Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: A meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world

Ecosystem services can provide a wide range of benefits for human well-being, including provisioning, regulating and cultural services and benefitting both private and public interests in different sectors of society. Biophysical, economic and social factors all make it unlikely that multiple needs will be met simultaneously without deliberate efforts, yet while there is still much interest in developing win-win outcomes there is little understanding of what is required for them to be achieved. We analysed outcomes in a wide range of case studies where ecosystem services had been used for human well-being. Using systematic mapping of the literature from 2000 to 2013, we identified 1324 potentially relevant reports, 92 of which were selected for the review, creating a database of 231 actual or potential recorded trade-offs and synergies. The analysis of these case studies highlighted significant gaps in the literature, including: a limited geographic distribution of case studies, a focus on provisioning as opposed to non-provisioning services and a lack of studies exploring the link between ecosystem service trade-offs or synergies and the ultimate impact on human well-being. Trade-offs are recorded almost three times as often as synergies and the analysis indicates that there are three significant indicators that a trade-off will occur: at least one of the stakeholders having a private interest in the natural resources available, the involvement of provisioning ecosystem services and at least one of the stakeholders acting at the local scale. There is not, however, a generalisable context for a win-win, indicating that these trade-off indicators, although highlighting where a trade-off may occur do not indicate that it is inevitable. Taking account of why trade-offs occur (e.g. from failures in management or a lack of accounting for all stakeholders) is more likely to create win-win situations than planning for a win-win from the outset. Consequently, taking a trade-offs as opposed to a win-win approach, by having an awareness of and accounting for factors that predict a trade-off (private interest, provisioning versus other ES, local stakeholder) and the reasons why trade-offs are often the outcome, it may be possible to create the synergies we seek to achieve.     

Which states will lead a just transition for the Arctic? A DeePeR analysis of global data on Arctic states and formal observer states

A fair and equitable low carbon future depends on a just transition which, in turn, requires leadership. Where the Arctic is concerned, this leadership is currently lacking. To gauge which states are most likely to provide leadership in the global energy transition, a quantitative rank-percentile assessment of 21 Arctic Council members and Observer states was conducted, using measures relevant to the just transition. Data from multiple open-access sources were combined, creating a model to ‘evaluate energy and equity aspects of Distributional, Procedural and Restorative’ justice (DeePeR). Results suggest normative leadership on a just transition for the Arctic comprises international climate contributions in line with carbon emission records and a commitment to both fair and green jobs. Reflections are made on the positive and negative effects of a more involved EU for the just transition agenda in the Arctic.     

Toward a global coal mining moratorium? A comparative analysis of coal mining policies in the USA,China, India and Australia

To stop global warming at well below 2° C, the bulk of the world’s fossil fuel reserves will have to be left in the ground. Coal is the fossil fuel with the greatest proportion that cannot be used, and various advocacy groups are campaigning for a ban on the opening of new coal mines. Recently, both China and the USA implemented temporary moratoria on the approval of new coal mining leases. This article examines whether these coal mining bans reflect the emergence of a global norm to keep coal under the ground. To that end, we review recent coal mining policies in the four largest coal producers and explain them comparatively with a framework based on interests, ideas and institutions. We find that the norm of keeping coal in the ground remains essentially contested. Even in those countries that have introduced some form of a coal mining moratorium, the ban can easily be, or has already been, reversed. To the extent that the norm of keeping coal in the ground has momentum, it is primarily due to non-climate reasons: the Chinese moratorium was mostly an instance of industrial policy (aiming to protect Chinese coal companies and their workers from the overcapacity and low prices that are hitting the industry), while the USA’s lease restrictions were mainly motivated by concerns over fiscal justice. We do not find evidence of norm internalisation, which means that the emerging norm fails to gain much traction amid relevant national actors and other (large) coal producing states. If proponents of a moratorium succeed in framing the issue in non-climate terms, they should have a greater chance of building domestic political coalitions in favour of the norm.     

Think global,act local? The relevance of place attachments and place identities in a climate changed world

Two decades ago, an article was published in Global Environmental Change proposing the importance of place attachments, at local and global scales, for understanding human responses to climate change (Feitelson, 1991). Despite concluding that ‘studies of individual's attachment to place may provide important inputs for strategies to enhance the prospects for sharing the globe’ (p. 406, 1991), the article remains overlooked. This article takes up and extends Feitelson's argument for more systematic research on place attachments and climate change. First, the paper critically reviews interdisciplinary literature on place attachment and the related concept of place identity, drawing on scholarship in human geography, environmental and social psychology. The review identifies a lack of cross-disciplinary dialogue, as well as several limitations to the ways that scalar aspects have been researched. Second, climate change research, encompassing adaptation, mitigation and communication that has incorporated place related attachments and identities is critically reviewed; in particular, emerging research on the role of ‘psychological distance’ is critiqued. The article concludes with five recommendations for future research: to capture place attachments and identities at global as well as local scales; to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods that capture constructions of place as well as intensity of attachments and identifications; to investigate links between attachments, identities and collective actions, particular ‘NIMBY’ resistance to adaptation and mitigation strategies; to apply greater precision when investigating spatial frames of risk communication; and to investigate links between global attachments and identities, environmental worldviews and climate change engagement. Finally, the implications of such research for evaluating area-based climate interventions are discussed.     

Uncertainty, Complexity and Concepts of Good Science in Climate Change Modelling: Are GCMs the Best Tools?

In this paper we explore the dominant position of a particular style of scientific modelling in the provision of policy-relevant scientific knowledge on future climate change. We describe how the apical position of General Circulation Models (GCMs) appears to follow logically both from conventional understandings of scientific representation and the use of knowledge, so acquired, in decision-making. We argue, however, that both of these particular understandings are contestable. In addition to questioning their current policy-usefulness, we draw upon existing analyses of GCMs which discuss model trade-offs, errors, and the effects of parameterisations, to raise questions about the validity of the conception of complexity in conventional accounts. An alternative approach to modelling, incorporating concepts of uncertainty, is discussed, and an illustrative example given for the case of the global carbon cycle. In then addressing the question of how GCMs have come to occupy their dominant position, we argue that the development of global climate change science and global environmental management frameworks occurs concurrently and in a mutually supportive fashion, so uniting GCMs and environmental policy developments in certain industrialised nations and international organisations. The more basic questions about what kinds of commitments to theories of knowledge underpin different models of complexity as a normative principle of good science are concealed in this mutual reinforcement. Additionally, a rather technocratic policy orientation to climate change may be supported by such science, even though it involves political choices which deserve to be more widely debated.     

Harmonization of land-use scenarios for the period 1500�C2100: 600?years of global gridded annual land-use transitions, wood harvest, and resulting secondary lands

In preparation for the fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international community is developing new advanced Earth System Models (ESMs) to assess the combined effects of human activities (e.g. land use and fossil fuel emissions) on the carbon-climate system. In addition, four Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios of the future (2005?C2100) are being provided by four Integrated Assessment Model (IAM) teams to be used as input to the ESMs for future carbon-climate projections (Moss et al. 2010). The diversity of approaches and requirements among IAMs and ESMs for tracking land-use change, along with the dependence of model projections on land-use history, presents a challenge for effectively passing data between these communities and for smoothly transitioning from the historical estimates to future projections. Here, a harmonized set of land-use scenarios are presented that smoothly connects historical reconstructions of land use with future projections, in the format required by ESMs. The land-use harmonization strategy estimates fractional land-use patterns and underlying land-use transitions annually for the time period 1500?C2100 at 0.5°?×?0.5° resolution. Inputs include new gridded historical maps of crop and pasture data from HYDE 3.1 for 1500?C2005, updated estimates of historical national wood harvest and of shifting cultivation, and future information on crop, pasture, and wood harvest from the IAM implementations of the RCPs for the period 2005?C2100. The computational method integrates these multiple data sources, while minimizing differences at the transition between the historical reconstruction ending conditions and IAM initial conditions, and working to preserve the future changes depicted by the IAMs at the grid cell level. This study for the first time harmonizes land-use history data together with future scenario information from multiple IAMs into a single consistent, spatially gridded, set of land-use change scenarios for studies of human impacts on the past, present, and future Earth system.     

Spinning in circles? A systematic review on the role of theory in social vulnerability,resilience and adaptation research

An increasing number of publications focus on social vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation (SVRA) towards natural hazards and climate change. Despite this proliferation of research, a systematic understanding of how these studies are theoretically grounded is lacking. Here, we systematically reviewed 4432 articles that address SVRA in various disciplinary fields (e.g. psychology, sociology, geography, mathematics) for various hazards, including floods, droughts, landslides, storm surges, wildfires, tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcano eruptions. We focus on the extent to which these studies explicate the frameworks, theoretical constructs or theories they rely on. Surprisingly, we found that about 90% of the reviewed studies do not explicitly refer to a theoretical underpinning. Overall, theories focusing on individuals’ SVRA were more frequently used than those focusing on systems, society, groups, and networks. Moreover, the uptake of theories varied according to the hazard investigated and field of knowledge, being more frequent in wildfire and flood studies and articles published in social science journals. Based on our analysis, we propose a reflexive handling of theories to foster more transparent, comparable, and robust empirical research on SVRA.     

Different data,different general circulations? A comparison of selected fields in NCEP/DOE AMIP-II and ECMWF ERA-40 reanalyses

Reanalysis datasets have been very popular for understanding the general circulation as well as verifying general circulation models. The most recent versions of global reanalysis datasets prepared by ECMWF (“ERA-40”) and NCEP (“NDRa2”) are examined in this article. The NDRa2 data are regridded to the resolution (2.5° × 2.5° longitude and latitude) of the ERA-40 public data. Primary variables that both relate to the atmosphere's general circulation and are readily available are compared and contrasted. Significant differences are found in the primary circulation variables and energetics. The zonal mean Hadley cells are stronger in ERA-40, but differences in temperature and moisture make the poleward heat transport by the cells more similar in the two datasets. The subtropical and polar night jet streams are stronger in ERA-40 data as is kinetic energy. The surface energy budgets differ in that ERA-40 data have greater sensible heat flux into the air, while NDRa2 data have greater latent heat flux. The result is NDRa2 has more moisture in the subtropics; ERA-40 data have more moisture in the tropics. Geographically, the two datasets have notable differences in their treatment of the intertropical convergence zone (ICZ). The ICZ over the Atlantic and eastern Pacific is narrower and stronger in ERA-40 data. The ICZ over the western Pacific and Indian oceans is generally stronger in NDRa2 data, one consequence is a stronger tropical easterly jet in NDRa2 data over the Indian Ocean in JJA. Both datasets have a double ICZ in the western half of the Pacific in DJF; in JJA ERA-40 retains that double ICZ but NDRa2 largely does not. Beyond the handling of the ICZ, the datasets differ in tropical zonal mean zonal wind, ERA-40 data in DJF has zonal mean upper troposphere tropical westerlies where NDRa2 data have easterlies; this difference may imply a different amount of interhemispheric communication. The datasets also have strong disagreements in regions of large-scale higher topography.