@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{HellwigWalzMarkovic2019, author = {Hellwig, Niels and Walz, Ariane and Markovic, Danijela}, title = {Climatic and socioeconomic effects on land cover changes across Europe}, series = {PloS One}, volume = {14}, journal = {PloS One}, number = {7}, publisher = {PLOS 1}, address = {San Francisco}, issn = {1932-6203}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0219374}, pages = {20}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Land cover change is a dynamic phenomenon driven by synergetic biophysical and socioeconomic effects. It involves massive transitions from natural to less natural habitats and thereby threatens ecosystems and the services they provide. To retain intact ecosystems and reduce land cover change to a minimum of natural transition processes, a dense network of protected areas has been established across Europe. However, even protected areas and in particular the zones around protected areas have been shown to undergo land cover changes. The aim of our study was to compare land cover changes in protected areas, non-protected areas, and 1 km buffer zones around protected areas and analyse their relationship to climatic and socioeconomic factors across Europe between 2000 and 2012 based on earth observation data. We investigated land cover flows describing major change processes: urbanisation, afforestation, deforestation, intensification of agriculture, extensification of agriculture, and formation of water bodies. Based on boosted regression trees, we modelled correlations between land cover flows and climatic and socioeconomic factors. The results show that land cover changes were most frequent in 1 km buffer zones around protected areas (3.0\% of all buffer areas affected). Overall, land cover changes within protected areas were less frequent than outside, although they still amounted to 18,800 km2 (1.5\% of all protected areas) from 2000 to 2012. In some parts of Europe, urbanisation and intensification of agriculture still accounted for up to 25\% of land cover changes within protected areas. Modelling revealed meaningful relationships between land cover changes and a combination of influencing factors. Demographic factors (accessibility to cities and population density) were most important for coarse-scale patterns of land cover changes, whereas fine-scale patterns were most related to longitude (representing the general east/west economic gradient) and latitude (representing the north/south climatic gradient).}, 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} } @article{VehKorupWalz2019, author = {Veh, Georg and Korup, Oliver and Walz, Ariane}, title = {Hazard from Himalayan glacier lake outburst floods}, series = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America : PNAS}, volume = {117}, journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America : PNAS}, number = {2}, publisher = {National Academy of Sciences}, address = {Washington}, issn = {0027-8424}, doi = {10.1073/pnas.1914898117}, pages = {907 -- 912}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Sustained glacier melt in the Himalayas has gradually spawned more than 5,000 glacier lakes that are dammed by potentially unstable moraines. When such dams break, glacier lake outburst floods (GLOFs) can cause catastrophic societal and geomorphic impacts. We present a robust probabilistic estimate of average GLOFs return periods in the Himalayan region, drawing on 5.4 billion simulations. We find that the 100-y outburst flood has an average volume of 33.5(+3.7)/(-3.7) x 10(6) m(3) (posterior mean and 95\% highest density interval [HDI]) with a peak discharge of 15,600(+2.000)/(-1,800) m(3).S-1. Our estimated GLOF hazard is tied to the rate of historic lake outbursts and the number of present lakes, which both are highest in the Eastern Himalayas. There, the estimated 100-y GLOF discharge (similar to 14,500 m(3).s(-1)) is more than 3 times that of the adjacent Nyainqentanglha Mountains, and at least an order of magnitude higher than in the Hindu Kush, Karakoram, and Western Himalayas. The GLOF hazard may increase in these regions that currently have large glaciers, but few lakes, if future projected ice loss generates more unstable moraine-dammed lakes than we recognize today. Flood peaks from GLOFs mostly attenuate within Himalayan headwaters, but can rival monsoon-fed discharges in major rivers hundreds to thousands of kilometers downstream. Projections of future hazard from meteorological floods need to account for the extreme runoffs during lake outbursts, given the increasing trends in population, infrastructure, and hydropower projects in Himalayan headwaters.}, language = {en} } @article{MartinLopezLeisterCruzetal.2019, author = {Martin-Lopez, Berta and Leister, Ines and Cruz, Pedro Lorenzo and Palomo, Ignacio and Gret-Regamey, Adrienne and Harrison, Paula A. and Lavorel, Sandra and Locatelli, Bruno and Luque, Sandra and Walz, Ariane}, title = {Nature's contributions to people in mountains}, series = {PLoS one}, volume = {14}, journal = {PLoS one}, number = {6}, publisher = {PLoS}, address = {San Fransisco}, issn = {1932-6203}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0217847}, pages = {24}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Mountains play a key role in the provision of nature's contributions to people (NCP) worldwide that support societies' quality of life. Simultaneously, mountains are threatened by multiple drivers of change. Due to the complex interlinkages between biodiversity, quality of life and drivers of change, research on NCP in mountains requires interdisciplinary approaches. In this study, we used the conceptual framework of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the notion of NCP to determine to what extent previous research on ecosystem services in mountains has explored the different components of the IPBES conceptual framework. We conducted a systematic review of articles on ecosystem services in mountains published up to 2016 using the Web of Science and Scopus databases. Descriptive statistical and network analyses were conducted to explore the level of research on the components of the IPBES framework and their interactions. Our results show that research has gradually become more interdisciplinary by studying higher number of NCP, dimensions of quality of life, and indirect drivers of change. Yet, research focusing on biodiversity, regulating NCP and direct drivers has decreased over time. Furthermore, despite the fact that research on NCP in mountains becoming more policy-oriented over time, mainly in relation to payments for ecosystem services, institutional responses remained underexplored in the reviewed studies. Finally, we discuss the relevant knowledge gaps that should be addressed in future research in order to contribute to IPBES.}, language = {en} }