Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung (ISOE)
Refine
Document Type
- Part of Periodical (4)
- Article (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (7)
Keywords
- Biodiversity (1)
- Demographic change (1)
- Driver (1)
- Human population dynamics (1)
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (1)
- Namibia (1)
- Systematic review (1)
- co-knowledge production (1)
- food security (1)
- interdisciplinarity (1)
- model uncertainty (1)
- remote sensing (1)
- satellite rainfall estimates (1)
- subsistence agriculture (1)
- sustainable development (1)
- transdisciplinarity (1)
Institute
- Biodiversität und Klima Forschungszentrum (BiK-F) (7) (remove)
Good quality data on precipitation are a prerequisite for applications like short-term weather forecasts, medium-term humanitarian assistance, and long-term climate modelling. In Sub-Saharan Africa, however, the meteorological station networks are frequently insufficient, as in the Cuvelai-Basin in Namibia and Angola. This paper analyses six rainfall products (ARC2.0, CHIRPS2.0, CRU-TS3.23, GPCCv7, PERSIANN-CDR, and TAMSAT) with respect to their performance in a crop model (APSIM) to obtain nutritional scores of a household’s requirements for dietary energy and further macronutrients. All products were calibrated to an observed time series using Quantile Mapping. The crop model output was compared against official yield data. The results show that the products (i) reproduce well the Basin’s spatial patterns, and (ii) temporally agree to station records (r = 0.84). However, differences exist in absolute annual rainfall (range: 154 mm), rainfall intensities, dry spell duration, rainy day counts, and the rainy season onset. Though calibration aligns key characteristics, the remaining differences lead to varying crop model results. While the model well reproduces official yield data using the observed rainfall time series (r = 0.52), the products’ results are heterogeneous (e.g., CHIRPS: r = 0.18). Overall, 97% of a household’s dietary energy demand is met. The study emphasizes the importance of considering the differences among multiple rainfall products when ground measurements are scarce.
The Global South is facing severe challenges in ensuring livelihood security due to climate change impacts, environmental degradation and population growth as well as changing lifestyles. These complex problems cannot be solely solved by single scientific disciplines – they require transdisciplinary research (TDR). Stakeholders from civil society, the corporate sector, government and science need to pool their knowledge to find solutions for sustainable transformations. In Namibia, we have been involved in TDR projects on water supply, and sanitation services as well as livestock management in rangeland systems. In this paper, we review two TDR projects that differ in multiple ways and hence allow us to carve out structural differences and critically discuss research outcomes, lessons learned and the challenge of North–South collaborations. Our review builds upon published and unpublished project documents as well as expert interviews with Namibian and German researchers who were involved in the projects. Our results show that TDR can be put into practice in different ways, depending on the research focus and the period available. The TDR phases of problem framing, inter- and transdisciplinary integration were implemented with different tools and foci points. We discuss the role of project length and funding conditions for project success and outcome generation. In addition, we critically consider the role of Namibian and German researchers in these international collaborations. The conclusions we draw touch upon the points of preparatory research funding, the equal acknowledgement of Global South contributions to joint research projects and the explicit handling of TDR components in project work. Significance: • The current social-ecological challenges are complex and require TDR as a mode of knowledge coproduction, particularly in a development context. • Inter- and transdisciplinary integration are critical processes for a project to be successful and require the allocation of adequate time and monetary resources. • Longer-term projects with a funded preparatory research phase constitute a structural model for TDR as project outcomes can evolve over time. • Global South researchers carry a hidden burden in international collaborations that has to be adequately acknowledged upfront in project planning and final products.
Demographic change is supposed to be the most important indirect driver for changing biodiversity. In this article, a systematic review of 148 studies was conducted to examine the scientific evidence for this relationship and to identify potential gaps in research. We explored the spatial distribution of studies, the categories addressed with respect to biodiversity and demographic change, and the ways in which their relationships were conceptualised (spatially and temporally) and valued. The majority of studies were carried out in Africa, Europe and North America. Our analysis confirms the trend that demographic phenomena were mostly found to negatively influence biodiversity. However, a considerable number of studies also point towards impacts that were context dependent, either positive or negative under certain circumstances. In addition to that we identified significant gaps in research. In particular, there is a lack of addressing (1) other demographic aspects such as population decline, age structure or gender differences, (2) spatial variability of, e.g. human population growth, (3) long-term effects of demographic processes, and (4) the context dependency (e.g. regulations/law enforcement, type of human activities, and choice of scale or proxy). We conclude there is evidence that the relationship between biodiversity and demographic change is much more complex than expected and so far represented in research. Thus, we call for a social–ecological biodiversity research that particularly focusses on the functional relation between biodiversity and human activities, namely the different types, context, and interdependent dynamics (spatial and temporal) of this complex relation.
Since few decades there is a broad debate about the so called ecological crisis. The debate had its highlight at the Rio-Conference in 1992. This conference was also the starting point for a wide range of political efforts concerned with a broad spectrum of biodiversity issues. Insofar, the term ‘biodiversity’ is not one of the natural sciences, but one which is inherently connected with questions of good human life. This article argues that the question for the good life predominantly fulfills a heuristic function and is to be answered in light of certain societal relations to nature. Furthermore, in light of these societal relations to nature it is argued for a virtue ethical approach with respect to the individual good life, whereas concerning the scale of societal aspects transdisciplinarity is identified as the appropriate research mode, which addresses both societal and scientific issues.
Climate and biodiversity change can have negative or unexpected social, economic or ecological effects. The Knowledge Flow Paper at hand is dealing with the question what potentials concepts of risk might have for climate related biodiversity research with respect to the synthesis of the results as well as regarding their communication within society. The term “climate induced biodiversity risks” will be introduced in detail and then looked at more closely with respect to its potentials for the research within BiK-F. In the first part, general risk perspectives and their scientific interpretation will be presented and significant components of the risk concept will be introduced. On this basis they will then be applied to the subject areas of biodiversity and climate. A distinction is made between risks for biodiversity, risks for ecosystem services and risks due to climate induced changes of biodiversity for further ecological assets. Thus, this Knowledge Flow Paper initially serves as basis for decisions concerning the possibilities and ways to link risk related areas of research. Furthermore, we would like to offer suggestions to the readers on how to correlate existing discourses on risks and biodiversity.
Stakeholder dialogues can be used not only to introduce and discuss the various demands of the participants. Under certain circumstances they can also serve to smoothen out and solve conflicts that arise in connection with the use and conservation of biodiversity. In order to be successful in this respect, it is crucial to create a situation enabling a process of joint learning. A positive effect might also be achieved by the formation of groups that evolve in the course of a succession of workshops as well as speeches and special items on the agenda. In order for the workshops to be successful, they should be supported by frequent stakeholder analyses. In this guideline we are listing related principles and indications from the literature as well as our own experiences geared towards jointly solving biodiversity conflicts and creating islands of consensus.
Allgemein ist anerkannt, dass gute Kompensationsprojekte nicht nur Kohlenstoff festlegen, sondern möglichst weitere Nachhaltigkeitsleistungen aufweisen, die jedoch bisher bei der Durchführung und der Bewertung der Projekte häufig nicht angemessen berücksichtigt werden. In der vorliegenden Untersuchung wird erhoben, ob brauchbare Indikatoren vorliegen, die zur Bewertung weiterer ökologischer und sozialer Nutzen derartiger Projekte verwendet werden können.
Um den Kritiken gegenüber Waldprojekten zu begegnen, sollten Indikatoren zur Bewertung der Projekte möglichst so gewählt werden, dass sich mit ihnen auch räumliche Verlagerungseffekte erfassen lassen. Ebenso wichtig ist die Betrachtung ausreichender Zeiträume Waldprojekte haben aufgrund der langen Lebensdauer von Bäumen eine längere Laufzeit, als sie derzeit in vielen Bewertungssystemen berücksichtigt wird. Der langfristige Sequestrierungseffekt eines Projektes hängt entscheidend davon ab, ob das Holz alter Bäume im Wald wieder in den Kohlenstoffkreislauf kommt oder dem Wald entzogen wird. Bei ausschließlicher energetischer Nutzung des Holzes und auch bei Verarbeitung zu Zellstoff, Papier und Pappe wird kurze Zeit nach der Holzernte wieder Kohlendioxid freigesetzt. Dagegen schlagen langlebige Nutzungen des Holzes und insbesondere eine tatsächliche Substitution von Produkten aus Erdöl und Erdgas positiv zu Buche.
Wichtige Zusammenhänge bestehen zwischen dem Kohlendioxid-Minderungspotential von Waldprojekten und deren erheblichen ökologischen und sozialen Nutzen; diese entstehen bei optimalem Management in einer Art Ko-Produktion und sollten bewusst gestaltet werden; entsprechende Trade-offs sind bekannt.
Für die Beschreibung der gesamtökologischen und der sozialen Leistungen von Waldprojekten kann weitgehend auf bereits bekannten Kriterien aufgebaut werden; sie sollten aber um die Betrachtung der relevanten Ökosystemdienstleistungen ergänzt werden. Die Kohlenstofffestlegung ist eng mit zahlreichen dieser Ökosystemdienstleistungen (z.B. Humusbildung, Pufferungspotential gegenüber Stickstoff usw.) verknüpft. Waldprojekte mit hoher Biodiversität sind zudem in der Regel besser in der Lage, das Kriterium der Permanenz eines Kohlenstofflagers zu erfüllen. Auch lassen sich über die Ökosystemdienstleistungen bisher ausgeblendete sozio-kulturelle Dimensionen besser als bisher einbeziehen.
Auf diese Weise lässt sich die Darstellung der Nachhaltigkeitsleistung von Waldprojekten auf eine breitere Basis als bisher stellen – sowohl in ökologischer als auch in sozialer Hinsicht können die Kriterienkataloge der bisherigen Standards erweitert werden, die besonders auf Umweltwirkungen und sozioökonomische Effekte abheben. In den meisten Fällen sind bereits ausreichend geeignete Indikatoren bzw. Parameter vorhanden, um weitere wichtige Leistungen der Waldprojekte nachvollziehbar zu beschreiben. Für einige der betrachteten Dimensionen und Kriterien sind bisher noch keine Indikatoren vorhanden; zumeist gibt es aber auch dort Parameter, die Situationen anzeigen, welche unter Umständen genauer betrachtet werden müssten.
Bisher liegen keine allgemein anerkannten Standards hinsichtlich der Nachhaltigkeitskriterien von Waldprojekten vor. Eine neuerliche Debatte über eine Erweiterung des Kriteriensets ist notwendig, damit die zugehörigen Leistungsindikatoren allgemein akzeptiert werden. Diese Diskussion sollte jenseits der Nachhaltigkeitsleistungen der Waldprojekte selbst auch deren Vergleichbarkeit mit technischen Kompensationsprojekten im Blick haben. Die Kriteriendebatte war bisher durch die technischen Projekte dominiert und leider auch auf deren Bewertung verengt. Anders als technische Projekte haben Waldprojekte häufig sowohl für den Naturhaushalt als auch für die Gesellschaft viele weitere Nutzen, die eine nachhaltige Entwicklung begünstigen. Diese werden aber bisher nur unzureichend für die Qualitätssicherung und Kommunikation der Projekte genutzt.
Analog zum Gold Standard (GS) sollten die diskutierten Kriterien zu einem Standard für Waldprojekte verknüpft werden, mit dem sich die Nachhaltigkeitsleistungen dieser Kompensationsprojekte verlässlich bestimmen und überprüfen lassen. In Testläufen könnten die identifizierten Kriterien und Indikatorvorschläge erprobt und dabei modifiziert bzw. verfeinert werden.