Assessing the resilient provision of ecosystem services by social-ecological systems: introduction and theory

Abstract

The concepts of resilience and ecosystem services broaden the opportunities for assessing sustainability of social-ecological systems (SESs). The lack of operational frameworks for assessing the resilient provision of ecosystem services by SESs impedes greater integration of resilience thinking in natural resource governance. The greatest challenge so far has been to understand the capacity of the SES to (re)organize itself and sustain the flow of benefits from nature to people under various global and local pressures and trade-offs between ecosystem services users. To assess the resilience of an SES within a single framework, we propose a new approach which is a combination of: (1) the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework; (2) social-ecological indicators; and (3) scenario building. Practical application of the approach is demonstrated with the example of European polar and altitudinal treeline areas. The DPSIR framework analyzes causal relationships between the components of the SES. Social-ecological indicators quantify processes in the SES and estimate trends in the DPSIR factors. Combined top-down and bottom-up scenarios envision plausible development paths of the SES in the future based on expected global environmental and social changes which create context specific dynamics between DPSIR factors at specific localities. The proposed approach represents the analytical framework of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) action SENSFOR (Enhancing the resilience capacity of SENSitive mountain FORest ecosystems under environmental change) and can be applied to promote systemic resilience thinking in any SES.

Human-environment dynamics in European treeline ecosystems: a synthesis based on the DPSIR framework

“…Thirdly, in analyzing the social−ecological systems with the DPSIR framework, it is crucial to be aware that the state dimension should be regarded as a state of a social−ecological system, not as a state of an ecological system (cf. Sarkki et al 2017a). This distinction is not entirely academic, and has implications for the sustainability of ESs, which are not solely the benefits that ecosystems provide to human well-being, but benefits co-evolved through centuries of human−environment coexistence.…”

Enhancing the resilience capacity of sensitive mountain forest ecosystems under environmental change (SENSFOR)

“…mountain forests). Synthesizing existing data on how the state of a treeline ecotone may function as an indicator of climate change effects on ecosystems (Moscatelli et al 2017), and as an indicator of land-use-change-driven anthropogenic pressures on, and responses of, treeline areas , Sarkki et al 2017b.…”

Knowledge sharing, problem solving and professional development in a Scottish Ecosystem Services Community of Practice

“…Over the last decade, ecosystem services have moved from an academic concept to a framework embodied in policy and practice (Beaumont et al 2017;Dick et al 2018;Jax et al 2018). An important reason for the rapid rise in prominence is the holistic nature of the concept, which embraces a socioecological systems approach (Melnykovych et al 2018) and bridges traditional sectoral and disciplinary siloes by explicitly incorporating human decisions and values in natural resource management (Díaz et al 2015;Faivre et al 2017;Sarkki et al 2017). The ecosystem services framework has the potential to act as a transdisciplinary boundary object, engaging different disciplines and non-scientists in shaping and achieving societal goals (Waylen et al 2013;Abson et al 2014;Ainscough et al 2019).…”