Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 113, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 1760-1765

  Posner, Stephen M ^a   McKenzie, Emily ^b,c,d   Ricketts, Taylor H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^b WWF   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d WWF UK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Boundary organizations; Conservation; Ecosystem services; Knowledge systems; Science policy interface

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIODIVERSITY; DELPHI STUDY; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; HUMAN; HUMAN DEVELOPMENT; KNOWLEDGE; OUTCOME VARIABLE; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; WELLBEING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM;

EID: 84959419093     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1502452113     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Daily GC, Matson PA (2008) Ecosystem services: From theory to implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(28): 9455-9456.
2. Daily GC, et al. (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7(1): 21-28.
3. Hogan D, et al. (2011) Developing an Institutional Framework to Incorporate Ecosystem Services into Decision Making: Proceedings of a Workshop (U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA).
4. de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L,Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7(3): 260-272.
5. Laurans Y, Rankovic A, Billé R, Pirard R, Mermet L (2013) Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a literature blindspot. J Environ Manage 119: 208-219.
6. Spilsbury MJ, Nasi R (2006) The interface of policy research and the policy development process: Challenges posed to the forestry community. For Policy Econ 8(2): 193-205.
7. Liu S, Costanza R, Farber S, Troy A (2010) Valuing ecosystem services: Theory, practice, and the need for a transdisciplinary synthesis. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1185: 54-78.
8. Nesshover C, et al. (2013) Improving the science-policy interface of biodiversity research projects. Gaia 22(2): 99-103.
9. Knight AT, et al. (2008) Knowing but not doing: Selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conserv Biol 22(3): 610-617.
10. Eppink FV, Werntze A, Mas S, Popp A, Seppelt R (2012) Land management and ecosystem services: How collaborative research programmes can support better policies. Gaia 21(1): 55-63.
11. Mermet L, Laurans Y, Lemenager T (2014) Tools for What Trade? Analysing the Utilization of Economic Instruments and Valuations in Biodiversity Management (Agence Francaise de Developpement, Paris).
12. Weichselgartner J, Kasperson R (2010) Barriers in the science-policy-practice interface: Toward a knowledge-action-system in global environmental change research. Glob Environ Change 20(2): 266-277.
13. McKenzie E, et al. (2014) Understanding the use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making: Lessons from international experiences of spatial planning. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 32(2): 320-340.
14. Laurans Y, Mermet L (2014) Ecosystem services economic valuation, decision-support system or advocacy? Ecosystem Services 7: 98-105.
15. MacDonald DH, Bark RH, Coggan A (2014) Is ecosystem service research used by decision-makers? A case study of the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Landscape Ecol 29(8): 1447-1460.
16. Cash DW, et al. (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14): 8086-8091.
17. Keller AC (2010) Credibility and relevance in environmental policy: Measuring strategies and performance among science assessment organizations. J Public Adm Res Theory 20(2): 357-386.
18. Sarkki S, et al. (2013) Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: A critical assessment of trade-offs in science-policy interfaces. Sci Public Policy 2013: 1-13.
19. Rowe A, Lee K (2012) Linking Knowledge with Action: An Approach to Philanthropic Funding of Science for Conservation (David & Lucile Packard Foundation, Palo Alto, CA).
20. Reid RS, et al. (November 3, 2009) Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development Special Feature Sackler Colloquium: Evolution of models to support community and policy action with science: Balancing pastoral livelihoods and wildlife conservation in savannas of East Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 10.1073/pnas.0900313106.
21. Cook CN, Mascia MB, Schwartz MW, Possingham HP, Fuller RA (2013) Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge-action boundary. Conserv Biol 27(4): 669-678.
22. Andrews CJ (2002) Humble Analysis: The Practice of Joint Fact-Finding (Praeger, Westport, CT), p xiv.
23. Karl HA, Susskind LE, Wallace KH (2007) A dialogue not a diatribe-Effective integration of science and policy through joint fact finding. Environment 49(1): 20-34.
24. Rosenthal A, et al. (2015) Processmatters: A framework for conducting decision-relevant assessments of ecosystem services. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management 11(3): 190-204.
25. Cox B, Searle B (2009) The State of Ecosystem Services (Bridgespan Group, Boston).
26. Haas PM, Keohane RO, Levy MA (1993) Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective International Environmental Protection (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), p xi.
27. Wunder S, Engel S, Pagiola S (2008) Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol Econ 65(4): 834-852.
28. Ruckelshaus M, et al. (2015) Note from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol Econ 115: 11-21.
29. Nelson E, et al. (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7(1): 4-11.
30. Bhagabati NK, et al. (2014) Ecosystem services reinforce Sumatran tiger conservation in land use plans. Biol Conserv 169: 147-156.
31. Arkema KK, et al. (2015) Embedding ecosystem services in coastal planning leads to better outcomes for people and nature. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(24): 7390-7395.
32. Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Sci Technol Human Values 26(4): 399-408.
33. Sutherland WJ (2003) Predicting the ecological consequences of environmental change: A review of the methods. J Appl Ecol 43: 599-616.
34. Sutherland WJ, Goulson D, Potts SG, Dicks LV (2011) Quantifying the impact and relevance of scientific research. PLoS One 6(11): E27537.
35. Kenward RE, et al. (2011) Identifying governance strategies that effectively support ecosystem services, resource sustainability, and biodiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(13): 5308-5312.
36. Ferraro PJ, Lawlor K, Mullan KL, Pattanayak SK (2012) Forest figures: Ecosystem services valuation and policy evaluation in developing countries. Rev Environ Econ Policy 6(1): 20-44.
37. Gertler PJ, Martinez S, Premand P, Rawlings LB, Vermeersch CMJ (2010) Impact Evaluation in Practice (The World Bank, Washington, DC).
38. Margoluis R, Stem C, Salafsky N, Brown M (2009) Design alternatives for evaluating the impact of conservation projects. New Directions for Evaluation 2009(122): 85-96.
39. Krippendorff K (2004) Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 2nd Ed.
40. Dormann CF, et al. (2013) Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36(1): 27-46.
41. Barton K (2014) MuMIn: R package for multi-model inference. The Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN) Project. Available at https: //cran.r-project.org. Accessed October 13, 2014.
42. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (Springer, New York), 2nd Ed.
43. Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biol Conserv 141(10): 2417-2431.
44. Smith PD, Mcdonough MH (2001) Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision making. Soc Nat Resour 14(3): 239-249.
45. Irvin RA, Stansbury J (2004) Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Adm Rev 64(1): 55-65.
46. Young JC, et al. (2013) Does stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation? Biol Conserv 158: 359-370.
47. Lynam T, Jong Wd, Sheil D, Kusumanto T, Evans K (2007) A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management. Ecol Soc 12(1): 5.
48. Creswell JW (2009) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 3rd Ed, p xxix.
49. Yin RK (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Sage, Los Angeles), 4th Ed, p xiv.
50. Manos B, Papathanasiou J (2008) GEM-CON-BIO Governance and EcosystemManagement for the Conservation of Biology (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece).
51. Waite R, Kushner B, Jungwiwwattanaporn M, Gray E, Burke L (2014) Use of coastal economic valuation in decision-making in the Caribbean: Enabling conditions and lessons learned. Ecosystem Services 11: 45-55.
52. Hirsch PD, Luzadis VA (2013) Scientific concepts and their policy affordances: How a focus on compatibility can improve science-policy interaction and outcomes. Nat Cult 8(1): 97-118.
53. Watson RT (2005) Turning science into policy: Challenges and experiences from the science-policy interface. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360(1454): 471-477.
54. Beierle TC, Konisky DM (2001) What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 19: 515-527.
55. Lee KN (1993) Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment (Island, Washington, DC).
56. Pretty J, Smith D (2004) Social capital in biodiversity conservation and management. Conserv Biol 18(3): 631-638.
57. Pretty J, Ward H (2001) Social capital and the environment. World Dev 29(2): 209-227.
58. Ferraro PJ, Hanauer MM, Sims KRE (2011) Conditions associated with protected area success in conservation and poverty reduction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(34): 13913-13918.
59. Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 16(3): 282-292.