Browsing by Subject "SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS"

Sort by: Order: Results:

Now showing items 1-6 of 6
  • Hanspach, Jan; Haider, Lisbeth Jamila; Oteros-Rozas, Elisa; Olafsson, Anton Stahl; Gulsrud, Natalie M.; Raymond, Christopher M.; Torralba, Mario; Martin-Lopez, Berta; Bieling, Claudia; Garcia-Martin, Maria; Albert, Christian; Beery, Thomas H.; Fagerholm, Nora; Diaz-Reviriego, Isabel; Drews-Shambroom, Annika; Plieninger, Tobias (2020)
    Current sustainability challenges demand approaches that acknowledge a plurality of human-nature interactions and worldviews, for which biocultural approaches are considered appropriate and timely. This systematic review analyses the application of biocultural approaches to sustainability in scientific journal articles published between 1990 and 2018 through a mixed methods approach combining qualitative content analysis and quantitative multivariate methods. The study identifies seven distinct biocultural lenses, that is, different ways of understanding and applying biocultural approaches, which to different degrees consider the key aspects of sustainability science-inter- and transdisciplinarity, social justice and normativity. The review suggests that biocultural approaches in sustainability science need to move from describing how nature and culture are co-produced to co-producing knowledge for sustainability solutions, and in so doing, better account for questions of power, gender and transformations, which has been largely neglected thus far. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.
  • Malkamäki, Arttu; Toppinen, Anne; Kanninen, Markku (2016)
  • Angelstam, Per; Manton, Michael; Elbakidze, Marine; Sijtsma, Frans; Adamescu, Mihai Cristian; Avni, Noa; Beja, Pedro; Bezak, Peter; Zyablikova, Iryna; Cruz, Fatima; Bretagnolle, Vincent; Díaz-Delgado, Ricardo; Ens, Bruno; Fedoriak, Mariia; Flaim, Giovanna; Gingrich, Simone; Lavi-Neeman, Miri; Medinets, Sergey; Melecis, Viesturs; Muñoz-Rojas, Jose; Schäckermann, Jessica; Stocker-Kiss, Andrea; Setälä, Heikki; Stryamets, Natalie; Taka, Maija; Tallec, Gaelle; Tappeiner, Ulrike; Törnblom, Johan; Yamelynets, Taras (2019)
    Context Place-based transdisciplinary research involves multiple academic disciplines and non-academic actors. Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) platform is one concept with similar to 80 initiatives globally.Objectives As an exercise in learning through evaluation we audited (1) the siting, construction and maintenance of individual LTSER platforms, and (2) them as a distributed infrastructure for place-based transdisciplinary research with focus on the European continent.MethodsFirst, we defined a normative model for ideal performance at both platform and network levels. Second, four surveys were sent out to the 67 self-reported LTSER platforms officially listed at the end of 2016. Third, with a focus on the network level, we analyzed the spatial distribution of both long-term ecological monitoring sites within LTSER platforms, and LTSER platforms across the European continent. Fourth, narrative biographies of 18 platforms in different stages of development were analyzed.ResultsWhile the siting of LTSER platforms represented biogeographical regions well, variations in land use history and democratic governance were not well represented. Platform construction was based on 2.1 ecological monitoring sites, with 72% ecosystem and 28% social system research. Maintenance of a platform required three to five staff members, focused mostly on ecosystem research, was based mainly on national funding, and had 1-2years of future funding secured. Networking with other landscape approach concepts was common.ConclusionsIndividually, and as a network, LTSER platforms have good potential for transdisciplinary knowledge production and learning about sustainability challenges. To improve the range of variation of Pan-European social-ecological systems we encourage interfacing with other landscape approach concepts.
  • Fabritius, Henna; Jokinen, Ari; Cabeza, Mar (2017)
    Species living in metapopulations depend on connected habitat networks for their survival. If habitat networks experience fast temporal dynamics, species conservation requires preventing habitat discontinuities that could lead to metapopulation extinctions. However, few institutional solutions exist for the maintenance of spatiotemporally dynamic habitat networks outside of protected areas. To explore this often neglected problem, we studied the institutional fit of false heath fritillary (Melitaea diamina) conservation in Finland from the perspective of conservation institutions' ability to manage early successional habitat availability for this endangered species. We identified four institutional arrangements that enable effective conservation management of dynamic habitat networks: (1) acknowledgment of habitat dynamics, (2) monitoring of and responding to changes in the habitat network, (3) management of resources for fluctuating resource needs, and (4) scaling of activities through flexible collaborations. These arrangements provide the institutional flexibility needed for responding to temporal changes in habitat availability.
  • Elands, Birgit H. M.; Wiersum, K. Freerk; Buijs, Arjen E.; Vierikko, Kati (2015)
    Biocultural diversity, which refers to the inextricable link between biodiversity and cultural diversity, has been predominantly associated with the traditional ways in which indigenous people in tropical countries interact with the natural environment. But it does not have to be restricted to these circumstances. Biocultural diversity may also be regarded as an interesting concept for understanding how people in industrialized and globalized societies deal with nature. This paper explores biocultural diversity in 20 European cities by considering (i) how biocultural diversity is interpreted in urban planning and governance, and (ii) what actual manifestations of biocultural diversity are present in these cities. Despite the fact that the concept of biocultural diversity was hardly recognized by city authorities, interviewees gave many examples of how biodiversity and cultural diversity are taken into account in (in) formal city policies. The research revealed two main manifestations of biocultural diversity within urban Europe: biocultural diversity grounded in ecological features, and cultural values as a basic foundation for biocultural diversity. Consequently, urban biocultural diversity was found to have two spatial levels: the city level and the site level. The former is the domain of governmental policy makers who discuss biocultural diversity in 'green space networks' in a rather static way. The latter is the domain where citizens participate in decisionmaking and the management of green spaces; it is here that cultural dynamics are most acknowledged.
  • Stephenson, Robert L.; Hobday, Alistair J.; Allison, Edward H.; Armitage, Derek; Brooks, Kate; Bundy, Alida; Cvitanovic, Christopher; Dickey-Collas, Mark; Grilli, Natalia de Miranda; Gomez, Catalina; Jarre, Astrid; Kaikkonen, Laura; Kelly, Rachel; Lopez, Romain; Muhl, Ella-Kari; Pennino, Maria Grazia; Tam, Jamie C.; van Putten, Ingrid (2021)
    In recent decades, scientists and practitioners have increasingly focused on identifying and codifying the best ways to manage activities in marine systems, leading to the development and implementation of concepts such as the social-ecological systems approach, ecosystem-based management, integrated management, marine spatial planning, participatory co-management, and the precautionary approach. To date, these concepts appear as separate entities: they have parallel literature streams; have been applied most often individually in attempts to improve governance and management; and in many ways, seem to be competing for attention. This patchwork of approaches may be hindering effective ocean governance. We propose that desirable features from these frameworks could be woven together to form the basis of more effective and equitable ocean governance arrangements across contexts, sectors, and scales. This article synthesizes the efforts of an IMBeR (Integrated Marine Biosphere Research Project) conference session and working group, that brought together experts in these diverse concepts with the objective of producing a synthesis of how they could be more effectively integrated for improved ocean sustainability outcomes. We reviewed and compared the concepts in terms of (a) the need to achieve a comprehensive suite of sustainability objectives, (b) similarities and differences in their scope, and (c) their place in practical management, policy and regulation. Achieving greater cross-sectoral integration, or a more holistic perspective on management for sustainability is at the core of each concept. All deal with aspects of governance and most, with improved participation in governance. The major differences in the origin and historical application of each concept are reflected in the degree of implicit or explicit focus given to different objectives of sustainability. Overall, the concepts are especially strong for ecological and institutional or governance considerations, moderately strong for economic aspects, and weakest for the social-cultural pillar of full spectrum sustainability. There is no panacea, and no emergent hierarchy among concepts. Some concepts fit better with top-down legislation-based efforts, others with more bottom-up stakeholder driven efforts. The selection of the core concepts for a situation will depend in a large part on which concepts are specified, or demand focus, in the legal and policy context of the situation (or area) of interest. No matter how influential or dominant a single concept might be, pragmatically, different concepts will be used in different areas, and there may always be the need for a combination of concepts and objectives woven together to achieve a cohesive quilt of sustainability.