IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Participatory Geospatial Toolkit for Science Integration and Knowledge Transfer Informing SDGs Based Governance and Decision Making


  • Maurizio Sajeva

    (Pellervo Economic Research PTT, Eerikinkatu 28 A, FI-00180 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Marjo Maidell

    (Pellervo Economic Research PTT, Eerikinkatu 28 A, FI-00180 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Jonne Kotta

    (Estonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu, Mäealuse 14, 12618 Tallinn, Estonia)


While the specialisation of science is important for understanding specific systems, the isolation of scientific schools in their disciplinary silos makes it harder to understand the interactions within and between systems and limits the wisdom about the whole systems’ sustainability. Science integration and its practical implementation is a key factor of success for sustainable development. The aim of this paper is to present a participatory geospatial toolkit developed during the BONUS MARES project that enables science integration and knowledge transfer informing SDGs based governance and decision making. This was realized through the Eco-GAME (Governance Assessment Matrix Exercise) framework, trans-disciplinary social learning for the meta-evaluation of existing knowledge about human-nature systems interaction—manifested through ecosystem services. The Eco-GAME was applied to a participatory geospatial toolkit that translates complex ecological knowledge on ecosystems, ecosystem functions, and services produced into more usable forms to inform evidence-based decision-making in pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This is the first attempt, in the context of geospatial applications, to support dynamic interaction, trans-disciplinary social-learning, and multi-dimensional appreciation of ecosystem services for integrating ecological, non-economic and economic knowledge and methods. The toolkit is being implemented in the MAREA project.

Suggested Citation

  • Maurizio Sajeva & Marjo Maidell & Jonne Kotta, 2020. "A Participatory Geospatial Toolkit for Science Integration and Knowledge Transfer Informing SDGs Based Governance and Decision Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-19, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:19:p:8088-:d:422275

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    2. Burdon, D. & Potts, T. & McKinley, E. & Lew, S. & Shilland, R. & Gormley, K. & Thomson, S. & Forster, R., 2019. "Expanding the role of participatory mapping to assess ecosystem service provision in local coastal environments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    3. United Nations UN, 2015. "Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," Working Papers id:7559, eSocialSciences.
    4. Stelzenmüller, Vanessa & Lee, Janette & South, Andy & Foden, Jo & Rogers, Stuart I., 2013. "Practical tools to support marine spatial planning: A review and some prototype tools," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 214-227.
    5. Ramirez, Luisa F. & Belcher, Brian M., 2020. "Crossing the science-policy interface: Lessons from a research project on Brazil nut management in Peru," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    6. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    7. Crowder, Larry & Norse, Elliott, 2008. "Essential ecological insights for marine ecosystem-based management and marine spatial planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 772-778, September.
    8. Danley, Brian & Widmark, Camilla, 2016. "Evaluating conceptual definitions of ecosystem services and their implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 132-138.
    9. Konstantinos Mattas & Henk Kievit & George Baourakis & Constantin Zopounidis, 2020. "Sustainable Food Chains and Ecosystems," Post-Print hal-02880209, HAL.
    10. Julian H Elliott & Tari Turner & Ornella Clavisi & James Thomas & Julian P T Higgins & Chris Mavergames & Russell L Gruen, 2014. "Living Systematic Reviews: An Emerging Opportunity to Narrow the Evidence-Practice Gap," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-6, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    2. Moriah Bostian & Tommy Lundgren, 2022. "Valuing Ecosystem Services for Agricultural TFP: A Review of Best Practices, Challenges, and Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, March.
    3. Thomas Elliot & Javier Babí Almenar & Samuel Niza & Vânia Proença & Benedetto Rugani, 2019. "Pathways to Modelling Ecosystem Services within an Urban Metabolism Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-22, May.
    4. Daniels, Silvie & Bellmore, J. Ryan & Benjamin, Joseph R. & Witters, Nele & Vangronsveld, Jaco & Van Passel, Steven, 2018. "Quantification of the Indirect Use Value of Functional Group Diversity Based on the Ecological Role of Species in the Ecosystem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 181-194.
    5. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    6. Jian Zhang & Hengxing Xiang & Shizuka Hashimoto & Toshiya Okuro, 2021. "Observational Scale Matters for Ecosystem Services Interactions and Spatial Distributions: A Case Study of the Ussuri Watershed, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-16, September.
    7. Marie Balková & Lucie Kubalíková & Marcela Prokopová & Petr Sedlák & Aleš Bajer, 2021. "Ecosystem Services of Vegetation Features as the Multifunction Anti-Erosion Measures in the Czech Republic in 2019 and Its 30-Year Prediction," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, January.
    8. Exley, G. & Hernandez, R.R. & Page, T. & Chipps, M. & Gambro, S. & Hersey, M. & Lake, R. & Zoannou, K.-S. & Armstrong, A., 2021. "Scientific and stakeholder evidence-based assessment: Ecosystem response to floating solar photovoltaics and implications for sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    9. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2020. "The montane multifunctional landscape: How stakeholders in a biosphere reserve derive benefits and address trade-offs in ecosystem service supply," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    10. Marie K. Schellens & Johanna Gisladottir, 2018. "Critical Natural Resources: Challenging the Current Discourse and Proposal for a Holistic Definition," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-28, December.
    11. Wakita, Kazumi & Kurokura, Hisashi & Oishi, Taro & Shen, Zhonghua & Furuya, Ken, 2019. "Exploring the effect of psychometric variables on willingness to pay for marine ecosystem services: A survey in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 130-138.
    12. Nathalie Dumax & Anne Rozan & Bénédicte Rulleau, 2020. "“Adapted” Habitat Evaluation Procedure and Choice Experiment: Substitutes or Complements?," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(02), pages 1-30, April.
    13. Orlov, Sergey & Rovenskaya, Elena, 2022. "Optimal transition to greener production in a pro-environmental society," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    14. Ho Huu, Loc & Ballatore, Thomas J. & Irvine, Kim N. & Nguyen, Thi Hong Diep & Truong, Thi Cam Tien & Yoshihisa, Shimizu, 2018. "Socio-geographic indicators to evaluate landscape Cultural Ecosystem Services: A case of Mekong Delta, Vietnam," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 527-542.
    15. Xinli Ke & Liye Wang & Yanchun Ma & Kunpeng Pu & Ting Zhou & Bangyong Xiao & Jiahe Wang, 2019. "Impacts of Strict Cropland Protection on Water Yield: A Case Study of Wuhan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, January.
    16. Fernando Morante-Carballo & Miguel Gurumendi-Noriega & Juan Cumbe-Vásquez & Lady Bravo-Montero & Paúl Carrión-Mero, 2022. "Georesources as an Alternative for Sustainable Development in COVID-19 Times—A Study Case in Ecuador," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-30, June.
    17. Shanwen Zheng & Baolong Han & Dang Wang & Zhiyun Ouyang, 2018. "Ecological Wisdom and Inspiration Underlying the Planning and Construction of Ancient Human Settlements: Case Study of Hongcun UNESCO World Heritage Site in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, April.
    18. Hao Wang & Sander Meijerink & Erwin van der Krabben, 2020. "Institutional Design and Performance of Markets for Watershed Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    19. Marcondes G. Coelho-Junior & Athila L. de Oliveira & Eduardo C. da Silva-Neto & Thayanne C. Castor-Neto & Ana A. de O. Tavares & Vanessa M. Basso & Ana P. D. Turetta & Patricia E. Perkins & Acacio G. , 2021. "Exploring Plural Values of Ecosystem Services: Local Peoples’ Perceptions and Implications for Protected Area Management in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, January.
    20. Liye Wang & Xinli Ke & Assem Abu Hatab, 2020. "Trade-Offs between Economic Benefits and Ecosystem Services Value under Three Cropland Protection Scenarios for Wuhan City in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-17, April.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:19:p:8088-:d:422275. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.