Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorSaarikoski, Heli
dc.contributor.authorPrimmer, Eeva
dc.contributor.authorSaarela, Sanna Riikka
dc.contributor.authorAntunes, Paula
dc.contributor.authorAszalós, Réka
dc.contributor.authorBaró, Francesc
dc.contributor.authorBerry, Pam
dc.contributor.authorBlanko, Gemma Garcia
dc.contributor.authorGoméz-Baggethun, Erik
dc.contributor.authorCarvalho, Laurence
dc.contributor.authorDick, Jan
dc.contributor.authorDunford, Robert
dc.contributor.authorHanzu, Mihail
dc.contributor.authorHarrison, Paula A.
dc.contributor.authorIzakovicova, Zita
dc.contributor.authorKertész, Miklós
dc.contributor.authorKopperoinen, Leena
dc.contributor.authorKöhler, Berit
dc.contributor.authorLangemeyer, Johannes
dc.contributor.authorLapola, David
dc.contributor.authorLiquete, Camino
dc.contributor.authorLuque, Sandra
dc.contributor.authorMederly, Peter
dc.contributor.authorNiemelä, Jari
dc.contributor.authorPalomo, Ignacio
dc.contributor.authorPastur, Guillermo Martinez
dc.contributor.authorPeri, Pablo Luis
dc.contributor.authorPreda, Elena
dc.contributor.authorPriess, Jörg A.
dc.contributor.authorSantos, Rui
dc.contributor.authorSchleyer, Christian
dc.contributor.authorTurkelboom, Francis
dc.contributor.authorVadineanu, Angheluta
dc.contributor.authorVerheyden, Wim
dc.contributor.authorVikström, Suvi
dc.contributor.authorYoung, Juliette
dc.contributor.institutionADAPTACIÓN AL CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-24T12:12:41Z
dc.date.available2024-07-24T12:12:41Z
dc.date.issued2018-02
dc.descriptionPublisher Copyright: © 2017 The Authors
dc.description.abstractThe promise that ecosystem service assessments will contribute to better decision-making is not yet proven. We analyse how knowledge on ecosystem services is actually used to inform land and water management in 22 case studies covering different social-ecological systems in European and Latin American countries. None of the case studies reported instrumental use of knowledge in a sense that ecosystem service knowledge would have served as an impartial arbiter between policy options. Yet, in most cases, there was some evidence of conceptual learning as a result of close interaction between researchers, practitioners and stakeholders. We observed several factors that constrained knowledge uptake, including competing interests and political agendas, scientific disputes, professional norms and competencies, and lack of vertical and horizontal integration. Ecosystem knowledge played a small role particularly in those planning and policy-making situations where it challenged established interests and the current distribution of benefits from ecosystems. The factors that facilitated knowledge use included application of transparent participatory methods, social capital, policy champions and clear synergies between ecosystem services and human well-being. The results are aligned with previous studies which have emphasized the importance of building local capacity, ownership and trust for the long-term success of ecosystem service research.en
dc.description.sponsorshipThe authors wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. Most importantly, we want to acknowledge the participants in the case studies whose input was instrumental for this research project. The research was carried out in the project Operationalisation of Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services: From Concepts to Real-world Applications (OpenNESS), funded by the European Union FP7 (EC-308428). Heli Saarikoski and Eeva Primmer also want to acknowledge the support of the Academy of Finland (project 275772).
dc.description.statusPeer reviewed
dc.format.extent20
dc.identifier.citationSaarikoski , H , Primmer , E , Saarela , S R , Antunes , P , Aszalós , R , Baró , F , Berry , P , Blanko , G G , Goméz-Baggethun , E , Carvalho , L , Dick , J , Dunford , R , Hanzu , M , Harrison , P A , Izakovicova , Z , Kertész , M , Kopperoinen , L , Köhler , B , Langemeyer , J , Lapola , D , Liquete , C , Luque , S , Mederly , P , Niemelä , J , Palomo , I , Pastur , G M , Peri , P L , Preda , E , Priess , J A , Santos , R , Schleyer , C , Turkelboom , F , Vadineanu , A , Verheyden , W , Vikström , S & Young , J 2018 , ' Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice ' , Ecosystem Services , vol. 29 , pp. 579-598 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019
dc.identifier.issn2212-0416
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11556/4302
dc.identifier.urlhttp://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028981681&partnerID=8YFLogxK
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofEcosystem Services
dc.relation.projectIDEuropean Union FP7, EC-308428
dc.relation.projectIDSeventh Framework Programme, FP7, 308428
dc.relation.projectIDAcademy of Finland, 275772
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject.keywordsGlobal and Planetary Change
dc.subject.keywordsGeography, Planning and Development
dc.subject.keywordsEcology
dc.subject.keywordsAgricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
dc.subject.keywordsNature and Landscape Conservation
dc.subject.keywordsManagement, Monitoring, Policy and Law
dc.subject.keywordsSDG 6 - Clean Water and Sanitation
dc.titleInstitutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practiceen
dc.typejournal article
Files