Achieving the policy and practice shifts needed to secure ecosystem services is hampered by the inherent complexities of ecosystem services and their management. Methods for the participatory ...production and exchange of knowledge offer an avenue to navigate this complexity together with the beneficiaries and managers of ecosystem services. We develop and apply a knowledge coproduction approach based on social–ecological systems research and assess its utility in generating shared knowledge and action for ecosystem services. The approach was piloted in South Africa across four case studies aimed at reducing the risk of disasters associated with floods, wildfires, storm waves, and droughts. Different configurations of stakeholders (knowledge brokers, assessment teams, implementers, and bridging agents) were involved in collaboratively designing each study, generating and exchanging knowledge, and planning for implementation. The approach proved useful in the development of shared knowledge on the sizable contribution of ecosystem services to disaster risk reduction. This knowledge was used by stakeholders to design and implement several actions to enhance ecosystem services, including new investments in ecosystem restoration, institutional changes in the private and public sector, and innovative partnerships of science, practice, and policy. By bringing together multiple disciplines, sectors, and stakeholders to jointly produce the knowledge needed to understand and manage a complex system, knowledge coproduction approaches offer an effective avenue for the improved integration of ecosystem services into decision making.
Communities worldwide are increasingly affected by natural hazards such as floods, droughts, wildfires and storm-waves. However, the causes of these increases remain underexplored, often attributed ...to climate changes or changes in the patterns of human exposure. This paper aims to quantify the effect of climate change, as well as land cover change, on a suite of natural hazards. Changes to four natural hazards (floods, droughts, wildfires and storm-waves) were investigated through scenario-based models using land cover and climate change drivers as inputs. Findings showed that human-induced land cover changes are likely to increase natural hazards, in some cases quite substantially. Of the drivers explored, the uncontrolled spread of invasive alien trees was estimated to halve the monthly flows experienced during extremely dry periods, and also to double fire intensities. Changes to plantation forestry management shifted the 1:100 year flood event to a 1:80 year return period in the most extreme scenario. Severe 1:100 year storm-waves were estimated to occur on an annual basis with only modest human-induced coastal hardening, predominantly from removal of coastal foredunes and infrastructure development. This study suggests that through appropriate land use management (e.g. clearing invasive alien trees, re-vegetating clear-felled forests, and restoring coastal foredunes), it would be possible to reduce the impacts of natural hazards to a large degree. It also highlights the value of intact and well-managed landscapes and their role in reducing the probabilities and impacts of extreme climate events.
A key aim of transdisciplinary research is for actors from science, policy and practice to co-evolve their understanding of a social–ecological issue, reconcile their diverse perspectives and ...co-produce appropriate knowledge to serve a common purpose. With its concurrent grounding in practice and science, transdisciplinary research represents a significant departure from conventional research. We focus on mutual learning within transdisciplinary research and highlight three aspects that could guide other researchers in designing and facilitating such learning. These are: “who to learn with”, “what to learn about” and “how to learn”. For each of these questions, we present learning heuristics that are supported by a comparative analysis of two case studies that addressed contemporary conservation issues in South Africa but varied in scale and duration. These were a five-year national-scale project focusing on the prioritisation of freshwater ecosystems for conservation and a three-year local-scale project that used ecological infrastructure as a theme for advancing sustainability dialogues. Regarding the proposed learning heuristics, “who to learn with” is scale dependent and needs to be informed by relevant disciplines and policy sectors with the aim of establishing a knowledge network representing empirical, pragmatic, normative and purposive functions. This emergent network should be enriched by involving relevant experts, novices and bridging agents, where possible. It is important for such networks to learn about the respective histories, system processes and drivers, values and knowledge that exist in the social–ecological system of interest. Moreover, learning together about key concepts and issues can help to develop a shared vocabulary, which in turn can contribute to a shared understanding, a common vision and an agreed way of responding to it. New ways of group learning can be promoted and enhanced by co-developing outputs (boundary objects) for application across knowledge domains and creating spaces (third places) that facilitate exchange of knowledge and knowledge co-production. We conclude with five generic lessons for transdisciplinary researchers to enhance project success: (a) the duration, timing and continuation potential of a project influences its prospects for achieving systemic and sustainable change; (b) bridging agents, especially if embedded within an implementing agency, play a critical role in facilitating transdisciplinary learning with enhanced outcomes; (c) researchers need to participate as co-learners rather than masters of knowledge domains; (d) purposeful mixed-paradigm research designs could help to mend knowledge fragmentation within science; and (e) researchers must be vigilant for three pitfalls in mutual learning initiatives, namely biases in participant self-selection, perceived superiority of scientific knowledge and the attraction of simple solutions to wicked problems that retain the status quo.
Display omitted
•Monitoring biodiversity and ecosystem services has far reaching societal relevance.•A user-driven monitoring framework is needed to address the biodiversity crisis.•GEO BON core ...components are the development of the EBVs and BONs.•EBVs provide an integrative framework to monitor multiple components of biodiversity.•BONs improve the coordination and harmonization of observation systems across scales.
The ability to monitor changes in biodiversity, and their societal impact, is critical to conserving species and managing ecosystems. While emerging technologies increase the breadth and reach of data acquisition, monitoring efforts are still spatially and temporally fragmented, and taxonomically biased. Appropriate long-term information remains therefore limited. The Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) aims to provide a general framework for biodiversity monitoring to support decision-makers. Here, we discuss the coordinated observing system adopted by GEO BON, and review challenges and advances in its implementation, focusing on two interconnected core components—the Essential Biodiversity Variables as a standard framework for biodiversity monitoring, and the Biodiversity Observation Networks that support harmonized observation systems—while highlighting their societal relevance.
Display omitted
•Explores how co-production processes can enable sustainability transformations.•Four archetypes can hinder transformation: hero, host, woodpecker, genie.•Co-productive agility opens ...up multiple pathways to transformation.•Introduces a framework to enable agility in sustainability transformations.•Challenges the tendency to close down rather than open up agendas for change.
Co-production, the collaborative weaving of research and practice by diverse societal actors, is argued to play an important role in sustainability transformations. Yet, there is still poor understanding of how to navigate the tensions that emerge in these processes. Through analyzing 32 initiatives worldwide that co-produced knowledge and action to foster sustainable social-ecological relations, we conceptualize ‘co-productive agility’ as an emergent feature vital for turning tensions into transformations. Co-productive agility refers to the willingness and ability of diverse actors to iteratively engage in reflexive dialogues to grow shared ideas and actions that would not have been possible from the outset. It relies on embedding knowledge production within processes of change to constantly recognize, reposition, and navigate tensions and opportunities. Co-productive agility opens up multiple pathways to transformation through: (1) elevating marginalized agendas in ways that maintain their integrity and broaden struggles for justice; (2) questioning dominant agendas by engaging with power in ways that challenge assumptions, (3) navigating conflicting agendas to actively transform interlinked paradigms, practices, and structures; (4) exploring diverse agendas to foster learning and mutual respect for a plurality of perspectives. We explore six process considerations that vary by these four pathways and provide a framework to enable agility in sustainability transformations. We argue that research and practice spend too much time closing down debate over different agendas for change – thereby avoiding, suppressing, or polarizing tensions, and call for more efforts to facilitate better interactions among different agendas.
As the United Nations develops a post-2020 global biodiversity framework for the Convention on Biological Diversity, attention is focusing on how new goals and targets for ecosystem conservation ...might serve its vision of 'living in harmony with nature'
. Advancing dual imperatives to conserve biodiversity and sustain ecosystem services requires reliable and resilient generalizations and predictions about ecosystem responses to environmental change and management
. Ecosystems vary in their biota
, service provision
and relative exposure to risks
, yet there is no globally consistent classification of ecosystems that reflects functional responses to change and management. This hampers progress on developing conservation targets and sustainability goals. Here we present the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Global Ecosystem Typology, a conceptually robust, scalable, spatially explicit approach for generalizations and predictions about functions, biota, risks and management remedies across the entire biosphere. The outcome of a major cross-disciplinary collaboration, this novel framework places all of Earth's ecosystems into a unifying theoretical context to guide the transformation of ecosystem policy and management from global to local scales. This new information infrastructure will support knowledge transfer for ecosystem-specific management and restoration, globally standardized ecosystem risk assessments, natural capital accounting and progress on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.
Knowledge co-production and boundary work offer planners a new frame for critically designing a social process that fosters collaborative implementation of resulting plans. Knowledge co-production ...involves stakeholders from diverse knowledge systems working iteratively toward common vision and action. Boundary work is a means of creating permeable knowledge boundaries that satisfy the needs of multiple social groups while guarding the functional integrity of contributing knowledge systems. Resulting products are boundary objects of mutual interest that maintain coherence across all knowledge boundaries. We examined how knowledge co-production and boundary work can bridge the gap between planning and implementation and promote cross-sectoral cooperation. We applied these concepts to well-established stages in regional conservation planning within a national scale conservation planning project aimed at identifying areas for conserving rivers and wetlands of South Africa and developing an institutional environment for promoting their conservation. Knowledge co-production occurred iteratively over 4 years in interactive stakeholder workshops that included co-development of national freshwater conservation goals and spatial data on freshwater biodiversity and local conservation feasibility; translation of goals into quantitative inputs that were used in Marxan to select draft priority conservation areas; review of draft priority areas; and packaging of resulting map products into an atlas and implementation manual to promote application of the priority area maps in 37 different decision-making contexts. Knowledge co-production stimulated dialogue and negotiation and built capacity for multi-scale implementation beyond the project. The resulting maps and information integrated diverse knowledge types of over 450 stakeholders and represented > 1000 years of collective experience. The maps provided a consistent national source of information on priority conservation areas for rivers and wetlands and have been applied in 25 of the 37 use contexts since their launch just over 3 years ago. When framed as a knowledge co-production process supported by boundary work, regional conservation plans can be developed into valuable boundary objects that offer a tangible tool for multiagency cooperation around conservation. Our work provides practical guidance for promoting uptake of conservation science and contributes to an evidence base on how conservation efforts can be improved. La coproducción de conocimiento y el trabajo de frontera le ofrecen a los planeadores un marco nuevo para diseñar críticamente un proceso social que fomente la implementación de los planes resultantes en colaboración. La coproducción de conocimiento involucra a accionistas de diversos sistemas de conocimiento trabajando repetidamente hacia una visión y acción común. El trabajo de frontera es un medio de creación de fronteras permeables de conocimiento que satisfacen las necesidades de múltiples grupos sociales mientras mantienen la integridad funcional de los sistemas de conocimiento contribuyentes. Los productos resultantes son objetos fronterizos de interés mutuo que mantienen la coherencia a lo largo de todas las fronteras del conocimiento. Examinamos cómo la coproducción de conocimiento y el trabajo de frontera pueden resolver el vacío entre la planeación y la implementación y promover la cooperación entre sectores. Aplicamos estos conceptos a las fases bien establecidas de la planeación de la conservación regional dentro de un proyecto de planeación de la conservación a escala nacional enfocado a la identificación de áreas para la conservación de ríos y humedales de Sudáfrica y al desarrollo de un ambiente institucional para promover su conservación. La coproducción de conocimiento apareció repetidamente a lo largo de cuatro años en talleres interactivos de trabajo para los accionistas, que incluyeron el co-desarrollo de objetivos de conservación del agua dulce nacional e información espacial sobre la biodiversidad de agua dulce y la viabilidad de la conservación local; la traducción de las metas a aportes cuantitativos que se usaron en Marxan para seleccionar áreas de conservación de proyectos prioritarios; la revisión de áreas de proyectos prioritarios; y el empaquetamiento de los productos cartográficos resultantes para promover la aplicación del mapa de área prioritaria resultante en 37 contextos de toma de decisiones. La coproducción de conocimiento estimuló el diálogo y la negociación y construyó la capacidad para la implementación multiescala más allá del proyecto. Los mapas resultantes y la información integraron diferentes tipos de conocimiento de más de 450 accionistas y representaron >1000 años de experiencia colectiva. Los mapas proporcionaron una consistente fuente nacional de información sobre las áreas prioritarias de conservación de ríos y humedales y se han aplicado en 25 contextos de uso desde su creación. Cuando se enmarcan como un proceso de coproducción de conocimiento respaldado por el trabajo de frontera, los planes de conservación regional pueden transformarse en objetos valiosos que ofrecen una herramienta tangible para la cooperación multiagencia en la conservación. Nuestro trabajo proporciona una guía práctica para promover la comprensión de la ciencia de la conservación y contribuye a una base de evidencias de cómo se puede mejorar la conservación.
•Knowledge about ecosystem service production and distribution can foster sustainability.•Ecosystem service governance best practices can improve ecosystem management.•Ecosystem services research ...needs to become more transdisciplinary.•ecoSERVICES will advance co-designed, transdisciplinary ecosystem service research.
Ecosystem services have become a mainstream concept for the expression of values assigned by people to various functions of ecosystems. Even though the introduction of the concept has initiated a vast amount of research, progress in using this knowledge for sustainable resource use remains insufficient. We see a need to broaden the scope of research to answer three key questions that we believe will improve incorporation of ecosystem service research into decision-making for the sustainable use of natural resources to improve human well-being: (i) how are ecosystem services co-produced by social–ecological systems, (ii) who benefits from the provision of ecosystem services, and (iii) what are the best practices for the governance of ecosystem services? Here, we present these key questions, the rationale behind them, and their related scientific challenges in a globally coordinated research programme aimed towards improving sustainable ecosystem management. These questions will frame the activities of ecoSERVICES, formerly a DIVERSITAS project and now a project of Future Earth, in its role as a platform to foster global coordination of multidisciplinary sustainability science through the lens of ecosystem services.
•Collaborative processes between scientists and decision-makers facilitate knowledge integration.•Existing assumptions, terminology and disciplinary thinking can obstruct collaborations.•Co-design of ...the process with knowledge brokers fosters success.•Adopting a systems view focused on practical implementation facilitates new perceptions and actions.
Engaging diverse stakeholders in collaborative processes to integrate environmental information into decision making is important, but challenging. It requires working at and across the boundaries between knowledge types—a complex milieu of different value systems, norms, and mental models—and multiple stakeholder-engagement processes which facilitate knowledge exchange and co-production. Using a qualitative, inductive approach, we analysed perceptions and outputs of a transdisciplinary project which aimed to generate new knowledge, awareness and action for ecosystem-based disaster management in South Africa. Several obstacles that could potentially undermine the project's objectives were identified, including: preconceived assumptions; entrenched disciplinary thinking; and confusing terminology. Enabling factors included efforts to ensure project co-creation and the use of knowledge brokers in promoting systems thinking that is grounded in practice.
PDF
