Resolution, accuracy and attributes: Approaches for environmental geographical information systems
In: Computers, environment and urban systems, Band 16, Heft 4, S. 289-297
11 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Computers, environment and urban systems, Band 16, Heft 4, S. 289-297
The promise that ecosystem service assessments will contribute to better decision-making is not yet proven. We analyse how knowledge on ecosystem services is actually used to inform land and water management in 22 case studies covering different social-ecological systems in European and Latin American countries. None of the case studies reported instrumental use of knowledge in a sense that ecosystem service knowledge would have served as an impartial arbiter between policy options. Yet, in most cases, there was some evidence of conceptual learning as a result of close interaction between researchers, practitioners and stakeholders. We observed several factors that constrained knowledge uptake, including competing interests and political agendas, scientific disputes, professional norms and competencies, and lack of vertical and horizontal integration. Ecosystem knowledge played a small role particularly in those planning and policy-making situations where it challenged established interests and the current distribution of benefits from ecosystems. The factors that facilitated knowledge use included application of transparent participatory methods, social capital, policy champions and clear synergies between ecosystem services and human well-being. The results are aligned with previous studies which have emphasized the importance of building local capacity, ownership and trust for the long-term success of ecosystem service research. ; publishedVersion
BASE
The promise that ecosystem service assessments will contribute to better decision-making is not yet proven. We analyse how knowledge on ecosystem services is actually used to inform land and water management in 22 case studies covering different social-ecological systems in European and Latin American countries. None of the case studies reported instrumental use of knowledge in a sense that ecosystem service knowledge would have served as an impartial arbiter between policy options. Yet, in most cases, there was some evidence of conceptual learning as a result of close interaction between researchers, practitioners and stakeholders. We observed several factors that constrained knowledge uptake, including competing interests and political agendas, scientific disputes, professional norms and competencies, and lack of vertical and horizontal integration. Ecosystem knowledge played a small role particularly in those planning and policy-making situations where it challenged established interests and the current distribution of benefits from ecosystems. The factors that facilitated knowledge use included application of transparent participatory methods, social capital, policy champions and clear synergies between ecosystem services and human well-being. The results are aligned with previous studies which have emphasized the importance of building local capacity, ownership and trust for the long-term success of ecosystem service research.
BASE
The promise that ecosystem service assessments will contribute to better decision-making is not yet proven. We analyse how knowledge on ecosystem services is actually used to inform land and water management in 22 case studies covering different social-ecological systems in European and Latin American countries. None of the case studies reported instrumental use of knowledge in a sense that ecosystem service knowledge would have served as an impartial arbiter between policy options. Yet, in most cases, there was some evidence of conceptual learning as a result of close interaction between researchers, practitioners and stakeholders. We observed several factors that constrained knowledge uptake, including competing interests and political agendas, scientific disputes, professional norms and competencies, and lack of vertical and horizontal integration. Ecosystem knowledge played a small role particularly in those planning and policy-making situations where it challenged established interests and the current distribution of benefits from ecosystems. The factors that facilitated knowledge use included application of transparent participatory methods, social capital, policy champions and clear synergies between ecosystem services and human well-being. The results are aligned with previous studies which have emphasized the importance of building local capacity, ownership and trust for the long-term success of ecosystem service research. ; EEA Santa Cruz ; Fil: Saarikoski, Heli. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia ; Fil: Primmer, Eeva. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia ; Fil: Saarela, Sanna-Riikka. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia ; Fil: Antunes, Paula. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia. Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research; Portugal ; Fil: Baró, Francesc. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology; España. Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute; España ; Fil: Berry, Pam. University of Oxford. Environmental Change Institute; Gran Bretaña ; Fil: Garcia Blanko, Gemma. Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation. Energy and Environment Division. Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia; España ; Fil: Gómez-Baggethun, Erik. Norwegian University of Life Sciences. Department of International Environment and Development Studies; Noruega. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA); Noruega ; Fil: Carvalho, Lawrence. Center for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña ; Fil: Dick, Jan. Center for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña ; Fil: Dunford, Robert. University of Oxford. Environmental Change Institute; Gran Bretaña. Lancaster Environment Centre. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña ; Fil: Hanzu, Mihail. Romanian National Institute for Research and Development in Silviculture; Rumania ; Fil: Harrison, Paula A. Lancaster Environment Centre. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña ; Fil: Izakovicova, Zita. Slovak Academy of Science. Institute of Landscape Ecology; Eslovaquia ; Fil: Kertész, Miklós. Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Centre for Ecological Research. Institute of Ecology and Botany; Hungría ; Fil: Kopperoinen, Leena. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia ; Fil: Köhler, Berit. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA); Noruega ; Fil: Langemeyer, Johannes. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology; España. Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute. Barcelona Lab for Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainability; España ; Fil: Lapola, David. Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Center for Meteorological and Climatic Studies Applied to Agriculture (CEPAGRI); Brasil ; Fil: Liquete, Camino. Joint Research Centre (JRC). European Commission; Italia ; Fil: Luque, Sandra. National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture; Francia ; Fil: Mederly, Peter. Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra. Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences; Eslovaquia ; Fil: Niemelä, Jari. University of Helsinki. Department of Environmental Sciences; Finlandia ; Fil: Palomo, Ignacio. University of the Basque Country. Basque Centre for Climate Change; España. ; Fil: Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Cientificas; Argentina ; Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina. Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica; Argentina ; Fil: Preda, Elena. University of Bucharest. Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability; Rumania ; Fil: Priess, Joerg A. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; Alemania ; Fil: Santos, Rui Ferreira Dos. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia. Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research; Portugal ; Fil: Schleyer, Christian. Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt. Institute of Social Ecology; Austria. University of Kassel. Section of International Agricultural Policy and Environmental Governance; Alemania ; Fil: Turkelboom, Francis. Research Institute for Nature and Forest; Bélgica ; Fil: Vadineanu, Angheluta. University of Bucharest. Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability; Rumania ; Fil: Verheyden, Wim. Research Institute for Nature and Forest; Bélgica ; Fil: Vikström, Suvi. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia ; Fil: Young, Juliette. Center for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña ; Fil: Aszalós, Réka. Institute of Ecology and Botany, MTA Centre for Ecological Research; Hungría
BASE
The authors wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. Most importantly, we want to acknowledge the participants in the case studies whose input was instrumental for this research project. The research was carried out in the project Operationalisation of Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services: From Concepts to Real-world Applications (OpenNESS), funded by the European Union FP7 (EC-308428). Heli Saarikoski and Eeva Primmer also want to acknowledge the support of the Academy of Finland (project 275772). ; The promise that ecosystem service assessments will contribute to better decision-making is not yet proven. We analyse how knowledge on ecosystem services is actually used to inform land and water management in 22 case studies covering different social-ecological systems in European and Latin American countries. None of the case studies reported instrumental use of knowledge in a sense that ecosystem service knowledge would have served as an impartial arbiter between policy options. Yet, in most cases, there was some evidence of conceptual learning as a result of close interaction between researchers, practitioners and stakeholders. We observed several factors that constrained knowledge uptake, including competing interests and political agendas, scientific disputes, professional norms and competencies, and lack of vertical and horizontal integration. Ecosystem knowledge played a small role particularly in those planning and policy-making situations where it challenged established interests and the current distribution of benefits from ecosystems. The factors that facilitated knowledge use included application of transparent participatory methods, social capital, policy champions and clear synergies between ecosystem services and human well-being. The results are aligned with previous studies which have emphasized the importance of building local capacity, ownership and trust for the long-term success of ecosystem service research. ; publishersversion ; published
BASE
Unidad de excelencia María de Maeztu MdM-2015-0552 ; The promise that ecosystem service assessments will contribute to better decision-making is not yet proven. We analyse how knowledge on ecosystem services is actually used to inform land and water management in 22 case studies covering different social-ecological systems in European and Latin American countries. None of the case studies reported instrumental use of knowledge in a sense that ecosystem service knowledge would have served as an impartial arbiter between policy options. Yet, in most cases, there was some evidence of conceptual learning as a result of close interaction between researchers, practitioners and stakeholders. We observed several factors that constrained knowledge uptake, including competing interests and political agendas, scientific disputes, professional norms and competencies, and lack of vertical and horizontal integration. Ecosystem knowledge played a small role particularly in those planning and policy-making situations where it challenged established interests and the current distribution of benefits from ecosystems. The factors that facilitated knowledge use included application of transparent participatory methods, social capital, policy champions and clear synergies between ecosystem services and human well-being. The results are aligned with previous studies which have emphasized the importance of building local capacity, ownership and trust for the long-term success of ecosystem service research.
BASE
The promise that ecosystem service assessments will contribute to better decision-making is not yet proven. We analyse how knowledge on ecosystem services is actually used to inform land and water management in 22 case studies covering different social-ecological systems in European and Latin American countries. None of the case studies reported instrumental use of knowledge in a sense that ecosystem service knowledge would have served as an impartial arbiter between policy options. Yet, in most cases, there was some evidence of conceptual learning as a result of close interaction between researchers, practitioners and stakeholders. We observed several factors that constrained knowledge uptake, including competing interests and political agendas, scientific disputes, professional norms and competencies, and lack of vertical and horizontal integration. Ecosystem knowledge played a small role particularly in those planning and policy-making situations where it challenged established interests and the current distribution of benefits from ecosystems. The factors that facilitated knowledge use included application of transparent participatory methods, social capital, policy champions and clear synergies between ecosystem services and human well-being. The results are aligned with previous studies which have emphasized the importance of building local capacity, ownership and trust for the long-term success of ecosystem service research. ; publishedVersion
BASE
Questions. Compensatory dynamics are described as one of the main mechanisms that increase community stability, e.g., where decreases of some species on a year‐to‐year basis are offset by an increase in others. Deviations from perfect synchrony between species (asynchrony) have therefore been advocated as an important mechanism underlying biodiversity effects on stability. However, it is unclear to what extent existing measures of synchrony actually capture the signal of year‐to‐year species fluctuations in the presence of long‐term directional trends in both species abundance and composition (species directional trends hereafter). Such directional trends may lead to a misinterpretation of indices commonly used to reflect year‐to‐year synchrony. Methods. An approach based on three‐term local quadrat variance (T3) which assesses population variability in a three‐year moving window, was used to overcome species directional trend effects. This "detrending" approach was applied to common indices of synchrony across a worldwide collection of 77 temporal plant community datasets comprising almost 7,800 individual plots sampled for at least six years. Plots included were either maintained under constant "control" conditions over time or were subjected to different management or disturbance treatments. Results. Accounting for directional trends increased the detection of year‐to‐year synchronous patterns in all synchrony indices considered. Specifically, synchrony values increased significantly in ~40% of the datasets with the T3 detrending approach while in ~10% synchrony decreased. For the 38 studies with both control and manipulated conditions, the increase in synchrony values was stronger for longer time series, particularly following experimental manipulation. Conclusions. Species' long‐term directional trends can affect synchrony and stability measures potentially masking the ecological mechanism causing year‐to‐year fluctuations. As such, previous studies on community stability might have overemphasised the role of compensatory dynamics in real‐world ecosystems, and particularly in manipulative conditions, when not considering the possible overriding effects of long‐term directional trends. ; We thank multiple entities for the financial support necessary to obtain the different databases: the U.S. National Science Foundation under grant numbers DEB‐8114302, DEB‐8811884, DEB‐9411972, DEB‐0080382, DEB‐0620652, DEB‐1234162, DEB‐9707477, DEB‐0316402, DEB‐08‐16453, and DEB‐12‐56034, DEB‐0618210, the Nutrient Network (http://www.nutnet.org) experiment from the National Science Foundation Research Coordination Network (NSF‐DEB‐1042132), the New Zealand National Vegetation Survey Databank, the Spanish MINECO (Project CGL2014‐53789‐R), the Madrid Regional Government (Projects REMEDINAL‐3 and REMEDINAL‐TE), the European Research Council Synergy grant 610028 (IMBALANCE‐P), the Institute on the Environment (DG‐0001‐13), the SOERE‐ACBB financed through French National Agency for Research (ANAEE‐F, ANR‐11‐INBS‐0001), the Estonian Research Council (IUT 20‐28, IUT 20‐29), Czech Science Foundation (GAČR 17‐05506S and 19‐28491X), the European Regional Development Fund (Centre of Excellence EcolChange), the German Federal Environmental Foundation (DBU) for a grant to the NABU Hamburg (management experiment Calamagrostis epigejos), and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the framework of the project BIOTA Southern Africa (promotion numbers 01LC0024, 01LC0024A and 01LC0624A2), Task 159 of SASSCAL (promotion number 01LG1201) and the Scottish Government's Rural and Environmental Science and Analytical Services division. Acknowledgement Data owned by NERC© Database Right/Copyright NERC. Further support was provided by the Jornada Basin Long‐Term Ecological Research (LTER) project, Cedar Creek Ecosystem Science Reserve and the University of Minnesota. We also thank the Lawes Agricultural Trust and Rothamsted Research for data from the e‐RA database. The Rothamsted Long‐term Experiments National Capability (LTE‐NCG) is supported by the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Grant BBS/E/C/000J0300) and the Lawes Agricultural Trust. ; Peer reviewed
BASE
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. 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V. ; acceptedVersion
BASE
Analysing temporal patterns in plant communities is extremely important to quantify the extent and the consequences of ecological changes, especially considering the current biodiversity crisis. Long-term data collected through the regular sampling of permanent plots represent the most accurate resource to study ecological succession, analyse the stability of a community over time and understand the mechanisms driving vegetation change. We hereby present the LOng-Term Vegetation Sampling (LOTVS) initiative, a global collection of vegetation time-series derived from the regular monitoring of plant species in permanent plots. With 79 data sets from five continents and 7,789 vegetation time-series monitored for at least 6 years and mostly on an annual basis, LOTVS possibly represents the largest collection of temporally fine-grained vegetation time-series derived from permanent plots and made accessible to the research community. As such, it has an outstanding potential to support innovative research in the fields of vegetation science, plant ecology and temporal ecology. ; The authors acknowledge institutional support as follows. Nicola J. Day: Te Apārangi Royal Society of New Zealand (Rutherford Postdoctoral Fellowship). Jiří Danihelka: Czech Science Foundation (project no. 19-28491X) and Czech Academy of Sciences (project no. RVO 67985939). Francesco de Bello: Spanish Plan Nacional de I+D+i (project PGC2018-099027-B-I00). Eric Garnier: La Fage INRA experimental station. Tomáš Herben: GAČR grant 20-02901S. Anke Jentsch: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant 031B0516C - SUSALPS) and Oberfrankenstiftung (grant OFS FP00237). Norbert Juergens: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant 01LG1201N - SASSCAL ABC). Frédérique Louault and Katja Klumpp: AnaEE-France (ANR-11-INBS-0001). Robin J. Pakeman: Strategic Research Programme of the Scottish Government's Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division. Meelis Pärtel: Estonian Research Council (PRG609) and European Regional Development Fund (Centre of Excellence EcolChange). Josep Peñuelas: Spanish Government (grant PID2019-110521GB-I00), Fundación Ramon Areces (grant ELEMENTAL-CLIMATE), Catalan Government (grant SGR 2017-1005), and European Research Council (Synergy grant ERC-SyG-2013-610028, IMBALANCE-P). Ute Schmiedel: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Promotion numbers 01LC0024, 01LC0024A, 01LC0624A2, 01LG1201A, 01LG1201N). Hana Skálová: GAČR grant 20-02901S. Karsten Wesche: International Institute Zittau, Technische Universität Dresden. Susan K. Wiser: New Zealand Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment's Strategic Science Investment Fund. Ben A. Woodcock: NERC and BBSRC (NE/N018125/1 LTS-M ASSIST - Achieving Sustainable Agricultural Systems). Enrique Valencia: Program for attracting and retaining talent of Comunidad de Madrid (no. 2017-T2/AMB-5406) and Community of Madrid and Rey Juan Carlos University (Young Researchers R&D Project. Ref. M2165 – INTRANESTI). Truman P. Young: National Science Foundation (LTREB DEB 19-31224). ; Peer reviewed
BASE
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.
BASE