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%).
Figure 2.4: Reasons why local stakeholders were selected as CAB members in OpenNESS case studies (N=26 case studies) Absent stakeholders in CAB Case 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 (Table 2.1). 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). 2.1: Concerned stakeholder(s) not represented in the CAB in OpenNESS case studies (N=26 case studies). Stakeholders not represented in the CAB Number of case studies Citizens 3 Farmers 3 Stakeholders are not all identified yet 3 Local government 3 Local NGO’s 2 Private business 2 Local stakeholders 2 Future resident 1 Local land owner 1 Farmer organisation 1 Educator 1
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 especially those researchers that collaborate with us.” “Stakeholders are interested.” Value transfer: “Skepticism to transferring values from other case study sites.” Semantic network analysis: “[…] data collection 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 areas.” Surveys/Questionnaires: (in combination with 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 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 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 “The landowner was receptive and all of them took part in the visits.” “The reaction was positive in most case. Although all producers have
observation during the visits to the properties) accepted the interviews, some of them preferred not to receive the direct observation visits in their properties.” models/tools: Input for ES mapping through Backdating transitions matrices; Markov Chains, DINAMICA EGO, Weights of Evidence (weighted Bayes approach) (scenarios towards 2050) “Identified as good 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 took place to incorporate feedbacks and inputs.” “Very positive, evaluation of the first conflicts maps already done.” 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.” 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.” from the case studies All the case studies were 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).