Climate change is expected to exacerbate the current threats to freshwater ecosystems, yet multifaceted studies on the potential impacts of climate change on freshwater biodiversity at scales that inform management planning are lacking. The aim of this study was to fill this void through the development of a novel framework for assessing climate change vulnerability tailored to freshwater ecosystems. The three dimensions of climate change vulnerability are as follows: (i) exposure to climate change, (ii) sensitivity to altered environmental conditions and (iii) resilience potential. Our vulnerability framework includes 1685 freshwater species of plants, fishes, molluscs, odonates, amphibians, crayfish and turtles alongside key features within and between catchments, such as topography and connectivity. Several methodologies were used to combine these dimensions across a variety of future climate change models and scenarios. The resulting indices were overlaid to assess the vulnerability of European freshwater ecosystems at the catchment scale (18 783 catchments). The Balkan Lakes Ohrid and Prespa and Mediterranean islands emerge as most vulnerable to climate change. For the 2030s, we showed a consensus among the applied methods whereby up to 573 lake and river catchments are highly vulnerable to climate change. The anthropogenic disruption of hydrological habitat connectivity by dams is the major factor reducing climate change resilience. A gap analysis demonstrated that the current European protected area network covers <25% of the most vulnerable catchments. Practical steps need to be taken to ensure the persistence of freshwater biodiversity under climate change. Priority should be placed on enhancing stakeholder cooperation at the major basin scale towards preventing further degradation of freshwater ecosystems and maintaining connectivity among catchments. The catchments identified as most vulnerable to climate change provide preliminary targets for development of climate change conservation management and mitigation strategies.

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.

Ecosystem services have a significant impact on human wellbeing. While ecosystem services are frequently represented by monetary values, social values and underlying social benefits remain under explored. The purpose of this study is to assess whether and how social benefits have been explicitly addressed within socio-economic and socio-cultural ecosystem services research, ultimately allowing a better understanding between ecosystem services and human well-being. In this paper, we reviewed 115 international primary valuation studies and tested four hypotheses associated to the identification of social benefits of ecosystem services using logistic regressions. Tested hypotheses were that (1) social benefits are mostly derived in studies that assess cultural ecosystem services as opposed to other ecosystem service types, (2) there is a pattern of social benefits and certain cultural ecosystem services assessed simultaneously, (3) monetary valuation techniques go beyond expressing monetary values and convey social benefits, and (4) directly addressing stakeholder's views the consideration of social benefits in ecosystem service assessments. Our analysis revealed that (1) a variety of social benefits are valued in studies that assess either of the four ecosystem service types, (2) certain social benefits are likely to co-occur in combination with certain cultural ecosystem services, (3) of the studies that employed monetary valuation techniques, simulated market approaches overlapped most frequently with the assessment of social benefits and (4) studies that directly incorporate stakeholder's views were more likely to also assess social benefits. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Niche-based species distribution models (SDMs) play a central role in studying species response to environmental change. Effective management and conservation plans for freshwater ecosystems require SDMs that accommodate hierarchical catchment ordering and provide clarity on the performance of such models across multiple scales. The scale-dependence components considered here are: (a) environment spatial structure, represented by hierarchical catchment ordering following the Strahler system; (b) analysis grain, that included 1st to 5th order catchments; and (c) response grain, the grain at which species respond most, represented by local and upstream catchment area effects. We used fish occurrence data from the Danube River Basin and various factors representing climate, land cover and anthropogenic pressures. Our results indicate that the choice of response grain local vs. upstream area effects and the choice of analysis grain, only marginally influence the performance of SDMs. Upstream effects tend to better predict fish distributions than corresponding local effects for anthropogenic and land cover factors, in particular for species sensitive to pollution. Key predictors and their relative importance are scale and species dependent. Consequently, choosing proper species dependent spatial scales and factors is imperative for effective river rehabilitation measures.