Linking functional diversity and social actor strategies in a framework for interdisciplinary analysis of nature's benefits to society

Abstract

The crucial role of biodiversity in the links between ecosystems and societies has been repeatedly highlighted both as source of wellbeing and as a target of human actions, but not all aspects of biodiversity are equally important to different ecosystem services. Similarly, different social actors have different perceptions of and access to ecosystem services, and therefore, they have different wants and capacities to select directly or indirectly for particular biodiversity and ecosystem characteristics. Their choices feed back onto the ecosystem services provided to all parties involved and in turn, affect future decisions. Despite this recognition, the research communities addressing biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human outcomes have yet to develop frameworks that adequately treat the multiple dimensions and interactions in the relationship. Here, we present an interdisciplinary framework for the analysis of relationships between functional diversity, ecosystem services, and human actions that is applicable to specific social environmental systems at local scales. We connect the mechanistic understanding of the ecological role of diversity with its social relevance: ecosystem services. The framework permits connections between functional diversity components and priorities of social actors using land use decisions and ecosystem services as the main links between these ecological and social components. We propose a matrix-based method that provides a transparent and flexible platform for quantifying and integrating social and ecological information and negotiating potentially conflicting land uses among multiple social actors. We illustrate the applicability of our framework by way of land use examples from temperate to subtropical South America, an area of rapid social and ecological change.

Fig. 1.

An interdisciplinary framework for linking functional diversity, social actor strategies, ecosystem services, and land use at the local (patch to landscape) scale. The local social ecological system under study is indicated by the dotted-line box. The wider context is represented in a highly simplified way by the area outside the dotted-line box. Within the local system, the social and ecological components are indicated by the solid-line blue (Left) and green (Right) boxes, respectively. The thick arrows connecting both components are intrinsically interdisciplinary. The content of boxes and arrows are explained in the text. Multiple rectangles in different shades within the social system and ecological system boxes represent their internal heterogeneity (i.e., a multiplicity of land cover types, functional diversity components, social actor strategies, etc.). The gray arrows at the center represent the instrumental component of the framework: multiperspective approaches, such as the one described in the text and Fig. 3, make the interdisciplinary thick arrows of ecosystem services and land use applicable to concrete local situations (i.e., they move the conceptual structure from left to right and back in the diagram). They also interconnect the internal complexities of the social box with those of the ecological box (i.e., they move the structure back and forth through the layers of internal complexity described above). See Cross-Cutting Questions for examples of interdisciplinary questions (indicated by numbered question marks) that can be addressed using this framework.

Fig. 2.

Dependence of ecosystem services on different components of functional diversity. Different ecosystem services provided by biological communities differentially depend on three main components of functional diversity. Abundant attributes refer to the functional trait values of the locally most abundant organisms (plants in this example). Range of attributes refers to the variety of trait values in the community. Presence of specific species refers to the presence of species that are not necessarily abundant within their trophic level but bear particularly important attributes. (A) Vegetation types in which the most abundant plants have tender nitrogen-rich leaves favor fodder provision for free-ranging livestock in Argentina. (B) Large deciduous shrubs, which seem to be expanding across the Arctic, are tall enough to stick up above the snow and thus, modify albedo in the spring; this albedo effect, combined with their high transpiration rates in summer, alters energy balance and creates a positive feedback to warming in Alaska. (C) The simultaneous cultivation of several varieties of corn, potatoes, and beans with differences in harvest season and tolerance to drought, cold, and pests contributes to food security in the Central Andes. (D) The spring flowering of several hundreds of endemic species, displaying a great variety of colors, sustains a flourishing nature-based tourist industry in Namaqualand, an otherwise marginal region of South Africa [Reproduced with permission from B. Reyers (Copyright)]. (E) The now endangered carrion flower (Rafflesia sp.) attracts visitors and thus, contributes to rural livelihoods in Thailand. [Reproduced with permission from Steve Cornish (Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic Licence).] (F) The peyote cactus (Lophophora williamsii) has long been central to the religious and artistic lives of some societies in North America. [Reproduced with permission from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in accordance with Fish and Wildlife Service copyright policy.]

Fig. 3.

Integrating social and ecological information on the links between biodiversity, ES, and land use. This diagram outlines a matrix-based multiperspective approach to simultaneously collect and integrate social and ecological information. The text has further descriptions of concepts, methods, and examples. FD, functional biodiversity; ES, ecosystem services. B–D, F, and G represent matrices, and the horizontal and vertical labels next to them indicate the content of their columns and rows, respectively. A and E represent qualitative or at least, nonvectorial information. Multiple rectangles in different shades in A, B, E, and F represent a multiplicity of social actors considered in parallel (one per social actor). In B, the checkmarks represent simple association between an ES and a specific component of FD recognized by an individual. In C and D, circles of different sizes represent the degree of association (quantitatively measured or established as a rank value) of FD components with ecosystem properties and services (light gray circles in C) or land cover types (dark gray circles in D). In E and F, striped circles of different sizes represent the collective ranking of ES in parallel social actor groups (one rectangle per group). Black circles represent a ranking of land cover types according to their capacity to provide such ES. In the multidimensional matrix G (a single matrix incorporating all social actors), black circles have identical meaning as in matrix F, but the importance rank of different ES (e.g., their order from top to bottom, denoted by the striped circles) can vary in the Z (depth) dimension according to their relevance to the strategies of different social actors.