Quantifying model uncertainty to improve watershed-level ecosystem service quantification: a global sensitivity analysis of the RUSLE

Ecosystem service-support tools are commonly used to guide natural resource management. Often, empirically based models are preferred due to low data requirements, simplicity and clarity. Yet, uncertainty produced by local context or parameter estimation remains poorly quantified and documented. We assessed model uncertainty of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation – RUSLE developed mainly from US data. RUSLE is the most commonly applied model to assess watershed-level soil loss. We performed a global sensitivity analysis (GSA) on RUSLE with four dissimilar datasets to understand uncertainty and to provide recommendations for data collection and model parameterization. The datasets cover varying spatial levels (plot, watershed and continental) and environmental conditions (temperate and tropical). We found cover management and topography create the most uncertainty regardless of environmental conditions or data parameterization techniques. The importance of other RUSLE factors varies across contexts. We argue that model uncertainty could be reduced through better parameterization of cover management and topography factors while avoiding severe soil losses by targeting soil conservation practices in areas where both factors interact and enhance soil loss. We recommend incorporating GSA to assess empirical models’ uncertainty, to guide model parameterization and to target soil conservation efforts

Balancing stability and flexibility in adaptive governance: an analysis of tools available in U.S. environmental law

Adaptive governance must work “on the ground,” that is, it must operate through structures and procedures that the people it governs perceive to be legitimate and fair, as well as incorporating processes and substantive goals that are effective in allowing social-ecological systems (SESs) to adapt to climate change and other impacts. To address the continuing and accelerating alterations that climate change is bringing to SESs, adaptive governance generally will require more flexibility than prior governance institutions have often allowed. However, to function as good governance, adaptive governance must pay real attention to the problem of how to balance this increased need for flexibility with continuing governance stability so that it can foster adaptation to change without being perceived or experienced as perpetually destabilizing, disruptive, and unfair. Flexibility and stability serve different purposes in governance, and a variety of tools exist to strike different balances between them while still preserving the governance institution’s legitimacy among the people governed. After reviewing those purposes and the implications of climate change for environmental governance, we examine psychological insights into the structuring of adaptive governance and the variety of legal tools available to incorporate those insights into adaptive governance regimes. Because the substantive goals of governance systems will differ among specific systems, we do not purport to comment on what the normative or substantive goals of law should be. Instead, we conclude that attention to process and procedure (including participation), as well as increased use of substantive standards (instead of rules), may allow an increased level of substantive flexibility to operate with legitimacy and fairness, providing the requisite levels of psychological, social, and economic stability needed for communities to adapt successfully to the Anthropocene

Big data and multiple methods for mapping small reservoirs: comparing accuracies for applications in agricultural landscapes

Whether or not reservoirs contain water throughout the dry season is critical to avoiding late season crop failure in seasonally-arid agricultural landscapes. Locations, volumes, and temporal dynamics, particularly of small (<1 Mm3) reservoirs are poorly documented globally, thus making it difficult to identify geographic and intra-annual gaps in reservoir water availability. Yet, small reservoirs are the most vulnerable to drying out and often service the poorest of farmers. Using the transboundary Volta River Basin (~413,000 sq km) in West Africa as a case study, we present a novel method to map reservoirs and quantify the uncertainty of Landsat derived reservoir area estimates, which can be readily applied anywhere in the globe. We applied our method to compare the accuracy of reservoir areas that are derived from the Global Surface Water Monthly Water History (GSW) dataset to those that are derived when surface water is classified on Landsat 8 OLI imagery using the Normalised Difference Water Index (NDWI), Modified NDWI with band 6 (MNDWI1), and Modified NDWI with band 7 (MNDWI2). We quantified how the areal accuracies of reservoir size estimates vary with the water classification method, reservoir properties, and environmental context, and assessed the options and limitations of using uncertain reservoir area estimates to monitor reservoir dynamics in an agricultural context. Results show that reservoir area estimates that are derived from the GSW data are 19% less accurate for our study site than MNDWI1 derived estimates, for a sample of 272 reservoir extents of 0.09 to 72 ha. The accuracy of Landsat-derived estimates improves with reservoir size and perimeter-area ratio, while accuracy may decline as surface vegetation increases. We show that GSW derived reservoir area estimates can provide an upper limit for current reservoir capacity and seasonal dynamics of larger reservoirs. Data gaps and uncertainties make GSW derived reservoir extents unsuitable for monitoring reservoirs that are smaller than 5.1 ha (holding ~49,759 m3), which constitute 674 (56%) reservoirs in the Volta basin, or monitoring seasonal fluctuations of most small reservoirs, limiting its utility for agricultural planning. This study is one of the first to test the utility and limitations of the newly available GSW dataset and provides guidance on the conditions under which this, and other Landsat-based surface water maps, can be reliably used to monitor reservoir resources

Balancing stability and flexibility in adaptive governance: an analysis of tools available in U.S. environmental law

Adaptive governance must work “on the ground,” that is, it must operate through structures and procedures that the people it governs perceive to be legitimate and fair, as well as incorporating processes and substantive goals that are effective in allowing social-ecological systems (SESs) to adapt to climate change and other impacts. To address the continuing and accelerating alterations that climate change is bringing to SESs, adaptive governance generally will require more flexibility than prior governance institutions have often allowed. However, to function as good governance, adaptive governance must pay real attention to the problem of how to balance this increased need for flexibility with continuing governance stability so that it can foster adaptation to change without being perceived or experienced as perpetually destabilizing, disruptive, and unfair. Flexibility and stability serve different purposes in governance, and a variety of tools exist to strike different balances between them while still preserving the governance institution’s legitimacy among the people governed. After reviewing those purposes and the implications of climate change for environmental governance, we examine psychological insights into the structuring of adaptive governance and the variety of legal tools available to incorporate those insights into adaptive governance regimes. Because the substantive goals of governance systems will differ among specific systems, we do not purport to comment on what the normative or substantive goals of law should be. Instead, we conclude that attention to process and procedure (including participation), as well as increased use of substantive standards (instead of rules), may allow an increased level of substantive flexibility to operate with legitimacy and fairness, providing the requisite levels of psychological, social, and economic stability needed for communities to adapt successfully to the Anthropocene

Report on the main activities undertaken and preliminary findings emerging from research on the CGIAR Targeting Agricultural Innovations and Ecosystem Services in the northern Volta basin (TAI) project

The CGIAR Water, Land and Ecosystems research project on Targeting Agricultural Innovations and Ecosystem Services in the northern Volta basin (TAI) is a two year project (2014-2016) led by Bioversity International in collaboration with 11 institutes: CIAT, CIRAD, International Water Management Institute (IWMI), King’s College London (KCL), SNV World Burkina Faso (SNV), Stanford University, Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC), University of Development Studies Ghana (UDS), University of Minnesota, University of Washington, and the World Agroforestry Institute. We are working with communities across Centre-Est Burkina Faso and Upper-East Ghana to gather empirical data, test research methodologies and co-develop knowledge on solutions to ecosystem service management challenges. Results from the project are still emerging and will continue to do so into 2017 as the team finish analysing the data and writing up their findings. This report presents the main activities accomplished and preliminary headline messages from the first 18 months of the project. Final results from the project will be made available in 2017 on the WLE website

Regime shifts and panarchies in regional scale social-ecological water systems

In this article we summarize histories of nonlinear, complex interactions among societal, legal, and ecosystem dynamics in six North American water basins, as they respond to changing climate. These case studies were chosen to explore the conditions for emergence of adaptive governance in heavily regulated and developed social-ecological systems nested within a hierarchical governmental system. We summarize resilience assessments conducted in each system to provide a synthesis and reference by the other articles in this special feature. We also present a general framework used to evaluate the interactions between society and ecosystem regimes and the governance regimes chosen to mediate those interactions. The case studies show different ways that adaptive governance may be triggered, facilitated, or constrained by ecological and/or legal processes. The resilience assessments indicate that complex interactions among the governance and ecosystem components of these systems can produce different trajectories, which include patterns of (a) development and stabilization, (b) cycles of crisis and recovery, which includes lurches in adaptation and learning, and (3) periods of innovation, novelty, and transformation. Exploration of cross scale (Panarchy) interactions among levels and sectors of government and society illustrate that they may constrain development trajectories, but may also provide stability during crisis or innovation at smaller scales; create crises, but may also facilitate recovery; and constrain system transformation, but may also provide windows of opportunity in which transformation, and the resources to accomplish it, may occur. The framework is the starting point for our exploration of how law might play a role in enhancing the capacity of social-ecological systems to adapt to climate change

Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the Sustainable Development Goals

Achieving well-being for all, while protecting the environment, is one of the most pressing global challenges of our time, and a central idea in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We believe that integrating ecosystem services, the benefits nature provides to people, into strategies for meeting the SDGs can help achieve this. Many development goals are likely underpinned by the delivery of one or more ecosystem services. Understanding how these services could support multiple development targets will be essential for planning synergistic and cost-effective interventions. Here we present the results of an expert survey on the contributions of 16 ecosystem services to achieving SDG targets linked to environment and human well-being, and review the capacity of modelling tools to evaluate SDG-relevant ecosystem services interactions. Survey respondents judged that individual ecosystem services could make important contributions to achieving 41 targets across 12 SDGs. The provision of food and water, habitat & biodiversity maintenance, and carbon storage & sequestration were perceived to each make contributions to >14 SDG targets, suggesting cross-target interactions are likely, and may present opportunities for synergistic outcomes across multiple SDGs. Existing modelling tools are well-aligned to support SDG-relevant ecosystem service planning. Together, this work identifies entry points and tools to further analyze the role of ecosystem services to support the SDGs

A whole earth approach to nature-positive food: biodiversity and agriculture

Agriculture is the largest single source of environmental degradation, responsible for over 30% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 70% of freshwater use and 80% of land conversion: it is the single largest driver of biodiversity loss (Foley JA, Science 309:570–574, 2005, Nature 478:337–342, 2011; IPBES. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, 2019; Willett W et al. The Lancet 393:447–492, 2019). Agriculture also underpins poor human health, contributing to 11 million premature deaths annually. While too many still struggle from acute hunger, a growing number of individuals, including in low to middle-income countries (LMICs), struggle to access healthy foods. Greater consideration for, and integration of, biodiversity in agriculture is a key solution space for improving health, eliminating hunger and achieving nature-positive development objectives. This rapid evidence review documents the best available evidence of agriculture’s relationships with biodiversity, drawing on the contributions of leading biodiversity experts, and recommends actions that can be taken to move towards more biodiversity/nature-positive production through the delivery of integrated agricultural solutions for climate, biodiversity, nutrition and livelihoods. The analysis, which takes a whole-of-food-system approach, brings together a large body of evidence. It accounts for aspects not typically captured in a stand-alone primary piece of research and indicates where there are critical gaps.Fil: Declerck, Fabrice A.J.. The Alliance of Bioversity International and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture ; FranciaFil: Koziell, Izabella T.. The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development; NepalFil: Benton, Tim. Chatham House; Reino UnidoFil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas. Centro Cientifico Tecnologico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones En Recursos Naturales, Agroecologia y Desarrollo Rural. - Universidad Nacional de Rio Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones En Recursos Naturales, Agroecologia y Desarrollo Rural.; ArgentinaFil: Kremen, Claire. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Maron, Martine. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Rumbaitis Del Rio, Cristina. World Resources Institute; Estados UnidosFil: Sidhu, Aman. The Alliance of Bioversity International and the International Center for Tropical Agricultura; FranciaFil: Wirths, Jonathan. The Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers ; Sri LankaFil: Clark, Michael. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Dickens, Chris. International Water Management Institute; Sri LankaFil: Estrada Carmona, Natalia. The Alliance of Bioversity International and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture ; FranciaFil: Fremier, Alexander K.. Washington State University; Estados UnidosFil: Jones, Sarah K.. The Alliance of Bioversity International and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture ; FranciaFil: Khoury, Colin K.. The Alliance of Bioversity International and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture ; FranciaFil: Lal, Rattan. Ohio State University; Estados UnidosFil: Obersteiner, Michael. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Remans, Roseline. The Alliance of Bioversity International and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture ; FranciaFil: Rusch, Adrien. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique; FranciaFil: Schulte, Lisa A.. Natural Resource Ecology and Management; Estados UnidosFil: Simmonds, Jeremy. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Stringer, Lindsay C.. University of York; Reino UnidoFil: Weber, Christopher. World Wide Fund For Nature; Estados UnidosFil: Winowiecki, Leigh. World Agroforestry Center; Keni