TY - JOUR

T1 - Stakeholders' perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept

T2 - Results from 27 case studies

AU - Dick, Jan

AU - Turkelboom, Francis

AU - Woods, Helen

AU - Iniesta-Arandia, Irene

AU - Primmer, Eeva

AU - Saarela, Sanna Riikka

AU - Bezák, Peter

AU - Mederly, Peter

AU - Leone, Michael

AU - Verheyden, Wim

AU - Kelemen, Eszter

AU - Hauck, Jennifer

AU - Andrews, Chris

AU - Antunes, Paula

AU - Aszalós, Réka

AU - Baró, Francesc

AU - Barton, David N.

AU - Berry, Pam

AU - Bugter, Rob

AU - Carvalho, Laurence

AU - Czúcz, Bálint

AU - Dunford, Rob

AU - Garcia Blanco, Gemma

AU - Geamănă, Nicoleta

AU - Giucă, Relu

AU - Grizzetti, Bruna

AU - Izakovičová, Zita

AU - Kertész, Miklós

AU - Kopperoinen, Leena

AU - Langemeyer, Johannes

AU - Montenegro Lapola, David

AU - Liquete, Camino

AU - Luque, Sandra

AU - Martínez Pastur, Guillermo

AU - Martin-Lopez, Berta

AU - Mukhopadhyay, Raktima

AU - Niemela, Jari

AU - Odee, David

AU - Peri, Pablo Luis

AU - Pinho, Patricia

AU - Patrício-Roberto, Gleiciani Bürger

AU - Preda, Elena

AU - Priess, Joerg

AU - Röckmann, Christine

AU - Santos, Rui

AU - Silaghi, Diana

AU - Smith, Ron

AU - Vădineanu, Angheluţă

AU - van der Wal, Jan Tjalling

AU - Arany, Ildikó

AU - Badea, Ovidiu

AU - Bela, Györgyi

AU - Boros, Emil

AU - Bucur, Magdalena

AU - Blumentrath, Stefan

AU - Calvache, Marta

AU - Carmen, Esther

AU - Clemente, Pedro

AU - Fernandes, João

AU - Ferraz, Diogo

AU - Fongar, Claudia

AU - García-Llorente, Marina

AU - Gómez-Baggethun, Erik

AU - Gundersen, Vegard

AU - Haavardsholm, Oscar

AU - Kalóczkai, Ágnes

AU - Khalalwe, Thalma

AU - Kiss, Gabriella

AU - Köhler, Berit

AU - Lazányi, Orsolya

AU - Lellei-Kovács, Eszter

AU - Lichungu, Rael

AU - Lindhjem, Henrik

AU - Magare, Charles

AU - Mustajoki, Jyri

AU - Ndege, Charles

AU - Nowell, Megan

AU - Nuss Girona, Sergi

AU - Ochieng, John

AU - Often, Anders

AU - Palomo, Ignacio

AU - Pataki, György

AU - Reinvang, Rasmus

AU - Rusch, Graciela

AU - Saarikoski, Heli

AU - Smith, Alison

AU - Soy Massoni, Emma

AU - Stange, Erik

AU - Vågnes Traaholt, Nora

AU - Vári, Ágnes

AU - Verweij, Peter

AU - Vikström, Suvi

AU - Yli-Pelkonen, Vesa

AU - Zulian, Grazia

PY - 2018/2/16

Y1 - 2018/2/16

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Stakeholder perceptions

KW - Place-based implementation

KW - Evaluation

KW - Ecosystem services operationalisation

KW - Sustainability Science

KW - Stakeholder perceptions

KW - place-based implementation

KW - Evaluation

KW - Ecosystem services operationalisation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85031403911&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.015

DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.015

M3 - Journal articles

VL - 29

SP - 552

EP - 565

JO - Ecosystem Services

JF - Ecosystem Services

SN - 2212-0416

IS - C

ER -