Knowledge sharing, problem solving and professional development in a Scottish Ecosystem Services Community of Practice
Open accessAbstract
The ecosystem services framework has now been embodied in policy and practice, creating the need for governance structures that allow science, policy and practice to come together and facilitate shared learning. We describe five years of progress in developing an Ecosystem Services Community of Practice in Scotland, which brings together over 600 individuals from diverse constituencies to share experiences and learn from each other. We consider the ‘community’ and ‘practice’ aspects to demonstrate the benefits of establishing an Ecosystem Services Community (ESCom). We also demonstrate how the journey involved in the creation and continuing evolution of ESCom has proved valuable to researchers, policy-makers, practitioners and students and as such has contributed to social learning. We reflect on challenges, given the voluntary nature, absence of formal institutional support and emergence of initiatives focusing on overlapping topics. Based on our experience, we provide ten recommendations to help future ecosystem services communities of practice.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Enhancing synergies and reducing trade-offs can be achieved by policy decisions and implementation that consider cross-disciplinary scientific knowledge on natural, economic, and societal aspects and by mapping and quantification of stakeholder choices in relation to various ecosystem service choices.
“Enhancing synergies and reducing trade-offs can be achieved by (a) policy decisions and implementation that consider cross-disciplinary scientific knowledge on natural, economic, and societal aspects and (b) mapping and quantification of stakeholder choices in relation to various ecosystem service choices (139).”
From Restoring Degraded Lands (2021) · cites this paper as [139]
The Introduction (page unavailable) describes an ecosystem-services framework that bridges disciplines and incorporates human decisions and values into natural-resource management. The paper also discusses working with policy and practice, but it does not establish that these steps enhance synergies or reduce trade-offs, or describe mapping and quantifying stakeholder choices to achieve that result. A search for “trade-offs” found only a comment about understanding them, not reducing them. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 33,219 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Baumgärtner S, Fischer J, Hanspach J, Härdtle W, Heinrichs H, Klein AM, Lang DJ, Martens P, Walmsley D (2014) Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecol Econ 103:29-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2014.04.012 · DOI
- Ainscough J, de Vries Lentsch A, Metzger M, Rounsevell M, Schröter M, Delbaere B, de Groot R, Staes J (2019) Navigating pluralism: un- derstanding perceptions of the ecosystem services Concept. Ecosyst Serv 36:100892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.01.004 · DOI
- Andrade K, Corbin C, Diver S, Eitzel MV, Williamson J, Brashares J, Fortmann L (2014) Finding your way in the interdisciplinary forest: notes on educating future conservation practitioners. Biodivers Conserv 23:3405-3423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0818- z · DOI
- Baumgärtner S, Becker C, Frank K, Müller B, Quaas M (2008) Relating the philosophy and practice of ecological economics: the role of concepts, models, and case studies in inter-and transdisciplinary sustainability research. Ecol Econ 67:384-393. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.018 · DOI
- Beaumont NJ, Mongruel R, Hooper T (2017) Practical application of the Ecosystem Service Approach (ESA): lessons learned and recom- mendations for the future. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 13:68-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2018.1425222 · DOI
- Brown JS, Dugin P (2001) Knowledge and organization: a social-practice perspective. Organ Sci 12:198-213. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12. 2.198.10116 · DOI
- Claret C, Metzger MJ, Kettunen M, Ten Brink P (2018) Understanding the integration of ecosystem services and natural capital in Scottish policy. Environ Sci Pol 88:32-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci. 2018.05.019 · DOI
- de Vries JR, van Bommel S, Blackmore C, Asano Y (2017) Where there is no history: how to create trust and connection in learning for transformation in water governance. Water 9:130. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/w9020130 · DOI
- Dendoncker N, Turkelboom F, Boeraevev F, Boerema A, Broekx S, Fontaine C, Demeyer R, De Vreese R, Devillet G, Keune H, Janssens L, Liekens I, Lord-Tarte E, Popa F, SimoensI SN, Ulenaers P, Van Herzele A, Van Tichelen K, Jacobs S (2018) Integrating Ecosystem Services values for sustainability? Evidence from the Belgium Ecosystem Services community of practice. Ecosyst Serv 31:68-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03. 006 · DOI
- Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, Bartuska A, Baste IA, Bilgin A, Brondizio E, KMA C, Figueroa VE, Duraiappah A, Fischer M, Hill R, Koetz T, Leadley P, Lyver P, Mace GM, Martin- Lopez B, Okumura M, Pacheco D, Pascual U, Pérez ES, Reyers B, Roth E, Saito O, Scholes RJ, Sharma N, Tallis H, Thaman R, Watson R, Yahara T, Hamid ZA, Akosim C, Al-Hafedh Y, Allahverdiyev R, Amankwah E, Asah TS, Asfaw Z, Bartus G, Brooks AL, Caillaux J, Dalle G, Darnaedi D, Driver A, Erpul G, Escobar-Eyzaguirre P, Failler P, AMM F, Fu B, Gundimeda H, Hashimoto S, Homer F, Lavorel S, Lichtenstein G, Mala WA, Mandivenyi W, Matczak P, Mbizvo C, Mehrdadi M, Metzger JP, Mikissa JB, Moller H, Mooney HA, Mumby P, Nagendra H, Nesshover C, Oteng-Yeboah AA, Pataki G, Roué M, Rubis J, Schultz M, Smith P, Sumaila R, Takeuchi K, Thomas S, Verma M, Yeo-Chang Y, Zlatanova D (2015) The IPBES Conceptual Framework -connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1-16. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002 · DOI · Paper page
- Dick J, Turkelboom F, Woods H, Iniesta-Arandia I, Primmer E, Saarela SR, Bezák P, Mederly P, Leone M, Verheyden W, Kelemen E, Hauck J, Andrews C, Antunes P, Aszalós R, Baró F, Barton DN, Berry P, Bugter R, Carvalho L, Czúcz B, Dunford R, Garcia Blanco G, Geamănă N, Giucă R, Grizzetti B, Izakovičová Z, Kertész M, Kopperoinen L, Langemeyer J, Montenegro Lapola D, Liquete C, Luque S, Martínez Pastur G, Martin-Lopez B, Mukhopadhyay R, Niemela J, Odee D, Peri PL, Pinho P, Patrício-Roberto GB, Preda E, Priess J, Röckmann C, Santos R, Silaghi D, Smith R, Vădineanu A, van der Wal JT, Arany I, Badea O, Bela G, Boros E, Bucur M, Blumentrath S, Calvache M, Carmen E, Clemente P, Fernandes J, Ferraz D, Fongar C, García-Llorente M, Gómez-Baggethun E, Gundersen V, Haavardsholm O, Kalóczkai Á, Khalalwe T, Kiss G, Köhler B, Lazányi O, Lellei-Kovács E, Lichungu R, Lindhjem H, Magare C, Mustajoki J, Ndege C, Nowell M, Nuss Girona S, Ochieng J, Often A, Palomo I, Pataki G, Reinvang R, Rusch G, Saarikoski H, Smith A, Soy Massoni E, Stange E, Vågnes Traaholt N, Vári Á, Verweij P, Vikström S, Yli-Pelkonen V, Zulian G (2018) Stakeholders' perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: results from 27 case studies. Ecosyst Serv 29:552-565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.015 · DOI
- Faivre N, Fritz M, Freitas T, de Boissezon B, Vandewoestijne S (2017) Nature-Based Solutions in the EU: innovating with nature to address social, economic and environmental challenges. Environ Res 159: 509-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.08.032 · DOI · Paper page
- Farnsworth V, Kleanthous I, Wenger-Trayner E (2016) Communities of practice as a social theory of learning: a conversation with Etienne Wenger. Brit J Educ Stud 64:139-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00071005.2015.1133799 · DOI
- Hughes J, Jewson N, Unwin L (2007a) Communities of practice: critical perspectives. Routledge, New York
- Hughes J Jewson N, Unwin L. (2007b) Conclusion: further developments and unresolved issues. In: Hughes J, Jewson N, Unwin L. (eds.) Communities of practice: critical perspectives. Routledge, New York, pp171-177
- Jax K, Furman E, Saarikoski H, Barton DN, Delbaere B, Dick J, Duke G, Görg C, Gómez-Baggethun E, Harrison PA, Maes J, Pérez-Soba M, Saarela S-R, Turkelboom F, van Dijk J, Watt AD (2018) Handling a messy world: lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational. Ecosyst Serv 29:415-427. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.001 · DOI
- Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M, Schmalzbauer BS, Hackmann H, Leemans R, Moore H (2013) Transdisciplinary global change re- search: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:420-431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013. 07.001 · DOI
- McKee A, Blackstock K, Azcón JMB, Ciucci P, Hošek M, Huber M, Neubert M, Ritchie C, Sovinc A, Trench H, Végvári Z, Velander K (2018) Developing learning landscape partnerships: why and how to work with protected area managers. Parks 23:63-78. https://doi. org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2018.PARKS-24-2AMcK.en · DOI
- Melnykovych M, Nijnik M, Soloviy I, Nijnik A, Sarkki S, Bihun Y (2018) Social-ecological innovation in remote mountain areas: adaptive responses of forest-dependent communities to the chal- lenges of a changing world. Sci Total Environ 613-614:894-906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.065 · DOI
- Metzger MJ Gelfgren S, Allen K, Burton V, Crofton A, Metzger MS, Wilson C, and ESCom (2018) Scotland's natural treasures -an il- lustrated ecosystem services map, [image]. The University of Edinburgh doi: https://doi.org/10.7488/ds/2321 · DOI
- Mulema AA, Mazur RE (2016) Motivation and participation in multi- stakeholder innovation platforms in the Great Lakes Region of Africa. Community Dev J 51:212-228. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/ bsu068 · DOI
- Nesshöver C, Vandewalle M, Wittmer H, Estelle VB, Carmen E, Geijzendorffer IR, Görg C, Jongman R, Livoreil B, Santamaria L, Schindler S, Settele J, Sousa Pinto I, Török K, van Dijk J, Watt AD, Young JC, Zulka KB, the KNEU Project Team (2016) The Network of Knowledge approach: improving the science and society dialogue on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe. Biodivers Conserv 25:1215-1233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1127- 5 · DOI
- Nursey-Bray M, Harvey N, Smith TF (2016) Learning and local govern- ment in coastal South Australia: towards a community of practice framework for adapting to global change. Reg Environ Chang 16: 733-746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0779-0 · DOI
- Kirsop-Taylor N (2019) Surviving tough times: an analysis of the strate- gic responses taken by environmental voluntary sector organisations living under the shadow of austerity. Environ. Polit. in press
- Patton MQ (2011) Developmental evaluation: applying complexity con- cepts to advance innovation and use. The Guildford Press, New York
- Reed MG, Abernethy P (2018) Facilitating co-production of transdisci- plinary knowledge for sustainability: working with Canadian bio- sphere reserve practitioners. Soc Nat Resour 31:39-56. https://doi. org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1383545 · DOI
- Reed MS, Stringer LC, Fazey I, Evely AC, Kruijsen JHJ (2014) Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in environmental management. J Environ Manag 146:337-345. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.021 · DOI
- Siddiki S, Kim J, Leach WD (2017) Diversity, trust, and social learning in collaborative governance. Public Adm Rev 77:863-874. https://doi. org/10.1111/puar.12800 · DOI
- Sarkki S, Ficko A, Wielgolaski F, Abraham E, Bratanova-Doncheva S, Grunewald K, Hofgaard A, Holtmeier F-K, Kyriazopoulos A, Broll G, Nijnik M, Sutinen M-L (2017) Assessing the resilient provision of ecosystem services by social-ecological systems: introduction and theory. Clim Res 73:7-15. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01437 · DOI
- Schoonover H, Grêt-Regamey A, Metzger MJ, Ruiz-Frau A, Santos-Reis M, SSK S, Walz A, Nicholas KA (2019) Creating space, aligning motivations, and building trust: a framework for stakeholder en- gagement based on experience in 12 ecosystem services case stud- ies. Ecol Soc 24:11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10061-240111 · DOI
- Tinch R, Balian E, Carss D, de Blas DE, Geamana NA, Heink U, Keune H, Nesshöver C, Niemelä J, Sarkki S, Thibon M, Timaeus J, Vadineanu A, van den Hove S, Watt A, Waylen KA, Wittmer H, Young JC (2018) Science-policy interfaces for biodiversity: dynam- ic learning environments for successful impact. Biodivers Conserv 27:1679-1702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1155-1 · DOI
- Tsai W (2002) Social structure of "coopetition" within a multiunit orga- nization: coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowl- edge sharing. Organ Sci 13:109-222. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc. 13.2.179.536 · DOI
- Wenger E, McDermott R, Snyder WM (2002) Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Publishing, Cambridge
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Arneth, A., Olsson, L., Cowie, A., Erb, K.-H., Hurlbert, M., Kurz, W. A., Mirzabaev, A., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2021) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-054809 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
“Enhancing synergies and reducing trade-offs can be achieved by (a) policy decisions and implementation that consider cross-disciplinary scientific knowledge on natural, economic, and societal aspects and (b) mapping and quantification of stakeholder choices in relation to various ecosystem service choices (139).”
Background
- Authors
- Metzger, M. J., Dick, J., Gardner, A., Bellamy, C., Blackstock, K., Brown, C., Chisholm, R., Cochrane, P., Drewitt, J., Gimona, A., Hester, A., Mathieson, S., Nijnik, M., McVittie, A., Petr, M., Smith, R., & Smith, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (GB)
- Forest Research (GB)
- James Hutton Institute (GB)
- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
- Scottish Government (GB)
- Scottish Environment Protection Agency (GB)
- Scotland's Rural College (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Metzger, Marc J.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Regional Environmental Change
- Published
- 2019-07-20
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 2275-2286
- ISSN
- 1436-378X (ISSN-L)
- 1436-3798
- OpenAlex
- W2963908179
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 1.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Regional Environmental Change (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) (acceptedVersion)
- Repository KITopen (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- KITopen (cc-by)
- Funders
- FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (308393, 308428, 603567)
- H2020 European Research Council (677622)
- Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division (-)
- Forestry Commission UK (-)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
- Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
- Keywords
- ecosystem services, communities of practice, knowledge sharing, social learning, professional development, science-policy-practice interface, governance, shared learning, Scotland
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
