La cuestión de cómo los países en vías de desarrollo como el Perú pueden participar efectivamente en el marco REDD+ (reducción de emisiones de la deforestación y degradación de bosques) de las Naciones Unidas ha sido el foco de considerables debates recientemente. El objetivo del presente trabajo fue detectar los principales aspectos de monitoreo de degradación forestal y decisiones políticas para enfrentar un proceso REDD en Perú. Para participar de manera efectiva en este proceso, es esencial que el gobierno nacional peruano formule una respuesta nacional ya que es poco probable que las entidades provinciales de manejo de recursos naturales puedan desarrollar la experiencia necesaria para efectuar el monitoreo eficaz y porque los factores subyacentes de la deforestación requieren de una gran inversión y una amplia visión a nivel país. ; The question of how developing countries like Peru can participate effectively in the REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) policy initiative of the United Nations has been the focus of considerable debate recently. The aim of this study was to detect the main challenges associated with monitoring deforestation and forest degradation and also to analyze the policy challenges associated with implementing REDD in Peru. To participate effectively in this process, it is essential that the Peruvian national government formulates a national response since it is unlikely that provincial agencies managing natural resources will be able to develop the necessary expertise to carry out effective monitoring, reporting and verification, and because the underlying factors driving deforestation will require a large investment and a coordinated response at the country level. ; EEA Santa Cruz ; Fil: Ladd, Brenton. University of New South Wales. School of Biological. Earth and Environmental Sciences, Evolution and Ecology Research Centre; Australia. Universidad Científica del Sur. Escuela de Agroforestería; Perú ; Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
The question of how developing countries like Peru can participate effectively in the REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) policy initiative of the United Nations has been the focus of considerable debate recently. The aim of this study was to detect the main challenges associated with monitoring deforestation and forest degradation and also to analyze the policy challenges associated with implementing REDD in Peru. To participate effectively in this process, it is essential that the Peruvian national government formulates a national response since it is unlikely that provincial agencies managing natural resources will be able to develop the necessary expertise to carry out effective monitoring, reporting and verification, and because the underlying factors driving deforestation will require a large investment and a coordinated response at the country level. ; La cuestión de cómo los países en vías de desarrollo como el Perú pueden participar efectivamente en el marco REDD+ (reducción de emisiones de la deforestación y degradación de bosques) de las Naciones Unidas ha sido el foco de considerables debates recientemente. El objetivo del presente trabajo fue detectar los principales aspectos de monitoreo de degradación forestal y decisiones políticas para enfrentar un proceso REDD en Perú. Para participar de manera efectiva en este proceso, es esencial que el gobierno nacional peruano formule una respuesta nacional ya que es poco probable que las entidades provinciales de manejo de recursos naturales puedan desarrollar la experiencia necesaria para efectuar el monitoreo eficaz y porque los factores subyacentes de la deforestación requieren de una gran inversión y una amplia visión a nivel país. ; Fil: Ladd, Brenton. University Of New South Wales; Australia. Universidad Científica del Sur; Perú ; Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Las dimensiones ecológicas, sociales, institucionales y políticas de los problemas ambientales abarcan escalas espaciales y temporales que exceden a la mayoría de las investigaciones científicas. Una alternativa que crece con el tiempo a nivel mundial es la aproximación Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) o Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER), pero que presenta vacíos temáticos y geográficos. Uno de estos vacíos es la Argentina, sin embargo, existe una gran cantidad de experiencia para poder integrar potencialmente al país a dicha red. El objetivo de este trabajo es evaluar el marco general de la investigación ecológica a largo plazo que se realiza en Argentina, y particularmente en la Patagonia Austral, tomamos dos líneas de trabajo como estudios de caso: (i) la ecología y conservación de los bosques nativos a través del manejo forestal y silvopastoril sostenible, y (ii) la ecología y el manejo de las invasiones biológicas. Se presenta una reseña de las investigaciones realizadas (en el pasado y al presente), sus resultados, las estrategias aplicadas en el pasado y las lecciones aprendidas. Esta reseña permite inferir acerca de la factibilidad de implementar esta aproximación en la Argentina, y que el mismo pueda ser sostenidos en el tiempo y que sea integrados entre distintas disciplinas y tomadores de decisiones. Se concluye que existe un potencial actual y grandes oportunidades a futuro para poder consolidar una red del tipo LTER/LTSER en Argentina. ; The ecological, social, institutional and political dimensions of environmental problems encompass spatial and temporal scales that exceed the majority of scientific research projects. An alternative that has increased over time throughout the world is the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) or Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) approach, but this initiative has thematic and geographic gaps. One of these is Argentina, but there is a great quantity of experience that can be brought to bear on the integration of our country into this network. The objective of this work is to evaluate the general framework of long-term ecological research in Argentina, particularly southern Patagonia. We take two lines of investigation as case studies (i) the ecology and conservation of native forests via forestry management, and (ii) the ecology and management of biological invasions. A summary of research (past and present) is presented, the principal results obtained, strategies applied and lessons learned. This review allows us to make inferences regarding the feasibility of implementing this type of program in Argentina, which can be sustained over time and be integrated between disciplines and with decision-makers. We conclude that there are both great potential and opportunities to consolidate an LTER/LTSER-type network in Argentina. ; EEA Santa Cruz ; Fil: Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Cientificas; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina ; Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina ; Fil: Lencinas, María Vanessa. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Cientificas; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina ; Fil: Soler Esteban, Rosina Matilde. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Cientificas; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. ; Fil: Bahamonde, Héctor Alejandro. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina. ; Fil: Valenzuela, Alejandro E.J. Universidad Nacional de Tierra del Fuego. Instituto de Ciencias Polares, Ambiente & Recursos Naturales; Argentina. Administración de Parques Nacionales. Coordinación Patagonia Austral; Argentina ; Fil: Cabello, José Luis. Patagonia Wildlife; Chile ; Fil: Anderson, Christopher B. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Cientificas; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Tierra del Fuego. Instituto de Ciencias Polares, Ambiente & Recursos Naturales; Argentina
Las dimensiones ecológicas, sociales, institucionales y políticas de los problemas ambientales abarcan escalas espaciales y temporales que exceden a la mayoría de las investigaciones científicas. Una alternativa que crece con el tiempo a nivel mundial es la aproximación Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) o Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER), pero que presenta vacíos temáticos y geográficos. Uno de estos vacíos es la Argentina, sin embargo, existe una gran cantidad de experiencia para poder integrar potencialmente al país a dicha red. El objetivo de este trabajo es evaluar el marco general de la investigación ecológica a largo plazo que se realiza en Argentina, y particularmente en la Patagonia Austral, tomamos dos líneas de trabajo como estudios de caso: (i) la ecología y conservación de los bosques nativos a través del manejo forestal y silvopastoril sostenible, y (ii) la ecología y el manejo de las invasiones biológicas. Se presenta una reseña de las investigaciones realizadas (en el pasado y al presente), sus resultados, las estrategias aplicadas en el pasado y las lecciones aprendidas. Esta reseña permite inferir acerca de la factibilidad de implementar esta aproximación en la Argentina, y que el mismo pueda ser sostenidos en el tiempo y que sea integrados entre distintas disciplinas y tomadores de decisiones. Se concluye que existe un potencial actual y grandes oportunidades a futuro para poder consolidar una red del tipo LTER/LTSER en Argentina. ; The ecological, social, institutional and political dimensions of environmental problems encompass spatial and temporal scales that exceed the majority of scientific research projects. An alternative that has increased over time throughout the world is the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) or Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) approach, but this initiative has thematic and geographic gaps. One of these is Argentina, but there is a great quantity of experience that can be brought to bear on the integration of our country into this network. The objective of this work is to evaluate the general framework of long-term ecological research in Argentina, particularly southern Patagonia. We take two lines of investigation as case studies (i) the ecology and conservation of native forests via forestry management, and (ii) the ecology and management of biological invasions. A summary of research (past and present) is presented, the principal results obtained, strategies applied and lessons learned. This review allows us to make inferences regarding the feasibility of implementing this type of program in Argentina, which can be sustained over time and be integrated between disciplines and with decision-makers. We conclude that there are both great potential and opportunities to consolidate an LTER/LTSER-type network in Argentina. ; Fil: Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; Argentina ; Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina ; Fil: Lencinas, María Vanessa. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; Argentina ; Fil: Soler Esteban, Rosina Matilde. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; Argentina ; Fil: Bahamonde, Héctor Alejandro. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria; Argentina ; Fil: Valenzuela, Alejandro Eduardo Jorge. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Tierra del Fuego. Instituto de Ciencias Polares, Recursos Naturales y Ambiente; Argentina. Administración de Parques Nacionales; Argentina ; Fil: Cabello, José Luis. Patagonia Wildlife; Chile ; Fil: Anderson, Christopher Brian. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Tierra del Fuego. Instituto de Ciencias Polares, Recursos Naturales y Ambiente; Argentina
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
The biodiversity-productivity relationship (BPR) is foundational to our understanding of the global extinction crisis and its impacts on ecosystem functioning. Understanding BPR is critical for the accurate valuation and effective conservation of biodiversity. Using ground-sourced data from 777,126 permanent plots, spanning 44 countries and most terrestrial biomes, we reveal a globally consistent positive concave-down BPR, showing that continued biodiversity loss would result in an accelerating decline in forest productivity worldwide. The value of biodiversity in maintaining commercial forest productivity alone—US$166 billion to 490 billion per year according to our estimation—is more than twice what it would cost to implement effective global conservation. This highlights the need for a worldwide reassessment of biodiversity values, forest management strategies, and conservation priorities.
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.
