ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2016
Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impacts of Multi-Land Use Decisions on Temperate Forest Habitat Quality in the Changbai Mountain Region, Northeast China.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Mapping and Analyzing Ecosystem Services Hotspots and Coldspots for Sustainable Spatial Planning in the Greater Asmara Area, Eritrea.Environmental management · 2025Article
- How and why funders support engaged research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Participatory and Spatially Explicit Assessment to Envision the Future of Land-Use/Land-Cover Change Scenarios on Selected Ecosystem Services in Southwestern Ghana.Environmental management · 2024Article
- Make global biodiversity information useful to national decision-makers.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Article
- How is the ecosystem services concept used as a tool to foster collaborative ecosystem governance? A systematic map protocol.Environmental evidence · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Ecological Effects of Ecological Restoration Programs: A Case Study of the Sloping Land Conversion Program on the Loess Plateau, China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Interacting pest control and pollination services in coffee systems.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Producing valuable information from hydrologic models of nature-based solutions for water.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2022Article
- Article
- Evidence on the impact of Baltic Sea ecosystems on human health and well-being: a systematic map.Environmental evidence · 2021Article
- Who Benefits from National Estuaries? Applying the FEGS Classification System to Identify Ecosystem Services and their Beneficiaries.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Combining ecosystem services assessment with structured decision making to support ecological restoration planning.Environmental management · 2018Article
- Nature Contact and Human Health: A Research Agenda.Environmental health perspectives · 2017Article
- Conservation of biodiversity as a strategy for improving human health and well-being.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017Review
- Visions of Restoration in Fire-Adapted Forest Landscapes: Lessons from the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program.Environmental management · 2017Article
- Assessing ecosystem service provision under climate change to support conservation and development planning in Myanmar.PloS one · 2017Article
- Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2016Article
- Science for the sustainable use of ecosystem services.F1000Research · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research about ecosystem services (ES) often aims to generate knowledge that influences policies and institutions for conservation and human development. However, we have limited understanding of how decision-makers use ES knowledge or what factors facilitate use. Here we address this gap and report on, to our knowledge, the first quantitative analysis of the factors and conditions that explain the policy impact of ES knowledge. We analyze a global sample of cases where similar ES knowledge was generated and applied to decision-making. We first test whether attributes of ES knowledge themselves predict different measures of impact on decisions. We find that legitimacy of knowledge is more often associated with impact than either the credibility or salience of the knowledge. We also examine whether predictor variables related to the science-to-policy process and the contextual conditions of a case are significant in predicting impact. Our findings indicate that, although many factors are important, attributes of the knowledge and aspects of the science-to-policy process that enhance legitimacy best explain the impact of ES science on decision-making. Our results are consistent with both theory and previous qualitative assessments in suggesting that the attributes and perceptions of scientific knowledge and process within which knowledge is coproduced are important determinants of whether that knowledge leads to action.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.