The methodological assessment report on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services

226 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A protocol for an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized land-use and climate scenarios (2018, methodology): “…impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services provides an outstanding opportunity to build bridges between the climate, biodiversity and ecosystem services communities, and has been explicitly recommended as a research priority in the IPBES assessment on scenarios and models (Ferrier et al. 2016).”
The future value of ecosystem services: global scenarios and national implications (2017, background): “These scenarios are best thought of as ‘exploratory’ (IPBES, 2016) in that they represent different plausible futures based on storylines, as opposed to ‘target-seeking’, ‘policy-screen ing’, or ‘retrospective’ scenarios.”
Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability (2020, methodology): “One was a nexus analysis (Liu et al., 2018) of intervention scenarios (Ferrier et al., 2016) at multiple scales to derive information about pathways, an analysis which was based on systematic literature reviews as described in Chan et al. (2019) and Aguiar et al. (in review).”
Standards for distribution models in biodiversity assessments (2019, background): “Such an approach is possible in scientific consensus-driven assessments, which often involve many scientists, like the four regional assessments currently being undertaken by IPBES (14, 15).”