Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: Do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems?

Integration of the ecosystem services concept in planning documents from six municipalities in southwestern Sweden

“…Finally, the presence of a theoretical concept within policy documents is not a complete indicator of how the concept is translated into practice (Primmer and Furman 2012). In other words, the work is not completed when the right terminology is in place; instead, to make a real difference, it requires that urban planners actively incorporate the practical consequences of the concept in strategic planning documents that are closer to the implementation.…”

“…This is especially surprising for Mal_8 because it entered into force in 2015 (see, for example, Lun_10:2008) and indicates a lack of understanding among public health officers of the potential for nature to support public health efforts. This situation is symptomatic of how different sectors of the municipal organization tend to operate separately and how different skills are separated from one another (Primmer and Furman 2012). However, to work with such a complex concept as ES in practice, a holistic approach is required whereby different departments collaborate rather than act within their own silos (Colding 2007).…”

“…Services in this category, such as "soil formation" and "photosynthesis and primary production," are examples of ES that can be considered to lie outside the traditional municipal agenda, i.e., ES not directly associated with urban planning, as stated by Primmer and Furman (2012). However, supporting services provide a base for services in the three other ES categories (MEA 2005a) and may therefore be considered especially important to protect.…”

Operationalising marine and coastal ecosystem services

“…Yet, to be useful in decision-making, the scientific knowledge developed around the ecosystem services concept and its frameworks needs to be operationalised and taken up by policy-makers and practitioners (Primmer and Furman 2012). To help overcoming this critical challenge, IPBES, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services was established in 2012 by national governments to set an interface between scientists, policy-makers and practitioners, and help setting the foundations for the incorporation of ecosystem services science into policy formulation (Díaz et al 2015(Díaz et al , 2018.…”

Ecosystem Services Evaluation and Its Spatial Characteristics in Central Asia’s Arid Regions: A Case Study in Altay Prefecture, China

“…In 2006, the BES (British Ecological Society) organized scientists and government policy-makers, putting forward 100 ecosystem issues related to policy (14 themes), and the first theme is the study of ecosystem services [13]. In 2013, scientific evaluation of ecosystem services and their relationship with sustainable development were discussed at the 11th INTECOL Congress (Ecology: Into the next 100 years) [14].Currently, one of the greatest challenges in this aspect is how to quantitatively evaluate ecosystem services in a scientific manner [15][16][17]. In previous studies on ecosystem services, the results of economic-value assessment were often used to decide their importance, but such an approach cannot clearly show the different regional distribution laws of all services [18].…”