• Energy Research
• 13. Climate action close

AbstractUnderstanding uncertainties in land cover projections is critical to investigating land‐based climate mitigation policies, assessing the potential of climate adaptation strategies and quantifying the impacts of land cover change on the climate system. Here, we identify and quantify uncertainties in global and European land cover projections over a diverse range of model types and scenarios, extending the analysis beyond the agro‐economic models included in previous comparisons. The results from 75 simulations over 18 models are analysed and show a large range in land cover area projections, with the highest variability occurring in future cropland areas. We demonstrate systematic differences in land cover areas associated with the characteristics of the modelling approach, which is at least as great as the differences attributed to the scenario variations. The results lead us to conclude that a higher degree of uncertainty exists in land use projections than currently included in climate or earth system projections. To account for land use uncertainty, it is recommended to use a diverse set of models and approaches when assessing the potential impacts of land cover change on future climate. Additionally, further work is needed to better understand the assumptions driving land use model results and reveal the causes of uncertainty in more depth, to help reduce model uncertainty and improve the projections of land cover.

Les questions de pouvoir et d'équité attirent l'attention dans la recherche sur les services écosystémiques (SE). Les parties prenantes bénéficiant des SE ne sont pas nécessairement capables ou autorisées à participer à la gestion des SE. Ainsi, nous avons proposé un cadre analytique pour identifier et qualifier les rôles des parties prenantes par rapport aux flux de SE. En nous appuyant sur les cadres existants dans la littérature sur les SE, nous avons cherché à démêler les différentes contributions directes et indirectes de la gestion aux flux de SE et à les relier aux avantages des SE. La gestion directe cible le fonctionnement des écosystèmes, les flux de services, et les avantages reçus par la société, alors que la gestion indirecte facilite, contrôle ou restreint les activités des gestionnaires directs.Nous avons appliqué ce cadre au bassin versant de Mariño (Pérou) pour décrire les rôles des parties prenantes à l'aide d'un ensemble de 8 ES.Nous avons discuté des implications de nos conclusions en termes d'équité et de distribution d'énergie.Nous avons mené des entretiens semi-structurés face à face avec des représentants de 52 parties prenantes du bassin versant pour comprendre comment elles géraient et bénéficiaient des ES.Nous avons utilisé l'analyse statistique (tests de permutation) pour détecter des différences significatives dans le nombre d'ES reçues et gérées parmi Les secteurs des parties prenantes, c'est-à-dire la société civile, les organisations non gouvernementales (ONG), les entreprises et le secteur public, et les échelles, du niveau local au niveau national. Les formes indirectes de gestion des SE étaient plus fréquentes que les formes directes pour toutes les SE. La quantité d'eau, la qualité de l'eau et la production agricole étaient gérées par le plus grand nombre de types de parties prenantes. Les différences dans le nombre de types de parties prenantes bénéficiant et gérant les SE pourraient résulter de choix intentionnels, par exemple, les préférences pour les avantages locaux. Nous avons également constaté des différences claires dans l'identité des parties prenantes qui géraient ou bénéficiaient des SE. Les parties prenantes locales et le secteur des entreprises ont bénéficié d'un plus grand nombre de SE, et les organisations publiques et les ONG ont été les plus impliquées dans la gestion des SE. Une gouvernance plus équitable des SE devrait viser à intégrer des parties prenantes plus diverses dans la prise de décision. D'autres recherches empiriques pourraient utiliser notre cadre pour explorer les facteurs déterminant les rôles et la répartition du pouvoir des parties prenantes. Il est particulièrement nécessaire de comprendre comment les droits, les dotations et les droits, ainsi que la configuration spatiale, sous-tendent les inégalités dans différents contextes sociaux et culturels. Los problemas de poder y equidad están ganando atención en la investigación sobre servicios ecosistémicos (ES). Las partes interesadas que se benefician de los ES no necesariamente pueden o están autorizadas a participar en la gestión de ES. Por lo tanto, hemos propuesto un marco analítico para identificar y calificar los roles de las partes interesadas en relación con los flujos de ES. Sobre la base de los marcos existentes en la literatura de ES, nuestro objetivo fue desentrañar las diferentes contribuciones de gestión directa e indirecta a los flujos de ES y vincularlas a los beneficios de ES. La gestión directa apunta al funcionamiento de los ecosistemas, los flujos de servicios, y los beneficios recibidos por la sociedad, mientras que la gestión indirecta facilita, controla o restringe las actividades de los gerentes directos. Aplicamos este marco a la cuenca de Mariño (Perú) para describir los roles de las partes interesadas utilizando un conjunto de 8 ES. Hemos discutido las implicaciones de nuestros hallazgos en términos de equidad y distribución de poder. Realizamos entrevistas semiestructuradas cara a cara con representantes de 52 partes interesadas de la cuenca para comprender cómo gestionaron y se beneficiaron de los ES. Utilizamos análisis estadísticos (pruebas de permutación) para detectar diferencias significativas en el número de ES recibidos y gestionados entre sectores de partes interesadas, es decir, la sociedad civil, las organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG), las empresas y el sector público, y escalas, desde el nivel local hasta el nacional. Las formas indirectas de gestión de los ES fueron más frecuentes que las directas para todos los ES. La cantidad de agua, la calidad del agua y la producción agrícola fueron gestionadas por el mayor número de tipos de partes interesadas. Las diferencias en el número de tipos de partes interesadas que se benefician y gestionan los ES podrían deberse a elecciones intencionales, por ejemplo, preferencias por los beneficios locales. También encontramos diferencias claras en la identidad de las partes interesadas que gestionaron o se beneficiaron de los ES. Las partes interesadas locales y el sector empresarial se beneficiaron de un mayor número de ES, y las organizaciones públicas y las ONG participaron más en la gestión de los ES. Una gobernanza más equitativa de los ES debe tener como objetivo integrar a las partes interesadas más diversas en la toma de decisiones. Además, la investigación empírica podría utilizar nuestro marco para explorar los factores que determinan los roles y la distribución del poder de las partes interesadas. Existe una necesidad particular de comprender cómo los derechos, las dotaciones y los derechos, así como la configuración espacial, sustentan las desigualdades en diferentes contextos sociales y culturales. The issues of power and equity are gaining attention in research on ecosystem services (ESs).Stakeholders benefiting from ESs are not necessarily able or authorized to participate in ES management.Thus, we have proposed an analytical framework to identify and qualify stakeholders' roles in relation to ES flows.Building on existing frameworks in the ES literature, we aimed to unravel the different direct and indirect management contributions to ES flows and link them to ES benefits.Direct management targets the functioning of ecosystems, the flows of services, and the benefits received by society, whereas indirect management facilitates, controls, or restricts the activities of direct managers.We applied this framework to the Mariño watershed (Peru) to describe stakeholders' roles using a set of 8 ESs.We have discussed the implications of our findings in terms of equity and power distribution.We conducted faceto-face semistructured interviews with representatives of 52 watershed stakeholders to understand how they managed and benefited from ESs.We used statistical analysis (permutation tests) to detect significant differences in the number of received and managed ESs among stakeholder sectors, i.e., civil society, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), business, and the public sector, and scales, from local to national levels.Indirect forms of ES management were more frequent than direct ones for all ESs.Water quantity, water quality, and agricultural production were managed by the largest number of stakeholder types.The differences in the number of stakeholder types benefiting from and managing ESs could result from intentional choices, e.g., preferences for local benefits.We also found clear differences in the identity of stakeholders who managed or benefited from ESs. Local stakeholders and the business sector benefited from a higher number of ESs, and public organizations and NGOs were most involved in ES management.More equitable governance of ESs should aim to integrate more diverse stakeholders into decision making.Further empirical research could use our framework to explore the factors determining stakeholders' roles and power distribution.There is a particular need to understand how rights, endowments, and entitlements, as well as spatial configuration, underpin inequities in different social and cultural contexts. تكتسب قضايا السلطة والإنصاف اهتمامًا في الأبحاث المتعلقة بخدمات النظام الإيكولوجي (ESs). لا يكون أصحاب المصلحة المستفيدون من الخدمات البيئية والاجتماعية بالضرورة قادرين أو مصرح لهم بالمشاركة في إدارة الخدمات البيئية والاجتماعية. وبالتالي، اقترحنا إطارًا تحليليًا لتحديد أدوار أصحاب المصلحة وتأهيلها فيما يتعلق بتدفقات الخدمات البيئية والاجتماعية. استهدفنا بناءً على الأطر الحالية في أدبيات الخدمات البيئية والاجتماعية، الكشف عن مساهمات الإدارة المباشرة وغير المباشرة المختلفة في تدفقات الخدمات البيئية والاجتماعية وربطها بفوائد الخدمات البيئية والاجتماعية. تستهدف الإدارة المباشرة أداء النظم الإيكولوجية وتدفقات الخدمات والفوائد التي يتلقاها المجتمع، في حين أن الإدارة غير المباشرة تسهل أو تتحكم أو تقيد أنشطة المديرين المباشرين. طبقنا هذا الإطار على مستجمعات المياه في مارينيو (بيرو) لوصف أدوار أصحاب المصلحة باستخدام مجموعة من 8 حالات طوارئ. ناقشنا الآثار المترتبة على النتائج التي توصلنا إليها من حيث الإنصاف وتوزيع الطاقة. أجرينا مقابلات شبه منظمة وجهاً لوجه مع ممثلي 52 من أصحاب المصلحة في مستجمعات المياه لفهم كيفية إدارتهم واستفادتهم من ES. استخدمنا التحليل الإحصائي (اختبارات التبديل) للكشف عن الاختلافات الكبيرة في عدد حالات الطوارئ المستلمة والمدارة بين قطاعات أصحاب المصلحة، أي المجتمع المدني، والمنظمات غير الحكومية، والأعمال التجارية، والقطاع العام، والمقاييس، من المستويات المحلية إلى الوطنية. كانت الأشكال غير المباشرة لإدارة الموارد البيئية والاجتماعية أكثر تواتراً من الأشكال المباشرة لجميع الموارد البيئية والاجتماعية. تمت إدارة كمية المياه ونوعية المياه والإنتاج الزراعي من قبل أكبر عدد من أنواع أصحاب المصلحة. يمكن أن تنتج الاختلافات في عدد أنواع أصحاب المصلحة المستفيدين من الموارد البيئية والاجتماعية وإدارتها عن الخيارات المتعمدة، على سبيل المثال، تفضيلات الفوائد المحلية. كما وجدنا اختلافات واضحة في هوية أصحاب المصلحة الذين أداروا الموارد البيئية والاجتماعية أو استفادوا منها. استفاد أصحاب المصلحة المحليون وقطاع الأعمال من عدد أكبر من الخدمات البيئية والاجتماعية، وكانت المنظمات العامة والمنظمات غير الحكومية أكثر مشاركة في إدارة الخدمات البيئية والاجتماعية. يجب أن تهدف الحوكمة الأكثر إنصافًا للخدمات البيئية والاجتماعية إلى دمج أصحاب المصلحة الأكثر تنوعًا في صنع القرار. يمكن أن تستخدم الأبحاث التجريبية الأخرى إطارنا لاستكشاف العوامل التي تحدد أدوار أصحاب المصلحة وتوزيع السلطة. هناك حاجة خاصة لفهم كيف تدعم الحقوق والأوقاف والاستحقاقات، فضلاً عن التكوين المكاني، أوجه عدم المساواة في السياقات الاجتماعية والثقافية المختلفة.

AbstractRiver ecosystems are threatened by future changes in land use and climatic conditions. However, little is known of the influence of interactions of these two dominant global drivers of change on ecosystems. Does the interaction amplify (synergistic interaction) or buffer (antagonistic interaction) the impacts and does their interaction effect differ in magnitude, direction and spatial extent compared to single independent pressures. In this study, we model the impact of single and interacting effects of land use and climate change on the spatial distribution of 33 fish species in the Elbe River. The varying effects were modeled using step‐wise boosted regression trees based on 250 m raster grid cells. Species‐specific models were built for both ‘moderate’ and ‘extreme’ future land use and climate change scenarios to assess synergistic, additive and antagonistic interaction effects on species losses, species gains and diversity indices and to quantify their spatial distribution within the Elbe River network. Our results revealed species richness is predicted to increase by 0.7–2.9 species by 2050 across the entire river network. Changes in species richness are likely to be spatially variable with significant changes predicted for 56–85% of the river network. Antagonistic interactions would dominate species losses and gains in up to 75% of the river network. In contrast, synergistic and additive effects would occur in only 20% and 16% of the river network, respectively. The magnitude of the interaction was negatively correlated with the magnitudes of the single independent effects of land use and climate change. Evidence is provided to show that future land use and climate change effects are highly interactive resulting in species range shifts that would be spatially variable in size and characteristic. These findings emphasize the importance of adaptive river management and the design of spatially connected conservation areas to compensate for these high species turnovers and range shifts.

AbstractBumblebees in Europe have been in steady decline since the 1900s. This decline is expected to continue with climate change as the main driver. However, at the local scale, land use and land cover (LULC) change strongly affects the occurrence of bumblebees. At present, LULC change is rarely included in models of future distributions of species. This study's objective is to compare the roles of dynamic LULC change and climate change on the projected distribution patterns of 48 European bumblebee species for three change scenarios until 2100 at the scales of Europe, and Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg (BENELUX). We compared three types of models: (1) only climate covariates, (2) climate and static LULC covariates and (3) climate and dynamic LULC covariates. The climate and LULC change scenarios used in the models include, extreme growth applied strategy (GRAS), business as might be usual and sustainable European development goals. We analysed model performance, range gain/loss and the shift in range limits for all bumblebees. Overall, model performance improved with the introduction of LULC covariates. Dynamic models projected less range loss and gain than climate‐only projections, and greater range loss and gain than static models. Overall, there is considerable variation in species responses and effects were most pronounced at the BENELUX scale. The majority of species were predicted to lose considerable range, particularly under the extreme growth scenario (GRAS; overall mean: 64% ± 34). Model simulations project a number of local extinctions and considerable range loss at the BENELUX scale (overall mean: 56% ± 39). Therefore, we recommend species‐specific modelling to understand how LULC and climate interact in future modelling. The efficacy of dynamic LULC change should improve with higher thematic and spatial resolution. Nevertheless, current broad scale representations of change in major land use classes impact modelled future distribution patterns.

In a warming climate, species are expected to shift their geographical ranges to higher elevations and latitudes, and if interacting species shift at different rates, networks may be disrupted. To quantify the effects of ongoing climate change, repeating historical biodiversity surveys is necessary. In this study, we compare the distribution of a plant–pollinator community between two surveys 115 years apart (1889 and 2005–06), reporting distribution patterns and changes observed for bumblebee species and bumblebee-visited plants in the Gavarnie-Gèdre commune in the Pyrenees, located in southwest Europe at the French–Spanish border. The region has warmed significantly over this period, alongside shifts in agricultural land use and forest. The composition of the bumblebee community shows relative stability, but we observed clear shifts to higher elevations for bumblebees (averaging 129 m) and plants (229 m) and provide preliminary evidence that some bumblebee species shift with the plants they visit. We also observe that some species have been able to occupy the same climate range in both periods by shifting elevation range. The results suggest the need for long-term monitoring to determine the role and impact of the different drivers of global change, especially in montane habitats where the impacts of climate changes are anticipated to be more extreme.

AbstractTwenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change8, pandemic emergence9 and socio-environmental injustices10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.