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

Jan Dick, Francis Turkelboom, Helen Woods, Irene Iniesta-Arandia, Eeva Primmer, Sanna-Riikka Saarela, Peter Bezák, Peter Mederly, Michael Leone, Wim Verheyden, Eszter Kelemen, Jennifer Hauck, Chris Andrews, Paula Antunes, Réka Aszalós, Francesc Baró, David N. Barton, Pam Berry, Rob Bugter, Laurence Carvalho & 74 others Bálint Czúcz, Rob Dunford, Gemma Garcia Blanco, Nicoleta Geamănă, Relu Giucă, Bruna Grizzetti, Zita Izakovičová, Miklós Kertész, Leena Kopperoinen, Johannes Langemeyer, David Montenegro Lapola, Camino Liquete, Sandra Luque, Guillermo Martínez Pastur, Berta Martin-Lopez, Raktima Mukhopadhyay, Jari Niemela, David Odee, Pablo Luis Peri, Patricia Pinho, Gleiciani Bürger Patrício-Roberto, Elena Preda, Joerg Priess, Christine Röckmann, Rui Santos, Diana Silaghi, Ron Smith, Angheluţă Vădineanu, Jan Tjalling van der Wal, Ildikó Arany, Ovidiu Badea, Györgyi Bela, Emil Boros, Magdalena Bucur, Stefan Blumentrath, Marta Calvache, Esther Carmen, Pedro Clemente, João Fernandes, Diogo Ferraz, Claudia Fongar, Marina García-Llorente, Erik Gómez-Baggethun, Vegard Gundersen, Oscar Haavardsholm, Ágnes Kalóczkai, Thalma Khalalwe, Gabriella Kiss, Berit Köhler, Orsolya Lazányi, Eszter Lellei-Kovács, Rael Lichungu, Henrik Lindhjem, Charles Magare, Jyri Mustajoki, Charles Ndege, Megan Nowell, Sergi Nuss Girona, John Ochieng, Anders Often, Ignacio Palomo, György Pataki, Rasmus Reinvang, Graciela Rusch, Heli Saarikoski, Alison Smith, Emma Soy Massoni, Erik Stange, Nora Vågnes Traaholt, Ágnes Vári, Peter Verweij, Suvi Vikström, Vesa Yli-Pelkonen, Grazia Zulian

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

43 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)552-565
JournalEcosystem Services
Volume29
Issue numberpt. C
Early online date16 Oct 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2018

Fingerprint

operationalization
ecosystem service
ecosystem services
stakeholders
Ecosystem
stakeholder
planning
communication (human)
case studies
communication
landscape planning
democratization
science
participation
methodology
interaction
policy
Surveys and Questionnaires
management
knowledge

Cite this

Dick, J., Turkelboom, F., Woods, H., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Primmer, E., Saarela, S-R., ... Zulian, G. (2018). Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies. Ecosystem Services, 29(pt. C), 552-565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.015
Dick, Jan ; Turkelboom, Francis ; Woods, Helen ; Iniesta-Arandia, Irene ; Primmer, Eeva ; Saarela, Sanna-Riikka ; Bezák, Peter ; Mederly, Peter ; Leone, Michael ; Verheyden, Wim ; Kelemen, Eszter ; Hauck, Jennifer ; Andrews, Chris ; Antunes, Paula ; Aszalós, Réka ; Baró, Francesc ; Barton, David N. ; Berry, Pam ; Bugter, Rob ; Carvalho, Laurence ; Czúcz, Bálint ; Dunford, Rob ; Garcia Blanco, Gemma ; Geamănă, Nicoleta ; Giucă, Relu ; Grizzetti, Bruna ; Izakovičová, Zita ; Kertész, Miklós ; Kopperoinen, Leena ; Langemeyer, Johannes ; Montenegro Lapola, David ; Liquete, Camino ; Luque, Sandra ; Martínez Pastur, Guillermo ; Martin-Lopez, Berta ; Mukhopadhyay, Raktima ; Niemela, Jari ; Odee, David ; Peri, Pablo Luis ; Pinho, Patricia ; Patrício-Roberto, Gleiciani Bürger ; Preda, Elena ; Priess, Joerg ; Röckmann, Christine ; Santos, Rui ; Silaghi, Diana ; Smith, Ron ; Vădineanu, Angheluţă ; van der Wal, Jan Tjalling ; Arany, Ildikó ; Badea, Ovidiu ; Bela, Györgyi ; Boros, Emil ; Bucur, Magdalena ; Blumentrath, Stefan ; Calvache, Marta ; Carmen, Esther ; Clemente, Pedro ; Fernandes, João ; Ferraz, Diogo ; Fongar, Claudia ; García-Llorente, Marina ; Gómez-Baggethun, Erik ; Gundersen, Vegard ; Haavardsholm, Oscar ; Kalóczkai, Ágnes ; Khalalwe, Thalma ; Kiss, Gabriella ; Köhler, Berit ; Lazányi, Orsolya ; Lellei-Kovács, Eszter ; Lichungu, Rael ; Lindhjem, Henrik ; Magare, Charles ; Mustajoki, Jyri ; Ndege, Charles ; Nowell, Megan ; Nuss Girona, Sergi ; Ochieng, John ; Often, Anders ; Palomo, Ignacio ; Pataki, György ; Reinvang, Rasmus ; Rusch, Graciela ; Saarikoski, Heli ; Smith, Alison ; Soy Massoni, Emma ; Stange, Erik ; Vågnes Traaholt, Nora ; Vári, Ágnes ; Verweij, Peter ; Vikström, Suvi ; Yli-Pelkonen, Vesa ; Zulian, Grazia. / Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies. In: Ecosystem Services. 2018 ; Vol. 29, No. pt. C. pp. 552-565.
@article{12b9c69af63e4415836beeaa2141202f,
title = "Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Jan Dick and Francis Turkelboom and Helen Woods and Irene Iniesta-Arandia and Eeva Primmer and Sanna-Riikka Saarela and Peter Bez{\'a}k and Peter Mederly and Michael Leone and Wim Verheyden and Eszter Kelemen and Jennifer Hauck and Chris Andrews and Paula Antunes and R{\'e}ka Aszal{\'o}s and Francesc Bar{\'o} and Barton, {David N.} and Pam Berry and Rob Bugter and Laurence Carvalho and B{\'a}lint Cz{\'u}cz and Rob Dunford and {Garcia Blanco}, Gemma and Nicoleta Geamănă and Relu Giucă and Bruna Grizzetti and Zita Izakovičov{\'a} and Mikl{\'o}s Kert{\'e}sz and Leena Kopperoinen and Johannes Langemeyer and {Montenegro Lapola}, David and Camino Liquete and Sandra Luque and {Mart{\'i}nez Pastur}, Guillermo and Berta Martin-Lopez and Raktima Mukhopadhyay and Jari Niemela and David Odee and Peri, {Pablo Luis} and Patricia Pinho and Patr{\'i}cio-Roberto, {Gleiciani B{\"u}rger} and Elena Preda and Joerg Priess and Christine R{\"o}ckmann and Rui Santos and Diana Silaghi and Ron Smith and Angheluţă Vădineanu and {van der Wal}, {Jan Tjalling} and Ildik{\'o} Arany and Ovidiu Badea and Gy{\"o}rgyi Bela and Emil Boros and Magdalena Bucur and Stefan Blumentrath and Marta Calvache and Esther Carmen and Pedro Clemente and Jo{\~a}o Fernandes and Diogo Ferraz and Claudia Fongar and Marina Garc{\'i}a-Llorente and Erik G{\'o}mez-Baggethun and Vegard Gundersen and Oscar Haavardsholm and {\'A}gnes Kal{\'o}czkai and Thalma Khalalwe and Gabriella Kiss and Berit K{\"o}hler and Orsolya Laz{\'a}nyi and Eszter Lellei-Kov{\'a}cs and Rael Lichungu and Henrik Lindhjem and Charles Magare and Jyri Mustajoki and Charles Ndege and Megan Nowell and {Nuss Girona}, Sergi and John Ochieng and Anders Often and Ignacio Palomo and Gy{\"o}rgy Pataki and Rasmus Reinvang and Graciela Rusch and Heli Saarikoski and Alison Smith and {Soy Massoni}, Emma and Erik Stange and {V{\aa}gnes Traaholt}, Nora and {\'A}gnes V{\'a}ri and Peter Verweij and Suvi Vikstr{\"o}m and Vesa Yli-Pelkonen and Grazia Zulian",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.015",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "552--565",
journal = "Ecosystem Services",
issn = "2212-0416",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "pt. C",

}

Dick, J, Turkelboom, F, Woods, H, Iniesta-Arandia, I, Primmer, E, Saarela, S-R, Bezák, P, Mederly, P, Leone, M, Verheyden, W, Kelemen, E, Hauck, J, Andrews, C, Antunes, P, Aszalós, R, Baró, F, Barton, DN, Berry, P, Bugter, R, Carvalho, L, Czúcz, B, Dunford, R, Garcia Blanco, G, Geamănă, N, Giucă, R, Grizzetti, B, Izakovičová, Z, Kertész, M, Kopperoinen, L, Langemeyer, J, Montenegro Lapola, D, Liquete, C, Luque, S, Martínez Pastur, G, Martin-Lopez, B, Mukhopadhyay, R, Niemela, J, Odee, D, Peri, PL, Pinho, P, Patrício-Roberto, GB, Preda, E, Priess, J, Röckmann, C, Santos, R, Silaghi, D, Smith, R, Vădineanu, A, van der Wal, JT, Arany, I, Badea, O, Bela, G, Boros, E, Bucur, M, Blumentrath, S, Calvache, M, Carmen, E, Clemente, P, Fernandes, J, Ferraz, D, Fongar, C, García-Llorente, M, Gómez-Baggethun, E, Gundersen, V, Haavardsholm, O, Kalóczkai, Á, Khalalwe, T, Kiss, G, Köhler, B, Lazányi, O, Lellei-Kovács, E, Lichungu, R, Lindhjem, H, Magare, C, Mustajoki, J, Ndege, C, Nowell, M, Nuss Girona, S, Ochieng, J, Often, A, Palomo, I, Pataki, G, Reinvang, R, Rusch, G, Saarikoski, H, Smith, A, Soy Massoni, E, Stange, E, Vågnes Traaholt, N, Vári, Á, Verweij, P, Vikström, S, Yli-Pelkonen, V & Zulian, G 2018, 'Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies', Ecosystem Services, vol. 29, no. pt. C, pp. 552-565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.015

Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies. / Dick, Jan; Turkelboom, Francis; Woods, Helen; Iniesta-Arandia, Irene; Primmer, Eeva; Saarela, Sanna-Riikka; Bezák, Peter; Mederly, Peter; Leone, Michael; Verheyden, Wim; Kelemen, Eszter; Hauck, Jennifer; Andrews, Chris; Antunes, Paula; Aszalós, Réka; Baró, Francesc; Barton, David N.; Berry, Pam; Bugter, Rob; Carvalho, Laurence; Czúcz, Bálint; Dunford, Rob; Garcia Blanco, Gemma; Geamănă, Nicoleta; Giucă, Relu; Grizzetti, Bruna; Izakovičová, Zita; Kertész, Miklós; Kopperoinen, Leena; Langemeyer, Johannes; Montenegro Lapola, David; Liquete, Camino; Luque, Sandra; Martínez Pastur, Guillermo; Martin-Lopez, Berta; Mukhopadhyay, Raktima; Niemela, Jari; Odee, David; Peri, Pablo Luis; Pinho, Patricia; Patrício-Roberto, Gleiciani Bürger; Preda, Elena; Priess, Joerg; Röckmann, Christine; Santos, Rui; Silaghi, Diana; Smith, Ron; Vădineanu, Angheluţă; van der Wal, Jan Tjalling; Arany, Ildikó; Badea, Ovidiu; Bela, Györgyi; Boros, Emil; Bucur, Magdalena; Blumentrath, Stefan; Calvache, Marta; Carmen, Esther; Clemente, Pedro; Fernandes, João; Ferraz, Diogo; Fongar, Claudia; García-Llorente, Marina; Gómez-Baggethun, Erik; Gundersen, Vegard; Haavardsholm, Oscar; Kalóczkai, Ágnes; Khalalwe, Thalma; Kiss, Gabriella; Köhler, Berit; Lazányi, Orsolya; Lellei-Kovács, Eszter; Lichungu, Rael; Lindhjem, Henrik; Magare, Charles; Mustajoki, Jyri; Ndege, Charles; Nowell, Megan; Nuss Girona, Sergi; Ochieng, John; Often, Anders; Palomo, Ignacio; Pataki, György; Reinvang, Rasmus; Rusch, Graciela; Saarikoski, Heli; Smith, Alison; Soy Massoni, Emma; Stange, Erik; Vågnes Traaholt, Nora; Vári, Ágnes; Verweij, Peter; Vikström, Suvi; Yli-Pelkonen, Vesa; Zulian, Grazia.

In: Ecosystem Services, Vol. 29, No. pt. C, 02.2018, p. 552-565.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies

AU - Dick, Jan

AU - Turkelboom, Francis

AU - Woods, Helen

AU - Iniesta-Arandia, Irene

AU - Primmer, Eeva

AU - Saarela, Sanna-Riikka

AU - Bezák, Peter

AU - Mederly, Peter

AU - Leone, Michael

AU - Verheyden, Wim

AU - Kelemen, Eszter

AU - Hauck, Jennifer

AU - Andrews, Chris

AU - Antunes, Paula

AU - Aszalós, Réka

AU - Baró, Francesc

AU - Barton, David N.

AU - Berry, Pam

AU - Bugter, Rob

AU - Carvalho, Laurence

AU - Czúcz, Bálint

AU - Dunford, Rob

AU - Garcia Blanco, Gemma

AU - Geamănă, Nicoleta

AU - Giucă, Relu

AU - Grizzetti, Bruna

AU - Izakovičová, Zita

AU - Kertész, Miklós

AU - Kopperoinen, Leena

AU - Langemeyer, Johannes

AU - Montenegro Lapola, David

AU - Liquete, Camino

AU - Luque, Sandra

AU - Martínez Pastur, Guillermo

AU - Martin-Lopez, Berta

AU - Mukhopadhyay, Raktima

AU - Niemela, Jari

AU - Odee, David

AU - Peri, Pablo Luis

AU - Pinho, Patricia

AU - Patrício-Roberto, Gleiciani Bürger

AU - Preda, Elena

AU - Priess, Joerg

AU - Röckmann, Christine

AU - Santos, Rui

AU - Silaghi, Diana

AU - Smith, Ron

AU - Vădineanu, Angheluţă

AU - van der Wal, Jan Tjalling

AU - Arany, Ildikó

AU - Badea, Ovidiu

AU - Bela, Györgyi

AU - Boros, Emil

AU - Bucur, Magdalena

AU - Blumentrath, Stefan

AU - Calvache, Marta

AU - Carmen, Esther

AU - Clemente, Pedro

AU - Fernandes, João

AU - Ferraz, Diogo

AU - Fongar, Claudia

AU - García-Llorente, Marina

AU - Gómez-Baggethun, Erik

AU - Gundersen, Vegard

AU - Haavardsholm, Oscar

AU - Kalóczkai, Ágnes

AU - Khalalwe, Thalma

AU - Kiss, Gabriella

AU - Köhler, Berit

AU - Lazányi, Orsolya

AU - Lellei-Kovács, Eszter

AU - Lichungu, Rael

AU - Lindhjem, Henrik

AU - Magare, Charles

AU - Mustajoki, Jyri

AU - Ndege, Charles

AU - Nowell, Megan

AU - Nuss Girona, Sergi

AU - Ochieng, John

AU - Often, Anders

AU - Palomo, Ignacio

AU - Pataki, György

AU - Reinvang, Rasmus

AU - Rusch, Graciela

AU - Saarikoski, Heli

AU - Smith, Alison

AU - Soy Massoni, Emma

AU - Stange, Erik

AU - Vågnes Traaholt, Nora

AU - Vári, Ágnes

AU - Verweij, Peter

AU - Vikström, Suvi

AU - Yli-Pelkonen, Vesa

AU - Zulian, Grazia

PY - 2018/2

Y1 - 2018/2

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.015

DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.015

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 552

EP - 565

JO - Ecosystem Services

JF - Ecosystem Services

SN - 2212-0416

IS - pt. C

ER -