4.7 Article

So you want your research to be relevant? Building the bridge between ecosystem services research and practice

Journal

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Volume 26, Issue -, Pages 170-182

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.003

Keywords

Natural capital; Ecosystem models; Practitioner-focused research; Co-production

Funding

  1. National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC)
  2. National Science Foundation [DBI-1052875]
  3. David and Lucille Packard Foundation
  4. National Ecosystem Services Partnership
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences
  6. Div Of Biological Infrastructure [1052875] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is growing demand for information regarding the impacts of decisions on ecosystem services and human benefits. Despite the large and growing quantity of published ecosystem services research, there remains a substantial gap between this research and the information required to support decisions. Research often provides models and tools that do not fully link social and ecological systems; are too complex, specialized, and costly to use; and are targeted to outcomes that differ from those needed by decision makers. Decision makers require cost-effective, straightforward, transferable, scalable, meaningful, and defensible methods that can be readily understood. We provide illustrative examples of these gaps between research and practice and describe how researchers can make their work relevant to decision makers by using Benefit Relevant Indicators ( BRIs) and choosing models appropriate for particular decision contexts. We use examples primarily from the United States, including cases that illustrate varying degrees of success in closing these gaps. We include a discussion of the challenges and opportunities researchers face in adapting their work to meet the needs of practitioners. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available