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

Improving the science-policy interface of biodiversity research projects

Against the background of a continuing biodiversity loss there is a strong need to improve the interfaces between science and policy. Many approaches for such interfaces exist, the most recent being the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). A less prominent approach to interface science with policy consists of research projects directly linking with decision makers. Here we present insights and recommendations on how to do this successfully, highlighting among others the role of facilitating mutual learning and enhancing interface expertise in institutions

Drivers of European landscape change: stakeholders’ perspectives through Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping

Understanding complex processes of landscape change is crucial to guide the development of future landscapes and land resources. Through Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping, we studied the processes of landscape change of six different environmental zones in Europe. Results show that landscapes are complex systems, with many interactions. Except for one, all regions show a strong decline in landscape quality. Dominant drivers are EU policy and the global economy, sometimes in conjunction with environmental drivers or the governance system. The process of change differs for all cases, through urbanisation or land abandonment in some cases, and agricultural intensification in others. The (un)intended effects of policies are difficult to predict. Although some EU Policies directly improve landscape quality, their indirect effects as well as other EU policies outweigh this positive influence and jointly result in a decrease of landscape quality. To counter these negative side effects, targeted landscape policies are urgently needed

Misfits and compliance patterns in the transposition and implementation of the Habitats Directive—four cases

This paper investigates the transposition and implementation of the Habitats Directive in four European member states, namely Denmark, the Netherlands, Greece, and Romania, and the role that institutional misfits have played in more or less successful implementation processes. Departing in the ‘Worlds of Compliance’ literature, it also explores if this typology can be useful for understanding the ways member states address institutional adaptation pressures in the implementation steps following the transposition phase. The requirements in the Habitats Directive expanded most member states’ nature conservation frameworks, especially in the obligation to introduce pro-active conservation, and it also laid down a number of steps to be taken for creating the European Natura 2000 network. It was found that the transposition did mostly follow general compliance types, but that these types also helped understand the extent and adequacy of adaptations and changes to the institutional framework in the implementation processes following the directive’s adoption. Implementation challenges were different for different countries. They showed a need to align institutional frameworks for a) Natura 2000 in areas with several existing types of landscape protections and ensuing spatial and institutional overlaps; b) clarifying the roles and responsibilities of various authorities involved in implementation; c) ensuring coordination with the other sectorial policy areas that interact with the Habitats Directive (such as the Nitrate Directive and the Water Framework Directive). It turned out that there could be a need for more flexible and less-top-down European legislation, providing a larger room-for-manoeuvre for integration with domestic approaches

Caught between personal and collective values: biodiversity conservation in European decision-making

Individual decision‐makers at different governance levels operate in social contexts, which means that they sometimes need to compromise their personal values. Yet, this dissonance is rarely the direct target of empirical analyses of environmental decision‐making. We undertake a Q‐analysis of decision‐makers' personal perspectives and the perspectives they perceive to dominate in their decision‐making contexts. Our empirical analysis addresses biodiversity conservation, which has traditionally been justified with intrinsic value‐ and science‐based arguments. The arguments have recently been broadened with the concept of ecosystem services, highlighting human benefits and values. This evolving context is interesting because of the new rise of anthropocentric values, which can lead to decision‐makers experiencing dissonance. Our analysis of interviews with 43 biodiversity conservation decision‐makers from nine European countries reveals four personally held perspectives that highlight different, yet partly overlapping, values – intrinsic, human benefit, conservation and connection – as well as three perspectives perceived to dominate in decision‐making – utilitarian, insurance and knowledge values. The comparison of personally held and perceived dominant perspectives points to one major conflict: those decision‐makers who personally associate with intrinsic values and perceive utilitarian values to dominate in decision‐making experience dissonance. By contrast, personally held human benefit values are accommodated well in decision‐making contexts and decision‐makers who perceive insurance values to dominate experience the least conflict with personally held values. These findings demonstrate the potential of arguments stressing long‐term benefits for easing tension and conflicts in conservation decision‐making, and the usefulness of empirically testing of the coincidence of individual and social values.peerReviewe

Final report synthesising the analysis of argumentation in multi-level governance interactions in case studies : Deliverable No: 3.1, EC Contract Ref: FP7-ENV-2011-282743

This report provides a synthesis of argumentation analysis in real-world cases in “multi-level biodiversity governance”, investigated within the BESAFE project. The following broad research questions guided the synthesis of argumentation analysis in the case studies:• Which (different types of) arguments can be identified at different levels and units of biodiversity governance?• How are these arguments exchanged and put to work in multi-level and networked interactions (i.e. within and across different levels and units of biodiversity governance)?• How are these arguments rooted in and how do they feed into different perspectives, worldviews and functioning of social groups or institutions at the different levels and units of biodiversity governance?The study’s approach to answering these questions is guided by a three layer analytical framework. This framework comprises three different perspectives to argument-making practice. Together these enable a comprehensive understanding of the role of argumentation in multi-level biodiversity governance.The first layer takes the perspective that arguments are “products” of communication. The analysis focuses on the verbal content of arguments, i.e. what these arguments “say”. By comparing argument contents between global, European, national, regional and local governance levels, it was revealed that at both global and regional level, social arguments were most dominant, while at the European level economic arguments were more prominent. Comparison between European and national governance levels revealed little differences. Comparison between types of actors showed some differences of emphasis. Whereas most actors use the argument that biodiversity should be protected because of its inherent value, regional authorities more often referred to social wellbeing and national authorities to legal obligation. The analysis also considered variety of arguments. In general, variety was very limited. Politicians used the smallest variety of arguments, while the largest variety was found in the science actors. Furthermore, variety depended on communication channels (e.g. internet forums showed much variety). Lastly, arguments do change over time. Arguments on ecosystem services, for instance, became prominent at both global and European levels, but they often do not reach or persist at local levels of governance.The second layer of the framework uses the perspective of arguments being transactions between arguers and audiences. The focus here is on what actors “do”D3.1 Final report synthesising the analysis of argumentation in multi-levelgovernance interactions in case studies5with arguments, that is, what they aim to achieve with the arguments and what strategies they use. Plenty of strategies were identified, such as particularisation (e.g. stressing the uniqueness of a natural area to increase policy attention), up-scaling (e.g. situating a biodiversity problem at a higher level of space or time to make it more important), dichotomisation (e.g. polarising between two alternatives to exclude the possibility of an intermediate solution) and aligning arguments to the goals and interests of others to affect policy outcomes in a way that suits own interests. Finally, actors used various channels to transmit argument. Main examples were local politicians, NGOs and mass media.The third layer takes the perspective of arguments as being conditioned by the social-institutional networks in which they are transmitted. The analysis focuses on how the arguments and the reasoning they communicate “fit” into the different perspectives, worldviews and functioning of social groups and institutions. It was shown that argumentation was highly conditioned by law and regulations, institutional roles and established practices. International obligation, in particular, empowered member states to implement biodiversity policy and to finish disputes. But legislation (and uncertainty about it) also hampered conservation efforts. Furthermore, established criteria used in conservation practice (e.g. rarity, threat and species richness) supported justification of the need for implementing biodiversity conservation measures. Finally, what actors considered as their interests and what they valued as a legitimate policy process (democratic, science-based and sufficient societal support) conditioned the argumentation

Science-policy interfaces for biodiversity: dynamic learning environments for successful impact

To address the pressing problems associated with biodiversity loss, changes in awareness and behaviour are required from decision makers in all sectors. Science-policy interfaces (SPIs) have the potential to play an important role, and to achieve this effectively, there is a need to understand better the ways in which existing SPIs strive for effective communication, learning and behavioural change. Using a series of test cases across the world, we assess a range of features influencing the effectiveness of SPIs through communication and argumentation processes, engagement of actors and other aspects that contribute to potential success. Our results demonstrate the importance of dynamic and iterative processes of interaction to support effective SPI work. We stress the importance of seeing SPIs as dynamic learning environments and we provide recommendations for how they can enhance success in meeting their targeted outcomes. In particular, we recommend building long-term trust, creating learning environments, fostering participation and ownership of the process and building capacity to combat silo thinking. Processes to enable these changes may include, for example, inviting and integrating feedback, extended peer review and attention to contextualising knowledge for different audiences, and time and sustained effort dedicated to trust-building and developing common languages. However there are no ‘one size fits all’ solutions, and methods must be adapted to context and participants. Creating and maintaining effective dynamic learning environments will both require and encourage changes in institutional and individual behaviours: a challenging agenda, but one with potential for positive feedbacks to maintain momentum