Does information on landscape benefits influence collective action in landscape governance?

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Volumn 18, Issue , 2016, Pages 107-114

  Opdam, Paul ^a   Coninx, Ingrid ^a   Dewulf, Art ^a   Steingröver, Eveliene ^a   Vos, Claire ^a   van der Wal, Merel ^b  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b OPEN UNIVERSITY OF THE NETHERLANDS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COLLECTIVE ACTION; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; SOCIAL NETWORK; STAKEHOLDER;

EID: 84955146570     PISSN: 18773435     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.12.006     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. Nassauer J.I. Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological design. Landsc Urban Plan 2012, 106:221-229.
2. Pinto-Correia T., Kristensen L. Linking research and practice: the landscape as the basis for integrating social and ecological perspectives of the rural. Landsc Urban Plan 2013, 120:248-256.
3. Termorshuizen J., Opdam P. Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landsc Ecol 2009, 24:1037-1052.
4. Penker M. Landscape governance for or by the local population? A property rights analysis in Austria. Land Use Policy 2009, 26:947-953.
5. Persha L., Agrawal A., Chhatre A. Social and Ecological Synergy: local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science 2012, 331:1606-1608.
6. Evely A.C., Pinard M., Reed M.S., Fazey I. High levels of participation in conservation projects enhance learning. Conserv Lett 2011, 4:116-126.
7. Görg C. Landscape governance: the "politics of scale" and the natural conditions of places. Geoforum 2007, 38:954-966.
8. Beunen R., Opdam P. When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science?. Landsc Urban Plan 2011, 100:324-326.
9. Ansell C., Gash A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Admin Res Theory 2008, 18:543-571.
10. Berkes F. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manage 2009, 90:1692-1702.
11. Ostrom E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009, 325:419-422.
12. Opdam P. Incorporating multiple ecological scales into the governance of landscape services. Scale-Sensitive Governance of the Environment 2014, 17-37. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. F. Padt, P. Opdam, N. Polman, C. Termeer (Eds.).
13. LeFebvre M., Espinosa M., Gomez y Paloma S., Paracchini M.L., Piorr A., Zasada I. Agricultural landscapes as multiscale public good and the role of the Common Agricultural Policy. J Environ Plan Manag 2015, 58:2088-2112.
14. Steingröver E.G., Geertsema W., Van Wingerden W.K.R.E. Designing agricultural landscapes for natural pest control: a transdisciplinary approach in the Hoeksche Waard (The Netherlands). Landsc Ecol 2010, 25:825-838.
15. Ernstson H., Barthel S., Andersson E., Bergström S.T. Scale-crossing brokers and network governance of urban ecosystem services: the case of Stockholm. Ecol Society 2010, 15:28. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art28/.
16. Shandas V., Messer W.B. Fostering green communities through civic engagement: community based environmental stewardship in the Portland area. J Am Plan Assoc 2008, 74:408-418.
17. Pahl-Wostl C., Hare M. Processes of social learning in integrated resources management. J Commu Appl Soc Psychol 2004, 14:193-206.
18. Pennington D.D. Cross-disciplinary collaboration and learning. Ecol Soc 2008, 13:8. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art8/.
19. Prager K. Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2015, 12:59-66.
20. Cash D.W., Clark W.C., Alcock F., et al. Knowledge systems for sustainable environment. PNAS 2003, 100:8086-8091.
21. Jordan A., Russel D. Embedding the concept of ecosystem services? The utilization of ecological knowledge in different policy venues. Environ Plan C: Govern Policy 2014, 32:192-207.
22. Haines-Young R., Potschin M. The ecosystem approach as a framework for understanding knowledge utilisation. Environ Plan C: Govern Policy 2014, 32:301-319.
23. Gray B. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multi-party Problems 1989, Jossey-Bass.
24. Collins K., Ison R. Jumping off Arnstein's ladder: social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation. Environ Policy Govern 2009, 19:358-373. 10.1002/eet.523.
25. Ostrom E. A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. Am Political Sci Rev 1998, 92:1-22.
26. Bryson J.M., Crosby B.C., Stone M.M. The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: propositions from the literature. Public Admin Rev 2006, 66:44-55.
27. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis 2005, Island Press.
28. Bastian O., Grunewald K., Syrbe R-U., Walz U., Wende W. Landscape services: the concept and its practical relevance. Landsc Ecol 2014, 29:1463-1479.
29. Fürst C., Opdam P., Inostroza L., Luque S. Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning: proposing a balanced score card. Special Issue: integrating Ecosystem Services in Land Use Planning and Decision-Making Practice. Landsc Ecol 2014, 29:1435-1446.
30. Martín-López B., Iniesta-Arandia I., García-Llorente M., Palomo I., Casado-Arzuaga I., et al. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:338970.
31. Acuňa V., Ramon Díez J., Flores L., Meleason M., Elosegi A. Does it make economic sense to restore rivers for their ecosystem services?. J Appl Ecol 2013, 50:988-997.
32. Brittain C., Kremen C., Klein A.M. Biodiversity buffers pollination from changes in environmental conditions. Global Change Biol 2013, 19:540-547.
33. Wagg C., Bender S.F., Widmer F., van der Heijden M.G.A. Soil biodiversity and soil community composition determine ecosystem multifunctionality. PNAS 2014, 111:5266-5270.
34. Klein A.M., Brittain C., Hendrix S.D., Thorp R., Williams N., Kremen C. Wild pollination services to California almond rely on semi-natural habitat. J Appl Ecol 2012, 49:723-732.
35. Cong R.-G., Smith H.G., Olsson O., Brady M. Managing ecosystem services for agriculture: will landscape-scale management pay?. Ecol Econ 2014, 99:53-62.
36. Bennett E.M., Peterson G.D., Gordon L.J. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 2009, 12:1394-1404.
37. Mell I.C., Henneberry J., Hehl-Lange S., Keskin B. Promoting urban greening: valuing the development of green infrastructure investments in the urban core of Manchester, UK. Urban Forest Urban Green 2013, 12:296-306.
38. Afzalan N., Muller B. The role of social media in green infrastructure planning: a case study of neighbourhood participation in park siting. J Urban Technol 2014, 21:67-83.
39. Rathwell K.J., Peterson G.D. Connecting social networks with ecosystem services for watershed governance: a social-ecological network perspective highlights the critical role of bridging organizations. Ecol Soc 2012, 17:24. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss2/art24/.
40. Opdam P., Westerink J., Vos C., De Vries B. The role and evolution of boundary concepts in transdisciplinary landscape planning. Plann Theory Practice 2015, 16:63-78.
41. Prager K., Reed M., Scott A. Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale-rethinking agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 2012, 29:244-249.
42. Menzel S., Teng J. Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept for conservation science. Conserv Biol 2010, 24:907-909.
43. Nedkov S., Burkhard B. Flood regulating ecosystem services-mapping supply, and demand, in the Etropole municipality, Bulgaria. Ecol Ind 2011, 21:67-79.
44. Brown G., de Bie K., Weber D. Identifying public land stakeholder perspectives for implementing place-based land management. Landsc Urban Plan 2015, 139:1-15.
45. Fagerholm N., Käyhkö N., Ddumbaro F., Khamis M. Community stakeholders' knowledge in landscape assessments-mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecol Ind 2012, 18:421-433.
46. García-Nieto A.P., Quintas-Soriano C., García-Llorente M., Palomo I., Montes C., Martín-López B. Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: the role of stakeholders' profiles. Ecosys Services 2015, 13:141-152.
47. Pouwels R., Opdam P., Jochem R. Reconsidering the effectiveness of scientific tools for negotiating local solutions to conflicts between recreation and conservation with stakeholders. Ecol Soc 2011, 16:17. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss4/art17/.
48. Magombeyi M.S., Rollin D., Lankford B. The river basin game as a tool for collective water management at community level in South Africa. Phys Chem Earth 2008, 33:873-880.
49. Southern A., Lovett A., O'Riordan T., Watkinson A. Sustainable landscape governance: lessons from a catchment based study in whole landscape design. Landsc Urban Plan 2011, 101:179-189.
50. Castella J.C. Assessing the role of learning devices and geovisualisation tools for collective action in natural resource management: experiences from Vietnam. J Environ Manage 2009, 90:1313-1319.
51. Pahl-Wostl C., Palmer M., Richards K. Enhancing water security for the benefits of humans and nature-the role of governance. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2013, 5:676-684.
52. Banerjee S., Kwasnica A.M., Shortle J.S. Agglomeration bonus in small and large local networks: a laboratory examination of spatial coordination. Ecol Econ 2012, 84:142-152.
53. Koppenjan J.F.M., Klijn E-H. Managing Uncertainties in Networks. A Network Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making 2004, Routledge.
54. Dewulf A., Mancero M., Cardenas G., Sucozhanay D. Fragmentation and connection of frames in collaborative water governance: a case study of river catchment management in Southern Ecuador. Int Rev Admin Sci 2011, 77:50-75.
55. Cowell R., Lennon M. The utilisation of environmental knowledge in land use planning: drawing lessons for an ecosystem services approach. Environ Plan C 2014, 32:263-282.
56. Engel S., Schaefer M. Ecosystem services-a useful concept for addressing water challenges?. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2013, 5:696-707.
57. Newig J., Günther D., Pahl-Wostl C. Synapses in the network: learning in governance networks in the context of environmental management. Ecol Soc 2010, 15:24. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art24/.
58. Bodin Ö., Crona B.I. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference?. Global Environ Change 2009, 19:366-374.
59. Bolderdijk J.W., Gorsira M., Keizer K., Steg L. Values determine the (in)effectiveness of informational interventions in promoting pro-environmental behavior. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e83911.
60. Opdam P. Using ecosystem services in community based planning: science is not ready to deliver. Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture 2013, 77-101. Springer. B. Fu, J.K. Bruce (Eds.).
61. Dinnie E., Brown K.M., Morris S. Community, cooperation and conflict: negotiating the social well-being benefits of urban greenspace experiences. Landsc Urban Plan 2013, 112:1-9.
62. McKenzie E., Posner S., Tillmann P., Bernhardt J.R., Howard K., Rosenthal A. Understanding the use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making: lessons from environmental experiences of spatial planning. Environ Plan C Govern Policy 2014, 32:320-340.
63. Raymond M.C., Fazey I., Reed M.S., Stringer L.C., Robinson G.M., Evely A.C. Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J Environ Manage 2010, 91:1766-1777.
64. Lauber T.B., Decker D.J., Knuth B.A. Social networks and community-based natural resource management. Environ Manage 2008, 42:677-687.