Handling a messy world: Lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational

The concept of ecosystem services is widely used in the scientific literature and increasingly also in policy and practice. Nevertheless, operationalising the concept, i.e. putting it into practice, is still a challenge. We describe the approach of the EU-project OpenNESS (Operationalisation of Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital), which was created in response to this challenge to critically evaluate the concept when applied to real world problems at different scales and in different policy sectors. General requirements for operationalization, the relevance of conceptual frameworks and lessons learnt from 27 case study applications are synthesized in a set of guiding principles. We also briefly describe some integrative tools as developed in OpenNESS which support the implementation of the principles. The guiding principles are grouped under three major headlines: “Defining the problem and opening up the problem space†, “Considering ethical issues†and “Assessing alternative methods, tools and actions†. Real world problems are often “wicked†problems, which at first are seldom clear-cut and well-defined, but often rather complex and subject to differing interpretations and interests. We take account of that complexity and emphasise that there is not one simple and straightforward way to approach real world problems involving ecosystem services. The principles and tools presented are meant to provide some guidance for tackling this complexity by means of a transdisciplinary methodology that facilitates the operationalisation of the ecosystem services concept.

[1]  G. Daily,et al.  Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions , 2015 .

[2]  Wim J. van der Steen Concepts in biology: A survey of practical methodological principles , 1990 .

[3]  David W. Cash,et al.  Knowledge systems for sustainable development , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  M. Davidson On the relation between ecosystem services, intrinsic value, existence value and economic valuation , 2013 .

[5]  M. Hajer Doing Discourse Analysis: Coalitions, Practices, Meaning , 2006 .

[6]  D. Noonan,et al.  Ecology and Valuation: Big Changes Needed , 2007 .

[7]  David N. Barton,et al.  Operationalising ecosystem services: advancing knowledge on natural and cultural capital , 2018 .

[8]  Brendon M. H. Larson,et al.  Metaphors for Environmental Sustainability: Redefining Our Relationship with Nature , 2011 .

[9]  C. Görg,et al.  Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: Some stakeholder perspectives , 2013 .

[10]  M. S. Reed,et al.  Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in environmental management. , 2014, Journal of environmental management.

[11]  Teresa Garnatje,et al.  From famine foods to delicatessen: Interpreting trends in the use of wild edible plants through cultural ecosystem services , 2015 .

[12]  Peter Verweij,et al.  Maximising the value of research on ecosystem services: Knowledge integration and guidance tools mediating the science, policy and practice interfaces , 2017 .

[13]  R. Scholes,et al.  Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends , 2005 .

[14]  Grace B. Villamor,et al.  Ecosystem services for connecting actors – lessons from a symposium , 2015 .

[15]  Jennifer Hauck,et al.  The means determine the end – Pursuing integrated valuation in practice , 2017 .

[16]  H. Nelson,et al.  Ecosystem Services and Beyond: Using Multiple Metaphors to Understand Human-Environment Relationships , 2013 .

[17]  Richard Stone After the Tsunami: A Scientist's Dilemma , 2006, Science.

[18]  J. Farley,et al.  Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win‐win solutions , 2013 .

[19]  Anders L. Madsen,et al.  Operationalising ecosystem service assessment in Bayesian Belief Networks: experiences within the OpenNESS project , 2017 .

[20]  Jennifer Hauck,et al.  Opportunities and challenges for mainstreaming the ecosystem services concept in the multi-level policy-making within the EU , 2015 .

[21]  Heli Saarikoski,et al.  Editorial: Operationalisation of natural capital and ecosystem services – Special issue , 2017 .

[22]  Peter Verweij,et al.  Testing the ecosystem service cascade framework and QUICKScan software tool in the context of land use planning in Glenlivet Estate Scotland , 2017 .

[23]  A. Muhar,et al.  The Ecosystem Services Concept: Gaps between Science and Practice in River Landscape Management , 2015 .

[24]  Teppo Hujala,et al.  The use of knowledge in evidence-informed voluntary conservation of Finnish forests , 2016 .

[25]  G. Luck,et al.  Ethical Considerations in On-Ground Applications of the Ecosystem Services Concept , 2012 .

[26]  E. Gómez‐Baggethun,et al.  Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning , 2013 .

[27]  Ulrich Heink,et al.  Searching for the place of biodiversity in the ecosystem services discourse , 2015 .

[28]  Jennifer Hauck,et al.  Transdisciplinary Enrichment of a Linear Research Process: Experiences Gathered from a Research Project Supporting the European Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 , 2014 .

[29]  Joachim H. Spangenberg,et al.  Provision of ecosystem services is determined by human agency, not ecosystem functions. Four case studies , 2014 .

[30]  R. Haines-Young,et al.  Ecosystem Services : Exploring a Geographical Perspective , 2022 .

[31]  E. Primmer,et al.  Governance of Ecosystem Services: A framework for empirical analysis , 2015 .

[32]  Davide Geneletti,et al.  A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions , 2016 .

[33]  Eeva Primmer,et al.  Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: Do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems? , 2012 .

[34]  Berta Martín-López,et al.  An interdisciplinary methodological guide for quantifying associations between ecosystem services , 2014 .

[35]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science , 1994 .

[36]  Felix Müller,et al.  Do you have 5 minutes to spare? -The challenges of stakeholder processes in ecosystem services studies , 2014 .

[37]  Unai Pascual,et al.  Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations , 2016 .

[38]  Ralf Seppelt,et al.  Assessing ecosystem services for informing land-use decisions: a problem-oriented approach , 2015 .

[39]  P. Harrison,et al.  Exploring operational ecosystem service definitions: The case of boreal forests , 2015 .

[40]  H. Rittel,et al.  Dilemmas in a general theory of planning , 1973 .

[41]  Unai Pascual,et al.  Social Equity Matters in Payments for Ecosystem Services , 2014 .

[42]  Christina von Haaren,et al.  Integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: limitations and synergies , 2011 .

[43]  W. Jann,et al.  4 Theories of the Policy Cycle , 2007 .

[44]  Johannes Langemeyer,et al.  Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain: Insights for policy and planning , 2016 .

[45]  R. Rozzi,et al.  Earth Stewardship and the Biocultural Ethic: Latin American Perspectives , 2015 .

[46]  Mike Hulme,et al.  Framing global biodiversity: IPBES between Mother Earth and ecosystem services , 2015 .

[47]  Carlos Montes,et al.  What can conservation strategies learn from the ecosystem services approach? Insights from ecosystem assessments in two Spanish protected areas , 2018, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[48]  J. Terradas,et al.  Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality and Climate Change Mitigation Policies: The Case of Urban Forests in Barcelona, Spain , 2014, AMBIO.

[49]  M. Schnegg,et al.  Culture, Nature, and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Northern Namibia , 2014 .

[50]  Carlos Montes,et al.  Scale Misfit in Ecosystem Service Governance as a Source of Environmental Conflict , 2013 .

[51]  Adrienne Grêt-Regamey,et al.  Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem services concept , 2017 .

[52]  N Voulvoulis,et al.  The potential of using the Ecosystem Approach in the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[53]  Heidi Wittmer,et al.  The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Local and Regional Policy and Management , 2012 .

[54]  Paula Ulenaers,et al.  Participatieve gebiedsvisieontwikkeling voor de Wijers via het ecosysteemdienstenconcept: Procesarchitectuur en procesevaluatie , 2014 .

[55]  R. K. Neumann,et al.  Conceptualizing credibility, relevance and legitimacy for evaluating the effectiveness of science–policy interfaces: Challenges and opportunities , 2015 .

[56]  S. Lavorel,et al.  The diversity of the ecosystem services concept and its implications for their assessment and management. , 2011, Comptes rendus biologies.

[57]  R. Hoppe,et al.  The Governance of Problems: Puzzling, Powering and Participation , 2010 .

[58]  Thomas Sikor,et al.  The justices and injustices of ecosystem services. , 2013 .

[59]  Rachelle K. Gould,et al.  Where are Cultural and Social in Ecosystem Services? A Framework for Constructive Engagement , 2012 .

[60]  J. Pielke The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics , 2007 .

[61]  Thomas Elmqvist,et al.  Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) , 2016 .

[62]  Paula Antunes,et al.  Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment: Experiences from real world situations , 2017 .

[63]  Sandra Luque,et al.  Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice , 2017 .

[64]  Jacob Phelps,et al.  Environmental liability: A missing use for ecosystem services valuation , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[65]  Erik Gómez-Baggethun,et al.  Natural capital and ecosystem services: the ecological foundation of human society , 2010 .

[66]  Zita Izakovičová,et al.  Divergence and conflicts in landscape planning across spatial scales in Slovakia: An opportunity for an ecosystem services-based approach? , 2017 .

[67]  K. Jax,et al.  Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade , 2017, Ecosystem services.

[68]  Christopher Andrews,et al.  Practical application of spatial ecosystem service models to aid decision support , 2017, Ecosystem services.

[69]  David N. Barton,et al.  Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: a decision tree approach , 2017 .

[70]  E. Gómez‐Baggethun,et al.  Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: A review of the empirical evidence , 2015 .

[71]  T. Daw,et al.  Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being , 2011, Environmental Conservation.

[72]  J. Spangenberg,et al.  Stakeholder involvement in ESS research and governance: Between conceptual ambition and practical experiences – risks, challenges and tested tools , 2015 .

[73]  Joseph Tzanopoulos,et al.  Public Participation and Environmental Justice in Biodiversity Governance in Finland, Greece, Poland and the UK , 2015 .

[74]  Teeb The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations , 2017 .

[75]  Bryan G. Norton,et al.  Sustainable Values, Sustainable Change: A Guide to Environmental Decision Making , 2015 .

[76]  Jennifer L. Dawe,et al.  Research, part of a Special Feature on Rebuilding Fisheries and Threatened Communities: the Social-Ecology of a Particularly Wicked Problem Consilient knowledge in fisheries: a case study of three species of wolffish (Anarhichadidae) listed under the Canadian Species at Risk Act , 2014 .

[77]  Monina Escalada,et al.  Engaging Local Knowledge in Biodiversity Research: Experiences from Large Inter- and Transdisciplinary Projects , 2014 .

[78]  Lisa V. Bardwell Problem-Framing: A perspective on environmental problem-solving , 1991 .

[79]  Jyri Mustajoki,et al.  Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies , 2017 .

[80]  Claire Waterton,et al.  Rethinking biodiversity: from goods and services to “living with” , 2013 .

[81]  Ioan Fazey,et al.  Knowledge needs for the operationalisation of the concept of ecosystem services , 2017 .

[82]  Rachelle K. Gould,et al.  Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[83]  J. Mustajoki,et al.  When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning , 2017 .

[84]  Roy Haines-Young,et al.  New EU-scale environmental scenarios until 2050 – scenario process and initial scenario applications , 2017 .

[85]  G. Pataki,et al.  Understanding the links between ecosystem service trade-offs and conflicts in protected areas , 2015 .

[86]  H. Joosten,et al.  Ecosystem services and ethics , 2013 .

[87]  Pamela A Matson,et al.  Ecosystem services: From theory to implementation , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[88]  D. Lang,et al.  Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability , 2014 .