TY - JOUR

T1 - Navigating pluralism

T2 - Understanding perceptions of the ecosystem services concept

AU - Ainscough, Jacob

AU - de Vries Lentsch, Aster

AU - Metzger, Marc

AU - Rounsevell, Mark

AU - Schröter, Matthias

AU - Delbaere, Ben

AU - de Groot, Rudolf

AU - Staes, Jan

N1 - Funding Information: We also thank our survey participants as well as all collaborators on the Antwerp Declaration at the EESC 2016. We thank Sander Jacobs and Alexander van Oudenhoven for their feedback and contributions to the Declaration process. We thank Vanessa Burton for proofreading and logistical support to the writing team. This study was funded by the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreements No. FP7-ENV-2012-308393-2 (OPERAs) and 308428 (OpenNESS) and supported by the Ecosystem Services Partnership, the University of Antwerp , and ECOPLAN – Planning for Ecosystem Services ( Research Foundation Flanders Grant No. 120014). Funding Information: Jacob Ainscough was supported by a NERC doctoral training partnership grant ( NE/L002558/1 ). Funding Information: We also thank our survey participants as well as all collaborators on the Antwerp Declaration at the EESC 2016. We thank Sander Jacobs and Alexander van Oudenhoven for their feedback and contributions to the Declaration process. We thank Vanessa Burton for proofreading and logistical support to the writing team. This study was funded by the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreements No. FP7-ENV-2012-308393-2 (OPERAs) and 308428 (OpenNESS) and supported by the Ecosystem Services Partnership, the University of Antwerp, and ECOPLAN – Planning for Ecosystem Services (Research Foundation Flanders Grant No. 120014).Jacob Ainscough was supported by a NERC doctoral training partnership grant (NE/L002558/1). Publisher Copyright: © 2019 Elsevier B.V.

PY - 2019/4

Y1 - 2019/4

N2 - Being open to multiple interpretations allows the ecosystem services concept to operate as a boundary object, facilitating communication and cooperation between different user groups. Yet there is a risk the resultant pluralism limits the capacity of ecosystem services assessments to directly inform decision and policy making, and that the concept could be used to support environmentally or socially harmful activities. Here, we report results from a large mixed methods survey conducted among academics, policymakers and practitioners working in the field of ecosystem services across Europe. We use these results to explore the trade-off that exists between the role of ecosystem services as a boundary object and the needs of policy and decision makers of more standardisation. We conclude this can be done by working towards the standardisation of ecosystem service assessments within specific jurisdictions, whilst maintaining forums for debate, collaboration, and critical reflection within the broader ecosystem services community. We also aim to deduce guiding principles to ensure the ecosystem services concept is not used to support detrimental activities. The consideration of shared and cultural values, the expansion of inter- and transdisciplinary work and the integration of the concept of sustainability are identified as valuable guiding principles to this end.

AB - Being open to multiple interpretations allows the ecosystem services concept to operate as a boundary object, facilitating communication and cooperation between different user groups. Yet there is a risk the resultant pluralism limits the capacity of ecosystem services assessments to directly inform decision and policy making, and that the concept could be used to support environmentally or socially harmful activities. Here, we report results from a large mixed methods survey conducted among academics, policymakers and practitioners working in the field of ecosystem services across Europe. We use these results to explore the trade-off that exists between the role of ecosystem services as a boundary object and the needs of policy and decision makers of more standardisation. We conclude this can be done by working towards the standardisation of ecosystem service assessments within specific jurisdictions, whilst maintaining forums for debate, collaboration, and critical reflection within the broader ecosystem services community. We also aim to deduce guiding principles to ensure the ecosystem services concept is not used to support detrimental activities. The consideration of shared and cultural values, the expansion of inter- and transdisciplinary work and the integration of the concept of sustainability are identified as valuable guiding principles to this end.

KW - Boundary object

KW - Ecosystem services

KW - Guided pluralism

KW - Science-policy interface

KW - Sustainability

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.01.004

DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.01.004

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85060681042

VL - 36

JO - Ecosystem Services

JF - Ecosystem Services

SN - 2212-0416

M1 - 100892

ER -