Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 308

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade

Open access
Potschin-Young, M., Haines-Young, R., Görg, C., Heink, U., Jax, K., Schleyer, C.·2018·Ecosystem Services

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to identify the role of conceptual frameworks in operationalising and mainstreaming the idea of ecosystem services. It builds on some initial discussions from IPBES, which suggested that conceptual frameworks could be used to: 'simplify thinking', 'structure work', 'clarify issues', and 'provide a common reference point'. The analysis uses the cascade model as a focus and looks at the way it has been used in recent published material and across a set of case studies from the EU-funded OpenNESS Project as a device for conceptual framing. It found that there are examples in the literature that show the cascade model indeed being used as an 'organising framework', a tool for 're-framing' perspectives, an 'analytical template', and as an 'application framework'. Although the published materials on the cascade are rich, these accounts lack insights into the process by which the different versions of the model were created, and so we turned to the set of OpenNESS case studies to examine how they read the cascade. We found that the cascade was able to provide a common reference for a diverse set of studies, and that it was sufficiently flexible for it to be developed and elaborated in ways that were meaningful for the different place-based studies. The case studies showed that generalised models like the cascade can have an important 'awareness-raising' role. However, we found that using models of this kind it was more difficult for case studies to link their work to broader societal issues such as human well-being, sustainable ecosystem management, governance, and competitiveness, than to their own concerns. We therefore conclude that to be used effectively, conceptual models like the cascade may need to be supported by other materials that help users read it in different, outward looking ways. We also need to find mechanisms for capturing this experience so that it can be shared with others.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.015

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 55 references

Metadata

Authors
Potschin-Young, M., Haines-Young, R., Görg, C., Heink, U., Jax, K., & Schleyer, C.
Venue
Ecosystem Services
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-02
Volume
29
Issue
Pt C
Pages
428-440
ISSN
2212-0416 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2625910062
Cited by
308
References
55
FWCI
15.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.015
The paper
Potschin-Young, M., Haines-Young, R., Görg, C., Heink, U., Jax, K., & Schleyer, C. (2018). Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade. Ecosystem Services. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.015

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.