7.2.1 A Societal-Based Approach to Solution Scanning
Solution scanning is a systematic process of making an inventory of all possible responses to a problem prior to weighing the feasibility and merit of each solution for use in a particular setting (Sutherland et al.
2014). It’s been used in environmental and sustainability research literatures to identify solutions for maintaining ecosystem services (Sutherland et al.
2014), agroforestry-based solutions for climate mitigation and adaptation (Hernández-Morcillo et al.
2018) and to scan for existing food network models as a solution type in cultural landscapes in Europe and Asia (Plieninger et al.
2018). The three-part cycle starts with problem identification (horizon scan), then secondly the solution scan, and third the filtering process, which is how solutions can be weighed and selected for their effectiveness in a particular context (Sutherland et al.
2014).
In a recent review of multi-level networks and sustainability solutions, we proposed a societal-based solution scanning approach (Kozar et al.
2019). Transdisciplinary methods that engage multiple types of knowledge, when used with a sustainability science framework focused on societally relevant problems, can help address the questions related to which solutions for a loss of BES can be most effective in managing SEPLS (Pascual et al.
2017). These solutions should be selected for paths that preserve the multiple benefits and ecosystem services borne by traditional management systems, while considering current and future needs through multiple stakeholder values at multiple levels and across the mosaic ecosystem character of SEPLS.
7.2.2 Methods
This chapter presents place-based solutions for conservation and restoration of SEPLS in the Asian region. These are presented: (1) in different sub-regions of Asia at the local scale, (2) by ecosystem, and (3) by how they are connected to other scales through multi-level governance by coalitions of societal actors. We drew upon the experiences of the International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI) in identifying and implementing solutions.
1 IPSI seeks to conserve and revitalize SEPLS through rejuvenation of the Satoyama approach in social-ecological systems that face current environmental challenges from land-use changes. IPSI does this while sustainably supporting the livelihoods and well-being of local communities through revitalized, adaptive and innovative production and management systems that are evolved from cultural practices and indigenous and community knowledge (Gu and Subramanian
2014; Takeuchi et al.
2016; Berglund et al.
2014).
IPSI is a coalition of societal actors that have agreed to share knowledge and collaborate to improve the management of SEPLS in response to evolving threats, including the loss of BES caused by the interactions of a multitude of externally influenced drivers. In Step 1, the horizon scan, the problem we chose to focus on is the one identified by the societal actors of the IPSI network, which is a loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The network has aimed to share place-based solutions to this problem over the past decade.
For step 2, the solution scan, we selected case studies from all publicly available IPSI member cases up to March of 2018. Cases are from 2009 to 2017 and from four primary sources: (1) an online case study database hosted by IPSI (UNU-IAS
2018); (2) a publication by the Satoyama Initiative on Asian production landscapes (UNU-IAS
2012b); (3) publications from the Communities in Action for Landscape Resilience and Sustainability—The COMDEKS program, produced through a collaborative activity of IPSI (UNDP
2014a,
2016); and (4) the flagship series of the Satoyama Initiative, its annual thematic review (Subramanian et al.
2015,
2016,
2017).
We used a set of categorical variables collected in a Microsoft Excel based data instrument. Data collection instruments were created and refined through consultations and pre-testing. A data definition and collection guide was developed to inform the data collection process, and included variables and their range of values, definition, and collection instructions. Quality assurance was controlled through three rounds of pre-testing the data collection sheet by the research team made up of the authors, whereby after each round the range of values and definitions were revised by the shared understanding among team members. Another quality assurance measure included the use of a pre-defined set of values for many of the variables in the data collection sheet to reduce error in data entry, and the aforementioned guide to definitions and response types for the remaining open entry cells. Finally, after data entry, responses were standardized with consistent terms, and various consistency checks performed.
Types of data collected included case study information (publication year, location, scale, institutional author); socioeconomic and biophysical information (sectors, stakeholders, institutions, livelihoods, threats, ecosystems, and ecosystem products); program information (goals, institutional and legal environment, outcomes, knowledge mechanisms); and solutions (solution, solution type). We defined a solution as any activity, intervention, innovation, practice, strategy, or policy that has been proposed or applied in the case study area to address the given problem.
Data for 91 cases was recorded. A minimum criteria was set for each case study to include at least one solution and at least one value for all data categories in the socioeconomic and biophysical section. One case was excluded that did not meet the minimum criteria. A data cleaning protocol was applied to the remaining 90 cases. During the data cleaning, data from case studies in the same location and with the same institutional author were merged in 2 cases, resulting in a total of 88 cases. The final number of case studies and their geographical locations are shown in Table
7.1. A total of 23 cases are located in South Asia, 29 cases in Southeast Asia, and 36 cases in East Asia, representing 18 countries in these regions. Fifty-two local-scale cases were identified by reviewing these 88 case studies, and those countries with local-scale cases are indicated in bold script in Table
7.1.
Table 7.1
Location and number of study cases from the International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI)
Cambodia (8)
| Bangladesh (1) | China (15)
|
Indonesia (6)
| Bhutan (2)
| Japan (18)
|
Lao People’s Democratic Republic (1)
| India (9)
| Mongolia (2) |
Myanmar (1) | Iran (1) | South Korea (1)
|
Philippines (5)
| Nepal (7)
| Total 36 |
Vietnam (4)
| Pakistan (2)
| |
Thailand (4)
| Sri Lanka (1) | |
Total 29 | Total 23 | |
For step 3, the filtering process for selection of solutions to apply in a particular context, we did not discuss or evaluate solutions based on their effectiveness for a particular place. Rather, we applied a framework to filter the solutions by solution type (adapted from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
2005) in order to understand which type of solutions societal actors might prioritize in different social-ecological contexts.
A workshop was held with the research team. Using a consensus process, the solutions were categorized and a further typology of 25 sub-categories was developed. Solutions for the 88 case studies were categorized according to the following 5 categories: institutional and governance solutions; economic and incentive-based solutions; social, cultural, and behavioral solutions; knowledge and cognitive solutions; and technological solutions (Table
7.2).
Table 7.2
Categories and sub-categories of solutions
Institutional and governance | Solutions that enhance benefits while conserving resources by addressing weak or insufficient institutional and management systems and with coordinated responses at multiple scales that consider regulation of ecosystem services in the long term | • Organizational development and institutional strengthening |
• Integrated management approaches |
• Regulations, policies, or frameworks |
• Inclusion |
• Financing |
• Enabling conditions |
Economic and incentive-based | Solutions that address market failures and misalignment through market-based approaches along with improved value-chains and consumer preferences | • Taxes and user fees |
• Subsidies, payments, and rewards |
• Improved value-chains |
• Consumer preferences |
• Trade systems |
• Livelihood |
• Market access |
Social, cultural, and behavioral | Solutions that reduce demand or consumption or address the lack of political and economic power of some groups who are particularly dependent on ecosystem services or harmed by their degradation through demand-side responses | • Formal and nonformal education |
• Awareness creation |
• Cultural practices |
• Access to social services |
Knowledge and cognitive | Solutions that address insufficient knowledge or the poor use of existing knowledge concerning ecosystem services, address information gaps and incorporate other forms of knowledge and information | • Knowledge integration |
• Knowledge gaps |
• Knowledge capacities |
• Knowledge systems |
Technological | Solutions that reduce the harmful impacts of various drivers of ecosystem change as well as underinvestment in the development and diffusion of technologies, or that could increase the efficiency of resource use or ecosystems | • Agroecological practices |
• Ecological restoration or conservation practices |
• Energy technologies or investments |
• Green and resilient infrastructure |
The conventional step 3 filtering process of the solution scan method aims to determine which solution should be applied in a certain place and context based on some agreed expert criteria for effectiveness such as budget, feasibility, and time. In a societal-based solution scanning approach, which solutions to apply in a given SEPLS should be determined in a place-specific and transdisciplinary manner, including knowledge from societal actors on the preferred benefits and trade-offs in the process.
Ecosystems in the case studies were recorded according to the ten classification types of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (marine, coastal, inland water, forest, dryland, island, mountain, polar, cultivated, urban) (MA
2005). Up to four ecosystems per case study were recorded to capture the mosaic characteristic of SEPLS.
2 No cases were located in polar and marine ecosystems in the overall set of 88 cases.
In this chapter, the results discussed present those solutions identified at local scales. These scales are at village, sub-municipality, and local government levels on social and administrative scales, and water bodies (river, lake) or watershed scales at ecological scales. They include both solutions already existing and implemented in the case study areas and those that are proposed as solutions to the given challenge. We examined a sub-set of 52 case studies to answer our question on sub-regional experiences, the societal actors engaged in navigating solutions and the ecosystems targeted through local-level solutions.