Search results

The Ecosystem Approach is used to analyse four case studies from England to determine what kind of ecosystem knowledge was used by people, and how it shaped their arguments. The results are reported across decisions making venues concerned with: innovation; conflict management; maintenance of ecosystem function; and, recognising the environment as an asset. In each area we identify the sources and uses of conceptual, instrumental, political and social knowledge. We found that the use of these knowledges can benefit the process as well as the quality of outcomes, and so 'add value' to the decision making process. However, the case studies did not exhibit any simple linear-rational model of knowledge use. Ecosystems thinking took many forms and depended on different institutional settings. As an argument making device, the Ecosystem Approach must be seen in the context of a wider set of social and political processes, which involves a range of complex strategies and motives that explain the apparent 'messiness' of environmental decision making. The paper demonstrates that as conceptual framework, the 'ecosystem approach' provides a valuable theoretical template to help us discover how and what knowledge is used in deliberative styles of decision making.

The ecosystem approach is used to analyse four case studies from England to determine what kind of ecosystem knowledge was used by people, and how it shaped their arguments. The results are reported across decision-making venues concerned with: innovation, conflict management, maintenance of ecosystem function, and recognising the environment as an asset. In each area we identify the sources and uses of conceptual, instrumental, political, and social knowledge. We found that the use of these knowledges can benefit the process as well as the quality of outcomes, and so 'add value' to the decision-making process. However, the case studies did not exhibit any simple linear–rational model of knowledge use. Ecosystems thinking took many forms and depended on different institutional settings. As an argument-making device, the ecosystem approach must be seen in the context of a wider set of social and political processes, which involves a range of complex strategies and motives that explain the apparent 'messiness' of environmental decision making. The paper demonstrates that as a conceptual framework, the ecosystem approach provides a valuable theoretical template to help us discover how and what knowledge is used in deliberative styles of decision making.

A study of the cultural ecosystem services (CES) arising from peoples' interactions with the rural environment is conducted within the context of a landscape scale, 'nature improvement' initiative in the United Kingdom. Taking a mixed methodological approach, the research applies, and demonstrates empirically, a framework for CES developed under the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (Fish et al., 2016). Applications of the framework involve the study of the 'environmental spaces' and 'cultural practices' that contribute to the realisation of benefits to well-being. In this paper empirical work is undertaken to inform the CES evidence base informing management priorities of the Northern Devon Nature Improvement Area (NDNIA) in south west England. Findings from a questionnaire survey, qualitative mapping, group discussion and a participatory arts-based research process are presented to document the many and diverse ways this study area matters to local communities. The paper analyses the qualities that research participants attribute to the environmental space of the NDNIA, the cultural practices conducted and enabled within it, and their associated benefits. The implications of the study for applying this framework through mixed methodological research are discussed, alongside an account of the impact of this approach within the NDNIA itself. ; UK Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Welsh Government, the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). ; © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) This research was funded through the UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-On (Work Package 5: Cultural ecosystem services and indicators) funded by the UK Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Welsh Government, the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC).

Although the importance of ecosystem services has been widely acknowledged as a way of communicating the contribution that biodiversity makes to human well-being, there are considerable practical challenges in applying the idea for policy and management purposes. This project has drawn on existing tools, approaches and data to demonstrate the kind of mapping that assists in the assessment of the state and trends of ecosystem services in Ireland. It was commissioned by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), and is a step towards establishing a framework for a National Ecosystem Assessment for Ireland within the context of the EU?s Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Like all EU Member States, Ireland is requested under Action 5 of the strategy and the subsequent MAES (Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services) Process to implement the action by mapping and assessing the state of ecosystems and the services they supply in their national territory. Information generated under the MAES Process will be used to value ecosystems and their services in the entire EU and promote the recognition of their economic worth into national and EU-level accounting and reporting systems. This report describes how the project team worked with local stakeholders to identify which ecosystem services should be prioritised as part of the pilot, to identify what needs to be mapped and what can be mapped, taking into consideration existing national spatial data sources and developing indicators for national ecosystem service mapping. It sought to identify indicators that are appropriate for quantifying ecosystem service supply and demand, and document how they relate to different habitats and their associated characteristics. A series of maps have been produced and recommendations are made for taking forward the approaches demonstrated. The ecosystem service ?cascade? provides the conceptual framework for this project, and the basis for classifying ecosystem services using the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). CICES has been used widely for supporting mapping and assessment projects; its standardised nomenclature enables regional comparisons to be made and it has been adopted as a framework for MAES. The mapping tool chosen for this project was SENCE (Spatial Evidence for Natural Capital Evaluation), selected primarily for its ability to be manipulated to accept a wide range of data sources at different scales and its ability to deliver outputs for a variety of ecosystem services. It is a GIS system, which allows for stakeholder weighting to be applied and, therefore, local knowledge to be included. In developing an ecosystem services framework for Ireland, it was essential to incorporate the contributions of a range of stakeholders, including organisations likely to be involved in implementing projects to restore ecosystems in Ireland, people with existing knowledge of environmental and societal issues and policy in Ireland, and technical experts and other stakeholders with knowledge of relevant data and projects. There were three main opportunities for stakeholder input; two stakeholder workshops and a review of modelling data and rules during mapping. A workshop resulted in the identification of prioritised ecosystem services for Ireland which became the focus of the mapping work, namely the regulation of water quality and climate regulation through carbon storage. Biodiversity was identified as a factor of fundamental importance in underpinning ecosystem functioning and it was incorporated into the mapping to take account of its contribution in supporting the provision of ecosystem services. Using the outputs of the stakeholder consultation workshops as a starting point, the project team examined the relevance of ecosystem services to stakeholder concerns within Ireland, and to policy areas that are the focus of current concern. This enabled the team to identify which of the many ecosystem services should be prioritised for consideration by the project, and which, given currently available data, could be analysed and mapped. An assessment was made of national and regional policy priorities and related work programmes. This helped identify principal areas of economic activity, including sectors and markets utilising living natural resources, which could be linked to the benefits from, or status and trends in, ecosystem services. In many areas, this review revealed a number of important cross-cutting issues. To bring together the many different policy driver and ecosystem themes, a table was created to define areas of interest which can be taken forward into the development of CICES sub-classes for Ireland .

A major strength of the ecosystem services (ESS) concept is that it allows a succinct description of how human well-being depends on nature, showing that the neglect of such dependencies has negative consequences on human well-being and the economy. As ESS refer to human needs and interests, values are to be considered when dealing with the concept in practice. As a result we argue that in using the concept there is a need to be clear about what different dimensions of value are involved, and be aware of ethical issues that might be associated with the concept. A systematic analysis of the ethical implications associated to the ESS concept is still lacking. We address this deficiency by scrutinising value dimensions associated with the concept, and use this to explore the associated ethical implications. We then highlight how improved transparency in the use of the ESS concept can contribute to using its strengths without succumbing to possible drawbacks arising from ethical problems. These problems concern the dangers that some uses of the concept have in obscuring certain types of value, and in masking unevenness in the distribution of costs and benefits that can arise in the management of ESS.