Change search
Refine search result
1 - 16 of 16
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Adem Esmail, Blal
    et al.
    Department of Civil, Environmental, and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, Via Mesiano 77, Trento, 38123, Italy.
    Geneletti, Davide
    Department of Civil, Environmental, and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, Via Mesiano 77, 38123 Trento, Italy.
    Design and impact assessment of watershed investments: An approach based on ecosystem services and boundary work.2017In: Environmental impact assessment review, ISSN 0195-9255, E-ISSN 1873-6432, Vol. 62, p. 1-13Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Watershed investments, whose main aim is to secure water for cities, represent a promising opportunity for large-scale sustainability transitions in the near future. If properly designed, they promote activities in the watershed that enhance ecosystem services while protecting nature and biodiversity, as well as achieving other societal goals. In this paper, we build on the concepts of ecosystem services and boundary work, to develop and test an operative approach for designing and assessing the impact of watershed investments. The approach is structured to facilitate negotiations among stakeholders. Its strategic component includes setting the agenda; defining investment scenarios; and assessing the performance of watershed investments as well as planning for a follow-up. Its technical component concerns data processing; tailoring spatially explicit ecosystem service models; hence their application to design a set of “investment portfolios”, generate future land use scenarios, and model impacts on selected ecosystem services. A case study illustrates how the technical component can be developed in a data scarce context in sub-Saharan Africa in a way that is functional to support the steps of the strategic component. The case study addresses soil erosion and water scarcity-related challenges affecting Asmara, a medium-sized city in Eritrea, and considers urban water security and rural poverty alleviation as two illustrative objectives, within a ten-year planning horizon. The case study results consist in spatially explicit data (investment portfolio, land use scenario, impact on ecosystem services), which were aggregated to quantitatively assess the performance of different watershed investments scenarios, in terms of changes in soil erosion control. By addressing stakeholders' concerns of credibility, saliency, and legitimacy, the approach is expected to facilitate negotiation of objectives, definition of scenarios, and assessment of alternative watershed investments, ultimately, to contribute to implementing an adaptive watershed management.

  • 2.
    Adem Esmail, Blal
    et al.
    Univ Trento, Dept Civil Environm & Mech Engn, Trento, Italy..
    Geneletti, Davide
    Multi-criteria decision analysis for nature conservation: A review of 20 years of applications2018In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 9, p. 42-53Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    1. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a method to support decision-making, by exploring the balance between the pros and cons of different alternatives to ac- complish a specific goal. It assists in framing decision problems, illustrating the per- formance of alternatives across criteria, exploring trade-offs, formulating a decision and testing its robustness. This paper provides a structured review of empirical applications of MCDA to nature conservation published in the scientific literature over the last 20 years. The paper aims at taking stock of past experiences, and comparing them with best practices and common pitfalls identified in the literature, to provide recommendations for better MCDA application to conservation.

    2. The review follows the structure of a generalized MCDA process consisting of three key stages: (1) decision context and problem structuring, (2) analysis and (3) decision.

    3. The search identified 86 papers that describe MCDA applications to a range of top- ics, including conservation prioritization and planning; protected areas management and zoning; forest management and restoration; and mapping of biodiversity, naturalness and wilder. The results show that, concerning problem structuring, a small percentage of the reviewed MCDA engaged stakeholders other than the authors in identifying alternatives and formulating criteria (15% and 35% respectively). Concerning the analysis, criteria assessment was adequately justified by the authors (47%), at times also by involving other stakeholders (22%). Weighting was per- formed in almost all applications, whereas criteria aggregation was mostly based on the weighted linear combination (63%). Sensitivity analysis was largely overlooked (57%). Concerning decision, 45% of the articles provided only an overall ranking or suitability of alternatives, while 22% included additional rankings according to spe- cific criterion, and 8% further analyses and clustering of stakeholders’ preferences.

    4. The paper concludes by suggesting key elements of successful MCDA applications, including clear construction of the decision context; collaborative identification of alternatives and criteria that reflect the values at stake; adequate justification and communication of the methods for criteria assessment and weighting; reasoned choice of the criteria aggregation method, and comprehensive sensitivity analysis.

  • 3. Burkhard, Benjamin
    et al.
    Maes, Joachim
    Potschin-Young, Marion
    Santos-Martín, Fernando
    Geneletti, Davide
    Stoev, Pavel
    Kopperoinen, Leena
    Adamescu, Cristian
    Adem Esmail, Blal
    Arany, Ildikó
    Arnell, Andy
    Balzan, Mario
    Barton, David N.
    van Beukering, Pieter
    Bicking, Sabine
    Borges, Paulo
    Borisova, Bilyana
    Braat, Leon
    M Brander, Luke
    Bratanova-Doncheva, Svetla
    Broekx, Steven
    Brown, Claire
    Cazacu, Constantin
    Crossman, Neville
    Czúcz, Bálint
    Dan\vek, Jan
    de Groot, Rudolf
    Depellegrin, Daniel
    Dimopoulos, Panayotis
    Elvinger, Nora
    Erhard, Markus
    Fagerholm, Nora
    Frélichová, Jana
    Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne
    Grudova, Margarita
    Haines-Young, Roy
    Inghe, Ola
    Kallay, Tamas
    Kirin, Tamara
    Klug, Hermann
    Kokkoris, Ioannis
    Konovska, Iskra
    Kruse, Marion
    Kuzmova, Iliyana
    Lange, Manfred
    Liekens, Inge
    Lotan, Alon
    Lowicki, Damian
    Luque, Sandra
    Marta-Pedroso, Cristina
    Mizgajski, Andrzej
    Mononen, Laura
    Mulder, Sara
    Müller, Felix
    Nedkov, Stoyan
    Nikolova, Mariana
    Östergård, Hannah
    Penev, Lyubomir
    Pereira, Paulo
    Pitkänen, Kati
    Plieninger, Tobias
    Rabe, Sven-Erik
    Reichel, Steffen
    Roche, Philip
    Rusch, Graciela
    Ruskule, Anda
    Sapundzhieva, Anna
    Sepp, Kalev
    Sieber, Ina
    Šmid Hribar, Mateja
    Stašová, Simona
    Steinhoff-Knopp, Bastian
    St\cepniewska, Ma\lgorzata
    Teller, Anne
    Vackar, David
    van Weelden, Martine
    Veidemane, Kristina
    Vejre, Henrik
    Vihervaara, Petteri
    Viinikka, Arto
    Villoslada, Miguel
    Weibel, Bettina
    Zulian, Grazia
    Mapping and assessing ecosystem services in the EU - Lessons learned from the ESMERALDA approach of integration2018In: One Ecosystem, ISSN 2367-8194, Vol. 3Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 Coordination and Support Action ESMERALDA aimed at developing guidance and a flexible methodology for Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) to support the EU member states in the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy’s Target 2 Action 5. ESMERALDA’s key tasks included network creation, stakeholder engagement, enhancing ecosystem services mapping and assessment methods across various spatial scales and value domains, work in case studies and support of EU member states in MAES implementation. Thus ESMERALDA aimed at integrating various project outcomes around four major strands: i) Networking, ii) Policy, iii) Research and iv) Application. The objective was to provide guidance for integrated ecosystem service mapping and assessment that can be used for sustainable decision-making in policy, business, society, practice and science at EU, national and regional levels. This article presents the overall ESMERALDA approach of integrating the above-mentioned project components and outcomes and provides an overview of how the enhanced methods were applied and how they can be used to support MAES implementation in the EU member states. Experiences with implementing such a large pan-European Coordination and Support Action in the context of EU policy are discussed and recommendations for future actions are given.

  • 4. Geneletti, Davide
    et al.
    Adem Esmail, Blal
    University of Trento.
    Cortinovis, Chiara
    Identifying representative case studies for ecosystem services mapping and assessment across Europe2018In: One Ecosystem, ISSN 2367-8194, Vol. 3, no iiArticle in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    A key task in the ESMERALDA project dealt with identifying appropriate case studies to test the ’flexible methodology’ in its different stages of development. Case studies consist of working examples in which mapping and assessment of ecosystem services were applied to address specific decision-making problems. Testing is understood as an iterative process of co-learning that involves project partners and stakeholders, enabling the refinement of the ’flexible methodology’ and the development of guidelines to support its application. Testing is conducted through a series of workshops in different European contexts, each addressing a different set of themes and regions.

  • 5. Geneletti, Davide
    et al.
    Cortinovis, Chiara
    Zardo, Linda
    Adem Esmail, Blal
    Applying Ecosystem Services to Support Planning Decisions: A Case Study2020In: Planning for Ecosystem Services in Cities / [ed] Geneletti, Davide; Cortinovis, Chiara; Zardo, Linda; Adem Esmail, Blal, Springer International Publishing , 2020, p. 43-56Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 6. Geneletti, Davide
    et al.
    Cortinovis, Chiara
    Zardo, Linda
    Adem Esmail, Blal
    Conclusions2020In: Planning for Ecosystem Services in Cities / [ed] Geneletti, Davide; Cortinovis, Chiara; Zardo, Linda; Adem Esmail, Blal, Springer International Publishing , 2020, p. 67-72Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 7. Geneletti, Davide
    et al.
    Cortinovis, Chiara
    Zardo, Linda
    Adem Esmail, Blal
    Developing Ecosystem Service Models for Urban Planning: A Focus on Micro-Climate Regulation2020In: Planning for Ecosystem Services in Cities / [ed] Geneletti, Davide; Cortinovis, Chiara; Zardo, Linda; Adem Esmail, Blal, Springer International Publishing , 2020, p. 31-42Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 8. Geneletti, Davide
    et al.
    Cortinovis, Chiara
    Zardo, Linda
    Adem Esmail, Blal
    Introduction2020In: Planning for Ecosystem Services in Cities / [ed] Geneletti, Davide; Cortinovis, Chiara; Zardo, Linda; Adem Esmail, Blal, Springer International Publishing , 2020, p. 1-6Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Human life on Earth depends on ecosystems. This is the main message conveyed by the concept of ecosystem services (ES), which has gained an ever-increasing attention in the scientific (McDonough et al. 2017) and policy debate (e.g., CBD 2011; European Commission 2006, 2010) of the last two decades. The success of the term ‘ecosystem services’ is arguably due to its encompassing all “the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human wellbeing” (TEEB 2010a), thus providing a comprehensive framework to describe the multiple relationships between humans and nature.

  • 9. Geneletti, Davide
    et al.
    Cortinovis, Chiara
    Zardo, Linda
    Adem Esmail, Blal
    Planning for Ecosystem Services in Cities2020Book (Refereed)
  • 10. Geneletti, Davide
    et al.
    Cortinovis, Chiara
    Zardo, Linda
    Adem Esmail, Blal
    Reviewing Ecosystem Services in Urban Climate Adaptation Plans2020In: Planning for Ecosystem Services in Cities / [ed] Geneletti, Davide; Cortinovis, Chiara; Zardo, Linda; Adem Esmail, Blal, Springer International Publishing , 2020, p. 21-30Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 11. Geneletti, Davide
    et al.
    Cortinovis, Chiara
    Zardo, Linda
    Adem Esmail, Blal
    Reviewing Ecosystem Services in Urban Plans2020In: Planning for Ecosystem Services in Cities / [ed] Geneletti, Davide; Cortinovis, Chiara; Zardo, Linda; Adem Esmail, Blal, Springer International Publishing , 2020, p. 7-20Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 12. Geneletti, Davide
    et al.
    Cortinovis, Chiara
    Zardo, Linda
    Adem Esmail, Blal
    Towards Equity in the Distribution of Ecosystem Services in Cities2020In: Planning for Ecosystem Services in Cities / [ed] Geneletti, Davide; Cortinovis, Chiara; Zardo, Linda; Adem Esmail, Blal, Springer International Publishing , 2020, p. 57-66Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 13. Geneletti, Davide
    et al.
    Scolozzi, Rocco
    Adem Esmail, Blal
    Assessing ecosystem services and biodiversity tradeoffs across agricultural landscapes in a mountain region2018In: International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, ISSN 2151-3732, E-ISSN 2151-3740, Vol. 14, no 1, p. 188-208Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 14. Mukherjee, Nibedita
    et al.
    Zabala, Aiora
    Huge, Jean
    Ochieng Nyumba, Tobias
    Adem Esmail, Blal
    University of Trento.
    Sutherland, William J.
    Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision‐making2018In: Methods in Ecology and Evolution, ISSN 2041-210X, Vol. 9, p. 54-63Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    1. Decision-making is a complex process that typically includes a series of stages: identifying the issue, considering possible options, making judgements and then making a decision by combining information and values. The current status quo relies heavily on the informational aspect of decision-making with little or no emphasis on the value positions that affect decisions.

    2. There is increasing realization of the importance of adopting rigorous methods for each stage such that the information, views and judgements of stakeholders and experts are used in a systematic and repeatable manner. Though there are several methodological textbooks which discuss a plethora of social science techniques, it is hard to judge the suitability of any given technique for a given decision problem.

    3. In decision-making, the three critical aspects are “what” decision is to be made, “who” makes the decisions and “how” the decisions are made. The methods covered in this paper focus on “how” decisions can be made. We compare six techniques: Focus Group Discussion (FGD), Interviews, Q methodology, Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), Nominal Group Technique and the Delphi technique specifically in the context of biodiversity conservation. All of these techniques (with the exception of MCDA) help in understanding human values and the underlying perspectives which shape decisions.

    4. Based on structured reviews of 423 papers covering all six methods, we compare the conceptual and logistical characteristics of the methods, and map their suitability for the different stages of the decision- making process. While interviews and FGD are well-known, techniques such the Nominal Group technique and Q methodology are relatively under- used. In situations where conflict is high, we recommend using the Q methodology and Delphi technique to elicit judgements. Where conflict is low, and a consensus is needed urgently, the Nominal Group technique may be more suitable.

    5. We present a nuanced synthesis of methods aimed at users. The comparison of the different techniques might be useful for project managers, academics or practitioners in the planning phases of their projects and help in making better informed methodological choices.

  • 15. Rigon, Riccardo
    et al.
    Tamanini, David
    Adem Esmail, Blal
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Urban Planning and Environment, Urban and Regional Studies.
    Simoni, Silvia
    Manuale utente Trento_P2006Other (Other academic)
  • 16. Spyra, Marcin
    et al.
    Kleemann, Janina
    Cetin, Nuket Ipek
    Vázquez Navarrete, Cesar Jesús
    Albert, Christian
    Palacios-Agundez, Igone
    Ametzaga-Arregi, Ibone
    La Rosa, Daniele
    Rozas-Vásquez, Daniel
    Adem Esmail, Blal
    University of Trento.
    Picchi, Paolo
    Geneletti, Davide
    König, Hannes J
    Koo, HongMi
    Kopperoinen, Leena
    Fürst, Christine
    The ecosystem services concept: a new Esperanto to facilitate participatory planning processes?2018In: Landscape Ecology, ISSN 0921-2973, E-ISSN 1572-9761Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Several case studies investigated the role of ecosystem services in participatory planning processes. However, no systematic study exists that cuts across a large number of empirical cases to identify the implications of using ecosystem services in participatory planning.

1 - 16 of 16
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf