AN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES APPROACH TO ANALYZING SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL

SYSTEMS IN MOUNTAIN GRASSLANDS: MECHANISMS AND DYNAMICSPhD thesis research plan

•This study is part of an international EraNet-BiodivERsA funded project called

VITAL (“Ecosystem service provision from coupled plant and microbial functional

diversity in managed grasslands”)

•To produce a conceptual model of relationships among plant and soil microbial

functional diversity in mountain semi-natural grasslands, and multiple

ecosystem services delivery at the landscape scale, in the global change context

•To model ecosystem services with regard to spatial aspects

•To analyze the feedback loop between land managers and ecosystem services

supply

Which ES for whom and where? and

which stakeholders can modify

What is the spatial concordance

between plant and soil functional

Question 2Question 1

FOUR QUESTIONS TO ANALYSE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES (ES) DYNAMICS

SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM

STUDY AREACONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES

Pénélope Lamarque . Supervisor: Sandra LavorelLaboratoire d’ECologie Alpine (LECA), CNRS (UMR 5553), Grenoble, France. Contact information : penlamarque @ yahoo.fr

• South-facing slope in the inner French Alps

• 1300 ha, at an altitude ranging from 1450 m to 2500 m

• Grasslands used for grazing on upper slope and for hay

on lower parts built on terraces which are legacies of old

arable fields.

• Eight farmers and one shepherd

• At the margin of the Ecrins National Park

• Highly valued for outdoor recreation and scenic beauty

• 2 others sites : Stubai Valley (Austria) and Yorkshire

Dales (UK). To have representative management trends:

abandonment, intensification, and biodiversity

restoration.

Ecosystem Ecosystem

servicesservices

Land Land

managementmanagement

External factorsClimate, politics, technology

which stakeholders can modify

ecosystem services flows and

supply?

Hypothesis : Stakeholders’ perceptions of ES differ depending

on their cultural background, their environmental knowledge,

their use of the ecosystem, and the spatial relationship to the

place where services are produced. Depending on these

elements, ES identified, explicitly or implicitly, can be different

and do not have the same value.

between plant and soil functional

diversity and ES?

Hypothesis: Changes in biodiversity are manifested

through changes in plant functional diversity that

strongly affects ecosystem properties and related ES.

Plant functional diversity, soil microbial diversity and

ecosystem properties of grasslands are mainly driven by

land use history. Therefore, hotspots of “potential ES”

can be mapped using a traditional vertical approach

complemented by a horizontal approach taking into

account the spatial pattern and position of the

landscape components.

What is the relative importance of

ES and exogenous drivers in farmers’

decision making?

Hypothesis: Farmers decision making is strongly influenced

by subsidies and they have adapted their practices according

to constraints (topography, climate, workload,…). Incentives

to manage and provide ES depend on their knowledge and

their sensitivity to the environment, and whether the

benefits produced accrue to them or to others.

Is the socio-ecological system

resilient or vulnerable, in terms

of ES, to drivers of change?

Hypothesis: If ecosystem services provision is

controlled by management decisions, then

stakeholders’ perceptions of ecosystem services and

adaptability of farms to adapt their practices in case of

change are a key factor for determining whether the

socio-ecological system is resilient or vulnerable.

Question 3 Question 4SOCIAL

SUB-SYSTEM

ECOLOGICAL

SUB-SYSTEM

Perceived ES Potential ES

Identification, valuation

and distribution of

individual ES

Relationship between multiple

ES

Spatial analysis of ES

determinants

Mapping individual ES

Mapping hotspots of ES

Map of perceived ES Map of potential ES

Sp

ati

al a

na

lysi

s o

f E

S (

sta

tic) S

T

E

P

1

S

T

E

P

2

METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Step 1 : To identify which ecosystem services

are perceived or used by which kind of

stakeholders and where.

•Individual interviews and focus groups to

describe stakeholders’ views on:

• soil services and their relationships to soil

biodiversity

• relationships among services

Step 2 : To identify which areas are

multifunctional in term of ecosystem services.

• Statistical and GIS modelling using:

• ecological (including plant functional

traits and soil microbial diversity),

• biophysical data

• land-management data

• To analyse the determinants of the spatial

distribution of ecosystem services

• To map individual and multiple ecosystem

Final maps of ecosystem services and vulnerability maps under different scenarios should highlight the importance of management practices on ecosystem services delivery.

Therefore, the social-ecological model developed in this study should help stakeholders to choose the best options of management to maintain ecosystem services, and to achieve

win-win situations for all stakeholders.

Confrontation between perceived and potential ES

Resulting map of ESSp

ati

al a

na

lysi

s o

f E

S (

sta

tic)

Sp

ati

o-t

em

po

ral

an

aly

sis

of

ES

(d

yn

am

ic)

Analysis of adaptability of

management practices to

external influences

Contribution of ES to

decision-making

1 2

S

T

E

P

3

Scenarios development

Spatio-temporal modelling

and resilience analysis

Bottom-up approach Top-down approach

S

T

E

P

5

S

T

E

P

4

EXPECTED OUTCOMES

• relationships among services

•Mental maps or participatory photomapping

• To collect data on distribution and spatial

value of ecosystem services

•To map perceived ecosystem services

Step 3 : To project future management

practices

•Participatory scenarios development

• With an heterogeneous panel of

stakeholders

• Using explorative and normative scenario

techniques

• To map individual and multiple ecosystem

services

• To combine them to locate hot/cold spots

Step 4 and 5 : To model social-ecological system

• To analyse and to model:

• feedback loop linking human decisions

and environment

• vulnerability or resilience of the social-

ecological system are the aims of this

step.

• To develop an innovative and rigorous

methodology