@article{HuberRiglingBebietal.2013,
  author    = {Huber, Robert and Rigling, Andreas and Bebi, Peter and Brand, Fridolin Simon and Briner, Simon and Buttler, Alexandre and Elkin, Che and Gillet, Francois and Gret-Regamey, Adrienne and Hirschi, Christian and Lischke, Heike and Scholz, Roland Werner and Seidl, Roman and Spiegelberger, Thomas and Walz, Ariane and Zimmermann, Willi and Bugmann, Harald},
  title     = {Sustainable land use in Mountain Regions under global change synthesis across scales and disciplines},
  series = {Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Resilience Alliance},
  address   = {Wolfville},
  issn      = {1708-3087},
  doi       = {10.5751/ES-05499-180336},
  pages     = {20},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Mountain regions provide essential ecosystem goods and services (EGS) for both mountain dwellers and people living outside these areas. Global change endangers the capacity of mountain ecosystems to provide key services. The Mountland project focused on three case study regions in the Swiss Alps and aimed to propose land-use practices and alternative policy solutions to ensure the provision of key EGS under climate and land-use changes. We summarized and synthesized the results of the project and provide insights into the ecological, socioeconomic, and political processes relevant for analyzing global change impacts on a European mountain region. In Mountland, an integrative approach was applied, combining methods from economics and the political and natural sciences to analyze ecosystem functioning from a holistic human-environment system perspective. In general, surveys, experiments, and model results revealed that climate and socioeconomic changes are likely to increase the vulnerability of the EGS analyzed. We regard the following key characteristics of coupled human-environment systems as central to our case study areas in mountain regions: thresholds, heterogeneity, trade-offs, and feedback. Our results suggest that the institutional framework should be strengthened in a way that better addresses these characteristics, allowing for (1) more integrative approaches, (2) a more network-oriented management and steering of political processes that integrate local stakeholders, and (3) enhanced capacity building to decrease the identified vulnerability as central elements in the policy process. Further, to maintain and support the future provision of EGS in mountain regions, policy making should also focus on project-oriented, cross-sectoral policies and spatial planning as a coordination instrument for land use in general.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WalzBraendleLangetal.2014,
  author    = {Walz, Ariane and Braendle, J. M. and Lang, D. J. and Brand, Fridolin Simon and Briner, Simon and Elkin, C. and Hirschi, C. and Huber, R. and Lischke, H. and Schmatz, D. R.},
  title     = {Experience from downscaling IPCC-SRES scenarios to specific national-level focus scenarios for ecosystem service management},
  series = {Technological forecasting \& social change},
  volume    = {86},
  journal   = {Technological forecasting \& social change},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {0040-1625},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.014},
  pages     = {21 -- 32},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Scenario analysis is a widely used approach to incorporate uncertainties in global change research. In the context of regional ecosystem service and landscape management where global IPCC climate simulations and their downscaled derivates are applied, it can be useful to work with regional sodo-economic scenarios that are coherent with the global IPCC scenarios. The consistency with the original source scenarios, transparency and reproducibility of the methods used as well as the internal consistency of the derived scenarios are important methodological prerequisites for coherently downscaling pre-existing source scenarios. In contrast to well-established systematic-qualitative scenario techniques, we employ here a formal technique of scenario construction which combines expert judgement with a quantitative, indicator-based selection algorithm in order to deduce a formally consistent set of focus scenario. In our case study, these focus scenarios reflect the potential development pathways of major national-level drivers for ecosystem service management in Swiss mountain regions. The integration of an extra impact factor ("Global Trends") directly referring to the four principle SRES scenario families, helped us to formally internalise base assumptions of IPCC SRES scenarios to regional scenarios that address a different thematic focus (ecosystem service management), spatial level (national) and time horizon (2050). Compared to the well-established systematic-qualitative approach, we find strong similarities between the two methods, including the susceptibility to personal judgement which is only partly reduced by the formal method. However, the formalised scenario approach conveys four clear advantages, (1) the better documentation of the process, (2) its reproducibility, (3) the openness in terms of the number and directions of the finally selected set of scenarios, and (4) its analytical power. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{WeiseAugeBaessleretal.2020,
  author    = {Weise, Hanna and Auge, Harald and Baessler, Cornelia and B{\"a}rlund, Ilona and Bennett, Elena M. and Berger, Uta and Bohn, Friedrich and Bonn, Aletta and Borchardt, Dietrich and Brand, Fridolin and Jeltsch, Florian and Joshi, Jasmin Radha and Grimm, Volker},
  title     = {Resilience trinity},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {4},
  issn      = {1866-8372},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-51528},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-515284},
  pages     = {14},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Ensuring ecosystem resilience is an intuitive approach to safeguard the functioning of ecosystems and hence the future provisioning of ecosystem services (ES). However, resilience is a multi-faceted concept that is difficult to operationalize. Focusing on resilience mechanisms, such as diversity, network architectures or adaptive capacity, has recently been suggested as means to operationalize resilience. Still, the focus on mechanisms is not specific enough. We suggest a conceptual framework, resilience trinity, to facilitate management based on resilience mechanisms in three distinctive decision contexts and time-horizons: 1) reactive, when there is an imminent threat to ES resilience and a high pressure to act, 2) adjustive, when the threat is known in general but there is still time to adapt management and 3) provident, when time horizons are very long and the nature of the threats is uncertain, leading to a low willingness to act. Resilience has different interpretations and implications at these different time horizons, which also prevail in different disciplines. Social ecology, ecology and engineering are often implicitly focussing on provident, adjustive or reactive resilience, respectively, but these different notions of resilience and their corresponding social, ecological and economic tradeoffs need to be reconciled. Otherwise, we keep risking unintended consequences of reactive actions, or shying away from provident action because of uncertainties that cannot be reduced. The suggested trinity of time horizons and their decision contexts could help ensuring that longer-term management actions are not missed while urgent threats to ES are given priority.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WeiseAugeBaessleretal.2020,
  author    = {Weise, Hanna and Auge, Harald and Baessler, Cornelia and B{\"a}rlund, Ilona and Bennett, Elena M. and Berger, Uta and Bohn, Friedrich and Bonn, Aletta and Borchardt, Dietrich and Brand, Fridolin and Jeltsch, Florian and Joshi, Jasmin Radha and Grimm, Volker},
  title     = {Resilience trinity},
  series = {Oikos},
  volume    = {129},
  journal   = {Oikos},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0030-1299},
  doi       = {10.1111/oik.07213},
  pages     = {445 -- 456},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Ensuring ecosystem resilience is an intuitive approach to safeguard the functioning of ecosystems and hence the future provisioning of ecosystem services (ES). However, resilience is a multi-faceted concept that is difficult to operationalize. Focusing on resilience mechanisms, such as diversity, network architectures or adaptive capacity, has recently been suggested as means to operationalize resilience. Still, the focus on mechanisms is not specific enough. We suggest a conceptual framework, resilience trinity, to facilitate management based on resilience mechanisms in three distinctive decision contexts and time-horizons: 1) reactive, when there is an imminent threat to ES resilience and a high pressure to act, 2) adjustive, when the threat is known in general but there is still time to adapt management and 3) provident, when time horizons are very long and the nature of the threats is uncertain, leading to a low willingness to act. Resilience has different interpretations and implications at these different time horizons, which also prevail in different disciplines. Social ecology, ecology and engineering are often implicitly focussing on provident, adjustive or reactive resilience, respectively, but these different notions of resilience and their corresponding social, ecological and economic tradeoffs need to be reconciled. Otherwise, we keep risking unintended consequences of reactive actions, or shying away from provident action because of uncertainties that cannot be reduced. The suggested trinity of time horizons and their decision contexts could help ensuring that longer-term management actions are not missed while urgent threats to ES are given priority.},
  language  = {en}
}