Stakeholders' perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: results from 27 case studies
J. Dick
(1)
,
F. Turkelboom
(2)
,
Harry Woods
(1)
,
I. Iniesta Arandia
(3)
,
E. Primmer
(4)
,
S.R. Saarela
(4)
,
P. Bezák
(5)
,
P. Mederly
(6)
,
M. Leone
(2)
,
W. Verheyden
(2)
,
E. Kelemen
(7)
,
J. Hauck
(8)
,
C. Andrews
(1)
,
P. Antunes
(9)
,
R. Aszalós
(10)
,
F. Baró
(11)
,
D.N. Barton
(12)
,
P. Berry
(13)
,
R. Bugter
(14)
,
L. Carvalho
(1)
,
B. Czucz
(10)
,
R. Dunford
(13)
,
G. García Blanco
(15)
,
N. Geamănă
(16)
,
R. Giuca
(16)
,
B. Grizzetti
(17)
,
Z. Izakovicova
(18)
,
M. Kertesz
(10)
,
L. Kopperoinen
(4)
,
J. Langemeyer
(11)
,
D.M. Lapola
(19)
,
C. Liquete
(17)
,
Sandra Luque
(20)
,
G. Martinez Pastur
(21)
,
B. Martín López
(22)
,
R. Mukhopadhyay
(23)
,
J. Niemelä
(24)
,
D. Odee
(25)
,
P.L. Peri
(26)
,
P. Pinho
(27)
,
G.B. Patrício Roberto
(19)
,
E. Preda
(28)
,
J. Priess
(8)
,
C. Röckmann
(14)
,
Raphael Santos
(9)
,
D. Silaghi
(29)
,
R. Smith
(1)
,
A. Vadineanu
(28)
,
J.T. van Der Wal
(14)
,
I. Arany
(10)
,
O. Badea
(29)
,
G. Bela
(7)
,
E. Boroş
(10)
,
M. Bucur
(28)
,
S. Blumentrath
(12)
,
M. Calvache
(9)
,
E. Carmen
(1)
,
P. Clemente
(9)
,
J. Fernandes
(9)
,
D. Ferraz
(9)
,
C. Fongar
(30)
,
M. Garcia Llorente
(31)
,
Erik Gomez Baggethun
(30)
,
V. Gundersen
,
O. Haavardsholm
,
T. Khalalwe
(25)
,
G. Kiss
(32)
,
B. Köhler
,
Orsolya Lazányi
(7)
,
E. Lellei Kovács
(10)
,
R. Lichungu
(25)
,
Henrik Lindhjem
,
C. Magare
(25)
,
J. Mustajoki
(4)
,
C. Ndege
(25)
,
M. Nowell
(12)
,
S. Nuss Girona
(33)
,
J. Ochieng
(25)
,
A. Often
(12)
,
I. Palomo
(34)
,
G. Pataki
(7)
,
R. Reinvang
,
G. Rusch
(12)
,
H. Saarikoski
(4)
,
A. Smith
(13)
,
E. Soy Massoni
(33)
,
E. Stange
,
N. Vågnes Traaholt
,
P. Verweij
(14)
,
S. Vikström
(4)
,
V. Yli Pelkonen
(24)
,
G. Zulian
(17)
1
CEH -
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology [Bangor]
2 INBO - Research Institute for Nature and Forest
3 UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA MADRID ESP
4 SYKE FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE HELSINKI FIN
5 SLOVAK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NITRA SVK
6 UKF - Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra
7 ESSRG BUDAPEST HUN
8 UFZ HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LEIPZIG DEU
9 FCT NOVA - Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia = School of Science & Technology
10 MTA CENTRE FOR ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH VACRATOT HUN
11 UAB - Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona = Autonomous University of Barcelona = Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona
12 NINA - Norwegian Institute for Nature Research
13 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE INSTITUTE OXFORD GBR
14 WUR - Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen]
15 FUNDACION TECNALIA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION BIZKAIA ESP
16 UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST ROM
17 JRC - European Commission - Joint Research Centre [Ispra]
18 SLOVAK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES BRATISLAVA SVK
19 UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho = São Paulo State University
20 UMR TETIS - Territoires, Environnement, Télédétection et Information Spatiale
21 CADIC CONICET USHUAIA ARG
22 Leuphana University of Lüneburg
23 IBRAD KOLKATA IND
24 Helsingin yliopisto = Helsingfors universitet = University of Helsinki
25 KEFRI NAIROBI KEN
26 INTA UNPA CONICET SANTA CRUZ ARG
27 USP UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO BRA
28 RESEARCH CENTER IN SYSTEMS ECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABILITY UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST ROM
29 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN FORESTRY VOLUNTARI ROM
30 NMBU - Norwegian University of Life Sciences
31 IMIDRA MADRID ESP
32 Corvinus University of Budapest
33 UdG - Universitat de Girona = University of Girona
34 B3C BASQUE CENTRE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE BILBAO ESP
2 INBO - Research Institute for Nature and Forest
3 UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA MADRID ESP
4 SYKE FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE HELSINKI FIN
5 SLOVAK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NITRA SVK
6 UKF - Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra
7 ESSRG BUDAPEST HUN
8 UFZ HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LEIPZIG DEU
9 FCT NOVA - Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia = School of Science & Technology
10 MTA CENTRE FOR ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH VACRATOT HUN
11 UAB - Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona = Autonomous University of Barcelona = Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona
12 NINA - Norwegian Institute for Nature Research
13 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE INSTITUTE OXFORD GBR
14 WUR - Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen]
15 FUNDACION TECNALIA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION BIZKAIA ESP
16 UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST ROM
17 JRC - European Commission - Joint Research Centre [Ispra]
18 SLOVAK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES BRATISLAVA SVK
19 UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho = São Paulo State University
20 UMR TETIS - Territoires, Environnement, Télédétection et Information Spatiale
21 CADIC CONICET USHUAIA ARG
22 Leuphana University of Lüneburg
23 IBRAD KOLKATA IND
24 Helsingin yliopisto = Helsingfors universitet = University of Helsinki
25 KEFRI NAIROBI KEN
26 INTA UNPA CONICET SANTA CRUZ ARG
27 USP UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO BRA
28 RESEARCH CENTER IN SYSTEMS ECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABILITY UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST ROM
29 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN FORESTRY VOLUNTARI ROM
30 NMBU - Norwegian University of Life Sciences
31 IMIDRA MADRID ESP
32 Corvinus University of Budapest
33 UdG - Universitat de Girona = University of Girona
34 B3C BASQUE CENTRE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE BILBAO ESP
B. Grizzetti
- Fonction : Auteur
- PersonId : 969593
Sandra Luque
- Fonction : Auteur
- PersonId : 16863
- IdHAL : sandra-luque
- ORCID : 0000-0002-4002-3974
- IdRef : 159666988
V. Gundersen
- Fonction : Auteur
O. Haavardsholm
- Fonction : Auteur
B. Köhler
- Fonction : Auteur
Henrik Lindhjem
- Fonction : Auteur
R. Reinvang
- Fonction : Auteur
E. Stange
- Fonction : Auteur
N. Vågnes Traaholt
- Fonction : Auteur
Résumé
The ecosystem service (ES) concept is becoming mainstream in policy and planning, but operational influence on practice is seldom reported. Here, we report the practitioners' perspectives on the practical implementation of the ES concept in 27 case studies. A standardised anonymous survey (n = 246), was used, focusing on the science-practice interaction process, perceived impact and expected use of the case study assessments. Operationalisation of the concept was shown to achieve a gradual change in practices: 13% of the case studies reported a change in action (e.g. management or policy change), and a further 40% anticipated that a change would result from the work. To a large extent the impact was attributed to a well conducted science-practice interaction process (>70%). The main reported advantages of the concept included: increased concept awareness and communication; enhanced participation and collaboration; production of comprehensive science-based knowledge; and production of spatially referenced knowledge for input to planning (91% indicated they had acquired new knowledge). The limitations were mostly case-specific and centred on methodology, data, and challenges with result implementation. The survey highlighted the crucial role of communication, participation and collaboration across different stakeholders, to implement the ES concept and enhance the democratisation of nature and landscape planning. In Special Issue Synthesizing OpenNESS.