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 Americ...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2018 |
| País: | Argentina |
| Institución: | Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria |
| Repositorio: | INTA Digital (INTA) |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:localhost:20.500.12123/6590 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617300141 http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/6590 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Servicios de los Ecosistemas Agroecosistemas Instituciones de Investigación Ecosystem Services Agroecosystems Research Institutions Servicios Ecosistémicos |
| id |
AR_2a38f0fa2b33a686ef41fca1c8ce6aa3 |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:localhost:20.500.12123/6590 |
| network_acronym_str |
AR |
| network_name_str |
Argentina |
| repository_id_str |
|
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
| title |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
| spellingShingle |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice Saarikoski, Heli Servicios de los Ecosistemas Agroecosistemas Instituciones de Investigación Ecosystem Services Agroecosystems Research Institutions Servicios Ecosistémicos |
| title_short |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
| title_full |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
| title_fullStr |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
| title_sort |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
| dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv |
Saarikoski, Heli Primmer, Eeva Saarela, Sanna-Riikka Antunes, Paula Baró, Francesc Berry, Pam Garcia Blanko, Gemma Gómez-Baggethun, Erik Carvalho, Lawrence Dick, Jan Dunford, Robert Hanzu, Mihail Harrison, Paula A. Izakovicova, Zita Kertész, Miklós Kopperoinen, Leena Köhler, Berit Langemeyer, Johannes Lapola, David Liquete, Camino Luque, Sandra Mederly, Peter Niemelä, Jari Palomo, Ignacio Martinez Pastur, Guillermo José Peri, Pablo Luis Preda, Elena Priess, Jörg A. Santos, Rui Ferreira Dos Schleyer, Christian Turkelboom, Francis Vadineanu, Angheluta Verheyden, Wim Vikström, Suvi Young, Juliette Aszalós, Réka |
| author |
Saarikoski, Heli |
| author_facet |
Saarikoski, Heli Primmer, Eeva Saarela, Sanna-Riikka Antunes, Paula Baró, Francesc Berry, Pam Garcia Blanko, Gemma Gómez-Baggethun, Erik Carvalho, Lawrence Dick, Jan Dunford, Robert Hanzu, Mihail Harrison, Paula A. Izakovicova, Zita Kertész, Miklós Kopperoinen, Leena Köhler, Berit Langemeyer, Johannes Lapola, David Liquete, Camino Luque, Sandra Mederly, Peter Niemelä, Jari Palomo, Ignacio Martinez Pastur, Guillermo José Peri, Pablo Luis Preda, Elena Priess, Jörg A. Santos, Rui Ferreira Dos Schleyer, Christian Turkelboom, Francis Vadineanu, Angheluta Verheyden, Wim Vikström, Suvi Young, Juliette Aszalós, Réka |
| author_role |
author |
| author2 |
Primmer, Eeva Saarela, Sanna-Riikka Antunes, Paula Baró, Francesc Berry, Pam Garcia Blanko, Gemma Gómez-Baggethun, Erik Carvalho, Lawrence Dick, Jan Dunford, Robert Hanzu, Mihail Harrison, Paula A. Izakovicova, Zita Kertész, Miklós Kopperoinen, Leena Köhler, Berit Langemeyer, Johannes Lapola, David Liquete, Camino Luque, Sandra Mederly, Peter Niemelä, Jari Palomo, Ignacio Martinez Pastur, Guillermo José Peri, Pablo Luis Preda, Elena Priess, Jörg A. Santos, Rui Ferreira Dos Schleyer, Christian Turkelboom, Francis Vadineanu, Angheluta Verheyden, Wim Vikström, Suvi Young, Juliette Aszalós, Réka |
| author2_role |
author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author |
| dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
Servicios de los Ecosistemas Agroecosistemas Instituciones de Investigación Ecosystem Services Agroecosystems Research Institutions Servicios Ecosistémicos |
| topic |
Servicios de los Ecosistemas Agroecosistemas Instituciones de Investigación Ecosystem Services Agroecosystems Research Institutions Servicios Ecosistémicos |
| description |
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. |
| publishDate |
2018 |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-02 2019-12-30T12:22:00Z 2019-12-30T12:22:00Z |
| dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo |
| format |
article |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617300141 http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/6590 2212-0416 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019 |
| url |
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617300141 http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/6590 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019 |
| identifier_str_mv |
2212-0416 |
| dc.language.none.fl_str_mv |
eng |
| language |
eng |
| dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| rights_invalid_str_mv |
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) |
| dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
| dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Elsevier |
| publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Elsevier |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Ecosystem Services 29, Part C : 579-598 (February 2018) reponame:INTA Digital (INTA) instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria |
| instname_str |
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria |
| reponame_str |
INTA Digital (INTA) |
| collection |
INTA Digital (INTA) |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
tripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.ar |
| _version_ |
1799197055485214720 |
| spelling |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practiceSaarikoski, HeliPrimmer, EevaSaarela, Sanna-RiikkaAntunes, PaulaBaró, FrancescBerry, PamGarcia Blanko, GemmaGómez-Baggethun, ErikCarvalho, LawrenceDick, JanDunford, RobertHanzu, MihailHarrison, Paula A.Izakovicova, ZitaKertész, MiklósKopperoinen, LeenaKöhler, BeritLangemeyer, JohannesLapola, DavidLiquete, CaminoLuque, SandraMederly, PeterNiemelä, JariPalomo, IgnacioMartinez Pastur, Guillermo JoséPeri, Pablo LuisPreda, ElenaPriess, Jörg A.Santos, Rui Ferreira DosSchleyer, ChristianTurkelboom, FrancisVadineanu, AnghelutaVerheyden, WimVikström, SuviYoung, JulietteAszalós, RékaServicios de los EcosistemasAgroecosistemasInstituciones de InvestigaciónEcosystem ServicesAgroecosystemsResearch InstitutionsServicios EcosistémicosThe 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.EEA Santa CruzFil: Saarikoski, Heli. Finnish Environment Institute; FinlandiaFil: Primmer, Eeva. Finnish Environment Institute; FinlandiaFil: Saarela, Sanna-Riikka. Finnish Environment Institute; FinlandiaFil: Antunes, Paula. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia. Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research; PortugalFil: Baró, Francesc. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology; España. Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute; EspañaFil: Berry, Pam. University of Oxford. Environmental Change Institute; Gran BretañaFil: Garcia Blanko, Gemma. Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation. Energy and Environment Division. Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia; EspañaFil: Gómez-Baggethun, Erik. Norwegian University of Life Sciences. Department of International Environment and Development Studies; Noruega. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA); NoruegaFil: Carvalho, Lawrence. Center for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran BretañaFil: Dick, Jan. Center for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran BretañaFil: Dunford, Robert. University of Oxford. Environmental Change Institute; Gran Bretaña. Lancaster Environment Centre. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran BretañaFil: Hanzu, Mihail. Romanian National Institute for Research and Development in Silviculture; RumaniaFil: Harrison, Paula A. Lancaster Environment Centre. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran BretañaFil: Izakovicova, Zita. Slovak Academy of Science. Institute of Landscape Ecology; EslovaquiaFil: Kertész, Miklós. Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Centre for Ecological Research. Institute of Ecology and Botany; HungríaFil: Kopperoinen, Leena. Finnish Environment Institute; FinlandiaFil: Köhler, Berit. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA); NoruegaFil: Langemeyer, Johannes. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology; España. Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute. Barcelona Lab for Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainability; EspañaFil: Lapola, David. Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Center for Meteorological and Climatic Studies Applied to Agriculture (CEPAGRI); BrasilFil: Liquete, Camino. Joint Research Centre (JRC). European Commission; ItaliaFil: Luque, Sandra. National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture; FranciaFil: Mederly, Peter. Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra. Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences; EslovaquiaFil: Niemelä, Jari. University of Helsinki. Department of Environmental Sciences; FinlandiaFil: Palomo, Ignacio. University of the Basque Country. Basque Centre for Climate Change; España.Fil: Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Cientificas; ArgentinaFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina. Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica; ArgentinaFil: Preda, Elena. University of Bucharest. Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability; RumaniaFil: Priess, Joerg A. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; AlemaniaFil: Santos, Rui Ferreira Dos. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia. Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research; PortugalFil: Schleyer, Christian. Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt. Institute of Social Ecology; Austria. University of Kassel. Section of International Agricultural Policy and Environmental Governance; AlemaniaFil: Turkelboom, Francis. Research Institute for Nature and Forest; BélgicaFil: Vadineanu, Angheluta. University of Bucharest. Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability; RumaniaFil: Verheyden, Wim. Research Institute for Nature and Forest; BélgicaFil: Vikström, Suvi. Finnish Environment Institute; FinlandiaFil: Young, Juliette. Center for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran BretañaFil: Aszalós, Réka. Institute of Ecology and Botany, MTA Centre for Ecological Research; HungríaElsevier2019-12-30T12:22:00Z2019-12-30T12:22:00Z2018-02info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617300141http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/65902212-0416https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019Ecosystem Services 29, Part C : 579-598 (February 2018)reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariaenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)2024-05-15T12:24:26Zoai:localhost:20.500.12123/6590instacron:INTAInstitucionalhttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/oai/requesttripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:l2024-05-15 12:24:27.42INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariafalse |
| score |
15,812429 |