Speaking across boundaries to explore the potential for interdisciplinarity in ecosystem services knowledge production

A social-ecological approach for identifying and mapping ecosystem service trade-offs and conservation priorities in peri-urban areas

Considering both ecological and social dimensions in the assessment of ecosystem services (ESs) can facilitate acceptable and inclusive management strategies, especially in peri-urban areas characterized by intricate human-ecosystem interactions. A limited body of research, however, has mapped the plural values of ESs and their different types of trade-offs in such areas. This research aimed to execute an interdisciplinary analysis of the biophysical and social values of ESs in peri-urban Shanghai, China, through a social-ecological approach that integrates spatial biophysical assessment with participatory mapping. Trade-off analysis in both ES types and ES valuations were then conducted, and multicriteria decision-making was applied for conservation. Our results reveal that trade-off intensities were lower within the social values compared to the biophysical values. Within both value dimensions, relatively stronger trade-offs were found between food production and other ESs. Areas with both high biophysical and social values were infrequently observed across ESs. Based on the characteristics of diverse values, our study identified priority conservation areas and provided management implications. We argue that adopting the integrated social-ecological perspective in sustainable environmental management contributes to the realization of harmonious coexistence between people and nature in peri-urban areas.

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.

Importance of greater interdisciplinarity and geographic scope when tackling the driving forces behind biological invasions

Invasive non-native species are important drivers of ecosystem change, yet the driving forces of biological invasions themselves are poorly understood. Such information is essential to ensure policies focus on the most relevant drivers, and that future scenarios capture the full range of potential outcomes for invasive non-native species. I carried out a bibliometric analysis of articles published from 2000 to 2020 that address either invasive non-native species or biodiversity and ecosystem services and that also mention 1 or more drivers of ecosystem change. I examined 5 indirect drivers (demographic, economic, governance, sociocultural, and technological) and 6 direct drivers (climate change, invasive non-native species, land-use or sea-use change, natural hazards, pollution, and resource extraction). Using the Web of Science core collection of citation indexes, I undertook searches of article titles and keywords and retrieved 27,462 articles addressing invasive non-native species and 110,087 articles dealing with biodiversity or ecosystem services. Most research to date on biological invasions as well as on biodiversity and ecosystem services has focused on anthropogenic direct drivers of ecosystem change rather than indirect drivers. Yet currently, less than 18% of articles addressing biological invasions examined drivers of ecosystem change, a similar level to that found over 20 years ago for biodiversity or ecosystem services. Knowledge of the drivers of biological invasions is limited, emphasizes tractable drivers over those that require an interdisciplinary approach, and is biased toward developed economies. Drivers generally deemed important for biological invasions, such as governance and resource extraction, accounted for less than 2% of research effort. The absence of a systematic understanding of the forces that drive invasive non-native species and how they interact means that attempts to mitigate or forecast biological invasions are likely to fail. To address biological invasions requires a much better orientation of national and international research on drivers in relation to both their actual importance as well as their policy relevance.