Advertisement

Sustainability Science

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 241–257 | Cite as

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

  • Rajarshi DasGuptaEmail author
  • Shizuka Hashimoto
  • Haripriya Gundimeda
Special Feature: Review Article Future Scenarios for Socio-Ecological Production Landscape and Seascape
First Online:
  • 96 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Feature: Future Scenarios for Socio-Ecological Production Landscape and Seascape

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.

Keywords

Scenario exercises Biodiversity Ecosystem services Asia–Pacific Archetypes Sustainable development goals (SDGs) 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

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.

Supplementary material

11625_2018_647_MOESM1_ESM.docx (26 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 25 kb)

References

  1. Alcamo J, Henrichs T (2008) Chapter two towards guidelines for environmental scenario analysis. Dev Integr Environ Assess 2:13–35Google Scholar
  2. 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 66:199–207Google Scholar
  3. 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):8529–8541Google Scholar
  4. 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 39:351–362Google Scholar
  5. 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 39:54–64Google Scholar
  6. Bezold C (1999) Alternative futures for communities. Futures 31(5):465–473Google Scholar
  7. 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):876–893Google Scholar
  8. 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 59:27–37Google Scholar
  9. Boschetti F, Price J, Walker I (2016) Myths of the future and scenario archetypes. Technol Forecast Soc Change 111:76–85Google Scholar
  10. 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 38:130–152Google Scholar
  11. CBD (2010) Secretariat of the convention on biological diversity. In: Global biodiversity outlook-3, Montréal, p 94Google Scholar
  12. 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, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 69:141–154Google Scholar
  14. Cosgrove WJ, Rijsberman FR (2000) World water vision: making water everybody’s vision. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Costanza R, Fioramonti L, Kubiszewski I (2016) The UN sustainable development goals and the dynamics of well-being. Front Ecol Environ 14(2):59Google Scholar
  16. 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 36:779–787Google Scholar
  17. Crutzen PJ (2002) Geology of mankind. Nature 415(6867):23Google Scholar
  18. 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 495Google Scholar
  19. 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 14:1–16Google Scholar
  20. Duinker PN, Greig LA (2007) Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: improving explorations of the future. Environ Impact Assess Rev 27(3):206–219Google Scholar
  21. EEA (2007) Land-use scenarios for Europe: qualitative and quantitative analysis on a European scaleGoogle Scholar
  22. 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):316–326Google Scholar
  23. 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):540Google Scholar
  24. Fox J, Vogler JB, Sen OL, Giambelluca TW, Ziegler AD (2012) Simulating land-cover change in montane mainland southeast Asia. Environ Manag 49(5):968–979Google Scholar
  25. Griggs DJ, Nilsson M, Stevance A, McCollum D (2017) A guide to SDG interactions: from science to implementation. International Council for Science, ParisGoogle Scholar
  26. 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):e1500052Google Scholar
  27. Harmáčková ZV, Vačkář D (2018) Future uncertainty in scenarios of ecosystem services provision: linking differences among narratives and outcomes. Ecosyst Serv 33:134–145Google Scholar
  28. 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 189–243Google Scholar
  29. Hosseinali F, Alesheikh AA, Nourian F (2013) Agent-based modeling of urban land-use development, case study: simulating future scenarios of Qazvin city. Cities 31:105–113Google Scholar
  30. 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):1084–1096Google Scholar
  31. 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):024011Google Scholar
  32. 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):740–772Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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):270–275Google Scholar
  36. JSSA (Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment) (2010) Satoyama–Satoumi ecosystems and human well-being: socio-ecological production landscapes of Japan. UNU Press, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  37. Kahn H, Wiener AJ (1967) The year 2000; a framework for speculation on the next thirty-three yearsGoogle Scholar
  38. 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):640–652Google Scholar
  39. 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):177–181Google Scholar
  40. MA (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human wellbeing: a framework for assessment. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  41. 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):815Google Scholar
  42. Malinga R, Gordon LJ, Jewitt G, Lindborg R (2015) Mapping ecosystem services across scales and continents—a review. Ecosyst Serv 13:57–63Google Scholar
  43. Martínez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P (2012) Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 8(1–2):17–25Google Scholar
  44. Meadows DL, Goldsmith EI, Meadow P (1972) Limits to growth, vol 381. CBC, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  45. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  46. 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 150:69–80Google Scholar
  47. 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 50:559–572Google Scholar
  48. 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 25Google Scholar
  49. 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 32:92–104Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. 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 42:169–180Google Scholar
  52. 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 75:1–11Google Scholar
  53. 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 150:92–102Google Scholar
  54. Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, Bieling C (2013) Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33:118–129Google Scholar
  55. 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):1169–1179Google Scholar
  56. Raskin P, Monks F et al (2005) Global scenarios in historical perspective. Ecosyst Human well-being, 35Google Scholar
  57. 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):472Google Scholar
  58. 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 59:29–46Google Scholar
  59. 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):2401–2410Google Scholar
  60. 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):2686–2706Google Scholar
  61. 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 1:1–19Google Scholar
  62. 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 26:316–328Google Scholar
  63. Small N, Munday M, Durance I (2017) The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits. Glob Environ Change 44:57–67Google Scholar
  64. 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):683–699Google Scholar
  65. 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):211–229Google Scholar
  66. Swart RJ, Raskin P, Robinson J (2004) The problem of the future: sustainability science and scenario analysis. Glob Environ Change 14(2):137–146Google Scholar
  67. 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):213–223Google Scholar
  68. TEEB (2010) In: Kumar P (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  69. 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 41:168–178Google Scholar
  70. UNEP (2002) Global environmental outlook 3: past, present and future perspectives. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  71. UNEP (2007) Global environmental outlook 4: environment for development. Valletta, MaltaGoogle Scholar
  72. UNEP (2012) Global Environmental Outlook-5. Valletta, MaltaGoogle Scholar
  73. Van Notten P (2006) Scenario development: a typology of approaches. Think scenario, Rethink education. OECD Publishing, Paris, pp 69–84Google Scholar
  74. 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):1387–1407Google Scholar
  75. 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):114–130Google Scholar
  76. 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 HagueGoogle Scholar
  77. 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):459–477Google Scholar
  78. 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):457–468Google Scholar
  79. 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)Google Scholar
  80. 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 24:321–333Google Scholar
  81. 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):1057–1069Google Scholar
  82. 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):1449–1462Google Scholar
  83. 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):237–248Google Scholar
  84. 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 46:23–34Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rajarshi DasGupta
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Shizuka Hashimoto
    • 1
    • 2
  • Haripriya Gundimeda
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratory of Landscape Ecology and Planning, Department of Ecosystem Studies, Graduate School of Agriculture and Life SciencesThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Institute for Global Environmental StrategiesHayamaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesIndian Institute of Technology BombayMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options