Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Biodiversity/ecosystem services scenario exercises from the Asia–Pacific: typology, archetypes and implications for sustainable development goals (SDGs)

  • Special Feature: Review Article
  • Future Scenarios for Socio-Ecological Production Landscape and Seascape
  • Published:
Sustainability Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a systematic review of biodiversity/ecosystem services scenario exercises from the Asia–Pacific region. From the limited scholarly literature available, 61 scenario exercises were examined to explore their typology and multiple scenario attributes, including geographic distribution, consideration for influential drivers, choices of ecosystem services, number of alternative futures and temporal horizons for scenario deployment. To analyze the nature and tendency of 204 regional scenario narratives, collated from the 61 regional/sub-regional scenario studies, we used the Global Scenario Group (GSG) archetypes to synthesize diverse, contrasting scenario assumptions. A further attempt was made to identify regional focuses in relation to the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) through rigorous, qualitative screening of scenario narratives. Our observation suggests that, so far, spatially explicit, exploratory scenarios dominate regional ecosystem services/biodiversity scenario research, with emphasis on the assessment of likely trades-offs in food-provisioning ecosystem services. The archetype analysis further indicated that the regional/sub-regional scenarios mostly correspond to the market force, policy reform and eco-communalism pathways of the GSG archetypes, while population growth, climate change, agricultural expansion and urbanization remain the dominant regional drivers of change. With respect to integration of SDGs, environmental targets listed under SDGs 11 to 15, in addition to the first three SDGs (i.e. SDGs 1, 2 and 3), remain well-integrated within the regional/sub-regional scenario narratives, albeit with variations across the sub-regions. The review concludes with a number of recommendations for future biodiversity/scenario research in the Asia–Pacific, which should aim to put emphasis on development of short-term, normative, participatory scenarios and incorporation for cultural services, especially those with non-material benefits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. IPBES (2016) classified scenarios into four broad classes, namely ‘exploratory scenarios’, ‘target-seeking scenarios’, ‘policy-screening scenarios’ and ‘retroactive policy evaluation scenarios’.

  2. See http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ for full list of 17 SDGs and 169 targets.

  3. http://www.gsg.org/scenario_descriptions.html.

  4. Including the ‘online first’ articles.

  5. Geographical boundary of the five sub-regions was adopted from IPBES. See https://www.ipbes.net/deliverables/2b-asia–pacific.

  6. Here, quantitative scenarios refer the specific scenarios that quantified the relationship between different scenario assumptions and their critical consequences on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

  7. Direct drivers, including both natural and anthropogenic, affect ecosystems directly (Díaz et al. 2015). This consists all the natural drivers beyond human control and anthropogenic drivers that directly trigger changes in ecosystem services. Indirect drivers are those that do not affect nature directly, but influence ecosystems through long-standing, cascading effect. For instance, IPBES defined climate change, pollution, different types of land use change, invasive alien species, etc. as direct driver. Contrarily, economic, population growth, etc. are considered as indirect driver. For more details, see https://www.ipbes.net/glossary/driver.

  8. The remaining one study depicts scenario exercise from the entire regional perspective and hence was not reflected in this list as well as in the sub-regional analysis.

  9. ‘Market Forces’ scenario hypothesizes a plausible future in which free market prevails and demographic, economic, environmental and technological trends unfold without major surprises (Bohensky et al. 2011; Hunt et al. 2012).

  10. Interested readers can refer to the study of Small et al. 2017 for diverse conceptualization and methods for evaluating cultural/non-material ecosystem services.

References

  • Alcamo J, Henrichs T (2008) Chapter two towards guidelines for environmental scenario analysis. Dev Integr Environ Assess 2:13–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen C, Metternicht G, Wiedmann T (2016) National pathways to the sustainable development goals (SDGs): a comparative review of scenario modelling tools. Environ Sci Policy 66:199–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayanu YZ, Conrad C, Nauss T, Wegmann M, Koellner T (2012) Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services supplies and demands: a review of remote sensing applications. Environ Sci Technol 46(16):8529–8541

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bai X, Van Der Leeuw S, O’Brien K, Berkhout F, Biermann F, Brondizio ES, Revkin A (2016) Plausible and desirable futures in the Anthropocene: a new research agenda. Glob Environ Change 39:351–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baral H, Keenan RJ, Sharma SK, Stork NE, Kasel S (2014) Economic evaluation of ecosystem goods and services under different landscape management scenarios. Land Use Policy 39:54–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bezold C (1999) Alternative futures for communities. Futures 31(5):465–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohensky E, Butler JR, Costanza R, Bohnet I, Delisle A, Fabricius K, Wolanski E (2011) Future makers or future takers? A scenario analysis of climate change and the great barrier reef. Glob Environ Change 21(3):876–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boron V, Payán E, MacMillan D, Tzanopoulos J (2016) Achieving sustainable development in rural areas in Colombia: future scenarios for biodiversity conservation under land use change. Land Use Policy 59:27–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschetti F, Price J, Walker I (2016) Myths of the future and scenario archetypes. Technol Forecast Soc Change 111:76–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan BA, Nolan M, McKellar L, Connor JD, Newth D, Harwood T, Grundy M (2016) Land-use and sustainability under intersecting global change and domestic policy scenarios: trajectories for Australia to 2050. Glob Environ Change 38:130–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CBD (2010) Secretariat of the convention on biological diversity. In: Global biodiversity outlook-3, Montréal, p 94

  • Cheung WWL, Rondinini C, Avtar R, van den Belt M, Hickler T, Metzger JP, Scharlemann JPW, Velez-Liendo X, Yue TX (2016) Linking and harmonizing scenarios and models across scales and domains. In: Ferrier S, Ninan KN, Leadley P, Alkemade R, Acosta LA, Akçakaya HR, Brotons L, Cheung WWL, Christensen V, Harhash KA, Kabubo-Mariara J, Lundquist C, Obersteiner M, Pereira H, Peterson G, Pichs-Madruga R, Ravindranath N, Rondinini C, Wintle BA (eds) IPBES, 2016: methodological assessment of scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor JD, Bryan BA, Nolan M, Stock F, Gao L, Dunstall S, Hatfield-Dodds S (2015) Modelling Australian land use competition and ecosystem services with food price feedbacks at high spatial resolution. Environ Model Softw 69:141–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosgrove WJ, Rijsberman FR (2000) World water vision: making water everybody’s vision. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, Fioramonti L, Kubiszewski I (2016) The UN sustainable development goals and the dynamics of well-being. Front Ecol Environ 14(2):59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotter M, Berkhoff K, Gibreel T, Ghorbani A, Golbon R, Nuppenau EA, Sauerborn J (2014) Designing a sustainable land use scenario based on a combination of ecological assessments and economic optimization. Ecol Ind 36:779–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crutzen PJ (2002) Geology of mankind. Nature 415(6867):23

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • David G, Stafford-Smith M, Gaffney O, Rockström J, Öhman MC, Shyamsundar P, Noble I (2013) Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nat Int Week J Sci 495

  • Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Bartuska A (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework—connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duinker PN, Greig LA (2007) Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: improving explorations of the future. Environ Impact Assess Rev 27(3):206–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EEA (2007) Land-use scenarios for Europe: qualitative and quantitative analysis on a European scale

  • Estoque RC, Murayama Y (2012) Examining the potential impact of land use/cover changes on the ecosystem services of Baguio city, the Philippines: a scenario-based analysis. Appl Geogr 35(1):316–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng Y, Liu Y (2016) Scenario prediction of emerging coastal city using CA modeling under different environmental conditions: a case study of Lingang New City, China. Environ Monit Assess 188(9):540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox J, Vogler JB, Sen OL, Giambelluca TW, Ziegler AD (2012) Simulating land-cover change in montane mainland southeast Asia. Environ Manag 49(5):968–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griggs DJ, Nilsson M, Stevance A, McCollum D (2017) A guide to SDG interactions: from science to implementation. International Council for Science, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J, Davies KF, Gonzalez A, Holt RD, Cook WM (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv 1(2):e1500052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmáčková ZV, Vačkář D (2018) Future uncertainty in scenarios of ecosystem services provision: linking differences among narratives and outcomes. Ecosyst Serv 33:134–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashimoto S, Jusen A et al (2012) What are the futures of satoyama and satoumi? In: Kumar A (ed) Satoyama and Satoumi Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Koji Nakamura, Kazuhiko Takeuchi, Masaka Watanabe, Maiko Nishi, United Nations University Press, Duraiappah, pp 189–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosseinali F, Alesheikh AA, Nourian F (2013) Agent-based modeling of urban land-use development, case study: simulating future scenarios of Qazvin city. Cities 31:105–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubacek K, Guan D, Barua A (2007) Changing lifestyles and consumption patterns in developing countries: a scenario analysis for China and India. Futures 39(9):1084–1096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humpenöder F, Popp A, Bodirsky BL, Weindl I, Biewald A, Lotze-Campen H, Rolinski S (2018) Large-scale bioenergy production: How to resolve sustainability trade-offs? Environ Res Lett 13(2):024011

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt DV, Lombardi DR, Atkinson S, Barber AR, Barnes M, Boyko CT, Caserio M (2012) Scenario archetypes: converging rather than diverging themes. Sustainability 4(4):740–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPBES (2015) Report on the regional scoping process for a set of regional and sub-regional assessments. http://esa.org/ipbes/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/IPBES_3_6_EN-regional.pdf

  • IPBES (2016) Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment of scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. In: Ferrier S, Ninan KN, Leadley P, Alkemade R, Acosta LA, Akçakaya HR, Brotons L, Cheung W, Christensen V, Harhash KA, Kabubo-Mariara J, Lundquist C, Obersteiner M, Pereira H, Peterson G, Pichs-Madruga R, Ravindranath NH, Rondinini C, Wintle B (eds) Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany, p 32. Retrieved from http://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/pdf/SPM_Deliverable_3c.pdf

  • Johnson CN, Balmford A, Brook BW, Buettel JC, Galetti M, Guangchun L, Wilmshurst JM (2017) Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene. Science 356(6335):270–275

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • JSSA (Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment) (2010) Satoyama–Satoumi ecosystems and human well-being: socio-ecological production landscapes of Japan. UNU Press, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn H, Wiener AJ (1967) The year 2000; a framework for speculation on the next thirty-three years

  • Khoi DN, Suetsugi T (2014) The responses of hydrological processes and sediment yield to land-use and climate change in the Be River Catchment, Vietnam. Hydrol Process 28(3):640–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kok MT, Kok K, Peterson GD, Hill R, Agard J, Carpenter SR (2017) Biodiversity and ecosystem services require IPBES to take novel approach to scenarios. Sustain Sci 12(1):177–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MA (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human wellbeing: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Mainali B, Luukkanen J, Silveira S, Kaivo-oja J (2018) Evaluating synergies and trade-offs among sustainable development goals (SDGs): explorative analyses of development paths in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability 10(3):815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malinga R, Gordon LJ, Jewitt G, Lindborg R (2015) Mapping ecosystem services across scales and continents—a review. Ecosyst Serv 13:57–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P (2012) Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 8(1–2):17–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows DL, Goldsmith EI, Meadow P (1972) Limits to growth, vol 381. CBC, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington, DC

  • Mitchell M, Lockwood M, Moore SA, Clement S (2015) Scenario analysis for biodiversity conservation: a social–ecological system approach in the Australian Alps. J Environ Manag 150:69–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell M, Lockwood M, Moore SA, Clement S, Gilfedder L, Anderson G (2016) Using scenario planning to assess governance reforms for enhancing biodiversity outcomes. Land Use Policy 50:559–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss R, Babiker M, Brinkman S, Calvo E, Carter T, Edmonds J, Elgizouli I, Emori S, Erda L, Hibbard K, Jones R, Kainuma M, Kelleher J, Lamarque JF, Manning M, Matthews B, Meehl J, Meyer L, Mitchell J, Nakicenovic N, O’Neill B, Pichs R, Riahi K, Rose S, Runci P, Stouffer R, van Vuuren D, Weyant J, Wilbanks T, van Ypersele JP, Zurek M (2008) Towards new scenarios for analysis of emissions, climate change, impacts, and response strategies. Technical Summary, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, p 25

    Google Scholar 

  • Mozumder C, Tripathi NK (2014) Geospatial scenario based modelling of urban and agricultural intrusions in Ramsar wetland Deepor Beel in Northeast India using a multi-layer perceptron neural network. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 32:92–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, De Vries B, Fenhann J, Gaffin S, La Rovere EL (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios, working group III, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 595 (ISBN 0, 521(80493))

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill BC, Kriegler E, Ebi KL, Kemp-Benedict E, Riahi K, Rothman DS, Levy M (2017) The roads ahead: narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the twenty-first century. Glob Environ Change 42:169–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ornetsmüller C, Verburg PH, Heinimann A (2016) Scenarios of land system change in the Lao PDR: transitions in response to alternative demands on goods and services provided by the land. Appl Geogr 75:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pei F, Li X, Liu X, Lao C, Xia G (2015) Exploring the response of net primary productivity variations to urban expansion and climate change: a scenario analysis for Guangdong Province in China. J Environ Manag 150:92–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, Bieling C (2013) Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33:118–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pradhan P, Costa L, Rybski D, Lucht W, Kropp JP (2017) A systematic study of sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions. Earth’s Future 5(11):1169–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raskin P, Monks F et al (2005) Global scenarios in historical perspective. Ecosyst Human well-being, 35

  • Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS III, Lambin EF, Nykvist B (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461(7263):472

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rutten M, van Dijk M, van Rooij W, Hilderink H (2014) Land use dynamics, climate change, and food security in Vietnam: a global-to-local modeling approach. World Dev 59:29–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaldach R, Priess JA, Alcamo J (2011) Simulating the impact of biofuel development on country-wide land-use change in India. Biomass Bioenergy 35(6):2401–2410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt Olabisi LK, Kapuscinski AR, Johnson KA, Reich PB, Stenquist B, Draeger KJ (2010) Using scenario visioning and participatory system dynamics modeling to investigate the future: lessons from Minnesota 2050. Sustainability 2(8):2686–2706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shooshtari SJ, Gholamalifard M (2015) Scenario-based land cover change modeling and its implications for landscape pattern analysis in the Neka Watershed, Iran. Remote Sens Appl Soc Environ 1:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoyama K, Kamiyama C, Morimoto J, Ooba M, Okuro T (2017) A review of modeling approaches for ecosystem services assessment in the Asian region. Ecosyst Serv 26:316–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small N, Munday M, Durance I (2017) The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits. Glob Environ Change 44:57–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soora NK, Aggarwal PK, Saxena R, Rani S, Jain S, Chauhan N (2013) An assessment of regional vulnerability of rice to climate change in India. Clim Change 118(3–4):683–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suwarno A, van Noordwijk M, Weikard HP, Suyamto D (2018) Indonesia’s forest conversion moratorium assessed with an agent-based model of Land-Use Change and Ecosystem Services (LUCES). Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 23(2):211–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swart RJ, Raskin P, Robinson J (2004) The problem of the future: sustainability science and scenario analysis. Glob Environ Change 14(2):137–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takao S, Kumagai NH, Yamano H, Fujii M, Yamanaka Y (2015) Projecting the impacts of rising seawater temperatures on the distribution of seaweeds around Japan under multiple climate change scenarios. Ecol Evolut 5(1):213–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TEEB (2010) In: Kumar P (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Thapa RB, Shimada M, Watanabe M, Motohka T, Shiraishi T (2013) The tropical forest in south east Asia: monitoring and scenario modeling using synthetic aperture radar data. Appl Geogr 41:168–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2002) Global environmental outlook 3: past, present and future perspectives. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2007) Global environmental outlook 4: environment for development. Valletta, Malta

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2012) Global Environmental Outlook-5. Valletta, Malta

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Notten P (2006) Scenario development: a typology of approaches. Think scenario, Rethink education. OECD Publishing, Paris, pp 69–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Ty T, Sunada K, Ichikawa Y, Oishi S (2012) Scenario-based impact assessment of land use/cover and climate changes on water resources and demand: a case study in the Srepok River Basin, Vietnam—Cambodia. Water Resour Manag 26(5):1387–1407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Vuuren DP, Lucas PL, Hilderink H (2007) Downscaling drivers of global environmental change: enabling use of global SRES scenarios at the national and grid levels. Glob Environ Change 17(1):114–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Vuuren DP, Kok M, van der Esch S, Jeuken M, Lucas P, Prins AG, Hilderink H (2012) Roads from Rio + 20: Pathways to achieve global sustainability goals by 2050. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkery A, Ribeiro T, Henrichs T, Hoogeveen Y (2008) Your vision or my model? Lessons from participatory land use scenario development on a European scale. Syst Pract Action Res 21(6):459–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang M, Madden M, Hendy I, Estradivari, Ahmadia GN (2017) Modeling projected changes of mangrove biomass in different climatic scenarios in the Sunda Banda Seascapes. Int J Digit Earth 10(4):457–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wardropper C, Gillon S, Mase A, McKinney E, Carpenter S, Rissman A (2016) Local perspectives and global archetypes in scenario development. Ecol Soc 21(2)

  • Webb EL, Jachowski NR, Phelps J, Friess DA, Than MM, Ziegler AD (2014) Deforestation in the Ayeyarwady Delta and the conservation implications of an internationally-engaged Myanmar. Glob Environ Change 24:321–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead PG, Barbour E, Futter MN, Sarkar S, Rodda H, Caesar J, Salehin, M (2015) Impacts of climate change and socio-economic scenarios on flow and water quality of the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna (GBM) river systems: low flow and flood statistics. Environ Sci: Processes Impacts 17(6):1057–1069

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yang X, Zhou Z, Li J, Fu X, Mu X, Li T (2016) Trade-offs between carbon sequestration, soil retention and water yield in the Guanzhong-Tianshui Economic Region of China. J Geogr Sci 26(10):1449–1462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao D, Wu S (2014) Vulnerability of natural ecosystem in China under regional climate scenarios: an analysis based on eco-geographical regions. J Geogr Sci 24(2):237–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng HW, Shen GQ, Wang H, Hong J (2015) Simulating land use change in urban renewal areas: a case study in Hong Kong. Habitat Int 46:23–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the Environmental Research and Technology Development Fund (S-15, Predicting and Assessing Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services (PANCES)) of the Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan, and by the Research Institute for Humanities and Nature (RIHN) Project No. 14200103. The authors would also like to thank colleagues from the IPBES-Asia Pacific Regional Assessment and the Technical Support Unit (TSU) for Asia–Pacific Regional Assessment Report (2015–2018). In addition, the authors are grateful to Ms. Emma Fushimi from Institute for Global Environmental Strategies for editing this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajarshi DasGupta.

Additional information

Disclaimer The paper is based on the outcome of a review exercise conducted by the authors for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Asia–Pacific regional assessment report (2015–2018). The summary for policy makers (SPM) of this report is available at https://www.ipbes.net/assessment-reports/asia–pacific.

Handled by Masahiro Aiba Tohoku University Japan.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 25 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

DasGupta, R., Hashimoto, S. & Gundimeda, H. Biodiversity/ecosystem services scenario exercises from the Asia–Pacific: typology, archetypes and implications for sustainable development goals (SDGs). Sustain Sci 14, 241–257 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0647-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0647-1

Keywords

Navigation