@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{FranzkedelaFuente2021,
  author    = {Franzke, Jochen and de la Fuente, Jos{\´e} M. Ruano},
  title     = {New Challenges in Local Migrant Integration Policy in Europe},
  series = {Local Integration of Migrants Policy},
  journal   = {Local Integration of Migrants Policy},
  publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan},
  address   = {Cham},
  isbn      = {978-3-030-50978-1},
  issn      = {2523-8248},
  doi       = {10.1007/978-3-030-50979-8_1},
  pages     = {1 -- 9},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {In this introductory chapter, the editors describe the main theoretical basis of analysis of this book and the methodological approach. The core of this book consists of 14 country-specific chapters, which allow a European comparison and show the increasing variance in migration policy approaches within and between European countries. The degree of local autonomy, the level of centralisation and the traditional forms of migration policy are factors that especially influence the possibilities for local authorities to formulate their own integration policies.},
  language  = {en}
}