| 1. |
- Anderies, J. M., et al.
(författare)
-
A framework for conceptualizing and modeling social-ecological systems for conservation research
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Biological Conservation. - : Elsevier BV. - 0006-3207 .- 1873-2917. ; 275
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- As conservation biology has matured, its scope has expanded from a primarily ecological focus to recognition that nearly all conservation problems involve people. At the same time, conservation actions have been increasingly informed by ever more sophisticated quantitative models. These models have focused primarily on ecological and geographic elements of conservation problems, such as mark-recapture methods, predicting species occurrences, and optimizing the placement of protected areas. There are many off-the-shelf ecological models for conservation managers to draw upon, but very few that describe human-nature interactions in a generalizable manner. We address this gap by proposing a minimalistic modeling framework for human-nature interactions, combining well-established ideas in economics and social sciences (grounded in Ostrom's social-ecological systems framework) and accepted ecological models. Our approach begins with a systems breakdown consisting of an ecosystem, resource users, public infrastructure, and infrastructure providers; and interactions between these system elements, which bring together the biophysical context, the relevant attributes of the human society, and the rules (institutions, such as protected areas) currently in use. We briefly review the different disciplinary building blocks that the framework could incorporate and then illustrate our approach with two examples: a detailed analysis of the social-ecological dynamics involved in managing South African protected areas and a more theoretical analysis of a general system. We conclude with further discussion of the urgent need in conservation biology for models that are genuinely designed to capture the complexities of human socioeconomic behavior, rather than the more typical approach of trying to adapt an ecological model or a stochastic process to simulate human agency and decision-making. Our framework offers a relatively simple but highly versatile way of specifying social-ecological models that will help conservation biologists better represent critical linkages between social and ecological processes when modeling social-ecological dynamics.
|
|
| 2. |
- Chan, Kai M. A., et al.
(författare)
-
Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability
- 2020
-
Ingår i: People and Nature. - : Wiley. - 2575-8314. ; 2:3, s. 693-717
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 1. Humanity is on a deeply unsustainable trajectory. We are exceeding planetary boundaries and unlikely to meet many international sustainable development goals and global environmental targets. Until recently, there was no broadly accepted framework of interventions that could ignite the transformations needed to achieve these desired targets and goals.2. As a component of the IPBES Global Assessment, we conducted an iterative expert deliberation process with an extensive review of scenarios and pathways to sustainability, including the broader literature on indirect drivers, social change and sustainability transformation. We asked, what are the most important elements of pathways to sustainability?3. Applying a social-ecological systems lens, we identified eight priority points for intervention (leverage points) and five overarching strategic actions and priority interventions (levers), which appear to be key to societal transformation. The eight leverage points are: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. The five intertwined levers can be applied across the eight leverage points and more broadly. These include: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre-emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision-making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. The levers and leverage points are all non-substitutable, and each enables others, likely leading to synergistic benefits.4. Transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling-up of sustainability initiatives-it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems. These levers and leverage points build upon those approved within the Global Assessment's Summary for Policymakers, with the aim of enabling leaders in government, business, civil society and academia to spark transformative changes towards a more just and sustainable world.
|
|
| 3. |
- Cumming, G. S., et al.
(författare)
-
Advancing understanding of natural resource governance : a post-Ostrom research agenda
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. - : Elsevier BV. - 1877-3435 .- 1877-3443. ; 44, s. 26-34
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Institutions are vital to the sustainability of social-ecologicalsystems, balancing individual and group interests andcoordinating responses to change. Ecological decline andsocial conflict in many places, however, indicate that ourunderstanding and fostering of effective institutions for naturalresource management is still lacking. We assess theoreticaland methodological challenges facing positivist institutionalanalysis, focusing on natural resource governance according toOstrom’s social-ecological systems (SES) framework. Ratherthan adding more variables, progress requires a clearer, moreconsistent approach to selecting, defining and measuringinstitutional elements; stronger links between theory andempirical research; a greater focus on mechanisms andcausality; and the development and application of newmethods, including quantitative approaches. Strengthening theconnections between theory, models, and data suggestsseveral promising avenues for advancing institutional analysisthrough the study of relationships between institutionalstructure, process, function, context, and outcomes.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Rieb, Jesse T., et al.
(författare)
-
When, Where, and How Nature Matters for Ecosystem Services : Challenges for the Next Generation of Ecosystem Service Models
- 2017
-
Ingår i: BioScience. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0006-3568 .- 1525-3244. ; 67:9, s. 820-833
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Many decision-makers are looking to science to clarify how nature supports human well-being. Scientists' responses have typically focused on empirical models of the provision of ecosystem services (ES) and resulting decision-support tools. Although such tools have captured some of the complexities of ES, they can be difficult to adapt to new situations. Globally useful tools that predict the provision of multiple ES under different decision scenarios have proven challenging to develop. Questions from decision-makers and limitations of existing decision-support tools indicate three crucial research frontiers for incorporating cutting-edge ES science into decision-support tools: (1) understanding the complex dynamics of ES in space and time, (2) linking ES provision to human well-being, and (3) determining the potential for technology to substitute for or enhance ES. We explore these frontiers in-depth, explaining why each is important and how existing knowledge at their cutting edges can be incorporated to improve ES decision-making tools.
|
|
| 6. |
- Settele, Josef, et al.
(författare)
-
Rice ecosystem services in South-east Asia
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Paddy and Water Environment. - : Springer. - 1611-2490 .- 1611-2504. ; 16:2, s. 211-224
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
