Recently, some members of the conservation community have used ecosystem services as a strategy to conserve biodiversity. Others in the community have criticized this strategy as a distraction from ...the mission of biodiversity conservation. The debate continues, and it remains unclear whether the concerns expressed are significant enough to merit the opposition. Through an exploration of the science of biodiversity and ecosystem services, we find that narrow interpretations of metrics, values, and management drive much of the tension and make the common ground appear small. The size of this common ground depends on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services and how they respond to management interventions. We demonstrate how understanding this response can be used to delimit common ground but highlight the importance of differentiating between objectives and approaches to meeting those objectives in conservation projects.
The interdependence of social and ecological processes is broadly acknowledged in the pursuit to enhance human wellbeing and prosperity for all. Yet, development interventions continue to prioritise ...economic development and short-term goals with little consideration of social-ecological interdependencies, ultimately undermining resilience and therefore efforts to deliver development outcomes. We propose and advance a coevolutionary perspective for rethinking development and its relationship to resilience. The perspective rests on three propositions: (1) social-ecological relationships coevolve through processes of variation, selection and retention, which are manifest in practices; (2) resilience is the capacity to filter practices (i.e. to influence what is selected and retained); and (3) development is a coevolutionary process shaping pathways of persistence, adaptation or transformation. Development interventions affect and are affected by social–ecological relationships and their coevolutionary dynamics, with consequences for resilience, often with perverse outcomes. A coevolutionary approach enables development interventions to better consider social–ecological interdependencies and dynamics. Adopting a coevolutionary perspective, which we illustrate with a case on agricultural biodiversity, encourages a radical rethinking of how resilience and development are conceptualised and practiced across global to local scales.
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.
Research on ecosystem services has grown markedly in recent years. However, few studies are embedded in a social process designed to ensure effective management of ecosystem services. Most research ...has focused only on biophysical and valuation assessments of putative services. As a mission-oriented discipline, ecosystem service research should be user-inspired and user-useful, which will require that researchers respond to stakeholder needs from the outset and collaborate with them in strategy development and implementation. Here we provide a pragmatic operational model for achieving the safeguarding of ecosystem services. The model comprises three phases: assessment, planning, and management. Outcomes of social, biophysical, and valuation assessments are used to identify opportunities and constraints for implementation. The latter then are transformed into user-friendly products to identify, with stakeholders, strategic objectives for implementation (the planning phase). The management phase undertakes and coordinates actions that achieve the protection of ecosystem services and ensure the flow of these services to beneficiaries. This outcome is achieved via mainstreaming, or incorporating the safeguarding of ecosystem services into the policies and practices of sectors that deal with land- and water-use planning. Management needs to be adaptive and should be institutionalized in a suite of learning organizations that are representative of the sectors that are concerned with decision-making and planning. By following the phases of our operational model, projects for safeguarding ecosystem services are likely to empower stakeholders to implement effective on-the-ground management that will achieve resilience of the corresponding social-ecological systems.
Non-technical summary
It is no longer possible nor desirable to address the dual challenges of equity and sustainability separately. Instead, they require new thinking and approaches which recognize ...their interlinkages, as well as the multiple perspectives and dimensions involved. We illustrate how equity and sustainability are intertwined, and how a complex social–ecological systems lens brings together advances from across the social and natural sciences to show how (in)equity and (un)sustainability are produced by the interactions and dynamics of coupled social–ecological systems. This should help understand which possible pathways could lead to sustainable and fair futures.
Technical summary
There is remarkably little work on the interlinkages between sustainability and equity. This paper proposes an interdisciplinary conceptual framework addressing these twin challenges in the context of the Anthropocene. It shows that both equity and sustainability need to be understood as multi-dimensional and from diverse perspectives, with acceptable standards in all defining a desirable and acceptable life support zone. It proposes a shift in focus from individual elements and interactions, to system level dynamics and behaviour, advancing a social–ecological systems perspective through which both equity and sustainability are understood as intertwined drivers and outcomes of coupled systems dynamics. Over time, such dynamics become part of pathways which may move outside, or potentially be steered within, a desirable zone of ‘equitable sustainability’. Ten sets of ‘interaction dynamics’, involving different dimensions of equity and sustainability, are illustrated, along with a provisional categorization of their interrelationships and potential intervention points. The paper discusses their roles in transformational pathways towards equitable sustainability, highlighting the importance of cross-scale change shaped by politics and power. Further conceptual, empirical and transdisciplinary effort is now needed to enrich this framework and address a range of implied research and practice questions critical to shaping fair and sustainable futures.
Abstract Human–nature interactions have been identified as an important leverage point for achieving sustainability. Processes to recognize, protect, improve and reimagine human–nature interactions ...will be central to shift the world to more sustainable and equitable pathways and futures. In the context of the interconnected and rapidly changing Anthropocene, work on human–nature interactions must move beyond dominant linear assumptions of a relatively simple and easily and predictably manipulated world to acknowledge and engage with the complex, dynamic, asymmetrical and unequal nature of the interactions connecting people and nature. Based on three key features highlighted by the study of complex social–ecological systems (SES)—that these systems are relational, open and dynamic—we propose three new directions for the study and management of human–nature interactions that can help to acknowledge and disentangle the globally intertwined and dynamic nature of these interactions. These features suggest new directions and foci for sustainability science: the inseparable and relational qualities of the interactions between people and nature; the cross‐scale nature of these relationships; and the continuously evolving and changing form of these relationships. To bridge the gap between the theory of complex, inseparable and unequal human–nature interactions and the reductionist tendencies in research and practice, SES research raises opportunities to connect local action and global learning; to mobilize and develop new cross‐scale and relational capacities to encourage synergies and avoid trade‐offs; and to explore, experiment and learn our way forward onto more sustainable and equitable pathways. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
Earth's life-support systems are in flux, yet no centralized system to monitor and report these changes exists. Recognizing this, 77 nations agreed to establish the Group on Earth Observations (GEO). ...The GEO Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) integrates existing data streams into one platform in order to provide a more complete picture of Earth's biological and social systems. We present a conceptual framework envisioned by the GEO BON Ecosystem Services Working Group, designed to integrate national statistics, numerical models, remote sensing, and in situ measurements to regularly track changes in ecosystem services across the globe. This information will serve diverse applications, including stimulating new research and providing the basis for assessments. Although many ecosystem services are not currently measured, others are ripe for reporting. We propose a framework that will continue to grow and inspire more complete observation and assessments of our planet's life-support systems.
•The impact of land change on biodiversity and ecosystem services is ill understood.•Process based modeling should relate ecosystem function to underlying biodiversity.•Linking land cover types with ...functional traits represents a major advance.•Trophic complexity impacts species interactions and services through organism traits.•Tradeoffs in ecosystem services require additional consideration to address wellbeing.
We lack sufficient understanding of the processes by which biodiversity alterations induced by land cover change impact ecosystem functioning. An understanding of the mechanistic role of biodiversity is required to provide a functional perspective on ecosystem service delivery. To bridge this gap, investigating complementarity and heterogeneity in functional traits within species groups or across trophic levels is particularly relevant. Such an understanding will then facilitate spatial mapping of areas of co-occurrence of multiple ecosystem services, as well as of critical trade-offs between monetized, cultural and other supporting ecosystem services that need to be considered as hard constraints to ecosystem management. In doing so, the nature and underpinnings of tradeoffs between bundles of ecosystem services accruing to different regions and groups of people, impacting equity and wellbeing, will be uncovered to support improved policy and land planning.
Sustainable development goals (SDGs), which recognise the interconnections between social, economic and ecological systems, have ignited new interest in indicators able to integrate trends in – and ...interactions between – nature and socio-economic development. We explore whether existing global data can be used to measure nature's contribution to development targets and explore limitations in these data. Using Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 1– eradicate extreme hunger and poverty. We develop two indicators to assess the contribution of nature to progress in this goal. The indicators (based on income and employment data from nature-based sectors (NBS) represented by agriculture, forestry and fisheries) show large but declining contributions of nature to MDG 1: NBS contributed to lifting 18% of people out of poverty and provided 37% of global employment between 1991 and 2010. For low income countries, the contributions were 20% and 55% respectively. In exploring data gaps the study highlighted low reporting rates especially in low income countries, as well as lack of other measures of poverty alleviation beyond income and employment. If we are to move beyond target setting to implementation of sustainable development goals at national scales, these shortcomings require as much attention as the elaboration and agreement on the post-2015 development goals.
•We explore and test existing data to measure nature's contribution to development.•Income poverty and employment are used as examples to which nature contributes.•Contribution is large but declining overall, but still higher in low income countries.•Linearity and lack of thresholds of indicators are limiting for integrated approaches.•Investment in data and adequate reporting are key to measuring integrated indicators.
•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
