Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Carsten Nesshöver is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Carsten Nesshöver.


Biodiversity and Conservation | 2016

The Network of Knowledge approach: improving the science and society dialogue on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe

Carsten Nesshöver; Marie Vandewalle; Heidi Wittmer; Estelle Balian; Esther Carmen; Ilse R. Geijzendorffer; Christoph Görg; R.H.G. Jongman; Barbara Livoreil; Luis Santamaría; Stefan Schindler; Josef Settele; Isabel Sousa Pinto; Katalin Török; Jiska van Dijk; Allan D. Watt; Juliette Young; Klaus Peter Zulka

The absence of a good interface between scientific and other knowledge holders and decision-makers in the area of biodiversity and ecosystem services has been recognised for a long time. Despite recent advancements, e.g. with the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), challenges remain, particularly concerning the timely provision of consolidated views from different knowledge domains. To address this challenge, a strong and flexible networking approach is needed across knowledge domains and institutions. Here, we report on a broad consultation process across Europe to develop a Network of Knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services (NoK), an approach aiming at (1) organising institutions and knowledge holders in an adaptable and responsive framework and (2) informing decision-makers with timely and accurate biodiversity knowledge. The consultation provided a critical analysis of the needs that should be addressed by a NoK and how it could complement existing European initiatives and institutions at the interface between policy and science. Among other functions, the NoK provides consolidated scientific views on contested topics, identification of research gaps to support relevant policies, and horizon scanning activities to anticipate emerging issues. The NoK includes a capacity building component on interfacing activities and contains mechanisms to ensure its credibility, relevance and legitimacy. Such a network would need to ensure credibility, relevance and legitimacy of its work by maximizing transparency and flexibility of processes, quality of outputs, the link to data and knowledge provision, the motivation of experts for getting involved and sound communication and capacity building.


Biodiversity and Conservation | 2016

Biodiversity knowledge synthesis at the European scale: actors and steps

Barbara Livoreil; Ilse R. Geijzendorffer; Andrew S. Pullin; Stefan Schindler; Marie Vandewalle; Carsten Nesshöver

To respond to the need for a strengthened biodiversity science-policy-society interface at the European level, this paper presents the relevant actors and steps of a knowledge synthesis process relying on a Network of Knowledge. This process aims to maximize active involvement and contribution (including holders of traditional and local knowledge), transparency, credibility, relevance and legitimacy (among other values defined during several workshops held). The presented process allows for the implementation of several synthesis methodologies, depending on the availability of resources, quantity and quality of knowledge and decided according to the expectations of the requesters and users. We put this approach in parallel with other knowledge-based recommendations and negotiation processes such as CBD and IPBES and highlight the need to encompass the diversity of approaches, values, and challenges at the European scale, while the process simultaneously has to be highly flexible, yet simple and robust. Although the presented process still holds several challenges, it offers a step forward in the development and reflections on science-policy–society interfaces, based on consultations with a significant number of the actors from the European policy–science community.


Nature Ecology and Evolution | 2017

Multiscale scenarios for nature futures

Isabel M.D. Rosa; Henrique M. Pereira; Simon Ferrier; Rob Alkemade; Lilibeth A. Acosta; H. Resit Akçakaya; Eefje den Belder; Asghar M. Fazel; Shinichiro Fujimori; Mike Harfoot; Khaled A. Harhash; Paula A. Harrison; Jennifer Hauck; Rob J. J. Hendriks; Gladys Hernández; Walter Jetz; Sylvia I. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen; HyeJin Kim; Nicholas King; Marcel Kok; Grygoriy Kolomytsev; Tanya Lazarova; Paul W. Leadley; Carolyn J. Lundquist; Jaime Ricardo García Márquez; Carsten Meyer; Laetitia M. Navarro; Carsten Nesshöver; Hien T. Ngo; K. N. Ninan

Targets for human development are increasingly connected with targets for nature, however, existing scenarios do not explicitly address this relationship. Here, we outline a strategy to generate scenarios centred on our relationship with nature to inform decision-making at multiple scales.


Biodiversity and Conservation | 2018

Science-policy interfaces for biodiversity: dynamic learning environments for successful impact

Rob Tinch; Estelle Balian; Dave Carss; Driss Ezzine de Blas; Nicoleta Geamana; Ulrich Heink; Hans Keune; Carsten Nesshöver; Jari Niemelä; Simo Sarkki; Maxime Thibon; Johannes Timaeus; Angheluta Vadineanu; Sybille van den Hove; Allan D. Watt; Kerry A. Waylen; Heidi Wittmer; Juliette Young

To address the pressing problems associated with biodiversity loss, changes in awareness and behaviour are required from decision makers in all sectors. Science-policy interfaces (SPIs) have the potential to play an important role, and to achieve this effectively, there is a need to understand better the ways in which existing SPIs strive for effective communication, learning and behavioural change. Using a series of test cases across the world, we assess a range of features influencing the effectiveness of SPIs through communication and argumentation processes, engagement of actors and other aspects that contribute to potential success. Our results demonstrate the importance of dynamic and iterative processes of interaction to support effective SPI work. We stress the importance of seeing SPIs as dynamic learning environments and we provide recommendations for how they can enhance success in meeting their targeted outcomes. In particular, we recommend building long-term trust, creating learning environments, fostering participation and ownership of the process and building capacity to combat silo thinking. Processes to enable these changes may include, for example, inviting and integrating feedback, extended peer review and attention to contextualising knowledge for different audiences, and time and sustained effort dedicated to trust-building and developing common languages. However there are no ‘one size fits all’ solutions, and methods must be adapted to context and participants. Creating and maintaining effective dynamic learning environments will both require and encourage changes in institutional and individual behaviours: a challenging agenda, but one with potential for positive feedbacks to maintain momentum.


AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment | 2008

Linking Biodiversity Research and Policy in Europe

Carsten Nesshöver; Rainer Müssner; Klaus Henle; Isabel Sousa Pinto

The sustainable use of biological resources for human well being and the conservation of biodiversity pose major challenges for society, scientists, and policy makers (1). Scientists working in different disciplines must integrate efforts to provide society and policy with sound responses to environmental problems associated with conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (2). Despite the increasing emphasis on the necessity of an evidence-based environmental policy, the information flow between scientists and policy makers often is very limited, and, therefore, the results of research are not always fully exploited and taken into consideration in decision making (3). In response to the increased awareness of the challenges posed by the sustainable use of biological resources and the conservation of biodiversity, new national and international governance structures for focusing biodiversity research and linking it with policy and the wider society have emerged within the last two decades. Examples are the Clearing-House Mechanism and the Global Taxonomy Initiative as tools of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the international program for biodiversity science Diversitas, and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Recently there have been increasing discussions on creating a global scienceadvisory body for biodiversity (4). This has been first put forward to a wider audience during the international conference ‘‘Biodiversity: Science and Governance’’ in January 2005 in Paris and renewed during the Diversitas Open Science Conference in Oaxaca (5, 6). Finally, it resulted in the launching of a consultation process on an International Mech-


Biodiversity and Conservation | 2016

Challenges and solutions for networking knowledge holders and better informing decision-making on biodiversity and ecosystem services

Carsten Nesshöver; Barbara Livoreil; Stefan Schindler; Marie Vandewalle

How to effectively inform decision-making on biodiversity and ecosystem services has been under continuous debate in Europe and globally since the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted in 1992. On the global level the Intergovernmental science–policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services was installed in 2012 to address this need. Yet, biodiversity and ecosystem services management have to be addressed on multiple levels, across biophysical as well as administrative scales. Also, the knowledge needed to address them has to be brought together from science, management practices and other knowledge domains to become relevant and it must be delivered in ways relevant for policies beyond the environmental sector. This Special Issue brings together papers that analyse the challenges arising from this context. Most of them are based on the EU-funded project KNEU that aimed at developing a new, integrative approach to activate knowledge holders and bring them together for targeted knowledge synthesis activities. The papers address the potential functions, structures and processes of such activities in a joint framework, the Network of Knowledge. Practical aspects are addressed via a number of trial assessments carried out in the project. All in all, they showcase new ways of knowledge synthesis that have the potential to complement and strengthen existing ones across scales and sectors, thus supporting an improved management of biodiversity and ecosystem services.


Archive | 2010

The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity : mainstreaming the economics of nature : a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB

Joshua Bishop; Patrick ten Brink; Haripriya Gundimeda; Pushpam Kumar; Carsten Nesshöver; Christoph Schröter-Schlaack; Ben Simmons; Pavan Sukhdev; Heidi Wittmer


Science of The Total Environment | 2017

The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective

Carsten Nesshöver; Timo Assmuth; Katherine N. Irvine; Graciela Rusch; Kerry A. Waylen; Ben Delbaere; Dagmar Haase; Lawrence Jones-Walters; Hans Keune; Eszter Kovács; Kinga Krauze; Mart Külvik; Freddy Rey; Jiska van Dijk; Odd Inge Vistad; Mark Wilkinson; Heidi Wittmer


Science | 2011

Science-policy interface: beyond Assessments

Mike Hulme; Martin Mahony; Silke Beck; Christoph Görg; Bernd Hansjürgens; Jennifer Hauck; Carsten Nesshöver; Axel Paulsch; Marie Vandewalle; Heidi Wittmer; Stefan Böschen; Peter Bridgewater; Mariteuw Chimere Diaw; Pierre Fabre; Aurelia Figueroa; Kong Luen Heong; Horst Korn; Rik Leemans; Eva Lövbrand; Mohd Norowi Hamid; Chad Monfreda; Roger A. Pielke; Josef Settele; Marten Winter; Alice B. M. Vadrot; Sybille van den Hove; Jeroen P. van der Sluijs


Environmental Science & Policy | 2015

Creating a biodiversity science community: experiences from a European Network of Knowledge

Esther Carmen; Carsten Nesshöver; Heli Saarikoski; Marie Vandewalle; Allan D. Watt; Heidi Wittmer; Juliette Young

Collaboration


Dive into the Carsten Nesshöver's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Heidi Wittmer

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Marie Vandewalle

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Christoph Görg

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Josef Settele

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Axel Paulsch

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Jennifer Hauck

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Silke Beck

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Allan D. Watt

Natural Environment Research Council

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge