Search

This paper addresses the long-standing debate over the conservation and management of the Bialowieza Forest in North-eastern Poland, frequently referred to as the last, large, close-to-natural, temperate, lowland forest in Europe. With the present research we aim to document how particular conceptualisations of “forest” shaped the debate and the fate of the Bialowieza Forest. Based on our reconstruction and analysis of argumentation, three dominant discourses could be distinguished, each offering different concepts of forest and people–forest relationships: 1. ‘managerial’ — with foresters presented as stewards of the forest, actively managing it for sustainable outcomes; 2. ‘livelihood’ — considering the forest as local heritage and underlining its role in fulfilling people's needs; and 3. ‘primaeval’ — highlighting the forest's intrinsic value and natural processes, being an international concern. The three discourses remained remarkably stable over the past two decades, but their status of institutionalisation evolved, which in turn influenced their hegemony and power. Importantly, our study demonstrates the active role of parties involved in the debate as they used particular concepts (their own, those of others or new ones) for strategic purposes. We conclude that both the achieved hegemony of a discourse and the particular ways by which its concepts are mobilised by actors may play a decisive role in shaping debate and its policy outcomes. We suggest that future research should focus more on the role of actors in strategically using particular forest-related concepts in concrete situations and to what effects.

Background Implementing ecosystem services (ES)-based planning and management processes in practice, and mainstreaming the results in decision-making, is limited. Literature suggests this can be explained by a limited overlap between the ES concept and stakeholders’ representations of nature. Aims We introduce social representations theory as an approach to discuss whether the theoretical ES concept is compatible with stakeholders’ social representations of nature. Methods Thirty-nine stakeholders actively involved in the use and management of a peri-urban study area in Belgium were interviewed about their representation of nature. Conclusions Like the ES concept, stakeholders’ representation of nature includes an anthropocentric view, but stakeholders also stress the role and responsibility of humans in sustaining ecosystems and regulating nature (which is a relational value). From the qualitative analysis we conclude that the theoretical ES concept and ES classifications are not sufficiently reflecting stakeholders’ representations of nature, mainly on the human-nature relationship. The social representations technique provides handles to design ES-based processes according to stakeholders’ representations. This can result in more effective ES-based planning and management processes and improved understanding among stakeholders and between stakeholders and process managers.

European agri-environment programmes are based on the common principle that farmers deliver environmental services for which society pays. Due to the voluntary nature of agri-environment measures (AEM), the issue of farmers' motives or reasons for participation has been an important topic of investigation in past years. The present paper examines farmers' rationale for participation in AEM against the backdrop of continued debate over whether to develop relatively simple measures that can be readily applied by many farmers or give greater priority to measures that are more targeted - i.e. to the specific management requirement of particular habitats or species - but are often more complex. The paper draws on empirical material from a case study in the Dyle valley, Belgium, including in-depth interviews, expert consultations and a mail survey. It was sought not only to identify and quantify the importance of separate reasons for participation, but also to reveal how these reasons and other elements of relevance were logically interrelated in the explanation that farmers themselves give for their participation. As a result, six modes or styles of participation were identified: opportunistic, calculative, compensatory, optimising, catalysing and engaged. The analyses suggest that there were notable differences in that both separate reasons for and modes of participation do vary with the complexity of the measures' requirements. Overall, the study demonstrates that participation in AEM is not simply a matter of weighing the money against the effort for adoption. Whereas money is an important driver for participation (in particular, for those adopting complex AEM) it plays widely differing roles depending on the level of farmers' reasoning (farm enterprise, single practice or landscape feature) and the importance they give to other considerations (environmental effect, production potential of land, goodness of fit, etc.). Practical implications are drawn for both policy makers and programme managers who develop and make available tailor-made support. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.

Over het beheer van soorten die het (weer) goed doen, zijn de meningen vaak sterk verdeeld. De discussies hierover lijken vaak zeer stereotiep te verlopen en snel muurvast te zitten. In deze studie analyseerden we het debat rond de rekolonisatie van Vlaanderen door de vos en de terugkeer van het everzwijn. De argumenten die de verschillende betrokken partijen aanhalen en de manier van debatteren blijken een constructieve discussie eerder te blokkeren, dan bij te dragen tot het vinden van oplossingen.

International audience; This paper critically analyses the transformative capacity of citizen science (CS), and in particular, the issue of learning in the context of CS. A narrative review focussed on CS and social learning literature was conducted collaboratively, followed by a case study review to evaluate learning aspects in fourteen CS projects from across the European Union. A template approach to explore learning arrangements in CS projects was used to explain how the desired changes can be achieved in a learning context offered by CS. Based on this assessment these are concluded that: 1) recent studies aiming to define CS for analytical purposes often fail to improve the clarity of conceptualisation 2) CS programmes may have transformative learning potential, especially contributing to the development of individual level skills, while such transformation is not necessarily occurring at organisational and institutional levels, 3) there is existing fair evidence on simple and visible learning outcomes, whereas the assessment of transformative effects of learning is often based on assumptions rather than empirical observation, 4) learning in CS is unanimously considered as important but in practice is often forgotten and rarely evaluated.

In the past few decades governments in Western European countries have put increasing efforts into creating new green and forest areas in and around cities. At first sight, these centrally formulated plans seem to run counter to the current trend towards less central steering and more participation (and deliberation). However, closer scrutiny in two cases of green structure planning in the Netherlands and Flanders – Balij-Biesland forest and Park forest Ghent – reveals that we are facing a seemingly contradictory image of central steering on the one hand and openness to various actors and ideas on the other. This paper takes a closer look at this ambivalent situation using the two theoretical perspectives of deliberative governance and a discourse analysis. Although the green structure planning exercises did not intentionally have a deliberative character, we argue that such a perspective can and should be put on situations where new local coalitions challenge the centrally formulated plans, and try to start deliberations about their ideas In order to become more specific about the ‘deliberative incompleteness’ of the two Flemish and Dutch processes, a discourse-analytical focal point needs to be taken as well. Normatively, the paper first addresses the diversity of viewpoints and openness to preference shifts in the Dutch and the Flemish cases. It concludes that in the course of both processes, a high diversity of viewpoints surfaced, as well as a certain degree of openness to preference shifts. When the two processes are subjected to discourse analysis, it becomes evident however that the preference shifts occurring as a result of the input of a greater diversity of viewpoints did not bring about changes in some vital discursive practices that had been connected to the green structure planning and implementation processes. It was suggested, therefore, that combining the two theoretical perspectives gives a good insight into ‘deliberative incompleteness’ and highlights persistent institutional obstacles to come to more inclusive green structures in urbanized areas.

Whether in reports, face-to-face or online environments, maps are the most familiar tools for communication about landscape and urban plans. Apart from professional advantages to communicating with maps, there is also a widespread belief that citizens can participate more effectively if information is presented visually rather than in words. While we acknowledge that maps are proven and powerful tools for facilitating social interaction, we seek to illuminate how the tools themselves set the communicative conditions for that interaction. We use a mainstream example – the green structure for Ghent – to illustrate how the map participates in and shapes public debate. We suggest that assessing how maps “work” is a prerequisite for understanding the dynamics of a map-based interactional process and its consequences, which can help in turn to critically reflect on and, where appropriate, change the conditions of communication.

The research described in this paper attempted to identify approaches likely to be most effective for encouraging owners of small pine plantations to engage in conversion management. We started from the recognition of the evolving heterogeneity of forest ownership and the subsequent need to tailor policies and communications to the various types of forest owners. The focus was on small forest owners in secondary pine plantations in Flanders (northern part of Belgium). Using cluster analysis of survey data ( n = 276) a typology was developed based on the motivations of ownership. In addition, an intuitive owner typology was developed based on qualitative data (interviews with key informants and focus groups with forest owners), which proved to be a useful refinement and extension of the cluster analysis. The identification of motivational categories of forest owners is an important first step in understanding this diverse audience, but typology building alone is not a sufficient base enough for targeting recommendations for practice. The focus groups enabled to gain a deeper and more nuanced understanding about factors that encourage or constrain owners’ engagement in active forest management, and forest conversion in particular. The paper concludes with demonstrating how typology building can help identify and discuss owner-specific policies and communications to advance forest conversion on private land.

Visualization tools such as maps, models, and computer images are used increasingly as means of involving people more effectively. We examine how a visualization tool in the form of a map-based model may shape the knowledge local people bring to the planning table. The analysis was guided by the concept of mediated action as it has been developed in sociocultural theory. We found that local knowledge was conditioned by a complexity of factors, including the dynamic of actions that develop around the tool and the way of looking imposed by map-based representation. The suggestion being made is that visualization tools, although bringing people closer to the planning process, also disconnect them from their local knowledge base.

The number of collaborative initiatives between scientists and volunteers (i.e., citizen science) is increasing across many research fields. The promise of societal transformation together with scientific breakthroughs contributes to the current popularity of citizen science (CS) in the policy domain. We examined the transformative capacity of citizen science in particular learning through environmental CS as conservation tool. We reviewed the CS and social-learning literature and examined 14 conservation projects across Europe that involved collaborative CS. We also developed a template that can be used to explore learning arrangements (i.e., learning events and materials) in CS projects and to explain how the desired outcomes can be achieved through CS learning. We found that recent studies aiming to define CS for analytical purposes often fail to improve the conceptual clarity of CS; CS programs may have transformative potential, especially for the development of individual skills, but such transformation is not necessarily occurring at the organizational and institutional levels; empirical evidence on simple learning outcomes, but the assertion of transformative effects of CS learning is often based on assumptions rather than empirical observation; and it is unanimous that learning in CS is considered important, but in practice it often goes unreported or unevaluated. In conclusion, we point to the need for reliable and transparent measurement of transformative effects for democratization of knowledge production.

Conflicts and debates on wildlife issues often prove “intractable” or resistant to resolution. This paper develops a three-layered methodological approach to identify the fault lines and dynamics, which perpetuate social division and conflict. This approach was applied to the analysis of six publicly debated events that followed the comeback of the red fox and wild boar in Flanders, Belgium. The integrated findings demonstrate that conflict was not merely a manifestation of incompatible goals and views, but was highly determined by the conduct of the debate itself. The debates evolved along a few main fault lines, most notably “belonging/not belonging”, “opportunity/threat” and “control by intervention/nature controls itself”. A number of dynamics were identified along these fault lines, including the convergence and alignment of arguments (in particular, dichotomisation), the linking and scaling up of issues and the stigmatisation of outgroups. These processes were largely driven by the parties’ strategies to gain credibility and support with audiences. At the same time, however, they tended to magnify the problems, polarised positions along the fault lines, and thus hampered resolution. Furthermore, part of the debate served to confirm institutional roles and identities, which, in turn, contributed to the perpetuation of conflict. Contrasting views on “nature” were hardly a topic of discussion. Rather they were locked into dichotomies and classifications expressed by the contending parties. Together, the findings from this paper provide useful clues for transforming the dynamics perpetuating the conflict to different dynamics that allow for more constructive relations between the parties involved.

This paper aims to explain how a forest-sector-based discourse-each city should have its own forest-could gain prominence in current land use debates and even come to produce a new set of spatial practices for shaping the rural-urban interface. To this end, the focus was on the genealogy of discourse-actor relationships over recent decades, including the 'translation' of discourse into various (non)-discursive forms. The genealogical discourse approach has enabled not only the taking of a novel perspective on contemporary policies and practices of urban forest planning, but importantly, the addition of some insights into the constitutive role of discourse. In particular, the paper questions what makes a story line effective (or not) in carrying forward a strategic idea along the various trajectories from concepts and ideas to actual implementation that are constitutive of a long-term policy process.

Current strategies for creating new woodlands in the urban periphery aim to provide as many people as possible with a recreational green space close to where they live. When taking a socially inclusive approach, however, this also involves a number of ‘distributional’ questions. These refer to the kind of people likely to benefit the most from such a plan: urban or suburban residents, low or high-income groups, and so forth. This article presents a GIS-based working method aimed at exploring different options for urban woodland proposals with regard to their positioning in relation to residential areas, as well as the socio-spatial characteristics of those areas. The example of seven possible locations for a new ‘peri-urban forest’ in Antwerp, Belgium was used to demonstrate the method's potential to address relevant questions in socially inclusive planning and hence, to improve strategic planning for new urban woodlands.

This article examines the value of local knowledge in the creative phase of planning practice. It uses the case study of an urban renewal project in Antwerp to explore the ways that workshop participants made sense of the planning situation. Analysis of the “talks” identified shared interpretive “frames” employed by the lay participants. The article goes on to discuss how distinctive these were from the professionals’ perspectives and what the consequences were for the material outcomes of the planning process. It was concluded that the public input was used to making adjustments to planning solutions rather than formulating new interpretations of the planning situation itself.

In this chapter we consider how experiences of nature can affect human health and well-being. We first address the matter of ‘what has been’; that is, we sketch the development of theory and research concerned with health benefits of natural environments, from ancient times to the current situation. This shows the current research to be a recent expression of a number of long-running, intertwined, social and cultural processes. We then discuss ‘where we are now’; that is, we overview current theories and related research concerning processes through which nature experience might provide health benefits. These processes concern environmental preferences, psychological restoration, and learning and personal development. Finally, we consider ‘where we are going’; that is, we consider some additional directions for research and we identify some issues that research will have to address in the foreseeable future.

The availability of accessible and attractive green spaces is an integral part of urban quality of life. This paper presents an integrated indicator designed for: (1) the monitoring of the urban green space provision against quantitative and qualitative targets; (2) the comparison between cities and city parts; (3) the assessment of the effects of future policy scenarios; (4) the indication of locations where action is required. The indicator development was guided by five principles: “citizen based”, “functional levels”, “preconditions for use”, “variety of qualities”, and “multiple use”. The parameters were derived from the available research on public preferences and use of green spaces. The indicator is made operational in a GIS-based working procedure starting from the residential places and based on a two-step approach: (1) The accessibility: which green spaces are within reach at different functional levels? (2) The attractiveness: which are the accessible green spaces’ qualities? The GIS-model was applied in four cities of Flanders (northern part of Belgium): Antwerp, Ghent, Aalst and Kortrijk. This article explains the underlying ideas and the construction of the monitoring tool and discusses the suitability as a touchstone for current and future policy as well as its possible guiding role in local planning situations.

This report provides a synthesis of argumentation analysis in real-world cases in “multi-level biodiversity governance”, investigated within the BESAFE project. Thefollowing broad research questions guided the synthesis of argumentation analysis in the case studies:• Which (different types of) arguments can be identified at different levels and units of biodiversity governance?• How are these arguments exchanged and put to work in multi-level and networked interactions (i.e. within and across different levels and units of biodiversity governance)?• How are these arguments rooted in and how do they feed into different perspectives, worldviews and functioning of social groups or institutions at the different levels and units of biodiversity governance?The study’s approach to answering these questions is guided by a three layer analytical framework. This framework comprises three different perspectives toargument-making practice. Together these enable a comprehensive understanding of the role of argumentation in multi-level biodiversity governance.The first layer takes the perspective that arguments are “products” of communication. The analysis focuses on the verbal content of arguments, i.e. what these arguments “say”. By comparing argument contents between global, European, national, regional and local governance levels, it was revealed that at both global and regional level, social arguments were most dominant, while at the European level economic arguments were more prominent. Comparison between European and national governance levels revealed little differences. Comparison between types of actors showed some differences of emphasis. Whereas most actors use the argument that biodiversity should be protected because of its inherent value, regional authorities more often referred to social wellbeing and national authorities to legal obligation. The analysis also considered variety of arguments. In general, variety was very limited. Politicians used the smallest variety of arguments, while the largest variety was found in the science actors. Furthermore, variety depended on communication channels (e.g. internet forums showed much variety). Lastly, arguments do change over time. Arguments on ecosystem services, for instance, became prominent at both global and European levels, but they often do not reach or persist at local levels of governance.The second layer of the framework uses the perspective of arguments being transactions between arguers and audiences. The focus here is on what actors “do” D3.1 Final report synthesising the analysis of argumentation in multi-level governance interactions in case studies with arguments, that is, what they aim to achieve with the arguments and whatstrategies they use. Plenty of strategies were identified, such as particularisation (e.g. stressing the uniqueness of a natural area to increase policy attention), upscaling (e.g. situating a biodiversity problem at a higher level of space or time to make it more important), dichotomisation (e.g. polarising between two alternatives to exclude the possibility of an intermediate solution) and aligning arguments to the goals and interests of others to affect policy outcomes in a way that suits own interests. Finally, actors used various channels to transmit argument. Main examples were local politicians, NGOs and mass media.The third layer takes the perspective of arguments as being conditioned by the social-institutional networks in which they are transmitted. The analysis focuses on how the arguments and the reasoning they communicate “fit” into the different perspectives, worldviews and functioning of social groups and institutions. It was shown that argumentation was highly conditioned by law and regulations, institutional roles and established practices. International obligation, in particular, empowered member states to implement biodiversity policy and to finish disputes. But legislation (and uncertainty about it) also hampered conservation efforts. Furthermore, established criteria used in conservation practice (e.g. rarity, threat and species richness) supported justification of the need for implementing biodiversity conservation measures. Finally, what actors considered as their interests and what they valued as a legitimate policy process (democratic, science-based and sufficient societal support) conditioned the argumentation.

This paper builds on the outputs of the book "Ecosystem Services - Global Issues, Local Practices" (Jacobs et al. 2013) with contributions from more than 80 authors from the BEES (Belgium Ecosystem Services) community of practice. In this context, we recently performed a (non-exhaustive) review of how the ecosystem service (ES) concept could be useful to Belgian and international policy actors. As the ultimate goal of ES valuation is to improve the well being of every individual now and in the future (MEA, 2005), this paper intends to elaborate on the concept of ES valuation and how it could (not?) reach the intended goal. A clear tension appears between policy actors' desire to acquire tools for monetary valuation and the risks posed by monetary valuation (e.g. commodification of nature, neglect of other values...). On the one hand, there is the need for 'proof of concept', and the availability of economic tools and mainstream character of 'money talk' is a pragmatic choice. On the other hand, we note a strong reluctance and critical attitude towards the culture of 'math and money' at all levels: it is perceived as one of the main causes of social and ecological unsustainability. Several actors therefore urge for more collaborative approaches of ES valuation, e.g. to build trust between providers and beneficiaries, as monetary valuation alone is not relevant in their working context. Among the suggested solutions are the development of alternative new valuation methods and practices - amongst others using social debate and including relations between humankind and nature - as well as methods to integrate different types of values (e.g. economic, heritage, and biodiversity value) in decision making. In particular, several actors point out the necessity to account for environmental thresholds and ecological values, to consider socio-ethical values, and to deal with uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in decisions and actions. In the first part of this paper, we expand on the main outcomes and challenges, while in the second part some tools and test cases are presented. We conclude that integrated valuation of ES could start reconciling human viewpoints on nature and pave the way forward to the intended social and ecological sustainability, but there is still a long way to go.

Kartering van ecosysteemdiensten (ESD) is traditioneel gebaseerd op biofysische ecosysteem¬ken¬mer¬ken en landgebruik. Moeilijk kwantificeerbare ESD (bvb. mogelijkheden voor recreatie of relaxatie) worden echter uit het oog verloren, net als de perceptie van gebruikers van ESD. Om hieraan tegemoet te komen, hebben we een kader voor een geïntegreerde waardering van ESD uitgewerkt, waarin een sociaal luik de biofysische en economische waardering vooraf gaat (Fontaine et al. 2013). Deze poster focust op een onderdeel van het sociale luik, nl. de participatieve kartering van ESD. We interview¬den 39 stakeholders uit Oud-Heverlee, Bierbeek, Beauvechain en Grez-Doiceau die ESD gebruiken en/of er een (beleids)invloed op hebben. De respondenten werd o.a. gevraagd de voor hen belangrijkste ESD te lokaliseren. Een inhoudsanalyse gaf aan welke ESD volgens de respondenten samen voorkomen (synergie), en welke ESD met mekaar conflicteren. De verspreiding van de gekar¬teer¬de ESD werd onderzocht m.b.v. landschapsecologische indicatoren (abundantie/frequentie, rijk¬dom aan ESD, diversiteit, zeldzaamheid, risico; verder sociale landschaps¬indicatoren genoemd). M.b.v. Spearman correlaties werden de ruimtelijke synergieën tussen ESD onderzocht. De geïnterviewden duidden 535 gebieden aan, in 264 gebieden kwamen ESD in synergie (193) of conflict (71) voor. De meest frequent gekarteerde ESD zijn esthetische ervaringen (18 % van de gebieden), recreatie (15 %) en voorzien van habitats (15 %). Verstedelijking werd gezien als de belangrijkste bedreiging voor het functioneren van ESD, net als conflicten tussen recreatie en habitats. De sociale landschapsindicatoren abundantie, rijkdom, risico, diversiteit en zeldzaamheid vatten de gepercipieerde verspreiding van ESD goed samen. De zeldzaamheidsindicator geeft aan in welke gebieden weinig vermeldde ESD voorkomen. De abundan¬tie geeft aan waar de meeste ESD vermeld werden door de respondenten (onafhankelijk van het type ESD), terwijl de rijkdomindicator aangeeft waar de meeste verschillende types ESD gelokaliseerd werden. De risico indicator geeft de gebieden aan waar er de meeste conflicten tussen ESD of tussen ESD en verstedelijking vermeld werden. De correlatie tussen individuele ESD en de sociale landschapsindicatoren enerzijds, en de ecologische waarde anderzijds is laag. Dit onderstreept het belang van het sociale waarderingsluik. Een combinatie van sociale, biofysische en economische waardering geeft een beter inzicht in een breed pallet aan ecosysteemdiensten. Het integreren van percepties van stakeholders over het functioneren van ESD in een geïntegreerde waarderingsoefening draagt bij aan een waardering die de realiteit beter weergeeft. Referenties Fontaine, Corentin M., Nicolas Dendoncker, Rik De Vreese, Ingrid Jacquemin, Allyson Marek, Ann Van Herzele, Guenaël Devillet, Dieter Mortelmans, and Louis François. 2013. "Participatory Valuation and Modelling of Ecosystem Services under Land Use Change." Journal of Land Use Science. doi:10.1080/1747423X.2013.786150.

This report provides a synthesis of argumentation analysis in real-world cases in “multi-level biodiversity governance”, investigated within the BESAFE project. The following broad research questions guided the synthesis of argumentation analysis in the case studies:• Which (different types of) arguments can be identified at different levels and units of biodiversity governance?• How are these arguments exchanged and put to work in multi-level and networked interactions (i.e. within and across different levels and units of biodiversity governance)?• How are these arguments rooted in and how do they feed into different perspectives, worldviews and functioning of social groups or institutions at the different levels and units of biodiversity governance?The study’s approach to answering these questions is guided by a three layer analytical framework. This framework comprises three different perspectives to argument-making practice. Together these enable a comprehensive understanding of the role of argumentation in multi-level biodiversity governance.The first layer takes the perspective that arguments are “products” of communication. The analysis focuses on the verbal content of arguments, i.e. what these arguments “say”. By comparing argument contents between global, European, national, regional and local governance levels, it was revealed that at both global and regional level, social arguments were most dominant, while at the European level economic arguments were more prominent. Comparison between European and national governance levels revealed little differences. Comparison between types of actors showed some differences of emphasis. Whereas most actors use the argument that biodiversity should be protected because of its inherent value, regional authorities more often referred to social wellbeing and national authorities to legal obligation. The analysis also considered variety of arguments. In general, variety was very limited. Politicians used the smallest variety of arguments, while the largest variety was found in the science actors. Furthermore, variety depended on communication channels (e.g. internet forums showed much variety). Lastly, arguments do change over time. Arguments on ecosystem services, for instance, became prominent at both global and European levels, but they often do not reach or persist at local levels of governance.The second layer of the framework uses the perspective of arguments being transactions between arguers and audiences. The focus here is on what actors “do”D3.1 Final report synthesising the analysis of argumentation in multi-levelgovernance interactions in case studies5with arguments, that is, what they aim to achieve with the arguments and what strategies they use. Plenty of strategies were identified, such as particularisation (e.g. stressing the uniqueness of a natural area to increase policy attention), up-scaling (e.g. situating a biodiversity problem at a higher level of space or time to make it more important), dichotomisation (e.g. polarising between two alternatives to exclude the possibility of an intermediate solution) and aligning arguments to the goals and interests of others to affect policy outcomes in a way that suits own interests. Finally, actors used various channels to transmit argument. Main examples were local politicians, NGOs and mass media.The third layer takes the perspective of arguments as being conditioned by the social-institutional networks in which they are transmitted. The analysis focuses on how the arguments and the reasoning they communicate “fit” into the different perspectives, worldviews and functioning of social groups and institutions. It was shown that argumentation was highly conditioned by law and regulations, institutional roles and established practices. International obligation, in particular, empowered member states to implement biodiversity policy and to finish disputes. But legislation (and uncertainty about it) also hampered conservation efforts. Furthermore, established criteria used in conservation practice (e.g. rarity, threat and species richness) supported justification of the need for implementing biodiversity conservation measures. Finally, what actors considered as their interests and what they valued as a legitimate policy process (democratic, science-based and sufficient societal support) conditioned the argumentation.

This paper builds on the outputs of the book “Ecosystem Services – Global Issues, Local Practices” (Jacobs et al. 2013) with contributions from more than 80 authors from the BEES (Belgium Ecosystem Services) community of practice. In this context, we recently performed a (non-exhaustive) review of how the ecosystem service (ES) concept could be useful to Belgian and international policy actors. As the ultimate goal of ES valuation is to improve the well being of every individual now and in the future (MEA, 2005), this paper intends to elaborate on the concept of ES valuation and how it could (not?) reach the intended goal. A clear tension appears between policy actors’ desire to acquire tools for monetary valuation and the risks posed by monetary valuation (e.g. commodification of nature, neglect of other values…). On the one hand, there is the need for ‘proof of concept’, and the availability of economic tools and mainstream character of ‘money talk’ is a pragmatic choice. On the other hand, we note a strong reluctance and critical attitude towards the culture of ‘math and money’ at all levels: it is perceived as one of the main causes of social and ecological unsustainability. Several actors therefore urge for more collaborative approaches of ES valuation, e.g. to build trust between providers and beneficiaries, as monetary valuation alone is not relevant in their working context.Among the suggested solutions are the development of alternative new valuation methods and practices - amongst others using social debate and including relations between humankind and nature - as well as methods to integrate different types of values (e.g. economic, heritage, and biodiversity value) in decision making. In particular, several actors point out the necessity to account for environmental thresholds and ecological values, to consider socio-ethical values, and to deal with uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in decisions and actions. In the first part of this paper, we expand on the main outcomes and challenges, while in the second part some tools and test cases are presented. We conclude that integrated valuation of ES could start reconciling human viewpoints on nature and pave the way forward to the intended social and ecological sustainability, but there is still a long way to go. This paper builds on the outputs of the book “Ecosystem Services – Global Issues, Local Practices” (Jacobs et al. 2013) with contributions from more than 80 authors from the BEES (Belgium Ecosystem Services) community of practice. In this context, we recently performed a (non-exhaustive) review of how the ecosystem service (ES) concept could be useful to Belgian and international policy actors. As the ultimate goal of ES valuation is to improve the well being of every individual now and in the future (MEA, 2005), this paper intends to elaborate on the concept of ES valuation and how it could (not?) reach the intended goal. A clear tension appears between policy actors’ desire to acquire tools for monetary valuation and the risks posed by monetary valuation (e.g. commodification of nature, neglect of other values…). On the one hand, there is the need for ‘proof of concept’, and the availability of economic tools and mainstream character of ‘money talk’ is a pragmatic choice. On the other hand, we note a strong reluctance and critical attitude towards the culture of ‘math and money’ at all levels: it is perceived as one of the main causes of social and ecological unsustainability. Several actors therefore urge for more collaborative approaches of ES valuation, e.g. to build trust between providers and beneficiaries, as monetary valuation alone is not relevant in their working context.Among the suggested solutions are the development of alternative new valuation methods and practices - amongst others using social debate and including relations between humankind and nature - as well as methods to integrate different types of values (e.g. economic, heritage, and biodiversity value) in decision making. In particular, several actors point out the necessity to account for environmental thresholds and ecological values, to consider socio-ethical values, and to deal with uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in decisions and actions. In the first part of this paper, we expand on the main outcomes and challenges, while in the second part some tools and test cases are presented. We conclude that integrated valuation of ES could start reconciling human viewpoints on nature and pave the way forward to the intended social and ecological sustainability, but there is still a long way to go.

This thesis has focused on practices in greenspace policies and planning. It was the central assumption that we can learn from practice in order to improve practice, particularly by moving it closer towards place- and people-sensitive approaches. In this respect, planning was primarily referred to as the imaginative and interpretative work involved in framing ideas and translating these into policy texts, plans, and actions on the ground. The thesis presents three studies of practices:The first study concentrates on the question of how forest expansion discourse in Flanders, having its origins in a relatively small group in a defensive position, could gain prominence in current land use debates and even come to produce a new set of spatial practices for shaping the rural-urban interface. In tracing back the development of this discourse, the emphasis was on the genealogy of discourse-actor relationships over the past decades, including the translation of discourse into various (non)-discursive forms. The case of the Ghent Park Forest was used to explore what happened to forest expansion discourse when it came to interfere with different actors in a local planning situation. The study draws attention to the powers of 'organising' ways of representation, in particular an appealing 'story line'. It was questioned what makes a story line effective (or not) in carrying forward its strategic idea along the various trajectories from concepts and ideas to actual implementation that are constitutive of a long-term policy processThe second study is concerned with the issue of factual evidence and normative prescription as it is used in planning practice. It presents an integrated indicator, made operational in a Geographical Information Systems (GIS)-based working procedure, and designed to monitor the greenspace provision in cities against quantitative and qualitative targets. It was demonstrated that not only can the GIS-based applications provide a powerful tool for analysis and representation, but they can also play an integral part in the dynamics of planning itself: this is to explore spatial datasets in an on-going process, playing with multiple interpretations of the data, rather than representing stable, known information. However, this study also points to the limitations of the geographical approach and draws to the need to involve those people who actually use the greenspace in exploring the special qualities that planning should support.The third study examines the value of local knowledge in the creative phase of planning practice. It uses the case study of an urban renewal project inAntwerpto explore the actual dynamic of the construction of meaning in discursive interaction, that is, the ways that urban designers and workshop participants made sense of the planning situation. The analysis identified shared 'interpretive frames employed by the lay participants when collectively and actively playing with options and choices, problems and solutions. The study goes on to discuss how distinctive these were from the professionals' perspectives and what the consequences were for the material outcomes of the planning process. Given the difficulties encountered when reconciling both perspectives, it was concluded that research should concentrate attention on what happens at the overlapping boundaries where different frames converge, in order to uncover what makes it so difficult for professionals to reflect on and to break out of their own frames.

This paper describes a qualitative social assessment of ecosystem services (ESS), as part of an integrated ESS assessment in a peri-urban study area in central Belgium. We interviewed 39 decisionmakers and other people actively using and managing nature in the study area and asked them firstly what nature means to them, and secondly to assess the importance of 31 ecosystem services at the local scale. By applying a grounded theory-inspired analysis of the interview transcripts, we defined interviewees' images of nature. Two dimensions along which images of nature are revolving, emerged: on the one hand the nature versus culture dimension and on the other hand the view on the relation between nature and people. This paper elaborates on these dimensions and illustrates them trough interview quotes.We also demonstrate how the images of nature fit the ESS concept and ESS classification. We show how cultural and provisioning ESS are clearly present in the images of nature, regulating ESS are much less connectedto the images.

Ecosystem services mapping is traditionally based on land use and land cover data or on the spatial distribution of biophysical or abiotic assets and flows contributing to the provision of ecosystem services (Hindmarch et al., 2006). Our approach, however, is a stakeholder-based qualitative approach, aimed at mapping ecosystem services important to those living and working in the study area. We argue that this approach is more closely reflecting the philosophy of ecosystem services, that is, providing services to humans. By applying the social mapping urban forest governance and management can be tuned to users and beneficiaries' perceptions and expectations towards the urban forest. Within the VOTES-project (www.votes-project.be), 39 ecosystem services beneficiaries localised the - according to them - most important ecosystem services within the study area: a landscape combining forest, valleys and farmland. This interview-based social mapping gives an insight into the spatial distribution of the selected ecosystem services and stakeholders' rationale behind pointing the areas as important. The sketches made by the stakeholders have been mapped and digitized (vector-based). Using rasterization in GIS, hotspots of ecosystem services and potential conflicts and synergies between ecosystem services and between specific ecosystem services and urbanisation/land use change have been localised. The most frequently mapped ecosystem services were the cultural ecosystem services recreation, aesthetics and creating a sense of place, the regulating services creating habitat, opportunities for local species, flood protection and the provisioning service food production. The areas of conflict and synergy have been mapped based on respondents' sketches and content analysis of the interview transcripts. Urbanisation was frequently quoted as a threat to ecosystem services delivery, and almost none of the respondents positioned ecosystem services in the urban area. On the other hand, respondents pointed (protected) valleys and woods as zones with opportunities for strengthened ecosystem services provisioning. During the presentation, we will discuss the potential of the technique for ecosystem service non-monetary valuation, focusing on qualitative assessment of cultural ecosystem services and other ecosystem services that are hard to quantify.

Internationally, the importance of a coordinated effort to protect both biodiversity and public health is more and more recognized. These issues are often concentrated or particularly challenging in urban areas, and therefore on-going urbanization worldwide raises particular issues both for the conservation of living natural resources and for population health strategies. These challenges include significant difficulties associated with sustainable management of urban ecosystems, urban development planning, social cohesion and public health. An important element of the challenge is the need to interface between different forms of knowledge and different actors from science and policy. We illustrate this with examples from Belgium, showcasing concrete cases of human–nature interaction. To better tackle these challenges, since 2011, actors in science, policy and the broader Belgian society have launched a number of initiatives to deal in a more integrated manner with combined biodiversity and public health challenges in the face of ongoing urbanization. This emerging community of practice in Belgium exemplifies the importance of interfacing at different levels. (1) Bridges must be built between science and the complex biodiversity/ecosystem–human/public health–urbanization phenomena. (2) Bridges between different professional communities and disciplines are urgently needed. (3) Closer collaboration between science and policy, and between science and societal practice is needed. Moreover, within each of these communities closer collaboration between specialized sections is needed., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Social research that informs the implementation of natural resource policies is frequently driven by the logic of the policy system itself. A prevailing concern with achieving policy outcomes can lead, however, to lack of attention to equally important aspects, for example the challenges the policy instruments present to those they are targeting and the consequences this might have for government-citizen relationships. To help guide research into these issues we have developed a situational-interactional approach to interpretive policy analysis that seeks to examine the processes involved when people collectively make sense of government instruments. The theoretical basis is provided to a large extent by Luhmann’s theory of self-referential social systems. In addition, we operationalise the concepts of interactional framing and resemiotisation to capture the active work of the citizens in sense-making processes. We then apply our situational-interactional analysis to small-scale forest ownership in Flanders. Analysis of data from focus groups with forest owners reveals how interactions build on each other in the co-development of particular strategies to cope with government intervention. Finally, we discuss two future directions for research. First, the forest owners find themselves in an inescapable relationship with the government, and feel their autonomy is threatened. Government intervention, therefore, will almost necessarily lead to resistance. Second, forest groups enhance compatibility between the government system and the forest owners, but rather than narrowing the gap between the two worlds they tend to emphasise it.

This paper investigates the nature of the relationship between the greenness of the local environment and the health and well-being of its inhabitants by looking at a number of possible mediators within the same study: physical activity, perceived stress, ability to concentrate, social cohesion and neighbourhood satisfaction. Data were collected through a survey of residents in two neighbourhoods that differ objectively in green space provision, but which are largely similar in demographics, socio-economic factors, housing conditions and other environmental characteristics, apart from green space. Of the three dependent variables of interest: self-reported general health, bodily functioning and general well-being (happiness), it was self-reported happiness that differed significantly between the two neighbourhoods, with greater happiness in the greener neighbourhood. Amongst the possible mediators, people's satisfaction with their neighbourhood differed significantly: those living in the greener neighbourhoodwere more satisfied. Mediation analysis indicated that neighbourhood satisfaction fully mediates the relationship between neighbourhood greenness and happiness. Among the specific (environmental and social) neighbourhood qualities asked about, perception of neighbourhood greenness was found to be the most important predictor of neighbourhood satisfaction. Additional analysis showed that the view from the living room--green or not green--fully mediates the relationship between neighbourhood greenness and neighbourhood satisfaction. This study underscores the importance of nearby green space for people's overall well-being and suggests the need for green space to be evaluated in terms of visual proximity, that is, whether and how it is experienced from the street and the home.

Context With increasingly globalised economies, sustainable development becomes an even greater challenge to both policy and science because new opportunities and unknown risks created by globalisation are unevenly distributed between regions and between people. Policy should be able to provide measures to help different regions and communities benefit from these opportunities and cope with these risks in a sustainable manner, and science should take the challenge to contribute to design such measures. This research project aims to contribute to this challenge by developing an integrated modelling framework. Such framework will be implemented through a multiscalar & multiagent model (MultiMode) in which national impacts of global changes trickle down to the local communities through the adaptive decisions of institutions and agents at the regional, provincial and communal levels. Project description Objectives The overall aim of MultiMode was to promote sustainable development in Belgium in a globalisedcontext through the development of an integrated, multi-scale modelling framework of economic activities and their associated land uses. The modelling framework combined top-down and bottom-up models that address both urban and rural land use. Given the importance in spatial terms of agricultural land use, a specific focus was dedicated on the sustainability of farming practices. Specifically, Multimode aimed to generate multi-scale indicators of social, economic and ecological sustainability by integrating the empirical knowledge generated from different models. Methodology MultiMode has four closely interconnected work packages (WP): a meta-model of policy options and global scenarios (WP1), a multi-scale constrained cellular-automata (CA) model (WP2), a landscape scale agent-based model (ABM) of decision rules (WP3), and stakeholder dialogue and feed-backs (WP4). The policy options and scenarios at the global and European scale from WP1 provide inputs to the CA of the WP2 and ABM of the WP3 as drivers of land use change and socio-economic decision-making processes. The meta- model of WP1 produces look-up tables and/or simple statistical functions of relevant global drivers (e.g., socio-economic, technological, demographic, climatic, etc.). The constrained CA of WP2 generates spatio-temporal changes in the social, economic and natural environment, including land use, at different spatial scales. Results from the CA provide the boundary conditions for the ABM of WP3 by describing the spatial dynamics in the environment of the agents (e.g., farmers). The novelty of the ABM in assessing future sustainability rests in its ability to capture the behaviour of individual decision agents in adapting to the changes in their environment. Its results informed the CA about the impacts of their adaptive decisions on changes in the social, economic and natural environment. The feedback mechanism between the CA and ABM improves their practical use for assessing the indicators of sustainable development. In the ABM, adaptive decisions from agents are represented in social behavioural models (SBM). These SBM were developed from the knowledge elicited through stakeholder dialogue and feedbacks in WP4. Moreover, WP4 provides in-depth analyses of agri-environmental measures (AEMs) at the institutional and farmer levels. Main results and deliverables Model analysis and simulation runs ? WP1 generated scenarios for socio-economic (e.g. population, employment) and farm- level indicators (e.g. yields, prices) for the period 2000-2060 based on time-series data from 1970s. Four scenarios were identified: Global and economic emphasis (GEE), Globalised and environmental/social emphasis (GES), Localised and economic emphasis (LEE), and Localised and emphasis on social/environment (LES). The values of the indicators were highest for GEE and lowest for the LES scenario. ? Using the WP1 socio-economic scenarios, the CA model from the WP2 generated land use change scenarios at different administrative levels. The strongest expansion of the built-up area is observed in LEE (+55%) and the least in LES (30%). The occupation of land by industrial and commercial activities is rather modest in LEE in comparison to the expansion of the built-up area in this scenario. There is a steep decline in the amount of agricultural land towards 2060 in all scenarios. This decline is most pronounced in LEE and GEE (both -17%) and least pronounced in LES (-11%). ? The ABM model in WP3 identified four types of farmer typologies including imitative, innovative, conservative, and adaptive. When making land use decisions, the imitative and innovative farmers give more importance on the type of farm activities (45%) and social feedback (11%). Meanwhile, the conservative and adaptive farmers give more importance to the changes in farm income (21%). Based on the land use constraints from the WP2, the largest changes in land use pattern are expected to happen in LES scenario mainly as a response to changes in farm income. ? As an extension of the land use analysisin WP3, analysis of agri-environmental measures (AEMs) was carried out in WP4. In addition, two separate studies were conduced. First, Actor-Network analysis was performed to examine the mechanisms by which mobilisation for agri-environmental management proceeds, and by doing so, to develop mobilisation capacity as a concept to be used for evaluating policy implementation in this area. Second, a mixed-method approach was used to examine farmers' decision-making in relation to ?simple', ?medium' and ?complex' AEMs. Among others, this resulted in the identification of six styles of AEM participation. Models and codes ? A series of documented model runs consisting of time-series sustainability indicators and maps at the European, national, regional, provincial, communal and farm levels. ? Validated models including multi-scalar cellular automata model at the national, regional, provincial and communal levels in Belgium as well as landscape scale agent- based models for the case study areas in the Flemish and Walloon regions. Publications ? Working papers with full documentation of the work carried out, the main results, and recommendations for further analysis. ? Articles in internationally refereed journals: (1) A. Van Herzele, N. Dendoncker, and L. Acosta-Michlik, Mobilisation capacity for agri-environmental management, Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 1023-1032; (2) R. White, I. Uljee, and G. Engelen, Integrated Modelling of Population, Employment, and Land Use Change with a Multiple Activity Based Variable Grid Cellular Automaton, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, accepted 2011; (3) A. Van Herzele et al., Effort for money? Farmers' response to agri-environment measures with different degrees of complexity, Land Use Policy, submitted 2011; (4) L. Acosta-Michlik et al., Complex social-ecological system modelling of sustainable land use decisions, special issue Regional Environmental Change, in preparation 2011.

Projecting into the future the evolution of socio-ecological systems to analyse their sustainability under climate or other environmental changes is not straightforward. Current projections usually use process-oriented models describing the complex interactions within the physical/biological systems (ecosystems), while the socio-economic constraints are represented with the help of scenarios. However, the actual evolution can be expected to be much more complex, because of the mutual interactions between ecological and socio-economic systems. To represent these interactions, models must integrate the complex process of human decision at individual or society levels. Moreover, models must be spatially explicit, defining elementary spatial units on which can act both the physical factors and the human decision process. These spatial units (e.g., farm fields) must be described not only in terms of energy, water, carbon and nutrient flows, but also in terms of the flow of ecosystem goods and services (EGS) they provide to the society together with the management costs required to sustain them. The provision of EGS may be altered in the future in response to changes in the climate system and the environment, but also through various human pressures on the landscape such as urbanization, as well as through the reaction of human societies to these changes in EGS provision. In the VOTES ("Valuation Of Terrestrial Ecosystem Services in a multifunctional peri-urban space") project, we attempt to model this coupled socio-ecological system by combining a dynamic vegetation model (DVM) with an agent-based model (ABM). The DVM (CARAIB; Dury et al., iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry, 4:82-99, 2011) model describes the evolution of physical and biological processes in the ecosystems, i.e. the impact of climate change and land management on the energy, water and carbon budgets, as well as the productivity of each simulated plant species present on each land unit. The original version of the model developed for natural vegetation has been upgraded to include crop systems and pastures. The ABM (Murray-Rust, Journal of Land Use Science, 6(2-3):83-99, 2011) describes the management choices (e.g., crop rotation, intensive agriculture or organic farming, etc) for each land plot, as well as the possible change in their affectation (e.g., conversion of farm fields to residential areas in response to urbanization), under different socio-economic contexts described in the storyline of three scenarios depicting general societal orientations (business-as-usual; market oriented; sustainability oriented). As a result, the ABM produces a dynamic evolution of land use and management options to be passed on to the DVM for further analysis. The outputs from the DVM allow evaluating quantitatively the provision of EGS by each land plot. This DVM-ABM modelling tool is thus able to describe the future evolution of land use and land cover, as well as of EGS production, in the context of socio-economic scenarios. The model is applied to a case study area covering four municipalities located in central Belgium close to Brussels and Leuven. The area is mostly composed of agricultural fields (crops and meadows), residential areas and a large protected forest (Meerdaalbos) and is subject to intense urbanization pressure due to the proximity to Brussels.