Search

Urban green and blue infrastructure (GBI) and associated ecosystem services (ES) are increasingly recognized for their potential to address urban sustainability challenges. This has resulted in an increase in studies quantifying ES in cities. In this review, we analysed 850 peer-reviewed publications to characterize urban ES assessment in terms of geographical location, urban GBI type and methodological aspects (e.g. ES indicators). The analyses covered six ES: local temperature regulation, stormwater regulation, waste treatment, air quality regulation, pollination, and recreation and aesthetic appreciation. The majority of ES assessments focused on local temperature regulation (36%) and recreation and aesthetic appreciation (23%) and assessments were often conducted within unspecified green space (30%) and parks (26%). A common method to assess GBI performance was the comparison of ES delivery along a gradient of vegetation cover (24%). Moreover, assessments used a wide variety of ES indicators. Most assessments quantified ecosystem properties (59%), while a minority assessed actual benefits to people, recognized values or societal demands. To advance insights in the effectiveness of GBI, we recommend increased research attention towards i) increasing the coverage of less studied ES, GBI types and geographical regions, ii) quantifying actual benefits of GBI by comparing ES supply and societal demand, and iii) comparing effectiveness across different GBI types and in relation to grey infrastructure.

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.

In order to evaluate the long-term effect of the new fumigant DMDS and its potential to be a part of IPM of root-knot nematodes, a two-year experiment was conducted on cucumber in a greenhouse in Bulgaria. In the first year, DMDS was applied in comparison with farmer nematicide strategy and untreated control in the first cucumber crop. After two consequent catch crops—lettuce in the winter period—a second cucumber crop followed in spring–summer. In this crop, the DMDS effect was studied with no treatment and was integrated into the post-planting strategy with Trichoderma spp. and garlic extract at plots previously treated with DMDS. The effect of DMDS was followed until 450 days after fumigation. Nematocidal efficacy of DMDS was 96% and the yield increased 65.5% in the first cucumber crop, and 80% and 100% in the second cucumber crop, respectively, when nothing was done or a combined strategy with Trichoderma spp. and garlic extract was followed. The DMDS effect on 44 non-target soil nematode genera was also followed. The negative impact of the fumigation was limited in time as non-target nematode communities regained previous crop levels in five months during our study. Therefore, DMDS can be properly included in soil IPM programmes and appears very promising for the protected crop industry in Europe.

Humanity is on a deeply unsustainable trajectory. We are exceeding planetary boundaries and unlikely to meet many international sustainable development goals and global environmental targets. Until recently, there was no broadly accepted framework of interventions that could ignite the transformations needed to achieve these desired targets and goals. As a component of the IPBES Global Assessment, we conducted an iterative expert deliberation process with an extensive review of scenarios and pathways to sustainability, including the broader literature on indirect drivers, social change and sustainability transformation. We asked, what are the most important elements of pathways to sustainability? Applying a social–ecological systems lens, we identified eight priority points for intervention (leverage points) and five overarching strategic actions and priority interventions (levers), which appear to be key to societal transformation. The eight leverage points are: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. The five intertwined levers can be applied across the eight leverage points and more broadly. These include: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre-emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision-making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. The levers and leverage points are all non-substitutable, and each enables others, likely leading to synergistic benefits. Transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling-up of sustainability initiatives—it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems. These levers and leverage points build upon those approved within the Global Assessment's Summary for Policymakers, with the aim of enabling leaders in government, business, civil society and academia to spark transformative changes towards a more just and sustainable world. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. Fil: Chan, Kai M. A.. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Boyd, David R.. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Gould, Rachelle. University of Vermont; Estados Unidos Fil: Jetzkowitz, Jens. Staatliches Museum fur Naturkunde Stuttgart; Alemania Fil: Liu, Jianguo. Michigan State University; Estados Unidos Fil: Muraca, Bárbara. University of Oregon; Estados Unidos Fil: Naidoo, Robin. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Beck, Paige. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Satterfield, Terre. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Selomane, Odirilwe. Stellenbosch University; Sudáfrica Fil: Singh, Gerald G.. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Sumaila, Rashid. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Ngo, Hien T.. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Alemania Fil: Boedhihartono, Agni Klintuni. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Agard, John. The University Of The West Indies; Trinidad y Tobago Fil: de Aguiar, Ana Paula D.. Stockholms Universitet; Suecia Fil: Armenteras, Dolors. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; Colombia Fil: Balint, Lenke. BirdLife International; Reino Unido Fil: Barrington-Leigh, Christopher. Mcgill University; Canadá Fil: Cheung, William W. L.. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina Fil: Driscoll, John. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Esler, Karen. Stellenbosch University; Sudáfrica Fil: Eyster, Harold. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Gregr, Edward J.. University of British Columbia; Canadá Fil: Hashimoto, Shizuka. The University Of Tokyo; Japón Fil: Hernández Pedraza, Gladys Cecilia. The World Economy Research Center; Cuba Fil: Hickler, Thomas. Goethe Universitat Frankfurt; Alemania Fil: Kok, Marcel. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países Bajos Fil: Lazarova, Tanya. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países Bajos Fil: Mohamed, Assem A. A.. Central Laboratory for Agricultural Climate; Egipto Fil: Murray-Hudson, Mike. University Of Botswana; Botsuana Fil: O'Farrell, Patrick. University of Cape Town; Sudáfrica Fil: Palomo, Ignacio. Basque Centre for Climate Change; España Fil: Saysel, Ali Kerem. Boğaziçi University; Turquía Fil: Seppelt, Ralf. Martin-universität Halle-wittenberg; Alemania Fil: Settele, Josef. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research-iDiv; Alemania Fil: Strassburg, Bernardo. International Institute for Sustainability, Estrada Dona Castorina; Brasil Fil: Xue, Dayuan. Minzu University Of China; China Fil: Brondízio, Eduardo S.. Indiana University; Estados Unidos

If the world stays on its current development path, the state of biodiversity will continue to decline. This is due to projected further increases in pressures, most prominently habitat loss and climate change. In order to reduce these pressures, biodiversity conservation and restoration, as well as sustainable resource use, needs to be an integral part of sustainable development strategies of primary production sectors, such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries and energy. This paper presents a model-based analysis of three alternative pathways described as Global Technology, Decentralized Solutions and Consumption Change to conserve biodiversity. Each of these pathways pursues international biodiversity goals together with a broader set of environmental sustainability objectives, including feeding the world, universal access to modern energy, limiting climate change and controlling air pollution. We show that different combinations of bio-physical measures, ecosystem management changes and behavioural changes can globally substantially reduce biodiversity loss in the coming decades (avoided Mean Species Abundance (MSA) loss is 4.4–4.8% MSA, compared to 9.5% MSA loss in the Trend), although the types of biodiversity conserved in the pathways will be different. The agricultural and forestry sectors together have until 2010 globally caused almost 60% of the total reduction in terrestrial biodiversity in MSA terms and 55% of the expected loss up to 2050. We show that increased productivity by technological improvements, increased use of ecological methods in agriculture and forestry, and consumption changes help to avoid biodiversity loss by 3.1–3.5% MSA. In addition, combinations of pathways, taking into account specific regional contexts, might result in even larger reduction of biodiversity loss. The changes needed in the agricultural and forestry sector to achieve this go well beyond current efforts to reduce their impact on biodiversity.

New European Union level scenarios have been developed in the FP7 project OpenNESS to fill a thematic gap in existing broad-scale environmental scenarios to assess the uncertainties and risks of different drivers of change for natural capital and ecosystem service provision. The scenarios are aiming at applicability for science and policy-making at different scales, including the European level and regional and local scales. The scenarios are going beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment scenarios, making broader assumptions in covering different types of ecosystem services, and different pathways of ecosystem services provision, including risks of ecosystem service losses. The main research question is addressing uncertainties and risks related to land-use change, exemplified via impacts on a provisioning and a regulating service. The approach is based on participatory scenario development and integrated modelling with the CLIMSAVE modelling framework. Four scenarios were developed (WealthBeing, UnitedWeStand, EcoCentre, RuralRevival). Simulations of the combinations of driving forces caused land-use changes up to +65% for forest, or −37% for grassland, both in UnitedWeStand. The most extreme changes highlighted here for scenario UnitedWeStand can mainly be attributed to the highest increase in irrigation efficiency (+58%) and crop yields (+50%), an almost constant human population in Europe (+1%), moderate increases in meat demands (+10%) and increasing food imports (+10%). In terms of ecosystem services provision, no clear winners and losers could be identified in the four scenarios, but rather different mixes of trade-offs and synergies. Thus, drivers within Europe as well as trade with land-intensive commodities and the policies steering them contribute to lower or increased pressures and risks of ecosystem services loss, e.g., on agricultural land in Europe and the countries of trading partners.

1. Scientists have repeatedly argued that transformative, multiscale global scenarios are needed as tools in the quest to halt the decline of biodiversity and achieve sustainability goals. 2. As a first step towards achieving this, the researchers who participated in the scenarios and models expert group of the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) entered into an iterative, participatory process that led to the development of the Nature Futures Framework (NFF). 3. The NFF is a heuristic tool that captures diverse, positive relationships of humans with nature in the form of a triangle. It can be used both as a boundary object for continuously opening up more plural perspectives in the creation of desirable nature scenarios and as an actionable framework for developing consistent nature scenarios across multiple scales. 4. Here we describe the methods employed to develop the NFF and how it fits into a longer term process to create transformative, multiscale scenarios for nature. We argue that the contribution of the NFF is twofold: (a) its ability to hold a plurality of perspectives on what is desirable, which enables the development of joint goals and visions and recognizes the possible convergence and synergies of measures to achieve these visions and (b), its multiscale functionality for elaborating scenarios and models that can inform decision‐making at relevant levels, making it applicable across specific places and perspectives on nature. 5. If humanity is to achieve its goal of a more sustainable and prosperous future rooted in a flourishing nature, it is critical to open up a space for more plural perspectives of human–nature relationships. As the global community sets out to develop new goals for biodiversity, the NFF can be used as a navigation tool helping to make diverse, desirable futures possible Los científicos han argumentado repetidamente que los escenarios globales, transformadores y de escalas múltiples son necesarios como herramientas para afrontar la pérdida de biodiversidad y lograr los objetivos de sostenibilidad. Como un primer paso para lograrlo, el grupo de expertos en escenarios y modelos de la Plataforma Intergubernamental científico‐normativa en Biodiversidad y Servicios Ecosistémicos (IPBES) mediante un proceso iterativo, participativo desarrollaron el Marco de los Futuros de la Naturaleza (MFN). EL MFN es una herramienta heurística que captura las diversas relaciones positivas existentes entre los seres humanos y la naturaleza y se representa en la forma de un triángulo. Puede ser usado tanto como un objeto para generar perspectivas plurales en la creación de escenarios deseables de la naturaleza o como un marco para desarrollar escenarios de la naturaleza consistentes a través de escalas múltiples. Aquí, describimos los métodos empleados para desarrollar el MFN y como este se ajusta a un proceso de largo plazo para crear escenarios transformadores y a diferentes escalas para el futuro de la naturaleza. La contribución de los MFN persigue dos objetivos principales: a) la posibilidad de mantener una pluralidad de perspectivas en aquello que es deseable, lo que permite el desarrollo de un conjunto de objetivos y visiones reconociendo la posible convergencia y sinergias de las medidas para alcanzarlos y b) su funcionalidad a escalas múltiples para elaborar escenarios y modelos que puedan informar a los tomadores de decisiones a niveles relevantes, haciéndolo aplicable a través de perspectivas específicas sobre la naturaleza. Si la humanidad va a afrontar el objetivo de un futuro más sostenible y próspero basado en una naturaleza floreciente, es crítico dar lugar a perspectivas más plurales de las relaciones entre el ser humano y la naturaleza. Mientras la comunidad global esta desarrollando nuevos objetivos para la biodiversidad, le MFN puede ser utilizado como una herramienta de exploración que ayude a generar posibles futuros diversos y deseables para la naturaleza y las personas This work is based on the research supported in part by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (Grant Numbers 115300) and the Swedish Research Council (FORMAS Project No. 2018-02371)

Scenarios are powerful tools toenvision how nature might respondto different pathways of futurehuman development and policy choices1.Most scenarios developed for globalenvironmental assessments have exploredimpacts of society on nature, such asbiodiversity loss, but have not includednature as a component of socioeconomicdevelopment2. They ignore policyobjectives related to nature protectionand neglect nature?s role in underpinningdevelopment and human well-being.This approach is becoming untenablebecause targets for human developmentare increasingly connected with targetsfor nature, such as in the United Nations?Sustainable Development Goals. The nextgeneration of scenarios should explorealternative pathways to reach theseintertwined targets, including potentialsynergies and trade-offs between natureconservation and other developmentgoals, as well as address feedbacks betweennature, nature?s contributions to people,and human well-being. The developmentof these scenarios would benefit from theuse of participatory approaches, integratingstakeholders from multiple sectors (forexample, fisheries, agriculture, forestry)and should address decision-makersfrom the local to the global scale3, therebysupporting assessments being undertakenby the Intergovernmental Platformon Biodiversity and EcosystemServices (IPBES). Fil: Rosa, Isabel M. D.. German Centre For Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania. Martin-universitat Halle-wittenberg; Alemania Fil: Pereira, Henrique M.. German Centre For Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania. Martin-universitat Halle-wittenberg; Alemania. Universidad de Porto; Portugal Fil: Ferrier, Simon. Csiro Land And Water; Australia Fil: Alkemade, Rob. Pbl Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países Bajos Fil: Acosta, Lilibeth A.. University Of The Philippines Los Banos; Filipinas Fil: Akcakaya, H. Resit. Stony Brook University; Estados Unidos Fil: Den Belder, Eefje. Pbl Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países Bajos. Wageningen University And Research Centre; Países Bajos Fil: Fazel, Asghar M.. Eco Institute Of Environmental Science And Technology; Irán. University Of Environment; Irán Fil: Fujimori, Shinichiro. International Institute For Applied Systems Analysis; Austria. National Institute For Environmental Studies Of Japan; Japón Fil: Harfoot, Mike. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino Unido Fil: Harhash, Khaled A.. Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency; Egipto Fil: Harrison, Paula A.. Lancaster University; Reino Unido Fil: Hauck, Jennifer. Coknow Consulting; Alemania. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; Alemania Fil: Hendriks, Rob J. J.. Ministry Of Economic Affairs; Países Bajos Fil: Hernández, Gladys. Centre For World Economy Studies; Cuba Fil: Jetz, Walter. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. University of Yale; Estados Unidos Fil: Karlsson Vinkhuyzen, Sylvia I.. Wageningen University And Research Centre; Países Bajos Fil: Kim, Hyejin. National Institute Of Ecology; Corea del Sur Fil: King, Nicholas. North-west University; Sudáfrica Fil: Kok, Marcel T. J.. Pbl Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países Bajos Fil: Kolomytsev, Grygoriy O.. Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukrain; Ucrania Fil: Lazarova, Tanya. Pbl Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países Bajos Fil: Leadley, Paul. Université Paris Sud; Francia Fil: Lundquist, Carolyn J.. National Institute Of Water And Atmospheric Research; Nueva Zelanda. The University of Auckland; Nueva Zelanda Fil: García Márquez, Jaime. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin; Alemania Fil: Meyer, Carsten. German Centre For Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania. University of Yale; Estados Unidos Fil: Navarro, Laetitia M.. German Centre For Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania. Martin-universitat Halle-wittenberg; Alemania Fil: Nesshöver, Carsten. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; Alemania. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania Fil: Ngo, Hien T.. Ipbes Secretariat; Alemania Fil: Ninan, Karachepone N.. Centre For Economics, Environment And Society; India Fil: Palomo, Maria Gabriela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia”; Argentina Fil: Pereira, Laura M.. Stockholms Universitet; Suecia Fil: Peterson, Garry D.. Stockholms Universitet; Suecia Fil: Pichs, Ramon. Centre For World Economy Studies; Cuba Fil: Popp, Alexander. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research; Alemania Fil: Purvis, Andy. Natural History Museum; Reino Unido Fil: Ravera, Federica. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Centre de Recerca Ecológica I Aplicacions Forestals; España. University Of Évora; Portugal. Universitat Central De Catalunya; España Fil: Rondinini, Carlo. Università degli studi di Roma "La Sapienza"; Italia Fil: Sathyapalan, Jyothis. Centre For Economic And Social Studies; India Fil: Schipper, Aafke M.. Pbl Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países Bajos Fil: Seppelt, Ralf. Coknow Consulting; Alemania. Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg; Alemania Fil: Settele, Josef. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; Alemania Fil: Sitas, Nadia. The Council For Scientific And Industrial Research; Sudáfrica Fil: Van Vuuren, Detlef. Pbl Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países Bajos