To main content
Norsk
Publications

Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: results from 27 case studies

Academic article
Year of publication
2018
Journal
Ecosystem Services
External websites
Cristin
Doi
Arkiv
Involved from NIVA
Laurence Carvalho
Contributors
Jan Dick, Francis Turkelboom, Helen Woods, Irene Iniesta-Arandia, Eeva Primmer, Sanna-Riikka Saarela, Peter Bezak, Peter Mederly, Michael Leone, Wim Verheyden, Eszter Kelemen, Jennifer Hauck, Chris Andrews, Paula Antunes, Réka Aszalós, Francesc Baró, David Nicholas Barton, Pam Berry, Rob Bugter, Laurence Carvalho, Balint Czúcz, Rob Dunford, Gemma Garcia Blancos, Nicoleta Geamănăt, Relu Giucăt, Bruna Grizzetti, Zita Izakovičováv, Miklós l Kertész, Leena Kopperoinen, Johannes Langemeyer, David Montenegro Lapola, Camino Liquete, Sandra Luque, Guillermo Martinéz Pastur, Berta Martín-López, Raktima Mukhopadhyay, Jari Niemela, David Odee, Pablo Luis Peri, Patricia Pinho, Stefan Blumentrath, Claudia Fongar, Erik Gomez-Baggethun, Vegard Gundersen, Oscar Haavardsholm, Berit Köhler, Henrik Lindhjem, Megan Sara Nowell, Anders Often, Rasmus Reinvang, Graciela Rusch, Erik Stange

Summary

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.