A review of ES knowledge use in spatial planning
Environmental Science & Policy, ISSN: 1462-9011, Vol: 139, Page: 209-218
2023
- 11Citations
- 59Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Despite the great progress made in ES (ecosystem service) science, the integration of ES into spatial planning remains below expectations. The science-policy/practice gap in ES application impedes the transformation toward sustainable spatial planning. In this review, we draw on the perspective from the science-policy interface to examine the use of ES knowledge in spatial planning. From the science perspective, we find that the usability of ES science has improved in recent years, although the evidence base used in planning remains incomplete; from the policy perspective, there is a lack of research on the way policymakers demand knowledge and their logic of action. Issues of power and politics are under-explored; given that the ES community advocates knowledge co-production as a significant merit of the ES approach, this is both surprising and worrying because of the multiple risks inherent in participatory processes. ES research should attend to these aspects to realize greater integration and policy effects in spatial planning.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901122003422; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.11.003; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85141920067&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1462901122003422; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.11.003
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know