IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v72y2018icp57-64.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Underuse of social-ecological systems: A research agenda for addressing challenges to biocultural diversity

Author

Listed:
  • Mauerhofer, V.
  • Ichinose, T.
  • Blackwell, B.D.
  • Willig, M.R.
  • Flint, C.G.
  • Krause, M.S.
  • Penker, ​M.

Abstract

Conservation is often operationalized as a minimization of human intervention in nature. However, many social-ecological systems depend on human interventions to maintain characteristics of biological diversity. Therefore, reduced use or full abandonment of such systems can diminish rather than enhance biological diversity and its related cultural diversity (biocultural diversity). We link the definition of “underuse” with the extinction rate used in the planetary boundaries framework to support a more objective use of the term. We execute a structured cross-continental review of underuse in social-ecological systems of regions that contain more affluent countries to frame a global research agenda on underuse. Our working approach delineates causes, consequences, and strategies concerning underuse. Based on this comparative review, we identify causes of underuse that are similar in different continents, including globalization, and demographic or structural change in Europe, Japan and Oceania. Conservation paradigms emphasizing wilderness ideals in policies are characteristic of underuse in North America, whereas post-socialist transformation processes characterize underuse in Eastern Europe. Land abandonment and de-intensification of use are a common result, particularly in marginal and protected areas. Consequences of the loss of biocultural diversity include the loss of ecosystem services, traditional knowledge, or landscape amenities. We identified a pervasive gap in transcontinental comparative research that stymies the development of effective strategies to reduce underuse of biological diversity and thereby maintain related cultural diversity. We advocate for a global research agenda on governance approaches that address the challenges of underuse. Within this agenda, we emphasize the need for an international cross-case synthesis and a trans-continental mapping of state and civil society-based interventions and co-management approaches to re-establish humans as parts of ecological systems. Such comparative work on best practice cases in a real-world context should enhance adaptive management of biocultural diversity and prevent extinction caused by underuse. Thus, this innovative connection between underuse and the planetary boundary extinction rate, along with our new global research agenda on underuse, should initiate much needed support for policy makers and natural resource managers who must decide on appropriate types and levels of human intervention to implement, both inside and outside of protected areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Mauerhofer, V. & Ichinose, T. & Blackwell, B.D. & Willig, M.R. & Flint, C.G. & Krause, M.S. & Penker, ​M., 2018. "Underuse of social-ecological systems: A research agenda for addressing challenges to biocultural diversity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 57-64.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:72:y:2018:i:c:p:57-64
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716306524
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luke Gibson & Tien Ming Lee & Lian Pin Koh & Barry W. Brook & Toby A. Gardner & Jos Barlow & Carlos A. Peres & Corey J. A. Bradshaw & William F. Laurance & Thomas E. Lovejoy & Navjot S. Sodhi, 2011. "Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity," Nature, Nature, vol. 478(7369), pages 378-381, October.
    2. Katayama, Naoki & Baba, Yuki G. & Kusumoto, Yoshinobu & Tanaka, Koichi, 2015. "A review of post-war changes in rice farming and biodiversity in Japan," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 73-84.
    3. Jane L. Lennon, 2015. "Changes to Continuing Landscapes: Industrialisation of Australia's Productive Rural Lands," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(6), pages 684-700, August.
    4. Fetzel, Tamara & Gradwohl, Markus & Erb, Karl-Heinz, 2014. "Conversion, intensification, and abandonment: A human appropriation of net primary production approach to analyze historic land-use dynamics in New Zealand 1860–2005," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 201-208.
    5. Johan Rockström & Will Steffen & Kevin Noone & Åsa Persson & F. Stuart Chapin & Eric F. Lambin & Timothy M. Lenton & Marten Scheffer & Carl Folke & Hans Joachim Schellnhuber & Björn Nykvist & Cynthia , 2009. "A safe operating space for humanity," Nature, Nature, vol. 461(7263), pages 472-475, September.
    6. United Nations UN, 2015. "Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," Working Papers id:7559, eSocialSciences.
    7. Jonathan A. Foley & Navin Ramankutty & Kate A. Brauman & Emily S. Cassidy & James S. Gerber & Matt Johnston & Nathaniel D. Mueller & Christine O’Connell & Deepak K. Ray & Paul C. West & Christian Balz, 2011. "Solutions for a cultivated planet," Nature, Nature, vol. 478(7369), pages 337-342, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Koen Arts & Maiara Thaisa Oliveira Rabelo & Daniela Maimoni De Figueiredo & Georgina Maffey & Antonio Augusto Rossotto Ioris & Pierre Girard, 2018. "Online and Offline Representations of Biocultural Diversity: A Political Ecology Perspective on Nature-Based Tourism and Indigenous Communities in the Brazilian Pantanal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    2. Mauerhofer, Volker, 2018. "Identifying Legal Priorities for Policy Making: A Forest-society-economy Context Analysed by 3-D Sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 183-190.
    3. Peta Brom & Kristine Engemann & Christina Breed & Maya Pasgaard & Titilope Onaolapo & Jens-Christian Svenning, 2023. "A Decision Support Tool for Green Infrastructure Planning in the Face of Rapid Urbanization," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-19, February.
    4. Keiko Sasaki & Stefan Hotes & Tomohiro Ichinose & Tomoko Doko & Volkmar Wolters, 2021. "Hotspots of Agricultural Ecosystem Services and Farmland Biodiversity Overlap with Areas at Risk of Land Abandonment in Japan," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    5. Vassiliki Vlami & Ioannis P. Kokkoris & Stamatis Zogaris & George Kehayias & Panayotis Dimopoulos, 2020. "Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Natura 2000 Network: Introducing Proxy Indicators and Conflict Risk in Greece," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-27, December.
    6. Bruno, Daniel & Sorando, Ricardo & Álvarez-Farizo, Begoña & Castellano, Clara & Céspedes, Vanessa & Gallardo, Belinda & Jiménez, Juan J. & López, M. Victoria & López-Flores, Rocío & Moret-Fernández, D, 2021. "Depopulation impacts on ecosystem services in Mediterranean rural areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hervé Corvellec & Johan Hultman & Anne Jerneck & Susanne Arvidsson & Johan Ekroos & Niklas Wahlberg & Timothy W. Luke, 2021. "Resourcification: A non‐essentialist theory of resources for sustainable development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 1249-1256, November.
    2. Hametner, Markus, 2022. "Economics without ecology: How the SDGs fail to align socioeconomic development with environmental sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    3. Ethan Gordon & Federico Davila & Chris Riedy, 2022. "Transforming landscapes and mindscapes through regenerative agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 809-826, June.
    4. Virág, Doris & Wiedenhofer, Dominik & Baumgart, André & Matej, Sarah & Krausmann, Fridolin & Min, Jihoon & Rao, Narasimha D. & Haberl, Helmut, 2022. "How much infrastructure is required to support decent mobility for all? An exploratory assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    5. Child, Michael & Koskinen, Otto & Linnanen, Lassi & Breyer, Christian, 2018. "Sustainability guardrails for energy scenarios of the global energy transition," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 321-334.
    6. Kristin Linnerud & Erling Holden & Morten Simonsen, 2021. "Closing the sustainable development gap: A global study of goal interactions," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 738-753, July.
    7. Tiba, Sofien, 2023. "Unlocking the poverty and hunger puzzle: Toward democratizing the natural resource for accomplishing SDGs 1&2," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    8. Liobikiene, Genovaite & Chen, Xueli & Streimikiene, Dalia & Balezentis, Tomas, 2020. "The trends in bioeconomy development in the European Union: Exploiting capacity and productivity measures based on the land footprint approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    9. Rostami-Tabar, Bahman & Ali, Mohammad M. & Hong, Tao & Hyndman, Rob J. & Porter, Michael D. & Syntetos, Aris, 2022. "Forecasting for social good," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1245-1257.
    10. Nessa Winston, 2022. "Sustainable community development: Integrating social and environmental sustainability for sustainable housing and communities," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 191-202, February.
    11. Raphaela Helbig & Sven von Höveling & Andreas Solsbach & Jorge Marx Gómez, 2021. "Strategic analysis of providing corporate sustainability open data," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(3), pages 195-214, July.
    12. Reed, James & van Vianen, Josh & Foli, Samson & Clendenning, Jessica & Yang, Kevin & MacDonald, Margaret & Petrokofsky, Gillian & Padoch, Christine & Sunderland, Terry, 2017. "Trees for life: The ecosystem service contribution of trees to food production and livelihoods in the tropics," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 62-71.
    13. Farley, Joshua & Schmitt, Abdon & Burke, Matthew & Farr, Marigo, 2015. "Extending market allocation to ecosystem services: Moral and practical implications on a full and unequal planet," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 244-252.
    14. Huan-Niemi, Ellen & Knuuttila, Marja & Niemi, Jyrki & Vatanen, Eero, 2021. "Dependency of Domestic Food Sectors on Imports: Finland As a Case Study," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315250, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Łuczak, Aleksandra & Just, Małgorzata, 2021. "Sustainable development of territorial units: MCDM approach with optimal tail selection," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 457(C).
    16. Hammond, James & van Wijk, Mark T. & Smajgl, Alex & Ward, John & Pagella, Tim & Xu, Jianchu & Su, Yufang & Yi, Zhuangfang & Harrison, Rhett D., 2017. "Farm types and farmer motivations to adapt: Implications for design of sustainable agricultural interventions in the rubber plantations of South West China," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 1-12.
    17. Neill, Andrew M. & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Stout, Jane C., 2022. "Conceptual integration of ecosystem services and natural capital within Irish national policy: An analysis over time and between policy sectors," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    18. Milligan, Ben & O'Keeffe, Michelle, 2019. "Global Governance of Resources and Implications for Resource Efficiency in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 46-58.
    19. Raine Isaksson & Max Rosvall & Maximilian Espuny & Thais Vieira Nunhes & Otávio José de Oliveira, 2022. "How Is Building Sustainability Understood?—A Study of Research Papers and Sustainability Reports," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-25, September.
    20. Winkler, Klara J. & Scown, Murray W. & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2018. "A classification to align social-ecological land systems research with policy in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 137-145.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:72:y:2018:i:c:p:57-64. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.