TY  - JOUR
A1  - Walz, Ariane
A1  - Schmidt, Katja
A1  - Ruiz-Frau, Ana
A1  - Nicholas, Kimberly A.
A1  - Bierry, Adeline
A1  - Lentsch, Aster de Vries
A1  - Dyankov, Apostol
A1  - Joyce, Deirdre
A1  - Liski, Anja H.
A1  - Marba, Nuria
A1  - Rosario, Ines T.
A1  - Scholte, Samantha S. K.
T1  - Sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services for operational ecosystem management: mapping applications by decision contexts in Europe
JF  - Regional environmental change
N2  - Sociocultural valuation (SCV) of ecosystem services (ES) discloses the principles, importance or preferences expressed by people towards nature. Although ES research has increasingly addressed sociocultural values in past years, little effort has been made to systematically review the components of sociocultural valuation applications for different decision contexts (i.e. awareness raising, accounting, priority setting, litigation and instrument design). In this analysis, we investigate the characteristics of 48 different sociocultural valuation applications—characterised by unique combinations of decision context, methods, data collection formats and participants—across ten European case studies. Our findings show that raising awareness for the sociocultural value of ES by capturing people’s perspective and establishing the status quo, was found the most frequent decision context in case studies, followed by priority setting and instrument development. Accounting and litigation issues were not addressed in any of the applications. We reveal that applications for particular decision contexts are methodologically similar, and that decision contexts determine the choice of methods, data collection formats and participants involved. Therefore, we conclude that understanding the decision context is a critical first step to designing and carrying out fit-for-purpose sociocultural valuation of ES in operational ecosystem management.
KW  - Sociocultural valuation
KW  - Ecosystem services
KW  - Local-to-regional scale
KW  - Operational use
Y1  - 2019
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01506-7
SN  - 1436-3798
SN  - 1436-378X
VL  - 19
IS  - 8
SP  - 2245
EP  - 2259
PB  - Springer
CY  - Heidelberg
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Schoonover, Heather A.
A1  - Gret-Regamey, Adrienne
A1  - Metzger, Marc J.
A1  - Ruiz-Frau, Ana
A1  - Santos-Reis, Margarida
A1  - Scholte, Samantha S. K.
A1  - Walz, Ariane
A1  - Nicholas, Kimberly A.
T1  - Creating space, aligning motivations, and building trust
BT  - a practical framework for stakeholder engagement based on experience in 12 ecosystem services case studies
JF  - Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability
N2  - Ecosystem services inherently involve people, whose values help define the benefits of nature's services. It is thus important for researchers to involve stakeholders in ecosystem services research. However, a simple and practicable framework to guide such engagement, and in particular to help researchers anticipate and consider key issues and challenges, has not been well explored. Here, we use experience from the 12 case studies in the European Operational Potential of Ecosystem Research Applications (OPERAs) project to propose a stakeholder engagement framework comprising three key elements: creating space, aligning motivations, and building trust. We argue that involving stakeholders in research demands thoughtful reflection from the researchers about what kind of space they want to create, including if and how they want to bring different interests together, how much space they want to allow for critical discussion, and whether there is a role for particular stakeholders to serve as conduits between others. In addition, understanding their own motivations—including values, knowledge, goals, and desired benefits—will help researchers decide when and how to involve stakeholders, identify areas of common ground and potential disagreement, frame the project appropriately, set expectations, and ensure each party is able to see benefits of engaging with each other. Finally, building relationships with stakeholders can be difficult but considering the roles of existing relationships, time, approach, reputation, and belonging can help build mutual trust. Although the three key elements and the paths between them can play out differently depending on the particular research project, we suggest that a research design that considers how to create the space in which researchers and stakeholders will meet, align motivations between researchers and stakeholders, and build mutual trust will help foster productive researcher–stakeholder relationships.
KW  - cocreated knowledge
KW  - ecosystem services
KW  - participatory research
KW  - research design
KW  - stakeholder engagement
KW  - transdisciplinary research
Y1  - 2019
U6  - https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10061-240111
SN  - 1708-3087
VL  - 24
IS  - 1
PB  - Resilience Alliance
CY  - Wolfville
ER  -