People depend on nature in multiple ways and there is increasing concern about how the current unsustainable use of natural resources will compromise human well-being. In this context, there is a debate about the usefulness of the terms ecosystem services (ES) and nature’s contributions to people (NCP) in addressing this problem, but so far no research has been dedicated to investigating the reasons behind this. We, therefore, performed a data-based study to explore the potential explanations for the use and perceptions of the differences between the ES and NCP terms. Based on a questionnaire among 150 participants in the ESP Latin America and the Caribbean conference in 2018, we demonstrate that the choice for using one or both terms is related to the perception of the differences between them and to specific professional traits. We detected that researchers that use quantitative methods are predominantly inclined to use ES while researchers using qualitative methods use the NCP-term. Despite the predominant preference for one of the two terms, a considerable percentage of researchers used both. Our results suggest that rather than emphasizing perceived conflicts between ES and NCP terms, they can be used in a complementary way and have the potential to reach multiple audiences.

人们以多种方式依赖自然，人们日益关注当前对自然资源的不可持续使用将如何损害人类的福祉。在这种情况下，关于生态系统服务（ES）和大自然对人类的贡献（NCP）的用处在解决这个问题上存在争议，但是到目前为止，还没有研究致力于调查其背后的原因。因此，我们进行了一项基于数据的研究，以探索对使用ES和NCP术语之间的差异的理解和潜在解释。基于对2018年ESP拉丁美洲和加勒比海会议的150名参与者的问卷调查，我们证明选择使用一个或两个术语与感知它们之间的差异以及特定的职业特征有关。我们发现使用定量方法的研究人员主要倾向于使用ES，而使用定性方法的研究人员则使用NCP术语。尽管主要偏爱这两个术语中的一个，但相当多的研究人员同时使用了这两个术语。我们的结果表明，与其强调ES和NCP术语之间的冲突，不如将它们以互补的方式使用，并有可能覆盖多个受众。