dc.contributorInstitute for Nature Research (NINA)
dc.contributorEnvironmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG Ltd.)
dc.contributorCorvinus University of Budapest
dc.contributorCentre for Ecology and Hydrology
dc.contributorInstitute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research
dc.contributorNorwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU)
dc.contributorResearch Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO)
dc.contributorEnvironmental Research (Alterra)
dc.contributorAarhus University
dc.contributorCtra. Madrid-Barcelona (N-II)
dc.contributorFinnish Environment Institute
dc.contributorEnvironmental Change Institute
dc.contributorCentre for Ecology & Hydrology Maclean Building
dc.contributorNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA)
dc.contributorScientific Campus of the University of the Basque Country
dc.contributorEdifici Z (ICTA-ICP)
dc.contributorMarine Research (IMARES)
dc.contributorConstantine the Philosopher University in Nitra
dc.contributorHelmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ
dc.contributorUMR TETIS
dc.contributorUniversidade Nova de Lisboa
dc.contributorKenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI)
dc.contributorCentro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC CONICET)
dc.contributorC/Geldo
dc.contributorNational Institute for Research and Development in Forestry “Marin Dracea”
dc.contributorMTA Centre for Ecological Research
dc.contributorIRIDRA Srl
dc.contributorUniversity of Bucharest – Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability
dc.contributorIBRAD (Indian Institute of Bio Social Research and Development)
dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.date.accessioned2018-12-11T17:17:07Z
dc.date.available2018-12-11T17:17:07Z
dc.date.created2018-12-11T17:17:07Z
dc.date.issued2018-02-01
dc.identifierEcosystem Services, v. 29, p. 529-541.
dc.identifier2212-0416
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/175695
dc.identifier10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021
dc.identifier2-s2.0-85039460157
dc.identifier2-s2.0-85039460157.pdf
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.
dc.languageeng
dc.relationEcosystem Services
dc.relation1,743
dc.rightsAcesso aberto
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectEccosystem services cascade
dc.subjectEcosystem service appraisal
dc.subjectEcosystem service governance
dc.subjectInformation costs
dc.subjectIntegrated valuation
dc.subjectUncertainty
dc.subjectValuation
dc.title(Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución