Theme 3: Integrating analysis and modelling for land sustainability
Themes 1 and 2 provide the building blocks for Theme 3, which examines the combined effects upon the broader Earth System of feedbacks that occur through biogeochemical cycles, biodiversity and natural disturbance regimes, as well as feedbacks in response to land ecosystem change. Theme 3 seeks to integrate the dynamic interactions of human and environment subsystems in order to assess vulnerability, resilience and adaptation towards sustainable land systems, and specifically aims to provide this understanding in ways that are meaningful to decision making and policy. To accomplish this, Theme 3 will integrate findings from Themes 1 and 2 and from related projects of IGBP, IHDP, DIVERSITAS, MEA, and other programmes.
Diverse scientific studies have provided a rich foundation on which integrated analyses can build. Research has highlighted the roles of emergent and path-dependent properties of coupled socio-environmental systems, and the thresholds in these complex systems that change their structure and function (e.g. Berkes and Folke, 1998; Holling, 1978; Levin, 1998; Schellnhuber and Wenzel, 1998). Work on vulnerability, resilience and ecosystem services has demonstrated the nature of threats to land systems, especially regarding the supply of food, fibre and water (Daily et al., 2000; Dow and Downing, 1995; Folke et al., 2002; Kasperson et al., 1995; Raskin et al., 1996; Rosenzweig, 2003; Turner et al., 2003a, b). Studies of social learning and decision making have improved the understanding of how coupled socio-environmental systems are sustained and cope with forces of change (Cash et al., 2003; Kates et al., 2001; Lubchenco, 1998; Mooney, 2003; NRC, 1999; Raven, 2002). Additionally, advances in agent-based and other integrated modelling now permit these complex factors to be treated more systematically and holistically (e.g. Parker et al., 2001, 2003).
Land systems are complex, are driven by highly variable forcing functions (e.g. Berkes and Folke, 1998; Lambin et al., 2003; Lambin et al., 2001; Levin, 1998) and exhibit locally specific responses to the synergies between the human and environmental subsystems (Schellnhuber et al., 1997). All these factors emphasise the need for place-based analysis (e.g. by household, production, consumption and distribution unit, or ecosystem) to address vulnerability, resilience and sustainability (Cutter et al., 2000; Cutter, 2001; NRC, 1999; Wilbanks and Kates, 1999). At the same time, profound scalar dynamics in land systems (Parker et al., 2003; Schellnhuber and Wenzel, 1998; Steffen et al., 2004), and their diverse benefits to society require multiple spatial-temporal resolutions to be addressed in integrative analysis and assessment.
The three issues of Theme 3 (see above) identify the major advances in science required to meet the Theme’s integrative and decision-relevant objectives. They address, in turn, (i) critical pathways of change in land systems, including ideas about the necessary progress in data and modelling integration; (ii) the coupled nature of the vulnerability and resilience of land systems and their relation to various hazards and disturbances; and (iii) the role of institutions in the sustainability of land systems.