Knowledge needs for the operationalisation of the concept of ecosystem services

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 29, Issue , 2018, Pages 441-451

  Carmen, Esther ^a   Watt, Allan ^a   Carvalho, Laurence ^a   Dick, Jan ^a   Fazey, Ioan ^b   Garcia Blanco, Gemma ^c   Grizzetti, Bruna ^d   Hauck, Jennifer ^e   Izakovicova, Zita ^f   Kopperoinen, Leena ^g   Liquete, Camino ^d   Odee, David ^a,h   Steingröver, Eveliene ⁱ   Young, Juliette ^a  

^a CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^c TECNALIA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION   (Spain)

^d JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

^e HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^f INSTITUTE OF CHEMISTRY   (Slovakia)

^g FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^h Forest Research Institute   (Kenya)

ⁱ WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Ecosystem services; Knowledge needs; Operationalisation; Transdisciplinary research

Indexed keywords

EID: 85032230297     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.012     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Adams, W.M., Sandbrook, C., Conservation, evidence and policy. Oryx 47 (2013), 329–335.
2. Arksey, H., Knight, P., Why Interview? Interviewing for social scientists: an introductory resource with examples. 1999, Sage, London.
3. Armitage, D.R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R.I., Charles, A.T., Davidson-Hunt, I.J., Diduck, A.P., Doubleday, N.C., Johnson, D.S., Marschke, M., McConney, P., Adaptive co-management for social–ecological complexity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7 (2009), 95–102.
4. Bagstad, K.J., Semmens, D.J., Waage, S., Winthrop, R., A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 5 (2013), 27–39.
5. Bengt, J., Towards a practice theory of entrepreneuring. Small Bus. Econ. 36 (2011), 135–150.
6. Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adpative management. Ecol. Appl. 10 (2000), 1251–1262.
7. Boiral, O., Tactic knowledge and environmental management. Long Range Plann. 35 (2002), 291–317.
8. 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 (2012), 4–15.
9. Brand, S.F., Jax, K., Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecol. Soc., 12, 2007, 23.
10. Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F., Luederitz, C., Lang, D.J., Newig, J., Reinert, F., Abson, D.J., von Wehrden, H., A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol. Econ. 92 (2013), 1–15.
11. Bryman, A., Social Research Methods. 2004, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.
12. Bryman, A., Social research methods. 2016, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
13. Buizer, M., Arts, B., Kok, K., Governance, scale and the environment: the importance of recognizing knowledge claims in transdisciplinary arenas. Ecol. Soc., 16, 2011.
14. Cameron, J., Gibson, K., Participatory action research in a poststructuralist vein. Geoforum 36 (2005), 315–331.
15. Carmen, E., Nesshöver, 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.
16. Carmen, E., Watt, A., Young, J., Arguing for biodiversity in practice from the national to the local: A case from the UK. Biodivers. Conserv., 2016, 1–19.
17. Carpenter, S.R., Mooney, H.A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., Defries, R.S., Díaz, S., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A.K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H.M., Perrings, C., Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106 (2009), 1305–1312.
18. 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. USA 100 (2003), 8086–8091.
19. Checkland, P., Holwell, S., Action research: its nature and validity. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 11 (1998), 9–21.
20. Cornell, S., The rise and rise of ecosystem services: Is “value” the best bridging concept between society and the natural world?. Proc. Environ. Sci. 6 (2011), 88–95.
21. Cundill, G., Cumming, G.S., Biggs, D., Fabricius, C., Soft systems thinking and social learning for adaptive management. Conserv. Biol. 26 (2012), 13–20.
22. Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H., Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R., Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7 (2009), 21–28.
23. 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. Complex. 7 (2010), 260–272.
24. Dick, J., Turkelboomb, F., Woods, H., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Primmer, E., Saarela, S., Bezák, P., Mederly, P., Leone, M., Verheyden, W., Kelemeng, E., Hauck, J., Andrews, C., Antunes, P., Aszalós, R., Baróm, F., Barton, D.N., Berry, P., Bugter, R., Carvalho, L., Czúczl, B., Dunfordo, R., Garcia Blanco, G., Geamănă, N., Giucă, R., Grizzetti, B., Izakovičová, Z., Kertész, M., Kopperoinen, L., Langemeyer, J., Montenegro Lapolaw, D., Liquete, C., Luque, S., Martínez Pastur, G., Martin-Lopez, B., Mukhopadhyaya, R., Niemelaa, Y., Odee, D., Luis Periad, P., Pinhoa, P., Patrício-Roberto, G.B., Preda, E., Priess, J., Röckmanna, C., Santos, R., Silaghia, D., Smith, R., Vădineanu, A., Tjalling van der Wala, J., Arany, I., Badea, O., Belag, G., Boros, E., Bucur, M., Blumentrath, S., Calvache, M., Carmen, E., Clemente, P., Fernandes, J., Ferraz, D., Fongara, C., Garcia-Llorente, M., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gundersen, V., Haavardsholm, O., Kalóczkai, A., Khalalwe, T., Kiss, G., Köhler, B., Lazányi, O., Lellei-Kovács, E., Lichungu, R., Lindhjem, H., Magare, C., Mustajoki, J., Ndege, C., Nowell, M., Nuss Girona, S., Ochieng, J., Often, A., Palomo, I., Pataki, G., Reinvang, R., Rusch, G., Saarikoski, H., Smith, A., Soy Massoni, E., Stange, E., Vågnes Traaholt, N., Vári, A., Verweij, P., Vikström, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Zulian, G., Stakeholders' perspectives on the operationalisation of ecosystem services concept: results from 27 case studies. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 552–565, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.015.
25. Failing, L., Gregory, R., Harstone, M., Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision focused approach. Ecol. Econ. 64 (2007), 47–60.
26. Fazey, I., Bunse, L., Msika, J., Pinke, M., Preedy, K., Evely, A.C., Lambert, E., Hastings, E., Morris, S., Reed, M.S., Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Global Environ. Change 25 (2014), 204–220.
27. Fazey, I., Fazey, J.A., Salisbury, J.G., Lindenmayer, D.B., Dovers, S., The nature and role of experiential knowledge for environmental conservation. Environ. Conserv. 33 (2006), 1–10.
28. Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68 (2009), 643–653.
29. Flyvbjerg, B., Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. 2001, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
30. Hannigan, J., Environmental Sociology. 1995, Routledge, Abingdon.
31. Hauck, J., Gorg, C., Varjopuro, R., Ratamki, 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.
32. Jax, et al. The OpenNESS approach – from real world problems to concepts and back to real world solutions – the nexus thinking. Ecosyst. Serv., 2018.
33. Jeffrey, P., Smoothing the waters: Observations on the process of cross-disciplinary research collaboration. Soc. Stud. Sci. 33 (2003), 539–562.
34. Keeley, J., Scoones, I., Understanding Environmental Policy Process: A Review. 1999, Brighton UK, Institute of Development Studies.
35. Keshkamat, S.S., Kooiman, A., van Maarseveen, M.F.A.M., van der Veen, A., Zuidgeest, M.H.P., A boundary object for scale selection - moderating differences and synergising understanding. Ecol. Econ. 76 (2012), 15–24.
36. Klay, A., Zimmermann, A.B., Scneider, F., Rethinking science for sustainable development: reflexive interaction for paradigm transformation. Futures 65 (2015), 72–85.
37. Koetz, T., Farrell, K.N., Bridgewater, P., Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: assessing potential within the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Int. Environ. Agreements-Politics Law Econ. 12 (2012), 1–21.
38. Lang, D.J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M., Thomas, C.J., Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Sci. 7 (2012), 25–43.
39. Lejano, R.P., Ingram, H., Collaborative networks and new ways of knowing. Environ. Sci. Policy 12 (2009), 653–662.
40. Lemos, C.M., Morehouse, B.J., The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Global Environ. Change 15 (2005), 57–68.
41. Luederitz, C., Brink, E., Gralla, F., Hermelingmeier, V., Meyer, M., Niven, L., Panzer, L., Partelow, S., Rau, A.L., Sasaki, R., Abson, D.J., A review of urban ecosystem services: six key challenges for future research. Ecosyst. Serv. 14 (2015), 98–112.
42. Luks, F., Siebenhuner, B., Transdisciplinarity for social learning? The contribution of the German socio-ecological research initiative to sustainability governance. Ecol. Econ. 63 (2007), 418–426.
43. Lyall, C., Meagher, L., Bruce, A., A rose by any other name? Transdisciplinarity in the context of UK research policy. Futures 65 (2015), 150–162.
44. Mace, G., Norris, K., Fitter, A., Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27 (2012), 19–26.
45. Mason, J., Qualitative Researching. 2002, Thousand Oaks, Singapore, Sage, London.
46. Matzdorf, C., Meyer, C., The relevance of the ecosystem services framework for the developed countries environmental policies: A comparative case study of the US and EU. Land Use Policy 38 (2014), 509–521.
47. Miles, M.B., Huberman, M.A., Making good sense. Miles, M.B., (eds.) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 1994, Sage, London.
48. Morgan, D.L., Focus groups. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 22 (1996), 129–152.
49. Moses, J.W., Knutsen, T.L., Ways of knowing: competing methodologies in social and political research. second ed., 2012, Basingstoke, UK, Palgrave McMillian.
50. Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D., Chan, K., Daily, G.C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Lonsdorf, E., Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7 (2009), 4–11.
51. Nutley, S.M., Walter, I., Davise, H.T.O., Using evidence: How research can inform public services. 2007, The Policy Press, Bristol, UK.
52. Pahl-Wostl, C., A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning process in resources governance regimes. Global Environ. Change 19 (2009), 354–365.
53. Pawson, R., Wong, G., Owen, L., Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns: the predicament of evidence-based policy. Am. J. Eval., 32, 2011.
54. Peek, L., Fothergill, A., Using focus groups: lessons from studying daycare centers, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina. Qual. Res. 1 (2009), 31–59.
55. Plummer, R., Armitage, D., A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptive co-management: linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world. Ecol. Econ. 61 (2007), 62–74.
56. Plummer, R., Hashimoto, A., Adaptive co-management and the need for situated thinking in collaborative conservation. Hum. Dimensions Wildlife 16 (2011), 222–235.
57. Potschin-Young, M., Haines-Young, R.H., Görg, C., Heink, U., Jax, K., Schleyer, C., Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: reading the ecosystem services cascade. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 428–440, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.015.
58. Prager, K., Reed, M., Scott, A., 2012. Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale—rethinking agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy, 29.
59. Rodríguez-Loinaz, G., Alday, J.G., Onaindia, M., Multiple ecosystem services landscape index: a tool for multifunctional landscapes conservation. J. Environ. Manage. 147 (2015), 152–163.
60. Rosendahl, J., Zanella, M.A., Rist, S., Weigelt, J., Scientists' situated knowledge: Strong objectivity in transdisciplinarity. Futures 65 (2015), 17–27.
61. Ryan, G.W., Bernard, H., R., Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods 15 (2003), 85–109.
62. Sarkki, S., Niemela, J., Tinch, R., Van den Hove, S., Watt, A., Young, J., Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: a critical assessment of trade-offs in science-policy interfaces. Sci. Public Policy 2 (2013), 194–206.
63. Shotter, J., Tsoukas, H., 2014. Performing phronesis: On the way to engage judgement. Manage. Learning 45.
64. Smithson, J., Using and analysing focus groups: limutations and possibilities. Int. J. Social Res. Methodol. 2 (2000), 103–119.
65. Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R., Institutional ecology, 'translations' and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeleys's museum of vertebrate zoology. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19 (1989), 387–420.
66. Stokols, D., Towards a science of transdisciplinary action research. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 38 (2006), 63–77.
67. Strauss, A., Corbin, J., Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. 1990, Sage.
68. Stringer, L., Dougill, A., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K., Prell, C., Reed, M., Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: a critical review. Ecol. Soc., 11, 2006, 2.
69. Van Kerkhoff, L.E., Lebel, L., Coproduction capacities: Rethinking science-governance relations in a diverse world. Ecol. Soc., 1, 2015.
70. Vink, M.J., Dewulf, A., Termeer, C., The role of knowledge and power in climate change adaptation governance: a systematic literature review. Ecol. Soc., 18, 2013, 46.
71. 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 (2014), 229–246.
72. Wiek, A., Ness, B., Schweizer-Reis, P., Brand, F.S., Farioli, F., From complex systems analysis to trasnformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustainability Sci. 7 (2012), 5–24.
73. Wyborn, C., Co-productive governance: A relational framework for adaptive governance. Global Environ. Change 30 (2015), 56–67.
74. Wyborn, C., Cross-Scale Linkages in Connectivity Conservation: Adaptive governance challenges in spatially distributed networks. Environ. Policy Governance 25 (2015), 1–15.
75. Wyborn, C., Bixler, P.R., Collaboration and nested environmental governance: Scale dependency, scale framing and cross scale-interactions in collaborative conservation. J. Environ. Manage. 123 (2013), 58–67.
76. Young, J.C., Waylen, K.A., Sarkki, S., Albon, S., Bainbridge, I., Balian, E., Davidson, J., Edwards, D., Fairley, R., Margerison, C., McCracken, D., Owen, R., Quine, C.P., Stewart-Roper, C., Thompson, D., Tinch, R., van den Hove, S., Watt, A., Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodivers. Conserv. 23 (2014), 387–404.