Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this paper we use a scoping review to examine how the concept of resilience is framed and empirically applied with respect to agricultural development interventions in smallholder farming systems in Africa. We reviewed a total of 50 studies and found that most focused on two major strategies for building resilience. The first approach prioritized matching solutions, like Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA), to the biophysical attributes of problems, such as the stresses and shocks associated with climate change. The second approach focused on advancing social equity goals to improve resiliency, while also integrating climate-related adaptation measures. Among such measures were co-created innovations that sought to affect social change on issues related to human agency, power relations, and equity considerations in resource access and use. The different conceptions and responses to climate and non-climate related risks and vulnerability in the reviewed literature also revealed growing tensions. There are especially strong critiques concerning resilience building interventions that prioritize technical solutions adapted to the bio-physical aspects of climate change. We argue for more constructive dialogue around what each of the two approaches might offer to contribute to improving resilience on a range of adverse social-ecological changes in Africa’s smallholder farming systems. Specifically, we emphasize the importance of valuing the complementarity contributions that both technocratic-focused and social equity-centered approaches offer as none of the different approaches on their own is up to the task.

Marine invasion ecology and management have progressed significantly over the last 30 years although many knowledge gaps and challenges remain. The kelp Undaria pinnatifida, or “Wakame,” has a global non‐native range and is considered one of the world's “worst” invasive species. Since its first recorded introduction in 1971, numerous studies have been conducted on its ecology, invasive characteristics, and impacts, yet a general consensus on the best approach to its management has not yet been reached. Here, we synthesize current understanding of this highly invasive species and adopt Undaria as a case study to highlight challenges in wider marine invasion ecology and management. Invasive species such as Undaria are likely to continue to spread and become conspicuous, prominent components of coastal marine communities. While in many cases, marine invasive species have detectable deleterious impacts on recipient communities, in many others their influence is often limited and location specific. Although not yet conclusive, Undaria may cause some ecological impact, but it does not appear to drive ecosystem change in most invaded regions. Targeted management actions have also had minimal success. Further research is needed before well‐considered, evidence‐based management decisions can be made. However, if Undaria was to become officially unmanaged in parts of its non‐native range, the presence of a highly productive, habitat former with commercial value and a broad ecological niche, could have significant economic and even environmental benefit. How science and policy reacts to the continued invasion of Undaria may influence how similar marine invasive species are handled in the future. Marine invasion ecology and management have progressed significantly over the last 30 years; however, many knowledge gaps and challenges remain. The invasive kelp Undaria pinnatifida, or “Wakame,” has a global introduced range and is considered one of the world's worst invasive species. Undaria is useful case study to demonstrate that there are still limits in our capacity to understand the dynamics, impacts, and management potential of marine invaders.

A key challenge in addressing the global degradation of natural resources and the environment is to effectively transfer successful strategies across heterogeneous contexts. Archetype analysis is a particularly salient approach in this regard that helps researchers to understand and compare patterns of (un)sustainability in heterogeneous cases. Archetype analysis avoids traps of overgeneralization and ideography by identifying reappearing but nonuniversal patterns that hold for well-defined subsets of cases. It can be applied by researchers working in inter- or transdisciplinary settings to study sustainability issues from a broad range of theoretical and methodological standpoints. However, there is still an urgent need for quality standards to guide the design of theoretically rigorous and practically useful archetype analyses. To this end, we propose four quality criteria and corresponding research strategies to address them: (1) specify the domain of validity for each archetype, (2) ensure that archetypes can be combined to characterize single cases, (3) explicitly navigate levels of abstraction, and (4) obtain a fit between attribute configurations, theories, and empirical domains of validity. These criteria are based on a stocktaking of current methodological challenges in archetypes research, including: to demonstrate the validity of the analysis, delineate boundaries of archetypes, and select appropriate attributes to define them. We thus contribute to a better common understanding of the approach and to the improvement of the research design of future archetype analyses.

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to society's understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers—ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity—to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy-influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science—one that includes the natural and social sciences—will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences willfacilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice. A pesar del reconocimiento general del valor de las ciencias sociales y los crecientes llamados por un mejor compromiso con el elemento humano de la conservación, las ciencias sociales de la conservación siguen siendo malentendidas y poco utilizadas en la práctica. Las ciencias sociales de la conservación pueden proporcionar contribuciones únicas e importantes para el entendimiento de la sociedad de las relaciones entre los humanos y la naturaleza y para la mejora de las prácticas de la conservación y sus resultados. Existen cuatro barreras - ideológicas, institucionales, de conocimiento y de capacidad - para la integración significativa de las ciencias sociales dentro de la conservación. Proporcionamos una guia práctica sobre cómo sobreponerse a estas barreras paraJncorporar la perspectiva de las ciencias sociales a la ciencia, las prácticas y las políticas de conservación. En general, recomendamos promover el conocimiento sobre el alcance y las contribuciones de las ciencias sociales para la conservación, incluir a los científicos sociales desde el origen de los proyectos de investigación interdisciplinaria, incorporar la investigación de las ciencias sociales y las percepciones durante todas las fases de la planificación y la implementación de la conservación, construir la capacidad de las ciencias sociales en todas las escalas de las organizaciones y agencias de conservación y promover el compromiso con las ciencias sociales en y a través de organizaciones de conservación con influencia política. Los científicos sociales de la conservación, también, necesitan estar dispuestos a involucrarse con el conocimiento de las ciencias naturales y a comunicar percepciones y recomendaciones de manera clara. Le urgimos a la comunidad de la conservación que vaya más allá del compromiso superficial con las ciencias sociales de la conservación. Una ciencia de la conservación más incluyente y integradora - una que incluya a las ciencias sociales y naturales - permitirá una conservación más justa socialmente y más efectiva ecológicamente. Una mejor colaboración entre los científicos sociales, los científicos naturales, los practicantes y quienes elaboran las políticas facilitará una conservación más renovada y más sólida. Incorporar la perspectiva de las ciencias sociales de la conservación facilitará la absorción de la extensión completa de conocimiento y contribuciones de estos campos a la práctica y las políticas de la conservación.

Archetypes are increasingly used as a methodological approach to understand recurrent patterns in variables and processes that shape the sustainability of social-ecological systems. The rapid growth and diversification of archetype analyses has generated variations, inconsistencies, and confusion about the meanings, potential, and limitations of archetypes. Based on a systematic review, a survey, and a workshop series, we provide a consolidated perspective on the core features and diverse meanings of archetype analysis in sustainability research, the motivations behind it, and its policy relevance. We identify three core features of archetype analysis: recurrent patterns, multiple models, and intermediate abstraction. Two gradients help to apprehend the variety of meanings of archetype analysis that sustainability researchers have developed: (1) understanding archetypes as building blocks or as case typologies and (2) using archetypes for pattern recognition, diagnosis, or scenario development. We demonstrate how archetype analysis has been used to synthesize results from case studies, bridge the gap between global narratives and local realities, foster methodological interplay, and transfer knowledge about sustainability strategies across cases. We also critically examine the potential and limitations of archetype analysis in supporting evidence-based policy making through context-sensitive generalizations with case-level empirical validity. Finally, we identify future priorities, with a view to leveraging the full potential of archetype analysis for supporting sustainable development.

The Ostrom social-ecological system (SES) framework offers an interdisciplinary tool for studies of linked human-natural systems. However, its origin in the social sciences belies the effectiveness of its interdisciplinary ambitions and undermines its ability to cope with ecological complexity. To narrow the gap between inherently dynamic ecological systems and the SES framework, we need to explicitly recognize that SES outcomes are coproduced by social systems in which choices are made, as well as an ecological system with a diverse assortment of dynamic natural processes that mediate the effect of those choices. We illustrate the need for more explicit incorporation of ecological attributes into the SES framework by presenting a case study of a community-managed forest in Indiana, USA. A preliminary set of ecological attributes are also proposed for inclusion in the SES framework with the aim of spurring interest in further development of a truly interdisciplinary framework for the study of SESs.

Subtidal seabed sediments are one of the planet's biggest organic carbon stores, but have been poorly considered in nature‐based climate change mitigation. Protection of the seabed is predominantly through establishment of marine protected area (MPA) networks, but their emphasis on biodiversity may limit their carbon value. The United Kingdom has one of the most extensive networks of MPAs in the world, yet damaging human activities are excluded from only a small portion. We calculate that full protection of the MPA network would offer limited carbon benefit, due to below average organic carbon stocks and disturbance from mobile fishing gears when compared to the entire U.K. seabed. We find that inshore exclusion zones (where mobile gears are restricted from nearshore areas to benefit biodiversity and low‐impact fishers) could offer greater carbon benefits compared to MPAs. However, neither of these biodiversity‐focused protection strategies are as effective for seabed carbon as targeted protection.

[...]I am also actively working on IAS ecology and have experience working in environmental management. [...]I am swayed by reason, evidence, and pragmatism. [...]in some cases, I also feel that it would be appropriate to accept certain IAS as our own and not subject them to targeted management. Funding GE is funded by the National Environmental Research Council (NERC) Doctoral Training Partnership SPITFIRE (NE/L002531/1), administered through Southampton University. Conflict of Interest Statement The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

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.

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are widely used to conserve and manage coastal resources. Protected areas are governed by a variety of institutional arrangements, yet little is known concerning the relative performance of different governance approaches. This research draws upon a unique dataset that combines details on the reported International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) governance categories of 217 global MPAs and their ecological outcomes to compare the performance of alternative governance arrangements. We find that MPAs with shared governance arrangements, where management authority is shared among multiple government and non-government actors, are 98% more likely to have higher fish biomass than MPAs governed by state agencies (i.e., primarily government) alone (mean effect size and 95% C.I = 0.32 ± 0.31). We also find higher biomass in older MPAs, those in countries with higher gross domestic product (GDP), and those with a higher proportion of no-take area. With targets to protect 30% of our oceans driving new commitments to expand MPA coverage globally, our results suggest that multi-stakeholder participation and collaboration facilitated by shared and decentralized governance arrangements can play an important role in achieving conservation outcomes.