320
C. Fürst
of their changes, namely sustainability, ecosystem services, land use functions and
multifunctionality have been selected since they are broadly referred and often used
in parallel.
Social-ecological systems or system frameworks are one of the key approaches
for enhancing the understanding of complex and multi-tiered human-environmental
interactions at multiple scales and their outcomes (Ostrom 2007). The transition to a
“framework” approach was suggested to form an umbrella for comparing in a metalanguage different theories on the systemic interactions and cause-effect relationships
in social-ecological models and thus contribute to highly generic systemic approaches
(McGinnis and Ostrom 2014). Related to land use science, social-ecological systems
or frameworks provide the theoretical background for identifying key system components and sub-systems and classify their relationships and interactions to come from
a case-study and observation based understanding to generic system architectures
that are a relevant basis for modelling land (use) systems (e.g. Tett et al. 2013).
For assessing the performance of land use systems, a number of assessment frameworks can be used (O’Farrell and Anderson 2010; Wu 2013). Assessment approaches
and frameworks closely related to land use science are, among others, sustainability,
ecosystem services (and synonymous terms), land use functions and multifunctionality. All of them are used in parallel, often with similar understanding but different
relevance for land use sectors. By sustainability, we understand since the Brundtland
report (1987) and the Rio Declaration in 1992 the “development that meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs” (Brundtland report 1987) including the balancing of ecological, social and
economic sustainability aspects. Anyhow, this understanding was developed more
from a political and societal perspective (Lélé 1991) that missed in some aspects the
relation to land use due to its high level of abstractness, even if it was broken down
to sectors, using the Ministerial Conference for Pan-European Forestry (MCPFE)
as an example (Mayer 2000). The novel concept of sustainability suggested by Von
Carlowitz (1713) was much closer to land use since it was simply developed from
a resource economic perspective to optimize over long time the harvesting of forest
biomass to generate enough energy for ore smelting (Basiago 1995; Mebratu 1998;
Wiersum 1995). There were manifold attempts to make the concept less abstract and
break it down to indicators to support its implementation in practice (e.g.; forestry:
Raison et al. 2001; agriculture: Harwood 1990; Zinck and Farshad 1995). A key criticism resulting from these attempts were the assessment efforts through too many,
often redundant indicators and the high data demands (e.g. Ceron and Dubois 2003;
Niemeijer and de Groot 2008; Hák et al. 2016).
The origin of the ecosystem services concept dates back to the 1970s, where
Westman (1977) highlighted the social value of benefits provided by ecosystems to
society (nature’s services) as a basis for informed decisions. Subsequently, ecosystem
services were mainstreamed in literature with a peak in the 1990s (e.g. Costanza
et al. 1997; Daily 1997). Only little later, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(MEA 2005) became an important milestone in the conceptual development of
ecosystem services and their relevance for policy consulting by synthesizing globally knowledge on the state of ecosystems. Since then, the number of publications
C. Fürst
of their changes, namely sustainability, ecosystem services, land use functions and
multifunctionality have been selected since they are broadly referred and often used
in parallel.
Social-ecological systems or system frameworks are one of the key approaches
for enhancing the understanding of complex and multi-tiered human-environmental
interactions at multiple scales and their outcomes (Ostrom 2007). The transition to a
“framework” approach was suggested to form an umbrella for comparing in a metalanguage different theories on the systemic interactions and cause-effect relationships
in social-ecological models and thus contribute to highly generic systemic approaches
(McGinnis and Ostrom 2014). Related to land use science, social-ecological systems
or frameworks provide the theoretical background for identifying key system components and sub-systems and classify their relationships and interactions to come from
a case-study and observation based understanding to generic system architectures
that are a relevant basis for modelling land (use) systems (e.g. Tett et al. 2013).
For assessing the performance of land use systems, a number of assessment frameworks can be used (O’Farrell and Anderson 2010; Wu 2013). Assessment approaches
and frameworks closely related to land use science are, among others, sustainability,
ecosystem services (and synonymous terms), land use functions and multifunctionality. All of them are used in parallel, often with similar understanding but different
relevance for land use sectors. By sustainability, we understand since the Brundtland
report (1987) and the Rio Declaration in 1992 the “development that meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs” (Brundtland report 1987) including the balancing of ecological, social and
economic sustainability aspects. Anyhow, this understanding was developed more
from a political and societal perspective (Lélé 1991) that missed in some aspects the
relation to land use due to its high level of abstractness, even if it was broken down
to sectors, using the Ministerial Conference for Pan-European Forestry (MCPFE)
as an example (Mayer 2000). The novel concept of sustainability suggested by Von
Carlowitz (1713) was much closer to land use since it was simply developed from
a resource economic perspective to optimize over long time the harvesting of forest
biomass to generate enough energy for ore smelting (Basiago 1995; Mebratu 1998;
Wiersum 1995). There were manifold attempts to make the concept less abstract and
break it down to indicators to support its implementation in practice (e.g.; forestry:
Raison et al. 2001; agriculture: Harwood 1990; Zinck and Farshad 1995). A key criticism resulting from these attempts were the assessment efforts through too many,
often redundant indicators and the high data demands (e.g. Ceron and Dubois 2003;
Niemeijer and de Groot 2008; Hák et al. 2016).
The origin of the ecosystem services concept dates back to the 1970s, where
Westman (1977) highlighted the social value of benefits provided by ecosystems to
society (nature’s services) as a basis for informed decisions. Subsequently, ecosystem
services were mainstreamed in literature with a peak in the 1990s (e.g. Costanza
et al. 1997; Daily 1997). Only little later, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(MEA 2005) became an important milestone in the conceptual development of
ecosystem services and their relevance for policy consulting by synthesizing globally knowledge on the state of ecosystems. Since then, the number of publications