Stockholm romania presentation 4

698 views

Published on

Describes findings of a paper on scenario planning and a holistic approach to studying social-ecological systems; study to be published in Ecology & Society

Published in: Environment, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
698
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
319
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Stockholm romania presentation 4

  1. 1. Joern Fischer, Jan Hanspach, Tibor Hartel, Jacqueline Loos, Andra Milcu, Friederike Mikulcak, Ine Dorresteijn (and many others) Email: jfischer@leuphana.de Blog: http://ideas4sustainability.wordpress.com/ Twitter: @ideas4sust Integration by case, place and process: Identifying development risks and opportunities in Central Romania
  2. 2. Welcome! How to meet the challenge of global change at local scales? Observation: We often lack “benevolent dictators” who will implement grand ideas, policies or management plans at large scales Therefore: When that is the case, we need ways to help local actors navigate global change Here: a case study from Southern Transylvania, Romania Short overview Work-in-progress on development risks and opportunities
  3. 3. SCOPE AND APPROACH Background
  4. 4. Integration by place, case, and process 1. Choosing (and defining) the place worth studying Which issues need to be investigated? 2. Defining study “cases” – units of the system Choosing focal units 3. Establishing a flexible process for ongoing integration Source: Sherren, Fischer and others, Landscape Ecology 2010
  5. 5. Study area Transylvania
  6. 6. Cultural heritage
  7. 7. Small scale, low intensity farming
  8. 8. High biodiversity
  9. 9. A tightly coupled social-ecological system… ... until now, anyway … Source: The Resilience Alliance
  10. 10. The scope Overall goal: to understand current changes in the region, and identify avenues for its sustainable development Focus on: 1. Farmland biodiversity and ecosystem services 2. Preferences and attitudes of local people 3. Governance, including barriers to adaptation and transformation 4. Equity implications Today, I focus on integration, not on the sub-components
  11. 11. The cases: villages as social-ecological units While embedded in a context of multi-level governance, many important decisions are made at the level of individual villages
  12. 12. Stratified random selection of 30 village catchments Terrain ruggedness (high, medium, low) Protection status (SPA, SCI, no) Stratification
  13. 13. Process: key features of this project Solution-oriented in the spirit of sustainability science Consultation and collaboration with local partners Small, interdisciplinary research team Mix of independent and joint activities within the team We target: scientific journals with academic insights local organisations with regionally relevant materials
  14. 14. IDENTIFYING DEVELOPMENT RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES Work-in-progress Publication to be led by Dr. Jan Hanspach – many other collaborators are involved!
  15. 15. Anticipating possible directions of change Aim: to understand development risks and opportunities as they apply to different parts of our study area Villages differ in (among others): Population size Ethnic composition Remoteness Natural capital Local leadership
  16. 16. Our approach… … is transdisciplinary (social science, natural sciences, stakeholders) … combines multiple data sources (databases, remote sensing, ecological field data, workshops) … draws on mixed methods (quantitative, qualitative) … acknowledges uncertainties … recognises that changes occur at several scales … is spatially explicit … and we hope it may also be useful for other case studies …
  17. 17. Regional dynamics Local conditions Social-ecological inertia Regional dynamics Local conditions Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Social-ecological inertia IntegrationInput 21 3 4 5
  18. 18. Regional dynamics Local conditions Social-ecological inertia Regional dynamics Local conditions Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Social-ecological inertia IntegrationInput 21 3 4 5
  19. 19. Spatially explicit quantification of local conditions 1. Natural capital 2. Socio-demographic factors 3. Others: Village isolation, village size, terrain ruggedness 1. and 2. assessed for subset of 30 villages, then generalized 3. for all villages in study area
  20. 20. Natural capital Proportion land cover (arable, pasture, forest, orchards) Carbon stocks (above, below and soil for arable, pasture, forest) Hunting data (red deer, roe deer, boar, hare) Pollinator abundance (thanks to Andras Baldi’s team, especially Aniko Kovacs!) Farmland biodiversity: plants, butterflies, birds (own field data) Scenic beauty (forest, landscape heterogeneity, major roads, fortified churches)
  21. 21. Three groups of villages Natural capital bundles differ according to dominant land use type
  22. 22. Are there socioeconomic bundles? Hungarian vs non-Hungarian villages But: How do the Roma fit in?
  23. 23. Ethnic composition
  24. 24. Other local characteristics Isolation: time [min] to drive to the next regional centre (> 20.000 inhabitants), weighted by road size Ruggedness Population size
  25. 25. Local conditions: summary
  26. 26. Regional dynamics Local conditions Social-ecological inertia Regional dynamics Local conditions Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Social-ecological inertia IntegrationInput 21 3 4 5
  27. 27. Regional dynamics Local conditions Social-ecological inertia Regional dynamics Local conditions Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Social-ecological inertia IntegrationInput 21 3 4 5
  28. 28. STEP 1 Workshops with 17 organizations and key individuals (nature conservation, forestry, agriculture, tourism, social organisations, churches...) What are the main changes in the past, present and the future? What are the drivers? Development of systems diagrams with each group Participatory assessment of regional dynamics
  29. 29. STEP 2 Identification of commonalities and differences Which links between variables did stakeholders consistently talk about? This gave us an understanding of system dynamics and predictable causalities On which issues did they disagree? This gave us an understanding of uncertainties Participatory assessment of regional dynamics
  30. 30. STEP 3 We developed a draft systems diagram that included an understanding of uncertainties STEP 4 In additional, mixed workshops we obtained feedback and refined our systems diagram Participatory assessment of regional dynamics
  31. 31. Influenced by EU policy, global markets, national institutions and local leaders Profitability of small scale farming Amount of poverty Amount of conflicts Social capital Quality of education Number of people leaving the village Level of corruption Tourism development + - + - - - - - Maintainance of traditions + Emigration of Saxons - Amount of land sold to foreign land owners Amount of intensively farmed land (conventional or organic) - - + Amount of abandoned land - + Seeking short-term profiteering Amount of forest exploitation + Modern lifestyle - - Aggregate local economy + - Maintainance and development of infrastructure + + - - + + Farmland biodiversity (cultural, regulating and supporting ecosystem services)- - Forest biodiversty (cultural, regulating and supporting ecosystem services) - R R Note: stakeholders reported that the variables in white boxes systematically differed between villages
  32. 32. Regional dynamics Local conditions Social-ecological inertia Regional dynamics Local conditions Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Social-ecological inertia IntegrationInput 21 3 4 5
  33. 33. Regional dynamics Local conditions Social-ecological inertia Regional dynamics Local conditions Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Social-ecological inertia IntegrationInput 21 3 4 5
  34. 34. Influenced by EU policy, global markets, national institutions and local leaders Profitability of small scale farming Amount of poverty Amount of conflicts Social capital Quality of education Number of people leaving the village Level of corruption Tourism development + - + - - - - - Maintainance of traditions + Emigration of Saxons - Amount of land sold to foreign land owners Amount of intensively farmed land (conventional or organic) - - + Amount of abandoned land - + Seeking short-term profiteering Amount of forest exploitation + Modern lifestyle - - Aggregate local economy + - Maintainance and development of infrastructure + + - - + + Farmland biodiversity (cultural, regulating and supporting ecosystem services)- - Forest biodiversty (cultural, regulating and supporting ecosystem services) - R R Note: stakeholders reported that the variables in white boxes systematically differed between villages
  35. 35. According to local stakeholders, spatial differences systematically relate to: • Ethnic composition • Isolation • Village pop. size • Terrain • Natural capital bundles (= dominant land use) Profitability of small scale farming Amount of poverty Amount of conflicts Social capital Quality of education Number of people leaving the village Level of corruption Tourism development + - + - - - - - Maintainance of traditions + Emigration of Saxons - Amount of land sold to foreign land owners Amount of intensively farmed land (conventional or organic) - - + Amount of abandoned land - + Seeking short-term profiteering Amount of forest exploitation + Modern lifestyle - - Aggregate local economy + - Maintainance and development of infrastructure + + - - + + Farmland biodiversity (cultural, regulating and supporting ecosystem services)- - Forest biodiversty (cultural, regulating and supporting ecosystem services) - R R
  36. 36. An example of “system inertia”: local economy • based on subjective ranking of local experts • includes only rankings that were consistent among multiple stakeholders
  37. 37. Other inertia maps
  38. 38. Regional dynamics Local conditions Social-ecological inertia Regional dynamics Local conditions Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Social-ecological inertia IntegrationInput 21 3 4 5
  39. 39. Regional dynamics Local conditions Social-ecological inertia Regional dynamics Local conditions Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Social-ecological inertia IntegrationInput 21 3 4 5
  40. 40. Scenario planning In our workshops, we also asked about drivers of change and uncertainties in those drivers
  41. 41. Scenario planning
  42. 42. Scenario planning Drivers and changes were turned into short stories We treated as certain those things regularly considered to happen We treated as uncertain those things with big differences in views – including controversial aspects (e.g. integration of Roma) We then developed internally consistent scenario logics We differentiated between internal versus external uncertainties
  43. 43. Pro-environmentalnationalandsupranationalpolicyemphasis Pro-economynationalandsupranationalpolicyemphasis
  44. 44. Low ability of locals to capitalize on opportunities High ability of locals to capitalize on opportunities
  45. 45. Pro-environmentalnationalandsupranationalpolicyemphasis Pro-economynationalandsupranationalpolicyemphasis Low ability of locals to capitalize on opportunities High ability of locals to capitalize on opportunities
  46. 46. Pro-environmentalnationalandsupranationalpolicyemphasis Pro-economynationalandsupranationalpolicyemphasis Low ability of locals to capitalize on opportunities High ability of locals to capitalize on opportunities Balance brings beauty Missed opportunityOur land – their wealth Prosperity through growth
  47. 47. Pro-environmentalnationalandsupranationalpolicyemphasis Pro-economynationalandsupranationalpolicyemphasis Low ability of locals to capitalize on opportunities High ability of locals to capitalize on opportunities Balance brings beauty Organic farming and ecotourism Diverse sources of income High social capital Maintainance of traditions Missed opportunity Few organic farms by foreigners Abandonment in many areas Locals poor or leave the area Low social capital Our land – their wealth Land grabbing by foreigners Intensification and exploitation Locals leave or are poor Low social capital and many conflicts Prosperity through growth “Western European” development Conventional intensification Economic and social improvements Deterioration of natural capital
  48. 48. Scenario planning Each scenario has been turned into a storyline Artwork is used to illustrate each scenario For local communication, we also disseminate scenarios as a booklet in Romanian and Hungarian complement the narrative with fictional personalised accounts of each alternative future
  49. 49. Southern Transylvania 2013 © Jan Hanspach … artwork for future scenarios is work in progress …
  50. 50. Regional dynamics Local conditions Social-ecological inertia Regional dynamics Local conditions Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Social-ecological inertia IntegrationInput 21 3 4 5
  51. 51. Regional dynamics Local conditions Social-ecological inertia Regional dynamics Local conditions Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Scenario 3Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 4 Social-ecological inertia IntegrationInput 21 3 4 5
  52. 52. Amplification of inertia under different scenarios Intensification Abandonment Forest exploitation Tourism Local economy Social capital Emigration Role of foreigners Prosperity through growth Our land, their wealth Balance brings beauty Missed opportunity
  53. 53. Amplification of inertia under different scenarios Intensification Abandonment Forest exploitation Tourism Local economy Social capital Emigration Role of foreigners Prosperity through growth + Our land, their wealth -- Balance brings beauty ++ Missed opportunity -
  54. 54. Amplification of inertia under different scenarios Intensification Abandonment Forest exploitation Tourism Local economy Social capital Emigration Role of foreigners Prosperity through growth +++ -- ++ + +++ + + Our land, their wealth +++ + +++ -- - +++ +++ Balance brings beauty ++ - - ++ + +++ -- Missed opportunity + ++ + - - +++ +
  55. 55. Amplification of change in different scenarios + Local economy Prosperity through growth +++ Our land, their wealth Balance brings beauty + Missed opportunity =
  56. 56. Development risks and opportunities Intensi- fication Abandon- ment Forest exploi- tation Tourism Local eco- nomy Social capital Emigra- tion Role of foreig- ners Prosperity through growth Our land, their wealth Balance brings beauty Missed opportunity
  57. 57. What can we learn from this? Some villages are pre-disposed to certain changes no matter what the future brings Some trends are likely at a regional level, no matter what the future brings Local initiatives will make a major difference to local outcomes, regardless of external circumstances
  58. 58. What can we learn from this? Some villages are pre-disposed to certain changes no matter what the future brings Some trends are likely at a regional level, no matter what the future brings Local initiatives will make a major difference to local outcomes, regardless of external circumstances Regional analyses mask potentially important local differences Our approach makes local differences explicit, drawing on local expertise, quantitative and qualitative analyses This highlights hotspots of risks and opportunities for certain development trajectories
  59. 59. Conclusion: Applicability beyond Transylvania? Mapping of ecosystem services: useful to understand trade-offs and synergies and their spatial distribution Conceptual systems modelling: good for understanding dynamics but typically spatially “flat” (= all drivers equal in all locations) Scenario planning: useful given uncertainty and for capacity building We demonstrated an approach to combine these methods to identify hotspots of social-ecological development risks and opportunities Next steps: Write-up as a journal article Local dissemination via booklets and presentations/workshops
  60. 60. Thanks for funding to Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Thanks to many collaborators, including the MET, Dave Abson, Tobias Kuemmerle, Henrik von Wehrden Thanks to those who have provided valuable ideas in the past, e.g. Garry Peterson, Ioan Fazey, Toby Gardner, Line Gordon, Gretchen Daily, Andras Baldi Thanks to you for listening! Follow our blog: ideas4sustainability.wordpress.com Could you kindly rephrase that in equivocal, inaccurate, vague, self-serving, and roundabout terms that we can all understand?

×