TY - JOUR A1 - Patenaude, Genevieve A1 - Lautenbach, Sven A1 - Paterson, James S. A1 - Locatelli, Tommaso A1 - Dormann, Carsten F. A1 - Metzger, Marc J. A1 - Walz, Ariane T1 - Breaking the ecosystem services glass ceiling: realising impact JF - Regional environmental change N2 - 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. KW - Ecosystem services KW - Impact KW - Awareness KW - Policy KW - Practice Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1434-3 SN - 1436-3798 SN - 1436-378X VL - 19 IS - 8 SP - 2261 EP - 2274 PB - Springer CY - Heidelberg ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Schoonover, Heather A. A1 - Gret-Regamey, Adrienne A1 - Metzger, Marc J. A1 - Ruiz-Frau, Ana A1 - Santos-Reis, Margarida A1 - Scholte, Samantha S. K. A1 - Walz, Ariane A1 - Nicholas, Kimberly A. T1 - Creating space, aligning motivations, and building trust BT - a practical framework for stakeholder engagement based on experience in 12 ecosystem services case studies JF - Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability N2 - 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. KW - cocreated knowledge KW - ecosystem services KW - participatory research KW - research design KW - stakeholder engagement KW - transdisciplinary research Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10061-240111 SN - 1708-3087 VL - 24 IS - 1 PB - Resilience Alliance CY - Wolfville ER - TY - GEN A1 - Rounsevell, Mark D. A. A1 - Metzger, Marc J. A1 - Walz, Ariane T1 - Operationalising ecosystem services in Europe T2 - Regional environmental change Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01560-1 SN - 1436-3798 SN - 1436-378X VL - 19 IS - 8 SP - 2143 EP - 2149 PB - Springer CY - Heidelberg ER -