Facing the challenges of using place-based social-ecological research to support ecosystem service governance at multiple scales

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research from individual ResNet landscapes may be transferred directly to other similar target landscapes. Research results may also be aggregated, perhaps in combination with other data sources and case studies, to support decisions at regional, national and global levels

Figure 2. The six ResNet landscapes across Canada

Table 1. Summary of the six ResNet landscapes

Landscape	Management and Governance Issues
Landscape 1: Bay of Fundy Agricultural Dykeland futures	Evaluate the ecosystem service outcomes of maintenance, reinforcement, realignment, or removal of agricultural dykes now protecting diverse land uses but threatened by sea level rise. (Sherren et al. 2021)
Landscape 2: Working landscapes of Québec	Reconcile agriculture, forestry and peat extraction with the sustainable provision of non-extractive ecosystem services (Cimon-Morin et al. 2021)
Landscape 3: Wetlands and agriculture in prairie landscapes	Explore decision-making regarding key ecosystem service trade-offs among farmers and landowners (Minnes et al. 2020)
Landscape 4: Agriculture and carbon trade-offs in Northwestern Canada	Evaluate the trade-offs between new food production opportunities brought about by climate change resulting in a longer growing season, and how this may release additional carbon. (KC et al. in press)
Landscape 5: Development- environment trade-offs in Western Canada	Develop spatial planning solutions for multiple forms of energy development that minimize the cumulative impacts on biodiversity and other ecosystem services.
Landscape 6: Canada’s Pacific coastal fisheries	Work with Indigenous communities to link science with their governance of a complex marine system.

Table 2. Summary of the three ResNet themes and synthesis team

Theme	Primary goal
Theme 1: Develop decision-support systems for ecosystem service governance	Develop concepts, frameworks, and methods to support more effective, participatory, multi-level governance of working landscapes in Canada. (Kerr et al. ,In review)
Theme 2: Modelling ecosystem services	Develop common tools that can help understand the ecosystem service implications of landscape management options across ResNet working landscapes. (Thierry et al. 2021.)
Theme 3 Monitoring ecosystem services in working landscapes	Develop local and regional monitoring guidelines for ecosystem services across landscapes using a set of essential variables and monitoring designs that will allow comparison across landscapes. (Firkowski et al. 2021)
Synthesis Team	Focus on integration across cases (landscapes) and among themes, and help the ResNet community identify, and stay true to, common goals and focus. Attend to issues of transferability and scaling.

Figure 3. Each box depicts a landscape, with the top half of each box showing the actors and decisions and the bottom of each box showing the relevant ecosystem services and knowledge systems. There are 6 challenges inherent in transferring insights to other locations, and for aggregating understanding to larger scales, each of which is depicted in the Figure (1) Transfer from one case or landscape to another. (2) Address needs for bridging and synthesis. (3) Identify representative cases (not shown). (4) Incorporate multiple knowledge systems. (5) Align time scales and priorities across scales. (6) Address shifts in actors and power dynamics

Table 3. The challenges of scaling up, possible solutions, and planned ResNet actions. The first two, with blue background, are challenges related to transferability among cases; the last four are challenges related to scaling up from place-based cases to regional or national scales

Challenge	Possible Solutions	Planned ResNet actions
1. Transferability from one case to another	Use theory as a sort of ‘lending library’ of concepts around which to organize and compare cases (Stern 2018)	ResNet landscapes share a common focus on the ecosystem service trade-offs incurred in many working landscapes; theories such as social learning are also leveraged
	Identify similarities in structure, variables, and context so as to enable abstracting to find commonalities for comparison across cases (Qiu et al. 2021)	ResNet landscapes share a common focus on the ecosystem service trade-offs incurred in many working landscapes
	Integrate by ‘place, case, and process’ (Fischer et al. 2021, (Fischer et al. 2014)) suggesting a focus on process if a common place or case cannot be found	All ResNet landscapes follow a similar process of workshops with local partners interspersed with fieldwork and other research
	Make variability part of the study design: Align cases along a gradient for comparison (Axelsson et al. 2013; Angelstam et al. 2011)	ResNet was unable to do this because cases were chosen based on existing work with local actors
2. Lack of infrastructure, funding, and personnel for bridging and synthesis	Build networks of cases, and allocate funds specifically to integration and synthesis at project outset (Angelstam et al. 2011)	ResNet themes and synthesis team are funded and integrated into the overall project from the proposal
	Assign key team members to an integration/bridging team at project outset (Tress et al. 2006)	The three themes have expertise dedicated to scaling up, and the synthesis team to cross-case transferability
3. Identifying representative cases	Pay attention to which aspects of context are important and aim to include cases with context relevant to the larger question, engaging theory to identify concepts around which to organize cases (Sherren et al. 2010).	ResNet landscapes share a common focus on the ecosystem service trade-offs incurred in many working landscapes
4. Incorporating multiple knowledge systems at larger scales	Preserve differences as information is aggregated (Hiedanpää et al. 2011)	Ensure representation of Indigenous knowledge and case-based partners at all scales of ResNet
	Seek opportunities to generalize about the importance of TEK and LEK, such as identifying when use of this knowledge is important to incorporate, even when specific knowledge is relevant only in one case (Lam et al. 2020)	In some ResNet landscapes, TEK and LEK offer important insights on how to manage ES tradeoffs, such as traditional sea otter hunting techniques
5. Aligning timescales and priorities from local to national and international decision-making	Work with stakeholders at multiple scales from the very beginning (Lang et al. 2012)	ResNet’s’ landscape workshops are an opportunity to get key stakeholders together near the outset of the project
	Identify and be aware of mandates, objectives, and scopes of action of actors at a variety of scales (Cáceres et al. 2016)	Landscape-based workshops are an opportunity to identify mandates of key actors
	Realize that not all priorities will match, so be transparent about the plan (and timeline) to ensure that different priorities are attended to	ResNet invests in teamwork, even if that sometimes means sacrificing shorter-term productivity, including monthly meetings where stakeholders can present to researchers to facilitate alignment.
6. Shifting actors and power dynamics	Get key actors working together early in the process so solutions can be co-designed across disciplinary divides (Palmer 2012; Mooney 2016)	ResNet features at least three multi-actor workshops in each landscape, designed to create a list of key actors and bring them together.

Sherren, K, K Ellis, JA Guimond, B Kurylyk, N LeRoux,J Lundholm, ML Mallory, D van Proosdij, AK Walker, ™ Bowron, J Brazner, L Kellman, B. L. Turner II, and E Wells. 2021. Understanding multifunctional Bay of Fundy dykelands and tidal wetlands using ecosystem services–a baseline. FACETS 26(1): 1446-1473

 Google Scholar

J Cimon-Morin, J-O Goyette, P Mendes, S Pellerin, and M Poulin. 2021. A systematic conservation planning approach to maintaining ecosystem service provision in working landscapes. FACETS 6 (1): 1570-1600.

 Google Scholar

Minnes, S, V Gaspard, PA Loring, H Baulch, S-P Breen. 2020. Transforming conflict over natural resources: a socio-ecological systems analysis of agricultural drainage. FACETS 12.

 Google Scholar

KC, KB; Green, A; Wassmansdorf, D; Vivek, G; Nadeem, K; Fraser, E. In review. Opportunities and tradeoffs for expanding agriculture in Canada’s North: An ecosystem service perspective.

 Google Scholar

Kerr, G, Holzer, J, Baird, J, and Hickey, G. In review. Ecosystem services decision support tools: Exploring the implementation gap in Canada. FACETS

 Google Scholar

Thierry H, Parrott L, Robinson B, and Fraser E. 2021. Next steps for ecosystem service models: integrating complex interactions and beneficiaries. FACETS, 6:1649–1669. 10.1139/facets-2020-0116

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Firkowski C Rauen, Schwantes A M, Fortin M, and Gonzalez A and. 2021. Monitoring social–ecological networks for biodiversity and ecosystem services in human-dominated landscapes. FACETS, 6:1670–1692. doi:10.1139/facets-2020-0114

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Stern MJ. 2018. Social science theory for environmental sustainability: a practical guide. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.

 Google Scholar

Qiu J, Queiroz C, Bennett EM, Cord AF, Crouzat E, Lavorel S, Maes J, Meacham M, Norstrom AV, Peterson GD, Seppelt R, and Turner MG. 2021. Land-use intensity mediates ecosystem service tradeoffs across regional social-ecological systems. Ecosystems and People. 17:264–278.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fischer J, Bergsten A, Dorresteijn I, Hanspach J, Hylander K, Jiren TS, Manlosa AO, Rodrigues P, Schultner J, Senbeta F & Shumi G. 2021. A social-ecological assessment of food security and biodiversity conservation in Ethiopia. Ecosystems and People. 17(1):400–410. doi:10.1080/26395916.2021.1952306

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fischer J, Sherren K, Hanspach J. 2014. Place, case and process: applying ecology to sustainable development. Basic Appl Ecol. 15:187–193. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2013.12.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Axelsson R, Angelstam P, Myhrman L, Sädbom S, Ivarsson M, Elbakidze M, Andersson K, Cupa P, Diry C, Doyon F, et al. 2013. Evaluation of multi-level social learning for sustainable landscapes: perspective of a development initiative in Bergslagen, Sweden. Ambio. 42:241–253. doi:10.1007/s13280-012-0378-y.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Angelstam P, Axelsson R, Elbakidze M, Laestadius L, Lazdinis M, Nordberg M, Pătru-Stupariu I, Smith M. 2011. Knowledge production and learning for sustainable forest management on the ground: pan-European landscapes as a time machine. Forestry. 84:581–596. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpr048.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tress B, Tress G, and Fry G. 2006. Defining concepts and the process of knowledge production in integrative research. From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning. 12.:13–26.

 Google Scholar

Sherren K, Fischer J, Clayton H, Schirmer J, Dovers S. 2010. Integration by case, place and process: transdisciplinary research for sustainable grazing in the Lachlan river catchment, Australia. Landsc Ecol. 25:1219–1230. doi:10.1007/s10980-010-9494-x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hiedanpää J, Kotilainen J, Salo M. 2011. Unfolding the organised irresponsibility: ecosystem approach and the quest for forest biodiversity in Finland, Peru, and Russia. For Policy Econ. 13:159–165. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.11.007.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lam DP, Hinz E, Lang D, Tengö M, Wehrden H, Martín-López B. 2020. Indigenous and local knowledge in sustainability transformations research: a literature review. Ecol Soc. 25. doi:10.5751/ES-11305-250103.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ. 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci. 7:25–43. doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cáceres DM, Silvetti F, Díaz S. 2016. The rocky path from policy-relevant science to policy implementation—A case study from the South American Chaco. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 19:57–66. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.12.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Palmer MA. 2012. Socioenvironmental sustainability and actionable science. BioScience. 62:5–6. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.2.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mooney H. 2016. Sustainability science: social–environmental systems (SES) research: how the field has developed and what we have learned for future efforts. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 19:v–xii. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.05.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar