Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science
The ecosystem service (ES) community aspires to illuminate how nature contributes to human well-being, and thereby elevate consideration of nature in decision making. So far, however, policy impact of ES research has been limited. To understand why, we identify five key elements of ES research that...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Nature sustainability 2021-02, Vol.4 (2), p.161-169 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 169 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 161 |
container_title | Nature sustainability |
container_volume | 4 |
creator | Mandle, Lisa Shields-Estrada, Analisa Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca Mitchell, Matthew G. E. Bremer, Leah L. Gourevitch, Jesse D. Hawthorne, Peter Johnson, Justin A. Robinson, Brian E. Smith, Jeffrey R. Sonter, Laura J. Verutes, Gregory M. Vogl, Adrian L. Daily, Gretchen C. Ricketts, Taylor H. |
description | The ecosystem service (ES) community aspires to illuminate how nature contributes to human well-being, and thereby elevate consideration of nature in decision making. So far, however, policy impact of ES research has been limited. To understand why, we identify five key elements of ES research that help inform decisions by connecting the supply of ES to those who benefit from them. Our structured review of the ES literature reveals that only 13% of assessments included the full ES chain from place to value. Only 7% of assessments considered the distribution of ES benefits explicitly across demographic or other beneficiary groups (for example, private landowners versus the broader public), although disaggregation across regions or spatial units was more common (44%). Finally, crucial mediating factors that affect who benefits and how (for example, the vulnerability of beneficiaries or the availability of substitutes for ES) were considered in only 35% of assessments. Our results suggest that increasing the decision relevance of ES research requires more effectively predicting the impacts of specific decisions on the value and distribution of ES across beneficiary groups. Such efforts will need to integrate ecological models with socioeconomic and cultural dimensions of ES more closely than does the current ES literature.
To increase the policy relevance of ecosystem service benefits research, studies need to better predict the impact of specific decisions, according to an analysis of the literature. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1038/s41893-020-00625-y |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3049324734</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3049324734</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-f62a00ad2f657b538f8c1ee6cf24a5facf814bf10b52d6221765d7ef7c733e083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWGr_gKcFz6uTj80m3qT4USh40XNIs5Oypd2tmbaw_97oCnryNMPM877DvIxdc7jlIM0dKW6sLEFACaBFVQ5nbCKkNaXVwp7_6S_ZjGgDkFFlrFITdr_oQkJPbbcuGgwttX1XJNziyXcBiz4WGHoa6IC7gjCd2jyk0GJeXrGL6LeEs586Ze9Pj2_zl3L5-ryYPyzLILk9lFELD-AbEXVVryppogkcUYcolK-iD9FwtYocVpVotBC81lVTY6xDLSWCkVN2M_ruU_9xRDq4TX9MXT7pJCgrhaqlypQYqZB6ooTR7VO782lwHNxXTG6MyeXf3XdMbsgiOYoow90a06_1P6pPBIprDA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3049324734</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science</title><source>Nature</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Mandle, Lisa ; Shields-Estrada, Analisa ; Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca ; Mitchell, Matthew G. E. ; Bremer, Leah L. ; Gourevitch, Jesse D. ; Hawthorne, Peter ; Johnson, Justin A. ; Robinson, Brian E. ; Smith, Jeffrey R. ; Sonter, Laura J. ; Verutes, Gregory M. ; Vogl, Adrian L. ; Daily, Gretchen C. ; Ricketts, Taylor H.</creator><creatorcontrib>Mandle, Lisa ; Shields-Estrada, Analisa ; Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca ; Mitchell, Matthew G. E. ; Bremer, Leah L. ; Gourevitch, Jesse D. ; Hawthorne, Peter ; Johnson, Justin A. ; Robinson, Brian E. ; Smith, Jeffrey R. ; Sonter, Laura J. ; Verutes, Gregory M. ; Vogl, Adrian L. ; Daily, Gretchen C. ; Ricketts, Taylor H.</creatorcontrib><description>The ecosystem service (ES) community aspires to illuminate how nature contributes to human well-being, and thereby elevate consideration of nature in decision making. So far, however, policy impact of ES research has been limited. To understand why, we identify five key elements of ES research that help inform decisions by connecting the supply of ES to those who benefit from them. Our structured review of the ES literature reveals that only 13% of assessments included the full ES chain from place to value. Only 7% of assessments considered the distribution of ES benefits explicitly across demographic or other beneficiary groups (for example, private landowners versus the broader public), although disaggregation across regions or spatial units was more common (44%). Finally, crucial mediating factors that affect who benefits and how (for example, the vulnerability of beneficiaries or the availability of substitutes for ES) were considered in only 35% of assessments. Our results suggest that increasing the decision relevance of ES research requires more effectively predicting the impacts of specific decisions on the value and distribution of ES across beneficiary groups. Such efforts will need to integrate ecological models with socioeconomic and cultural dimensions of ES more closely than does the current ES literature.
To increase the policy relevance of ecosystem service benefits research, studies need to better predict the impact of specific decisions, according to an analysis of the literature.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2398-9629</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2398-9629</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/s41893-020-00625-y</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>631/158/1144 ; 631/158/2458 ; 631/158/843 ; Analysis ; Beneficiaries ; Decision making ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Ecological models ; Ecosystem services ; Ecosystems ; Environment ; Sustainable Development</subject><ispartof>Nature sustainability, 2021-02, Vol.4 (2), p.161-169</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2020</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-f62a00ad2f657b538f8c1ee6cf24a5facf814bf10b52d6221765d7ef7c733e083</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-f62a00ad2f657b538f8c1ee6cf24a5facf814bf10b52d6221765d7ef7c733e083</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5768-216X ; 0000-0001-9369-1071 ; 0000-0002-7667-7902 ; 0000-0003-1443-1111 ; 0000-0002-6590-3986 ; 0000-0003-0790-3643 ; 0000-0002-1539-5231 ; 0000-0002-3490-9314 ; 0000-0002-1420-8529 ; 0000-0002-8972-8318 ; 0000-0001-9688-7977</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mandle, Lisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shields-Estrada, Analisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitchell, Matthew G. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bremer, Leah L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gourevitch, Jesse D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hawthorne, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Justin A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Brian E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Jeffrey R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sonter, Laura J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verutes, Gregory M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vogl, Adrian L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Daily, Gretchen C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ricketts, Taylor H.</creatorcontrib><title>Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science</title><title>Nature sustainability</title><addtitle>Nat Sustain</addtitle><description>The ecosystem service (ES) community aspires to illuminate how nature contributes to human well-being, and thereby elevate consideration of nature in decision making. So far, however, policy impact of ES research has been limited. To understand why, we identify five key elements of ES research that help inform decisions by connecting the supply of ES to those who benefit from them. Our structured review of the ES literature reveals that only 13% of assessments included the full ES chain from place to value. Only 7% of assessments considered the distribution of ES benefits explicitly across demographic or other beneficiary groups (for example, private landowners versus the broader public), although disaggregation across regions or spatial units was more common (44%). Finally, crucial mediating factors that affect who benefits and how (for example, the vulnerability of beneficiaries or the availability of substitutes for ES) were considered in only 35% of assessments. Our results suggest that increasing the decision relevance of ES research requires more effectively predicting the impacts of specific decisions on the value and distribution of ES across beneficiary groups. Such efforts will need to integrate ecological models with socioeconomic and cultural dimensions of ES more closely than does the current ES literature.
To increase the policy relevance of ecosystem service benefits research, studies need to better predict the impact of specific decisions, according to an analysis of the literature.</description><subject>631/158/1144</subject><subject>631/158/2458</subject><subject>631/158/843</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Beneficiaries</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Ecological models</subject><subject>Ecosystem services</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Sustainable Development</subject><issn>2398-9629</issn><issn>2398-9629</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWGr_gKcFz6uTj80m3qT4USh40XNIs5Oypd2tmbaw_97oCnryNMPM877DvIxdc7jlIM0dKW6sLEFACaBFVQ5nbCKkNaXVwp7_6S_ZjGgDkFFlrFITdr_oQkJPbbcuGgwttX1XJNziyXcBiz4WGHoa6IC7gjCd2jyk0GJeXrGL6LeEs586Ze9Pj2_zl3L5-ryYPyzLILk9lFELD-AbEXVVryppogkcUYcolK-iD9FwtYocVpVotBC81lVTY6xDLSWCkVN2M_ruU_9xRDq4TX9MXT7pJCgrhaqlypQYqZB6ooTR7VO782lwHNxXTG6MyeXf3XdMbsgiOYoow90a06_1P6pPBIprDA</recordid><startdate>20210201</startdate><enddate>20210201</enddate><creator>Mandle, Lisa</creator><creator>Shields-Estrada, Analisa</creator><creator>Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca</creator><creator>Mitchell, Matthew G. E.</creator><creator>Bremer, Leah L.</creator><creator>Gourevitch, Jesse D.</creator><creator>Hawthorne, Peter</creator><creator>Johnson, Justin A.</creator><creator>Robinson, Brian E.</creator><creator>Smith, Jeffrey R.</creator><creator>Sonter, Laura J.</creator><creator>Verutes, Gregory M.</creator><creator>Vogl, Adrian L.</creator><creator>Daily, Gretchen C.</creator><creator>Ricketts, Taylor H.</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5768-216X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9369-1071</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7667-7902</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1443-1111</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6590-3986</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0790-3643</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1539-5231</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3490-9314</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1420-8529</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8972-8318</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9688-7977</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210201</creationdate><title>Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science</title><author>Mandle, Lisa ; Shields-Estrada, Analisa ; Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca ; Mitchell, Matthew G. E. ; Bremer, Leah L. ; Gourevitch, Jesse D. ; Hawthorne, Peter ; Johnson, Justin A. ; Robinson, Brian E. ; Smith, Jeffrey R. ; Sonter, Laura J. ; Verutes, Gregory M. ; Vogl, Adrian L. ; Daily, Gretchen C. ; Ricketts, Taylor H.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-f62a00ad2f657b538f8c1ee6cf24a5facf814bf10b52d6221765d7ef7c733e083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>631/158/1144</topic><topic>631/158/2458</topic><topic>631/158/843</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Beneficiaries</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Ecological models</topic><topic>Ecosystem services</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Sustainable Development</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mandle, Lisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shields-Estrada, Analisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitchell, Matthew G. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bremer, Leah L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gourevitch, Jesse D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hawthorne, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Justin A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Brian E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Jeffrey R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sonter, Laura J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verutes, Gregory M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vogl, Adrian L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Daily, Gretchen C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ricketts, Taylor H.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Nature sustainability</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mandle, Lisa</au><au>Shields-Estrada, Analisa</au><au>Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca</au><au>Mitchell, Matthew G. E.</au><au>Bremer, Leah L.</au><au>Gourevitch, Jesse D.</au><au>Hawthorne, Peter</au><au>Johnson, Justin A.</au><au>Robinson, Brian E.</au><au>Smith, Jeffrey R.</au><au>Sonter, Laura J.</au><au>Verutes, Gregory M.</au><au>Vogl, Adrian L.</au><au>Daily, Gretchen C.</au><au>Ricketts, Taylor H.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science</atitle><jtitle>Nature sustainability</jtitle><stitle>Nat Sustain</stitle><date>2021-02-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>161</spage><epage>169</epage><pages>161-169</pages><issn>2398-9629</issn><eissn>2398-9629</eissn><abstract>The ecosystem service (ES) community aspires to illuminate how nature contributes to human well-being, and thereby elevate consideration of nature in decision making. So far, however, policy impact of ES research has been limited. To understand why, we identify five key elements of ES research that help inform decisions by connecting the supply of ES to those who benefit from them. Our structured review of the ES literature reveals that only 13% of assessments included the full ES chain from place to value. Only 7% of assessments considered the distribution of ES benefits explicitly across demographic or other beneficiary groups (for example, private landowners versus the broader public), although disaggregation across regions or spatial units was more common (44%). Finally, crucial mediating factors that affect who benefits and how (for example, the vulnerability of beneficiaries or the availability of substitutes for ES) were considered in only 35% of assessments. Our results suggest that increasing the decision relevance of ES research requires more effectively predicting the impacts of specific decisions on the value and distribution of ES across beneficiary groups. Such efforts will need to integrate ecological models with socioeconomic and cultural dimensions of ES more closely than does the current ES literature.
To increase the policy relevance of ecosystem service benefits research, studies need to better predict the impact of specific decisions, according to an analysis of the literature.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><doi>10.1038/s41893-020-00625-y</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5768-216X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9369-1071</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7667-7902</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1443-1111</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6590-3986</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0790-3643</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1539-5231</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3490-9314</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1420-8529</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8972-8318</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9688-7977</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2398-9629 |
ispartof | Nature sustainability, 2021-02, Vol.4 (2), p.161-169 |
issn | 2398-9629 2398-9629 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_3049324734 |
source | Nature; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | 631/158/1144 631/158/2458 631/158/843 Analysis Beneficiaries Decision making Earth and Environmental Science Ecological models Ecosystem services Ecosystems Environment Sustainable Development |
title | Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T00%3A35%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Increasing%20decision%20relevance%20of%20ecosystem%20service%20science&rft.jtitle=Nature%20sustainability&rft.au=Mandle,%20Lisa&rft.date=2021-02-01&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=161&rft.epage=169&rft.pages=161-169&rft.issn=2398-9629&rft.eissn=2398-9629&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/s41893-020-00625-y&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3049324734%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3049324734&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |