Abstract
Context
The difficulty of analysing resilience and threshold responses to changing environmental drivers becomes evident in the social-ecological systems framework due to their inherent complexity. Research is needed to develop new tools able to deal with such challenges and determine potential thresholds for SES variables that primarily influence tipping point behaviour.
Objectives
In this paper, a methodology based on the application of Bayesian Networks (BNs) has been developed to quantify the social-ecological resilience along an urban–rural gradient in Madrid Region, detecting the tipping point values of the main socioeconomic indicators implying critical transitions at landscape stability thresholds.
Method
To do this, the spatial–temporal trends of the landscape in an urban–rural gradient from Region de Madrid (Spain) were identified, to then quantify the intensity of the changes and explain them using BNs based on regression models. Finally, through inference propagation the thresholds of landscape change were detected.
Results
The results obtained for the study area indicate that the most resilient landscapes analysed are those where the traditional silvo-pastoral activity was maintained by elderly people and where there is cohesion between neighbouring rural municipalities.
Conclusion
The method developed has allowed us to detect the tipping points from which small changes in socioeconomic indicators generate large changes at the landscape level. We demonstrate that the use of BNs is a useful tool to achieve an integrated social-ecological spatial planning.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
In the last decades, the studies of social-ecological systems (SES), integrating socioeconomic and ecological dimensions, have increased exponentially. The result of this co-evolutionary adaptation between structures provides a powerful framework for understanding the highly dynamic interactions of social and ecological changes (Liu et al. 2007; Ostrom 2009; Gatzweiler 2014). In these systems, the role of human beings is usually the main driver of changes in the ecological regime, generating alterations of ecosystems such as biological invasions, loss and degradation of habitat, appearance of new diseases and climate change (Allen et al. 2016). In this context, the resilience concept is the central framework that links SES. Resilience is understood as an emerging property of socio-ecosystems that determines ecosystem stability and its ability to increase its capacity to learn and adapt in response to natural or human-induced perturbations (Holling 1973; Lenton et al. 2008). The concept of 'social-ecological resilience' integrates the study of landscape change intensity as a consequence of socioeconomic alterations (Perz et al. 2012; Salvati et al. 2013), since landscape is the result of interactions among society, economy and ecosystems (Lepart and Debussche 1992; Sirami et al. 2010). Quantifying and understanding SES resilience allows to predict and adapt to landscape changes (Hu et al. 2018) and, together with vulnerability to land degradation, is an important tool for sustainable land use planning and decision-making (Salvati et al. 2013).
Resilience and vulnerability represent two related, yet different, approaches to understanding the response of SES to change (Miller et al. 2010). In this sense, vulnerability is defined as the degree to which a system or system component is susceptible to sustaining damage from a hazard (Turner et al. 2003). Vulnerability assessments need to be robust and consider the hazards (perturbations or stressors) that can affect the resilience of the system in question. To identify resilience and vulnerabilities it is also important to detect the complex systems of threshold responses to drivers of change, as well as breakpoints or tipping points that may result in critical effects on a system (Nitschke and Innes 2008; Scheffer et al. 2012; Capon et al. 2015; Reyer et al. 2015). Nevertheless, thresholds are difficult to determine and few empirical studies quantify the amount of disturbance a system can absorb before changing to another state (Walker and Meyers 2004; Renaud et al. 2010; Angeler and Allen 2016). The concept of tipping point was defined by van Nes et al. (2016) as “thresholds of localized effects, including ecological, socio-cultural or economic system properties, which occur when small changes in pressures induce large, abrupt changes in system properties” (SES, in our case). Acceleration is caused by positive feedback driving the system to a new state.
The difficulty of analysing resilience and threshold responses to changing environmental drivers becomes evident in the SES framework due to their inherent complexity. Frequently, the different theoretical interpretations of the concept of socio-ecological resilience and the existing gap between the theoretical and methodological development to measure it create confusion in its empirical application, which suggests that this area of study still faces some challenges. Including both socioeconomic and natural variables often lead to complicated modelling tasks (different sources of information, metrics, units, among others). Furthermore, the interaction of fast and slow variables between social and ecological systems generates complex dynamics and makes it difficult to identify system thresholds. It is also noteworthy that the development of new technologies allows for a spread in data availability and complexity, which, at the same time, increases the uncertainty inherent to the data and the system. A review of the literature on this topic illustrates the state of the art of social-ecological resilience evaluation and reveals that, in general, the choice of a certain method depends on the context, the availability of the necessary information or the research questions (González-Quintero and Avila-Foucat 2019; Schwind et al. 2016). Most studies use indicators and indices to assess resilience attributes. These approximations have the inherent advantage of being easy to measure, compared to targets that are more difficult to quantify, since they reduce the complexity of a system to a compact and manageable amount of information (Quinlan et al. 2016; Suárez et al. 2016). In cases where resilience is used to understand and predict system changes, dynamic models prove to be a useful tool for simulating complex and dynamic systems that can effectively support programmes and policy design, decision-making processes, outline natural resource management strategies and social learning or help resolve socio-environmental conflicts, among others (Sellberg et al. 2015; Sharifi and Yamagata 2017; Assumma et al. 2020; Datola et al. 2022). The relationship between the quantified resilience of SES and the political aspects related to human well-being could be of great importance to policymakers (Bene et al. 2011; Franco-Gaviria et al. 2022).
It seems necessary to develop a consistent method to measure the resilience of SES and determine potential thresholds for SES variables that primarily influence tipping point behaviour (González-Quintero and Avila-Foucat 2019; Reyer et al. 2015). Thus, research is needed to develop new tools able to deal with such challenges. In this sense, Bayesian approaches, based on rigorous probabilistic models, have been efficiently applied to SES modelling showing robust results and potential applications in this field (Aguilera et al. 2011; Ropero et al. 2014, 2015). Bayesian Networks (BNs) provide a mathematically consistent framework for SES analysis, in which the graphical representation of model structures and probability distributions are very useful in solving many management questions (McCann et al. 2006). The graphical structure, integrating qualitative and quantitative information, represents a causal model and increases the transparency of the modelling process (Jensen 1996). BNs have proven to be suitable for dealing with problems dominated by uncertainty, an inherent aspect of SES (Franco-Gaviria et al. 2022). Quantifying uncertainty can add substantial perspective to many real-life problems (Uusitalo 2007).
In this paper, a methodology based on the application of Bayesian Networks (BNs) has been developed to quantify the social-ecological resilience along an urban–rural gradient, detecting the tipping point values of the main socioeconomic indicators that imply critical transitions at landscape stability thresholds. The urban–rural gradient paradigm constitutes an appropriate scenario for the study of SES resilience, since as systems subjected to different exploitation pressure, they often exhibit a different status in ecological structure and function (McDonnell et al. 1997; Vizzari and Sigura 2015; Cao et al. 2020). To achieve this objective, the authors used high-resolution, long-term data on land use-land cover and socioeconomic variables, considering the following premises: (i) at a regional scale, SES generate a particular landscape composition and spatial structure, especially noticeable along urban–rural gradients; (ii) the socioeconomic context is one of the main drivers in landscape structure and SES change. In this way, given that resilience is the amount of disturbance that a system can withstand before becoming an alternative stable state, it may be considered that a resilience landscape is that which maintains its spatial configuration despite socioeconomic changes. The proposed methodology, easily replicable, can be considered as a useful tool for sustainable land planning and management, from a social-ecological perspective.
Material and methods
Study area
The present study focused on a marked urban–rural gradient of the Madrid Region (Central Spain), identified in previous studies (Arnaiz-Schmitz et al. 2018a). This area covers 2,535 km2 ranging from 400 m asl in the valleys to altitudes of 2,000 m on the mountain summits and includes 36 municipalities (Fig. 1). The topography divides the landscape into two main sectors associated with different geomorphological dynamics (Schmitz et al. 2007). One-third of the area, to the north and west, is occupied by granitic and gneissic rocks with lithic and dystrict leptosols, and a mountain range exhibiting well-differentiated altitudinal belts with oak and pine forests, upland grasslands and silvo-pastoral uses (Hewitt and Escobar 2011). The remainder area to the centre and east is the sedimentary basin of the Tagus River that originates an agricultural landscape. Traditionally, SES of the area were represented by a rural network of human settlements in which the main activities were related to agriculture and livestock. Nowadays, the region is considered as one of the hotspots in urban development (European Commission 2006; Kuemmerle et al. 2016).
Along the urban–rural gradient studied, there is a clear variation of land use-land cover (LULC), which gives rise to different types of landscape. This gradient assigns its land uses to different activities depending on their environmental characteristics and their degree of connection with the city of Madrid. The traditional use of the municipalities to the north of the gradient, characterized by the mountainous area and high grasses, is linked to livestock activities and contrasts with the south-eastern municipalities that have a highly developed and intensive agricultural sector. In this landscape context, the selected gradient is very useful to visualize the most pronounced changes that have occurred in the study area.
Database collection
Quantitative information was recorded referring to socioeconomic and LULC data of the 36 municipalities included in the urban–rural gradient: (a) eight LULC types, obtained from pre-existing land use maps (reclassified from CORINE Land Cover Maps for the years 1991 and 2018; Table 1a (b) six landscape metrics (LM) calculated from the same CORINE maps in that temporal scale (Table 1b) (c) fifteen socioeconomic descriptors obtained from the most current public census (IECM, 2009–2018) (Table 2). The socioeconomic period was selected considering that the present values of the socioeconomic variables, able to explain landscape changes (Schmitz et al. 2003; Antrop 2006; De Aranzabal et al. 2008), are the most evident result of past economic activities. As spatial analysis units, the 36 municipalities in the study area have been considered, since they are the smallest governance unit in the Madrid region and also the administrative scale of greater detail in which there are data available from the socioeconomic census and agriculture (Schmitz et al. 2012; Salvati and Serra 2016, among others). Figure 2 summarizes the main steps of the methodological approach followed.
Landscape metrics calculations
According with McGarigal et al. (2012), six spatially explicit and non-redundant LM were selected (Table 1b). The selection criterion of these spatial metrics was based on their high capacity to describe landscape patterns, ease of interpretation, non-redundancy and comparability (Su et al. 2012; Zhang and Gao 2016; Arnaiz-Schmitz et al. 2018a, b). We used Largest patch index (LPI) as a patch area metric that deal with the size of patches and the amount of edge created by these patches and represents an indirect measure of landscape homogeneity (Herrero-Jáuregui et al. 2019). Edge contrast index (ECON) allowed us to calculate the structural contrast between neighbouring patches types (Kie et al. 2002). Euclidean nearest neighbour distance (ENN), describes the degree of spatial isolation of patches and, therefore, the degree of landscape connectivity (Geri et al. 2010). To measure the degree of landscape fragmentation we calculate both Edge density (ED), which inform about the occurrence of ecotones or amount of edge created by the patches present in the landscape, and Splitting index (SPLIT), that is a simple index of landscape division (Jaeger 2000; Lausch and Herzog 2002; Lasanta et al. 2006). We calculated landscape composition and structure by means of Patch richness density (PRD) that refers to the number or variety of patch types present in a landscape and it is a good indicator of landscape heterogeneity (Nagendra 2002; Arnaiz-Schmitz et al. 2018a).
For the calculation, we used rasterized CORINE Land Cover Maps (years 1991 and 2018), reclassifying land cover classes into the eight LULC types previously selected (Table 1b). Raster maps of the study area were produced and, using a round moving window with a radius of 100 m, a mean value for each spatial metric was calculated at municipal scale. We used ArcGis software V.10.1 (ESRI, 2012) and Fragstats V.4.2 (McGarigal et al. 2012) for the landscape metrics calculation.
Calculating landscape change intensity
In order to characterize the municipalities of the urban–rural gradient according to their landscape context, a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was performed using 72 observations (36 municipalities at two times, ti) and 14 variables related to landscape structure (LULC and LM indicated in Table 1). The PCA allowed us to project the municipalities on a plane, whose dimensions represent the main trends in landscape variation over time.
Subsequently, on the PCA plane we calculated the intensity of the landscape change by means of a vector analysis, measuring the modules of change trajectories of municipalities (1).
where, \(\Delta \overrightarrow{{D}_{j}}\) refers to the displacement vectors of the coordinates of each municipality (j) on PCA axes from initial time, ti, to final time, tf. The direction of the vectors in relation to the reference PCA axes allowed us to determine the tendency of change in each municipality.
Bayesian Networks regression models
Bayesian Networks (BNs) are a statistical multivariate model for a set of variables X = X1...Xn explained in terms of two components:
-
A qualitative one, defined by means of a directed acyclic graph in which arcs linking nodes determine the (in)dependence relationships among them (Fig. 3a).
-
A quantitative one, specified using a conditional distribution p(xi/pa(xi)) for each variable Xi, i = 1, 2,...,n given its parents in the graph denoted by pa(Xi) (Fig. 3b)
They were originally proposed for handling discrete variables but it is known that environmental data often present continuous domains. Even when discretizing them does not always imply a bad solution (Ropero et al. 2018a, b), it often leads to a loss in precision. To avoid discretization, several approaches have been developed. In this paper, the so-called Mixture of Truncated Exponential (MTEs) model was used (for more information see Rumí and Salmerón 2006; Rumí et al. 2006) which consists in splitting the domain of the continuous variable into several intervals, where the corresponding density function is approximated by an exponential function. In that way, standard BNs inference processes can be applied since they are closed under restriction, marginalization and combination. BNs based on MTEs have been successfully used in social-ecological and landscape modelling (Maldonado et al. 2016; Flores et al. 2019).
BNs can have four different aims depending on the number and nature of the target variable(s) (Aguilera et al. 2011). When the focus is set on one target variable, regression (if it is continuous) or classification (when it is discrete) is dealt with. According to the objective of this paper, we selected a set of socioeconomic indicators in order to relate it to landscape change. In this sense, a regression problem emerges where the features are the socioeconomic indicators selected, and the target variable is landscape change. The methodology applied for a regression model based on BNs is deeply explained in (Ropero et al. 2014).
Since the purpose is to predict the goal variable as precisely as possible, rather than trying to accurately model the joint probability of all the variables, the so-called fixed structures have been developed. The simplest is the Naive Bayes (NB) (Minsky 1961) structure. It consists of a BN with a single root node and a set of feature variables having only the root node as a parent. Its name comes from the fact that the feature variables are independent given the root (Fig. 4a). It is a naive assumption that rarely holds in real problems, as the feature variables may have direct dependencies. Thus, a step beyond is the Tree Augmented Naive Bayes (TAN) structure (Friedman et al. 1997). In this case, each feature is allowed to have one more parent in addition to the target variable. This structure is firstly learnt as a directed tree structure with the feature variables, using the mutual information with respect to the target variable. In the second step, the relationships between the target variable and each feature are included (Fig. 4b). These relationships do not have any environmental meaning, and they are there merely to provide a better estimation of the target variable. Both NB and TAN structures allow to include the previous step of variable selection through the learning process following the methodology explained in Ropero et al. (2014). In this way, it is possible to avoid those variables that could introduce noise into the model.
Once models were learnt, root mean square error, rmse (2), was calculated in order to compare them.
Inference propagation
Once the BN regression models are learnt, new information, or evidence, may be included in the model, through the so-called inference process or probabilistic propagation. If the set of evidenced variables is established as E, and their values as e, then the inference process consists in calculating the posterior distribution p(xi|e) for each variable of interest (for more information see Ropero et al. (2014). In the present model, the new information or evidence is a total of 10 equidistant points of each feature variable (socioeconomic variables). They were included in the model one by one, and probabilistic propagation was carried out, in such a way that the posterior distribution of the target variable (land use change) was obtained. In order to properly interpret the results, the mean value of this distribution was calculated for each evidence.
Results
Figure 5 represents the temporal variation of the landscape in the study gradient, analysed by means of PCA. The coordinates of the municipalities are projected on the ordination plane in relation to the two main trends of landscape change, expressed by the first two axes of the PCA. These axes jointly explain a large part of the total variability of the data (variance absorption of 62.72%). The arrows show the direction of the displacement vectors of each municipality over time. The length and direction of the vectors indicate the intensity of the change that occurred in each case.
The global interpretation of the PCA ordination plane, according to the factor loadings of the landscapes descriptors (Table 3), allows us to detect two types of municipalities in relation to both their composition of land uses and spatial structure, as well as their change trends. Thus, PCA-axis 1 (variance 33.24%) differentiates along the urban–rural gradient the municipalities with a rural landscape eminently agricultural, with a spatial structure characterized by large and homogeneous patches related to the intensification of agricultural practices (positive end of the axis) from those that present a heterogeneous landscape, with a more naturalness appearance, mainly characterized by forest systems (negative end of the axis). PCA-axis 2 (variance 29.48%) expresses, from bottom to top of the ordination plane, a variation from silvo-pastoral landscapes (traditional pasture systems and dehesas) to areas characterised by fragmentation processes and urban expansion, linked to the abandonment of the rural land use system. The agricultural group of municipalities is geographically located in the S-SE zone of the urban–rural gradient, while the silvo-pastoral one is in the W-NW zone (Fig. 1).
The vector calculation on the ordination plane allowed us to determine that the silvo-pastoral landscapes (left end of the plane) tend to change unidirectional and intensely (direction and magnitude of the arrows, respectively) towards the abandonment of traditional land use systems and urban expansion. On the contrary, the magnitude of the change in landscapes with an agricultural vocation (extreme right of the plane) is less, evolving towards two types of situations: agricultural intensification or urban transformation.
Based on these results, and with the aim of testing the usefulness of Bayesian Networks as a methodological tool to detect thresholds or tipping points in landscape change trends, we focus on the group of municipalities in which a greatest spatial–temporal change has been identified (i.e., the silvo-pastoral systems of the studied gradient). To build the networks, we created a data matrix in which the intensity of landscape change, calculated using vector Eq. (1) on coordinates of PCA plane, acts as the target variable, while the characteristic variables are those different socioeconomic ones which were previously obtained. For this model, four structures were learnt, NB and TAN and their alternatives with variable selection (SNB, STAN). A comparison among them was carried out, in order to ascertain the best model in terms of error rate. Results are shown in Table 4. In all cases, TAN structure with a variable selection (STAN) is the best option.
We used BNs model using the fixed structure TAN with variable selection (STAN) to calculate the threshold of landscape transformation. Table 5 shows the variables selected by the STAN model. To detect inflection points, the values of the variables were resized by ten equidistant points based on their maximum and minimum values. These values were included in the model one by one to calculate their probabilistic propagation, obtaining the distribution function of the objective variable (landscape change intensity).
Figure 6 shows the results in which thresholds can be identified. These are points from which the variations in the socioeconomic indicator (feature variable) generate large changes in the landscape, determining the degree of landscape vulnerability to variations in this indicator. Taking into account the type of relationship between socioeconomic and landscape change and, consequently, their potential resilience, the thresholds detected can indicate tipping points from which vulnerability increases or decreases.
The results show the threshold values of the socioeconomic indicators from which the landscapes studied are transformed with a greater or lesser intensity over time. For the period of time analysed, four very well differentiated socioeconomic thresholds were observed (Fig. 6), indicating that: (i) the rejuvenation of the population, as well as the connectivity with the city of Madrid, increase changes in the landscape; (ii) the connectivity with neighbouring municipalities and the abundance of livestock in the studied areas contribute to the resilience of the landscape (Fig. 6a). The rest of the socioeconomic indicators do not present a differentiated change threshold, but they provide valuable information on the resilience of the landscape in the face of their magnitude. Thus, the landscapes studied are more resilient when municipalities generate high values of industrial GDP, high per capita income per inhabitant, and the cadastral value of rural assets remains low, without urban interest (Fig. 6b).
Discussion
Analyses of changes in landscape structure and composition along a remarkable urban–rural gradient in which the city of Madrid occupies a central geographical and socioeconomic position, indicate that the study area is subject to a multifaceted trend of landscape variation. This variation affects in a different way the silvo-pastoral landscapes of the N-NW of the gradient of those with agricultural vocation, located to the S-SE (Fig. 1). Nonetheless, land transformation towards urban sprawl is a common trend throughout the study region (Fig. 5).
The two main types of landscapes identified, with dissimilar degrees of naturalness and agricultural intensification, have unalike social-ecological conditions (Arnaiz-Schmitz et al. 2018a,b) and, therefore, their response to changes is also of different magnitude. Over time, silvo-pastoral landscapes show the most intense dynamics of change that implies the abandonment of traditional land uses, spatial fragmentation and urban transformation. These degraded rural systems have low resilience and, therefore, high vulnerability to the adverse effects of land use changes related to the new prevailing socioeconomic conditions (Adger 2006; Malek and Verburg 2020). Our results agree with the processes of change observed by other authors in Mediterranean landscapes, that underline the trend of abandonment of the rural landscape related to the socioeconomic transition from the traditional rural context to the urban one (Antrop 2000, 2006; Plieninger et al. 2014; Schmitz et al. 2021; Thapa et al. 2021).
Diachronic analyses of environmental and socioeconomic data series are powerful tools capable of dealing with the inherent complexity of social-ecological systems and their ability to adapt to change. However, few operational methods exist to quantify and predict the resilience of a landscape (Keane et al. 2018). Different authors have developed theoretical models, although often complicated, in which they detect thresholds of change in the SES through complex systems (Walker and Meyers 2004; Carpenter and Brock 2006, are some of them). Unfortunately, the empirical evidence of thresholds and their quantification is scarce. A review in this regard shows that the literature does not refer to any method that applies this probabilistic tool to the study of landscape change thresholds. The study of SES as complex adaptive systems is likely to make their analysis more difficult, limiting the amount of broad-scale research (Renaud et al. 2010; Lauerburg et al. 2020). Therefore, the development of integrative methods that model landscape–socioeconomic interactions is necessary and useful to understand the social-ecological feedback that regulates changes in land use and landscape resilience (De Aranzabal et al. 2008; Lambin and Meyfroidt 2010; Rescia et al. 2010).
In this study we demonstrate that BNs allow for the development of a useful methodological approach to analyse this information and detect the thresholds of landscape resilience. Despite the fact that BNs are a widely cited tool in the bibliography, most of the studies that analyse them focus on theoretical-methodological developments, disregarding their broad application capacity in Environmental Sciences (Aguilera et al. 2011). The main advantage of using BN networks over traditional multivariate models is that the BN ones used provide information about the structure of the relationships between the components of the system and how these components are related (that is, if a variable change, all others are affected) (Ropero et al. 2018b). Although, to date, BNs models have been rarely used in SES resilience assessments, research on them has shown that they can provide valuable information on resilience structure and function (Franco-Gaviria et al. 2022).
The socioeconomic conditions of local populations have shaped and maintained rural cultural landscapes over the last few centuries, and today's rapid and drastic socioeconomic changes may affect landscape resilience beyond the thresholds of its adaptive capacity (Arnaiz-Schmitz et al. 2018b; Rescia et al. 2010). The loss of rurality observed in the traditional silvo-pastoral systems and the consequent rupture of the historical landscape-local socioeconomic links are related to the process of urban expansion and metropolisation of the region, which modifies existing social-ecological patterns creating new relationships between rural settlements, towns and cities. Spatial mobility is one the main features of urban transformation and metropolisation process of rural landscape (Serra et al. 2014; Cuadrado-Ciuraneta et al. 2017; Arnaiz-Schmitz et al. 2018b).
The results obtained indicate that silvo-pastoral landscapes are more resilient and less vulnerable to possible socioeconomic shocks that may arise when the traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) of local older people, accumulated during many generations of close interaction between people and nature, favours the maintenance of traditional livestock activities. Likewise, the cohesion between neighbouring rural settlements, interconnected through transportation networks, supports the stability of these landscapes. Landscape resilience and its associated thresholds of change are established within a coupled socioeconomic-ecological system, with feedback responses between human activities and landscape processes (Horan et al. 2011). Population rejuvenation without social mechanisms that allow the transmission TEK can result in a decoupling between the rural landscape and the local socioeconomic interactions and cause a gradual loss of resilience, driving the system towards thresholds of change (Berkes et al. 2000; Drew 2005; Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013; Arnaiz-Schmitz et al. 2018c). The lack of adequate and effective land planning and management aimed at the conservation of cultural landscapes, together with institutional deficiencies in supporting local populations and their own TEK, favour the abandonment of rural landscapes and place them in a position of vulnerability (Schmitz et al 2021).
The resilience of these rural landscapes facing possible disturbances is fundamental to guarantee the ecosystem’s conditions. Although, in many cases, preventing the arrival of a threshold is impossible, especially if they are generated by external exogenous factors that are difficult to control and regulate (Horan et al. 2011), knowing the socioeconomic limits to which landscapes are submitted can be a very useful tool for the maintenance and conservation of the territory. The critical analysis of changes in the landscape before and after crossing one of these tipping points allows the development of adaptive and participatory management strategies in which the costs and benefits of the past and present situation of the territories are evaluated in order to achieve a and optimal benefit (Riekhof et al. 2022).
The method developed in this paper has allowed us to detect the tipping points from which small changes in socioeconomic indicators generate large changes at the landscape level. This information is of great value due to its usefulness for the conservation and maintenance of cultural rural landscapes, as tipping point dynamics are fundamental drivers for the development of more sustainable SES (Mathias et al. 2020).
Conclusions
The preservation of cultural rural landscapes depends closely on the socioeconomics of their population settlements and the TEK of their local inhabitants, which plays a key role in increasing the landscape resilience. The social-ecological resilience of rural landscapes studied, located along an urban–rural gradient in Madrid region, is threatened by the drastic and rapid socioeconomic changes that have occurred in recent times, mainly due to the strong influence of the processes of metropolisation and urban expansion. Especially the silvo-pastoral landscapes of the region have experienced the abandonment, reduction and/or disappearance of rural land uses and traditional knowledge. These degraded rural systems have low resilience and high vulnerability to environmental changes.
The analysis of the landscape resilience, identifying the tipping points from which small changes in the main socioeconomic indicators give rise to important landscape changes, can facilitate decision-making in preventive policies and land management in the face of possible changes. However, the inherent complexity of SES makes it difficult to develop empirical methods to quantify thresholds of change. By applying the integrative method developed here, which allowed us modelling landscape–socioeconomic interactions and feed-backs, we have detected the threshold values of socioeconomic indicators from which the silvo-pastoral landscapes studied have transformed with a greater or lesser intensity over time. The socioeconomic indicators identified that significantly contribute to the resilience of this type of landscape are both the maintenance of traditional livestock activities, supported by the TEK of local older people, and rural cohesion, favoured by improved mobility and interconnection between neighbouring municipalities through transport networks.
The results obtained demonstrate that the use of BNs networks is helpful to detect thresholds of change in the landscapes analysed and that, therefore, they are a useful tool to achieve an integrated social-ecological land planning and can help to achieve more resilient territories.
Data availability
The datasets analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Global Environ Chang 16(3):268–281
Aguilera PA, Fernández A, Fernández R, Rumí R, Salmerón A (2011) Bayesian networks in environmental modelling. Environ Modell Softw 26(12):1376–1388
Allen CR, Angeler DG, Cumming GS, Folke C, Twidwell D, Uden DR (2016) J Appl Ecol 53:625–635
Angeler DG, Allen CR (2016) Quantifying resilience. J Appl Ecol 53(3):617–624
Antrop M (2000) Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe. Landsc Ecol 15(3):257–270
Antrop M (2006) Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia? Landsc Urban Plan 75(3–4):187–197
Arnaiz-Schmitz C, Schmitz MF, Herrero-Jáuregui C, Gutiérrez-Angonese J, Pineda FD, Montes C (2018a) Identifying socio-ecological networks in rural-urban gradients: diagnosis of a changing cultural landscape. Sci Total Environ 612:625–635
Arnaiz-Schmitz C, Díaz P, Ruiz-Labourdette D, Herrero-Jáuregui C, Molina M, Montes C, Pineda FD, Schmitz MF (2018b) Modelling of socio-ecological connectivity: the rural urban network in the surroundings of Madrid (Central Spain). Urban Ecosyst 21(6):1199–1212
Arnaiz-Schmitz C, Herrero-Jáuregui C, Schmitz MF (2018c) Losing a heritage hedgerow landscape: biocultural diversity conservation in a changing social-ecological Mediterranean system. Sci Total Environ 637:374–384
Assumma V, Bottero M, Datola G, De Angelis E, Monaco R (2020) Dynamic models for exploring the resilience in territorial scenarios. Sustainability 12(1):15
Bene C, Evans L, Mills D, Ovie S, Raji A, Tafida A et al (2011) Testing resilience thinking in a poverty context: experience from the Niger River basin. Global Environ Change 21(4):1173–1184
Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl 10(5):1251–1262
Cao Y, Langdon P, Chen X, Huang C, Yan Y, Yang J, Zeng L (2020) Regime shifts in shallow lake ecosystems along an urban-rural gradient in central China. Sci Total Environ 733:139–309
Capon SJ, Lynch AJJ, Bond N, Chessman BC, Davis J, Davidson N et al (2015) Regime shifts, thresholds and multiple stable states in freshwater ecosystems; a critical appraisal of the evidence. Sci Total Environ 534:122–130
Carpenter SR, Brock WA (2006) Rising variance: a leading indicator of ecological transition. Ecol Lett 9(3):311–318
Datola G, Bottero M, De Angelis E, Romagnoli F (2022) Operationalising resilience: a methodological framework for assessing urban resilience through System Dynamics Model. Ecol Model 465:109851
De Aranzabal I, Schmitz MF, Pineda AP, FD, (2008) Modelling of landscape changes derived from the dynamics of socio-ecological systems: a case of study in a semiarid Mediterranean landscape. Ecol Indic 8(5):672–685
Cuadrado-Ciuraneta S, Durà-Guimerà A, Salvati L (2017) Not only tourism: unravelling suburbanization, second-home expansion and “rural” sprawl in Catalonia. Spain Urban Geogr 38(1):66–89
Drew JA (2005) Use of traditional ecological knowledge in marine conservation. Conserv Biol 19(4):1286–1293
ESRI (2012) ArcGIS V.10.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute, California
European Comission (2006) Urban sprawl in Europe. The ignored challenge. Report. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
Flores J, Ropero RF, Rumí R (2019) Assessment of flood risk in Mediterranean catchments: an approach based on Bayesian Networks. Stoch Env Res Risk A 33:1991–2005
Franco-Gaviria F, Amador-Jiménez M, Millner N, Durden C, Urrego DH (2022) Quantifying resilience of socio-ecological systems through dynamic Bayesian Networks. Front for Global Chang 218:5
Friedman N, Geiger D, Goldszmidt M (1997) Bayesian Network classifiers. Mach Learn 29:131–163
Gatzweiler FW (2014) Value, institutional complementarity and variety in coupled socioecological systems. Ecosyst Serv 10:137–143
Geri F, Amici V, Rocchini D (2010) Human activity impact on the heterogeneity of a Mediterranean landscape. Appl Geogr 30(3):370–379
González-Quintero C, Avila-Foucat VS (2019) Operationalization and measurement of social-ecological resilience: a systematic review. Sustainability 11(21):6073
Gómez-Baggethun E, Corbera E, Reyes-García V (2013) Traditional ecological knowledge and global environmental change: research findings and policy implications. Ecol Soc 18(4):49
Herrero-Jáuregui C, Arnaiz-Schmitz C, Herrera L, Smart SM, Montes C, Pineda FD, Schmitz MF (2019) Aligning landscape structure with ecosystem services along an urban–rural gradient: trade-offs and transitions towards cultural services. Landsc Ecol 34(7):1525–1545
Hewitt R, Escobar F (2011) The territorial dynamics of fast-growing regions: unsustainable land use change and future policy challenges in Madrid. Spain Appl Geogr 31(2):650–667
Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4(1):1–23
Horan RD, Fenichel EP, Drury KLS, Lodge DM (2011) Managing ecological thresholds in coupled environmental-human systems. Pro Natl Acad Sci USA 108(18):7333–7338
Hu M, Zhang J, Huang J (2018) Assessing social-ecological system resilience in mainland China. Pol J Environ Stud 27(3):1085–1096
Jaeger JA (2000) Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landsc Ecol 15(2):115–130
Jensen FV (1996) Bayesian Networks basics. AISB Q 15:9–22
Keane RE, Loehman RA, Holsinger LM, Falk DA, Higuera P, Hood SM, Hessburg PF (2018) Use of landscape simulation modeling to quantify resilience for ecological applications. Ecosphere 9(9):e02414
Kie JG, Bowyer RT, Nicholson MC, Boroski BB, Loft ER (2002) Landscape heterogeneity at differing scales: effects on spatial distribution of mule deer. Ecology 83(2):530–544
Kuemmerle T, Levers C, Erb K, Estel S, Jepsen MR, Müller D et al (2016) Hotspots of land use change in Europe. Environ Res Lett 11(6):064020
Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P (2010) Land use transitions: Socio-ecological feedback versus socio-economic change. Land Use Policy 27(2):108–118
Lasanta T, González-Hidalgo JC, Vicente-Serrano SM, Sferi E (2006) Using landscape ecology to evaluate an alternative management scenario in abandoned Mediterranean mountain areas. Landsc Urban Plan 78(1–2):101–114
Lauerburg RAM, Diekmann R, Blanz B, Gee K, Held H, Kannen A et al (2020) Socio-ecological vulnerability to tipping points: A review of empirical approaches and their use for marine management. Sci Total Environ 705:135838
Lausch A, Herzog F (2002) Applicability of landscape metrics for the monitoring of landscape change: issues of scale, resolution and interpretability. Ecol Indic 2(1–2):3–15
Lenton TM, Held H, Kriegler E, Hall JW, Lucht W, Rahmstorf S, Schellnhuber HJ (2008) Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proc Natl Acad Sci Usa 105:1786–1793
Lepart J, Debussche M (1992) Human impact on landscape patterning: mediterranean examples. In: Hansen AJ, Castri F (eds) Landscape boundaries. Springer, New York, pp 76–106
Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Morán E, Pell AN, Deadman P, Kratz JL, Ostrom E, Ouyang Z, Provencher W, Redman ChL, Scheneider SH, Taylor WW (2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317(5844):1513–1516
Maldonado A, Aguilera P, Salmerón A (2016) Continuous Bayesian networks for probabilistic environmental risk mapping. Stoch Environ Res Risk A 30(5):1441–1455
Malek Ž, Verburg PH (2020) Mapping global patterns of land use decision-making. Global Environ Chang 65:102–170
Mathias JD, Anderies JM, Baggio J, Hodbod J, Huet S, Janssen MA et al (2020) Exploring non-linear transition pathways in social-ecological systems. Sci Rep-Uk 10(1):1–12
McCann RK, Marcot BG, Ellis R (2006) Bayesian belief networks: applications in ecology and natural resource management. Can J Forest Res 36(12):3053–3062
McDonnell MJ, Pickett ST, Groffman P, Bohlen P, Pouyat RV, Zipperer WC, Parmelee RW, Carreiro MM, Medley K (1997) Ecosystem processes along an urban-to-rural gradient. Urban Ecosyst 1(1):21–36
McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Ene E (2012) FRAGSTATS v4: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical and Continuous Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst Available at the following web site: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.htm.
Miller F, Osbahr H, Boyd E, Thomalla F, Bharwani S, Ziervogel G et al (2010) Resilience and vulnerability: complementary or conflicting concepts? Ecol Soc 15(3):11
Minsky M (1961) Steps towards artificial intelligence. Proc IRE 49(1):8–30
Nagendra H (2002) Opposite trends in response for the Shannon and Simpson indices of landscape diversity. Appl Geogr 22(2):175–186
Nitschke CR, Innes JL (2008) Integrating climate change into forest management in South-Central British Columbia: an assessment of landscape vulnerability and development of a climate-smart framework. Forest Ecol Manag 256(3):313–327
Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422
Perz SG, Cabrera L, Araújo Carvalho L, Castillo J, Chacacanta R, Cossio RE, Solano YF, Hoelle J, Perales LM, Puerta I, Cèspedes DR, Camacho IR, Silva AC, (2012) Regional integration and local change: road paving, community connectivity, and social-ecological resilience in a tri-national frontier, southwestern Amazonia. Reg Environ Change 12:35–53
Plieninger T, Hui C, Gaertner M, Huntsinger L (2014) The impact of land abandonment on species richness and abundance in the Mediterranean Basin: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 9(5):e98355
Quinlan AE, Berbés-Blázquez M, Haider LJ, Peterson GD (2016) Measuring and assessing resilience: broadening understanding through multiple disciplinary perspectives. J Appl Ecol 53(3):677–687
Renaud FG, Birkmann J, Damm M, Gallopín GC (2010) Understanding multiple thresholds of coupled social–ecological systems exposed to natural hazards as external shocks. Nat Hazards 55(3):749–763
Rescia AJ, Willaarts BA, Schmitz MF, Aguilera PA (2010) Changes in land uses and management in two Nature Reserves in Spain: Evaluating the social–ecological resilience of cultural landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 98(1):26–35
Reyer CP, Brouwers N, Rammig A, Brook BW, Epila J, Grant RF et al (2015) Forest resilience and tipping points at different spatio-temporal scales: approaches and challenges. J Ecol 103(1):5–15
Riekhof MC, Kluger LC, Salvatteci R, Siebert L, Voss R (2022) To tip or not to tip: the window of tipping point analysis for social-ecological systems. Nat Resour Model 35(4):e12357
Ropero RF, Aguilera PA, Rumí R (2015) Analysis of the socioecological structure and dynamics of the territory using a hybrid Bayesian network classifier. Ecol Model 311:73–87
Ropero RF, Aguilera PA, Fernández A, Rumí R (2014) Regression using hybrid Bayesian networks: modelling landscape–socioeconomy relationships. Environ Model Softw 57:127–137
Ropero RF, Nicholson AE, Aguilera PA, Rumí R (2018a) Learning and inference methodologies for hybrid dynamic Bayesian networks: a case study for a water reservoir system in Andalusia. Spain Stoch Environ Res Risk A 32(11):3117–3135
Ropero RF, Renooij S, Van der Gaag LC (2018b) Discretizing environmental data for learning Bayesian-network classifiers. Ecol Model 368:391–403
Rumí R, Salmerón A (2007) Approximate probability propagation with mixtures of truncated exponentials. Int J Approx Reason 45:191–210
Rumí R, Salmerón A, Moral S (2006) Estimating mixtures of truncated exponentials in hybrid Bayesian networks. TEST 15:397–421
Salvati L, Serra P (2016) Estimating rapidity of change in complex urban systems: a multidimensional, local-scale approach. Geogr Anal 48(2):132–156
Salvati L, Tombolini I, Perini L, Ferrara A (2013) Landscape changes and environmental quality: the evolution of land vulnerability and potential resilience to degradation in Italy. Reg Environ Change 13(6):1223–1233
Scheffer M, Carpenter SR, Lenton TM, Bascompte J, Brock W, Dakos V et al (2012) Anticipating critical transitions. Science 338(6105):344–348
Schmitz MF, Arnaiz-Schmitz C, Sarmiento-Mateos P (2021) High nature value farming systems and protected areas: conservation opportunities or land abandonment? A study case in the Madrid region (Spain). Landscape 10(7):721
Schmitz MF, De Aranzabal I, Pineda FD (2007) Spatial analysis of visitor preferences in the outdoor recreational niche of Mediterranean cultural landscapes. Environ Conserv 34(4):300–312
Schmitz MF, De Aranzabal I, Aguilera P, Rescia A, Pineda FD (2003) Relationship between landscape typology and socioeconomic structure: Scenarios of change in Spanish cultural landscapes. Ecol Model 168(3):343–356
Schmitz MF, Matos DGG, De Aranzabal I, Ruiz-Labourdette D, Pineda FD (2012) Effects of a protected area on land-use dynamics and socioeconomic development of local populations. Biol Conserv 149(1):122–135
Schwind N, Minami K, Maruyama H, Ilmola L, Inoue K (2016) Computational framework of resilience. In: Yamagata Y, Maruyama H (eds) Urban resilience: advanced sciences and technologies for security applications. Springer, Cham, pp 239–257
Sellberg MM, Wilkinson C, Peterson GD (2015) Resilience assessment: a useful approach to navigate urban sustainability challenges. Ecol Soc 20(1):15
Serra P, Vera A, Tulla AF, Salvati L (2014) Beyond urban–rural dichotomy: Exploring socioeconomic and land-use procsses of change in Spain (1991–2011). Appl Geogr 55:71–81
Sharifi A, Yamagata Y (2017) Towards an integrated approach to urban resilience assessment. Sci Bull 7(1):78
Sirami C, Nespoulous A, Cheylan JP, Marty P, Hvenegaard GT, Geniez P et al (2010) Long-term anthropogenic and ecological dynamics of a Mediterranean landscape: impacts on multiple taxa. Landsc Urban Plan 96(4):214–223
Su S, Xiao R, Jiang Z, Zhang Y (2012) Characterizing landscape pattern and ecosystem service value changes for urbanization impacts at an eco-regional scale. Appl Geogr 34:295–305
Suárez M, Gómez-Baggethun E, Benayas J, Tilbury D (2016) Towards an urban resilience index: a case study in 50 Spanish cities. Sustainability 8(8):774
Thapa P, Torralba M, Buerkert A, Dittrich C, Plieninger T (2021) Ecological and social outcomes of urbanization on regional farming systems: a global synthesis. Ecol Soc 26(3):59
Turner BL, Kasperson RE, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, Christensen L et al (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. PNAS 100(14):8074–8079
Uusitalo L (2007) Advantages and challenges of bayesian networks in environmental modelling. Ecol Model 203:312–318
van Nes EH, Arani BM, Staal A, van der Bolt B, Flores BM, Bathiany S, Scheffer M (2016) What do you mean, ‘tipping point’? Trends Ecol Evol 31(12):902–904
Vizzari M, Sigura M (2015) Landscape sequences along the urban–rural–natural gradient: novel geospatial approach for identification and analysis. Landsc Urban Plan 140:42–55
Walker B, Meyers JA (2004) Thresholds in ecological and social–ecological systems: a developing database. Ecol Soc 9(2):49
Zhang Z, Gao J (2016) Linking landscape structures and ecosystem service value using multivariate regression analysis: a case study of the Chaohu Lake Basin. China Environ Earth Sci 75(1):3
Funding
Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. This research was funded by the projects: Contemporary Criteria, Methods and Techniques for Landscape Knowledge and Conservation (LABPA-CM) (H2019/HUM-5692), funded by the European Social Fund and the Madrid Regional Government; Project PID2019-106758 GB-C32 funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033, FEDER \Una manera de hacer Europa" funds.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
CAS performed the data collection; CAS and RFP performed the data analyses and wrote the methodology; MFS, PA and CAS developed the study conception and design; MFS and CAS wrote the paper. All of the authors read and corrected the paper, and gave their final approval for publication.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest or competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Arnaiz-Schmitz, C., Aguilera, P.A., Ropero, R.F. et al. Detecting social-ecological resilience thresholds of cultural landscapes along an urban–rural gradient: a methodological approach based on Bayesian Networks. Landsc Ecol 38, 3589–3604 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01732-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01732-9