 | INTRO
by Rob Bugter | 1.52MB | 19.05.2013 | Margarita Grudova | FIRST STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP | |
 |
| How do arguments differ at different levels of governance?
by Ann Van Herzele | 1.91MB | 19.05.2013 | Margarita Grudova | FIRST STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP | |
|
| Ecosystem services as arguments for biodiversity protection
by Pam Berry | 3MB | 19.05.2013 | Margarita Grudova | FIRST STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP | |
|
| Context and effectiveness
by Rob Tinch | 5.91MB | 19.05.2013 | Margarita Grudova | FIRST STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP | |
|
 | Template_Factsheet Biodiversity
the EU template | 52.64KB | 30.07.2013 | Margarita Grudova | GENERAL DOCUMENTS (DoW, GA, logos) | |
|
 | Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment
One of the key challenges for ecosystem services research is to develop a comprehensive methodological
approach in which biophysical, socio-cultural and monetary value-domains can be explicitly considered
and integrated into decision making processes. This paper operationalizes a methodological approach
for ecosystem service assessment on the basis of value pluralism. We assessed eleven ecosystem services
delivered in the Do˜nana social–ecological system (SW Spain). We found that different ecosystem service
trade-offs came into view depending the value-domain in which services were assessed. The use of different
valuation methods uncovers the fact that methods to elicit value actually shape and define the values
being elicited. In this context, the prevalence of biophysical and monetary value-domains in scientific
literature entails two main concerns: (1) the ecosystem service concept reflect in a limited extent the
concerns of their beneficiaries, and (2) ecosystem service assessment results are biased towards the information
provided by markets at the expense of other value-articulating institutions. Recognizing the role
of ecosystem service assessment methods as value-articulating institutions, we call for a methodological
framework able to contemplate the multidimensional nature of ecosystem services. | 1MB | 10.10.2013 | Margarita Grudova | BESAFE acknowledged and related SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS | |
|
 | BESAFE Stakeholders List
This is the BESAFE Stakeholders list. Any other contacts are more than welcome | 120.5KB | 01.11.2013 | Margarita Grudova | WP6_DOCUMENTATION | |
|
| D2.2 WS1 evaluation of methodology, protocols and case studies, with stakeholder recommendations
Deliverable No: 2.2 WS1 evaluation of methodology, protocols and case studies, with stakeholder recommendations | 301.97KB | 25.04.2014 | Margarita Grudova | DELIVERABLES | |
|
 | BESAFE WS2 Pictures
BESAFE WS2 Pictures | 20.51MB | 06.06.2014 | Margarita Grudova | SECOND STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP | |
|
 | Group photo
Group photo | 2.97MB | 06.06.2014 | Margarita Grudova | SECOND STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP | |
|
| From supply to social demand: a landscape-scale analysis of the water regulation service
Worldwide water managers and policy makers are faced by the increasing demands for limited and scarce water resources, particularly in semi-arid ecosystems. This study assesses water regulation service in semi-arid ecosystems of the southeastern Iberian Peninsula. Comparisons between the supply–demand sides were analyzed across different landscape units. We mapped the biophysical supply as the potential groundwater recharged by aquifers and water supplies from reservoirs. The social demand was focused on an analysis of water consumed or used for irrigation and the stakeholder’s perceptions regarding water regulation importance and vulnerability. Results show that some landscape units are able to maintain and conserve water regulation service when the volume of recharge water by aquifers and the water supply from reservoirs is greater than its consumption (e.g. rural landscape units). However, we also found potential social conflicts in landscape units where water consumption and use is much greater than the water recharge and supply. This particularly occurs in the non-protected littoral areas with the highest water consumption and where water is perceived as a non-important and vulnerable natural resource. Overall, our results emphasized the importance of assessing ecosystem services from both supply to demand sides, for identifying social conflicts and potential trade-offs, and to provide practical information about how to integrate the ecosystem service research into landscape management and planning. | 2.51MB | 01.07.2014 | Margarita Grudova | BESAFE acknowledged and related SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS | |
|
| D5 1 WS2 Evaluation of synthesis - final
D5 1 WS2 Evaluation of synthesis - final | 619.31KB | 04.09.2014 | Margarita Grudova | DELIVERABLES | |
|
| D3.1 Final report synthesising the analysis of argumentation in multi-level governance interactions in case studies
D3.1 Final report synthesising the analysis of argumentation in multi-level governance interactions in case studies | 1.37MB | 16.09.2014 | Margarita Grudova | DELIVERABLES | |
|
| Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being
Ecosystem services studies currently lack information regarding stakeholders' socio-cultural values. This information is highly relevant to human well-being, which is the motivation of ecosystem services assessments. We present results from an analysis of stakeholders' perceptions of ecosystem services, well-being and drivers of change in two semi-arid watersheds in south-eastern Spain. Based on the information compiled through a literature review, participant observation and semi-structured interviews, we designed a questionnaire and conducted 381 interviews. Our results show that semiarid watersheds deliver a large variety of ecosystem services; however, these services are perceived in different ways. We identified five stakeholder groups, including: locals dependent on provisioning ecosystem services, locals not directly dependent on provisioning ecosystem services, environmental and local development professionals and rural and nature tourists. Overall, provisioning services related to traditional practices were perceived as highly important and highly vulnerable by every stakeholder group. However, we found contrasting perceptions of some ecosystem services among stakeholders and of the relevant drivers of change and well-being. We suggest that socio-cultural valuation is a useful tool to prioritize ecosystem services but more attention should be directed to emerging trade-offs. Linking values to other stakeholder perceptions might be a useful way to move forward in ecosystem services valuation. | 2.68MB | 29.10.2014 | Margarita Grudova | BESAFE acknowledged and related SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS | |
|
| BESAFE_project_Special_issue_proposal_final
| 42.29KB | 13.02.2015 | Margarita Grudova | BESAFE SPECIAL ISSUE | |
|
| Wildlife comeback in Flanders: tracing the fault lines and dynamics of public debate
Conflicts and debates on wildlife issues often prove “intractable” or resistant to resolution. This paper develops a three-layered methodological approach to identify the fault lines and dynamics, which perpetuate social division and conflict. This approach was applied to the analysis of six publicly debated events that followed the comeback of the red fox and wild boar in Flanders, Belgium. The integrated findings demonstrate that conflict was not merely a manifestation of incompatible goals and views, but was highly determined by the conduct of the debate itself. The debates evolved along a few main fault lines, most notably “belonging/not belonging”, “opportunity/threat” and “control by intervention/nature controls itself”. A number of dynamics were identified along these fault lines, including the convergence and alignment of arguments (in particular, dichotomisation), the linking and scaling up of issues and the stigmatisation of outgroups. These processes were largely driven by the parties’ strategies to gain credibility and support with audiences. At the same time, however, they tended to magnify the problems, polarised positions along the fault lines, and thus hampered resolution. Furthermore, part of the debate served to confirm institutional roles and identities, which, in turn, contributed to the perpetuation of conflict. Contrasting views on “nature” were hardly a topic of discussion. Rather they were locked into dichotomies and classifications expressed by the contending parties. Together, the findings from this paper provide useful clues for transforming the dynamics perpetuating the conflict to different dynamics that allow for more constructive relations between the parties involved. | 318.72KB | 01.06.2015 | Margarita Grudova | BESAFE acknowledged and related SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS | |
|
| What a forest? Whose forest? Struggles over concepts and meanings in the debate about the conservation of the Białowieża Forest in Poland
This paper addresses the long-standing debate over the conservation and management of the Białowieża Forest in North-eastern Poland, frequently referred to as the last, large, close-to-natural, temperate, lowland forest in Europe. With the present research we aim to document how particular conceptualisations of “forest” shaped the debate and the fate of the Białowieża Forest. Based on our reconstruction and analysis of argumentation, three dominant discourses could be distinguished, each offering different concepts of forest and people–forest relationships: 1. ‘managerial’ — with foresters presented as stewards of the forest, actively managing it for sustainable outcomes; 2. ‘livelihood’ — considering the forest as local heritage and underlining its role in fulfilling people's needs; and 3. ‘primaeval’ — highlighting the forest's intrinsic value and natural processes, being an international concern. The three discourses remained remarkably stable over the past two decades, but their status of institutionalisation evolved, which in turn influenced their hegemony and power. Importantly, our study demonstrates the active role of parties involved in the debate as they used particular concepts (their own, those of others or new ones) for strategic purposes. We conclude that both the achieved hegemony of a discourse and the particular ways by which its concepts are mobilised by actors may play a decisive role in shaping debate and its policy outcomes. We suggest that future research should focus more on the role of actors in strategically using particular forest-related concepts in concrete situations and to what effects. | 820.82KB | 01.06.2015 | Margarita Grudova | BESAFE acknowledged and related SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS | |
|
| Mapping value plurality towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: A Q analysis
For many deep-rooted resource conflicts where the cultural component of ecosystem services (ES) is strong, standard monetary valuation may be methodologically difficult and not always meaningful. A deeper understanding of the value plurality of key stakeholders may be called for to develop acceptable policies. We use the Q method to analyse the perceived and actual trade-offs related to Norwegian wildlife management, a source of prominent conflict in Norway. We identify and classify distinct arguments in the wildlife management debate following the ES framework, and use the Q method to explore extant/prominent narratives characterising stakeholders' perceptions of the importance of arguments about biodiversity and ES. Finally, we reflect on whether and to what extent the Q method can contribute to our understanding of resource conflicts, underlying values, and ES trade-offs. Three clear narratives appeared: Pro-sheep grazing (cultural), pro-carnivore conservation (intrinsic) and a middle position emphasising recreational hunting (utilitarian). Despite considerable disagreement among narratives, the Q analysis also revealed areas of common ground useful for developing acceptable policies. Given the inherent complexity of socio-ecological systems, it is useful to draw from a diverse toolbox of methods, including the Q method for ES analysis. | 619.88KB | 12.08.2015 | Margarita Grudova | BESAFE acknowledged and related SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS | |
|
| BESAFE WP4 Review Form_PestControl_Chaplin-Kramer_etal_2011
| 19.93KB | 03.04.2012 | Willemien Geertsema | Review Forms | |
|
| BESAFE WP4 Review Form_PestControl_Bianchi_etal_2008
| 20KB | 03.04.2012 | Willemien Geertsema | Review Forms | |
|
| BESAFE WP4 Review Form_PestControl_Thies_etal_2011
| 19.2KB | 03.04.2012 | Willemien Geertsema | Review Forms | |
|
| BESAFE WP4 Review Form_Water_Kagawa et al. 2009
| 47.5KB | 29.03.2012 | Malgorzata Blicharska | Review Forms | |
|
| BESAFE WP4 Review Form_Water_Sweeney et al. 2004
| 45KB | 29.03.2012 | Malgorzata Blicharska | Review Forms | |
|
| BESAFE WP4 Review Form_Water_Oelmann et al. 2011
| 46.5KB | 29.03.2012 | Malgorzata Blicharska | Review Forms | |
|
| BESAFE WP4 Review Form_Water_Martinez et al. 2009
| 195KB | 29.03.2012 | Malgorzata Blicharska | Review Forms | |
Document Library
