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.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: 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
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)