity can provide “self-reflection and
learning, prerequisites for a transformative vision about nature–human
relationships where different world views are recognized and re-
spected”.
In regard to the varied efforts to develop integrated studies, there
are still criticisms about the possibility of fully integrating social and
ecological aspects. Some authors, such as Stojanovic et al. (2016), ap-
peal for a more significant use of comprehensive theories from social
sciences to include aspects related to power, perception, cultural
identity, and social change, overcoming a certain undervaluation of the
social structure within the socioecological analysis framework. On the
other hand, Binder et al. (2013) stated that even the more integrative
analytic framework of socioecological systems is not completely able to
clarify formal aspects of a system since they are more anthropocentric.
Some examples of approaches for the society-nature relation are i) the
proposal by Scholz et al. (2011) regarding structures, processes, and
dynamics of complex systems; ii) the works of Pahl-Wostl (2009) con-
cerning adaptive management; and iii) the approach suggested by
Ostrom (2007, 2009) that provides a common language to analyze
hierarchical variables of socioecological systems.
In this way, there is a direct influence of studies regarding ES on
environmental public policy; therefore, applying an integrated ap-
proach is essential for several reasons: i) it allows for a clearer defini-
tion of ES with multiple dimensions, ii) it favors an informed approach
of ES for effective social and political intervention, and iii) it offers
criteria to assign public funds for efficient management and scientific
research (Nicholson et al., 2009, Cabrero, 2012, Quintero, 2010,
Balvanera et al., 2012, Martinez-Harms et al., 2015, Rojo Negrete,
2018). Given this reasoning, it is also important to consider the analysis
of funding sources for ES research from public and private institutions,
as well as the interests of the decision-making process. Potential impact
analysis provides important insight into implementation measures re-
garding ecosystem services preservation.
3. Materials and methods
A systematic review of the scientific literature including articles
about functional and thematic ecosystem services studied through an
integrated approach in Latin America was carried out (as suggested by
Green and Higgins, 2005; Kitchenham and Charters, 2007; Grant and
Booth, 2009; Booth et al., 2012). This review allowed us to identify,
systematize and analyze characteristics and trends, as well as inter-
connections among ES classifications. To select the articles of interest,
the established norms of the protocol of Preferred Reporting Items for
M. Perevochtchikova, et al.
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were followed and
adapted to this particular review (Moher et al., 2009). To guarantee the
accuracy of this methodological strategy in terms of systematization,
exhaustiveness, explanation, and replicability, this work was based on
analytical processes from the SALSA framework (Search, Appraisal,
Synthesis, Analysis), which is utilized by most methodological reviews
of scientific literature (Grant and Booth, 2009; Codina, 2017).
Some search strategies were employed as suggested in previous
studies (Perevochtchikova and Oggioni, 2014; Martinez-Harms et al.,
2015; Ezzine-de-Blas et al., 2016; Locatelli et al., 2017; Himes-Cornell
et al., 2018; Ethan Yang et al., 2018). Consequently, an advanced
search was conducted in two internationally recognized databases to
gather information from publications with a high degree of scientific
strictness and included the following:
i) SCOPUS, an international database of peer-reviewed scientific and
academic publications from all over the world; and
ii) SCIELO, a database incorporating peer-reviewed indexed scientific
papers, which mainly focuses on literature produced in Latin
America, Ibero-America, and South Africa.
The first phase of the systematic review process consisted of
searching publications with keywords in three languages (English,
Spanish and Portuguese) linked to the notion of “ecosystem services”.
Latin America and the countries comprising this region were used as
geographical criteria when searching the literature. These elements
were sought within titles, abstracts and keywords of peer-reviewed
scientific articles in both databases covering an international scale for
the period of 1992–2017, when the ES concept gained acceptance
during the Rio Earth Summit.
The following syntax was used: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“Argentina” OR
“Bolivia” OR “Brazil” OR “Brasil” OR “Chile” OR “Colombia” OR “Costa
Rica” OR “Cuba” OR “Dominican Republic” OR “República
Dominicana” OR “Ecuador” OR “El Salvador” OR “Guatemala” OR
“Honduras” “Mexico” OR “Nicaragua” OR “Paraguay” OR “Panama”
OR “Panamá” OR “Peru” OR “Perú” OR “Uruguay” OR “Venezuela” OR
“Latin America” OR “América Latina” OR “South America” OR
“Suramerica” OR “America del Sur” OR “America do Sul” OR “Central
America” OR “América Central” OR “Centroamérica” OR
“Mesoamérica”) AND TITLE (“ecosystem service” OR “environmental
service” OR “ecosystem services” OR “environmental services” OR
“servicio ecosistémico” OR “servicio ambiental” OR “servicios
ecosistémicos” OR “servicios ambientales” OR “serviço ecossistêmico”
OR “serviço ambiental” OR “serviços ecossistémicos” OR “serviços
ambientais”).
A total of 2,520 records were obtained and downloaded in two Excel
spreadsheets on October 31st, 2017 (2,022 from SCOPUS and 498 from
SCIELO). Both spreadsheets included the following fields: title, year of
publication, abstract, keywords, authors, affiliation, funding sources,
journal title, language, DOI and link. Subsequently, duplicate records
and those referring to secondary bibliographical sources such as books,
conference records, and notes were eliminated. After this process, 2,014
records remained corresponding only to scientific articles, which were
arranged into a single file and referred to as the original database from
this point forward in this work (Fig. 2).
3.1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
The next step consisted of defining the integrated approach within
the original database; therefore, a codification of five dimensions was
assigned to each abstract. This codification was performed in a colla-
borative way among the coauthors, who established a consensus on
common criteria to evaluate abstracts, titles, and keywords to homo-
geneously classify the preselected studies.
The codes used to identify the dimensions of different ecosystem
services were defined as follows:
4
Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100900
i) Ecological (ECOL), which incorporated biodiversity studies and
growth and productivity of biomass or species analyses along with
their interactions;
ii) Social (SOC), which comprised studies of collective action forms,
perceptions, and values associated with conservation and commu-
nity governance;
iii) Economic (ECO), which included economic assessments of eco-
system services, such as contingent valuation, hedonic prices, and
willingness to pay;
iv) Political (POL), which focused on public policy analyses and in-
stitutional framework analyses to guide the decision-making pro-
cess, assessments of compensation programs, conservation schemes,
and public policy instruments; and
v) Other (O), which was applied when a category identification was in
doubt.
Once all records were coded, only those publications combining
ecological, social, economic and political dimensions were selected. For
this purpose, the integrated approach was defined methodologically as
a combination (sum) of codes “ECOL + SOC + ECO + POL” within
each abstract from the original database. In total, 62 studies fulfilled
this requirement. These texts were sought and downloaded for their
entire revision. After this procedure, five more studies were excluded as
they did not fulfil the regional criteria.
The final analysis was based on a corpus of 57 articles (Annex A,
Fig. 2). This sample consisted of 2.8% of the original database, which
was even larger than the sample of 0.7% analyzed by Ethan Yang et al.
(2018). As previously noted by these authors and others who applied a
systematic review for ES, the sample is always limited to the particular
interests of each study under criteria marked by the research objectives
(Perevochtchikova and Oggioni, 2014; Martinez-Harms et al., 2015;
Locatelli et al., 2017; Himes-Cornell et al., 2018).
3.2. Extraction and preparation for data analysis
To systematize and characterize the content of these 57 articles, a
detailed review of full texts was performed. A special database was
constructed for this analysis, and a standard nomenclature was set
collectively among the coauthors. Fourteen variables of interest were
defined with closed options for values as indicated in Table 1.
The variables of interest allowed us to characterize the content of
the 57 selected articles. It was possible to examine the constituent
elements of ES within functional and thematic classifications, their
temporal evolution and geographical location, and their spatial scale.
Additionally, theoretical and methodological approaches were ex-
plored, and the potential impacts of the studies were outlined as well as
the main difficulties and stated challenges, including scientific issues
imposed by the multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary focus when ap-
proaching the complex society-nature relation in a framework.
A leading constraint associated with this meta-analysis development
and systematic review was derived from the subjective appreciations
during the codification process as it was carried out by an inter-
disciplinary, international and interinstitutional research team. To cope
with this situation, a consensus was established to control biases during
this process; hence, ex ante and ex post measures were implemented as
follows: i) discussion and previous consensus among the coauthors re-
garding categories used during the analysis and their respective codes;
ii) triangulation of codes, review and codification of each study by two
or more team members; and iii) recodification to capture emergent
categories.
3.3. Data analysis
The analysis of integrated ES studies in Latin America followed
three steps, from general to particular: i) detection of thematic trends in
the original database and the 57 selected articles in relation to the most
M. Perevochtchikova, et al.
Fig. 2. Methodology and search criteria according to the PRISMA protocol template. The dimensions are ECOL = ecological, SOC = social, ECO = economic,
POL = political, AL = Latin America (Source: Adapted from Moher et al., 2009).
frequently mentioned words; ii) general characterization of the selected
articles to outline their evolution over time and case study character-
ization according to methods, techniques, focus, potential impacts,
funding sources and mentioned difficulties; and iii) the analysis of se-
lected articles on the basis of a thematic and functional ecosystem
services classification, showing their spatial distribution and the four-
teen variables of interest.
i) Principal thematic trends from the original database and the se-
lected articles
5
Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100900
A text mining analysis was performed to determine general thematic
trends within the original database of articles as a preliminary review
(Meyer et al. 2008). First, all titles, abstracts, and keywords were
translated into English. Second, a catalog of 452,818 words was built in
text format, and a word frequency analysis was performed in R 3.4.3 (R
Core Team, 2014), using the packages TM (Feinerer and Hornik, 2012)
and NLP (Hornik, 2015). Afterwards, frequency graphs were con-
structed considering three aspects of interest: words with the highest
appearance in the studies, countries with the highest frequency of
studies, and keywords related to thematic and functional ES.
Similar to the original database, a semantic network analysis of
M. Perevochtchikova, et al. Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100900

Table 1
Criteria applied for the codification of the 57 selected articles.
N Variables Values

1 Scales Global, national, regional, local, other countries

2 Countries Countries in the case study
3 Socio-ecosystems (SES) Agriculture, agroforestry, aquatic environments, cattle raising, coastal environments, fisheries, forestry, other
4 Management of SES Yes, no, not specified
5 Targets (management objective) Conservation, restoration, use
6 Ecosystem services clearly addressed Yes, no, not specified
7 Functional ES Provisioning, regulating, cultural, supporting
8 Thematic ES Hydrological, carbon capture, landscape, biodiversity, soil
9 Methods Quantitative, qualitative, mixed
10 Techniques Documentary analysis, econometric analysis, GIS, interviews, models, surveys
11 Focus Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary
12 Potential study applications Public policy, scientific development, social life, other
13 Difficulties Methodological, political, theoretical
14 Funding Companies, foundations, government, organizations, universities

Source: self-elaboration.

word frequency was carried out with the 57 selected articles (in titles,
abstracts and keywords). This analysis was based on metadata network
construction, from which a word-by-word matrix was created, where
each cell included the frequency of word co-occurrence with the sen-
tence as an element of analysis and connectedness (Doerfel and Barnett,
1999). The software ConText (Diesner, 2014) and UCINET (Borgatti
et al., 2002) were used to construct the semantic network and to cal-
culate its measurements, respectively. Finally, its visualization was
created with Gephi software (Bastian et al., 2009).
Additionally, an analysis of affiliation networks (Borgatti and
Halgin, 2011) between keywords was conducted with UCINET. Density
was defined as the number of connections between the words divided
by the number of possible connections (n*(n-1)/2), which can range
from 0 to 1 (Wasserman and Faust, 1994). Centrality indicated the
prominence of a concept within the network. Three types of centrality
metrics were used: degree, representing the total number of links from a
node; betweenness, indicating when a node is situated on the shortest
path among nodes not directly connected to each other; and eigen-
vector centrality, measuring the influence of a node in the network
(Freeman, 1977; Bonacich, 1987).
ii) General characterization of the selected articles
The evolving characteristics of integrated studies regarding ES in
Latin America were analyzed on a timeline, as well as according to their
methods, techniques, focus, potential impacts, funding sources, and
mentioned difficulties. Graphics were created in Excel. The analyzed
period was 1992–2017
iii) Analysis of the selected articles according to functional and the-
matic ES
The 57 selected articles were analyzed based on functional and
thematic ES classifications, their spatial distribution and the fourteen
variables of interest from Table 1. An affiliation network was built with
UCINET to demonstrate the relationships among both classifications.
The case studies distribution and composition by country in Latin
America were explored along with their relationships according the
variables of interest (Borgatti et al., 2002). This analysis was based on a
cross table of frequencies of the coded variables and represented geo-
graphically on a map using QGIS 3.2.1 software. Finally, two integrated
networks were constructed with Gephi (Bastian et al., 2009) to visualize
the relationships among functional and thematic ES based on metho-
dological, focus and potential impact, and funding source variables.
4. Results
4.1. Principal thematic trends from the original database and the selected
articles
Three aspects of interest were detected from the original database.
First, a trend of general terminologies appeared, including concepts of
ES, types of ecosystems, natural elements and potential impacts. The
second most important trend involved the countries of case studies and
authors’ affiliations, while the third group was formed by functional
and thematic ecosystem services from each study. Frequency graphs of
these trends appear in Annex B.
These three thematic trends were reflected in the most frequently
mentioned terms concerning several aspects of ES, such as terminolo-
gies, types of ecosystems, elements of academic studies, public policy
instruments and potential impacts. The most frequently mentioned
terms, of the major trend appeared in the following order: ES or en-
vironmental services; specification of ecosystems (forest as dominant
and tropical with less appearances); elements of nature (species, bio-
diversity, water, carbon, and soil); human activities (conservation, use,
land, water management); academic interests (study, areas, change, the
results, based, ecological, economic, local, natural, systemic, im-
portant); and policy instruments (PES payment for ecosystem services).
Concerning the second major content trend from the original data-
base, the most frequently mentioned countries in case studies were
Mexico, Brazil, Costa Rica, Chile, Colombia, Argentina, Ecuador,
Panama, Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela, Belize, Uruguay, Paraguay, and El
Salvador. On the other hand, the authors’ affiliation did not necessarily
correspond to the country where the studies were carried out; the
countries of author affiliations corresponded to the U.S., the United
Kingdom, Australia, Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America.
The third principal trend involved the origins and terminologies of
both functional and thematic ES classifications, including terms related
to ecosystem functions and categorization of ES. In the case of the first
classification of functional services, there were two groups, one con-
taining ecosystem function terms such as ecological, natural, processes,
dynamics, spatial, cycle, formation, primary, and nutrients. The other
group included ES terms related to functions, mainly comprising pro-
duction, supporting, food, regulating, recreation, consumption, aes-
thetic, intangible, and some terms related to natural elements. The case
of thematic services also appeared in two groups. The first regarded
natural means with terms such as species, water, biodiversity, carbon,
soil, landscape, climate, vegetation, habitat, surface, groundwater,
fauna, and flora. The second factor was related to ecosystem function
terms such as hydrological, regulating, pollination, erosion, recreation,
capture, and scenic beauty.
Principal trends from the 57 selected articles were similar to the

6
M. Perevochtchikova, et al.
original database. The aspects that more frequently appeared in the
sample were related to natural elements, ES terminologies and public
policy instruments. The most frequently occurring words detected in-
side the constructed semantic network comprising the 54 principal
words and their connections (Fig. 3) were forest, service, ecosystem,
environmental, and PES. In Fig. 3, nodes and label size indicate ei-
genvector centrality in the network, and line thickness represents the
frequency of word co-occurrence. Central words and the network
structure revealed a sparse network where only one percent of all words
were connected to each other (Annex C). The network density was
0.091. There were two principal clusters, with the first linking eco-
system elements and terminologies (services, biodiversity, forest,
marine and wetland ecosystems), and the second related to policy in-
struments and use (payments for ecosystem services, environmental
management, conservation, and development).
Four major groups were detected from the affiliation network ana-
lysis of keywords, mainly concerning ES public policy instruments
7
Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100900
Fig. 3. Semantic network of integrated studies about
ecosystem services in Latin America, 1992–2017.
The top 54 words of the selected articles, where
nodes and labels sizes indicate eigenvector centrality
in the network; line thickness between words re-
presents the frequency of word co-occurrence within
the sample as the most prominent words and con-
nections; and the color of lines indicates the prin-
cipal clusters of the samplés words co-occurrence
(Source: self-elaboration).
(Fig. 4). The large, separate green component at the bottom was formed
by papers sharing Mexico and PES; the blue leg subgraph on the upper
right shares PES and Costa Rica, and the red subgraph situated above
shares REDD + and deforestation. Finally, the yellow dyad shares land
use planning and ecosystem services. Papers were connected when they
shared at least one keyword, and they were represented by nodes with
an ID number. Colored lines and thicknesses were based on keyword co-
occurrence. Wide black lines connect papers sharing at least two key-
words, while gray lines connect papers with just one keyword in
common.
4.2. General characterization of the selected articles
The selected case studies were mainly located in six countries, in-
cluding Mexico and Brazil with 57.8% of all publications, followed by
Costa Rica, Argentina, Chile, and Peru. It was remarkable to compare
authors’ affiliation countries to the list of case studies as there was a
Fig. 4. The network based on keyword co-
occurrence from integrated publications
about ES in Latin America. The nodes re-
present analyzed articles with an ID 1–57
from the specific database (Annex A); line
color and thickness represent keyword co-
occurrence; wide black lines connect papers
sharing at least two keywords, while gray
lines connect papers with just one keyword
in common. The large, separate clusters of
colors are formed by papers sharing some
keywords (Source: self-elaboration).
M. Perevochtchikova, et al.
different composition, with affiliations from the U.S., Brazil, and
Mexico, followed by the United Kingdom, Argentina, Spain and France
(other countries were represented by one or two authors only). The
prevalent analytical scales were regional, defined as subnational terri-
tories (38.5%) and local (35%) followed by national (17.5%) and global
(8.7%) (Annex D). This situation possibly suggests little cooperation at
international and national levels (but a more detailed study on this
aspect is needed).
According to functional and thematic ES classifications, ecosystem
functions related to provisioning and regulating as well as biodiversity
and hydrological elements have been more widely studied (in in-
tegrated ES publications), with a constant increasing trend since 2009.
These aspects could be related to the possibility of directly measuring
these services, which also allows researchers to study and explain them
from a scientific perspective, valuing the tangible benefits that society
obtains from ecosystems. Based on a functional classification of ES,
regulating services were the most frequently discussed (61.4%) fol-
lowed by provisioning (56.1%) and supporting (28%), while cultural
services were the least frequently discussed (17.5%). Regulating and
provisioning services presented a continuously increasing frequency of
study over time, with an increased interest towards supporting ES,
especially since 2011. Regarding thematic services, most of the ana-
lyzed articles referred to biodiversity (43.8%) followed by hydrological
(28%), carbon capture (22.8%), landscape (17.5%) and soil (12.2%).
Since 2011, the study of the most frequently mentioned thematic ser-
vices has constantly increased (Fig. 5).
Methods employed to study ES in Latin America showed a sustained
interest in mixed methodologies (49%). Despite the increasing fre-
quency of quantitative studies, only 30% of the sample used quantita-
tive data, while only 21% used qualitative data, presenting a decreasing
trend. In this sense, qualitative studies mainly applied different mod-
alities of interviews with key actors (in-depth, semistructured, and
open). Quantitative studies have been characterized by model devel-
opment (statistical, econometric, and systemic valuation), documentary
analysis and surveys, and the use of geographic information systems
(GIS) with an increasing tendency since 2011.
It also important to highlight the limited number of studies using
participatory techniques; this could be explained by the small number
of studies utilizing transdisciplinary approaches. Most of the studies
(75.4%) used multidisciplinary approaches while the rest (19.2%)
employed interdisciplinary approaches. Temporal analysis shows a
continuously increasing trend of multidisciplinary studies, with a minor
presence of interdisciplinary studies, although they have remained
constant since 2010. Only few works were found to be transdisciplinary
(5.2%), representing isolated cases (Annex D).
Public policy formulation, improvement and assessment appeared
as the most important potential impact of the ES studies, comprising
87.7%. Impacts on social life were present in 28% of the articles;
Fig. 5. Evolution of integrated ES publications by functional (left) and thematic (right) ES over time, 1992–2017 (Source: self-elaboration).
8
Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100900
however only 8.7% stated that their findings constituted an advance-
ment in scientific development. Most of these studies were considered
applied science with current discussions about integration and frame-
work development (Annex D). Research funding coming from the
governmental sector accounted for 38.5% of the studies, followed by
different types of international organizations with 36.8% and uni-
versities at 31.5%. Governmental funding has remained nearly constant
over time, while universities and international organizations have
steadily increased their contributions. Private companies and founda-
tions have a limited presence, but since 2014 they have shown more
interest in funding ES research.
Methodological issues were expressed as a difficulty in 35% of the
articles. Political concerns were mentioned in 33% and theoretical
hindrances appeared in 5% of the sample. When analyzing these diffi-
culties over time, a particular increase in methodological aspects since
2012 should be noted. This could be related to the need for integration,
emerging methods, and techniques and instruments as well as the re-
cognition of limitations of models used to understand complex socio-
environmental problems (Annex D).
4.3. Analysis of the selected articles according to functional and thematic ES
The functional and thematic ES have shown very strong interrela-
tions among categories and between two classifications. Remarkably,
provisioning and regulating functional ES had a dominance presence,
and they were related to the study of biodiversity and hydrological
thematic ES as shown in Fig. 6. In contrast, supporting and cultural
functional services were studied to a lesser extent and related more to
landscape and soil thematic ecosystem services. Among the categories
of functional ES, regulating is the principal ES that is interrelated with
provisioning and supporting ES, and less related to cultural ES. Among
the thematic ES, biodiversity has a central position and is interrelated
with carbon capture and landscape; other interdependencies were with
soil and hydrological ES. These results were expected because in phy-
sicochemical ecosystem processes, regulating (maintaining life cycles)
and soil formation play a fundamental role.
Another relationship cluster was formed by biodiversity and hy-
drological thematic services, which was linked to provisioning and
cultural functional services. This result emerged from studies men-
tioning forestry and agroforestry socioecological systems together.
Functional services include multiple facets within their ecosystem
functions; however, Fig. 6 clearly shows this association, which is in
contrast to previous classification works.
The selected articles (only integrated ES studies) showed a hetero-
geneous geographical distribution between Latin American countries as
shown in Fig. 7, which presents the number of case studies by country
as well as their functional or thematic composition. The largest number
of case studies by country were those from Brazil and Mexico, Costa
M. Perevochtchikova, et al.
Fig. 6. Affiliation network between words (from complete texts of 57 analyzed
papers) related to functional ES and thematic ES classifications. The nodes with
ID numbers refer to analyzed papers from the original database (Annex A). The
color and node size indicates eigenvector centrality in the network, and their
labels are related to ES classification. The green lines and nodes indicate
functional ES, and blue lines and nodes indicate thematic ES (Source: self-ela-
boration).
Rica, Argentina, Chile and Peru (also highlighted in the timeline gra-
phics and the trends of both analyses). Biodiversity, hydrological and
carbon capture thematic services showed an interesting dynamic in
Latin American countries. This phenomenon may be related to im-
portant extensive forests in the region, high levels of biological and
cultural diversity, marine frontiers, the presence of recognized uni-
versities, and environmental policies with the promotion of PES
Fig. 7. Countries associated with integrated publications on ES in Latin America, 1992–2017, related to the distribution of a) case studies, b) functional ES clas-
sification, and c) thematic ES (Source: self-elaboration).
9
Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100900
schemes.
Functional and thematic services were related to fourteen variables
of interest as shown in Table 2. Numerical crosses were made among all
variables.
From Table 2, it was observed that provisioning and regulating
functional ecosystem services displayed a dominant relationship fol-
lowed by supporting and cultural services, which were also related to
biodiversity and hydrological thematic ES. These services were mostly
studied on regional and local scales rather than on a global or national
scope. Forestry and agriculture were the most highlighted socio-
ecological systems followed by fisheries, with very little exploration of
coastal and aquatic environments. Management of these systems was
mainly carried out with goals for conservation, use and restoration,
which appeared as the most mentioned targets of the analyzed studies.
Notably, a multidisciplinary focus was applied in most of the
functional and thematic services analyses, which is consistent with the
complexity of these studies. Interdisciplinary approaches were limited,
and they mainly focused on the functional services of regulating and
provisioning, along with the thematic services of carbon capture and
biodiversity. Transdisciplinary studies were almost absent, with iso-
lated cases. Mixed methodologies predominated over both ES classifi-
cations. Qualitative methods were mostly applied to functional services,
especially regulating and provisioning. Similarly, quantitative methods
as well as thematic biodiversity services were applied to these two types
of ES.
The integrated form of the results of interrelation between method
and focus and potential applications and funding applied to study the
functional and thematic ES in Latin America are presented in Fig. 8.
The dominance of multidisciplinary foci in ES studies was observed.
Multidiciplinarity was mainly applied to the functional services of
regulating and provisioning and thematic ES of carbon capture and
biodiversity. Mixed methodologies predominated, with qualitative
methods mostly applied to functional regulating and provisioning as
well as thematic biodiversity ES.
The expected impacts of the selected articles mainly referred to
public policy demands and occurred more frequently for hydrological
thematic, provisioning, and regulating services (related to analyses of
different policy mechanisms, such as PES). The concern therein was to
address and resolve social problems, relating provisioning and reg-
ulating services (functional) to biodiversity and carbon capture (the-
matic). Therefore, there is a clear interest in ensuring research out-
comes impact development and conservation policies; hence, the
potential future development of transdisciplinary studies is promising.
M. Perevochtchikova, et al. Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100900

Table 2
Relationships between functional and thematic ES according to variables of interest.
FIELDS CHARACTERISTICS Functional Ecosystem Services Thematic Ecosystem Services

PROVISIONING CULTURAL REGULATING SUPPORTING HYDROLOGICAL CARBON BIODIVERSITY LANDSCAPE SOIL

CAPTURE

SCALE Global 2 1 2 1 2
Local 14 4 9 6 6 4 9 2 2
National 2 7 2 3 2
Other Countries 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
Regional 13 4 16 6 10 4 11 8 4

COUNTRIES Argentina 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 1
Bolivia 1 2 1 1 1
Brazil 15 3 9 4 6 4 11 4 1
Chile 4 2 4 2 1 3 1 1
Colombia 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1
Costa Rica 1 5 2 1 2 4 1 1
Cuba 1
Dominican Republic 1 1
Ecuador 1 1 1 1
Guatemala 1 1 1 1 1
Honduras 1 1 1
Latin America 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mexico 7 3 11 3 2 4 7 3 1
Nicaragua 1 1 1
Panama 1 2 2 1 1 1
Peru 2 2 1 1

SES Agriculture 6 1 5 3 4 4 3 2
Agroforestry 1 1 3 1 1 1 2
Aquatic 2 3 1 2 1
Cattle Raising 2 1 1 1 1 1
Costal 2 1 3 2 2 2 3 1
Fisheries 7 2 2 3 1 4
Forestry 15 4 23 8 9 8 15 6 7
Other 5 4 3 2 2 2 2 2

MANAGEMENT No 6 2 5 3 3 3 5 2 2
Yes 25 8 28 13 13 9 20 8 5
Not Specified 1 2 1

TARGET Conservation 23 8 26 11 12 10 20 8 3
Restoration 7 3 8 3 5 2 8 2 3
Use 18 4 13 11 9 4 11 3 2
Not Specified 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 1

ECOSYSTEM No 8 1 8 3 1 2 5 4 3
SERVICES Yes 22 9 27 13 15 11 20 6 4
CLEARLY Not Specified 2
ADDRESSED

METHODS Qualitative 10 2 13 6 5 5 7 2 1
Quantitative 5 1 7 4 4 4 5 3 1
Mixed 17 7 15 6 7 4 13 5 5

TECHNIQUES Documentary Analysis 7 7 5 2 3 4 2

Econometric Analysis 1 1 1 2 2
GIS 9 5 8 5 5 3 8 5 1
Interview 15 6 9 5 5 3 12 5 3
Models 6 2 6 4 4 3 6 3 1
Survey 4 2 5 2 3 4 2 3

FOCUSES Interdisciplinary 4 1 7 3 1 3 2 1 1
Multidisciplinary 26 9 27 13 15 9 22 9 6
Transdisciplinary 2 1 1 1

POTENTIALS Public Policy 27 9 30 14 13 12 22 8 6

Scientific Development 4 2 4 3 2 4 1
Social Change 8 2 7 6 3 5 8 1 1
Other 3 4 1 2 1 2 2

DIFFICULTIES Methodological 12 3 14 8 8 5 10 8 4
Political 13 3 11 6 3 3 8 1 1
Theoretical 1 1 3 1 1 2

FUNDING Companies 5 1 5 2 5 3 4 1 1
Foundations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Government 14 7 15 7 9 5 8 4 4
Organizations 11 4 12 7 9 7 8 5 3
Universities 12 5 10 7 5 2 7 6 2

Source: self-elaboration.

10
M. Perevochtchikova, et al.
Fig. 8. Integrated networks of functional and thematic ES related to i) method and focus (left), where green nodes represent focuses, red nodes represent methods,
light blue nodes represent functional ES and dark blue nodes represent thematic ES; ii) potential applications and funding (right), where green nodes represent
donors, red nodes represent potential applications, light blue nodes represent functional ES and dark blue nodes represent thematic ES. The line thickness between
words represents the frequency of word cooccurrence within the sample of analyzed papers, and the color of lines indicate variable connections (Source: self-
elaboration).
Funding sources for ES research mostly came from the govern-
mental sector to conduct provisioning and regulating functional ser-
vices studies, particularly focusing on hydrological and biodiversity
thematic ES. The next funding source was a composition of different
types of organizations, such as cooperation agencies from developed
countries and international financial organizations, whose focus was
mainly on thematic hydrological, biodiversity and carbon capture ser-
vices, similar to the limited studies supported by private companies,
which were the least present funding source of ES research in the re-
gion. Finally, universities were also interested in hydrological and
biodiversity thematic services plus landscape.
5. Discussion
The general trends found in these selected studies, especially those
transcending a disciplinary approach to study ES, indicate the pre-
valence of a multidisciplinary focus related to public policy needs and
funded by the governmental sector. A possible cause of these results
might be due to the lack of an agreed-upon perspective of what in-
tegrative research means or should involve. For example, Tress et al.
(2004:481–484) noted that the application of the “integrative” concept
in different academic fields described different degrees of interaction
among disciplines, including terms such as interactive, collaborative,
integral, integrated, complementary, combined, participative, and
transepistemic. These characteristics were not completely present in the
case studies from Latin America possibly due to i) the lack of colla-
boration between countries and at the national level; ii) the absence of
participation in research tasks by different sectors; and iii) little sci-
entific and social impact detected.
The absence of studies fully integrating all ES dimensions was noted
in this systematic review, although some authors recognized the need to
achieve a more integrated approach (Schröter et al., 2014:521; Müller
et al., 2010; Geist, 2011). A particular insight was the prevalence of
functional services of provisioning and regulating over supporting and
cultural ES, similar to thematic biodiversity and hydrological services.
The absence of studies combining several ES from both classifications
11
Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100900
could be derived from theoretical-methodological difficulties in ad-
dressing assumptions of a complex perspective. The formalization and
operationalization of integrated theoretical frameworks, such as the
socioecological system (SES), modeling processes and trajectories of
change, can constitute important opportunity areas for scientific de-
velopment, contributing to the integrated study of ES
(Perevochtchikova, 2018).
The results also suggest a need to increase the development of re-
search on adaptive management, comanagement of natural resources,
cooperation, social inequality and exclusion, poverty, governance,
vulnerability, and power dynamics by applying participative methods,
as they represent merely 3% of the case studies. The observed results
were consistent with typical difficulties confronted by integrative fra-
meworks of socioecological systems, as noted by Binder et al. (2013)
and mentioned in Pahl-Wostl (2009), Ostrom (2007, 2009), and Scholz
et al. (2011).
Funding sources from the governmental sector and organizations,
along with works influencing public policy and objectives oriented to-
wards use and conservation, where management is an important target,
suggest a research bias to certain thematic axes linked to water and
biodiversity, especially in agriculture and forestry SESs. This bias re-
duces the importance of research on other topics, such as landscape, soil
and aspects of cultural services, which could be linked to other po-
tential areas of impact, such as social life and scientific development.
The transition from a multidisciplinary to an inter- or transdisci-
plinary focus, as suggested by the proposed frameworks of SES (Ostrom,
2009) and IPBES (Díaz et al., 2015a), remains an important challenge
faced by integrated studies of ES in Latin America. Although the con-
cept of ES has inspired dialogue and cooperation among disciplines and
social actors that influence public policy formulation (Schröter et al.,
2014:518; Anderies and Janssen, 2013), only 5% of the analyzed arti-
cles used a transdisciplinary focus, and no specific trend was found as
these studies were limited and isolated. This finding could be related to
the prevalence of research focusing mainly on public policy, as it is
related to mandatory top-down governmental objectives of conserva-
tion and use and a context in which ES have been introduced as part of
M. Perevochtchikova, et al.
national regulatory frameworks.
According to Grima et al. (2017), another issue regarding trans-
disciplinary studies is the time requirement to cocreate a research
question with nonacademic actors since this implies a trusting re-
lationship among all actors involved, along with current and historical
power dynamics. Similarly, extra-academic and political factors ex-
isting within the confines of research calendars and policy agendas
cannot be ignored. These aspects prevent studies from having a real
implication in solving complex socioecological problems that are fun-
damental to transdisciplinary studies.
Conceptual and methodological orientations derived from the types
of analyzed ES, as well as public policy objectives, were consistent with
the observed results in this study regarding possible funding sources.
Although it was difficult to extract definitive conclusions about the
relationship between funding origins and scientific agendas, there was
an evident influence on the research process in the selection of certain
themes, objectives, methods, and specific instruments. This situation
constitutes an obstacle in the formulation of transdisciplinary scientific
knowledge or even the development socioecological systems. An in-
crease in multi- and interdisciplinary studies employing mixed methods
since 2011 could be related to specific demands for evaluating public
policy instruments directed at improving conservation strategies, re-
storation, and ecosystem management as well as enhancing their con-
tributions to human well-being.
Integrated and transdisciplinary studies regarding ES are still facing
important challenges; probably, the most important issue relies on how
to achieve genuine involvement from different sectors of society to
cogenerate knowledge and solve complex socio-environmental pro-
blems. In other words, it is necessary to transition from dialogue and
understanding of problems to concrete actions. Specifically, two points
have been identified regarding the need to generate integrated studies
about ES. First, there is a need to address diverse ecosystem services in
a specific spatial–temporal context. Second, there is a need to generate
transdisciplinary knowledge, starting with processes including the co-
participation of different social actors to solve complex problems re-
lated to management and conservation of socioecological systems to
improve life quality. In this sense, the dissemination of scientific and
technical knowledge in comprehensible language is a key step in
achieving the involvement of different actors (Lara and Echeverría,
2007).
6. Conclusions
This work presented a systematic analysis of scientific publications
of ecosystem services in Latin America using an integrated approach.
Important trends, topics and major challenges related to this topic were
identified within this region. As observed, the integrated approach
outlines theoretical and methodological challenges on a scientific level,
as well as other issues on social and political levels. The results of this
analysis, considering functional and thematic ES, indicate that funding
sources, objectives and potential applications present a bias concerning
a certain type of research and influences on social life and scientific
development showed a reduced presence. A similar situation occurred
with transdisciplinary studies, despite their potential to build plural and
inclusive knowledge.
In the near future, it will be relevant for all communities, not only
those in Latin America, to study ES to adopt and develop transdisci-
plinary approaches to cogenerate knowledge about the current state
and trajectories to foster changes in different socioecological systems.
This process will allow improvements in the decision-making process at
the level of formal institutions and communities and will help develop
solutions for complex socio-environmental problems, such as con-
servation, management, restoration, and the use of ES, thereby con-
tributing to sustainable development beyond a discursive position.
12
Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100900
Declarations of interest
None.
Acknowledgments
We thank the 5th International Congress of Ecosystem Services in
the Neotropics (CISENV) where this collaboration started. We also
thank Bruno Locatelli for his suggestion to apply a meta-analysis as well
as Nohemí Álvarez and Driss Ezzine for their participation during the
first coding. We acknowledge Project 290832 ANR-CONACYT for the
financial support, the SEP PRODEP Scholarship 511–6/189453, Patricia
Balvanera, the anonymous reviewers for excellent suggestions that al-
lowed us to improve this work, and AJE for English language revision.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100900.
References
Anderies, J.M., Janssen, M.A., 2013. Robustness of social-ecological systems. Policy Stud.
J. 41, 513–536.
Balvanera, P., Cotler, H., 2007. Acercamiento al estudio de los servicios ecosistémicos.
Gaceta Ecol. 84–85, 8–15.
Balvanera, P., Uriarte, M., Almeida-Leñero, L., Altesor, A., De Clerck, F., Gardner, T., Hall,
J., Lara, A., Laterra, P., Muñoz-Peña, C., Silva-Matos, D.M., Vogl, A.L., Romero-
Duque, L.P., Arreola, L.F., Caro-Borrero, A., Gallego, F., Jain, M., Little, C., de
Oliveira Xavier, R., Paruelo, Jo. M., Peinado, J.E., Poorter, L., Ascarrunz, N., Correa,
F., Cunha-Santino, M.B., Hernández-Sánchez, A.P., Vallejos, M., 2012. Ecosystem
services research in Latin America: The state of the art. Ecosystem Services 2, 56–70.
Bartlett, A.A., 1999. Reflexiones sobre sostenibilidad, crecimiento de la población y
medio ambiente. Focus 9 (1), 49–68 (Traducido por Gabriel Tobar el 26/3/2007).
Bastian, M., Heymann, S., Jacomy, M., 2009. Gephi: an open source software for ex-
ploring and manipulating networks. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and
Social Media.
Berkes F., Folke, C., s/f. Capital cultural, capital natural y desarrollo sustentable: una
perspectiva sistémica. Disponible en web: http://www2.ine.gob.mx/publicaciones/
gacetas/152/capital.html (24/03/2014).
Binder, C.R., Hinkel, J., Bots, P.W.G., Pahl-Wostl, C., 2013. Comparison of frameworks for
analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 18 (4), 26.
Bonacich, P., 1987. Power and centrality: A family of measures. Am. J. Sociol. 92 (5),
1170–1182.
Booth, A., Papaionnou, Sutton, A., 2012. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature
Review. Sage, London.
Borgatti, S.P., Halgin, D.S., 2011. Analyzing affiliation networks. In: Scott, J., Carrington,
P.J. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis. Sage Publications,
London, pp. 417–433.
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., Freeman, L.C., 2002. Ucinet for Windows: Software for
Social Network Analysis. Analytic Technologies, Harvard.
Boyd, J., Banzhaf, S., 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized
environmental accounting units. Ecol. Econ. 63, 616–626.
Cabrero, M.E., 2012. Acción pública y desarrollo local. Fondo de Cultura Económica,
México.
Camacho Valdez, V., Ruiz Luna, A., 2012. Marco conceptual y clasificación de los ser-
vicios ecosistémicos. Rev. BioCiencias 1 (4), 3–15.
Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., González, A., Hooper, D.U., Perrings, C.H., Venaild, P.,
Narwani, A., Mace, G.M., Tilman, D., Warlde, D.A., Kinsing, A.P., Daily, G.C., Loreau,
M., Grace, J.B., Larigauderie, A., Srivastava, D.S., Naeem, S., 2012. Biodiversity loss
and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–68.
Carpenter, S.R., DeFries, R., Dietz, T., Mooney, H.A., Polasky, S., Reid, W.V., Scholes, R.J.,
2006. Millennium ecosystem assessment: research needs. Science 314, 257–258.
CICES (The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services), s/f. Structure of
CICES. European Environment Agency. Available in web: https://cices.eu/cices-
structure/ (13/11/2018).
CNUMAD, 1992. Declaración de Río sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo. Conferencia
de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo. Río de Janeiro,
Brasil. Disponible en web: http://www.un.org/spanish/esa/sustdev/agenda21/
riodeclaration.htm: (15/03/2013).
Codina, L., 2017. Bases de datos académicas para investigar en Comunicación Social:
revisiones sistematizadas, grupo optimo y protocolo de búsqueda. Portal de la
Comunicación InCom-UAB: El portal de los estudios de comunicación. Disponible en
web: http://www.portalcomunicacion.com/uploads/pdf/96.pdf (6/02/2018).
R Core Team, 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available on: http://www.R-
project.org/ (19/11(2018).
Cornejo-Latorre, C., Calderón-Patrón, J.M., Suárez-Ramírez, L., 2014. Los servicios am-
bientales y la biodiversidad. The environmental services and biodiversity. Invest.
M. Perevochtchikova, et al.
Ambiental 6 (1), 53–60.
Costanza, R., 2008. Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Letter
to Editor. Biol. Conserv. 141, 350–352.
Costanza, R., Daly, H.E., 1992. Natural capital and sustainable development. Conserv.
Biol. 6 (1), 37–46.
Costanza, R., d’Aarge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,
Naeem, S., Oneill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., Vanden Belt, M., 1997.
The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260.
Daily, C.G., 1997. Naturés Services: Social Dependence on Ecosystem Services. Island
Press, Washington DC, USA.
De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J., 2002. A typology for the classification,
description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41,
393–408.
Díaz, et al., 2015a. The IPBES conceptual framework -connecting nature and people. Curr.
Opin. Environ. Sustainability 14, 1–16.
Díaz, et al., 2015b. A Rossetta Stone for Nature’s Benefits to people. PLoS Biol. 13 (1),
e1002040. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002040.
Díaz, et al., 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359 (6373). https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826.
Diesner, J., 2014. ConText: Software for the integrated analysis of text data and network
data. Preconference at Conference of International Communication Association
(ICA), Seattle, WA.
Doerfel, M.L., Barnett, G.A., 1999. A semantic network analysis of the International
Communication Association. Hum. Commun. Res. 25 (4), 589–603.
Ethan Yang, Y.C., Passarelli, S., Lovell, R.J., Ringler, C., 2018. Gendered perspectives of
ecosystem services: a systematic review. Ecosyst. Serv. 31 (A), 58–67.
Ewel, K.C., 2001. Natural resource management: the need for interdisciplinary colla-
boration. Ecosystems 4, 716–722.
Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Wunder, S., Ruiz-Pérez, M., Moreno-Sanchez, R.P., 2016. Global pat-
terns in the implementation of payments for environmental services. PLoSONE 11
(3), e0149847.
Feinerer, I., Hornik, K. 2012. tm: Text mining package. R package version 0.5–7.1, 1(8).
Fischer, B., Tuerner, K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for
decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68, 643–653.
Freeman, L.C., 1977. A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry
40, 35–41.
Geist, J., 2011. Integrative freshwater ecology and biodiversity conservation. Ecol. Ind.
11 (6), 1507–1516.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Scwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M., 1999. The
New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in
Contemporary Societies. Sage, London.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., De Groot, R., Lomas, P.L., Montes, C., 2010. The history of eco-
system services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and
payment schemes. Ecol. Econ. 69 (6), 1209–1218.
Grant, M.J., Booth, A., 2009. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and
associated methodologies. Health Inf. Libraries J. 26, 91–108.
Green, S., Higgins, J. (Eds.), 2005. Glossary. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of
interventions 4.2.5. The Cochrane Collaboration.
Grima, N., Singh, S.J., Smetschka, B., 2017. Decision making in a complex world: Using
OPTamos in a multi-criteria process for land management in the Cuitzmala watershed
in Mexico. Land Use Policy 67, 73–85.
Himes-Cornell, A., Pendleton, L., Atiyah, P., 2018. Valuing ecosystem services from blue
forests: a systematic review of the valuation of salt marshes, sea grass beds and
mangrove forests. Ecosyst. Serv. 30, 36–48.
Hornik, K. 2015. NLP. Natural Language Processing Infrastructure. R package version
0.1–8.
Jakobsen, C.H., Hels, T., McLaughlin, W.L., 2004. Barriers and facilitators to integration
among scientists in transdisciplinary landscape analysis: a cross-country comparison.
For. Policy Econ. 6, 15–31.
Kitchenham, B. A., Charters, S., 2007. Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature
Reviews in Software Engineering. Version 2.3 (EBSE-2007–01). Available on: http://
www.elsevier.com/data/promis_misc/525444systematicreviewsguide.pdf (13/11/
2017).
La Nottea, A., D’Amato, D., Mäkinenc, H., Paracchini, M.L., Liquetea, C., Egohd, B.,
Genelettif, D., Crossmang, N.D., 2017. Ecosystem services classification: a systems
ecology perspective of the cascade framework. Ecol. Ind. 74, 392–402.
Lara, A., Echeverría, C., 2007. Conclusiones del Congreso Internacional de los Servicios
Ecosistémicos en los Neotrópicos: Estado del arte y desafíos futuros. Bosque 28 (1),
10–12. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-92002007000100002.
Locatelli, B., Aldunce, P., Fallot, A., Le Coq, J.F., Sabourin, E., Tapasco, J., 2017. Research
on climate change policies and rural development in Latin America: scope and gaps.
Sustainability 9 (10), 1831.
Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E.yC. Montes, 2009. Un marco conceptual para la
gestión de las interacciones naturales-sociedad en un mundo cambiante. Cuides 9 (3),
229–258.
Martinez-Harms, M.J., Bryan, B.A., Balvanera, P., Law, E.A., Rhodes, J.R., Possingham,
H.P., Wilson, K.A., 2015. Review Making decisions for managing ecosystem services.
Biol. Conserv. 184, 229–238.
Mayran, K., Paquin, M., 2004. Pago por servicios Ambientales: Estudio y evaluación de
esquemas vigentes. Unisfera International Centre, CCA, Montreal, Canadá.
McElwee, P.D., 2012. Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based
forest conservation in Vietnam: Panacea or problem? Geoforum 43, 412–426.
MEA (The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:
Multivolume Set. Island Press, Washington, DC. http://www.millenniumassessment.
org/en/index.aspx.
13
View publication stats
Ecosystem Services 36 (2019) 100900
Meyer, D., Hornik, K., Feinerer, I., 2008. Text mining infrastructure in R. J. Stat. Software
25 (5), 1–54.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., The PRISMA Group, 2009. Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta analyses: the PRISMA statement.
PLoS Med. 6 (7), e1000097.
Moller, R., 2010. Principios de desarrollo sostenible para América Latina. Ingeniería de
recursos naturales y del ambiente 9, 101–110.
Mooney, H.A., Ehrlich, P.R., 1987. Ecosystem Services: a fragmentary history. In: Daily,
G.C. (Ed.), Nature's services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island
Press, Washington D.C., pp. 11–22.
Mora-Vega, R., Sáenz-Segura, F., Le Coq, J.F., 2012. Servicios ambientales y
ecosistémicos: conceptos y aplicaciones en Costa Rica. Puentes entre el comercio y el
desarrollo sostenible 13 (2), 20–23.
Müller, F., De Groot, R., Willemen, L., 2010. Ecosystem services at the Landscape scale:
the need for integrative approaches. Landscape 23. https://doi.org/10.3097/
LO201023.
Myers, N., 1996. Environmental services of biodiversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 93,
2764–2769.
Naredo, J.M., Gómez-Baggethun, E., 2012. Hacia nuevos horizontes de acumulación en la
economía verde. Viento Sur 124, 67–75.
National Research Council (NRC), 2005. Valuing Ecosystem Services. Toward Better
Environmental Decision-making. NRC, National Academies, The National Academy
Press, Washington, USA.
Nicholson, E., Mace, G.M., Armsworth, P.R., Atkinson, G., Buckle, S., Clements, T., Ewers,
R.M., Fa, J.E., Gardner, T.A., Gibbons, J., Grenyer, R., Metcalfe, R., Mourato, S.,
Muûls, M., Osborn, D., Reuman, D.C., Watson, C., 2009. Priority research areas for
ecosystem services in a changing world. J. Appl. Ecol. 46 (6), 1139–1144.
Ocampo, J.A., 1999. Políticas e instituciones para el desarrollo sostenible en América
Latina y el Caribe. CEPAL.
Ostrom, E., 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
104 (39), 15181–15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104.
Ostrom, E., 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological
systems. Science 325, 419–422.
Pahl-Wostl, C., 2009. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-
level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environ. Change 19,
354–365.
Pascual, et al., 2017. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr.
Opin. Environ. Sustainability 26–27, 7–16.
Perevochtchikova, M., 2016. Estudio de los efectos del programa de Pago por Servicios
Ambientales. Experiencia en Ajusco, México. COLMEX, México.
Perevochtchikova, M., 2018. Formalización de un sistema socio-ecológico forestal mex-
icano. In: Ávila Foucat, V.S., Perevochtchikova, M. (Eds.), Sistemas socio-ecológicos:
marcos analíticos y estudios de caso en Oaxaca, México. IIEc-UNAM, México, pp.
129–146.
Perevochtchikova, M., Oggioni, J., 2014. Global and Mexican analytical review of the
state of art on ecosystem and environmental services: a geographical approach.
Investigaciones Geográficas 85, 47–65.
PNUMA, 2007. América Latina y el Caribe, perspectivas del medio ambiente mundial.
Phoenix Design Randers, Dinamarca.
Postel, S., Carpenter, S.R., 1997. Freshwater ecosystem services. In: Daily, G. (Ed.),
Nature’s Services. Island Press, Washington DC, USA, pp. 195–214.
Potschin, M.B., Haines-Young, R.H., 2011. Ecosystem services: exploring a geographical
perspective. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 35 (5), 575–594.
Quintero, M., 2010. Servicios ambientales hidrológicos en la región andina: Estado del
conocimiento, la acción y la política para asegurar su provisión mediante esquemas
de pago por servicios ambientales. IEP; CONDESAN, Perú.
Rojo Negrete, I.A., 2018. Evaluación del Programa de Pago por Servicios Ambientales
Hidrológicos en la Comunidad de San Miguel y Santo Tomas Ajusco, 2004–2017.
Tesis de doctorado en Geografía. UNAM, México.
Scholz, R.W., Binder, C.R., 2003. The paradigm of human-environment systems. Working
Paper 37. Natural and Social Science Interface. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,
Zürich, Switzerland.
Scholz, R.W., Binder, C.R., Lang, D.J., 2011. The HES-Framework. In: Scholz, R.W. (Ed.),
Environmental Literacy in Science and Society: From Knowledge to Decisions.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 453–462.
Schröter, M., Van der Zanden, E.H., van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Remme, R.P., Serna-Chavez,
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.
Stojanovic, T., McNae, H., Tett, P., Potts, T.W., Reis, J., Smith, H.D., Dillingham, I., 2016.
The “social” aspect of social-ecological systems: a critique of analytical frameworks
and findings from a multisite study of coastal sustainability. Ecol. Soc. 21 (3), 15.
TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity), 2010. The economics of ecosys-
tems and biodiversity. TEEB Report for Business. Earthscan, UK.
Tress, G., Tress, B., Fry, G., 2004. Clarifying integrative research concepts in landscape
ecology. Landscape Ecol. 20, 479–493.
Turner, R.K., Georgiou, S., Fisher, B., 2008. Valuing Ecosystem Services: The Case of
Multi- functional Wetlands. Earthscan, London.
Van Manen, M., 2001. Transdisciplinarity and the new production of knowledge. Qual.
Health Res. 11 (6), 850–852.
Wallace, K.J., 2007. Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol.
Conserv. 139 (3–4), 235–246.
Wasserman, S., Faust, K., 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, first
ed. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Wunder, S., 2005. Pagos por servicios ambientales: Principios básicos esenciales. Centro
Internacional de Investigación Forestal (CIFOR). Occasional Paper 42 (s), 2.