Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice
- Autores
- Saarikoski, Heli; Primmer, Eeva; Saarela, Sanna-Riikka; Antunes, Paula; Aszalós, Réka; Baró, Francesc; Berry, Pam; Blanko, Gemma Garcia; Gómez Baggethun, Erik; Carvalho, Laurence; Dick, Jan; Dunford, Robert; Hanzu, Mihail; Harrison, Paula A.; Izakovicova, Zita; Kertész, Miklós; Kopperoinen, Leena; Köhler, Berit; Langemeyer, Johannes; Lapola, David; Liquete, Camino; Luque, Sandra; Mederly, Peter; Niemelä, Jari; Palomo, Ignacio; Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José; Peri, Pablo Luis; Preda, Elena; Priess, Jörg A.; Santos, Rui; Schleyer, Christian; Turkelboom, Francis; Vadineanu, Angheluta; Verheyden, Wim; Vikström, Suvi; Young, Juliette
- Año de publicación
- 2018
- Idioma
- inglés
- Tipo de recurso
- artículo
- Estado
- versión publicada
- Descripción
- The promise that ecosystem service assessments will contribute to better decision-making is not yet proven. We analyse how knowledge on ecosystem services is actually used to inform land and water management in 22 case studies covering different social-ecological systems in European and Latin American countries. None of the case studies reported instrumental use of knowledge in a sense that ecosystem service knowledge would have served as an impartial arbiter between policy options. Yet, in most cases, there was some evidence of conceptual learning as a result of close interaction between researchers, practitioners and stakeholders. We observed several factors that constrained knowledge uptake, including competing interests and political agendas, scientific disputes, professional norms and competencies, and lack of vertical and horizontal integration. Ecosystem knowledge played a small role particularly in those planning and policy-making situations where it challenged established interests and the current distribution of benefits from ecosystems. The factors that facilitated knowledge use included application of transparent participatory methods, social capital, policy champions and clear synergies between ecosystem services and human well-being. The results are aligned with previous studies which have emphasized the importance of building local capacity, ownership and trust for the long-term success of ecosystem service research.
Fil: Saarikoski, Heli. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia
Fil: Primmer, Eeva. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia
Fil: Saarela, Sanna-Riikka. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia
Fil: Antunes, Paula. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Faculdade de Ciências E Tecnologia; Portugal
Fil: Aszalós, Réka. Hungarian Academy Of Sciences. Institute Of Ecology And Botany; Hungría
Fil: Baró, Francesc. Hospital del Mar; España. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; España
Fil: Berry, Pam. University of Oxford; Reino Unido
Fil: Blanko, Gemma Garcia. Tecnalia; España
Fil: Gómez Baggethun, Erik. Norwegian University of Life Sciences; Noruega. Norwegian Institute For Nature Research; Noruega
Fil: Carvalho, Laurence. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Reino Unido
Fil: Dick, Jan. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Reino Unido
Fil: Dunford, Robert. University of Oxford; Reino Unido. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Reino Unido
Fil: Hanzu, Mihail. Romanian National Institute Of Research And Development In Forestry 'marin Dracea';
Fil: Harrison, Paula A.. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Reino Unido
Fil: Izakovicova, Zita. Slovak Academy of Science. Institute of Landscape Ecology; Eslovaquia
Fil: Kertész, Miklós. Hungarian Academy Of Sciences. Institute Of Ecology And Botany; Hungría
Fil: Kopperoinen, Leena. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia
Fil: Köhler, Berit. Norwegian Institute For Nature Research; Noruega
Fil: Langemeyer, Johannes. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; España. Hospital del Mar; España
Fil: Lapola, David. Universidade Estadual de Campinas; Brasil
Fil: Liquete, Camino. European Commission Joint Research Centre; Italia
Fil: Luque, Sandra. ational Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture; Francia
Fil: Mederly, Peter. Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra; Eslovaquia
Fil: Niemelä, Jari. University of Helsinki; Finlandia
Fil: Palomo, Ignacio. Basque Centre For Climate Change; España
Fil: Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; Argentina
Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Preda, Elena. Universitatea Din Bucuresti; Rumania
Fil: Priess, Jörg A.. Helmholtz Zentrum Für Umweltforschung; Alemania
Fil: Santos, Rui. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Faculdade de Ciências E Tecnologia; Portugal
Fil: Schleyer, Christian. Alpen-adria-universität Klagenfurt; Austria
Fil: Turkelboom, Francis. Research Institute For Nature And Forest; Bélgica
Fil: Vadineanu, Angheluta. Universitatea Din Bucuresti; Rumania
Fil: Verheyden, Wim. Research Institute For Nature And Forest; Bélgica
Fil: Vikström, Suvi. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia
Fil: Young, Juliette. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Reino Unido - Materia
-
ecosystem service assessment
stakeholders
policy-making
social capital - Nivel de accesibilidad
- acceso abierto
- Condiciones de uso
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
- Repositorio
- Institución
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
- OAI Identificador
- oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/94804
Ver los metadatos del registro completo
id |
CONICETDig_016a4608a22d056a30368f2119b416ce |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/94804 |
network_acronym_str |
CONICETDig |
repository_id_str |
3498 |
network_name_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
spelling |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practiceSaarikoski, HeliPrimmer, EevaSaarela, Sanna-RiikkaAntunes, PaulaAszalós, RékaBaró, FrancescBerry, PamBlanko, Gemma GarciaGómez Baggethun, ErikCarvalho, LaurenceDick, JanDunford, RobertHanzu, MihailHarrison, Paula A.Izakovicova, ZitaKertész, MiklósKopperoinen, LeenaKöhler, BeritLangemeyer, JohannesLapola, DavidLiquete, CaminoLuque, SandraMederly, PeterNiemelä, JariPalomo, IgnacioMartínez Pastur, Guillermo JoséPeri, Pablo LuisPreda, ElenaPriess, Jörg A.Santos, RuiSchleyer, ChristianTurkelboom, FrancisVadineanu, AnghelutaVerheyden, WimVikström, SuviYoung, Julietteecosystem service assessmentstakeholderspolicy-makingsocial capitalhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1The promise that ecosystem service assessments will contribute to better decision-making is not yet proven. We analyse how knowledge on ecosystem services is actually used to inform land and water management in 22 case studies covering different social-ecological systems in European and Latin American countries. None of the case studies reported instrumental use of knowledge in a sense that ecosystem service knowledge would have served as an impartial arbiter between policy options. Yet, in most cases, there was some evidence of conceptual learning as a result of close interaction between researchers, practitioners and stakeholders. We observed several factors that constrained knowledge uptake, including competing interests and political agendas, scientific disputes, professional norms and competencies, and lack of vertical and horizontal integration. Ecosystem knowledge played a small role particularly in those planning and policy-making situations where it challenged established interests and the current distribution of benefits from ecosystems. The factors that facilitated knowledge use included application of transparent participatory methods, social capital, policy champions and clear synergies between ecosystem services and human well-being. The results are aligned with previous studies which have emphasized the importance of building local capacity, ownership and trust for the long-term success of ecosystem service research.Fil: Saarikoski, Heli. Finnish Environment Institute; FinlandiaFil: Primmer, Eeva. Finnish Environment Institute; FinlandiaFil: Saarela, Sanna-Riikka. Finnish Environment Institute; FinlandiaFil: Antunes, Paula. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Faculdade de Ciências E Tecnologia; PortugalFil: Aszalós, Réka. Hungarian Academy Of Sciences. Institute Of Ecology And Botany; HungríaFil: Baró, Francesc. Hospital del Mar; España. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; EspañaFil: Berry, Pam. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Blanko, Gemma Garcia. Tecnalia; EspañaFil: Gómez Baggethun, Erik. Norwegian University of Life Sciences; Noruega. Norwegian Institute For Nature Research; NoruegaFil: Carvalho, Laurence. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Reino UnidoFil: Dick, Jan. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Reino UnidoFil: Dunford, Robert. University of Oxford; Reino Unido. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Reino UnidoFil: Hanzu, Mihail. Romanian National Institute Of Research And Development In Forestry 'marin Dracea'; Fil: Harrison, Paula A.. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Reino UnidoFil: Izakovicova, Zita. Slovak Academy of Science. Institute of Landscape Ecology; EslovaquiaFil: Kertész, Miklós. Hungarian Academy Of Sciences. Institute Of Ecology And Botany; HungríaFil: Kopperoinen, Leena. Finnish Environment Institute; FinlandiaFil: Köhler, Berit. Norwegian Institute For Nature Research; NoruegaFil: Langemeyer, Johannes. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; España. Hospital del Mar; EspañaFil: Lapola, David. Universidade Estadual de Campinas; BrasilFil: Liquete, Camino. European Commission Joint Research Centre; ItaliaFil: Luque, Sandra. ational Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture; FranciaFil: Mederly, Peter. Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra; EslovaquiaFil: Niemelä, Jari. University of Helsinki; FinlandiaFil: Palomo, Ignacio. Basque Centre For Climate Change; EspañaFil: Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; ArgentinaFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Preda, Elena. Universitatea Din Bucuresti; RumaniaFil: Priess, Jörg A.. Helmholtz Zentrum Für Umweltforschung; AlemaniaFil: Santos, Rui. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Faculdade de Ciências E Tecnologia; PortugalFil: Schleyer, Christian. Alpen-adria-universität Klagenfurt; AustriaFil: Turkelboom, Francis. Research Institute For Nature And Forest; BélgicaFil: Vadineanu, Angheluta. Universitatea Din Bucuresti; RumaniaFil: Verheyden, Wim. Research Institute For Nature And Forest; BélgicaFil: Vikström, Suvi. Finnish Environment Institute; FinlandiaFil: Young, Juliette. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Reino UnidoElsevier2018-02info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/94804Saarikoski, Heli; Primmer, Eeva; Saarela, Sanna-Riikka; Antunes, Paula; Aszalós, Réka; et al.; Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice; Elsevier; Ecosystem Services; 29; Part C; 2-2018; 579-5982212-0416CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617300141info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-10-15T14:59:09Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/94804instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-10-15 14:59:09.301CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
title |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
spellingShingle |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice Saarikoski, Heli ecosystem service assessment stakeholders policy-making social capital |
title_short |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
title_full |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
title_fullStr |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
title_full_unstemmed |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
title_sort |
Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice |
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv |
Saarikoski, Heli Primmer, Eeva Saarela, Sanna-Riikka Antunes, Paula Aszalós, Réka Baró, Francesc Berry, Pam Blanko, Gemma Garcia Gómez Baggethun, Erik Carvalho, Laurence Dick, Jan Dunford, Robert Hanzu, Mihail Harrison, Paula A. Izakovicova, Zita Kertész, Miklós Kopperoinen, Leena Köhler, Berit Langemeyer, Johannes Lapola, David Liquete, Camino Luque, Sandra Mederly, Peter Niemelä, Jari Palomo, Ignacio Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José Peri, Pablo Luis Preda, Elena Priess, Jörg A. Santos, Rui Schleyer, Christian Turkelboom, Francis Vadineanu, Angheluta Verheyden, Wim Vikström, Suvi Young, Juliette |
author |
Saarikoski, Heli |
author_facet |
Saarikoski, Heli Primmer, Eeva Saarela, Sanna-Riikka Antunes, Paula Aszalós, Réka Baró, Francesc Berry, Pam Blanko, Gemma Garcia Gómez Baggethun, Erik Carvalho, Laurence Dick, Jan Dunford, Robert Hanzu, Mihail Harrison, Paula A. Izakovicova, Zita Kertész, Miklós Kopperoinen, Leena Köhler, Berit Langemeyer, Johannes Lapola, David Liquete, Camino Luque, Sandra Mederly, Peter Niemelä, Jari Palomo, Ignacio Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José Peri, Pablo Luis Preda, Elena Priess, Jörg A. Santos, Rui Schleyer, Christian Turkelboom, Francis Vadineanu, Angheluta Verheyden, Wim Vikström, Suvi Young, Juliette |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Primmer, Eeva Saarela, Sanna-Riikka Antunes, Paula Aszalós, Réka Baró, Francesc Berry, Pam Blanko, Gemma Garcia Gómez Baggethun, Erik Carvalho, Laurence Dick, Jan Dunford, Robert Hanzu, Mihail Harrison, Paula A. Izakovicova, Zita Kertész, Miklós Kopperoinen, Leena Köhler, Berit Langemeyer, Johannes Lapola, David Liquete, Camino Luque, Sandra Mederly, Peter Niemelä, Jari Palomo, Ignacio Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José Peri, Pablo Luis Preda, Elena Priess, Jörg A. Santos, Rui Schleyer, Christian Turkelboom, Francis Vadineanu, Angheluta Verheyden, Wim Vikström, Suvi Young, Juliette |
author2_role |
author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author author |
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
ecosystem service assessment stakeholders policy-making social capital |
topic |
ecosystem service assessment stakeholders policy-making social capital |
purl_subject.fl_str_mv |
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1 |
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv |
The promise that ecosystem service assessments will contribute to better decision-making is not yet proven. We analyse how knowledge on ecosystem services is actually used to inform land and water management in 22 case studies covering different social-ecological systems in European and Latin American countries. None of the case studies reported instrumental use of knowledge in a sense that ecosystem service knowledge would have served as an impartial arbiter between policy options. Yet, in most cases, there was some evidence of conceptual learning as a result of close interaction between researchers, practitioners and stakeholders. We observed several factors that constrained knowledge uptake, including competing interests and political agendas, scientific disputes, professional norms and competencies, and lack of vertical and horizontal integration. Ecosystem knowledge played a small role particularly in those planning and policy-making situations where it challenged established interests and the current distribution of benefits from ecosystems. The factors that facilitated knowledge use included application of transparent participatory methods, social capital, policy champions and clear synergies between ecosystem services and human well-being. The results are aligned with previous studies which have emphasized the importance of building local capacity, ownership and trust for the long-term success of ecosystem service research. Fil: Saarikoski, Heli. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Primmer, Eeva. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Saarela, Sanna-Riikka. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Antunes, Paula. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Faculdade de Ciências E Tecnologia; Portugal Fil: Aszalós, Réka. Hungarian Academy Of Sciences. Institute Of Ecology And Botany; Hungría Fil: Baró, Francesc. Hospital del Mar; España. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; España Fil: Berry, Pam. University of Oxford; Reino Unido Fil: Blanko, Gemma Garcia. Tecnalia; España Fil: Gómez Baggethun, Erik. Norwegian University of Life Sciences; Noruega. Norwegian Institute For Nature Research; Noruega Fil: Carvalho, Laurence. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Reino Unido Fil: Dick, Jan. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Reino Unido Fil: Dunford, Robert. University of Oxford; Reino Unido. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Reino Unido Fil: Hanzu, Mihail. Romanian National Institute Of Research And Development In Forestry 'marin Dracea'; Fil: Harrison, Paula A.. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Reino Unido Fil: Izakovicova, Zita. Slovak Academy of Science. Institute of Landscape Ecology; Eslovaquia Fil: Kertész, Miklós. Hungarian Academy Of Sciences. Institute Of Ecology And Botany; Hungría Fil: Kopperoinen, Leena. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Köhler, Berit. Norwegian Institute For Nature Research; Noruega Fil: Langemeyer, Johannes. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; España. Hospital del Mar; España Fil: Lapola, David. Universidade Estadual de Campinas; Brasil Fil: Liquete, Camino. European Commission Joint Research Centre; Italia Fil: Luque, Sandra. ational Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture; Francia Fil: Mederly, Peter. Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra; Eslovaquia Fil: Niemelä, Jari. University of Helsinki; Finlandia Fil: Palomo, Ignacio. Basque Centre For Climate Change; España Fil: Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; Argentina Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina Fil: Preda, Elena. Universitatea Din Bucuresti; Rumania Fil: Priess, Jörg A.. Helmholtz Zentrum Für Umweltforschung; Alemania Fil: Santos, Rui. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Faculdade de Ciências E Tecnologia; Portugal Fil: Schleyer, Christian. Alpen-adria-universität Klagenfurt; Austria Fil: Turkelboom, Francis. Research Institute For Nature And Forest; Bélgica Fil: Vadineanu, Angheluta. Universitatea Din Bucuresti; Rumania Fil: Verheyden, Wim. Research Institute For Nature And Forest; Bélgica Fil: Vikström, Suvi. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Young, Juliette. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Reino Unido |
description |
The promise that ecosystem service assessments will contribute to better decision-making is not yet proven. We analyse how knowledge on ecosystem services is actually used to inform land and water management in 22 case studies covering different social-ecological systems in European and Latin American countries. None of the case studies reported instrumental use of knowledge in a sense that ecosystem service knowledge would have served as an impartial arbiter between policy options. Yet, in most cases, there was some evidence of conceptual learning as a result of close interaction between researchers, practitioners and stakeholders. We observed several factors that constrained knowledge uptake, including competing interests and political agendas, scientific disputes, professional norms and competencies, and lack of vertical and horizontal integration. Ecosystem knowledge played a small role particularly in those planning and policy-making situations where it challenged established interests and the current distribution of benefits from ecosystems. The factors that facilitated knowledge use included application of transparent participatory methods, social capital, policy champions and clear synergies between ecosystem services and human well-being. The results are aligned with previous studies which have emphasized the importance of building local capacity, ownership and trust for the long-term success of ecosystem service research. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-02 |
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/94804 Saarikoski, Heli; Primmer, Eeva; Saarela, Sanna-Riikka; Antunes, Paula; Aszalós, Réka; et al.; Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice; Elsevier; Ecosystem Services; 29; Part C; 2-2018; 579-598 2212-0416 CONICET Digital CONICET |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/94804 |
identifier_str_mv |
Saarikoski, Heli; Primmer, Eeva; Saarela, Sanna-Riikka; Antunes, Paula; Aszalós, Réka; et al.; Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice; Elsevier; Ecosystem Services; 29; Part C; 2-2018; 579-598 2212-0416 CONICET Digital CONICET |
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617300141 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019 |
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/ |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/ |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Elsevier |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Elsevier |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET) instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
reponame_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
collection |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
instname_str |
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar |
_version_ |
1846083132530360320 |
score |
13.22299 |