Uncovering Ecosystem Service Bundles through Social Preferences

Ecosystem service assessments have increasingly been used to support environmental management policies, mainly based on biophysical and economic indicators. However, few studies have coped with the social-cultural dimension of ecosystem services, despite being considered a research priority. We examined how ecosystem service bundles and trade-offs emerge from diverging social preferences toward ecosystem services delivered by various types of ecosystems in Spain. We conducted 3,379 direct face-to-face questionnaires in eight different case study sites from 2007 to 2011. Overall, 90.5% of the sampled population recognized the ecosystem’s capacity to deliver services. Formal studies, environmental behavior, and gender variables influenced the probability of people recognizing the ecosystem’s capacity to provide services. The ecosystem services most frequently perceived by people were regulating services; of those, air purification held the greatest importance. However, statistical analysis showed that socio-cultural factors and the conservation management strategy of ecosystems (i.e., National Park, Natural Park, or a non-protected area) have an effect on social preferences toward ecosystem services. Ecosystem service trade-offs and bundles were identified by analyzing social preferences through multivariate analysis (redundancy analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis). We found a clear trade-off among provisioning services (and recreational hunting) versus regulating services and almost all cultural services. We identified three ecosystem service bundles associated with the conservation management strategy and the rural-urban gradient. We conclude that socio-cultural preferences toward ecosystem services can serve as a tool to identify relevant services for people, the factors underlying these social preferences, and emerging ecosystem service bundles and trade-offs

Guía metodológica: diseño de acciones con enfoque del Nexo entre agua, energía y alimentación para países de América Latina y el Caribe

Esta Guía Metodológica presenta la aplicación práctica del enfoque del “Nexo entre Agua, Energía y Alimentación”. Este documento tiene dos objetivos principales. El primero es fortalecer las capacidades institucionales y normativas de los gobiernos de la región de América Latina y el Caribe para la adopción del enfoque del Nexo en el diseño de acciones integrales, ya sean estas políticas, planes, programas o proyectos. Esto, con el fin de lograr acciones coordinadas y eficientes. El segundo, es brindar herramientas para evaluar en qué medida se ha adoptado el enfoque del Nexo en las acciones que actualmente se encuentran en curso, o que bien, están en búsqueda de financiamiento. Se aborda con especial énfasis las interrelaciones prioritarias entre agua, energía y alimentación en la región, las cuales varían según el contexto y realidad de cada territorio

Análisis comparativo de acciones con enfoque del Nexo Agua-Energía-Alimentación: lecciones aprendidas para los países de América Latina y el Caribe

El concepto del Nexo entre agua, energía y alimentación ha ganado mucha tracción en América Latina y el Caribe en el transcurso de la última década. El motivo es que los países de la región tienen economías altamente dependientes en el uso de recursos naturales, y las políticas sectoriales que se están implementando para lograr la seguridad hídrica, energética y alimentaria están generando impactos cruzados debido a la alta interconexión que existen entre los tres sectores. Resolver esta situación requiere un cambio de paradigma, y transitar desde el clásico enfoque sectorial de desarrollo de políticas hacia otro más integrado o enfoque del Nexo, tal y como propone la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible. Este estudio constituye un esfuerzo para visibilizar y analizar políticas públicas que se están desarrollando en la región y que promueven el enfoque del Nexo. En concreto se analizan 6 acciones de tres países: Chile, Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia y Ecuador. Estas acciones de políticas abarcan planes, programas y proyectos sectoriales que articulan medidas intersectoriales (ej. políticas de desarrollo y tecnificación de riego), y acciones de naturaleza integral (ej. proyectos multi-propósito y planes de cuenca).Resumen .-- Aproximación y síntesis de resultados .-- Introducción .-- I. Descripción y evaluación de acciones con enfoque del Nexo en América Latina y el Caribe. A. Políticas de Riego: experiencias de Chile y Bolivia. B. Proyectos de embalse multipropósito: experiencias de Bolivia y Ecuador. C. Políticas de Gestión Integrada de Recursos Hídricos: experiencias de Bolivia .-- II. Lecciones aprendidas sobre la adopción de enfoques Nexo relevantes para América Latina y el Caribe

The concept of water and food security in Spain

Water and food security are tags used widely yet hiding very different meanings depending on the context in which they are used. This chapter looks at what these concepts mean for Spain and across scale linkages due to globalisation. Since food production and access is largely guaranteed in Spain, food security here is linked to the idea of guarantying food safety and food health. As in other European countries, there has been a substantial shift in the dietary habits of Spanish consumers with changes to the recommended Mediterranean diet, with higher meat and processed food consumption, and a drop by half in the intake of cereals, legumes, fruits and vegetables. This chapter argues that dietary shifts have increased the water footprint of an average Spanish diet by 8%, which has been possible thanks the imports of green virtual water from third countries, without compromising Spain’s water security. The chapter also reflects on the different dimensions of water security in Spain, and whether some aspects of water security (like protection from hazards or water availability) have been secured others represent important – sometimes contradictory – challenges like securing water for food or the environment. These links can be understood when framed by a global system with feedbacks between food production and consumption, impacting on agricultural production and water resources, food supply capacities, and environmental security

Changes in land uses and management in two Nature Reserves in Spain: Evaluating the social–ecological resilience of cultural landscapes

In the last decades, changes in land use and management have led to the degradation of many cultural landscapes in European rural areas. Such degradation has had relevant consequences for local populations, landscape functionality, and the maintenance of ecosystem services. Many of these cultural rural landscapes are linked to Nature Reserves, therefore having an increase in conservation interest. We analysed and compared the landscape changes of two Nature Reserves in Spain, ‘Sierra Norte de Sevilla’ Natural Park (SNSNP) and ‘Urdaibai’ Biosphere Reserve (UBR) over the last 50 years. Results showed that the SNSNP landscape has undergone little spatial changes over time while UBR has suffered significant transformations. We have also assessed how these landscape changes are related to the loss of resilience observed in both Nature Reserves. In SNSNP, resilience degradation is mainly due to socioeconomic changes. The low profitability of current land use has accentuated rural migration, increasing local population aging and reducing social opportunities. This fact has significantly decreased the capacity of the system to cope with changes. In UBR, landscape changes have degraded the ecological resilience of the system. The homogenization of the landscape has increased the vulnerability of UBR to the spread of disturbance, resulting in a loss of land use diversity. We suggest that effective management of cultural landscapes, understood as social–ecological systems, should integrate both, the social and ecological components. This management should be adaptive and involve the active participation of local population. Sustainable tourism and hunting are emerging as challenging alternatives

Annual species risk of extinction and endangerment due to livestock production under different scenarios in Latin America and the Caribbean (2010–2050).

<p>The risk is expressed as an index in %. BAU refers to the Business-as-Usual scenario.BAU refers to the Business-as-Usual scenario. Scenarios are described in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0116733#pone.0116733.t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>. The intensification (2) and sustainable intensification (3) scenarios are presented together, because both scenarios have the same productivity assumptions and they only differ in terms of water consumption and nitrogen-emissions.</p

Annual species risk of extinction and endangerment due to crop production under different scenarios in Latin America and the Caribbean (2010–2050).

<p>The risk is expressed as an index in %. The shaded area illustrates the risk of biodiversity loss being between a defined lower and upper bound due to different land expansion pathways. The lower bound reflects the risk of biodiversity loss if 100% of crop land expands over existing pasture land, while the upper bound reflects the risk of biodiversity loss if 100% of crop land expands over natural vegetation. The line illustrates the mean of the lower bound and upper bound. BAU refers to the Business-as-Usual scenario. Scenarios are described in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0116733#pone.0116733.t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>. The intensification (2) and sustainable intensification (3) scenarios are presented together, because both scenarios have the same productivity assumptions and they only differ in terms of water consumption and nitrogen-emissions.</p

Annual net changes in carbon stock losses due to livestock production under different scenarios in Latin America and the Caribbean (2010–2050).

<p>The values represent carbon stock losses from additional land conversion occurring in each year between 2010 and 2050. BAU refers to the Business-as-Usual scenario. Scenarios are described in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0116733#pone.0116733.t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>. The intensification (2) and sustainable intensification (3) scenarios are presented together, because both scenarios have the same productivity assumptions and they only differ in terms of water consumption and nitrogen-emissions.</p