Suchergebnisse

Fresh water is a limited resource under anthropogenic threat. Europeans are using an average of 3550 L per capita per day and this amount is increasing steadily as incomes rise. Water saving options are being actively promoted, but these intensified measures do not yet come close to saving enough water to prevent water shortages that may seriously affect our way of life in the near future. With projected increases in demands for good quality fresh water, educating the public about sustainable personal water use and water quality threats becomes an absolute necessity. One way to achieve this is through engaging citizens in water issues, e.g. through citizen science projects. Using snowball convenience sampling, we distributed a questionnaire among 498 people in 23 countries to investigate whether people were aware of how much water they used, what they perceived as threats to water quality and whether they would like to help improve water quality. Our results showed that the amount of daily water use was greatly underestimated among respondents, especially indirect use of water for the production of goods and services. Furthermore, the effects of climate change and detrimental habits such as feeding ducks were underestimated, presumably because of environmental illiteracy. However, eighty-five percent (85%) of our participants indicated an interest in directly working together with scientists to understand and improve their local water quality. Involving citizens in improving local lake quality promotes both environmental and scientific literacy, and can therefore result in a reduction in daily personal water use. The next iteration of the Water Framework Directive legislation will be launched shortly, requiring water managers to include citizens in their monitoring schemes. Engaging citizens will not only help improve surface water quality, and educate about cause and effect chains in water quality, but will also reduce the personal fresh water usage.

Recent technological developments have increased the number of variables being monitored in lakes and reservoirs using automatic high frequency monitoring (AHFM). However, design of AHFM systems and posterior data handling and interpretation are currently being developed on a site-by-site and issue-by-issue basis with minimal standardization of protocols or knowledge sharing. As a result, many deployments become short-lived or underutilized, and many new scientific developments that are potentially useful for water management and environmental legislation remain underexplored. This Critical Review bridges scientific uses of AHFM with their applications by providing an overview of the current AHFM capabilities, together with examples of successful applications. We review the use of AHFM for maximizing the provision of ecosystem services supplied by lakes and reservoirs (consumptive and non consumptive uses, food production, and recreation), and for reporting lake status in the EU Water Framework Directive. We also highlight critical issues to enhance the application of AHFM, and suggest the establishment of appropriate networks to facilitate knowledge sharing and technological transfer between potential users. Finally, we give advice on how modern sensor technology can successfully be applied on a larger scale to the management of lakes and reservoirs and maximize the ecosystem services they provide.

Context: Place-based transdisciplinary research involves multiple academic disciplines and non-academic actors. Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) platform is one concept with ~ 80 initiatives globally. Objectives: As an exercise in learning through evaluation we audited (1) the siting, construction and maintenance of individual LTSER platforms, and (2) them as a distributed infrastructure for place-based transdisciplinary research with focus on the European continent. Methods: First, we defined a normative model for ideal performance at both platform and network levels. Second, four surveys were sent out to the 67 self-reported LTSER platforms officially listed at the end of 2016. Third, with a focus on the network level, we analyzed the spatial distribution of both long-term ecological monitoring sites within LTSER platforms, and LTSER platforms across the European continent. Fourth, narrative biographies of 18 platforms in different stages of development were analyzed. Results: While the siting ofLTSER platforms represented biogeographical regions well, variations in land use history and democratic governance were not well represented. Platform construction was based on 2.1 ecological monitoring sites, with 72% ecosystem and 28% social system research. Maintenance of a platform required three to five staff members, focused mostly on ecosystem research, was based mainly on national funding, and had 1–2 years of future funding secured. Networking with other landscape approach concepts was common. Conclusions: Individually, and as a network, LTSER platforms have good potential for transdisciplinary knowledge production and learning about sustainability challenges. To improve the range of variation of Pan-European social–ecological systems we encourage interfacing with other landscape approach concepts. ; Peer reviewed

Context Place-based transdisciplinary research involves multiple academic disciplines and non-academic actors. Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) platform is one concept with similar to 80 initiatives globally.Objectives As an exercise in learning through evaluation we audited (1) the siting, construction and maintenance of individual LTSER platforms, and (2) them as a distributed infrastructure for place-based transdisciplinary research with focus on the European continent.MethodsFirst, we defined a normative model for ideal performance at both platform and network levels. Second, four surveys were sent out to the 67 self-reported LTSER platforms officially listed at the end of 2016. Third, with a focus on the network level, we analyzed the spatial distribution of both long-term ecological monitoring sites within LTSER platforms, and LTSER platforms across the European continent. Fourth, narrative biographies of 18 platforms in different stages of development were analyzed.ResultsWhile the siting of LTSER platforms represented biogeographical regions well, variations in land use history and democratic governance were not well represented. Platform construction was based on 2.1 ecological monitoring sites, with 72% ecosystem and 28% social system research. Maintenance of a platform required three to five staff members, focused mostly on ecosystem research, was based mainly on national funding, and had 1-2years of future funding secured. Networking with other landscape approach concepts was common.ConclusionsIndividually, and as a network, LTSER platforms have good potential for transdisciplinary knowledge production and learning about sustainability challenges. To improve the range of variation of Pan-European social-ecological systems we encourage interfacing with other landscape approach concepts. ; Peer reviewed

Context Place-based transdisciplinary research involves multiple academic disciplines and non-academic actors. Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) platform is one concept with similar to 80 initiatives globally.Objectives As an exercise in learning through evaluation we audited (1) the siting, construction and maintenance of individual LTSER platforms, and (2) them as a distributed infrastructure for place-based transdisciplinary research with focus on the European continent.MethodsFirst, we defined a normative model for ideal performance at both platform and network levels. Second, four surveys were sent out to the 67 self-reported LTSER platforms officially listed at the end of 2016. Third, with a focus on the network level, we analyzed the spatial distribution of both long-term ecological monitoring sites within LTSER platforms, and LTSER platforms across the European continent. Fourth, narrative biographies of 18 platforms in different stages of development were analyzed.ResultsWhile the siting of LTSER platforms represented biogeographical regions well, variations in land use history and democratic governance were not well represented. Platform construction was based on 2.1 ecological monitoring sites, with 72% ecosystem and 28% social system research. Maintenance of a platform required three to five staff members, focused mostly on ecosystem research, was based mainly on national funding, and had 1-2years of future funding secured. Networking with other landscape approach concepts was common.ConclusionsIndividually, and as a network, LTSER platforms have good potential for transdisciplinary knowledge production and learning about sustainability challenges. To improve the range of variation of Pan-European social-ecological systems we encourage interfacing with other landscape approach concepts.