Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBarton, D.N
dc.contributor.authorKelemen, E.
dc.contributor.authorDick, J.
dc.contributor.authorMartin-Lopez, B.
dc.contributor.authorGómez-Baggethun, E.
dc.contributor.authorJacobs, S.
dc.contributor.authorHendriks, C.M.A.
dc.contributor.authorTermansen, M.
dc.contributor.authorGarcía-Llorente, M.
dc.contributor.authorPrimmer, E.
dc.contributor.authorDunford, R.
dc.contributor.authorHarrison, P.A.
dc.contributor.authorTurkelboom, F.
dc.contributor.authorSaarikoski, H.
dc.contributor.authorvan Dijk, J.
dc.contributor.authorRusch, G.M.
dc.contributor.authorPalomo, I.
dc.contributor.authorYli-Pelkonen, V.J.
dc.contributor.authorCarvalho, L.
dc.contributor.authorBaró, F.
dc.contributor.authorLangemeyer, J.
dc.contributor.authorvan der Wal, J.T.
dc.contributor.authorMederly, P.
dc.contributor.authorPriess, J.A.
dc.contributor.authorLuque, S.
dc.contributor.authorBerry, P.
dc.contributor.authorSantos, R.
dc.contributor.authorOdee, D.
dc.contributor.authorPastur, G.M.
dc.contributor.authorGarcía Blanco, G.
dc.contributor.authorSaarela, S.R.
dc.contributor.authorSilaghi, D.
dc.contributor.authorPataki, G.
dc.contributor.authorMasi, F.
dc.contributor.authorVădineanu, A.
dc.contributor.authorMukhopadhyay, R.
dc.contributor.authorLapola, D.M.
dc.date.accessioned2023-05-26T07:12:07Z
dc.date.available2023-05-26T07:12:07Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.citationEcosystem Services: 29: 529-541-541 (2018)es_ES
dc.identifier.issn22120416
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10810/61217
dc.description.abstractThe operational challenges of integrated ecosystem service (ES) appraisals are determined by study purpose, system complexity and uncertainty, decision-makers requirements for reliability and accuracy of methods, and approaches to stakeholder science interaction in different decision contexts. To explore these factors we defined an information gap hypothesis, based on a theory of cumulative uncertainty in ES appraisals. When decision context requirements for accuracy and reliability increase, and the expected uncertainty of the ES appraisal methods also increases, the likelihood of methods being used is expected to drop, creating a potential information gap in governance. In order to test this information gap hypothesis, we evaluate 26 case studies and 80 ecosystem services appraisals in a large integrated EU research project. We find some support for a decreasing likelihood of ES appraisal methods coinciding with increasing accuracy and reliability requirements of the decision-support context, and with increasing uncertainty. We do not find that information costs are the explanation for this information gap, but rather that the research project interacted mostly with stakeholders outside the most decision-relevant contexts. The paper discusses how alternative definitions of integrated valuation can lead to different interpretations of decision-support information, and different governance approaches to dealing with uncertainty. © 2017 Elsevier B.V.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipThis research was funded by the European Union EU FP7 project OpenNESS (Grant agreement no. 308428). MGL was fund by a grant from the Spanish National Institute for Agriculture and Food Research and Technology (INIA), which is co-funded by the Social European Fund.es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherEcosystem Serviceses_ES
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/FP7/308428es_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/es/*
dc.subjectEccosystem services cascadees_ES
dc.subjectEcosystem service appraisales_ES
dc.subjectEcosystem service governancees_ES
dc.subjectInformation costses_ES
dc.subjectIntegrated valuationes_ES
dc.subjectUncertaintyes_ES
dc.subjectValuationes_ES
dc.title(Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance supportes_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.rights.holder© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.es_ES
dc.rights.holderAtribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 España*
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021
dc.contributor.funderEuropean Commission


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

©  2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.