A methodological approach for the analysis of ecosystem services from the local communities’ perspective

Abstract

In this paper, we developed an innovative and plural methodology for a socio-cultural assessment of ecosystem services (ES). This methodology was performed using diverse and interdependent tools applied within the framework of ethnoecology and post-normal science, with the aim of identifying ES from the perspective of local communities that inhabit different socio-ecosystems, highlighting the relevance of Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK). As examples of how this methodology works, we analyzed a multiple case study performed in three peasant communities of the Dry Chaco eco-region, Argentina. We identified ES in all the categories and their fundamental contributions to the particular way of life in this area. The method is flexible enough to be used in other socio-ecosystems with different environmental and social features.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13280-022-01807-y.

Introduction

The concept of ecosystem services (ES) has been widely used for different purposes since the 1990s, gaining greater relevance with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005). ES are defined as benefits perceived by human beings, directly or indirectly derived from ecosystems (Costanza et al. 1997; MEA 2005; Fisher et al. 2009). Also, human well-being is intricately connected to ecosystem services (Berbés-Blázquez 2012; Liu et al. 2021). The concept of ES has received several criticisms, mainly in relation to the commodification of nature (Kosoy and Corbera 2010; Luck et al. 2012), but it is appropriate as a link between human and ecological subsystems (Orenstein and Groner 2014).

Most investigations into ES are conducted in systems that are dynamic and complex, with a high degree of uncertainty, and prone to undergo constant interactions to guide the choice of appropriate strategies for decision-making. These systems can be addressed from the post-normal science perspective (Ainscough et al. 2018), which suggests an interactive dialogue from a stance of epistemological pluralism, not only between scientists from different disciplines, but also with members of the so-called extended peer community (Funtowicz and Ravetz 2008). In this sense, local communities’ participation is considered crucial (Toledo 2006) to be engaged in a dialogue between scientific knowledge and indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) (Berkes 2018).

The methods and tools that have been developed for assessing ES can be categorized as: (i) biophysical methods, (ii) socio-cultural methods and (iii) monetary techniques (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2016; Harrison et al. 2017). In this context, the aim of this paper is to develop a methodology for the ES assessment under a socio-cultural framework alongside the local communities which include indigenous and local knowledge (ILK). For example, the Intergovernmental Panel of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Conceptual Framework includes this knowledge system (Diaz et al. 2015; Pascual et al. 2017) and defines it as a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with each other and with their environment. From this point of view, in this research we attempted to overcome the power dichotomy and asymmetry between both bodies of knowledge (ILK and “western, rational, scientific, modern, and civilized” science; Agrawal 1995). We drew from ethnoecology (Toledo 1992), a discipline within the ethnosciences (Lagos-Witte et al. 2011) that revalues the cultures and struggles (i.e., organized actions of peasant movements in the context of land conflicts) of peasant people based on their forms of appropriation of natural resources. Furthermore, our methodological proposal is based on the dialogic relationship between society and nature, considering the concept of Complex Society-Nature Systems (Redman et al. 2004), narrowly named as socio-ecological system (S-ES). Considering all the mentioned, we propose to identify the ES from the local communities’ perspective. The use of this approach in ES studies is very necessary given the increased demand for policy-relevant knowledge and the epistemic complexity involved in its production (Mastrángelo et al. 2019). Also, this approach is valuable in the Global South, as the views of local and indigenous communities are generally not taken into account by environmental management and policymakers (Comberti et al. 2015; Tauro et al. 2018).

In Latin America, some researchers have used socio-cultural approaches for the analysis of ES. For example, Berbés-Blázquez (2012) and Tauro et al. (2018) used photo interviews to analyze the benefits of ecosystems perceived by rural communities. Meanwhile, Betancourt and Nahuelhual (2017) have investigated, through in-depth interviews, the links between human beings and the ES local natural medicine products concerning human well-being. De Oliveira and Berkes (2014) analyzed the ES within the MEA (2005) framework from local people's perceptions from interviews. Cáceres et al. (2015) used an interdisciplinary and multi-social actors’ methodology to assess how different social actors perceive and value diverse ES, using individual in-depth interviews and focus groups. There are other examples in the Global South; for instance, Dorji et al. (2019) used structured questionnaires, focus group discussions, and preference point ratings to assess socio-cultural values of ES. However, a relevant issue in studies on socio-cultural assessment of ES is that, generally, the interviewees are offered with a list of ES prepared by the researchers (e.g., Rodríguez et al. 2006). As an exception, Maestre-Andrés et al. (2015) identified and characterized the place-based ES of a natural park in Spain by building the list of ES through semi-structured interviews with stakeholders and non-participant observation and valued them conducting a survey. Oteros-Rozas et al. (2013), also in Spain, used a socio-cultural valuation of SE in sheep transhumance activity with similar tools. In contrast, our methodology provides an iterative work and constant data validation with the communities.

Based on all the evidence exposed, the main objective of this work is to develop a participative methodology to co-produce knowledge through the use of multiple tools and apply it in a multiple study case with three peasant communities in Dry Chaco eco-region, Argentina.

Materials and methods

We developed and performed an interactive process between researchers and local people, using descriptive and analytical tools, giving priority to people’s speech and behavior as primary data. This methodology can be framed into a socio-cultural approach for understanding preferences or social values that local people give to ecosystem services (Harrison et al., 2017), exploring human attitudes and perceptions (e.g., Chan et al. 2012; Maestre-Andrés et al. 2015) toward a plural valuation (Ríncón-Ruiz et al. 2019).

The methodology was designed to analyze the relationships between human beings and socio-ecosystems using different tools at the individual, group, and zonal levels: interviews, workshops in each community, and among communities, respectively. This methodology must be performed in a cyclical way, with a reciprocal interaction between the following: (A) data collection (researchers and communities), (B) systematization (researchers), and (C) validation and working agreements (researchers and communities) (Fig. 1A). The proposal includes multiple stages with different tools (Fig. 1B), which will be discussed further in the following paragraphs. In an adaptive process of learning by doing, modifications in the tools arose through the dialogue with the participants. Each tool is built using the results obtained on the previous one (Table S1 in Supplementary Information).

Fig. 1.

A Methodological work dynamics (A, B, C). B Diagram of the methodological tools cycling in four stages and three work dynamics

Stage 0

This stage (Fig. 1B) consists in meetings with local communities to inform them about the objectives of the study and for trust building before conducting the research. This initial stage gives the researchers the opportunity to grasp different points of view and to reach agreements about communities’ commitment; essential issues since all the activities require the constant participation of the people involved. This is the first step toward defining a methodology for pursuing the goals, such as establishing the main themes and questions, the geographical area, or the scales and territory appropriation of the community. At this stage, it is crucial to make contact with key informants of the different communities.

Stage 1

To design this stage (Fig. 1B), we use general ethnographic tools, to have information at the different levels: individual (interviews) and group information (participatory mapping and participant observation). Information on vegetation provided during “walking on the woods” with peasants and a scientific description of the vegetation types (Urdampilleta 2020) are also included in this step due to their relationship with most of the ES.

Semi-structured interviews (A.1.1)

Interviews are performed as conversations where the interviewer leads the interviewee to talk about different topics of interest. During this process, the interviewer should pay attention to the body language (looks, gestures, laughter, words, etc.) coming from the interviewee to enter into his/her cultural universe. This can be achieved by means of evenly suspended attention (not to privilege beforehand any point of the interviewee's discourse), free association of the interviewee (allowing him/her to introduce topics and concepts from his/her point of view) and deferred categorization of the interviewer (formulating open-ended questions linked to the speech of the interviewee) as was pointed out by Guber (2011).

Using the information gathered from Stage 0, we identify the main subjects for the semi-structured interviews, which are as follows:

• way of life and its relationship with the socio-ecosystem,

• productive activities,

• extraction of products from the different ecosystems,

• water supply,

• socio-environmental problems and concerns,

• access to healthcare systems,

• access to education system,

• perception of socio-ecosystem’s changes over time,

• participation in community meetings and sustainable production projects, and

• any other comment that the interviewee deemed important.

The places of the interviews are the families´ homes and are recorded with previous consent. The household and peridomestic areas (areas around human houses, where many of the activities of nature appropriation are performed) are examined, taking notes and drawing spatial characteristics on field diaries. The visits give the researchers the opportunity to meet other community members who do not usually attend to the meetings and to share the objectives of the study to each of the families.

Participatory mapping (A.1.2)

Participatory mapping is a tool for producing maps together with local actors, as they have a deep and rich knowledge of the territory. This practice is a moment of collective exchange allowing to visualize the territory (Risler and Ares 2013) and to strengthen the bonds between participants (Hernández et al. 2013).

For each of the communities involved, the participants are asked to draw on a blank flip chart the more important characteristics of their territory. This activity allows to create the following:

• (i)Territorial scanning: adding the information on the map together with key community informants (Hernández et al. 2013), identifying the community infrastructure and property limits, and providing population data;
• (ii)Physical exploration of the territory for geo-referencing with community key informants;
• (iii)Collective mapping during community and intercommunity workshops (Risler and Ares 2013).

During a second meeting, a satellite image of the territory, with an acetate film on top, is shown to the people in order to draw different features such as habitat types they could identify, neighboring farms, current and past conflicts among them, main roads and paths, etc. Using these two participatory mapping, information at different scales is obtained.

Characterization of vegetation types (A.1.3)

The current vegetation types are the consequence of successive responses to disturbances of both anthropogenic and natural origin. For this reason, it is important to have a joint description of the vegetation types with each community, which is carried out through a) survey of floristic and structural composition of vegetation and b) clustering and ordination of vegetation floristic and structural composition (see details in Urdampilleta 2020). Vegetation diversity (as an indicator of landscape heterogeneity; Sever et al. 2014) is then linked to ES due to the wide variety of benefits that it provides (i.e., Food for people, Medicinal plants, Construction materials, etc.) (García-Nieto et al. 2013).

Participant observation (A.1.4)

The participant observation, a classic tool of ethnography, sought to create a subjective immersion experience, as the communities’ culture can only be understood from the inside (Guber 2011). It implies getting involved in daily life, such as workshops and community meetings, residing with the population and participating in family production activities. All these observations are registered on field diaries.

Basic information systematization (B.1)

While basic data collection occurs, the researchers proceed to a basic information systematization (B 1), with step B 1.1 iInterviews first coding cycle) and B 1.2 (adjustment of methodological design and workshops set-up).

The interviews are transcribed, after which a structural coding is performed (Saldaña 2009), where the first coding cycle entailed reading the interviews and creating the codes (broad topics like food, energy, water, vegetation uses, education, health, conflicts, etc.), to later develop a data matrix for an in-depth concept generation.

Feedback on basic information and new working agreements (C.1)

At this point, meetings with key informants are held and the data produced are explained and discussed. This is an instance of data validation and getting new working agreements for the next step.

Stage 2

Workshops (A.2)

Upon the analysis of the basic data collected (Stage 1), two steps are performed: (A.2.1) workshops with each of the communities and (A.2.2) intercommunity workshops (if it is possible). For this design, it is necessary to learn about the community features such as territories, participation dynamics, most relevant territorial disputes, community members and their way of life, and a preliminary identification of the ES from the interviews (Stage 1 and 0).

Community workshops on ecosystem services (A.2.1)

The objective is the identification of the ES by the group, focusing on their values and their relationship with both the ecosystems and the ecosystem components. The following activities should be performed during these workshops.

(i) Characterization and validation of vegetation types

A debate on the vegetation typology performed on Stage A.1.3 is carried out considering both typologies from different areas identified on satellite images and the probable presence of any other vegetation type.

(ii a) Identification of the ES through brainstorming and guiding questions

The questions should be performed taking into account the importance of the ecosystem for the community and the products they get from that ecosystem on a daily basis. Despite the fact that these questions induce a bias toward material issues, it is an initial trigger to go further on the discussion about the indirect benefits of the ecosystems during other activities and with other questions. The ES identified during the brainstorming session are recorded on a flip chart for the next activities.

(ii b) Group identification of the ES using a “Socio-Ecosystem Mandala”

A dynamic activity based on the proposal by Abt Giubergia et al. (2017) was adopted. Participants should sit in a circle with paper images illustrating the elements found in the ecosystem and the main activities of the communities (see Fig. 2A, B and C in Case Study).

Fig. 2.

A Forest and community element images used for the case study. From left to right: Cerco, Farming’s animals, cows, goats and sheep, horses, woolen fabric, carpentry, medicinal plants, vegetable garden, bees-honey, community, forest’s animals, forest’s fruits, opuntia tuna, posts and rods, forest, soil, fertilizer (mulch), insects, wind, fire, sun, rain. B and C “Socio-Ecosystem Mandala” carried out in San Ramón-San Luis community

Each member of the group names the elements on the images and states the relationships between them. As they identify the links, ribbons are placed between the corresponding elements to visualize and discuss the connections. The resulting patterns represent a network of complex relationships that support the ecosystem functioning. A discussion about the aforementioned interrelations and their implications for daily life is carried out. The participants are asked about the consequences of removing cards that have a high number of links with other components. This tool provides information about non-material benefits from socio-ecosystem. The mentioned ES are written down on a flip chart.

This activity named Socio-Ecosystem Mandala allowed the application of “degree centrality” metric (Zang and Luo 2017) to assess the interactions among the socio-ecosystem components. The axes or edges represent the connections and the nodes or points represent each connected entity. The “degree centrality” is a standardized metric measured by the total amount of direct links with the other nodes. Using this information, the importance of each node and the distribution of relationships can be assessed. In addition, nodes are removed one-by-one selecting those nodes with the highest value of the metric in order to assess the compartmentalization level of the network.

(iii) Individual assessment of the ES

A numbered list is created from the ES previously identified (ii a and b). This is performed to individually assess those previously identified and to establish their relationship with the habitat types. In this step, we assess the material relationships between humans and ES through an individual questionnaire with three brief questions for each ES identified during the workshop: (a) Do you make use of the ES? (Yes/No); (b) How important is that ES? Assessment on a Likert subjective scale with 1 to 5-categories sensu Koschke et al. (2012); and (c) Where is the ES extracted from? (Options from Stage A.2.1 i).

Workshop on identification of ecosystem services with the intercommunity committee (A.2.2)

This workshop should be attended, if possible, by different stakeholders like different communities’ representatives, technicians, policy makers, industrial agricultural producers, etc. This meeting allows to exchange information about the dependence on the ecosystems for maintaining the local communities' way of life, and the ES considered at intercommunity scale. A discussion on native ecosystems conservation policies and sustainable management should be involved during the meetings.

Systematization, synthesis, and analysis (B.2)

With the data obtained in the workshops (A.2.1 and A.2.2), systematization, synthesis, and analysis, composed of 3 steps, are performed: B.2.1) coding, triangulation, and analysis of identified ES, B.2.2) communication materials elaboration, and B.2.3) feedback instances design.

Coding, triangulation, and analysis of the identified ecosystem services (B.2.1)

A cyclic coding process of the entire transcribed material (workshop flip charts, interviews, and workshops’ recordings) is performed, for the identification of ES. According to Saldaña (2009), the coding process is divided into two stages: first and second cycles. For the first coding cycle, a descriptive coding is selected in order to provide an inventory of the topics in the database (Saldaña 2009, p. 66). The goal of the second cycle is to reorganize the coded data in the previous cycle to develop a more accurate list of categories (ES in this case) (Saldaña 2009). For this cycle (and the subsequent ones), a pattern coding should be implemented to pull together all the material into a more meaningful and parsimonious unit of analysis (Miles and Huberman 1994, p. 69).

For each ES, the reference to the methodological tool with which it was identified is kept to analyze the contribution of each tool to ES identification. A triangulation among the different methodological tools should be done (Denzin 1978).

The proposed methodology seeks to avoid a priori imposition of ES and possible prejudices by the researchers. For this reason, we did not use any previous classification frameworks and the cyclic coding process should be carried out with an open mind. The ES are classified into previously existing MEA (2005) groups (if necessary broadening their definition or, when this is not possible, into newly created groups. These new ES (and eventually new groups of ES) are high-level categories that emerge during the collection, coding, and data analysis (Glasser and Strauss 1967).

(i) ES valuation

Different significance values should be ascribed to each identified ES, according to the tool with which they are identified following these criteria by each community:

B = order in which they are mentioned during the brainstorming session of the workshop.

I = number of interviews in which they are mentioned.

T = identified ES by each community considering the different applied tools (interviews, brainstorming session, and Socio-Ecosystem Mandala).

S = average of the values derived from the surveys on the Likert scale (1 to 5).

The values assigned to each criterion must be normalized to be able to compare them: B = 1/order of mentioning; I = number of interviews/total of interviewees; T = number of tools in which they appeared/number of tools used in the community; S = average of the values ascribed in the surveys/5.

To obtain the final valuation (Vc) of each ES, we use the following equation (Eq. 1):

$$\text{Vc}=\left(\text{B}+\text{I}+\text{T}+\text{S}\right)/4$$ 1

Based on this normalization, a table is built to compare the importance assigned by the communities to each ES (see Fig. S1).

(ii) Relationship between ES and ecosystem components

To analyze the connections between ES and ecosystem components (e.g., plant species, vegetation types, habitat types, and others; see Case Study), a data matrix should be performed. The information used for its elaboration is gathered from the individual questionnaires and the descriptions provided by the members of the community during the interviews and workshops. Through the analysis of the aforementioned connections, the contribution of ecosystem components to the provision of each ES is assessed. Using the matrix information, several analyses can be performed to visualize the level of heterogeneity that supports the ES (e.g., relationship between ES and habitat types, ES associated with plant and animal species, etc.).

Feedback on products and new working agreements (C.2)

At this point, meetings with key informants should be carried out to show, discuss, and debate the obtained drafts. This step could be considered as an instance of validation, where new working agreements for step 3 are built.

Stage 3

At this stage (Fig. 1B), the final communication products are made. This exchange occurs until communities and researchers reach an agreement about these materials and may require more than one discussion workshop. Feedback workshops (Sirvent 2018) with the communities fulfill the function of in situ triangulation, validation of partial and final results (Hammersley and Atkinson 1994), obtaining new empirical information, reflection on the process, and work products. This validation of information and final products are carried out in different intercommunity workshops and meetings, both in work dynamics A and C. It is an important instance of debate with communities.

Study area

We worked jointly with the intercommunity committee called “Mesa Zonal de Tierra Guasayán” (Mesa ZTG). To illustrate the proposed methodology, three local communities were selected: San Ramón-San Luis-El Cautivo (SRL), Las Juntas (LJT), and Villa Guasayán (VGY). This selection aimed to reflect the variability present between the communities that inhabit the area of Guasayán Hills. These communities present differences in several attributes (see Table S2).

These peasant communities are located around the Guasayán Hills, Guasayán Department, Santiago del Estero Province, Argentina (64° 52′ W, 27 49′ S) (Fig. 3A, B). The study was carried out between 2017 and 2019 (3 years).

Fig. 3.

A Location of Santiago del Estero province and Guasayán Department in Argentina. B Location of the communities' territories in the Guasayán Hills. Photo credit: Andrea Cabrera

The study area comprises the ecological complex “Bosques–Arbustales del Centro” sensu Morello (2012) in the Dry Chaco eco-region. It is a xerophytic closed forest reaching 15–25 m in height with two strata: an upper stratum dominated by Schinopsis lorentzii and Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco, and a lower one up to 15 m, dominated by Prosopis spp. and Ziziphus mistol. In this region, the industrial agriculture model (soybean cultivation genetically modified to be resistant to herbicides) is responsible for multiple transformations such as the eviction of communities of indigenous communities, small producers and peasants, as well as the deforestation of native ecosystems (Pinto 2011).

The communities sharing a territory make joint decisions in the context of the Mesa Zonal de Tierra de Guasayán where the different communities send their representatives, trying to reach a consensus. In this area, water availability is a limiting factor for both human and animal consumption and for crop irrigation. Rainfall is the main source of water for most families (Contreras et al. 2014). Goat extensive breeding is the main productive activity (Rueda et al. 2007), which forages on natural vegetation (Contreras et al. 2014). The agricultural production is carried out in small fenced areas (called cercos) with an average of 2.6 ha-plots where corn and some cucurbits are grown jointly (Arístide 2014). In addition, families carry out several secondary production activities for self-consumption (Rueda et al. 2007) such as hen farming and elaboration of goat cheese and preserves. Hunting of wildlife, as an alternative source of food, is also a common subsistence activity (Arístide 2014). The entire area used by the communities is considered as a socio-ecosystem, composed of anthropic and natural subsystems.

Results

Between 2017 and 2018, out of a total of 91 families who perform productive activities dependent on forests, we interviewed 40 that were willing to participate (11 from VGY, 12 from SRL, and 17 from LJT). Interviews were conducted in Spanish, the communities’ and researchers’ mother tongue. Each interview lasted between 45 min and 2 h. The community workshops (one in each community) were carried out between July and August, 2019, with the duration of approximately 3 h (Table S3).

The participation of the community in these workshops provides them with information to act in strong defense of their rights for a healthy environment and for the land, and to nourish discussions that improve the implementation of the national environmental legislation. In this context, we produced communication products such as an in-print publication and a video about the importance of the Chaco native forests and its ES for the peasant way of life (Mesa ZTG et al. 2020 a and b). These co-productions were carried out upon coordination with the Free Workshop of Social Project Chair, of the School of Architecture, Design, and Urbanism of the University of Buenos Aires and thus reinforced the multipurpose nature of the different activities and tools.

Identification of the ES

We obtained a list of contributions from nature from the perspective of the benefits perceived by the community during the study, similarly as reported by Tauro et al. (2021), and not from classifications taken from previous literature. We identified a total of 53 ES: 11 Supporting -S-ES-, 5 Regulating -R-ES-, 31 Provisioning -P-ES- and 6 Cultural -C-ES-). In this work, the MEA (2005) classification system was used as it is the most popular. We did not compare different ES classification systems as it was reported that they do not present substantial differences (Costanza et al. 2017).

Despite the multiplicity of tools, the information provided was non-redundant, which was in agreement with the theoretical–methodological framework and consistent with the expected results.

During the interviews, we focused on the way of life, whereas during the workshops, we discussed the premise of socio-ecosystem importance (forests in particular). This was reflected in the type of ES mentioned during each activity. P-ES related to food for people emerged mainly from the interviews (e.g., livestock, products from the vegetable garden, crops from the cerco). Instead, these ES were not mentioned during the workshops because they are not provided directly by the local ecosystem. As these P-ES are essential for supporting the way of life and are seen as a form of ‘co-production’ by people and nature (Haines-Young and Potschin 2018), in agreement with these authors, we argued that ecosystem processes that enable crop and animal growth, such as nutrient cycling, should be recognized as a relevant ecosystem contribution. These ES are highlighted in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4.

ES list arises from the application of the different tools. The first column presents the categories according to MEA (2005): Provisioning, Regulating, Supporting and Cultural

On the other hand, the S-ES were mostly identified through both the Socio-Ecosystem Mandala activity and in-depth questions. In contrast, considering the entire tools, both R-ES and C-ES came up more occasionally and after in-depth discussions. Meanwhile, during the intercommunity committee workshop, most of the services that came up were related to the hills zone, an integral component of the region’s geography (Fig. 4).

After the analysis of the results, 4 ES deemed initially difficult to be assigned into any MEA (2005) groups. After some discussions, “Native Forest Regeneration” and “Ecosystem Integrity” were classified under the Supporting group (considered as “Nursery Functions” and “Existence Values of Biodiversity,” respectively) whereas “Wild Pets” and “Pest control” could be located under Cultural and Regulating groups, respectively. The ES “Pest control” indicates the preservation of the ecosystem against pathogens (Haines-Young and Potschin 2018). However, in this case, the community includes the use of ashes and plants for carob pods conservation, which are being stored for future usage. The Insect Repellent Plants ES were considered to be similar to Pest control, but under Provisioning group (see Table S4).

Critical ES

We categorized ES into Critical and non-Critical ES. This classification link each ES to the degree of provision and demand. Critical ES, which were also previously labeled as “threatened” by Maron et al. (2017), were mentioned during the workshops when we were talking about the impact of certain disturbances. The degree of provision, the demand, and decreasing trends on each ES (sensu Maron et al 2017) should be considered in order to assess the threat or the risk in service loss. Their identification is essential both to avoid potential irreversible losses and to promote effective conservation policies. Critical ES have been identified based on criteria such as ecosystems degradation due to their absence or deterioration (Cai et al. 2017), or their importance in the ecological balance, in the support of endangered species, or in economic and social valuation (Aryal et al. 2021). In the context of this case of study, and with the advance of extractive activities, these ES are highly valuated by the local populations because they know the impact of their loss. In summary, critical ES meet two conditions: they are necessary and not redundant for the local communities’ well-being and are threatened by land use/land cover and climate changes. ES pointed out as Critical were as follows: regulation of water cycle (rain and floods), ecosystem integrity (presence of forest), and clean air.

ES valuation

Fig. S1 summarizes the significance values derived from the normalization of the variables on the table, the sum of them, and the normalization over the total of variables. During the interviews, the participants ascribed the highest value (5) to most of the ES. The lowest values were associated with a low frequency of use of certain ES (e.g., provisioning services such as hunting wild animals and materials for craftsmanship). In general, in the three communities, P-ES showed higher values followed by Supporting ES, which were ascribed the highest value during the interviews, although they were not included in all of the tools. Among them, the soil was the most valuated S-ES by all of the communities.

ES associated with ecosystem components

Most of the plant species have a positive perception and those used for medicinal purposes were the most frequently mentioned. Plant species of all growth habits (appearance, shape, height, and form of growth of a plant species) were named, and benefits provided by most of the surveyed plant species were identified (A.1.3). We could also acknowledge those plant species of greater value for the community in relation with the number of ES they provide. These species also showed the highest abundance range in the vegetation survey. A remarkable finding was that all habitat types provide ES, although some of them were redundant (e.g., one ES can be obtained from more than one habitat type). For example, the links pointed out by the interviewees showed that provisioning ES presented the largest number of associations with some particular species of plants and animals, whereas regulating and supporting ES were mostly linked to other variables. It is relevant to differentiate “habitat types” (identified and differentiated areas by the communities in terms of vegetation characteristics and uses), and “vegetation types” (a scientific classification based on a detailed description of floristic and structural composition of vegetation). When this information was validated with the communities, there was not a complete agreement between both ways of classifying vegetation. Consequently, we decided to use the "habitat type" classification during the workshops.

“Socio-Ecosystem Mandala”

The networks obtained presented a large number of relationships: 57 in SLR and 50 in LJT (Figs. S2 and S3, respectively). The most important elements were Community and Forest, followed by Rain and Soil. It was observed that all the elements were interconnected with each other.

Discussion

The present research highlights the importance of incorporating the valuable indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) to the local participatory approach. The results obtained in the cases of study showed that the inclusion of the local communities' knowledge for the assessment of ES play a critical role in the conservation of natural ecosystems such as pointed out by other authors (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2010; Elbers 2011; Pascual et al. 2017). Our experience indicated that, even though post-normal science in not a regular approach in ES literature and research (Ainscough et al. (2018)), it was suitable for the socio-ecosystems studied, at the same time that it provided an appropriate theoretical and epistemological framework. In this regard, the socio-cultural assessment of ecosystem services has undergone rapid development but is still poorly formalized and more diverse in ontological and epistemological terms (Harrison et al. 2017). In most of the previous research carried out using a socio-cultural method, just a few tools (Berbés-Blázquez 2012; Tauro et al. 2018) or a few ES were analyzed (Betancourt and Nahuelhual 2017; Cabana et al. 2020). Our work presents certain similarities with that published by Cáceres et al. (2015) regarding the fact that they did not provide a pre-established list of ES to different stakeholders either. On the contrary, they used a few number of tools to analyze them, whereas our methodology uses multiple tools and allows a deeper knowledge on the ES perceived by communities.

The ethnographic approach allowed us to gradually deepen into the relationship between the communities and the native ecosystems. During the learning instances with the communities, the concept of ES was introduced gradually and associated with goods obtained directly from the forest. As we moved forward and focused on the interrelations among the ecosystem and the way of life, we came across ideas and concepts belonging to more indirect categories of ES, which accounted for the communities’ intrinsic knowledge of the native forest components, processes, and functions. The tools like ‘individual questionnaires’ asks about material goods and benefits from the socio-ecosystem, whereas the Mandala tool promotes a more in-depth discussion about non-material benefits, ecosystem functions, and interrelationships.

The results of the case of study showed that each tool not only provided information that supported the previously collected data, but also produced new additional findings, enriching the overall view of the peasant socio-ecosystem. All the tools were important and necessary and they provided crucial information for the development of the following ones, in such a way that they became interdependent to each other. In addition, the proposed methodology can be replicated in other socio-ecosystems as the tools are flexible enough to be adapted to specific contexts of other socio-ecosystems and the ES they provide. For example, the main subjects to be included in the interviews are constructed from Stage 0; and these issues will be different depending on the community and the socio-ecosystem of study.

The different instances and tools showed the value of the ES for the local communities’ way of life and highlighted real and possible scenarios in which certain essential ES, identified as Critical, may deteriorate or disappear by changes in land use and land cover. The main drivers of these changes have been occurring since many decades. Some examples are the rise in prices of agriculture commodities (and, in consequence, land price appreciation) and the introduction of new technologies such as genetically modified and herbicide-resistant soybean (in part, responsible for the significant deforestation in the Argentinean area of the Chaco region). As for the Guasayán Hills, during these exchanges, it became evident that the environmental changes and their impact on both people and territory occurred at different scales. Moreover, it was possible to differentially analyze the ES according to each community, identifying the Critical ES for the management and conservation of this socio-ecosystems. The assessment of critical or threatened ES is important for decision-making and for the design of conservation strategies, especially in contexts of environmental change (Maron et al. 2017). Joint identification of ES together with local communities is an important outcome in planning detailed studies. Most ES were identified from qualitative tools (e.g., Mandala) whereas their outstanding importance was barely reflected in the quantitative analysis (ES valuation). This reinforces the importance of the qualitative approach and ethnographic tools to strengthen the contribution for decision-making.

The compartmentalization of the environment hides the fact that each of the ecosystem functions and services relate to and depend on each other (Vatn 2000; Kosoy and Corbera 2010; Weyland et al. 2017). The Socio-Ecosystem Mandala activity carried out with the peasant communities of Guasayán allowed to interweave and visualize the inputs provided by previous tools. In addition, it was the tool that most contributed in understanding and discussing the ecosystem as a whole, and this activity created a place for relaxing and playing, where everyone felt more confident to participate, including youths and children.

Additionally, it was possible to identify ES from all MEA categories, even from the supporting, regulating, and cultural services ones, which are hardly identified using other methodologies (e.g., Cohen-Shacham et al. 2015; Nieto Romero et al. 2014).. Likewise, it is important to make a reflexivity effort at all times to avoid forcing "round data" into "square categories" (Glasser and Strauss 1967, p. 37). The ES found in this study were similar to others reported in bibliography. For instance, “Insect Repellent Plants” or “Ecosystem integrity” are similar to “Biological control” and “Lifecycle maintenance” reported by Maestre-Andrés et al (2015) and Haines-Young and Potschin (2018). However, they are different because they respond to different socio-ecological systems and logics of appropriation of nature. In this way, our methodology allows to broaden the ES assessments in dialogue with ILK to reveal the diverse values of nature. On the other hand, the stakeholders’ perceptions in the natural protected area studied in Maestre-Andrés et al. (2015) differed from the ones found in the peasant community socio-ecosystems (see Table S4). The description and analysis of these local differences enhance the value of bio-cultural conservation.

From the theoretical framework applied here, it is suggested that every activity related to the ecosystem is mediated by culture (Chan et al. 2012; Orenstein and Groner 2014). The peasant way of life is sustained by these ES while it also cares for the maintenance of the ecosystem multifunctionality. Under this premise, the provisioning ES cannot be separated from the way of life and cultural traditions. Through such practices, the memory and identity of the communities are maintained.

Therefore, some difficulties in categorizing ES might arise as cultural ES have a material nature and provisioning ES have a cultural background (Hirons et al. (2016), Kaltenborn et al. (2020)). Some ES are linked through time and space, such as wildlife hunting and nature enjoying. For example, the Scent that people enjoy while they are walking through the forest also constitutes a good indicator for bee activity and honey availability. As it can be observed, the concept of human well-being constantly appeared, given its complex linkages with ES (Fish et al. 2016). But due to time limitations, we did not ask about this concept explicitly. For future research, it would be interesting to incorporate questions that allude directly to well-being, as stated by Rendón et al. (2019).

Remote sensing was useful as the first source of information for understanding the landscape where both workshops and field work were carried out. The visual interpretation of satellite images was enriched by the participatory mapping and direct field observations which included local information to the analysis. Thus, it was possible to identify socio-ecological processes (e.g., animal free grazing, productive activities distribution, etc.) at local scale that contributes to the landscape heterogeneity.

This methodology also presented some limitations: it needs a considerable amount of time for building and spreading knowledge between both researchers and local communities; it requires a significant amount of time living with the communities; and it requires a great involvement of researchers to participate in all possible local activities, while trying to interview as many families in a limited time. In order to reduce the amount of time involved in in-depth interviews, they could be done only to selected key informants in a previous workshop with communities. However, with this option, we take the risk of losing valuable information that could provide the remaining communities´ members. In addition, the methodological design did not consider the heterogeneity intracommunity because we just interviewed all the families who were willing to collaborate. But if it is not possible or convenient to make such extensive samplings, a target sampling should be made from previous workshops with each community until reaching a theoretical saturation. In this way, the effort spent in ES assessments needs to be weighted against the usefulness of the information gathered to inform and improve decisions about the socio-ecological system at stake. One way to control whether the interviews reflected intracommunity heterogeneity is through subsequent mapping with key informants. This mapping consists in working with a key informant that indicates the families’ location, their productive activities, and other relevant information.

While the concept of ES has been present in Argentina since 1994, mainly in the academic setting (Peixoto Batista et al. 2019), the national legislation includes this concept in 2007 in the National Law N° 26.331 about Environmental Safeguards for Native Forests. Through its implementation, it became clear that there was a need to increase ES knowledge as a law application instrument (Aguiar et al. 2018) and ILK perspective. However, with the exception of experts, ES concept is still unknown for the Argentinian general public (Peixoto Batista et al. 2019). Ecological dimensions of the environmental problems tend to be overrated, disregarding the socio-cultural factors (Lins Ribeiro 2007), and ES biophysical assessments prevail over socio-cultural approximations (Mastrángelo et al. 2019).

We point out that, despite the criticisms, it is possible to analyze the ES with an ethnoecological approach, from the perspective of the peasant-indigenous communities and the post-normal science. According to Martín-López et al. (2014), the concept of ES should be broad enough, providing the categories are flexible and allowing the translation of local processes into environmental programs and legislation. We consider conceptual flexibility is essential for communicating the uniqueness and comprehensiveness of each socio-ecosystem.

Conclusions

We presented a socio-cultural/theoretical methodological framework for the ES assessment, using multiple qualitative and ethnographic tools applied in ethnoecology. Although many tools provided similar data, each of them provided information that none of the other tools provided. Therefore, each of them was necessary for mapping and assessing ecosystems adequately and for assigning the multiple values that the nature has for people. The methodology allowed the communities to identify the relationships between the ES and both the species and environments, increasing our understanding of the interaction between land use and the peasant way of life, as well as between land use and human well-being.

The application of the proposed methodology in peasant communities in the Dry Chaco eco-region identified potential ES that were not detected by other approaches. It also required creative work, focused on the characteristics of the study area. On the other hand, a compromise between researchers and communities is essential in order to get representative and interesting results contributing to a co-production of knowledge.

Despite its strengths, this methodology is very resource-intensive and time demanding, which should be taken into account in its design and implementation. As it includes a strong ethnographic component, it requires prolonged stays in the different communities, which is not always possible.

The three selected communities were located in the same eco-region and close to each other, but they exhibited different characteristics which were reflected in the obtained results. Therefore, we consider that these cases of study were useful as an exploratory application of the proposed methodology. In particular, our results showed that it was appropriate to use it in different human-ecosystem contexts. We think the current methodology, with the necessary adaptations to local contexts, can contribute to an original ES socio-cultural evaluation, taking into account the people needs and ways of life, which is fundamental for adequate policy-making.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Biographies

Mariana Totino

is an Assistant Researcher at National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) at Instituto de Investigación e Ingeniería Ambiental (IIIA), Universidad Nacional de San Martín. Her research interests include ecosystem services, socio-ecological systems, ethnoecology, and indigenous and local knowledge (ILK), among others.

Constanza M. Urdampilleta

is a Postdoctoral Researcher at Instituto de Silvicultura y Medio Ambiente, (Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero). Her research interests include environmental education, ecosystem services, and ethnoecology.

Raúl Esteban Ithuralde

is an Assistant Researcher at Instituto de Estudios para el Desarrollo Social (Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero/CONICET), Lecturer at the Facultad de Agronomía y Agroindustrias de Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero and Cathedratic at the Escuela Normal Superior Manuel Belgrano. His research interests include political ecology and natural sciences, environmental, and health education.

Lucas A. Giono

is an Associate professor at the Free Workshop of Social Project Chair, of the School of Arquitecture, Design and Urbanism (University of Buenos Aires). His research interests include communication, rural communities, and socio-ecological systems.

Andrea E. Cabrera

is an Assistant professor at the Free Workshop of Social Project Chair, of the School of Arquitecture, Design and Urbanism (University of Buenos Aires). His research interests include communication, rural communities, and socio-ecological systems.

Esteban Lanzarotti

is a Head Teaching Assistant at Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias de la Computación (ICC) CONICET-Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales Departamento de Computación. His research interests include Hybrid simulation and system biology.

Rubén D. Quintana

is a Director and Associate Professor at Instituto de Investigación e Ingeniería Ambiental (IIIA CONICET-UNSAM), His research interests include ecosystem services, effects of land use change, and wetland ecology.