Search

Drawing on work from Joan Martínez Alier, this chapter discusses the contribution of ecological economics to thinking concrete utopias, with attention to the future of work. First, I note how cultural, economic, technological and environmental changes are destabilizing established conceptions of work. Second, I review alternative visions on the future of work, with an emphasis on the case for a Universal Basic Income. Next, I discuss common criticisms addressed to these visions. Finally, drawing on early ecological economic texts rescued from oblivion by Martínez Alier, I discuss the case for a Universal Civil Service, a variant of basic income premised in the egalitarian distribution of the volume of work required for the reproduction of society. I call for expanding traditional emphasis in basic income debates on individual freedoms towards considerations of collective justice, and I make a case for a future of work organized around the principle of fair distribution of minimal necessary work.

We examined the contribution of natural capital and social capital through the notion of cultural ecosystem services to shaping human well-being in the fishing community of Rost in the Lofoten Islands in Northern Norway. Through ethnographic observations, in-depth interviews, and a participatory scenario workshop we develop four narratives centering on the links of nature and ecosystem services. Benefits derived from ecosystem services are fundamental building blocks in the local vision of ‘the good life’ and emerge from a combination of satisfied preferences and struggle, hardships, and capabilities inflicted by a demanding environment and challenging work conditions. Beyond a certain level of meeting basic needs and provisioning of essential public services, simplicity in life and local control over resources and surroundings was preferred over a multitude of other opportunities and services. Well-being was strongly linked to maintenance of identity through traditional practices for harvesting of natural resources, nurturing of skills, social cohesion, and acting meaningfully in one's local environment. In a relational perspective, cultural ecosystem services are constituted and given meaning through interaction with nature. The main policy implication is that contributions of natural and social capital to well-being proved to be hard to meaningfully separate.

By the late twentieth century, many doubted whether Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) would survive the millennium, but a surge in their recognition and new insight on their resilience open new perspectives about their future. This paper examines historical drivers behind the loss of ILK and discusses possibilities for its survival and revitalization. I first examine long-term impacts of modernization and unfolding capitalism on ILK. Next, I discuss future perspectives in the light of recent developments in science, law, and politics. The paper concludes with a reflection on the role ILK ought to play in a future post-industrial society. Traditional ecological knowledge; modernity; cultural diversity; revitalization

The impacts of the COVID- pandemic extend to global biodiversity and its conservation. Although shortterm beneficial or adverse impacts on biodiversity have been widely discussed, there is less attention to the likely political and economic responses to the crisis and their implications for conservation. Here we describe four possible alternative future policy responses: () restoration of the previous economy, () removal of obstacles to economic growth, () green recovery and () transformative economic reconstruction. Each alternative offers opportunities and risks for conservation. They differ in the agents they emphasize to mobilize change (e.g. markets or states) and in the extent to which they prioritize or downplay the protection of nature. We analyse the advantages and disadvantages of these four options from a conservation perspective. We argue that the choice of post-COVID- recovery strategy has huge significance for the future of biodiversity, and that conservationists of all persuasions must not shrink from engagement in the debates to come. Biodiversity conservation, conservation futures, COVID-19, degrowth, Green New Deal, green recovery, political economy, transformative change

Our case examples show that urban GBIs provide many valuable benefits to urban dwellers. One of the clearest outcomes from these infrastructures is cultural ES, especially the multiple recreation and leisure opportunities they provide, which in turn has a remarkable positive effect on human health and well-being.

Climate change and biodiversity loss are two pressing global environmental challenges that are tightly coupled to urban processes. Cities emit greenhouse gases through the consumption of materials and energy. Urban expansion encroaches on local habitats, while urban land teleconnections simultaneously degrade distant ecosystems. These processes decrease the supply of and increase the demand for ecosystem services inside and outside urban areas. Most cities are in a state of ecosystem services deficit, whereby demand exceeds local supply of ecosystem services. Methods to quantify this deficit by capturing multi-scale and multi-level ecological exchanges are incipient, leaving scholars with a partial understanding of the environmental impacts of cities. This paper deploys a novel method to simulate future urban supplies and demands of two key ecosystem services needed to combat climate change and biodiversity loss - global climate regulation and global habitat maintenance. Applying our model to eight representative European cities, we project growing ecosystems deficits (demand exceeds supply) between 8% and 214% in global climate regulation and 11% and 431% in global habitat maintenance between 2020 and 2050. Variation between cities stems from differing dietary patterns and electricity mixes, which have large implications for ecosystems outside the city. To combat these losses, urban sustainability strategies should complement local restoration with changes to local consumption alongside promoting remote ecological restoration to tackle the multi-level environmental impacts of cities.

The ecosystem services (ES) concept is one of the main avenues for conveying society's dependence on natural ecosystems. On-ground applications of the concept are now widespread and diverse and include its use as a communication tool, for policy guidance and priority setting, and for designing economic instruments for conservation. Each application raises ethical considerations beyond traditional controversies related to the monetary valuation of nature. We review ethical considerations across major on-ground applications and group them into the following categories: anthropocentric framing, economic metaphor, monetary valuation, commodification, sociocultural impact, changes in motivations, and equity implications. Different applications of the ES concept raise different suites of ethical issues, and we propose methods to address the issues most relevant to each application. We conclude that the ES concept should be considered as only one among various alternative approaches to valuing nature and that reliance on economic metaphors can exclude other motivations for protecting ecosystems.

Mounting research highlights the contribution of ecosystem services provided by urban forests to quality of life in cities, yet these services are rarely explicitly considered in environmental policy targets. We quantify regulating services provided by urban forests and evaluate their contribution to comply with policy targets of air quality and climate change mitigation in the municipality of Barcelona, Spain. We apply the i-Tree Eco model to quantify in biophysical and monetary terms the ecosystem services "air purification," "global climate regulation,"and the ecosystem disservice "air pollution" associated with biogenic emissions. Our results show that the contribution of urban forests regulating services to abate pollution is substantial in absolute terms, yet modest when compared to overall city levels of air pollution and GHG emissions. We conclude that in order to be effective, green infrastructure-based efforts to offset urban pollution at the municipal level have to be coordinated with territorial policies at broader spatial scales. ©The Author(s) 2014.

Anthropocentrism in Western (modern industrial) society is dominant, goes back hundreds of years, and can rightly be called ‘hubris’. It removes almost all moral standing from the nonhuman world, seeing it purely as a resource. Here, we discuss the troubling components of anthropocentrism: worldview and ethics; dualisms, valuation and values; a psychology of fear and denial; and the idea of philosophical ‘ownership’. We also question whether it is a truly practical (or ethical) approach. We then discuss three troubling examples of anthropocentrism in conservation: ‘new’ conservation; ecosystem services; and the IPBES values assessment. We conclude that anthropocentrism is fuelling the environmental crisis and accelerating extinction, and urge academia to speak out instead for ecocentrism. anthropocentrism; hubris; ecocentrism; conservation; human supremacy; worldview; denial; ethics; ownership; practicality

There is growing evidence that ecosystem services and especially the exposure to the natural world (blue-green spaces) have potential benefits for mental health and well-being. The COVID-19 pandemic and the measures adopted to control it provide a natural experiment to investigate the links between nature exposure and mental health under extreme conditions. Using a survey distributed online, we tested the following hypotheses: 1) People will show greater symptoms of depression and anxiety under lockdown conditions that did not allow contact with outdoor nature spaces; 2) Where access to public outdoor nature spaces was strictly restricted, (2a) those with green/blue nature view or (2b) access to private outdoor spaces such as a garden or balcony will show fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety, and a more positive mood. Based on 5218 responses from 9 countries, we found that lockdown severity significantly affected mental health, while contact with nature helped people to cope with these impacts, especially for those under strict lockdown. People under strict lockdown in Spain (3403 responses), perceived that nature helped them to cope with lockdown measures; and emotions were more positive among individuals with accessible outdoor spaces and blue-green elements in their views. These findings can help decision-makers in developing potential future lockdown measures to mitigate the negative impacts, helping people to be more resilient and maintain better mental health, using the benefits that ecosystem services are providing us., Graphical abstract Unlabelled Image, Highlights • Lockdown severity is positively associated with poor mental health. • Nature contact ‘buffers’ the negative effect of lockdown on mental health. • People perceived that nature helped them to cope better with lockdown measures. • Access to outdoor spaces and nature views associated with more positive emotions.

Urban and peri-urban green space provides multiple recreation opportunities with important benefits for physical and psychological well-being, but access to these benefits is often unequally distributed. Various methodologies to assess outdoor recreation opportunities exist, but they rarely take into consideration dimensions of environmental justice. The aim of this paper is to map and assess nature-based outdoor recreation opportunities with a focus on green space accessibility for different social groups, and discuss the results in light of of environmental justice. We use the Oslo metropolitan area, Norway, as a case study. We combine statistical analysis with spatial modelling to assess recreation preferences and distribution of nature-based recreation opportunities. We also analyse accessibility for different social groups, including children and the elderly, migrants and low-income households. Our results show that most people prefer large wooded green areas, high density of trees, and presence of water, although preferences differ depending on age and place of residence. Areas for daily recreation are accessible to the whole population in the study area, but they are unequally distributed, migrants and low-income households having relatively less access. Our methodology can also be applied in other cities and metropolitan areas to assess differences in accessibility to outdoor recreation opportunities. We discuss whether and to which extent these results illustrate a situation of environmental injustice. We conclude that the relation between access to green space and environmental justice can be complex, and that injustice may not automatically result from uneven access. Contributions by MSC, DNB and EGB were supported by the project ENABLE, funded through the 2015-2016 BiodivERsA COFUND call for research proposals, with the national funders The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences, and Spatial Planning, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, German Aeronautics and Space Research Centre, National Science Centre (Poland), The Research Council of Norway and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. The lead author was also partially supported by an ERASMUS+ Ikasle Praktikak 2017-2018 grant, operated by University of the Basque Country.

During a workshop held in Oaxaca, Mexico, a shared vision, mission and strategies to foster a more plural valuation of nature were developed. The participants represent a wide range of backgrounds and are active in science, policy and practitioner networks and activities. Their common ground is the recognition of the need to change the prevailing culture of how nature is valued and subsequently managed as an essential step towards a more just and sustainable world. After an open plenary session in which the goal of the workshop was determined and the diverse perspectives and backgrounds of the participants were heard, breakout groups developed the components of a shared vision, mission and strategies for plural valuation of nature. Consequently, these components were discussed back in plenary and consolidated into a consensus text, which was further debated and its main building blocks agreed upon. The compilation of our shared views converged into a normative call and perspective to share with our peers. The information generated throughout the workshop was collaboratively synthesized, amended, reviewed and validated by all workshop participants/co-authors. Our message aims to contribute to advancing plural valuation approaches as a science-policy field, as well as to raise personal awareness among researchers and practitioners on implicit inequality and power issues. The authors wish to thank the Sida-funded SwedBio programme at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, the Programme for Ecosystem Change and Society of Future Earth, the Gordon and Betty Moore University through sub-grant GBMF5433 to the Basque Centre for Climate Change (bc3) for supporting the undertaking of the workshop that led to this paper and the EQUIVAL project and the work of UP, PB and NZC, the Future Earth Montreal Global Hub, the Institute of Ecosystem and Sustainability Research at the Autonomous National University of Mexico and the Division of Science Policy and Capacity-Building (SC/PCB) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), CISEN V, the ValuES project from GIZ supported by the BMUB and ecoSERVICES from Future Earth for providing support and financial resources. SJ wishes to thank the Flemish Department of Environment and Energy for funding a research stay under the Flanders–Basque Country Declaration of Intent. i The workshop was supported by the project ‘Nurturing a Shift towards Equitable Valuation of Nature in the Anthropocene’ (EQUIVAL) of the Future Earth-Pegasus programme, Future Earth Montreal Global Hub, the Capacity Building Programme Mentoring Program on Plural Valuation supported by Future Earth’s Natural Assets Knowledge–Action Network, the Institute of Ecosystem and Sustainability Research at the Autonomous National University of Mexico, the Basque Centre for Climate Change, the Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) and ecoSERVICES of Future Earth, SwedBio GIZ-BMUB, the ESP Working Group on Integrated Valuation and UNESCO.

Combining socio-cultural valuations of ecosystem services with ecological and monetary assessments is critical to informing decision making with an integrative and multi-pronged approach. This study examined differences in the perceptions of ecosystem service supply and diversity across eight major ecosystem types in Spain and scrutinized the social and ecological factors shaping these perceptions. First, we implemented 1932 face-to-face questionnaires among local inhabitants to assess perceptions of ecosystem service supply. Second, we created an ecosystem service diversity index to measure the perceived diversity of services considering agroecosystems, Mediterranean mountains, arid systems, two aquatic continental systems, coastal ecosystems and two urban ecosystems. Finally, we examined the influence of biophysical, socio-demographic and institutional factors in shaping ecosystem service perceptions. Overall, cultural services were the most widely perceived, followed by provisioning and regulating services. Provisioning services were most strongly associated with agroecosystems, mountains and coastal systems, whereas cultural services were associated with urban ecosystems and regulating services were specifically linked with agroecosystems, mountains and urban recreational areas. The highest service diversity index values corresponded to agroecosystems, mountains and wetlands. Our results also showed that socio-demographic factors, such as place of origin (urban vs. rural) and educational level, as well as institutional factors, such as management and access regimes, shaped the perception of ecosystem services. © 2020 by the authors. Funding: Funding for the development of this research was provided by: the Andalusian Center for the Assessment of Global Change (CAESCG) (GLOCHARID project), the County Council of Biscay and the Basque Government by providing funds for this research, IMIDRA research Project Assessment of Ecosystem Services provided by Agroecosystems (FP16-ECO), funds of the European Union EU FP7 project OpenNESS (Grant Agreement No. 308428), funds of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 81819, by the project entitled: Co-design of novel contract models for innovative agri-environmental-climate measures and for valorisation of environmental public goods, and SAVIA (Sowing Alternatives for Agro-ecological Innovation) project funded by R&D projects for young researchers at the Autonomous University of Madrid (ref SI1/PJI/2019-00444). E.O.-R. has been funded by Juan de la Cierva Incorporation Fellowship of the Ministry of Science Innovation and Universities (IJCI-2017-34334). I.I.-A. acknowledges financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Sciences, Innovation and Universities, through the “Juan de la Cierva-Incorporación” program (grant IJCI-2017-33405) and the “María de Maeztu” program for Units of Excellence (MDM-2015-0552).

There is gradual recognition that cultural ecosystem services are critical building blocks for human well-being. Cultural and provisioning services are often intertwined, difficult to separate, and play salient roles in maintaining local identities. However, multiple studies assume links between cultural ecosystem services and human well-being, without quantifying relationships. We surveyed a representative sample of the population in the Lofoten archipelago in northern Norway, a region faced with great policy challenges around resource harvesting options. Our objective was to examine how public interest in management issues and attachment to place influences the appreciation of cultural ecosystem services benefits and if these benefits can act as satisfiers of wellbeing. Findings suggest that cultural ecosystem services provide a salient contribution to quality of life in this region, and help satisfy the needs of affection, understanding, creation, subsistence, identity, freedom, participation, protection and leisure. Cultural ecosystem services also constitute salient environmental attributes which contribute to the basic needs of being, having, doing and interacting. The importance of ecosystem services benefits for well-being increases with increasing attachment to the Lofoten environment. We argue that not only the ecosystem services benefits, but the values that emanate from the relationship between people and land should be given greater attention in land use policy. Cultural ecosystem services Satisfiers Basic human needs Lofoten Well-being Resource policy

The notion and assessment of ecosystem services(ES)valuesis becoming anestablished part of the discourse regarding urban green space performance. Yet, underlying factors enabling ES values are stillpoorly understood. We assume the production of ES value crucial for environmental stewardship in cities, and aimed in this study to uncover their key enabling factors. This study has beendeveloped on a broad data baseincludinga survey(n=201), interviews(n=46), field observation and remote sensing from 27 urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain, including municipal ‘allotment gardens’ and ‘civic gardens’ emerging from bottom-up initiatives.In a first step, we distinguished different urban gardenstypes regarding the ESvalues they provide. In a second step, we testedspecific garden characteristics including (a) user profiles,(b) biophysicalgardenproperties, and (c) institutional settings fortheirspecific importanceto triggerES values. Results showedES values to significantly differ with the typesof gardens. For example, classical allotment gardens are more likely to provide recreational values, while emerging civic gardens are more likely to produce place-makingand social cohesion.A main finding from our study is the importance of social and institutional garden characteristic as enabling factors of ES values. Results indicate,for example, a correlation between childhood experiences and a higher appreciation of ES.Our results further indicate thatcivic gardens with broader property rights and decision-capacities are more likely to enhancestewardship action.In providing a differentiated understanding of the ES value(s) of urban gardens, this study highlights the potential for green space planning in citiesto steer the stewardship of urban gardens by providing institutional and physicalspace for civic gardening initiatives. This research was funded by the FP7-OpenNESS (308428) and Biodiversa-ENABLE (PCIN-2016-002) and through individual grants from the EU-COST Action TU1201 and the Catalan government (FI DGR, 2012FI_B 00578) to JL.

The promise that ecosystem service assessments will contribute to better decision-making is not yet proven. We analyse how knowledge on ecosystem services is actually used to inform land and water management in 22 case studies covering different social-ecological systems in European and Latin American countries. None of the case studies reported instrumental use of knowledge in a sense that ecosystem service knowledge would have served as an impartial arbiter between policy options. Yet, in most cases, there was some evidence of conceptual learning as a result of close interaction between researchers, practitioners and stakeholders. We observed several factors that constrained knowledge uptake, including competing interests and political agendas, scientific disputes, professional norms and competencies, and lack of vertical and horizontal integration. Ecosystem knowledge played a small role particularly in those planning and policy-making situations where it challenged established interests and the current distribution of benefits from ecosystems. The factors that facilitated knowledge use included application of transparent participatory methods, social capital, policy champions and clear synergies between ecosystem services and human well-being. The results are aligned with previous studies which have emphasized the importance of building local capacity, ownership and trust for the long-term success of ecosystem service research. EEA Santa Cruz Fil: Saarikoski, Heli. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Primmer, Eeva. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Saarela, Sanna-Riikka. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Antunes, Paula. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia. Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research; Portugal Fil: Baró, Francesc. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology; España. Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute; España Fil: Berry, Pam. University of Oxford. Environmental Change Institute; Gran Bretaña Fil: Garcia Blanko, Gemma. Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation. Energy and Environment Division. Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia; España Fil: Gómez-Baggethun, Erik. Norwegian University of Life Sciences. Department of International Environment and Development Studies; Noruega. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA); Noruega Fil: Carvalho, Lawrence. Center for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña Fil: Dick, Jan. Center for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña Fil: Dunford, Robert. University of Oxford. Environmental Change Institute; Gran Bretaña. Lancaster Environment Centre. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña Fil: Hanzu, Mihail. Romanian National Institute for Research and Development in Silviculture; Rumania Fil: Harrison, Paula A. Lancaster Environment Centre. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña Fil: Izakovicova, Zita. Slovak Academy of Science. Institute of Landscape Ecology; Eslovaquia Fil: Kertész, Miklós. Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Centre for Ecological Research. Institute of Ecology and Botany; Hungría Fil: Kopperoinen, Leena. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Köhler, Berit. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA); Noruega Fil: Langemeyer, Johannes. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology; España. Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute. Barcelona Lab for Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainability; España Fil: Lapola, David. Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Center for Meteorological and Climatic Studies Applied to Agriculture (CEPAGRI); Brasil Fil: Liquete, Camino. Joint Research Centre (JRC). European Commission; Italia Fil: Luque, Sandra. National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture; Francia Fil: Mederly, Peter. Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra. Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences; Eslovaquia Fil: Niemelä, Jari. University of Helsinki. Department of Environmental Sciences; Finlandia Fil: Palomo, Ignacio. University of the Basque Country. Basque Centre for Climate Change; España. Fil: Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Cientificas; Argentina Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina. Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica; Argentina Fil: Preda, Elena. University of Bucharest. Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability; Rumania Fil: Priess, Joerg A. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; Alemania Fil: Santos, Rui Ferreira Dos. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia. Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research; Portugal Fil: Schleyer, Christian. Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt. Institute of Social Ecology; Austria. University of Kassel. Section of International Agricultural Policy and Environmental Governance; Alemania Fil: Turkelboom, Francis. Research Institute for Nature and Forest; Bélgica Fil: Vadineanu, Angheluta. University of Bucharest. Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability; Rumania Fil: Verheyden, Wim. Research Institute for Nature and Forest; Bélgica Fil: Vikström, Suvi. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Young, Juliette. Center for Ecology and Hydrology; Gran Bretaña Fil: Aszalós, Réka. Institute of Ecology and Botany, MTA Centre for Ecological Research; Hungría

The concept of ecosystem services is widely used in the scientific literature and increasingly also in policy and practice. Nevertheless, operationalising the concept, i.e. putting it into practice, is still a challenge. We describe the approach of the EU-project OpenNESS (Operationalisation of Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital), which was created in response to this challenge to critically evaluate the concept when applied to real world problems at different scales and in different policy sectors. General requirements for operationalization, the relevance of conceptual frameworks and lessons learnt from 27 case study applications are synthesized in a set of guiding principles. We also briefly describe some integrative tools as developed in OpenNESS which support the implementation of the principles. The guiding principles are grouped under three major headlines: “Defining the problem and opening up the problem space”, “Considering ethical issues” and “Assessing alternative methods, tools and actions”. Real world problems are often “wicked” problems, which at first are seldom clear-cut and well-defined, but often rather complex and subject to differing interpretations and interests. We take account of that complexity and emphasise that there is not one simple and straightforward way to approach real world problems involving ecosystem services. The principles and tools presented are meant to provide some guidance for tackling this complexity by means of a transdisciplinary methodology that facilitates the operationalisation of the ecosystem services concept.

Spatial planning has to deal with trade-offs between various stakeholders’ wishes and needs as part of planning and management of landscapes, natural resources and/or biodiversity. To make ecosystem services (ES) trade-off research more relevant for spatial planning, we propose an analytical framework, which puts stakeholders, their land-use/management choices, their impact on ES and responses at the centre. Based on 24 cases from around the world, we used this framing to analyse the appearance and diversity of real-world ES trade-offs. They cover a wide range of trade-offs related to ecosystem use, including: land-use change, management regimes, technical versus nature-based solutions, natural resource use, and management of species. The ES trade-offs studied featured a complexity that was far greater than what is often described in the ES literature. Influential users and context setters are at the core of the trade-off decision-making, but most of the impact is felt by non-influential users. Provisioning and cultural ES were the most targeted in the studied trade-offs, but regulating ES were the most impacted. Stakeholders’ characteristics, such as influence, impact faced, and concerns can partially explain their position and response in relation to trade-offs. Based on the research findings, we formulate recommendations for spatial planning. Fil: Turkelboom, Francis. Research Institute For Nature And Forest; Bélgica Fil: Leone, Michael. Research Institute For Nature And Forest, Brussels; Fil: Jacobs, Sander. Research Institute For Nature And Forest, Brussels; Fil: Kelemen, Eszter. Environmental Social Science Research Group; Hungría. Corvinus University of Budapest; Hungría Fil: García Llorente, Marina. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid; España Fil: Baró, Francesc. Hospital del Mar; España. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; España Fil: Termansen, Mette. University Aarhus; Dinamarca Fil: Barton, David N.. Norwegian Institute For Nature Research; Noruega Fil: Berry, Pam. University of Oxford; Reino Unido Fil: Stange, Erik. Norwegian Institute For Nature Research; Noruega Fil: Thoonen, Marijke. Research Institute For Nature And Forest; Bélgica Fil: Kalóczkai, Ágnes. Hungarian Academy Of Sciences. Institute Of Ecology And Botany; Hungría Fil: Vadineanu, Angheluta. Universitatea Din Bucuresti; Rumania Fil: Castro, Antonio J.. Idaho State University; Estados Unidos. Universidad de Almeria; España Fil: Czúcz, Bálint. Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle; Francia. Hungarian Academy Of Sciences. Institute Of Ecology And Botany; Hungría Fil: Röckmann, Christine. Wageningen University And Research Centre; Países Bajos Fil: Wurbs, Daniel. Geoflux; Alemania Fil: Odee, David. Kenya Forestry Research Institute; Kenia Fil: Preda, Elena. Universitatea Din Bucuresti; Rumania Fil: Gómez Baggethun, Erik. University of Oxford; Reino Unido Fil: Rusch, Graciela M.. Norwegian Institute For Nature Research; Noruega Fil: Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; Argentina Fil: Palomo, Ignacio. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid; España Fil: Dick, Jan. Center for Ecology and Hydrology; Reino Unido Fil: Casaer, Jim. Research Institute for Nature and Forest; Bélgica Fil: van Dijk, Jiska. Norwegian Institute For Nature Research; Noruega Fil: Priess, Joerg A.. Helmholtz Zentrum Für Umweltforschung; Alemania Fil: Langemeyer, Johannes. Hospital del Mar; España. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; España Fil: Mustajoki, Jyri. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Kopperoinen, Leena. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Baptist, Martin J.. Wageningen University And Research Centre; Países Bajos Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Buenos Aires; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina Fil: Mukhopadhyay, Raktima. Indian Institute Of Bio Social Research And Development; India Fil: Aszalós, Réka. Hungarian Academy Of Sciences. Institute of Ecology and Botany; Argentina Fil: Roy, S. B.. Indian Institute Of Bio Social Research And Development; India Fil: Luque, Sandra. Territoires, Environnement, Télédétection Et Information Spatiale; Francia Fil: Rusch, Verónica. Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria Bariloche; Argentina

Urban and peri-urban forests provide multiple ecosystem services for city dwellers, including water, opportunities for recreation and tourism, climate regulation and habitat provision. Despite growing scholarly attention to urban forests, few studies to date have conducted comprehensive assessments of their ecosystem services. This study conducts an interdisciplinary and wide-ranging assessment of ecosystem services of Oslomarka, the emblematic forest surrounding Oslo, Norway’s capital city. First, we set the historical background and examine drivers of change shaping forest uses and ecosystem service composition at the study area. Second, we identify, characterize and measure ecosystem services delivered at the study area. Third, we assess trends in these ecosystem services over the past 50 years. Three main findings are highlighted. First, institutional, technological, and cultural factors are the main drivers of change shaping current ecosystem service composition. Second, ten ecosystem services and three sub-services were assessed and characterized, with water and opportunities for recreation and tourism found to be of particular prominence to locals. Third, our results show that provisioning and habitat services have declined over the past fifty years, while carbon sequestration and storage has increased. Cultural services increased overall, while also experiencing major changes in their nature and composition. Our research reveals the fundamental importance of Oslo’s urban forests and its ecosystem services for the well-being of local inhabitants.

The Nature's Contributions to People (NCP) approach, developed as theoretical backdrop for the assessments of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), aims to provide a more inclusive discourse in sustainability science, while addressing some of the limitations of the ecosystem services (ES) framework. Some critical initial reactions to the NCP approach have revolved around the costs of departing from the ES concept, after its hard-won influence in science and policy. In this paper we argue that the main fault of the NCP approach is precisely the opposite. Namely, to claim to be nurturing a paradigm shift while perpetuating, under a new jargon, the most problematic tenets of the ES framework and utilitarian environmentalism in general. These include a dualistic, anthropocentric and utilitarian representation of human-nature relationships, which, we argue, are among the ultimate reasons behind the global environmental crisis. We propose a departure from the prevailing ontological conception, moral framing and legal coding of human-nature relationships. Specifically, a shift from a morality of utility to a morality of care, a reallocation of property rights, and the extension of the community of justice to non-human entities.

Abandonment and conversion of cultural agrarian landscapes are major drivers behind the loss of ecosystem services in Europe. One incentive for land-use conversion is the higher (private) economic return from industrial mono-functional crops relative to traditional multi-functional ones. However, conversion of cultural agrarian landscapes can involve high direct and indirect costs to society through the loss of ecosystem services. Using as a case study the traditional vineyards surrounding the Donana National Park, South-West Spain, this research has three objectives: i) to measure soil erosion impacts from the conversion of traditional vineyards in biophysical and economic terms, (ii) to identify drivers of change behind the loss of traditional vineyards, and iii) to assess the applicability of economic instruments to protect traditional vineyards. Our results suggest that uprooting of traditional vineyards is an important driver behind the siltation of the marsh in the Donana National Park, which in turns involve socio-environmental costs in terms of loss of ecosystem services and cultural values. Subsidy reform to reward management practices that sustain ecosystem services and eco-labelling of vine-derived products are pointed at as promising economic instruments to slow down or reverse abandonment or conversion of traditional vineyards.

We are increasingly confronted with severe social and economic impacts of environmental degradation all over the world. From a valuation perspective, environmental problems and conflicts originate from trade-offs between values. The urgency and importance to integrate nature's diverse values in decisions and actions stand out more than ever.Valuation, in its broad sense of ‘assigning importance’, is inherently part of most decisions on natural resource and land use. Scholars from different traditions -while moving from heuristic interdisciplinary debate to applied transdisciplinary science- now acknowledge the need for combining multiple disciplines and methods to represent the diverse set of values of nature. This growing group of scientists and practitioners share the ambition to explore how combinations of ecological, socio-cultural and economic valuation tools can support real-life resource and land use decision-making.The current sustainability challenges and the ineffectiveness of single-value approaches to offer relief demonstrate that continuing along a single path is no option. We advocate for the adherence of a plural valuation culture and its establishment as a common practice, by contesting and complementing ineffective and discriminatory single-value approaches. In policy and decision contexts with a willingness to improve sustainability, integrated valuation approaches can be blended in existing processes, whereas in contexts of power asymmetries or environmental conflicts, integrated valuation can promote the inclusion of diverse values through action research and support the struggle for social and environmental justice.The special issue and this editorial synthesis paper bring together lessons from pioneer case studies and research papers, synthesizing main challenges and setting out priorities for the years to come for the field of integrated valuation.

Climate change is threatening cities all around the world and local governments are challenged to address climate extreme events that have a severe impact in human safety and well-being. Urban resilience and nature-based solutions are approaches based in ecological principles that are being introduced in urban climate governance and planning. The first one focuses on the ability of urban systems to recover, change, adapt and transform in response to stresses and strains, while the second one tries to increase the capacity of the urban system to provide ecosystem services related with climate change mitigation and adaptation. How do these two approaches address climate change? What connections and differences can be found? The aim of this paper is to answer these questions through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the scientific literature about methodologies to assess resilience to climate change and ecosystem services that contribute to mitigation and adaptation in urban areas. Our preliminary findings are: i) climate resilience mainly focuses on the capacity of the system to recover from climate related disasters while nature-based solutions include a broader spectrum of climate change impacts; ii) resilience assessments usually include infrastructure and social indicators but only a few introduce ecological aspects and; iii) mitigation and adaptation ecosystem services assessments rarely take into account social variables. We conclude that urban resilience and nature-based solutions offer complementary approaches to urban governance and planning and that governments can learn from both of them to reframe climate urban resilience strategies that better integrate the technological, ecological and social components of climate adaptation and mitigation.

In many European cities, urban gardens are seen as increasingly important components of urban green space networks. We adopt an ecosystem services framework to assess contributions of urban gardens to the quality of of their users. First, we identify and characterize ecosystem services provided by urban gardens. Secondly, we assess the demographic and socioeconomic profile of its beneficiaries and the relative importance they attribute to different ecosystem services. Next we discuss the relevance of our results in relation to critical policy challenges, such as the promotion of societal cohesion and healthy lifestyles. Data were collected through 44 semi-structured interviews and a survey among 201 users of 27 urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain, as well as from consultation meetings with local planners. We identified 20 ecosystem services, ranging from food production over pollination to social cohesion and environmental learning. Among them, cultural ecosystem services (non-material benefits people derive from their interaction with nature) ​ stand out as the most widely perceived and as the most highly valued. The main beneficiaries of ecosystem services from urban gardens are elder, low-middle income, and migrant people. Our results about the societal importance of urban gardens ​were deemed highly relevant by the interviewed green space planners in Barcelona, who noted that our data can provide basis to support or expand existing gardening programs in the city. Our research further suggests that ecosystem services from urban gardens can play an important role in addressing several urban policy challenges in cities, such as promoting stewardship of urban ecosystems, providing opportunities for recreation and healthy lifestyles, and promoting social cohesion. We conclude that urban gardens and associated ecosystem services can play an important ​ in urban policies aimed at enhancing quality of life in cities, particularly if access to their benefits is expanded to larger segments of the population.

Land-use planning is an important determinant for green space policy in cities. It defines land covers and hence the structure and function of urban ecosystems and the benefits these provide to humans, such as air purification, urban cooling, runoff mitigation, and recreation. The ecosystem service approach has helped to attract policy attention to these benefits but the concept remains poorly implemented in urban policy and governance. To address this gap, we advance a framework to bridge ecosystem services into policy processes through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) as decision support tool. The paper is organized in three main parts. First, we conduct a systematic literature review to assess state-of-the-art knowledge on ecosystem service assessments through MCDA. Next, we build on insights from the literature review to develop the ‘ecosystem services policy-cycle’, a conceptual framework that merges the ‘ecosystem service cascade’ and ‘policy cycle’ models to reinforce the link between ecosystem service assessments and practical applications in urban policy and governance. Next, we illustrate the applicability of the proposed framework along an example about conflicting interests on land use and green space planning following the closure of the Airport Tempelhof in Berlin, Germany. Our results highlight the scope of MCDA as a decision support tool for integrating ecosystem service assessments in green space governance. We discuss advantages and disadvantages of different methodological choices in the use of MCDA in ecosystem service assessments and note that a key strength of this tool in informing green space policies lies in its capacity to accommodate conflicting stakeholder perspectives and to address trade-offs between ecological, social and economic values.

A cornerstone of environmental policy is the debate over protecting nature for humans’ sake (instrumental values) or for nature’s (intrinsic values). We propose that focusing only on instrumental or intrinsic values may fail to resonate with views on personal and collective well-being, or “what is right,” with regard to nature and the environment. Without complementary attention to other ways that value is expressed and realized by people, such a focus may inadvertently promote worldviews at odds with fair and desirable futures. It is time to engage seriously with a third class of values, one with diverse roots and current expressions: relational values. By doing so, we reframe the discussion about environmental protection, and open the door to new, potentially more productive policy approaches. Fil: Chan, Kai M. A.. University of British Columbia. Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability; Canadá Fil: Balvanera, Patricia. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad; México Fil: Benessaiah, Karina. Arizona State University. School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning; Estados Unidos Fil: Chapman, Molly. University of British Columbia. Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability; Canadá Fil: Diaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina Fil: Gómez Baggethun, Erik. University of Oxford. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research. Environmental Change Institute; Noruega Fil: Gould, Rachelle. University of Vermont. Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources; Estados Unidos Fil: Hannahs, Neil. Land Assets Division, Kamehameha Schools; Estados Unidos Fil: Jax, Kurt. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research. Department of Conservation Biology; Alemania Fil: Klain, Sarah. University of British Columbia. Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability; Canadá Fil: Luck, Gary. Charles Sturt University. Institute for Land, Water and Society; Australia Fil: Martín López, Berta. Leuphana University. Research, Faculty of Sustainability. Institute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability; Alemania Fil: Muraca, Bárbara. Oregon State University. School of History, Religion and Philosophy; Estados Unidos Fil: Norton, Bryan. Georgia Institute of Technology. School of Public Policy; Estados Unidos Fil: Ott, Conrad. Kiel University. Department of Philosophy; Alemania Fil: Pascual, Unai. Ikerbasque Basque Foundation for Science; España Fil: Satterfield, Terre. University of British Columbia. Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability ; Canadá Fil: Tadaki, Marc. Department of Geography, University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Taggart, Jonathan. University of British Columbia. Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability; Canadá Fil: Turner, Nancy. University of Victoria. School of Environmental Studies; Canadá

This piece responds to the article Is less more… or is more less? Scaling the political ecology of the future, where Paul Robbins (2019) discusses degrowth and modernism as two competing political imaginaries with regard to the growth-technology-environment nexus. Arguing from the perspective of ecological economics, I engage with the literature on political ecology to discuss the notions of limits to growth, Malthusianism, austerity and scarcity, as well as the role of technology as both environmental problem and solution. The paper exposes key divergences between different traditions in political ecology with regard to technological and economic scale. First, against the argument that limits to growth is a mere social construct, I call attention to research on ecological thresholds and to the perils of epistemic relativisms in a post-truth era. Second, against the idea that limits represent an elitist discourse, I call attention to long-standing traditions in emancipatory politics that defend limits in the name of justice. Third, against the thesis that more is less, I refer to mounting empirical evidence indicating that more is more (growth brings more environmental destruction, not less). I contend that political ecology can have much to gain from engaging with the political utopia of degrowth, but far less so from the technological utopia of modernism, which –I argue– reinforces status quo and offers false solutions to the environmental challenges of our time. Emancipation, I claim, is not about bringing more to more, but about bringing enough to everyone.

Made available in DSpace on 2018-12-11T16:50:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2018-02-01 The Ecosystem Services (ES) concept highlights the varied contributions the environment provides to humans and there are a wide range of methods/tools available to assess ES. However, in real-world decision contexts a single tool is rarely sufficient and methods must be combined to meet practitioner needs. Here, results from the OpenNESS project are presented to illustrate the methods selected to meet the needs of 24 real-world case studies and better understand why and how methods are combined to meet practical needs. Results showed that within the cases methods were combined to: i) address a range of ES; ii) assess both supply and demand of ES; iii) assess a range of value types; iv) reach different stakeholder groups v) cover weaknesses in other methods used and vi) to meet specific decision context needs. Methods were linked in a variety of ways: i) as input–output chains of methods; ii) through learning; iii) through method development and iv) through comparison/triangulation of results. The paper synthesises these case study-based experiences to provide insight to others working in practical contexts as to where, and in what contexts, different methods can be combined and how this can add value to case study analyses. Environmental Change Institute, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Lancaster Environment Centre, Library Avenue, Bailrigg Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bush Estate Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Gaustadalléen 21 Leuphana University of Lüneburg Faculty of Sustainability Institute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Scharnhorststraβe 1 Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG Ltd.), Rómer Flóris u. 38. Department of Decision Sciences Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8. Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25 Finnish Environment Institute, P.O. Box 140 Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Permoserstraße 15 CoKnow Consulting – Coproducing Knowledge for Sustainability CENSE – Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia Universidade Nova de Lisboa Institute of Ecology and Botany Centre for Ecological Research Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Alkotmány u. 2-4 National Institute for Research and Development in Forestry “Marin Dracea”, Eroilor Blvd 128 Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) Edifici Z (ICTA-ICP), Carrer de les Columnes s/n, Campus de la UAB European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, Paris Cedex 05 Urban Environment and Territorial Sustainability Area Energy and Environment Dividision Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia C/Geldo, Edificio 700 University of Bucharest – Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability, Splaiul Independentei 91-95 Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric) Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), P.O. Box 5003 European Commission – Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via E. Fermi 2749 Institute of Landscape Ecology Slovak Academy of Sciences, Štefánikova 3 IRSTEA National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture UMR TETIS, 500 rue JF Breton UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av.24-A, 1515 CEP Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC CONICET), Houssay 200, Ushuaia (9140) IBRAD (Indian Institute of Bio Social Research and Development), VIP Road, Kestopur, Prafulla Kanan Department of Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014 University of Helsinki Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), P.O.Box 20412-0200 Basque Centre for Climate Change, Alameda de Urquijo 4 INCLINE – Interdisciplinary Climate Change Research Group Instituto de Astronomia e Geofísica USP – Universidade de São Paulo, R. do Matão, 1226 – Butantã Wageningen University & Research – Marine (WUR), P.O.Box 57 IRIDRA, Via La Marmora Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute (IMIM) PRBB, Carrer Doctor Aiguader 88 UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av.24-A, 1515 CEP

Made available in DSpace on 2018-12-11T17:17:07Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2018-02-01 The operational challenges of integrated ecosystem service (ES) appraisals are determined by study purpose, system complexity and uncertainty, decision-makers’ requirements for reliability and accuracy of methods, and approaches to stakeholder–science interaction in different decision contexts. To explore these factors we defined an information gap hypothesis, based on a theory of cumulative uncertainty in ES appraisals. When decision context requirements for accuracy and reliability increase, and the expected uncertainty of the ES appraisal methods also increases, the likelihood of methods being used is expected to drop, creating a potential information gap in governance. In order to test this information gap hypothesis, we evaluate 26 case studies and 80 ecosystem services appraisals in a large integrated EU research project. We find some support for a decreasing likelihood of ES appraisal methods coinciding with increasing accuracy and reliability requirements of the decision-support context, and with increasing uncertainty. We do not find that information costs are the explanation for this information gap, but rather that the research project interacted mostly with stakeholders outside the most decision-relevant contexts. The paper discusses how alternative definitions of integrated valuation can lead to different interpretations of decision-support information, and different governance approaches to dealing with uncertainty. Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Gaustadalléen 21 Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG Ltd.), Rómer Flóris u.38 Department of Decision Sciences Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bush Estate, Penicuik Leuphana University of Lüneburg Faculty of Sustainability Institute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Scharnhorststraβe 1 Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric) Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), P.O. Box 5003, N-1432 Ås Research Group Nature and Society Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25 Wageningen University and Research Environmental Research (Alterra), P.O. Box 47 ENVS Aarhus University Department of Applied Research and Agricultural Extension Madrid Institute for Rural Agricultural and Food Research and Development (IMIDRA) Ctra. Madrid-Barcelona (N-II), KM. 38.200, 28802 Alcalá de Henares Finnish Environment Institute, P.O. Box 140 Environmental Change Institute, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Postboks 5685 Torgarden Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3) Scientific Campus of the University of the Basque Country, Sede Building 1, 1st Floor Department of Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014 University of Helsinki Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) Edifici Z (ICTA-ICP), Carrer de les Columnes s/n, Campus de la UAB, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès Wageningen University and Research Marine Research (IMARES), P.O. Box 57, 1780 AB, Den Helder, Wageningen Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 1 Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Permoserstraße 15 National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture IRSTEA UMR TETIS, 500 rue JF BRETON CENSE – Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia Universidade Nova de Lisboa Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), P.O. Box 20412-0200 Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC CONICET), Houssay 200, Ushuaia (9140) Tierra del Fuego Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation Energy and Environment Division Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia C/Geldo, Edificio 700 National Institute for Research and Development in Forestry “Marin Dracea”, Eroilor Blvd 128 Institute of Ecology and Botany MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Alkotmány u. 2-4. IRIDRA Srl, Via La Marmora, 51 University of Bucharest – Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability, Splaiul Independentei 91-95 IBRAD (Indian Institute of Bio Social Research and Development), VIP Road, Kestopur, Prafulla Kanan UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av.24-A, 1515 CEP, 13506-900 UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av.24-A, 1515 CEP, 13506-900

Made available in DSpace on 2018-12-11T17:15:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2018-02-01 The ecosystem service (ES) concept is becoming mainstream in policy and planning, but operational influence on practice is seldom reported. Here, we report the practitioners’ perspectives on the practical implementation of the ES concept in 27 case studies. A standardised anonymous survey (n = 246), was used, focusing on the science-practice interaction process, perceived impact and expected use of the case study assessments. Operationalisation of the concept was shown to achieve a gradual change in practices: 13% of the case studies reported a change in action (e.g. management or policy change), and a further 40% anticipated that a change would result from the work. To a large extent the impact was attributed to a well conducted science-practice interaction process (>70%). The main reported advantages of the concept included: increased concept awareness and communication; enhanced participation and collaboration; production of comprehensive science-based knowledge; and production of spatially referenced knowledge for input to planning (91% indicated they had acquired new knowledge). The limitations were mostly case-specific and centred on methodology, data, and challenges with result implementation. The survey highlighted the crucial role of communication, participation and collaboration across different stakeholders, to implement the ES concept and enhance the democratisation of nature and landscape planning. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bush Estate Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25 Social-ecological Systems Lab Department of Ecology Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Calle Darwin no. 2, Campus de Cantoblanco Finnish Environment Institute, P.O. Box 140 Institute of Landscape Ecology Slovak Academy of Sciences, Akademická 2 Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University, Trieda A. Hlinku 1 Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG Ltd.), Rómer Flóris u. 38. Department of Decision Sciences Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8. Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Permoserstraße 15 CoKnow Consulting – Coproducing Knowledge for Sustainability, Jesewitz CENSE – Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2829-516 Caparica Institute of Ecology and Botany MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Alkotmány u. 2-4. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) Edifici Z (ICTA-ICP), Carrer de les Columnes s/n, Campus de la UAB Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Gaustadalléen 21 Environmental Change Institute, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road Wageningen University and Research Environmental Research (Alterra), P.O. Box 47 European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, FR-75231 Paris Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford Urban Environment and Territorial Sustainability Area Energy and Environment Dividision Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia C/Geldo, Edificio 700 University of Bucharest - Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability, Splaiul Independentei 91-95 European Commission – Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via E. Fermi 2749 Institute of Landscape Ecology Slovak Academy of Sciences, Štefánikova 3 UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av. 24-A, 1515 CEP: 13506-900, Rio Claro IRSTEA National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture UMR TETIS, 500 rue JF BRETON Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC CONICET), Houssay 200 Leuphana University of Lüneburg Faculty of Sustainability Institute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Scharnhorststraβe 1 IBRAD (Indian Institute of Bio Social Research and Development), VIP Road, Kestopur, Prafulla Kanan Department of Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014 University of Helsinki Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), P.O. Box 20412-0200 Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), CC 332 (9400), Río Gallegos Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral (UNPA) Río Gallegos Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) INCLINE – Interdisciplinary Climate Change Research Group Instituto de Astronomia e Geofísica USP – Universidade de São Paulo, R. do Matão, 1226 - Butantã Wageningen University & Research – Marine (WUR), P.O. Box 57 National Institute for Research and Development in Forestry “Marin Dracea”, Eroilor Blvd 128 Institute of Nature Conservation and Landscape Management Szent István University, Páter Károly u. 1. Norwegian University of Life Science (NMBU), Universitetstunet 3 Department of Applied Research and Agricultural Extension Madrid Institute for Rural Agricultural and Food Research and Development (IMIDRA), Ctra. Madrid-Barcelona (N-II), KM. 38.200, 28802 Alcalá De Henares Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric) Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), P.O. Box 5003 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Fakkelgården VISTA Analyse A/S, Meltzers gate 4 University of Girona, Plaça de Sant Domènec, 3 Basque Centre for Climate Change, Alameda de Urquijo 4 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Postboks 5685 Sluppen De Økonomiske Råd, Amaliegade 44 UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av. 24-A, 1515 CEP: 13506-900, Rio Claro

A range of methods are available for assessing ecosystem services. Methods differ in their aims; from mapping and modelling the supply and demand of ecosystem services to appraising their economic and non-economic importance through valuation techniques. Comprehensive guidance for the selection of appropriate ecosystem service assessment methods that address the requirements of different decision-making contexts is lacking. This paper tackles this gap using the experience from 27 case studies which applied different biophysical, socio-cultural and monetary valuation methods to operationalise the ecosystem service concept towards sustainable land, water and urban management. A survey of the reasons why the case study teams selected particular methods revealed that stakeholder-oriented reasons, such as stakeholder participation, inclusion of local knowledge and ease of communication, and decision-oriented reasons, such as the purpose of the case study and the ecosystem services at stake, were key considerations in selecting a method. Pragmatic reasons such as available data, resources and expertise were also important factors. This information was used to develop a set of linked decision trees, which aim to provide guidance to researchers and practitioners in choosing ecosystem service assessment methods that are suitable for their context.

Researchers working in the field of ecosystem services have long acknowledged the importance of recognising multiple values in ecosystems and biodiversity. Yet the operationalisation of value pluralism in ecosystem service assessments remains largely elusive. The aim of this research is to present a taxonomy of values and valuation methods to widen the evaluative space for ecosystem services. First, we present our preanalytic positions in regards to values and valuation of ecosystem services. Second, we review different value definitions that we deem relevant for the discussion of ecosystem services valuation. Third, we propose a taxonomy of ecosystem service values based on different conceptions of human-nature relationships. Finally, we present a taxonomy of different methods that can be used to recognise plural values in ecosystem services. This taxonomy for a plural valuation of ecosystem services can help ES scientists and practitioners with the aim of representing people's multiple and context specific ways of valuing nature. The taxonomy can also serve to pay broader attention to ES values that are overlooked or misrepresented in assessments that restrict their focus to monetary valuations.

Stakeholder groups are not homogeneous across individuals and through time, especially in relation to the importance of ecosystem services. However, the approaches commonly used to characterize the average importance and values of stakeholder groups overlook the heterogeneity in the individual priorities. This heterogeneity is particularly relevant for smallholders, who play a key role in ecosystem management but are more vulnerable to globalization than owners of large plots. We analyzed the priorities differentially assigned to ecosystem services and the reasons associated with the importance attributed to those services by individual cattle ranchers on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. We interviewed 27 cattle ranchers from neighboring rural communities. The services perceived by each rancher were identified from selected regional photographs. These services were then arranged in order of importance by interviewees, who were asked to provide the reasons for their choices. We used multivariate methods to examine the relationship between priorities for services and the livelihood of the individual. Interpretative qualitative methods elicited the reasons Associated with the relative importance of the prioritized services. We identified 54 different services. Overall, individuals prioritized provisioning services directly related to their ranching activity. Individuals with the highest level of education and greatest diversity of productive activities (e.g., farmer, mason, merchant) also prioritized cultural services associated with ecotourism potential. The reasons Associated with the importance attributed to the prioritized services varied widely among individuals. The list of ecosystem services perceived was context-specific, strongly influenced by the salient characteristics of the ecosystem and of the ranching way of life. A generational change in livelihoods has affected priorities. The reasons behind the importance of the prioritized services were diverse among individuals. By revealing the heterogeneity among individuals, we emphasize the need to make flexible policies that integrate diverse values and contexts to accomplish smallholder inclusivity. cattle ranchers; family farm; Mexico; photo interviewing; tropical dry forest; well-being

Biodiversity conservation strategies that overlook the interests of local people are prone to create conflicts. The ecosystem service approach holds potential for more comprehensively integrating the social dimension into decision-making in protected areas, but its implementation in conservation policies is still in its infancy. This research assesses the extent to which ecosystem services have been implemented in conservation strategies in protected areas. The study was conducted in two outstanding Spanish protected areas, covering a wetland (Doñana Natural and National Parks) and a Mediterranean mountain system (Sierra Nevada Natural and National Parks). Data were collected from deliberative workshops with managers and researchers, face-to-face surveys with users and a review of management plans. We found that, beyond intrinsic values of ecosystems and biodiversity, these areas provide multiple ecosystem services that deserve further attention to ensure their sustained delivery. Our research shows that environmental managers and researchers have different perceptions and priorities regarding ecosystem services management compared with ecosystem service users. Environmental managers and researchers in both protected areas perceived that human-nature relationships and ecosystem services are already widely included in management plans, if often not explicitly. We found that different ecosystem service categories receive uneven attention in management plans. These contained measures to manage provisioning and cultural services whereas measures for managing regulating services were perceived to be largely absent. We conclude by summarizing insights on how the ecosystem service approach may enhance the consideration of social interests in the management of management protected areas. (c) 2016, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. Funding for the development of this research was provided by a postdoctoral grant from the Spanish National Institute for Agriculture and Food Research and Technology (INIA) which is co-funded by the European Social Fund, a Juan de la Cierva Grant from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (Project 018/2009), the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (project CGL2011-30266), the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Commission (FP7, 2007–2013) under the BESAFE project (Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Arguments for our Future Environment; http://www.besafe-project.net; Contract No. 282743) and the OpenNESS Project (Operationalisation of Natural capital and Ecosystem Services: From concepts to real-world applications; Contract No. 308428).