Knowledge needs for the operationalisation of the concept of ecosystem services

As environmental challenges and their management are increasingly recognised as complex and uncertain, the concept of ecosystem services has emerged from within scientific communities and is gaining influence within policy communities. To better understand how this concept can be turned into practice we examine knowledge needs from the perspective of the different stakeholders directly engaged with the operationalisation of ecosystem systems concept within ten socio-ecologically different case studies from different countries, levels of governance and ecosystems.We identify four different but interrelated areas of knowledge needs, namely; (i) needs related to develop a common understanding, (ii) needs related to the role of formal and informal institutions in shaping action on the ground, (iii) needs related to linking knowledge and action, and (iv) and needs related to accessible and easy to use methods and tools. These findings highlight the need to view knowledge as a process which is orientated towards action. We discuss the potential to develop transdisciplinary research approaches and the development of tools and methods explicitly as boundary objects in the ecosystem service science community to develop more collaborative practices with other stakeholders and facilitate the operationalisation of the concept of ecosystem services across contexts

Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment: Experiences from real world situations

The Ecosystem Services (ES) concept highlights the varied contributions the environment provides to humans and there are a wide range of methods/tools available to assess ES. However, in real-world decision contexts a single tool is rarely sufficient and methods must be combined to meet practitioner needs. Here, results from the OpenNESS project are presented to illustrate the methods selected to meet the needs of 24 real-world case studies and better understand why and how methods are combined to meet practical needs. Results showed that within the cases methods were combined to: i) address a range of ES; ii) assess both supply and demand of ES; iii) assess a range of value types; iv) reach different stake-holder groups v) cover weaknesses in other methods used and vi) to meet specific decision context needs. Methods were linked in a variety of ways: i) as input-output chains of methods; ii) through learning; iii) through method development and iv) through comparison/triangulation of results. The paper synthesises these case study-based experiences to provide insight to others working in practical contexts as to where, and in what contexts, different methods can be combined and how this can add value to case study analyses. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V.Peer reviewe

Integrated assessment and valuation of ecosystem services - Guidelines and experiences

EU FP7 OpenNESS project deliverable D33 & D4

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. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V.Peer reviewe

National ecosystem services assessment in Slovakia – meeting old liabilities and introducing new methods

This article provides an overview and results of the pilot national ecosystem services assessment in Slovakia. It follows the MAES process and past ecosystem services (ES) research in Slovakia and is based on original research methodology using spatial and statistical data. The initial step of national ES assessment resulted in the selection of significant ES for the evaluation process, where 18 ES in three groups were selected (five provisioning, 10 regulatory/maintenance and three cultural ES). An original assessment model provided the theoretical and methodological framework for national ES evaluation. The principal result is an assessment of the national landscape’s capacity for ES provision, based on evaluation of the landscape units and selected properties and indicators at the ecosystem level. These inputs included habitat types and watersheds, administrative units, natural topology, geology, soils, climate, water and biota. The ES capacity models were created and evaluated for each ES, for the main groups and, finally, for overall ES provision. The highest capacity to provide ES in Slovakia comes from natural and semi-natural ecosystems, mainly deciduous, mixed and coniferous forests which cover over 38% of Slovak territory. The water ecosystems and wetlands are also significant, followed by grasslands and permanent crops. The research highlights the crucial importance of the mountainous and sub-mountainous areas in Slovakia and confirms the significant contribution of the natural and semi-natural ecosystems for ensuring ES provision

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. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.Peer reviewe

Maintaining natural and traditional cultural green infrastructures across Europe : learning from historic and current landscape transformations

Context Maintaining functional green infrastructures (GIs) require evidence-based knowledge about historic and current states and trends of representative land cover types. Objectives We address: (1) the long-term loss and transformation of potential natural forest vegetation; (2) the effects of site productivity on permanent forest loss and emergence of traditional cultural landscapes; (3) the current management intensity; and (4) the social-ecological contexts conducive to GI maintenance. Methods We selected 16 case study regions, each with a local hotspot landscape, ranging from intact forest landscapes, via contiguous and fragmented forest covers, to severe forest loss. Quantitative open access data were used to estimate (i) the historic change and (ii) transformation of land covers, and (iii) compare the forest canopy loss from 2000 to 2018. Qualitative narratives about each hotspot landscape were analysed for similarities (iv). Results While the potential natural forest vegetation cover in the 16 case study regions had a mean of 86%, historically it has been reduced to 34%. Higher site productivity coincided with transformation to non-forest land covers. The mean annual forest canopy loss for 2000–2018 ranged from 0.01 to 1.08%. The 16 case studies represented five distinct social-ecological contexts (1) radical transformation of landscapes, (2) abuse of protected area concepts, (3) ancient cultural landscapes (4) multi-functional forests, and (5) intensive even-aged forest management, of which 1 and 4 was most common. Conclusions GIs encompass both forest naturalness and traditional cultural landscapes. Our review of Pan-European regions and landscapes revealed similarities in seemingly different contexts, which can support knowledge production and learning about how to sustain GIs

What is socio-ecological research delivering? A literature survey across 25 international LTSER platforms

With an overarching goal of addressing global and regional sustainability challenges, Long Term Socio-Ecological Research Platforms (LTSER) aim to conduct place-based research, to collect and synthesize both environmental and socio-economic data, and to involve a broader stakeholder pool to set the research agenda. To date there have been few studies examining the output from LTSER platforms. In this study we enquire if the socio-ecological research from 25 self-selected LTSER platforms of the International Long-Term Ecological Research (ILTER) network has produced research products which fulfil the aims and ambitions of the paradigm shift from ecological to socio-ecological research envisaged at the turn of the century. In total we assessed 4983 publically available publications, of which 1112 were deemed relevant to the socio-ecological objectives of the platform. A series of 22 questions were scored for each publication, assessing relevance of responses in terms of the disciplinary focus of research, consideration of human health and well-being, degree of stakeholder engagement, and other relevant variables. The results reflected the diverse origins of the individual platforms and revealed a wide range in foci, temporal periods and quantity of output from participating platforms, supporting the premise that there is a growing trend in socio-ecological research at long-term monitoring platforms. Our review highlights the challenges of realizing the top-down goal to harmonize international network activities and objectives and the need for bottom-up, self-definition for research platforms. This provides support for increasing the consistency of LTSER research while preserving the diversity of regional experiences

What is socio-ecological research delivering? A literature survey across 25 international LTSER platforms

With an overarching goal of addressing global and regional sustainability challenges, Long Term Socio-Ecological Research Platforms (LTSER) aim to conduct place-based research, to collect and synthesize both environmental and socio-economic data, and to involve a broader stakeholder pool to set the research agenda. To date there have been few studies examining the output from LTSER platforms. In this study we enquire if the socio-ecological research from 25 self-selected LTSER platforms of the International Long-Term Ecological Research (ILTER) network has produced research products which fulfil the aims and ambitions of the paradigm shift from ecological to socio-ecological research envisaged at the turn of the century. In total we assessed 4983 publically available publications, of which 1112 were deemed relevant to the socio-ecological objectives of the platform. A series of 22 questions were scored for each publication, assessing relevance of responses in terms of the disciplinary focus of research, consideration of human health and well-being, degree of stakeholder engagement, and other relevant variables. The results reflected the diverse origins of the individual platforms and revealed a wide range in foci, temporal periods and quantity of output from participating platforms, supporting the premise that there is a growing trend in socio-ecological research at long-term monitoring platforms. Our review highlights the challenges of realizing the top-down goal to harmonize international network activities and objectives and the need for bottom-up, self-definition for research platforms. This provides support for increasing the consistency of LTSER research while preserving the diversity of regional experiences

Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment: experiences from real world situations

The Ecosystem Services (ES) concept provides great potential to highlight the breadth of services provided by the environment to humans. In the OpenNESS project research teams from 26 case studies across Europe and the world worked with case study practitioners to assess and select ES methods to target the specific management challenges of each case. The methods available included a range of biophysical, monetary and non-monetary approaches and were capable of addressing case study questions regarding both the supply and demand of ecosystem services and their value to the people benefiting from them. This paper draws on an analysis of case study experiences, to detail both the diversity of ways that methods were combined in practice, and the reasons driving method selection in different contexts. The paper attempts to synthesise these experiences to provide take-home messages that illustrate where, and in what contexts, different methodological combinations were used. It provides suggestions for those working in ecosystem service assessment drawn from experience of the 26 cases. The findings of the OpenNESS case studies stress that methodological plurality, flexibility and creativity are key if the ES concept is to best address the practical challenges posed by real world situations.JRC.D.2-Water and Marine Resource