Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Item Type
      Item Type
      Clear All
      Item Type
  • Subject
      Subject
      Clear All
      Subject
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
180 result(s) for "Cumming, Graeme S"
Sort by:
Spatial resilience: integrating landscape ecology, resilience, and sustainability
Landscape ecology has a high potential to contribute to sustainability in the interactions of people and nature. Landscape ecologists have already made considerable progress towards a more general understanding of the relevance of spatial variation for ecosystems. Incorporating the complexities of societies and economies into landscape ecology analyses will, however, require a broader framework for thinking about spatial elements of complexity. An exciting recent development is to explicitly try to integrate landscape ecology and ideas about resilience in social–ecological systems through the concept of spatial resilience. Spatial resilience focuses on the importance of location, connectivity, and context for resilience, based on the idea that spatial variation in patterns and processes at different scales both impacts and is impacted by local system resilience. I first introduce and define the concepts of resilience and spatial resilience and then discuss some of their potential contributions to the further interdisciplinary integration of landscape ecology, complexity theory, and sustainability science. Complexity theorists have argued that many complex phenomena, such as symmetry-breaking and selection, share common underlying mechanisms regardless of system type (physical, social, ecological, or economic). Similarities in the consequences of social exclusion and habitat fragmentation provide an informative example. There are many strong parallels between pattern–process interactions in social and ecological systems, respectively, and a number of general spatial principles and mechanisms are emerging that have relevance across many different kinds of system. Landscape ecologists, with their background in spatially explicit pattern–process analysis, are well placed to contribute to this emerging research agenda.
Implications of agricultural transitions and urbanization for ecosystem services
Historically, farmers and hunter-gatherers relied directly on ecosystem services, which they both exploited and enjoyed. Urban populations still rely on ecosystems, but prioritize non-ecosystem services (socioeconomic). Population growth and densification increase the scale and change the nature of both ecosystem- and non-ecosystem-service supply and demand, weakening direct feedbacks between ecosystems and societies and potentially pushing social–ecological systems into traps that can lead to collapse. The interacting and mutually reinforcing processes of technological change, population growth and urbanization contribute to over-exploitation of ecosystems through complex feedbacks that have important implications for sustainable resource use.
Climate change, ecosystems and abrupt change: science priorities
Ecologists have long studied patterns, directions and tempos of change, but there is a pressing need to extend current understanding to empirical observations of abrupt changes as climate warming accelerates. Abrupt changes in ecological systems (ACES)—changes that are fast in time or fast relative to their drivers—are ubiquitous and increasing in frequency. Powerful theoretical frameworks exist, yet applications in real-world landscapes to detect, explain and anticipate ACES have lagged. We highlight five insights emerging from empirical studies of ACES across diverse ecosystems: (i) ecological systems show ACES in some dimensions but not others; (ii) climate extremes may be more important than mean climate in generating ACES; (iii) interactions among multiple drivers often produce ACES; (iv) contingencies, such as ecological memory, frequency and sequence of disturbances, and spatial context are important; and (v) tipping points are often (but not always) associated with ACES. We suggest research priorities to advance understanding of ACES in the face of climate change. Progress in understanding ACES requires strong integration of scientific approaches (theory, observations, experiments and process-based models) and high-quality empirical data drawn from a diverse array of ecosystems. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions’
Comparing Ecosystem Service Preferences between Urban and Rural Dwellers
Urbanization can profoundly alter socioecological relationships, but its influence on how people perceive and value ecosystem services (ES) is poorly understood. We reviewed an emerging literature in which sociocultural valuation of ES is compared among urban and rural dwellers. This research suggests that, although regulating and cultural ES were highly valued by both rural and urban dwellers, urban dwellers tended to value provisioning ES less than rural dwellers did. Differences in ES valuation could result from different experiences, uses, and needs for ES of urban and rural dwellers. We also identified two key gaps in the literature that relate to understanding how diverse ES contribute differently to the well-being of rural and urban populations (and the relevance of these differences for environmental education and policy) and the changing roles of ES in developing countries and vulnerable ecosystems, such as small islands, that face pressing environmental, social, and economic challenges.
Understanding protected area resilience: a multi-scale, social-ecological approach
Protected areas (PAs) remain central to the conservation of biodiversity. Classical PAs were conceived as areas that would be set aside to maintain a natural state with minimal human influence. However, global environmental change and growing cross-scale anthropogenic influences mean that PAs can no longer be thought of as ecological islands that function independently of the broader social-ecological system in which they are located. For PAs to be resilient (and to contribute to broader social-ecological resilience), they must be able to adapt to changing social and ecological conditions over time in a way that supports the long-term persistence of populations, communities, and ecosystems of conservation concern. We extend Ostrom's social-ecological systems framework to consider the long-term persistence of PAs, as a form of land use embedded in social-ecological systems, with important cross-scale feedbacks. Most notably, we highlight the cross-scale influences and feedbacks on PAs that exist from the local to the global scale, contextualizing PAs within multi-scale social-ecological functional landscapes. Such functional landscapes are integral to understand and manage individual PAs for long-term sustainability. We illustrate our conceptual contribution with three case studies that highlight cross-scale feedbacks and social-ecological interactions in the functioning of PAs and in relation to regional resilience. Our analysis suggests that while ecological, economic, and social processes are often directly relevant to PAs at finer scales, at broader scales, the dominant processes that shape and alter PA resilience are primarily social and economic.
Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social-ecological approach
Despite growing interest and investment in ecosystem services across global science and policy arenas, it remains unclear how ecosystem services - and particularly changes in those services - should be measured. The social and ecological factors, and their interactions, that create and alter ecosystem services are inherently complex. Measuring and managing ecosystem services requires a sophisticated systems-based approach that accounts for how these services are generated by interconnected social-ecological systems (SES), how different services interact with each other, and how changes in the total bundle of services influence human well-being (HWB). Furthermore, there is a need to understand how changes in HWB feedback and affect the generation of ecosystem services. Here, we outline an SES-based approach for measuring ecosystem services and explore its value for setting policy targets, developing indicators, and establishing monitoring and assessment programs.
Cultural Ecosystem Services in Protected Areas: Understanding Bundles, Trade‐Offs, and Synergies
The concept of ecosystem services (ES) provides a potentially useful tool for decision‐making in natural area management. Provisioning and regulating ES often occur in “bundles” that are cohesive because of coprovisioning or codependence. We asked whether individual preferences for cultural benefits also define service bundles. Data from a large survey of visitor preferences (n = 3,131 respondents) from all 19 South African National Parks indicated five bundles of cultural ecosystem services: (1) “natural history,” (2) “recreation,” (3) “sense of place,” (4) “safari experiences,” and (5) “outdoor lifestyle.” Trade‐offs and synergies between bundles of services depended on the ecosystem providing them and on alignment between demand for services and the supply of particular service bundles in specific ecosystems. Our results show that identifying demand for multiple services can both help us to understand why people visit and value protected areas, and better inform the management choices that influence service provision.
role of waterbirds in the dispersal of aquatic alien and invasive species
AIM: To review existing literature on the ability of waterbirds to spread aquatic alien and invasive species, and to assess the relevance of bird‐mediated dispersal for the conservation of freshwater ecosystems. LOCATION: Global. METHODS: Literature Review. RESULTS: A systematic review of the literature revealed that quantitative studies investigating dispersal of alien organisms by waterbirds are rare (n = 14). Most studies citing waterbird dispersal rely on anecdotes or inferences from morphological dispersal syndromes. However, evidence from each stage of dispersal (i.e. emigration, transport and immigration) shows that waterbirds can carry alien plants and invertebrates internally and externally; transport them between water bodies at a variety of spatial scales; and deposit viable propagules in sites suited to aquatic invasive species. MAIN CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests that waterbirds can and do act as important dispersal vectors for freshwater invasive species. Further experimental and field based research on the numbers and viability of moved alien propagules, and the roles of different species in the bird community, is needed. Furthermore, consideration of the spatially explicit manner in which birds move is imperative to understanding invasive spread. Populations of alien aquatic species in seemingly isolated wetlands can no longer be considered contained if they are able to be spread through waterbird‐mediated dispersal, and containment measures must recognize such opportunities for further spread. Changing waterbird movement patterns, driven by climate and land use change, further add to the challenge of managing invasive species and offers an interesting opportunity for future research. The study of waterbird‐mediated dispersal of aquatic alien invasive species provides insights not only into species invasions, but more generally into movement ecology, population ecology and biogeography.
A comparative approach to quantify the heterarchical structures of complex systems
The dynamics and adaptive capacity of social-ecological systems are heavily contingent on system structure, which is established through geography, institutions, interactions, and movement. Contrasting views of system structure, as hierarchies and single-level networks respectively, have tended to emphasize the role of either top-down or lateral (peer-to-peer) connections. The concept of a heterarchy aims to capture both top-down and lateral connections on orthogonal axes and has been proposed as a way of unifying alternative approaches to measuring structure, but it has not been fully operationalized for quantifying and comparing system structures. We developed a simple approach to consistently quantifying heterarchical structure across different kinds of networks. We first calculated suitable metrics, including modularity and a hierarchy score, for a wide range of both simulated and real-world systems including food webs, biological, infrastructure, and social networks. Metrics were corrected for differences in size and magnitude. The results were then visualized as a heterarchy matrix. We compared the angle (degrees) and Euclidian distance of each simulated and real-world network from the center of the matrix between network groups. All networks showed distinct placement on the heterarchy matrix. Relative to one another, food webs were laterally polycentric, social networks were mainly pyramidal and coordinated polycentric, and biological networks were pyramidal and laterally polycentric. Our test of concept, although relatively basic, provides strong evidence that system structure cannot be fully understood as purely laterally connected or purely hierarchical. System resilience requires a trade-off between modularity, aiding redundancy and collaboration; and hierarchy, aiding efficient action. Our approach has the potential to provide a robust, accessible methodology to quantify system structure that allows for universal contextualization, a key step within fields such as resilience and sustainability science.
Operationalizing and measuring climate change adaptation success
In a context of rapid global change, understanding whether and how adaptation to climate change can be considered successful has become an important research gap within the climate change adaptation literature. Although definitions of adaptation success have been formulated, it remains unclear how they can be operationalized and tested empirically. To address this gap, we operationalized one of the most prominent definitions of successful adaptation within the academic literature, which describes success as adaptations that support reductions in risk and vulnerability without compromising sustainability. Specifically, drawing on data collected from 209 coral reef tourism operators across 28 locations and eight countries in the Asia-Pacific, we explored how the risk, vulnerability, and sustainability outcomes that operators experienced one year after experiencing a severe climate disturbance (either coral bleaching or a cyclone) related to the types of adaptation they adopted in response to the disturbance. We used chi-squared tests and multivariate regression to explore the relationships between adaptive responses, adaptation outcomes, and contextual conditions. Compared to a control group with non-affected operators, operators affected by a climate disturbance were significantly more likely to have experienced an increase in perceived climate risk and reduced economic and environmental sustainability. However, our findings indicate that at least some adaptation responses were effective in promoting desirable outcomes, such as reductions in risk and vulnerability. Spatial diversification of reef site use supported economic outcomes despite environmental impacts, while reef restoration measures reduced perceived climate risks for some operators. Moreover, seeking support from others reduced vulnerability to coral bleaching, while also having positive economic outcomes. Our findings suggest scientific needs for further research on the causal relationships between adaptation measures and their outcomes, experimentation with different statistical methods, and empirical tests of the generalizability of our findings in different contexts over space and time.