SPECIAL FEATURE: CURRENT TOPICS

IN ECOLOGY

Biodiversity and Its Ecological Functions in East-Asiaand Pacific Region: Status and Challenges

Masahiro Nakaoka • Kenji Sudo • Mizuho Namba

Hideaki Shibata • Futoshi Nakamura

Satoshi Ishikawa • Mitsutaku Makino

Hiroya Yamano • Shin-ichiro S. Matsuzaki

Takehisa Yamakita • Xiubo Yu • Xiyong Hou

Xiaowei Li • Jon Brodie • Keiichiro Kanemoto

Dan Moran • Francesca Verones

TSUNAGARI: a new interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary study towardconservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services

Received: 29 July 2017 / Accepted: 25 October 2017 / Published online: 21 December 2017� The Ecological Society of Japan 2017

Abstract The expanding economical activities haveaccelerated losses of biodiversity and ecosystem services,which are especially pronounced in Asia. To find solu-tions to stop these losses, a group of scientists studyingboth ecological and social sciences has launched aninterdisciplinary research network, entitled TSUNA-GARI (Trans-System, UNified Approach for Globaland Regional Integration of social-ecological study to-ward sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices). The project is based on two main perspectives: (1)integrating different disciplines of environmental re-search across multiple spatial scales, and (2) evaluatingthe importance of ecosystem connectivity between landand ocean for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Theintegrative studies have been started as follows: (1)integrating global-scale analyses of biodiversity andeconomy by developing GIS-based footprint analysis,(2) establishing the link between the studies of local goodpractices of ecosystem management and life cycleassessment on ecosystem good and services, (3) linking

local-scale ecosystem studies to decision making pro-cesses for sustainable society by multiple stakeholders,and (4) upscaling local analyses of ecosystem processesto broad-scale analyses of ecosystem patterns. Theproposed approaches are considered effective to solveproblems that impede conservation of biodiversity andsustainable use of multiple ecosystem services in varioussituations although we also find some gaps such as re-gional biases in biodiversity data and involvement ofdifferent types of stakeholders. By overcoming the majorbottlenecks, we believe the new integrated approacheswill promote conservation and sustainable managementof biodiversity and ecosystem services research, andcontribute to advance decision-making processes fromlocal communities to international levels.

Keywords Coastal ecosystem Æ Cross-scaleintegration Æ Eastern and southeastern Asia Æ Ecosystemconnectivity Æ Social-ecological system

M. Nakaoka (&) Æ K. Sudo Æ M. NambaAkkeshi Marine Station, Field Science Center for NorthernBiosphere, Hokkaido University, 1 Aikappu, Akkeshi, Hokkaido088-1113, JapanE-mail: nakaoka@fsc.hokudai.ac.jpTel.: (0153) 52-2056

K. Sudo Æ M. NambaGraduate School of Environmental Science, Akkeshi MarineStation, Field Science Center for Northern Biosphere, HokkaidoUniversity, 1 Aikappu, Akkeshi, Hokkaido 088-1113, Japan

H. ShibataField Science Center for Northern Biosphere, HokkaidoUniversity, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan

F. NakamuraGraduate School of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Sapporo,Hokkaido, Japan

S. IshikawaResearch Institute for Humanity and Nature, 457-4 Motoyama,Kamigamo, Kita-ku, Kyoto, Japan

M. MakinoFisheries Research and Education Agency, 15F Queen’s Tower B,2-3-3 Minato Mirai, Nishi-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan

H. Yamano Æ S. S. MatsuzakiNational Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2 Onogawa,Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan

T. YamakitaJapan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology(JAMSTEC), 2-15 Natsushima-cho, Yokosuka, Kanagawa, Japan

Ecol Res (2018) 33: 35–49DOI 10.1007/s11284-017-1534-4

Introduction

The expanding economical activities by human havecaused accelerated losses of biodiversity and multipleecosystem services (i.e., provisioning, regulating, cul-tural and supporting services; Millennium EcosystemAssessment 2005) through rapid land/sea use changes.This is aggravated by global climate change, which af-fects both terrestrial and marine ecosystems in multipleways, not only by direct effects of temperature rise, butalso by increase in intense stormy conditions, oceanacidification and sea level rise (Harley et al. 2006; IPCC2014). Meanwhile, analyses of ecological footprints haverevealed that increasing economic demands by devel-oped countries for provisioning services are among themain causes of biodiversity loss in developing countries(Lenzen et al. 2012; Weinzettel et al. 2013). The com-bined effects of climate change and global economicactivities can lead to further degradation both of ter-restrial and marine ecosystems, and to economic dis-parity in local human communities. In order to reversethis trend, there is an urgent need to find better way toconserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystemservices. Some international efforts have been initiated,e.g., by setting Sustainable Development Goals (UnitedNations 2015), and by assessing the status of globalbiodiversity and ecosystem services by Intergovern-mental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity andEcosystem Services (IPBES) (Di9az et al. 2015), althoughlocal activities such as establishing environmental stew-ardship cultivated through co-design, co-production andco-delivery activities are still not well-established in mostregions of the world.

Since the publication of the Millennium EcosystemAssessment (2005), the recognition and understanding ofthe global state of biodiversity and ecosystem services,their drivers, and their dependence on social and eco-nomic activities have improved. At the same time, the

need for a more systematic approach for promotinginterdisciplinary research on social-ecological systemshas been highlighted (Cumming 2007; Carpenter et al.2009; Ostrom 2009; Pereira et al. 2010). However, sci-entific knowledge is still limited for planning and exe-cuting effective management activities at both global andlocal scales. Major bottlenecks in the ecological sciencesinclude the lack of fine-resolution information of thedistribution of biodiversity at each locality (Jetz et al.2012; Meyer et al. 2015), a great degree of variability inbiodiversity and ecosystem services across multipleenvironmental gradients (Koch et al. 2009; Nakaokaet al. 2014; Nordlund et al. 2016), and interrelationships(trade-offs) among multiple ecosystem services (e.g.,between provisioning and regulation services (Carpenteret al. 2009; Maass et al. 2016). As for social science,understanding for sustainable use of natural resourcesuse are often limited due to the lack of scientificknowledge about the consequence of economic activitiesand consumption on the loss of biodiversity andecosystem services, and due to insufficient communica-tion among scientists, stakeholders and local citizenswith different interests and demands (Dornelas et al.2014).

Some of the above-mentioned problems share thesame properties both in ecological and socioeconomicstudies. Firstly, processes determining biodiversity andmultiple ecosystem services, and decision making oftheir use are affected by nested, hierarchical structures;i.e. processes at broader spatial scales (e.g., climatevariation and global economy) regulate processes atsmall spatial scales (e.g., species interaction in biologicalcommunities, and human interactions in local socialcommunities), and vice versa (Peterson and Parker 1998;Noda 2004). Secondly, the connectivity of ecosystemsbetween terrestrial and marine environments affectsdynamics of biodiversity and multiple ecosystem servicesand decision-making processes at the community level(Polis et al. 1997; Waterhouse et al. 2016; Fang et al.2018). Previous studies on social-ecological systemscannot address these points sufficiently, although theimportance of integration has been recognized recently(Cumming 2011). It is likely that those points areattributable to many reasons originated from variousstakeholders. At this stage, we need to identify whichproblems should be solved first and which data andinformation scientists can appropriately provide deci-sion makers. Thus, interdisciplinary and transdisci-plinary collaboration between stakeholders andresearchers are critically required for successful co-de-sign, co-production and co-delivery of knowledgebuilding. This is especially true in Asia where values ofbiodiversity and ecosystem functions of natural ecosys-tems are estimated to be the highest in the world (Stuart-Smith et al. 2013; Dickson et al. 2014), but where de-tailed information of biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices, as well as social-ecological studies have not beenwell organized as yet (Nakaoka et al. 2014; Kim et al.2018).

X. YuInstitute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research,Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, P.R. China

X. Hou Æ X. LiKey Laboratory of Coastal Environmental Processes andEcological Remediation, Yantai Institute of Coastal ZoneResearch, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yantai 264003 Shandong,P.R. China

J. BrodieARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James CookUniversity, Townsville, Australia

K. KanemotoFaculty of Economics and Law, Shinshu University, 3-1-1 Asahi,Matsumoto, Japan

D. Moran Æ F. VeronesIndustrial Ecology Programme, Department of Energy and ProcessEngineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,7491 Trondheim, Norway

36

The establishment of interdisciplinary and transdis-ciplinary research networks consisting of both ecologicaland social scientists, as well as stakeholders and deci-sion-makers, are necessary to solve the environmentalproblems we are facing. As an attempt, a group of sci-entists from various fields of environmental studies, bothin ecological and social sciences has launched a researchnetwork, entitled TSUNAGARI (Trans-System, UNi-fied Approach for Global And Regional Integration ofsocial-ecological study toward sustainable use of biodi-versity and ecosystem services), with the support of theBelmont Forum (http://www.belmontforum.org). TheJapanese word ‘tsunagari’ means connectivity, link andrelationship, which we intend to build among scientistsin different disciplines and among scientists, practition-ers and stakeholders involving conservation of biodi-versity and sustainable use of ecosystem services. Theparticipants differ greatly in their background ofexpertise, ranging from ecologists studying communityand ecosystem ecology, biogeochemists and geographersstudying land/sea use changes, fisheries scientistsstudying local fisheries practices, fisheries managementand policies, and to industrial ecologists studying globaleconomy and sustainable sciences. Among various typesof ecosystems, scientists studying coastal zones (e.g.wetlands and nearshore habitats) predominate in ourgroup partly because one of our primary focuses isecosystem connectivity between land and ocean forwhich most previous studies have been made in coastalzones.

During the 2-year duration of TSUNAGARI project,we hold three workshops (at Ishigaki Island, Japan inMay 2015, at Yantai and Yellow River Delta, China inApril 2016 and at Kyoto, Japan in October 2016) tothoroughly discuss what types of interdisciplinary andtransdisciplinary collaborations we could start to solvethe above-mentioned problems. This concept paper isone of the outputs of TSUNAGARI activities. We first

explain two main perspectives on the new interdisci-plinary and transdisciplinary studies aiming to achieve(1) cross-scale, and (2) cross-ecosystem integrations. Wethen introduce ongoing case studies by TSUNAGARIparticipants demonstrating effective scientific ap-proaches based on the integrated collaboration, speciallyfocusing on coastal ecosystems in Asia and the world.Finally, we consider directions for future integrativestudies by pointing out the gaps in our current knowl-edge. Our ultimate goals of the collaboration are toevaluate the current status and conditions of biodiver-sity, ecosystem services and their use by human com-munities in various types of ecosystems connected toeach other, to establish which knowledge will be thebaseline to predict future changes based on differentscenarios on climate changes and development of humansociety, and to provide solutions to the problems ofdecision-making processes for sustainable use of biodi-versity and multiple ecosystem services locally, region-ally and globally.

TSUNAGARI perspective 1: integrating different disci-plines of environmental research across multiple spatialscales

Various types of interdisciplinary studies linking eco-logical and social studies have been ongoing since thelast decade (Cumming 2007, 2011; Carpenter et al. 2009;Maass et al. 2016). However, it is still least understoodhow integrated research should focus on the issue ofmultiple spatial-scale dependency which is importantboth in the natural ecosystems and human decision-making processes (Fig. 1).

For the side of ecological studies, it has beenacknowledged that processes affecting biodiversity andecosystem services are determined by multiple factorsoperating at differential scales (the right side of Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 TSUNAGARI perspective 1. Integration in social-ecological studies at various spatial scales

37

In both terrestrial and marine ecosystems, climate-dri-ven abiotic factors shape global patterns of biodiversityand ecosystems through variation in temperature, pre-cipitation and oceanic current regimes. For biotic fac-tors, evolutionary and biogeographical processes such asrestriction and release of certain types of organisms withchanges in barriers (due to continental and oceano-graphic current shifts) determine global patterns ofbiodiversity over very long time-scales (Briggs 1995). Atthe intermediate scale (e.g., 10–1000 km scale), factorsrelated to geographical settings of the regions, such asaltitude, ocean depth, monsoon winds and coastal up-welling determine vegetation or biomass of dominantorganisms in each ecosystem (Roughgarden et al. 1988;Palumbi and Pinsky 2014). At the small spatial scales(e.g. 1–1000 m or smaller scales), classical studies in1960–70’s already clarified that local disturbances suchas wind and wave forces, as well as biological interac-tions among species such as predation and competitioninterfere with the processes determining biomass andproductivity of organisms at different trophic levels(Connell 1961, 1978; Paine 1966; Dayton 1971). Previ-ous studies on ecology already highlighted the multiplescale issues causing nonlinear, complicated dynamics ofecosystems (Peterson and Parker 1998; Noda 2004;Yamakita et al. 2011).

The same type of scale dependency is also importantwhen we consider multiple effects of human-inducedstresses to natural ecosystems. In coastal ecosystems forexample, overexploitation of some specific resources,eutrophication and coastal development occur at rela-tively small spatial scales, whereas climate-relatedchanges such as temperature rise and ocean acidificationare ongoing at broader spatial scales. Most importantly,concurrent impacts of multiple drivers cause synergeticand unpredictable effects on biodiversity and ecosystemservices (Hughes et al. 2003). Examples include thecombined effect of temperature rise, ocean acidificationand oxygen depletion on marine benthic animals inwhich the organisms impacted by multiple stresses suffermore severely than those exposed to only one type ofstressor (Portner and Langenbuch 2005; Harvey et al.2013). Likewise, interacting effects of temperature riseand alteration of coastlines by concrete walls and blocksmay increase the invasion of non-native species, whichare generally more resistant to heat and adapted to hu-man-altered habitats (Stachowicz et al. 2002; Lenz et al.2011).

Scale dependency is also important in social studieson environmental problems (the left side of Fig. 1).Firstly, decision making processes toward sustainableecosystem management are affected by multiple sectorsoperating at different spatial and political scales. In thecase of Japan, environmental policies are made andgoverned at three levels of organizations; i.e., localgovernmental units (LGU; cities, towns or villages; atotal of 1718, as of April 2017; http://www.soumu.go.jp/kouiki/kouiki.html, as on April 9th, 2017), prefectures (atotal of 47) and the national government. Decision

making at the national government is also affected byinternational activities and treaties. Secondly, with therapid expansion of international trade, local economicactivities are more and more affected by global marketdynamics even in a small village. Thus, the analyses ofregional research elucidating local decision-makingprocesses should be linked with global economic analy-ses.

As multi-spatial scale issues are prominent both inecological and social studies, the development of inter-disciplinary and transdisciplinary science should alsoconsider the nested, hierarchical structures of processes asdepicted in Fig. 1. During the three workshops of TSU-NAGARI, we discussed the most plausible ways of inte-gration across different disciplines and across differentscales. Many pathways of integrated approaches werediscussed, depending on research interests of participants(arrows in the middle parts of Fig. 1) although we rec-ognized that it is virtually impossible to include all theintegration into one single study. We thus decided toproceed with listing up partial integration of differentcombination of interdisciplinary studies and tried toevaluate which approaches are most effective to solvedifferent types of environmental problems (Fig. 2). Theintegration of social-ecological study both at global andlocal scales was firstly discussed to be practical and useful(areas 1 and 3 in Fig. 2, respectively). For the integrationof spatial scales, studies can be initiated for both socialand ecological systems (areas 2 and 4 in Fig. 2, respec-tively). We then started partial collaboration on thesesubjects, which are explained in the case studies below.

TSUNAGARI perspective 2: evaluating the importanceof ecosystem connectivity on biodiversity and ecosystemservices, and on interactions among different stake-holders within a watershed

The organisms living in natural ecosystems are affectednot only by the processes generated within eachecosystem, but also by factors and drivers coming fromoutside the ecosystems, either by physical, chemical orbiological processes (Gregory et al. 1991; Polis et al.

Fig. 2 Areas of case studies on partial integration of theTSUNAGARI perspectives. Horizontal and vertical axes showingthe direction of integration presented in Fig. 1. Four areas ofintegration are explained in each subsection of the main text

38

1997; Nakamura et al. 2004). Ecosystem connectivity isespecially important for biodiversity in marginal habi-tats (ecotones) such as riparian forests/grasslands, salt-marshes and estuaries (Fig. 3).

The effects of ecosystem interactions are quite di-verse, and multiple types of interactions occur concur-rently at different spatial scales (as discussed in theprevious section). Along the coastal areas of easternHokkaido, Japan, for example, three types of ecosysteminteractions are identified that are important in deter-mining ecosystem functions and processes both on landand ocean. At the broadest spatial scale (10–100 km2),summer sea fog caused by rapid cooling of warmsouthern monsoon by the cold Oyashio current coolscoastal area which is ca. 5 �C cooler than in the inland.The cooling makes the types of forest vegetation andagriculture in this area very specific compared to otherpart of Hokkaido (Takeuchi et al. 1982; Sawai 1988;Abe 1996; Iyobe et al. 2003). At the medium scale(1–10 km2), terrestrial land use change from forest toagriculture affects water chemistry of rivers running eachwatershed, which can ultimately lead to changes in waterquality at estuaries and nearshore sea (Mukai et al. 2002;Mukai 2005). Finally, at the smallest scale (< 1 km2),waterfowl (herons) and fish (salmons) transport marineorganic matters (their prey and themselves) to river andterrestrial areas, which locally affects community struc-ture of forest and predatory bird behaviors (Ueno et al.2006; Kamauchi et al. 2012; Honda et al. 2014). Theseexamples show that land and ocean are ecologicallyconnected by multiple (physical, chemical and biologi-cal) processes that operate at various spatial scales.

These interactions among ecosystems are affected byvarious stressors associated with human activities. Oneof the best known examples is the problem of sedimentand nutrient discharge from watersheds that causesdeterioration of marine ecosystems. This is particularlyevident in tropical and subtropical regions. In Okinawa,after the reversion to Japan in 1972, extensive agricul-

tural development resulted in a significant increase insediment discharge to coastal waters, which has causedthe degradation of freshwater and coastal ecosystemsand biodiversity (Omija 2004). In the Great Barrier Reef(GBR) of Australia, sediment derived from increasederosion associated with beef cattle grazing and dis-charged via large rivers affect coral status (Bartley et al.2014). In the northeastern Philippines, combined effectsof sediment and nutrient runoff, and water pollution byexcess fish aquaculture caused significant losses of sea-grass bed and its biodiversity (Tanaka et al. 2014).

Compared to ecosystem connectivity, social connec-tivity of human communities among different parts ofthe watershed have been less studied and understood.The patterns of interrelationships among human com-munities within forest, river basin and coastal areas havebeen documented in some studies on environmentalsociology, as represented by some examples such as theconflict among local communities over water resourcesin relation to land use change, impacts of intensifiedagriculture use of land on the water quality and fishcatch in the downstream, and the negative effects ofoverexploitation of salmons in the coastal areas on theriver fisheries in the upstream (Just and Natanyahu2012; Qiu and Turner 2013; Lange et al. 2014). Suchconflicts have led to minimal progress on managingsediment and nutrient discharge to the GBR fromagriculture despite significant management expenditure(Brodie and Pearson 2016).

One of the difficulties in the study of interactionsamong different stakeholders in a watershed is thatwatershed boundaries do not always agree with that oflocal governmental units, making the co-design ofdecision-making processes and their co-managementdifficult to establish. Another problem lies in that factthat a lot of ecosystem goods and services are nowtransported over long distance regardless of local inter-actions within a watershed. Before the onset of global-ization, it was a common practice by all human

Fig. 3 TSUNAGARI perspective 2. Cross-ecosystem integration in both ecological and socioeconomic studies

39

communities in coastal zones to carry out both agri-culture on land and fisheries in rivers and nearshore seas.In such a case, solutions related to the conflict betweenland and sea uses could be brought under the consensuswithin each community. Nowadays, however, agricul-ture and fisheries (including aquacultures) have beenmore and more specialized and separated from eachother, with different types of stakeholders getting in-volved in the use of terrestrial and coastal ecosystemservices not only for provisioning services but also forcultural services such as leisure and ecotourism uses.Researchers and decision-makers alike still struggle withfully understanding of the implications of such intensi-fied use of the connectivity and functioning of localecosystems.

In the TSUNAGARI workshops, we discussed howwe can plan and conduct studies on ecosystem connec-tivity taking both social and ecological systems intoaccount. We considered and planned two types of re-searches with different approaches. The first study con-ducts social-ecological system surveys by incorporatingall the ecological and social components within a localwatershed consisting both of terrestrial and marineecosystems. The second study examines and forecastschanges in ecosystem processes in a watershed based ondifferent scenarios on land/sea use changes by multiplestakeholders. These integrated studies are explained inmore detail in the third subsection of the case studieswritten below.

Case studies in integration

As mentioned above, we initiated several partial inte-grations between participants with different specialtiesto build new interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary sci-ences to achieve our perspective goals. In this section, wepresent four of these integration efforts via case studiesthat link different disciplines of social-ecological studiesover different scales (Fig. 2), and different types ofecosystems within a region.

Linking global-scale analyses of biodiversity and econ-omy

Expansion of human economic activities affect globalbiodiversity and ecosystem services directly by destroy-ing and altering habitats and indirectly by changingclimate. For the latter, many studies have been trying toforecast future changes in biodiversity and ecosystemfunctions based on the climate scenarios by IPCC (Yaraet al. 2012; Beaugrand et al. 2015; Molinos et al. 2016).For the former, recent progress of the global footprintanalysis enables us to analyze the effects of global eco-nomic activities and trade on biodiversity and varioustypes of ecosystem services such as water, carbon and

nitrogen (Hertwich and Peters 2009; Hoekstra andMekonnen 2012; Galloway et al. 2014; Oita et al. 2016).

Global footprint analysis provides a way to under-stand which countries are responsible for greater or lessenvironmental impacts in other world regions, such ascarbon emissions, nitrogen increase and biodiversityloss. This is based on a global scale analyses of worldtrade (input–output) data. For the biodiversity foot-print, Lenzen et al. (2012) and Moran et al. (2016)showed how seriously the economic activities by thedeveloped countries increase the extinction risk ofendangered species in developing countries throughhabitat loss.

Although an already powerful tool, the current globalfootprint analysis still has some limitations. First, globalanalyses of footprints to date have been primarily basedon data and statistics collected at national and interna-tional levels (such as in world-trade statistics). However,a large variation exists in the spatial patterns of biodi-versity, the vulnerability of species to change, availableecosystem services, and economic activities. A resolutionat the country-level analyses is thus not fine enough tofully understand the impact of economy on biodiversityloss of each specific area or species. To overcome thispoint, it is promising to utilize spatially-explicit GISdata of the distribution and abundance of species. Arecent study by Moran and Kanemoto (2017) extendtheir footprint analyses to include GIS data on IUCNred listed species, and successfully depicted the foot-prints at very fine resolution over the whole globe(Fig. 4). Their analyses clearly showed how much im-pacts are given to each biodiversity hotspot of the worldby which types of specific human activities. Anotherstudy quantified the potential loss of species from severaltaxonomic groups for multiple impacts (climate change,eutrophication, acidification, land and water use) fromglobal trade (Verones et al. 2017b), thus showing theconsequences of our resource consumption for ecosys-tems on a global level.

The second problem, which is less appreciated bysocioeconomic scientists, is the fact that the indicatorsuseful in evaluating biodiversity and ecosystem servicechange at fine resolution are still limited in terms of thedata type and accuracy for most species and ecosystems.In the studies of global biodiversity footprint mentionedabove, the data used were on distribution range andstatus of threatened species given by IUCN database onred list species (Lenzen et al. 2012; Moran and Kane-moto 2017). Even though it is an excellent example forusing the fine-resolution, but broad-extent data on bio-diversity, such data are available only for relatively well-studied species (such as mammals and birds). Even forthese species, some information is based on non-quan-titative observation such as knowledge by local experts.It is especially true for marine species, where largeinformation gaps still exist in the distribution and thuscannot be evaluated adequately by the red list categories.

This problem will be overcome by the collaborationbetween researchers on footprint analyses and scientists

40

studying species distribution models using the mega-database of biodiversity such as GBIF (http://www.gbif.org) and OBIS (http://www.iobis.org).For the marine biodiversity research, recent increase inbiodiversity data, and the development of species dis-tribution models will enable us to estimate global bio-diversity patterns and its future changes in finerresolution. Indeed, the resolution of the species distri-bution models of some marine taxa increased from 10�latitude/longitude grid in 2010 (Tittensor et al. 2010) to0.5� in 2015 (Klein et al. 2015). By utilizing these fine-resolution data on biodiversity, evaluation of importantareas for selecting marine protected areas has alreadybeen conducted (Yamakita et al. 2017). It is now readyto carry out spatially explicit analyses of global footprintfor more target species, which results will offer valuableinformation to various stakeholders and decision mak-ers.

Linking studies of local practices and global economicanalyses

Collaboration of scientists with local stakeholders whoactually manage the status of ecosystems is essential toachieve effective conservation of biodiversity andecosystem services. The practical activities based on ‘‘co-design, co-production and co-management’’ have beenongoing and the international research communitypromotes such efforts under the name of ‘‘transdisci-plinary research’’ (Lang et al. 2012; Brandt et al. 2013).

One such transdisciplinary research framework hasbeen established to achieve sustainable use of marineecosystem services in coastal areas of Asia, named as‘‘Area Capability Cycle (ACC)’’ (Ishikawa and Watan-abe 2015). In this study, scientists collaborate with localstakeholders such as fishermen and managers in localgovernments first by transferring knowledge on values

of natural capitals and ecosystem services, and thendiscuss and determine effective and efficient methods ofeconomic activities for sustainable use of ecosystemservices by round-table meetings. Established plans areto be executed in the real field with PDCA (plan-do-check-act) cycle, which will facilitate the conservation ofbiodiversity and ecosystems, as well as the sustainableuse of ecosystem services by the stakeholders concur-rently (Fig. 5).

One successful case study of ACC is found in afishery community of Rayong, Gulf of Thailand. Here,traditional small-scale fisheries have long been con-ducted by individual fishers, which sometimes lead tooverexploitation of some specific resources, and to lowyield despite long operation time. However, after anecological assessment of fish stocks (status of provi-sioning services) by scientists, local fishers changed theirfishery practices to conduct a large stationary net fisheryby group operation, which resulted in more yield in lessoperation time (i.e., more income in more sustainableway). The new practice also enhanced communication(good relationship) among fishers and their responsi-bility to manage the sustainable ecosystem services(Ishikawa et al. 2015).

However, it remained unknown whether the estab-lished sustainable fishery was in fact ‘‘environmental-friendly’’ in terms of consumption of materials and en-ergy. For example, if a new fisheries practice uses morematerials from the world and if it emits more CO2 to theatmosphere, it may not sustainable in terms of climateimpacts and sustainable economy at global level. Toexamine this point, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) can bea powerful tool. LCA examines how each economicactivity consumes material and energy, and releasesemissions. It evaluates the environmental performanceof a system throughout its global supply chain, by takingseveral impacts on human health and ecosystem qualitysimultaneously into account (e.g. climate change, re-

Fig. 4 Spatially explicit analysis of global biodiversity footprintshowing global hotspots of species threat linked to consumption inthe European Union. Darker colors (red on land, and blue to green

in coastal sea) indicate areas of hotspots more threatened by EUconsumption. See Moran and Kanemoto (2017) for the details.Color figure online

41

source depletion, eutrophication, human and ecotoxic-ity, etc.) (ISO 2006). In the case of the Thai fisheries,LCAs of different types of fisheries were carried out,including data on local fishing gear, fuel consumption ofeach fishery expedition (estimated by a GIS-track ofeach fishing boat), yields and their market price. Pre-liminary analyses showed that materials for constructingboats, engines and fishery gears of Thai fisheries mostlycame from EU through global supply chains. Further-more, the emission of CO2 and other wastes did not onlydiffer among different fishery practice, but also amongdifferent seasons of the year due to changes in fisherygrounds with monsoon conditions, which made assess-ment of environmental impact complex (Verones et al.2017a).

Use of combined ACC and LCA is thus foundpromising to evaluate whether good practices developedby stakeholders and scientists are not only sustainablewithin local community, but also environmentally lessimpacted in terms of global energy consumption andemission of wastes (including CO2). If the investigatedpractices are judged as environmentally more sustain-able, it will further enhance motivations of local com-munity to promote more sustainable local economicactivities, considering conservation of biodiversity andecosystem services. In contrast, when LCA gives worse

scores to current fishery practices, it may give the com-munity an opportunity to reevaluate their currentpractices toward better decision making based on sci-entific data.

Linking local-scale ecosystem studies to decision makingprocesses by multiple stakeholders

As mentioned in the above section, good communica-tion among scientists and stakeholders based on precisescientific information is a key to achieve successfulconservation of biodiversity and sustainable use ofecosystem services. A bigger challenge comes when dif-ferent types of stakeholders co-exist who wish to usemultiple ecosystem services in different ways, and whenthey are in conflict over the use of these services. In thecases of coastal ecosystems, for example, it is commonlyobserved that local commercial fishers who use marinehabitats for their yield (provisioning services) haveconflicts with tourism sectors who offer various types ofleisure activities to holiday visitors such as angling,boating and SCUBA diving (cultural services).

The integration of ecological studies and sociologicalstudies with participation of stakeholders can be apromising way to understand how the conflicts among

Fig. 5 Diagram showing area capability cycle (ACC) for the caseof community-based set-net fisheries in Thailand local fisheryvillage. A new fishery practice (starting the set-net fishery by thelocal community SEAFDC, indicated by the yellow box), whichwas more effective in utilization of the resources than traditionalfisheries, was established by the more concern and care forecosystem health by the local community (indicated by yellow

thick lines). The initial interaction between resources and localcommunity was motivated and driven by the hopes and prides oflocal community (indicated by a red box and black allows), whichbrought positive feedbacks for the expansion of better practices,new skills and industries (indicated by blue arrows and whileboxes). Figure redrawn from Ishikawa et al. (2015) with permis-sion. Color figure online

42

stakeholders are generated based on different uses ofmultiple ecosystem services. One of such integratedstudies has been recently initiated by linking ecosystemfunctions, ecosystem services and their use by multiplestakeholders for eelgrass beds in Japan (Tajima et al.2015). In their approaches, they depicted the interrela-tionship among these components by listing up all thedifferent types of ecosystem functions and services fromeelgrass beds, and linking these categories with differenttypes of stakeholders and their economic activities basedon intensive social surveys (interviewing and question-naire surveys to local scientists and different types ofstakeholders) (Fig. 6, see Tajima et al. 2015 for the de-tailed methods). Through the comparisons among dif-ferent regions of Japan, they found that types ofstakeholders involved in the use of eelgrass beds, as wellas the strength of their interactions were different,depending on the regional variation in fisheries andother economic activities (Tajima et al. 2015). Once thedirection (either positive or negative) and the intensity ofinterrelationships between ecosystem services andstakeholders are clarified, it will help decision makerssuch as local governments and environmental commit-tees to look for solutions to reduce conflicts amongstakeholders.

These approaches can be extended to the manage-ment of terrestrial and coastal ecosystems within awatershed by multiple stakeholders (in our second per-spective). One of the most commonly observed cases is

the conflict between farmers in the upper stream andfishers in coastal areas within the same watershed wherethe changes in land use for agriculture are claimed to bethe causes for the reduction of marine resources throughdeterioration of water quality via input from rivers (Diazand Rosenberg 2009; Vitousek et al. 2009; Paerl et al.2014). To look for the solution by agreements of farmersand fishers, first requirement is to carry out quantitativeassessment on the effects of land use changes on waterquality of rivers and coastal areas.

In the case of sediment and nutrient discharge tocoral reefs, relevant case studies for integrated environ-mental management based on a consideration forcatchment-to-reef continua was conducted in Okinawaof Japan (Yamano et al. 2015) and in the Great BarrierReef of Australia (Brodie et al. 2012; Thorburn et al.2013; Waterhouse et al. 2016). In Okinawa, a frameworkto integrate biophysics and socioeconomics, by setting aconservation target and threshold, identifying the sour-ces and processes, and examining cost-effectiveness andmanagement priorities was established and applied toKume Island (Yamano et al. 2015). The project resultedin initiating measures to prevent sediment dischargefrom sugarcane fields with local government, NPO andfarmers. In the GBR, the series of the studies showed theAustralian and Queensland governments responded topollution concerns from watershed runoff by developingan integrated plan to address this issue in 2003. Incen-tive-based voluntary management initiatives were

Fig. 6 Diagram showing relationships among ecosystem functions(in round shape), ecosystem services, and their use by differentsectors of stakeholders for an eelgrass bed in Japan. P provisioningservices, R regulating services, C cultural services and S supporting

services. See text for more detailed information about how thisdiagram was made. Diagram modified based on Tajima et al.(2015). Color figure online

43

introduced in 2007, and a State regulatory approach wasimplemented in 2009 (Brodie et al. 2012). Howeverinadequate funding and reluctance to enforce regula-tions led to limited progress in reducing loads of sedi-ment and nutrients discharged to the GBR (Brodie andPearson 2016). The partial failure of this initiativeshowed the necessity of strong enforcement of the reg-ulatory regime in combination with voluntary mecha-nisms for success.

The recent development of computer-intensive mod-elling of the dynamics both for terrestrial and marineecosystems can examine how the changes in land and seauses and farming and fishery practices can alter ecosys-tem services. Linking these terrestrial and marineecosystem models would be useful to evaluate quanti-tatively how the change in land can alter the status ofcoastal ecosystems and the provisioning services such asfish and aquaculture yield. The output from such com-bined models on the land–ocean connectivity will behelpful to understand where the critical problems arelocated, and to establish agreements among differenttypes of stakeholders such as to set regulations onagriculture and fishery options to retain sustainableecosystem services.

Linking local-scale analyses of ecosystem processesto broad-scale analyses of ecosystem patterns

A variety of tools, including remote sensing, GIS andsimulation models are now available to monitor, eval-uate and forecast ecosystem functions and services atsmall spatial scales, such as within a watershed as shownin the previous section. By establishing GIS-based eco-logical databases, it is now possible to map the economicvalue of multiple ecosystem services (Bateman et al.2013). For example, methods of physical dimensionmeasurement and monetary evaluation were used toevaluate and map the spatial patterns of 11 ecosystemservices in the middle-lower Yangtze River watershed,China (Li et al. 2014). This research confirms the irre-placeable role of wetlands in this watershed and identi-fies the core wetlands and ecosystem services from asocio-economic perspective. The value of human-madewetlands is 48% lower than that from natural wetlands,which reflects that conversion of natural wetlands foraquaculture makes no sense from the sustainabilityperspective. In another study conducted at Laizhou Bay,a very typical coastal ecosystem in China, Li et al. (2016)analyzed the temporal and spatial changes in the valueof 22 different types of ecosystem services (6 provision-ing services, 9 regulating services, 5 cultural services and2 supporting services) and found 43% decrease inecosystem services value in this region during 2000–2014(Fig. 7). The ecosystem service values of water supply,waste treatment, nursery service, genetic diversity, dis-turbance moderation, erosion prevention were lost seri-ously due to the loss of coastal wetlands for theexpansion of the construction land and urban land.

Land use change may seem economically profitable.However, due to the losing of ecosystem services such asregulating or supporting services, the imbalance inecosystem services would impact the human well-beingand socio-economic development. Policy making shouldconsider imbalance in ecosystem service, protect re-gional ecosystem services function and maintain itsstability.

Such GIS-based, fine-resolution analyses of ecosys-tem services can be applicable only for limited areaswhere enough information of ecology and economy isavailable. When we need to evaluate the ecosystem ser-vice values at broader-scale (e.g., along the whole coastof Japan and China), we still need to rely on coarse-grain remote sensing data that can cover wider area, andstatistical data on economy and human population sta-tus summarized for each local governmental unit. Forexample, using large-scale multi-resource data along themainland coasts of China (approximately 18,000 km)since the early 1940s, Hou et al. (2016a) showed that dueto the significant coastline artificialization mainly drivenby sea reclamation and coastal engineering, theremaining natural coastline accounts for less than one-third in 2014. More thoroughly monitoring on recentchanges of land use and wetland in coastal China re-vealed that coastal land use and wetland changedacutely from 2000 to 2010, resulting in the decrease ofnatural coastal wetland by 3288 km2, whereas the in-crease of artificial wetland by 2592 km2 (Hou et al.2016b). Overall, the obtained results of these studiesshowed drastic changes in the coastal zone of Chinawhich can be used to set the baseline for the manage-ment purposes.

The integration of studies conducted at these twodifferent spatial scales would be worthwhile to extrap-olate our findings to unstudied area where fine-resolu-tion data are insufficient, and to estimate the fine-scaleprocesses at broader extent which is, in most cases,practically impossible due to limitation in financialsupports and manpower.

One of the prospect approaches for the integration ofstudies conducted at different spatial scale have beenproposed (e.g., Ghermandi and Nunes 2013), whichshould be carried out by the following steps. First, selectsome representative sites covering in different environ-mental and human socioeconomical conditions. Second,construct a database of ecosystem service status in se-lected sites by a variety of methods, e.g., literature andreport surveys, field surveys of ecology and local humancommunity. Third, conduct statistical analyses todetermine key relationships between ecosystem servicesand human activities along some major environmentalgradients. Fourth, extrapolate the focal ecosystem ser-vices to broader-scale study area using the relationshipobtained in the previous steps and the broader scalespatial data built upon GIS. Finally, validate theextrapolated patterns by field surveys in some unstudiedsites, and feedback the results to improve the modelprediction. By repeating these processes, we can obtain

44

clearer broad-scale, fine-resolution patterns of biodi-versity and ecosystem services with modest costs, whichwill offer more criteria for decision making to enhancesustainable ecosystem service uses by multiple stake-holders and decision-makers in various parts of eachcountry.

Concluding remarks: major gaps and challenges

Basedonourprojectperspectives,we introducedhere someongoing studies by new interdisciplinary and transdisci-plinary collaborations toward conservation of biodiversityand sustainable use of ecosystem services that are threat-ened by various stressors operating at global and localscales. The integration of ecological and socioeconomicstudies across various spatial scales is promising toproducefruitful outputs which will be useful to solve problemspractitioners and stakeholders are facing. However, it isstill unknown towhat extent our proposed approaches canbe applicable to various cases in the world.

During the three workshops in 2015 and 2016, wefound many gaps which can inhibit to achieve our ulti-mate goals of collaboration. Firstly, biological andecological data on biodiversity and ecosystem services,as well as data on human utilization and awareness of

ecosystem services, are still lacking in many areas ofAsia, especially in developing countries. Take marinebiodiversity data, for example, species distributionmodels predict the hotspot of biodiversity in the coraltriangle area (the Philippines, Indonesia and Papua NewGuinea), whereas actual data in global databases likeOBIS and GBIF from these countries are far less thanthose from other countries like Japan, Korea and China.More systematic approaches are needed to be estab-lished to fill the biological and socioeconomic informa-tion gap in Asia.

Secondly, there may be a gap in our knowledge of theecological and social processes among different types ofecosystems and habitats, e.g. among forests, plains,freshwater and marine systems. Our projects mainlyfocused on coastal zones, which are influenced by bothterrestrial and marine ecosystem dynamics and wherehuman is most densely populated in the world. How-ever, other types of habitats like inland forests, aridareas and offshore oceanic islands will require adaptedapproaches. Basic integration, such as coupling of localdata to LCA studies and further upscaling to globalimpact studies via trade models work in principle for allecosystem types, however, the data required and thefine-tuning of the models needs to be performed indi-vidually. Comparative approaches covering different

Fig. 7 Changes in economic value of ecosystem services between 2000 and 2014 analyzed for Laizhou Bay Coastal Zone, China. See Liet al. (2016) for the details. Color figure online

45

types of ecosystems are therefore worthwhile, in order toexamine this further.

Thirdly, we still recognize gaps in types of stakeholdersto be involved in the transdisciplinary studies. So far,stakeholders in local communities have been well consid-ered such as the local fishers in Thailandof ourACC study.However, it is difficult to specify and invite broader-scalestakeholders such as governors in provinces and countries,as well as those responsible for international decisionmaking.Wealreadyknow thatmajor stakeholderswho areresponsible for the decline in global biodiversity are con-sumers in developed countries (Lenzen et al. 2012).We stilldo not have any established methodologies to effectivelycollaborate with such indirect and remote stakeholders inthe transdisciplinary science. Linking our sciences to thestudy on multigovernance, i.e., nested, hierarchical struc-ture of decision-making processes covering international,national and local politics, would be a next step to fill upthese gaps.

Finally and most importantly, there is still uncer-tainty in how we can link our integrated approach tofuture scenario buildings. Our global economic analysessuch as global footprint analyses and LCA are veryuseful to elucidate the impacts of current human-in-duced stresses on biodiversity and ecosystem services.However, by themselves, we cannot predict any futurechanges. For the side of ecological study, future changesin biodiversity are predicted for many types of organ-isms based on IPCC climate scenarios (Beaugrand et al.2015; Molinos et al. 2016). Similarly, future scenarios oneconomy and governance have been established andincreasing (Hunt et al. 2012). These climate and econ-omy scenarios can be used jointly to predict futurechanges in biodiversity and ecosystem services althoughthe caution should be made about the difference in targettimes between most climate change models (usuallytargeting 2100) and economy models (usually targeting2030–50). As in spatial-scale dependency of social-eco-logical systems discussed in our first perspective, targettemporal scales also vary among different subjects onenvironmental studies, which integration should beinvestigated in future research.

To fill such gaps by developing more effective ap-proaches, we can move forward to establish new inte-gration of solution-based sciences which are currentlyunder development by various scientific and policy-making organizations in the world. We are hoping thatour first attempts to link different fields of science andpractitioners will lead to more intensive collaborationsthat are not only useful but also stimulative and exciting.

Acknowledgements We thank all the participants of three TSU-NAGARI workshops for valuable discussions from which thisperspective paper was produced. We are also grateful to ILTER-EAP (Intertinal Long-term Ecological Research Network, EasternAsia and the Pacific regional network) to consistent supportthroughout the research period. This research was funded by Bel-mont Forum Collaborative Research Action on Scenarios of Bio-diversity and Ecosystem Services co-sponsored by agencies inJapan (JST), China (NSFC-BF/IGFA, No. 31461143032), Aus-

tralia and Norway (10444600), and was also supported by theEnvironment Research and Technology Development Fund (S-15Predicting and Assessing Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services(PANCES)) of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan.

References

Abe S (1996) Meteorological characteristic of Kushiro region.Saihyo 42:91–94

Bartley R, Bainbridge ZT, Lewis SE, Kroon FJ, Wilkinson SN,Brodie JE, Silburn DM (2014) Relating sediment impacts oncoral reefs to watershed sources, processes and management: areview. Sci Total Environ 468–469:1138–1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.09.030

Bateman IJ, Harwood AR, Mace GM, Watson RT, Abson DJ,Andrews B, Fezzi C (2013) Bringing ecosystem services intoeconomic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom.Science 341:45–50. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1234379

Beaugrand G, Edwards M, Raybaud V, Goberville E, Kirby RR(2015) Future vulnerability of marine biodiversity comparedwith contemporary and past changes. Nat Clim Change5:695–701. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2650

Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Newig J,Reinert F, Abson DJ, von Wehrden H (2013) A review oftransdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol Econ92:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008

Briggs JC (1995) Global biogeography. Elsevier, AmsterdamBrodie J, Pearson RG (2016) Ecosystem health of the Great Barrier

Reef: time for effective management action based on evidence.Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 183:438–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2016.05.008

Brodie JE, Kroon FJ, Schaffelke B, Wolanski EC, Lewis SE,Devlin MJ, Bohnet IC, Bainbridge ZT, Waterhouse J, DavisAM (2012) Terrestrial pollutant runoff to the Great BarrierReef: an update of issues, priorities and management responses.Mar Pollut Bull 65:81–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.12.012

Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS,Dıaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, PereiraHM, Perrings C, Reid WV, Sarukhan J, Scholes RJ, Whyte A(2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond theMillennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA106:1305–1312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808772106

Connell JH (1961) The influence of interspecific competition andother factors on the distribution of the barnacle Chthamalusstellatus. Ecology 142:710–723. https://doi.org/10.2307/1933500

Connell JH (1978) Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs.Science 199:1302–1310.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.199.4335.1302

Cumming GS (2007) Global biodiversity scenarios and landscapeecology. Landsc Ecol 22:671–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-9057-3

Cumming GS (2011) Spatial resilience: integrating landscapeecology, resilience, and sustainability. Landsc Ecol 26:899–909.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9623-1

Dayton PK (1971) Competition, disturbance and communityorganization: the provision and subsequent utilization of spacein a rocky intertidal community. Ecol Monogr 41:351–389.https://doi.org/10.2307/1948498

Diaz RJ, Rosenberg R (2009) Spreading dead zones and conse-quences for marine ecosystems. Science 321:926–929.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1156401

Dickson B, Blaney R, Miles L, Regan E, van Soesbergen A, Vaa-nanen E, Blyth S, Harfoot M, Martin CS, McOwen C, New-bold T, van Bochove J (2014) Towards a global map of naturalcapital: key ecosystem assets. UNEP, Nairobi

Dornelas M, Gotelli NJ, McGill B, Shimadzu H, Moyes F, SieversC, Magurran AE (2014) Assemblage time series reveal biodi-versity change but not systematic loss. Science 344:296–299.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248484

46

Di9az S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N,Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Baldi A, Bartuska A,Baste IA, Bilgin A, Brondizio E, Chan KMA, Figueroa VE,Duraiappah A, Fischer M, Hill R, Koetz T, Leadley P, Lyver P,Mace GM, Martin-Lopez B, Okumura M, Pacheco D, PascualU, Perez ES, Reyers B, Roth E, Saito O, Scholes RJ, Sharma N,Tallis H, Thaman R, Watson R, Yahara T, Hamid ZA, AkosimC, Al-Hafedh Y, Allahverdiyev R, Amankwah E, Asah ST,Asfaw Z, Bartus G, Brooks LA, Caillaux J, Dalle G, DarnaediD, Driver A, Erpul G, Escobar-Eyzaguirre P, Failler P, FoudaAMM, Fu B, Gundimeda H, Hashimoto S, Homer F, LavorelS, Lichtenstein G, Mala WA, Mandivenyi W, Matczak P,Mbizvo C, Mehrdadi M, Metzger JP, Mikissa JB, Moller H,Mooney HA, Mumby P, Nagendra H, Nesshover C, Oteng-Yeboah AA, Pataki G, Roue M, Rubis J, Schultz M, Smith P,Sumaila R, Takeuchi K, Thomas S, Verma M, Yeo-Chang Y,Zlatanova D (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework—con-necting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002

Fang X, Hou X, Li X, Hou W, Nakaoka M, Yu X (2018) Eco-logical connectivity between land and sea: a review. Ecol Res33. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11284-017-1549-x

Galloway JN, Winiwarter W, Leip A, Leach AM, Bleeker A,Erisman JW (2014) Nitrogen footprints: past, present and fu-ture. Environ Res Lett 9:115003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/11/115003

Ghermandi A, Nunes PA (2013) A global map of coastal recreationvalues: results from a spatially explicit meta-analysis. Ecol Econ86:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.11.006

Gregory SV, Swanson FJ, McKee WA, Cummins KW (1991) Anecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41:540–551.https://doi.org/10.2307/1311607

Harley CDG, Hughes AR, Hultgren KM, Miner BG, Sorte CJB,Thornber CS, Rodriguez LF, Tomanek L, Williams SL (2006)The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. EcolLett 9:228–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00871.x

Harvey BP, Gwynn-Jones D, Moore PJ (2013) Meta-analysis re-veals complex marine biological responses to the interactiveeffects of ocean acidification and warming. Ecol Evol3:1016–1030. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.516

Hertwich EG, Peters GP (2009) Carbon footprint of nations: aglobal, trade-linked analysis. Environ Sci Technol43:6414–6420. https://doi.org/10.1021/es803496a

Hoekstra AY, Mekonnen MM (2012) The water footprint ofhumanity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:3232–3237. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1109936109

Honda K, Kagiwada H, Takahashi N, Miyashita K (2014)Movement patterns of adult Sakhalin taimen, Parahucho perryi,between stream habitats of the Bekanbeushi River system,eastern Hokkaido, Japan. Ichthyol Res 61:142–151.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10228-013-0387-2

Hou XY, Wu T, Hou W, Chen Q, Wang YD, Yu LJ (2016a)Characteristics of coastline changes in mainland China since theearly 1940s. Sci China Earth Sci 59:1791–1802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-016-5317-5

Hou X, Xu X, Wu T, Li X (2016b) Change characteristics andscenario analysis of coastal wetlands in China. Wetl Sci14:597–606.https://doi.org/10.13248/j.cnki.wetlandsci.2016.05.001

Hughes TP, Baird AH, Bellwood DR, Card M, Connolly SR,Folke C, Grosberg RC, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Jackson JBC,Kleypas J, Lough JM, Marshall P, Nystrom N, Palumbi SR,Pandolfi JM, Rosen B, Roughgarden J (2003) Climate change,human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Science301:929–933. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1085046

Hunt DVL, Lombardi DR, Atkinson S, Barber ARG, Barnes M,Boyko CT, Brown J, Bryson J, Butler D, Caputo S, Caserio M,Coles R, Cooper RFD, Farmani F, Gaterell M, Hale J, HalesC, Hewitt CN, Jankovic L, Jefferson I, Leach J, MacKenzieAR, Memon FA, Sadler JP, Weingaertner C, Whyatt JD, Ro-

gers CDF (2012) Scenario archetypes: converging rather thandiverging themes. Sustainability 4:740–772. https://doi.org/10.3390/su4040740

IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contributionof working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Gen-eva

Ishikawa S, Watanabe K (2015) Area-capability—promoting theuse of local resources. Res Inst Humanit Nat, Kyoto

Ishikawa S, Watanabe K, Theparoonrat Y, Amornpiyakrit T,Manajit N, Yasook N, Arnupapboon S (2015) Balancing fish-ery resource utilization and conservation for environmentalsustainability and socio-economic stability. Fish People13:13–20

ISO (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assess-ment—principles and framework. International Standard ISO14040. International Organisation for Standardisation. Geneva

Iyobe T, Haraguchi A, Nishijima H, Tomizawa H, Nishio F (2003)Effect of fog on sea salt deposition on peat soil in boreal Piceaglehnii forests in Ochiishi, eastern Hokkaido, Japan. Ecol Res18:587–597. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1703.2003.00580.x

Jetz W, McPherson JM, Guralnick RP (2012) Integrating biodi-versity distribution knowledge: toward a global map of life.Trends Ecol Evol 27:151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.09.007

Just RE, Natanyahu S (2012) Conflict and cooperation on trans-boundary water resources. Springer Science & Business Media,New York

Kamauchi H, Sato S, Hayashi D, Okabe Y, Katsuyama T, Fu-kushima K, Yoshioka A, Sato T, Tokuchi N, Nakaoka M(2012) Consumer of salmon carcasses in early winter of EasternHokkaido. For Res 78:81–87

Kim E-S, Trisurat Y, Muraoka H, Shibata H, Amoroso V, BoldgivB, Hoshizaki K, Kassim AR, Kim Y-S, Nguyen HQ, Ohte N,Ong PS, Wang C-P (2018) The International Long-Term Eco-logical Research–East Asia–Pacific Regional Network (ILTER-EAP): history, development, and perspectives. Ecol Res 33.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-017-1523-7

Klein CJ, Brown CJ, Halpern BS, Segan DB, McGowan J, BegerM, Watson JEM (2015) Shortfalls in the global protected areanetwork at representing marine biodiversity. Sci Rep 5:17539.https://doi.org/10.1038/srep17539

Koch EW, Barbier EB, Silliman BR, Reed DJ, Perillo GM, HackerSD, Granek EF, Primavera JH, Muthiga N, Polasky S, HalpernBS, Kennedy CJ, Kappel CV, Wolanski E (2009) Non-linearityin ecosystem services: temporal and spatial variability in coastalprotection. Front Ecol Environ 7:29–37.https://doi.org/10.1890/080126

Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, MollP, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research insustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sus-tain Sci 7(supplement 1):25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

Lange K, Townsend CR, Gabrielsson R, Chanut PCM, MatthaeiCD (2014) Responses of stream fish populations to farmingintensity and water abstraction in an agricultural catchment.Freshw Biol 59:286–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12264

Lenz M, da Gama BAP, Gerner NV, Gobin J, Groner F, Harry A,Jenkins SR, Kraufvelin P, Mummelthei C, Sareyka J, XavierEA, Wahl M (2011) Non-native marine invertebrates are moretolerant towards environmental stress than taxonomically re-lated native species: results from a globally replicated study.Environ Res 111:529–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2011.05.001

Lenzen M, Moran D, Kanemoto K, Foran B, Lobefaro L, GeschkeA (2012) International trade drives biodiversity threats indeveloping nations. Nature 486:109–112. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11145

Li X, Xiubo Y, Jiang L, Li W, Liu Yu, Hou X (2014) Howimportant are the wetlands in the middle-lower Yangtze Riverregion: an ecosystem service valuation approach. Ecosyst Serv10:54–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.09.004

47

Li X, Hou X, Xianghong D, Su H (2016) Effects of land use changeon imbalance in ecosystem services: a case study of Laizhou BayCoastal Zone. Sci Geogr Sin 36:1197–1204. https://doi.org/10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2016.08.010

Maass M, Balvanera P, Baudry J, Bourgeron P, Dick J, EquihuaM, Forsius M, Halada L, Krauze K, Nakaoka M, OrensteinDE, Parr T, Redman CL, Rozzi R, Santos-Reis M, SwemmerT, Vadineanu A (2016) Changes in biodiversity and trade-offsamong ecosystem services, stakeholders and components ofwell-being: the contribution of the International Long-TermEcological Research network (ILTER) to Programme onEcosystem Change and Society (PECS). Ecol Soc 21:31.https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08587-210331

Meyer C, Kreft H, Guralnick R, Jetz W (2015) Global priorities foran effective information basis of biodiversity distributions. NatCommun 6:8221. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9221

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and humanwell-being: our human planet. Island Press, Washington

Molinos JG, Halpern BS, Schoeman DS, Brown CJ, Kiessling W,Moore PJ, Pandolfi JM, Poloczanska ES, Richardson AJ,Burrows MT (2016) Climate velocity and the future globalredistribution of marine biodiversity. Nat Clim Change6:83–88. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2769

Moran D, Kanemoto K (2017) Identifying the species threat hot-spots from global supply chains. Nat Ecol Evol 1:23.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-016-0023

Moran D, Petersone M, Verones F (2016) On the suitability ofinput–output analysis for calculating product-specific biodi-versity footprints. Ecol Indic 60:192–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.015

Mukai H (2005) Seagrass bed ecosystem in a total system of land-and coastal marine ecosystems. Gekkan Kaiyo 37:148–155

Mukai H, Iizumi H, Kishi M (2002) Material input from terrestrialareas under regular and irregular conditions in Akkeshiwatershed: a case study linking forest and sea. Gekkan Kaiyo34:449–457

Nakamura F, Kameyama S, Mizugaki S (2004) Rapid shrinkage ofKushiro Mire, the largest mire in Japan, due to increased sed-imentation associated with land-use development in the catch-ment. Catena 55:213–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(03)00119-X

Nakaoka M, Lee K-S, Huang X, Almonte T, Sidik Bujang J,Kiswara W, Ambo Rappe R, Maryam Yaakub S, PrabhakaranMP, Abu Hena MK, Hori M, Zhang P, Prathep A, Fortes MD(2014) Regional comparison of the ecosystem services fromseagrass beds in Asia. In: Nakano S et al (eds) Asia-Pacificbiodiversity observation network: integrative observations andassessments. Ecological research monographs. Springer, Tokyo,pp 367–391

Noda T (2004) Spatial hierarchal approach in community ecology:a way beyond a low predictability in local phenomenon. PopulEcol 46:105–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-004-0184-x

Nordlund LM, Koch EW, Barbier EB, Creed JC (2016) Seagrassecosystem services and their variability across genera and geo-graphical regions. PLoS One 11:e0163091. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163091

Oita A, Malik A, Kanemoto K, Geschke A, Nishijima S, Lenzen M(2016) Substantial nitrogen pollution embedded in internationaltrade. Nat Geosci 9:111–115. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2635

Omija T (2004) Terrestrial inflow of soils and nutrients. In: Min-istry of the Environment, Japanese Coral Reef Society (eds)Coral reefs of Japan. Ministry of the Environment, Tokyo,pp 64–68

Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainabilityof social-ecological systems. Science 325:419–422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133

Paerl HW, Hall NS, Peierls BL, Rossignol KL (2014) Evolvingparadigms and challenges in estuarine and coastal eutrophica-tion dynamics in a culturally and climatically stressed world.Estuar Coast 37:243–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-014-9773-x

Paine RT (1966) Food web complexity and species diversity. AmNat 100:65–75. https://doi.org/10.1086/282400

Palumbi SR, Pinsky ML (2014) Marine dispersal, ecology andconservation. In: Bertness MD, Bruno JF, Silliman BR, Sta-chowics JJ (eds) Marine community ecology and conservation.Sinauer, Sunderland, pp 57–83

Pereira HM, Leadley PW, Proenca V, Alkemade R, ScharlemannJPW, Fernandez-Manjarres JF, Araujo MB, Balvanera P, BiggsR, Cheung WWL, Chini L, Cooper HD, Gilman EL, GuenetteS, Hurtt GC, Huntington HP, Mace GM, Oberdorff T, Re-venga C, Rodrigues P, Scholes RJ, Sumaila UR, Walpole M(2010) Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century.Science 330:1496–1501. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1196624

Peterson DL, Parker VT (1998) Ecological scale. ColumbiaUniversity Press, New York

Polis GA, Anderson WB, Holt RD (1997) Toward an integrationof landscape and food web ecology: the dynamics of spatiallysubsidized food webs. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:289–316.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.289

Portner HO, Langenbuch M (2005) Synergistic effects of temper-ature extremes, hypoxia, and increases in CO2 on marine ani-mals: from Earth history to global change. J Geophys Res110:C09S10. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JC002561

Qiu J, Turner MG (2013) Spatial interactions among ecosystemservices in an urbanizing agricultural watershed. Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 110:12149–12154. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1310539110

Roughgarden J, Gaines S, Possingham H (1988) Recruitmentdynamics in complex life cycles. Science 241:1460–1466.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.11538249

Sawai T (1988) Sea fog in Kushiro District. Tenki 35:555–566Stachowicz JJ, Terwin JR, Whitlatch RB, Osman RW (2002)

Linking climate change and biological invasions: ocean warm-ing facilitates nonindigenous species invasions. Proc Natl AcadSci USA 99:15497–15500. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.242437499

Stuart-Smith RD, Bates AE, Lefcheck JS, Duffy JE, Baker SC,Thomson RJ, Stuart-Smith JF, Hill NA, Kininmonth SJ, Air-oldi L, Becerro MA, Campbell SJ, Dawson TP, Navarrete SA,Soler GA, Strain EMA, Willis TJ, Edgar GJ (2013) Integratingabundance and functional traits reveals new global hotspots offish diversity. Nature 501:539–542. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12529

Tajima H, Tamaru O, Makino M (2015) Stakeholder analysis forthe comparison of the interests structures around seagrass beds.J Coast Zone Stud 27:77–88

Takeuchi N, Okubo M, Furumoto H, Omaki H (1982) Meteorol-ogy of Shibecha. In: Reports on University Forest, Faculty ofAgriculture, Kyoto University, vol 15, pp 35–42

Tanaka Y, Go GA, Watanabe A, Miyajima T, Nakaoka M, UyWH, Nadaoka K, Watanabe S, Fortes MD (2014) 17-yearchange in species composition of mixed seagrass beds aroundSantiago Island, Bolinao, the northwestern Philippines. MarPollut Bull 88:81–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.09.024

Thorburn PJ, Wilkinson SN, Silburn DM (2013) Water quality inagricultural lands draining to the Great Barrier Reef: a reviewof causes, management and priorities. Agric Ecosyst Environ180:4–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.07.006

Tittensor DP, Mora C, Jetz W, Lotze HK, Ricard D, Berghe EV,Worm B (2010) Global patterns and predictors of marine bio-diversity across taxa. Nature 466:1098–1102. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09329

Ueno Y, Hori M, Noda T, Mukai H (2006) Effects of materialinputs by the Grey Heron Ardea cinerea on forest-floor necro-phagous insects and understory plants in the breeding colony.Ornithol Sci 5:199–209. https://doi.org/10.2326/1347-0558(2006)5[199:EOMIBT]2.0.CO;2

United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agendafor sustainable development. (GA A/RES/70/1). https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org. Accessed 11 July 2017

48

Verones F, Bolowich AF, Ebata K, Boutson A, Arimoto T, Ishi-kawa S (2017a) A case study of life cycle impacts of small-scalefishing techniques in Thailand. Cogent Environ Res 3:1387959.https://doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2017.1387959

Verones F, Moran D, Stadler K, Kanemoto K, Wood R (2017b)Resource footprints and their ecosystem consequences. Sci Rep7:40743. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40743

Vitousek PM, Naylor R, David MB, Drinkwater LE, Holland E,Johnes PJ, Katzenberger J, Martinelli LA, Matson PA, Nzi-guheba G, Ojima D, Palm CA, Robertson GP, Sanchez PA,Townsend AR, Zhang FS (2009) Nutrient imbalances in agri-cultural development. Science 324:1519–1520. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1170261

Waterhouse J, Brodie J, Lewis S, Audas DM (2016) Land-seaconnectivity, ecohydrology and holistic management of theGreat Barrier Reef and its catchments: time for a change.Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 16:45–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2015.08.005

Weinzettel J, Hertwich EG, Peters GP, Steen-Olsen K, Galli A(2013) Affluence drives the global displacement of land use.Glob Environ Chang 23:433–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.010

Yamakita T, Wanatabe K, Nakaoka M (2011) Asynchronous localdynamics contributes to stability of a seagrass bed in TokyoBay. Ecography 34:519–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06490.x

Yamakita T, Sudo K, Jintsu-Uchifune Y, Yamamoto H, Shi-rayama Y (2017) Identification of important marine areas usingecologically or biologically significant areas (EBSAs) criteria inthe east to southeast Asia region and comparison with existingregistered areas for the purpose of conservation. Mar Policy81:273–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.040

Yamano H, Satake K, Inoue T, Kadoya T, Hayashi S, Kinjo K,Nakajima D, Oguma H, Ishiguro S, Okagawa A, Suga S, HorieT, Nohara K, Fukayama N, Hibiki A (2015) An integratedapproach to tropical and subtropical island conservation.J Ecol Environ 38:271–279. https://doi.org/10.5141/ecoenv.2015.028

Yara Y, Vogt M, Fujii M, Yamano H, Hauri C, Steinacher M,Gruber N, Yamanaka Y (2012) Ocean acidification limitstemperature-induced poleward expansion of coral habitatsaround Japan. Biogeosciences 9:4955–4968. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-4955-2012

49