Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Social-ecological systems and resilience
The concept of resilience has emerged to analyse the dynamics and sustainability of social ecological systems (Folke et al. 2002, Walker et al. 2004). Resilience describes a property of social–ecological systems that sustain structures and processes by resisting, adapting and transforming in response to stress (Folke et al. 2002, Gunderson and Holling 2002). This perspective contrasts with approaches focusing on equilibria or negating system variations, for example assuming constant fish or timber production rates (Folke et 2006). In the resilience thinking, it is crucial to understand how to manage feedbacks between social and ecological systems in ways that maintain the ability to cope with future disruptions (Cowling et al. 2008, Collins et al. 2011). Management can reshape social and ecological interactions in different ways and can thus influence system resilience.
Rural areas with smallholder farmers are complex, diverse, and risk-prone systems that respond in different ways to external stresses (Morton 2007). As part of this complexity, rural people are often depicted as either resilient or vulnerable to climate change or other environmental stresses (Maru et al. 2014). On the one hand, such social-ecological systems are rich in biodiversity and cultural values that can help people to reduce risks and increase their capacities to respond. On the other hand, rural people dependency on natural resources makes them particularly sensitive to natural hazards (Wunder et al. 2014, Sudmeier-Rieux et al. 2006). This dual view is echoed in the debates on whether the dependence of rural livelihoods on forest ecosystems means a safety net or a poverty trap (Angelsen and Wunder 2003). Multiple social, economic, or environment factors can explain why rural social-ecological system have different capacity to respond to shocks (Table 1.1).
The ecosystem service cascade
The ecosystem services cascade framework describes several steps involved in the delivery of ES (Haines-Young and Potschin 2010, Figure 1.4). It has proved useful for analytical purposes to break down the different subsequent steps that generate ES, i.e. the ES flow from nature to people (Spangenberg et al. 2014a, Fischer and Eastwood 2016, Maes et al. 2016). The subsequent staps of the cascade describe biophysical structures and processes, which drive ecosystem functions, which produce services, which benefit humans, who value these benefits. In other words, the left side of the cascade can represent the capacity of an ecosystem to supply services, while the right side can represent people use of the services or demand for them (e.g. Burkhard et al. 2012, Wolff et al. 2015). Distinguishing the steps of the ES delivery and understanding the balance between supply and demand is at the heart of the sustainability debate (Villamagna et al. 2013, Schröter et al. 2014).
Human inputs in ecosystem services
The flow of ecosystem services can be hindered or transformed through human inputs, which are sometimes required. Human actions and decisions impact in multiple ways the delivery of services along the ES cascade, which then determine who can benefit from them and how (Spangenberg et al. 2014). The supply of ES depends on biophysical properties that can be modified through land management practices. For example, farmers change plant diversity by selecting certain species with valuable characteristics (e.g. drought resistant rice variety or more productive fruits trees). In addition, human inputs are needed to complement or receive the benefits from ecosystems. Farmers improve harvests by investing labour or mechanical power and by applying technical knowledge (Díaz et al. 2015b), whose use might be limited by legal, financial, and cultural constraints (Palomo et al. 2016). Furthermore, the distribution of benefits from ecosystems can be facilitated or hindered by infrastructure, such as roads or irrigation systems.
Ecosystem services can be delivered by systems with different intensity of human inputs, from natural to technological. An example of this gradient is the intensification of agricultural practices, from natural forests to urban settings, in which human inputs are increased to maximise the provision of food (see Figure 1.5 with the example of cherry provisioning service).
These varying intensity of human inputs in ecosystems creates different anthropogenic landscapes (Braat and de Groot 2012). Van Oudenhoven (2015) distinguishes five different types of landscapes with increasing human influence: natural ecosystems, low or high intensity land use, converted, or abandoned/urban.
Table of contents :
Chapter 1
1.2.1 Social-ecological systems
1.2.2 Social-ecological systems and resilience
1.2.3 Ecosystem services
1.2.4 The ecosystem service cascade
1.2.5 Human inputs in ecosystem services
1.2.6 Trade-offs between ecosystem services
1.2.7 Managing resilience and ecosystem services
Research questions and approach
Structure of the thesis
Chapter 2
2.2.1 Study sites and selection criteria
2.2.2 Research methods
2.3.1 Exposure to climate variability and their impacts
2.3.2 Livelihoods and their sensitivity to climate variability
2.3.3 Adaptive strategies in response to climate variability
2.4.1 Using trees to reduce exposure and sensitivity
2.5.1 Acknowledgement
Chapter 3
3.2.1 Analytical framework
3.2.2 Study sites
3.2.3 Methodological approach
3.2.4 Focus group discussion: major land use changes
3.2.5 Interviews and secondary literature: clean water and products from the land .
3.2.6 Forest inventories: aboveground carbon stocks and diversity of tree species … 80 Results
3.3.1 Drivers of change and response strategies
3.3.2 Major land use changes
3.3.3 Biodiversity
3.3.4 Products from the land
3.3.5 Clean water
3.3.6 Carbon
3.3.7 Trade-offs
3.4.1 Drivers and impacts of land use change
3.4.2 Mechanisms reinforcing decisions to change land use
3.4.3 Factors facilitating decisions to change land uses
3.4.4 Implications of local land-use decisions at larger scales
3.5.1 Acknowledgements
Chapter 4
4.2.1 Analytical Framework
4.2.2 Study Site
4.2.3 Data Collection
4.2.4 Potential Supply of Ecosystem Services
4.2.5 Demand for Ecosystem Services
4.2.6 Management Decisions
4.3.1 Supply of Ecosystem Services Contributing to Adaptation
4.3.2 Demand for Ecosystem Services Contributing to Adaptation
4.3.3 Management Decisions for Adaptation Purposes
4.4.1 Potential Supply, Demand, and Management Strategies for Ecosystem Services
4.4.2 Ecosystem Services that Help People to Adapt to Drought
4.4.3 Importance of Identifying Potential Supply, Demand, and Management Strategies
4.5.1 Acknowledgments
Chapter 5
Introduction
Conceptual framework of mediating mechanisms and factors
5.2.1 Multiple human contributions along the ES cascade
5.2.2 Mechanisms mediating ES flows
5.2.3 Factors influencing mediating mechanisms
5.2.4 Feedback loops between mediating mechanisms
5.3.1 Approach to the empirical field studies
5.4.1 Protecting forests in watershed to buffer flood associated risks (West Kalimantan)
5.4.2 Re-greening agricultural land to maintain water for agriculture (Central Java)
5.4.3 Managing forests sustainably for alternative livelihoods (Kalimantan and Java)
Conclusion
5.6.1 Acknowledgements
Chapter 6
Methodological considerations and challenges
Future perspectives
6.3.1 Building on local efforts to scale-up ecosystem-based adaptation
6.3.2 Emphasizing human roles in ecosystem services delivery
6.3.3 Reconciling diverging interests at landscape scale
6.3.4 Guiding landscapes transformations for sustainable futures
Literature cited
Annexes
