OVERVIEW
Theme 1’s work has focused on these core streams of work:
- Understanding to what extent and in what ways the concept of ecosystem services has been used in decision making
- Understanding and identifying approaches to support the engagement of diverse perspectives in decision making for ecosystem services.
- Developing a framework to assess implementation of research evidence into practice using leverage points as a lens, with the aim of introducing the framework to decision making forums
THEME 1 TEAM
Gordon Hickey he/him co-lead McGill University 
Kiho Hazelton-Cook he/him Masters student McGill University 
Blane Harvey he/him COLLABORATOR McGill University |
Julia Baird she/her CO-LEAD Brock University 
Derek Armitage COLLABORATOR University of Waterloo 
Ryan Plummer COLLABORATOR Brock University |
Ryan Bullock COLLABORATOR University of Winnipeg 
Alan Diduck he/him COLLABORATOR University of Winnipeg |
Siena Margorian she/her Masters student McGill University 
Örjan Bodin COLLABORATOR Stockholm Resilience Centre |
Imogen Hobbs she/her ALUM |
Sherman Farhad alum |
Jen Holzer she/her ALUM |
Gillian Kerr alum |
PARTNER ORGANIZATION
Environment and Climate Change Canada
FEATURED PUBLICATIONS
Stream 1
|
Ecosystem services decision support tools: exploring the implementation gap in Canada
Kerr, G., Holzer, J., Baird, J. & Hickey, G.
This paper explores the degree to which the ecosystem services (ES) concept and related tools have been integrated and implemented within the Canadian government context at both the provincial/territorial and federal levels.
|
|
The who, what, and how of virtual participation in environmental research
Holzer, J., M., Baird, J., & Hickey, G.M.
Drawing on participant observation, surveys, and our professional experience, this perspective highlights lessons learned about organizing virtual stakeholder workshops to support landscape governance research and practice. We note that procedures followed for initiating stakeholder and rights holder recruitment and engagement depend on the convenors' goals, although when multiple research teams are involved, the goals need to be negotiated. Further, more important than the robustness of engagement strategies is flexibility, feasibility, managing expectations-and keeping things simple.
|
|
How is the ecosystem services concept used as a tool to foster collaborative ecosystem governance? A systematic map protocol
Holzer, J.M., Hobbs, I., Baird, J., & Hickey, G
While the concept of ecosystem services has been widely adopted by scholars and increasingly used in policy and practice, there has been criticism of its usefulness to decision-makers. This systematic map will collect and analyse literature that frames ES as a collaboration tool, rather than as an ecosystem assessment tool, to answer the research question--how is the ecosystem services concept used as a tool to foster collaborative ecosystem governance and management?
|
Stream 2
|
Pluralism in Ecosystem Governance. Advances in Ecological Research Book Series
Holzer, J.M., Baird, J., & Hickey, G., Eds.
Pluralism in Ecosystem Governance, Volume 66 in the Advances in Ecological Research series, highlights new advances in the field, with this release including chapters on An exploration of the effects of political pluralism on decision making for sustainability: Implications for membership on public sector boards, etc.
|
|
Introduction: Pluralism in ecosystem governance. Advances in Ecological Research, 66: xvii-xxx.
Holzer, J., M., Baird, J., & Hickey, G.M.
This paper explores the degree to which the ecosystem services (ES) concept and related tools have been integrated and implemented within the Canadian government context at both the provincial/territorial and federal levels.
|
|
Measuring the degree of ‘fit’ within social-ecological systems to support local decision-making on flood-risk
Hobbs, I., Lucet, V., Holzer, J.M., Baird, J. & Hickey, G
Social-ecological fit is a promising approach to environmental governance. Its bottom-up,inclusive methodology is particularly needed in the wake of climate change, as decisionmakersmust consider the social consequences as well as the ecological. Social-ecologicalfit, however, is limited by (1) inconsistent terminology in the literature, and (2) a lackof quantitative methods to assess its effectiveness in decision-making.
|