Future scenarios for socio-ecological production landscape and seascape

Sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services are among the key agendas of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (CBD 2014; UNEP.IRD 2016; Wood et al. 2018). To pursue this, the core research agendas for sustainability science include the following: (1) co-designing future scenarios and visions of social–ecological system with a participatory approach, (2) integrating indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) systems into both scientific knowledge and future scenarios of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and (3) the formulation of actions to transform society toward a more sustainable future (Miller et al. 2014; Schneider and Rist 2014; Kishita et al. 2016). In 2016, the fourth plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) approved a summary for policy makers of the methodological assessment of scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The report defined ‘‘scenarios’’ as representations of possible futures for one or more components of a system, such as for drivers of change in nature and nature’s benefits, and alternative policy or management options. Likewise, ‘‘models’’ were defined as qualitative or quantitative descriptions of key components of a system and of the relationships that exist between those components. This report advocates for widespread use of scenarios to resolve the uncertainties in decision-making process, and further guides scientists and experts regarding the use of scenarios and models in the assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Particularly, IPBES has identified the development of scenarios as a key to aid decision makers in identifying potential implications of different policy options, and to choose a desired path for future transition. Nevertheless, despite widespread advocacy, the current scientific disclosure evidently lacks long-term scenario approaches (Kok et al. 2017). Moreover, to reflect the future socio–ecological dynamics of biodiversity and ecosystem services, IPBES also emphasized the integration of ILK into the scenario building process, by engaging the substantial diversity of local contexts through participatory processes. To meet this challenge, the authors launched a new project in 2016 named ‘‘Predicting and Assessing Natural Capital and Ecosystem Service (PANCES)’’. The aim of this project is to develop an integrated assessment of social–ecological systems to predict and assess natural and socio-economic values of natural capital and ecosystem services in Japan under plausible alternative scenarios (including differing socio-economic conditions and policy options) (PANCES website: http://pance s.net/top/). PANCES also promotes multilevel governance of natural capital to maintain and improve ‘‘inclusive wellbeing’’ and demonstrate the integrated assessment model at both national and local scales, with implications in Japan and beyond. Future Scenarios for Socio-Ecological Production Landscape and Seascape

[1]  Yasushi Umeda,et al.  Research needs and challenges faced in supporting scenario design in sustainability science: a literature review , 2016, Sustainability Science.

[2]  Robert Costanza,et al.  The UN Sustainable Development Goals and the dynamics of well‐being , 2016 .

[3]  Carrie V. Kappel,et al.  Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the Sustainable Development Goals , 2018 .

[4]  T. Nakashizuka,et al.  The seasonal and scale-dependent associations between vegetation quality and hiking activities as a recreation service , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[5]  J. Heiskanen,et al.  Views from two mountains: exploring climate change impacts on traditional farming communities of Eastern Africa highlands through participatory scenarios , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[6]  H. Shibata,et al.  Simulation of natural capital and ecosystem services in a watershed in Northern Japan focusing on the future underuse of nature: by linking forest landscape model and social scenarios , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[7]  O. Saito,et al.  Exploring the relationship between ecosystems and human well-being by understanding the preferences for natural capital-based and produced capital-based ecosystem services , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[8]  O. Saito,et al.  Development of land-use scenarios using vegetation inventories in Japan , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[9]  Shizuka Hashimoto,et al.  Biodiversity/ecosystem services scenario exercises from the Asia–Pacific: typology, archetypes and implications for sustainable development goals (SDGs) , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[10]  Shizuka Hashimoto,et al.  Co-design of national-scale future scenarios in Japan to predict and assess natural capital and ecosystem services , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[11]  Shizuka Hashimoto,et al.  Scenario-based land change modelling in the Indian Sundarban delta: an exploratory analysis of plausible alternative regional futures , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[12]  Joseph Alcamo,et al.  Chapter Six The SAS Approach: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Knowledge in Environmental Scenarios , 2008 .

[13]  E. Bennett,et al.  A novel approach for co-producing positive scenarios that explore agency: case study from the Canadian Arctic , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[14]  H. Yamano,et al.  Understanding island residents’ anxiety about impacts caused by climate change using Best–Worst Scaling: a case study of Amami islands, Japan , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[15]  C. Fürst,et al.  Future land use management effects on ecosystem services under different scenarios in the Wabe River catchment of Gurage Mountain chain landscape, Ethiopia , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[16]  K. Takeuchi,et al.  Scenario analysis of land-use and ecosystem services of social-ecological landscapes: implications of alternative development pathways under declining population in the Noto Peninsula, Japan , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[17]  O. Saito,et al.  Spatially explicit residential and working population assumptions for projecting and assessing natural capital and ecosystem services in Japan , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[18]  S. Rist,et al.  Envisioning sustainable water futures in a transdisciplinary learning process: combining normative, explorative, and participatory scenario approaches , 2014, Sustainability Science.

[19]  T. Nakashizuka,et al.  Importance of national or regional specificity in the relationship between pollinator dependence and production stability , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[20]  Yogi Sugiawan,et al.  Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services: a literature review , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[21]  Thaddeus R. Miller,et al.  The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda , 2013, Sustainability Science.

[22]  Stephen R. Carpenter,et al.  Biodiversity and ecosystem services require IPBES to take novel approach to scenarios , 2016, Sustainability Science.

[23]  R. Avtar,et al.  Land Transition and Intensity Analysis of Cropland Expansion in Northern Ghana , 2018, Environmental Management.

[24]  Shizuka Hashimoto,et al.  Investigating future ecosystem services through participatory scenario building and spatial ecological–economic modelling , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[25]  S. Ikeda,et al.  Future inclusive wealth and human well-being in regional Japan: projections of sustainability indices based on shared socioeconomic pathways , 2018, Sustainability Science.