4.7 Article

Challenges and opportunities for the Ecosystem Services approach: Evaluating experiences of implementation in Sweden

期刊

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
卷 52, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101372

关键词

Ecosystem Services; Governance; Policy implementation; Institutionalization; Interest mediation; Sweden

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council Formas [2017-01080]
  2. Swedish Research Council [2017-01080] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council
  3. Formas [2017-01080] Funding Source: Formas

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research indicates that the Ecosystem Services (ES) approach provides important opportunities for horizontal integration, professional communication, and networking, but further implementation has been hindered by a lack of coordination, public participation, and institutionalization.
The Ecosystem Services (ES) concept has attracted substantial interest among researchers and policymakers alike, and there are hopes that it can facilitate much needed policy changes and actions. Implementing it has proved challenging, however. Elaborating on a theoretical framework of key governance elements, and drawing on new empirical findings about the introduction and implementation of ES in Sweden, this paper aims to further the understanding of challenges and opportunities for implementing the ES approach as experienced by policy actors and to discuss its implications for the ability of ES to strengthen environmental governance. The findings show how the ES approach provides important opportunities for (horizontal) integration, professional communication, and networking, but also that further implementation has been hindered by a lack of co-ordination, public participation, and institutionalization. Based on the findings, and with the aim of strengthening the impact of ES on environmental governance, three critical issues in need of elaboration and further debate are discussed: institutionalization, reappraisal of the role of economic valuation, and interest mediation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据