Measuring Social–ecological Dynamics Behind the Generation of Ecosystem Services

Abstract

Abstract. The generation of ecosystem services depends on both social and ecological features. Here we focus on management, its ecological consequences, and social drivers. Our approach combined (1) quantitative surveys of local species diversity and abundance of three functional groups of ecosystem service providers (pollinators, seed dispersers, and insectivores) with (2) qualitative studies of local management practices connected to these services and their underlying social mechanisms, i.e., institutions, local ecological knowledge, and a sense of place. It focused on the ecology of three types of green areas (allotment gardens, cemeteries, and city parks) in the city of Stockholm, Sweden. These are superficially similar but differ considerably in their management. Effects of the different practices could be seen in the three functional groups, primarily as a higher abundance of pollinators in the informally managed allotment gardens and as differences in the composition of seed dispersers and insectivores. Thus, informal management, which is normally disregarded by planning authorities, is important for ecosystem services in the urban landscape. Furthermore, we suggest that informal management has an important secondary function: It may be crucial during periods of instability and change as it is argued to promote qualities with potential for adaptation. Allotment gardeners seem to be the most motivated managers, something that is reflected in their deeper knowledge and can be explained by a sense of place and management institutions. We propose that co-management would be one possible way to infuse the same positive qualities into all management and that improved information exchange between managers would be one further step toward ecologically functional urban landscapes.

The farmer as a landscape steward: Comparing local understandings of landscape stewardship, landscape values, and land management actions

“…Indeed, both 'sense of place' and social cohesion are able to promote social capital and, thereby, social-ecological resilience and the sustainable management of landscapes (Pretty 2003;Folke et al 2005). 'Sense of place' has also been found to be an important driver of stewardship of ecosystems in urban (Andersson et al 2007) as well as rural landscapes (Raymond et al 2011). An alternative view is that the value of social relations is an implicit property and unifying feature of all understandings of landscape stewardship, and may be embedded in respondents' comments about intergenerational equity.…”

Urban Transitions: On Urban Resilience and Human-Dominated Ecosystems

“…This involves stakeholders like urban planners and housing companies, but also housing, squatter and urban social movements, along with those influencing and/or have knowledge about urban ecological processes. The latter group importantly includes, apart from conservation managers, also user groups engaged in local level socialecological interactions such as urban community gardening, farming, and forestry that simultaneously meet social needs while improving ecosystem function (Stanvliet et al 2004;Barthel et al 2005;Borgström et al 2006;Colding et al 2006;Andersson et al 2007;Tidball and Krasny 2007;Krasny and Tidball 2009;Barthel et al 2010;Ernstson et al 2010). The second scale, resilience of cities, involves a broader category of stakeholders, but particularly those associated not only with technical networks like water, electricity, sewage, waste disposal, and telecommunications, but also with agriculture, mining and other broader interests in society.…”

Bridging Human and Natural Sciences for a Better Understanding of Urban Floral Patterns: the Role of Planting Practices in Mediterranean Gardens

“…These ecosystem services include regulating services, e.g., control of climate and disease; provisioning services, e.g., production of food and fresh water; and supporting services, e. g., nutrient cycling or primary production (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Studies now focus on the underlying mechanisms linking biodiversity with human health or social relations (de Vries et al 2003, Maas et al 2006, Andersson et al 2007, Mitchell and Popham 2007. In cities, the importance of urban nature for human wellbeing and recreation has been clearly acknowledged (Dunnett andQasim 2000, Takano et al 2002).…”

“…Information flows and activities are classified according to their degree of bottom-up and top-down influences. The effect of the socioeconomic or cultural characteristics of human residents on biodiversity patterns should vary in urban settings (Andersson et al 2007). …”