Ecosystem Services, Governance, and Stakeholder Participation: an Introduction

Paavola, Jouni; Hubacek, Klaus

doi:10.5751/es-06019-180442

Cited by 62 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The ecosystem services (ES) concept first appeared in the 1980s [27] and became prominent in 2005 with the release of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [28]. Now it is widely recognized as a concept for the benefit of both nature and human well-being derived from healthy ecosystems [1,6]. Different modes of governing these services have evolved with the development of the concept of ES: (1) Hierarchical governance, (2) scientific-technical governance, (3) adaptive collaborative governance, and (4) governance of strategic behaviors [29].…”

Section: Governance Of Forest Ecosystem Services: Conceptual Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing Forest Ecosystem Services for Sustainable Environmental Governance: A Review

Adhikari

Baral²

2018

Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Governing forest ecosystem services as a forest socio-ecological system is an evolving concept in the face of different environmental and social challenges. Therefore, different modes of ecosystem governance such as hierarchical, scientific-technical, and adaptive-collaborative governance have been developed. Although each form of governance offers important features, no one form on its own is sufficient to attain sustainable environmental governance (SEG). Thus, the blending of important features of each mode of governance could contribute to SEG, through a combination of both hierarchical and collaborative governance systems supported by scientifically and technically aided knowledge. This should be further reinforced by the broad engagement of stakeholders to ensure the improved well-being of both ecosystems and humans. Some form of governance and forest management measures, including sustainable forest management, forest certification, and payment for ecosystem services mechanisms, are also contributing to that end. While issues around commodification and putting a price on nature are still contested due to the complex relationship between different services, if these limitations are taken into account, the governance of forest ecosystem services will serve as a means of effective environmental governance and the sustainable management of forest resources. Therefore, forest ecosystem services governance has a promising future for SEG, provided limitations are tackled with due care in future governance endeavors.

show abstract

Section: Governance Of Forest Ecosystem Services: Conceptual Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing Forest Ecosystem Services for Sustainable Environmental Governance: A Review

Adhikari

Baral²

2018

Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Highlighting the relevant enabling conditions identified by scholars to date could enrich ongoing discussions assessing and reconciling PES in both theory and practice (see scholars on PES theory and practice, including: Engel et al 2008, GomezBaggethun et al 2010, Muradian et al 2010, Goldman-Benner et al 2012, Sattler and Matzdorf 2013. In many ways, debates surrounding PES embody many of the theoretical perspectives that have engaged with the concept of enabling conditions, such as the role of property rights and transaction costs (Engel et al 2008, Kosoy and, principles of common pool resource management (Fisher et al 2010), linkages between biophysical ecosystem functions and the provision of services (Daily 1997, Kremen 2005, and the resilience of social-ecological systems to provide ecosystem services (Biggs et al 2012, Paavola andHubacek 2013). Additionally, PES researchers in different fields are not using the same terminology for similar concepts.…”

Section: A Focus On Payments For Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social-ecological enabling conditions for payments for ecosystem services

Huber-Stearns¹,

Bennett²,

Posner³

et al. 2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The concept of "enabling conditions" centers on conditions that facilitate approaches to addressing social and ecological challenges. Although multiple fields have independently addressed the concept of enabling conditions, the literature lacks a shared understanding or integration of concepts. We propose a more synthesized understanding of enabling conditions beyond disciplinary boundaries by focusing on the enabling conditions that influence the implementation of a range of environmental policies termed payments for ecosystem services (PES). Through an analysis of key literature from different disciplinary perspectives, we examined how researchers and practitioners refer to and identify enabling conditions within the context of PES. Through our synthesis, we identified 24 distinct enabling conditions organized within 4 broad themes: biophysical, economic, governance, and social-cultural conditions. We found that the literature coalesces around certain enabling conditions, such as strong ecosystem science and existing institutions, regardless of disciplinary background or journal audience. We also observed key differences in how authors perceive the direction of influence for property type, program objectives, and number of actors. Additionally, we noted an emphasis on the importance of the contextual nature of many enabling conditions that may cause certain conditions to have a disproportionate impact on successful implementation in some circumstances. Unraveling the relative importance of specific enabling conditions in diverse contexts remains a research frontier. Ultimately, no single disciplinary perspective is likely to provide all necessary insights for PES creation, and given the intertwined nature of enabling conditions, practitioners need to consider insights from multiple dimensions. Our work suggests opportunities to better connect diverse conversations through integration of concepts, a common vocabulary, and a synthetic framework.

show abstract

“…Past top-down and technocratic approaches have been critiqued: In response, a new discourse emphasizes the need to "open up" to more holistic and participatory approaches (Sterling et al 2010, Miller et al 2012. The participation of other interested parties is advocated because involving and incorporating stakeholder views is thought to contribute to more informed, effective, and equitable outcomes (e.g., Reed 2008, Paavola andHubacek 2013). Systemic or holistic approaches are also promoted because environmental management is trying to intervene in complex and dynamic socialecological systems in which the human and natural are intertwined (Sterling et al 2010, Miller et al 2012.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does legacy create sticking points for environmental management? Insights from challenges to implementation of the ecosystem approach

Waylen¹,

Blackstock²,

Holstead³

2015

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. There are many recommendations for environmental management practices to adopt more holistic or systems-based approaches and to strengthen stakeholder participation. However, management practices do not always match or achieve these ideals. We explore why theory may not be reflected by practice by exploring experiences of projects seeking to implement the ecosystem approach, a concept that entails participatory holistic management. A qualitative inductive approach was used to understand the processes, achievements, and challenges faced by 16 projects across the British Isles. Many projects made significant progress toward their goals, yet failed to achieve fully participatory holistic management. Many of the challenges that contributed to this failure can be explained in terms of the legacy effects of previous projects and the wider social-ecological system. These legacy effects do not necessarily imply a fixed path dependency or lock-in. We therefore call these effects sticking points. Drawing on the literature on institutional analysis and knowledge production, we distinguish three main types of sticking point: (1) institutional, arising from previous ways of working; (2) cognitive, arising from ways of framing and knowing; and (3) political, arising from pre-existing power relations. These sticking points may interact. For example, attempts to promote systems thinking and management may be impeded by a tendency for reductionist thinking, itself reinforced by the constraints on prioritization that arise from pre-existing statutory targets. These influences often arise from aspects of societal and institutional context beyond the control of any individual project. Stickiness is not necessarily all bad, but often acts to constrain the "opening up" away from previous approaches. Because the longterm success of natural resource management is argued to depend on more integrated, participatory, and holistic environmental management, we argue that these sticking points demand more explicit attention in both research and practice.

show abstract

Ecosystem Services, Governance, and Stakeholder Participation: an Introduction

Cited by 62 publications

References 33 publications

Governing Forest Ecosystem Services for Sustainable Environmental Governance: A Review

Governing Forest Ecosystem Services for Sustainable Environmental Governance: A Review

Social-ecological enabling conditions for payments for ecosystem services

How does legacy create sticking points for environmental management? Insights from challenges to implementation of the ecosystem approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About