Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice
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.
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo biblioteca |
Language: | eng |
Published: |
Elsevier
2018-02
|
Subjects: | Servicios de los Ecosistemas, Agroecosistemas, Instituciones de Investigación, Ecosystem Services, Agroecosystems, Research Institutions, Servicios Ecosistémicos, |
Online Access: | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617300141 http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/6590 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
id |
oai:localhost:20.500.12123-6590 |
---|---|
record_format |
koha |
institution |
INTA AR |
collection |
DSpace |
country |
Argentina |
countrycode |
AR |
component |
Bibliográfico |
access |
En linea |
databasecode |
dig-inta-ar |
tag |
biblioteca |
region |
America del Sur |
libraryname |
Biblioteca Central del INTA Argentina |
language |
eng |
topic |
Servicios de los Ecosistemas Agroecosistemas Instituciones de Investigación Ecosystem Services Agroecosystems Research Institutions Servicios Ecosistémicos Servicios de los Ecosistemas Agroecosistemas Instituciones de Investigación Ecosystem Services Agroecosystems Research Institutions Servicios Ecosistémicos |
spellingShingle |
Servicios de los Ecosistemas Agroecosistemas Instituciones de Investigación Ecosystem Services Agroecosystems Research Institutions Servicios Ecosistémicos Servicios de los Ecosistemas Agroecosistemas Instituciones de Investigación Ecosystem Services Agroecosystems Research Institutions Servicios Ecosistémicos Saarikoski, Heli Primmer, Eeva Saarela, Sanna-Riikka Antunes, Paula Baró, Francesc Berry, Pam Garcia Blanko, Gemma Gómez-Baggethun, Erik Carvalho, Lawrence Dick, Jan Dunford, Robert Hanzu, Mihail Harrison, Paula A. Izakovicova, Zita Kertész, Miklós Kopperoinen, Leena Köhler, Berit Langemeyer, Johannes Lapola, David Liquete, Camino Luque, Sandra Mederly, Peter Niemelä, Jari Palomo, Ignacio Martinez Pastur, Guillermo José Peri, Pablo Luis Preda, Elena Priess, Jörg A. Santos, Rui Ferreira Dos Schleyer, Christian Turkelboom, Francis Vadineanu, Angheluta Verheyden, Wim Vikström, Suvi Young, Juliette Aszalós, Réka Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
description |
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. |
format |
info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo |
topic_facet |
Servicios de los Ecosistemas Agroecosistemas Instituciones de Investigación Ecosystem Services Agroecosystems Research Institutions Servicios Ecosistémicos |
author |
Saarikoski, Heli Primmer, Eeva Saarela, Sanna-Riikka Antunes, Paula Baró, Francesc Berry, Pam Garcia Blanko, Gemma Gómez-Baggethun, Erik Carvalho, Lawrence Dick, Jan Dunford, Robert Hanzu, Mihail Harrison, Paula A. Izakovicova, Zita Kertész, Miklós Kopperoinen, Leena Köhler, Berit Langemeyer, Johannes Lapola, David Liquete, Camino Luque, Sandra Mederly, Peter Niemelä, Jari Palomo, Ignacio Martinez Pastur, Guillermo José Peri, Pablo Luis Preda, Elena Priess, Jörg A. Santos, Rui Ferreira Dos Schleyer, Christian Turkelboom, Francis Vadineanu, Angheluta Verheyden, Wim Vikström, Suvi Young, Juliette Aszalós, Réka |
author_facet |
Saarikoski, Heli Primmer, Eeva Saarela, Sanna-Riikka Antunes, Paula Baró, Francesc Berry, Pam Garcia Blanko, Gemma Gómez-Baggethun, Erik Carvalho, Lawrence Dick, Jan Dunford, Robert Hanzu, Mihail Harrison, Paula A. Izakovicova, Zita Kertész, Miklós Kopperoinen, Leena Köhler, Berit Langemeyer, Johannes Lapola, David Liquete, Camino Luque, Sandra Mederly, Peter Niemelä, Jari Palomo, Ignacio Martinez Pastur, Guillermo José Peri, Pablo Luis Preda, Elena Priess, Jörg A. Santos, Rui Ferreira Dos Schleyer, Christian Turkelboom, Francis Vadineanu, Angheluta Verheyden, Wim Vikström, Suvi Young, Juliette Aszalós, Réka |
author_sort |
Saarikoski, Heli |
title |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
title_short |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
title_full |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
title_fullStr |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
title_full_unstemmed |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
title_sort |
institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
publisher |
Elsevier |
publishDate |
2018-02 |
url |
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617300141 http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/6590 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT saarikoskiheli institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT primmereeva institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT saarelasannariikka institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT antunespaula institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT barofrancesc institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT berrypam institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT garciablankogemma institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT gomezbaggethunerik institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT carvalholawrence institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT dickjan institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT dunfordrobert institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT hanzumihail institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT harrisonpaulaa institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT izakovicovazita institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT kerteszmiklos institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT kopperoinenleena institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT kohlerberit institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT langemeyerjohannes institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT lapoladavid institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT liquetecamino institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT luquesandra institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT mederlypeter institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT niemelajari institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT palomoignacio institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT martinezpasturguillermojose institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT peripabloluis institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT predaelena institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT priessjorga institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT santosruiferreirados institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT schleyerchristian institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT turkelboomfrancis institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT vadineanuangheluta institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT verheydenwim institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT vikstromsuvi institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT youngjuliette institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice AT aszalosreka institutionalchallengesinputtingecosystemserviceknowledgeinpractice |
_version_ |
1756007666981797888 |
spelling |
oai:localhost:20.500.12123-65902019-12-30T12:23:33Z Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice Saarikoski, Heli Primmer, Eeva Saarela, Sanna-Riikka Antunes, Paula Baró, Francesc Berry, Pam Garcia Blanko, Gemma Gómez-Baggethun, Erik Carvalho, Lawrence Dick, Jan Dunford, Robert Hanzu, Mihail Harrison, Paula A. Izakovicova, Zita Kertész, Miklós Kopperoinen, Leena Köhler, Berit Langemeyer, Johannes Lapola, David Liquete, Camino Luque, Sandra Mederly, Peter Niemelä, Jari Palomo, Ignacio Martinez Pastur, Guillermo José Peri, Pablo Luis Preda, Elena Priess, Jörg A. Santos, Rui Ferreira Dos Schleyer, Christian Turkelboom, Francis Vadineanu, Angheluta Verheyden, Wim Vikström, Suvi Young, Juliette Aszalós, Réka Servicios de los Ecosistemas Agroecosistemas Instituciones de Investigación Ecosystem Services Agroecosystems Research Institutions Servicios Ecosistémicos 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. EEA Santa Cruz Fil: Saarikoski, Heli. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Primmer, Eeva. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Saarela, Sanna-Riikka. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Antunes, Paula. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia. Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research; Portugal Fil: Baró, Francesc. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology; España. Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute; España Fil: Berry, Pam. University of Oxford. Environmental Change Institute; Gran Bretaña Fil: Garcia Blanko, Gemma. Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation. Energy and Environment Division. Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia; España Fil: Gómez-Baggethun, Erik. Norwegian University of Life Sciences. Department of International Environment and Development Studies; Noruega. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA); Noruega Fil: Carvalho, Lawrence. Center for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña Fil: Dick, Jan. Center for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña Fil: Dunford, Robert. University of Oxford. Environmental Change Institute; Gran Bretaña. Lancaster Environment Centre. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña Fil: Hanzu, Mihail. Romanian National Institute for Research and Development in Silviculture; Rumania Fil: Harrison, Paula A. Lancaster Environment Centre. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña Fil: Izakovicova, Zita. Slovak Academy of Science. Institute of Landscape Ecology; Eslovaquia Fil: Kertész, Miklós. Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Centre for Ecological Research. Institute of Ecology and Botany; Hungría Fil: Kopperoinen, Leena. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Köhler, Berit. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA); Noruega Fil: Langemeyer, Johannes. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology; España. Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute. Barcelona Lab for Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainability; España Fil: Lapola, David. Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Center for Meteorological and Climatic Studies Applied to Agriculture (CEPAGRI); Brasil Fil: Liquete, Camino. Joint Research Centre (JRC). European Commission; Italia Fil: Luque, Sandra. National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture; Francia Fil: Mederly, Peter. Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra. Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences; Eslovaquia Fil: Niemelä, Jari. University of Helsinki. Department of Environmental Sciences; Finlandia Fil: Palomo, Ignacio. University of the Basque Country. Basque Centre for Climate Change; España. Fil: Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Cientificas; Argentina Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina. Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica; Argentina Fil: Preda, Elena. University of Bucharest. Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability; Rumania Fil: Priess, Joerg A. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; Alemania Fil: Santos, Rui Ferreira Dos. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia. Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research; Portugal Fil: Schleyer, Christian. Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt. Institute of Social Ecology; Austria. University of Kassel. Section of International Agricultural Policy and Environmental Governance; Alemania Fil: Turkelboom, Francis. Research Institute for Nature and Forest; Bélgica Fil: Vadineanu, Angheluta. University of Bucharest. Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability; Rumania Fil: Verheyden, Wim. Research Institute for Nature and Forest; Bélgica Fil: Vikström, Suvi. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Young, Juliette. Center for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña Fil: Aszalós, Réka. Institute of Ecology and Botany, MTA Centre for Ecological Research; Hungría 2019-12-30T12:22:00Z 2019-12-30T12:22:00Z 2018-02 info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617300141 http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/6590 2212-0416 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019 eng info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess application/pdf Elsevier Ecosystem Services 29, Part C : 579-598 (February 2018) |