RT Journal Article
T1 Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice
A1 Saarikoski, Heli
A1 Primmer, Eeva
A1 Saarela, Sanna Riikka
A1 Antunes, Paula
A1 Aszalós, Réka
A1 Baró, Francesc
A1 Berry, Pam
A1 Blanko, Gemma Garcia
A1 Goméz-Baggethun, Erik
A1 Carvalho, Laurence
A1 Dick, Jan
A1 Dunford, Robert
A1 Hanzu, Mihail
A1 Harrison, Paula A.
A1 Izakovicova, Zita
A1 Kertész, Miklós
A1 Kopperoinen, Leena
A1 Köhler, Berit
A1 Langemeyer, Johannes
A1 Lapola, David
A1 Liquete, Camino
A1 Luque, Sandra
A1 Mederly, Peter
A1 Niemelä, Jari
A1 Palomo, Ignacio
A1 Pastur, Guillermo Martinez
A1 Peri, Pablo Luis
A1 Preda, Elena
A1 Priess, Jörg A.
A1 Santos, Rui
A1 Schleyer, Christian
A1 Turkelboom, Francis
A1 Vadineanu, Angheluta
A1 Verheyden, Wim
A1 Vikström, Suvi
A1 Young, Juliette
AB The 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.
SN 2212-0416
YR 2018
FD 2018-02
LK https://hdl.handle.net/11556/4302
UL https://hdl.handle.net/11556/4302
LA eng
NO Saarikoski , 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
NO Publisher Copyright: © 2017 The Authors
NO The 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).
DS TECNALIA Publications
RD 31 ago 2024