Making explicit an Ecosystem Services indicator as a policy instrument

References

• Asdal, K. and Cointe, B. (2022) Writing good economics: How texts ‘on the move’ perform the lab and discipline of experimental economics, Social Studies of Science, 52(3), pp. 376–398. doi:10.1177/03063127221079600
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beunza, D. and Stark, D. (2004) Tools of the trade: The socio-technology of arbitrage in a Wall Street trading room, Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(2), pp. 369–400. doi:10.1093/icc/dth015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borie, M., et al. (2021) Knowing like a global expert organization: comparative insights from the IPCC and IPBES, Global Environmental Change, 68, pp. 102261. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowker, G. C. (2000) Biodiversity datadiversity, Social Studies of Science, 30(5), pp. 643–683.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowker, G. C. and Star, S. L. (1999) Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences (Cambridge: MIT Press).
   Google Scholar
• Brunet, L. (2024) Transposing emotions to conserve nature? The positive politics of the metrics of ecosystem services, Science as Culture, 33(1), pp. 16–40. doi:10.1080/09505431.2022.2151426
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunet, L., et al. (2018) Actionable knowledge for land use planning: Making ecosystem services operational, Land Use Policy, 72, pp. 27–34. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter, N. (1991) Learning to measure performance: The use of indicators in organizations, Public Administration, 69(1), pp. 85–101. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00783.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaudhary, S., et al. (2015) The evolution of ecosystem services: A time series and discourse-centered analysis, Environmental Science and Policy, 54, pp. 25–34. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CICES (2018) Revision Highlights. Available at https://cices.eu/revision-highlights/.
   Google Scholar
• Cochrane (2022) About Cochrane Reviews | Cochrane Library. Available at https://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/about-cochrane-reviews.
   Google Scholar
• Costanza, R., et al. (2017) Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?, Ecosystem Services, 28, pp. 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dempsey, J. and Suarez, D. C. (2016) Arrested development ? The promises and paradoxes of “selling nature to save it”, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106(3), pp. 653–671. doi:10.1080/24694452.2016.1140018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devictor, V. and Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2016) From ecological records to big data: The invention of global biodiversity, History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 38(4), pp. 1–23. doi:10.1007/s40656-016-0113-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas, H. E. (2009) Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press), p. 256. doi:10.2307/j.ctt6wrc78.
   Google Scholar
• Eco, U. (1992) Sémiosis illimitée et dérivée, in: Grasset (Ed) Les Limites de L’interprétation, pp. 369–384 (Paris: Grasset).
   Google Scholar
• Fletcher, R. and Büscher, B. (2017) The PES conceit: Revisiting the relationship between payments for environmental services and neoliberal conservation, Ecological Economics, 132, pp. 224–231. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fletcher, R. and Büscher, B. (2019) Neoliberalism in denial in actor-oriented PES research? A rejoinder to Van Hecken et al. (2018) and a call for justice, Ecological Economics, 156, pp. 420–423. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghosh, R. (2024) Data-driven governance and performances of accountability: Critical reflections from US agri-environmental policy, Science as Culture, 33(1), pp. 70–96. doi:10.1080/09505431.2023.2175654
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gómez-Baggethun, E. and Ruiz-Pérez, M. (2011) Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services, Progress in Physical Geography, 35(5), pp. 613–628. doi:10.1177/0309133311421708
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, W. (1909) The Meaning of Truth. Available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5117/5117-h/5117-h.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (Ed.) (2004) States of Knowledge. The Co-Production of Science and Social Order (New York: Routledge).
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (2017) Virtual, visible, and actionable: Data assemblages and the sightlines of justice, Big Data and Society, 4(2), pp. 1–15. doi:10.1177/2053951717724477
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kockelman, P. (2005) The semiotic stance, Semiotica, 157, pp. 233–304. doi:10.1515/semi.2005.2005.157.1-4.233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohler, R. E. (2002) Landscapes and Labscapes. Exploring the Lab-Field Border in Biology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
   Google Scholar
• Kolinjivadi, V., et al. (2017) As a lock to a key? Why science is more than just an instrument to pay for nature’s services, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, pp. 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolinjivadi, V., et al. (2019) Neoliberal performatives and the “making” of payments for ecosystem services (PES), Progress in Human Geography, 43(1), pp. 3–25. doi:10.1177/0309132517735707
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern (Translated by Catherine Porter) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2017) Facing Gaïa: Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press).
   Google Scholar
• Law, J. (2009) Actor network theory and material semiotics, in: B. S. Turner (Ed) The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, pp. 141–158. (Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing Ltd). doi:10.1002/9781444304992.ch7.
   Google Scholar
• Leonelli, S. (2016) Data-Centric Biology: A Philosophical Study (Chicago: The University Of Chicago Press).
   Google Scholar
• LIFT consortium (2018) Grant Agreement 770747: Low-Input Farming and Territories – Integrating Knowledge for Improving Ecosystem-Based Farming. doi:10.3030/770747.
   Google Scholar
• Maechler, S. and Boisvert, V. (2023) Valuing nature to save it? The centrality of valuation in the new spirit of conservation, Global Environmental Politics, 24(1), pp. 1–21. doi:10.1162/glep_a_00734
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maes, J., et al. (2013) Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and Their Services – An Analytical Framework for Ecosystem Assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. doi:10.2779/22870.
   Google Scholar
• Marres, N. and de Rijcke, S. (2020) From indicators to indicating interdisciplinarity: A participatory mapping methodology for research communities in-the-making, Quantitative Science Studies, 1(3), pp. 1041–1055. doi:10.1162/qss
   Google Scholar
• Masood, E. (2018) Battle over biodiversity, Nature, 560(7719), pp. 423–425. Available at: http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05984-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElwee, P. (2017) The metrics of making ecosystem services, Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 8(1), pp. 96–124. doi:10.3167/ares.2017.080105
   Google Scholar
• MEA. (2005) Millenium Ecosystem Report – Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis (Washington, DC: Island Press). Available at: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html.
   Google Scholar
• Mertens, K. (no date) Spatializing value flows with ecosystem services, in: K. Asdal and L. Doganova (Eds) Value Economy: Versions, Sites and Tools, pp. 1–15. (London: Mattering Press).
   Google Scholar
• Muniesa, F. and Linhardt, D. (2011) Trials of explicitness in the implementation of public management reform, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(6), pp. 550–566. doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2011.06.003
   Google Scholar
• Pascual, U., et al. (2017) Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, pp. 7–16. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellizzari, M. and Muniesa, F. (2023) Social impact bonds and the tactics of feasibility: Experience from Chile, Colombia and France, International Public Management Journal, 26(3), pp. 357–375. doi:10.1080/10967494.2022.2096733
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson, M. M. (2006) The nature that capital can see: Science, state, and market in the commodification of ecosystem services, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24(3), pp. 367–387. doi:10.1068/d3304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez, L., Devictor, V. and Maris, V. (2018) L’articulation entre savoirs et actions dans trois dispositifs environnementaux: conservation, évaluation d’impact et restauration, VertigO, 18(2), pp. 1–20. doi:10.4000/vertigo.20879
   Google Scholar
• Rose, G. (1997) Situating knowledges: Positionality, reflexivities and other tactics, Progress in Human Geography, 21(3), pp. 305–320. doi:10.1191/030913297673302122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schröter, M., et al. (2014) Ecosystem services as a contested concept: A synthesis of critique and counter-arguments, Conservation Letters, 7(6), pp. 514–523. doi:10.1111/conl.12091
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simons, A. and Voß, J. (2018) The concept of instrument constituencies: Accounting for dynamics and practices of knowing governance, Policy and Society, 37(1), pp. 1–22. doi:10.1080/14494035.2017.1375248
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R. (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39, Social Science Quarterly, 19, pp. 387–420.
   Google Scholar
• Steger, C., et al. (2018) Ecosystem services as boundary objects for transdisciplinary collaboration, Ecological Economics, 143, pp. 153–160. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevenson, H., et al. (2021) The practical fit of concepts: Ecosystem services and the value of nature, Global Environmental Politics, 21(2), pp. 3–22. doi:10.1162/glep_a_00587
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svetlova, E. (2014) Modelling beyond application: Epistemic and non-epistemic values in modern science, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 28(1), pp. 79–98. doi:10.1080/02698595.2014.915656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takacs, D. (1996) The Idea of Biodiversity. Philosophies of Paradise (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Travlos, I. S., et al. (2019) Key aspects on the biology, ecology and impacts of Johnsongrass [Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers] and the role of glyphosate and non-chemical alternative practices for the management of this weed in Europe, Agronomy, 9(11), pp. 1–12. doi:10.3390/agronomy9110717
   Google Scholar
• Van Ruymbeke, K., et al. (2023) Assessing the impact of farm-management practices on ecosystem services in European agricultural systems: A rapid evidence assessment, Sustainability, 15(17), pp. 1–24. doi:10.3390/su151712819
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vatn, A. (2010) An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services, Ecological Economics, 69(6), pp. 1245–1252. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voß, J.-P. (2016) Realizing instruments: Performativity in emissions trading and citizen panels, in: J.-P. Voß and R. Freeman (Eds) Knowing Governance. The Epistemic Construction of Political Order, pp. 127–153 (London: Palgrave Macmillan).
   Google Scholar
• Wunder, S. (2005) Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts, CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42 (Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research). doi:10.17528/cifor/001765.
   Google Scholar