Breaking the ecosystem services glass ceiling: realising impact

被引:0
作者
Genevieve Patenaude
Sven Lautenbach
James S. Paterson
Tommaso Locatelli
Carsten F. Dormann
Marc J. Metzger
Ariane Walz
机构
[1] The University of Edinburgh,School of Geosciences
[2] University of Heidelberg,GIScience Research Group, Institute of Geography
[3] University of Freiburg,Biometry & Environmental System Analysis
[4] University of Potsdam,Institute of Earth and Environmental Science
来源
Regional Environmental Change | 2019年 / 19卷
关键词
Ecosystem services; Impact; Awareness; Policy; Practice;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:2261 / 2274
页数:13
相关论文
共 187 条
[1]  
Anderies JM(2004)A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective Ecol Soc 9 18-222
[2]  
Janssen MA(2017)Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies Ecosystem Services 29 213-21
[3]  
Ostrom E(2015)The growth of impact evaluation for international development: how much have we learned? J Dev Eff 8 1-9488
[4]  
Bouwma I(2008)An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation Proc Natl Acad Sci 105 9483-9456
[5]  
Schleyer C(2008)Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation Proc Natl Acad Sci 105 9455-28
[6]  
Primmer E(2009)Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver Front Ecol Environ 7 21-272
[7]  
Winkler KJ(2010)Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making Ecol Complex 7 260-130
[8]  
Berry P(2013)Evaluating the substantive effectiveness of sea: towards a better understanding Environ Impact Assess Rev 38 120-267
[9]  
Young J(2006)Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Global Environ Change-Human and Policy Dimen 16 253-440
[10]  
Carmen E(2002)Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations Ambio 31 437-315