Advertisement

New EU-Level Scenarios on the Future of Ecosystem Services

  • Joerg A. PriessEmail author
  • Jennifer Hauck
  • Roy Haines-Young
  • Rob Alkemade
  • Maryia Mandryk
  • Clara J. Veerkamp
  • Györgyi Bela
  • Pam Berry
  • Rob Dunford
  • Paula Harrison
  • Hans Keune
  • Marcel Kok
  • Leena Kopperoinen
  • Tanya Lazarova
  • Joachim Maes
  • György Pataki
  • Elena Preda
  • Christian Schleyer
  • Angheluta Vadineanu
  • Grazia Zulian
Chapter

Abstract

New European Union level scenarios have been developed in the FP7 project OpenNESS to fill a thematic gap in existing broad-scale environmental scenarios to assess the uncertainties and risks of different drivers of change for natural capital and ecosystem service provision. The scenarios are aiming at applicability for science and policy-making at different scales, including the European level and regional and local scales. The scenarios are going beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment scenarios, making broader assumptions in covering different types of ecosystem services, and different pathways of ecosystem services provision, including risks of ecosystem service losses. The main research question is addressing uncertainties and risks related to land-use change, exemplified via impacts on a provisioning and a regulating service. The approach is based on participatory scenario development and integrated modelling with the CLIMSAVE modelling framework. Four scenarios were developed (WealthBeing, UnitedWeStand, EcoCentre, RuralRevival). Simulations of the combinations of driving forces caused land-use changes up to +65% for forest, or −37% for grassland, both in UnitedWeStand. The most extreme changes highlighted here for scenario UnitedWeStand can mainly be attributed to the highest increase in irrigation efficiency (+58%) and crop yields (+50%), an almost constant human population in Europe (+1%), moderate increases in meat demands (+10%) and increasing food imports (+10%). In terms of ecosystem services provision, no clear winners and losers could be identified in the four scenarios, but rather different mixes of trade-offs and synergies. Thus, drivers within Europe as well as trade with land-intensive commodities and the policies steering them contribute to lower or increased pressures and risks of ecosystem services loss, e.g., on agricultural land in Europe and the countries of trading partners.

Keywords

Europe Land use Participatory scenarios Policies Simulation model 

References

  1. 1.
    Biggs R, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Atkinson-Palombo C, Bohensky E, Boyd E, Cundill G, et al. Linking futures across scales: a dialog on multiscale scenarios. Ecol Soc. 2007;12(1):17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Priess JA, Hauck J. Integrative scenario development. Ecol Soc. 2014;19(1):12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    IPCC. In: Nakicenovic N, Swart R, editors. Emissions scenarios. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. p. 570.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). Global environment outlook 4. Environment for development. 2007. Nairobi: UNEP; 2007.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: scenarios: findings of the Scenarios Working Group, vol. 2. Washington DC: Island Press; 2005. p. 46.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alcamo J, Kok K, Busch G, Priess J. Searching for the future of land: scenarios from the local to global scale. Chapter 4. In: Alcamo J, editor. The practice of environmental scenario analysis. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2008. p. 67–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hauck J, Winkler KJ, Priess JA. Reviewing drivers of ecosystem change as input for environmental and ecosystem services modelling. Sustain Water Qual Ecol. 2015;5:9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harrison PA, Dunford RW, Holman IP, Rounsevell MDA. Climate change impact modelling needs to include cross-sectoral interactions. Nat Clim Chang. 2016;6:885–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zurek MB, Henrichs T. Linking scenarios across geographical scales in international environmental assessments. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2007;74(8):1282–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaljonen M, Varjopuro R, Gieczewski M, Iital A. Seeking policy-relevant knowledge: a comparative study of the contextualisation of participatory scenarios for Narew River and Lake Peipsi. Environ Sci Policy. 2012;15(1):72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Metzger MJ, Rounsevell MDA, Van den Heiligenberg HARM, Pérez-Soba M, Soto Hardiman P. How personal judgment influences scenario development: an example for future rural development in Europe. Ecol Soc. 2010;15(2):5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joerg A. Priess
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jennifer Hauck
    • 2
  • Roy Haines-Young
    • 3
  • Rob Alkemade
    • 4
  • Maryia Mandryk
    • 5
  • Clara J. Veerkamp
    • 5
  • Györgyi Bela
    • 6
  • Pam Berry
    • 7
  • Rob Dunford
    • 8
  • Paula Harrison
    • 8
  • Hans Keune
    • 9
  • Marcel Kok
    • 4
  • Leena Kopperoinen
    • 10
  • Tanya Lazarova
    • 4
  • Joachim Maes
    • 11
  • György Pataki
    • 12
  • Elena Preda
    • 13
  • Christian Schleyer
    • 14
  • Angheluta Vadineanu
    • 13
  • Grazia Zulian
    • 11
  1. 1.Department Computational Landscape EcologyHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.CoKnow ConsultingHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZJesewitzGermany
  3. 3.Fabis Consulting LtdNottinghamUK
  4. 4.Department of Nature and Rural AreasPBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyThe HagueThe Netherlands
  5. 5.PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyThe HagueThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Environmental Social Science Research GroupBudapestHungary
  7. 7.Environmental Change InstituteUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  8. 8.Environmental Change InstituteOxford University Centre for the EnvironmentOxfordUK
  9. 9.Belgian Biodiversity PlatformResearch Institute Nature Forest Research (INBO)BrusselsBelgium
  10. 10.Environmental Policy CentreFinnish Environment Institute, YmparistoHelsinkiFinland
  11. 11.European CommissionJoint Research CentreIspraItaly
  12. 12.Department of Decision Sciences, Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG)Corvinus University of BudapestBudapestHungary
  13. 13.Research Center in Systems Ecology and SustainabilityUniversity of BucharestBucharestRomania
  14. 14.Section of International Agricultural Policy and Environmental GovernanceHumboldt University of BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations