Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade.

The aim of this paper is to identify the role of conceptual frameworks in operationalising and mainstreaming the idea of ecosystem services. It builds on some initial discussions from IPBES, which suggested that conceptual frameworks could be used to: 'simplify thinking', 'structure work', 'clarify issues', and 'provide a common reference point'. The analysis uses the cascade model as a focus and looks at the way it has been used in recent published material and across a set of case studies from the EU-funded OpenNESS Project as a device for conceptual framing. It found that there are examples in the literature that show the cascade model indeed being used as an 'organising framework', a tool for 're-framing' perspectives, an 'analytical template', and as an 'application framework'. Although the published materials on the cascade are rich, these accounts lack insights into the process by which the different versions of the model were created, and so we turned to the set of OpenNESS case studies to examine how they read the cascade. We found that the cascade was able to provide a common reference for a diverse set of studies, and that it was sufficiently flexible for it to be developed and elaborated in ways that were meaningful for the different place-based studies. The case studies showed that generalised models like the cascade can have an important 'awareness-raising' role. However, we found that using models of this kind it was more difficult for case studies to link their work to broader societal issues such as human well-being, sustainable ecosystem management, governance, and competitiveness, than to their own concerns. We therefore conclude that to be used effectively, conceptual models like the cascade may need to be supported by other materials that help users read it in different, outward looking ways. We also need to find mechanisms for capturing this experience so that it can be shared with others.

Assessing stock and change in land cover and biodiversity in GB: an introduction to Countryside Survey 2000.

Countryside Survey 2000 (CS2000) is the latest in a series of surveys designed to measure and evaluate stock and change of land cover, landscape features, freshwaters, habitats and the vegetation of Great Britain. The ideas behind CS2000 developed during the 1960s and 1970s and culminated in the first survey of vegetation and land cover in 1978. One kilometer sample squares were selected at random using an environmental stratification. Subsequent surveys took place in 1984, 1990 and 1998, revisiting the original sample locations, whilst progressively expanding in scope and sample size; CS2000 included soils, breeding birds, remotely sensed imagery, freshwater biota and hydromorphology. Countryside Survey data may be interpreted using the pressure-state-response model, by selecting indicators of process and quality, and by identifying models of expected responses to different pressures. Thus, results showing losses of hedgerows between 1984 and 1990 stimulated new protection for these features. Ideally, CS2000 data should be used to stimulate experiments to distinguish between different pressures, in order to ensure that policy and management responses are both appropriate and achievable.The experience from CS2000 may prove helpful for the design and management of other large scale monitoring programmes of ecosystems. In particular, the scope of the survey, and the use to which the data are applied, have evolved through time, and yet continuity was essential for change to be detected efficiently. These objectives were reconciled by collecting the data in a disaggregated form, allowing a high degree of flexibility in both analysis and reporting.

Changing landscapes, habitats and vegetation diversity across Great Britain.

This paper describes how Countryside Survey 2000 (CS2000) and earlier Countryside Surveys in 1990 and 1984, can be used to develop an integrated view of the changes in land cover, landscape and biodiversity that have taken place at the regional scale in Great Britain. A particular concern is to develop an understanding of how the national patterns of stock and change are distributed across Great Britain, and whether such changes are leading to more or less regional differentiation in our landscapes and biodiversity. A further concern is how the structure of landscape is changing.A description of the major Environmental Zones that make up Great Britain is given. Analysis of the regional patterns of change observed suggests that there has been considerable geographical variation in the gains and losses of the stock of the Biodiversity Action Plan Broad Habitats. Between 1984 and 1990, in the lowlands of the south and west of England and Wales, there were significant increase in the area of the Arable and Horticultural and Broadleaved Woodland Broad Habitats, and a marked loss of Improved Grassland. Over the same period, in the uplands of England and Wales, significant losses of Acid Grassland were observed, with associated gains in Improved Grassland. The Environmental Zones in Scotland were more stable in terms of the changes in stock of Broad Habitats. In addition to the analysis of net changes in stock of the Broad Habitats, the paper provides an analysis of the exchanges of land between major cover categories or each of the Environmental Zones. In contrast to the regionally concentrated changes in habitat stock, more ubiquitous and uniform changes in habitat quality were detected between 1990 and 1998, which continue trends observed for the 1980s. The quality of freshwater habitats increased. However, there were declines in the quality for some terrestrial biotopes, as indicated by the loss of species diversity from agricultural habitats, and the gains in diversity in semi-natural habitats, such as Acid Grasslands, more usually associated with vegetation types that are poor in species. An important driver of qualitative change appears to be widespread nutrient enrichment from nitrogen. However, such processes are probably superimposed upon more local factors, such as changes in the way land is managed for agriculture. The importance of understanding the various drives of change for future countryside policy is emphasized.