Researcher engagement in policy deemed societally beneficial yet unrewarded.

Maintaining the continued flow of benefits from science, as well as societal support for science, requires sustained engagement between the research community and the general public. On the basis of data from an international survey of 1092 participants (634 established researchers and 458 students) in 55 countries and 315 research institutions, we found that institutional recognition of engagement activities is perceived to be undervalued relative to the societal benefit of those activities. Many researchers report that their institutions do not reward engagement activities despite institutions' mission statements promoting such engagement. Furthermore, institutions that actually measure engagement activities do so only to a limited extent. Most researchers are strongly motivated to engage with the public for selfless reasons, which suggests that incentives focused on monetary benefits or career progress may not align with researchers' values. If institutions encourage researchers' engagement activities in a more appropriate way - by moving beyond incentives - they might better achieve their institutional missions and bolster the crucial contributions of researchers to society.

Trading green backs for green crabs: evaluating the commercial shellfish harvest at risk from European green crab invasion.

Nonnative species pose a threat to native biodiversity and can have immense impacts on biological communities, altering the function of ecosystems. How much value is at risk from high-impact invasive species, and which parameters determine variation in that value, constitutes critical knowledge for directing both management and research, but it is rarely available. We evaluated the value of the commercial shellfish harvest that is at risk in nearshore ecosystems of Puget Sound, Washington State, USA, from the invasive European green crab, Carcinus maenas. We assessed this value using a simple static ecological model combined with an economic model using data from Puget Sound's shellfish harvest and revenue and the relationship between C. maenas abundance and the consumption rate of shellfish. The model incorporates a range in C. maenas diet preference, calories consumed per year, and crab densities. C. maenas is likely to prey on commercially harvested hardshell clams, oysters, and mussels, which would likely reduce additional revenue from processing and distribution, and the number of jobs associated with these fisheries. The model results suggest possible revenue losses of these shellfish ranging from $1.03-23.8 million USD (2.8-64% losses), with harvesting and processing losses up to $44 million USD (40%) and 303 job positions each year associated with a range of plausible parameter values. The broad range of values reflects the uncertainty in key factors underlying impacts, factors that are highly variable across invaded regions and so not knowable a priori. However, future research evaluating species invasions can reduce the uncertainty of impacts by characterizing several key parameters: density of individuals, number of arrivals, predation and competition interactions, and economic impacts. This study therefore provides direction for research to inform more accurate estimates of value-at-risk, and suggests substantial motivation for strong measures to prevent, monitor, and manage the possible invasion of C. maenas.

Identifying spatial priorities for protecting ecosystem services.

Priorities for protecting ecosystem services must be identified to ensure future human well-being. Approaches to broad-scale spatial prioritization of ecosystem services are becoming increasingly popular and are a vital precursor to identifying locations where further detailed analyses of the management of ecosystem services is required (e.g., examining trade-offs among management actions). Prioritization approaches often examine the spatial congruence between priorities for protecting ecosystem services and priorities for protecting biodiversity; therefore, the spatial prioritization method used is crucial because it will influence the alignment of service protection and conservation goals. While spatial prioritization of ecosystem services and prioritization for conservation share similarities, such as the need to document threats and costs, the former differs substantially from the latter owing to the requirement to measure the following components: supply of services; availability of human-derived alternatives to service provision; capacity to meet beneficiary demand; and site dependency in and scale of service delivery. We review studies that identify broad-scale spatial priorities for managing ecosystem services and demonstrate that researchers have used different approaches and included various measures for identifying priorities, and most studies do not consider all of the components listed above. We describe a conceptual framework for integrating each of these components into spatial prioritization of ecosystem services and illustrate our approach using a worked example for water provision. A fuller characterization of the biophysical and social context for ecosystem services that we call for should improve future prioritization and the identification of locations where ecosystem-service management is especially important or cost effective.

Characterizing changes in marine ecosystem services.

The benefits of marine ecosystems for people are increasingly being characterized through the concept of ecosystem services, with the promise to aid decision making from marine spatial planning to ecosystem-based management. The characterization of changes in marine ecosystem services is central to the application of ecological science to policy contexts, and this field is quickly evolving with innovations in frameworks for integrating science, understanding of ecosystems and human benefits, and innovations in tools for the modeling of services. In this article, we review efforts to characterize changes in marine ecosystem services, including recent advances, and we propose five key future directions for research: cultural values, qualitative or semi-quantitative modeling approaches, cumulative impacts, model evaluation, and markets.