Conceptual frameworks for ecosystem assessment

Their development, ownership, and use

Thomas P. Tomich, Alejandro Argumedo, Ivar Baste, Esther Camac, Colin Filer, Keisha Garcia, Kelly Garbach, Helmut J Geist, Anne-Marie Izac, Louis Lebel, Marcus Lee, Maiko Nishi, Lennart Olsson, Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne, Maurice Rawlins, Robert Scholes, Meine van Noordwijk

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

This chapter provides information on and lessons from experiences with conceptual frameworks that may help in adapting and developing a framework for an ecosystem assessment. The social process to create the conceptual framework is as important as the final product. This creative process requires interaction—and often involves tension—between users and the assessment team. The challenge of working together to create a shared conceptual framework can play an important role in creating ownership by the users of the assessment and in building an assessment team.

Recent experiences with global assessments, such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), show that conceptual frameworks can provide greater focus on key issues and relationships and serve a useful role in synthesis and cross-site comparisons. Although the MA framework has in some respects become a standard point of departure for ecosystem assessment, there is no unified theory on creating conceptual frameworks. Examples from MA subglobal assessments illustrate a range of pragmatic approaches, ranging from adaptation of the global conceptual framework to independence from it and including the use of multiple frameworks.

The people who are (or are not) informed about, consulted, and involved in creation of the conceptual framework and the ways in which their knowledge and expertise are valued (or not) will in many ways govern the entire assessment process. Both the groups consulted and the components that are valued by the assessment team as well as the quality of interaction between the assessment team and the stakeholders are important to developing a conceptual framework that effectively balances the principles of legitimacy, relevance, and credibility discussed in Chapter 2.

The chapter begins with a simple definition of a conceptual framework and then discusses some practical considerations of its meaning in ecosystem assessment. Section 3.2 explores the often intertwined challenges and opportunities involved in developing a conceptual framework. Sections 3.3 and 3.4 juxtapose the dual roles of conceptual frameworks in ecosystem assessments: as a means for clarity, credibility, and comparison and as a tool for engagement, usefulness, and legitimacy. Rather than adopting a conceptual framework entirely “off the shelf,” a pragmatic approach that blends various frameworks and methods to balance strengths and offset weaknesses seems to be the most appropriate method.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationEcosystems and human well-being
Subtitle of host publicationA manual for assessment practitioners
EditorsNeville Ash, Hernan Blanco, Claire Brown, Keisha Garcia, Thomas Tomich, Bhaskar Vira, Monika Zurek
Place of PublicationWashington, DC, USA
PublisherIsland Press
Pages71-113
Number of pages42
ISBN (Print)1597267112, 978-1597267113
Publication statusPublished - 5 Apr 2010

Publication series

NameWorld Conservation Monitoring
PublisherIsland Press

Fingerprint

conceptual framework
ownership
ecosystem
stakeholder

Keywords

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
  • Complexity
  • Driver
  • Uncertainty
  • User
  • Knowledge
  • Ecosystem change
  • Ecosystem service

Cite this

Tomich, T. P., Argumedo, A., Baste, I., Camac, E., Filer, C., Garcia, K., ... van Noordwijk, M. (2010). Conceptual frameworks for ecosystem assessment: Their development, ownership, and use. In N. Ash, H. Blanco, C. Brown, K. Garcia, T. Tomich, B. Vira, & M. Zurek (Eds.), Ecosystems and human well-being : A manual for assessment practitioners (pp. 71-113). (World Conservation Monitoring). Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.

Conceptual frameworks for ecosystem assessment : Their development, ownership, and use. / Tomich, Thomas P.; Argumedo, Alejandro; Baste, Ivar; Camac, Esther; Filer, Colin; Garcia, Keisha; Garbach, Kelly; Geist, Helmut J ; Izac, Anne-Marie; Lebel, Louis; Lee, Marcus; Nishi, Maiko; Olsson, Lennart; Raudsepp-Hearne, Ciara; Rawlins, Maurice; Scholes, Robert; van Noordwijk, Meine.

Ecosystems and human well-being : A manual for assessment practitioners. ed. / Neville Ash; Hernan Blanco; Claire Brown; Keisha Garcia; Thomas Tomich; Bhaskar Vira; Monika Zurek. Washington, DC, USA : Island Press, 2010. p. 71-113 (World Conservation Monitoring).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Tomich, TP, Argumedo, A, Baste, I, Camac, E, Filer, C, Garcia, K, Garbach, K, Geist, HJ, Izac, A-M, Lebel, L, Lee, M, Nishi, M, Olsson, L, Raudsepp-Hearne, C, Rawlins, M, Scholes, R & van Noordwijk, M 2010, Conceptual frameworks for ecosystem assessment: Their development, ownership, and use. in N Ash, H Blanco, C Brown, K Garcia, T Tomich, B Vira & M Zurek (eds), Ecosystems and human well-being : A manual for assessment practitioners. World Conservation Monitoring, Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 71-113.
Tomich TP, Argumedo A, Baste I, Camac E, Filer C, Garcia K et al. Conceptual frameworks for ecosystem assessment: Their development, ownership, and use. In Ash N, Blanco H, Brown C, Garcia K, Tomich T, Vira B, Zurek M, editors, Ecosystems and human well-being : A manual for assessment practitioners. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press. 2010. p. 71-113. (World Conservation Monitoring).
Tomich, Thomas P. ; Argumedo, Alejandro ; Baste, Ivar ; Camac, Esther ; Filer, Colin ; Garcia, Keisha ; Garbach, Kelly ; Geist, Helmut J ; Izac, Anne-Marie ; Lebel, Louis ; Lee, Marcus ; Nishi, Maiko ; Olsson, Lennart ; Raudsepp-Hearne, Ciara ; Rawlins, Maurice ; Scholes, Robert ; van Noordwijk, Meine. / Conceptual frameworks for ecosystem assessment : Their development, ownership, and use. Ecosystems and human well-being : A manual for assessment practitioners. editor / Neville Ash ; Hernan Blanco ; Claire Brown ; Keisha Garcia ; Thomas Tomich ; Bhaskar Vira ; Monika Zurek. Washington, DC, USA : Island Press, 2010. pp. 71-113 (World Conservation Monitoring).
@inbook{ffbe5cf9a42b4501b4bac1fad632ac4b,
title = "Conceptual frameworks for ecosystem assessment: Their development, ownership, and use",
abstract = "This chapter provides information on and lessons from experiences with conceptual frameworks that may help in adapting and developing a framework for an ecosystem assessment. The social process to create the conceptual framework is as important as the final product. This creative process requires interaction—and often involves tension—between users and the assessment team. The challenge of working together to create a shared conceptual framework can play an important role in creating ownership by the users of the assessment and in building an assessment team. Recent experiences with global assessments, such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), show that conceptual frameworks can provide greater focus on key issues and relationships and serve a useful role in synthesis and cross-site comparisons. Although the MA framework has in some respects become a standard point of departure for ecosystem assessment, there is no unified theory on creating conceptual frameworks. Examples from MA subglobal assessments illustrate a range of pragmatic approaches, ranging from adaptation of the global conceptual framework to independence from it and including the use of multiple frameworks. The people who are (or are not) informed about, consulted, and involved in creation of the conceptual framework and the ways in which their knowledge and expertise are valued (or not) will in many ways govern the entire assessment process. Both the groups consulted and the components that are valued by the assessment team as well as the quality of interaction between the assessment team and the stakeholders are important to developing a conceptual framework that effectively balances the principles of legitimacy, relevance, and credibility discussed in Chapter 2. The chapter begins with a simple definition of a conceptual framework and then discusses some practical considerations of its meaning in ecosystem assessment. Section 3.2 explores the often intertwined challenges and opportunities involved in developing a conceptual framework. Sections 3.3 and 3.4 juxtapose the dual roles of conceptual frameworks in ecosystem assessments: as a means for clarity, credibility, and comparison and as a tool for engagement, usefulness, and legitimacy. Rather than adopting a conceptual framework entirely “off the shelf,” a pragmatic approach that blends various frameworks and methods to balance strengths and offset weaknesses seems to be the most appropriate method.",
keywords = "Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Complexity, Driver, Uncertainty, User, Knowledge, Ecosystem change, Ecosystem service",
author = "Tomich, {Thomas P.} and Alejandro Argumedo and Ivar Baste and Esther Camac and Colin Filer and Keisha Garcia and Kelly Garbach and Geist, {Helmut J} and Anne-Marie Izac and Louis Lebel and Marcus Lee and Maiko Nishi and Lennart Olsson and Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne and Maurice Rawlins and Robert Scholes and {van Noordwijk}, Meine",
year = "2010",
month = "4",
day = "5",
language = "English",
isbn = "1597267112",
series = "World Conservation Monitoring",
publisher = "Island Press",
pages = "71--113",
editor = "Neville Ash and Hernan Blanco and Claire Brown and Keisha Garcia and Thomas Tomich and Bhaskar Vira and Monika Zurek",
booktitle = "Ecosystems and human well-being",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Conceptual frameworks for ecosystem assessment

T2 - Their development, ownership, and use

AU - Tomich, Thomas P.

AU - Argumedo, Alejandro

AU - Baste, Ivar

AU - Camac, Esther

AU - Filer, Colin

AU - Garcia, Keisha

AU - Garbach, Kelly

AU - Geist, Helmut J

AU - Izac, Anne-Marie

AU - Lebel, Louis

AU - Lee, Marcus

AU - Nishi, Maiko

AU - Olsson, Lennart

AU - Raudsepp-Hearne, Ciara

AU - Rawlins, Maurice

AU - Scholes, Robert

AU - van Noordwijk, Meine

PY - 2010/4/5

Y1 - 2010/4/5

N2 - This chapter provides information on and lessons from experiences with conceptual frameworks that may help in adapting and developing a framework for an ecosystem assessment. The social process to create the conceptual framework is as important as the final product. This creative process requires interaction—and often involves tension—between users and the assessment team. The challenge of working together to create a shared conceptual framework can play an important role in creating ownership by the users of the assessment and in building an assessment team. Recent experiences with global assessments, such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), show that conceptual frameworks can provide greater focus on key issues and relationships and serve a useful role in synthesis and cross-site comparisons. Although the MA framework has in some respects become a standard point of departure for ecosystem assessment, there is no unified theory on creating conceptual frameworks. Examples from MA subglobal assessments illustrate a range of pragmatic approaches, ranging from adaptation of the global conceptual framework to independence from it and including the use of multiple frameworks. The people who are (or are not) informed about, consulted, and involved in creation of the conceptual framework and the ways in which their knowledge and expertise are valued (or not) will in many ways govern the entire assessment process. Both the groups consulted and the components that are valued by the assessment team as well as the quality of interaction between the assessment team and the stakeholders are important to developing a conceptual framework that effectively balances the principles of legitimacy, relevance, and credibility discussed in Chapter 2. The chapter begins with a simple definition of a conceptual framework and then discusses some practical considerations of its meaning in ecosystem assessment. Section 3.2 explores the often intertwined challenges and opportunities involved in developing a conceptual framework. Sections 3.3 and 3.4 juxtapose the dual roles of conceptual frameworks in ecosystem assessments: as a means for clarity, credibility, and comparison and as a tool for engagement, usefulness, and legitimacy. Rather than adopting a conceptual framework entirely “off the shelf,” a pragmatic approach that blends various frameworks and methods to balance strengths and offset weaknesses seems to be the most appropriate method.

AB - This chapter provides information on and lessons from experiences with conceptual frameworks that may help in adapting and developing a framework for an ecosystem assessment. The social process to create the conceptual framework is as important as the final product. This creative process requires interaction—and often involves tension—between users and the assessment team. The challenge of working together to create a shared conceptual framework can play an important role in creating ownership by the users of the assessment and in building an assessment team. Recent experiences with global assessments, such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), show that conceptual frameworks can provide greater focus on key issues and relationships and serve a useful role in synthesis and cross-site comparisons. Although the MA framework has in some respects become a standard point of departure for ecosystem assessment, there is no unified theory on creating conceptual frameworks. Examples from MA subglobal assessments illustrate a range of pragmatic approaches, ranging from adaptation of the global conceptual framework to independence from it and including the use of multiple frameworks. The people who are (or are not) informed about, consulted, and involved in creation of the conceptual framework and the ways in which their knowledge and expertise are valued (or not) will in many ways govern the entire assessment process. Both the groups consulted and the components that are valued by the assessment team as well as the quality of interaction between the assessment team and the stakeholders are important to developing a conceptual framework that effectively balances the principles of legitimacy, relevance, and credibility discussed in Chapter 2. The chapter begins with a simple definition of a conceptual framework and then discusses some practical considerations of its meaning in ecosystem assessment. Section 3.2 explores the often intertwined challenges and opportunities involved in developing a conceptual framework. Sections 3.3 and 3.4 juxtapose the dual roles of conceptual frameworks in ecosystem assessments: as a means for clarity, credibility, and comparison and as a tool for engagement, usefulness, and legitimacy. Rather than adopting a conceptual framework entirely “off the shelf,” a pragmatic approach that blends various frameworks and methods to balance strengths and offset weaknesses seems to be the most appropriate method.

KW - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

KW - Complexity

KW - Driver

KW - Uncertainty

KW - User

KW - Knowledge

KW - Ecosystem change

KW - Ecosystem service

M3 - Chapter

SN - 1597267112

SN - 978-1597267113

T3 - World Conservation Monitoring

SP - 71

EP - 113

BT - Ecosystems and human well-being

A2 - Ash, Neville

A2 - Blanco, Hernan

A2 - Brown, Claire

A2 - Garcia, Keisha

A2 - Tomich, Thomas

A2 - Vira, Bhaskar

A2 - Zurek, Monika

PB - Island Press

CY - Washington, DC, USA

ER -