Author(s):
Angelstam, Per ; Manton, Michael ; Elbakidze, Marine ; Sijtsma, Frans ; Adamescu, Mihai Cristian ; Avni, Noa ; Beja, Pedro ; Bezak, Peter ; Zyablikova, Iryna ; Cruz, Fatima ; Bretagnolle, Vincent ; Díaz-Delgado, Ricardo ; Ens, Bruno ; Fedoriak, Mariia ; Flaim, Giovanna ; Gingrich, Simone ; Lavi-Neeman, Miri ; Medinets, Sergey ; Melecis, Viesturs ; Muñoz-Rojas, Jose ; Schäckermann, Jessica ; Stocker-Kiss, Andrea ; Setälä, Heikki ; Stryamets, Natalie ; Taka, Maija ; Tallec, Gaelle ; Tappeiner, Ulrike ; Törnblom, Johan ; Yamelynets, Taras
Date: 2019
Persistent ID: http://hdl.handle.net/10174/23847
Origin: Repositório Científico da Universidade de Évora
Description
Natural capital is an essential foundation for human well-being (De Groot et al. 2010). The ecosystem services framework was developed with the aim to improve inclusion of natural capital into political and economic decision making across governance levels (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). However, fragmented policy, governance and land ownership are obstacles for multifunctional land management and spatial planning (e.g., Mun˜oz-Rojas et al. 2015; Beza´k et al. 2017; Garrido et al. 2017; Naumov et al. 2018). To complement the ecosystem services approach as an advocacy tool in land use policy, governance and planning, implementation on the ground requires skills to navigate the complexity of interactions within landscapes as social–ecological systems.
