Despite much progress in ecosystem services research, a gap still appears to exist between this research and the implementation of landscape management and development activities on the ground, ...especially within a developing country context. If ecosystem service science is to be operationalised and used by decision-makers directing local development, an in-depth understanding of the implementation context for landscape planning and management, and of the opportunities and challenges for ecosystem services in this context are needed. Very little is known about these opportunities and constraints, largely because of the absence of methods to explore the complexity of the landscape planning, management and implementation context and the possibilities of integrating scientific information into these processes within a real-world setting. This study aims to address this need for information and methods, by focusing on a region in South Africa with a long history of ecosystem service research and stakeholder engagement, and testing a social science approach to explore opportunities and challenges for integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning processes and policies. Our methodological approach recognises the importance of social processes and legitimacy in decision-making, emphasizing the need to engage with the potential end-users of ecosystem service research in order to ensure the relevance of the research. While we discovered challenges for mainstreaming ecosystem service at a local level, we also found strong opportunities in the multi-sectoral planning processes driving development and in how the concept of ecosystem services is framed and aligned with development priorities, especially those relating to disaster risk reduction.
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.
•We describe the IPBES Conceptual Framework.•It is a simplified model of interactions between nature and people most relevant to IPBES's focus on sustainability.•It facilitates interoperability among ...disciplines, stakeholders and knowledge systems.
The first public product of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is its Conceptual Framework. This conceptual and analytical tool, presented here in detail, will underpin all IPBES functions and provide structure and comparability to the syntheses that IPBES will produce at different spatial scales, on different themes, and in different regions. Salient innovative aspects of the IPBES Conceptual Framework are its transparent and participatory construction process and its explicit consideration of diverse scientific disciplines, stakeholders, and knowledge systems, including indigenous and local knowledge. Because the focus on co-construction of integrative knowledge is shared by an increasing number of initiatives worldwide, this framework should be useful beyond IPBES, for the wider research and knowledge-policy communities working on the links between nature and people, such as natural, social and engineering scientists, policy-makers at different levels, and decision-makers in different sectors of society.
This study mapped the production of five ecosystem services in South Africa: surface water supply, water flow regulation, soil accumulation, soil retention, and carbon storage. The relationship and ...spatial congruence between services were assessed. The congruence between primary production and these five services was tested to evaluate its value as a surrogate or proxy ecosystem service measure. This study illustrates that (1) most of South Africa's land surface is important for supplying at least one service, (2) there are low levels of congruence between the service ranges and even lower levels between the hotspots for different ecosystem services, and (3) primary production appears to show some potential as a surrogate for ecosystem service distribution. The implications of a heterogeneous landscape for the provision of ecosystem services and their management are highlighted and the potential for managing such services in a country like South Africa is discussed.
Recent attempts to streamline the identification of areas requiring immediate conservation attention have resulted in the development of prioritisation procedures that identify areas of biodiversity ...importance facing large threats in the near future. This study incorporated biodiversity data on bird and vegetation distribution with an assessment of land use suitability for cultivation and afforestation for the Limpopo Province of South Africa. The low altitude savanna regions in the northeast contain high species diversity, but are unsuitable to alternative forms of land use and are well conserved (by e.g., the Kruger National Park). The central and eastern mountain ranges, sites of high biodiversity, are suitable to dryland cultivation and afforestation and are thus potential conservation priorities. Areas with high biodiversity values, e.g., irreplaceable areas that contain biodiversity features essential for meeting conservation targets, were then investigated for their potential land-use threats in order to prioritise those needing immediate conservation actions. We suggest how losses of biodiversity could be minimised by reaching such decisions more quickly.
The complex nature of sustainability problems and the aim of sustainability science to support emergent processes of transformation require rethinking how we build and make use of theories. We ...highlight the diversity of ways in which theories, as assemblages of different elements that can serve a variety of purposes, can emerge within inter-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary processes. Such emerging theories are (i) contextualized, constantly changing, and build on a plurality of knowledge from science and practice, (ii) embedded in change-making processes arising when diverse actors try to collectively solve a complex problem. We propose four ideal-typical modes of theorizing, and the notion of ‘ecologies of theories’, to explicate and further advance theorizing to meet the challenges and needs of sustainability science.
•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.
•Science is only one of many factors used in decision making.•Assessment of evidence-based practice needs to include the institutional context.•Evidence generated in practice is essential to bridge ...the science-practice gap.
Academic scientific literature abounds with critique of natural resource managers for not utilising scientific evidence when making decisions in their day-to-day operations. Little regard is given by the critics to the practical constraints on the use of research findings, as experienced by managers in their work environments. To explore these issues, we conducted a case study of the Working for Water (WfW) program, a government-funded invasive alien plant (IAP) management program that has been operational in South Africa for nearly two decades. We investigated the extent to which decision makers in WfW use scientific evidence to inform their decisions pertaining to the clearing of IAPs and also identified opportunities for, and constraints to, evidence-based practice. Our results indicate that the use of scientific evidence is limited by the fact that the management of natural resources involves much more than science. The social context within which decisions are made, which includes organizational structure, priorities and capacity, plays an important part in the extent to which science informs practice. On the basis of our findings, we highlight the importance of generating evidence in practice through an iterative process of implementation, monitoring, learning and reflection, and subsequent feedback into the planning of restoration projects.
Many ecosystem services (ES) models exist to support sustainable development decisions. However, most ES studies use only a single modelling framework and, because of a lack of validation data, ...rarely assess model accuracy for the study area. In line with other research themes which have high model uncertainty, such as climate change, ensembles of ES models may better serve decision-makers by providing more robust and accurate estimates, as well as provide indications of uncertainty when validation data are not available. To illustrate the benefits of an ensemble approach, we highlight the variation between alternative models, demonstrating that there are large geographic regions where decisions based on individual models are not robust. We test if ensembles are more accurate by comparing the ensemble accuracy of multiple models for six ES against validation data across sub-Saharan Africa with the accuracy of individual models. We find that ensembles are better predictors of ES, being 5.0–6.1% more accurate than individual models. We also find that the uncertainty (i.e. variation among constituent models) of the model ensemble is negatively correlated with accuracy and so can be used as a proxy for accuracy when validation is not possible (e.g. in data-deficient areas or when developing scenarios). Since ensembles are more robust, accurate and convey uncertainty, we recommend that ensemble modelling should be more widely implemented within ES science to better support policy choices and implementation.
Display omitted
•Most ecosystem service (ES) models are uncertain.•Still, most ES studies use only a single modelling framework.•Ensembles of ES models are more robust to new data/models.•Ensembles of ES are 5.0–6.1% more accurate than individual models.•Variation within the ensemble provides a proxy for ensemble accuracy.
PDF
