A major challenge is that there are substantial differences in terminology, perspectives, and methods used to quantify sustainability and ecosystem services with regard to processes, biodiversity, and socioeconomic effects.
Therefore, a research agenda for future research is developed which includes for example the need for clarifying the terminology, changing perspectives, and conducting more evaluations.
Although the standards share similar scopes of interest, the task of comparing and mapping concepts among standards is challenging due to their differences in terminologies and perspectives.
Unlike the comprehensive integrated terminology, a systemic perspective does not convey the impression that all driving factors are known and incorporated in the approach proposed.
The analysis of the materials revealed that the interviewees perceive the terminology debate from different perspectives: 1) from the perspective of medical practice, 2) from the perspective of research, 3) from the perspective of public relations, and finally, 4) from the perspective of health care delivery.
a IM as descriptor of a physician's role Some of the interviewed medical doctors discussed the terminology question from the perspective of their work.
The terminology debate was discussed from four perspectives: 1) from the perspective of medical practice, 2) from the perspective of research, 3) from the perspective of public relations, and 4) from the perspective of health care delivery.
Despite the varying and confusing terminology (reciprocal interaction vs. transactional perspective), the inherent concepts are commensurate.
The oblique perspective sees research terminology as a by-product of technology and explicitly pays attention to how the technological ambiance conditions the emerging discursive world.
The common terminology allows that the three perspectives on power are not considered as mutually exclusive (different interpretations of the same phenomenon), but as supplementary (different aspects of a change process).
