Ir directamente a la navegación principal Ir directamente a la búsqueda Ir directamente al contenido principal

Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies

  • Jan Dick*
  • , Francis Turkelboom
  • , Helen Woods
  • , Irene Iniesta-Arandia
  • , Eeva Primmer
  • , Sanna Riikka Saarela
  • , Peter Bezák
  • , Peter Mederly
  • , Michael Leone
  • , Wim Verheyden
  • , Eszter Kelemen
  • , Jennifer Hauck
  • , Chris Andrews
  • , Paula Antunes
  • , Réka Aszalós
  • , Francesc Baró
  • , David N. Barton
  • , Pam Berry
  • , Rob Bugter
  • , Laurence Carvalho
  • Bálint Czúcz, Rob Dunford, Gemma Garcia Blanco, Nicoleta Geamănă, Relu Giucă, Bruna Grizzetti, Zita Izakovičová, Miklós Kertész, Leena Kopperoinen, Johannes Langemeyer, David Montenegro Lapola, Camino Liquete, Sandra Luque, Guillermo Martínez Pastur, Berta Martin-Lopez, Raktima Mukhopadhyay, Jari Niemela, David Odee, Pablo Luis Peri, Patricia Pinho, Gleiciani Bürger Patrício-Roberto, Elena Preda, Joerg Priess, Christine Röckmann, Rui Santos, Diana Silaghi, Ron Smith, Angheluţă Vădineanu, Jan Tjalling van der Wal, Ildikó Arany, Ovidiu Badea, Györgyi Bela, Emil Boros, Magdalena Bucur, Stefan Blumentrath, Marta Calvache, Esther Carmen, Pedro Clemente, João Fernandes, Diogo Ferraz, Claudia Fongar, Marina García-Llorente, Erik Gómez-Baggethun, Vegard Gundersen, Oscar Haavardsholm, Ágnes Kalóczkai, Thalma Khalalwe, Gabriella Kiss, Berit Köhler, Orsolya Lazányi, Eszter Lellei-Kovács, Rael Lichungu, Henrik Lindhjem, Charles Magare, Jyri Mustajoki, Charles Ndege, Megan Nowell, Sergi Nuss Girona, John Ochieng, Anders Often, Ignacio Palomo, György Pataki, Rasmus Reinvang, Graciela Rusch, Heli Saarikoski, Alison Smith, Emma Soy Massoni, Erik Stange, Nora Vågnes Traaholt, Ágnes Vári, Peter Verweij, Suvi Vikström, Vesa Yli-Pelkonen, Grazia Zulian
*Autor correspondiente de este trabajo
  • Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
  • Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research
  • Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
  • Finnish Environment Institute
  • Slovak Academy of Sciences
  • Constantine the Philosopher University
  • Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG Ltd.)
  • Corvinus University of Budapest
  • Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research
  • CoKnow Consulting
  • NOVA University Lisbon
  • Centre for Ecological Research
  • Norwegian Institute for Nature Research
  • Wageningen University & Research
  • Muséum national d'histoire naturelle
  • Sisteplant SL - Parque Cientifico y Tecnológico de Bizkaia
  • University of Bucharest
  • European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute
  • Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho
  • UMR TETIS
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
  • Leuphana University of Lüneburg
  • IBRAD (Indian Institute of Bio Social Research and Development)
  • University of Helsinki
  • Kenya Forestry Research Institute
  • Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
  • Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral
  • Universidade de São Paulo
  • Forest Research and Management Institute
  • Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences
  • Norwegian University of Life Sciences
  • Agricultural and Food Research and Development (IMIDRA)
  • VISTA Analyse A/S
  • BC3 Basque Centre for Climate Change
  • De Økonomiske Råd

Producción científica: Contribución a una revistaArtículorevisión exhaustiva

118 Citas (Scopus)

Resumen

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.

Idioma originalInglés
Páginas (desde-hasta)552-565
Número de páginas14
PublicaciónEcosystem Services
Volumen29
DOI
EstadoPublicada - feb 2018
Publicado de forma externa

Huella

Profundice en los temas de investigación de 'Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies'. En conjunto forman una huella única.

Citar esto