Governance of ecosystem services: a review of empirical literature
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although researchers have postulated different modes of governance, the degree of empirical support for different governance modes in ecosystem service literature remains unclear. Understanding the contexts under which governance modes have been researched and applied in practice could help decision-makers choose appropriate strategies to the provision of ecosystem services. We conducted a literature review to explore the development of empirical research on ecosystem services governance and to illustrate research frontiers and gaps in this research. We reviewed 157 empirical papers on the governance of ecosystem services published between 2006 and 2019. Our results show that the number of papers about the governance of ecosystem services has increased and that researchers have mainly used qualitative and mixed methods. No governance mode has dominated the research field. Rather, different governance modes have been studied in combination, possibly reflecting the fact that multiple and overlapping governance arrangements often affect the provision of ecosystem services. The geographical distribution of ecosystem services governance research is diverse, but misses perspectives from certain regions, such as Southeast Asia. This means that while decision-makers in well-studied areas like Western Europe can use a pool on studied arrangements, in other areas decision-makers may find limited literature to inform their decisions to maintain and strengthen ecosystem services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it