inbo€¦ · web viewwp5 second report: synthesis of case study reports deliverable d5.2 / wp5...

WP5 second report: Synthesis of case study reports

Deliverable D5.2 / WP5

March 2015

Jan Dick, Francis Turkelboom, Wim Verheyden, Rolinde Demeyer, Charlot Teng, Dieter Mortelmans

Contributors to design of the questionnaire and matrix: WP5 case study representatives, Robert Dunford, Paula Harrison, David Barton, Jennifer Hauck, Eszter Kelemen

Contributing Case Study authors: all people named in Part I of this deliverable

1

D5.2 – WP5 Second report 2

Prepared under contract from the European CommissionContract n° 308428

Collaborative projectFP7 Environment

Project acronym: OpenNESSProject full title: Operationalisation of natural capital and ecosystem services: from concepts to

real-world applicationsStart of the project: 01 December 2012Duration: 54 months Project coordinator: Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)Project website http://www.openness-project.eu

Deliverable title: Report on the second cross-WP project workshop detailing work conducted, its assessment by the CABs and recommendations for refinement of case study workplansDeliverable n°: D5.2Nature of the deliverable: ReportDissemination level: RestrictedWP responsible: WP5Lead beneficiary: NERC

Citation: Dick, J., Turkelboom, F, Verheyden, W., Demeyer, R., Teng, C., Mortelmans, D. (2015). EU FP7 OpenNESS Project Deliverable 5.2: Synthesis of Case study reports. European Commission FP7, 2015.

Due date of deliverable: Month n° 26Actual submission date: Month n° 26

Deliverable status:

Version Status Date Reviewed by Author(s)

1.01.1

DraftFollowing consultation with cluster leaders

31 January 2015

March 2015

Sandra Luque,Bruna Grizzetti

See above

See above

The contents of this deliverable do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission or other institutions of the European Union.


Table of contentExecutive Summary..................................................................................................................................5

Introduction and report structure.............................................................................................................8

Objective and data sources......................................................................................................................8

Definition of case study sub-projects.......................................................................................................9

Characterization of socio-ecological attributes of the case studies........................................................11

1. Typology of real-world applications tested in OpenNESS.................................................................14

1.1 Meaning of operationalization of ES/NC...............................................................................................14

1.2 Contribution of case studies to different planning contexts.................................................................15

1.3 Rationale for selecting specific aspect or issue to be addressed..........................................................17

1.4 Short term goals and ambitions (Q20)..................................................................................................21

1.5 Long term goals and ambitions (Q21)...................................................................................................21

1.6 Policy areas addressed.........................................................................................................................22

2. Stakeholder involvement in the case studies...................................................................................24

2.1 Involved stakeholders in the sub-projects (Q25)..................................................................................24

2.2 Representation in CAB..........................................................................................................................25

2.3 Role and mandate of CAB.....................................................................................................................29

2.4 Decision making in CAB..................................................................................................................30

2.5 Functioning of the CABs.....................................................................................................................34

2.5.1 Frequency of interaction with CAB (Q13)......................................................................................34

2.5.2 Quality of the participation and consultation process (Q16).........................................................34

2.5.3 Process facilitation and interaction methods used to interact with the CAB (Q15).......................35

2.5.4. Participation and recognition of (emerging) conflicts...................................................................37

3. Tools used.......................................................................................................................................40

3.1 Compilation of ES tools used per case study........................................................................................40

3.1.1 Biophysical Tools...........................................................................................................................40

3.1.2 Valuation and decision-support methods......................................................................................41

3.1.3. Effectiveness of mechanisms and instruments for sustainable management of ecosystems.......42

3.1.4 Scenarios........................................................................................................................................43

3.2 Reason for tool selection......................................................................................................................44

3.3 Initial evaluation of OpenNESS case study & stakeholders partner......................................................47

4. Lessens-learned from the case studies.............................................................................................53

4.1. ES use in stakeholder processes..........................................................................................................53


4.2. Context of application.........................................................................................................................55

4.3 Analysis of ecosystem services.............................................................................................................55

4.4. Tool evaluation....................................................................................................................................56

Annex 1..................................................................................................................................................57


Executive SummaryThis report synthesises the testing of the ecosystem service and natural capital concepts in real world applications. All 27 OpenNESS case studies shared their experiences, which they gained up to November 2014. In total over 160 researchers contributed to the work conducted in the case studies, while the people involved through stakeholder participation are 2-3 fold this number. In over half (15) case studies, the research was organised in sub-projects, where the spatial area or stakeholder group were specific to the problem or issue addressed (total 67 issues reported i.e. subprojects).

Each case study provided three types of information: (i) a 2-5 page narrative describing the aims, process and results in their case study so far and links to other WPs; (ii) answers to 27 questions designed to provide information on rationale for the study, stakeholders involved, tools tested and work planned for the coming year; and (iii) a matrix with numerical scores of the tools used, policy areas addressed and joint research activities between case studies. WP coordinators and CS research leaders were all consulted on the structure and the questions of these 3 type of reports. The results of these three inputs are integrated and summarized to provide a comprehensive understanding of the testing of the ecosystem service and natural capital concepts in the OpenNESS project so far.In this report we test approaches to collate the data, which will be utilised to create the final synthesis deliverable of WP5 i.e. D5.4 ‘Review paper reporting the case study representative’s and CABs assessment of the practical advantages and limitations of ES and NC assessment from the practitioners’ perspective’.

This report (D5.2) is structured to provide a summary of the work completed in 27 case studies and 67 sub-projects. Case study research leaders could not report full details for all 67 case studies as some were not sufficiently advanced (e.g. the selection of some tools were not yet finalised with the stakeholders), therefore the number of sub-projects varies depending on the answers received. This report is arranged in three parts:

1. Typology of real-world applications tested2. Stakeholders involved and the case study advisory board (CAB)3. Tools used 4. Lessons-learned from the case studies

The majority of the work conducted in OpenNESS was judged by the case study research leaders to have an element of awareness rising with 46% of the stated sub-projects reporting that awareness rising was a key purpose of the integrated assessment and valuation and another 30% reporting it was relevant in their case study. Priority-setting to determine future land use was considered a key priority in a quarter of the subprojects and an additional 42% considered this aspect relevant. Litigation/natural damage assessment was considered to be the type of assessment which requires the highest reliability and accuracy, but was not the key purpose of many sub-projects in fact 79% specifically reported that this purpose as not relevant in their case study.

The short-term goal of each sub-project was quite specific, but themes were identified utilizing the most frequently used terms to assign one short- term goal to each sub-project. This analysis revealed that the short term goal of the majority of the sub-projects (82%) were either to map the ecosystem services of an area (30%), test the utility of specific tools (30%) or more generally improve management or town planning (22%). Similarly, synthesis of the long-term goals of the case studies found ‘long term sustainability of the


case study area’ was the most commonly concluded long-term goal of the sub-projects (45%). The second most common long-term objective was ‘evaluation of the ES and NC concepts‘ (21%). Future reports will attempt to standardise reporting to ensure consistency of terminology.

The key policy areas addressed were context specific to the case studies depending on the real world issue addressed. Across all the sub-projects reported the three most important policy areas were (i) Biodiversity 2020 strategy, (ii) Flora-Fauna Habitat Directive, and (iii) Green Infrastructure Strategy with 46, 35, and 41 sub-projects respectively reporting these policies or key or relevant policies.

The Case Study Advisory Board (CAB) was designed to direct the research to real-world issues and problems and to evaluate the results of the research conducted in OpenNESS. Most case studies established a formal board which met and directed the researchers in the area of study, and who will be the primary user community when the evaluation of the research results. It was however, not always possible or indeed desirable for a single board to be established in some case studies, these case studies do however consult directly with local stakeholders (Case Studies 11, 14, 20, 22 & 25).

More than half of the subprojects indicated that scientists and consultants (n=45), natural resources management authority (n=39) and municipality or local government (n=37) were involved in the case studies. Ten case studies indicated that all concerned stakeholders are represented in the CAB. When concerned stakeholders are not represented in the CAB, they are mostly local stakeholders (citizens, local farmers, local government, local NGOs, local stakeholders in general) and private businesses. Most common reasons for not including concerned stakeholders were: lack of interest from stakeholders’ side, stakeholders are involved in another way in the project, lack of contacts, or “the area is too big” to include all stakeholders in the CAB. In three case studies not all stakeholders are identified yet.

The Spreadsheet/GIS, Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN) and ESTIMAP are the most common tools being tested in of the sub-projects followed by QuickScan and INVEST, while State Transmission Models (STM) and Global/European overview datasets are currently not being tested widely. It is recognised that the STM models are data demanding, while the Global/European model has only recently been finalized and available for testing. In addition this model is only relevant for case studies where land-use is highly impacted by import and/or exported biological goods.

ES-mapping was the most popular valuation and decision-support method tested , followed by preference assessment.

A wide spectrum of models, tools and methods (in different combinations) will be used in all the subprojects. Different reasons for the use of a particular method have been mentioned. These will be used to formulate a consistent typology for future evaluation. A more detailed (participatory) evaluation of the models, tools and methods will be necessary afterwards (e.g. when results are available and have been presented to CAB and/or other stakeholders involved) in order to see if the tools used were indeed the most appropriate ones for the purposes mentioned and to see what feedback is given to the results.

For most of the subprojects, it was too early to draw robust conclusions about the use of the tools/methods. In other cases, there were some preliminary reactions reported. Positive first reactions and/or rather sceptical or critical (first) impressions from OpenNESS case study partners that have been gathered are summarized fully in the this report. The formulation of the feedback offered in this reporting


period will be used to formulate a more consistent typology of responses enabling a synthesis across all case studies and sub-projects in future reports.

The 27 case studies provide an excellent testing ground to operationalise the ES/NC concept. A great diversity of issues are being tested with a wide range of tools. It is too early to draw conclusions, but is clear that the stategy adopted in this report is providing the basis to allow syntheis across all 27 case studies at the end of the funding period.


Introduction and report structureObjective and data sourcesThis report provides a synthesis of the work conducted in the 26 case studies, plus one additional invited case study - Sustainable planning in the Barcelona Metropolitan Region (CS nº27). Providing details and synthesis of all 27 case studies is a major task and consequently has been sub-divided into three types of reports (Fig 0.1). The case studies (CS) were asked (i) to provide a description of the work in the case study (narrative), (ii) answer a questionnaire on the past work and the work planned for the coming year, and (iii) complete a matrix of tools used and policies addressed by the case study. are the testing ground for all the other WPs the CS research leaders were consulted and commented on the structure and content of the narrative, questionnaire and matrix ensuring the data collected was the most relevant for the whole consortium.

Figure 0.1: Schematic of data and reports collected for 27 case studies which are synthesised in this report.

The case study narrative: The report covered topics, such as: the completed work sofar, contribution to the different OpenNESS work packages, relevance of the expected research results for other areas. The narrative report was limited to 4 pages, written in an easy to read language and decorated with pictures and maps as considered appropriate by the case study research leader. These are updated from the reports submitted in October 2014. All 27 reports are available on the internet. These reports are also suitable for inclusion in the OPPLA web portal (WP6) and provide rich input to WP1-4 and dissemination material for WP7.

The case study questionnaire: In order to synthesize the lessons learnt from the case studies, a structured questionnaire approach was adopted in order to understand (i) stakeholder involvement and decision making process in the case studies, (ii) the use and lessons-learned from the tools and methods used in the case studies, and (iii) the plans for the coming year.

Synthesis report

Narrative (2-5 page limit)

Questionnaire including work planned for the

coming year

Matrix of tools & policies of

relevance


The case study matrix: At the WP5 meeting (Nov 2014, Edinburgh) a matrix of tools used in WP3 and WP4 was requested. It was recognised that collating the information in a matrix format would help structure the final evaluation of the tools and methods used in the case studies (D5.4).

The format of the questionnaire was discussed at the project steering committee prior to the WP5 meeting (Nov 2014, Edinburgh). Case study research leaders commented on the format proposed and following modification the template was circulated to WP1-4 leaders. Efforts were done to incorporate the provided comments as far as possible in the final questionnaireThe case study specific responses to the questionnaire and matrix can be found in the OpenNESS extranet and are available for all OpenNESS partners. The questionnaire template is provided in the Annex 1.

The present report is based on the knowledge and information collected through these three types of reporting. The analysis was organised around three major topics:

1. Typology of real-world applications tested by the case studies (Chapter 1)2. Stakeholders involved and the case study advisory board (Chapter 2)3. Tools used for the operationalization of the ecosystem service / natural capital concepts (Chapter

3)4. Lessons-learned from the case studies (Chapter 4)

Definition of case study sub-projects Several of the case studies have completed several studies within their study area and therefore reported sub-projects for their case study. A sub-project was defined as follows (November 2014):

A sub-project is defined as a research activity in the case study with a specific objective (e.g. specific issue, conflict, opportunity, desired change) which often has a specific user group and focus at a specific scale. Tools and approaches will usually be selected based on the stated objective. For example, in the Cairngorms Case study (CS09):

The first sub-project will be an assessment of the recreational ecosystem services at the level of the whole Cairngorms National Park. The users of the research results will be the park managers and the tool is ESTIMAP. The aim is to identify areas as hotspots for recreation and hotspots for biodiversity conservation.

The second subproject will focus on recreational activities in a sub-region of the Cairngorm National Park with the aim of valuing the recreational ecosystem services of Glenlivet Estate. For this sub-project we will use interviews, social media and GIS spreadsheet tools, and the user of this research will primarily be the estate managers.

It would not be sensible to report these two assessments together; as it would make interpretation of the results very difficult (i.e. the synthesis would not be able to determine that the economic valuation work was only conducted at a sub-regional level if they were reported as one project).

Due to the specific nature of the questionnaire several of the case studies found it more accurate to complete the questionnaire and matrix for sub-projects. In total information for 67 sub-projects were reported (Table 0.1). One case study reported 9 subprojects (CS 03); one case study reported 5 subprojects (CS05); with the remaining cases reporting between 1-4 subprojects (Fig. 0.2). Most CS reported the information in the matrix at the sub-project level. CS05 reported the information in the matrix for the overall case study only.


1 2 3 4 5 90

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

No. Sub-projects per case study

No.

of c

ase

stud

ies

Figure 0.2: Number of subprojects reported by the 27 case studies.

Table 0.1: Number of sub-projects and the number of involved researchers reported by each case study (i.e. authors of the questionnaires)

Case Study

Number

Case Title Country Number of Sub-projects

No. researchers involved in

OpenNESS CS

1 Sustainable urban planning Finland 1 6

2 Landscape-ecological planning in urban and peri-urban areas

Slovakia4 15

3 Urban green space plans in and around Oslo Norway 9 14

4 Urban planning in Vitoria-Gasteiz Spain 2 2

5 Regional and national forest management planning France 5 3

6 Regional and national forest management planning Finland 1 6

7 Forest management in Carpatian Mountains Romania 1 5

8 Bioenergy production in forest and farmland Germany 1 5

9 Cairngorm National Park management Scotland 4 8

10 Sierra Nevada National Park management Spain 4 6

11 Restoration of heath/grassland in Warwick England 3 4

12 Farmland management in Kiskunság Hungary 1 11

13 Landscape and nature management in an intensively-farmed area in Belgium (De Cirkel)

Belgium3 3

14 Planning with GI in five linked cases NL, UK, Belgium 1 2

15 Wetland construction and restoration Italy 1 8

16 Restoration of water resources in Loch Leven Scotland 2 9


17 Adaptive management plan for Lower Danube River Romania 3 3

18 Integration of ecosystem services in the planning of a flood control area in Belgium (Stevoort):

Belgium1 3

19 Doñana protected areas management Spain 1 2

20 Coastal area management in Waddensea Nether-lands 1 6

21 Coastal area management in Ria Formosa Portugal 3 4

22 Restoration of Essex coast England 3 4

23 Cash crops driving land-use change in forest mosaic landscapes

India4 6

24 Sustainable land management in Mau Region Kenya 3 6

25 Sustainable forestry in Tierra del Fuego Argentina-Chile 1 8

26 Bioenergy production in interior São Paulo state Brazil 3 6

27 Urban planning in Barcelona Spain 1 6

Characterization of socio-ecological attributes of the case studiesIn addition to the above the case study research leaders where asked a specific Question: “Can you provide a shapefile of your study area? If yes please upload it to the extranet in your case study folder (if most can provide we can use this file to summarise broad-scale descriptive characteristics of your study site (e.g. using climate, land use and general socio-economic datasets)”.Case study research leaders reported that digitised maps i.e. GIS shape files were available for over 50% of the 67 sub-projects (Table 3). Two case studies reported they did not yet have maps but that they would be available soon, and 7 case studies (19 sub-projects) reported they did not have digitised maps. Based on this information it is concluded that other methods will be required to collect the basic climate, typology, demographic data of the case studies. This will be discussed with the case cluster leaders. It is recognised that characterisation of the case studies will be required for synthesis of the case studies in Deliverable 5.4.

Therefore, for this report the broad-scale descriptive characteristics of the case studies have been extracted from the narrative descriptions of the sub-projects (Fig 0.3).


urbanurbanurbanurban

forest - coniferforest- mountains

mixed landscape - mountainforest - coniferforest - conifer

mixed landscape -lowlandmixed landscape - agri conservation

mixed landscape - uplandmixed landscape

mixed landscape - agriculturemixed landscape - agri conservation

agricultural landscapemixed landscapeneo-ecosystem

Water body -Lochmixed landscape - river wet landmixed landscape - flood control

mixed landscape - agri conservationcostalcostal

mixed landscape -costalforest -mangrove mosaic

forest -tropical rainforest forest - mixed

sugarcane croplands urban

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

2526

27

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10No of sub-projects

Figure 0.3: Number of sub-projects per case study assigned to broad-scale descriptive characteristics, yet to be agreed with case study leaders (the case study number is reported on the left).

There is a wealth of broad land cover/land use classes covered in the sub-projects. The rough classification in Figure 0.3 will be refined in future reports. Here the aim is to give an overview of the diversity of the case studies. The urban environment is well represented in five case studies (17 sub-projects), while the coastal is studied in two case studies and a water body in only one (Loch Leven). The majority of the case studies are focussing on mixed landscapes, which have been roughly classed in Figure 0.3 into sub-categories reflecting the location (e.g. mountain, forest) and the aim of the sub-project (e.g. conservation, agriculture).

Case studies research leaders reported in the narrative whether the lessons-learned from their case study could be relevant for other areas which also provides a typology of the case studies. In total, 10 different areas were mentioned. One case can have more than 1 reported area of relevance (Table 0.2).


Table 0.2: Self-reported relevance of the OpenNESS case studies to other areas (N= 27,).

Relevant for the following areas No of case studies

Protected area 7Mixed-rural landscape 5Forests 5Urban areas 4Water and wetland management 4Bio-energy 3Green infrastructure 3Mountain landscapes 2Off-setting 2Coastal management 2


1.Typology of real-world applications tested in OpenNESS

1.1 Meaning of operationalization of ES/NC The 27 OpenNESS case study were asked about their meaning of operationalization of ecosystem services/natural capital (ES/NC) (Q2): ‘In the context of your case study, what do you (i.e. case study research team) understand under ‘operationalization’ of ES/NC concepts and tools? And what do you want to reach in your case study from an operationalization point of view at the end of OpenNESS project?’Three definitions were provided:

Operationalization: A way to conceptualize the protected areas within the frame of ‘nature and people’ (sensu Mace 2014 in Science).

Operationalization: Carefully selecting a set of methodologies, which are appropriate for performing a regional ES assessment with stakeholder involvement.

From a broader perspective, operationalization is interpreted as (concepts and tools of) ecosystem services and natural capital at two different levels:

1) The cognitive-narrative level: ES/NC concept can be operationalized if they are meaningfully ‘translated’ to non-scientific language, which means that local experts, stakeholders and inhabitants refer to these concepts and use them to rephrase biodiversity and land use conflicts.

2) Policy formation level: ES/NC concepts are built into policies and find their place in institutional structures.

Operationalization at the local and regional decision makers’ levelMost case studies in OpenNESS (23) aim for operationalization of ES/NC concepts at a formal policy formation and management level. Case research leaders want to contribute to incorporating ES concepts in planning, management and decision making processes, mainly on the local and regional scale. More specifically: Case research leaders aim for raising awareness, support and better understanding on ES by decision makers (n=10), contributing to ‘more inclusive’ planning (n=6), more transparent decision making (n=2), and having an impact on priority setting in land use planning (n=2) (Fig.1.1). They do so by creating and testing concepts, tools, methods and methodologies.

Raising awareness, support and better un-derstanding

Contributing to ‘more inclusive’ planning

More transparent decision making

Having an impact on priority setting in land use planning

0 2 4 6 8 10 12No of casestudies

Figure 1.1: Operationalization of ES/NC concepts at the decision makers’ level.


Operationalization at a cognitive-narrative levelTo a lesser extent, OpenNESS case studies (also) contribute to operationalization at an informal cognitive-narrative level (n=3). This level includes informal stakeholders (local experts, inhabitants) in operationalization of ES/NC concepts. The case studies contribute to this level by meaningful translation of ES concepts to non-scientific language and translating ES concepts into understandable, quantifiable indicators. These concepts and indicators can be used by local stakeholders to rephrase biodiversity and land use conflicts.Ways to operationalize the ES/NC concepts referring to this cognitive-narrative level, mentioned by case research leaders, are: facilitating dialogues between project coordinators, researchers and other stakeholders; picturing opinions and needs of local stakeholders; and identifying potential areas of conflicts and synergies of ES.

1.2 Contribution of case studies to different planning contexts The case study research leaders were asked the question: What is the purpose of integrated assessment and valuation? (Fig. 1.2)

Figure 1.2: Economic valuation of ecosystem services in different urban planning contexts (after E. Gómez-Baggethun, D.N. Barton (2013). Ecological Economics, 86, 235–245)

For 46% of the sub-projects, awareness rising was a key purpose of the integrated assessment and valuation (Fig 1.3). Awareness raising is considered by Gómez-Baggethun and Barton (2013) to require the least reliability and accuracy and the least information cost. The second most important purpose is ‘priority-setting to determine future land use’: it was considered a key priority in a quarter of the subprojects and an additional 42% considered this aspect relevant (Fig 1.3). The other purposes are situated at the policy design or implementation level (in declining order): instrument design, natural capital accounting and litigation/natural damage assessment. The latter requiring the highest reliability and accuracy and the highest information cost.


Litigation /Natural damage assessment

Natural capital accounting

Instrument design

Priority-setting determine future land use

Awareness raising

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1

4

9

17

31

5

17

17

28

20

8

16

14

19

12

Key purpose Relevant Slightly relevant

Number of sub-projects

Purp

ose

of in

tegr

taed

ass

essm

ent a

nd

valu

ation

Figure 1.3: Purpose of integrated assessment and valuation of OpenNESS sub-projects (in total there are 66 subprojects conducted in 27 case studies).

The two most commonly-mentioned purposes (‘awareness raising’ and ‘priority-setting to determine future land use’) are typically related to place-based projects. Such place-based projects plan and manage an area (or part of it) and have the authority to implement plans and concrete management measures (e.g. home garden development by city council, nature development by a nature department). Such implementation projects usually have distinctive projects phases (9 distinguished phases, see Fig 1.4) and have a much longer timespan (e.g. 5-20 years), compared to the OpenNESS case study (sub)-projects which have a limited time span (2013-2015). In this way, the OpenNESS (sub)-projects are likely to support only certain phase(s) of the implementation project they collaborate with. Therefore, we asked the case study research leaders to which phase(s) of the implementation project their OpenNESS (sub)-project contributes to (Q18)?Awareness raising was reconfirmed as important contribution of the OpenNESS case studies (medium-high contribution in 58% of the sub-projects, Fig x). This contribution can take place all through the project cycle of implementation projects. The contribution of the OpenNESS sub-projects to the different project phases was not equal. The most important phases where they contribute to are: identifying stakeholders’ priorities (41% medium/high contribution) and development of a (shared) vision for a project area (48% medium/high contribution). Project phases which receive less contribution from the OpenNESS projects are (in declining order): problem formulation (30%), project implementation (30%), project planning (26%), project evaluation (24%) resource mobilisation (20%), and initiation phase (8%). In other words, OpenNESS (sub)-projects are mostly involved to the general diagnostic and design phases, rather than the more concrete project management phases. 7 sub-projects were not be able to link to the proposed to any of the phases of implementation projects. This was because: there was no link to an implementation project (3 sub-projects), or because the implementation project was on-going program where the contribution of the sub-project did not fit well to any of the proposed phases mentioned above.


Awareness raising

Initiation phase

Identifying stakeholders priorities

Problem formulation

Resource mobilisation

Development of a (shared) vision

Project planning

Project implementation

Project evaluation

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

23

5

16

9

3

17

3

10

5

15

0

11

11

10

15

14

8

11

High contribution (Score: 1,5-2) Medium contribution (Score: 0,5-1)Number of OpenNESS (sub)-projects

Proj

ect p

hase

of i

mpl

eman

tipon

pha

ze

Figure 1.4: The contribution of OpenNESS (sub)-projects to phase(s) of implementation projects (in total there are 66 subprojects conducted in 26 case studies).

1.3 Rationale for selecting specific aspect or issue to be addressed Based on the answers on a similar question in the D5.1 questionnaire, a number of standard arguments for selecting (sub)-projects were extracted. In D5.2, case study research leaders were asked to score this standard list of arguments, with the possibility to add more arguments (Q22). The first striking thing is that all arguments were confirmed as relevant, as each of them were considered ‘important’ arguments for 29% - 79% of all the sub-projects. Overall, the analysis of the results indicates that there seems to be a balance between supply-driven arguments and demand-driven arguments. Demand-driven arguments are related to: policy, awareness, local demand, decision-support and economy. Nevertheless, researcher interest and expertise as arguments for selecting sub-projects should not be underestimated.

Five major groups of arguments can be distinguished (Fig. 1.5): 1. Arguments related with policy needs and awareness raising :

Most sub-projects aim to be policy relevant: 68% of the sub-projects were selected because of an important ‘connection to current policy practice/demand/targets’. Other arguments are more related to awareness raising: ‘need for ES awareness raising’ (48% of sub-projects), ‘need for information on a specific ES’ (47%) and ‘support a societal-policy debate’ (36%).

2. Demand-driven research : In only 32%-50% of the sub-projects the choice of stakeholders or managers was an important argument to start the research in the sub-project. Managers opinion were most considered (50%), followed by the CAB (44%) and other stakeholders (32%). This indicates that demand-driven research is not always very evident.


3. Support planning & decision-making :In similar line, need for ‘integration of ES in planning and management’ (59%) and ‘support a multi-interest decision making’ (48%) was an important argument for about half the sub-projects. For about one third of the cases, conflict resolution was an important argument (29%)

4. Research-related arguments : The most dominant argument for starting a sub-project related to researcher interests (79%) and OpenNESS interests (76%). Other arguments were that sub-projects were a ‘good opportunity for a ES tool testing in practice‘ (58%) and that the sub-project was ‘connected OpenNESS expertise’ (53%).

5. Economic arguments :Three sub-projects mentioned some arguments mainly related with economic arguments (not in the original list): ‘significant win-win opportunity for business and nature’ (2x), and ‘foster innovation and green economy (1x).

POLICY & AWARENESSConnection to current policy practice/demand/targets

To support societal-policy debate on an important current societal issueNeed for awareness raising with respect to the ES concept

Need for more information on specific ES

DEMAND-DRIVENCAB identified the (sub)-project as interesting/important

Based on stakeholder consultationInterest amongst managers to maintain nature/biodiversity/ES

SUPPORT PLANNING & DECISION-MAKINGNeed for integration of ES in planning and management

To support a multi-interest decision makingTo support conflict resolution

RESEARCH ARGUMENTSProject researchers consider the sub-project to be important/interesting/promising

Good opportunity for a ES tool testing in practiceConnection to OpenNESS expertise

Connection to OpenNESS goals

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

4524

3231

2921

33

3932

19

5238

3550

1220

1814

2224

18

1923

21

111219

13

Important (Score: 2) Bit relevant (Score: 1)Number of (sub)-projects

Argu

men

st fo

r cho

osin

g a

sub-

proj

ect

Figure 1.5: Arguments for selecting a (sub)-project selected for further investigation (in total there are 66 subprojects conducted in 27 case studies).

19

Please ignore this blank page – we cannot remove it!! Without upsetting the format of the previous section

20


1.4 Short term goals and ambitions (Q20)Often the short term goal reported at the level of the sub-project was a map, data-base, report, policy paper and/or scientific articles. Some case studies did not mention any of these, but it was often implied in answers to other questions or in the narrative which case study research leaders also submitted. No formal quantification of these types of outputs has been attempted here as WP7 will formally collate such outputs towards the end of the project. As the short term goal of each sub-project was quite specific a collation was attempted utilizing the most frequently used terms to assign one short term goal to each sub-project (Fig. 1.6). These terms were either to map the ecosystem services of an area (30% of sub-projects), test the utility of specific tools (30%), or more generally improve ecosystem management or town planning (22%). Several of the case studies were satisfying several short term goals, so the figures attached to these categories are an indication and more precise data will be collected for our final evaluation (D5.4). It is clear however, that the short term goal was frequently seen as providing information for improved management of a case study area.

Awareness3%

Drivers1%

ES mapping 30%

Improved consul-tation

3%

Improved man-agement

22%

Improved policies1%

National language report

1%

PES -management3%

Recommendations1%

reports1%

valuation es1%

Utility of tool(s)30%

Figure 1.6: Most frequently mentioned short term goal of the 65 sub-projects (one short term goal assigned per sub-project).

1.5 Long term goals and ambitions (Q21)As with the short term goals, there was a great diversity of long term goals reports for the sub-projects (Fig. 1.7). This highlights the variety of purposes which utilize the concepts of ecosystem service and natural capital but also emphasises the difficulty in assigning the case studies and their sub-projects to a uniform list of goals and ambitions. This issue of standardising reporting will be discussed with all case study research leaders and WP leaders at future meetings to ensure consistency of understanding in future reports. ‘Long term sustainability of the case study area’ was the most commonly concluded long term goal of the sub-projects (45%). The second most common long-term objective was ‘evaluation of the ES and NC concepts‘ (21%). Interestingly, the urban case studies tended to consider planning as the long term goal of their work (instead of long term sustainability).


long term sustainabil-ity

45%

Adaptive management 1%

Conservation of green space1%

Demonstration3%

Evaluation of ES and NC concepts

21%

Improved planning

10%

Improved val-uation meth-

ods1%

Not yet defined1%

Pormote stakeholder involvment

7%

Promote PES3%

Raise awareness of ES3%

Spatially-explicit information knowledge of climate regu-

lation1%

Figure 1.7: Most frequently mentioned long term goal of the sub-projects (one goal assigned per sub-project).

1.6 Policy areas addressed The case study research leaders were asked to what extent their case studies contribute examples that are relevant 18 EU policies or aims. The 18 EU policies or aims have been selected by WP2 for further analysis. In many case studies relevant policies were broadly addressed by all subprojects within a case study. The Biodiversity 2020 strategy, Flora-Fauna Habitat Directive and Green Infrastructure Strategy were considered to the three most important policy areas with 46, 35, and 41 of the sub-projects (‘key focus’ or ‘some input’) (Fig. 1.8). As expected, only the five urban case studies considered the ‘Thematic strategy on the urban environment’ as a key policy area for the case study.In total two addition policies were mentioned as important by the case study research leaders. These were (i) the Norwegian Nature Diversity Act (CS03) and (ii) the general aim of the EU to increase growth and employment (CS11 and CS22). Both the latter case studies commented that ‘Offsetting has significant potential to contribute to growth and jobs (the potential EU market is € multi-billion)’.


.

Figure 1.8: Potential contribution of sub-projects to European policies (scored by 27 case study research leaders for 65 sub-projects). Specific question asked was: “To what extent does your CS contribute examples that are relevant to the following EU policies or aims?”


2.Stakeholder involvement in the case studies There is a range of stakeholder involvement across the 27 case studies and sub-projects. The Case Study Advisory Board (CAB) is designed to direct the research to real-world issues and problems and to evaluate the results of the OpenNESS research conducted in the case studies. Most case studies established a formal board which are the direct discussion partners to the OpenNESS researchers. The purpose is that indicates the knowledge gaps and evaluate the research results at the end. In addition to the CAB a wide range of other stakeholders were consulted in relation to the sub-projects and these are discussed in section 2.1.

2.1 Involved stakeholders in the sub-projects (Q25)The most involved organizations and agencies in the (sub)-projects are (Fig. 2.1): scientists and consultants (69% of sub-projects), natural resources management authorities (60%), and municipalities or local governments (57%). The most involved land-users are nature managers (55%) and landowners (42%). Other stakeholder groups which were not mentioned in the pre-defined list were: rural development organization, school management and beekeepers. The results show that most subprojects involve different local stakeholder groups (local government, local residents, local NGOs,…).

Other:Developers/ investors

Big businessHunters

FishermenTourists

Society at largeRecreationists (i.e. local recreation)

Recreation and tourism businessLocal businesses

ForestersFarmers

Local residents and local communitiesLand owners

Nature managersOther

EU agenciesMedia

Facilitating organisation (“boundary organisation”)Other government agency

Spatial plannerSector interest organisations

Environmental regulatorRegional/national NGOs

Local interest NGONational/regional governmentMunicipality/local government

Natural resources management authorityScientists and consultants

Land

-use

rsO

rgan

isatio

ns/a

genc

ies

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Figure 2.1: Stakeholders involvement in different (sub)-projects of OpenNESS cases (N=65 (sub)-projects).


2.2 Representation in CAB The majority of case studies have established a case study advisory board (CAB). It was however, not always possible or indeed desirable to establish a CAB in some case studies, for example due to distances of board members (e.g. CS025, Argentina) or commercial sensitivity (e.g. CS11 & CS12). In addition CS14 is a case study reporting on the work conducted in another project Interreg project (GIFT-T!). In the five areas in that project, the partners of GIFT-T! develop a method and a set of tools for robust, informed planning of Green Infrastructure (GI) and innovative implementation. Operationalization in the context of OpenNESS is therefore learning about the use of GI services in planning. Members of the GIFT-T! will be consulted on the evaluation of tools used. Only one case study CS20 Coastal area management in Wadden Sea (Netherlands) has reported that they cannot engage local stakeholders sufficiently to form a CAB. The work is currently continuing with a few interested stakeholders but they do not yet constitute a CAB. It is hoped that when there are interesting results from the identification and mapping ES in the case study area, it will be easier to engage the authorities, such as Municipality of Schiermonnikoog (dredging); council of Province of Friesland (N2000 authority).

Typology of CAB members in the case studies (Q5)Not surprisingly, almost all case studies involve natural resources management authorities in their CAB (92% of case studies) (Fig. 2.2). Other common CAB members are: scientists/consultants (72%), sector interest groups (68%), regional or national NGO, environmental regulators and municipality or local government (all in 60% of cases). One type of CAB member which was not mentioned in the pre-defined list is: chairman of a planning competition jury.

Other:Media

EU agencyFacilitating organisation (“boundary organisations”)

Non-organised citizens/land-users/land-ownersSpatial planner

Enterprise/business/investorOrganised citizens/land-users/land-owners

Other government agency (specify)Local interest NGO

National/regional governmentMunicipality/local government

Environmental regulatorRegional/national NGO

Sector interest group (e.g. farmer union)Scientist / consultant

Natural resources management authority

0 5 10 15 20 25

Figure 2.2: Type of CAB members in OpenNESS case studies (N=25 case studies).


Reasons for selecting CAB members (Q8)A list of possible reasons for selecting CAB members was extracted from the D5.1 questionnaire. Case research leaders could score the reasons as: important, bit important, or not important. The most important reason to select CAB members from relevant organizations is the fact that these organizations are responsible for planning and/or management and/or conservation the study area (or in the nearby surroundings) (e.g. water management, forest management, planners, decision makers). All case studies found this an important reason (100%). Other important reasons to select CAB members are related to: experience (65%), willingness to cooperate (65%), prior cooperation with OpenNESS researchers (62%), interest in the theme (58%) and power (54 %) (Fig. 2.3).The most important reason to include local stakeholders in the CAB is because they are locally or regionally embedded organizations (92% of cases) (Fig. 2.4). Other reasons for selection are: providers of ecosystem services (50%), users of ES (38%) or conflicting interests (42%).

Organizations responsible for planning and/or management and/or conservation in the area (or in...

Large experience in the topic and/or relevant professional background

Their willingness to cooperate in the project

Involvement in collaborative structures for the project area before OpenNESS started

Organizations with a known or assumed interest in the area or in the theme

Power to influence decisions over ecosystem services management and governance.

Previous working experience with particular stakeholders and/or good relationship with the case st...

Organizations with a known or assumed interest in the ES/NC-approach

Organisations that represent powerless stakeholders (e.g. to increase awareness about their issues ...

Recommended by other stakeholders

Other:

Rele

vant

org

aniza

tions

0 5 10 15 20 25

26

17

17

16

15

14

11

4

2

4

0

0

8

9

9

9

11

6

11

11

13

0

Important (Score: 2) Bit important (Score: 1)

Number of OpenNESS case studiesReasons for selection of CAB members

Figure 2.3: Reasons why organisations were selected as CAB members in OpenNESS case studies (N=26 case studies)

27


Locally or regionally embedded organisations

Providers of (specific) ES in the area

Stakeholders with conflicting interests

Users of (specific) ES in the area

Other

Loca

l sta

keho

lder

s

0 5 10 15 20 25

24

13

11

10

1

1

8

5

10

0

Important (Score: 2) Bit important (Score: 1)

Number of OpenNESS case studiesReason for selection

of CAB members

Figure 2.4: Reasons why local stakeholders were selected as CAB members in OpenNESS case studies (N=26 case studies)

Absent stakeholders in CABCase study research leaders were also asked whether there were concerned stakeholder(s) who were not represented in the CAB (Q6). Ten out of 26 case studies (38%) indicated that all concerned stakeholders are represented in the CAB (Error: Reference source not found). When concerned stakeholders are not represented in the CAB, they are mostly local stakeholders (citizens, local farmers, local government, local NGOs, local stakeholders in general) and private businesses. In three case studies not all stakeholders are identified yet. The most common reasons for not including concerned stakeholders are: lack of interest from stakeholders’ side, stakeholders are involved in another way in the project, lack of contacts, or “the area is too big” to include all stakeholders in the CAB (Table 2.2).

Table 2.1: Concerned stakeholder(s) not represented in the CAB in OpenNESS case studies (N=26 case studies).

28


Stakeholders not represented in the CAB Number of case studiesCitizens 3Farmers 3

Stakeholders are not all identified yet 3Local government 3

Local NGO’s 2Private business 2

Local stakeholders 2Future resident 1

Local land owner 1Farmer organisation 1

Educator 1Historian 1

River trust 1Water company 1

Table 1.2: Reasons why concerned stakeholder(s) are not represented in the CAB in OpenNESS case studies (N=26 case studies).

Reasons not to include stakeholders in the CAB Number of case studiesN/A 12Lack of interest from stakeholders 3

Stakeholders are involved in other way 3Lack of contact with stakeholder 2

Study area is too big 2Stakeholders are unknown 1

Lack of resources 1Lack of influence 1

"Not possible" 1Will be involved later 1

2.3 Role and mandate of CAB CAB Roles (Q9) A list of possible roles for the CAB were extracted from the D5.1 questionnaire. Case research leaders could score the reasons as: important, bit important, or not important. The main CAB key roles are ‘provision of information’ and ‘consultation and exchange of ideas’ (important for 84% of the cases), formulating non-binding advice (48%) and think-thank (40%) (Fig. 2.5). Respondents have however different interpretations about the list of CAB roles, especially about the ‘decision-making’ role. For example case study 3 mentions that the CAB has a decision making role restricted to ‘further progress’ only. One case study puts decision making and formulation of binding advice as important (value: 2), but also point out the CAB has no official mandate, suggesting that the decision making role of the CAB is only internal. This problem is also

29


explicitly mentioned by case studies 11 and 22 (identical quote): “Above refers to the roles within this project rather than their roles in the wider world.”An informal role of CAB which is not reflected in this figure, but is mentioned by several case study respondents is the ability of CAB meetings to indirectly influence agenda setting in official meetings.Methodology remark: the difference between internal and external decision making roles should be clearly explained to avoid flawed results. In general it might be highly beneficial to add a short description (keywords) for each role in order to increase response accuracy.

Decision-making

Planning

Formulating binding advice

Formulating non-binding advice

Think-thank

Consultation and exchange ideas

Provision of information

Other

0 5 10 15 20 25

9

6

3

12

10

21

21

2

7

12

7

8

11

4

4

0

CAB roles

Important Somewhat important

Figure 2.5: Roles of CABs in the OpenNESS case studies (N=25 case studies).

Mandate of the CAB (Q11) Most case studies answered no, and the few that did answer yes are rather unclear as to whether the CAB has a mandate or members of the CAB. Overall many case studies (9 of 25 cases) pointed out that a number of CAB members had official mandates, or influence on agenda setting in official meetings.

Organizations (in or outside the CAB) that has the mandate to implement the actions decided/proposed by the CAB (Q12)Currently we obtained a list of organisations that have a mandate to implement actions. However few case studies stipulated whether these organisations were represented in the CAB or not.

Methodology remark: if our aim is to see to what extent the CAB comprises (most) organisations with a mandate to implement proposed CAB actions, then we need to clearly ask whether these organisations are inside the CAB or not.

2.4 Decision making in CABDecision making about the selection of CAB members (Q7)

30


In most of the OpenNESS case studies (64%), the CAB-members were selected by the case study research team themselves (n=9) or in combination with stakeholders, CAB members, CS representatives and/or a facilitation organisation (n=7). Only a few case studies (n=5) the CAB played an active role in selecting new CAB members (e.g. in a 2nd phase). One of these case studies used a formal procedure for selection of CAB-members (e.g. selection by nomination and consensus/acclamation). In few cases, the key stakeholders play a deciding role in selecting the CAB members (n=3) (Fig. 2.6).Methodology remark: In 6 cases, the CAB members were selected by the ‘case-study leader(s)/coordinator(s)’. However, if these ‘CS leaders’ were not clearly defined in the answers, it was not always very clear to which degree the latter were also leading members of the research team or if they were from other organisations. Depending on the multiple roles that the research team might have in a local project, it might be possible that there is one case study coordinator within the research team and another one in the leading organization (or in a facilitating organization). The unclear or different uses of terminology made the exact interpretation of some of the answers given in the questionnaire somewhat difficult.

Figure 2.6: Parties who selected CAB members in the OpenNESS case studies (N=25 case studies).

Decision making process within the CAB (Q10)Similar to our conclusion in D5.1, we still see that there is a clear preference to avoid voting as much as possible. Most of the case studies involved in OpenNESS rely on consensus building when it comes to making decisions within the CAB (n=22 or 88% of case studies). They do so for instance in order to raise a maximal support amongst participating stakeholders. But we can also notice that some of the case studies already take into account the possibility that sometimes no consensus can be reached (e.g. if there are strongly conflicting issues to be solved). There are 3 case studies who indicate that an evaluation of decision-making might be needed in the future. Other cases also refer to possible solutions: democratic vote (if necessary), input from surveys (n=3), or use formalized assessment procedures (for instance by assigning weights to MCDA-criteria) (n=1). In 5 cases, it was emphasised that the CAB has only an advisory role (see also 2.3).

31


Methodology remark: It is important to mention that there might be different interpretations of what kind of decisions should be taken into account when answering this question. It is possible to argue that – even if the CAB only has only an advisory role – still some decisions will need to be taken, for instance about the content and formulation of outgoing messages (e.g. communication) and of the final advice that will be send out to other institutions. This difference of interpretation is indicated in the answer “Only advisory role (no decisions to be made) and consensus-building” (which combines “only advice” with “building consensus”).

Who was involved in the selection of this (sub)-project, and how was it decided? (Q23)Due to unclear terminology, a rather qualitative analysis is more appropriate than a quantitative analysis of strictly categorized possibilities:

Research teams versus case study representative(s) : In 51 out of 63 sub-projects (81%), case study reporters refer to a choice of a subproject made by the research team. There are 11 cases who refer to a choice made by case study representatives (called CS leaders or CS coordinator), although it is not sure to which degree these case study leader(s) also based there choice on input from other team-members.

Stakeholders and policy/development goals : For selection of 22 sub-projects (35%), there was involvement of (some of) the stakeholders (e.g. through direct consultation, integration of stakeholder needs analysis), or there was a link to national targets, development of sectorial plans which brought opportunities to do the selected research. Stakeholders can be part of the CAB, but can also be other local people who are not involved in the CAB (for example local experts such as beekeepers in a pollination assessment). For 17 sub-projects (27%), case studies reporters explicitly mentioned the approval by the (entire) CAB.

External research partners : For only a few subprojects, involvement of OpenNESS-partners with specific expertise (e.g. the Joint Research Centre, JRC-IES, Italy), WP-leaders, or a PhD-student were clearly mentioned when they describe the decision-making regarding the subprojects.

Methodology remark:The analysis of all these answers (in terms of categories and numbers) was not easy, because the exact meaning of terminology that is used was not always entirely clear and totally free for different interpretations. Sometimes different categories of people involved are also partially overlapping or were quite ”undefined” in the answers. Few examples:

Sometimes cases studies refer to an analysis of “stakeholder needs” (for instance based on active input from focus group discussions) that has been taken into account during the selection of subprojects. But a reference to a ”stakeholder needs analysis” in the answers does not automatically mean that stakeholders have been consulted actively. Needs can also be derived based on desktop-research (for instance needs that have been addressed in earlier studies outside of the OpenNESS-project). Furthermore, it is also important to ask ourselves which stakeholders have been consulted (e.g. representativeness of the analysis of needs).

It is not always entirely clear if “other” stakeholders involved are also represented in the CAB. They might also be external, for instance local experts who were only consulted but who are not actively engaged (anymore) in the CAB. Apart from the preferences of other stakeholders involved regarding selection of subprojects, also national level targets and the development of a sectorial plan for livestock management have been mentioned as interesting opportunities that (partially) explained the choice for a particular subproject. Actually, these examples can also be seen as some kind of a stakeholder need.

32


Even if a key stakeholder (who will be or should be represented in the CAB) suggested a particular subproject, it is not always very clear of the entire CAB decided on this together (e.g. consensus about final selection).

Finally (as mentioned earlier), it is not always clear if case-study representative (called CS leader or CS coordinator) are also part of the research team, or if they are external. Depending on the role that the research team has in a local project, it might be possible that there is one case study representative within the research team and another one in the leading organization (or in a facilitating organization). Also this might hinder the exact interpretation of some of the answers given in the questionnaire.

In order to make an analysis of this question easier in the future, it is recommended that the next questionnaires would use a set of checkboxes in which standard categories of people involved. These categories can be for example: (1) research team, (2) case study research leaders (within research team), (3) case study representatives (external), (4) stakeholders involved, (5) other OpenNESS research partners you are collaborating with and (6) other external research partners you are collaborating with. A text box for additional qualitative information for categories 2-6 can be added.

Involvement in the design of the (sub)-project (Q24)Similar to question 23, the same remarks mentioned above should be taken into account. However, some general observations can be made:

Research teams versus case study representative : In 46 of 63 sub-projects (73%), the research team was involved in the design. There are 17 cases who mention a design that was mainly made by case study leader(s)/coordinator(s), although it is not sure to which degree these case study leader(s) also got input from other team-members.

Stakeholders : In 31 of the sub-projects (49%) (some of) the stakeholders were involved in the design of the subprojects. Stakeholders can be part of the CAB, but can also be other local people who are not involved in the CAB. For 10 sub-projects (16%) the (entire) CAB was explicitly mentioned in relation to the co-design of the subproject.

Involvement of external research partners : In 12 subprojects (19%), there was an involvement of external research partners in the design of the sub-project, such as OpenNESS-partners (e.g. Joint Research Centre, JRC-IES, Italy), WP-leaders, or a PhD-student. This might however be an underestimation, because many of the subprojects have been discussed during several OpenNESS-meetings and this can also be considered as a valuable (informal) input for the design of some of the methodologies used in the local case studies.

Selection of the models/tools/methods used in the subprojects (Q26d)Even more than in the answers on question 24 (about the selection of the subprojects), the selection of the models, tools and methods that are used in the different sub-projects have been selected to a high degree by researchers/scientists only (including PhD-candidates or students). This happened in 64 out of the 145 tested tools that were mentioned (44%). In the other subprojects, this selection happened after consultation with the case study representatives, project partners, the CAB (who had to approve the final selection) and/or (some of) the major stakeholders in particular (for example estate staff). Other people involved in this choice were of course OpenNESS-partners and other (external) experts or research partners (e.g. from the BESAFE-research-project). In some of the cases in which the tools/methods were selected by the researchers, the ES to be quantified were selected by the stakeholders (as part of the participatory methods that were used in combination with the other tools). One of the case studies also

33


mentioned the involvement of a local resident (also an environmentalist and collaborating more regularly with the research team) in the choice of the appropriate tools.

2.5 Functioning of the CABs2.5.1 Frequency of interaction with CAB (Q13)On average case studies held two formal CAB meetings since the last reporting period but this ranged from zero to 15 (Fig. 2.7).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 270

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Figure 2.7: Number of CAB meetings reported by 27 case study research leaders since October 2013

2.5.2 Quality of the participation and consultation process (Q16)Participation level and interaction of the CAB appears to be functioning well in most case studies (Fig 2.8), though some remarks are added to this:

The CAB is not equally motivated, it’s difficult to really engage them in the process. Participation is high on practical problems and low on theoretical problems. Consensus is built, decisions are not made. Wish to have a broader CAB. New stakeholders are difficult to engage (it takes time). Some stakeholders are missing and difficult to engage in meetings e.g. landowners and local

communities.

63%

22%

15%

Participation is well

Participation is not optimal

CAB is not involved (yet)

34


Figure 2.8: Participation level and interaction of the OpenNESS case study advisory Boards (CAB) (n=27).

One of the cases (CS12) specified their strategy to involve different stakeholder groups and local communities in addition to the CAB. They involved broad local population opinions with a preference assessment exercise. Participatory scenario planning involved different stakeholder groups. A local drawing competition engages children in the process. During the whole process researchers try to stay in touch with local stakeholders via Facebook.Some case studies (n=6) feel participation of the CAB is not optimal, due to:

Busy timetables Physical distance Involving certain stakeholders takes a lot of time (due to bureaucracy)

Few quotes:‘We tend to consult stakeholders on an individual basis when needed to progress the work.'

‘CAB members are engaged well, the next challenge will be to engage land users, tourists and local communities (other stakeholders).’

ChallengeIn general, involving stakeholders to a process takes time: it takes time to build a relationship. Moreover, a stakeholder will be engaged within the process only if he feels he can contribute or gain from it. This can either be because it is part of their job, responsibility and concern, or there’s ‘something to win’ in the process. A more general concern or challenge to the OpenNESS project is expressed twice: “Environmental management generally is organized top-down. OpenNESS works bottom-up. Matching these strategies will be a challenge.”

2.5.3 Process facilitation and interaction methods used to interact with the CAB (Q15)Case studies use mainly conventional meetings to interact with their CABs (Fig 2.9). Usually a working report with program and key points for discussion is sent to the CAB in advance (quote: ‘Good preparation is important!’). Conventional meetings are meetings with (PowerPoint) presentations (of methods and tools) by planners and researchers followed by (facilitated) discussion. Some respondents note that brainstorming and individual feedback (voting) were also used in these meetings. In total 24 of the 25 case study produce written notes or formal minutes of meetings (Q14), which are sent afterwards to all CAB members. E-mail correspondence is commonly used to stay in contact with the CAB network.Besides these conventional meetings, some case studies (n=5) have been working with focus groups to discuss a certain topic. In 4 case studies workshops were used/are planned early 2015 to work together and interact with the CAB.CAB members were also consulted individually (n=6), both informal and via (semi-structured) interviews. Questionnaires (n=4) and specific exercises for the CAB (n=1) were used for individual consultation as well.One of the case studies stated that they went on field trips and discussed relevant topics during the trip. This seems to have been working well.One of the case studies highlights that this year they will take the next step, where dissemination is needed. This will be using an internet page.

35


Figure 2.9: Used methods to interact with the CAB (n=25).

Evaluation of used methods Used methods seem to work well (n=13). By one of the case studies it was stated that quite a few CAB members cancelled their participation shortly before a meeting. 12 case studies did not evaluate their used methods to interact with the CAB. Some quotes:

‘The combination of written input and personal discussion works well.'

‘Combination of individual interviews, plenary meetings and working groups works very well.’

So far methods used to interact with CABs were quite traditional with a strong focus on ‘conventional meetings’. When they are combined with individual interaction or interaction in small groups on a certain topic, this seems to work just fine so far.

2.5.3. The level of trust between different CAB members (Q17)No problems are observed. The level of trust in the CAB is reported to be fine in all of the case studies which have CABs initiated. However, it is early in the process to judge the evolution of the level of trust.A few arguments that were mentioned to support that the level of trust is fine are:

Discussions are open. Communication is harmonious, although there are differences in opinion between members

(e.g. nature conservation and fishery) and between members and researchers. There seems to be no misunderstandings or conflicts. Interest is gained for the ES concept.

In some of the case studies CAB members have been working together prior to OpenNESS which has increased the level of trust. One of the cases (CS12) noted that they have set general rules to balance power inequalities within the CAB.

36


2.5.4. Participation and recognition of (emerging) conflictsOne of the sessions during the WP5 workshop in Edinburgh (Nov 2014) was on participation and conflict management in the process of operationalizing ecosystem services. A simple model was presented that shows main indicators of (emerging) conflicts in stakeholder processes: disagreement on facts, knowledge and solutions; conflicting principles; and conflicting interests (Fig. 2.10). Being sensitive to the indicators of (emerging) conflicts provides the opportunity to manage conflicts in an early stage or - in other words - to ‘keep ahead of developments’.

Figure 2.10 Indicators of (emerging) conflicts in stakeholder processes.

Prior to the Edinburgh workshop, a short questionnaire was sent around to the CS to find out whether these indicators are visible in the OpenNESS case studies. We found out that most OpenNESS case studies are in an early stage of participation with the CAB. Most coordinators notice they do not see the presence of indicators of (emerging) conflicts (yet). However, cases that have involved stakeholders already notice some indicators.

In most cases (N=20), there was a general agreement on facts and knowledge (Fig 2.11). However, in 2 cases case coordinators notice there is (some) disagreement on facts and knowledge in the CAB.

37


Figure 2.11: Agreement on facts and knowledge in OpenNESS case studies (N= 25).

Harmonious communication is one of the indicators of agreement on principles (Fig 2.12). Communication is harmonious in most cases (N=18). In three cases communication is not always harmonious. In some cases, power asymmetries were noticed and addressed, for example between nature and economic land use (e.g. timber production).

Figure 2.12: Harmonious communication in OpenNESS case studies (N= 25).

Agreement on solutions is one of the indicators of agreement on interests (Fig 2.13). A similar picture emerges as for the two other indicators. In 18 cases, there is a general agreement on solutions, while in one case there is clearly disagreement on solutions. For six cases, there are not sure (yet) whether there will be agreement on solutions in the CAB.

Figure 2.13: Agreement on solutions in OpenNESS case studies (N= 25).

Most cases have no problem in mobilizing the relevant stakeholders (Fig. 2.14). Three cases notice it is difficult to involve all relevant stakeholders within the project (CAB), while two cases explicitly note that participation is difficult due to poor knowledge and/or lacking consideration on ES. Three other cases are not sure whether they will be able to include all relevant stakeholders.

38


Figure 2.14: Mobilization in OpenNESS case studies (N= 25).

39


3.Tools used 3.1 Compilation of ES tools used per case study WP3 and WP4 had focused the training of case study representatives on a limited number of tools in order to manage the needs and expectations of such a diverse set of case studies; understandable therefore these where the most commonly tested tools in the case studies.

3.1.1 Biophysical ToolsThe specific question asked in relation to the biophysical methods was: “What level of interest do you have in using the following WP3 methods within your case study or sub-project?’ Codified responses were:'0 – Not applying the method to this case study; 1 – Interested in potentially using the method but am not currently working on it; 2 – Currently working with the method. Initial stages; 3 – Advanced working with the method. Have preliminary results; 4 – Finished working with the method. Have final results.”The Spreadsheet/GIS, Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN) and ESTIMAP are the most common tools being tested in of the sub-projects (Fig 3.1) followed by QuickScan and INVEST while State Transmission Models (STM) and Global/European overview datasets are currently not being tested widely. In future reporting we will ascertain the reasons in more depth but it is recognised that the STM models are data demanding while the Global/European model has only recently been finalized and available for testing. In addition this model is only relevant for case studies with a high impact of import and/or exported goods.The stage of testing varied considerable (Fig 3.1) with only two sub-projects reporting they had completed testing one of the six tools recommended by WP3. These were CS01 Sustainable urban planning, Finland for ESTIMAP and CS10 Sierra Nevada National Park management, Spain for INVEST. In addition CS10 and CS27 Urban planning in Barcelona, Spain both reported completing another method not explicitly recommended by WP3 ‘Attempting to link land valuation directly to land cover’. The Spreadsheet/GIS methodology is the most popular method being tested and in many ways could be considered the most simple of the methods recommended by WP3. INVEST and ESTIMAP are complex models and the case study research leaders frequently scored their interest to test but several commented that a lack of skills and resources made it unlikely they would be able to test these models within the lifetime of the project. A larger proportion of sub-projects reported they were actually testing ESTIMAP (16% scored as currently or advanced testing of method) compared with INVEST (6%). This may reflect the direct involvement by WP3 trainers in the case studies.

40


Spreadsheet/GIS

ESTIMAP

BBN

QuickScan

Invest

STM

Global/European overview datasets

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Number of sub-projects

Completed testingAdvanced testing Currently testingInterested

Figure 3.1: The stage of testing the six tools recommended by WP3 within the different sub-projects (n= 67).

3.1.2 Valuation and decision-support methodsThe case study research leaders also reported the valuation and decision-support methods they were testing. The specific question was: ‘Are you intending to use the following valuation and decision-support methods? The responses where coded as '0 – Not applying in this case study; 1 – Interested in potentially using but not currently working on it; 2 – Currently working with it. Initial stages; 3 – Advanced working. Have preliminary results; 4 – Finished work, have final results.Although it was reported that case studies would like to test many of the methods, the majority were only testing a few methods (Fig 3.3). ES-Mapping was the most popular method with 42% of the sub-projects reporting that they were initial, advanced or completed stage. Preference assessment was the second most popular method with 24% of the sub-projects already involved. The case study CS03 Urban green space plans in and around Oslo has 9 sub-projects and was the most advanced case study, reporting that they had completed seven of the methods for Sub-project 1 (Scoping study of urban ES values) and 5 for sub-project 2 (Four local ES valuation case studies for Future Cities Project) (see narrative for details). In total 6 case studies were testing other valuation and decision-support methods, such as photo series analysis (CS11 & CS22), ECOPLAN Quickscan (CS13 & CS18), Pollinator and pollination assessment/ Attempting to link pollination valuation directly to forest cover (CS26), direct observation during the visits to the properties (CS26), performance of semi-structured interviews with the producers and/or landowners. (CS26), and ES spatial mismatch (CS27). Some of this methods were also presented and discussed during the workshop in Edinburgh (Nov 2014).

41


ES_Mapping

Preference assessment

BBN for decision support

Revealed preference

Stated preference

Deliberative assessment

Market based valuation

Time Use

MCDA

Value Transfer

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45No of sub-projects

FinishedAdvancedOn-goingInterested

Figure 3.2: The stage of testing valuation and decision-support recommended by WP4 within the different sub-projects (n= 67).

3.1.3. Effectiveness of mechanisms and instruments for sustainable management of ecosystemsInformation on the mechanisms and instruments used was also collected. The case study research leaders were asked: ‘Are you intending to use the following methods and instruments within your case study? And asked to score 5 methods or provide information on some other method or instrument. They were asked to rank how advanced their work was codified as '0 – Not applying in this case study; 1 – Interested in potentially using but not currently working on it; 2 – Currently working with it. Initial stages; 3 – Advanced working. Have preliminary results; 4 – Finished work. Have final results’.None of the case studies reported being advanced or finished working on any of the suggested methods and instruments. Many of the case studies were interested but only 8 sub-projects reported actually being currently engaged using any of the methods (Fig. 3.3). There seems to be the highest interest in direct markets, voluntary price signals (e.g. ecolabelling), and tradeable permits (e.g. habitat banking).

42


Direct markets (e.g. ecotourism)

Reverse auctions (e.g. PES)

Voluntary price signals (e.g. ecolabelling)

Regulatory price signals (e.g. agri-env schemes)

Tradeable permits (e.g. habitat banking)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20No of sub-projects

Initial stage Potentially

Figure 3.3: Number of case studies reporting that are initial stages or intending to test the effectiveness of mechanisms and instruments (n=67).

3.1.4 ScenariosApproximately half the sub-projects considered (possibly and definitely) that they would test OpenNESS scenarios or other scenarios (Table 3.1). About 19 sub-projects are definitely going to use others scenario’s, while only 6 case studies are surely will use the OpenNESS scenarios.

Table 3.1 Number of sub-projects potentially or definitely applying scenarios (n= 67?)

Use of scenario’s in the Definitely Possibly

OpenNESS Scenarios 6 26

Other scenarios 19 19

3.1.5. Joint research activitiesThere is a great deal of commonality in the work of the case studies and this has been harnessed through the initiative of the Joint Research Activities (JRA). In effect, over the last year case study research leaders have been thinking about the connections with other case studies because of a common issue, method or landscapes. This idea was first launched at the Budapest annual meeting (March 2014), and that time 9 Joint research ides were proposed. During the WP5 meeting in Edinburgh 17-19th November 2014, 11 ideas for JRAs have been identified (Fig. 3.4), and time was devoted to working forward some of these ideas. The expectation is that case studies will compare results and hopefully deliver a joint peer reviewed paper or presentation at future meetings. The list of 11 JRAs was suggested in the matrix with the specific question: ‘ To what extent are you intending to be involved with the following joint research activities? Please see appropriate folder on extranet for details of each. The responses were coded as 0 the CS will not be involved; 1 the CS is possibly interested in being involved; 2 the CS would definitely like to being involved; 3 the CS is already involved?’

43


There is a great deal of interest by case study participants to actively engage in knowledge exchange between case studies in a structured manner as evidenced in Fig. 3.4. The JRAs are however at different stages. For example 17 of the 67 sub-project felt that the JRA ‘Forest multifunctional system & adapting management’ was relevant to their work and scored that they are/will actively be involved this JRA. While the JRA focused on ‘Tools for discussing ESS win-wins and trade-offs’ was considered of interest for over 50% of the sub-projects, but as yet no one is actively involved in this JRA as it was first introduced to the case study research leaders at Edinburgh and many are not yet sure what is involved. During the survey, another JRA was proposed: ‘Photoseries analysis for assessing ecosystem cultural services’, so more sub-projects might be interested as well.It is too early to tell which if these JRAs will produce outputs and/or peer reviewed paper(s), but the action of stilling together and discussing around a specific topic was perceived very useful by case study research leaders.

Figure 3.4: Number of sub-projects involved or interested in joint research activities (JRA) (n=67?).

3.2 Reason for tool selection Reasons for the selection of models/tools/methods? (Q26c)A wide spectrum of models, tools and methods (in different combinations) will be used in all the subprojects. Different reasons for the use of a particular method have been mentioned (Table 3.2). Some of these reasons might be based on perceived benefits of the tools. A more detailed (participatory) evaluation of the models, tools and methods will be necessary afterwards (e.g. when results are available and have been presented to CAB and/or other stakeholders involved) in order to see if the tools used were indeed the most appropriate ones for the purposes mentioned and to see what feedback is given on the results.Although for most of the sub-project tools and methods have been selected, in other sub-projects there was still some hesitation and other options will be taken into account first (before the CAB will

44


be consulted). In some of the subprojects, information about methods and tools was not yet available.

Table 3.2: Reasons for selecting certain ES/NC tool or method in the sub-projects.

Related success indicator of tools/models

Reasons mentioned for tool selection

The (perceived) usefulness of a tool/model/method:

A tool/method is perceived as the most appropriate tool (e.g. “fit for purpose”, “suitability of the tool” in general, etc.).

Accurateness: The accurateness of the tools/methods (e.g. “the methods provide robust data to investigate the perception of stakeholders regarding the ESS”, “models are calibrated with specific regional data”, etc.).

The potential to address the uncertainties in the impact evaluations (e.g. “the tool can be used with imperfect data sources”, etc.).

Ease of use: The ease of use of particular tools/methods (e.g. “easy to apply”, “the tools is relatively easy”, “the method uses a pragmatic, cost effective way of gathering/integrating/analyzing the required data”, “minimum data collection required”, “easy to implement in other tools/methods”, “a relatively simple method that fits with an analysis that is starting from scratch”, etc.).

Efficiency/Effectiveness: The fastness and/or effectiveness of particular tools/methods (e.g. “it is a very effective tool”, “it is a rapid assessment methodology, using available data”).

Flexibility: The flexibility of the tools/methods (e.g. “flexible integration of multiple criteria needed to integrate various kinds of ES within decision-making”, etc.).

Relevance of the results/outcomes:

The relevance of the outcomes (e.g. “the tool might give valuable insights for planning”, “we need to know how the decision makers can act on this”, etc.);

Comparability/Transferability of results:

The tools/methods provide in replicable results.

Acceptance of tools/models/methods:

The use of established and widely accepted models/tools (e.g. “the tools have been demonstrated in the literature as useful”, etc.).

Responsiveness to needs: The specific interest of (some of the) involved stakeholders in a particular tool/method and the results (e.g. “major stakeholder is keen to understand value of cultural services”, “CAB-demand”, “recreation is a key ES in case study area”, etc.).

The need to fully understand the links and conflicts between key stakeholders (since the case study area as long history of conflicts regarding conservation).

The need for refinement of existing tool/methods in terms of an adaptation to the ES-concept or to the ES-cascade-model.

The need for refinement of (earlier) basic valuation results.

The need for a lower cost system for assessing the function of green spaces.

Completeness: The ability to show the different values of ecosystem services according to different dimensions (e.g. social, ecologic and economic).

Functionality: The ability to integrate many sources of information (e.g. “the tool is capable of integrating all the various aspects of the problem”, “inclusion

45


of the opinion of local citizens”, “the method incorporates social aspects in conservation”, “integration of scientific or technical knowledge and local or experiential knowledge”, “the tools helps us to understand how different members of the community of the same geographical area have varied preferences based on their dependence on the NC and ES”, “integration of bio-physical and economic mapping”, etc.).

The suitability of the tools/methods to be used for specific ES (e.g. pollination, air quality, etc.).

The ability to develop scenarios (e.g. “tool can be used to propose future scenarios of change in the model).

The ability to identify and monitor critical species (e.g. nature conservation purposes).

The tool provides spatially explicit models to simulate the dynamics of an environmental system.

Functionality – Facilitating communication/participation:

The tool creates understandable outputs (e.g. “maps that are understandable by a wide range of stakeholders”, “the tool provides an output which is easy to understand and can be utilized by a variety of stakeholders”, etc.).

Participatory tool that is suitable for fostering communication, discussion and learning processes among different stakeholders (e.g. “the method builds on public engagement, fosters social learning, helps develop a common future vision which can be built into local and regional land use plans”, “appropriate for understanding the key problems and for developing a strategy to reverse the process of degradation through community participation”, etc.).

The ability to go in-depth in the different discourses supported by different stakeholders.

The ability to visualize ES by photos or drawings (e.g. “visualization makes it easier to express feelings and opinions and is a frequently used tool in education”).

The degree of participation in the methods (e.g. “participative way of selection process” in preference assessments and deliberative valuations, “suitability for participative planning”, “identification of key ES in a deliberative way”, etc.).

Functionality – Improving understanding:

The ability to help us understand how the community links their well-being with different ES.

The tools allows to get a better understanding of the current thinking on ES and NC amongst stakeholders (e.g. “understanding the perspective of the workshop participants”).

The ability of a tool/method to raise awareness (e.g. “raising awareness about how the ES are available, about the boundaries and abut impact on ES (by involving the community)”, “the method will improve the understanding of stakeholders on the Cascade model”, etc.).

The tools allow to get a better understanding of how an organization is functioning (e.g. forest management organization).

The ability of a tool to help us understand the perception of the people and why they do prefer certain species over other (e.g. nature conservation purposes).

Available expertise: The research team had previous expertise with a particular tool/method (incl. existing familiarity with GIS) or the opportunity to get support from

46


OpenNESS-partners with specific expertise.

Organizational support: Possible synergies (e.g. “possible cooperation with other on-going project”, “tool is available in the consortium we are working together with”, etc.).

Other reasons: Pragmatic reasons such as the availability of (appropriate) data.

Pragmatic reasons such as a Phd-candidate or a student who is going to do the study (and/or the study is already available and can be used as input for new work or a newly developed method now needs implementation).

Pragmatic reasons such as the fact that a particular sub-module is already under development.

The opportunity to focus on an existing knowledge gap (e.g. “filling a gap in valuation literature”, “there is very little detail on the coastal areas”, “valuation for the region where this kind of data in unavailable”, etc.).

Creation of new opportunities (e.g. “technological innovation and novel applications”, “the development of a new app researchers and the society in general”, “it is a chance to develop new alternatives of valuation”, “building further on existing methodologies”, “testing applicability of the methods”, “testing existing methodologies in a new context”, “comparison of different models/tools/methods”, “the potential for benchmarking with other cities”, etc.).

The use of state-of-the-art tools/methods (e.g. “it’s an advanced valuation tool”).

3.3 Initial evaluation of OpenNESS case study & stakeholders partner First reactions from OpenNESS case study partners and from stakeholders (Q26e-f)For most of the subprojects, it was yet too early to draw robust conclusions about the use of the tools/methods already. In other cases, there were some (preliminary) reactions. Positive first reactions and/or rather sceptical or critical (first) impressions from OpenNESS case study partners that have been gathered are summarized in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Initial feedback from partners and stakeholders on used ES/NC tool or method in the sub-projects (n= 67?).

Methods Feedback from partners Feedback from stakeholders

ES mapping (not defined): (Various models and maps of ES, with GIS data layers, expert knowledge and/or a participatory process used as input data.)

“Initially positive.”

“ES demand mapping methods are not as well established as supply, but its use is critical in a densely populated area […].”

“Identified as good means to explore suitability and scenarios but not considered within WP3 methods. For the case study based on CAB consultation, only spatial tools are acceptable in order to target planning and

“Stakeholders will participate on the inputs and are interested in the results.”

“Very positive, evaluation of the first conflicts maps already done.”

“When we presented the results of ecosystem services mapping to the protected area management team, the reaction was very positive.”

47


operationalization of ES and future visions. This tool fulfills the expectations for the region, two workshops with the CAB already took place to incorporate feedbacks and inputs.”

ES mapping - Expert systems:

“Positive.”

ES mapping – Spreadsheet/GIS:(Burkhard et al)

“Very easy tool to use – but scoring critical.”

“Questions regarding the validity of the Burkhard matrix and its adjustment to local conditions and ecosystems were raised.”

“Useful tool, easy to use.” (2x)

“The results were considered very interesting by the stakeholders mainly, the park manager.”

“[…] initial presentation of some of the maps where considered useful by stakeholders.”

ES mapping - Spreadsheet/GIS methods - GreenFRAME/Burkhard hybrid method

“The approach seems relatively easy to apply. Also it allows stakeholder views to be included (during the scoring process).” (2x)

ES mapping - Mapping economic value of land cover data:

“Economic information is commercially sensitive, but by focusing on land cover it meant that economic information of actual business was not needed. But it is too early to tell if this method provides sufficiently accurate information.”

“Stakeholders found the idea worthy of pursuit – too early to tell if useful.”

ESTIMAP: “[…] data collection phase went well and park officials scored model parameters.”

“Recreation: flexible model and easy to understand for stakeholders. Scoring is critical. Air quality: complex model, but preliminary results are promising.”

“In general good support. We presented the most up-to-date version of the map at a recent CAB meeting. In general there was a lot of support for using the map and the CAB could see potential for its use. There were questions raised about what exactly the map represented (e.g. general vs. nature-based recreation) and the uncertainties in the model behind the map, especially for mapping at finer resolution. This feedback has been incorporated into the model.”

“Positive for recreation. Scoring should be refined in a second stage. Not applicable yet for air quality regulation.”

Stakeholders have seen the method beneficial and the results will be considered in planning.

“Park officials are very interested in the tool and were willing to score model inputs.”

48


InVEST: “The INVEST tools have been identified as complex.”

QuickScan: “The tool is potentially very powerful, but the time frame for the workshop was not sufficient.”

“Not so easy to use as expected, many technical difficulties.”

“The workshop was a success with 11 local stakeholders attending and evaluating the tool. Questionnaires currently being analyzed.”

“Just a first test so far which was received well (by three well-trained stakeholders).”

“Positive feedback from stakeholders.” (2x)

QuickScan - ECOPLAN-Quickscan:

“The methodology and the ECOPLAN-Quickscan-results from another, similar project were presented to VLM. A lot of interesting feedback was gathered in order to fine-tune or adapt the tool if possible.”

“[Remark from the research team:] At the moment, the quickscan results were not yet presented to the wider group of stakeholders involved in the project. From the viewpoint of operationalization, it would be good to do so later on in the project.” (2x)

Public Participatory GIS (PPGIS):

“This method has caused a very positive reaction of OpenNESS partners in the training (developed by Ignacio Palomo and Berta Martín-López) in Edinburgh in November 2014.”

“The reaction was very positive and the focus groups and workshops were fun.”

Deliberative mapping: “The method […]did start an interesting discussion on the different views regarding ES.”

“This approach was considered very useful as it provided a valuable exercise of cooperation and learning between stakeholders.”

BBN (and Spatial BBN): “Initially positive.”

“[…] in general the parameterization is going well.”

“BBN tools have been identified as good means to explore suitability, values, conflicts, trade-offs.”

“Positive interaction so far.”

“[…] data presented to the stakeholders at the CAB meeting was only preliminary. They were supportive of the method and have provided a lot of useful data and expert advice to feed into the model.”


STM: “[…] data presented to the stakeholders at the CAB meeting was only preliminary. They were supportive of the method and have provided a lot of useful data and expert advice to feed into the model.”

MCDA: “Positive.” “Positive.”

Market based valuation: “Initially positive.” (2x)

Time use: “Initially positive.”

Preference assessment - Revealed preference:

“Preference assessment has been identified as one of the key

“Initially positive.”

49


methods in OpenNESS for valuing ecosystem services from a non-monetary point of view.”

Preference assessment: “Very well received by both natural and social scientists, although some shortcomings of the method were also identified.”

“Reactions of some stakeholders towards this type of research were very positive.”

“Results were found interesting and useful by CAB members.”

“Forest department is very much interested about the tool.”

Preference assessment (ESS demand elicitation via card game):

“The methodology for the interviews was presented to VLM and RLH. While they were a little bit skeptic about the ESS-card-game at first, afterwards the CAB was enthusiastic about the results, as they gained new insights. A point of attention that they mentioned was to have clear questions (in order to get good results with the ESS-card-game).”

“Very positive. People who were interviewed liked the ESS card game approach, and thought it was ‘fun’”.

Deliberative drawing/photo assessment (competition):

“Mixed expectations, needs lots of organization and the results can be difficult to interpret.”

“Both the CAB members and local school teachers are enthusiastic.”

Photo-elicitation surveys: “It was a good tool to address ES, but there were some difficulties related with the spatial detail (or lack of detail) in the assessment.”

“Stakeholders found the results very useful. The regulating services are still very challenging and sometimes difficult to assess.”

ES Conceptual Model (WP1): “Positive.” (2x)

“The cascade framework was a useful tool to start a conversion of the concept of ecosystem services.”

“It was difficult to classify and differentiate between: [1] Functions and Services. The services as suggested in the cascade model could be interpreted as functions by the practitioners [and 2] Services and Goods/ Benefits. Again the services as suggested in the cascade model were related to Goods and Benefits.” (2x)

Blue-green Factor (WP3): “Very positive.” “There is a potential for the BGF to be further developed and fine-tuned for other cities.”

Presence and absence scoring of ES(Dick et al 2013 and Kanisor et al 2012)

“The two lists were both published and therefore easy to present to the stakeholders.”

“Stakeholders found several of the regulating and ecological integrity indicators difficult to assess.”

Non-monetary valuation (not defined):

“They are happy, especially those researchers that collaborate with us.”

“Stakeholders are interested.”

Value transfer: “Skepticism to transferring values from other case study sites.”

50


Semantic network analysis: “[…] data collection phase went well.”

“Management team seems to be very interested in the results.”

Scenarios (participatory): “Stakeholders co-designed the scenarios in an pre-OpenNESS participatory process.”

“Still in the preparatory phase, but CAB members and invited local stakeholders look enthusiastic.”

Monitoring - Participatory Vegetation Monitoring:

“Forest department appreciates the method.”

“Forest department is keen to replicate in other areas.”

Surveys/Questionnaires: (in combination with ESM-App: see other tools)

“Stakeholders participated in survey; feedback was used to improve questionnaire.”

Interviews:(semi-structured)

“The farmers reaction were pretty positive.”

Q-study: “The reaction was very positive following interviewees comments during the exercise, because of its interactivity (panels and cards were used) and dynamic.”

Organizational analysis: “Forest department is keen to understand how the organization can function more effectively.”

Assessment of conflicts and trade-offs of sectorial and multilevel relevant policies objectives:

“Stakeholders are interested for analysis outputs.”

Meetings with decision-makers:

“The local government shows interest in our goal and it seems they are willing in the operationalization of the PES scheme.”

Visits:(technical visits to the rural properties and/or direct observation during the visits to the properties)

“The landowner was receptive and all of them took part in the visits.”

“The reaction was positive in most case. Although all producers have accepted the interviews, some of them preferred not to receive the direct observation visits in their properties.”

Other models/tools: Input for ES mapping through Backdating (1880’-2010), transitions matrices; Markov Chains, DINAMICA EGO, Weights of Evidence (weighted Bayes approach) (scenarios towards 2050)

“Identified as good means to explore suitability and scenarios but not considered within WP3 methods. For the case study based on CAB consultation only spatial tools are acceptable in order to target planning and operationalization of ES and future visions. This tool fulfills the expectations for the region, two workshops with the CAB already


51


took place to incorporate feedbacks and inputs.”

Other models/tools:A novel approach based on crowd-sourced information analysis and GIS)

“The data collection phase gave promising outputs.”

Other models/tools:SPECIES-model for Climate envelope modeling

“We have existing experience with the model and are aware of its advantages and limitations.”

Other models/tools:Biome-BGC terrestrial ecosystem model

“Several technical issues, slow model adaptation.”

Other models/tools:Eco Chain

“The forest department officials found the method useful.”

“Forest department is planning to replicate the model in other sites as well.”

Other models/tools:ESM-App (in combination with questionnaire)

“Stakeholders participated in survey; feedback was used to improve questionnaire.”

52


4.Lessens-learned from the case studiesAll the case studies were asked to summarize the most-important lessons-learned sofar as project is at the halfway point (December 2014) (Q3). It was a very open question, where CS had the freedom to answer the question (there was no limitation for text). All case studies, except 2 answered this question (N=25). We realize that this is an interim reflection of the case studies on the operationalization of ES concepts and tools. Nevertheless, we feel that some interesting themes are starting to appear. They are summarized in Table 4.1. In the below analysis, we are always indicating the case studies (CSxx) who phrased a certain lesson-learned.

Table 4.1: Topics emerging from the lessons-learned from the OpenNESS case studies related to the operationalization of ES concepts and tools (N=25, December 2014).

Stakeholder processes Context of application

ES communication and visualisation

Stakeholders attitude and understanding of ES

Stakeholder involvement Integration of different types of

knowledge

Policy environment Project phase

ES analysis Tool evaluation

Indicators Need for evidence Multiple valuation Spatial and temporal scales ES Synergies

Data/model requirements Tool usability

4.1. ES use in stakeholder processesMost of the lessons-learned relate to the use of ES concepts and tools in stakeholder processes. They can be sub-divided in 4 groups: The most frequent mentioned lessons–learned relate to stakeholder involvement while

operationalizing ES/NC concepts and tools. Several case studies emphasised the importance to include all relevant stakeholders in the research process, as it is expected to improve collaboration and to deliver more societal relevant results due to:

wider participation (CS12). better understanding expectations of researchers and policy-makers regarding the policy

applications and relevance of the ES concepts and valuation methods (CS3). overcoming resistance after a few meetings (CS26). attitude of the forest field staff changed by involving the community in conservation

(CS23). promoting dialogue and social learning (CS21). tools and knowledge will become more targeted and more applicable (CS21). more likely to respond to local needs (CS10, CS21). avoiding future social conflicts (CS10).

53


To ensure the process would continue from their own after the research project is finished, main stakeholders in the area need to be empowered (CS10,). Another strategy is used by the Belgian cases (C13, CS18) who work with on-going land-use planning projects, in this way they can make use of the existing consultation fora and the network among stakeholders. Main advantage is that the research results have an opportunity to be applied immediately, and that continuity of the project is guaranteed. On the other hand, stakeholder involvement is not always evident. Reasons are: skills required to organize and facilitate group discussions and communicating research results in a non-scientific language (CS12), time requirement for engaging with stakeholders (CS2,CS10, CS21, CS24), time requirement for engaging with on-going processes (CS13, CS18), lack of motivation by some local experts (CS12), lack of trust, lack of time, people do not like to present their views publicly, lack of knowledge of this new concept, unwillingness for changing existing rules (CS2).

The importance of integrating different types of knowledge to develop the ES tools and to apply the ES concepts in a useful and informative manner was emphasized by 7 case studies. This relate to working in an inter- and transdisciplinary way within the research team (CS12, CS16), as well as working with local experts and stakeholders (CS5, CS8, CS12, CS13, CS21, CS23). In the first place, case studies recognize that stakeholders knowledge that is complementary to existing scientific sources (CS8, CS12, CS21). This results in better understanding of socio-ecological system. For example: learning about ES perceptions and trends (CS4), better understanding regional governance and in this way better deal with potential bottlenecks in policy implementation (CS21), to spot those ES which are more difficult to understand and therefore harder to operationalize (CS21), good experience to many of us that many local inhabitants have a deep knowledge and moral commitment to their natural environment (CS12), different members of the community under the same coastal eco zone perceive their well-being differently (CS23). CS7 concludes that it is support the protected areas managers which are in permanent contact with the local communities, business owners, municipalities, tourists and different other stakeholders.In the second place, the interaction of knowledge results in new knowledge and tools. For example:

based on our initial field work and observations we are fine tuning the questionnaire for field work (CS23).

framework of a monitoring tool for supporting planning practices was reconsidered after a set of feedbacks (CS5).

community and forest field staff identify together some of the criteria to compare the changes of mangrove forest periodically (CS23).

keys to build up successful outputs and target bottom up solutions (CS5).

The third group lessons-learned relate to communication and visualisation of ES. Some cases emphasize the importance of clear concepts and good communication (CS16 and CS17). In contrast, other cases noticed that “wording” is not that important, as people already use ES but in their own terminology (CS26, CS4, CS27). Spatial representation of ES are crucial to target operationalization (CS5) and maps are a good way to illustrate the provision of ES, but the way of illustration need to be adapted depending on the type of stakeholder group (CS1). On the other hand, information that is not in spatial format is more difficult to assess by the different groups of stakeholders (CS5).

The forth group of lessons-learned relate to stakeholders attitude and/or understanding of ES. There were two different experiences among the CS: stakeholders of CS1 and CS10 were positive towards ES concept and methods. For example, planners of Sibbesborg (CS1) are willing to

54


incorporate ES thinking into the plans, and CAB members of CS15 easily understood ES. In CS26, the investigation of the public opinion in the municipality of Rio Claro revealed that the people are concerned with the environment, know the meaning of the ES, and are willing to pay for the PES provided by the rural areas. CS12 made interesting observations how non-scientist project participants interpreted the concept of ecosystem services. In contrast, other cases observed a lack of knowledge and/or interest in the ES concept (CS2 and CS21).

4.2. Context of applicationBoth the policy environment en phases of place-based projects have an important impact on the application of ES concepts and tools. The policy context impacts the use of ES in different ways. CS11 and CS21 indicate the

importance of conducive policies. On the other hand, CS9 and CS27 notes the complexity of the policy arena, as there are a wide range of regional and planning instruments affecting the case study areas. CS4 argues that sustainable planning and management require a change of paradigm-design and planning in line with nature and with focus on socio-ecological systems. In Slovakia, the current situation for ES concept implementation is considered not favourable due to: insufficient implementation in the planning and strategic documents, prevailing sectorial approach in the urban planning and decision making process, formal implementation of European directives and schemes with respect of ES framework (without understanding and following real goals and principles of this concept), and the crucial role of open spaces and urban vegetation for the urban environment quality is undervalued (CS2). This complexity may explain why some cases argue to distinguish situations where it is interesting to work with ES and in situations where it is not needed or desirable (CS10, CS19).

The phase of the regional projects also has an important impact on the possible application of ES. For example, in more-advanced projects, there is less room for influencing the decision-making process (CS10, CS13), but there is still opportunity to influence the operationalization of agreed visions (e.g. increase multifunctionality of certain land-use types, CS13).

4.3 Analysis of ecosystem servicesCertain approaches of ES analysis came back several times in the lessons-learned from the case studies: The operationalisation of ES is a complex process where practical and measureable indicators

should be designed. This is one of the way to go from theory to practice (CS10). Need to provide evidence of the delivery of ecosystems services, especially in small case studies

(CS15). Need for multiple valuation methods (CS2, CS3). The importance of considering multiple spatial, organizational and temporal scales in the

analysis was emphasized by 6 case studies (CS8, CS10, CS15, CS17, CS20, CS27). The following advantages were mentioned: most of the drivers of change come from supra-local scales (CS10). the spatial and temporal distance between the ecosystem and the different

users/beneficiaries of its services has implications on the stakeholders’ perspectives and on the investment costs (CS15).

knowledge and perspectives of CAB members are very complementary concerning the spatial dimension (national vs. local) (CS8).

55


However, in the case a new urban town structure (CS1), it remains to be seen how the importance of ES for future residents will be captured.

ES synergies : Consideration of synergies and co-benefits/multifunctionality from different ecosystems and ecosystem based interventions is seen crucial (CS4, CS13, CS26).

4.4. Tool evaluation High demand for high quality data is seen as a limitation for ES application (CS7, CS11, CS16,

CS22). On the other hand, management of data requires greater coordination than expected and requires a team with varied expertise (CS3, CS16). A special challenge is to deal with copyrighted data sources (CS3). Good cooperation with the CAB and stakeholders is essential when gathering this data (CS16).

Tool usability : Two success criteria for ES tools were highlighted: workability (CS12), and applicability to the case study region (CS8).

56


Annex 1

Case study report (December 2014)

Contribution to D5.2

ExplanationOverview of D5.2 templates

Deliverable 5.2 is expected to report the work conducted in the case studies and the plan for the coming year. The format was discussed at the WP5 meeting in Edinburgh on 17-18 th November 2014. This has resulted in this D5.2 template which is composed of three sections:

1. Questionnaire: A template with open questions focusing on understanding the social interactions in the case study and the plans for the coming year (this word document).

2. Matrix: A matrix (Excel spreadsheet) where characteristics of the case study can be codified (e.g. tool used, policies addressed etc). This will result in a database where all 27 case studies will be characterised in a standardized way, and which will be used to make case study summaries for diverse purposes including formulating our final WP5 deliverable (D5.4).

3. Narrative: Narrative explaining the rationale and results of the case study to date which can be used by many people to understand the work conducted in your case study. This will be an update of the WP5 Autumn 2014 report (word document). Max size is 4 pages/case. More extensive reports are of course welcome at the OpenNESS intranet. But as this deliverable will be read by the project officer, we have been requested that summaries of each case study limits to 4 pages max.

Envisaged structure of D5.2

i. Synthesis of case studies (based on the template (1) and the excel file (2))ii. The 27 case study reports (section 3)

iii. Overview of the Joint Research Activities (or JRA), which are being developed in WP5 and linked to WP1-4 research activities.

Definition of sub-projects when completing D5.2In order to make the collection and synthesis of information as accurate as possible, it may be necessary to report the work conducted in the case study as sub-projects. A sub-project is defined as a research activity in the case study with a specific objective (e.g. specific issue, conflict, opportunity, desired change) which often has a specific user group and focus at a specific scale. Tools and approaches will usually be selected based on the stated objective.

57

TURKELBOOM, Francis, 19/03/15,

This is not the latest version!!!


For example, in the Cairngorms Case study (CS9): The first sub-project will be an assessment of the recreational ecosystem services at the

level of the whole Cairngorms National Park. The users of the research results will be the park managers and the tool is ESTIMAP. The aim is to identify areas as hotspots for recreation and hotspots for biodiversity conservation.

The second subproject will focus on recreational activities in a sub-region of the Cairngorm National Park with the aim of valuing the recreational ecosystem services of Glenlivet Estate. For this sub-project we will use interviews, social media and GIS spreadsheet tools, and the user of this research will primarily be the estate managers .

It would not be sensible to report these two assessments together, as it would make interpretation of the results very difficult (i.e. the synthesis would not be able to determine that the economic valuation work was only conducted at a sub-regional level if they were reported as one project). If you have only 1 sub-project in your case study, then there is no distinction between project and sub-project. If you are not sure about this, please contact Jan and Francis.

How will case study leaders contribute to the completion of D5.2?1. Answer all the questions in the D5.2 narrative template (embedded in this document).

Report the work as a project or as several sub-projects, as best fits the work you are conducting in your case study area. Upload to the OpenNESS extranet in your case study folder in WP5 with your case study number added to this file name: ‘CSxx_D5.2_Questionnaire_’ in front of the file name and send also to Jan Dick ([email protected])

2. Complete the excel spreadsheet by entering the codes in the cells for your case study at project OR subproject level (please ensure that you number the sub-projects in exactly the same order as in section 1 i.e. the narrative template). Please do not add any rows to the spreadsheet because it will make synthesis across all 27 case studies difficult. Please use the ‘comments box’ at the end of every row to add any comments or explanation you think is relevant. Upload to the OpenNESS extranet in your case study folder in WP5 and send to Jan Dick ([email protected]). Please ensure ‘CSxx_D5.2_Matrix_’ is in front of the file name.

3. Update the activity report to WP5 (which you completed in the autumn, due 17 th Oct 2014) up to end December 2014. All revised reports should be uploaded in your case study folder on the extranet and clearly marked with ‘CSxx D5.2_Narrative_’ in the file name and send to Jan Dick ([email protected]). If there has not been much changed since then, then there will be no need to update. In that case, just rename the report with D5.2 in the title.

4. Please complete this work by 6st Jan 2015, or even earlier so you can enjoy an OpenNESS D5.2 free Christmas!!

58

mailto:[email protected]




XX (Name case)Case study Number X

Authors: …1….2

1 (affiliation)2 (affiliation)

Date of completion:

Case study research team funded by OpenNESS and their roles in the project

(please add more lines if there are more members in your team)

Name Role in project

Case study research leader

…

…

…

1. Purpose of your case study

1. Has the main (broad) objective of the case study changed since the D5.1 reporting?

No.

If yes, please provide details of why the change was necessary

2. In the context of your case study, what do you understand under ‘operationalization’ of ES/NC concepts and tools? What do you want to reach in your case study from an operationalization point of view at the end of OpenNESS project?

59


2. SUB-PROJECTS: Specific aspects or issues addressed in the OpenNESS case study

In your case study, it might be possible that there are more than one specific issue/conflict/ opportunity/desired change which will be studied. In this case, they can be considered as different sub-projects. See explanation at page 1-2. If you have only one project (no sub-projects) in your case study, then you have to fill in only one sub-project.

When reporting sub-projects, please number your sub-projects sequentially and maintain the same numbering system throughout this report and all future reporting. Please copy boxes for additional sub-projects.

SUB-PROJECT 1: Title of (sub)-project

3. Short description of (sub)-project:

4. The results of your research (sub)-project are expected to be useful only for certain phase(s) of the project planning cycle in your study area. If so, to which phases they will mainly contribute to?

Phase of the project(i.e. the project that your research is associated with in the case study) during the period of collaboration

Description of the project phase

Expected contribution of your research results of

(sub)-project2= high, 1= medium, 0= insignificant

Initiation phaseIdentifying stakeholder positions and

problem formulationResource mobilisationDevelopment of a (shared) vision for

the project areaProject planningProject implementationProject evaluationAwareness raisingOther (specify)

5. What is the desired short-term result or output (i.e. by the end of the OpenNESS project) of the (sub)-project?(e.g. research papers, conference presentation, new management plans, policies, regulations, management decisions,…)

60


6. What is the desired long-term impact or outcome of (sub)-project (beyond the scope of OpenNESS)?

7. Who was involved in the selection of this (sub)-project, and how was it decided?

8. Who is involved in the design of the (sub)-project?

9. Why was this (sub)-project selected for further investigation?

Arguments Score2= important

1= bit relevant 0= not important

Remarks

Connection to current policy practice/demand/targets

Connection to OpenNESS goals and expertise

Agreed by the CAB

Based on stakeholder consultation

Project researchers consider the sub-project to be important /interesting/promisingInterest amongst managers to maintain nature/biodiversity/ESTo support conflict resolution

Other:

To support societal-policy debate on an important current societal issueNeed for better understanding multi-interest decision makingOther:

Need for awareness raising with respect to the ES concept

61


Good opportunity for a ES tool testing in practice

Need for integration of ES in planning and management

Need for more information on specific ES

Other:

10. Which stakeholder groups will benefit from the results of this (sub)-project and which ones will be negatively affected?

Involved stakeholders in the (sub)-project, please add *

Stakeholders (potentially) affected by sub-project

Positive Negative Remarks

2= likely big impact1= likely limited impact

0= no likely impact

Local residents and local communitiesLand ownersAgricultural sectorFishery sectorForestry sectorRecreation and tourismConservationists and nature NGOsInvestors/private sectorSociety at largeNatural resources management authoritiesScientists and consultantsLocal decision makersPolicy makersEU and national governmentsOther:

11. ES/NC tool use in the sub-project

See below table

62


Selected ES/NC tool or model (starting, on-going or completed)

What is the key problem that you intend to address

with the tool/method?

Reason for selection? Selected bywho?

Reaction of OpenNESS case study partner(s)?

(if already applicable)

Reaction of stakeholders?

(if already applicable)Make reference to tools in excel spreadsheet which accompanies this template

How have stakeholders reacted to the tool/model? Have case studies found the outputs from the tool/model

useful for their problem? Would stakeholders be interested in using the tool/model in

an operational way? Did feedback from stakeholders on research results led to

adjustment of the research approach?

63


SUB-PROJECT 2: Title of sub-project If applicable, copy above boxes (p 4-7).

SUB-PROJECT 3: Title of sub-project If applicable, copy above boxes (p 4-7).

SUB-PROJECT N: Title of sub-project If applicable, copy above boxes (p 4-7).

64


3. What do you plan to do over the next 12 month (November 2014 – October 2015)

Action plans for the project are expected to be "SMART" (specific, measurable, acceptable, realistic and time-bound)?

12. Planning (SUB)-PROJECT 1: Title of sub-project

Planned activity

(research + process activities)

Objective Approach & methods

Timing Expected result Possible risks or obstacles

Remark

Planning SUB-PROJECT 2: Title of sub-project

If applicable, copy above boxes.

Planning SUB-PROJECT 3: Title of sub-project


Planning SUB-PROJECT N: Title of sub-project

65



66

4. Understanding stakeholder involvement and decision making process

We use here the term CAB, but if other stakeholders are involved, please indicate this.

In case the CAB-situation is very different for each sub-project, please copy these questions for each sub-project.

13. Have you already established a Case study Advisory Board (CAB)?If not, please explain your strategy over the next 12 months?

14. How would you characterize the nature of the CAB?

Involvement CAB members Interest *2= very active, 1= bit active, 0= not active

Influence *2= powerful, 1= limited

power, 0= no power

Remark(specify group)

Government high levelGovernment regional levelGovernment local levelSpatial plannerEnvironmental regulatorSectoral government agenciesEnterprises/private sectorAcademics/researchersFacilitating organisations (“boundary organisations”)Regional/National NGOsLocal interest NGO’sSector interest groups (e.g. farmer union)Organised citizens/land-users/land-ownersNon-organised citizens/land-users/land-ownersOther:

*: Interest and influence: More information in the stakeholder analysis manual (Budapest).

Role of CAB Score:2= important, 1= bit

relevant, 0= not important

Remark


Decision-makingPlanningFormulating binding adviceFormulating non-binding adviceThink-thankConsultation and exchange ideasProvision of informationOther:

15. Are there stakeholder(s) not represented in the CAB? If so, why?

16. Which of the CAB members have you worked with before OpenNESS ?

17. Who selected the CAB members ?

18. On which basis were the CAB members selected?

Reason for selection of CAB members Score2= important

1= bit important0= not important

Relevant organizations

Organizations responsible for planning and/or management and/or conservation in the area (or in the nearby surroundings) (e.g. water management, forest management, planners, decision makers)

Large experience in the topic and/or relevant professional background

Power to influence decisions over ecosystem services management and governance.Organisations that represent powerless stakeholders (e.g. to increase awareness about their issues and increase opportunity to include their needs in decision making)Organizations with a known or assumed interest in the area or in the themeOrganizations with a known or assumed interest in the ES/NC-approach

68


Involvement in collaborative structures that have been established in relation to the project area before OpenNESS startedTheir willingness to cooperate in the project

Previous working experience with particular stakeholders and/or good relationship with the case study research leadersRecommended by other stakeholders

Other:

Local stakeholders

Locally or regionally embedded organisations

Providers of (specific) ES in the area

Stakeholders with conflicting interests

Users of (specific) ES in the area(e.g. depending on ecosystem services for their livelihood, income and well-being)Other:

19. How are decisions made within the CAB? (e.g. democratic vote, consensus building,…).

20. Does the CAB have an official mandate to tackle the concerned topic?

21. Which organisation (in or outside the CAB) has the mandate to implement the actions decided/proposed by the CAB? (e.g. implement a management decision or create a new policy)

22. How many times have you met with the CAB since October 2013?

23. How you maintain record of the consultation steps and decisions made by the CAB and/or other stakeholder groups? (e.g. logbook, minutes of meetings,…)

24. Which process facilitation and interaction methods have been used to interact with the case study partners, and what is your opinion about these methods?

69


25. How do you perceive the evolution of the level of trust between the different CAB members?

26. How do you judge the process of participation and consultation in the case study?

Thanks for thoughtful contribution!

70

inbo€¦ · web viewwp5 second report: synthesis of case study reports deliverable d5.2 / wp5...

Documents