Experiences with a Transdisciplinary Research Approach for Integrating Ecosystem Services into Water Management in Northwest China

Chapter
Part of the Springer Water book series (SPWA)

Abstract

Consideration of the relatively new concept of ecosystem services (ESS) in management decisions calls for a transdisciplinary research (TR) approach that aims at integration of knowledge among scientists from multiple disciplines and stakeholders from multiple sectors. In this paper, we present our experiences with the implementation of a TR approach to support the integration of ESS into land and water management under climate change in the arid Tarim River Basin, Northwest China (SuMaRiO project). Our initial TR approach focused on the execution of a stakeholder dialogue (15–20 interviews and five workshops, including participatory modeling) to integrate stakeholder knowledge with research results from SuMaRiO scientists. In the first project phase, the approach was adapted by adding a stakeholder analysis, with explicit efforts to integrate knowledge among the multidisciplinary German scientists, and between German and Chinese scientists. Two key stakeholders from the water sector, together with other representatives of governmental organizations from the sector crop production, animal husbandry, environment, and forestry, were involved in the TR process. The applied TR approach resulted in an improved understanding on issues related to land and water management as well as ESS, and a joint problem perception of stakeholders and scientists. Based on the overall perception graph and discussion with stakeholders and scientists, gaps in the present knowledge related to water and ESS were identified. Chinese stakeholders and scientists appreciated that the TR process facilitated cross-sectoral and multi-disciplinary communication and knowledge exchange. TR (including methods of knowledge elicitation and integration) needs to be continually adapted in reaction to the challenges encountered in the socio-cultural and institutional setting in the study area. Explicit efforts of network and trust building are a prerequisite for TR, in particular in China.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The authors would like to thank all Sustainable Management of River Oases along the Tarim River (SuMaRiO) project members and Chinese counterparts for their input and assistance. Special appreciation is also extended to our project partner and the team who help organize interviews and stakeholder workshops in Xinjiang. We also thank the reviewers for their valuable comments.

References

  1. Bots PWG (2007) Analysis of multi-actor policy contexts using perception graphs. In: Lin TY (ed) Proceedings of the international conference on intelligent agent technologies (IAT’07), Los Alamitos, 2007Google Scholar
  2. Cain JD, Jinapala K, Makin IW et al (2003) Participatory decision support for agricultural management. A case study from Sri Lanka. Agric Syst 76(2):457–482Google Scholar
  3. Chen YY, Jessel B, Fu BJ et al (eds) (2014) Ecosystem services and management strategy in China. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Cook BR, Spray CJ (2012) Ecosystem services and integrated water resource management: different paths to the same end? J Environ Manage 109:93–100Google Scholar
  5. Crossman ND, Bryan BA, King D (2011) Contribution of site assessment toward prioritising investment in natural capital. Environ Model Softw 26(1):30–37Google Scholar
  6. Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J et al (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):21–28Google Scholar
  7. de Groot R, Brander L, van der Ploeg S et al (2012) Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst Serv 1(1):50–61Google Scholar
  8. Deng MJ (2009) Tarim River in China: theory and practice of water management. Science Press, Beijing (Chinese)Google Scholar
  9. Döll C, Döll P, Bots P (2013) Semi-quantitative actor-based modelling as a tool to assess the drivers of change and physical variables in participatory integrated assessments. Environ Model Softw 46:21–32Google Scholar
  10. Düspohl M, Frank S, Döll P (2012) A review of Bayesian networks as a participatory modeling approach in support of sustainable environmental management. J Sustain Dev 5(12):1–18. doi: 10.5539/jsd.v5n12p1 Google Scholar
  11. Engel S, Schaefer M (2013) Ecosystem services—a useful concept for addressing water challenges? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:696–707Google Scholar
  12. Farley J (2008) The role of prices in conserving critical natural capital. Conserv Biol 22(6):1399–1408Google Scholar
  13. Gordon LJ, Finlayson CM, Falkenmark M (2010) Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services. Agric Water Manag 97:512–519Google Scholar
  14. Grimble R (1998) Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management. Natural Resources Institute, ChathamGoogle Scholar
  15. Hirsch Hadorn G, Bradley D, Pohl C et al (2006) Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecol Econ 60:119–128Google Scholar
  16. Jewitt G (2002) Can integrated water resources management sustain the provision of ecosystem goods and services? Phys Chem Earth 27:887–895Google Scholar
  17. Jiang YM (2009) Transdisciplinarity as a new form of research. Zhejiang Social Sciences 1:8–15 (Chinese)Google Scholar
  18. Jiang LW, Tong YF, Zhao ZJ et al (2005) Water resources, land exploration and population dynamics in arid areas—the case of the Tarim River Basin in Xinjiang of China. Popul Environ 26(6):471–503Google Scholar
  19. Lamers M, Ottow B, Francois G et al (2010) Beyond dry feet? Experiences from a participatory water management planning case in the Netherlands. Ecol Soc 5(1):14Google Scholar
  20. Le Maitre DC, Milton SJ, Jarmain C et al (2007) Linking ecosystem services and water resources: landscape-scale hydrology of the Little Karoo. Front Ecol Environ 5(5):261–270Google Scholar
  21. Lu ZH, Zhao LX, Dai J (2010) A study of water resource management in the Tarim Basin, Xinjiang. Int J Environ Stud 67(2):245–255Google Scholar
  22. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Nakamura T (2003) Ecosystem-based River Basin management: its approach and policy-level application. Hydrol Process 17:2711–2725Google Scholar
  24. Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141:2417–2431Google Scholar
  25. Reyers B, Roux DJ, Cowling RM (2010) Conservation planning as a transdisciplinary process. Conserv Biol 24(4):957–965Google Scholar
  26. Shen YL, Lein H (2005) Land and water resources management problems in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift—Norw J Geogr 59(3):237–245Google Scholar
  27. Siew TF, Döll P (2012) Transdisciplinary research for supporting the integration of ecosystem services into land and water management in the Tarim River Basin, Xinjiang, China. J Arid Land 4(2):196–210Google Scholar
  28. Steventon JD (2008) Conservation of marbled murrelets in British Columbia. In: Pourret O, Naim P, Marcot B (eds) Bayesian networks: a practical guide to applications. Wiley, Chichester, pp 127–148Google Scholar
  29. Tang DS, Deng MJ (2010) On the management of water rights in the Tarim River Basin. China Water Power Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  30. Tao H, Gemmer M, Song Y et al (2008) Ecohydrological responses on water diversion in the lower reaches of the Tarim River. Water Resources Research, China. doi: 10.1029/2007WR006186 Google Scholar
  31. TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature—a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Progress Press, Mriehel (Malta)Google Scholar
  32. Thevs N (2011) Water scarcity and allocation in the Tarim Basin: decision structures and adaptations on the local level. J Curr Chin Aff 40:113–137Google Scholar
  33. Thompson Klein J, Grossenbacher-Mansury W, Häberli R et al (eds) (2001) Transdisciplinarity: joint problem-solving among science, technology and society. Birkhäuser Verlag, BaselGoogle Scholar
  34. Titz A, Döll P (2009) Actor modelling and its contribution to the development of integrative strategies for management of pharmaceuticals in drinking water. Soc Sci Med 68:672–681Google Scholar
  35. Van Den Hoek L, Baumgartner J, Doucet-Beer E et al (2012) Understanding the challenges and rewards of social-ecological research in China. Soc Nat Resour. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2012.658985 Google Scholar
  36. Vandermeulen V, van Huylenbroeck G (2008) Designing transdisciplinary research to support policy formulation for sustainable agricultural development. Ecol Econ 67:352–361Google Scholar
  37. Wainger LA, King DM, Mack RN et al (2010) Can the concept of ecosystem services be practically applied to improve natural resource management decisions? Ecol Econ 69:978–987Google Scholar
  38. Welp M, de la Vega-Leinerta A, Stoll-Kleemannb S et al (2006) Science-based stakeholder dialogues: theories and tools. Glob Environ Change 16:170–181Google Scholar
  39. Wiek A, Walter AI (2009) A transdisciplinary approach for formalized integrated planning and decision-making in complex systems. Eur J Oper Res 197:360–370Google Scholar
  40. Xu HL, Ye M, Li JM (2008) The water transfer effects on agricultural development in the lower Tarim River, Xinjiang of China. Agric Water Manage 95(1):59–68Google Scholar
  41. Yan F, He DM, Beth K (2006) Water resources administration institution in China. Water Policy 8:291–301Google Scholar
  42. Zhuang L, Dong YS, Yin FH et al (2010) Historical evolution and the effects of ecological management in Tarim Basin, China. Chin Sci Bull 55(36):4097–4103Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Goethe University FrankfurtFrankfurtGermany
  2. 2.Xinjiang Normal UniversityUrumqiPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations