Go e nance o Ecosys em Se ices: A amewo k o empi ical analysis
Ee a P imme
a,
n
, Pekka Jokinen
b
, Malgo za a Blicha ska
c,d
, Da id N. Ba on
e
, Rob Bug e
,
Ma ion Po schin
g
a
Finnish En i onmen Ins i u e (SYKE), Finland
b
Uni e si y o Tampe e (UTA), Finland
c
Swedish Uni e si y o Ag icul u al Sciences (SLU), Sweden
d
Swedish Biodi e si y Cen e, Sweden
e
No wegian Ins i u e o Na u e Resea ch (NINA), No way
Al e a, Pa o Wageningen Uni e si y and Resea ch, The Ne he lands
g
Cen e o En i onmen al Managemen , Uni e si y o No ingham, UK
a icle in o
A icle his o y:
Recei ed 17 Oc obe 2014
Recei ed in e ised o m
8 Ap il 2015
Accep ed 11 May 2015
A ailable online 26 May 2015
Keywo ds:
Ecosys em se ices
Biodi e si y conse a ion
Go e nance
Policy implemen a ion
A gumen s
abs ac
Biodi e si y conse a ion policies jus ified wi h science and in insic alue a gumen s ha e p oduced
disappoin ing ou comes, and he need o conse a ion is now being addi ionally jus ified wi h he
concep o ecosys em se ices. Howe e , li le, i any empi ical a en ion is paid o ways in which di -
e en ypes o ecosys em se ice decisions a e made, o wha a gumen s a e e ec i e in u ning policy
in o p ac ice and u he in o conse a ion ou comes and, in gene al, o how ecosys em se ices a e
go e ned. To close his gap, his pape iden ifies he di e en modes o go e nance in policy im-
plemen a ion om biodi e si y and en i onmen al conse a ion li e a u e and inco po a es hem in a
concep ual model o ecosys em se ices commonly u ilised a p esen , he cascade model. The esul ing
concep ual amewo k encompasses: (1) hie a chical go e nance; (2) scien ific- echnical go e nance;
(3) adap i e collabo a i e go e nance; and; (4) go e ning s a egic beha iou . This comp ehensi e a-
mewo k p o ides a s uc u e o empi ical analysis o ecosys em se ices go e nance, which akes in o
accoun he people and o ganisa ions making decisions, and, in pa icula , he di e en a gumen s ha
a e used when implemen ing policies. The amewo k will acili a e holis ic ecosys em se ice analyses
and suppo policies in gene a ing conse a ion and sus ainabili y impac .
&2015 The Au ho s. Published by Else ie B.V. This is an open access a icle unde he CC BY-NC-ND
license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. In oduc ion
The global consensus on he impo ance o biological di e si y
and he need o conse e i has been o malised in nume ous
ag eemen s and s a egies (e.g. UN, 1992; EC, 2011). S opping
species ex inc ions and p o ec ing a p opo ion o land a ea ha e
been se as explici a ge s. The igo ous e alua ion o hese a -
ge s o e ecen decades has, howe e , p oduced disappoin ing
esul s, e ealing ha he appa en poli ical will and ca e ully
d a ed policies ha e no hal ed biodi e si y decline (Rod iguez
e al., 2004;Rands e al., 2010). The ailu e o p o ec habi a s om
deg ada ion and con e sion, o species om decline and ex inc-
ion, has o ced scien is s and decision-make s o ake an in-
c easingly holis ic app oach o conse a ion, which ecognises
humans as impo an beneficia ies o na u e. As a esul , he a -
gumen s o biodi e si y conse a ion now add ess he complex
social–ecological in e ac ions and he mul iple benefi s ha eco-
sys ems p o ide o people (Ca dinale e al., 2012). As an a gumen -
making de ice, he so called ecosys em se ice app oach en e s a
wide se o social and poli ical p ocesses, in ol ing a ange o
complex s a egies and mo i es (Haines-Young and Po schin, 2014;
Tu npenny e al., 2014). The e is an expec a ion ha he holis ic
ecosys em se ice app oach would e en ually be embedded in
hese p ocesses; cons i u e a basis o policy design and be in-
eg a ed in go e nance a all le els.
The holism is well wa an ed bu , as esea ch concen a es on
p oducing knowledge abou ecosys ems and hei alue o hu-
mans, he issues o decision-making, policy implemen a ion and
go e nance a e la gely igno ed. Simply assuming ha decisions
will e en ually change, as new knowledge abou ecosys em se -
ices is p oduced, is a significan impedimen o he conse a ion
and sus ainable use o ecosys em se ices. This assump ion does
no ake in o accoun he complex in e ac ions wi hin and ac oss
he go e nance sys ems ha may ha e implica ions o ac ual
implemen a ion o policies (Nie, 2003;Ra amäki e al., 2015).
Con en s lis s a ailable a ScienceDi ec
jou nal homepage: www.else ie .com/loca e/ecose
Ecosys em Se ices
h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1016/j.ecose .2015.05.002
2212-0416/&2015 The Au ho s. Published by Else ie B.V. This is an open access a icle unde he CC BY-NC-ND license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
n
Co esponding au ho .
E-mail add ess: ee a.p imme @ympa is o.fi(E. P imme ).
Ecosys em Se ices 16 (2015) 158–166
The e o e, he way in which new knowledge eeds in o decision-
making should be a a ge o analysis i sel , building on explici
esea ch on how ecosys em se ices a e go e ned, how policies
a e implemen ed and wha a gumen s a e used in hese p ocesses.
The limi ed a en ion o policy implemen a ion and go e nance
in he ecosys em se ice con ex is su p ising, gi en he empi ical
e idence base ha biodi e si y conse a ion and en i onmen al
managemen analys s ha e accumula ed o e he las 50 yea s. To
close his gap, his pape iden ifies he di e en modes o go -
e nance in policy implemen a ion om biodi e si y conse a ion
and en i onmen al managemen li e a u e and inco po a es hem
in a concep ual model o ecosys em se ices commonly u ilised a
p esen , he cascade model (Po schin and Haines-Young, 2011).
The cascade model is a use ul simplifica ion o he eal wo ld,
communica ing he ela ionships be ween ecosys em se ices and
human well-being a a gene al le el. The model has been applied,
c i icised and elabo a ed, o be e add ess pa icula ela ions and
issues, such as ecosys em se ice supply and demand (Po schin,
2015). Ou analysis elabo a es he model wi h go e nance aspec s.
We p opose a amewo k o empi ical analysis o ecosys em
se ices go e nance. We s a by laying ou he way in which he
ecosys em se ice amewo k is expec ed o b oaden he a gu-
men s o conse ing biodi e si y and o gene a ing be e con-
se a ion ou comes. We hen e iew empi ical biodi e si y and
en i onmen al go e nance li e a u e, paying a en ion o di e en
implemen a ion mechanisms ha ep esen dis inc modes o
go e nance as well as he ways in which he e ec s o a gumen s
o biodi e si y conse a ion a e e alua ed wi hin each go e n-
ance mode. We conclude by placing he iden ified go e nance
modes in o he concep ual amewo k o ecosys em se ices, and
discussing he ele an in e ac ions and eedback be ween go -
e nance modes and he pa icula componen s o he ecosys em
se ices model. The esul ing concep ual amewo k encompasses:
(1) hie a chical op-down go e nance; (2) scien ific- echnical
go e nance; (3) adap i e collabo a i e go e nance; and, (4) go -
e ning s a egic beha iou . This comp ehensi e amewo k p o-
ides a s uc u e o empi ical analysis o ecosys em se ices
go e nance, which akes in o accoun he people and o ganisa-
ions making decisions, and, in pa icula , he di e en a gumen s
ha a e used when implemen ing policies. The amewo k will
acili a e holis ic ecosys em se ice analyses and suppo policies
in gene a ing conse a ion and sus ainabili y impac .
2. Conse a ion e ec s and he concep o ecosys em se ices
E alua ion o he e ec s o specific biodi e si y conse a ion
policies usually ocuses on he ou comes and impac s, a he han
on he ways in which go e nance u ns he policies in o p ac ice.
The e ec s and e olu ion o he a gumen s o conse a ion ex-
p essed in he design o he policy goals a e no gene ally ollowed
h ough when e alua ing he policy o he a ious p ocesses o
implemen a ion ha make up go e nance and e en ually p oduce
conse a ion e ec s.
E ec i eness indica o s, such as hec a es o p o ec ed a eas and
numbe s o endange ed species, ha e a well acknowledged (and
well dese ed) s a us in biodi e si y conse a ion epo ing, and
mo e de ailed analyses mos ly ake hese as a p oxy o he e -
ec i eness o p o ec ion s a egies. Fo example, e alua ing con-
se a ion ac ion plans akes species s a us as a su oga e o con-
se a ion e ec s (Laycock e al., 2009) and a mo e elabo a e cos -
e ec i eness analysis uses de ailed species-habi a in o ma ion o
measu ing e ec s o di e en pa cel sizes o p o ec ed a eas
(Mönkkönen e al., 2011). Elsewhe e, o es co e is used as he
p oxy o e ec in cos -e ec i eness analyses o conse a ion
paymen s (Fe a o and Simpson, 2002) and p o ec ed a eas
(Andam e al., 2008). In an analysis o cos -e ec i eness o he
Eu opean Na u a 2000 P o ec ed A ea Managemen Plans, Wä -
zold e al. (2010) iden i y a ious sou ces o cos s, and hus ake a
s ep u he in conside ing he di e en ac i i ies equi ed o
implemen ing he p o ec ed a ea a ge s. Gene ally, howe e , e -
ec i eness e alua ions pay li le a en ion o wha ac i i ies and
which a gumen s di ec he decisions and he esou ces, u he
shaping he p ac ices ha deli e he conse a ion ou pu .
The hea y eliance on simplified measu es o conse a ion e -
ec s in e alua ing policies is su p ising, gi en he ex en o
knowledge abou biodi e si y and he e ol ing a ie y o a gu-
men s o conse a ion. Fo example, biodi e si y conse a ion
policies elying on e hical and mo al a gumen s o p o ec ing
na u e (Sago , 1996) ha e g adually been backed up by elabo a e
science-based a gumen s abou he habi a condi ion, size and
connec i i y ha species and popula ions equi e (e.g., Hanski
2000;Ma gules and P essey, 2000;Su he land e al., 2004;Hu h
and Possingham, 2011). Elsewhe e, hese ecological a gumen s
ha e been supplemen ed by long- e m benefi a gumen s, o en
ope a ionalized h ough mone a y alues (Sago , 2011).
In he de elopmen o mo e di e se a gumen s o biodi e si y
conse a ion, he concep o ecosys em se ices ep esen s a majo
a emp o cap u e he complexi y and di e en alue bases o
conse a ion (Daily, 1997;Cos anza e al., 1997;MA, 2005;Gómez-
Bagge hun e al., 2010;Po schin and Haines-Young, 2011). The
concep ualisa ion o ecosys em se ices en ails a b idge, o 'cas-
cade’, om he ecosys em's biophysical s uc u es and p ocesses
(suppo ed by unde lying biodi e si y), o he benefi s and alues
ha humans expe ience (Po schin and Haines-Young, 2011,Fig. 1).
As highligh ed in he li e a u e applying he ecosys em se ices
concep ual model (Po schin and Haines-Young, 2011) depic ed in
Fig. 1 and simila models (De G oo e al., 2002,2010;Ba eman
e al., 2011;Mace e al., 2014;Van Oudenho en e al., 2012), he
c ucial a gumen s o biodi e si y conse a ion can be de i ed
om he scien ific unde s anding o each o he model's compo-
nen s: ecosys em s uc u e, unc ions, se ices, benefi s and a-
lues, as well as he ela ionships be ween hese componen s. Fo
example, unde s anding which elemen s o ecosys em s uc u e
and unc ion con ibu e o he deli e y o impo an se ices may
mo i a e decision-make s o implemen policies ha aim a be e
conse a ion o hese pa icula elemen s. The e is an u ge o
u he scien ific analysis o suppo he unde s anding o each o
he componen s o he model and, o add holism, he ela ionship
be ween hem. The esul s, hen, a e expec ed o allow u he
elabo a ion o a gumen s o ecosys em and biodi e si y
conse a ion.
By displaying a back-loop om alues o ecosys em s uc u es
(and unde lying biodi e si y), he ecosys em se ices model dis-
plays an assump ion ha he knowledge o alue and alue a -
gumen s a e necessa y o go e ning ecosys em se ices and im-
plemen ing biodi e si y policy (Fig. 1). The easoning goes ha as
many policy decisions a e based on economic a gumen s, he
Ecosys em
s uc u e
P essu e
Ecosys em
se ices
Ecosys em
unc ions
Bene i s om
ecosys ems
Limi p essu e
h oughpolicy
Ecosys em
alues
Fig. 1. A concep ual model o analysing ecosys em se ices (‘cascade model’),
adap ed om Po schin and Haines-Young (2011).
E. P imme e al. / Ecosys em Se ices 16 (2015) 158–166 159
mone a y alua ions o ecosys em se ices will eed in o decision-
making and, by allowing ade-o analysis, will suppo he de-
cisions ha educe he p essu e on ecosys ems and biodi e si y
(Cos anza e al., 1997;Ch is ie e al., 2006;Ba eman e al., 2011;
Po schin and Haines-Young, 2011). Mone a y alua ion o biodi-
e si y- ela ed benefi s may also encou age people o suppo
na u e conse a ion, as hey inc easingly ela e hese benefi s o
hei indi idual well-being (Fische and Young, 2007;Buijs, 2009;
Liu e al., 2010). Addi ionally, iden i ying he cos s and benefi s o
p o ec ing o using ecosys em se ices may show he impo ance
o biodi e si y ou side p o ec ed a eas, going beyond adi io-
nal,'ho -spo ’based e alua ion me hods (Hasle e al., 2010;Ba-
eman e al., 2013).
In p ac ice, howe e , alua ion o benefi s does no fil e a -
gumen s di ec ly in o decisions (Spash, 2007;Va n, 2009;Span-
genbe g and Se ele, 2010;P imme and Fu man, 2012;Spangen-
be g e al., 2014). Academic li e a u e on mone a y alua ion
s udies has had a poo eco d in influencing ac ual policy making
(Lau ans e al., 2013). On he con a y, he p ocesses by which
o mal decisions a e fil e ed o p ac ical implemen a ion a e un-
likely o ca y he alue a gumen s as nume ical figu es. One
eason is ha he s a ed p e e ence alua ion me hods, which a e
he mos flexible in e ms o add essing non-use alues, o en use
hypo he ical policy amings. The decision al e na i es o alua ion
s udies do no easily scale o ans e o he ac ual policy se ings
ha un old (Gómez-Bagge hun and Ba on, 2013). This may be one
explana ion o lacking fil e ing o ope a ional decision-making a
di e en le els o go e nance. Ne e heless, he e is a b oad
ag eemen ha quan ified economic alues can be an impo an
pa o decision-making as long as o he alue a gumen s a e also
gi en conside a ion, and he p ocess in ol es pa icipa ion o
hose who a e a ec ed by he decision (Spash and Va n, 2006;
Va n, 2009;Chan e al., 2012;Co nell 2011;Sago , 2011;Plan and
Ryan, 2013;Spangenbe g e al., 2014). To acili a e e ec i e go -
e nance o biodi e si y, based on he ecosys em se ices concep
and he ela ed app oaches o aluing na u e, he e is a need o
deepe analysis o how ecosys em se ices hinking, and he en-
suing a gumen s, fi in wi h di e en modes o go e nance (De
G oo e al., 2010;Tu npenny e al., 2014). Imp o ing he e ec-
i eness o biodi e si y conse a ion wi h he ecosys em se ice
amewo k should he e o e s a om he analysis o go e nance.
Analysing go e nance allows elabo a ing on some o he simpli-
fica ions o he cascade model (Spangenbe g e al., 2014).
3. D awing lessons om biodi e si y and en i onmen al
go e nance
3.1. Iden i ying di e en modes o go e nance
To analyse wha condi ions he e ec i eness o ecosys em
se ice a gumen s and o lea n how e ec i eness indica o s, ela-
bo a e ecological knowledge and he imp o ed unde s anding o
ecological unc ions and human benefi s can oge he eed in o he
p ac ice o policy implemen a ion, go e nance needs o be ana-
lysed empi ically. The new empi ical analyses should make use o
exis ing analyses o go e nance, which a e ample in he a eas o
biodi e si y and en i onmen al conse a ion policy and
implemen a ion.
O e he las 20 yea s, analys s o policy implemen a ion,
managemen , decision suppo , pa icipa o y decision-making and
poli ics ha e buil a solid unde s anding o decision-making and
a gumen a ion in go e nance (No on, 2005;Wu zel e al., 2013).
To achie e his analy ical unde s anding in ecosys em se ices
go e nance analyses, i makes sense o link he app oach o he
amilia cascade model (Fig. 1;Po schin and Haines-Young, 2011).
S a ing om he cascade model o ecosys em se ices and
assuming ha alues a e fil e ed o decision-making, he analysis
o go e nance should begin wi h a ocus on ag eed policies o
decisions and hei implemen a ion. In e na ional ag eemen s
se e as an illus a i e example o such decisions. They eflec
collec i ely ag eed alues and a e implemen ed by na ion s a es, in
a hie a chically o ganised ashion (Young, 2002;Wu zel e al.,
2013). Simila hie a chical s uc u es can be obse ed o na ional
biodi e si y policies, o wi hin o ganisa ions, a leas as one mode
o go e nance (P imme , 2011a).We sugges ha 'hie a chical
go e nance’should be he fi s mode o be analysed.
Following he ideas o ecosys em se ice li e a u e, go e nance
equi es science-based knowledge on he p obable influence o he
decisions on he ecosys ems (Vihe aa a e al., 2012). Accu a e
scien ific- echnical suppo would allow ade-o analyses and he
alloca ion o land-uses in an in o med ashion (de G oo e al.,
2010;Po schin and Haines-Young, 2011). Also biodi e si y con-
se a ion has been an a ea whe e scien ific knowledge is sough o
sys ema ically suppo decision-making (Su he land e al., 2004;
Hu h and Possingham, 2011). This second go e nance mode can be
e med 'scien ific- echnical go e nance’.
Shi ing a en ion om knowledge o he ac o s who use and
p oduce i , we obse e go e nance modes whe e knowledge
p oduce s and decision-make s communica e ac oss sec o s and
go e nance le els wi h he aim o finding ways o ad ance sha ed
goals (Gunde son and Holling, 2002;P imme , 2011b;P imme
and Fu man, 2012;Hauck e al., 2013). Lea ning and commi men
a e he co e assump ions in his hi d mode o go e nance ha can
be called 'adap i e collabo a i e go e nance’.
Finally, because he e is an assump ion ha he ac o s u ilising
ecosys ems o economic pu poses end o beha e in ways ha
secu e hei own in e es s, a he han hose o he collec i e
(Gómez-Bagge hun e al., 2010;Kuma , 2010;Lockie, 2013), ways
o dealing wi h such s a egic in e es -based beha iou should be
analysed as well. 'Go e ning s a egic beha iou ‘is he e o e he
final mode o go e nance we iden i y o u he analysis.
Taking hese ou app oaches o go e nance as he basis, we
e iewed biodi e si y and en i onmen al conse a ion li e a u e,
o in es iga e how he a gumen a ion o ecosys em se ices
migh be cap u ed and could be suppo ed by empi ical analyses.
By ocusing on a gumen s, we sough o iden i y empi ical e i-
dence o ways in which decisions a e jus ified and u ned in o
implemen a ion p ac ices, o e en ually p oduce conse a ion e -
ec s. We s a ed ou e iew by conduc ing sea ches in Scopus
(be ween 10 and 20 Ap il 2012), wi h sea ch e ms: ‘policy’,‘a -
gumen *‘and’‘e ec *‘and specified he ou come wi h ‘empi ical’,
‘biodi e si y’,‘conse a ion’o ‘en i onmen *‘and expanded his
ou come by including also ‘ he o ic*‘,‘impac ’,o ‘e alua *‘.A e
his sys ema ic pa o he in es iga ion, we picked hose a icles
ha add essed he opic o go e ning ecosys ems, i.e., na u al
en i onmen s o na u al esou ces and epo ed empi ical ana-
lyses o policy gene a ing e ec s, paying a en ion o a gumen s.
We hen complemen ed hese wi h seminal a icles desc ibing he
mode o go e nance o illus a i ely add essing he ways in which
a gumen s, policy and ecosys ems a e in in e play. We p io i ised
a icles epo ing empi ical analyses. In he ollowing, we epo
he obse a ions om hese a icles.
3.2. Hie a chical go e nance
We ound ha a numbe o law and in e na ional poli ics s u-
dies analyse he ways in which o mula ions in ag eemen s and
laws ha e been influenced by highe le el policies, and hese in-
cluded pape s dealing wi h di e sions om majo policies. These
analyses disclose he ways in which in e na ional en i onmen al
decisions ha e been fil e ed o na ional policies, and u he o
E. P imme e al. / Ecosys em Se ices 16 (2015) 158–166160
mo e local go e nance le els. E alua ion o he a ifica ion and
en o cemen o in e na ional o o he high-le el en i onmen al
ag eemen s a he na ional le el (Sand, 2001;Beunen e al., 2009;
Mo is, 2011), can be conside ed a model o his ype o hie -
a chical implemen a ion analysis.
Al hough he in e na ional policy implemen a ion analyses
ocus on legal defini ions and he na ion s a es' o mal ake-up o
in e na ionally ag eed p inciples in na ional laws, also coun ies'
s a egic choices in implemen ing in e na ional en i onmen al
policy a e a poin o in e es (Mo is, 2011). Ce ain powe ul
sec o s and ac o s play an impo an ole in making na owe
na ional in e p e a ions o he ypically e y b oadly defined in-
e na ional commi men s (Dekke e al., 2007). The e a e e en
cases o s a egic manipula ion in hie a chical go e nance (Mo is,
2011). In some cases, in e na ional policies, aiming o suppo a
ansi ion owa ds mo e ambi ious en i onmen al p ac ices, a e
channelled owa d al eady exis ing less ambi ious na ional aims
(Kanowski e al., 2011). In o he si ua ions, na ional egula ions a e
al eady mo e ambi ious han he ones imposed by he in e na-
ional policy (Paa ola e al., 2009;Kanowski e al., 2011).
I can be in e ed ha he pe sis ence o he ideas ans e ing
om he highe le el policy o he lowe go e nance le els implies
e ec i eness o he policy and o he unde lying a gumen s. The
main obs acles o gene a ing e ec s ela e o na ional o sec o ial
in e es s (Gulb andsen, 2003;Dekke e al., 2007;Rajamani, 2007;
Mo is, 2011;P imme , 2011a) o e y echnical a gumen a ion
(Beunen e al., 2009). Fo example, in hei analysis o Eu opean
Union policy implemen a ion a a na ional le el in The Ne he -
lands, Beunen e al. (2009) find ha he a gumen a ion a ound he
Wa e F amewo k, and he Bi ds and Habi a s Di ec i es con-
cen a es on legal echnicali ies, a he han on conse a ion i sel .
Also Suma es and Fidélis (2011) asse ha sup ana ional egula-
ion, illus a ed by Na u a 2000, aces di ficul ies when EU le el
objec i es a e ansla ed o egional and local policies. T ans e o
a gumen s in mul ile el go e nance is also somewha associa ed
wi h less hie a chical ins i u ional change (A a al, 2010), di usion
(Jiménez, 2005) o in e play o policies and a gumen s (Wilson,
2008;Paa ola e al., 2009).
3.3. Scien ific- echnical go e nance
We hen iden ified examples o biodi e si y go e nance ha
emphasise he cons uc ion o knowledge and suppo sys ems
ha maximise e ec i eness in eaching policy goals (Su he land
e al., 2004;Hu h and Possingham, 2011). These ypes o analyses
usually ocus on a pa icula conse a ion issue, such as c ea ion o
a p o ec ed a eas ne wo k (Ma gules and P essey, 2000), o on
policy o a pa icula sec o , such as o es y (S u e an e al.,
2007). In hese analyses, he policies and scien ific a gumen s a e
some imes o iginally assumed o be ope a ionalized and simpli-
fied o p agma ic a gumen s o conse a ion, and u he placed
in he local con ex . Whe e he scien ific- echnical go e nance is
no s aigh o wa d despi e assumed smoo h knowledge flow, a -
en ion is paid o p o essional and communica ion ac o s shaping
go e nance (Peuhku i and Jokinen 1999;P imme and Ka ppinen,
2010;Val e e al., 2013).
An illus a i e example is he analysis o he implemen a ion o
a Po uguese o es policy p og amme wi h sus ainabili y goals
(Mendes, 2006). He e, go e nance is depic ed as ope a ionaliza-
ion, esou cing and communica ion ac i i ies ha can be some-
wha con olled by he policy designe ; he ou come (i.e. e ec-
i eness o he p og amme) is e en ually measu ed simply as a -
o es ed hec a es and numbe s o o es -owne o ganisa ions e-
c ui ed. The analysis e eals, howe e , ha a gumen s p eceding
he policy gene a e unexpec ed ic ion in implemen a ion and
hus impede he o e all e ec i eness o he p og amme, along
wi h sho age o knowledge and esou ces.
O he empi ical analyses o scien ific- echnical go e nance also
ou line he science-based a gumen s embedded in he policies and
analyse hem paying a en ion o a gumen s ha ha e eme ged in
he p ac ical go e nance si ua ions, abou o example he local
condi ions and exis ing p ac ices ha only pa ially allow he in-
eg a ion o new knowledge (Wol and P imme , 2006;Kaljonen,
2008;P imme and Ka ppinen, 2010;Val e e al., 2013). These
analyses poin o impo an de ia ions om echnically aided
planning p ocesses, which can be iden ified and sol ed only by
p ac i ione s. Se e al analyses o ope a ional biodi e si y con-
se a ion e o s hus highligh he ole o expe s and o he ac o s
in o mula ing easible local conse a ion solu ions and ways o
in eg a ing many di e en goals as well as sha ing in o ma ion
(Kaljonen, 2008;Wol and P imme , 2006;Ka ez and Cas o, 2008;
P imme and Ka ppinen, 2010;Ande sson e al., 2012). Al hough
many analyses wi h a echnical ocus ake knowledge esou ces o
be he main bo leneck o eaching policy goals, hey a e also
c i ical o he assump ions o knowledge ans e as jus a simple
echnical ask suppo ed by sma in o ma ion managemen (Ji-
ménez, 2005;Mendes, 2006;Ka ez and Cas o, 2008). Wi hin his
go e nance domain he e is a s and o esea ch on he sys ema ic
desc ip ion o unce ain y o models equi ed o assess ou comes
o policies, which shows ha he scale misma ch be ween he
decision con ex and wha is calcula ed wi h a ailable me hods
and da a hinde communica ing findings o policy (Gómez-Bag-
ge hun and Ba on, 2013).
3.4. Adap i e collabo a i e go e nance
As a nex s ep, we looked o examples o collabo a i e go -
e nance app oaches, which a e commonly analysed in he field o
sus ainable en i onmen al managemen (Haje and Wagenaa ,
2003;Reed, 2008;Sands öm, 2009). These analyses aim a in-
eg a ing a ange o a gumen s, bo h analy ically and p agma i-
cally and highligh in eg a ion o no ms and s akeholde com-
mi men in line wi h wha has amously been e med “collec i e
go e nance”(Os om, 1990). The collabo a i e app oaches e-
iewed emphasise he impo ance o knowledge accumula ion,
collec i e lea ning and sensi i i y o changes, which a e he ideas
o adap i e go e nance o social–ecological sys ems (Gunde son
and Holling, 2002;C ona and Bodin, 2006).
The e iew showed ha hese app oaches do no ake hie -
a chical go e nance as a s a ing poin ; hey ac ually posi ion
hemsel es by in oducing he concep o “bo om up”go e nance
(e.g. F ase e al., 2006;S u e an e al., 2007). While biodi e si y
conse a ion e alua ions ocus on conse a ion ou comes and e -
ec i eness, he empi ical analyses o collabo a ion and pa icipa-
ion do no always assess he conse a ion ou comes a all. In-
s ead, hey concen a e dominan ly on sus ainable go e nance
ou comes, e.g. he quali y o he decision-making o im-
plemen a ion p ocess, and sensi i i y o di e en con ex -specific
a gumen s. The ocus is on o e coming conflic s as well as secu -
ing legi imacy and lea ning (Paloniemi and Va ho, 2009;Sand-
s öm, 2009;Saa ikoski e al., 2012). Gene ally, howe e , b oad
a gumen a ion, inclusi e s akeholde pa icipa ion, well o ganised
pa icipa o y p ocesses and genuine knowledge sha ing a e con-
side ed o con ibu e o posi i e ecological ou comes as well
(Reed, 2008;Williams, 2011). In a me a-analysis o 47 pa icipa ion
s udies, Newig and F i sch (2009) find ha pa icipa ion, o , e en
mo e ambi ious di ec in e ac ion among pa icipan s, gene ally
ad ance en i onmen al goals. To combine he oppo uni ies o
collabo a i e go e nance and e ec i eness e alua ion, Rausch-
maye e al. (2009) p opose bo h aspec s o be e alua ed join ly.
The gene al message om collabo a i e adap i e go e nance e-
sea ch is one o op imism, and endo semen o i s posi i e e ec s,
E. P imme e al. / Ecosys em Se ices 16 (2015) 158–166 161
e en in cases whe e ecological impac s a e no he main a ge o
e alua ion.
3.5. Go e ning s a egic beha iou
Finally, we paid a en ion o in e es s in a gumen s and go -
e nance. While many ac o s pa icipa ing in go e nance ake po-
licies as manda es o guidance, some pe cei e hem a he as
challenges o e en con es able ba ie s o hei p e e ed ac ion
(Oli e , 1991). S a egic campaigning agains conse a ion a gu-
men s ypically akes place a he policy o mula ion phase and
diminishes as he policy is implemen ed (Ri e a e al., 2009;
Hiedanpää and B omley, 2011). Howe e , hose s akeholde s who
expe ience economic losses om conse a ion some imes con-
inue o a gue agains he policy, pa icula ly i hey a e in a po-
si ion whe e hey can domina e he discou ses su ounding he
policy implemen a ion (Ri e a e al., 2009;Hiedanpää and B om-
ley, 2011;Casho e and Ve insky, 2000).
The e iew showed ha biodi e si y policies appea o be in-
fluenced by s ong ac o s' in e es s and a gumen s e en
in si ua ions ha a e hie a chically well o ganised o echnically
s aigh o wa d. Fo example, in e na ional ag eemen s a e in e -
p e ed in ways o secu e na ional economic in e es s when im-
plemen ed (Gulb andsen, 2003) and biodi e si y policies a e op-
e a ionalized wi h na u al esou ce dependen sec o s influencing
he p ocess (P imme , 2011b;Newig and F i sch, 2009;Saa ikoski
e al., 2012). Also he biodi e si y conse a ion adminis a ion
secu es i s manda e and esponsibili ies in si ua ions whe e col-
labo a i e adap i e go e nance is he assumed go e nance mode
(P imme e al., 2013;Val e e al., 2013). On he o he hand,
s a egic app oaches o policy can also be p oac i e s ances, e-
defining and aming wha he policy en ails, and ad ancing bio-
di e si y as a pa o he economic ac i i y (Casho e and Ve insky,
2000;P imme , 2011a). Go e ning s a egic beha iou is no an
explici a ge o many empi ical analyses o go e nance, bu i is
o en epo ed as a finding.
3.6. Empi ical me hods o iden i ying a gumen s and analysing
go e nance
When explo ing empi ical me hods o he analysis o ecosys-
em se ices go e nance, we ound ha he s udies mos ly used
quali a i e me hods. This is o be expec ed among he s udies ha
allow he iden ifica ion o a gumen s in he implemen a ion p o-
cess, which we ocused on. Howe e , ou e iew was a ge ed a
empi ical analyses o he e ec i eness o biodi e si y and en-
i onmen al policy in gene al, which did no ule ou quan i a i e
measu emen o policies, ac i i ies, e ec s and ou comes (Mick-
wi z, 2003).
Hie a chical go e nance analyses dominan ly u ilised quali a-
i e documen analysis in gene a ing e idence, howe e some-
imes e e ing o lessons om pa icula cases documen ed in
mul iple o ma s. Some o he hie a chical analyses de i ed a -
gumen s om heo y, and o he s om o he empi ical analyses.
The scien ific- echnical analyses add essing go e nance ypically
used a mix o documen , ocus-g oup, in e iew and su ey da a,
acknowledging a gumen s exp essed in policy documen s, p ac-
ical guidelines, ope a ionaliza ion p ocesses and one-on-one
communica ion si ua ions. Much o his analysis appea ed o be
explo a i e. Those analyses ha wen u he in es ing he e ec s
ope a ionally used also quan i a i e analyses o es he p e alence
o a gumen s. Empi ical collabo a i e go e nance analyses o en
used a b oad ange o mos ly quali a i e me hods o elici ing a -
gumen s and e alua ing he e ec s o a policy. In hese analyses
he a gumen s o conse a ion ended o be iden ified as a esul
o an explo a i e, desc ip i e analysis o , o example, a
pa icipa o y p ocess o a ne wo k. The analyses o go e ning
s a egic beha iou we e, as men ioned, no always a ge ed a he
policies, bu he in e es conflic s became e iden , e.g. in hie -
a chical go e nance o adap i e–collabo a i e go e nance ana-
lyses. These analyses also based hei e idence on quali a i e da a,
usually d awing on mul iple sou ces. Using also media co e age,
he mos common sou ces o iden i ying go e ning o s a egic
beha iou we e policy documen s and in e iews.
4. A amewo k o analysing go e nance o ecosys em
se ices
Ou e iew o empi ical analyses o go e nance has ocused on
a gumen s used in policy implemen a ion and he ways in which
e ec i eness o policies is e alua ed unde di e en go e nance
modes. I e eals ha he a en ion o a gumen s and hei e ec s
a ies o a la ge ex en . Those analyses p incipally e alua ing e -
ec i eness o policy implemen a ion, ocusing on echnical ele-
men s and using quan i a i e indica o s, pay less a en ion o he
ange o jus ifica ions and ope a ionaliza ion o he policy han he
ones analysing s akeholde iews. These findings ba e ele ance
o he applica ion and de elopmen o he ecosys em se ice
concep , which, i e en ually embedded in go e nance, is expec ed
o unc ion as a alue-a icula ing ins i u ion i sel (Va n, 2005).
As he ecosys em se ice app oach and esea ch a e expec ed
o in oduce new a gumen s o biodi e si y conse a ion and
mains eam he unde s anding o sys emic in e dependencies o
ecosys ems and humans, i should ake se iously he challenge o
unde s anding human beha iou in go e ning ecosys em se ices
(Hodgson e al., 2007). The ecosys em se ices model's eedback
loop om he benefi s ha people de i e om ecosys em se ices
o he biophysical condi ions ha deli e hese se ices, ells li le
abou wha decision-making p ocesses ake place o a e used
behind his a ow, o in ela ion o o he componen s o he model
(Po schin and Haines-Young, 2011;Fig. 1). Go e nance, indeed,
also influences ecosys em unc ions, ecosys em se ices as well as
benefi s and alues de i ed om he se ices (Spangenbe g e al.,
2014). Addi ionally, go e nance p ocesses de i e in o ma ion
abou all he componen s depic ed in he cascade model, a he
han elying solely on alue in o ma ion. These connec ions be-
ween he componen s o he ecosys em se ices and he di e en
go e nance modes a e shown in he concep ual amewo k p e-
sen ed in Fig. 2.
Assuming decisions a e made based on weighing alues and
he e alua ion o ade-o s, a decision made a he op o a hie -
a chy “ ickles down” o p ac ice, aiming a e en ually influencing
he s a us o he ecosys em, o i s biophysical s uc u e (shown as
he back-loop in Fig. 2). This is in ui i e when conside ing deci-
sions made a e y high le els; e en a a global le el. Howe e , he
ecosys em se ice li e a u e highligh s ha decisions a e made a
many le els (Kuma , 2010;Hauck e al., 2013). The e is a endency
Ecosys em
s uc u e
Ecosys em
alues
Scien i ic- echnical
go e nance
Go e ning s a egic
beha io
Hie a chical go e nance
Adap i e collabo a i e
go e nance
Ecosys em
se ices
Ecosys em
unc ions Bene i s om
ecosys ems
Fig. 2. A amewo k o analysing go e nance o ecosys em se ices.
E. P imme e al. / Ecosys em Se ices 16 (2015) 158–166162

o add ess go e nmen al decision-making, a he han decisions
made by di e en ac o s in he socie y, which migh be due o
much emphasis placed on land-use planning ha is o en he e-
sponsibili y o public au ho i ies (Ka ei a e al., 2011;Po schin and
Haines-Young, 2011;Plan and Ryan, 2013). Howe e , whe he we
conside go e nmen al decisions, o p i a e sec o o ganisa ional
decisions, some hie a chical sys ems a e gene ally deployed o-
wa ds hei implemen a ion (P imme , 2011a). Ou e iew shows
ha hose s udies ha ake hie a chical implemen a ion as a
s a ing poin ecognise many ac o s shaping he implemen a ion
a di e en le els, including hose ha cons ain o dis o hie -
a chical implemen a ion. Fo his eason, i is impo an o pay
a en ion o he hie a chical mode when analysing ecosys em
se ices go e nance, e en when he analysis has a local o o he -
wise na ow ocus.
Fo hie a chical go e nance o gene a e e ec s in he ecosys-
em s uc u e, as is shown in he ecosys em se ices model (see
Fig. 1), he p o ision o science-based knowledge is necessa y o
in o m managemen . In o he wo ds, scien ific- echnical go e n-
ance is needed (Fig. 2). Howe e , hie a chical go e nance can in-
o m scien ific- echnical go e nance only wi h gene al a gumen s
ha ope a ionalise he goals o he policy, o example by de-
ploying a selec ion o policy ins umen s (Wu zel e al., 2013). Fo
his eason, scien ific- echnical go e nance mus d aw on u he
scien ific a gumen s and de i e in o ma ion abou he biophysical
ecosys em s uc u e and p ocess di ec ly (depic ed by a da k a -
ow om biophysical s uc u e o scien ific- echnical go e nance
in Fig. 2). Addi ionally, scien ific- echnical go e nance influences
also ecosys em unc ions o example by con olling wa e flow o
adding e ilize s o a field. As he need o science-based in-
o ma ion and decision suppo sys ems is commonly endo sed in
ecosys em se ices esea ch (Ka ei a e al., 2011;de G oo e al.,
2010;Po schin and Haines-Young, 2011), he scien ific- echnical
go e nance mode fi s he model and hus needs o be conside ed
when analysing go e nance o ecosys em se ices. Ou e iew
demons a es addi ionally, ha as long as his analysis is sensi i e
o di e en a gumen s, i p oduces impo an findings ha ela e
o o he go e nance modes as well.
The concep o ecosys em se ices connec s na u e and people.
The e o e i is no su ficien o deal wi h echnical a gumen s and
ope a ionalise science-based unde s anding o ecosys ems. Adap-
i e–collabo a i e go e nance joins ac o s who use science-based
knowledge and a gumen s abou ecosys em unc ions and ac o s
who unde s and and a gumen o he di e en benefi s ha hu-
mans de i e om ecosys ems (Fig. 2). Adap i e–collabo a i e
go e nance influences ecosys em unc ions and ecosys em se -
ices and also shapes he benefi s ha di e en ac o s can make
use o o enjoy. Ecosys em se ice li e a u e acknowledges he
need o conside di e en s akeholde s’ iews and knowledge in
decision-making p ocesses, and ini ial empi ical analyses e eal
he c ucial ole ha unde s anding he di e en ac o s has o
secu ing he ele ance o mo e na u al science-d i en analyses
(Cowling e al., 2008;Rauschmaye e al., 2009;Menzel and Teng,
2010;P imme and Fu man, 2012;Hauck e al., 2013). These em-
pi ical analyses should in eg a e also he di e en ac o s’ igh s o
he benefi s ha ecosys em se ices con ibu e o, which ha e
been concep ualised ecen ly, pa icula ly o he analysis o eco-
sys em se ice paymen s (Lockie, 2013). In any case, he adap i e
collabo a i e mode o go e nance me i s he analy ical a en ion
o ecosys em se ice esea che s, and should build on ea lie
empi ical wo k on biodi e si y and en i onmen al conse a ion
go e nance.
As benefi a gumen s a e made wi h no ma i e o nume ical
e ms, using knowledge abou , o example, mul iple uses o he
same ecosys em and weighing hem agains each o he , he in-
e es s o di e en ac o s s a o influence go e nance. Go e ning
in e es -d i en s a egic beha iou makes use o knowledge and
a gumen s abou ecosys em benefi s and alues, and also shapes
he ways in which he benefi s a e amed and alues weighed
(Fig. 2). Value a gumen s eed back o he decisions ha a e made,
o be implemen ed again, h ough a hie a chy. Wi h he assump-
ion ha alue a gumen s a e sys ema ically weighed in decision-
making, as long as knowledge abou alues exis , he ecosys em
se ice li e a u e has pu much emphasis on alua ion and mea-
su ing ecosys em se ices in mone a y o o he nume ical uni s
(De G oo e al., 2002;Kuma , 2010;Ba eman e al., 2011). While
his analysis some imes eaches us new lessons abou wha is
alued o how alues ela e o pa icula decision- ac o s, i u ns
a en ion away om he ways in which alue a gumen s a e
con inuously used and es ed in eal wo ld decision-si ua ions.
Go e ning s a egic beha iou akes place in e e y nego ia ion and
is conduc ed by go e nmen s as well as o he ac o s. Ou e iew
shows how impo an i is o conside his mode o go e nance
also when o he modes a e in he ocus.
Finally, hie a chical go e nance does no gene a e e ec s only
h ough scien ific- echnical go e nance, bu also h ough adap-
i e–collabo a i e go e nance and by go e ning s a egic beha-
iou , as has been an icipa ed in hose analyses ha highligh he
mul ile el-cha ac e o ecosys ems se ice decision-making
(Hauck e al., 2013). Assump ions abou mo i a ions and a ion-
ali y a e qui e s ong in he ecosys em se ice paymen li e a u e,
pe haps, because economic analyses a e based on assump ions
abou he mo i a ions o hose ac o s who ha e he igh o
manage ecosys ems and use ecosys em se ices (Va n, 2010;
Lockie, 2013). Howe e , he in e play be ween hie a chical go -
e nance and go e ning s a egic beha iou and in e es s me i s
mo e empi ical a en ion, as he e iew demons a es: hie a chical
implemen a ion o high-le el commi men s is influenced by in-
e es s appea ing a lowe go e nance le els.
The di e en go e nance modes should be ecognised also
when analysing policy ins umen design and implemen a ion
(Schneide and Ing am, 1990;Wu zel e . al., 2013). The s a ing
poin o ins umen design is o en hie a chical: he design is a a
cen al le el, e.g. a he s a e, and he adminis a ion implemen s
i o pa icipa es in i s ope a ionaliza ion (P imme , 2011a;Wu zel
e al., 2013). The design and implemen a ion o he ins umen s
can be suppo ed wi h scien ific- echnical ools (Cowling e al.,
2008;Gómez-Bagge hun and Ba on, 2013), o applied in a colla-
bo a i e adap i e ashion (Hauck e al., 2013). Ins umen s can be
designed o add ess he s a egic beha iou o ac o s in secu ing
hei in e es s, and o balance he di e en in e es s. Paymen s o
ecosys em se ices, o example, a e conside ed o balance he
di e ing in e es s allowing public demand o ecosys em se ices
o mee hei p i a e p o ision (Fe a o and Simpson, 2002;Va n,
2010;Lockie, 2013). To be able o make use o he ange o go -
e nance mechanisms, ins umen s ha e de eloped in pa allel, as
policy-mixes (Ring and Sch ö e -Schlaack, 2011;Ba on e al.,
2014;Ring and Ba on, o hcoming). The analysis o policy-mixes
is gene ally sensi i e o di e en go e nance mechanisms, and is
he e o e likely o benefi om ou amewo k when add essing
ins umen s o ecosys em se ices.
Ou e iew demons a es ha he concep ual amewo k
would suppo empi ical analysis o biodi e si y and ecosys em
se ices go e nance a di e en le els and di ec a en ion o he
di e en , pa allel, modes o go e nance. As an example, he Eu -
opean Union Na u a 2000 ne wo k implemen a ion illus a i ely
alida es he need o analy ical a en ion o he di e en go -
e nance modes (Wä zold e al., 2010;Mo is, 2011;Suma es and
Fidélis, 2011). A ocus on he hie a chical go e nance mode would
pay a en ion o he p o ec ed a ea ne wo k implemen a ion by
he na ion s a es and, u he , by he egional and local adminis-
a ion, ocusing on legal and adminis a i e a gumen s. A ocus on
E. P imme e al. / Ecosys em Se ices 16 (2015) 158–166 163
scien ific- echnical go e nance would add ess he da a and
knowledge esou ces applied in he implemen a ion, paying a -
en ion o he scien ific a gumen s used o jus i y and ca y
h ough es ablishing he Na u a 2000 p o ec ed a eas. Focusing on
an adap i e collabo a i e mode o go e nance, a en ion would be
paid o di e en ac o s exchanging in o ma ion and iews on he
a eas o be assigned and hei di e en uses. A ange o di e en
a gumen s would be used in his kind o delibe a ion, o example
when de ising he Na u a 2000 managemen plans (Wä zold
e al., 2010). Focusing on go e ning s a egic beha iou , a en ion
would be on o he in e es s and land-uses conflic ing wi h he
Na u a 2000 p o ec ed a eas, elying on a gumen s o di e en
benefi s and alues. Fo example when new in as uc u e is de-
eloped, in e es s a e weighed and s a egic beha iou can be
go e ned h ough nego ia ions, pe mi ing and possibly compen-
sa ion (Suma es and Fidélis, 2011). Go e ning s a egic beha iou
akes place also a he in e na ional le el, when he EU goals a e
nego ia ed and ope a ionalised o na ional le el (Mo is, 2011).
The simple example demons a es he need o conside di e en
modes o go e nance, e en i analy ical a en ion is ocused on a
pa icula issue o policy implemen a ion.
Using he app oach o ame he analysis o much b oade
ecosys em se ice policy ha acknowledges complexi y and mul-
iple benefi s (e.g., EC, 2011) would sensi ise he analys o he
modes o go e nance ha a e assumed and obse ed. As we ge
uned o conside di e en modes o ecosys em se ices go e n-
ance, we will be in a posi ion o iden i y he po en ial eedbacks
be ween all he o he componen s o he ecosys em se ices
model, because o he in e ac ion and o e lap o he di e en
go e nance modes and policy-mixes. A sys ema ic app oach o
analysing go e nance allows iden i ying and disen angling he
ange o a gumen s used in u ning policies in o p ac ice in ways
ha eflec di e en modes go e nance.
5. Conclusions
As biodi e si y conse a ion a gumen s ha e no been e ec i e
enough in changing human beha iou , he expec a ion is ha
u ili a ian a gumen s abou alues and benefi s de i ed om
ecosys em se ices migh do so, oge he wi h scien ific a gu-
men s abou ecosys em p ocesses and unc ions as well as he
unde lying biodi e si y. Thus i is impo an o analyse wha
condi ions he e ec i eness o such a gumen s. To unde s and
his, we need o analyse go e nance. This en ails iden i ying how
he a gumen s a e assumed o p oduce he desi ed biodi e si y
conse a ion ou comes in he p ac ice o policy implemen a ion,
and analysing his p ac ice empi ically.
In his pape , we ha e se ou he basis o such an analysis, by
e iewing empi ical s udies o policy implemen a ion, and by fi -
ing he iden ified go e nance modes o a well-es ablished con-
cep ual model o ecosys em se ices, he cascade model. By o-
cusing on empi ical li e a u e ha pays a en ion o a gumen s in
he implemen a ion o biodi e si y and en i onmen al conse a-
ion policies, we demons a e how hie a chical, scien ific- echnical
and adap i e go e nance as well as go e ning s a egic beha iou
in e ac .
The de eloped concep ual amewo k p o ides a s uc u e o
empi ical analysis o ecosys em se ices go e nance, which akes
in o accoun he people and o ganisa ions making decisions, and,
pa icula ly, he di e en a gumen s ha a e used when im-
plemen ing policies. The amewo k is mean o enable holis ic
ecosys em se ice analyses and, u he , o suppo policies in
gene a ing conse a ion and sus ainabili y impac .
Acknowledgemen s
The esea ch ha his a icle builds on has been unded by he
Eu opean Union FP7 p ojec s BESAFE (G an 282743) and Open-
NESS (G an 308428). The au ho s wish o hank Ee a Fu man, Ul
G andin, Lasse Lo , Ca s en Mann, Be nd Hansjü gens and Leon
B aa who ha e p o ided ideas and commen s a di e en s ages
o de eloping his a icle. We hank also he wo help ul e iewe s.
Re e ences
Andam, K.S., Fe a o, P.J., P a , A., Sanchez-Azo ei a, G.A., Robalino, J.A., 2008.
Measu ing he e ec i eness o p o ec ed a ea ne wo ks in educing de o -
es a ion. P oc. Na l. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 16089–16094.
A a al, E., 2010. Re o m o wa e ins i u ions: e iew o e idences and in e na ional
expe iences. Wa e Policy 12, 8–22.
Ande sson, I., Pe e sson, M., Ja sjo, J., 2012. Impac o he Eu opean Wa e F ame-
wo k Di ec i e on local-le el wa e managemen : case s udy Oxunda Ca ch-
men . Sweden Land Use Policy 29 (1), 73–82.
Ba on, D.N., Ring, I., Rusch, G., B ouwe , R., G ieg-G an, M., P imme , E., May, P.,
San os, R., Lindhjem, H., Sch ö e -Schlaack, C., Lienhoop, N., Similä, J., An unes,
P., Caixe a And ade, D., Rome io, A., Chacón-Cascan e, A., DeCle ck, F., Tings ad,
M., Si e sen, K., 2014. Guidelines o mul i-scale policy mix assessmen s
POLICYMIX Technical B ie 12.
Ba eman, I.J., Ha wood, A.R., Mace, G.M., Wa son, R.T., Abson, D.J., And ews, B.,
Binne , A., C owe, A., Day, B.H., Dugdale, S., Fezzi, C., Foden, j, Hadley, D.,
Haines-Young, R., Hulme, M., Kon oleon, A., Lo e , A.A., Munday, P., Pascual, U.,
Pa e son, J., Pe ino, G., Sen, A., Si iwa dena, G., an Soes , D., Te mansen, M.,
2013. B inging ecosys em se ices in o economic decision-making: land use in
he Uni ed Kingdom. Science 341 (6141), 45–50.
Ba eman, I.J., Mace, G.M., Fezzi, C., A kinson, G., Tu ne , K., 2011. Economic analysis
o ecosys em se ice assessmen s. En i on. Resou . Econ., 177–218.
Beunen, R., an de Knaap, W.G.M., Biesb oek, R.G., 2009. Implemen a ion and In-
eg a ion o EU En i onmen al Di ec i es. Expe iences om The Ne he lands.
En i on. Policy Go . 19, 57–69.
Buijs, A.E., 2009. Public suppo o i e es o a ion: A mixed-me hod s udy in o
local esiden s’suppo o and aming o i e managemen and ecological
es o a ion in he Du ch floodplains. J. En i on. Manag. 90, 2680–2689.
Chan, K.M.A., Sa e field, T., Golds ein, J., 2012. Re hinking ecosys em se ices o
be e add ess and na iga e cul u al alues. Ecol. Econ. 74, 8–18.
Ca dinale, B.J., Du y, J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hoope , D.U., Pe ings, C., Venail, P., Na wani,
A., Mace, G.M., Tilman, D., Wa dle, A., Kinzig, D., Daily, A.P., Lo eau, G.C., G ace,
M., La igaude ie, J.B., S i as a a, A., Naeem, D.S., 2012. Biodi e si y loss and i s
impac on humani y. Na u e 486, 59–67.
Casho e, B., Ve insky, I., 2000. Policy ne wo ks and fi m beha iou s: go e nance
sys ems and fi m eponses o ex e nal demands o sus ainable o es Man-
agemen . Policy Sci. 33, 1–30.
Ch is ie, M., Hanley, N., Wa en, J., Mu phy, K., W igh , R., Hyde, T., 2006. Valuing
he di e si y o biodi e si y. Ecol. Econ. 58 (2), 304–317.
Co nell, S., 2011. The Rise and Rise o Ecosys em Se ices: Is “ alue” he bes
b idging concep be ween socie y and he na u al wo ld? P oc. En i on. Sci. 6,
88–95.
Cos anza, R., d’A ge, R., de G oo , R.S., Fa be , S., G asso, M., Hannon, B., Limbu g, K.,
Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Pa uelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Su on, P., an den Bel , M., 1997.
The alue o he wo ld’s ecosys em se ices and na u al capi al. Na u e 387,
253–260.
Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knigh , A.T., O’Fa ell, P.J., Reye s, B., Rouge , M., Roux, D.J.,
Welz, A., Wilhelm-Rechman, A., 2008. An ope a ional model o mains eaming
ecosys em se ices o implemen a ion. P oc. Na l. Acad. Sci. 105 (28),
9483–9488.
C ona, B., Bodin, Ö., 2006. Wha you know is who you know? Communica ion
pa e ns among esou ce use s as a p e equisi e o co-managemen . Ecol. Soc.
11 (2), 7, URL oh p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol11/iss2/a 7/4.
Daily, G.C., 1997. Na u e’s Se ices. Island P ess, Washing on DC.
De G oo , R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J., 2002. A ypology o he classifica ion,
desc ip ion and alua ion o ecosys em unc ions, goods and se ices. Ecol.
Econ. 41, 393–408.
De G oo , R.S., Alkemade, R., B aa , L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in
in eg a ing he concep o ecosys em se ices and alues in landscape planning,
managemen and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7, 260–272.
Dekke , M., Tu nhou , E., Bauwens, B.M.S.D.L., e al., 2007. In e p e a ion and im-
plemen a ion o Ecosys em Managemen in in e na ional and na ional o es
policy. Fo es Policy Econ. 9, 546–557.
EC, 2011. Communica ion om he commission o he Eu opean Pa liamen , he
council, he economic and social commi ee and he commi ee o he egions:
Ou li e insu ance, ou na u al capi al: an EU biodi e si y s a egy o 2020. COM
(2011) 244.
Fe a o, P.J., Simpson, R.D., 2002. Cos -E ec . Conse . Paym. Land Econ. 78,
339–353.
Fische , A., Young, J.C., 2007. Unde s anding men al cons uc s o biodi e si y:
implica ions o biodi e si y managemen and conse a ion. Biol. Conse . 136,
E. P imme e al. / Ecosys em Se ices 16 (2015) 158–166164
271–282.
F ase , E.D.G., Dougill, A.D., Mabee, W.E., e al., 2006. Bo om up and op down:
analysis o pa icipa o y p ocesses o sus ainabili y indica o iden ifica ion as a
pa hway o communi y empowe men and sus ainable en i onmen al man-
agemen . J. En i on. Manag. 78, 114–127.
Gómez-Bagge hun, E., de G oo , R., Lomas, P.L., Mon es, C., 2010. The his o y o
ecosys em se ices in economic heo y and p ac ice: om ea ly no ions o
ma ke s and paymen schemes. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1209–1218.
Gómez-Bagge hun, E., Ba on, D.N., 2013. Classi ying and aluing ecosys em se -
ices o u ban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86, 235–245.
Gulb andsen, L.H., 2003. The e ol ing o es egime and domes ic ac o s: s a egic
o no ma i e adap a ion? En i on. Poli . 12, 95–114.
Gunde son, L.H., Holling, C.S., 2002. Resilience and adap i e cycles. Pana chy,
25–62.
Haines-Young, R., Po schin, M., 2014. The ecosys em app oach as a amewo k o
unde s anding knowledge u ilisa ion. En i on. Plan. C: Go . Policy 32 (2),
301–319.
Haje , M., Wagenaa , H. (Eds.), 2003. Delibe a i e Policy Analysis: Unde s anding
Go e nance in he Ne wo k Socie y. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Hanski, I., 2000. Ex inc ion deb and species c edi in bo eal o es s: modelling
consequences o di e en app oaches o biodi e si y conse a ion. Ann. Zool.
Fennici 37, 271–280.
Hasle , J.R., Be y, P.A., Bela, G., Jongman, R.H.G., Pa aki, G., Samways, M.J., Zobel,
M., 2010. Changing conse a ion s a egies in Eu ope: a amewo k in eg a ing
ecosys em se ices and dynamics. Biodi e s. Conse . 19, 2963–2977.
Hauck, J., Gö g, C., Va jopu o, R., Ra amäki, O., Jax, K., 2013. Benefi s and limi a ions
o he ecosys em se ices concep in en i onmen al policy and decision mak-
ing: some s akeholde pe spec i es. En i on. Sci. Policy 25, 13–21.
Hiedanpää, J., B omley, D.W., 2011. The ha moniza ion game: easons and ules in
Eu opean biodi e si y policy. En i on. Policy Go . 21, 99–111.
Hodgson, S.M., Mal by, L., Pae zold, A., Phillips, D., 2007. Ge ing he measu e o
na u e: ecosys em se ices as a way o unde s and en i onmen and socie y.
In e discip. Sci. Re . 32, 249–262.
Hu h, N., Possingham, H.P., 2011. Basic ecological heo y can in o m habi a e-
s o a ion o woodland bi ds. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 293–300.
Jiménez, O., 2005. Inno a ion-o ien ed en i onmen al egula ions: Di ec e sus
indi ec egula ions. An empi ical analysis o small and medium-sized en-
e p ises in Chile. En i on. Plan. A 37, 723–750.
Kaljonen, M., 2008. Co-cons uc ion o agency and en i onmen al managemen .
The case o ag i-en i onmen al policy implemen a ion a Finnish a ms. J. Ru al
S ud. 22, 205–216.
Kanowski, P.J., McDe mo , C.L., Casho e, B.W., 2011. Implemen ing REDDþ: lessons
om analysis o o es go e nance. En i on. Sci. Policy 14, 111–117.
Na u al Capi al Theo y and P ac ice o Mapping Ecosys em Se ices. In: Ka ei a, P.,
Tallis, H., Ricke s, T.H., Daily, G.C., Polasky, S. (Eds.), Ox o d Uni e si y P ess,
New Yo k.
Ka ez, J., Cas o, M., 2008. In o ma ion in o ac ion: biodi e si y da a ou each and
municipal land conse a ion. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 74, 467–480.
Founda ions, The Economics o Ecosys ems and Biodi e si y: Ecological and Eco-
nomic Founda ions. In: Kuma , P. (Ed.), 2010. Ea hscan, London.
Lau ans, Y., Ranko ic, A., Billé, R., Pi a d, R., Me me , L., 2013. Use o ecosys em
se ices economic alua ion o decision making: ques ioning a li e a u e
blindspo . J. En i on. Manag. 119, 209–219.
Laycock, H., Mo an, D., Sma , J., e al., 2009. E alua ing he cos ‐e ec i eness o
conse a ion: The UK Biodi e si y Ac ion Plan. Biol. Conse . 142, 3120–3127.
Liu, S., Cos anza, R., Fa be , S., T oy, A., 2010. Valuing ecosys em se ices. Ann. N.Y.
Acad. Sci. 1185, 54–78.
Lockie, S., 2013. Ma ke ins umen s, ecosys em se ices, and p ope y igh s: as-
sump ions and condi ions o sus ained social and ecological benefi s. Land Use
Policy 31, 90–98.
MA, 2005. Millennium ecosys em assessmen , Ecosys ems and Human Well-being:
Syn hesis. Island P ess, Washing on DC, p. 137.
Mace, G.M., No is, K., Fi e , A.H., 2014. Biodi e si y and ecosys em se ices: a
mul ilaye ed ela ionship. T ends Ecol. E ol. 27 (1), 19–26.
Ma gules, C.R., P essey, R.L., 2000. Sys ema ic conse a ion planning. Na u e 405
(11), 243–253.
Mendes, A., 2006. Implemen a ion analysis o o es p og ammes: some heo e ical
no es and an example. Fo es Policy Econ. 8, 512–528.
Menzel, S., Teng, J., 2010. Ecosys em se ices as a s akeholde -d i en concep o
conse a ion sciences. Conse . Biol. 24, 907–909.
Mickwi z, P., 2003. A amewo k o e alua ing en i onmen al policy ins umen s:
con ex and key concep s. E alua ion 9, 415–436.
Mo is, R.K.A., 2011. The applica ion o he Habi a s Di ec i e in he UK: Compliance
o gold pla ing? Land Use Policy 28, 361–369.
Mönkkönen, M., Reunanen, P., Ko iaho, J.S., Juu inen, A., Tikkanen, O.-P., Kouki, J.,
2011. Cos -e ec i e s a egies o conse e bo eal o es biodi e si y and long-
e m landscape-le el main enance o habi a s. Eu . J. Fo es Res. 130 (5),
717–727.
Newig, J., F i sch, O., 2009. En i onmen al go e nance: pa icipa o y, mul i-le el-
and e ec i e? En i on. Policy Go . 19, 197–214.
Nie, M., 2003. D i e s o na u al esou ce-based poli ical conflic . Policy Sci. 36,
307–341.
No on, B., 2005. Sus ainabili y: A Philosophy o Adap i e Ecosys em Managemen .
The Uni e si y o Chicago P ess, p. 608.
Oli e , C., 1991. S a egic esponses o ins i u ional p ocesses. Acad. Manag. Re . 16,
145–179.
Os om, E., 1990. Go e ning he Commons: The E olu ion o Ins i u ions o Col-
lec i e Ac ion. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, Camb idge, p. 280p.
Paa ola, J., Gouldson, A., Klu ánko á-O a ská, T., 2009. In e play o ac o s, scales,
amewo ks and egimes in he go e nance o biodi e si y. E i on. Policy Go .,
19; , pp. 148–158.
Paloniemi., R., Va ho, V., 2009. Changing ecological and cul u al s a es and p e-
e ences o na u e conse a ion policy: he case o na u e alues ade in Sou h-
Wes e n Finland. J. Ru al S ud. 25, 87–97.
Peuhku i, T., Jokinen, P., 1999. The ole o knowledge and spa ial con ex s in bio-
di e si y policies. A sociological pe spec i e. Biodi e s. Conse . 8, 133–147.
Plan , R., Ryan, P., 2013. Ecosys em se ices as a p ac icable concep o na u al
esou ce managemen : some lessons om Aus alia. In . J. Biodi e s. Sci. Eco-
sys . Se . Manag. 9 (1), 44–53.
Po schin, M., 2015. Defining and measu ing ecosys em se ices. In: Po schin, M.,
Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., Tu ne , R.K. (Eds.), Rou ledge Handbook o Ecosys em
Se ices. Rou ledge, London and New Yo k.
Po schin, M., Haines-Young, R., 2011. Ecosys em se ices: explo ing a geog aphical
pe spec i e. P og. Phys. Geog . 35 (5), 575–594.
P imme , E., Ka ppinen, H., 2010. P o essional judgmen in non-indus ial p i a e
o es y: o es e a i udes and social no ms influencing biodi e si y con-
se a ion. Fo es Policy Econ. 12 (2), 136–146.
P imme , E., 2011a. Analysis o ins i u ional adap a ion: in eg a ion o biodi e si y
conse a ion in o o es y. J. Clean. P od. 19, 1822–1832.
P imme , E., 2011b. Policy, p ojec and ope a ional ne wo ks: channels and con-
dui s o lea ning in o es biodi e si y conse a ion. Fo es Policy Econ. 13,
132–142.
P imme , E., Fu man, E., 2012. Ope a ionalising ecosys em se ice app oaches o
go e nance: do measu ing, mapping and aluing in eg a e sec o -specific
knowledge sys ems? Ecosys . Se . 1, 85–92.
P imme , E., Paloniemi, R., Similä, J., Ba on, D.N., 2013. E olu ion in Finland’s o es
biodi e si y conse a ion paymen s and he ins i u ional cons ain s on es-
ablishing new policy. Soc. Na . Resou . 26 (10), 1137–1154.
Rajamani, L., 2007. The igh o en i onmen al p o ec ion in India: Many a slip
be ween he cup and he lip?. Re . Eu . Communi y In . En i on. Law, 16; , pp.
274–286.
Rands, M.R.W., Adams, W.M., Bennun, L., Bu cha d, S.H.M., Clemen s, A., Coomes, D.,
En wis le, A., Hodge, I., Kapos, V., Scha lemann, J.P.W., Su he land, W.J., Vi a, B.,
2010. Biodi e si y conse a ion: challenges beyond 2010. Science 329,
1298–1303.
Ra amäki, O., Jokinen, P., Sø ensen, P.B., B eeze, T., Po s, S., 2015. A mul ile el
analysis on pollina ion- ela ed policies. Ecosys . Se ., in p ess.
Rauschmaye , F., Be ghö e , A., Omann, I., Zikos, D., 2009. Examining p ocesses o /
and ou comes? –e alua ion concep s in Eu opean go e nance o na u al e-
sou ces. En i on. Policy Go . 19 (3), 159–173.
Reed, M.S., 2008. S akeholde pa icipa ion o en i onmen al managemen : a li -
e a u e e iew. Biol. Conse . 141, 2417–2431.
Ring, I., Ba on, D.N., 2015. Economic ins umen s in policy mixes o biodi e si y
conse a ion and ecosys em go e nance. In: Ma inez-Alie J. and R. Mu adian
(Ed.), Handbook o Ecological Economics. Chel enham, Edwa d Elga ,
(Fo hcoming).
Ring, I., Sch ö e -Schlaack, C., 2011. Jus i ying and assessing policy mixes
o biodi e si y and ecosys em go e nance. In: Ring, I., Sch ö e -Schlaack, C.,
(Ed.), Ins umen Mixes o Biodi e si y Policies. POLICYMIX Repo , Issue No.
2/2011.
Ri e a, J., Oe zel, J., deLeon, P., e al., 2009. Business esponses o en i onmen al and
social p o ec ion policies: owa d a amewo k o analysis. Policy Sci. 42, 3–32.
Rod iguez, A.S., Andelman, S.J., Baka , M.I., e al., 2004. E ec i eness o he global
p o ec ed a ea ne wo k in ep esen ing species di e si y. Na u e 428, 640–643.
Saa ikoski, H., Åke man, M., P imme , E., 2012. The challenge o go e nance in
egional o es planning: an analysis o pa icipa o y o es p og am p ocesses
in Finland. Soc. Na . Resou . 25, 667–682.
Sago , M., 1996. On he alue o endange ed and o he species. En i on. Manag. 20
(6), 897–911.
Sago , M., 2011. The quan ifica ion and alua ion o ecosys em se ices. Ecol. Econ.
70, 497–502.
Sand, P.H., 2001. A cen u y o g een lessons: he con ibu ion o na u e conse a-
ion egimes o global go e nance. In . En i on. Ag eem.: Poli . Law Econ. 1,
33–72.
Sands öm, C., 2009. Ins i u ional dimensions o co-managemen : pa icipa ion,
powe , and p ocess’. Soci. Na . Resou . 22, 230–244.
Schneide , A., Ing am, H., 1990. Beha io al assump ions o policy ools. J. Poli . 52,
510–529.
Spash, C.L., Va n, A., 2006. T ans e ing en i onmen al alue es ima es: issues and
al e na i es. Ecol. Econ. 60, 379–388.
Spash, C.L., 2007. Delibe a i e mone a y alua ion (DMV): issues in combining
economic and poli ical p ocesses o alue en i onmen al change. Ecol. Econ. 63,
690–699.
Spangenbe g, J.H., Se ele, J., 2010. P ecisely inco ec ? Mone ising he alue o
ecosys em se ices. Ecol. Complex. 7, 327–337.
Spangenbe g, J.H., on Haa en, C., Se ele, J., 2014. The ecosys em se ice cascade:
u he de eloping he me apho . In eg a ing socie al p ocesses o accom-
moda e social p ocesses and planning, and he case o bioene gy. Ecol. Econ.
104 (2014), 22–32.
S u e an , B.R., Fall, A., Kneeshaw, D.D, Simon, N.P.P., Papaik, M.J., Be ninge , K.,
Doyon, F., Mo gan, D.G., Messie , C., 2007. A oolki modeling app oach o
sus ainable o es managemen planning: achie ing balance be ween science
E. P imme e al. / Ecosys em Se ices 16 (2015) 158–166 165
and local needs. Ecol. Soc. 12, 7 oh p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol12/
iss2/a 7/4.
Suma es, D., Fidélis, T., 2011. Na u a 2000 and he na a i e na u e o na u e: a case
o c i ical discou se analysis. J. In eg . En i on. Sci. 8, 53–68.
Su he land, W.J., Pullin, A.S., Dolman, P.M., Knigh , T.M., 2004. The need o e i-
dence-based conse a ion. T ends Ecol. E ol. 19 (6), 35–38.
Tu npenny, J., Russel, D., Jo dan, A., 2014. The challenge o embedding an ecosys-
ems se ices app oach: pa e ns o knowledge u ilisa ion in public policy ap-
p aisal. En i on. Plan. C: Go . Policy 32 (2), 247–262.
Val e, H., Åke man, M., Kaljonen, M., 2013. You only s a filling in he boxes’:
na u al esou ce managemen and he poli ics o plan-abili y. En i on. Plan. A
45, 2084–2099.
Van Oudenho en, A.P.E., Pe z, K., Alkemade, R., Hein, L., de G oo , R.S., 2012. F a-
mewo k o sys ema ic indica o selec ion o assess e ec s o land managemen
on ecosys em se ices. Ecol. Indic. 21, 110–122.
Va n, A., 2005. Ra ionali y, ins i u ions and en i onmen al policy. Ecol. Econ. 55,
203–217.
Va n, A., 2009. An ins i u ional analysis o me hods o en i onmen al app aisal.
Ecol. Econ. 68, 2207–2215.
Va n, A., 2010. An ins i u ional analysis o paymen s o en i onmen al se ices.
Ecol. Econ. 69, 1245–1252.
Vihe aa a, P., Kumpula, T., Ruokolainen, A., Tanskanen, A., Bu kha d, B., 2012. The
use o de ailed bio ope da a o linking biodi e si y wi h ecosys em se ices in
Finland. In . J. Biodi e s. Sci. Ecosys . Se . Manag. 8 (1–2), 169–185.
Wä zold, F., Mewes, M., Van Apeldoo n, R., e al., 2010. Cos -e ec i eness o
managing Na u a 2000 si es: an explo a o y s udy o Finland, Ge many, he
Ne he lands and Poland. Biodi e s. Conse . 19, 2053–2069.
Williams, B.K., 2011. Adap i e managemen o na u al esou ces – amewo k and
issues. J. En i on. Manag. 92, 1346–1353.
Wilson, J., 2008. Ins i u ional in e play and e ec i eness: assessing e o s o con-
se e wes e n hemisphe e sho ebi ds. In . En i on. Ag eem.-Poli . Law Econ. 8,
207–226.
Wol , S.A., P imme , E., 2006. Be ween incen i es and ac ion: A pilo s udy o
biodi e si y conse a ion compe encies o mul i unc ional o es managemen
in Finland. Soci. Na . Resou . 19 (9), 845–861.
Wu zel, R., Zi o, A.R., Jo dan, A.J., 2013. En i onmen al Go e nance in Eu ope: A
Compa a i e Analysis o he Use o New En i onmen al Policy Ins umen s.
Edwa d Elga Publishing, Chel enham.
Young, O.R., 2002. The Ins i u ional Dimensions o En i onmen al Change: Fi , In-
e play, and Scale. The MIT P ess, Camb idge, p. 221.
UN, 1992. Rio de Janei o: Uni ed Na ions, T ea y Se ies No. 30619.
E. P imme e al. / Ecosys em Se ices 16 (2015) 158–166166