Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment: Experiences from real world situations
Dunford, Rob; Harrison, Paula; Smith, Alison; Dick, Jan; Barton, David N.; Martin-Lopez, Berta; Kelemen, Ezsther; Jacobs, Sander; Saarikoski, Heli; Turkelboom, Francis; Verheyden, Wim; Hauck, Jennifer; Antunes, Paula; Aszalós, Réka; Badea, Ovidu; Baró, Francesc; Berry, Pam; Carvalho, Laurence; Conte, Giulio; Czúcz, Bálint; Garcia Blanco, Gemma; Howard, Dave; Giuca, Relu; Gomez-Baggethun, Erik; Grizzetti, Bruna; Izakovicova, Zita; Kopperoinen, Leena; Langemeyer, Johannes; Luque, Sandra; Lapola, David M.; Martinez-Pastur, Guillermo; Mukhopadhyay, Raktima; Roy, S.B.; Niemelä, Jari; Norton, Lisa; Ochieng, John; Odee, David; Palomo, Ignacio; Pinho, Patricia; Priess, Joerg; Rusch, Graciella; Saarela, Sanna-Riikka; Santos, Rui; van der Wal, Jan Tjalling; Vadineanu, Angheluta; Vári, Ágnes; Woods, Helen; Yli-Pelkonen, Vesa (2018). Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment: Experiences from real world situations. Ecosystem Services 29: 499-514. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.014
In: Ecosystem Services. Elsevier: Amsterdam. ISSN 2212-0416, more
|  |
| Abstract |
The Ecosystem Services (ES) concept highlights the varied contributions the environment provides to humans and there are a wide range of methods/tools available to assess ES. However, in real-world decision contexts a single tool is rarely sufficient and methods must be combined to meet practitioner needs. Here, results from the OpenNESS project are presented to illustrate the methods selected to meet the needs of 24 real-world case studies and better understand why and how methods are combined to meet practical needs. Results showed that within the cases methods were combined to: i) address a range of ES; ii) assess both supply and demand of ES; iii) assess a range of value types; iv) reach different stakeholder groups v) cover weaknesses in other methods used and vi) to meet specific decision context needs. Methods were linked in a variety of ways: i) as input–output chains of methods; ii) through learning; iii) through method development and iv) through comparison/triangulation of results. The paper synthesises these case study-based experiences to provide insight to others working in practical contexts as to where, and in what contexts, different methods can be combined and how this can add value to case study analyses. |
|
