Search

Understanding uncertainties and risks can be considered to be the main motivation behind environmental scenario studies to assess potential economic, environmental, social or technical developments and their expected consequences for society and environment. The scenario study presented in this paper was designed to contribute to the question of how natural capital and ecosystem services may evolve in Europe under different socio-environmental conditions. The study was conducted as part of OpenNESS, an on-going EU FP7 research project. We present the iterative participatory scenario process, the storylines and drivers, examples for regional applications, as well as initial feedback from stakeholders.In a participatory iterative approach four scenarios were developed for the period to 2050, involving regional and EU-level users and stakeholders. Subsequently, scenarios were successfully contextualised and applied in regional place-based studies under widely differing socio-environmental conditions. Regional teams used different approaches to adapt storylines and drivers to the regional contexts. In an internal evaluation process among regional stakeholders some participants expressed concerns about the scenario method. Suggestions are made how to overcome these limitations. However, most participants approved the scenario method, especially in terms of provoking discussions, and confirmed the usefulness and applicability of the approach.

We present options for a National Ecosystem Assessment in Germany (NEA-DE) that could inform decision-makers on the state and trends of ecosystems and ecosystem services. Characterizing a NEA-DE, we argue that its cross-sectoral, integrative approach would have the advantages of increased scientific understanding, addressing specific policy questions and creating science-policy dialogues. Challenges include objections against a utilitarian perspective, reservations concerning power relations, and responsibilities concerning the funding, We present options for a National Ecosystem Assessment in Germany (NEA-DE) that could inform decision-makers on the state and trends of ecosystems and ecosystem services. Characterizing a NEA-DE, we argue that its cross-sectoral, integrative approach would have the advantages of increased scientific understanding, addressing specific policy questions and creating science-policy dialogues. Challenges include objections against a utilitarian perspective, reservations concerning power relations, and responsibilities concerning the funding.

Conceptually, stakeholder participation in the governance of ecosystem services (ESS) is necessary for several reasons, some of them well-known for sustainability governance in general but some more specific for ecosystem services. In particular the failure of monetary valuation to provide meaningful valuation instruments requires participation of a representative diversity of stakeholders in ESS research and governance to answer the question what people value, and how. Building upon experience from transdisciplinary research projects in Asia, Africa and Europe, we argue that successful participation depends on the specific socio-cultural context and requires different means and modes of participation during different project phases. We list a variety of tested methods, with reference to the pros and cons each of them has. The challenges we describe are structured according to theoretical concepts, but not derived from them but from project experience. They are formidable, both conceptually and empirically, but with good project coordination such difficulties can be anticipated and handled.The paper first outlines the specific challenges of ESS assessment and valuation in inter- and transdisciplinary research, arguing in Section 1 that the failure of internalisation requires participation as value attributing mechanism. Section 2 describes challenges experienced with participation in research design and implementation; the latter links to Section 3 which draws lessons for ESS governance strategies. Section 4 presents some lessons learned for future ESS research and governance.

The role and design of global expert organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) needs rethinking. Acknowledging that a one-size-fits-all model does not exist, we suggest a reflexive turn that implies treating the governance of expertise as a matter of political contestation., Science role in international environmental governance. Climate change, biodiversity and air pollution

In einer Sondierungsstudie für ein Nationales Assessment von Ökosystemen und ihren Leistungen in für Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft in Deutschland (NEA-DE) wurde untersucht, wie ein Assessment derart konzipiert und implementiert werden könnte, dass es möglichst effektiv und im Interesse seiner potenziellen Nutzer in Politik, Verwaltung, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft durchgeführt werden kann. Die Sondierungsstudie analysiert die Rahmenbedingungen für ein Assessment von Ökosystemen und ihren Leistungen in Deutschland, identifiziert politikrelevante Fragestellungen und schlägt zwei Optionen für eine modularisierte Umsetzung vor. Die Studie wurde von einem interdisziplinären Team am UFZ mit Unterstützung externer Wissenschaftler und Wissenschaftlerinnen erstellt.

This paper presents an analysis of a research project conducted by a network of environmental research institutes called Partnership for European Environmental Research (PEER). Our analysis constitutes a reflection on this research project based on a proposed ideal-typical transdisciplinary research process developed by Lang et al. (2012). The aim of the PRESS project (PEER Research on EcoSystem Services) was to provide support for the development and implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, with a special emphasis on the ecosystem services concept. Our analysis of the research phases of the PRESS project shows that not all of the project elements accord with the notion of a full-scale transdisciplinary process. Despite this, a number of lessons can be learned regarding the use of different boundary objects for knowledge integration and the various roles played by researchers. We also identify some constraints with regard to synchronizing policy and project cycles and consider the advantages and disadvantages of research network structures in facilitating long-term cooperation.

Der Wert von Ökosystemen und ihr Beitrag zum menschlichen Wohlergehen werden weit über den Bereich des Umweltschutzes hinaus zunehmend diskutiert. Trotz einer wachsenden Zahl wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten liegt bisher jedoch kein umfassendes und integriertes Wissen zum Zustand und der Entwicklung von Ökosystemleistungen in Deutschland vor. Ziel der Sondierungsstudie ist es, zu untersuchen, wie ein Nationales Assessment von Ökosystemen und ihren Leistungen für Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in Deutschland (NationalEcosystem Assessment − NEA-DE) konzipiert und implementiert werden kann. Die Studie identifiziert dazu die Interessen und Informationsbedürfnisse von möglichen Auftraggebern und Nutzern und erörtert Umsetzungsoptionen. Die Koordination liegt bei einem interdisziplinären Team am Helmholtz-Zentrum fürUmweltforschung – UFZ, das von einer Gruppe externer Wissenschaftler unterstützt wird.

The management of biodiversity represents a research topic that needs to involve not only several (sub-) disciplines from the natural sciences but, in particular, also the social sciences and humanities. Furthermore, over the last couple of years, the need for the integration of other kinds of knowledge (experience based or indigenous knowledge) is increasingly acknowledged. For instance, the incorporation of such knowledge is indispensable for place-based approaches to sustainable land management, which require that the specific ecological and social context is addressed. However, desirable as it may be, such an engagement of the holders of tacit knowledge is not easy to achieve. It demands reconciling well-established scientific procedural standards with the implicit or explicit criteria of relevance that apply in civil society — a process that typically causes severe tensions and comes up against both habitual as well as institutional constraints. The difficulty of managing such tensions is amplified particularly in large integrated projects and represents a major challenge to project management. At the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research — UFZ, several integrated research projects have been conducted over the past years in which experience has been gained with these specific challenges. This paper presents some of the lessons learned from large integrated projects, with an emphasis on project design and management structure. At the centre of the present contribution are experiences gained in the coordination and management of LEGATO (LEGATO stands for Land-use intensity and Ecological EnGineering — Assessment Tools for risks and Opportunities in irrigated rice based production systems, see www.legato-project.net), an ongoing, large-scale, inter- and transdisciplinary research project dealing with the management of irrigated rice landscapes in Southeast Asia. In this project, local expertise on traditional production systems is absolutely crucial but need

This paper summarises discussions in a workshop entitled “exploring uncertainties in biodiversity science, policy and management”. It draws together experiences gained by scientists and scholars when encountering and coping with different types of uncertainty in their work in the field of biodiversity protection. The discussion covers all main phases of scientific work: field work and data analysis; methodologies; setting goals for research projects, taking simultaneously into account the agency of scientists conducting the work; developing communication with policy-makers and society at large; and giving arguments for the societal relevance of the issues. The paper concludes with a plea for collaborative learning that would build upon close cooperation among specialists who have developed expertise in different fields in research, management and politics.

Ecosystem services (ESS) are frequently described as nature’s free gift to humankind. However, the first step of ESS and benefit generation is recognising the usability of structures, processes and outputs of ecosystems. This use-value attribution transforms the ecosystem functions (ESF) into ecosystem service potentials (ESP). By investing physical resources, energy and labour, and frequently money as a means to provide them, agents mobilise (part of) the potentials. Cultural, economic and legal constraints limit the mobilisation. The resulting ESS are appropriated to be directly consumed, exploited to provide other goods and services, or marketed, resulting in monetary income. Changing use-value attribution leads to change service potentials, to different mobilisation and appropriation patterns, and different benefits. Human agency, not ESF determine the services provided. This is illustrated by comparing traditional and current services generated from the same ecosystem in four countries undergoing socio-economic transitions: Kenya, Mongolia, the Philippines and Vietnam. All four cases show that changing habits, preferences and modes of regulation lead to specific services provided. Institutions such as tradition, belief systems, markets or state planning are the key to understand which ESS are generated from any ESF. Value attribution, mobilisation and appropriation are key processes.

Spatial planning is often affected by conflicting sectoral interests. Frequently, this results in unsustainablemanagement practices. Integrating the concept of ecosystem services into planning and decision-making can facilitate communica tion among decision-makers from sectors like landscape and urban planning,agriculture or water management. The concept accounts for a broad spectrum of quantitative andqualitative data from local to international level, thus revealing the benefits humans derive fromecosystem goods and functions.We propose that the concept of ecosystem services can complement existing policy instruments that focus solely on a specific task or sectoral interest.

Wenn Fragen des Umgangs mit der Natur oder spezifische Umweltprobleme zum Thema werden, dann versucht Pädagogik – als Schulpädagogik, Jugendbildungsarbeit oder Erwachsenenbildung – ein Wissen über „die Natur“ oder die „natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen zu vermitteln. Dass Soziologie hierfür relevant sein könnte, ist auf den ersten Blick nicht einleuchtend, scheinen hier doch eher die Naturwissenschaften zuständig und technische Lösungen gefragt zu sein

In den letzten Jahren ist eine erstaunliche (Re-)Politisierung des Klimawandels zu beobachten, die inzwischen auch die institutionellen Formen seiner politischen Bearbeitung erfasst hat. Spätestens seit den Auseinandersetzungen um die UN-Klimakonferenz 2009 in Kopenhagen und dem anschließenden mühsamen Verhandlungsprozess der UNFCCC ist eine „Krise der Rio-Institutionen“ (Park et al. 2008) offenkundig geworden.

Das Konzept der Ökosystemdienstleistungen (ÖSD) - also die Betrachtung der vielfältigen Beiträge, die Ökosysteme zu menschlichem Wohlbefinden leisten - erfreut sich in der Politik zunehmender Beliebtheit. Unsere vergleichende Studie auf regionaler Ebene in Deutschland, Finnland und Polen, die auf einer Befragung von Expertinnen und Experten basiert, offenbart dabei einige Herausforderungen. So weist die Befragung darauf hin, dass verschiedene Faktoren zu einer unterschiedlichen Wahrnehmung der Wichtigkeit verschiedener ÖSD führen. Zu den Faktoren gehören unter anderem unterschiedliche Wissensstände sowie der Grad der Vertrautheit mit dem Konzept der ÖSD, die Zugehörigkeit zu einem Sektor (z. B. Wasserwirtschaft, Naturschutz, Forstwirtschaft), persönliche Präferenzen, aber auch unterschiedliche naturräumliche Ausstattungen und Landschaftstypen. Aus der Analyse der Faktoren lassen sich einige Empfehlungen für die Erfassung und Kartierung von ÖSD ableiten, die als Grundlage für Entscheidungsfindungen dienen können.

A major strength of the ecosystem services (ESS) concept is that it allows a succinct description of how human well-being depends on nature, showing that the neglect of such dependencies has negative consequences on human well-being and the economy. As ESS refer to human needs and interests, values are to be considered when dealing with the concept in practice. As a result we argue that in using the concept there is a need to be clear about what different dimensions of value are involved, and be aware of ethical issues that might be associated with the concept. A systematic analysis of the ethical implications associated to the ESS concept is still lacking. We address this deficiency by scrutinising value dimensions associated with the concept, and use this to explore the associated ethical implications. We then highlight how improved transparency in the use of the ESS concept can contribute to using its strengths without succumbing to possible drawbacks arising from ethical problems. These problems concern the dangers that some uses of the concept have in obscuring certain types of value, and in masking unevenness in the distribution of costs and benefits that can arise in the management of ESS.

Maps of ecosystem services are repeatedly mentioned in the “EU biodiversity strategy to 2020” as being necessary to achieve the goals of this strategy. On regional and landscape levels too, maps are more and more often suggested to be essential for proper management of ecosystems and their services. This paper presents results drawn from interviews on a regional level and from a focus group discussion on national and EU levels. Both dealt with the question of how exactly spatially explicit information can be used in decision-making concerning biodiversity and ecosystem services. Amongst others the use of maps as a means of fulfilling reporting duties of the Members States to the European Commission; also mentioned was the use of maps as a communication tool; and to improve the targeting of policy measures. However, a number of challenges in relation to the credibility, salience and legitimacy of maps also came up during interviews and discussion. The challenges identified lead us to the conclusion that while maps can be tremendously helpful, they should be used carefully. From the information gathered we derive a number of recommendations on how to deal with the salience and legitimacy of maps.

The concept of ecosystem services (ES) is increasingly being used in environmental policy and decision making. We report here on the empirical results which emerged from stakeholder discussions within the PRESS (PEER Research on EcoSystem Services) project on certain unresolved challenges related to the use of the ES concept in decision making. The results show that the occurrence of synergies and trade-offs between different ES and their relevance for decision making depends significantly on the scale involved (in particular regarding the levels of policy formulation and policy implementation respectively) and on the specific ways in which ecosystems are managed (e.g. different practices in forestry and agriculture). We conclude that using the concept of ecosystem services, would enable a comprehensive evaluation of policy impacts. Such an evaluation would contribute to an increased congruence between policies by uncovering and discussing trade-offs and realize synergies. Crucial to this, however, is a sound assessment that incorporates the diversity of stakeholder perceptions, knowledge and preferences at the different scales.

El artículo expone el necesario cambio de enfoque de adaptación al cambio global definiéndolocomo un necesario y pero complejo avance desde las estrategias de mitigación frente a los efectosdel cambio climático (antropogénico), poniendo énfasis en la vulnerabilidad de la poblacióna nivel mundial y su manifestación en los países en vías de desarrollo, y también sobre losindustrializados.De esta forma, hace un llamado al cambio de significado y de racionalidad en la comprensiónde las relaciones sociedad-naturaleza, así como también a nivel discursivo, desde donde planteanecesario posicionar el problema del cambio climático y de modelos de desarrollo dependientesde la naturaleza; la propuesta es un cambio de concepto que permita discutir los alcances delcambio ambiental global y sus efectos sobre la vulnerabilidad social, y sus manifestaciones, asícomo la crisis y los desafíos sobre la gobernanza medioambiental frente a dicho contexto. .

This Editorial presents the focus, scope and policies of the inaugural issue of Nature Conservation, a new open access, peer-reviewed journal bridging natural sciences, social sciences and hands-on applications in conservation management. The journal covers all aspects of nature conservation and aims particularly at facilitating better interaction between scientists and practitioners. The journal will impose no restrictions on manuscript size or the use of colour. We will use an XML-based editorial workflow and several cutting-edge innovations in publishing and information dissemination. These include semantic mark-up of, and enhancements to published text, data, and extensive cross-linking within the journal and to external sources. We believe the journal will make an important contribution to better linking science and practice, offers rapid, peer-reviewed and flexible publication for authors and unrestricted access to content.

Climate change has become a highly politicised issue over the last couple of years. In particular adaptation to climate change raises fundamental conceptual challenges concerning the interplay of societal and biophysical processes. The paper discusses some of these challenges and introduces a theoretical concept able to improve our understanding of the complex interactions between nature and society. The concept of ‘societal relationships with nature’, which originated in the so-called ‘Frankfurt School’ of critical theory, provides a dialectic approach towards these complex interactions able to deal with the societal causes of climate change as much as with the repercussions of global warming on societies, including the claim for balancing mitigation and adaptation needs. Basically, the goal of sustainable development has returned on the agenda in a new form: To what extent are societies in the ‘North’ and ‘South’ respectively able to deal with the vulnerabilities created or heightened by climate change? In this context, the spatial dimension of climate policy at and between the different spatial scales is becoming an ever more pressing problem, which is illustrated using the transformation of ecosystem services as a case study.

no abstract