IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-01930929.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Improving Decisions with Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Information

Author

Listed:
  • Clément Feger

    (CAM - University of Cambridge [UK], Luc Hoffmann Institute)

  • Laurent Mermet

    (AgroParisTech, CESCO - Centre d'Ecologie et des Sciences de la COnservation - MNHN - Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle - UPMC - Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris 6 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Emily Mckenzie

    (World Wildlife Fund, Washington)

  • Bhaskar Vira

    (Department of Geography [Cambridge, UK] - CAM - University of Cambridge [UK])

Abstract

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – the most comprehensive assessment to date of the status and trends of Earth's ecological systems – warned us that 60% of the benefits nature provides to people (‘ecosystem services') are being degraded or used unsustainably. This triggered widespread efforts, by research groups, conservation organizations and think tanks, to design and use ecosystem services assessments and tools around the world. These efforts aim to integrate the ‘value of nature' in decision-making, policies, business operations and ultimately to change society's development trajectory to be sustainable. Yet, recent studies point out that not all new tools and scientific knowledge on ecosystem services are effectively used as a basis for decision and action leading to positive social and environmental outcomes. To create change, new scientific and expert knowledge, even when worrying, robust and empirically grounded, is not enough. It needs to be mobilized by leaders and change agents – researchers, conservation NGO practitioners, motivated policy makers or business – who use the information systems and knowledge as part of a strategy of communication, advocacy and action. Context matters. A good understanding of the context for biodiversity and ecosystem services approaches often determines whether a project has impact or not. Such understanding can be gathered quickly and easily using ‘context diagnostic1' tools. These can be used by practitioners who are agents of change in real world situations. This report introduces such a context diagnostic tool for conservation and Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Assessment and Valuation (BESAV) practitioners. The tool includes five approaches based on well-established social science theories. Each approach gives a contrasting perspective and raises a set of thought-provoking questions on social, organizational, institutional and political aspects of context. The tool is illustrated throughout by examples inspired by real- world case studies, gathered through interviews and participatory workshops. The tool can be used at different stages of BESAV projects (scoping, implementation, evaluation and debriefing). We have grounded this context diagnostic method on well-established social science theory to build on their rich insights and empirical studies. The five theories were chosen for their relevance to the management of ecosystems: • institutionalizing treatment of new environmental issues • strategic analysis and strategy development • knowledge and innovation as a lever of change • the mobilization and articulation of multiple values •the well-being of local communities who use the natural environment and the role of institutions and rules in enabling them to do so These theoretical frameworks can enrich the way practitioners reflect on and understand the dynamics of change that they are part of.

Suggested Citation

  • Clément Feger & Laurent Mermet & Emily Mckenzie & Bhaskar Vira, 2017. "Improving Decisions with Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Information," Working Papers hal-01930929, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01930929
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01930929
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-01930929/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kareiva, Peter & Tallis, Heather & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Daily, Gretchen C. & Polasky, Stephen (ed.), 2011. "Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199589005.
    2. Katie K. Arkema & Greg Guannel & Gregory Verutes & Spencer A. Wood & Anne Guerry & Mary Ruckelshaus & Peter Kareiva & Martin Lacayo & Jessica M. Silver, 2013. "Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(10), pages 913-918, October.
    3. Birch, Jennifer C. & Thapa, Ishana & Balmford, Andrew & Bradbury, Richard B. & Brown, Claire & Butchart, Stuart H.M. & Gurung, Hum & Hughes, Francine M.R. & Mulligan, Mark & Pandeya, Bhopal & Peh, Kel, 2014. "What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom? A rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest, Nepal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 118-127.
    4. Leach, Melissa & Mearns, Robin & Scoones, Ian, 1999. "Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics and Institutions in Community-Based Natural Resource Management," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 225-247, February.
    5. Laurans, Yann & Mermet, Laurent, 2014. "Ecosystem services economic valuation, decision-support system or advocacy?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 98-105.
    6. Cabral, Pedro & Feger, Clément & Levrel, Harold & Chambolle, Mélodie & Basque, Damien, 2016. "Assessing the impact of land-cover changes on ecosystem services: A first step toward integrative planning in Bordeaux, France," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 318-327.
    7. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Waage, Sissel & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 27-39.
    8. Christie, Mike & Fazey, Ioan & Cooper, Rob & Hyde, Tony & Kenter, Jasper O., 2012. "An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 67-78.
    9. Cristiano Busco & Paolo Quattrone, 2015. "Exploring How the Balanced Scorecard Engages and Unfolds: Articulating the Visual Power of Accounting Inscriptions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 1236-1262, September.
    10. Eve Chiapello & Luc Boltanski, 2005. "The New Spirit of Capitalism," Post-Print hal-00680089, HAL.
    11. Recuero Virto, Laura & Weber, Jean-Louis & Jeantil, Mathilde, 2018. "Natural Capital Accounts and Public Policy Decisions: Findings From a Survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 244-259.
    12. Primmer, Eeva & Furman, Eeva, 2012. "Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: Do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 85-92.
    13. Olivier Godard, 2004. "De la pluralité des ordres – Les problèmes d'environnement et de développement durable à la lumière de la théorie de la justification," Géographie, économie, société, Lavoisier, vol. 6(3), pages 303-330.
    14. Eve Chiapello & Luc Boltanski, 2005. "The New Spirit of Capitalism," Post-Print hal-00678024, HAL.
    15. Ruckelshaus, Mary & McKenzie, Emily & Tallis, Heather & Guerry, Anne & Daily, Gretchen & Kareiva, Peter & Polasky, Stephen & Ricketts, Taylor & Bhagabati, Nirmal & Wood, Spencer A. & Bernhardt, Joanna, 2015. "Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 11-21.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. C. Feger & Alexandre Rambaud, 2020. "Improving nature’s visibility in financial accounting," CIRED Working Papers hal-02976915, HAL.
    2. C. Feger & Alexandre Rambaud, 2020. "Improving nature’s visibility in financial accounting," Working Papers hal-02976915, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Clément Feger & Laurent Mermet, 2017. "A blueprint towards accounting for the management of ecosystems," Post-Print hal-01930913, HAL.
    2. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    3. Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Sirén, Elina & Brunner, Sibyl Hanna & Weibel, Bettina, 2017. "Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem services concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 306-315.
    4. Klimanova, O.A. & Bukvareva, E.N. & Yu, Kolbowsky E. & Illarionova, O.A., 2023. "Assessing ecosystem services in Russia: Case studies from four municipal districts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    5. Cabral, Pedro & Feger, Clément & Levrel, Harold & Chambolle, Mélodie & Basque, Damien, 2016. "Assessing the impact of land-cover changes on ecosystem services: A first step toward integrative planning in Bordeaux, France," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 318-327.
    6. van den Belt, Marjan & Stevens, Sharon M., 2016. "Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 60-72.
    7. Barton, D.N. & Kelemen, E. & Dick, J. & Martin-Lopez, B. & Gómez-Baggethun, E. & Jacobs, S. & Hendriks, C.M.A. & Termansen, M. & García- Llorente, M. & Primmer, E. & Dunford, R. & Harrison, P.A. & Tur, 2018. "(Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 529-541.
    8. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    9. Posner, Stephen & Verutes, Gregory & Koh, Insu & Denu, Doug & Ricketts, Taylor, 2016. "Global use of ecosystem service models," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 131-141.
    10. Pandeya, B. & Buytaert, W. & Zulkafli, Z. & Karpouzoglou, T. & Mao, F. & Hannah, D.M., 2016. "A comparative analysis of ecosystem services valuation approaches for application at the local scale and in data scarce regions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 250-259.
    11. Primmer, Eeva & Saarikoski, Heli & Vatn, Arild, 2018. "An Empirical Analysis of Institutional Demand for Valuation Knowledge," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 152-160.
    12. C. Feger & Laurent Mermet, 2021. "Advances in accounting for biodiversity and ecosystems: a typology focusing upon the environmental results imperative [Innovations comptables pour la biodiversité et les écosystèmes : une typologie," Post-Print hal-02549016, HAL.
    13. Abinash Bhattachan & Matthew D. Jurjonas & Priscilla R. Morris & Paul J. Taillie & Lindsey S. Smart & Ryan E. Emanuel & Erin L. Seekamp, 2019. "Linking residential saltwater intrusion risk perceptions to physical exposure of climate change impacts in rural coastal communities of North Carolina," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 97(3), pages 1277-1295, July.
    14. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    15. Vigvári, Gábor, 2022. "Transzformáció és a populizmus a visegrádi országokban [Transformation and populism in the V4 countries]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(3), pages 339-366.
    16. Jesús Manuel Palma-Ruiz & Julen Castillo-Apraiz & Raúl Gómez-Martínez, 2020. "Socially Responsible Investing as a Competitive Strategy for Trading Companies in Times of Upheaval Amid COVID-19: Evidence from Spain," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-13, July.
    17. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2017. "Ecosystem Service Arguments Enhance Public Support for Environmental Protection - But Beware of the Numbers!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 213-221.
    18. Benzecry, Claudio E., 2022. "Traduttore, traditore: The expert work of producing global (yet local) market classifications," economic sociology. perspectives and conversations, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, vol. 23(2), pages 5-9.
    19. Louis Moreno, 2012. "Looking backward," City, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 345-354, June.
    20. Virginie Xhauflair & Benjamin Huybrechts & François Pichault, 2018. "How Can New Players Establish Themselves in Highly Institutionalized Labour Markets? A Belgian Case Study in the Area of Project†Based Work," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 56(2), pages 370-394, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01930929. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.