Exploring Futures of Ecosystem Services in Cultural Landscapes through Participatory Scenario Development in the Swabian Alb, Germany.

Plieninger, Tobias; Bieling, Claudia; Ohnesorge, Bettina; Schaich, Harald; Schleyer, Christian; Wolff, Franziska

doi:10.5751/es-05802-180339

Cited by 119 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in contrast to existing studies in forestry on abstract forest entities (Biber et al 2015), the spatial link should be considered to set the supply of forest functions or ESS into the context of local demand. One approach could be scenario development as in existing landscape-scale studies (Plieninger et al 2013b). Here, a challenge will be to translate storylines of scenarios to actual changes in ESS (Priess and Hauck 2014), especially at the local scale.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do ecosystem services provide an added value compared to existing forest planning approaches in Central Europe?

Meyer¹,

Schulz²

2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. In forestry research, the concept of ecosystem services (ESS) is less prominent than in agricultural studies. One reason might be that multifunctional forestry and the concept of forest functions, i.e., societal demand from forest, are established and legally required planning approaches in Central Europe, e.g., in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. To explore differences in concept and perspective, we conducted a participatory stakeholder workshop to identify, score, and map ESS in an urban forest in Germany. For comparison, we used existing forest function maps. Forest function mapping as planning approach is based on a regional-scale expert assessment of forest agencies. The local ESS scoring showed a clear preference for recreation, drinking water, biodiversity, mediation of climate and water, and wood provision in decreasing order. Most stakeholder groups scored recreation highest. Drinking water was also important for most stakeholders. Recreation stakeholders scored unbalanced with an apparent focus on their own demand (Gini coefficient: 0.83). Contrastingly, forestry stakeholders scored the ESS in a balanced manner (Gini coefficient: 0.47). ESS and forest function maps highly overlapped. The stakeholders identified both synergies and trade-offs between timber and biodiversity and between drinking water and biodiversity depending on the management. Recreation has mostly trade-offs, with timber, hunting, and drinking water. The stakeholders mapped only few ESS in addition to forest functions, e.g., feed production, beekeeping, and biodiversity hotspots. Although forest functions consider most forest benefits despite weak stakeholder consultation, the opportunity to prioritize forest benefits and to analyze interactions is a clear added value of the ESS approach. The paradigm of simultaneous provision of all forest functions does not reflect heterogeneous societal preferences. The stakeholders showed a rather low level of conflict and a high level of understanding for differences in their prioritization. The reason might be the long local tradition of multiple-use forestry beginning in the late 1800s. The study area is an example for an urban forest of a larger city in Europe with high pressure from local recreation. It would be interesting to test the approach for other environmental conditions and locations of an urban forest. In general, the developed approach could be used to evaluate the quality of other planning instruments for multiple-use forestry worldwide regarding their consideration of stakeholder requirements and the potential added value of the ESS approach.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do ecosystem services provide an added value compared to existing forest planning approaches in Central Europe?

Meyer¹,

Schulz²

2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scenario planning is a forward looking approach aimed at articulating multiple alternative futures in a way that spans a key set of critical uncertainties, using qualitative and quantitative methods and data (e.g., Peterson et al 2003b, Swart et al 2004) and engaging diverse stakeholder in participatory processes for stewardship of social-ecological systems subject to change (e.g., Enfors et al 2008, Plieninger et al 2013, Carpenter et al 2015b, Oteros-Rozas et al 2015. Scenario work is an important part of the Future Earth Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS), a program with a strong focus on social-ecological systems, resilience, and stewardship of ecosystem services in dynamic landscapes and seascapes, operating in the context of the challenges of the Anthropocene (Carpenter et al 2012b, Fischer et al 2015.…”

Section: Capturing Resiliencementioning

confidence: 99%

Resilience (Republished)

Folke¹

2016

E&S

668

393

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT.Resilience thinking in relation to the environment has emerged as a lens of inquiry that serves a platform for interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration. Resilience is about cultivating the capacity to sustain development in the face of expected and surprising change and diverse pathways of development and potential thresholds between them. The evolution of resilience thinking is coupled to socialecological systems and a truly intertwined human-environment planet. Resilience as persistence, adaptability, and transformability of complex adaptive social-ecological systems is the focus, clarifying the dynamic and forward-looking nature of the concept. Resilience thinking emphasizes that social-ecological systems, from the individual, to community, to society as a whole, are embedded in the biosphere. The biosphere connection is an essential observation if sustainability is to be taken seriously. In the continuous advancement of resilience thinking there are efforts aimed at capturing resilience of social-ecological systems and finding ways for people and institutions to govern social-ecological dynamics for improved human well-being, at the local, across levels and scales, to the global. Consequently, in resilience thinking, development issues for human well-being, for people and planet, are framed in a context of understanding and governing complex social-ecological dynamics for sustainability as part of a dynamic biosphere.This invited article is a republication of Folke, C. 2016. "Resilience" of the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science

show abstract

“…The aim of the establishment of early How can cultural landscapes be managed for ecosystem services? 4/3; male Plieninger et al (2012Plieninger et al ( , 2013, Bieling et al (2014) http://www.ecosystemservices.de 4 Besatzfisch (Stocking Fish) Under what conditions is fish stocking sustainable?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics, emerging needs, and challenges of transdisciplinary sustainability science: experiences from the German Social-Ecological Research Program

Ruppert-Winkel¹,

Arlinghaus²,

Deppisch³

et al. 2015

E&S

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Transdisciplinary sustainability science (TSS) is a prominent way of scientifically contributing to the solution of sustainability problems. Little is known, however, about the practice of scientists in TSS, especially those early in their career. Our objectives were to identify these practices and to outline the needs and challenges for early career scientists in TSS. To that end, we compiled 10 key characteristics of TSS based on a literature survey. We then analyzed research groups with 81 early career scientists against these characteristics. All of these research groups are funded by an ongoing federally funded German program for socialecological research whose main feature is to promote sustainability-oriented inter-and transdisciplinary research. We found that the practices of the 12 groups generally correspond with the characteristics for TSS, although there is ample variation in how they were addressed. Three major challenges were identified: (1) TSS demands openness to a plurality of research designs, theories, and methods, while also requiring shared, explicit, and recursive use of TSS characteristics; (2) researchers in TSS teams must make decisions about trade-offs between achievements of societal and scientific impact, acknowledging that focusing on the time-consuming former aspect is difficult to integrate into a scientific career path; and (3) although generalist researchers are increasingly becoming involved in such TSS research projects, supporting the integration of social, natural, and engineering sciences, specialized knowledge is also required.

show abstract

Exploring Futures of Ecosystem Services in Cultural Landscapes through Participatory Scenario Development in the Swabian Alb, Germany.

Cited by 119 publications

References 37 publications

Do ecosystem services provide an added value compared to existing forest planning approaches in Central Europe?

Do ecosystem services provide an added value compared to existing forest planning approaches in Central Europe?

Resilience (Republished)

Characteristics, emerging needs, and challenges of transdisciplinary sustainability science: experiences from the German Social-Ecological Research Program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About