Author
Marja Spierenburg
Other affiliations: VU University Amsterdam, Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Leiden University ...read more
Bio: Marja Spierenburg is an academic researcher from Radboud University Nijmegen. The author has contributed to research in topics: Land reform & Sustainability. The author has an hindex of 25, co-authored 82 publications receiving 3902 citations. Previous affiliations of Marja Spierenburg include VU University Amsterdam & Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
Topics: Land reform, Sustainability, Private sector, Wildlife, Game reserve
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of Arizona1, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna2, Resources For The Future3, University of British Columbia4, Portland State University5, Stockholm University6, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign7, United States Department of Agriculture8, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne9, Indiana University10, University of Oregon11, University of East Anglia12, Ukrainian National Forestry University13, VU University Amsterdam14
TL;DR: A common representation is offered that frames cultural services, along with all ES, by the relative contribution of relevant ecological structures and functions and by applicable social evaluation approaches, which provides a foundation for merging ecological and social science epistemologies to define and integrate cultural services better within the broader ES framework.
Abstract: Cultural ecosystem services (ES) are consistently recognized but not yet adequately defined or integrated within the ES framework. A substantial body of models, methods, and data relevant to cultural services has been developed within the social and behavioral sciences before and outside of the ES approach. A selective review of work in landscape aesthetics, cultural heritage, outdoor recreation, and spiritual significance demonstrates opportunities for operationally defining cultural services in terms of socioecological models, consistent with the larger set of ES. Such models explicitly link ecological structures and functions with cultural values and benefits, facilitating communication between scientists and stakeholders and enabling economic, multicriterion, deliberative evaluation and other methods that can clarify tradeoffs and synergies involving cultural ES. Based on this approach, a common representation is offered that frames cultural services, along with all ES, by the relative contribution of relevant ecological structures and functions and by applicable social evaluation approaches. This perspective provides a foundation for merging ecological and social science epistemologies to define and integrate cultural services better within the broader ES framework.
1,184 citations
••
TL;DR: This work presents the multiple evidence base (MEB) as an approach that proposes parallels whereby indigenous, local and scientific knowledge systems are viewed to generate different manifestations of knowledge, which can generate new insights and innovations through complementarities.
Abstract: Indigenous and local knowledge systems as well as practitioners’ knowledge can provide valid and useful knowledge to enhance our understanding of governance of biodiversity and ecosystems for human well-being. There is, therefore, a great need within emerging global assessment programs, such as the IPBES and other international efforts, to develop functioning mechanisms for legitimate, transparent, and constructive ways of creating synergies across knowledge systems. We present the multiple evidence base (MEB) as an approach that proposes parallels whereby indigenous, local and scientific knowledge systems are viewed to generate different manifestations of knowledge, which can generate new insights and innovations through complementarities. MEB emphasizes that evaluation of knowledge occurs primarily within rather than across knowledge systems. MEB on a particular issue creates an enriched picture of understanding, for triangulation and joint assessment of knowledge, and a starting point for further knowledge generation.
754 citations
••
Stockholm Resilience Centre1, University of Tasmania2, Australian National University3, Stockholm University4, Charles Darwin University5, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources6, University of Montana7, National Autonomous University of Mexico8, The Pew Charitable Trusts9, McGill University10, Stellenbosch University11, University of Bern12, University of Maryland, College Park13, International Center for Tropical Agriculture14, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation15, University of Wisconsin-Madison16, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences17, Hobart Corporation18, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research19, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile20, University of Sussex21, University College Cork22, Lüneburg University23, University of Arizona24, Azim Premji University25, University of the Witwatersrand26, Radboud University Nijmegen27, Utrecht University28
TL;DR: In this article, the authors propose a set of four general principles that underlie high-quality knowledge co-production for sustainability research, and offer practical guidance on how to engage in meaningful co-productive practices, and how to evaluate their quality and success.
Abstract: Research practice, funding agencies and global science organizations suggest that research aimed at addressing sustainability challenges is most effective when ‘co-produced’ by academics and non-academics. Co-production promises to address the complex nature of contemporary sustainability challenges better than more traditional scientific approaches. But definitions of knowledge co-production are diverse and often contradictory. We propose a set of four general principles that underlie high-quality knowledge co-production for sustainability research. Using these principles, we offer practical guidance on how to engage in meaningful co-productive practices, and how to evaluate their quality and success.
607 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a framework for evidence-based guidance on how tasks to mobilise, translate, negotiate, synthesise and apply multiple forms of evidence can bridge knowledge systems.
452 citations
••
Lüneburg University1, Stockholm Environment Institute2, McGill University3, National Autonomous University of Mexico4, Stockholm University5, Stellenbosch University6, University of Wisconsin-Madison7, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences8, James Cook University9, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ10, VU University Amsterdam11, University of Bayreuth12
TL;DR: The concept of social-ecological systems is useful for understanding the interlinked dynamics of environmental and societal change as discussed by the authors, which has helped facilitate increased recognition of the dependence of humanity on ecosystems; improved collaboration across disciplines, and between science and society; increased methodological pluralism leading to improved systems understanding; and major policy frameworks considering socialecological interactions.
282 citations
Cited by
More filters
•
01 Jan 1996
TL;DR: In this article, Jacobi describes the production of space poetry in the form of a poetry collection, called Imagine, Space Poetry, Copenhagen, 1996, unpaginated and unedited.
Abstract: ‘The Production of Space’, in: Frans Jacobi, Imagine, Space Poetry, Copenhagen, 1996, unpaginated.
7,238 citations
••
National University of Cordoba1, Addis Ababa University2, National Autonomous University of Mexico3, State University of Campinas4, United Nations Environment Programme5, UNESCO6, United States Department of Agriculture7, Indiana University8, University of British Columbia9, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation10, University of Paris-Sud11, Landcare Research12, University College London13, Autonomous University of Madrid14, University of Cambridge15, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research16, University of Southern Denmark17, United Nations University18, Virginia Tech College of Natural Resources and Environment19, The Nature Conservancy20, University of the South Pacific21, University of East Anglia22, Kyushu University23, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology24, University of Washington25, Budapest University of Technology and Economics26, Environmental Law Institute27, Ankara University28, University of Portsmouth29, Chinese Academy of Sciences30, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay31, Kyoto University32, Joseph Fourier University33, National Scientific and Technical Research Council34, University of Yaoundé35, Polish Academy of Sciences36, University of São Paulo37, École Normale Supérieure38, University of Otago39, Stanford University40, University of Queensland41, Azim Premji University42, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ43, University of Ghana44, Corvinus University of Budapest45, Stockholm University46, Lakehead University47, Indian Institute of Forest Management48, Seoul National University49, Sofia University50
TL;DR: The first public product of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is its Conceptual Framework as discussed by the authors, which will underpin all IPBES functions and provide structure and comparability to the syntheses that will produce at different spatial scales, on different themes, and in different regions.
1,585 citations
••
TL;DR: The notion of nature's contributions to people (NCP) was introduced by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) as mentioned in this paper, a joint global effort by governments, academia, and civil society to assess and promote knowledge of Earth's biodiversity and ecosystems and their contribution to human societies.
Abstract: A major challenge today and into the future is to maintain or enhance beneficial contributions of nature to a good quality of life for all people. This is among the key motivations of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a joint global effort by governments, academia, and civil society to assess and promote knowledge of Earth's biodiversity and ecosystems and their contribution to human societies in order to inform policy formulation. One of the more recent key elements of the IPBES conceptual framework ( 1 ) is the notion of nature's contributions to people (NCP), which builds on the ecosystem service concept popularized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) ( 2 ). But as we detail below, NCP as defined and put into practice in IPBES differs from earlier work in several important ways. First, the NCP approach recognizes the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining all links between people and nature. Second, use of NCP elevates, emphasizes, and operationalizes the role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding nature's contribution to people.
1,470 citations
••
TL;DR: The global challenge is to steer reefs through the Anthropocene era in a way that maintains their biological functions and will require radical changes in the science, management and governance of coral reefs.
Abstract: Coral reefs support immense biodiversity and provide important ecosystem services to many millions of people Yet reefs are degrading rapidly in response to numerous anthropogenic drivers In the coming centuries, reefs will run the gauntlet of climate change, and rising temperatures will transform them into new configurations, unlike anything observed previously by humans Returning reefs to past configurations is no longer an option Instead, the global challenge is to steer reefs through the Anthropocene era in a way that maintains their biological functions Successful navigation of this transition will require radical changes in the science, management and governance of coral reefs
1,196 citations
••
University of Arizona1, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna2, Resources For The Future3, University of British Columbia4, Portland State University5, Stockholm University6, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign7, United States Department of Agriculture8, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne9, Indiana University10, University of Oregon11, University of East Anglia12, Ukrainian National Forestry University13, VU University Amsterdam14
TL;DR: A common representation is offered that frames cultural services, along with all ES, by the relative contribution of relevant ecological structures and functions and by applicable social evaluation approaches, which provides a foundation for merging ecological and social science epistemologies to define and integrate cultural services better within the broader ES framework.
Abstract: Cultural ecosystem services (ES) are consistently recognized but not yet adequately defined or integrated within the ES framework. A substantial body of models, methods, and data relevant to cultural services has been developed within the social and behavioral sciences before and outside of the ES approach. A selective review of work in landscape aesthetics, cultural heritage, outdoor recreation, and spiritual significance demonstrates opportunities for operationally defining cultural services in terms of socioecological models, consistent with the larger set of ES. Such models explicitly link ecological structures and functions with cultural values and benefits, facilitating communication between scientists and stakeholders and enabling economic, multicriterion, deliberative evaluation and other methods that can clarify tradeoffs and synergies involving cultural ES. Based on this approach, a common representation is offered that frames cultural services, along with all ES, by the relative contribution of relevant ecological structures and functions and by applicable social evaluation approaches. This perspective provides a foundation for merging ecological and social science epistemologies to define and integrate cultural services better within the broader ES framework.
1,184 citations