Potschin-Young M, Haines-Young R, Görg C, Heink U, Jax K, Schleyer C
Fabis Consulting Ltd., Nottingham, UK.
Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt, Institute of Social Ecology, Vienna, Austria.
Ecosyst Serv. 2018 Feb;29(Pt C):428-440. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.015.
The aim of this paper is to identify the role of conceptual frameworks in operationalising and mainstreaming the idea of ecosystem services. It builds on some initial discussions from IPBES, which suggested that conceptual frameworks could be used to: 'simplify thinking', 'structure work', 'clarify issues', and 'provide a common reference point'. The analysis uses the cascade model as a focus and looks at the way it has been used in recent published material and across a set of case studies from the EU-funded OpenNESS Project as a device for conceptual framing. It found that there are examples in the literature that show the cascade model indeed being used as an 'organising framework', a tool for 're-framing' perspectives, an 'analytical template', and as an 'application framework'. Although the published materials on the cascade are rich, these accounts lack insights into the process by which the different versions of the model were created, and so we turned to the set of OpenNESS case studies to examine how they read the cascade. We found that the cascade was able to provide a common reference for a diverse set of studies, and that it was sufficiently flexible for it to be developed and elaborated in ways that were meaningful for the different place-based studies. The case studies showed that generalised models like the cascade can have an important 'awareness-raising' role. However, we found that using models of this kind it was more difficult for case studies to link their work to broader societal issues such as human well-being, sustainable ecosystem management, governance, and competitiveness, than to their own concerns. We therefore conclude that to be used effectively, conceptual models like the cascade may need to be supported by other materials that help users read it in different, outward looking ways. We also need to find mechanisms for capturing this experience so that it can be shared with others.
本文旨在确定概念框架在将生态系统服务理念付诸实践并使其成为主流方面所发挥的作用。它基于政府间生物多样性和生态系统服务科学政策平台（IPBES）的一些初步讨论，这些讨论表明概念框架可用于：“简化思维”、“组织工作”、“澄清问题”以及“提供共同的参考点”。该分析以级联模型为重点，考察其在近期已发表材料中的使用方式，以及在欧盟资助的“开放生态系统服务”（OpenNESS）项目的一系列案例研究中作为概念框架工具的使用情况。研究发现，文献中有实例表明级联模型确实被用作“组织框架”、“重新构建”观点的工具、“分析模板”以及“应用框架”。尽管关于级联模型的已发表材料丰富，但这些描述缺乏对该模型不同版本创建过程的见解，因此我们转向OpenNESS案例研究集，以考察它们如何理解级联模型。我们发现，级联模型能够为一系列不同的研究提供共同的参考，并且具有足够的灵活性，可以根据不同的基于地点的研究进行有意义的开发和细化。案例研究表明，像级联模型这样的通用模型可以发挥重要的“提高认识”作用。然而，我们发现，使用这类模型时，案例研究将其工作与更广泛的社会问题（如人类福祉、可持续生态系统管理、治理和竞争力）联系起来，比与自身关注的问题联系起来更困难。因此，我们得出结论，要有效使用像级联模型这样的概念模型，可能需要借助其他材料的支持，帮助用户以不同的、向外看的方式理解它。我们还需要找到捕捉这种经验的机制，以便能够与他人分享。
