ArticlePDF Available

Multiscale scenarios for nature futures

September 2017
Nature Ecology & Evolution 1(10)

DOI:10.1038/s41559-017-0273-9

Authors:

Isabel Rosa

Bangor University

Henrique Miguel Pereira

German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig

Simon Ferrier

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

Rob Alkemade

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

Show all 44 authorsHide

Targets for human development are increasingly connected with targets for nature, however, existing scenarios do not explicitly address this relationship. Here, we outline a strategy to generate scenarios centred on our relationship with nature to inform decision-making at multiple scales.

| Strategy to develop the next generation of biodiversity and ecosystem services scenarios supporting the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. a, Extension of global scenarios developed by the climate-science community, by analysing the impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. b, A novel approach based on participatory nature futures, which are transformed into scenarios using three working groups (WGs): interactions between biodiversity and ecosystem services (WG 1), social–ecological feedbacks and impact on human well-being (WG 2); and trajectories of indirect (for example, socioeconomic changes) and direct drivers (for example, land-use change) (WG 3). Note: biodiversity and nature, and ecosystem services and nature's contributions to people, are used interchangeably throughout the text.

…

| Constructing multiscale, multisectoral visions for nature futures. a, Examples of futures for European nature from the Nature Outlook project. The Nature Outlook project aimed to capture the benefits that nature offers to people by engaging citizens and businesses of multiple sectors in the development of future visions for nature in the European Union. As a result of the participatory process, which included dialogues with stakeholders and a citizens' survey, four different nature futures were designed. b, Expansion to a multiscale, multisector approach to produce alternative nature futures. Panel a adapted with permission from ref. 7 , PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

…

Figures - uploaded by Carsten Meyer

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Carsten Meyer

Content may be subject to copyright.

comment

Multiscale scenarios for nature

futures

Targets for human development are increasingly connected with targets for nature, however, existing scenarios do

not explicitly address this relationship. Here, we outline a strategy to generate scenarios centred on our relationship

with nature to inform decision-making at multiple scales.

Isabel M. D. Rosa, Henrique M. Pereira, Simon Ferrier, Rob Alkemade, Lilibeth A. Acosta, H. Resit Akcakaya,

Eefje den Belder, Asghar M. Fazel, Shinichiro Fujimori, Mike Harfoot, Khaled A. Harhash, Paula A. Harrison,

Jennifer Hauck, Rob J. J. Hendriks, Gladys Hernández, Walter Jetz, Sylvia I. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen,

HyeJin Kim, Nicholas King, Marcel T. J. Kok, Grygoriy O. Kolomytsev, Tanya Lazarova, Paul Leadley,

Carolyn J. Lundquist, Jaime García Márquez, Carsten Meyer, Laetitia M. Navarro, Carsten Nesshöver,

Hien T. Ngo, Karachepone N. Ninan, Maria G. Palomo, Laura M. Pereira, Garry D. Peterson, Ramon Pichs,

Alexander Popp, Andy Purvis, Federica Ravera, Carlo Rondinini, Jyothis Sathyapalan, Aafke M. Schipper,

Ralf Seppelt, Josef Settele, Nadia Sitas and Detlef van Vuuren

Scenarios are powerful tools to

envision how nature might respond

to different pathways of future

human development and policy choices1.

Most scenarios developed for global

environmental assessments have explored

impacts of society on nature, such as

biodiversity loss, but have not included

nature as a component of socioeconomic

development2. They ignore policy

objectives related to nature protection

and neglect nature’s role in underpinning

development and human well-being.

This approach is becoming untenable

because targets for human development

are increasingly connected with targets

for nature, such as in the United Nations’

Sustainable Development Goals. The next

generation of scenarios should explore

alternative pathways to reach these

intertwined targets, including potential

synergies and trade-offs between nature

conservation and other development

goals, as well as address feedbacks between

nature, nature’s contributions to people,

and human well-being. The development

of these scenarios would benefit from the

use of participatory approaches, integrating

stakeholders from multiple sectors (for

example, fisheries, agriculture, forestry)

and should address decision-makers

from the local to the global scale3, thereby

supporting assessments being undertaken

by the Intergovernmental Platform

on Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Services (IPBES).

A strategy for IPBES-tailored scenarios

Changes in nature, including biodiversity

loss, emerge from interactions between

drivers operating across a wide range

of spatial scales, from local to global.

Consequences of these changes, such as

loss of ecosystem services supply, also play

out across multiple scales. However, the

recent IPBES methodological assessment

of scenarios and models of biodiversity and

ecosystem services showed that scenarios

used in global assessments rarely integrate

values and processes from sub-regional

scales, while scenarios used at local scale

are usually developed for specific contexts,

hampering their comparison across regions1.

Furthermore, existing global socioeconomic

and climate change scenarios, being used

by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change4, do not adequately consider nature

and its contributions to people. Scenarios

generated by past initiatives informing

global environmental assessments, such as

the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment5,

placed a stronger emphasis on nature, yet

the socioeconomic pathways explored

were similar to those in climate scenarios,

and hence included no consideration of

social–ecological feedbacks, and limited

consideration of multiscale processes.

Here, we outline a two-step strategy to

develop a new generation of scenarios that

overcome these limitations, in accordance

with guidance provided by IPBES1, which

encouraged close collaboration with the

wider scientific community “to develop a

flexible and adaptable suite of multiscaled

scenarios specifically tailored to its [IPBES’s]

objectives”1. The steps are as follows: (i)

extend existing global scenarios developed

by the climate-science community, by

modelling impacts on biodiversity and

ecosystem services (Fig.1a); and (ii)

make an ambitious effort to create a set of

multiscale scenarios of desirable ‘nature

futures’, based on the perspectives of

different stakeholders, taking into account

goals for both human development and

nature stewardship (Fig.1b).

Global biodiversity scenarios

Potential global trajectories for drivers

of ecosystem change have been recently

explored by the climate-science community6.

Although targeting long-term analyses,

with low sensitivity to short-term and

local/regional dynamics, the shared socio-

economic pathways (SSPs) explore a wide

range of human development pathways,

from slow to fast rates of population

growth, economic growth, technological

development, trade development and

implementation of environmental policies.

The SSPs can be used in combination with

representative concentration pathways

(RCPs), which describe pathways of

greenhouse gas emissions resulting in

different climate change scenarios.

Integrated assessment models and

global climate models can translate relevant

combinations of SSPs/RCPs into land-use

change and climate change projections.

NATURE ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION | www.nature.com/natecolevol

comment

Existing biodiversity and ecosystem services

models1 can then be used to translate

these projections into potential impacts on

nature, nature’s contributions to people,

and good quality of life (Fig.1a). Although

this approach does not account for drivers

of change in biodiversity and ecosystem

services operating at regional and sub-

regional scales, it enables an assessment of

impacts from projected changes in land use

and climate at the global scale. In contrast

with previous analyses, we propose the

use of multiple models assessing impacts

across diverse dimensions of biodiversity

(for example, species richness, abundance,

and composition) and ecosystem services

(provisioning, regulating, and cultural

services). Comparable metrics for

biodiversity and ecosystem services

(such as essential biodiversity variables) will

be needed to harmonize outputs

from models addressing each of

these dimensions1,2.

Although this use of scenarios based on

combinations of SSPs/RCPs will continue

the tradition of viewing nature as the

endpoint in a linear cascade of models

(Fig.1a), there is little choice but to retain

this approach for informing the IPBES

global assessment, given its scheduled

delivery in 2019. However, this approach

will inform the more ambitious and

longer-term component of this two-step

strategy. The second component places our

relationship with nature at the centre of

scenario development and addresses the full

range of social–ecological feedbacks (Fig.1b).

Scenarios developed by this long-term

endeavour will underpin future rounds of

IPBES regional and global assessments.

Visioning nature futures

The process of developing nature futures

will produce multiple, stakeholder-defined

endpoints and then explore various

pathways for reaching those (Fig.1b).

These desirable nature futures should

represent a wide range of human–nature

interactions, based on the perspectives of

different stakeholders, and include a variety

of different types of human-modified

ecosystems encompassing different degrees

of human intervention. As in other visioning

exercises (Fig.2a), futures may range from

seascapes and landscapes managed for

multiple purposes (that is, multifunctional

landscapes) to intensely managed, highly

productive regions co-existing with

wilderness and minimally exploited marine

and freshwater ecosystems.

We propose an iterative, participatory

and creative process, to identify these

nature futures (Fig.2b). This process will

bring together key stakeholders from

different sectors, at multiple spatial scales,

including public administration agencies,

intergovernmental organizations, non-

governmental organizations, businesses,

civil society, indigenous peoples and local

communities, as well as the scientific

community. The articulation of nature

futures between stakeholders, and spatial

scales, will use visualization techniques and

other facilitation tools to enrich existing

statements of such futures. These visioning

exercises will build on emerging efforts at

multiple scales (for example, the European

Nature Outlook7, Fig.2a). Tools such as

scenario archetypes, that is, grouping

scenarios together as classes based on

similarities in underlying assumptions,

storylines, and characteristics, can then be

used to integrate visions, thus highlighting

conflicts and convergences across scales6.

At the global scale, nature futures

could, for example, explore pathways to

achieve the 2050 strategic vision of the

Convention on Biological Diversity8, and

work in collaboration with ongoing efforts

across other sectors developing visions

for the array of Sustainable Development

Goals. At the regional scale, nature futures

can be informed by the ongoing IPBES

regional assessments, which are collecting

information on trends of biodiversity and

ecosystem services, as well as by national

and regional biodiversity targets (for

example, national biodiversity strategies and

action plans). Local studies, on the other

hand, can provide knowledge on how to link

nature futures to decision-making, while

being inclusive of the diversity of nature

values held by different local communities9.

Once the alternative nature futures have

been identified, qualitative and quantitative

approaches (for example, modelling,

empirical studies and expert knowledge)

can be used to identify potential pathways

for reaching these endpoints, including

specific policy alternatives, and feedbacks

between nature, nature’s contributions to

people, quality of life and decision-making.

These analyses could be carried out in

working groups, focusing on three topics

(Fig.1b): (1) models of interactions between

biodiversity and ecosystem services;

(2) social–ecological feedbacks, such as

individual and institutional behavioural

responses to changes in nature and their

impact on human well-being; and (3)

trajectories of indirect (for example,

socioeconomic changes) and direct (for

example, land-use change) drivers of change

and their impacts on nature.

Biodiversity and ecosystem services

Explicit consideration of links between

biodiversity and ecosystem services is

limited in most models, and therefore

impacts of direct drivers on nature are

usually modelled independently of their

impacts on nature’s contributions to

people2. However, our knowledge about

the relationships between biodiversity

and ecosystem functioning, and therefore

services, has improved greatly10,11. Much of

this ecological knowledge, acquired at very

small scales (for example, experimental

plots) is still to be incorporated into

models at larger scales. Accounting for

Global pathways of

socio-economic development

Driver (for example, climate change

and land use) trajectories

Impacts on biodiversity and

ecosystem services

Biodiversity

Nature

Ecosystem services

Nature contributions

Society

Drivers, governance,

quality of life

Alternative nature futures

(narratives)

Local

Regional

Global

WG 1

WG 3

WG 2

Integrated assessment and

global climate models

Biodiversity and ecosystem

services models

Global

scenarios

Regional

assessments

Local

knowledge

Models, empirical studies and expert knowledge

Fig. 1 | Strategy to develop the next generation of biodiversity and ecosystem services scenarios

supporting the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. a, Extension of

global scenarios developed by the climate-science community, by analysing the impacts on biodiversity

and ecosystem services. b, A novel approach based on participatory nature futures, which are

transformed into scenarios using three working groups (WGs): interactions between biodiversity and

ecosystem services (WG 1), social–ecological feedbacks and impact on human well-being (WG 2); and

trajectories of indirect (for example, socioeconomic changes) and direct drivers (for example, land-use

change) (WG 3). Note: biodiversity and nature, and ecosystem services and nature’s contributions to

people, are used interchangeably throughout the text.

NATURE ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION | www.nature.com/natecolevol

comment

the role of biodiversity in the delivery of

ecosystem services11 in each nature future

can be accomplished by a combination of

appropriate scale choice and application

of the most recent empirical, experimental

and modelling knowledge. When

indicators that are robust across scales are

available, methods that work at multiple

spatiotemporal scales can be integrated

(empirical studies, remote sensing and

ecosystem modelling)12.

Recent work has started to explore how

to map at continental scales the spatial

distribution of these benefits based on the

presence of species with particular traits13,

opening the door to assessments of how

regional and global scenarios of indirect

and direct drivers of biodiversity change

would affect ecosystem services, mediated

by changes in species distributions and

abundances. Such scenarios are likely to

demonstrate that nature’s contributions to

people depend both on natural and human

capital14, although their relative importance

may vary across ecosystem services.

Furthermore, scenarios could highlight

that the perceived relationship between

nature and nature’s contributions to people

may differ among stakeholder groups, that

is, landscape management preferences

of farmers, hunters, and tourists differ

because they expect different combinations

of services. Inclusion of indigenous and

local knowledge and practices is critical to

guarantee that diverse values of nature are

captured and integrated.

Social–ecological feedbacks

In developing this new generation of

scenarios, it is vital not only to include key

stakeholders in identifying the futures, but

also to describe and model how they may

respond to changes in drivers, biodiversity,

ecosystem services and human well-being

associated with each future. Models that

couple social and ecological dynamics are

becoming available, demonstrating that

insights from social–ecological feedbacks

can be critical for anticipating regime

shifts15. Agent-based and dynamic models

can represent how the well-being of key

agents, within each sector and realm, differ

in each vision, and how individual responses

and actions can impact the drivers’

trajectories16.

Many of these social–ecological

feedbacks play out across multiple scales and

locations through telecoupling between the

production and consumption of ecosystem

services, often mediated by trade, but

also through institutional and governance

linkages16. Being able to produce scenarios

that show, for example, major relocation

of crop production or fisheries as a result

of environmental changes17, is essential to

help policymakers prepare for potential

socioeconomic (transboundary) impacts.

Global and regional policies set

the boundaries for national policies,

which affect decision-making in local

communities. In turn, the decisions of

local stakeholders and how they respond

and manage different nature trajectories

can scale up to determine the dynamics

of ecosystem change at regional scales.

The development of multi-scale scenarios

provides a unique environment to address

these cross-scale social–ecological

feedbacks, and their impact on human well-

being, thereby stimulating further research

in this field.

Towards social–ecological pathways

The SSPs do not adequately incorporate

cross-scale dynamics and social–ecological

feedbacks involving nature. These

shortcomings lead to an underestimation

of the effects of telecoupling and of tipping

points in ecosystems (such as fisheries

collapse or forest to savannah shifts)18. By

producing multiscale scenarios for nature

futures enriched with local to regional

models of biodiversity and ecosystem

services, we can assess how a similar

scenario endpoint may produce distinct

contributions to people in different areas

of the world. This is particularly relevant

to broadening the range of drivers assessed

in current global scenarios of biodiversity,

as many drivers are not currently well

modelled at the global scale, but are well

understood at local scales — for example,

the impacts of hunting on biodiversity or

the impacts of forest loss on pollination.

Such work on social–ecological feedbacks

and the development of coupled analyses

of society, nature and nature contributions

to people, may ultimately lead to a revised

set of SSPs, in which nature plays a central

Sectors: ABCD

Urban

Agriculture

Forestry

Fisheries

Other

Africa Europe

and

Central Asia

Americas

Visions developed by stakeholders: civil society, private sector,

policymakers, indigenous knowledge and so on

Vision archetypes

Regional nature future

Global nature futures

Asia

Paciﬁc

Subregional to local

nature futures

Strengthening cultural identity

People consider nature and the landscape part of

their local and regional communities.

Going with the economic ﬂow

Nature serves lifestyles (production-oriented),

leaving management to businesses and citizens.

Allowing nature to ﬁnd its way

People feel strongly about the value of nature,

providing it enough space and time to evolve.

Working with nature

Aiming for long-term preservation of natural

processes and delivery of services to people.

Fig. 2 | Constructing multiscale, multisectoral visions for nature futures. a, Examples of futures for European nature from the Nature Outlook project. The

Nature Outlook project aimed to capture the benefits that nature offersto people by engaging citizens and businesses of multiple sectors in the development

of future visions for nature in the European Union. As a result of the participatory process, which included dialogues with stakeholders and a citizens’ survey,

four different nature futures were designed. b, Expansion to a multiscale, multisector approach to produce alternative nature futures. Panel a adapted with

permission from ref. 7, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

NATURE ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION | www.nature.com/natecolevol

comment

role alongside existing socioeconomic

considerations.

To be successful, the scenario-

development process proposed here will

require scientific and technological advances

to fill knowledge gaps1 relating to the links

between nature, nature’s contributions

to people and human well-being. It will

thus rely on activities of a broad and

interdisciplinary community of scholars,

and equally critically, on the engagement

of policymakers, practitioners, and other

stakeholders. This engagement should

occur throughout all stages of scenario

development, from the identification

of nature futures, to modelling and

analysis, to decision support and policy

implementation1. Only through continued

engagement will scenarios be policy-relevant

and effectively used by decision-makers at

all scales. ❐

Isabel M. D. Rosa1,2*, Henrique M. Pereira1,2,3*,

Simon Ferrier4, Rob Alkemade5,

Lilibeth A. Acosta6, H. Resit Akcakaya7,

Eefje den Belder5,8, Asghar M. Fazel9,10,

Shinichiro Fujimori11,12, Mike Harfoot13,

Khaled A. Harhash14, Paula A. Harrison15,

Jennifer Hauck16,17, Rob J. J. Hendriks18,

Gladys Hernández19, Walter Jetz20,21,

Sylvia I. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen22, HyeJin Kim23,

Nicholas King24, Marcel T. J. Kok5,

Grygoriy O. Kolomytsev25, Tanya Lazarova5,

Paul Leadley26, Carolyn J. Lundquist27,28,

Jaime García Márquez29, Carsten Meyer1,20,

Laetitia M. Navarro1,2, Carsten Nesshöver1,16,

Hien T. Ngo30, Karachepone N. Ninan31,

Maria G. Palomo32, Laura M. Pereira33,

Garry D. Peterson34, Ramon Pichs19,

Alexander Popp35, Andy Purvis36,

Federica Ravera37,38,39, Carlo Rondinini40,

Jyothis Sathyapalan41, Aafke M. Schipper5,

Ralf Seppelt2,17, Josef Settele1,42, Nadia Sitas43

and Detlef van Vuuren5

1 German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research

(iDiv), 04103 Leipzig, Germany. 2 Martin Luther

University Halle-Wittenberg, 06108 Halle, Germany.

3 Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos

Genéticos (CIBIO), Universidade do Porto, Vairāo

4485-661, Portugal. 4 Commonwealth Scientic and

Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Land and

Water, Canberra 2601, Australia. 5 PBL Netherlands

Environmental Assessment Agency, 2500 GH e Hague,

e Netherlands. 6 Department of Community and

Environmental Resource Planning, College of Human

Ecology, University of the Philippines Los Banos

(UPLB), Laguna 4031, Philippines. 7 Department

of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University,

Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245, USA.

8 Agrosystems Research, Wageningen University and

Research, 6708 PB Wageningen, e Netherlands.

9 Univ ersity Coll ege o f Envi ronment , Karaj 141 55-61 35,

Iran. 10 ECO Institute of Environmental Science and

Technology (ECO-IEST), Karaj 31746-118, Iran.

11 Center for Social and Environmental Systems

Research, National Institute for Environmental

Studies (NIES), Tsukuba 305-8506 Ibaraki, Japan.

12 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis

(IIASA), Schlossplatz 1 A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria.

13 United Nations Environment Programme, World

Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge CB3

0DL, UK. 14 Egyptian Environmental Aairs Agency

(EEAA), Maadi, Cairo 11728, Egypt. 15 Centre for

Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster Environment

Centre, Bailrigg LA1 4AP Lancaster, UK. 16 UFZ —

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, 04318

Leipzig, Germany. 17 CoKnow Consulting, 04838

Jesewitz, Germany. 18 Directorate of Agro and Nature

Knowledge, Ministry of Economic Aairs,

2594 AC e Hague, e Netherlands. 19 Centre for

World Economy Studies (CIEM), Miramar,

Habana 11300, Cuba. 20 Ecology and Evolutionary

Biology Department, Yale University,

New Haven, CT 06520-8106 Connecticut, USA.

21 Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College

London, Silwood Park Ascot Berkshire SL5 7PY,

UK. 22 Public Administration Group, Wageningen

University and Research, 6708 PB Wageningen,

e Netherlands. 23 National Institute of Ecology,

Seocheon 33657, Republic of Korea. 24 Research Unit

for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-

West University, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa.

25 I.I. Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology of National

Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev 01030,

Ukraine. 26 Laboratoire d’Ecologie, Systématique

et Evolution, Université Paris-Sud, 91405 Orsay,

France. 27 Institute of Marine Science, University of

Auckland, Auckland 1142, New Zealand. 28 Nati onal

Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd

(NIWA), Hamilton 3216, New Zealand. 29 IRI

THESys, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10117

Berlin, Germany. 30 IPBES secretariat, D-53113 Bonn,

Germany. 31 Centre for Economics, Environment and

Society, Bangalore 560 047, India. 32 Museo Argentino

de Ciencias Naturales (MACN-CONICET), Buenos

Aires C1405DJR, Argentina. 33 Centre for Complex

Systems in Transition, Stellenbosch University,

Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa. 34 Stockholm

Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm

SE-106 91, Sweden. 35 Potsdam Institute for Climate

Impact Research (PIK), Telegraphenberg, 14473

Potsdam, Germany. 36 Department of Life Sciences,

Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD,

UK. 37 Instituto de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais

Mediterrânica (ICAAM), University of Évora, Évora

7002-554, Portugal. 38 Agroecology and Food Systems,

UVic-Universitat Central De Catalunya, Carrer de

la Sagrada Família 7, 08500 Vic, Spain. 39 CREAF,

Cerdanyola del Vallès, Catalonia 08193, Spain.

40 Global Mammal Assessment Program, Department

of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University

of Rome, Rome 00185, Italy. 41 Centre for Economic

and Social Studies (CESS), Hyderabad 500016,

India. 42 UFZ — Helmholtz Centre for

Environmental Research, Halle 06120, Germany.

43 Council for Scientic and Industrial Research

(CSIR), Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa.

*e-mail: isabel.rosa@idiv.de; hpereira@idiv.de

Published: xx xx xxxx

DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0273-9

References

1. Ferrier, S. et al. (eds.)e Methodological Assessment Report

on Scenarios and Models of Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Services(IPBES, 2016).

2. Pereira, H. M. et al. Science 330, 1496–1501 (2010).

3. Kok, M. T. et al. Sustain. Sci. 12, 177–181 (2017).

4. Moss, R. H. et al. Nature 463, 747–756 (2010).

5. Alcamo, J., van Vuuren, D. & Ringer, C. in Ecosystems and

Human Well-Being: Scenarios Vol. 2 (eds Carpenter,

S. R., Prabhu, L. P., Bennet, E. M. & Zurek, M. B.) 147–172

(Island Press, 2005).

6. van Vuuren, D. P. & Carter, T. R. Clim. Change 122,

415–429 (2014).

7. van Zeijts, H. et al. European Nature In e Plural: Finding

Common Ground For A Next Policy Agenda (PBL Netherlands

Environmental Assessment Agency, 2017).

8. Kok, M. et al. How Sectors Can Contribute To Sustainable Use And

Conservation Of Biodiversity CBD Technical Report No. 79 (PBL

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2014).

9. Ferguson, B. C., Frantzeskaki, N. & Brown, R. R. Landsc. Urban

Plan. 117, 32–45 (2013).

10. Isbell, F. et al. Nature 477, 199–202 (2011).

11. Harrison, P. et al. Ecosyst. Serv. 9, 191–203 (2014).

12. Civantos, E., uiller, W., Maiorano, L., Guisan, A. &

Araújo, M. B. BioScience 62, 658–666 (2012).

13. van der Sande, M. T. et al. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26,

69–76 (2017).

14. Rieb, J. et al. BioScience (in the press).

15. Bauch, C. T., Sigdel, R., Pharaon, J. & Anand, M. Proc. Natl Acad.

Sci. USA 113, 14560–14567 (2016).

16. An, L. Ecol. Model. 229, 25–36 (2012).

17. Pecl, G. T. et al. Science 355, 6332 (2017).

18. Leadley, P. et al. BioScience 64, 665–679 (2014).

Acknowledgements

These recommendations emerged from a workshop

held at the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity

Research (iDiv), in Leipzig, between 3 and 6 October

2016, organized and funded by the Technical Support

Unit on Scenarios and Models of Biodiversity and

Ecosystem Services of IPBES Deliverable 3c, and iDiv.

I.M.D.R. has received funding from the European

Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation

programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant

agreement no. 703862.

Author contributions

I.M.D.R. and H.M.P. wrote the paper with input from

all co-authors. All co-authors were participants in the

workshop, and provided comments and revisions to the

manuscript. Note that the author list, after the fourth

author, is in alphabetic order by authors’ surname.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

NATURE ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION | www.nature.com/natecolevol

A social-ecological approach to support equitable land use decision-making

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2024
AMBIO

Human-driven land use change can result in unequitable outcomes in the provision and appropriation of ecosystem services (ES). To better address equity-related effects of land use change in decision-making, analyses of land use and ES changes under different land use management alternatives should incorporate ecological and social information and take a disaggregated approach to ES analysis. Because such approaches are still scarce in the literature, we present a generalized social-ecological approach to support equitable land use decision-making (in terms of process and outcomes) and an example of its application to a case study in southwestern Ethiopia. We propose a six-step approach that combines scenario planning with equity-focused, disaggregated analyses of ES. Its application in our study area made equity-related effects of land use change explicit through the recognition of different beneficiary groups, value types, and spatial locations. We recommend the application of our approach in other contexts, especially in the Global South.

A Decolonial and Participatory Research Approach to Envision Equitable and Sustainable Transformations for the Amazon

Preprint

Jan 2024

Assessing nature’s contributions to people in a peri-urban protected area, southeast Brazil: integrating feedback loops and participatory scenario planning

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2024

Urban expansion is a key driver of change that has been affecting nature’s contributions to people (NCP) in peri-urban regions near metropolitan areas. In southeast Brazil, Campinas Environmental Protected Area (EPA) is a peri-urban, sustainable-use protected area located within the metropolis of Campinas. Campinas EPA provides relevant NCP at the local and regional level, including water provision for 1.2 million people, nature-based tourism and food production. We conducted a participatory, qualitative assessment of past and future trends of NCP at Campinas EPA, in collaboration with the management council of the protected area. We collected data through direct observation, semi-structured interviews and scenario workshops. In our research process, we innovate using the NCP framework, a concept acknowledging multiple values and knowledge systems, coupled with ecosystem services, a concept already understood by management councilors. To assess past trends (2000–2020), we built a causal-loop diagram which depicts an amplifying feedback loop that fosters change towards an urban-dominated state. To assess future trends (2020–2040), we facilitated scenario planning workshops to create and contrast a business-as-usual and a desirable future for NCP, illustrated in the form of artistic panels. We identified a local agroecological farm that represents a seed of good anthropocenes – i.e. the farm is an innovative example of what a positive future could look like, thus providing relevant evidence on how to achieve a desirable scenario. Our findings shed light on how urban expansion within peri-urban areas impacts NCP and suggest strategies for positive transformations.

Recipe for a scenario: Moving from vision to actionable pathways towards sustainable futures

Article

Full-text available

May 2024

In this paper we present an overview of future-oriented research in sustainability science and place-based research and offer a tool for researchers and community partners to use to guide participatory scenario planning activities that result in actionable steps toward achieving sustainable futures. Within place-based community-engaged research projects, future-oriented methods, such as visioning and participatory scenario planning, have been increasingly utilized as an approach to integrate diverse voices and foster positive change. However, this emerging literature contains some overlapping concepts and approaches that require clarification before adoption. We review common definitions of scenarios, visions, and participatory scenario planning; benefits and challenges of conducting a participatory scenario planning process in place-based research; and three actionable frameworks (Three Horizons, Nature Futures Framework, Sustainable Futures Scenarios) that can inform participatory scenario planning. We then highlight gaps in the literature regarding how to conduct a participatory scenario planning process and introduce a tool named “Recipe for a Scenario” to guide the facilitation of scenarios workshops and co-create actionable pathways towards desirable futures. Our tool (and accompanying workbook that structures a scenarios workshop) supports cross-disciplinary community-engaged projects focused on bringing about positive change in a medium-term timeframe (approximately 20 years) to support more sustainable human-environment dynamics.

Narratives for positive nature futures in Europe

Preprint

Oct 2024

The Nature Futures Framework (NFF) is a novel tool for the development of positive scenarios centred on the relationship of nature and people, emphasising biodiversity as part of the solution to environmental challenges across various spatial and temporal scales, explicitly addressing a plurality of values for nature. In this work, we describe the process that has led to the formulation of continental-scale positive narratives for conservation in Europe based on the NFF and its value perspectives (Nature for Nature; Nature for Society; Nature as Culture), through a stakeholder group elicitation. We focused on 6 topics in the narratives: Nature Protection and Restoration; Forestry; Freshwater Ecosystems; Urban Systems; Agriculture, and Energy. We analyse differences and similarities among the narratives across these topics. We develop three novel Nature Futures narratives for Europe with contrasting perspectives and priorities for the six topics. Within the EU socioeconomic trends and policy framework, common solutions that simultaneously tackle biodiversity conservation and instrumental and cultural Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) provision emerged. This set of narratives may integrate preferences concerning EU-level conservation targets and plausible socio-ecological development pathways, supporting the modelling of positive scenarios for nature that can be crucial in guiding policy decisions towards recovery of nature.

Scenario framework for TEN-N, translation of NFF storylines into indicators and scenario settings

Preprint

Full-text available

Aug 2024

A key goal of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 is the design of a connected Trans European Nature Network (TEN-N), that helps to build a coherent and resilient network of protected areas across Europe. The TEN-N will need to consider and integrate societal perspectives on future biodiversity protection in Europe, accounting for multiple values and perspectives of nature. The NaturaConnect project, through a process of co-design with stakeholders, is developing narratives on future nature protection in Europe using the Nature Futures Framework (NFF). In this framework. three value perspectives of nature are presented at each corner of a triangle: Nature for Nature, Nature as Culture, and Nature for Society. By using this framework, NaturaConnect aligns with global efforts on scenario development auspicated by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). This report outlines the development of scenario narratives for Europe of the NaturaConnect project. The development of the narratives considered the global and European policy context as a starting point, and included a stakeholder engagement process conducted to elicit stakeholders' preferences and visions in relation to future nature conservation and management in Europe. These narratives present contrasting perspectives and priorities for seven themes: Protected areas, Connectivity and Restoration, Forestry, Freshwater ecosystems, Urban system, Agriculture, Energy. These topics are key to building a more positive future for nature and people. Besides specificities for each narrative, we also identify commonalities across the three perspectives, including macroeconomic trend assumptions, biodiversity strategic goals of the European Union and shared solutions that are necessary to achieve any positive nature future.

Exploring the Nexus between Green Space Availability, Connection with Nature, and Pro-Environmental Behavior in the Urban Landscape

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2024

Citation: Lahoti, S.A.; Dhyani, S.; Sahle, M.; Kumar, P.; Saito, O. Exploring the Nexus between Green Space Availability, Connection with Nature, and Pro-Environmental Behavior in the Urban Landscape. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5435. Abstract: The correlation between connecting with nature and fostering pro-environmental behavior is essential to attaining sustainability targets. However, understanding how this connection is cultivated, particularly in the urban settings of the Global South, remains limited. This study delves into the impact of urban green space (UGS) availability on perceived connection with nature (CN) and its subsequent influence on pro-environmental behavior (PEB) among urban residents, focusing on Nagpur city. Employing a digital survey tool, data were collected from 2414 participants across ten administrative zones. Descriptive and exploratory analyses alongside multinomial logistic regression were conducted to assess variable associations using R programming. The results revealed that 91% of respondents frequented UGSs, while a smaller fraction cited time constraints for not visiting. Notably, respondents' perceived CN demonstrated significant associations with both UGS availability and PEB. A regression analysis underscored stronger PEB among those reporting a deeper connection with nature. Furthermore, demographic factors such as gender, age, and education were linked to variations in PEB. This study advocates for leveraging UGSs to bolster CN and PEB among urban populations, emphasizing the pivotal role of urban planning in nurturing human-nature connections. Future research should explore specific nature contact modalities conducive to fostering connectedness, especially in rapidly urbanizing locales.

Biodiversity loss reduces global terrestrial carbon storage

Article

Full-text available

May 2024

Natural ecosystems store large amounts of carbon globally, as organisms absorb carbon from the atmosphere to build large, long-lasting, or slow-decaying structures such as tree bark or root systems. An ecosystem’s carbon sequestration potential is tightly linked to its biological diversity. Yet when considering future projections, many carbon sequestration models fail to account for the role biodiversity plays in carbon storage. Here, we assess the consequences of plant biodiversity loss for carbon storage under multiple climate and land-use change scenarios. We link a macroecological model projecting changes in vascular plant richness under different scenarios with empirical data on relationships between biodiversity and biomass. We find that biodiversity declines from climate and land use change could lead to a global loss of between 7.44-103.14 PgC (global sustainability scenario) and 10.87-145.95 PgC (fossil-fueled development scenario). This indicates a self-reinforcing feedback loop, where higher levels of climate change lead to greater biodiversity loss, which in turn leads to greater carbon emissions and ultimately more climate change. Conversely, biodiversity conservation and restoration can help achieve climate change mitigation goals.

Habitat quality on the edge of anthropogenic pressures: predicting the impact of land use changes in the Brazilian Upper Paraguay River Basin

Article

Full-text available

May 2024
J CLEAN PROD

Landscape changes driven by anthropogenic activities often have negative impacts on ecosystems, jeopardizing the provision of vital services that sustain biotic elements and wildlife. Predicting the effects of such transformations is crucial for developing strategies to mitigate ecological damage. This study explores the interaction of land use changes and habitat quality estimates in the Upper Paraguay River Basin in Brazil, using the InVEST Habitat Quality model to estimate spatiotemporal landscape trends and evaluate the potential impact of land use policies for the future. Under a business-as-usual scenario by 2050, potential land use changes are simulated for shaping habitat quality, habitat degradation, and habitat rarity estimates as landscape proxies for biodiversity conservation. Results show an extensive expansion of pastures through deforestation, leading to progressive habitat degradation with a significant decay in the predicted and observed habitat quality. The habitat quality index estimates show a spatial decrease from 0.78 to 0.57 for the 1989–2050 period. The same trend is observed in protected areas for the period 2019–2050, with an increase of anthropogenic land use and a decrease of the habitat quality from 0.80 to 0.57 in conservation units, and from 0.75 to 0.53 in indigenous lands. For improved conservation outcomes, this work introduces new insights for shaping environmental actions that can be flagged as sustainable land management practices and ecological perspectives towards spatial pressures at different scales. Therefore, government institutions responsible for the protection of conservation units and indigenous communities can be informed about potential land use impacts on their territories. The findings suggest that incorporating additional scenario trends and climate-related variables could be a valuable direction for future studies to extend further the modelling approaches explored in this work.

Global trends and scenarios for terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystem services from 1900 to 2050

Article

Apr 2024
SCIENCE

Based on an extensive model intercomparison, we assessed trends in biodiversity and ecosystem services from historical reconstructions and future scenarios of land-use and climate change. During the 20th century, biodiversity declined globally by 2 to 11%, as estimated by a range of indicators. Provisioning ecosystem services increased several fold, and regulating services decreased moderately. Going forward, policies toward sustainability have the potential to slow biodiversity loss resulting from land-use change and the demand for provisioning services while reducing or reversing declines in regulating services. However, negative impacts on biodiversity due to climate change appear poised to increase, particularly in the higher-emissions scenarios. Our assessment identifies remaining modeling uncertainties but also robustly shows that renewed policy efforts are needed to meet the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

European nature in the plural. Finding common ground for a next policy agenda

Book

Full-text available

Mar 2017

The occurrence of many species in the EU is expected to further decline, making it difficult to reach the 2050 policy vision. This study elaborates four ‘perspectives’ on the future of nature in the EU, in search for new approaches. The study concludes with topics for debate on a future policy strategy that increases engagement of citizens and businesses. For this study, the researchers have developed scenarios that represent four main perspectives on nature. In each perspective, people are connected with nature in different ways: Strengthening Cultural Identity – through love for the local landscape; Allowing Nature to Find its Way – for its intrinsic value; Going with the Economic Flow – for its contribution to individual lifestyles; Woring with Nature – as an essential basis for a sustainable society. Based on these values, each perspective offers new approaches to the challenges facing nature in Europe today: finding a shared agenda for nature areas, making nature more relevant for the sustainability of economic sectors, and strengthening the connection between people and nature. The EU should not choose one perspective over the other. Rather, the researchers recommend that a future nature vision should be a many-faceted one, which not only contains protection of species, ecosystems and the services they provide, but also other objectives, ranging from ensuring areas of undisturbed nature and space for dynamic processes to profit making and private initiatives. In particular lacking in policy visions seem relational values, the fact that nature provides identity to people; it would be promising to address nature in such a way that it will foster a sense of place.

Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2017

Consequences of shifting species distributions Climate change is causing geographical redistribution of plant and animal species globally. These distributional shifts are leading to new ecosystems and ecological communities, changes that will affect human society. Pecl et al. review these current and future impacts and assess their implications for sustainable development goals. Science , this issue p. eaai9214

Early warning signals of regime shifts in coupled human-environment systems

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2016
P NATL ACAD SCI USA

In complex systems, a critical transition is a shift in a system's dynamical regime from its current state to a strongly contrasting state as external conditions move beyond a tipping point. These transitions are often preceded by characteristic early warning signals such as increased system variability. However, early warning signals in complex, coupled human-environment systems (HESs) remain little studied. Here, we compare critical transitions and their early warning signals in a coupled HES model to an equivalent environment model uncoupled from the human system. We parameterize the HES model, using social and ecological data from old-growth forests in Oregon. We find that the coupled HES exhibits a richer variety of dynamics and regime shifts than the uncoupled environment system. Moreover, the early warning signals in the coupled HES can be ambiguous, heralding either an era of ecosystem conservationism or collapse of both forest ecosystems and conservationism. The presence of human feedback in the coupled HES can also mitigate the early warning signal, making it more difficult to detect the oncoming regime shift. We furthermore show how the coupled HES can be "doomed to criticality": Strategic human interactions cause the system to remain perpetually in the vicinity of a collapse threshold, as humans become complacent when the resource seems protected but respond rapidly when it is under immediate threat. We conclude that the opportunities, benefits, and challenges of modeling regime shifts and early warning signals in coupled HESs merit further research.

Biodiversity and ecosystem services require IPBES to take novel approach to scenarios

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2016

What does the future hold for the world’s ecosystems and benefits that people obtain from them? While the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has identified the development of scenarios as a key to helping decision makers identify potential impacts of different policy options, it currently lacks a long-term scenario strategy. IPBES will decide how it will approach scenarios at its plenary meeting on 22–28 February 2016, in Kuala Lumpur. IPBES now needs to decide whether it should create new scenarios that better explore ecosystem services and biodiversity dynamics. For IPBES to capture the social-ecological dynamics of biodiversity and ecosystem services, it is essential to engage with the great diversity of local contexts, while also including the global tele-coupling among local places. We present and compare three alternative scenario strategies that IPBES could use and then suggest a bottom-up, cross-scale scenario strategy to improve the policy relevance of future IPBES assessments. We propose five concrete steps as part of an effective, long term scenario development process for IPBES in cooperation with the scientific community.

How sectors can contribute to sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity

Technical Report

Full-text available

Jan 2014

Interacting Regional-Scale Regime Shifts for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2014
BIOSCIENCE

Current trajectories of global change may lead to regime shifts at regional scales, driving coupled human–environment systems to highly degraded states in terms of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being. For business-as-usual socioeconomic development pathways, regime shifts are projected to occur within the next several decades, to be difficult to reverse, and to have regional- to global-scale impacts on human society. We provide an overview of ecosystem, socioeconomic, and biophysical mechanisms mediating regime shifts and illustrate how these interact at regional scales by aggregation, synergy, and spreading processes. We give detailed examples of interactions for terrestrial ecosystems of central South America and for marine and coastal ecosystems of Southeast Asia. This analysis suggests that degradation of biodiversity and ecosystem services over the twenty-first century could be far greater than was previously predicted. We identify key policy and management opportunities at regional to global scales to avoid these shifts.

Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: A systematic review

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2014

A systematic literature review was undertaken to analyse the linkages between different biodiversity attributes and 11 ecosystem services. The majority of relationships between attributes and ecosystem services cited in the 530 studies were positive. For example, the services of water quality regulation, water flow regulation, mass flow regulation and landscape aesthetics were improved by increases in community and habitat area. Functional traits, such as richness and diversity, also displayed a predominantly positive relationship across the services, most commonly discussed for atmospheric regulation, pest regulation and pollination. A number of studies also discussed a positive correlation with stand age, particularly for atmospheric regulation. Species level traits were found to benefit a number of ecosystem services, with species abundance being particularly important for pest regulation, pollination and recreation, and species richness for timber production and freshwater fishing. Instances of biodiversity negatively affecting the examined ecosystem services were few in number for all ecosystem services, except freshwater provision. The review showed that ecosystem services are generated from numerous interactions occurring in complex systems. However, improving understanding of at least some of the key relationships between biodiversity and service provision will help guide effective management and protection strategies.

The integration of empirical, remote sensing and modelling approaches enhances insight in the role of biodiversity in climate change mitigation by tropical forests

Article

Jun 2017

Climate and socio-economic scenarios for climate change research and assessment: Reconciling the new with the ol

Article

Feb 2014

A suggestion for mapping the SRES illustrative scenarios onto the new scenarios framework of representative concentration pathways (RCPs) and shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs) is presented. The mapping first compares storylines describing future socio-economic developments for SRES and SSPs. Next, it compares projected atmospheric composition, radiative forcing and climate characteristics for SRES and RCPs. Finally, it uses the new scenarios matrix architecture to match SRES scenarios to combinations of RCPs and SSPs, resulting in four suggestions of suitable combinations, mapping: (i) an A2 world onto RCP 8.5 and SSP3, (ii) a B2 (or A1B) world onto RCP 6.0 and SSP2, (iii) a B1 world onto RCP 4.5 and SSP1, and (iv) an A1FI world onto RCP 8.5 and SSP5. A few other variants are also explored. These mappings, though approximate, may assist analysts in reconciling earlier scenarios with the new scenario framework.

A strategic program for transitioning to a Water Sensitive City

Article

Sep 2013
LANDSCAPE URBAN PLAN

In the context of climate change, resource limitations and other drivers, there is growing international acceptance that conventional technocratic approaches to planning urban water systems are inadequate to deliver the services society requires. Instead, scholars and practitioners are calling for a shift to an adaptive approach that increases a system's sustainability and resilience. This shift is significant, requiring transitions in the way urban water systems are planned, designed and managed. However, there is limited understanding of how strategic initiatives can be deliberately managed and coordinated to reform mainstream policy and practice. This paper aims to develop a strategic program for this purpose. It draws on strategy literature to develop a scope and logic for a general program that can address challenges for long-term urban infrastructure management related to path-dependencies, the direction of transformative change, system complexity and future uncertainty. The content of a normative transition scenario, developed in participatory workshops by water practitioners in Melbourne, is then presented, focusing on the transition to a “water sensitive city”. The scenario comprises a problem definition, vision and strategies, which provide lessons for contextualizing the strategic program for the specific purpose of enabling transformative change in urban water systems. These lessons are synthesized in strategy goals and planning processes that form the design base of a strategic program. With tailoring for local contexts, the strategic program can provide operational guidance for planners, designers and decision-makers in strategically planning and managing initiatives to facilitate sustainability transitions in urban water systems.