(Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support

D.N. Barton, E. Kelemen, J. Dick, B. Martin-Lopez, E. Gómez-Baggethun, S. Jacobs, C.M.A. Hendriks, M. Termansen, M. García- Llorente, E. Primmer, R. Dunford, P.A. Harrison, F. Turkelboom, H. Saarikoski, J. Van Dijk, G.M. Rusch, I. Palomo, V.J. Yli-Pelkonen, L. Carvalho, F. Baró & 17 others J. Langemeyer, J. Tjalling Van Der Wal, P. Mederly, J.A. Priess, S. Luque, P. Berry, R. Santos, D. Odee, G. Martines Pastur, G. García Blanco, S.R. Saarela, D. Silaghi, G. Pataki, F. Masi, A. Vădineanu, R. Mukhopadhyay, D.M. Lapola

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The operational challenges of integrated ecosystem service (ES) appraisals are determined by study purpose, system complexity and uncertainty, decision-makers’ requirements for reliability and accuracy of methods, and approaches to stakeholder–science interaction in different decision contexts. To explore these factors we defined an information gap hypothesis, based on a theory of cumulative uncertainty in ES appraisals. When decision context requirements for accuracy and reliability increase, and the expected uncertainty of the ES appraisal methods also increases, the likelihood of methods being used is expected to drop, creating a potential information gap in governance. In order to test this information gap hypothesis, we evaluate 26 case studies and 80 ecosystem services appraisals in a large integrated EU research project. We find some support for a decreasing likelihood of ES appraisal methods coinciding with increasing accuracy and reliability requirements of the decision-support context, and with increasing uncertainty. We do not find that information costs are the explanation for this information gap, but rather that the research project interacted mostly with stakeholders outside the most decision-relevant contexts. The paper discusses how alternative definitions of integrated valuation can lead to different interpretations of decision-support information, and different governance approaches to dealing with uncertainty.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)529-541
JournalEcosystem Services
Volume29
Issue numberpt. C
Early online dateDec 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2018

Fingerprint

governance
valuation
economic valuation
ecosystem service
ecosystem services
Uncertainty
Ecosystem
uncertainty
research projects
research project
governance approach
Research
methodology
stakeholders
appraisal
decision
decision maker
stakeholder
Costs and Cost Analysis
EU

Keywords

  • Integrated valuation
  • Ecosystem service appraisal
  • Ecosystem service governance
  • Information costs
  • Uncertainty
  • Valuation
  • Ecosystem services cascade

Cite this

Barton, D. N., Kelemen, E., Dick, J., Martin-Lopez, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Jacobs, S., ... Lapola, D. M. (2018). (Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support. Ecosystem Services, 29(pt. C), 529-541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021
Barton, D.N. ; Kelemen, E. ; Dick, J. ; Martin-Lopez, B. ; Gómez-Baggethun, E. ; Jacobs, S. ; Hendriks, C.M.A. ; Termansen, M. ; García- Llorente, M. ; Primmer, E. ; Dunford, R. ; Harrison, P.A. ; Turkelboom, F. ; Saarikoski, H. ; Van Dijk, J. ; Rusch, G.M. ; Palomo, I. ; Yli-Pelkonen, V.J. ; Carvalho, L. ; Baró, F. ; Langemeyer, J. ; Tjalling Van Der Wal, J. ; Mederly, P. ; Priess, J.A. ; Luque, S. ; Berry, P. ; Santos, R. ; Odee, D. ; Martines Pastur, G. ; García Blanco, G. ; Saarela, S.R. ; Silaghi, D. ; Pataki, G. ; Masi, F. ; Vădineanu, A. ; Mukhopadhyay, R. ; Lapola, D.M. / (Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support. In: Ecosystem Services. 2018 ; Vol. 29, No. pt. C. pp. 529-541.
@article{d9ca6dfdf8ea428fa6cea61f3509f04d,
title = "(Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support",
abstract = "The operational challenges of integrated ecosystem service (ES) appraisals are determined by study purpose, system complexity and uncertainty, decision-makers’ requirements for reliability and accuracy of methods, and approaches to stakeholder–science interaction in different decision contexts. To explore these factors we defined an information gap hypothesis, based on a theory of cumulative uncertainty in ES appraisals. When decision context requirements for accuracy and reliability increase, and the expected uncertainty of the ES appraisal methods also increases, the likelihood of methods being used is expected to drop, creating a potential information gap in governance. In order to test this information gap hypothesis, we evaluate 26 case studies and 80 ecosystem services appraisals in a large integrated EU research project. We find some support for a decreasing likelihood of ES appraisal methods coinciding with increasing accuracy and reliability requirements of the decision-support context, and with increasing uncertainty. We do not find that information costs are the explanation for this information gap, but rather that the research project interacted mostly with stakeholders outside the most decision-relevant contexts. The paper discusses how alternative definitions of integrated valuation can lead to different interpretations of decision-support information, and different governance approaches to dealing with uncertainty.",
keywords = "Integrated valuation, Ecosystem service appraisal, Ecosystem service governance, Information costs, Uncertainty, Valuation, Ecosystem services cascade",
author = "D.N. Barton and E. Kelemen and J. Dick and B. Martin-Lopez and E. G{\'o}mez-Baggethun and S. Jacobs and C.M.A. Hendriks and M. Termansen and {Garc{\'i}a- Llorente}, M. and E. Primmer and R. Dunford and P.A. Harrison and F. Turkelboom and H. Saarikoski and {Van Dijk}, J. and G.M. Rusch and I. Palomo and V.J. Yli-Pelkonen and L. Carvalho and F. Bar{\'o} and J. Langemeyer and {Tjalling Van Der Wal}, J. and P. Mederly and J.A. Priess and S. Luque and P. Berry and R. Santos and D. Odee and {Martines Pastur}, G. and {Garc{\'i}a Blanco}, G. and S.R. Saarela and D. Silaghi and G. Pataki and F. Masi and A. Vădineanu and R. Mukhopadhyay and D.M. Lapola",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "529--541",
journal = "Ecosystem Services",
issn = "2212-0416",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "pt. C",

}

Barton, DN, Kelemen, E, Dick, J, Martin-Lopez, B, Gómez-Baggethun, E, Jacobs, S, Hendriks, CMA, Termansen, M, García- Llorente, M, Primmer, E, Dunford, R, Harrison, PA, Turkelboom, F, Saarikoski, H, Van Dijk, J, Rusch, GM, Palomo, I, Yli-Pelkonen, VJ, Carvalho, L, Baró, F, Langemeyer, J, Tjalling Van Der Wal, J, Mederly, P, Priess, JA, Luque, S, Berry, P, Santos, R, Odee, D, Martines Pastur, G, García Blanco, G, Saarela, SR, Silaghi, D, Pataki, G, Masi, F, Vădineanu, A, Mukhopadhyay, R & Lapola, DM 2018, '(Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support', Ecosystem Services, vol. 29, no. pt. C, pp. 529-541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021

(Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support. / Barton, D.N.; Kelemen, E.; Dick, J.; Martin-Lopez, B.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Jacobs, S.; Hendriks, C.M.A.; Termansen, M.; García- Llorente, M.; Primmer, E.; Dunford, R.; Harrison, P.A.; Turkelboom, F.; Saarikoski, H.; Van Dijk, J.; Rusch, G.M.; Palomo, I.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.J.; Carvalho, L.; Baró, F.; Langemeyer, J.; Tjalling Van Der Wal, J.; Mederly, P.; Priess, J.A.; Luque, S.; Berry, P.; Santos, R.; Odee, D.; Martines Pastur, G.; García Blanco, G.; Saarela, S.R.; Silaghi, D.; Pataki, G.; Masi, F.; Vădineanu, A.; Mukhopadhyay, R.; Lapola, D.M.

In: Ecosystem Services, Vol. 29, No. pt. C, 02.2018, p. 529-541.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - (Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support

AU - Barton, D.N.

AU - Kelemen, E.

AU - Dick, J.

AU - Martin-Lopez, B.

AU - Gómez-Baggethun, E.

AU - Jacobs, S.

AU - Hendriks, C.M.A.

AU - Termansen, M.

AU - García- Llorente, M.

AU - Primmer, E.

AU - Dunford, R.

AU - Harrison, P.A.

AU - Turkelboom, F.

AU - Saarikoski, H.

AU - Van Dijk, J.

AU - Rusch, G.M.

AU - Palomo, I.

AU - Yli-Pelkonen, V.J.

AU - Carvalho, L.

AU - Baró, F.

AU - Langemeyer, J.

AU - Tjalling Van Der Wal, J.

AU - Mederly, P.

AU - Priess, J.A.

AU - Luque, S.

AU - Berry, P.

AU - Santos, R.

AU - Odee, D.

AU - Martines Pastur, G.

AU - García Blanco, G.

AU - Saarela, S.R.

AU - Silaghi, D.

AU - Pataki, G.

AU - Masi, F.

AU - Vădineanu, A.

AU - Mukhopadhyay, R.

AU - Lapola, D.M.

PY - 2018/2

Y1 - 2018/2

N2 - The operational challenges of integrated ecosystem service (ES) appraisals are determined by study purpose, system complexity and uncertainty, decision-makers’ requirements for reliability and accuracy of methods, and approaches to stakeholder–science interaction in different decision contexts. To explore these factors we defined an information gap hypothesis, based on a theory of cumulative uncertainty in ES appraisals. When decision context requirements for accuracy and reliability increase, and the expected uncertainty of the ES appraisal methods also increases, the likelihood of methods being used is expected to drop, creating a potential information gap in governance. In order to test this information gap hypothesis, we evaluate 26 case studies and 80 ecosystem services appraisals in a large integrated EU research project. We find some support for a decreasing likelihood of ES appraisal methods coinciding with increasing accuracy and reliability requirements of the decision-support context, and with increasing uncertainty. We do not find that information costs are the explanation for this information gap, but rather that the research project interacted mostly with stakeholders outside the most decision-relevant contexts. The paper discusses how alternative definitions of integrated valuation can lead to different interpretations of decision-support information, and different governance approaches to dealing with uncertainty.

AB - The operational challenges of integrated ecosystem service (ES) appraisals are determined by study purpose, system complexity and uncertainty, decision-makers’ requirements for reliability and accuracy of methods, and approaches to stakeholder–science interaction in different decision contexts. To explore these factors we defined an information gap hypothesis, based on a theory of cumulative uncertainty in ES appraisals. When decision context requirements for accuracy and reliability increase, and the expected uncertainty of the ES appraisal methods also increases, the likelihood of methods being used is expected to drop, creating a potential information gap in governance. In order to test this information gap hypothesis, we evaluate 26 case studies and 80 ecosystem services appraisals in a large integrated EU research project. We find some support for a decreasing likelihood of ES appraisal methods coinciding with increasing accuracy and reliability requirements of the decision-support context, and with increasing uncertainty. We do not find that information costs are the explanation for this information gap, but rather that the research project interacted mostly with stakeholders outside the most decision-relevant contexts. The paper discusses how alternative definitions of integrated valuation can lead to different interpretations of decision-support information, and different governance approaches to dealing with uncertainty.

KW - Integrated valuation

KW - Ecosystem service appraisal

KW - Ecosystem service governance

KW - Information costs

KW - Uncertainty

KW - Valuation

KW - Ecosystem services cascade

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021

DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 529

EP - 541

JO - Ecosystem Services

JF - Ecosystem Services

SN - 2212-0416

IS - pt. C

ER -