You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
SustainabilitySustainability
Download PDF
  • Meeting Report
  • Open Access

10 May 2018

Applying Place-Based Social-Ecological Research to Address Water Scarcity: Insights for Future Research

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
…
1
Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, 921 South 8th Avenue, Pocatello, ID 83209, USA
2
Centro Andaluz para la Evaluación y Seguimiento del Cambio Global (CAESCG), Departamento de Biología Vegetal y Ecología, Universidad de Almería, La Cañada de San Urbano, 04120 Almería, Spain
3
Human-Environment Systems Center, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725, USA
4
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alabama, 300 Hackberry Lane, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA
Sustainability2018, 10(5), 1516;https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051516
This article belongs to the Section Social Ecology and Sustainability
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Globally, environmental and social change in water-scarce regions challenge the sustainability of social-ecological systems. WaterSES, a sponsored working group within the Program for Ecosystem Change and Society, explores and compares the social-ecological dynamics related to water scarcity across placed-based international research sites with contrasting local and regional water needs and governance, including research sites in Spain and Sweden in Europe, South Africa, China, and Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Texas in the USA. This paper aims to provide a commentary on insights into conducting future solutions-oriented research on water scarcity based on the understanding of the social-ecological dynamics of water scarce regions.

1. Introduction

Global demand for freshwater sources combined with a declining water supply and quality translates in an issue for approximately two-thirds of the global population and nearly every regional-scale watershed experiences severe water scarcity for at least one month of the year [1,2,3,4,5]. Developing equitable and effective governance solutions for water scarcity is a global priority [6,7,8] to achieve global sustainability [9,10,11]. Governance solutions for water scarcity are defined as the social and political processes of fixing goals for the management of water scarce social-ecological systems (SES). SES are complex, adaptive systems in which social and bio-geophysical components interact at multiple temporal and spatial scales [12,13]. Here, among different SES frameworks, we adopt the SES concept as a broad framework that is useful for understanding the interlinked dynamics of environmental and societal change [14,15]. Though interactions between ecological and social components exist across spatial scales in different SES [2], water governance solutions to address water scarcity associated with cross-scale and cross-sectoral interdependencies have not yet been developed [7,8]. Therefore, advancing equitable water governance solutions requires place-based approaches, solutions based on the co-production of knowledge [3,4,8], and the existence of institutional diversity and multi-level governance that considers cross-scale and cross-sectoral interdependencies [4]. Such cross-scale approaches that include local to broader scales may have the potential to provide a generalizable framework capable of being translated across different socio-ecological systems [9,10,11].
Over previous decades, various research networks have emerged to facilitate the synthesis of SES research conducted at the local scale [12]. In particular, the Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) was launched in 2011 with the goal of synthesizing insights that may contribute to global sustainability [16,17,18]. PECS evolved from explicit recommendations made by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment to establish a global effort to foster coordinated, place-based research for understanding the dynamic relationship between humans and ecosystems. The principal approach of PECS research is based on comparisons of place-based, long-term, social-ecological case studies [19]. Place-based SES research can explore the interplay between physical and social dynamics that both cause water problems, and it may guide future governance solutions by recognizing the distinctiveness of local entities, while also addressing the impacts of external forces [20,21,22]. Place-based SES science on water scarcity is taking place in numerous locations around the world, but the impact of these efforts is limited because of the following reasons:
  • Every region does not have the resources to generate its own place-based SES science. Not only is interdisciplinary expertise needed, but a great deal of social capital and research funding is also required.
  • While effective and equitable solutions are often best generated at a local/regional level, many regions require additional research and institutional infrastructure to enable solution development.
  • Changing environmental and social conditions demand rapid scientific solutions. This often results in insufficient time to independently create new place-based solutions in specific places.
Thus, generating solutions for particular regions could be facilitated by communicating and sharing experiences and lessons from regions across the world that are coping with related challenges [17,23]. WaterSES (www.pecswaterses.com) is an international, interdisciplinary research team within PECS that promotes placed-based comparative research to study the SES dynamics that cause, and are caused by, water scarcity across international research sites in Sweden, Spain, China, South Africa and the USA (Oklahoma, Alabama, Texas, and Idaho) (Figure 1). Water scarcity across all WaterSES place-based research sites is produced by both different climates and socio-ecological dynamics, but all sites are experiencing new human demands on water resources that require effective and equitable governance solutions. Therefore, the SES framework is a useful approach for understanding the interlinked dynamics of environmental and societal change and providing insights for addressing water scarcity. Table 1 presents the different social-ecological dynamics that are producing water scarcity across all sites. WaterSES research sites presented here correspond to (1) cases where long-term research has been conducted, such as the Kiamichi Watershed (Oklahoma) and the watershed in the Almería region of Spain, Las Vegas Rural and Agrarian District-Madrid and the Portneuf and Treasure Valleys regions of Idaho; and (2) new cases, such as the Loess Plateau (China), the Norrstrom B., (Sweden), and the Breede-Gouritz (South Africa) where we are in the process of collecting data that can help us establish further comparisons and sharing of experiences and lessons. In order to provide solutions to address water scarcity, WaterSES embraces sustainability science principles related to complex and systemic thinking [24] and is comprised of a research team with expertise in ecology, hydrology, environmental justice, climate change, economics, land change science, rural sociology, resilience thinking, social-ecological system science and ecosystem services.
Figure 1. Geographic locations of WaterSES place-based social-ecological research sites.
Table 1. Description of social-ecological dynamics across WaterSES research sites caused by and/or causing water scarcity and water governance issues.
Multidisciplinary expert workshops are commonly-used platforms to identify research challenges in sustainability science [25]. Here, we report on our implementation of the PECS approach to provide insights for solutions-oriented research on water scarcity by (1) characterizing SES characteristics and water supply and demand across WaterSES research sites; and (2) reporting the outcomes of a subsequent WaterSES workshop to identify key sustainability challenges for regions experiencing water scarcity.

2. Workshop for Identifying Sustainability Challenges

In the Spring of 2017, the WaterSES team met for a workshop at the Idaho State University (USA) with the goal of synthesizing research conducted across WaterSES sites. The main goal of the workshop was to collaboratively identify the social-ecological dynamics caused by, and causing water scarcity and to discuss the key sustainability challenges across water scarce SES. Based on existing data and research on water supply and demand for WaterSES sites, we first collectively characterized the social-ecological characteristics of each WaterSES site. Then, in cases where water supply is not meeting water demand, we identified the causing economic hardships, degraded ecosystem health, and/or potential derived environmental injustices.
Prior to the workshop, the WaterSES team completed an online questionnaire (see Supplementary S1). The purpose of the online questionnaire was to synthesize research conducted across WaterSES sites and individually identify key challenges limiting sustainability based on WaterSES sites [17]. The workshop brought together 12 scientists from different disciplines as a way to learn from each individual site. The workshop was organized into three dynamics (Figure 2, see workshop agenda in Supplementary S2) [26]. First, presentations were given for each WaterSES site to get a deeper understanding of all WaterSES sites. Then, we collectively discussed the sustainability challenges collected in the online questionnaire, grouped them into different categories, and reached consensus as to which three were the most important (dynamic 1, Figure 2). Next, workshop participants were divided into three groups based on their backgrounds to characterize each challenge based on data needs, data availability and knowledge gaps (dynamic 2, Figure 2). Finally, each group defined and identified key actions to overcome their respective challenge (dynamic 3, Figure 2).
Figure 2. Dynamics of the workshop for addressing sustainability challenges across freshwater socio-ecological systems. Adapted from [20].

3. Challenges for the Sustainability of Water Scarce Social-Ecological Systems

Table 2 summarizes the major social and environmental characteristics of each WaterSES research site, including information about the major water uses and stresses in each site and the important ecosystem services. The three sustainability challenges identified during the workshop corresponded to (Figure 3): (1) bridging the gap between increasing demands for water and declining water supply and quality; (2) using social-ecological knowledge for water scarcity management; and (3) towards transdisciplinary social-ecological research.
Table 2. Social and environmental characteristics of WaterSES place-based research sites.
Figure 3. Key challenges and actions for sustainability of freshwater social-ecological systems across water scarce regions. SMR (San Marcos River, Texas, USA), KIA (Kiamichi River watershed, Oklahoma, USA), MOB (Mobile River Basin, Alabama, USA), POR (Portneuff River Valley, Idaho, USA), TRV (Treasure Valley, Idaho, USA), ALM (Almeria, Spain), MAD (Las Vegas Agrarian and Rural District, Madrid, Spain), LOESS (Loess Plateau, China), NORR (Norrstrom B., Sweden), BREE (Breede-Gouritz, South Africa).

3.1. Sustainability Challenge 1: Bridging the Gap between Increasing Demands for Water and Declining Water Supply and Quality

The most tangible solutions to address water scarcity are likely occur at a regional scale, ideally at the watershed scale [27,28,29,30]. This challenge corresponded to SES understanding [31] and identified the need to investigate how to best meet the demand for water in an equitable manner (Figure 3). The first step is the determining supply and demand of water resources at a given site. Water supply calculations require empirical hydrologic data, which can be difficult to obtain for the various stores of water in a basin [32]. Projecting future water supplies adds further complexity, given uncertainties in climate and land use changes and cross-scale interactions between both [33,34,35]. However, as long as reliable environmental data are available (ideally over long periods), then deriving water budgets for both the present and future is feasible. Calculating water demand is more nuanced because water use changes over time, and this occurs in response to interrelated, dynamic external factors including (but not limited to) climate, land management, personal tastes, and economic factors. Determining the social demand of water resources (beyond water consumption) requires in-depth survey questionnaires from a relatively large sample of diverse stakeholders to document water needs for recreation, aesthetics, tourism, and other cultural uses of water [28]. For environmental justice, data on income, health impacts, water allocation, access, human well-being, and ecosystem health is needed. In addition, assessments of how varying governance arrangements either cause or solve environmental justice problems related to water access are needed to develop a better understanding of equitable place-based solutions.
Given the diverse social and environmental conditions that characterize the different WaterSES sites, investigating the supply vs demand of water resources and questioning environmental justice pose distinct challenges. However, such context-dependency does not necessarily preclude the transferability of approaches and lessons. Table 3 indicates the WaterSES sites where water supply is not meeting demand, causing economic hardships, degraded ecosystem health, and/or environmental injustices. For instance, the Kiamichi River in Oklahoma used long term data on river flow, water quality, and land use to assess water needs to maintain ecosystem health [36], followed by survey-based quantification of social perceptions and willingness to pay for preserving water-related ecosystem services among stakeholder groups [37]. The latter identified some of the roots behind conflicts among stakeholders (e.g., urban vs. rural, Tribal vs. non-native) as well as issues of environmental justice [38,39]. In WaterSES sites such as Texas, Alabama and Idaho, findings related to water scarcity conditions suggest important questions need to be asked regarding stakeholder groups involved in water disputes and socio-economic consequences (Table 3).
Table 3. Water scarcity matrix for WaterSES research sites that plot where water supply (rows) is not meeting water demand (columns), causing economic hardship, degraded ecosystem health, and/or environmental injustices.

3.2. Sustainability Challenge 2: Using Social-Ecological Knowledge for Water Scarcity Management

While scientists create a substantial amount of knowledge about the social-ecological dynamics of water scarcity, policy-making is rarely guided by this knowledge [40]. Rather, policy decisions are frequently designed to achieve short-term economic or political goals. Additionally, mismatches between the spatial and institutional scale at which ecosystem services are provided and governed frequently lead to loss of SES function or other unintended consequences [41,42,43].
This challenge corresponds to the phase of sustainability implementation [31] and emphasizes the need to create new structures so that scientific knowledge can influence political decisions that support societal goals, as well as a need to understand why sustainability science is not included in decision-making, and how science can be performed and communicated to ensure its incorporation into policy decision-making (Figure 3). We identified the need to include diverse knowledge sources in research design and policy making, including traditional, experiential, local and indigenous scientific knowledge, as postulated by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [10], to facilitate co-learning among stakeholder groups and scientists, and to enable more sustainable governance solutions that incorporate multiple stakeholder needs, values and interests.
For example, the WaterSES team is conducting research to incentivize the co-design, co-learning, and co-dissemination of SES knowledge in Las Vegas Agrarian District (Madrid, Spain). Historically, this region was commonly referred to as the “orchard” of Madrid due to its agriculture and freshwater availability (Table 1). To support the development of sustainable solutions that deal with emerging water scarcity issues, a participatory strategy is being implemented for agroecosystems beyond market instruments [44,45]. WaterSES is also addressing different institutional settings that govern water resources using cases in Idaho and Texas [46]. These case studies highlight concerns about jurisdictional and political constraints in water management, such as historic water rights [47], and how scientific knowledge has not been fully transmitted to practitioners and policy makers [48]. For example, novel research methods, such as participatory system dynamics, have been used to engage stakeholders and create a nexus of science, policy points, and social concerns as well as local knowledge to describe the issue of water scarcity with an emphasis on groundwater [48].

3.3. Sustainability Challenge 3: Towards Transdisciplinary Social-Ecological Research

As emphasized by the international programme, “Future Earth: Research for Global Sustainability” [49], there is a need for new science to respond to the urgent challenges of global sustainability [50] (Figure 3). This challenge represents the stage of bridging understanding with implementation (challenge 1 and 2) in order to emphasize the need of dialogues between society and scientists [51,52,53]. Achieving this requires scientists to partner with policy makers and social actors to co-produce knowledge that is useful and credible [50,54]. Coupled with this is the need to develop and encourage new professions that bridge science and policy, such as facilitators and innovation brokers [55,56,57]. This new, co-produced science needs to be able to be implemented to rapidly respond to environmental crises, such as droughts and floods [58,59]. Finally, more effective tools and strategies for translating and communicating sustainability science are required, including the use of graphics, personal stories, social media, and videos [16]. Addressing this suite of needs would be immediately useful in achieving place-based governance solutions [47].
For instance, in the South African and Chinese WaterSES sites, scientific agendas are emerging that are strongly guided by water societal demands [60,61]. Similarly, in the Spanish semi-arid watersheds (Almeria, Spain) there is a strong body of recent work on the social-ecological issues surrounding water scarcity and the loss of ecosystem services [62,63,64], much of which has potential applicability to WaterSES sites in the USA, including insights as to the consequences of a future, drier climate. However, in this Spanish site, few scientific recommendations have been implemented because of poor communication and the lack of research co-design between policy makers, scientists, and stakeholders [65,66]. In contrast, at the Portneuf Valley site (SE Idaho, USA), purposeful co-production efforts have led to improved integration of science in policy-making (e.g., with respect to public planning of river restoration) [67,68].
Expert knowledge, as used in this research, provides insight into challenges faced in water-scare social-ecological systems, but it has its limitations [69,70,71]. Detailed analysis is needed to provide evidence and to make explicit the severity of water scarcity issues as presented by experts and to find possible solutions using social-ecological models [72]. For example, [71] used a hydrological social-ecological model to prioritize areas where investment in ecological infrastructure through restoration action could improve water supply in South African catchments. Such an approach could compliment current policy instruments related to water restrictions being implemented in South Africa. The benefit of balancing water supply and demand including the use of policy instrument directed towards reducing demand has been emphasized by several scientists around the globe [73,74].

4. Conclusions

The PECS approach holds promise for synthesizing insights gained from place-based research sites to inform the global sustainability agenda. WaterSES has begun to realize some of this promise, as our team explores the interplay between physical and social dynamics that cause water scarcity issues and facilitates the identification of effective and equitable governance solutions. Thus far, lessons learned across WaterSES research sites suggest that solutions for particular regions could be facilitated by strategies that foster communication and sharing of experiences and lessons from regions around the world. Finally, experiences and results from WaterSES should be combined with those from the growing list of other PECS projects and working groups to provide feedback to the PECS community and allow adaptive evaluation of the PECS approach itself. In other words, our opinions presented in this paper and through the WaterSES workshop aim to provide a timely commentary on the PECS approach, which we believe has been a more popular way to address challenges of water scarcity across the globe.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1516/s1.

Author Contributions

A.J.C., C.Q.-S., B.M.-L. and M.G.-L. designed and coordinated the workshop; A.J.C., C.Q.-S., J.B., C.L.A., C.V.B., M.B., B.N.E., M.G.-L., J.P.J., J.B., B.M.L., F.H.L., K.R., C.C.V. and A.V.N. wrote the work reported.

Acknowledgments

The research reported in this paper contributes to the Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (www.pecs-science.org) and is funded by the NSF Idaho EPSCoR Program and by the National Science Foundation under award number IIA-1301792. MGL is funded by a postdoctoral grant from the Spanish National Institute for Agriculture and Food Research and Technology (INIA), co-funded by the Social European Fund.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Brauman, K.A.; Richter, B.D.; Postel, S.; Malsy, M.; Flörke, M. Water depletion: An improved metric for incorporating seasonal and dry-year water scarcity into water risk assessments. Elem. Sci. Anthr. 2016, 4, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Sci. Adv. 2016, 2, e1500323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Vorosmarty, C.J.; McIntyre, P.B.; Gessner, M.O.; Dudgeon, D.; Prusevich, A.; Green, P.; Glidden, S.; Bunn, S.E.; Sullivan, C.A.; Liermann, C.R.; et al. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 2010, 467, 555–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Jackson, R.B.; Carpenter, S.R.; Dahm, C.N.; McKnight, D.M.; Naiman, R.J.; Postel, S.L.; Running, S.W. Water in a changing world. Ecol. Appl. 2001, 11, 1027–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Julian, J.P.; de Beurs, K.M.; Owsley, B.; Davies-Colley, R.J.; Ausseil, A.G.E. River water quality changes in New Zealand over 26 years: Response to land use intensity. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2017, 21, 1149–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sabo, J.L.; Sinha, T.; Bowling, L.C.; Schoups, G.H.W.; Wallender, W.W.; Campana, M.E.; Cherkauerg, K.A.; Fullerh, P.L.; Grafi, W.L.; Hopmansd, J.W.; et al. Reclaiming freshwater sustainability in the Cadillac Desert. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 21263–21270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Holger, H. Global water resources and their management. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2009, 1, 141–147. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dellapenna, J.W.; Gupta, W.L.; Schmidt, F. Thinking about the future of global water governance. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mooney, H. Editorial overview: Sustainability science: Social–environmental systems (SES) research: How the field has developed and what we have learned for future efforts. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2016, 19, 5–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pascual, U.; Balvanera, P.; Díaz, S.; Pataki, G.; Roth, E.; Stenseke, M.; Watson, R.T.; Dessane, E.B.; Islar, M.; Kelemen, E. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 26, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Brondizio, E.S.; Le Tourneau, F.M. Environmental governance for all. Science 2016, 352, 1272–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Carpenter, S.R.; Folke, C.; Norström, A.; Olsson, O.; Schultz, L.; Agarwal, B.; Balvanera, P.; Campbell, B.; Castilla, J.C.; Cramer, W. Program on ecosystem change and society: An international research strategy for integrated social–ecological systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 134–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liu, Y.H.; Gupta, E.; Springer, T. Wagener Linking science with environmental decision making: Experiences from an integrated modeling approach to supporting sustainable water resources management. Environ. Model. Softw. 2008, 23, 846–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Binder, C.R.; Hinkel, J.; Bots, P.W.; Pahl-Wostl, C. Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ostrom, E. A General framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009, 325, 419–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Norström, A.; Balvanera, P.; Spierenburg, M.; Bouamrane, M. Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society: Knowledge for sustainable stewardship of social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  17. Balvanera, P.; Daw, T.M.; Gardner, T.A.; Martín-López, B.; Norström, A.V.; Ifejika, C.; Spierenburg, M.; Bennett, E.M.; Farfan, M.; Hamann, M. Key features for more successful place-based sustainability research on social-ecological systems: A Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) perspective. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Oteros-Rozas, E.; Martín-López, B.; Daw, T.M.; Bohensky, E.L.; Butler, J.; Hill, R.; Martin-Ortega, J.; Quinlan, A.; Ravera, F.; Ruiz-Mallén, I.; et al. Participatory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological research: Insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Maass, M.; Balvanera, P.; Bourgeron, P.; Equihua, M.; Baudry, J.; Dick, J.; Forsius, M.; Halada, L.; Krauze, K.; Nakaoka, M. Changes in biodiversity and trade-offs among ecosystem services, stakeholders, and components of well-being: The contribution of the International Long-Term Ecological Research network (ILTER) to Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS). Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jonas, A.E.G. Region and place: Regionalism in question. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2012, 36, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Paasi, A. Region and place: Regional identity in question. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2003, 27, 475–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wilbanks, T.J.; Kates, R.W. Global change in local places. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 1999, 43, 601–628. [Google Scholar]
  23. Bennett, E.M.; Solan, M.; Biggs, R.; McPhearson, T.; Norström, A.V.; Olsson, P.; Pereira, L.; Peterson, G.D.; Raudsepp-Hearne, C.; Biermann, F. Bright spots: Seeds of a good Anthropocene. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2016, 14, 441–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Biggs, R.; Schlüter, M.; Biggs, D.; Bohensky, E.L.; BurnSilver, S.; Cundill, G.; Dakos, V.; Daw, T.M.; Evans, L.S.; Kotschy, K.; et al. Towards principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Res. 2012, 37, 421–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mauser, W.; Klepper, G.; Rice, M.; Schmalzbauer, B.S.; Hackmann, H.; Leemans, R.; Moore, H. Transdisciplinary Global Change Research: The Co-Creation of Knowledge for Sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5, 420–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Seddon, A.W.R.; Mackay, A.W.; Baker, A.G.; Birks, H.J.B.; Breman, E.; Buck, C.E.; Ellis, E.C.; Froyd, C.A.; Gill, J.L.; Gillson, L.; et al. Looking forward through the past: Identification of 50 priority research questions in palaeoecology. J. Ecol. 2014, 102, 256–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gleick, P.H. Global freshwater resources: Soft-path solutions for the 21st century. Science 2003, 302, 1524–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Castro, A.J.; Vaughn, C.C.; Julian, J.P.; García-Llorente, M. Social Demand for Ecosystem Services and Implications for Watershed Management. J. Am. Water Res. Assoc. 2016, 52, 209–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Brauman, K.A.; Daily, G.C.; Duarte, T.K.; Mooney, H.A. The nature and value of ecosystem services: An overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Res. 2007, 32, 67–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bogardi, J.J.; Dudgeon, D.; Lawford, R.; Flinkerbusch, E.; Meyn, A.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Vielhauer, K.; Vorosmarty, C. Water security for a planet under pressure: Interconnected challenges of a changing world call for sustainable solutions. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jerneck, A.; Olsson, L.; Ness, B.; Anderberg, S.; Baier, M.; Clark, E.; Hickler, T.; Hornborg, A.; Kronsell, A.; Lövbrand, E. Structuring sustainability science. Sustain. Sci. 2011, 6, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hornberger, G.M.; Wiberg, P.L.; Raffensperger, J.P.; D’Odorico, P. (Eds.) Elements of Physical Hydrology; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  33. Soranno, P.A.; Cheruvelil, K.S.; Bissell, E.G.; Bremigan, M.T.; Downing, J.A.; Fergus, C.E.; Filstrup, C.T.; Henry, E.N.; Lottig, N.R.; Stanley, E.H.; et al. Cross-scale interactions: Quantifying multi-scaled cause–effect relationships in macrosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2015, 12, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Vorosmarty, C.J.; Green, P.; Salisbury, J.; Lammers, R.B. Global water resources: Vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 2000, 289, 284–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Distefano, T.; Scott, K. Are we in deep water? Water scarcity and its limits to economic growth. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 142, 130–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Vaughn, C.C. Ecosystem services provided by freshwater mussels. Hydrobiologia 2018, 810, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Castro, A.J.; Martín-López, B.; García-Llorente, M.; Aguilera, P.A.; López, E.; Cabello, J. Social preferences regarding the delivery of ecosystem services in a semiarid Mediterranean region. J. Arid Environ. 2011, 75, 1201–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Castro, A.J.; García-Llorente, M.; Vaughn, C.; Julian, J.P.; Atkinson, C.L. Willingness to pay for ecosystem services among stakeholder groups in a South-Central US watershed with regional conflict. J. Water Res. Manag. Plan. 2016, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. García-Llorente, M.; Castro, A.J.; Quintas-Soriano, C.; Castro, H.; Montes, C.; Martín-López, B. The value of time in biological conservation and supplied ecosystem services: A willingness to give up time exercise. J. Arid Environ. 2016, 124, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dedeurwaerdere, T. (Ed.) Sustainability Science for Strong Sustainability; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  41. Xu, W.; Lowe, S.E.; Adams, R.M. Climate change, water rights, and water supply: The case of irrigated agriculture in Idaho. Water Resour. Res. 2014, 50, 9675–9695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dedeurwaerdere, T. From bioprospecting to reflexive governance. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 53, 473–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cumming, G.S.; Cumming, D.H.M.; Redman, C.L. Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: Causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. García-Llorente, M.; Rossignoli, C.M.; Di Iacovo, F.; Moruzzo, R. Social Farming in the Promotion of Social-Ecological Sustainability in Rural and Periurban Areas. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Antunes, P.; Santos, R.; Videira, N. Participatory decision making for sustainable development—The use of mediated modelling techniques. Land Use Policy 2006, 23, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Han, B.; Benner, S.G.; Bolte, J.P.; Vache, K.B.; Flores, A.N. Coupling biophysical processes and water rights to simulate spatially distributed water use in an intensively managed hydrologic system. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2017, 21, 3671–3685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ghosh, S.K.; Cobourn, M.; Elbakidze, L. Water banking, conjunctive administration, and drought: The interaction of water markets and prior appropriation in southeastern Idaho. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 50, 6927–6949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Beall, A.; Fiedler, F.; Boll, J.; Cosens, B. Sustainable Water Resource Management and Participatory System Dynamics. Case Study: Developing the Palouse Basin Participatory Model. Sustainability 2011, 3, 720–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Muñoz-Erickson, T.A.; Cutts, B.B. Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2016, 18, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Van der Hel, S. New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in Future Earth. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 61, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Funtowicz, S.O.; Jerome, R.R. Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1994, 13, 1881–1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kemp, R.; Loorbach, D.; Rotmans, J. Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2007, 14, 78–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mayumi, K.; Giampietro, M. The epistemological challenge of self-modifying systems: Governance and sustainability in the post-normal science era. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57, 382–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Clark, W.C.L.; van Kerkhoff, L.; Lebel, L.; Gallopin, C.G. Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 4570–4578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Brandt, P.; Ernst, A.; Gralla, F.; Luederitz, C.; Lang, D.J.; Newig, J.; Reinert, F.; Abson, D.J.; von Wehrden, H. A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 92, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hood, O.; Coutts, J.; Hamilton, G. Analysis of the role of an innovation broker appointed by a cotton industry environmental innovation partnership in Queensland, Australia. Outlook Agric. 2014, 43, 201–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Thompson, M.A.; Owen, S.; Lindsay, J.M.; Leonard, G.S.; Cronin, S.J. Scientist and stakeholder perspectives of transdisciplinary research: Early attitudes, expectations, and tensions. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 74, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Reyers, B.; Nel, J.L.; O’Farrell, P.J.; Sitas, N.; Nel, D.C. Navigating complexity through knowledge coproduction: Mainstreaming ecosystem services into disaster risk reduction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 7362–7368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Sitas, N.; Reyer, S.B.; Cundill, G.; Prozesky, H.E.; Nel, J.L.; Esler, K.J. Fostering collaboration for knowledge and action in disaster management in South Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2016, 19, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Burnham, M.; Ma, Z. Climate change adaptation: Factors influencing Chinese smallholder farmers’ perceived self-efficacy and adaptation intent. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2016, 17, 171–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Willemen, L.; Crossman, N.D.; Quatrini, S.; Egoh, B.; Kalaba, F.K.; Mbilinyi, B.; de Groot, R. Identifying ecosystem service hotspots for targeting land degradation neutrality investments in south-eastern Africa. J. Arid Environ. 2017, X, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. García-Llorente, M.; Iniesta-Arandia, I.; Willaarts, B.A.; Harrison, P.A.; Berry, P.; Bayo, M.; Castro, A.J.; Montes, C.; Martín-López, B. Biophysical and socio-cultural factor underlying spatial tradeoffs of ecosystem services in semiarid watersheds: A sustainability analysis of social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Castro, A.J.; Martín-López, B.; Plieninger, T.; López, E.; Alcaraz-Segura, D.; Vaughn, C.C.; Cabello, J. Do protected areas networks ensure the supply of ecosystem services? Spatial patterns of two nature reserve systems in semi-arid Spain. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 60, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Quintas-Soriano, C.; Castro, A.J.; García-Llorente, M.; Cabello, J.; Castro, H. From supply to social demand: A landscape-scale analysis of the water regulation service. Landsc. Ecol. 2015, 29, 1069–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lopez-Rodriguez, M.D.; Castro, A.J.; Cabello, J.; Jorreto, S.; Castro, H. Science-policy interface approach for dealing with water environmental problems. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 50, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Quintas-Soriano, C.; Castro, A.J.; Castro, H.; García-Llorente, M. Land use impacts on ecosystem services and implications on human well-being in arid Spain. Land Use Policy 2016, 54, 534–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. McBeth, M.K.; Lybecker, D.L.; Stoutenborough, J.W.; Davis, S.N.; Running, K. Content matters: Stakeholder assessment of river stories or river science. Public Policy Adm. 2016, 32, 175–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lybecker, D.L.; McBeth, M.K.; Stoutenborough, J.W. Do we understand what the public hears? Stakeholders’ preferred communication choices for discussing river issues with the public. Rev. Policy Res. 2016, 4, 376–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Egoh, B.; Reyers, B.; Rouget, M.; Richardson, D.M.; Le Maitre, D.C.; van Jaarsveld, A.S. Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 127, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Karabulut, A.; Egoh, B.N.; Lanzanova, D.; Grizzetti, B.; Bidoglio, G.; Pagliero, L.; Bouraoui, F.; Aloe, A.; Reynaud, A.; Maes, J.; et al. Mapping water provisioning services to support the ecosystem–water–food–energy nexus in the Danube river basin. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 17, 278–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rijsberman, F.R. Water scarcity: Fact or fiction? Agric. Water Manag. 2006, 80, 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Quintas-Soriano, C.; Garcia-Llorente, M.; Castro, A.J. What ecosystem services science has achieved in Spanish drylands: Evidences of need for transdisciplinary science. J. Arid Environ. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Balvanera, P.; Calderon-Contreras, R.; Castro, A.J.; Felipe-Lucia, M.; Geijzendorffer, I.R.; Jacobs, S.; Martín-López, B.; Arbieu, U.; Speranza, C.I.; Locatelli, B.; et al. Interconnected place-based social-ecological research is needed to inform global sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 29, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Turkelboom, F.; Michael, L.; Sander, J.; Eszter, K.; García-Llorente, M.; Baró, F.; Mette, M.; Barton, D.N.; Berry, P.; Erik, S.; et al. When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 566–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Estimation and Forecasts for the Share of Renewable Energy Consumption in Final Energy Consumption by 2020 in the European Union
Previous
Institutional Pressures, Green Supply Chain Management Practices on Environmental and Economic Performance: A Two Theory View
Next