Resumen
- Recently, Baveye et al. (2018) published a perspective article in which they argue that the term “ecosystem services” (ES) has inherent flaws in describing the benefits humans derive from nature. The authors argue that a paradigm shift in terminology toward “nature's contributions to people” (NCP) is necessary for three reasons. The first is that the term ES imposes restrictions on the range of services that can be included in the definition, both theoretically and practically due to the very definition of ecosystems. Their second argument is that the term ecosystem makes the accurate measurement of the services provided complicated. Lastly, they argue that stakeholders, mainly land managers, do not relate ecosystems with their day-to-day lives and as such, are less invested in the sustainable management of resources. We argue that these three arguments are counterproductive, not only to the research of nature's services, but also to the ongoing struggle to shift to a more sustainable development.