The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS)–a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus

The Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) was established in 2011, and is now one of the major international social-ecological systems (SES) research networks. During this time, SES research has undergone a phase of rapid growth and has grown into an influential branch of sustainability science. In this Perspective, we argue that SES research has also deepened over the past decade, and helped to shed light on key dimensions of SES dynamics (e.g. system feedbacks, aspects of system design, goals and paradigms) that can lead to tangible action for solving the major sustainability challenges of our time. We suggest four ways in which the growth of place-based SES research, fostered by networks such as PECS, has contributed to these developments, namely by: 1) shedding light on transformational change, 2) revealing the social dynamics shaping SES, 3) bringing together diverse types of knowledge, and 4) encouraging reflexive researchers

The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) – a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus

The Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) was established in 2011, and is now one of the major international social-ecological systems (SES) research networks. During this time, SES research has undergone a phase of rapid growth and has grown into an influential branch of sustainability science. In this Perspective, we argue that SES research has also deepened over the past decade, and helped to shed light on key dimensions of SES dynamics (e.g. system feedbacks, aspects of system design, goals and paradigms) that can lead to tangible action for solving the major sustainability challenges of our time. We suggest four ways in which the growth of place-based SES research, fostered by networks such as PECS, has contributed to these developments, namely by: 1) shedding light on transformational change, 2) revealing the social dynamics shaping SES, 3) bringing together diverse types of knowledge, and 4) encouraging reflexive researchers

Path dependency of infrastructure : Implications for the sanitation system of Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Phnom Penh’s sanitation system is a combination of the drainage system and sewage system.Storm water, household wastewater, and industrial wastewater all flow together out of the city tothe detriment of the natural environment and the humans that depend on it. This continuedpersistence of an inefficient and harmful system is explored using path dependency theory. Pathdependency constrains the system to linear development and reflects the historical context inwhich decisions were made. Phnom Penh’s sanitation system is used to exemplify components ofpath dependence and their effect on implementing change.To incorporate room for change into Phnom Penh’s sanitation system, the inherent longevity inbuilt infrastructure must be overcome. Building infrastructure is expensive and the learning andcoordination that is associated with it is not easily replaced. The social context is ultimatelyresponsible for the investments made and the type of system expressed. Phnom Penh’s sanitationsystem reflects a historical legacy of colonial rule, decades of war, political chaos, and an influxof international aid contributing to an inefficient system being developed. The presence ofunpredictability and inflexibility in the system can result in an inefficient system being sustained

Social-ecological dynamics of ecosystem service bundles

The environments in which we live are complex, adapting and evolving in non-linear ways. The ecosystem services produced in landscapes supply resources, support livelihoods and are foundational to human wellbeing. The assessment of individual ecosystem services has been the focus of much work but evaluating the dynamic nature of multiple ecosystem services has been limited. Sustainably managing landscapes requires an understanding of how different social and ecological factors shape the distribution of ecosystem services and how those services are related to one another. The ecosystem service bundles concept refers to reoccurring sets of ecosystem services and is useful for focusing on interactions among ecosystem services. It is also critical that methods for assessing ecosystem services are feasible and accessible to landscape managers. The prolific public data in Sweden is an interesting case to explore the ability of publicly available data to express ecosystem services at an applicable scale. Using publicly available data at the municipal scale, the thesis first identifies bundles of ecosystem services in the Norrström drainage basin in Sweden. Five types of bundles were found spatially aggregated across the basin. Further analysis explored the evenness of the distribution of the ecosystem services across the region. These human dominated landscapes were found to be highly multifunctional with regards to the diversity and evenness of the ecosystem services, as well as in comparison to other places. Second, four theory-based models were developed to explore the social, ecological and geographic drivers of the ecosystem services and ecosystem service bundles found in the Norrström drainage basin. The models were created by distilling the core assumptions of four theories of human-nature interactions into social, ecological and geographic driver variables to test their ability to explain the distribution of the ecosystem services and ecosystem service bundles. No one model was best at predicting the distribution of all the ecosystem services. Bundles of ecosystem services were not predicted as well as the individual ecosystem services. Nevertheless, a clear picture of the variation of ecosystem services in the region could be seen even with this limited information. Third, ecosystem service bundles were assessed using publicly available data at the municipal scale for all of Sweden across four time periods. Little change in the distribution of the ecosystem services bundles was detected across the time periods which start in 2000. The relationship between the ecosystem services bundles and a range of social, ecological and geographic variables was assessed. The fixed geographic variable latitude along with forest and arable area had the largest impact on the distribution pattern of the ecosystem service bundles. Finally, the thesis examines the different conceptualizations of the concept of ecosystem service bundles. The benefits to using an ecosystem service bundles approach are highlighted, including how bundles simplify analysis, simplify management, help advance social-ecological theory, provide guidance with missing information, and bridge separated research fields and stakeholder groups. Ways to improve research on ecosystem service bundles are presented through discussions of social-ecological indicators, scale, and internal ecosystem service relationships and drivers. A framework for finding points of compatibility between bundle studies and navigating comparisons is provided, because there is so much to learn from comparing ecosystem service bundle research

Interest in fertility status assessment among young adult survivors of childhood cancer

Abstract Background Cancer survivors who received gonadotoxic treatment are at‐risk for future infertility and may desire a fertility status assessment (FSA), defined as semen analysis for males and consultation with a reproductive specialist for females. The purpose of this study was to describe the proportion of, and factors associated with, interest in FSA among young adult survivors of childhood cancer. Methods This retrospective single‐institution review included patients with prior gonadotoxic treatment, aged 18–25 years and >1 year from cancer treatment completion, who received a fertility‐focused discussion during survivorship. Documentation of interest in and completion of FSA, worry about infertility, sociodemographic, and clinical characteristics were abstracted from medical records. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for factors associated with interest in FSA. Results Survivors (N = 259) were on average 19.2 ± 1.2 years at their fertility discussion; 55.6% were male and 57.9% non‐Hispanic white. Interest in FSA was reported by 50.7% of males and 46.1% of females. Factors related to interest in FSA for males and females respectively, included worry about infertility (OR 2.40, 95%CI 1.11–5.27, p = 0.026 and OR 4.37, 95%CI 1.71–12.43, p = 0.003) and ≥2 fertility discussions (OR 3.78, 95%CI 1.70–8.75, p = 0.001 and 2.45, 95%CI 1.08–5.67, p = 0.033). Among males, fertility preservation consult/procedure at diagnosis (OR 3.02, 95%CI 1.09–9.04, p = 0.039) and high‐risk for infertility (OR 2.47, 95%CI 1.07–5.87, p = 0.036) were also associated with interest in FSA. Conclusions Cancer survivors are interested in FSA, particularly those who have had repeated fertility‐focused discussions during survivorship care and who report worry about infertility

The undisciplinary journey : early-career perspectives in sustainability science

The establishment of interdisciplinary Master’s and PhD programs in sustainability science is opening up an exciting arena filled with opportunities for early-career scholars to address pressing sustainability challenges. However, embarking upon an interdisciplinary endeavor as an early-career scholar poses a unique set of challenges: to develop an individual scientific identity and a strong and specific methodological skill-set, while at the same time gaining the ability to understand and communicate between different epistemologies. Here, we explore the challenges and opportunities that emerge from a new kind of interdisciplinary journey, which we describe as ‘undisciplinary.’ Undisciplinary describes (1) the space or condition of early-career researchers with early interdisciplinary backgrounds, (2) the process of the journey, and (3) the orientation which aids scholars to address the complex nature of today’s sustainability challenges. The undisciplinary journey is an iterative and reflexive process of balancing methodological groundedness and epistemological agility to engage in rigorous sustainability science. The paper draws upon insights from a collective journey of broad discussion, reflection, and learning, including a survey on educational backgrounds of different generations of sustainability scholars, participatory forum theater, and a panel discussion at the Resilience 2014 conference (Montpellier, France). Based on the results from this diversity of methods, we suggest that there is now a new and distinct generation of sustainability scholars that start their careers with interdisciplinary training, as opposed to only engaging in interdisciplinary research once strong disciplinary foundations have been built. We further identify methodological groundedness and epistemological agility as guiding competencies to become capable sustainability scientists and discuss the implications of an undisciplinary journey in the current institutional context of universities and research centers. In this paper, we propose a simple framework to help early-career sustainability scholars and well-established scientists successfully navigate what can sometimes be an uncomfortable space in education and research, with the ultimate aim of producing and engaging in rigorous and impactful sustainability science

Land-use intensity mediates ecosystem service tradeoffs across regional social-ecological systems

A key sustainability challenge in human-dominated landscapes is how to reconcile competing demands such as food production, water quality, climate regulation, and ecological amenities. Prior research has documented how efforts to prioritize desirable ecosystem services such as food and fiber have often led to tradeoffs with other services. However, the growing literature has revealed different and sometimes contradictory patterns in ecosystem service relationships. It thus remains unclear whether there are generalizable patterns across social-ecological systems, and if not, what factors explain the variations. In this study, we synthesize datasets of five ecosystem services from four social-ecological systems. We ask: (1) Are ecosystem service relationships consistent across distinct regional social-ecological systems? (2) How do ecosystem service relationships vary with land-use intensity at the landscape scale? (3) In case of ecosystem service tradeoffs, how does land-use intensity affect intersection points of tradeoffs along the landscape composition gradient? Our results reveal that land-use intensity increases magnitude of ecosystem service tradeoffs (e.g. food production vs. climate regulation and water quality) across landscapes. Land-use intensity also alters where provisioning and regulating services intersect: in high-intensity systems, food production and regulating services can be both sustained only at smaller proportions of agricultural lands, whereas in low-intensity systems, these services could be both supplied with greater proportions of agricultural lands. Our research demonstrates importance of considering multiple aspects of land uses (landscape composition and land-use intensity), and provides a more nuanced understanding and framework to enhance our ability to predict how land use alters ecosystem service relationships

Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social–ecological systems perspective

The concept of social–ecological systems is useful for understanding the interlinked dynamics of environmental and societal change. The concept has helped facilitate: (1) increased recognition of the dependence of humanity on ecosystems; (2) improved collaboration across disciplines, and between science and society; (3) increased methodological pluralism leading to improved systems understanding; and (4) major policy frameworks considering social–ecological interactions. Despite these advances, the potential of a social–ecological systems perspective to improve sustainability outcomes has not been fully realized. Key priorities are to: (1) better understand and govern social–ecological interactions between regions; (2) pay greater attention to long-term drivers; (3) better understand the interactions among power relations, justice, and ecosystem stewardship; and (4) develop a stronger science–society interface