(Dis) integrated valuation: Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Standard

(Dis) integrated valuation: Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support. / Barton, D.N.; Kelemen, E.; Dick, J. et al.
in: Ecosystem Services, Jahrgang 29, Nr. C, 01.02.2018, S. 529-541.

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Harvard

Barton, DN, Kelemen, E, Dick, J, Martin-Lopez, B, Gómez-Baggethun, E, Jacobs, S, Hendriks, CMA, Termansen, M, García- Llorente, M, Primmer, E, Dunford, R, Harrison, PA, Turkelboom, F, Saarikoski, H, van Dijk, J, Rusch, GM, Palomo, I, Yli-Pelkonen, VJ, Carvalho, L, Baró, F, Langemeyer, J, van der Wal, JT, Mederly, P, Priess, JA, Luque, S, Berry, P, Santos, R, Odee, D, Pastur, GM, García Blanco, G, Saarela, S-R, Silaghi, D, Pataki, G, Masi, F, Vădineanu, A, Mukhopadhyay, R & Lapola, DM 2018, '(Dis) integrated valuation: Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support', Ecosystem Services, Jg. 29, Nr. C, S. 529-541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021

APA

Barton, D. N., Kelemen, E., Dick, J., Martin-Lopez, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Jacobs, S., Hendriks, C. M. A., Termansen, M., García- Llorente, M., Primmer, E., Dunford, R., Harrison, P. A., Turkelboom, F., Saarikoski, H., van Dijk, J., Rusch, G. M., Palomo, I., Yli-Pelkonen, V. J., Carvalho, L., ... Lapola, D. M. (2018). (Dis) integrated valuation: Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support. Ecosystem Services, 29(C), 529-541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021

Vancouver

Barton DN, Kelemen E, Dick J, Martin-Lopez B, Gómez-Baggethun E, Jacobs S et al. (Dis) integrated valuation: Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support. Ecosystem Services. 2018 Feb 1;29(C):529-541. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021

Bibtex

@article{38f85db834a94158862c3682d889b24f,
title = "(Dis) integrated valuation: Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support",
abstract = "The operational challenges of integrated ecosystem service (ES) appraisals are determined by study purpose, system complexity and uncertainty, decision-makers{\textquoteright} requirements for reliability and accuracy of methods, and approaches to stakeholder–science interaction in different decision contexts. To explore these factors we defined an information gap hypothesis, based on a theory of cumulative uncertainty in ES appraisals. When decision context requirements for accuracy and reliability increase, and the expected uncertainty of the ES appraisal methods also increases, the likelihood of methods being used is expected to drop, creating a potential information gap in governance. In order to test this information gap hypothesis, we evaluate 26 case studies and 80 ecosystem services appraisals in a large integrated EU research project. We find some support for a decreasing likelihood of ES appraisal methods coinciding with increasing accuracy and reliability requirements of the decision-support context, and with increasing uncertainty. We do not find that information costs are the explanation for this information gap, but rather that the research project interacted mostly with stakeholders outside the most decision-relevant contexts. The paper discusses how alternative definitions of integrated valuation can lead to different interpretations of decision-support information, and different governance approaches to dealing with uncertainty.",
keywords = "Integrated valuation, Ecosystem service appraisal, Ecosystem service governance, Information costs, Uncertainty, Valuation, Eccosystem services cascade, Sustainability Science",
author = "D.N. Barton and E. Kelemen and J. Dick and B. Martin-Lopez and E. G{\'o}mez-Baggethun and S. Jacobs and C.M.A. Hendriks and M. Termansen and {Garc{\'i}a- Llorente}, M. and E. Primmer and R. Dunford and P.A. Harrison and F. Turkelboom and H. Saarikoski and {van Dijk}, J. and G.M. Rusch and I. Palomo and V.J. Yli-Pelkonen and L. Carvalho and F. Bar{\'o} and J. Langemeyer and {van der Wal}, {J. Tjalling} and P. Mederly and J.A. Priess and S. Luque and P. Berry and R. Santos and D. Odee and Pastur, {G. Martines} and {Garc{\'i}a Blanco}, G. and S-R. Saarela and D. Silaghi and G. Pataki and F. Masi and A. V{\u a}dineanu and R. Mukhopadhyay and D.M. Lapola",
year = "2018",
month = feb,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "529--541",
journal = "Ecosystem Services",
issn = "2212-0416",
publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",
number = "C",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - (Dis) integrated valuation

T2 - Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support

AU - Barton, D.N.

AU - Kelemen, E.

AU - Dick, J.

AU - Martin-Lopez, B.

AU - Gómez-Baggethun, E.

AU - Jacobs, S.

AU - Hendriks, C.M.A.

AU - Termansen, M.

AU - García- Llorente, M.

AU - Primmer, E.

AU - Dunford, R.

AU - Harrison, P.A.

AU - Turkelboom, F.

AU - Saarikoski, H.

AU - van Dijk, J.

AU - Rusch, G.M.

AU - Palomo, I.

AU - Yli-Pelkonen, V.J.

AU - Carvalho, L.

AU - Baró, F.

AU - Langemeyer, J.

AU - van der Wal, J. Tjalling

AU - Mederly, P.

AU - Priess, J.A.

AU - Luque, S.

AU - Berry, P.

AU - Santos, R.

AU - Odee, D.

AU - Pastur, G. Martines

AU - García Blanco, G.

AU - Saarela, S-R.

AU - Silaghi, D.

AU - Pataki, G.

AU - Masi, F.

AU - Vădineanu, A.

AU - Mukhopadhyay, R.

AU - Lapola, D.M.

PY - 2018/2/1

Y1 - 2018/2/1

N2 - The operational challenges of integrated ecosystem service (ES) appraisals are determined by study purpose, system complexity and uncertainty, decision-makers’ requirements for reliability and accuracy of methods, and approaches to stakeholder–science interaction in different decision contexts. To explore these factors we defined an information gap hypothesis, based on a theory of cumulative uncertainty in ES appraisals. When decision context requirements for accuracy and reliability increase, and the expected uncertainty of the ES appraisal methods also increases, the likelihood of methods being used is expected to drop, creating a potential information gap in governance. In order to test this information gap hypothesis, we evaluate 26 case studies and 80 ecosystem services appraisals in a large integrated EU research project. We find some support for a decreasing likelihood of ES appraisal methods coinciding with increasing accuracy and reliability requirements of the decision-support context, and with increasing uncertainty. We do not find that information costs are the explanation for this information gap, but rather that the research project interacted mostly with stakeholders outside the most decision-relevant contexts. The paper discusses how alternative definitions of integrated valuation can lead to different interpretations of decision-support information, and different governance approaches to dealing with uncertainty.

AB - The operational challenges of integrated ecosystem service (ES) appraisals are determined by study purpose, system complexity and uncertainty, decision-makers’ requirements for reliability and accuracy of methods, and approaches to stakeholder–science interaction in different decision contexts. To explore these factors we defined an information gap hypothesis, based on a theory of cumulative uncertainty in ES appraisals. When decision context requirements for accuracy and reliability increase, and the expected uncertainty of the ES appraisal methods also increases, the likelihood of methods being used is expected to drop, creating a potential information gap in governance. In order to test this information gap hypothesis, we evaluate 26 case studies and 80 ecosystem services appraisals in a large integrated EU research project. We find some support for a decreasing likelihood of ES appraisal methods coinciding with increasing accuracy and reliability requirements of the decision-support context, and with increasing uncertainty. We do not find that information costs are the explanation for this information gap, but rather that the research project interacted mostly with stakeholders outside the most decision-relevant contexts. The paper discusses how alternative definitions of integrated valuation can lead to different interpretations of decision-support information, and different governance approaches to dealing with uncertainty.

KW - Integrated valuation

KW - Ecosystem service appraisal

KW - Ecosystem service governance

KW - Information costs

KW - Uncertainty

KW - Valuation

KW - Eccosystem services cascade

KW - Sustainability Science

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85039460157&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/a78f47f1-9324-3181-86ff-e9836fdeb5b8/

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021

DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021

M3 - Journal articles

VL - 29

SP - 529

EP - 541

JO - Ecosystem Services

JF - Ecosystem Services

SN - 2212-0416

IS - C

ER -

DOI