@article{WalzSchmidtRuizFrauetal.2019, author = {Walz, Ariane and Schmidt, Katja and Ruiz-Frau, Ana and Nicholas, Kimberly A. and Bierry, Adeline and Lentsch, Aster de Vries and Dyankov, Apostol and Joyce, Deirdre and Liski, Anja H. and Marba, Nuria and Rosario, Ines T. and Scholte, Samantha S. K.}, title = {Sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services for operational ecosystem management: mapping applications by decision contexts in Europe}, series = {Regional environmental change}, volume = {19}, journal = {Regional environmental change}, number = {8}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Heidelberg}, issn = {1436-3798}, doi = {10.1007/s10113-019-01506-7}, pages = {2245 -- 2259}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Sociocultural valuation (SCV) of ecosystem services (ES) discloses the principles, importance or preferences expressed by people towards nature. Although ES research has increasingly addressed sociocultural values in past years, little effort has been made to systematically review the components of sociocultural valuation applications for different decision contexts (i.e. awareness raising, accounting, priority setting, litigation and instrument design). In this analysis, we investigate the characteristics of 48 different sociocultural valuation applications—characterised by unique combinations of decision context, methods, data collection formats and participants—across ten European case studies. Our findings show that raising awareness for the sociocultural value of ES by capturing people's perspective and establishing the status quo, was found the most frequent decision context in case studies, followed by priority setting and instrument development. Accounting and litigation issues were not addressed in any of the applications. We reveal that applications for particular decision contexts are methodologically similar, and that decision contexts determine the choice of methods, data collection formats and participants involved. Therefore, we conclude that understanding the decision context is a critical first step to designing and carrying out fit-for-purpose sociocultural valuation of ES in operational ecosystem management.}, language = {en} } @article{SchmidtLischeidNendel2019, author = {Schmidt, Martin and Lischeid, Gunnar and Nendel, Claas}, title = {Microclimate and matter dynamics in transition zones of forest to arable land}, series = {Agricultural and forest meteorology}, volume = {268}, journal = {Agricultural and forest meteorology}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {0168-1923}, doi = {10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.01.001}, pages = {1 -- 10}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Human-driven fragmentation of landscapes leads to the formation of transition zones between ecosystems that are characterised by fluxes of matter, energy and information. These transition zones may offer rather inhospitable habitats that could jeopardise biodiversity. On the other hand, transition zones are also reported to be hotspots for biodiversity and even evolutionary processes. The general mechanisms and influence of processes in transition zones are poorly understood. Although heterogeneity and diversity of land use of fragments and the transition zones between them play an important role, most studies only refer to forested transition zones. Often, only an extrapolation of measurements in the different fragments themselves is reported to determine gradients in transition zones. This paper contributes to a quantitative understanding of agricultural landscapes beyond individual ecotopes, and towards connected ecosystem mosaics that may be beneficial for the provision of ecosystem services.}, language = {en} } @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} }