Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 29, Issue , 2018, Pages 579-598

  Saarikoski, Heli ^a   Primmer, Eeva ^a   Saarela, Sanna Riikka ^a   Antunes, Paula ^b   Aszalós, Réka ^c   Baró, Francesc ^d,e   Berry, Pam ^f   Blanko, Gemma Garcia ^g   Goméz Baggethun, Erik ^h,l   Carvalho, Laurence ⁱ   Dick, Jan ⁱ   Dunford, Robert ^f,i   Hanzu, Mihail ^j   Harrison, Paula A ⁱ   Izakovicova, Zita ^k   Kertész, Miklós ^c   Kopperoinen, Leena ^a   Köhler, Berit ^l   Langemeyer, Johannes ^d,e   Lapola, David ^m   Liquete, Camino ⁿ   Luque, Sandra ^o   Mederly, Peter ^p   Niemelä, Jari ^q   Palomo, Ignacio ^r   Pastur, Guillermo Martinez ^s   Peri, Pablo Luis ^t   Preda, Elena ^u   Priess, Jörg A ^v   Santos, Rui ^b   Schleyer, Christian ^w,x   Turkelboom, Francis ^y   Vadineanu, Angheluta ^u   Verheyden, Wim ^y   Vikström, Suvi ^a   Young, Juliette ⁱ   more..

^a FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSIDADE NOVA DE LISBOA   (Portugal)

^c INSTITUTE OF ECOLOGY AND BOTANY   (Hungary)

^d INSTITUT DE CIÈNCIA I TECNOLOGIA AMBIENTALS   (Spain)

^e HOSPITAL DEL MAR   (Spain)

^f UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^g TECNALIA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION   (Spain)

^h NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

ⁱ CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY   (United Kingdom)

^j National Institute for Research and Development in Forestry Marin Dr cea   (Romania)

^k INSTITUTE OF CHEMISTRY   (Slovakia)

^l NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR NATURE RESEARCH   (Norway)

^m UNIVERSITY OF CAMPINAS   (Brazil)

ⁿ JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

^o UMR TETIS   (France)

^p The Philosopher University in Nitra Geoinformatics and Regional Development   (Slovakia)

^q UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^r BASQUE CENTRE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE BC3   (Spain)

^s CENTRO AUSTRAL DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTÍFICAS CADIC CONICET   (Argentina)

^t UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE LA PATAGONIA AUSTRAL   (Argentina)

^u UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST   (Romania)

^v HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^w UNIVERSITY OF KLAGENFURT   (Austria)

^x UNIVERSITY OF KASSEL   (Germany)

^y RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR NATURE AND FOREST INBO   (Belgium)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85028981681     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Albert, C., Hauck, J., Buhr, N., von Haaren, C., What ecosystem services information do users want? Investigating interests and requirements among landscape and regional planners in Germany. Landscape Ecol. 29:8 (2014), 1301–1313.
2. Barton, D.N., Stange, E., Blumentrath, S., Vågnes, N.T., 2015. Economic valuation of ecosystem services for policy. A pilot study on green infrastructure in Oslo. NINA Report 1114. 77 pp.
3. Berry, P., Fabok, V., Blicharska, M., Bredin, Y., Llorente, M., Kovacs, E., Geamana, N., Stanciu, A., Termansen, M., Jaakelainen, T., Haslett, J., Harrison, P., Why conserve biodiversity? A multi-national exploration of stakeholders’ views on the arguments for biodiversity conservation. Biodivers. Conserv., 2016, 10.1007/s10531-016-1173-z.
4. Bezák, P., Mederly, P., Izakovičová, Z., Špulerová, J., Schleyer, Ch., Divergence and conflicts in landscape planning across spatial scales in Slovakia: opportunity for an ecosystem services-based approach?. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manage. 13:2 (2017), 119–135 ISSN 2151-3732.
5. Bijker, W., Bal, R., Hendriks, R., The Paradox of Scientific Authority: The Role of Scientific Advice in Democracies. 2009, The MIT Press, Cambridge.
6. Bouwma, I., Schleyer, C., Primmer, E., Winkler, K.J., Berry, P., Young, J., Carmen, E., Špulerová, J., Bezák, P., Preda, E., Vadineanui, A., Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 213–222.
7. Braat, L.C., de Groot, R., The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 1:1 (2012), 4–15.
8. Carmen, E., Nesshover, C., Saarikoski, H., Vandewalle, M., Watt, A., Wittmer, H., Young, J., Creating a biodiversity science community: Experiences from a European Network of Knowledge. Environ. Sci. Policy 54 (2015), 497–504.
9. Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jager, J., Mitchell, R.B., Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100 (2003), 8086–8091.
10. Cashore, B., Hoberg, G., Howlett, M., Rayner, J., Wilson, J., In Search of Sustainability: British Columbia Forest Policy in the 1990s. 2001, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
11. da Conceição, H.R., Börner, J., Wunder, S., Why were upscaled incentive programs for forest conservation adopted? Comparing policy choices in Brazil, Ecuador, and Peru. Ecosyst. Serv. 16 (2015), 243–252.
12. Cowell, R., Lennon, M., The utilisation of environmental knowledge in land use planning: drawing lessons for an ecosystem services approach. Environ. Plann. C: Government Policy 32 (2014), 263–282.
13. De Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complexity 7 (2010), 260–272.
14. Dick, J., Verweij, P., Carmen, E., Rodela, R., Andrews, C., Testing the ecosystem service cascade framework and QUICKScan software tool in the context of land use planning in Glenlivet Estate Scotland. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manage. 13:2 (2016), 12–25.
15. Gaitán-Cremaschi, D., Palomo, I., Molina, S.B., De Groot, R., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Applicability of economic instruments for protecting ecosystem services from cultural agrarian landscapes in Doñana, SW Spain. Land Use Policy 61 (2017), 185–195.
16. Grizzetti, B., Liquete, C., Antunes, P., Carvalho, L., Geamănă, N., Giucă, R., Leone, M., McConnell, S., Preda, E., Santos, R., Turkelboom, F., Vădineanu, A., Woods, H., Ecosystem services for water policy: insights across Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy 66 (2016), 179–190.
17. Harrison, P.A., Dunford, R., Barton, D.N., et al., 2018. Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 481–498.
18. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., The ecosystems approach as a framework for knowledge utilization. Environ. Plann. C: Government Policy 32 (2014), 301–319.
19. Hauck, J., Görg, C., Varjopuro, R., Ratamäki, O., Jax, K., Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: some stakeholder perspectives. Environ. Sci. Policy 25 (2013), 13–21.
20. Heikkilä, T., Gerlak, A., Building a conceptual approach to collective learning: lessons for public policy scholars. Policy Stud. J. 41:3 (2013), 484–512.
21. Innes, J.E., Booher, D.E., Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: toward a theory of collaborative planning. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 65:1 (1999), 9–26.
22. Jasanoff, S., Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Soc. Stud. Sci. 17:2 (1987), 195–230.
23. Jax, K., Furman, E., Saarikoski, H., et al., 2018. Handling a messy world: Lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 415–427.
24. Jordan, A., Russel, D., Embedding the concept of ecosystem services? The utilization of ecological knowledge in decision making. Environ. Plann. C: Government Policy 32 (2014), 192–207.
25. Juntti, M., Russel, D., Turnpenny, J., Evidence, politics and power in public policy for the environment. Environ. Sci. Policy 12 (2009), 207–215.
26. Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T., Daily, G., Polasky, S., Natural Capital. Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. 2011, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
27. Kilpeläinen, A., Torssonen, P., Strandman, H., Kellomäki, S., Asikainen, A., Peltola, H., Net climate impacts of forest biomass production and utilization in managed boreal forests. GCB Bioenergy 8:2 (2016), 307–316.
28. Kingdon, J., Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. 2003, Longman, New York.
29. Kopperoinen, L., Biodiversity and ecosystem services as offsets for urban land use planning in finland. 2015, Policy Brief, BESAFE project http://www.besafe-project.net.
30. Kopperoinen, L., Itkonen, P., Niemelä, J., Using expert knowledge in combining green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning: an insight into a new place-based methodology. Landscape Ecol. 29:8 (2014), 1361–1375.
31. Kovács, E., Kelemen, E., Kalóczkai, A., Margóczi, K., Pataki, G., Gébert, J., Málovics, G., Balázs, B., Roboz, A., Krasznai Kovács, E., Mihók, B., Understanding the links between ecosystem service trade-offs and conflicts in protected areas. Ecosyst. Serv. 12 (2015), 117–127.
32. Langemeyer, J., Camps-Calvet, M., Calvet-Mir, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barthel, S., 2017. Stewardship of Urban Ecosystem Services. Understanding the value(s) of urban gardens in Barcelona. Forthcoming.
33. Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Billé, R., Pirard, R., Mermet, L., Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: questioning a literature blind spot. J. Environ. Manage. 119 (2013), 208–219.
34. Liquete, C., Udias, A., Conte, G., Grizzetti, B., Masi, F., Integrated valuation of a nature-based solution for water pollution control. Highlighting hidden benefits. Ecosyst. Serv. 22 (2016), 392–401.
35. Loft, L., Mann, C., Hansjürgens, B., Challenges in ecosystem services governance: Multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities. Ecosyst. Serv. 16 (2015), 150–157.
36. Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J.P., Grizzetti, B., Drakou, E.G., La Notte, A., Zulian, G., Bouraoui, F., Paracchini, M.L., Braat, L., Bidoglio, G., Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst. Serv. 1:1 (2012), 31–39.
37. Mann, C., Loft, L., Hansjurgens, B., Governance of ecosystem services: lessons learned for sustainable institutions. Ecosyst. Serv. 16 (2015), 275–281.
38. March, J.G., Olsen, J.P., The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 78:3 (1984), 734–749.
39. Martínez Pastur, G., Peri, P.L., Huertas Herrera, A., Schindler, S., Díaz Delgado, R., Lencinas, M.V., Soler Eesteban, R., Linking potential biodiversity and three ecosystem services in silvopastoral managed forests landscapes of Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. Int. J. Biodivers Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manage. 13:2 (2017), 1–11.
40. Masi, F., Rizzo, A., Bresciani, R., Conte, G., Constructed Wetlands for Combined Sewer Overflow treatment: ecosystem services at Gorla Maggiore, Italy. Ecol. Eng., 2016 in press.
41. McKenzie, E., Posner, S., Bernhardt, J.R., Howard, K., Rosenthal, A., Understanding the use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making: lessons from international experiences of spatial planning. Environ. Planning C: Government Policy 32 (2014), 320–340.
42. MEA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. 2005, Island Press, Washington DC, 137.
43. Muradian, R., Rival, L., Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 1:1 (2012), 93–100.
44. Nykvist, B., Nilsson, M., Are impact assessment procedures actually promoting sustainable development? Institutional perspectives on barriers and opportunities found in the Swedish committee system. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 29 (2009), 15–24.
45. Ollonqvist, P. 2002. Collaboration in the forest policy arena in Finland—From neo-corporatist planning to participatory program preparation. In: National Forest Programmes in a European Context, ed. G. Olav and N. Ine, 27–47. EFI Proceedings No. 44. European Forest Institute. Saarijärvi, Finland: Gummerus Printing.
46. Owens, S., Experts and the Environment: The UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 1970–2011. J. Environ. Law 24:1 (2012), 1–22.
47. Owens, S., Knowledge, policy and expertise. The UK Royal Commission of Environmental Pollution 1970–2011. 2015, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
48. Owens, S., Rayner, T., Bina, O., New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice, and research. Environ. Plann. A 36 (2004), 1943–1959.
49. Plant, R., Ryan, P., Ecosystem services as a practicable concept for natural resource management: some lessons from Australia. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manage. 9:1 (2013), 44–53.
50. Primmer, E., An institutional perspective. Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., Turner, R.K., (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services, 2016, Routledge, London and New York, 582–585.
51. Primmer, E., Paloniemi, R., Similä, J., Barton, D.N., Evolution in Finland's forest biodiversity conservation payments and the institutional constraints on establishing new policy. Soc. Nat. Resour. 26:10 (2013), 1137–1154.
52. Primmer, E., Jokinen, P., Blicharska, M., Barton, D.N., Bugter, R., Potschin, M., A framework for empirical analysis of ecosystem services governance. Ecosyst. Serv. 16 (2015), 158–166.
53. Rall, E.L., Kabisch, N., Hansen, R., A comparative exploration of uptake and potential application of ecosystem services in urban planning. Ecosyst. Serv. 16 (2015), 230–242.
54. Repo, A., Ahtikoski, A., Liski, J., Cost of turning forest residue bioenergy to carbon neutral. For. Policy Econ. 57 (2015), 12–21.
55. Repo, A., Tuovinen, J.-P., Liski, J., Can we produce carbon and climate neutral forest bioenergy?. GCB Bioenergy 7:2 (2015), 253–262.
56. Rich, R.F., Measuring knowledge utilization: processes and outcomes. Knowledge Policy 10 (1997), 11–24.
57. Rinne, J., Primmer, E., A case study of ecosystem services in urban planning in Finland: benefits, rights and responsibilities. J. Environ. Planning Policy Manage. 18:3 (2016), 286–305.
58. Roux, D.J., Rogers, K.H., Biggs, H.C., Ashton, P.J., Sergeant, A., Bridging the science–management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecol. Soc., 11(1), 2006, 4.
59. Ruckelshaus, M., McKenzie, E., Tallis, H., Guerry, A., Daily, G., Kareiva, P., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T., Bhagabati, N., Wood, S., Bernhardt, J., Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol. Econ. 115 (2015), 11–21.
60. Ruhl, J.B., Adaptive management of ecosystem services across different land use regimes. J. Environ. Manage. 183 (2016), 418–423.
61. Russel, D., Jordan, A., Turnpenny, J., The use of ecosystem services knowledge in policy-making: drawing lessons and adjusting expectations. Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., Turner, R.K., (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services, 2016, Routledge, London and New York, 586–596.
62. Rydin, Y., Falleth, E., Networks and Institutions in Natural Resource Management. 2006, Edward Elgar, Celtenhamn, UK.
63. Saarela, S.-R., Rinne, J., Knowledge brokering and boundary work for ecosystem service indicators. An urban case study in Finland. Ecol. Ind. 61 (2016), 49–62.
64. Sabatier, P., An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sci. 21:2/3 (1988), 129–168.
65. Sattler, C., Schröter, B., Jericó-Daminello, C., Sessin-Dilascio, K., Meyer, C., Matzdorf, B., de Wortmann, L., Almeida Sinisgalli, P.A., Meyer, A., Giersch, G., Understanding governance structures in community management of ecosystems and natural resources: the Marujá case study in Brazil. Ecosyst. Serv. 16 (2015), 182–191.
66. Schleyer, C., Görg, C., Hauck, J., Winkler, K.J., Opportunities and challenges for mainstreaming the ecosystem services concept in the multi-level policy-making within the EU. Ecosyst. Serv. 16 (2015), 174–181.
67. Sharman, A., Holmes, J., Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence gathering? Biofuels, the EU and the 10% target. Environ. Policy Governance 20 (2010), 309–321.
68. Silva, R.A., Lapola, D.-M., Patricio, G.B., Teixeira, M.C., Pinho, P., Priess, J.A., Operationalizing payments for ecosystem services in Brazil's sugarcane belt: how do stakeholder opinions match with successful cases in Latin America?. Ecosyst. Serv. 22 (2016), 128–138.
69. Silverman, D., Interpreting Qualitative Data: methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. 1993, Sage Publications, London.
70. Smith et al., 2018. Operationalising ecosystem service assessment in Bayesian Belief Networks: experiences within the OpenNESS project. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 452–464.
71. TEEB, Foundations, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Kumar, Pushpam, (eds.), 2010, Earthscan, London.
72. Torssonen, P., Kilpeläinen, A., Strandman, H., Kellomäki, S., Jylhä, K., Asikainen, A., Peltola, H., Effects of climate change and management on net climate impacts of production and utilization of energy biomass in Norway spruce with stable age-class distribution'. GCB Bioenergy 8:2 (2016), 419–427.
73. Turnpenny, J., Nilsson, M., Russel, D., Jordan, A., Hertin, J., Nykvist, B., Why is integrating policy assessment so hard? A comparative analysis of the institutional capacities and constraints. J. Environ. Planning Manage. 51:6 (2008), 759–775.
74. Turnpenny, J., Russel, D., Jordan, A., The challenge of embedding an ecosystem services approach: patterns of knowledge utilisation in public policy appraisal. Environ. Plann. C: Government Policy 32:2 (2014), 247–262.
75. Vădineanu, A., Bucur, M.M., Geamănă, N.A., An emerging Multi-level SPSI for sustainable Management of the Romanian Watersheds. Gonenc, I.E., Wolflin, J.P., Russo, R.C., (eds.) Sustainable Watershed Management, 2014, CRC Press, 3–6, 10.1201/b17433-3 Print ISBN: 978-1-138-00018-6, eBook ISBN: 978-0-203-76470-1.
76. Vatn, A., An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 69 (2010), 1245–1252.
77. Verweij, P., Janssen, S., Braat, L., van Eupen, M., Perez-Soba, M., Winograd, M., de Winter, W., Cormont, A., QUICKScan as a quick and participatory methodology for problem identification and scoping in policy processes. Environ. Sci. Policy 66 (2016), 47–61.
78. Waylen, K.A., Young, J., Expectations and experiences of diverse forms of knowledge use: the case of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment. Environ. Plann. C: Government Policy 32:2 (2014), 229–246.
79. Waylen, K.A., Blackstock, K.L., Holstead, K.L., How does legacy create sticking points for environmental management? Insights from challenges to implementation of the ecosystem approach. Ecol. Soc. 20 (2015), 1–13.
80. Weiss, C., The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review 39:5 (1979), 426–431.
81. Zulian, G., Polce, C., Maes, J., ESTIMAP: a GIS-based model to map ecosystem services in the European Union. Ann. Bot. 4 (2014), 1–7.
82. Zulian, G., Stange, E., Woods, H., et al., 2018. Practical application of spatial ecosystem service models to aid decision support. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 465–480.