Mapping the connections : An integrated approach to mapping Nature’s contributions to people in a Nordic biosphere reserve

Naturen og hennes økosystemer gir flere bidrag til mennesker som gagner vår velvære. Disse økosystemtjenestene er truet på grunn av omfattende menneskelige aktiviteter som har resultert i omfattende arealbruksendringer, raske klimaendringer og destruktiv overhøsting. Å anerkjenne og verdsette økosystemtjenester er en måte å gjøre rede for dem i politiske handlinger for å forvalte økosystemer bærekraftig for mennesker og natur. Imidlertid er det forskjellige måter som økosystemtjenester kan verdsettes på tvers av biofysiske, sosiokulturelle og monetære verdidomener, og disse verdiene samhandler innenfor og på tvers av domener. For å verdsette økosystemtjenester fullt ut er det behov for ikke bare å utvikle verdsettingsmetoder på tvers av alle tre domenene, men også måter å integrere på tvers av dem. Økosystemtjenester er ikke jevnt fordelt, og deres verdier er forskjellige i rom på grunn av ulike sosiale og økologiske faktorer. For å administrere økosystemtjenester må vi derfor også se hvordan og hvorfor verdiene deres varierer på tvers av landskap. og vi må gjøre rede for det dynamiske forholdet mellom økosystemtjenester på tvers av verdidomener og sosial-økologiske kontekster. I denne oppgaven presenterer jeg fire artikler som tar for seg noen av disse utfordringene med økosystemtjenester innenfor konteksten av et UNESCO-biosfærereservat på Vestlandet. Først kartla vi sosiokulturelle verdier for økosystemtjenester ved hjelp av en undersøkelse av geografiske informasjonssystemer (PPGIS) for offentlig deltakelse. Vi undersøkte hvordan sosiokulturelle verdier for økosystemtjenesteverdier varierer på tvers av et biosfærereservat, hvilke verdier som vanligvis forekommer sammen i bunter, og hvilke sosial-økologiske egenskaper som bestemmer fordelingen av disse buntene. Folk kartla hovedsakelig steder for friluftsliv, biologisk mangfold, landbruksprodukter og kulturarv, hovedsakelig i områder med høyere menneskelig befolkning. Vi identifiserte fem bunter som representerer koblede biokulturelle verdier for landbruk og kulturarv, friluftsliv og biologisk mangfold, og vill mat og mental velvære. Generelt var tilgjengelighet den viktigste faktoren som avgjorde fordelingen av buntene. For det andre integrerte vi biofysiske verdier med sosiokulturelle verdier og kartla økosystemtjenester i biosfærereservatet. Vi undersøkte fordelingen av disse integrerte økosystemtjenesteverdiene over biosfærereservatsonene og deres bunter over to romlige skalaer. Økosystemtjenestene samlet inn i tre distinkte sosial-økologiske systemarketyper som var like i distribusjon og relative økosystemtjenesteverdier på begge romlige skalaer. Buntene var også godt tilpasset relative økosystemtjenesteverdier i biosfærereservatsonene (kjerne, buffer og overgang), noe som indikerer at buntene fanger opp de sosialøkologiske systemene i sonene. Disse resultatene viser at det er viktig å vurdere sonenes sosialøkologiske kontekst for å gi tilstrekkelig kunnskap til å informere ledelsen. For det tredje brukte vi en ny kombinasjon av PPGIS og sosiale nettverksdata for å kartlegge økosystemets samproduksjonsnettverk i biosfærereservatet. Vi identifiserte fire komponenter i økosystemets samproduksjonsnettverk som sosiokulturelle verdier, direkte ledelse, styring og forskning/kunnskapsproduksjon. Først kartla vi den relative oppmerksomheten ulike økosystemtjenester mottok fra disse samproduksjonskomponentene. Deretter kartla vi det sosiale nettverket for kommunikasjon om ulike økosystemtjenester blant samproduksjonskomponentene. Vi fant misforhold mellom ulike komponenter i samproduksjonsnettverket. Viktigere, vi identifiserte at kulturelle økosystemer ble høyt verdsatt, men får relativt mindre styring og særlig forskningsoppmerksomhet. Videre var de primære forvalterne av kulturelle økosystemtjenester også dårlig koblet i økosystemtjenestens samproduksjonssosiale nettverk. Resultatene viser viktigheten av å tenke på samproduksjon av økosystemtjenester som et relasjonelt nettverk og av å kartlegge hva som diskuteres av hvem. Til slutt integrerte vi økologiske feltundersøkelser og PPGIS for å utforske (mis)matchen i biofysiske og sosiokulturelle verdier for økosystemtjenester i sammenheng med landforlatelse og skogplanting. Biofysiske verdier for økosystemtjenester var mer like på tvers av vegetasjonstyper, mens sosiokulturelle verdier generelt var høyest i åpen vegetasjon og uplantede skogtyper. Økosystemtjenesten med størst forskjell i biofysiske og sosiokulturelle verdier global klimaregulering, mens biologisk mangfold og landbruksprodukter var like på tvers av verdidomenene. Sosiokulturelle verdier var ikke jevnt fordelt på studiedeltakerne. Det var to distinkte grupper som representerte eldre bønder bosatt i regionen med høye verdier for å levere økosystemtjenester på den ene siden, og yngre kvinner som ikke er innbyggere som verdsetter regulering og vedlikehold av økosystemtjenester. Denne studien viser viktigheten av å vurdere ulike både ulike verdidomener og faktorene som påvirker disse verdiene i beslutninger om endring av arealbruk.Nature and her ecosystems make multiple contributions to people that benefit our wellbeing. These ecosystem services are under threat due to extensive human activities that have resulted in widespread land-use change, rapid climate change and destructive overharvesting. Acknowledging and valuing ecosystem services is a way to account for them in policy actions to manage ecosystems sustainably for people and nature. However, there are different ways in which ecosystem services can be valued across biophysical, socio-cultural, and monetary value-domains and these values interact within and across domains. To fully value ecosystem services there is a need to not only develop valuation methods across all three domains, but also ways of integrating across them. Ecosystem services are not evenly distributed, and their values differ in space due to various social and ecological factors. Therefore, to manage ecosystem services we also need to know how and why their values vary across landscapes, and we need to account for the dynamic relationship between ecosystem services across the value-domains and social-ecological contexts. In this thesis I present four papers that addresses some of these challenges with ecosystem services within the context of a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in western Norway. First, we mapped socio-cultural values for ecosystem services using a public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS) survey. We explored how socio-cultural values for ecosystem service values vary across a biosphere reserve, which values commonly co-occur in bundles, and what social-ecological characteristics determine the distribution of those bundles. People mapped predominantly places for outdoor recreation, biodiversity, agricultural products, and cultural heritage predominantly in areas with higher human populations. We identified five bundles representing linked biocultural values for agriculture and cultural heritage, outdoor recreation and biodiversity, and wild food and mental wellbeing. In general accessibility was the most important factor that determined the distribution of the bundles. Second, we integrated biophysical values with socio-cultural values and mapped ecosystem services in the biosphere reserve. We explored the distribution of these integrated ecosystem services values across the biosphere reserve zones and their bundles across two spatial scales. The ecosystem services bundled into three distinct social-ecological system archetypes that were similar in their distribution and relative ecosystem service values at both spatial scales. The bundles were also well matched to relative ecosystem services values of the Biosphere Reserve zones (core, buffer and transition) indicating that the bundles capture the social-ecological systems of the zones. These results show that it is important to consider the social-ecological context of the zones to provide sufficient knowledge to inform management. Third, we used a novel combination of PPGIS and social network data to map the ecosystem co-production network in the biosphere reserve. We identified four components of the ecosystem co-production network as socio-cultural values, direct management, governance, and research/knowledge production. First, we mapped the relative attention different ecosystem services received from those co-production components. Then we mapped the social network of communication about different ecosystem services among the co-production components. We found mismatches between different components of the co-production network. Importantly, we identified that cultural ecosystems were highly valued but receive comparatively less governance and particularly research attention. Furthermore, the primary managers of cultural ecosystem services were also poorly connected in the ecosystem service co-production social-network. The results show the importance of thinking of ecosystem service co-production as a relational network and of mapping what is being discussed by whom. Finally, we integrated ecological field surveys and PPGIS to explore the (mis)match in biophysical and socio-cultural values for ecosystem services in the context of land abandonment and afforestation. Biophysical values for ecosystem services were more similar across vegetation types while socio-cultural values were generally highest in open vegetation and unplanted forest types. The ecosystem service with the largest difference in biophysical and socio-cultural values global climate regulation, while biodiversity and agricultural products were similar across the value-domains. Socio-cultural values were not evenly spread across the study participants. There were two distinct groups representing older farmers resident in the region with high values for provisioning ecosystem services on the one hand, and non-resident younger females valuing regulating and maintenance ecosystem services. This study shows the importance of considering different value-domains and the factors that influence those values in land-use change decisions.Doktorgradsavhandlin

Integration matters: Combining socio-cultural and biophysical methods for mapping ecosystem service bundles

Ecosystem services (ESs) play an important role in sustainable landscape management. People value ESs in diverse ways encompassing social and ecological domains and we need to bring these different values together. We used social-cultural and biophysical methods to map a diverse set of ESs at two spatial scales in a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in Norway. The ESs bundled into three distinct social–ecological system archetypes which were similar in their distribution and relative ES values at both spatial scales. The bundles were also well matched to relative ESs values of the Biosphere Reserve zones (core, buffer, and transition) indicating that the bundles capture the social–ecological systems of the zones. We argue that it is important to consider the social–ecological context of the zones to provide sufficient knowledge to inform management. Our work has the capacity to contribute to sustainable land management that takes biocultural values into consideration.publishedVersio

Participatory mapping reveals biocultural and nature values in the shared landscape of a Nordic UNESCO Biosphere Reserve

Making the right decisions for sustainable development requires sound knowledge of the values and spatial distribution of the services co-produced by ecosystems and people. UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere programme and associated Biosphere Reserves (BRs) are key learning sites or model regions for sustainable development providing key entry points for transdisciplinary work on sustainable development. However, there is limited research exploring spatial distribution of socio-cultural Ecosystem Service (ES) values in BRs and how those values vary according to the BR zonation. We used a transdisciplinary approach to design and implement a public participation geographical information systems (PPGIS) survey in a recently designated BR to (a) asses the spatial distribution of ES values in the different zones, (b) identify hotspots of ES values, (c) identify spatial bundles of ES values and (d) assess the social-ecological characteristics that determine the distribution of those values. We found that stakeholders identify high biocultural ES values, mapping predominantly places for outdoor recreation, biodiversity, agricultural products and cultural heritage. Buffer zones had high agricultural and cultural heritage values while extractive values were largely absent from cores zones. We identified five spatial ES-value bundles highlighting distinct places important for ES values related to ‘multifunctional landscapes’ located close to settlements, ‘cultural landscapes’ associated with agricultural land, ‘wild animal resources’ along the coastlines, ‘outdoor recreation and biodiversity’ and ‘passive cultural values’ widely distributed in high and moderately populated areas. We found that accessibility was important for ES values and that people value nature close to where they live. We show the importance of biocultural values in the region, and agricultural landscapes were highly valued for multiple ES values beyond agricultural products alone. We show that BRs have become places that link cultural heritage, agricultural and biodiversity values in multifunctional landscapes. We put our findings into the local context and suggest how they can inform land-use planning and management through policies aimed at maintaining key agricultural landscapes that provide social-ecological resilience. Additionally, we discuss the value of our study for the wider BR network and how similar work can contribute to monitoring of BR implementation.publishedVersio

What is the relationship between productivity and animal species richness? A critical review and meta-analysis

Understanding spatial patterns of species diversity is a central goal in ecology. Species richness has often been shown to correlate strongly with ambient energy, available energy or primary productivity. Theories that invoke energy as an underlying factor driving species richness have received much attention. However, the relationship between species richness and energy is not always linear and can vary with scale. Here I present the results of a meta-analysis of published animal–productivity species richness relationships (A–PSRRs). Initially, 387 separate cases from 267 published studies were identified as potential tests of the A–PSRR. After critically assessing each study, 141 separate cases were accepted as robust tests of the A–PSRR, of which 112 had data available for re-analysis. Positive A–PSRRs were found to predominate at all scales (geographical extents and grains), in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems and homeo- and poikilotherms. Marine ecosystems contrasted with the general patterns with unimodal relationships being the most common form of the A–PSRR. The results reported in the present study contrast with predictions that the true form of PSRR is unimodal, and with a previous review that found that no particular form of the A–PSRR was dominant. Importantly, the previous review has been criticised for its treatment of scale, surrogates for measuring productivity, relaxed criteria for including studies in the analyses and statistical methods. The present study addresses these issues and finds the contrast with the previous review of the A–PSRR is related largely to the statistical methods used for classifying relationships and, to a lesser degree, the use of strict study selection criteria in the present study. The predominance of positive A–PSRRs found in the present study compares with a recent review of the plant–PSRR which also reported that positive relationships predominate after addressing the issues of scale, surrogates, selection criteria and statistical methods. The results of the plant–PSRR and A–PSRR are consistent with evidence that a number of taxa (poikilotherms and homeotherms) have faster rates of molecular evolution in warmer and more productive environments

mangrove water and carbon relations

<p>A talk I gave at Basel Institute of Botany on my PhD project on mangrove water and carbon relations</p

Mapping stakeholder networks for the co-production of multiple ecosystem services: A novel mixed-methods approach

Governance of ecosystem services (ES) requires an understanding of the complex dynamics of collaboration (and contestation) of multiple stakeholders and multiple ES. However, many studies consider only a few ES or stakeholder groups. In our work, we map the co-production of multiple ES by multiple stakeholders connected through ES governance networks. Through a unique combination of Public Participatory Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS), stakeholder focus groups, surveys, and social network analysis, we reveal insights on social-ecological fit of ES co-production across an area unified by a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve designation. By overlaying relationships between stakeholders, multiple ES, and ES co-production networks, our results reveal gaps and mismatches in the ES governance system. We identified mismatches between those ES most valued by the region’s inhabitants and those managed, governed and studied by relevant institutions and stakeholders. Cultural ES were the most highly appreciated by stakeholders, but social networks of cultural ES governance were the least densely connected, with highly influential stakeholders involved in cultural ES management (e.g., farmers), not well connected to the governance network. Thus, our findings point to a weakness in cultural ES governance and the need of incorporating cultural ES more clearly into natural resource management agendas. Our results show the importance of mapping what is being discussed by whom, and that mapping environmental governance networks alone does not necessarily provide sufficient resolution to understand co-production of different ES. We confirm the difficulties of governing ES when the ES providers and/or beneficiaries operate at different or distant scales, the scale of ecological processes does not match management (e.g., in some regulating and maintenance ES), or stakeholders which are important in affecting ES provision are not involved in governance, resulting in social-ecological misfit. Lastly, our work confirms the broad array of research methods needed to capture the complexity of governing multiple ES.publishedVersio

Socio-cultural values and biophysical supply: How do afforestation and land abandonment impact multiple ecosystem services?

publishedVersio

Participatory mapping reveals biocultural and nature values in the shared landscape of a Nordic UNESCO Biosphere Reserve

Making the right decisions for sustainable development requires sound knowledge of the values and spatial distribution of the services co-produced by ecosystems and people. UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere programme and associated Biosphere Reserves (BRs) are key learning sites or model regions for sustainable development providing key entry points for transdisciplinary work on sustainable development. However, there is limited research exploring spatial distribution of socio-cultural Ecosystem Service (ES) values in BRs and how those values vary according to the BR zonation. We used a transdisciplinary approach to design and implement a public participation geographical information systems (PPGIS) survey in a recently designated BR to (a) asses the spatial distribution of ES values in the different zones, (b) identify hotspots of ES values, (c) identify spatial bundles of ES values and (d) assess the social-ecological characteristics that determine the distribution of those values. We found that stakeholders identify high biocultural ES values, mapping predominantly places for outdoor recreation, biodiversity, agricultural products and cultural heritage. Buffer zones had high agricultural and cultural heritage values while extractive values were largely absent from cores zones. We identified five spatial ES-value bundles highlighting distinct places important for ES values related to ‘multifunctional landscapes’ located close to settlements, ‘cultural landscapes’ associated with agricultural land, ‘wild animal resources’ along the coastlines, ‘outdoor recreation and biodiversity’ and ‘passive cultural values’ widely distributed in high and moderately populated areas. We found that accessibility was important for ES values and that people value nature close to where they live. We show the importance of biocultural values in the region, and agricultural landscapes were highly valued for multiple ES values beyond agricultural products alone. We show that BRs have become places that link cultural heritage, agricultural and biodiversity values in multifunctional landscapes. We put our findings into the local context and suggest how they can inform land-use planning and management through policies aimed at maintaining key agricultural landscapes that provide social-ecological resilience. Additionally, we discuss the value of our study for the wider BR network and how similar work can contribute to monitoring of BR implementation

The ‘island effect’ in terrestrial global change experiments: a problem with no solution?

Most of the currently experienced global environmental changes (rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, warming, altered amount and pattern of precipitation, and increased nutrient load) directly or indirectly affect ecosystem surface energy balance and plant transpiration. As a consequence, the relative humidity of the air surrounding the vegetation changes, thus creating a feedback loop whose net effect on transpiration and finally productivity is not trivial to quantify. Forcedly, in any global change experiment with the above drivers, we can only treat small plots, or ‘islands’, of vegetation. This means that the treated plots will likely experience the ambient humidity conditions influenced by the surrounding, non-treated vegetation. Experimental assessments of global change effects will thus systematically lack modifications originating from these potentially important feedback mechanisms, introducing a bias of unknown magnitude in all measurements of processes directly or indirectly depending on plant transpiration. We call this potential bias the ‘island effect’. Here, we discuss its implications in various global change experiments with plants. We also suggest ways to complement experiments using modelling approaches and observational studies. Ultimately, there is no obvious solution to deal with the island effect in field experiments and only models can provide an estimate of modification of responses by these feedbacks. However, we suggest that increasing the awareness of the island effect among both experimental researchers and modellers will greatly improve the interpretation of vegetation responses to global change

Developing positional awareness in sustainability science: four archetypes for early career scientists working in an SDG world

Although the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a framework to guide and inform research at the interface between science and policy, engaging in sustainability science is not a value-free process and implies making a number of choices. This is especially pertinent to early career researchers (ECRs) who are faced with the need to engage with the content and frame of the SDGs, while navigating critical engagement in knowledge production. Here, we propose a framework to help early career sustainability scholars navigate these tensions. We describe four archetypes at play in sustainability research and argue that these positions allow ECRs to reflexively navigate their roles and purposes in sustainability research.publishedVersio