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

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.

DICK Jan;  TURKELBOOM Francis;  WOODS Helen;  INIESTA-ARANDIA Irene;  PRIMMER Eeva;  SAARELA Sanna-Riikka;  BEZÁK Peter;  MEDERLY Peter;  LEONE Michael;  VERHEYDEN Wim;  KELEMEN Eszter;  HAUCK Jennifer;  ANDREWS Christopher;  ANTUNES Paula;  ASZALÓS Réka;  BARÓ Francesc;  BARTON David;  BERRY Pam;  BUGTER Rob;  CARVALHO Laurence;  CZÚCZ Bálint;  DUNFORD Robert;  GARCIA BLANCO Gemma;  GEAMĂNĂ Nicoleta;  GIUCĂ Relu;  GRIZZETTI Bruna;  IZAKOVIČOVÁ Zita;  KERTÉSZ Miklós;  KOPPEROINEN Leena;  LANGEMEYER Johannes;  MONTENEGRO LAPOLA David;  LIQUETE GARCIA Maria Del Camino;  LUQUE Sandra;  MARTÍNEZ PASTUR Guillermo;  MARTIN-LOPEZ Berta;  MUKHOPADHYAY Raktima;  NIEMELA Jari;  ODEE David;  LUIS PERI Pablo;  PINHO Patricia;  BÜRGER PATRÍCIO-ROBERTO Gleiciani;  PREDA Elena;  PRIESS Jorg;  RÖCKMANN Christine;  SANTOS Rui;  SILAGHI Diana;  SMITH Ron;  VADINEANU Angheluta;  TJALLING VAN DER WAL Jan;  ARANY Ildikó;  BADEA Ovidu;  BELA Györgyi;  BOROS Emil;  BUCUR Magdalena;  BLUMENTRATH Stefan;  CALVACHE Marta;  CARMEN Esther;  CLEMENTE Pedro;  FERNANDES João;  FERRAZ Diogo;  FONGAR Claudia;  GARCIA-LLORENTE Marina;  GOMEZ-BAGGETHUN Erik;  GUNDERSEN Vegard;  HAAVARDSHOLM Oscar;  KALOCZKAI Agnes;  KHALALWE Thalma;  KISS Gabriella;  KOHLER Berit;  LAZANYI Orsolya;  LELLEI-KOVÁCS Eszter;  LICHUNGU Rael;  LINDHJEM Henrik;  MAGARE Charles;  MUSTAJOKI Jyri;  NDEGE Charles;  NOWELL Megan;  NUSS GIRONA Sergi;  OCHIENG John;  OFTEN Anders;  PALOMO Ignacio;  PATAKI György;  REINVANG Rasmus;  RUSCH Graciela;  SAARIKOSKI Heli;  SMITH Alison;  SOY MASSONI Emma;  STANGE Erik;  VÅGNES TRAAHOLT Nora;  VARI Agnes;  VERWEIJ Peter;  VIKSTRÖM Suvi;  YLI-PELKONEN Vesa;  ZULIAN Grazia; 

2018-01-15

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV

JRC108271

2212-0416,   

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041616304661,    https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC108271,   

10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.015,