 Okay, good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening everybody. Thank you so much for joining us in this natural capital conversation session today. We're really thrilled to welcome some wonderful speakers talking about some really crucial issues linking systems to the human well being of society. So I'm just going to give you a few introductory slides. I'm Mary Ruckelshaus, the Managing Director of the Natural Capital Project and really happy to have you here. So NACAP is a wonderful partnership centered at Stanford University and it's a combination of research institutions including the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Institute on the Environment at University of Minnesota and Stockholm Resilient Center connected to the Nature Conservancy and World Wildlife Fund. And what we do as a partnership and our extensive network is we really try to bring the latest, greatest science and technology to bring nature's values into decisions so that those decisions of policy and finance really help people in nature thrive. And this conversation series that you're joining today is one of our virtual programming offerings and we've had a few already that have been really successful. So it's a mix of new science and also practitioners all talking about this community that we're building around putting nature's values more front and center and decisions. And you can find more information about other sessions other in this series on our website. So a recording of this webinar will be available on our YouTube channel and the slides that are presented today will also be shared with you in an email after today's webinar. And then just a little bit of housekeeping so if you have questions for the speakers please put those in the Q&A box on your screen. And if you're having technical difficulties or other sort of logistical issues you can put those in the chat box and we'll help you as soon as we can. So our schedule for the talks today is just this brief intro and I'll introduce our host in just a minute. And then we have two talks one by Dr. Elisa Oteros Rosas and then one by Dr. Nora Vega Holm. And then we'll have a panel discussion with Q&A and we really, really do welcome your questions and good engagement because there's really ample time for that we've saved that. And then we'll wrap up around 11 o'clock. So, for now it's my great pleasure to introduce to all of you. Dr. Alejandra Echeveri or Ale, she's a postdoc with NatCap, and she's working on ways to better integrate biodiversity and ecosystem services into development plans at the national scale in Columbia and Costa Rica. And Ale brings rigor from ecology and a deep appreciation for social sciences to better understand this connection between nature and people. And she's put together two wonderful panels on cultural ecosystem services. The first one was on February 6 so you can find that recording on our website. And today the theme is crucial to really transforming ecosystems and societies by quantifying nature's values through deep engagement with the people who both affect and are affected by the state of nature. So over to you, Ale. Thank you, Mary, for that wonderful introduction. I'm going to now share my screen. So first I want to recognize that I'm calling from the ancestral lands of the Muwekma Avaloni tribe where our academic institution seats. We offer our grateful appreciation for the opportunity to live and work here as we celebrate the culture and perseverance of the Muwekma Avaloni people under strong identity. So this topic of cultural ecosystem services or the cultural benefits is really key to understanding people's connections with nature. They are defined by Kai-Chan and colleagues as ecosystems contributions to the non-material benefits like capabilities and experiences that arise from human ecosystem relationships. Many of you in the audience are probably familiar with the topic of ecosystem services and you probably know that these benefits that people get from nature such as provisioning services like wood or pollination. They're also regulating services like carbon storage or water purification and supporting services like biodiversity and soil formation. These have mostly been studied in the literature. But then in studies of ecosystem services, I would say that the cultural services such as the aesthetic values that we get from ecosystems, artistic inspiration, education, recreation are comparatively less studied, but are very important because these are probably one of the reasons why we all care about the environment. So I want to acknowledge that in the U.S. it's Black History Month and I wanted to recognize the work done by many scholars, leaders, practitioners that self-identify as Black. And I wanted to introduce today's topic with a quote from Dr. Wangari Matai, who is the Nobel Peace Prize awardee and the leader of the Greenbelt movement. Dr. Wangari Matai said in a few decades their relationship between the environment, resources and conflict may seem as obvious as the connection we see today between human rights, peace and democracy. And I want to make sure that we consider that these topics have been pretty crucial to the environmental movement. So today we have two talks by two great speakers. The first speaker is Dr. Elisa Oteros-Rozos. Elisa is an ecologist and biologist by training, but an interdisciplinary researcher and activist by design. She's the chair of Agroecology and Food Systems of the University of Vic and the Universitat Central de Catalunya. Her research activity is also intertwined with an active participation in organized civil society spaces such as ecologistas en acción and the Spanish platform for pastoralism and extensive livestock and ganaderas en red. Elisa's talk titled Culture to the Power of Three Landscapes, Ecosystems, Services and Valuation will present a lot of her work that has been done in agroecological landscapes in Europe and across the world with many colleagues. We also have the pleasure to, I have the pleasure to introduce you to Dr. Nora Fegeholm. She's an adjunct professor in the Department of Geography and Geology in the University of Turku, Finland. She's trained as a human geographer. She's also a landscape researcher whose research has for the most part focused on participatory spatial planning and applying GIS for participation in place-based assessments of local experiential knowledge and ecosystem services and landscapes. Nora's talk titled Insights to Participatory Mapping of Ecosystems Services will draw on examples from all over the world including Spain and Tanzania. So it's my pleasure to give it over to Elisa and we'll come back after the two talks for a Q&A discussion. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ale, Laurie, everyone that has been behind the organization of this webinar. It's such a pleasure to have been invited here. And as Ale was already introducing, I'm passionate about cultural ecosystem services because mostly I can say that it was all initiated when I started my PC with transhuman shepherds. So when I received the invitation, I thought to then invite you for a walk on some of my research on cultural landscapes, cultural ecosystem services, and social cultural evaluation of ecosystem services. So this is why I titled this chat today, Cube 3, no? And let me share my screen. And we'll see some of the research that they have been doing in collaboration with many people who I will also acknowledge along the coming minutes. So basically, I have worked in cultural landscapes, mostly in agroecosystems and in Europe, even though I also worked a little bit in Latin America and Colombia. As I said, on cultural ecosystem services, and I have a particular interest on local traditional ecological knowledge. I haven't worked much with indigenous people, but I have always been attracted by these different forms of wisdom and different knowledge systems and how are they intertwined and should dialogue. And as I stepped into the ecosystem services world, I realized, I will explain now how and when, that I was particularly attracted by these cultural perspectives. I always say that I'm a biologist or ecologist from training, but I have always been a high humanist, I think, since my early ages. So I was particularly interested by human nature relationships and perception of ecosystems and their functioning. So I want to, I could say that one of the first things that I started with was this exploration of what is the knowledge landscape of ecosystem services assessment in the Mediterranean agrocosystems. And I stepped into this, thanks to Bertha Martin Lopez, who I want to acknowledge and send a big hack today from here, I know many of you know her. So Bertha is probably my largest reason to be in this field today. And, and thanks to Marca, we did, we managed to do this, this literature review on, on ecosystem services assessment all along Mediterranean basin and we found out exactly that indeed social cultural evaluations and cultural ecosystem services were the ones that were least evaluated and not least frequently. So, then we also realized that this type of ecosystem services were particularly relevant in extensive agrocosystems which play a particular, a very important role in in the Mediterranean basin and are largely responsible for the Mediterranean basin actually to be a biodiversity hotspot. So, it was like a big gap, not that we, that we acknowledge that and that is, this is why I then focus my, my PhD on social cultural evaluation of, of ecosystem services, even though always in collaboration knowing that it's a disciplinary team and always with a step still in the ecology one could say. And also with some monetary evaluation from a from a critical perspective. From there, I, I also have had the chance to work at a European scale with Nora actually and colleagues from the moment the University of Copenhagen we're all a bit more spread in the Hercules project where we did a content analysis of social media photo to explore the difference between cultural ecosystem services and landscape pictures we thought that analyzing the people, the people, pictures of what people portrays in pictures and then upload to, to internet we use to, to platforms flicker and panoramic is a proxy for what people appreciate what what they value and we did this in five study cases in Europe. And what we found was that actually there was a different no we found four groups of associations between landscape teachers and ecosystem services not so. Okay, sorry. This is okay. So for instance, one group was more associated with with water ecosystems like rivers or seas or coastal and what the great nation, someone more associated with mountain and and snow and ice landscapes with people hiking and having pictures associated with the rest of the recreation. Another one was more related with grasslands and with pastures, shrubs trees and and also certain types of infrastructure also related to traditional farming practices like stonewall for instance, or shepherds homes and these were associated with cultural heritage and another group was associated with with more with loan and urban areas and trees and this was linked with social, spiritual and cultural heritage value. So here is zooming into another scale of spatial scale which is insane to get it again lead by by data and many of our colleagues from the system laboratory in Madrid and not also also from the past country, we pulled together a sample of more than 3000 surveys in Spain on ecosystem services with some clothes and questions, which are the ones that we analyze in the paper and some open ended a question. And what we found was that a social perceptions them to bundle in ecosystem services, according to human nature relationships and, and we found indeed an association of a certain cultural values know, in particular, services demanded by urban people can to be more associated to environmental education, aesthetics, nature tourism, so these type of ecosystem services were more perceived by urban people and still others perceived more by rural people were linked to multifunctional landscapes and particularly those protected by natural parks. And when we went into analyzing the open ended questions of those that similar sampling effort. We found with and this paper was like my, my colleague Marina asia Llorente also insane in the same study areas. What we found was that a surprisingly, even though we had seen a the usually less valued in the site in the scientific literature, usually the less valued ecosystem services are more cultural instead, these are the ones that people value more that they perceive more in particular in urban areas like the bottom of the political Greenland and the urban home garden. So they have an important relevance for the people know they are they're frequently perceived by people, particularly in urban areas and again as we have seen in the close and what we found was that people perceived and to perceive a more diverse ecosystem services in multifunctional landscapes like in Sierra Nevada, Mediterranean mountains and the case study where I did my PhD the one that I contributed here which is the one of the contents of road it's a pastoralist social ecological system, a social ecological network, I will, I will speak about in a minute. So, we found a similar term that the, the novel to the, the originality that we found here was this relation with multifunctionality. And then zooming in again to the case study in which I did my, my PhD. And then we, we, we work with with this very, very particular practice and social ecological system, which is the one associated to transhuman transhuman is a pastoralist practice, which is the spread worldwide, and it consists on a migration of her with livestock. Cattle, sheep, goats and also other animals from a summer in areas which are usually highest in altitude and latitude to southern areas and the other way around in order to follow the primary productivity. This is an adaptation and imitation basically of what natural, a wild, healthy post usually don't know, following this, this primary productivity, and in Spain it is alive. So there is still a number of of her that do this migration yearly, obviously, nowadays, unfortunately, most of them do it on track, but still it contributes to a certain sustainability of both summer and winter in areas and grassland management. So there is still a number of people that do it on foot. So in the content, the content say draw throat in particular is the longest that is still done on foot it has more than 500 kilometers. And, and there are more than around 2025 hertz that do it every every year notice migration. It was assessing the perception of the different ecosystem services along the year, the different seasons, and also spatial term along the, the network. And what we found was that the cultural ecosystem services were the ones that were more likely perceived as important for personal well being. As a difference or in a position with other type of ecosystem services that were also valued for a social well being not like other oriented value. And also that the cultural ecosystem services were almost the only ones that tend to happen some cases, some increasing or improving trends, particularly those related with with economic benefits also like rural tourism and nature recreation activities, and also environmental education. And we also found that the two ecosystem services that were perceived that there were two of these cultural ecosystem services that were perceived particularly vulnerable. If the transhumans would disappear, which are the way of cultural exchange that these, you know this role that that the road and transhuman place and local ecological knowledge. So this is what motivated my next step to enter and work and study better what the local ecological knowledge is there in this system and what is happening with this with it, also in relation to the activity. So this is my next step out of transhumans for a moment, even though I will go back in a while, and to also share this other word which is anyway related to some of the, some in area for a winter in areas of for certain transhuman pastoralist insane in and it's a work that I did in Copenhagen led by by Mario Torraldo we've seen a forward a group in which we studied how different states different desas the silver pastoral systems and the different management management and regimes and access regime were provided a different pool of ecosystem services. And what we found was that there were three though, even within between cultural services not for instance in the largest and more heterogeneous states that were not accessible. There were better housing facilities and more hunting, but at the expenses of certain ecosystem services like recreation and harvesting of wild species. And this was not the case, for instance, in more medium sized and easily accessible states like the common, for example, like the common. And we also found that there were some bundles between the ecosystem services, not that there was some time to that send it to to concentrate to be perceived by all together. Following going back to transhumans another interesting methodology relatively well, not similar but associated to that of using visual stimuli no related to the previous one in which we analyze the content of the images in this way we directly stimulated people we provided them pictures to and ask them to compare which one they prefer and which assistance services they perceived were provided by the landscape portrayed in this in this photo. And one of them had a road road this one. If some people can perceive it some not of course it depends on how you are to the landscape and some didn't have it. This is a road road in this is the, the summer in area and this is the, the road, the intermediate area. And what we found was, well, that the person was different in a different area, but that's a, the profile of people preferring the landscape with grow growth tended to be those more rural with people that had better knowledge of the, of the area know so that many people, particularly those, particularly those with more urban profiles, better education and less and younger, tended to prefer pictures with without the road road know so like it seems to that there is a decoupling of of, of the, of the perception of the environment. And then on traditional ecological know let's just say that I was fascinated by the topic and this into it. Also to understand why different profiles of people had different relationships to nature and how are they evolving. What we, what we found was that, as in many other cases had reported previously in the list that it was that this is being lost in a way, but surprisingly, and this is contrasting with other cities, the, but the variables that influence most in this case in the environment, their, their maintenance of traditional ecological knowledge was not only a gender, and whether left the way it was the main occupation but also if they were currently sentiment on food. So also the use, actually, that they did of this knowledge was a proxy that explained very much their, their, their knowledge nowadays. In order to better integrate these different sources of knowledge into the maintenance of transhumans I was also interested then into participatory approaches. And I had never been much satisfied about this, just more a light participation approaches more related with consultation so together with Grace Villa more and another colleague. We built up this conceptual framework to analyze and reflect on on the different degrees of participation we can have to integrate to understand the different sources of ecological knowledge and a they're also the different values that ecosystem services provide no. And we analyze, then we, we applied and reflected in a tool in two ways, no in a back and forth dynamics based on on our case studies. And, and in particular, I, I reflected on participatory scenario planning, which is one of my passions that I am happy to share also with some of the natural capital colleagues. Participatory scenario planning also we have been trying to incorporate ecosystem services assessment in a more deliberative way so that people can once they step into the future thinking and the different scenarios they can also assess specifically on the normativity of the scenario based on the, the flows of ecosystem services that these different scenarios that the landscapes in these different scenarios would be eventually provided. And I think it also contributes not that helps also to, to advance back casting faces or more strategic proposals for the action for transformation. So far, some pieces of my, my past from the European scale to the tiny scale of our sentiment landscapes in Spain, and I'll be happy to answer any questions about how we adopted these methodologies or suggestions comments, whatever. Thank you. And I'm giving now the floor to my colleague, Nora, and yeah, hope to engage later. Thanks Elisa, thanks for a nice presentation. And, and I also thank a lot for the invitation to join this event as a speaker. I'm Nora Fajrolman. I'm a PhD in geography and, and I hold the title of docent in participatory landscape research and currently I'm academic research fellow funded by the Academy of Finland and PI over five year project called Green Place and my research is very interesting to holistic understanding of human environment interactions in geospatial context and I have worked since 2005 with place based approaches to local experiential knowledge on ecosystem services and landscapes and today I will highlight such participatory mapping approaches. Let's see if I managed to share my screen. Yes. And for the structure of my presentation so I will first talk a bit about participatory mapping what it is, and what is important to consider in participatory mapping of ecosystem services and then I show some case studies both from Africa and Europe. So participatory mapping, it refers to multiple ways we humans interact to create and communicate knowledge and experience and aspirations about the world in maps. It often means creation of maps by local communities. It involves other organizations such as governments and non governmental organizations, universities and also often some other actors that are engaged in this in the development and land related planning and participatory maps, whether they are crude or sophisticated are created for a wide range of of human environment applications, which could be for example delineation of territorial boundaries, land cover land use boundaries for example, identifying important places that sustain local livelihoods and quality of life, life and communicating preferences about future land uses. Participatory mapping can be said to be kind of an umbrella term for covering public participation GIS or PPGIS participatory GIS, PGIS and and volunteered geographic information BGI. And there are also maybe some others that you have come across in the literature but these are maybe the three most common ones. So we humans constantly modify our land and living space and this leads not only to multiple land uses but also to a diversity of perceptions and meanings and values attached to specific places. And to include people's experiences to planning and management of land and resources, these specially explicit landscape assessment methods have been developed for stakeholder involvement. And here these participatory mapping approaches have raised interest among the ecosystem service community as well as an approach to social cultural assessment of ecosystem services. There are many different ways to collect data with participatory mapping approaches. It can be done for example using printed maps or satellite images or web based platforms and it can also be done in groups or individually. And these different approaches connect to different knowledge systems and ways of identifying value. So firstly we could say that there is kind of this instrumental paradigm that stresses individuals and their values and the collective understanding of that then emerges from their aggregation. And then there is this deliberative paradigm which then again places emphasis on communication and argumentation to understand values among a group of people, participants. And in my work I have mainly applied the instrumental approach which communicates the assigned values and this means the judgment regarding the appreciation of various places and ecosystems and species and so on in the everyday landscapes. And these ecosystem service benefits are provided by the perceptions that emerge from the interaction with the landscape and from the relationships among the people and between the people and the landscape. And so now I move to give examples of such studies from Africa and Europe. So in eastern Africa and Tanzania, within the Tanzania team of University of Turku led by Professor Nina Kauhke, we have developed methods for participatory mapping in the context where there is a need to understand these intelligent socio-ecological processes that cause landscape change and create pressure on forest resources at local levels. And using wooden beads and printed satellite images, the local residents, we have asked them to map relevant sites of important activities and values in their everyday landscape and this has allowed then the identification of these collective special patterns in the landscape. And how has this been linked to ecosystem services? So in this case I created a typology that particularly addresses both the subjective perceptions and uses of the landscape which actually crosses over several ecosystem service categories. And firstly we have here identified the landscape or ecosystem services. Well in this case we use the landscape services as a sort of a specification to ecosystem services, but maybe I don't have time to go into details about why we did this. But anyway, so we identified this landscape or ecosystem services and their indicators on the landscape and then the actual questions that were used in the mapping process. And the informants were then indicating places of direct use of natural resources, for example sites for subsistence farming and non-material intangible value based knowledge relating for example to aesthetic or religious values. So then we analyzed the data together with land cover and land use change data derived from 1930s until today from old maps and aerial images and satellite images. And here on the left side we see land cover class and amount of change trajectory in this specific village of Jeju. And on the right side we see the spatial data that describes the landscape service intensity and richness that came out from the participatory mapping service. And bringing these data sets together enriches the interpretation of the landscape dynamics in this village. And this has potential to enhance spatial augmentation about the complex socio-ecological interactions in this landscape. So for example we can see that acroforestry practices are able to sustain the forest cover in the vicinity of villages. So here if we look at this pattern so this identify that kind of a resource zone that extends one kilometer outwards from the villages and it is extremely valuable and important for the livelihoods of the local people. Then as a next step we or maybe particularly our PhD student Salla Eilola was leading this process as part of her PhD so we co-developed participatory mapping methodology for village land use planning processes. In Tanzania and assets the use of benefits of it and these included increased spatial data quality leading to more reliable land use plans, participation of different community members, use of satellite image as a visual and spatial aid to express opinions. So it was kind of useful and in collaboration with the National Land Use Planning Commission of Tanzania our team produced a guideline and this guideline includes step by step instructions on how to use the methodology in real life. This was a kind of a nice and sort of also unplanned outcome from our research activities in Tanzania. I included here a link to a short video if you're interested you can have a look when you get the slides after the seminar. Then now I jump to another study in Europe. This was developed at the University of Copenhagen related to some EU funded project called ACK Forward that Elis also mentioned and she's also in the photo on the slide here. So in this case we developed an online map based survey to assess ecosystem services across 13 study sites in Europe and the aim here was to understand which ecosystem services are perceived in different landscape by different people and how landscapes contribute to people's well-being. So we looked both at the respondent and landscape characteristics as determinants of place-based ecosystem services. So we had a facilitated semi-structured map based survey where 10 different ecosystem service benefits were mapped. They ranged from as you can see there in the image from farm products to harvested products to outdoor activities, social interaction aesthetics and so on. Existence values, habitat and biodiversity and so on. And here we see an example of the data in one of the study sites in Spain where 181 respondents mapped more than 2400 sites for ecosystem service benefits. And across all sites overall the key ecosystem services were outdoor recreation, aesthetic values and sites for social interactions. And what was interesting was that the provisioning services so here the farm products and harvested products, they were emphasized in regions with low GDP and population density and high proportion of inhabitants that work in agriculture. So this was mainly the case related to Mediterranean and Eastern European study sites that we had. And then again the cultural services were more appreciated in those regions where the GDP is high and also the population density is high. So central and northern European study sites among these 13 sites that we had here. So in this case of the European cross-site comparison we applied a common approach in participatory mapping studies where we mapped ecosystem service benefits that stressed the respondents subjective values and activities in their everyday landscapes. And these are often linked to cultural ecosystem service category. So these anthropocentric values can be both instrumental, so for example the farm and harvested products, but they can also be relational, meaning for example the social interaction and inspiration that we had on the list among the 10 mapped benefits. But they cannot always be placed in one category only, an example of such is harvesting which can be practised both for subsistence but also for recreation and inspiration can be related to it. To highlight something more from the results, so we modeled land cover and conservation area characteristics and accessibility as determinants of mapped ecosystem service benefits and we discovered that accessibility is the most significant predictor of appreciation of ecosystem services. And then that the mapped ecosystem service sum and also their diversity increases with land cover richness. So this means that mosaic landscapes are favoured by people and highlights the importance of multifunctionality and special patterns for generating these social cultural values. And of course then the results have implications for management of multifunctional landscapes in Europe and also elsewhere in similar contexts. Okay, so then finally here on my last slide I have an example of an ongoing research from my current green place project. So in the city of Turku we asked residents to map COVID-19 related changes in green space use and evaluate how nature contributes to their well-being. And respondents were also asked about various cultural ecosystem service benefits linked to the outdoor recreation sites that they mapped in the survey. And here in the map what we see is statistically significant clusters so hot and cold spots of cultural ecosystem service benefits at the outdoor recreation sites and when we look at the blue and red clusters there it shows that the hotspots are located outside the urban core and in the very green areas close to water. So this is a work that we are working progress and we are currently analysing the data further. Okay, these were all my slides. I would like to encourage those who are interested in participatory mapping to visit the participatory mapping institute website which is a recently established network of academics working with these methods. So you're very welcome to join and then there's my email if you have any questions and later on and then links to our Tanzania team website to geospatial labs and my ongoing green place project. So thank you very much. Thank you, Elisa and Nora. I'm going to ask Elisa to, yeah, there you go to turn on her video. And I'm going to kick off this panel discussion. We are finally getting some questions in the chat to. So thank you to everyone who has submitted your questions and I encourage you to keep adding them, because I will be reading through them. To kick off this discussion. We have a question by Luisa Arbosa. Thank you, Luisa. Nice to see you in this virtual room. She's a colleague from Colombia who lives in in Spain. So it's very interested in these topics. And this is a question for Elisa Luisa says I imagine you're familiar with the resistance that many natural science researchers have towards participatory processes that involve civil society. Much of it arises from researchers feeling that what they do is too complex to be debated with non specialists. So in your experience what have your research gained from involving local communities. Can you please provide one or two concrete examples. Yeah, thank you. This indeed is super frequent. I even still have an issue around this in a position committee recently, and this was the hottest conversation. So, yeah, in my experience I would say thinking of precise examples as you also request know that participatory approaches contribute to generate a space of dialogue between different stakeholders that usually don't sit together. And that then they are kind of forced so to say to set up a common language to listen, which is something that unfortunately that nowadays we're not used to do, which is more used to say in our, our voice, our ideas and not so much to listen. And then, if we have sufficient time and this is the, I would say the core challenge of participatory processes to have enough resources and time to devote with communities. Then, what we have seen at least with trans humans for instance in Spain is that this kind of participation also foster deeper alliances know so now my colleagues in Madrid has a live project a huge project to work on the restoration and on the linkages between the practices, the of trans humans, the drug growth and biodiversity enhancement and recovery. So, and that's thanks to the collaboration and another, another very, very clear example I have seen and it's something we are also experiences, experiencing with with colleagues. And, and, and their feminine perspectives and epistemologies of science is that participatory processes allow to incorporate the emotional components. And more frequently the challenge the current environmental challenges social environmental challenges that we are facing are very much related with with emotional aspects and reactions and attitudes and participatory processes to go to work with that beyond numbers beyond rationality beyond scientific data, or with it also. And finally, also, I'll say the last thing is that it allows also to, to set a space for cross pollination between initiatives now something I really like when I do this participatory scenario planning is to kind of bring people from other areas that no I know from the Agroecology movement or from another pastoralist setting, or from a different research perspective. And those are kind of not it allows you to kind of pull in for services with different views, different experiences and that can then perhaps be incorporated in the in the setting in the context and I know sometimes catalyzed changes. Thank you, Elisa. And now we have a question from Natalia Domina to Nora. What data do you think is best received from the local community in pencil so to say and what data contributes more for this technology. Yeah, thanks for the question. For people it's always easiest to map things that are close to their personal life or everyday practices and. And so these kind of issues are much easier for example to map compared to development preferences like future preferences of an area or so on. But relating to the technology of mapping. I would say that very big difference also comes from the fact that if a service facilitated like we did in our European cross site service. The approach was that was that we had online service but we had in each local site trained facilitators who approached the people and they sort of did the survey together. So in this increased a lot data quality in this case so I have also experiences from online service which are done like self administered. And there we certainly see that the samples often are quite biased and this might also be partly due to the technological different technological skills that people have. Thank you. And now we have a question from Lorena Munoz to both participants so thanks for the great presentations. On participatory mapping how was the participation rate in these studies how did you recruit participants. Did you have to include incentives to increase participation. I can start. In this Tanzanian cases we have always worked in intense collaboration with the local village leaders and and we have aimed to recruit people so that we have a balanced representation of different age groups and genders in the village. So we have been following who we interview our survey and then we can also capture those that are missing from the sample and we have given compensation in the case of Tanzania. I think it is a good thing to do when we consider that people might stay in the village and don't go to their fields and sort of lose part of their daily income. So we have chosen that. On online map service for the Turku case for the COVID survey that I showed we just did convenience sampling so the link was distributed in all sorts of media through all sort of media channels and and of course this led to a biased sample. So we have over representation of women highly educated and middle-aged but I have also actually looked at the published literature lately dealing with green area so that women actually quite often are over represented in these studies. So maybe there is also a connection that women tend to respond to such service. Yeah, I would only add that it really depends in my experience so much on the cultural setting. So basically it's critical for you to know the place. I remember with Nora when we were designing the also a survey in Extremadura and it was good fun to exchange how would each of us design that because Nora had not been to like working in Spain beforehand so it made us also think and this is also related with I think some next question about the online tools. Actually in Spain, most of the field work in these topics is needs to be done by spending a lot of time in the area. So you have to be living there with people. This might sound super strange but I would say more than 50% of my research in rural areas has been done in bars with a beer or in discussions because in Spain life takes place and social discussions and takes place in bars. And I'm totally aware that this would never work in Finland or in Sweden, I don't know in Tanzania but this is how it works in Spain. So yeah, it depends a lot. And for instance what we are seeing in the last year is that online tools, at least like interview surveys like individually based tools do not work in Spain. We already tested this with Nora with participatory mapping in the Serragua Rama National Park and we struggled and it didn't work. It's not facilitated face to face. It doesn't really work. But we have this year in October the first online participators and other planning. We were also super skeptical whether people would join for two days in zoom and the very different profiles and people were familiar to people with not we managed and it went super well. We had more than 40 people for two days, but we made a huge effort of design, we had a huge team of very experienced facilitators like a professional with no we hire professional facilitators. We devoted I know like three times the time that we would have devoted to design face to face version. So we use several of these online tools now that are not a popping up like the special chat and middle and several of these of these tools actually help but I think also because we had a professional advice on how to do that. Yeah, I see that now the chat has so many questions and we only have a few minutes left in the discussion but we will keep track of these questions and I'll make sure to email them to the panel is so that they can answer you by email if we don't do it live. So, we have probably time for this last question by Nicole buckley bakes and it's how has participatory mapping research influence local land use planning or conservation decision making. So beyond the research, as it influenced decision making, or both of you. Yeah, this is, of course, always the thing I wish would happen. But we as researchers we know that it's very difficult to make a change in the real life and a change in decision making. Still, however, I'm, I'm very happy and about the fact that we managed to change the village land use planning process in Tanzania through the guideline that was developed based on those ideas and methods that we developed through our research. So, I see that there is a real change that has happened when it comes to participatory mapping approaches Finland. There's been a lot of sort of universities been of a specific company even that has been developing and spreading these approaches to municipalities across the country, and there has been this healthy sort of competitive situation. And I can say that in Finland, currently, many, many municipalities are actually using these approaches in their land use planning processes. So they are institutionalized and I think that is a great, great thing that has happened throughout the past years. But as a researcher who has been working with these methods for, for a long time, what I see as a, as a varying fact is that in order to do a collect data, do a survey that includes a mapping component with the people, it needs to be well planned. You need to know what you're asking and what type of data is coming out. And it's not always very easy and simple to do. And unfortunately, of course, at the municipality level, for example, in Finland, these who are administering participatory mapping service in the land use planning processes, they don't necessarily have the skills and capacities to plan good service. I have also a bit of the worry that it might sometimes lead to complicated questions and on service and so on. And then what I would really like to stress also is that when we are talking about land use planning processes and participation, it's the mapping approaches are not the only way of participation that should be included, but there are also many other ways of participation. And this should be all used sort of in tandem. Elisa, do you have anything to add? I think it's a critical question indeed. I would say, in my experience, unfortunately, in Spain, I would say institutions are still not so open to research inputs or research processes that might be in Scandinavia, as Nero was saying. But in my experience, participatory approaches are slowly kind of entering a different dimension in the way, in the sense that participation is something that is compulsory, usually, for instance, in protected areas or for public administration. And it has been taken, and it's still largely taken in many places like a standard procedure, that it's done because it's compulsory. But increasingly, I think civil society is reclaiming that it's meaningful. And by doing it, it's also a way of transforming people's willingness and people's understanding of how it's done, so it's a practice. And I think the culture of participation is increasing. I would say this is happening in many different parts, but again, it's something that is very different, very different context dependent on cultural issues and also on the socioeconomic situation. One of the things I learned while working in Colombia in a very critical moment where the armed conflict was still very active was that participation has always cost. Also for participants, of course, we are demanding them for time, for this knowledge and that's a cost. But for some people, participation might mean risking their lives or their jobs or the cost might be large. So I also tend to be cautious when speaking and thinking about participation because it's not always easy, it's not always desirable. One needs to be very, very conscious also to manage expectations. So we are researchers and we can contribute and try to foster transformation, but transformation most frequently is not directly on our hands, even though we can do things for it. So I think they're normative, this kind of a political dimension of what is participation, how is it done and why and who is there and who is not and this is a relevant debate that it's important to have between researchers and with the rest of the society. Thank you. So we are already at time but I'm going to use the next two minutes to wrap up and introduce actually that there will be an upcoming conversation. So as Mary mentioned earlier, there is a, this is a series of natural capital conversations. So the next one exactly in a month from today, it's about climate resilience. When it comes to water so please register on the website, and then feel free to follow our social media and check our website for recordings of previous conversations and their registration links of upcoming events. And with that, I want to thank both families for showing up today for sharing their wonderful work. Thanks to all attendees for showing up as well and for asking really interesting and difficult questions and I hope that we live today by learning a lot on cultural services. Thank you and have a good rest of your day.