Surveying views on Payments for Ecosystem Services: implications for environmental management and research

The concept of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) is globally of increasing interest. However, little is known about the views and expectations of professionals and practitioners expected to enable or implement this concept. Since these individuals design, select, shape and deliver environmental management, their views and expectations are critical to understanding how PES may play out in practice. Using the first survey on this topic, in the UK this research discusses the implications for future research and environmental management. Responses indicate a range of views about PES and its potential effects. Most expect to see greater use of PES in future; and are cautiously positive about the environmental, social and economic consequences of doing so. Many hope PES may overcome existing challenges facing environmental management, subject to conditions or changes. The research also revealed tensions related to broader challenges in environmental governance – e.g. calls for standardisation may conflict with requests for adaptability. Meanwhile, other expectations – e.g. improved engagement with groups currently uninterested in the environment – indicate priorities that may be better addressed with other instruments. Varied views are likely in most countries and must be assessed to better understand the prospects and potential of PES

Centralization of cleft lip and palate services in the united kingdom: The views of adult “returners”

© The Author(s) 2018. Background: Since the implementation of centralized services in the United Kingdom for those affected by cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P), several studies have investigated the impact of service rationalization on the delivery of care. While large-scale quantitative studies have demonstrated improvements in a range of patient outcomes, and smaller studies have reported on the benefits and challenges of centralization from the views of health professionals, little research has attempted to capture the patient perspective. Furthermore, few studies have investigated the views of adult “returners” who have undergone treatment both pre- and postcentralization. Methods: Qualitative data relevant to the subject of this article were extracted from 2 previous larger studies carried out between January 2013 and March 2014. A total of 16 adults born with CL/P contributed data to the current study. These data were subjected to inductive thematic analysis. Results: The findings suggest that centralization of CL/P services has considerably enhanced the patient experience. Specifically, the overall standard and coordination of care has improved, service delivery has become more patient centered, and access to professional psychological support and peer support has greatly improved patients’ capacity to cope with the associated emotional challenges. Conclusions: The data collected provide additional insight into the impact of centralization from the perspective of a largely unexplored patient population. In combination with other literature, these findings are also relevant to future efforts to centralize other specialist services around the world