TY - JOUR

T1 - Exploring perceptions of stakeholder roles in ecosystem services coproduction

AU - Jericó-Daminelo, C.

AU - Schroeter, B.

AU - Garcia, M. Mancilla

AU - Albert, C.

N1 - Funding Information: This research was supported by the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) through the Junior Research Group PlanSmart (funding code: 01UU1601A and B). The first author also received financial support from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. We thank the members of the LiLa consortium for their input and the respondents for participating in our survey. We are grateful to Örjan Bodin, Mario Brillinger, Sarah Gottwald, Paulina Guerrero, and Jennifer Henze for the many discussions and support during research and data collection. We would also like to show our gratitude to Beate Meis for logistical support. We thank Thea Kelly for her support in translating the survey. We are also grateful for the valuable comments and suggestions from the two anonymous reviewers.

PY - 2021/10

Y1 - 2021/10

N2 - Stakeholder groups engage in ecosystem services coproduction as both coproducers and beneficiaries. Stakeholder group perceptions of their own and each other’s roles in ecosystem services coproduction therefore influence how ecosystem services are provided in a given landscape. However, only a few studies have investigated self-perceived and attributed stakeholder group roles in this context. The aim of this paper is to assess the self-perceived and attributed engagement and importance of stakeholder groups in the coproduction of ecosystem services in a case study of the Lahn River landscape in Germany. The research questions address (i) local stakeholder group perceptions of their own engagement in the coproduction of ecosystem services and (ii) differences and commonalities between self-perceived and attributed stakeholder group importance in ecosystem services coproduction. Our method involves a survey local stakeholder groups regarding involvement in the coproduction of twelve ecosystem services and social network analysis to assess the survey data concerning network structures. Our findings indicate that self-perceived and attributed perceptions differ mainly regarding the central role of stakeholder groups in collaborative networks. We further identify differences in the self-perceived levels of importance of stakeholder groups within collaborative networks but similarities in the understanding of the overall stakeholder group network structure. We conclude by highlighting key implications for ecosystem services governance, including the need to address power imbalances and the need to foster collaborative engagement to ensure sustained and just ecosystem services delivery.

AB - Stakeholder groups engage in ecosystem services coproduction as both coproducers and beneficiaries. Stakeholder group perceptions of their own and each other’s roles in ecosystem services coproduction therefore influence how ecosystem services are provided in a given landscape. However, only a few studies have investigated self-perceived and attributed stakeholder group roles in this context. The aim of this paper is to assess the self-perceived and attributed engagement and importance of stakeholder groups in the coproduction of ecosystem services in a case study of the Lahn River landscape in Germany. The research questions address (i) local stakeholder group perceptions of their own engagement in the coproduction of ecosystem services and (ii) differences and commonalities between self-perceived and attributed stakeholder group importance in ecosystem services coproduction. Our method involves a survey local stakeholder groups regarding involvement in the coproduction of twelve ecosystem services and social network analysis to assess the survey data concerning network structures. Our findings indicate that self-perceived and attributed perceptions differ mainly regarding the central role of stakeholder groups in collaborative networks. We further identify differences in the self-perceived levels of importance of stakeholder groups within collaborative networks but similarities in the understanding of the overall stakeholder group network structure. We conclude by highlighting key implications for ecosystem services governance, including the need to address power imbalances and the need to foster collaborative engagement to ensure sustained and just ecosystem services delivery.

KW - Ecosystem services coproduction

KW - Collaboration

KW - Social network analysis

KW - Stakeholder perspectives

KW - Lahn River landscape

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85113250285&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101353

DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101353

M3 - Article

VL - 51

JO - Ecosystem Services

JF - Ecosystem Services

SN - 2212-0416

M1 - 101353

ER -