Process matters: a framework for conducting decision-relevant assessments of ecosystem services

Rosenthal, Amy; Verutes, Gregory; McKenzie, Emily; Arkema, Katie K.; Bhagabati, Nirmal; Bremer, Leah L.; Olwero, Nasser; Vogl, Adrian L.

doi:10.1080/21513732.2014.966149

Cited by 89 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…"Salience" refers to the relevance of scientific knowledge to the needs of decisionmakers; "credibility" comes from scientific and technical arguments being trustworthy and expert-based; and "legitimacy" refers to knowledge that is produced in an unbiased way and that fairly considers stakeholders' different points of view. Their framework has inspired researchers to investigate these three attributes and how they affect decision-makers using knowledge (17-21).Others focus on process rather than content of environmental management and policy (22)(23)(24)(25). They describe the importance of joint fact-finding and iterative engagement among scientists and policymakers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge

Posner

McKenzie

Ricketts

2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

217

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research about ecosystem services (ES) often aims to generate knowledge that influences policies and institutions for conservation and human development. However, we have limited understanding of how decision-makers use ES knowledge or what factors facilitate use. Here we address this gap and report on, to our knowledge, the first quantitative analysis of the factors and conditions that explain the policy impact of ES knowledge. We analyze a global sample of cases where similar ES knowledge was generated and applied to decision-making. We first test whether attributes of ES knowledge themselves predict different measures of impact on decisions. We find that legitimacy of knowledge is more often associated with impact than either the credibility or salience of the knowledge. We also examine whether predictor variables related to the science-to-policy process and the contextual conditions of a case are significant in predicting impact. Our findings indicate that, although many factors are important, attributes of the knowledge and aspects of the science-to-policy process that enhance legitimacy best explain the impact of ES science on decision-making. Our results are consistent with both theory and previous qualitative assessments in suggesting that the attributes and perceptions of scientific knowledge and process within which knowledge is coproduced are important determinants of whether that knowledge leads to action. ecosystem services | science policy interface | conservation | knowledge systems | boundary organizations T he ongoing loss of biological diversity and persistence of poverty have sparked interest in policies that protect, restore, and enhance ecosystem services (ES). In response, there has been a growth in ES research that aims to inform policies, incentives, and institutions on a large scale (1-3). Despite this goal, scientific knowledge about ES continues to have limited impact on policy and decisions (1, 4-7).The fact that most land-and resource-use policy decisions still do not take ES into account stems in part from an ineffective interface between ES science and policy, a need for scientists to better understand decision-making processes, and challenges in clarifying conflicting stakeholder values (8-11). In some cases, the science-policy interface is an important aspect of decisionmaking, but often the ES research and policy communities are disconnected from one another, with limited interactions, infrequent exchanges of information, and different objectives that hinder coordinated science and policy processes (12). Many scientists conduct ES research without fully considering how the knowledge they are producing might be used (5). If we want ES information to be incorporated into decisions, then we need to understand how and why decision-makers use certain kinds of information. We define "information" as a tangible, factual output of scientific research produced through specific ES analyses; "knowledge" as a body of information learned and conveyed through scientific and policy processes; ...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Others focus on process rather than content of environmental management and policy (22)(23)(24)(25). They describe the importance of joint fact-finding and iterative engagement among scientists and policymakers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge

Posner

McKenzie

Ricketts

2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

217

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…creating woodland and wetlands as part of a funding proposal. There are several reported methods for conducting ecosystem service assessments which all essentially follow the same principles; for example Rosenthal et al (2015) proposed an iterative stakeholder engagement framework to build capacity in ecosystem service assessment through six general steps. We followed their framework and carried out step one i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…collect and compile data was undertaken prior to the day of the workshop and focused primarily on land cover maps, elevation maps, topographical wetness, accessibility management units of the area, and analysis of the Glenlivet Estate forestry plans. Rosenthal et al (2015) propose that the third step is to develop scenarios; this step was undertaken by the stakeholders at the workshop creating rules within the QUICKScan tool and discussing the linkages between the biophysical and social components of the ecosystem service cascade framework. The forth step 'analyse ecosystem services' was accomplished by both tools i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…discussion of ecosystem service identified in the cascade framework and the outcomes of the QUICKScan scenarios. The synthesis of results, and communication of resulting knowledge (Rosenthal et al 2015; fifth and six steps) were delivered to the stakeholders at the workshop in the articulation of the ecosystem service cascade framework (unchanged by discussion from initial presentation; Figure 2) and the output of the QUICKScan tool. It was agreed that the testing conducted at the workshop should be framed in an academic setting rather than attempt to genuinely select areas of Glenlivet Estate for new woodland or wetland creation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Testing the ecosystem service cascade framework and QUICKScan software tool in the context of land use planning in Glenlivet Estate Scotland

Dick

Verweij

Carmen

et al. 2017

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Servic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of ecosystem services has been extensively studied in recent decades. Most studies have focused on describing the specific aspects such as production, spatial extent, valuation of services and the trade-off between services. Few studies however assess the practitioners' views on the frameworks, models or tools developed. In this paper, we report on a multi-stakeholder workshop where two tools were tested (i) the ecosystem service cascade framework was tested as a means to frame the issues and (ii) a participatory-spatial modelling method, QUICKScan, was tested as an aid to support discussion over natural resource management and planning in a multi-use landscape. A focused group discussion was utilised to determine stakeholders' views of the cascade framework and pre-and postworkshop questionnaires quantified the stakeholders' views of the QUICKScan method. The stakeholders identified both positive and negative aspects of both tools. The diversity of views expressed were associated with (i) the past experience of the individual with the issues discussed, (ii) the technical aspects of the tools i.e. the ability with GIS and (iii) the level of new shared knowledge they reported acquiring on the day which was related to their initial knowledge of the issue and area studied. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Mapping Ecosystem Services to Human Well‐being: a toolkit to support integrated landscape management for the SDGs

Johnson

Jones

Wood

et al. 2019

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) emphasize the global and multidimensional nature of sustainability and thus require improving our capacity to articulate and trace the impact of ecosystem change to measures of human well-being. Yet, the integrated nature of these goals is challenging to assess without similarly integrated assessment tools. We present a new modeling toolkit, "Mapping Ecosystem Services to Human well-being" (MESH), that integrates commonly used, stand-alone ecosystem services (ES) models from the InVEST suite of models to quantify and illustrate the trade-offs and synergies across five ecosystem services and up to 10 associated SDGs. Development of the software and its functionality were informed by a broad stakeholder consultation with ministries, non-governmental organizations and civil society groups in West Africa to identify common barriers to uptake and application of modeling tools in developing countries. In light of this process, key features included in MESH are (1) integration of multiple ecosystem service (ES) models into a common modeling framework supported by a curated base data set, (2) built-in scenario generation capacity to support policy analysis, (3) visualization of outcomes and trade-offs, and (4) mapping of ecosystem service change to SDG targets and goals. We illustrate the use of MESH in a case study in the Volta basin of West Africa comparing the effectiveness of three alternative conservation prioritization approaches: (1) land cover-based, (2) topographic-based, and (3) an ecosystem service-based approach to minimize the impact of agricultural expansion. We evaluate these approaches by linking changes in service supply to potential impacts on achievement of specific SDG goals and targets.

show abstract

Process matters: a framework for conducting decision-relevant assessments of ecosystem services

Cited by 89 publications

References 34 publications

Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge

Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge

Testing the ecosystem service cascade framework and QUICKScan software tool in the context of land use planning in Glenlivet Estate Scotland

Mapping Ecosystem Services to Human Well‐being: a toolkit to support integrated landscape management for the SDGs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About