@article{PatenaudeLautenbachPatersonetal.2019,
  author    = {Patenaude, Genevieve and Lautenbach, Sven and Paterson, James S. and Locatelli, Tommaso and Dormann, Carsten F. and Metzger, Marc J. and Walz, Ariane},
  title     = {Breaking the ecosystem services glass ceiling: realising impact},
  series = {Regional environmental change},
  volume    = {19},
  journal   = {Regional environmental change},
  number    = {8},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Heidelberg},
  issn      = {1436-3798},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10113-018-1434-3},
  pages     = {2261 -- 2274},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Through changes in policy and practice, the inherent intent of the ecosystem services (ES) concept is to safeguard ecosystems for human wellbeing. While impact is intrinsic to the concept, little is known about how and whether ES science leads to impact. Evidence of impact is needed. Given the lack of consensus on what constitutes impact, we differentiate between attributional impacts (transitional impacts on policy, practice, awareness or other drivers) and consequential impacts (real, on-the-ground impacts on biodiversity, ES, ecosystem functions and human wellbeing) impacts. We conduct rigorous statistical analyses on three extensive databases for evidence of attributional impact (the form most prevalently reported): the IPBES catalogue (n = 102), the Lautenbach systematic review (n = 504) and a 5-year in-depth survey of the OPERAs Exemplars (n = 13). To understand the drivers of impacts, we statistically analyse associations between study characteristics and impacts. Our findings show that there exists much confusion with regard to defining ES science impacts, and that evidence of attributional impact is scarce: only 25\% of the IPBES assessments self-reported impact (7\% with evidence); in our meta-analysis of Lautenbach's systematic review, 33\% of studies provided recommendations indicating intent of impacts. Systematic impact reporting was imposed by design on the OPERAs Exemplars: 100\% reported impacts, suggesting the importance of formal impact reporting. The generalised linear models and correlations between study characteristics and attributional impact dimensions highlight four characteristics as minimum baseline for impact: study robustness, integration of policy instruments into study design, stakeholder involvement and type of stakeholders involved. Further in depth examination of the OPERAs Exemplars showed that study characteristics associated with impact on awareness and practice differ from those associated with impact on policy: to achieve impact along specific dimensions, bespoke study designs are recommended. These results inform targeted recommendations for ES science to break its impact glass ceiling.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SchoonoverGretRegameyMetzgeretal.2019,
  author    = {Schoonover, Heather A. and Gret-Regamey, Adrienne and Metzger, Marc J. and Ruiz-Frau, Ana and Santos-Reis, Margarida and Scholte, Samantha S. K. and Walz, Ariane and Nicholas, Kimberly A.},
  title     = {Creating space, aligning motivations, and building trust},
  series = {Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability},
  volume    = {24},
  journal   = {Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Resilience Alliance},
  address   = {Wolfville},
  issn      = {1708-3087},
  doi       = {10.5751/ES-10061-240111},
  pages     = {13},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Ecosystem services inherently involve people, whose values help define the benefits of nature's services. It is thus important for researchers to involve stakeholders in ecosystem services research. However, a simple and practicable framework to guide such engagement, and in particular to help researchers anticipate and consider key issues and challenges, has not been well explored. Here, we use experience from the 12 case studies in the European Operational Potential of Ecosystem Research Applications (OPERAs) project to propose a stakeholder engagement framework comprising three key elements: creating space, aligning motivations, and building trust. We argue that involving stakeholders in research demands thoughtful reflection from the researchers about what kind of space they want to create, including if and how they want to bring different interests together, how much space they want to allow for critical discussion, and whether there is a role for particular stakeholders to serve as conduits between others. In addition, understanding their own motivations—including values, knowledge, goals, and desired benefits—will help researchers decide when and how to involve stakeholders, identify areas of common ground and potential disagreement, frame the project appropriately, set expectations, and ensure each party is able to see benefits of engaging with each other. Finally, building relationships with stakeholders can be difficult but considering the roles of existing relationships, time, approach, reputation, and belonging can help build mutual trust. Although the three key elements and the paths between them can play out differently depending on the particular research project, we suggest that a research design that considers how to create the space in which researchers and stakeholders will meet, align motivations between researchers and stakeholders, and build mutual trust will help foster productive researcher-stakeholder relationships.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{RounsevellMetzgerWalz2019,
  author    = {Rounsevell, Mark D. A. and Metzger, Marc J. and Walz, Ariane},
  title     = {Operationalising ecosystem services in Europe},
  series = {Regional environmental change},
  volume    = {19},
  journal   = {Regional environmental change},
  number    = {8},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Heidelberg},
  issn      = {1436-3798},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10113-019-01560-1},
  pages     = {2143 -- 2149},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}