Kaasamisprotsesside tõhusus ja tulemuslikkus ökoloogilise võrgustiku planeerimisel ning rakendamisel mitmetasandilises valitsemismudelis

Ecological networks aim to integrate biodiversity conservation with sustainable spatial development. Their governance in Europe is shaped by the interplays between multiple actors from various levels along spatial and jurisdictional-institutional scales. Despite the calls for greater public and stakeholder involvement, the legitimacy or social robustness of spatial planning and biodiversity policies in Europe has continuously been questioned by various stakeholders. This thesis, drawing on a set of qualitative case studies, provides some reflections on the participatory development of certain ecological network initiatives foremost in Estonia (e.g. the Natura 2000 and the national Green Network), as well as in other EU countries. The following questions are addressed. (1) To what extent are participatory approaches able to effectively build stakeholder awareness? (2) What are instances of and factors contributing towards knowledge integration and social learning within participatory processes? (3) Which conditions affect the legitimacy of ecological network governance? Landowners are one key stakeholder group within the Natura 2000 designations and management. Yet, their awareness on important topics, like socio-economic implications of designations, or on formal rules of consultations in the Estonian cases was rather vague. The way information is exchanged, but its content also affects the success of communication: broad awareness-raising campaigns (e.g. information distributed via mass media) are not likely to satisfy stakeholders’ specific information needs and build their trust towards environmental authorities. More personalised involvement tools are needed to raise landowners’ awareness. In the Estonian Natura 2000 consultations, mostly scientific knowledge stood at the forefront, but the participatory delineations of the Green Network allowed the inclusion of knowledge from a broader set of stakeholders. Trust in each other’s expertise, but also certain attributes of the decision-making context, and of participatory processes (e.g. goal definition, continuity of contacts) facilitated knowledge integration in the latter case. Conflictive situations can also catalyse learning among stakeholders, e.g. support them to become aware of and respectful towards each other’s concerns. The cases have illustrated several challenges that the complex architectures of multi-level governance contexts pose on certain normative criteria for assessing legitimacy, e.g. for inclusion, accountability or transparency. Under different contexts, stakeholders tend to wear “multiple hats”, e.g. represent different kinds of interests, or are carriers of various knowledge claims. Often the concrete situation determines which one of such “hats” will be the most important. Here, the legitimacy of decision-making foremost depends on what kinds of stakeholders’ concerns are considered and/or included in the processes and their outcomes. Stakeholder analyses could help to identify the actors, analyse their roles, claims, and their relevance. The issue(s) at stake also affect stakeholders’ expectations towards participatory decision-making. So, stakeholders’ expectations towards participation, but the overall process boundaries should also be clarified from the outset, in order to avoid raising unjustified expectations. If conflicts within ecological network governance are caused by fundamental differences in frames, i.e. the various ways people make sense of problems, re-framing exercises could be one solution to reconcile such conflicts. Re-framing helps stakeholders to focus on common aspects in their views, which could facilitate mutual understanding and collaboration. Ultimately, participatory practices are influenced by the prevailing participatory culture, e.g. the ways different stakeholders, including public officials, have been used to conceptualise and exercise participation.Ökovõrgustike planeerimine ja rakendamine ühendab maastiku ökoloogilised funktsioonid mitmesuguste sotsiaal-majanduslike aspektidega ning hõlmab geograafilisi ja administratiivtasandeid kohalikest omavalitsustest Euroopa Liiduni (EL). Asjaliste (ingl stakeholders) kaasamist otsustusprotsessidesse peetakse mitmetel pragmaatilistel ning normatiivsetel kaalutlustel oluliseks ökovõrgustike valitsemise osaks. Väitekiri tugineb juhtumiuuringute analüüsil, käsitledes ökovõrgustikega seonduvate kaasamisprotsesside tõhusust ja tulemuslikkust Eestis ning mõnedes teistes EL riikides, ning juhindub järgmistest uurimisküsimustest. (1) Kuidas saab kaasamisega toetada tulemuslikku suhtlust eri osapoolte vahel (sh tõsta maaomanike teadlikkust) Natura 2000 alade määratlemise kontekstis? (2) Millistel juhtudel on / ei ole kaasamine toiminud õpi- ning erinevate asjaliste teadmisi koondava protsessina? Millised faktorid seda mõjutavad? (3) Millised asjaolud määravad otsustusprotsesside ja nende tulemite legitiimsuse (s.t vastuvõetavuse)? Maaomanikud on Natura 2000 võrgustiku moodustamisel üks olulisimaid asjalistegruppe. Analüüsitud juhtumid näitavad, et laialdased avalikustamiskampaaniad ei suuda rahuldada maaomanike spetsiifilist infovajadust, kuid vahetumad ja konkreetsemat sisulist infot pakkuvad suhtlusvormid (nt telefonivestlus looduskaitseametnikuga või osalemine asjaliste koosolekutel) tõstavad tõenäolisemalt maaomanike teadlikkust ning aitavad ennetada arusaamatusi maaomanike ja looduskaitse-ekspertide vahel. Eesti Natura 2000 alade määratlemine põhines eeskätt teaduslikel alustel, kuid maakondade rohevõrgustiku planeerimine võimaldas paljude erinevate teadmistega asjaliste kaasamist. Viimasel juhul olid määravad edutegurid otsustusprotsessi varases etapis loodud usalduslik kontakt ja osapoolte vahelise hea suhte järjepidevus. Kui varasemalt on leitud, et kaasamine on õpiprotsess eeskätt koostööliste suhete tingimustes, siis käesolev uurimus kinnitab, et ka konfliktiolukorrad võivad soodustada üksteise seisukohtade ja huvide teadvustamist ning nendega arvestamist. Valitsustasandite paljusus võib takistada tõhusat teabevahetust neil toimivate asjaliste vahel, samuti asjaliste võrdväärset kaasamist, vastutusvaldkondade selget piiritlemist ja otsustetegijate aruandekohustuse (accountability) täitmist mitme erineva valitsustasandi ees. Laiapõhjaline asjaliste kaasatus (inclusion) otsustusprotsessidesse ei pruugi alati tagada lõplike otsuste legitiimsust. Otsuste vastuvõetavust mõjutavad siinkohal eeskätt asjaliste hinnangud sellele, kuivõrd nende panusega on kaasamisel arvestatud. Asjalised võivad eri olukordades esindada väga mitmesuguseid rolle, millele vastavalt nad otsustesse panustavad, nt oma teadmiste või huvide kajastamisega. Asjalistel on tihti ka erinevad ootused kaasamisprotsesside ülesehituse ja tulemuste osas, seega tuleks ekslike ootuste vältimiseks kaasamise aluspõhimõtted ning täpsemad protsessireeglid varakult kõigi osapooltega läbi rääkida. Asjaliste analüüs (stakeholder analysis) võimaldab otsusetegijail asjalisi ja nende rolle kaardistada ning lõppkokkuvõttes hinnata, milliseid osapooli tuleks antud kontekstis esmajoones kaasata. Väitekirjas tuli esile legitiimsuseuuringutes seni vähest kajastamist leidnud aspekt, et otsuste illegitiimsus võib tuleneda ka asjaolust, et kaasamisel pole piisavalt arvestatud märkimisväärsete erinevustega asjaliste probleemikäsitlustes (frames). Seda tüüpi vastuolude lahendamisel võib abi olla probleemide ümbersõnastamisest (re-framing) nii, et keskendutakse seisukohtades peituvaile ühisjoontele, millele ehitada üles edasine arutelu ning võimalik koostöö. Selgus ka, et mõnesid Eesti keskkonnakorralduspraktikas laialdaselt kasutatavaid kaasamisvorme (nt avalikke koosolekuid) peavad asjalised ebapiisavateks võimalusteks otsuseid mõjutada. Võimalik, et koosolekuid jt sarnaseid kaasamisvorme aitaksid tõhustada nende parem organiseeritus, mida soodustaksid nt professionaalsed hõlbustajad (facilitators) või ametnike koosolekujuhtimisalaste oskuste arendamine. Kaasamise tõhusust ja tulemuslikkust mõjutab suuresti ka osalus- ja kaasamiskultuur: erinevate asjaliste, sh ametnike arusaamad kaasamisest-osalusest.Publication of this dissertation has been supported by the Estonian University of Life Sciences and by the Doctoral School of Earth Sciences and Ecology created under the auspices of European Social Fund

ECOLOGICAL NETWORK AS A MULTI-LEVEL SPATIAL PLANNING TOOL FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: ANALYSIS OF AN ESTONIAN CASE STUDY

The Estonian concept of ecological networks (the Green Network) is implemented at different administrative levels by including multiple stakeholders. Building ecologically coherent Green Infrastructure is also one strategic aim of the European Union’s environmental policy. An embedded case study shows that contradictions between governance levels and ineffective stakeholder involvement measures have caused negative influence on land use decision-making processes on a local level. We further identified that the process of integrating the ecological network concept into the land use planning system has characteristics of vertical decentralisation, but the lack of relevant coordination have precluded achieving satisfactory results regarding stakeholder involvement and co-operation.KEY WORDS: ecological networks, green infrastructure, multi-level governance, stakeholder participation, spatial planning.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15181/tbb.v69i1.105

Literature syntheses to inform marine ecosystem management: lessons learned from stakeholder participation

Systematic literature syntheses are a key element in the scientific realm, considering the steadily growing amount of available knowledge. Involving stakeholders in the research process brings a wide range of advantages, like broadening the perspectives on the problem in question, increasing the relevance of results for policy- and decision-making, the public and other end-users and thus enhancing the impact and acceptance of research. While participatory approaches are on the rise, reflections on stakeholder involvement in systematic syntheses on environmental management are scarce. We reflect on the process of involving stakeholders with expertise also from outside academia during three literature syntheses with different foci of marine and coastal ecosystem services in the Baltic Sea. Our analysis is based on notes, e-mails, minutes and recordings of internal project meetings, interviews and workshops involving both researchers and stakeholders. We discuss the challenges the participatory approach introduced and develop lessons learned to support the planning of stakeholder engagement for future literature syntheses. We conclude that stakeholder identification, communication, collaboration and knowledge translation are highly time- and resource-intensive processes. Furthermore, appropriate training and experience are necessary for the design, execution and evaluation of participatory methods tailored to each project stage. Therefore, we underline the importance of adequate consideration of the required resources during project planning and implementation. To encourage and support valuable stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange between the research community and actors of policy and practice, more appreciation of such efforts by funding institutions and within the wider scientific community is needed

Natura 2000 and spatial planning

Spatial planning which reconciles nature conservation with other policies' objectives can be a useful tool for implementing the EU nature legislation. However, a thorough exploration of the potential role of spatial planning and its instruments for the implementation of Natura 2000 has not yet been made either at EU or Member State level. In order to bridge this knowledge gap, this study provides an insight into the role and functions of spatial planning policies at EU and Member State level in relation to Natura 2000 and Nature Directives more generally. The key areas of analysis in this study are the notion and rationale of spatial planning, its instruments and governance processes, the mechanisms for integration of Natura 2000 in spatial planning processes and in sectoral policies, the EU-legal frameworks, cross border-cooperation and relevant spatial planning technologies

Learning and the transformative potential of citizen science

The number of collaborative initiatives between scientists and volunteers (i.e., citizen science) is increasing across many research fields. The promise of societal transformation together with scientific breakthroughs contributes to the current popularity of citizen science (CS) in the policy domain. We examined the transformative capacity of citizen science in particular learning through environmental CS as conservation tool. We reviewed the CS and social-learning literature and examined 14 conservation projects across Europe that involved collaborative CS. We also developed a template that can be used to explore learning arrangements (i.e., learning events and materials) in CS projects and to explain how the desired outcomes can be achieved through CS learning. We found that recent studies aiming to define CS for analytical purposes often fail to improve the conceptual clarity of CS; CS programs may have transformative potential, especially for the development of individual skills, but such transformation is not necessarily occurring at the organizational and institutional levels; empirical evidence on simple learning outcomes, but the assertion of transformative effects of CS learning is often based on assumptions rather than empirical observation; and it is unanimous that learning in CS is considered important, but in practice it often goes unreported or unevaluated. In conclusion, we point to the need for reliable and transparent measurement of transformative effects for democratization of knowledge production

Data summarizing monitoring and evaluation for three European environmental policies in 9 cases across Europe

Subject area: Environmental policy. More specific subject area: Monitoring; evaluation; European Policy; Water Framework Directive; Natura 2000; Agri-Environment Schemes. Type of data: Tables and text. How data was acquired: Review and analysis of any publicly-available information on monitoring programs. Data format: Summarized, analyzed. Experimental factors: In 2017 the authors searched for publicly available about monitoring programs associated with 3 policy areas: the Water Framework Directive, Natura 2000 and Agri-Environment Schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy. Authors from each organization searched for information about monitoring in the country or region of the organization where they are based: Catalonia (Spain), Estonia, Finland, Flanders (Belgium), Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Scotland (UK), Sweden. Internet searches of grey and academic literature were used: some authors also contacted policy contacts for advice about where this information could be found, but did not use any information that was not already publicly available. Experimental features: Bibliographic information on the information sources was recorded (see reference list below), and each author team searched for and summarized information about monitoring and evaluation according to a standard template (see below). Data source location: Catalonia (Spain), Estonia, Finland, Flanders (Belgium), Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Scotland (UK), Sweden. Data accessibility: All of the data are within this article. Related research article: Companion paper to: Waylen, K.A.; Blackstock, K.L.; van Hulst. F.; Damian, C.; Horváth, F.; Johnson, R.; Kanka, R.; Külvik, M.; Macleod, C.; Meissner, C.; Oprina-Pavelescu, M.; Pino, J.; Primmer, E.; Rîșnoveanu, G.; Šatalová, B.; Silander, J.; Špulerová, J.; Suškevičs, M.; Van Uytvanck, J. 2019. Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems? Science of the Total Environment, 662: 373–384 [2].Value of the data • The data provide the first overview of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices carried out by a selection European member states and regions, under 3 European environmental policies (the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, and Agri-Environment Schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy). • The data permit comparison across cases as well as across policies, and so provide a baseline for comparative studies. • The source of information used to describe monitoring in each case are provided, thus providing a baseline for researchers seeking more in-depth analyses.The data presented in this DiB article provide an overview of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) carried out for 3 European environmental policies (the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, and Agri-Environment Schemes implemented under the Common Agricultural Policy), as implemented in 9 cases (Catalonia (Spain), Estonia, Finland, Flanders (Belgium), Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Scotland (UK), Sweden). These data are derived from reports and documents about monitoring programs that were publicly-available online in 2017. The literature on M&E to support adaptive management structured the issues that have been extracted and summarized. The data is related to the research article entitled “Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems?” [Stem et al., 2005]. The information provides a first overview of monitoring and evaluation that has been implemented in response to key European environmental policies. It provides a structured overview that permits a comparison of cases and policies and can assist other scholars and practitioners working on monitoring and evaluation

Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation : Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems?

Inadequate Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is often thought to hinder adaptive management of socio-ecological systems. A key influence on environmental management practices are environmental policies: however, their consequences for M&E practices have not been well-examined. We examine three policy areas - the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 Directives, and the Agri-Environment Schemes of the Common Agricultural Policy - whose statutory requirements influence how the environment is managed and monitored across Europe. We use a comparative approach to examine what is monitored, how monitoring is carried out, and how results are used to update management, based on publicly available documentation across nine regional and national cases. The requirements and guidelines of these policies have provided significant impetus for monitoring: however, we find this policy-driven M&E usually does not match the ideals of what is needed to inform adaptive management. There is a tendency to focus on understanding state and trends rather than tracking the effect of interventions; a focus on specific biotic and abiotic indicators at the expense of understanding system functions and processes, especially social components; and limited attention to how context affects systems, though this is sometimes considered via secondary data. The resulting data are sometimes publicly-accessible, but it is rarely clear if and how these influence decisions at any level, whether this be in the original policy itself or at the level of measures such as site management plans. Adjustments to policy-driven M&E could better enable learning for adaptive management, by reconsidering what supports a balanced understanding of socio-ecological systems and decision-making. Useful strategies include making more use of secondary data, and more transparency in data-sharing and decision-making. Several countries and policy areas already offer useful examples. Such changes are essential given the influence of policy, and the urgency of enabling adaptive management to safeguard socio-ecological systems. Highlights • Policy strongly influences Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) of socio-ecological systems. • We examine M&E of 3 major European policies in 9 regional and national cases. • Policy-driven M&E is imperfect versus ideals of M&E to support adaptive management. • Attention needed to systems, social issues, sharing data, and sharing intended uses. • Examples from across Europe and different policies offer ideas for improvement

Process and Contextual Factors Supporting Action-Oriented Learning : A Thematic Synthesis of Empirical Literature in Natural Resource Management

Despite a long-term focus on learning in natural resource management (NRM), it is still debated how learning supports sustainable real-world NRM practices. We offer a qualitative in-depth synthesis of selected scientific empirical literature (N = 53), which explores factors affecting action-oriented learning. We inductively identify eight key process-based and contextual factors discussed in this literature. Three patterns emerge from our results. First, the literature discusses both facilitated participation and self-organized collaboration as dialogical spaces, which bridge interests and support constructive conflict management. Second, the literature suggests practice-based dialogs as those best able to facilitate action and puts a strong emphasis on experimentation. Finally, not emphasized in existing reviews and syntheses, we found multiple evidence about certain contextual factors affecting learning, including social-ecological crises, complexity, and power structures. Our review also points at important knowledge gaps, which can be used to advance the current research agenda about learning and NRM

Process and Contextual Factors Supporting Action-Oriented Learning: A Thematic Synthesis of Empirical Literature in Natural Resource Management

Despite a long-term focus on learning in natural resource management (NRM), it is still debated how learning supports sustainable real-world NRM practices. We offer a qualitative in-depth synthesis of selected scientific empirical literature (N = 53), which explores factors affecting action-oriented learning. We inductively identify eight key process-based and contextual factors discussed in this literature. Three patterns emerge from our results. First, the literature discusses both facilitated participation and self-organized collaboration as dialogical spaces, which bridge interests and support constructive conflict management. Second, the literature suggests practice-based dialogs as those best able to facilitate action and puts a strong emphasis on experimentation. Finally, not emphasized in existing reviews and syntheses, we found multiple evidence about certain contextual factors affecting learning, including social-ecological crises, complexity, and power structures. Our review also points at important knowledge gaps, which can be used to advance the current research agenda about learning and NRM

Learning for social-ecological change : a qualitative review of outcomes across empirical literature in natural resource management

Learning is considered as a promising mechanism to cope with rapid environmental change. The implications of learning for natural resource management (NRM) have not been explored in-depth and the evidence on the topic is scattered across multiple sources. We provide a qualitative review of types of learning outcomes and consider their manifestations in NRM across selected empirical literature. We conducted a systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature (N = 1,223) and a qualitative meta-synthesis of included articles, with an explicit focus on learning outcomes and NRM changes (N = 53). Besides social learning, we found several learning concepts used, including policy and transformative learning, and multiple links between learning and NRM reported. We observe that the development of skills, together with a system approach involving multi-level capacities, is decisive for implications of learning for NRM. Future reviews could systematically compare how primary research applies different learning concepts and discusses links between learning and NRM changes