Governance of ecosystem services: a review of empirical literature

References

• Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Baumgärtner S, Fischer J, Hanspach J, Härdtle W, Heinrichs H, Klein AM, Lang DJ, Martens P, et al. 2014. Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecol Econ. 103:29–37. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adhikari S, Baral H. 2018. Governing forest ecosystem services for sustainable environmental governance: a review. Environments. 5(5):53. doi:10.3390/environments5050053.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albert C, von Haaren C, Othengrafen F, Krätzig S, Saathoff W. 2017. Scaling policy conflicts in ecosystem services governance: a framework for spatial analysis. J Environ Policy Plann. 19(5):574–592. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2015.1075194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albrecht E, Ratamäki O. 2016. Effective arguments for ecosystem services in biodiversity conservation – a case study on finnish peatland conservation. Ecosyst Serv. 22:41–50. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton DN, Benavides K, Chacon-Cascante A, Le Coq J-F, Quiros MM, Porras I, Primmer E, Ring I. 2017. Payments for ecosystem services as a policy mix: demonstrating the institutional analysis and development framework on conservation policy instruments: discuss payments for ecosystem services as a policy mix. Environ Policy Governance. 27(5):404–421. doi:10.1002/eet.1769.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton DN, Blumentrath S, Rusch G. 2013. Policyscape—A spatially explicit evaluation of voluntary conservation in a policy mix for biodiversity conservation in Norway. Soc Nat Resour. 26(10):1185–1201. doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.799727.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton DN, Kelemen E, Dick J, Martin-Lopez B, Gómez-Baggethun E, Jacobs S, Hendriks CMA, Termansen M, García- Llorente M, Primmer E, et al. 2018. (dis) integrated valuation – assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support. Ecosyst Serv. 29:529–541. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bebbington DH. 2013. Extraction, inequality and indigenous peoples: insights from Bolivia. Environ Sci Policy. 33:438–446. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck S, Borie M, Chilvers J, Esguerra A, Heubach K, Hulme M, Lidskog R, Lövbrand E, Marquard E, Miller C, et al. 2014. Towards a reflexive turn in the governance of global environmental expertise. The cases of the IPCC and the IPBES. GAIA - Ecol Perspect Sci Soc. 23(2):80–87. doi:10.14512/gaia.23.2.4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett EM, Solan M, Biggs R, Mcphearson T, Norström AV, Olsson P, Pereira L, Peterson GD, Raudsepp-hearne C, Biermann F, et al. 2016. Bright spots : seeds of a good Anthropocene. Front Ecol Environ. 14(8):441–448. doi:10.1002/fee.1309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binder CR, Hinkel J, Bots PWG, Pahl-Wostl C. 2013. Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc. 18:4. doi:10.5751/ES-05551-180426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borgström S, Elmqvist T, Angelstam P, Alfsen-Norodom C. 2006. Scale mismatches in management of urban landscapes. Ecol Soc. 11(2):16. doi:10.5751/ES-01819-110216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Börner J, Wunder S, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S, Tito MR, Pereira L, Nascimento N. 2010. Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: scope and equity implications. Ecol Econ. 69(6):1272–1282. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Newig J, Reinert F, Abson DJ, von Wehrden H. 2013. A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol Econ. 92:1–15. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burkhard B, de Groot R, Costanza R, Seppelt R, Jørgensen SE, Potschin M. 2012. Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Indic. 21:1–6. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.03.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmen E, Watt A, Carvalho L, Dick J, Fazey I, Garcia-Blanco G, Grizzetti B, Hauck J, Izakovicova Z, Kopperoinen L, et al. 2018. Knowledge needs for the operationalisation of the concept of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv. 29:441–451. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter SR, Bennett EM, Peterson GD. 2006. Scenarios for ecosystem services: an overview. Ecol Soc. 11(1):art29. doi:10.5751/ES-01610-110129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cash DW, Adger WN, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Pritchard L, Young OR. 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc. 11(2):8. doi:10.5751/ES-01759-110208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan KM, Gould RK, Pascual U. 2018. Relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about? Current Opin Environ Sustain. 35:A1–A7. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.11.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K, Chapman M, Díaz S, Gómez-Baggethun E, Gould R, Hannahs N, Jax K, Klain S, et al. 2016. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 113(6):1462–1465. doi:10.1073/pnas.1525002113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapin FS, Sommerkorn M, Robards MD, Hillmer-Pegram K. 2015. Ecosystem stewardship: a resilience framework for arctic conservation. Global Environ Change. 34:207–217. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaudhary S, McGregor A, Houston D, Chettri N. 2015. The evolution of ecosystem services: a time series and discourse-centered analysis. Environ Sci Policy. 54:25–34. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cinner JE, Huchery C, MacNeil MA, Graham NAJ, McClanahan TR, Maina J, Maire E, Kittinger JN, Hicks CC, Mora C, et al. 2016. Bright spots among the world’s coral reefs. Nature. 535(7612):416–419. doi:10.1038/nature18607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connolly JJ, Svendsen ES, Fisher DR, Campbell LK. 2013. Organizing urban ecosystem services through environmental stewardship governance in New York City. Landsc Urban Plan. 109(1):76–84. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.07.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cork SJ, Peterson GD, Bennett EM, Petschel-Held G, Zurek M. 2006. Synthesis of the storylines. Ecol Soc. 12(2):11. doi:10.5751/ES-01798-110211.
   Google Scholar
• Costanza R, D’Arge R, de Groot RS, Farber SC, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 387(6630):253–260. doi:10.1038/387253a0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costanza R, de Groot R, Braat L, Kubiszewski I, Fioramonti L, Sutton P, Farber S, Grasso M. 2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst Serv. 28:1–16. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cvitanovic C, Hobday AJ. 2018. Building optimism at the environmental science-policy-practice interface through the study of bright spots. Nat Commun. 9(1):3466. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05977-w.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• de Groot RS, Wilson M, Boumans RMJ. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ. 41(3):393–408. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, et al. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework — connecting nature and people. Current Opin Environ Sustain. 14:1–16. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R, Chan KMA, Baste IA, Brauman KA, et al. 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science. 359(6373):270–272. doi:10.1126/science.aap8826.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Droste N, D’Amato D, Goddard JJ. 2018. Where communities intermingle, diversity grows – the evolution of topics in ecosystem service research. PLoS ONE. 13(9):7–8. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0204749.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ekroos J, Leventon J, Fischer J, Newig J, Smith HG. 2017. Embedding evidence on conservation interventions within a context of multilevel governance. Conserv Lett. 10(1):139–145. doi:10.1111/conl.12225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ernstson H, Barthel S, Andersson E, Borgström S. 2010. Scale-crossing brokers and network governance of urban ecosystem services: the case of stockholm. Ecol Soc. 15(4):18. doi:10.5751/ES-03692-150428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folke C, Biggs R, Norström AV, Reyers B, Rockström J. 2016. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecol Soc. 21(3):art41. doi:10.5751/ES-08748-210341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gómez-Baggethun E, Kelemen E, Martín-López B, Palomo I, Montes C. 2013. Scale Misfit in ecosystem service governance as a source of environmental conflict. Soc Nat Resour. 26(10):1202–1216. doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.820817.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gómez-Baggethun E, Muradian R. 2015. In markets we trust? Setting the boundaries of market-based instruments in ecosystem services governance. Ecol Econ. 117:217–224. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh S, Hart G. June 2015. Mainstreaming ecosystem services into policy and decision-making: lessons from New Zealand’s journey. Int J Biodivers Sci, Ecosyst Serv Manage 11(3):1–11. doi:10.1080/21513732.2015.1042523.
   Google Scholar
• Guerry AD, Polasky S, Lubchenco J, Chaplin-Kramer R, Daily GC, Griffin R, Ruckelshaus M, Bateman IJ, Duraiappah A, Elmqvist T, et al. 2015. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to practice. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 112(24):7348–7355. doi:10.1073/pnas.1503751112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haines-Young R, Potschin M. 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli DG, Frid CLJ, editors. Ecosystem ecology: a new synthesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; p. 110–139.
   Google Scholar
• Hanna DEL, Tomscha SA, Ouellet Dallaire C, Bennett EM. 2018. A review of riverine ecosystem service quantification: research gaps and recommendations. J Appl Ecol. 55(3):1299–1311. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13045.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauck J, Görg C, Varjopuro R, Ratamäki O, Jax K. 2013. Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: some stakeholder perspectives. Environ Sci Policy. 25:13–21. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.08.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huth N, Possingham HP. 2011. Basic ecological theory can inform habitat restoration for woodland birds. J Appl Ecol. 48(2):293–300. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01936.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IPBES. 2018. Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bonn (Germany). M. Fischer, M. Rounsevell, A. Torre-Marin Rando, A. Mader, A. Church, M. Elbakidze, V. Elias, T. Hahn, P. A. Harrison, J. Hauck, B. Martin-Lopez, I. Ring, C. Sandström, I. Sousa Pinto, P. Visconti, N. E. Zimmermann, and M. Christie, editors. Bonn, Germany: IPBES secretariat; p. 48. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3237428.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs S, Dendoncker N, Martín-López B, Barton DN, Gomez-Baggethun E, Boeraeve F, McGrath FL, Vierikko K, Geneletti D, Sevecke KJ, et al. 2016. A new valuation school: integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosyst Serv. 22:213–220. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jax K, Furman E, Saarikoski H, Barton DN, Delbaere B, Dick J, Duke G, Görg C, Gómez-Baggethun E, Harrison PA, et al. 2018. Handling a messy world: lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational. Ecosyst Serv. 29:415–427. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kabisch N. 2015. Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space planning—The case of Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy. 42:557–567. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.09.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaye-Zwiebel E, King E. 2014. Kenyan pastoralist societies in transition: varying perceptions of the value of ecosystem services. Ecol Soc. 19(3):art17. doi:10.5751/ES-06753-190317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keune H, Bauler T, Wittmer H. 2013. Ecosystem services governance: managing complexity? In: Jacobs S, Dendoncker N, Keune H, editors. Ecosystem services: global issues, local practices. Amsterdam (Boston, Heidelberg, London, New York, Oxford, Paris, San Diego, San Fransico, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo): Elsevier; p. 135–155.
   Google Scholar
• Kooiman J. 2003. Governing as governance. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Laurans Y, Rankovic A, Billé R, Pirard R, Mermet L. 2013. Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: questioning a literature blindspot. J Environ Manage. 119:208–219. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lautenbach S, Mupepele A-C, Dormann CF, Lee H, Schmidt S, Scholte SSK, Seppelt R, van Teeffelen AJA, Verhagen W, Volk M. 2019. Blind spots in ecosystem services research and challenges for implementation. Reg Environ Change. 19(8):2151–2172. doi:10.1007/s10113-018-1457-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legagneux P, Casajus N, Cazelles K, Chevallier C, Chevrinais M, Guéry L, Jacquet C, Jaffré M, Naud M-J, Noisette F, et al. 2018. Our house is burning: discrepancy in climate change vs. biodiversity coverage in the media as compared to scientific literature. Front Ecol Evol. 5. doi:10.3389/fevo.2017.00175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leimona B, van Noordwijk M, de Groot R, Leemans R. 2015. Fairly efficient, efficiently fair: lessons from designing and testing payment schemes for ecosystem services in Asia. Ecosyst Serv. 12:16–28. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lennox E, Gowdy J. 2014. Ecosystem governance in a highland village in Peru: facing the challenges of globalization and climate change. Ecosyst Serv. 10:155–163. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li R, van den Brink M, Woltjer J. 2016. Rules for the governance of coastal and marine ecosystem services: an evaluative framework based on the IAD framework. Land Use Policy. 59:298–309. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.09.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Löfmarck E, Lidskog R. 2017. Bumping against the boundary: IPBES and the knowledge divide. Environ Sci Policy. 69:22–28. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.12.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loft L, Mann C, Hansjürgens B. 2015. Challenges in ecosystem services governance: multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities. Ecosyst Serv. 16:150–157. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mascarenhas A, Ramos TB, Haase D, Santos R. 2014. Integration of ecosystem services in spatial planning: a survey on regional planners’ views. Landsc Ecol. 29(8):1287–1300. doi:10.1007/s10980-014-0012-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meadowcroft J. 2002. Politics and scale: some implications for environmental governance. Landsc Urban Plan. 61(2–4):169–179. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00111-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: general synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press and World Resources Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Muradian R, Gómez-Baggethun E. 2021. Beyond ecosystem services and nature’s contributions: is it time to leave utilitarian environmentalism behind? Ecol Econ. 185:107038. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahuelhual L, Saavedra G, Henríquez F, Benra F, Vergara X, Perugache C, Hasen F. 2018. Opportunities and limits to ecosystem services governance in developing countries and indigenous territories: the case of water supply in Southern Chile. Environ Sci Policy. 86:11–18. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.04.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newig J, Fritsch O. 2009. Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level - and effective? Environ Policy Governance. 19(3):197–214. doi:10.1002/eet.509.
   Google Scholar
• Olsson P, Folke C, Hughes TP. 2008. Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 105(28):9489–9494. doi:10.1073/pnas.0706905105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsson P, Gunderson LH, Carpenter SR, Ryan P, Lebel L, Folke C, Holling CS. 2006. Shooting the rapids : navigating transitions to A. Ecol Soc. 11(1):18. doi:10.5751/ES-01595-110118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Sci (New York, NY). 325(5939):419–422. doi:10.1126/science.1172133.
   Google Scholar
• Paavola J, Hubacek K. 2013. Ecosystem services, governance, and stakeholder participation: an introduction. Ecol Soc. 18(4):art42. doi:10.5751/ES-06019-180442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pahl-Wostl C. 2009. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environ Change. 19(3):354–365. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paloniemi R, Vilja V. 2009. Changing ecological and cultural states and preferences of nature conservation policy: the case of nature values trade in South-Western Finland. J Rural Stud. 25(1):87–97. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.06.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partelow S. 2018. A review of the social-ecological systems framework: applications, methods, modifications, and challenges. Ecol Soc. 23(4):art36. doi:10.5751/ES-10594-230436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partelow S, Winkler KJ. 2016. Interlinking ecosystem services and Ostrom’s framework through orientation in sustainability research. Ecol Soc. 21(3):art27. doi:10.5751/ES-08524-210327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pasgaard M, Van Hecken G, Ehammer A, Strange N. 2017. Unfolding scientific expertise and security in the changing governance of ecosystem services. Geoforum. 84:354–367. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potschin-Young M, Haines-Young R, Görg C, Heink U, Jax K, Schleyer C. 2018. Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: reading the ecosystem service cascade. Ecosyst Serv. 29:428–440. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Primmer E. 2011. Analysis of institutional adaptation: integration of biodiversity conservation into forestry. J Clean Prod. 19(16):1822–1832. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.04.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Primmer E, Jokinen P, Blicharska M, Barton DN, Bugter R, Potschin M. 2015. Governance of ecosystem services: a framework for empirical analysis. Ecosyst Serv. 16:158–166. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ring I, Barton DN. 2015. Economic instruments in policy mixes for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem governance. In: Martinez-Alier J, editor. Handbook of ecological economics. Glos, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing; p. 413–449.
   Google Scholar
• Rissman AR, Gillon S. 2017. Where are ecology and biodiversity in social-ecological systems research? A review of research methods and applied recommendations. Conserv Lett. 10(1):86–93. doi:10.1111/conl.12250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rival L. 2010. Ecuador’s Yasuní-ITT Initiative: the old and new values of petroleum. Ecol Econ. 70(2):358–365. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rival L, Muradian R. 2013. Introduction: governing the provision of ecosystem services. In: Muradian R, Rival L, editors. Governing the provision of ecosystem services. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands (Dordrecht); p. 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-de-Francisco JC, Duarte-Abadía B, Boelens R. 2019. Payment for ecosystem services and the water-energy-food nexus: securing resource flows for the affluent? Water. 11(6):1143. doi:10.3390/w11061143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruckelshaus M, McKenzie E, Tallis H, Guerry A, Daily G, Kareiva P, Polasky S, Ricketts T, Bhagabati N, Wood SA, et al. 2015. Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol Econ. 115:11–21. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saarikoski H, AAkerman M, Primmer E. 2012. The challenge of governance in regional forest planning: an analysis of participatory forest program processes in Finland. Soc Nat Resour. 25(7):667–682. doi:10.1080/08941920.2011.630061.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandström C. 2009. Institutional dimensions of comanagement: participation, power, and process. Soc Nat Resour. 22(3):230–244. doi:10.1080/08941920802183354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarkki S, Jokinen M, Nijnik M, Zahvoyska L, Abraham E, Alados C, Bellamy C, Bratanova-Dontcheva S, Grunewald K, Kollar J, et al. 2017. Social equity in governance of ecosystem services: synthesis from European treeline areas. Clim Res. 73(1–2):31–44. doi:10.3354/cr01441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sattler C, Loft L, Mann C, Meyer C. 2018. Methods in ecosystem services governance analysis: an introduction. Ecosyst Serv. 34:(November):155–168. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.11.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schirpke U, Marino D, Marucci A, Palmieri M, Scolozzi R. 2017. Operationalising ecosystem services for effective management of protected areas: experiences and challenges. Ecosyst Serv. 28:105–114. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S. 2011. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol. 48(3):630–636. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stępniewska M, Zwierzchowska I, Mizgajski A. 2018. Capability of the Polish legal system to introduce the ecosystem services approach into environmental management. Ecosyst Serv. 29:271–281. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strauch AM, Rurai MT, Almedom AM. 2016. Influence of forest management systems on natural resource use and provision of ecosystem services in Tanzania. J Environ Manage. 180:35–44. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.05.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suhardiman D, Wichelns D, Lestrelin G, Thai Hoanh C, Hoanh CT. 2013. Payments for ecosystem services in Vietnam: market-based incentives or state control of resources? Ecosyst Serv. 5:94–101. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM. 2004. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 19(6):305–308. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swyngedouw E. 2005. Governance Innovation and the citizen: the janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Stud. 42(11):1991–2006. doi:10.1080/00420980500279869.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson BS, Primavera JH, Friess DA. 2017. Governance and implementation challenges for mangrove forest Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): empirical evidence from the Philippines. Ecosyst Serv. 23:146–155. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• To P, Dressler W. 2019. Rethinking ‘Success’: the politics of payment for forest ecosystem services in Vietnam. Land Use Policy. 81:582–593. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Hecken G, Bastiaensen J. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services in Nicaragua: do market-based approaches work? Dev Change. 41(3):421–444. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2010.01644.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vatn A. 2005. Institutions and the environment. Cheltenham (UK; Northampton, MA, USA): Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Vogt JM, Epstein GB, Mincey SK, Fischer BC, McCord P. 2015. Putting the “E” in SES: unpacking the ecology in the Ostrom social-ecological system framework. Ecol Soc. 20(1):art55. doi:10.5751/ES-07239-200155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Wehrden H, Luederitz C, Leventon J, Russell S. 2017. Methodological challenges in sustainability science: a call for method plurality, procedural rigor and longitudinal research. Challenges Sustain. 5:1. doi:10.12924/cis2017.05010035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winkler KJ, Hauck J. 2019. Landscape stewardship for a German UNESCO biosphere reserve: a network approach to establishing stewardship governance. Ecol Soc. 24(3):art12. doi:10.5751/ES-10982-240312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young OR. 2013. On environmental governance: sustainability, efficiency, and equity. London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Young RF, McPherson EG. 2013. Governing metropolitan green infrastructure in the United States. Landsc Urban Plan. 109(1):67–75. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.09.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar