Nature's contributions to people in mountains: A review

Abstract

Mountains play a key role in the provision of nature's contributions to people (NCP) worldwide that support societies' quality of life. Simultaneously, mountains are threatened by multiple drivers of change. Due to the complex interlinkages between biodiversity, quality of life and drivers of change, research on NCP in mountains requires interdisciplinary approaches. In this study, we used the conceptual framework of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the notion of NCP to determine to what extent previous research on ecosystem services in mountains has explored the different components of the IPBES conceptual framework. We conducted a systematic review of articles on ecosystem services in mountains published up to 2016 using the Web of Science and Scopus databases. Descriptive statistical and network analyses were conducted to explore the level of research on the components of the IPBES framework and their interactions. Our results show that research has gradually become more interdisciplinary by studying higher number of NCP, dimensions of quality of life, and indirect drivers of change. Yet, research focusing on biodiversity, regulating NCP and direct drivers has decreased over time. Furthermore, despite the fact that research on NCP in mountains becoming more policy-oriented over time, mainly in relation to payments for ecosystem services, institutional responses remained underexplored in the reviewed studies. Finally, we discuss the relevant knowledge gaps that should be addressed in future research in order to contribute to IPBES.

Fig 1. The IPBES conceptual framework.

Boxes denote the basic components of nature and society that are the focus of IPBES and dark grey boxes with non-dotted lines indicate those components that are the focus of this research: nature, nature’s contributions to people (after Díaz et al. (2018) [34]), good quality of life, direct drivers of change, and indirect drivers of change, with particular emphasis on governance. The interactions between these components analyzed in this study are presented with non-dotted arrows. The numbered arrows between the elements represent influences and interactions between IPBES components that are researched in this study. Only those inclusive categories referring to each of the components are shown in the diagram, but see Díaz et al. (2015) [24] for the categories referring to western science and indigenous and local knowledge.

Fig 2. Temporal distribution of papers published on ecosystem services in mountains and main methodological approach applied in each period (1997–2007, 2008–2010, 2011–2013, 2014–2016).

Fig 3. Geographic distribution of papers published on ecosystem services provided by mountains.

Fig 4. Temporal trends in the focus on published research on mountain ecosystem services according to the components of the IPBES conceptual framework.

Fig 5. Percentage of publications on ecosystem services provided by mountains that focus on the different components of the IPBES conceptual framework.

(A) Percentage of publications that analyze different aspects of nature, categories of NCP, components of human wellbeing, and types of drivers of change. (B) Percentage of the studies analyzing different direct drivers (left) and indirect drivers (right).

Fig 6. Network of different components of the IPBES conceptual framework that have been addressed in papers published about ecosystem services provided by mountains in the four periods identified: 1997–2007, 2008–2010, 2011–2013, 2014–2016.

Symbol size indicates weighted degree of nodes (maximum weighted degrees: 78 (period 1997–2007), 250 (2008–2010), 250 (2011–2013), 872 (2014–2016). Symbol color indicates the different components of the IPBES framework. Width of edges (gray lines) represent edge weights, i.e. the number of papers (maximum weight 76, only edges with weights higher than 2 are shown).