CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 47Land Use and Ecosystem ServicesConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementPublic Policy and Administration Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Governing ecosystem services: National and local lessons from policy appraisal and implementation

Open access
Verburg, René, Selnes, Trond, Verweij, Pita·2016·Ecosystem Services
DOI 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.03.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The TEEB approach to the use of ecosystem services has found its way to policy as a means to biodiversity conservation and greening of the economy. In this paper we analysed the uptake of the TEEB approach at national and local levels by applying a framework that revolves around the problem, approach and solution frame. At the national level (United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands) TEEB is mainly used to develop integrated decision making. In policy documents the importance of clearly formulated divisions of tasks is emphasised, while the practical implementation is transferred to lower government levels and stakeholders from the private sector. At the local level explorative studies are implemented, while a shared vision is often a major outcome of such processes. Shared visions are directed to incentives and management plans and also point to new societal challenges for future development. The uptake of an ecosystem services approach requires new types of contracts, ample resources, sufficient knowledge and new modes of governance to attract societal involvement. The research suggests that long term engagement of stakeholders in the participatory processes was however not guaranteed due to insufficient resources.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.03.006

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Additional challenges and additional flexibility may come where high-level policies are implemented within federal or devolved political structures.

    “additional challenges - yet also additional flexibility - may come where high-level policies are implemented within federal or devolved political structures, such as Germany or the UK (Verburg et al., 2016)”

    From Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems? (2019) · cites this paper as Verburg et al., 2016

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Abson, 2014, Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability, Ecol. Econ., 103, 29, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.012 · DOI
  2. Adelle, 2012, Proceeding in parallel or drifting apart? A systematic review of policy appraisal research and practices, Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy, 30, 401, 10.1068/c11104 · DOI
  3. Arsel, 2012, Nature™ Inc.: Changes and Continuities in Neoliberal Conservation and Market-based Environmental Policy, Dev. Chang., 43, 53, 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2012.01752.x · DOI
  4. Bateman, 2013, Bringing Ecosystem Services into Economic Decision-Making: Land Use in the United Kingdom, Science, 341, 45, 10.1126/science.1234379 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bouwen, 2004, Multi-party collaboration as social learning for interdependence: developing relational knowing for sustainable natural resource management, J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 14, 137, 10.1002/casp.777 · DOI
  6. Braat, 2012, The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy, Ecosyst. Serv., 1, 4, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.011 · DOI
  7. Brick, 2008, Producing political climate change: the hidden life of US environmentalism, Env. Polit., 17, 200, 10.1080/09644010801936107 · DOI
  8. Chan, 2012, Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values, Ecol. Econ., 74, 8, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011 · DOI
  9. Christie, 2011, Economic Valuation of the Benefits of Ecosystem Services delivered by the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Wales
  10. Christie, 2012, An economic assessment of the ecosystem service benefits derived from the SSSI biodiversity conservation policy in England and Wales, Ecosyst. Serv., 1, 70, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.004 · DOI
  11. Cowell, 2014, The utilisation of environmental knowledge in landuse planning: drawing lessons for an ecosystem services approach. Environ, Plan. C Gov. Policy, 32, 263, 10.1068/c12289j · DOI
  12. Cowling, 2008, An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation, PNAS, 105, 9483, 10.1073/pnas.0706559105 · DOI
  13. Daniel, 2012, Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 109, 8812, 10.1073/pnas.1114773109 · DOI
  14. De Groot, 2002, A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services, Ecol. Econ., 41, 393, 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Defra, 2011a. Uplands Policy Review.
  16. Defra, 2011, Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services. Secretary of State for Environment, Food Rural Aff. Command Her. Majesty
  17. Environmental Agency, 2009, Parrett Catchment Flood Management Plan, Environ. Agency
  18. Farley, 2012, Ecosystem services:The economics debate, Ecosyst. Serv., 1, 40, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.002 · DOI
  19. Fisher, 2009, Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making, Ecol. Econ., 68, 643, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014 · DOI
  20. Folke, 2002, Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations, Ambio, 31, 437, 10.1579/0044-7447-31.5.437 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Fontein, 2011, Leren van krimp. Report of Wageningen UR
  22. Haines-Young, 2014, The ecosystem approach as a framework for understanding knowledge utilisation, Environ. Plan. C. Gov. Policy, 32, 301, 10.1068/c1329j · DOI
  23. Hajer, 2011, The Energetic Society, Search of a Governance Philosophy for a Clean economy, Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (PBL), Den Haag
  24. Harlow, 2012, Valuing land-use and management changes in the Keighley and Watersheddles catchment, Nat. Engl.
  25. Hedden-Dunkhorst, 2015, TEEB emerging at the country level: Challenges and opportunities, Ecosyst. Serv., 14, 37, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.03.007 · DOI
  26. HM Government, 2011, The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food Rural Aff. Command Her. Majesty
  27. Honey-Rosés, 2013, A demand driven research agenda for ecosystem services, Ecosyst. Serv., 5, e160, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.007 · DOI
  28. Jordan, 2014, Embedding the concept of ecosystem services? The utilisation of ecological knowledge in different policy venues, Environ. Plan. C. Gov. Policy, 32, 192, 10.1068/c3202ed · DOI
  29. Kull, 2015, The political ecology of ecosystem services, Geoforum, 61, 122, 10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.03.004 · DOI
  30. Leach, 2002, Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington, J. Policy Anal. Manag., 21, 645, 10.1002/pam.10079 · DOI
  31. Lindenberg, 2007, Normative, Gain and Hedonic Goal Frames Guiding Environmental Behavior, J. Soc. Issues, 63, 117, 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00499.x · DOI
  32. McKenzie, 2014, Understanding the use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making: lessons from international experiences of spatial planning, Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy, 32, 320, 10.1068/c12292j · DOI
  33. McShane, 2011, Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being, Biol. Conserv., 144, 966, 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038 · DOI
  34. Mehlman, J., 1972. The “Floating Signifier”: From Lévi-Strauss to Lacan, in: French Freud: Structural Studies in Psychoanalysis. Yale French Studies, No. 48, pp. 10–37. · DOI
  35. Menzel, 2010, Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept for conservation science, Conserv. Biol., 24, 907, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01347.x · DOI
  36. Moore, 2004, Self-Interest, Automaticity, and the Psychology of Conflict of Interest, Soc. Justice Res., 17, 189, 10.1023/B:SORE.0000027409.88372.b4 · DOI
  37. Mulgan, 2000, Accountability’: An Ever-Expanding Concept?, Public Adm., 78, 555, 10.1111/1467-9299.00218 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Muradian, 2013, Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions, Conserv. Lett., 6, 274, 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00309.x · DOI
  39. Muradian, 2010, Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services, Ecol. Econ., 69, 1202, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006 · DOI
  40. Muradian, 2012, Between markets and hierarchies: the challenge of governing ecosystem services, Ecosyst. Serv., 1, 93, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.009 · DOI
  41. Norgaard, 2010, Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder, Ecol. Econ., 69, 1219, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009 · DOI
  42. Opdam, 2015, Framing ecosystem services: affecting behaviour of actors in collaborative landscape planning?, Land use policy, 46, 223, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.008 · DOI
  43. Orenstein, 2014, In the eye of the stakeholder: changes in perceptions of ecosystem services across an international border, Ecosyst. Serv., 8, 185, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.04.004 · DOI
  44. Primmer, 2015, Governance of Ecosystem Services: a framework for empirical analysis, Ecosyst. Serv., 1
  45. Ring, 2010, Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: the TEEB initiative, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain, 2, 15, 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.03.005 · DOI
  46. Robertson, 2014, Stacking ecosystem services, Front. Ecol. Environ., 12, 186, 10.1890/110292 · DOI
  47. Schleyer, 2015, Opportunities and challenges for mainstreaming the ecosystem services concept in the multi-level policy-making within the EU, Ecosyst. Serv., 16, 174, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.014 · DOI
  48. Schröter, 2014, Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-arguments, Conserv. Lett., 1
  49. Spangenberg, 2014, The ecosystem service cascade: Further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy, Ecol. Econ., 104, 22, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.025 · DOI
  50. Tacconi, 2012, Redefining payments for environmental services, Ecol. Econ., 73, 29, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.028 · DOI
  51. Turner, 2008, The Ecosystem Services Framework and Natural Capital Conservation, Environ. Resour. Econ., 39, 25, 10.1007/s10640-007-9176-6 · DOI
  52. Turnhout, 2014, Technocratic and Economic Ideals in the Ecosystem Services Discourse, Conserv. Lett., 7, 336, 10.1111/conl.12069 · DOI
  53. Turnhout, 2013, Rethinking biodiversity: from goods and services to “living with.”, Conserv. Lett., 6, 154, 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00307.x · DOI
  54. Turnpenny, 2014, The challenge of embedding an ecosystem services approach: patterns of knowledge utilisation in public policy appraisal, Environ. Plan. C. Gov. Policy, 32, 247, 10.1068/c1317j · DOI
  55. UK NEA, 2011, The UK National Ecosystem Assessment. Synthesis of the Key Findings, UK Natl. Ecosyst. Assess.
  56. Waters, 2012, Delivering the ecosystem approach on the ground – an evaluation of the upland ecosystem service pilots, Nat. Engl. Res. Rep., Number 046
  57. Waylen, 2014, Expectations and experiences of diverse forms of knowledge use: the case of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy, 32, 229, 10.1068/c1327j · DOI
  58. Webler, 2001, What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public, Environ. Manag., 27, 435, 10.1007/s002670010160 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Verburg, R., Selnes, T., & Verweij, P.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
Corresponding author
Verburg, René
ORCID
Venue
Ecosystem Services
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-04
Volume
18
Pages
186-197
ISSN
2212-0416 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.03.006
OpenAlex
W2332265924
Cited by
47
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
FWCI
4.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Ecosystem Services (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Universiteit Utrecht
  • Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
Keywords
ecosystem services governance, TEEB, biodiversity conservation, greening the economy, policy implementation, local governance, stakeholder engagement, participatory processes, shared vision, integrated decision-making, policy evaluation, United Kingdom, Belgium, Netherlands

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