Suchergebnisse

Artículo escrito por un elevado número de autores, solo se referencian el que aparece en primer lugar, el nombre del grupo de colaboración, si le hubiere, y los autores pertenecientes a la UAM ; Participatory scenario planning (PSP) is an increasingly popular tool in place-based environmental research for evaluating alternative futures of social-ecological systems. Although a range of guidelines on PSP methods are available in the scientific and grey literature, there is a need to reflect on existing practices and their appropriate application for different objectives and contexts at the local scale, as well as on their potential perceived outcomes. We contribute to theoretical and empirical frameworks by analyzing how and why researchers assess social-ecological systems using place-based PSP, hence facilitating the appropriate uptake of such scenario tools in the future. We analyzed 23 PSP case studies conducted by the authors in a wide range of social-ecological settings by exploring seven aspects: (1) the context; (2) the original motivations and objectives; (3) the methodological approach; (4) the process; (5) the content of the scenarios; (6) the outputs of the research; and (7) the monitoring and evaluation of the PSP process. This was complemented by a reflection on strengths and weaknesses of using PSP for the place-based social-ecological research. We conclude that the application of PSP, particularly when tailored to shared objectives between local people and researchers, has enriched environmental management and scientific research through building common understanding and fostering learning about future planning of social-ecological systems. However, PSP still requires greater systematic monitoring and evaluation to assess its impact on the promotion of collective action for transitions to sustainability and the adaptation to global environmental change and its challenges ; Funding for the case studies was provided by: the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the University of Saskatchewan, the German Ministry of Education and Research (FKZ 01UU0904AD), the European Commission 7th Framework Program (projects HERCULES grant agreement 603447, COMET-LA grant agreement 282845, COMBIOSERVE grant agreement 282899 and COBRA grant agreement 249667), the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), the Rural Economy and Land Use Program (project RES-224-25-0088), the Australian Department of Environment, the Australian Government's Natural Resource Management (NRM), Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Research Program, the Wet Tropics Cluster NRM Groups, the Reef Catchments NRM, the Terrain NRM, the DFATCSIRO Research for Development Alliance, the Spanish Ministry for the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs (projects 079/ RN08/02.1 and 018/2009), the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (project CGL2011-30266), the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation and Development, a Sofja- Kovalevskaja Award granted by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the U.S. National Science Foundation, a David Smith Fellowship, the Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) programme (project NE/I00324X/1), the Bonnechere River Watershed Project, The Ontario Trillium Foundation, the World Wildlife Fund-Spain, the Autonomous Organization of National Parks (Spain), and the Ministry of Education for a University Teacher Training fellowship

The connected nature of social-ecological systems has never been more apparent than in today's globalized world. The ecosystem service framework and associated ecosystem assessments aim to better inform the science-policy response to sustainability challenges. Such assessments, however, often overlook distant, diffuse and delayed impacts that are critical for global sustainability. Ecosystem-services science must better recognise the off-stage impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services of place-based ecosystem management, which we term 'ecosystem service burdens'. These are particularly important since they are often negative, and have a potentially significant effect on ecosystem management decisions. Ecosystem-services research can better recognise these off-stage burdens through integration with other analytical approaches, such as life cycle analysis and risk-based approaches that better account for the uncertainties involved. We argue that off-stage ecosystem service burdens should be incorporated in ecosystem assessments such as those led by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Taking better account of these off-stage burdens is essential to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of cross-scale interactions, a pre-requisite for any sustainability transition. ; Funding for a workshop was supported by the European Union within the project EcoFINDERS (grant no. FP7–264465), by a postdoctoral research grant from the Basque government to EG and a Juan de la Cierva Formación grant from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness to IP.

The promise that ecosystem service assessments will contribute to better decision-making is not yet proven. We analyse how knowledge on ecosystem services is actually used to inform land and water management in 22 case studies covering different social-ecological systems in European and Latin American countries. None of the case studies reported instrumental use of knowledge in a sense that ecosystem service knowledge would have served as. an impartial arbiter between policy options. Yet, in most cases, there was some evidence of conceptual learning as a result of close interaction between researchers, practitioners and stakeholders. We observed several factors that constrained knowledge uptake, including competing interests and political agendas, scientific disputes, professional norms and competencies, and lack of vertical and horizontal integration. Ecosystem knowledge played a small role particularly in those planning and policy-making situations where it challenged established interests and the current distribution of benefits from ecosystems. The factors that facilitated knowledge use included application of transparent participatory methods, social capital, policy champions and clear synergies between ecosystem services and human well-being. The results are aligned with previous studies which have emphasized the importance of building local capacity, ownership and trust for the long-term success of ecosystem service research.