Indicators for Ecosystem Services. Czúcz, B. & Arany, I. In Potschin, M. & Jax, K., editors, OpenNESS Ecosystem Service Reference Book, of OpenNESS Synthesis Paper. ![Indicators for Ecosystem Services [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper abstract bibtex [Excerpt: Indicators in a policy context] The main purpose of using indicators in a policy context is to provide messages to stakeholders and policy actors to achieve better (more informed) governance. This involves indicators being used for normative goals in addition to descriptive purposes (Heink and Kowarik, 2010). Hence, not all indicators used are solely science-based. Several major factors that determine the ” usefulness” and ” success” of an indicator are outside of the scope of science. [\n] The use of scientific information for policy purposes should not be considered as a linear one-way knowledge transfer process. A better model for the relationship of science and policy in this process is that of 'joint knowledge production', which occurs at the science-policy interface, a fuzzy and broad area where science and policy overlap (Turnhout et al., 2007, Figure 1). At this interface, knowledge is translated into usable knowledge, and policy questions are translated into research questions. The boundaries of this interface are not sharp in either direction. In this context indicators can be seen as boundary objects (Star and Griesemer, 1989), being accepted by both communities, but having different uses and meanings within them. [\n] [...] [Ecosystem service indicators] Indicators for ecosystem services (ES) have to integrate and balance the entire general scientific and policy aspects discussed above. There are several systematic reviews for ES assessments which give an overview on various aspects of indicator use in this field [...]. All of these policy-oriented indicator lists include an assessment of the ” maturity” of the proposed indicators in terms of data availability and data quality, which greatly improves their usefulness for practical applications. [\n] [...] [Relationship to four challenges] [::Human well-being] Indicators at the fourth level of the cascade can explore the dimensions of HWB. More conceptual work is needed on the dimensions other than monetary wealth. Applying a consistent system of indicators helps to develop a detailed and quantita-tive insight into the way natural capital (which can also be conceptualized using indicators along the cascade) and service flows exert influence on well-being. [::Sustainable Ecosystem Management] Quantifying NC and ES in different geographical, environmental and management contexts may help to measure structures and processes, as well as improve understanding on optimal management for a sustainable flow of services. Measuring the same indicator over time can provide an overview of the sustainability of the system/ES. [::Governance] Ensuring credibility, salience and legitimacy for all major stakeholder groups is necessary for policy influence. This can be achieved by thorough stakeholder involvement in the development and use of indicators. New participatory and transdisciplinary models for developing biophysical indicators should be actively sought. [::Competitiveness] Gaps between capacities and actual use and spatial flow patterns can be explored using indicators. These factors can add relevant insights into regional competitiveness studies. [\n] [...]
@incollection{czuczIndicatorsEcosystemServices2015,
title = {Indicators for Ecosystem Services},
booktitle = {{{OpenNESS Ecosystem Service Reference Book}}},
author = {Czúcz, Bálint and Arany, Ildikó},
editor = {Potschin, M. and Jax, K.},
date = {2015},
url = {http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/13908028},
abstract = {[Excerpt: Indicators in a policy context]
The main purpose of using indicators in a policy context is to provide messages to stakeholders and policy actors to achieve better (more informed) governance. This involves indicators being used for normative goals in addition to descriptive purposes (Heink and Kowarik, 2010). Hence, not all indicators used are solely science-based. Several major factors that determine the ” usefulness” and ” success” of an indicator are outside of the scope of science.
[\textbackslash n] The use of scientific information for policy purposes should not be considered as a linear one-way knowledge transfer process. A better model for the relationship of science and policy in this process is that of 'joint knowledge production', which occurs at the science-policy interface, a fuzzy and broad area where science and policy overlap (Turnhout et al., 2007, Figure 1). At this interface, knowledge is translated into usable knowledge, and policy questions are translated into research questions. The boundaries of this interface are not sharp in either direction. In this context indicators can be seen as boundary objects (Star and Griesemer, 1989), being accepted by both communities, but having different uses and meanings within them.
[\textbackslash n] [...]
[Ecosystem service indicators]
Indicators for ecosystem services (ES) have to integrate and balance the entire general scientific and policy aspects discussed above. There are several systematic reviews for ES assessments which give an overview on various aspects of indicator use in this field [...]. All of these policy-oriented indicator lists include an assessment of the ” maturity” of the proposed indicators in terms of data availability and data quality, which greatly improves their usefulness for practical applications.
[\textbackslash n] [...]
[Relationship to four challenges]
[::Human well-being]
Indicators at the fourth level of the cascade can explore the dimensions of HWB. More conceptual work is needed on the dimensions other than monetary wealth. Applying a consistent system of indicators helps to develop a detailed and quantita-tive insight into the way natural capital (which can also be conceptualized using indicators along the cascade) and service flows exert influence on well-being.
[::Sustainable Ecosystem Management]
Quantifying NC and ES in different geographical, environmental and management contexts may help to measure structures and processes, as well as improve understanding on optimal management for a sustainable flow of services. Measuring the same indicator over time can provide an overview of the sustainability of the system/ES.
[::Governance]
Ensuring credibility, salience and legitimacy for all major stakeholder groups is necessary for policy influence. This can be achieved by thorough stakeholder involvement in the development and use of indicators. New participatory and transdisciplinary models for developing biophysical indicators should be actively sought.
[::Competitiveness]
Gaps between capacities and actual use and spatial flow patterns can be explored using indicators. These factors can add relevant insights into regional competitiveness studies.
[\textbackslash n] [...]},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13908028,ecosystem-services,featured-publication,indicators,knowledge-integration,science-policy-interface,scientific-communication,unknown},
series = {{{OpenNESS Synthesis Paper}}}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"8DgPGYrdjfrS24DtA","bibbaseid":"czcz-arany-indicatorsforecosystemservices","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Czúcz, B.","Arany, I."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"incollection","type":"incollection","title":"Indicators for Ecosystem Services","booktitle":"OpenNESS Ecosystem Service Reference Book","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Czúcz"],"firstnames":["Bálint"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Arany"],"firstnames":["Ildikó"],"suffixes":[]}],"editor":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Potschin"],"firstnames":["M."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Jax"],"firstnames":["K."],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2015","url":"http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/13908028","abstract":"[Excerpt: Indicators in a policy context] The main purpose of using indicators in a policy context is to provide messages to stakeholders and policy actors to achieve better (more informed) governance. This involves indicators being used for normative goals in addition to descriptive purposes (Heink and Kowarik, 2010). Hence, not all indicators used are solely science-based. Several major factors that determine the ” usefulness” and ” success” of an indicator are outside of the scope of science. [\\n] The use of scientific information for policy purposes should not be considered as a linear one-way knowledge transfer process. A better model for the relationship of science and policy in this process is that of 'joint knowledge production', which occurs at the science-policy interface, a fuzzy and broad area where science and policy overlap (Turnhout et al., 2007, Figure 1). At this interface, knowledge is translated into usable knowledge, and policy questions are translated into research questions. The boundaries of this interface are not sharp in either direction. In this context indicators can be seen as boundary objects (Star and Griesemer, 1989), being accepted by both communities, but having different uses and meanings within them. [\\n] [...] [Ecosystem service indicators] Indicators for ecosystem services (ES) have to integrate and balance the entire general scientific and policy aspects discussed above. There are several systematic reviews for ES assessments which give an overview on various aspects of indicator use in this field [...]. All of these policy-oriented indicator lists include an assessment of the ” maturity” of the proposed indicators in terms of data availability and data quality, which greatly improves their usefulness for practical applications. [\\n] [...] [Relationship to four challenges] [::Human well-being] Indicators at the fourth level of the cascade can explore the dimensions of HWB. More conceptual work is needed on the dimensions other than monetary wealth. Applying a consistent system of indicators helps to develop a detailed and quantita-tive insight into the way natural capital (which can also be conceptualized using indicators along the cascade) and service flows exert influence on well-being. [::Sustainable Ecosystem Management] Quantifying NC and ES in different geographical, environmental and management contexts may help to measure structures and processes, as well as improve understanding on optimal management for a sustainable flow of services. Measuring the same indicator over time can provide an overview of the sustainability of the system/ES. [::Governance] Ensuring credibility, salience and legitimacy for all major stakeholder groups is necessary for policy influence. This can be achieved by thorough stakeholder involvement in the development and use of indicators. New participatory and transdisciplinary models for developing biophysical indicators should be actively sought. [::Competitiveness] Gaps between capacities and actual use and spatial flow patterns can be explored using indicators. These factors can add relevant insights into regional competitiveness studies. [\\n] [...]","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13908028,ecosystem-services,featured-publication,indicators,knowledge-integration,science-policy-interface,scientific-communication,unknown","series":"OpenNESS Synthesis Paper","bibtex":"@incollection{czuczIndicatorsEcosystemServices2015,\n title = {Indicators for Ecosystem Services},\n booktitle = {{{OpenNESS Ecosystem Service Reference Book}}},\n author = {Czúcz, Bálint and Arany, Ildikó},\n editor = {Potschin, M. and Jax, K.},\n date = {2015},\n url = {http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/13908028},\n abstract = {[Excerpt: Indicators in a policy context]\n\nThe main purpose of using indicators in a policy context is to provide messages to stakeholders and policy actors to achieve better (more informed) governance. This involves indicators being used for normative goals in addition to descriptive purposes (Heink and Kowarik, 2010). Hence, not all indicators used are solely science-based. Several major factors that determine the ” usefulness” and ” success” of an indicator are outside of the scope of science.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] The use of scientific information for policy purposes should not be considered as a linear one-way knowledge transfer process. A better model for the relationship of science and policy in this process is that of 'joint knowledge production', which occurs at the science-policy interface, a fuzzy and broad area where science and policy overlap (Turnhout et al., 2007, Figure 1). At this interface, knowledge is translated into usable knowledge, and policy questions are translated into research questions. The boundaries of this interface are not sharp in either direction. In this context indicators can be seen as boundary objects (Star and Griesemer, 1989), being accepted by both communities, but having different uses and meanings within them.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] [...]\n\n[Ecosystem service indicators]\n\nIndicators for ecosystem services (ES) have to integrate and balance the entire general scientific and policy aspects discussed above. There are several systematic reviews for ES assessments which give an overview on various aspects of indicator use in this field [...]. All of these policy-oriented indicator lists include an assessment of the ” maturity” of the proposed indicators in terms of data availability and data quality, which greatly improves their usefulness for practical applications.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] [...]\n\n[Relationship to four challenges]\n\n[::Human well-being]\n\nIndicators at the fourth level of the cascade can explore the dimensions of HWB. More conceptual work is needed on the dimensions other than monetary wealth. Applying a consistent system of indicators helps to develop a detailed and quantita-tive insight into the way natural capital (which can also be conceptualized using indicators along the cascade) and service flows exert influence on well-being.\n\n[::Sustainable Ecosystem Management]\n\nQuantifying NC and ES in different geographical, environmental and management contexts may help to measure structures and processes, as well as improve understanding on optimal management for a sustainable flow of services. Measuring the same indicator over time can provide an overview of the sustainability of the system/ES.\n\n[::Governance]\n\nEnsuring credibility, salience and legitimacy for all major stakeholder groups is necessary for policy influence. This can be achieved by thorough stakeholder involvement in the development and use of indicators. New participatory and transdisciplinary models for developing biophysical indicators should be actively sought.\n\n[::Competitiveness]\n\nGaps between capacities and actual use and spatial flow patterns can be explored using indicators. These factors can add relevant insights into regional competitiveness studies.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] [...]},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13908028,ecosystem-services,featured-publication,indicators,knowledge-integration,science-policy-interface,scientific-communication,unknown},\n series = {{{OpenNESS Synthesis Paper}}}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Czúcz, B.","Arany, I."],"editor_short":["Potschin, M.","Jax, K."],"key":"czuczIndicatorsEcosystemServices2015","id":"czuczIndicatorsEcosystemServices2015","bibbaseid":"czcz-arany-indicatorsforecosystemservices","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/13908028"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-13908028","ecosystem-services","featured-publication","indicators","knowledge-integration","science-policy-interface","scientific-communication","unknown"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"incollection","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:04.856Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-13908028","ecosystem-services","featured-publication","indicators","knowledge-integration","science-policy-interface","scientific-communication","unknown"],"search_terms":["indicators","ecosystem","services","czúcz","arany"],"title":"Indicators for Ecosystem Services","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}