Landscape management strategies for multifunctionality and social equity
The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Summary for Policy-Makers (IPBES, 2019)
DeFries, R. & Nagendra, H. Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Science 356, 265–270 (2017).
Turkelboom, F. et al. When we cannot have it all: ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 566–578 (2018).
Lee, H. & Lautenbach, S. A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 66, 340–351 (2016).
Bennett, E. M., Peterson, G. D. & Gordon, L. J. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol. Lett. 12, 1394–1404 (2009).
Goldstein, J. H. et al. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 7565–7570 (2012).
Vallet, A., Locatelli, B. & Pramova, E. Ecosystem Services and Social Equity: Who Controls, Who Benefits and Who Loses? (CIFOR, 2020); https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/007849
Neyret, M. et al. Assessing the impact of grassland management on landscape multifunctionality. Ecosyst. Serv. 52, 101366 (2021).
Linders, T. E. W. et al. Stakeholder priorities determine the impact of an alien tree invasion on ecosystem multifunctionality. People Nat. 3, 658–672 (2021).
Herzig, A., Ausseil, A.-G. & Dymond, J. in Ecosystem Services in New Zealand—Conditions and Trends (ed. Dymond, J. R.) 511–523 (Manaaki Whenua Press, 2014).
Chan, K. M. A., Shaw, M. R., Cameron, D. R., Underwood, E. C. & Daily, G. C. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol. 4, e379 (2006).
Pennington, D. N. et al. Cost-effective land use planning: optimizing land use and land management patterns to maximize social benefits. Ecol. Econ. 139, 75–90 (2017).
Hölting, L. et al. Including stakeholders’ perspectives on ecosystem services in multifunctionality assessments. Ecosyst. People 16, 354–368 (2020).
Plieninger, T. et al. Exploring futures of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes through participatory scenario development in the Swabian Alb, Germany. Ecol. Soc. 18, 39 (2013).
Tasser, E., Schirpke, U., Zoderer, B. M. & Tappeiner, U. Towards an integrative assessment of land-use type values from the perspective of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 42, 101082 (2020).
Sayer, J. et al. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 8349–8356 (2013).
Vallet, A. et al. Linking equity, power, and stakeholders: roles in relation to ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 24, 14 (2019).
Allan, E. et al. Land use intensification alters ecosystem multifunctionality via loss of biodiversity and changes to functional composition. Ecol. Lett. 18, 834–843 (2015).
Hector, A. & Bagchi, R. Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature 448, 188–190 (2007).
Manning, P. et al. Redefining ecosystem multifunctionality. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 427–436 (2018).
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D. & Bennett, E. M. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 5242–5247 (2010).
Daniel, T. C. et al. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 8812–8819 (2012).
Gunton, R. M. et al. Beyond ecosystem services: valuing the invaluable. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 249–257 (2017).
Peter, S., Le Provost, G., Mehring, M., Müller, T. & Manning, P. Cultural worldviews consistently explain bundles of ecosystem service prioritisation across rural Germany. People Nat. 4, 218–230 (2022).
Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. in Ecosystem Ecology (eds Raffaelli, D. G. & Frid, C. L. J.) 110–139 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010).
Fischer, M. et al. Implementing large-scale and long-term functional biodiversity research: the Biodiversity Exploratories. Basic Appl. Ecol. 11, 473–485 (2010).
Wilson, E. O. Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life (Norton, 2017).
Bastin, J.-F. et al. The global tree restoration potential. Science 365, 76–79 (2019).
Clapp, J. & Moseley, W. G. This food crisis is different: COVID-19 and the fragility of the neoliberal food security order. J. Peasant Stud. 47, 1393–1417 (2020).
Kirwan, J. & Maye, D. Food security framings within the UK and the integration of local food systems. J. Rural Stud. 29, 91–100 (2013).
Ellis, E. C. To conserve nature in the Anthropocene, half Earth is not nearly enough. One Earth 1, 163–167 (2019).
Boetzl, F. A. et al. A multitaxa assessment of the effectiveness of agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity management. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2016038118 (2021).
Tyllianakis, E. & Martin-Ortega, J. Agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity and environmental protection: how we are not yet ‘hitting the right keys’. Land Use Policy 109, 105620 (2021).
Arroyo-Rodríguez, V. et al. Designing optimal human-modified landscapes for forest biodiversity conservation. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1404–1420 (2020).
Gilroy, J. J. et al. Cheap carbon and biodiversity co-benefits from forest regeneration in a hotspot of endemism. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 503–507 (2014).
Lindenmayer, D. B. et al. Avoiding bio-perversity from carbon sequestration solutions: avoiding bio-perversity in carbon markets. Conserv. Lett. 5, 28–36 (2012).
Stoll-Kleemann, S. & O’Riordan, T. in The Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene Vol. 3 (eds DellaSala, D. A. & Goldstein, M. I.) 347–353 (Elsevier, 2018).
Schaich, H., Bieling, C. & Plieninger, T. Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research. GAIA 19, 269–277 (2010).
O’Connor, L. M. J. et al. Balancing conservation priorities for nature and for people in Europe. Science 372, 856–860 (2021).
Büscher, B. et al. Half-Earth or Whole Earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implications. Oryx 51, 407–410 (2017).
van der Plas, F. et al. Towards the development of general rules describing landscape heterogeneity–multifunctionality relationships. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 168–179 (2019).
Almeida, I., Rösch, C. & Saha, S. Converting monospecific into mixed forests: stakeholders’ views on ecosystem services in the Black Forest Region. Ecol. Soc. 26, 28 (2021).
Meyer, M. A. & Früh-Müller, A. Patterns and drivers of recent agricultural land-use change in southern Germany. Land Use Policy 99, 104959 (2020).
Kastner, T. et al. Global agricultural trade and land system sustainability: implications for ecosystem carbon storage, biodiversity, and human nutrition. One Earth 4, 1425–1443 (2021).
Rasmussen, L. V. et al. Social–ecological outcomes of agricultural intensification. Nat. Sustain. 1, 275–282 (2018).
Lindborg, R. et al. How spatial scale shapes the generation and management of multiple ecosystem services. Ecosphere 8, e01741 (2017).
Duarte, G. T., Santos, P. M., Cornelissen, T. G., Ribeiro, M. C. & Paglia, A. P. The effects of landscape patterns on ecosystem services: meta-analyses of landscape services. Landsc. Ecol. 33, 1247–1257 (2018).
Le Provost, G. et al. The supply of multiple ecosystem services requires biodiversity across spatial scales. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01918-5 (2022).
Martin, D. A. et al. Land-use trajectories for sustainable land system transformations: identifying leverage points in a global biodiversity hotspot. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2107747119 (2022).
Seabloom, E. W., Borer, E. T. & Tilman, D. Grassland ecosystem recovery after soil disturbance depends on nutrient supply rate. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1756–1765 (2020).
Messinger, J. & Winterbottom, B. African forest landscape restoration initiative (AFR100): restoring 100 million hectares of degraded and deforested land in Africa. Nat. Faune 30, 14–17 (2016).
Whittingham, M. J. The future of agri-environment schemes: biodiversity gains and ecosystem service delivery? J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 509–513 (2011).
Le Clec’h, S. et al. Assessment of spatial variability of multiple ecosystem services in grasslands of different intensities. J. Environ. Manage. 251, 109372 (2019).
Forschungsethische Grundsätze und Prüfverfahren in den Sozial‐ und Wirtschaftswissenschaften Output 9, Berufungsperiode 5 (German Data Forum, 2017).
Strukturdaten Reutlingen—Statistisches Bundesamt (Bundeswahlleiter, 2020); https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/europawahlen/2019/strukturdaten/bund-99/land-8/kreis-8415.html
Strukturdaten Uckermark—Statistisches Bundesamt (Bundeswahlleiter, 2020); https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/europawahlen/2019/strukturdaten/bund-99/land-12/kreis-12073.html
Strukturdaten Unstrut-Hainich-Kreis—Statistisches Bundesamt (Bundeswahlleiter, 2020); https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/europawahlen/2019/strukturdaten/bund-99/land-16/kreis-16064.html
Blüthgen, N. et al. A quantitative index of land-use intensity in grasslands: integrating mowing, grazing and fertilization. Basic Appl. Ecol. 13, 207–220 (2012).
Ostrowski, A., Lorenzen, K., Petzold, E. & Schindler, S. Land use intensity index (LUI) calculation tool of the Biodiversity Exploratories project for grassland survey data from three different regions in Germany since 2006, BEXIS 2 module. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3865579 (2020).
Schall, P. et al. The impact of even‐aged and uneven‐aged forest management on regional biodiversity of multiple taxa in European beech forests. J. Ecol. 55, 267–278 (2018).
Statistisches Jahrbuch über Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland Vol. 63 (Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft, 2019).
Simons, N. K. & Weisser, W. W. Agricultural intensification without biodiversity loss is possible in grassland landscapes. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0227-2 (2017).
Zinke, O. Heupreise steigen: Futter für die Bauern knapp und teuer. Agrarheute https://www.agrarheute.com/markt/futtermittel/heupreise-steigen-futter-fuer-bauern-knapp-teuer-571946 (2020).
Bois de Chez Nous (Lignum, 2021); https://www.lignum.ch/files/images/Downloads_francais/Shop/20010_Bois_de_chez_nous.pdf
German Timber Company—Internationaler Holzhandel (German Timber Company, 2021); https://www.germantimber.company/. Accessed 2021-11-24
Holzeinschlag nach Holzartengruppen, Holzsorten, ausgewählten Besitzarten (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2022); https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Landwirtschaft-Forstwirtschaft-Fischerei/Wald-Holz/Tabellen/holzeinschlag-deutschland.html
Jahresjagdstrecke Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2019–2020 (Deutsche Jagdverband, 2020); https://www.jagdverband.de/sites/default/files/2021-01/2021-01_Infografik_Jahresjagdstrecke_Bundesrepublik_Deutschland_2019_2020.jpg
Heinze, E. et al. Habitat use of large ungulates in northeastern Germany in relation to forest management. For. Ecol. Manage. 261, 288–296 (2011).
Conant, R. T., Cerri, C. E. P., Osborne, B. B. & Paustian, K. Grassland management impacts on soil carbon stocks: a new synthesis. Ecol. Appl. 27, 662–668 (2017).
Hermes, J., Albert, C. & von Haaren, C. Mapping and Assessing Local Recreation as a Cultural Ecosystem Service in Germany. UVP-Report https://doi.org/10.17442/uvp-report.034.08 (2020).
Hermes, J., Albert, C. & von Haaren, C. Assessing the aesthetic quality of landscapes in Germany. Ecosyst. Serv. 31, 296–307 (2018).
Ehrhart, S. & Schraml, U. Perception and evaluation of natural forest dynamics. Allg. Forst Jagdztg. 185, 166–183 (2014).
Villanueva-Rivera, L. J. & Pijanowski, B. C. soundecology: Soundscape ecology. R package version 1.3.3 (2018).
Meyer, S., Wesche, K., Krause, B. & Leuschner, C. Dramatic losses of specialist arable plants in central Germany since the 1950s/60s—a cross-regional analysis. Divers. Distrib. 19, 1175–1187 (2013).
Sasaki, K., Hotes, S., Kadoya, T., Yoshioka, A. & Wolters, V. Landscape associations of farmland bird diversity in Germany and Japan. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 21, e00891 (2020).
Peña, L., Casado-Arzuaga, I. & Onaindia, M. Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach. Ecosyst. Serv. 13, 108–118 (2015).
Schägner, J. P., Brander, L., Paracchini, M.-L., Hartje, V. & Maes, J. Mapping recreational ecosystem services and its values across Europe: a combination of GIS and meta-analysis. In European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 22nd Annual Conference (2016).
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing v.4.2.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2022).
Rust Programming Language https://www.rust-lang.org/ v 1.44
Le Provost, G. et al. Contrasting responses of above- and belowground diversity to multiple components of land-use intensity. Nat. Commun. 12, 3918 (2021).
Gini, C. On the measurement of concentration and variability of characters (English translation from Italian by Fulvio de Santis in 2005). Metron 63, 1–38 (1914).