INTRODUCTION

The world is changing faster and more fundamentally than ever witnessed before by humans (Steffen et al. 2011, 2015). Although the well-being of many people around the planet has improved (Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010a, United Nations 2015), this improvement comes at a cost to our natural systems: habitat decline, biodiversity loss, climate change, and increased eutrophication and pollution of water systems. Because human and natural systems are closely interlinked in social-ecological systems (SES) that operate at multiple scales, changes to social systems affect natural ones, and changes to natural systems affect social ones. Such SES are complex, adaptive systems that are interdependent and interact at multiple scales (Bouamrane et al. 2016).

In their seminal book, Gunderson and Holling (2002a) introduce Panarchy as a term to reflect the adaptive and evolutionary nature of SES and to highlight their nestedness and interconnectedness through time and space. The authors stress that in SES, materials and information flow in multiple directions. As such, the concept of Panarchy helps to understand changes in SES, which are complex and dynamic, often featuring not only interactions of system components but changes in those interactions, and not a single consistent direction of flow.

Ecosystem services (ES) are the diverse ways nature contributes to human well-being (MEA 2005). Ecosystem services research was developed, in part, to document and understand the effects of environmental change on ecosystem function and human well-being, and the effects of human actions on the environment (Carpenter et al. 2009). It has been successful at bringing attention to the interlinked nature of SES not only through scientific papers, but also through international endeavors such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES 2019). Although this work started with a focus on the effects of ecosystem change on ecosystem function and human well-being, more recent papers have featured bi-directional feedbacks between social and ecological systems, showing how human decisions and actions impact ecosystems as well (Raymond et al. 2013, Reyers et al. 2013, Mace 2014).

Despite great advances in ES research over the past decades, this work has only rarely investigated change in SES through time and space (Rau et al. 2018, Winkler et al. 2021a). Two decades ago, leaders of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment found that the theories and models available at that time only poorly incorporated feedbacks between ecological and social systems, and thus often failed to anticipate thresholds of change, fundamental system changes, and regime shifts (Carpenter et al. 2009). Since then, multiple publications outlining research frontiers in ES science have repeatedly called for more consideration of uncertainty (Nicholson et al. 2009), temporal and spatial dynamics (Bennett et al. 2015), and non-linearities (Koch et al. 2009, Bennett 2017). Most recently, authors of the Global Assessment of IPBES concluded that biodiversity and ES are decreasing, and transformative change is needed, calling for research to pay more attention to drivers of change (Díaz et al. 2019). Currently, ES research’s ability to inform decision makers on how to effectively govern our changing world is limited by the lack of integration of change into ES research (Abson and Termansen 2011, Reyers et al. 2013, Pascual et al. 2017, Rau et al. 2018, 2020, Stritih et al. 2019).

We explore how Panarchy theory, and especially its detailed reflections on change and system dynamics, could help ES research to better capture the dynamics of change. We do this by outlining four main conclusions of the book Panarchy (Holling and Gunderson 2002a) that relate to the dynamics of change in SES. We follow the order the conclusions are presented in the Panarchy book and discuss how each of these conclusions can be integrated into ES research. We acknowledge that some aspects related to change and dynamic systems have been studied in the context of ES, such as trade-offs (Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010b) and spatial interactions of ES (Schröter et al. 2018). However, Rau et al. (2020) found in their review of almost 300 ES research papers that only 2% covered temporal dynamics. Finally, we provide practical recommendations to help ES researchers incorporate and account for change in their research, allowing them to generate more nuanced findings about the dynamics of ES in complex SES.

MULTIPLE STABLE STATES ARE COMMON IN MANY SYSTEMS

Abrupt shifts among a multiplicity of very different stable domains are plausible in regional ecosystems, some economic systems, and some political systems. (Holling et al. 2002a:395)

This conclusion highlights that social-ecological systems can exist in multiple stable states. Each state is characterized by a specific combination of ecological and social components that are expected to persist in the absence of perturbation. For example, shallow lakes can exist in a clear or a turbid form (Scheffer et al. 1993, Hilt et al. 2017; Box 1). Shifts between states can be gradual or can be sudden and dramatic (Scheffer et al. 2001, Scheffer and Carpenter 2003). Sudden shifts may involve tipping points or other nonlinear dynamics. Once a system has shifted to a new state, a return to the previous state may not always be possible (Walker and Salt 2006, Bohensky et al. 2015). The exact tipping point at which a system shifts into another state can be difficult to predict (Biggs et al. 2012).

This Panarchy conclusion suggests that ES researchers should keep in mind that an ecosystem may not stay in the same state and that this might change ES supply and demand in ES assessments (Table 1). Different states of an ecosystem may provide vastly different combinations of ES, often referred to as ES bundles (Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010b). For example, the change of a lake from an oligotrophic state to a eutrophic state is likely to have important consequences for multiple ES, such as fish (Willemsen 1980), drinking water (Palmstrom et al. 1988), or recreation (Keeler et al. 2015). So far, ES research has not addressed the effects of state shifts on ES bundles, or whether the supply of individual ES in ES bundles will change in parallel or in different directions when the state shifts (Table 1). Research on the provision of ES bundles through time suggests that each ES within any given bundle can change differently from other ES in the bundle because of the different drivers influencing its provision (Renard et al. 2015, Braun et al. 2018). There are a variety of studies that have assessed ES bundles occurring in related locations at the same time (e.g., Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010 a or b?, Su et al. 2012, Hamann et al. 2015, Qiu et al. 2021), which could give us indications on different stable states of ecosystems. However, there is no analysis on whether the different performances of the bundles are connected to different states of the system or other effects (e.g., different phases, different sets of drivers). Literature around space-for-time substitution in ecology have raised concerns about such approaches for over 30 years (Pickett 1989, Damgaard 2019).

To date, the vast majority of ES research has used static snapshots of ecosystems to assess ES supply or demand (e.g., the matrix approach developed by Burkhard et al. 2010). Few studies have examined the temporal changes (short- and long-term) of ES and this may have important impacts on findings. Tomscha and Gergl (2016) showed that assessing only one point in time compared to a time series could culminate in misleading results because reference data were missing. Those that have considered time have found interesting results of changing ES. For example, Laursen et al. (2021) found that in the winter, the spatiotemporal overlap of waterbirds and recreational activities is less than in the summer. Vierikko and Yli-Pelkonen (2019) researched the seasonality of supply and demand of recreational ES provided by a lake and showed that the supply remains similar while the demand changes. They also highlighted that the socio-cultural values change with seasons. Renard et al. (2015) looked at the changes of nine ES between 1971 and 2006 in the Canadian Monteregie region and found that all of them changed significantly over time. However, although some research exists on temporal change in ES, the research has generally not focused on multiple stable states, but rather on ES recovery after disturbance (Sutherland et al. 2016) rather than on how the ES supply and demand might change in different stable states of an ecosystem.

When ES research has accounted for ecosystem dynamics, it has typically been in the form of predictable and linear trends (Rau et al. 2018). However, this Panarchy conclusion reminds us that it is inappropriate to assume that a current state of ES supply and demand is a permanent property of the system and thus, we cannot assume in management and governance decisions a stable production of ES over long periods of time. The conclusion may be especially true in the case of “coerced regimes” (Rist et al. 2014, Angeler et al. 2020). Coerced regimes occur when people artificially hold a system in one state to provide specific ES. For example, agricultural systems are often coerced into a specific state that maximizes crop production through several interventions such as the addition of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides (Box 1). Coercion of this type can decrease the resilience of a system, increasing the need for continued human inputs or the chance that a system will flip into an alternate state that is less desirable in terms of the ES provided. More research is needed on the impact of such coercion on ES and on when coercion increases the likelihood of flipping to an alternate state with less preferable ES. (Table 1).

THE ADAPTIVE CYCLE IS A FUNDAMENTAL UNIT OF DYNAMIC CHANGE

An adaptive cycle that aggregates resources and periodically restructures to create opportunities for innovation is a fundamental unit for understanding complex systems from cells to ecosystems to societies to cultures. (Holling et al. 2002a:398)

The second Panarchy conclusion stresses that the adaptive cycle is a key element of Panarchy that describes change in social-ecological systems through a sequence of four phases: exploitation (r), conservation (K), release (omega), and reorganization (alpha) (Fig. 1). Three properties shape how a system moves through the different phases of the adaptive cycle: (1) accumulation of potential (i.e., resources, such as biomass, social relationships, or economic capital), (2) the degree of connectedness of the system (i.e., the amount of influence the system can exert over external variability), and (3) the resilience of the system (i.e., a measure of a system’s vulnerability to unexpected or unpredicted shocks; Holling and Gunderson 2002b). The interplay between these three properties and the four phases creates the dynamic change of a system.

Different change processes play out in each phase of the adaptive cycle. The exploitation phase (r) is characterized by low connectedness between controlling variables and relatively low levels of resources (e.g., biomass, human capital). Low connectedness leads to relatively weak interactions between components within a system and to system behavior that is controlled more by external forces than endogenous ones. In the slow progression from the exploitation phase to the conservation phase (K), the connectedness of the system components increases, and resources accumulate. Increased connectedness means that system behavior is increasingly driven by interactions among internal system components and less by external variability. The other three progressions, from conservation to release (omega), release to reorganization (alpha), and reorganization to exploitation, are faster. Resources accumulated in the conservation phase (K) are suddenly freed in the release phase (omega), for example, by a fire, a pest, or an economic crisis. The low connectedness and the relatively high potential in the reorganization phase (alpha) increase the likelihood that the system develops in novel configurations as it moves into a new exploitation phase (r). North American forest fires exemplify the phases through time (Box 1).

Thus far, most ES research has not directly engaged with how supply and demand might change across phases of the adaptive cycle (Table 1). The four phases of the adaptive cycle might affect the provision of and demand for ES if ES are provided and demanded in varying amounts depending, in part, on the interaction among accumulation of potential, connectedness of the system, and resilience. There are reasons to suspect that ES supply and demand may behave differently in the slower exploitation and conservation phases compared to the rapid phases of release and reorganization. For example, during forest fires, timber is no longer supplied although the heat helps cones to release their seeds (Box 1). We speculate that the human demand for certain essential ES (e.g., food) remains relatively stable throughout the different phases, whereas the supply varies. Special attention should be given to the question of how to ensure that essential ES are maintained in the phases of change (release and reorganization phase). Underlying stocks (e.g., natural and human capital) might be potential indicators for the phase in which the system is. Through natural resources management, ES supply might be stable but deplete ecosystems and thus threaten the potential for future supply. Thus, the system might be moving to the edge of the conservation phase into the release phase (Isbell et al. 2015).

A key step in increasing understanding of ES would be to develop measurements that help to assess which phase of the adaptive cycle a system is currently in, and how this affects ES supply and demand. This calls for ES research to consider more complex and dynamic interactions that can exist in a system with different phases. Although in the first Panarchy conclusion the state of the system is at play (e.g., clear vs. turbid lake), a system in different phases of the adaptive cycle is more likely to see changes in ES supply and demand (e.g., after a wildfire; Box 1). With more understanding about ES supply and provision across different phases of the adaptive cycle, we can also learn about ES bundles in the different phases and if and how essential ES services are provided in all phases (Table 1).

Moving from mapping to monitoring ES over time can help to identify the phase a system is in and allow adaptive management strategies that can buffer and prepare for potential changes. For example, monitoring of phosphorus over a century allowed not only phosphorus management to change their way of doing things, but also showed that the effects were reduced phosphorus levels (MacDonald and Bennett 2009). Monitoring ES might also allow us to understand if ES play a role in the process of the adaptive cycle in natural, but also coerced states (Table 1). Lautenbach et al. (2012) analyzed data on global pollination benefits between 1993 and 2009 and identified early warning signs of conflict between pollination services for food production and other land uses that could create turmoil in food production systems. Human and non-human perturbations can affect the supply and demand of ES, which in turn can influence the process of the adaptive cycle. Forest management might remove understory and forest floor vegetation and with it the cones that are essential for the reorganization phase after a fire (Box 1).

NOT ALL ADAPTIVE CYCLES ARE THE SAME AND SOME ARE MALADAPTIVE

Variants to the adaptive cycle are present in different systems. These include physical systems with no internal storage, ecosystems strongly influenced by external pulses, and human systems with foresight and adaptive methods to stabilize variability. Some are maladaptive and trigger poverty and rigidity traps. (Holling et al. 2002a:401)

In this conclusion, Holling et al. (2002a) identified four variations of the adaptive cycle that differ in their levels of complexity. First, there are physical systems, which, in the view of Western science, have no ability to create and no intention to change a system in a specific way: (1) a chemical reaction proceeds in the same way every time provided it occurs under the same conditions, (2) living systems in which individuals do not control or predict changes in their environment, but have evolved ways to passively adapt to variations in their environment, such as in semi-arid savannas that come to a bloom during rainy seasons; (3)living systems with components that adapt and create novel responses in reaction to changing conditions. These components of a system actively influence the system itself. Beavers, birds, and reef-building corals are examples in that they all influence the processes of their ecosystems. And (4) human systems with components of agency, like foresight and intentionality (i.e., people have objectives), which both create and control change. In this case, humans act as the drivers of change in the system by self-organizing, generating novel responses to anticipated or imagined changes, and actively adjusting the adaptive cycle through their actions and decisions. For example, farmers can prolong the growing seasons of crops through their management actions (i.e., coerce the system to remain in the exploitation phase; Box 1).

This conclusion points to the value for ES research to investigate different types of drivers of change and to consider the potential for those drivers to change the system itself. Although human drivers (fourth variation) are considered often in social-ecological systems, other factors also function as drivers of ES supply and human well-being. Drivers originating from the first and second variations of the adaptive cycle (physical systems and systems without control) are seemingly controllable for humans. For example, humans have altered soil composition for agricultural exploitation. Although people have felt in control of these drivers for a long time, Panarchy suggests that we might have underestimated the power of these non-human drivers. For example, forest fires can massively change ES supply (Pausas and Keeley 2019). The third variation (living systems with intention) can even ultimately undermine human interests. Sea otter populations along the North American Pacific Coast directly affect carbon sequestration and food provision (shellfish) to local communities (Levine et al. 2017, Thierry et al. 2021). Depending on human preferences and needs, the activities of the sea otters can compete with human needs for food and economic development. Consequently, it is important to consider a range of different potential drivers of change in ES assessments.

Different types of drivers are reflected in ES frameworks such as the IPBES framework, which recognizes three types of drivers: nature, anthropocentric assets, and institutions (i.e., rules, regulations; Díaz et al. 2015). The combination of different drivers shapes the context in which ES are provided. Thus, changes in the drivers have consequences for the ES. Consequently, assessing ES supply alone is not enough. Indicators for the different potential drivers of change are important to understand change in relation to ES better (Table 1).

People are probably the main indirect and direct drivers of change in environmental systems. The ES literature increasingly acknowledges this by not only focusing on the assessment of ES, but also on management and governance of ES (Sattler et al. 2018, Winkler et al. 2021b). Management and governance have repeatedly been identified as a major driver of changes in ES provisions (e.g., Renard et al. 2015, Garrah et al. 2019). However, questions remain concerning the role of management and governance of system’s shifts in states or the process through the adaptive cycle and the stable provision of essential ES (Table 1). One way forward is to implement adaptive and anticipatory management and governance that have the possibility of (unexpected) change as a cornerstone of their thinking (Guston 2014, Boyd et al. 2015).

This third Panarchy conclusion also highlights maladaptive cycles, which are conditions that maintain a system in an undesired state (Carpenter and Brock 2008). This definition highlights the normative dimension of the concept because probably in most maladaptive cycles, entities exist that benefit from the current cycle. Certain drivers (in this context also called traps) are powerful enough to keep systems in maladaptive cycles. The drivers can be human (e.g., poverty) or non-human (e.g., returning or invasive species). Systems in a maladaptive cycle lack the properties to shift into another cycle. Thus, the properties of the system reinforce the system in the maladaptive cycle.

We define maladaptive systems in the context of ES supply as situations in which the ES supply is negatively changed either relating to equitable access to ES or for the natural ecosystem to maintain ES supply. Invasive species with no natural enemies spread in ecosystems, potentially leading to a shift of the stable state of the system. These species can be understood as drivers that reinforce a maladaptive cycle. Another example are disservices arising from “redlining,” a racially motivated designation of low-income, African-American neighborhoods as “high investment risks” by the US Federal Home Owner Loan Corporation (HOLC) in the 1930’s (Nardone et al. 2020). Redlining has triggered a maladaptive cycle of urban development. Today, extreme disparities exist in the supply of ES and disservices between neighborhoods considered high or low investment risk in the early 20th century. In 94% of US cities studied, historically redlined neighborhoods have significantly higher summertime temperature anomalies, increased the urban heat island effect, and reduced potential for urban greening (Hoffman et al. 2020). As such, ES management and governance function as traps for a maladaptive cycle. For this reason, it is important to continue research on questions such as environmental justice, power, and equity related to ES (e.g., Daw et al. 2011, Jenerette et al. 2011, Laterra et al. 2018) to identify maladaptive systems and find strategies to overcome them (Table 1).

SUSTAINABILITY REQUIRES BOTH CHANGE AND PERSISTENCE

Sustainability is maintained by relationships among a nested set of adaptive cycles arranged as a dynamic hierarchy in space and time - the Panarchy. (Holling et al. 2002a:402)

This conclusion states that sustainability is maintained through the interactions between spatial and temporal scales. In the Panarchy book, sustainability is defined as “the capacity to create, test, and maintain adaptive capability” (Holling et al. 2002b:76). This conclusion and the definition of sustainability differ from more common definitions (e.g., the Brundtland definition) in that it underlines the importance of interaction and change for the maintenance of any stable state (or to shift to another more desired state) rather than the maintenance of a certain equilibrium. Adaptive cycles on higher levels of the Panarchy as well as slowly changing variables maintain the memory of the system to maintain adaptive capacity. Cycles on lower levels and more quickly changing variables allow for innovation and fast recovery after disturbances. Together, these nested adaptive cycles maintain sustainability within the SES.

The idea of sustainability presented in this conclusion means that we cannot assume an ability to hold a system in a constant stable state. Thus, we cannot aim to identify a set of conditions that will provide a specific (desired) amount of ES over medium and long time periods without change. When acknowledging constant change, two implications reveal themselves for ES research. Ecosystem services researchers need to be able to understand ES and SES in a way that allows for changes at small scales by promoting diversity and innovation, while preserving those parts of the system that provide the memory needed for a successful reorganization phase to conserve critical and irreplaceable natural capital and cultural institutions.

This poses a fundamental challenge when managing ecosystems for the delivery of ES. Ecosystem services demand is relatively fixed because people need certain ES like food or clean water, and they cherish cultural ES such as sense of place. This means that systems are typically managed to ensure a steady and predictable supply of specific ES, which is likely to create a coerced system (Rist et al. 2014). However, as this fourth conclusion states, systems change, and as changes occur, the provision of ES might also change, which creates problems for the relatively static human systems that rely on consistent ES supply. Diversity and innovation in management can be pathways to react to changing conditions (Table 1). For example, finding ways to foster diversity and innovation in the management systems might help maintain appropriate levels of ES supply while allowing system change. Traditional uses of ecosystems were often much more adapted to local conditions than today’s homogenized management, and thus may offer a wider variety of potential pathways to deliver desired ES during system change, or pathways for human systems to adapt to changes in the ES provided (Barthel et al. 2010). Research is needed to better understand which traditional and local approaches are useful and transferable to other contexts, and whether it is possible to move knowledge and traditions among places in an ethical and responsible manner.

In ES research, there has been relatively little attention given to changes in people’s underlying values toward ES over time. Other environment related studies have found changes in attitudes of people over time, e.g., attitudes toward wind energy (Eltham et al. 2008) and human-made climate change (Milfont et al. 2017). However, most of this work has been conducted in developed Western countries, and results might be different in other places or cultures, such as communities practicing subsistence agriculture or Indigenous cultures with centuries-long connections to land and water. In the same vein, we should also consider how slow variables connected to ES (like sense of place) might keep systems from overcoming maladaptive cycles (Table 1) and with which means processes can be designed that nourish adaptation or transformation. For example, strong place attachment has been identified as one factor that hampers people’s willingness to adapt or change despite looming climate conditions that will be untenable for continuous agricultural production (Marshall et al. 2016). It may be possible to use this knowledge to develop techniques to overcome the challenges of slow variables or even find processes that make a strength out of the weakness (Lyon 2014, Masterson et al. 2017).

Knowledge about what components provide memory in SES that deliver ES remains scant despite the fundamental role of memory in sustainability. Social-ecological memory links the physical (ecological) qualities to the social qualities (e.g., meaning of a place) with consequences for ES (Raymond et al. 2018). In the tradition of Panarchy thinking, memory is created and maintained through slow variables and through adaptive cycles at larger scales. Scale can imply temporal as well as spatial scale. Stocks such as natural capital, biodiversity, and human knowledge could be the components that hold the memory for ES supply. However, we argue that certain ES might be able to provide memory themselves if they are slower variables, e.g., erosion regulations or sense of place. The nestedness of the speeds of change for system components and services provides memory for different adaptive cycles.

WAYS FORWARD AND CONCLUSION

The four conclusions of the Panarchy book provide suggestions about how to explore and engage with the dynamics of ES and may help ES researchers to work on key knowledge gaps and questions for ES research (Table 1). The adaptive cycle implies a strong need for more dynamic approaches in ES research. Widening the scope from ES to other variables describing the social-ecological context will help identify the phase of an adaptive cycle a study system is in. In addition, taking the adaptive cycle seriously implies that management and governance of ES must prepare for change rather than focus on stabilizing systems that might be coerced or maladaptive. If the objective of ES research is not only to assess the potential for ES supply, but also to assess the realized supply of ES and learn how to govern ES supply sustainably (Abson et al. 2014), it would be short-sighted not to acknowledge normative objectives in our human activities and their effects on ES. Last, the interactions of different scales (e.g., local to international, short- to long-term) need our attention because they influence each other and create an additional level of complexity in SES.

Effective monitoring of ES can provide critical information for scientists to track temporal trends, to uncover spatial patterns, and to understand how multiple, interacting variables influence the supply and demand of ES in SES (Tallis et al. 2012). International organizations such as IPBES and GEOBON aim to identify and monitor essential ES variables to build common approaches for collecting data about ES over time. These big, internationally orchestrated efforts are needed because otherwise it will be challenging to obtain comparable data across many locations (Geijzendorffer and Roche 2013). Nevertheless, Panarchy suggests that in addition to collecting data on ES, scientists should also collect information about variables that describe the context of the system. These additional variables might help to identify patterns of causes across different systems that drive ES supply and demand. With the information about ES, ES drivers, and the SES, researchers will be able to not only assess ES as a snapshot, but also have information to start understanding the drivers and identifying patterns of change.

Another approach to start understanding dynamic effects in ES research is to produce long-term social-ecological data either by repeating existing studies or by implementing long-term monitoring. Ecosystem services researchers could examine the rich body of literature produced over the last 20 years (Costanza et al. 2017) and start repeating empirical studies in the same location with the same methods, which would enable researchers to identify changes in ES supply, flow, or demand across time in greater detail. Also, remote sensing could help to understand temporal changes (Braun et al. 2018). Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites can function as inspiration on how to set up research over long time periods in specific case studies (Mirtl et al. 2018). However, the specifics of how to assess social-ecological change vs. purely ecological change needs more academic consideration. Understanding the factors that led to previous changes might give scientists critical knowledge to project how different management scenarios could influence the delivery of ES in the future.

Finally, scenarios, both quantitative and qualitative ones, help researchers and decision makers consider potential future change. Both types of scenarios have been used in various research activities to think about the future of ES from the local (e.g., Hashimoto et al. 2019) to the global level (Chaplin-Kramer et al. 2019). Although a variety of scenario-based modeling tools exist, their relevance for policymaking is not always explicit (Rosa et al. 2020). Some quantitative, scenario-based models for ES integrate local knowledge, but then produce a static view into the future (e.g., Koo et al. 2018). Scenarios were presented in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; however, they did not explore social-ecological feedback and dynamic interactions. Currently, a task force at IPBES is developing new scenarios that take dynamic interactions and feedbacks into consideration (Rosa et al. 2017). Such scenarios can then illustrate that the future will hold unpredictable conditions for ES and point to the need to embracing change (Pereira et al. 2021).

We know that the world is changing, but the concrete consequences of change often seem to surprise us. Panarchy highlights the importance of thinking about systems as dynamic with components interacting in non-linear ways throughout adaptive cycles on different scales and provides new opportunities for ES researchers to offer meaningful insights for decision making in SES. Ecosystem services research should consider dynamic interactions, slow and fast changes, and consequences for management and governance to increase the resilience of SED and of the long-term, sustainable delivery of ES.

LITERATURE CITED

Abson, D. J., and M. Termansen. 2011. Valuing ecosystem services in terms of ecological risks and returns. Conservation Biology 25(2):250-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01623.x

Abson, D. J., H. von Wehrden, S. Baumgärtner, J. Fischer, J. Hanspach, W. Härdtle, H. Heinrichs, A. M. Klein, D. J. Lang, P. Martens, and D. Walmsley. 2014. Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecological Economics 103:29-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.012

Allen, C. R., and C. S. Holling. 2010. Novelty, adaptive capacity, and resilience. Ecology and Society 15(3):24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03720-150324

Angeler, D. G., B. C. Chaffin, S. M. Sundstrom, A. Garmestani, K. L. Pope, D. R. Uden, D. Twidwell, and C. R. Allen. 2020. Coerced regimes: management challenges in the Anthropocene. Ecology and Society 25(1):4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11286-250104

Barthel, S., C. Folke, and J. Colding. 2010. Social-ecological memory in urban gardens - retaining the capacity for management of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 20(2):255-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.01.001

Bennett, E. M. 2017. Research frontiers in ecosystem service science. Ecosystems 20(1):31-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-016-0049-0

Bennett, E. M., W. Cramer, A. Begossi, G. Cundill, S. Díaz, B. N. Egoh, I. R. Geijzendorffer, C. B. Krug, S. Lavorel, E. Lazos, L. Lebel, B. Martín-López, P. Meyfroidt, H. A. Mooney, J. L. Nel, U. Pascual, K. Payet, N. P. Harguindeguy, G. D. Peterson, A.-H. Prieur-Richard, B. Reyers, P. Roebeling, R. Seppelt, M. Solan, P. Tschakert, T. Tscharntke, B. L. Turner, II, P. H. Verburg, E. F. Viglizzo, P. C. L. White, and G. Woodward. 2015. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:76-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007

Biggs, R., M. Schlüter, D. Biggs, E. L. Bohensky, S. BurnSilver, G. Cundill, V. Dakos, T. M. Daw, L. S. Evans, K. Kotschy, A. M. Leitch, C. Meek, A. Quinlan, C. Raudsepp-Hearne, M. D. Robards, M. L. Schoon, L. Schultz, and P. C. West. 2012. Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37(1):421-448. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836

Bohensky, E. L., L. S. Evans, Louisa S., J. M. Anderies, D. Biggs, and C. Fabricius. 2015. Principle 4 - Foster complex adaptive systems thinking. Pages 142-173 in R. Biggs, M. Schlüter, and M. L. Schoon, editors. Principles for building resilience: sustaining ecosystem services in social-ecological systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781316014240.007

Bouamrane, M., M. Spierenburg, A. Agrawal, A. Boureima, M.-C. Cormier-Salem, M. Etienne, C. Le Page, H. Levrel, and R. Mathevet. 2016. Stakeholder engagement and biodiversity conservation challenges in social-ecological systems: some insights from biosphere reserves in western Africa and France. Ecology and Society 21(4):25. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08812-210425

Boyd, E., B. Nykvist, S. Borgström, and I. A. Stacewicz. 2015. Anticipatory governance for social-ecological resilience. AMBIO 44(S1):149-161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0604-x

Braun, D., A. Damm, L. Hein, O. L. Petchey, and M. E. Schaepman. 2018. Spatio-temporal trends and trade-offs in ecosystem services: an Earth observation based assessment for Switzerland between 2004 and 2014. Ecological Indicators 89:828-839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.016

Burkhard, B., F. Kroll, F. Müller, and W. Windhorst. 2010. Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services - a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landscape Online 15. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.200915

Carpenter, S. R., and W. A. Brock. 2008. Adaptive capacity and traps. Ecology and Society 13(2):40. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02716-130240

Carpenter, S. R., H. A. Mooney, J. Agard, D. Capistrano, R. S. DeFries, S. Díaz, T. Dietz, A. K. Duraiappah, A. A. Oteng-Yeboah, H. M. Pereira, C. Perrings, W. V. Reid, J. Sarukhan, R. J. Scholes, and A. Whyte. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(5):1305-1312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808772106

Chaplin-Kramer, R., R. P. Sharp, C. Weil, E. M. Bennett, U. Pascual, K. K. Arkema, K. A. Brauman, B. P. Bryant, A. D. Guerry, N. M. Haddad, M. Hamann, P. Hamel, J. A. Johnson, L. Mandle, H. M. Pereira, S. Polasky, M. Ruckelshaus, M. R. Shaw, J. M. Silver, A. L. Vogl, and G. C. Daily. 2019. Global modeling of nature’s contributions to people. Science 366(6462):255-258. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw3372

Costanza, R., R. de Groot, L. Braat, I. Kubiszewski, L. Fioramonti, P. Sutton, S. Farber, and M. Grasso. 2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services 28:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008

Damgaard, C. 2019. A critique of the space-for-time substitution practice in community ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 34(5):416-421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.01.013

Daw, T., K. Brown, S. Rosendo, and R. Pomeroy. 2011. Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environmental Conservation 38(04):370-379. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000506

Díaz, S., S. Demissew, J. Carabias, C. Joly, M. Lonsdale, N. Ash, A. Larigauderie, J. R. Adhikari, S. Arico, A. Báldi, A. Bartuska, I. A. Baste, A. Bilgin, E. Brondizio, K. M. A. Chan, V. E. Figueroa, A. Duraiappah, M. Fischer, R. Hill, T. Koetz, P. Leadley, P. Lyver, G. M. Mace, B. Martín-López, M. Okumura, D. Pacheco, U. Pascual, E. S. Pérez, B. Reyers, E. Roth, O. Saito, R. J. Scholes, N. Sharma, H. Tallis, R. Thaman, R. Watson, T. Yahara, Z. A. Hamid, C. Akosim, Y. Al-Hafedh, R. Allahverdiyev, E. Amankwah, S. T. Asah, Z. Asfaw, G. Bartus, L. A. Brooks, J. Caillaux, G. Dalle, D. Darnaedi, A. Driver, G. Erpul, P. Escobar-Eyzaguirre, P. Failler, A. M. M. Fouda, B. Fu, H. Gundimeda, S. Hashimoto, F. Homer, S. Lavorel, G. Lichtenstein, W. A. Mala, W. Mandivenyi, P. Matczak, C. Mbizvo, M. Mehrdadi, J. P. Metzger, J. B. Mikissa, H. Moller, H. A. Mooney, P. Mumby, H. Nagendra, C. Nesshover, A. A. Oteng-Yeboah, G. Pataki, M. Roué, J. Rubis, M. Schultz, P. Smith, R. Sumaila, K. Takeuchi, S. Thomas, M. Verma, Y. Yeo-Chang, and D. Zlatanova. 2015. The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002

Díaz, S., J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio, H. T. Ngo, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii, J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian, G. F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, R. R. Chowdhury, Y.-J. Shin, I. Visseren-Hamakers, K. J. Willis, and C. N. Zayas. 2019. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366(6471):eaax3100. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax3100

Eltham, D. C., G. P. Harrison, and S. J. Allen. 2008. Change in public attitudes towards a Cornish wind farm: implications for planning. Energy Policy 36(1):23-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.09.010

Garrah, J., B. Frei, and E. M. Bennett. 2019. Bright spots among lakes in the Rideau Valley Watershed, Ontario. Ecology and Society 24(3):22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11073-240322

Geijzendorffer, I. R., and P. K. Roche. 2013. Can biodiversity monitoring schemes provide indicators for ecosystem services? Ecological Indicators 33:148-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.010

Guston, D. H. 2014. Understanding ‘anticipatory governance.’ Social Studies of Science 44(2):218-242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713508669

Hamann, M., R. Biggs, and B. Reyers. 2015. Mapping social-ecological systems: identifying ‘green-loop’ and ‘red-loop’ dynamics based on characteristic bundles of ecosystem service use. Global Environmental Change 34:218-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.008

Hashimoto, S., R. DasGupta, K. Kabaya, T. Matsui, C. Haga, O. Saito, and K. Takeuchi. 2019. Scenario analysis of land-use and ecosystem services of social-ecological landscapes: implications of alternative development pathways under declining population in the Noto Peninsula, Japan. Sustainability Science 14(1):53-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0626-6

Higgins, T. L., and T. P. Duane. 2008. Incorporating complex adaptive systems theory into strategic planning: the Sierra Nevada Conservancy. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51(1):141-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560701712291

Hilt, S., S. Brothers, E. Jeppesen, A. J. Veraart, and S. Kosten. 2017. Translating regime shifts in shallow lakes into changes in ecosystem functions and services. BioScience 67(10):928-936. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix106

Hoffman, J. S., V. Shandas, and N. Pendleton. 2020. The effects of historical housing policies on resident exposure to intra-urban heat: a study of 108 US urban areas. Climate 8(1):12. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8010012

Holling, C. S., S. R. Carpenter, W. A. Brock, and L. H. Gunderson. 2002a. Discoveries for Sustainable Futures. Pages 395-417 in C. S. Holling and L. H. Gunderson, editors. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington DC.

Holling, C. S., and L. H. Gunderson. 2002a. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Holling, C. S., and L. H. Gunderson. 2002b. Resilience and adaptive cycles. Pages 25-62 in C. S. Holling and L. H. Gunderson, editors. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.

Holling, C. S., L. H. Gunderson, and G. D. Peterson. 2002b. Sustainability and panarchies. Pages 63-103 in C. S. Holling and L. H. Gunderson, editors. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and nautral systems. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.

Díaz, S., J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio, H. T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K. I. J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian, G. F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, R. R. Chowdhury, Y. J. Shin, I. J. Visseren-Hamakers, K. J. Willis, and C. N. Zayas. 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579

Isbell, F., D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and M. Loreau. 2015. The biodiversity-dependent ecosystem service debt. Ecology Letters 18(2):119-134. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12393

Jacobsen, S.-E. 2011. The situation for quinoa and its production in Southern Bolivia: from economic success to environmental disaster. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 197(5):390-399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2011.00475.x

Jenerette, G. D., S. L. Harlan, W. L. Stefanov, and C. A. Martin. 2011. Ecosystem services and urban heat riskscape moderation: water, green spaces, and social inequality in Phoenix, USA. Ecological Applications 21(7):2637-2651. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1493.1

Johnstone, J. F., C. D. Allen, J. F. Franklin, L. E. Frelich, B. J. Harvey, P. E. Higuera, M. C. Mack, R. K. Meentemeyer, M. R. Metz, G. L. Perry, T. Schoennagel, and M. G. Turner. 2016. Changing disturbance regimes, ecological memory, and forest resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14(7):369-378. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1311

Keeler, B. L., S. A. Wood, S. Polasky, C. Kling, C. T. Filstrup, and J. A. Downing. 2015. Recreational demand for clean water: evidence from geotagged photographs by visitors to lakes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13(2):76-81. https://doi.org/10.1890/140124

Koch, E. W., E. B. Barbier, B. R. Silliman, D. J. Reed, G. M. Perillo, S. D. Hacker, E. F. Granek, J. H. Primavera, N. Muthiga, S. Polasky, B. S. Halpern, C. J. Kennedy, C. V. Kappel, and E. Wolanski. 2009. Non-linearity in ecosystem services: temporal and spatial variability in coastal protection. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(1):29-37. https://doi.org/10.1890/080126

Koo, H., J. Kleemann, and C. Fürst. 2018. Land use scenario modeling based on local knowledge for the provision of ecosystem services in Northern Ghana. Land 7(2):59. https://doi.org/10.3390/land7020059

Laterra, P., L. Nahuelhual, M. Vallejos, L. Berrouet, E. Arroyo Pérez, L. Enrico, C. Jiménez-Sierra, K. Mejía, P. Meli, A. Rincón-Ruíz, D. Salas, J. Špirić, J. C. Villegas, and C. Villegas-Palacio. 2018. Linking inequalities and ecosystem services in Latin America. Ecosystem Services 36:100875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.12.001

Laursen, K., B. C. Kaae, J. Bladt, H. Skov-Petersen, P. Clausen, A. S. Olafsson, H. Draux, and T. Bregnballe. 2021. Countrywide screening of spatiotemporal overlap between coastal and marine recreation and waterbirds in Denmark. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 35:100399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2021.100399

Lautenbach, S., R. Seppelt, J. Liebscher, and C. F. Dormann. 2012. Spatial and temporal trends of global pollination benefit. PLoS ONE 7(4):e35954. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035954

Levine, J., M. Muthukrishna, K. M. A. Chan, and T. Satterfield. 2017. Sea otters, social justice, and ecosystem-service perceptions in Clayoquot Sound, Canada. Conservation Biology 31(2):343-352. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12795

Littell, J. S. 2018. Drought and fire in the Western USA: is climate attribution enough? Current Climate Change Reports 4(4):396-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0109-y

Lyon, C. 2014. Place systems and social resilience: a framework for understanding place in social adaptation, resilience, and transformation. Society and Natural Resources 27(10):1009-1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.918228

MacDonald, G. K., and E. M. Bennett. 2009. Phosphorus accumulation in Saint Lawrence River Watershed soils: a century-long perspective. Ecosystems 12(4):621-635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-009-9246-4

Mace, G. M. 2014. Whose conservation? Science 345(6204):1558-1560. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254704

Marshall, N. A., S. Crimp, M. Curnock, M. Greenhill, G. Kuehne, Z. Leviston, and J. Ouzman. 2016. Some primary producers are more likely to transform their agricultural practices in response to climate change than others. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 222:38-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.02.004

Masterson, V. A., R. C. Stedman, J. Enqvist, M. Tengö, M. Giusti, D. Wahl, and U. Svedin. 2017. The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: a review and research agenda. Ecology and Society 22(1):49. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08872-220149

Milfont, T. L., M. S. Wilson, and C. G. Sibley. 2017. The public’s belief in climate change and its human cause are increasing over time. PLOS ONE 12(3):e0174246. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174246

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: general synthesis. Island and World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., USA. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf

Mirtl, M., E. T. Borer, I. Djukic, M. Forsius, H. Haubold, W. Hugo, J. Jourdan, D. Lindenmayer, W. H. McDowell, H. Muraoka, D. E. Orenstein, J. C. Pauw, J. Peterseil, H. Shibata, C. Wohner, X. Yu, and P. Haase. 2018. Genesis, goals and achievements of long-term ecological research at the global scale: a critical review of ILTER and future directions. Science of the Total Environment 626:1439-1462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.001

Nardone, A., J. A. Casey, R. Morello-Frosch, M. Mujahid, J. R. Balmes, and N. Thakur. 2020. Associations between historical residential redlining and current age-adjusted rates of emergency department visits due to asthma across eight cities in California: an ecological study. Lancet Planetary Health 4(1):e24-e31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(19)30241-4

Nicholson, E., G. M. Mace, P. R. Armsworth, G. Atkinson, S. Buckle, T. Clements, R. M. Ewers, J. E. Fa, T. A. Gardner, J. Gibbons, R. Grenyer, R. Metcalfe, S. Mourato, M. Muûls, D. Osborn, D. C. Reuman, C. Watson, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 2009. Priority research areas for ecosystem services in a changing world. Journal of Applied Ecology 46:1139-1144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01716.x

Palmstrom, N. S., R. E. Carlson, and G. D. Cooke. 1988. Potential links between eutrophication and the formation of carcinogens in drinking water. Lake and Reservoir Management 4(2):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07438148809354809

Pascual, U., I. Palomo, W. M. Adams, K. M. A. Chan, T. M. Daw, E. Garmendia, E. Gómez-Baggethun, R. S. de Groot, G. M. Mace, B. Martín-López, and J. Phelps. 2017. Off-stage ecosystem service burdens: a blind spot for global sustainability. Environmental Research Letters 12(7):075001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7392

Pausas, J. G., and J. E. Keeley. 2019. Wildfires as an ecosystem service. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 17(5):289-295. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2044

Pereira, L., J. J. Kuiper, O. Selomane, A. P. D. Aguiar, G. R. Asrar, E. M. Bennett, R. Biggs, K. Calvin, S. Hedden, A. Hsu, J. Jabbour, N. King, A. C. Köberle, P. Lucas, J. Nel, A. V. Norström, G. Peterson, N. Sitas, C. Trisos, D. P. van Vuuren, J. Vervoort, and J. Ward. 2021. Advancing a toolkit of diverse futures approaches for global environmental assessments. Ecosystems and People 17(1):191-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1901783

Pickett, S. T. A. 1989. Space-for-rime substitution as an alternative to long-term studies. Pages 110-135 in G. E. Likens, editor. Long-term studies in ecology. Springer, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-7358-6_5

Qiu, S., J. Peng, J. Dong, X. Wang, Z. Ding, H. Zhang, Q. Mao, H. Liu, T. A. Quine, and J. Meersmans. 2021. Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and associated social-ecological drivers in a karst region: a case study of Guizhou Province, China. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment 45(1):98-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133320933525

Rau, A.-L., V. Burkhardt, C. Dorninger, C. Hjort, K. Ibe, L. Keßler, J. A. Kristensen, A. McRobert, W. Sidemo-Holm, H. Zimmermann, D. J. Abson, H. von Wehrden, and J. Ekroos. 2020. Temporal patterns in ecosystem services research: a review and three recommendations. Ambio 49:1377-1393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01292-w

Rau, A.-L., H. von Wehrden, and D. J. Abson. 2018. Temporal dynamics of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 151:122-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.009

Raudsepp-Hearne, C., G. D. Peterson, and E. M. Bennett. 2010b. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(11):5242-5247. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907284107

Raudsepp-Hearne, C., G. D. Peterson, M. Tengö, E. M. Bennett, T. Holland, K. Benessaiah, G. K. MacDonald, and L. Pfeifer. 2010a. Untangling the environmentalist’s paradox: why is human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade? BioScience 60(8):576-589. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.4

Raymond, C. M., M. Giusti, and S. Barthel. 2018. An embodied perspective on the co-production of cultural ecosystem services: toward embodied ecosystems. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 61(5-6):778-799. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1312300

Raymond, C. M., G. G. Singh, K. Benessaiah, J. R. Bernhardt, J. Levine, H. Nelson, N. J. Turner, B. Norton, J. Tam, and K. M. A. Chan. 2013. Ecosystem services and beyond: using multiple metaphors to understand human-environment relationships. BioScience 63(7):536-546. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.7

Renard, D., J. M. Rhemtulla, and E. M. Bennett. 2015. Historical dynamics in ecosystem service bundles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(43):13411-13416. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502565112

Reyers, B., R. Biggs, G. S. Cumming, T. Elmqvist, A. P. Hejnowicz, and S. Polasky. 2013. Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social-ecological approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(5):268-273. https://doi.org/10.1890/120144

Rip, W. J., N. Rawee, and A. de Jong. 2006. Alternation between clear, high-vegetation and turbid, low-vegetation states in a shallow lake: the role of birds. Aquatic Botany 85(3):184-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2006.03.003

Rist, L., A. Felton, M. Nyström, M. Troell, R. A. Sponseller, J. Bengtsson, H. Österblom, R. Lindborg, P. Tidåker, D. G. Angeler, R. Milestad, and J. Moen. 2014. Applying resilience thinking to production ecosystems. Ecosphere 5(6):73. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00330.1

Rosa, I. M. D., H. M. Pereira, S. Ferrier, R. Alkemade, L. A. Acosta, H. R. Akcakaya, E. den Belder, A. M. Fazel, S. Fujimori, M. Harfoot, K. A. Harhash, P. A. Harrison, J. Hauck, R. J. J. Hendriks, G. Hernández, W. Jetz, S. I. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, H. Kim, N. King, M. T. J. Kok, G. O. Kolomytsev, T. Lazarova, P. Leadley, C. J. Lundquist, J. García Márquez, C. Meyer, L. M. Navarro, C. Nesshöver, H. T. Ngo, K. N. Ninan, M. G. Palomo, L. M. Pereira, G. D. Peterson, R. Pichs, A. Popp, A. Purvis, F. Ravera, C. Rondinini, J. Sathyapalan, A. M. Schipper, R. Seppelt, J. Settele, N. Sitas, and D. van Vuuren. 2017. Multiscale scenarios for nature futures. Nature Ecology and Evolution 1(10):1416-1419. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0273-9

Rosa, I. M. D., A. Purvis, R. Alkemade, R. Chaplin-Kramer, S. Ferrier, C. A. Guerra, G. Hurtt, H. Kim, P. Leadley, I. S. Martins, A. Popp, A. M. Schipper, D. van Vuuren, and H. M. Pereira. 2020. Challenges in producing policy-relevant global scenarios of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Global Ecology and Conservation 22:e00886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00886

Russell-Smith, J., G. D. Cook, P. M. Cooke, A. C. Edwards, M. Lendrum, C. P. Meyer, and P. J. Whitehead. 2013. Managing fire regimes in north Australian savannas: applying Aboriginal approaches to contemporary global problems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(s1):e55-e63. https://doi.org/10.1890/120251

Sattler, C., L. Loft, C. Mann, and C. Meyer. 2018. Methods in ecosystem services governance analysis: an introduction. Ecosystem Services 34:155-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.11.007

Scheffer, M., and S. R. Carpenter. 2003. Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: linking theory to observation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(12):648-656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2003.09.002

Scheffer, M., S. Carpenter, J. A. Foley, C. Folke, and B. Walker. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413(6856):591-596. https://doi.org/10.1038/35098000

Scheffer, M., S. H. Hosper, M.-L. Meijer, B. Moss, and E. Jeppesen. 1993. Alternative equilibria in shallow lakes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8(8):275-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(93)90254-M

Schröter, M., T. Koellner, R. Alkemade, S. Arnhold, K. J. Bagstad, K.-H. Erb, K. Frank, T. Kastner, M. Kissinger, J. Liu, L. López-Hoffman, J. Maes, A. Marques, B. Martín-López, C. Meyer, C. J. E. Schulp, J. Thober, S. Wolff, and A. Bonn. 2018. Interregional flows of ecosystem services: concepts, typology and four cases. Ecosystem Services 31:231-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.003

Steffen, W., Å Persson, L. Deutsch, J. Zalasiewicz, M. Williams, K. Richardson, C. Crumley, P. Crutzen, C. Folke, L. Gordon, M. Molina, V. Ramanathan, J. Rockström, M. Scheffer, H. J. Schellnhuber, and U. Svedin. 2011. The Anthropocene: from global change to planetary stewardship. AMBIO 40(7):739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0185-x

Steffen, W., K. Richardson, J. Rockström, S. E. Cornell, I. Fetzer, E. M. Bennett, R. Biggs, S. R. Carpenter, W. de Vries, C. A. de Wit, C. Folke, D. Gerten, J. Heinke, G. M. Mace, L. M. Persson, V. Ramanathan, B. Reyers, and S. Sörlin. 2015. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223):1259855-1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855

Stritih, A., P. Bebi, and A. Grêt-Regamey. 2019. Quantifying uncertainties in earth observation-based ecosystem service assessments. Environmental Modelling and Software 111:300-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.09.005

Su, C., B. Fu, Y. Wei, Y. Lü, G. Liu, D. Wang, K. Mao, and X. Feng. 2012. Ecosystem management based on ecosystem services and human activities: a case study in the Yanhe Watershed. Sustainability Science 7(1):17-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0145-1

Sutherland, I. J., E. M. Bennett, and S. E. Gergel. 2016. Recovery trends for multiple ecosystem services reveal non-linear responses and long-term tradeoffs from temperate forest harvesting. Forest Ecology and Management 374:61-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.04.037

Tallis, H., H. Mooney, S. Andelman, P. Balvanera, W. Cramer, D. Karp, S. Polasky, B. Reyers, T. Ricketts, S. Running, K. Thonicke, B. Tietjen, and A. Walz. 2012. A global system for monitoring ecosystem service change. BioScience 62(11):977-986. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.7

Thierry, H., L. Parrott, and B. Robinson. 2021. Next steps for ecosystem service models: integrating complex interactions and beneficiaries. FACETS 6:1649-1669. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0116

Tomscha, S. A., and S. E. Gergel. 2016. Ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies misunderstood without landscape history. Ecology and Society 21(1):43. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08345-210143

United Nations. 2015. The millennium development goals report. Statistics Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York, New York, USA. https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/reports.shtml

Vierikko, K., and V. Yli-Pelkonen. 2019. Seasonality in recreation supply and demand in an urban lake ecosystem in Finland. Urban Ecosystems 22(4):769-783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-019-00849-7

Walker, B., and D. Salt. 2006. Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.

Willemsen, J. 1980. Fishery-aspects of eutrophication. Hydrobiological Bulletin 14(1-2):12-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02260268

Winkel, T., P. Bommel, M. Chevarría-Lazo, G. Cortes, C. Del Castillo, P. Gasselin, F. Léger, J.-P. Nina-Laura, S. Rambal, M. Tichit, J.-F. Tourrand, J.-J. Vacher, A. Vassas-Toral, M. Vieira-Pak, and R. Joffre. 2016. Panarchy of an Indigenous agroecosystem in the globalized market: the quinoa production in the Bolivian Altiplano. Global Environmental Change 39:195-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.007

Winkler, K. J., M. C. Dade, and J. T. Rieb. 2021a. Mismatches in the ecosystem services literature - a review of spatial, temporal, and functional-conceptual mismatches. Current Landscape Ecology Reports 6(2):23-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-021-00063-2

Winkler, K. J., J. Garcia Rodrigues, E. Albrecht, and E. T. H. Crockett. 2021b. Governance of ecosystem services: a review of empirical literature. Ecosystems and People 17(1):306-319. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1938235