Land Use Policy

Land Use Policy
A framework for participatory scenario planning to guide transitions towards

sustainability in mountain social-ecological systems: a case study from the Colombian
Andes.
--Manuscript Draft--
Manuscript Number: LUP-D-21-00740R2
Article Type: Full Length Article
Keywords: Scenario planning; food provision; aboveground biomass; agroforestry,

transdisciplinary; sustainability.
Corresponding Author: Corina Buendia, Ph. D.
COLOMBIA
First Author: Tatiana Rodriguez, M Sc.
Order of Authors: Tatiana Rodriguez, M Sc.
Björn Reu, PhD
Sergio Andrés Bolivar-Santamaría, M.Sc.
Alexandra Cortés-Aguilar, PhD
Corina Buendia, Ph. D.
Abstract: Pronounced environmental gradients of tropical mountains result in interconnected

social-ecological systems of great cultural and biological diversity and high provision of
essential ecosystem services. This intrinsic diversity of mountain social-ecological
systems (MtSES) entails great complexity which, coupled with remoteness,
vulnerability, and lack of fine-scale data, hampers the adequate planning of transitions
towards sustainability and affects the livelihoods of their inhabitants. Based on our
experience in a tropical MtSES, here we propose a framework for participatory
scenario planning (PSP) that supports local stakeholders to create plausible
development pathways while harmonizing top-down planning instruments and securing
the provision of ecosystem services (ES). Our framework comprises: (1) screening the
study area to understand historical land cover changes and development pathways
based on current planning instruments and local knowledge, (2) gathering future
visions from MtSES inhabitants based on their wishes, perceived drivers of change,
and key ecosystems services, (3) creating a land-cover map using satellite imagery,
(4) establishing a baseline with on-field data collection, (5) writing narratives that
harmonize those visions with planning instruments, and translating them into spatially
explicit future scenarios, (6) estimating ecosystems services in each scenario, and (7)
refining future scenario narratives by facilitating a dialog where farmers, researchers,
and stakeholders discuss contrasting scenario results and their perceived potential
impacts. Our PSP framework creates awareness among local stakeholders about land
cover changes and their impacts while at the same time, it generates fine-scale data
that is usually lacking for MtSES. Both aspects are important for updating planning
instruments and policies in a participatory way taking into account the complexity of
each particular MtSES as well as people's perceptions about the future. Our study
adds to the existing literature on PSP as it provides a case study in an Andean tropical
MtSES. Since each MtSES is unique, we hope this practical example can inspire
planning policy schemes to include bottom-up approaches.
Suggested Reviewers: Maria Schmitz

Universidad Complutense de Madrid
ma296@bio.ucm.es
She works in ecosystem services valuations using a broad perspective.
Dirk Vrebos
Universiteit Antwerpen
dirk.vrebos@uantwerpen.be
Hi works in a related field. His works relates ecosystems services with land-use maps.
This is also part of the proposed approach.
Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Sandra Vilardy
Universidad de Los Andes
s.vilardy@uniandes.edu.co
She has experience in territorial planning in Colombia based on scenario planning.
Alexander Rincón-Ruíz
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
alexander.risvid@gmail.com
Researcher with long trajectory on evaluation of ecosystems services
Devon Dublin
Hokkaido University of Education
dublin.devon.ronald@k.hokkyodai.ac.jp
Researcher designing and implementing intervention projects in biodiversity-hotspots.
Stefan Liehr
Institute for Social-Ecological Research
liehr@isoe.de
Researcher with experience in Social-Ecological planning and action in wide-range of
contexts
Response to Reviewers: Dear Sónia,
we are very grateful for the comments that we received for our manuscript entitled “A
framework for participatory scenario planning to guide transitions towards sustainability
for tropical mountain social-ecological systems in South America”, submission ID LUP-
D-21-00740R1. We would like to thank reviewer #1 for revising our manuscript again
and are happy to receive his positive feedback. We are also grateful for the comments
of reviewer #3 which helped to clarify several aspects and details of the manuscript.
We followed his/her advice and changed the title to ”A framework for participatory
scenario planning to guide transitions towards sustainability in mountain social-
ecological systems: a case study from the Colombian Andes.”
We really hope that soon we will see our paper publish in Land Use Policy.
Sincerely,
Corina Buendia
Response of the authors is highlighted in bold, whereas text changes of the main text
in the manuscript are underlined
Reviewer #1: The authors have properly taken into consideration the recommendation
from the first review, and highly increased the quality and readability of the manuscript.
The manuscript adds an important addition for a geographical context that is
overlooked in the Participatory Scenario Planning literature particularly for mountain
socio-ecological systems.
I recommend to accept the manuscript with minor revisions of the text (see attached
pdf).
Author response: We sincerely thank reviewer 1 for his contributions for improving our
manuscript and will take into account all minor revisions in the final version of our
manuscript, changes are underlined
Reviewer #3: This is an interesting manuscript. It fits well with the scope of the Land
Use Policy journal and addresses an important subject. The submission has all the
important parts. However, some weak points should be strengthened. Below please
find specific comments/ suggestions, which wait for clarification:
Author response: We would like to thank reviewer #3 for his positive feedback on our
work and we will address all clarifications below.
- the title is misleading. The location in the case study title cannot be referred to as
South America. The case study is in a specific municipality in Colombia. It is this
municipality/country that should appear in the title.
Author response: We considered the recommendation of the reviewer and included the
geographic context for the case study into the title: “A framework for participatory
scenario planning to guide transitions towards sustainability in mountain social-
ecological systems: a case study from the Colombian Andes.”
- the map of the study area should be improved. There should be a map that fits the
study area in the context of Colombia, and for example, in the context of South
America.
Author response: The geographic context of the study area in Colombia and South
America has been included in the map presented in Figure 1.
Fig. 1. Map showing Las Cruces micro-watershed (left) in San Vicente de Chucurí and
its location within Colombia (right-top) and South America (right-bottom). Red contour
lines represent the elevations used to analyze agricultural production by dividing the
area into three production areas along the elevation gradients (grey scale).
- Line 107: "we brought together 15 farmers" how were these farmers selected?
Author response: For clarification, we added the following text in lines 108-109: “A
total of 95 personal invitations were provided to farmers living in the study area and 15
of them managed to participate in the first workshop.”
- Line 130 "2.2.4 Step 4. On-field data collection:" some essential information is
missing from these surveys such as Real population and sample size are absent (i.e.,
n/N ratio total) which makes readers not understand the validity of the analysis
performed. More in detail, a table eliciting the total N and n for the total population and
each subgroup is needed. What is representativeness? Is it sufficient? is it adequate to
capture the variability of the phenomenon? How can authors say that their interviews
are not entirely noisy? what is the margin of error? confidence level?
Author response: For clarification, we added the following text in lines 134-141: “With
the help and information provided by the presidents of the Community Action Boards
(JAC, Juntas de Accion Comunal) we estimated a population of 145 households, a set
of 46 households was randomly selected using a stratified sampling technique. This
technique was chosen to ensure representativeness and avoid under-coverage bias
due to the diversity of agricultural production systems in the study region resulting from
the wide altitudinal range, proximity to the urban area, and particular local governance.
The population was divided into 5 strata corresponding to 5 geographic zones with
more homogeneous characteristics. The sample size of each stratum was randomly
selected with a confidence level of 90% and an estimation error of 10%”.
Line 194 "We conducted a second workshop in November 2018 with 50 participants"
Same here how were these participants selected?
Author response: Invited participants were members of the surveyed families and other
institutional stakeholders. For clarification, we added the following text in lines 201-205:
“We conducted a second workshop in November 2018 to socialize the results from the
socioeconomic survey, narratives, and land cover maps of the scenarios with their
impact on ES. Farmers who participated in the previous steps of this study and local
stakeholders involved in land-use planning were personally invited via phone calls and
mobile phone messages. A total of 50 participants were able to attend the workshop.”
- line 255: "From the land cover classification we obtained a map with an accuracy of
86.3%". However, how accurate was each of the land use classes?
Author response: Since the overall accuracy is very good, it is also for each land cover.
We included this information in a general way in the main text (because we do not
consider that including a confusion table is necessary). In lines 124-125 and 266-267
we included the following information:
“we defined a training vector for 6 land-cover categories based on 216 ground control
points collected while conducting the socio-economic survey between May and June
2018.”
“Our land cover classification resulted in a highly accurate map with an overall
accuracy greater than 90% ranging from 98% for forests to 90 % for cattle pastures
and bare ground.”
- In Figure 3, the authors should mention the year to which the land use classification
refers.
Author response: The map shows the land use classification for 2018. This information
is now included in the figure caption Fig. 3 in line 271.
- The discussion section needs substantial revision to include an in-depth discussion

on those important results including comparing your results with previous studies and
explaining better why your results are similar or different from previous findings.
Author response: We rewrote the discussion and included results from other studies as
well as additional information from this study in order to deepen the understanding of
the presented results.
We contextualize our case study based of a review by klein at al 2019 in lines 480-483
“Las Cruces is a MtSES in transition, exposed to global, national, and local drivers of
change and imposed with top-down planning schemes facing similar challenges to
those described by Klein et al., (2019). To our knowledge, this is the first well-
documented PSP study in tropical MtSES in Colombia, if not South America”
And contrasted to other results in lines 366-370
Similarly to Jiren et al. (2020), this synergetic scenario between agricultural production
and conservation is not only based on diversification and better agricultural practices
but also on the recognition of what is important for the local population in terms of food
security, vulnerability to climate variability, and social justice.
We added new references and comments on the methodological approach in Lines

431-433
“Plieninger et al. (2013) conducted a participatory workshop where participants rated
27 different ecosystem services based on their vulnerability to future landscape
development”
A comment on clear and fluent communication with local actors is a key aspect that
has to be taken into account while implementing this type of approach in rural
communities in lines 402-407
“Due to the history of Las Cruces, local actors were suspicious of external
organizations that entered the territory to conduct any intervention. This mistrust was
also visible at the beginning of this study and was one explanation for the low
participation in the first workshop. Nevertheless, persistence and maintaining effective
and transparent communication with the community, and socializing results at different
stages of the process were key aspects that helped to gain trust, although associated
with a substantial effort.”
- In addition, in the discussion section the authors could highlight open questions and
future research directions/challenges.
Author response: In the last paragraph of the discussions section we explore the
question of how the participatory process affects the governance and community
processes to guide transitions towards sustainability.
We added information on current dynamics to illustrate the impact that the

implementation of this PSP scheme had in Las Cruces in Lines 462-473.
Although the proposed PSP framework did not explicitly include a step for monitoring
and evaluating the outcomes, it built a fertile ground for transdisciplinary action
research in Las Cruces through the co-production of knowledge and the trust building
between inhabitants and researchers. For example, it set the enabling conditions for
the joint development of the farms for knowledge exchange (FiNCO), a local strategy to
transition towards sustainability, which can be considered as a seed for a good
Anthropocene (Buendía et al., 2023a). It also motivated the description of the
remarkable transformation history of Las Cruces towards sustainability using the
concept of the adaptive cycle, which resulted in an animated video about the
remarkable history of the territory (Buendía, 2023b). It also contributed to the
improvement of land cover classification methodologies that distinguish forest from
agroforestry systems which otherwise are often considered as forests in automated
classifications invisibilizing their potential for agricultural production and biodiversity
conservation (Bolívar-Santamaría and Reu 2022).
- Minor grammar and punctuation errors can be found throughout the text and need to
be corrected.
Author response: We corrected grammatical errors and punctuation
Editor comment: Please explain in detail what are the LAND USE POLICY implications
deriving from your work.
Author response: In response to that question we added the following explanation in

the discussion section Lines 480-491
“Las Cruces is a MtSES in transition, exposed to global, national and local drivers of
change and planned by top-down schemes, which is facing similar challenges to those
described by Klein et al., (2019). To our knowledge, this is the first well-documented
PSP study in tropical MtSES in Colombia, if not South America. It describes a
methodological framework to achieve fine-scale information as well as strategies to
integrate the local community in understanding the past and the present to participate
in shaping the future. We consider the insights from this study could support the co-
creation of future pathways for enabling just transitions towards sustainable agriculture
and food systems that recognize the inherent complexity of tropical socio-ecological
systems, especially mountains, hence facilitating better-tailored planning schemes and
improved decision-making by policymakers, practitioners, and other stakeholders. In
addition, this study started to unveil concrete actions within this MtSES where local
communities are building capacities to creatively cope with external shocks while being
protagonists in shaping their future (e.g. FiNCO, Buendía et al. 2023a).”
Additionally
“Our approach offers an opportunity for local farmers and stakeholders to raise
awareness about the costs and benefits of the different scenarios and reflect on the
actions that generate a transformation where ES trade-offs are reduced and ES
synergies are fostered, which is a challenge for research and policy (Brussaard et.,
2010).”
Cover Letter
Dr. Corina Buendia Grigoriu

Phone: (7) 319 4760045
Email: coribuendia@gmail.com
Bucaramanga, Colombia
Date: April 12th, 2021
Editorial Office
Land Use Policy
Dear Editor,
Please&find&enclosed&our&manuscript&entitled:&"A&framework&for&participatory&scenario&
development&to&guide&transitions&towards&sustainable&development&in&rural&landscapes&of&the&
Colombian&Andes"&by&Tatiana&RodríguezATorres,&Björn&Reu,&Sergio&BolívarASantamaría,&Alexandra&
CortésAAguilar,&and&Corina&Buendía&for&possible&publication&as&a&Regular paper&in&the&journal&
Land Use Policy.
Colombia is a megadiverse country that is losing its biological and cultural diversity very rapidly.
Within the Northern Andes of Colombia, we find critical hotspots of biodiversity with strong
presence of diversified family agriculture that are undergoing rapid changes. Traditional landscape
planning schemes and development policy fail to approach the multifunctionality and inherent
complexity of those territories.
To promote transitions towards sustainability in multifunctional territories that are key to cultural
and biological diversity, we present a novel participative planning framework proven and
adjusted in San Vicente de Chucuri (Colombia), a municipality essential for agricultural
production and biodiversity. Our approach considers people's needs, and existing planning
instruments to construct narratives and spatially explicit future scenarios where the impacts are
represented in terms of ecosystem services. The framework promotes debate between participants
(landowners) and serves to inform municipal development plans. Our manuscript provides a step-
by-step sustainable development planning guide that can inspire processes in other
multifunctional territories where conservation as well as people's well-being, have to be
reconciled.
Sincerely,
Corina Buendia on behalf of all co-authors

Response to Reviewers (without Author Details)
Dear Sónia,
we are very grateful for the comments that we received for our manuscript entitled “A
framework for participatory scenario planning to guide transitions towards sustainability for
tropical mountain social-ecological systems in South America”, submission ID
LUP-D-21-00740R1. We would like to thank reviewer #1 for revising our manuscript again
and are happy to receive his positive feedback. We are also grateful for the comments of
reviewer #3 which helped to clarify several aspects and details of the manuscript. We
followed his/her advice and changed the title to ”A framework for participatory scenario
planning to guide transitions towards sustainability in mountain social-ecological
systems: a case study from the Colombian Andes.”
We really hope that soon we will see our paper publish in Land Use Policy.
Sincerely,
Corina Buendia
Response of the authors is highlighted in bold, whereas text changes of the main text in the
manuscript are underlined
Reviewer #1: The authors have properly taken into consideration the recommendation from
the first review, and highly increased the quality and readability of the manuscript. The
manuscript adds an important addition for a geographical context that is overlooked in the
Participatory Scenario Planning literature particularly for mountain socio-ecological systems.
I recommend to accept the manuscript with minor revisions of the text (see attached pdf).
Author response: We sincerely thank reviewer 1 for his contributions for improving our
manuscript and will take into account all minor revisions in the final version of our
manuscript, changes are underlined
Reviewer #3: This is an interesting manuscript. It fits well with the scope of the Land Use
Policy journal and addresses an important subject. The submission has all the important
parts. However, some weak points should be strengthened. Below please find specific
comments/ suggestions, which wait for clarification:
Author response: We would like to thank reviewer #3 for his positive feedback on our work
and we will address all clarifications below.
- the title is misleading. The location in the case study title cannot be referred to as South
America. The case study is in a specific municipality in Colombia. It is this
municipality/country that should appear in the title.
Author response: We considered the recommendation of the reviewer and included the
geographic context for the case study into the title: “A framework for participatory scenario
planning to guide transitions towards sustainability in mountain social-ecological systems: a
case study from the Colombian Andes.”
- the map of the study area should be improved. There should be a map that fits the study
area in the context of Colombia, and for example, in the context of South America.
Author response: The geographic context of the study area in Colombia and South
America has been included in the map presented in Figure 1.
Fig. 1. Map showing Las Cruces

micro-watershed (left) in San Vicente de
Chucurí and its location within Colombia
(right-top) and South America (right-bottom).
Red contour lines represent the elevations
used to analyze agricultural production by
dividing the area into three production areas
along the elevation gradients (grey scale).
- Line 107: "we brought together 15 farmers" how were these farmers selected?
Author response: For clarification, we added the following text in lines 108-109: “A total of
95 personal invitations were provided to farmers living in the study area and 15 of them
managed to participate in the first workshop.”
- Line 130 "2.2.4 Step 4. On-field data collection:" some essential information is missing from
these surveys such as Real population and sample size are absent (i.e., n/N ratio total)
which makes readers not understand the validity of the analysis performed. More in detail, a
table eliciting the total N and n for the total population and each subgroup is needed. What is
representativeness? Is it sufficient? is it adequate to capture the variability of the
phenomenon? How can authors say that their interviews are not entirely noisy? what is the
margin of error? confidence level?
Author response: For clarification, we added the following text in lines 134-141: “With the
help and information provided by the presidents of the Community Action Boards (JAC,
Juntas de Accion Comunal) we estimated a population of 145 households, a set of 46
households was randomly selected using a stratified sampling technique. This technique
was chosen to ensure representativeness and avoid under-coverage bias due to the
diversity of agricultural production systems in the study region resulting from the wide
altitudinal range, proximity to the urban area, and particular local governance. The
population was divided into 5 strata corresponding to 5 geographic zones with more
homogeneous characteristics. The sample size of each stratum was randomly selected with
a confidence level of 90% and an estimation error of 10%”.
Line 194 "We conducted a second workshop in November 2018 with 50 participants" Same
here how were these participants selected?
Author response: Invited participants were members of the surveyed families and other
institutional stakeholders. For clarification, we added the following text in lines 201-205:
“We conducted a second workshop in November 2018 to socialize the results from the
socioeconomic survey, narratives, and land cover maps of the scenarios with their impact on
ES. Farmers who participated in the previous steps of this study and local stakeholders
involved in land-use planning were personally invited via phone calls and mobile phone
messages. A total of 50 participants were able to attend the workshop.”
- line 255: "From the land cover classification we obtained a map with an accuracy of
86.3%". However, how accurate was each of the land use classes?
Author response: Since the overall accuracy is very good, it is also for each land cover. We
included this information in a general way in the main text (because we do not consider that
including a confusion table is necessary). In lines 124-125 and 266-267 we included the
following information:
“we defined a training vector for 6 land-cover categories based on 216 ground control points
collected while conducting the socio-economic survey between May and June 2018.”
“Our land cover classification resulted in a highly accurate map with an overall accuracy
greater than 90% ranging from 98% for forests to 90 % for cattle pastures and bare ground.”
- In Figure 3, the authors should mention the year to which the land use classification refers.
Author response: The map shows the land use classification for 2018. This information is
now included in the figure caption Fig. 3 in line 271.
- The discussion section needs substantial revision to include an in-depth discussion on

those important results including comparing your results with previous studies and explaining
better why your results are similar or different from previous findings.
Author response: We rewrote the discussion and included results from other studies as
well as additional information from this study in order to deepen the understanding of the
presented results.
We contextualize our case study based of a review by klein at al 2019 in lines 480-483
“Las Cruces is a MtSES in transition, exposed to global, national, and local drivers of change
and imposed with top-down planning schemes facing similar challenges to those described
by Klein et al., (2019). To our knowledge, this is the first well-documented PSP study in
tropical MtSES in Colombia, if not South America”
And contrasted to other results in lines 366-370
Similarly to Jiren et al. (2020), this synergetic scenario between agricultural production and
conservation is not only based on diversification and better agricultural practices but also on
the recognition of what is important for the local population in terms of food security,
vulnerability to climate variability, and social justice.
We added new references and comments on the methodological approach in Lines 431-433
“Plieninger et al. (2013) conducted a participatory workshop where participants rated 27
different ecosystem services based on their vulnerability to future landscape development”
A comment on clear and fluent communication with local actors is a key aspect that has to
be taken into account while implementing this type of approach in rural communities in lines
402-407
“Due to the history of Las Cruces, local actors were suspicious of external organizations that
entered the territory to conduct any intervention. This mistrust was also visible at the
beginning of this study and was one explanation for the low participation in the first
workshop. Nevertheless, persistence and maintaining effective and transparent
communication with the community, and socializing results at different stages of the process
were key aspects that helped to gain trust, although associated with a substantial effort.”
- In addition, in the discussion section the authors could highlight open questions and future
research directions/challenges.
Author response: In the last paragraph of the discussions section we explore the question
of how the participatory process affects the governance and community processes to guide
transitions towards sustainability.
We added information on current dynamics to illustrate the impact that the implementation of
this PSP scheme had in Las Cruces in Lines 462-473.
Although the proposed PSP framework did not explicitly include a step for monitoring and
evaluating the outcomes, it built a fertile ground for transdisciplinary action research in Las
Cruces through the co-production of knowledge and the trust building between inhabitants
and researchers. For example, it set the enabling conditions for the joint development of the
farms for knowledge exchange (FiNCO), a local strategy to transition towards sustainability,
which can be considered as a seed for a good Anthropocene (Buendía et al., 2023a). It also
motivated the description of the remarkable transformation history of Las Cruces towards
sustainability using the concept of the adaptive cycle, which resulted in an animated video
about the remarkable history of the territory (Buendía, 2023b). It also contributed to the
improvement of land cover classification methodologies that distinguish forest from
agroforestry systems which otherwise are often considered as forests in automated
classifications invisibilizing their potential for agricultural production and biodiversity
conservation (Bolívar-Santamaría and Reu 2022).
Editor comment: Please explain in detail what are the LAND USE POLICY implications
deriving from your work.
Author response: In response to that question we added the following explanation in the
discussion section Lines 480-491
“Las Cruces is a MtSES in transition, exposed to global, national and local drivers of change
and planned by top-down schemes, which is facing similar challenges to those described by
Klein et al., (2019). To our knowledge, this is the first well-documented PSP study in tropical
MtSES in Colombia, if not South America. It describes a methodological framework to
achieve fine-scale information as well as strategies to integrate the local community in
understanding the past and the present to participate in shaping the future. We consider the
insights from this study could support the co-creation of future pathways for enabling just
transitions towards sustainable agriculture and food systems that recognize the inherent
complexity of tropical socio-ecological systems, especially mountains, hence facilitating
better-tailored planning schemes and improved decision-making by policymakers,
practitioners, and other stakeholders. In addition, this study started to unveil concrete actions
within this MtSES where local communities are building capacities to creatively cope with
external shocks while being protagonists in shaping their future (e.g. FiNCO, Buendía et al.
2023a).”
Additionally
“Our approach offers an opportunity for local farmers and stakeholders to raise awareness
about the costs and benefits of the different scenarios and reflect on the actions that
generate a transformation where ES trade-offs are reduced and ES synergies are fostered,
which is a challenge for research and policy (Brussaard et., 2010).”
Highlights
Highlights
● The intrinsic complexity of mountain social-ecological systems in the tropics challenges governmental
planning schemes.
● Participatory scenario planning paves the way toward transdisciplinary and transitions towards
sustainability.
● Agroforestry allows reconciling food production and conservation of biodiversity in the Colombian Andes.
● Integrating scientific and local knowledge helps to embrace the complexity of tropical mountain social-
ecological systems and bottom-up governance at the local scale

Title page
A framework for participatory scenario planning to guide transitions towards sustainability in
mountain social-ecological systems: a case study from the Colombian Andes.
Tatiana Rodrígueza,c,1, Björn Reub, Sergio Bolívar-Santamaríab, Alexandra Cortés-Aguilara, and Corina
Buendíac,2,1
a Escuela de Economía y Administración, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Cra.27 Calle 9, 680002

Bucaramanga, Colombia
b Escuela de Biología, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Cra.27 Calle 9, 680002 Bucaramanga, Colombia
c Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria - AGROSAVIA, km 32 vía al mar, vereda Galápagos,
Rionegro (Santander), Colombia
Highlights
● The intrinsic complexity of mountain social-ecological systems in the tropics challenges
governmental planning schemes.
● Participatory scenario planning paves the way toward transdisciplinary and transitions towards
sustainability .
● Agroforestry allows reconciling food production and conservation of biodiversity in the
Colombian Andes.
● Integrating scientific and local knowledge helps to embrace the complexity of tropical mountain
social-ecological systems and bottom-up governance at the local scale
Abstract
Pronounced environmental gradients of tropical mountains result in interconnected social-ecological
systems of great cultural and biological diversity and high provision of essential ecosystem services.
This intrinsic diversity of mountain social-ecological systems (MtSES) entails great complexity which,
coupled with remoteness, vulnerability, and lack of fine-scale data, hampers the adequate planning of
1
Present address: Department of Environmental Politics, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH –
UFZ, 04318 Leipzig, Germany,
2 Present address: Independent Researcher. Carrera 38 No. 52-65, Apto. 404, 680003 Bucaramanga, Colombia.
Corresponding author: Corina Buendia, coribuendia@gmail.com

E-mail addresses: tatiana.rodriguez@ufz.de (T. Rodríguez), breu@uis.edu.co (B. Reu), sergiobolivars@gmail.com
(S. Bolívar-Santamaría), alexacor@uis.edu.co (A. Cortés-Aguilar), coribuendia@gmail.com (C. Buendía)
1
transitions towards sustainability and affects the livelihoods of their inhabitants. Based on our
experience in a tropical MtSES, here we propose a framework for participatory scenario planning
(PSP) that supports local stakeholders to create plausible development pathways while harmonizing
top-down planning instruments and securing the provision of ecosystem services (ES). Our framework
comprises: (1) screening the study area to understand historical land cover changes and development
pathways based on current planning instruments and local knowledge, (2) gathering future visions from
MtSES inhabitants based on their wishes, perceived drivers of change and key ecosystems services, (3)
creating a land-cover map using satellite imagery, (4) establishing a baseline with on-field data
collection, (5) writing narratives that harmonize those visions with planning instruments and
translating them into spatially explicit future scenarios, (6) estimating ecosystems services in each
scenario, and (7) refining future scenario narratives by facilitating a dialog where farmers, researchers,
and stakeholders discuss contrasting scenario results and their perceived potential impacts. Our PSP
framework creates awareness among local stakeholders about land cover changes and their impacts
while at the same time, it generates fine-scale data that is usually lacking for MtSES. Both aspects are
important for updating planning instruments and policies in a participatory way taking into account the
complexity of each particular MtSES as well as people's perceptions about the future. Our study adds
to the existing literature on PSP as it provides a case study in a Andean tropical MtSES. Since each
MtSES is unique, we hope this practical example can inspire planning policy schemes to include
bottom-up approaches.
Keywords
Scenario planning, food provision, aboveground biomass, agroforestry, transdisciplinary, sustainability.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank farmers of Las Cruces micro-watershed and stakeholders for their support to carry
out the fieldwork and their willingness to participate in the surveys and participatory workshops. The
authors also thank Erika Garcés, Lucas Muñoz, and Tatiana Duque for supporting on-field data
collection.
Funding
This research was funded by the sub-grant project “Reconciling biodiversity conservation and
agricultural production in agroforestry cultivation systems in the Colombian Andes: a model for
2
Colombia’s post-conflict era”, by Conservation International (CI) Japan as part of the GEF-Satoyama
project (http://gef-satoyama.net/). TR acknowledge funding by the Corporación Colombiana de
Investigación Agropecuaria - AGROSAVIA and Universidad Industrial de Santander under the
Agreement TV 16-12 TV 17-08. AGROSAVIA is publicly funded with resources from the Colombian
Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development (MADR). BR acknowledges funding of the
Colombian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation through contract CT170-2021. This
research was supported by the Vicerrectoria de investigación y extensión – VIE of the Industrial
University of Santander (UIS).
Availability of data and material
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author,
Corina Buendía. The data are not publicly available due to their containing information that could
compromise the privacy of research participants.
Authors' contributions
Tatiana Rodríguez: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology;
Validation; Visualization; Writing - original draft. Björn Reu: Formal analysis; Methodology; Project
administration; Writing - review & editing. Sergio Bolívar-Santamaría: Data curation; Formal analysis;
Software. Alexandra Cortés-Aguilar: Conceptualization; Supervision; Writing - review & editing.
Corina Buendía: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology;
Project administration; Supervision; Validation; Visualization; Writing - review & editing.
Ethics approval
The implementation of this research was approved and supervised by the Ethics Committee of
Universidad Industrial de Santander (CEINCI). Its approval was done after reviewing objectives and
methodological design as well as the informed consent forms that were used at the time of data
collection.
3
Manuscript (without Author Details) Click here to view linked References
1 A framework for participatory scenario planning to guide transitions towards sustainability in
2 mountain social-ecological systems: a case study from the Colombian Andes.
4 Abstract
5 Pronounced environmental gradients of tropical mountains result in interconnected social-ecological
6 systems of great cultural and biological diversity and high provision of essential ecosystem services.
7 This intrinsic diversity of mountain social-ecological systems (MtSES) entails great complexity which,
8 coupled with remoteness, vulnerability, and lack of fine-scale data, hampers the adequate planning of
9 transitions towards sustainability and affects the livelihoods of their inhabitants. Based on our
10 experience in a tropical MtSES, here we propose a framework for participatory scenario planning
11 (PSP) that supports local stakeholders to create plausible development pathways while harmonizing
12 top-down planning instruments and securing the provision of ecosystem services (ES). Our framework
13 comprises: (1) screening the study area to understand historical land cover changes and development
14 pathways based on current planning instruments and local knowledge, (2) gathering future visions from
15 MtSES inhabitants based on their wishes, perceived drivers of change, and key ecosystems services, (3)
16 creating a land-cover map using satellite imagery, (4) establishing a baseline with on-field data
17 collection, (5) writing narratives that harmonize those visions with planning instruments, and
18 translating them into spatially explicit future scenarios, (6) estimating ecosystems services in each
19 scenario, and (7) refining future scenario narratives by facilitating a dialog where farmers, researchers,
20 and stakeholders discuss contrasting scenario results and their perceived potential impacts. Our PSP
21 framework creates awareness among local stakeholders about land cover changes and their impacts
22 while at the same time, it generates fine-scale data that is usually lacking for MtSES. Both aspects are
23 important for updating planning instruments and policies in a participatory way taking into account the
24 complexity of each particular MtSES as well as people's perceptions about the future. Our study adds to
25 the existing literature on PSP as it provides a case study in an Andean tropical MtSES. Since each
26 MtSES is unique, we hope this practical example can inspire planning policy schemes to include
27 bottom-up approaches.
28 Keywords: food provision, Serranía de Los Yariguíes, agroforestry, ecosystems services, South
29 America
1
30 1. Introduction
31 Mountain socio-ecological systems (MtSES) are home to 28.3 % of all people on Earth and supply
32 fresh water to approximately half of them (Liniger and Weingartner, 1998). MtSES are also the habitat
33 of 85% of bird, mammal, and amphibian species (Rahbek et al., 2019). While MtSES provide essential
34 ecosystem services (ES), they face huge challenges: (1) MtSES are resource-rich but income poor; (2)
35 the planning of MtSES occurs elsewhere without embracing their local complexity; (3) MtSES are
36 remote and vulnerable; (4) MtSES experience in and out-migration; (5) MtSES attract interest from
37 stakeholders with different levels of power creating inequities; (6) their management requires fine-scale
38 data to represent their high spatial-temporal complexity, but data are often lacking (Klein et al., 2019;
39 Thorn et al., 2020).
40 Embracing the complexity of MtSES requires understanding, documenting, and harmonizing local
41 conditions and future expectations with planning policies at broader spatial scales. Participatory
42 scenario planning (PSP) has been widely used to facilitate dialog and participation of local stakeholders
43 in rural, forest, and tourism (Baral et al., 2014; Grêt-Regamey et al., 2013; Griewald et al., 2017;
44 Kirchner et al., 2015; Nainggolan et al., 2013; Van Berkel et al., 2011). PSP has also been implemented
45 in MtSES to support decision-making, cooperation, and social learning (Allington et al., 2018; Capitani
46 et al., 2019, 2016; Kohler et al., 2017; Sarkki et al., 2017; Thorn et al., 2020). Although South
47 American MtSES cover 12.3% of all mountain areas globally inhabited by 7.7% of the world
48 population, the literature does not report PSP frameworks for this region (Thorn et al., 2020).
49 Some PSP approaches have used ecosystem services (ES) to quantify impacts and visualize trade-offs
50 under alternative futures (Mckenzie et al., 2012). ES are the benefits resulting from interactions
51 between the social and the ecological systems (Biggs et al., 2015). In this sense, exploring impacts on
52 ES can be a way to help communities identify conflicts and develop consensus around future visions
53 (Mckenzie et al., 2012). Simultaneously, careful planning involving local communities is necessary to
54 maintain ES (Negret et al., 2017) and to generate consciousness around the actions that could maximize
55 their provision (Vilardy et al., 2011). A spatially explicit approach for assessing ES through future
56 scenarios adds relevant inputs to the PSP process since the provision of ES depends critically on the
57 spatial configuration of ecosystems and the people who inhabit and manage them (Rincón-Ruíz et al.,
58 2014). For example, the InVEST model (Integrated Assessment of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs,
2
59 Tallis and Polasky, 2011) offers a set of spatially explicit models that assess multiple ES across
60 different scenarios at different spatial scales. Although these models are flexible to different spatial
61 scales, the lack of high-resolution spatial information, typical of MtSES, hinders their use.
62 Therefore, this paper presents a PSP framework suitable for complex and multifunctional tropical
63 MtSES based on ES making explicit the impacts of plausible scenarios. We illustrate the proposed PSP
64 framework by presenting the case of Las Cruces micro-watershed (hereafter referred to as Las Cruces),
65 which is a representative MtSES within the Serranía de Los Yariguíes in the municipality of San
66 Vicente de Chucurí in Santander, Colombia. Las Cruces faces the challenges mentioned above: (1) it is
67 rich in natural resources and provides essential ES such as water and biodiversity, but the income from
68 inhabitants is low; (2) its planning occurs at broader spatial scales and is divided by sectors
69 (agriculture, energy, and environment) and does not invoke the participation of the local stakeholders;
70 (3) it has experienced avalanches and landslides that left people more vulnerable and disconnected; (4)
71 the creation of a national protected area has led to emigration to urban areas, especially of young
72 people; (5) because of the beautiful landscape, the potential for agricultural production and the
73 occurrence of mining resources, Las Cruces attracts attention from tourism and investors threatening
74 family agriculture; and (6) the spatial heterogeneity due to the steep topography limits the availability
75 of detailed land-use, socioeconomic, and climate information required for planning.
76 2. Material and methods
77 2.1. Study area
78 Las Cruces is located in the eastern cordillera of the Northern Andes, in the northeast of the
79 municipality of San Vicente de Chucurí (Department of Santander, Colombia) and covers an altitudinal
80 gradient from 570 to 2650 m.a.s.l. (Fig. 1). It covers part of the Serranía de Los Yariguíes National
81 Natural Park (SYNNP) at higher altitudes, a diversified agricultural matrix at intermediate altitudes,
82 and an urban area at lower altitudes (Fig. 1). Las Cruces covers around 5780 hectares.
3
83
84 Fig. 1 Map showing Las Cruces micro-watershed (left) in San Vicente de Chucurí and its location
85 within Colombia (right-top) and South America (right-bottom). Red contour lines represent the
86 elevations used to analyze agricultural production by dividing the area into three production areas along
87 the elevation gradients (grey-scale).
88 The main economic activity of the farmers of Las Cruces is associated with the commercialization of
89 cocoa, coffee, and citrus fruits that are mostly cultivated under the canopy of emerging shade trees
90 (Bolivar-Santamaria & Reu 2023) in diversified agroforestry systems (Tscharntke et al., 2011). The
91 micro-watershed not only provides food but also other ES, such as freshwater for the urban area of San
92 Vicente de Chucurí whereas the SYNNP forests protect the soils from erosion and provide habitat for
93 wildlife.
94 2.2. Methodological framework
95 The proposed methodological framework consists of seven steps described in Figure 2.
4
96
97 Fig. 2 Summary of the methodological framework for MtSES participatory scenario planning
98 2.2.1 Step 1. Study area screening
99 Understanding the socio-ecological context, historical land cover changes, and existing governmental
100 planning instruments influencing land use is key for conducting PSP (Swetnam et al., 2011). Hence, we
101 screened information about the study area by collecting, analyzing, categorizing and synthesizing
102 secondary data obtained from institutional documents and academic studies from local universities.
103 2.2.2 Step 2. Drivers of change and future envisioning
104 Identifying the drivers of change, whether natural or human-induced, is an important step in developing
105 and analyzing scenarios (Griewald et al., 2017; Kohler et al., 2017). To deepen our understanding of
106 them, we held a participatory workshop in March 2018, where we brought together farmers from Las
107 Cruces to discuss three main topics: key ecosystem services provided by this MtSES, the drivers of
108 historical land-use changes, and local visions about the future. A total of 95 personal invitations were
109 provided to farmers living in the study area and 15 of them managed to participate in the workshop.
110 First, we asked the participants to identify the ES provided by Las Cruces and rate their importance
111 based on a Likert scale. We then encouraged discussion on the drivers that have brought the MtSES to
112 its current conditions and the changes in its land ownership structure by showing participants photo of
113 the landscape from 1940 obtained locally, a 1984 aerial photograph obtained from the Geographical
5
114 Institute Agustin Codazzi (IGAC), the satellite view available from Google Earth, and cadastral maps
115 obtained from the open data geoportal hosted by IGAC. Finally, we collected future visions using as a
116 guiding question: what territory would you like your children to live in? The contributions of the
117 participants were transcribed and their content was subsequently analyzed.
118 2.2.3 Step 3. Land-cover classification
119 We built a land cover map following a five-step procedure. Firstly, we obtained Sentinel-2 satellite
120 imagery for June 2018 from the Copernicus Open Access Hub. Secondly, we pre-processed the satellite
121 imagery by selecting bands with 10 and 20 m spatial resolution, resampling it to 10 m resolution using
122 the Sentinel Applications Platform (SNAP), reprojecting it to UTC (Universal Transverse Mercator)
123 coordinate system, and trimming it with the polygon of Las Cruces. Thirdly, we defined a training
124 vector for 6 land-cover categories based on 216 ground control points collected while conducting the
125 socio-economic survey between May and June 2018. Subsequently, we built a classification model by
126 dividing the training vector randomly into training (70%) and validation (30%) sets and performing the
127 classification on the training set using the classification algorithm of the R package ‘randomForest’ (R
128 Core Team, 2020). Finally, we evaluated the accuracy of the land-use classification using bootstrapping
129 and selected the model with the highest accuracy.
130 2.2.4 Step 4. On-field data collection
131 We conducted a socio-economic survey (See Appendix Tables 1 and 2) during May and June 2018.
132 The survey inquired about the annual agricultural production of the farm for the different existing
133 crops. In addition, we asked about the household visions of the future to complement the views
134 obtained from the participatory workshop. With the help and information provided by the presidents of
135 the Community Action Boards (JAC, Juntas de Acción Comunal), we estimated a population of 145
136 households, from which a set of 46 households was randomly selected using a stratified sampling
137 design. This design was chosen to ensure representativeness and avoid under-coverage bias due to the
138 diversity of agricultural production systems in the study region resulting from the wide altitudinal
139 range, proximity to the urban area, and particular local governance. The population was divided into 5
140 strata corresponding to 5 geographic zones with more homogeneous characteristics. The sample size of
141 each stratum was randomly selected with a confidence level of 90% and an estimation error of 10%.
142 2.2.5 Step 5. Scenario narratives and maps

6
143 Scenarios are coherent and consistent descriptions or representations of the future, which are based on
144 assumptions about different drivers of change (Henrichs et al., 2010; Mckenzie et al., 2012; MEA,
145 2005). They can be described with narratives by means of different techniques based on scenario
146 typology (Bishop et al., 2007). Since this framework aims to explore possible futures, we selected the
147 explorative scenario type. We took a qualitative approach to the writing of the narratives. We created
148 the narratives of the three scenarios by tracing the identified drivers of change through the system and
149 harmonizing planning instruments and local future visions captured through both the workshop and the
150 socio-economic survey. According to Griewald et al. (2017), the narratives consider a future year as the
151 endpoint of the visions so that it allows enough time for land-use changes and for local people to have
152 the ability to influence those changes. Thus, the year 2030 was chosen as the endpoint of the narratives.
153 Narratives need to be translated into spatially explicit scenarios to more effectively guide decision-
154 making associated with natural resource management (Nelson et al., 2009). Therefore, this framework
155 transforms the narratives into land cover maps that represent possible endpoints if the trends described
156 by narratives were realized. This is a basis for quantifying the impacts of alternative scenarios on ES.
157 In this sense, quantitative rules are defined to translate narratives into future land cover maps based on
158 the current land cover map. Therefore, we carried out a panel with experts in social, productive,
159 forestry, and environmental topics who were conducting research in the study area. After reading the
160 narratives, the experts defined simple rules derived from biophysical and socioeconomic characteristics
161 (i.e. slope, distances to roads, and SYNNP delimitation).
162 2.2.6 Step 6. Impact on ecosystem services and trade-offs
163 ES assessment could be a way to understand and evaluate the possible impacts of different scenarios
164 since they allow assessing the trade-offs under alternative futures (Mckenzie et al., 2012). As it is
165 stated by Landsberg et al. (2011), it is not possible to assess all ES that are affected by a decision due to
166 resource and information limitations. Therefore, we assessed two ES based on the participatory
167 prioritization carried out during the workshop of the second step: food provision and aboveground
168 biomass (AGB) as an indicator for multiple regulation services, such as carbon storage and erosion
169 control (Berghöfer and Schneider, 2015). To calculate the total provision of each ES in the micro-
170 watershed, we considered that it depends on both the provision of ES per hectare by each land cover
171 and their total areas, as suggested by Felipe-Lucia et al. (2014).
7
172 Based on the results of the survey, we estimated the average productivity of the different crops per total
173 harvested area for three altitudinal ranges (see left Fig. 1 red lines indicate two divisions): lower part
174 (less than or equal to 1000 m.a.s.l), intermediate part (greater than 1000 m.a.s.l and less than or equal to
175 1400 m.a.s.l), and high part (greater than 1400 m.a.s.l). We then multiplied these average productivity
176 values by cropland areas in the corresponding ranges. Finally, we summed up these products to
177 calculate the total food provision derived from crops in the current and future scenarios. The
178 stratification using altitudinal ranges allows for considering the heterogeneity within the territory in
179 terms of soil, climate, and distance to the urban area.
180 For AGB, we used field measurements for permanent crops and agroforestry systems (Bolívar-
181 Santamaría and Reu, 2021) and data from the literature for cattle pastures (Rippstein et al., 2001). We
182 calculated the averages of the AGB per hectare for forests, cattle pastures, and cropland in the same
183 three altitudinal ranges, and multiplied them by the area of each land cover that we have identified in
184 Step 3. Finally, we calculated the total AGB in each scenario by summing up the AGB accumulated by
185 each land cover.
186 The trade-offs analysis is used in the agricultural context to highlight the interdependencies between
187 production and ecological systems. In addition, this analysis is conducted to quantify or estimate the
188 potential of agriculture to jointly provide different ES (Balbi et al., 2015; Kirchner et al., 2015; Kragt
189 and Robertson, 2014; Rabbinge and Bindraban, 2012). For our case study, we first analyzed trade-offs
190 considering the land cover changes in the different scenarios. We then examined the trade-offs between
191 provision and regulation services by representing the total AGB (an indicator of regulation services)
192 and the total food provision from crops of each scenario in a scatter plot.
193 2.2.7 Step 7. Participatory refinement and communication of results
194 Participation of stakeholders in scenario planning increase the likelihood of relevant and effective
195 strategies, as it creates greater ownership and recognition of the building process and its results by the
196 community (Alcamo 2008) but also constructs legitimacy, especially under the direct social-ecological
197 interactions that rural communities of MtSES are exposed to (Palacios-Agundez et al., 2015; Vilardy et
198 al., 2011). Therefore, as a final step, this framework communicates the results with local farmers and
199 stakeholders as a basis for an elaborated discussion on the potential scenarios for sustainable future
200 transitions.
8
201 We conducted a second workshop in November 2018 to socialize the results from the socioeconomic
202 survey, narratives, and land cover maps of the scenarios with their impact on ES. Farmers who
203 participated in the previous steps of this study and local stakeholders involved in land-use planning
204 were personally invited via phone calls and mobile phone messages. A total of 50 participants were
205 able to attend the workshop. Participants were divided into groups according to scenarios and each
206 group was asked to refine narratives and evaluate the positive and negative implications of the
207 scenarios on different elements including water, wildlife, and people living in the urban and rural areas.
208 Then, each group presented in plenary its reflection which was taken into account to refine and
209 formulate a final version of the narratives. Finally, we asked participants to present and select the
210 scenario they preferred considering their reflections on the pros and cons. In March 2019, we presented
211 the results of the entire process at a larger open event where we encouraged the participation of not
212 only Las Cruces inhabitants but also relevant decision-makers and stakeholders from National Natural
213 Parks, regional environmental authorities, local NGOs, and municipal planning authorities.
214 3. Results
215 3.1 Study area screening
216 Multiple actions and events at different spatial and temporal scales have conditioned the current
217 situation of Las Cruces MtSES. According to participants, at the beginning of the 20th century, its
218 economy was based on cattle ranching and sugarcane, coffee, and cacao crops. With the national
219 expansion of coffee cultivation in the first half of the 20th century, the cultivation of coffee crops
220 increased. However, the armed conflict and the agrarian reform of the second half of the 20th century
221 provoked a change in the structure of land ownership and tenure. These changes, together with the
222 arrival of coffee diseases, led to the decline of coffee and cattle farming and the establishment of more
223 cocoa crops in the 1980s. However, the decline in the price of cocoa beans led to the establishment of
224 citrus crops at the end of 2011. On the other hand, the interventions of governmental and non-
225 governmental environmental institutions since 1996 have shaped the MtSES of Las Cruces through the
226 creation of nature reserves, the delimitation of a national natural park, and the establishment of the
227 payment for ES scheme to protect riparian forests. Finally, local climate change since 2000 has
228 provoked uphill range shifts of some crops and climate variability has caused unexpected natural
229 disasters (e.g. a massive landslide in 2011 causing the loss of lives).
9
230 Multiple governmental planning, development, and conservation instruments from the national to the
231 municipal level have influenced and can influence the interactions between the communities and the
232 ecosystems of Las Cruces MtSES. The municipality of San Vicente de Chucurí has a land-use plan,
233 which suggests that Las Cruces should be oriented towards agroforestry and forest conservation. Las
234 Cruces is part of the Sogamoso River basin, which also has a management plan that prioritizes projects
235 in this micro-watershed related to water conservation and sustainable agriculture aimed at reducing the
236 occurrence of water-related disasters. The management of the National Natural Park is a top-down
237 planning instrument that prioritizes Las Cruces as a key element to evaluate the effectiveness of this
238 protected area. Therefore, actions have been taken to mitigate the main pressures in the upper zone of
239 Las Cruces, including the avoidance of agricultural activities incentivizing the displacement of farmers
240 by purchasing their productive private land for subsequent ecological restoration (Céspedes-Prada et
241 al., 2020).
242 3.2 Key drivers of change and future envisioning
243 We identified as the major drivers of change in Las Cruces the armed conflict, crop pests, instability in
244 agricultural prices, external interventions, governmental policies, climate change and variability, and
245 infrastructure establishment. The armed conflict (1970-2005) is one of the main drivers of change since
246 it weakened social capital and promoted land ownership change. The incidence of pests on crops and
247 the instability of agricultural prices have transformed the productive landscape over the years, leading
248 to the current establishment of diversified productive systems. Non-governmental organizations have
249 also driven the change of Las Cruces by promoting the establishment of coffee and cocoa crops, the
250 restoration of riparian forests, and the implementation of agroecological practices. Governmental
251 policy implementation has driven land-use change mainly with land reforms (1970-1999) and the
252 formal establishment of a protected area (2005). Climate variability and change have conditioned
253 actions within Las Cruces micro-watershed, particularly related to natural hazards, such as avalanches.
254 The construction of a large-scale energy project in close proximity to the study area has improved its
255 road connectivity to larger cities and paid for reforestation and conservation projects in the area.
256 After a discussion with Las Cruces inhabitants about the previously mentioned key drivers of change
257 and planning instruments, future local visions were collected and complemented with the results of the
258 survey. From there, we derived three scenarios. The first one, which we named “everything continues
10
259 as usual”, refers to a scenario where the current dynamics are reproduced into the future; that assumes
260 reforestation inside the protected and next to watercourses. The second one represents a future of
261 “agroforestry expansion” in the permitted areas based on current land use plans as a way of increasing
262 income for farmers. The third scenario focuses on land abandonment for “exclusive conservation”
263 within the micro-watershed given its role in water provision, its complex topographic conditions, and
264 its risk of water-related disasters.
265 3.3 Land cover classification
266 Our land cover classification resulted in a map with an overall accuracy greater than 90%, ranging from
267 98% for forests to 90% for cattle pastures and bare soil. The areas of the different land cover types
268 distributed in the three altitudinal ranges are shown in Table 1.
269
270 Fig. 3 Land cover map of the Las Cruces micro-watershed in San Vicente de Chucurí (Colombia)
271 based upon a supervised classification of Sentinel-2 satellite imagery from 2018.
272
11
273 Table 1. Land cover areas distribution by altitudinal range
Altitudinal range areas (ha) Total area

Land cover
Low Intermediate High (ha)
2710.4
Forest 387.12 460.11 1 3557.63
Cattle pastures 118.77 162.50 242.83 524.11
Cropland 428.07 495.98 427.80 1351.85
Water bodies 53.86 17.41 18.94 90.20
Bare soil 79.72 52.62 55.40 187.74
Settlement 66.72 1.19 0.07 67.97
274
275 3.4 On-field data collection
276 We identified 12 different crops distributed in three altitudinal ranges (high, intermediate, and low).
277 These crops included coffee, cocoa, citrus fruits, avocado, guava, banana, paprika, tomato, onion,
278 blackberry, beans, and peas. Future perspectives of households for the year 2030 vary depending on the
279 location of farms. Households in the upper zone want to increase coffee crops. Households in the
280 intermediate zone are oriented towards the diversification of their farms, maintaining cocoa, coffee,
281 avocado, and citrus crops. However, some of them pointed out that cocoa will replace coffee due to the
282 effects of climate change and the incidence of the berry borer in this zone. Finally, households in the
283 lower zone consider that cocoa tends to improve its productivity due to recent replanting and
284 expectations of renewal in the short term; however, they wish to diversify their income with the
285 establishment and improvement of avocado and citrus crops.
286 3.5 Scenario narratives and maps
287 We created the narratives of the three scenarios (see Appendix Table 3) by tracing the drivers of
288 change across the sociodemographic, technological, economic, environmental, and political
289 dimensions. Subsequently, some rules were set based on expert judgment to generate maps of different
290 land-use scenarios (Fig. 3) based on the narratives (Table 2).
291 Table 2. Rules and assumptions to transform narratives into spatially explicit land cover scenarios
Assumptions
(A) Inhabitants narratives
Scenario Quantitative rules
(B) Planning instruments
(C) Expert knowledge
Everything The total area that corresponds to SYNNP SYNNP management plan is encouraged
continues as becomes forested and the rest remains the same (A) and people living inside the protected
usual as currently. area would leave (B).
SYNNP management plan is encouraged
Agroforestry The total area that corresponds to SYNNP
(A) and people living inside the protected
expansion becomes forested.
area would leave (B).
12
Change probabilities to cropland are assigned Cropland expansion is more likely to
to the pixels with forest, cattle pastures, and occur in areas with less slope and closer
bare soil outside SYNNP. The probability of to the roads (C).
each pixel converting into cropland is inversely Cropland expands and becomes more
proportional to its slope and its distance to productive (A).
roads. Agroforestry is the appropriate use for
50% of the pixels with higher change this area (B).
probability and closer to the current cropland Cropland expansion is more likely to
are transformed into cropland. occur closer to the current cropland (C).
SYNNP management plan is encouraged
The total area that corresponds to SYNNP
(A) and people living inside the protected
becomes forested.
area leave (B)
Forest expansion is more likely to occur
Change probabilities to forests are assigned to
in areas with steeper slopes and away
Exclusive the pixels with cropland, cattle pastures, and
from roads (C).
conservation bare soil outside SYNNP. The probability of
Young people are leaving the rural areas
each pixel is proportional to its slope and its
because opportunities are lacking (A).
distance to the roads.
Forest conservation is prioritized in this
50% of the pixels with higher change
area (B).
probability and closer to the current forest are
Forest expansion is more likely to occur
transformed into forests.
closer to the current forest cover (C).
292
293 Under the “Everything continues as usual” scenario (Fig. 3b), the area of the micro-watershed
294 corresponding to the SYNNP would be dominated by forest. With this change, the percentage of forest
295 would increase from 61.6% to 65.4%, and cropland would decrease by 3.1%. In addition to the
296 assumptions of the “Everything continues as usual” scenario that are justified in the current legislation
297 of protected areas of Colombia, the “agroforestry expansion” scenario (Fig. 3c) would involve a
298 process of expanding agroforestry in the permitted areas, that is, outside the SYNNP. Therefore, the
299 percentage of cropland would increase from 23.4% to 28% with respect to current land-use. Finally, the
300 “exclusive conservation” scenario (Fig. 3d) would imply a process of abandonment and sale of the
301 farms so that they are used for nature conservation. Under this scenario, forests would increase by
302 15.5%, and cropland would decrease by 11%.
13
303
304 Fig. 3 Land-use maps of the present (2018) and three future scenarios as derived from the land-use
305 transformation rules outlined in Table 1
306
307 3.6 Impact on ecosystem services and trade-offs
308 The total food provision derived from cropland in the current and future scenarios is presented in Fig. 4
309
310 Fig. 4 Total annual food supply under the current and three future scenarios.
311 For the current land use, Las Cruces produces 3500 tons of agricultural-related food annually. This
312 production would decrease by 500 tons in the “everything continues as usual” scenario since the crops
313 within the SYNNP would be eradicated. The agroforestry expansion scenario would produce 700 tons
314 of food more than the current land use given the hypothetical increase in cropland area. Finally, the
315 “exclusive conservation” scenario would radically reduce food production by 1600 tons compared to
316 current land-use.
14
317 Regarding aboveground biomass, under the “exclusive conservation” scenario more biomass would be
318 accumulated given the hypothetical increase in forests (Fig. 5). However, the “agroforestry expansion”
319 scenario would accumulate more biomass than the scenario of “Everything continues as usual”.
320
321 Fig. 5 Total AGB under the current and three future scenarios. The biomass values added by the cattle
322 pasture are so low that cannot be seen under this scale.
323
324 In the “everything continues as usual” scenario, forests would increase by ~220 ha, while croplands
325 would decrease by ~180 ha (Fig. 3). The “agroforestry expansion” scenario would maintain forest,
326 increase cropland (~265 ha), and decrease cattle pastures (~187 ha) and bare soil (~74). Finally, the
327 “exclusive conservation” scenario would increase forest by ~900 ha and would decrease cattle pasture
328 and cropland by ~210 ha and ~635 ha, respectively. The three future scenarios would accumulate more
329 AGB than the current scenario due to the forest increase inside the SYNNP and outside it in the
330 “exclusive conservation” scenario. Although the “exclusive conservation” scenario would be the one
331 that accumulates more AGB, the “agroforestry expansion” scenario would be the second one and
332 would produce more food than any other scenario. Thus, food provisioning would trade off with AGB
333 accumulation (Fig. 6) in all scenarios with the exception of the “agroforestry expansion” scenario,
334 which would seem to escape this trade-off to a certain extent.
15
335
336 Fig. 6 Total annual food provision per year vs total above-ground biomass accumulation for Las
337 Cruces micro-watershed future and current scenarios.
338 3.7 Participatory refinements
339 We summarized the perceptions of participants of the second participatory workshop about additional
340 implications of the scenarios in Table 3.
341 In the “everything continues as usual” scenario, participants described they were facing the emigration
342 of young people to urban areas, bad infrastructure, and a lack of economic opportunities within Las
343 Cruces. They recognized the multifunctionality of their agroforestry systems and the link between their
344 management practices and water quality. Participants also perceived the lack of strategies to treat
345 wastewater from household and post-harvest processes. Most participants showed a high preference for
346 this scenario because it was considered the most realistic.
347 For the “agroforestry expansion scenario”, participants perceived positive aspects including increased
348 gains, the return of young people, the arrival of new families, and water conservation. They also
349 perceived negative aspects of this future such as prices dropping, the increase of costs for investments
350 in agriculture, pollution increasing, and more restrictions on water use. Participants proposed strategies
351 that would support the occurrence of this scenario like a scheme of payments for ecosystem services
352 derived from agroforestry, and the commercialization of their products through short food circuits and
353 solidarity economies.

16
354 The “exclusive conservation” scenario was feared by the participants if the government does not
355 support family farming and encourages policies that privilege disaster risk reduction, water
356 conservation, and energy production. Participants perceived this scenario would increase water
357 availability, forest conservation, and habitat for wildlife; but without people.
358 Table 3. Perceptions of local stakeholders and farmers about the implications of futures scenarios
Future scenario
Implications
Everything continues as
for Agroforestry expansion Exclusive conservation
usual
(+) Increased household
(+) Benefits from income, better opportunities (+) Increased awareness of
Rural conservation-related projects for people, new farmers biodiversity conservation
households (-) Less leadership, lack of (-) Increased costs for (-) Loss of traditional
motivation and dialogue agricultural inputs such as knowledge and values
fertilizers
(+) Easy access to cheap and (+) Increased water quantity
good quality agricultural and quality
(+) Easy access and
Urban products (-) Decreased access to
increased quantity of
households (-) Intermediaries sell agricultural products and
agricultural products
agricultural products more higher prices, road
expensive deterioration.
(+) Environmental
awareness of water (+) Environmental awareness
conservation of water conservation (+) Increased water quantity
Water
(-) Water pollution with (-) Decreased water quantity and quality
coffee and sewage residues and quality
decreases water quantity
(+) Agroforestry provides (+) Agroforestry provides
habitat and food for them habitat and food for wildlife (-) Less food from crops
Wildlife
(-) There are still practices (-) Wildlife displacement due (+) Increased habitat
such as biomass burning to crop pest management
359 The (+) and (-) signs denote positive and negative implications of the three future scenarios respectively.
360 The presentation of results using this open call for the exchange of information and result sharing was
361 an effective way to encourage interaction and dialogue between researchers, local communities, and
362 decision-makers.
363 4. Discussion
364 4.1. Las Cruces case study
365 Using ES we explored the trade-off between three future scenarios and identified the “agroforestry
366 expansion” scenario to allow escape from the conservation and production trade-off. Similarly to Jiren
367 et al. (2020), this synergetic scenario between agricultural production and conservation is not only
368 based on diversification and better agricultural practices but also on the recognition of what is
369 important for the local population in terms of food security, vulnerability to climate variability, and
370 social justice.
17
371 By contrast, the “exclusive conservation” scenario would benefit certain regulation services such as
372 carbon storage and water regulation, but would have negative consequences for food provisioning and
373 might also decrease biodiversity since agro-ecosystems habitats also provide food and shelter to
374 wildlife (e.g. Brüning et al. 2018). This scenario is likely to happen and feared by local farmers since it
375 is a representation of how valuable mountain ES, such as water and energy, are managed by distant
376 decision-makers disregarding the local knowledge and interests of the inhabitants.
377 Interestingly, instead of choosing the best scenario in terms of ES most of the local people preferred
378 “everything continues as usual” indicating their preference for their actual way of life while
379 acknowledging their limitations to stop emigration from the mountains for conservation and disaster
380 risk reduction.
381 4.2 Strengths and limitations of the proposed PSP framework
382 Scenario development has been used in global (e.g., IPCC, 2007; MEA, 2005), national (e.g.,
383 Hagemann et al., 2016), regional (e.g., Griewald et al., 2017), and local scales (e.g., Kohler et al., 2017;
384 Rawluk and Godber, 2011). The use of participatory approaches has been increasingly incorporated at
385 the regional and local levels, providing stakeholders or local people with tools to discuss possible
386 futures and seek a vision for a common and sustainable future. However, scenario development is a
387 complex process that varies from case to case since land-use decisions are influenced by the actions of
388 a diverse range of stakeholders at different spatial and temporal scales, as well as the biophysical
389 characteristics of the study areas. Tackling this process requires the participation, knowledge, and
390 compromise of local stakeholders and for that, we need to create new transdisciplinary approaches that
391 help to create visions of a sustainable future that reconcile diverse interests (Bai et al., 2016; Boron et
392 al., 2016; Klein et al., 2019). Our paper offers a practical guide to PSP that was successfully
393 implemented in a MtSES with a strong presence of family farming.
394 As the first steps to develop scenarios for Las Cruces MtSES, we not only screened information about
395 its historical land-use changes and planning instruments from secondary sources but also involved local
396 farmers through a participatory workshop to discuss and complement this information and identify key
397 drivers of change, similarly to Kohler et al. (2017). This approach allowed addressing the challenge of
398 understanding MtSES dynamics across spatial and temporal scales (Klein et al., 2019) since the local
18
399 knowledge has been built over time considering the influences of multiple factors at broader spatial
400 scales.
401 Due to the history of Las Cruces, local actors were suspicious of external organizations that entered the
402 territory to conduct any intervention. This mistrust was also visible at the beginning of this study and
403 was one explanation for the low participation in the first workshop. Nevertheless, persistence and
404 maintaining effective and transparent communication with the community, and socializing results at
405 different stages of the process were key aspects that helped to gain trust, although associated with a
406 substantial effort.
407 To make sure that future visions were as comprehensive as possible, we presented the information
408 about social-ecological context, historical land cover changes, and existing governmental planning
409 instruments using visual tools such as aerial photographs and satellite images. However, participatory
410 approaches can be affected by power dynamics, especially in territories that suffered armed conflict as
411 is the case of Las Cruces. For future studies, creating homogeneous focus groups by gender, age, and
412 social condition as proposed by Rawluk and Godber (2011) and Capitani et al. (2019) may help to
413 democratize participation across the local community and include less assertive or more marginalized
414 groups. However, we tried to allow full participation and reduce bias by complementing the visions
415 gathered during workshops with those obtained from household surveys.
416 The lack of fine-scale data that is often a challenge for MtSES prevented the application of
417 standardized approaches such as InVEst models to create spatially explicit scenarios and assess their
418 impacts on ES. Although we required more time and resources for the implementation of the PSP, it
419 was an opportunity to contribute to local capacity building for sustainable management, as other
420 authors have pointed out (e.g., Capitani et al., 2016). We also encouraged the creation of synergies and
421 complementarities between scientific knowledge from multiple disciplines and local knowledge, which
422 is key to operationalizing transdisciplinary approaches catalyzing sustainability transitions
423 (Scheidewind et al., 2016). In addition, we generated data that could support ongoing and future
424 projects as well as territorial planning instruments in the area. Although we used simple transformation
425 rules for scenario mapping from the available biophysical and socio-economic data, this approach
426 captured well the inherent complexity of Las Cruces MtSES at an appropriate spatial resolution. When
427 assessing the impacts of future scenarios on ES, we assessed food provision and AGB using mainly
19
428 field-based approaches and only data from the literature that we did not consider strongly affected by
429 the local social-ecological context. This allowed the application of our PSP framework to different sets
430 of social-ecological conditions but required a diverse set of technical skills to generate fine-scale data
431 (e.g., generating a high-resolution land cover map or calculating AGB for diversified agroforestry
432 systems). However, in other contexts where information is not available, funding is insufficient, or
433 more ES need to be assessed, stakeholder-based methodologies for assessing or spatially estimating
434 multiple impacts on ES could be incorporated. For example, Plieninger et al. (2013) conducted a
435 participatory workshop where participants rated 27 different ecosystem services based on their
436 vulnerability to future landscape development. Vrebos et al., (2015) and Burkhard et al. (2009) used the
437 scoring of land cover types based on expert judgment to calculate and map multiple ES. In this sense,
438 this study generated an important and comprehensive baseline for understanding current land use, food
439 production, social organization, historical land use changes and their drivers, and local future visions.
440 We were able to identify a trade-off regarding land cover and provision of two ES; i.e. food production
441 vs. biomass accumulation as an indicator for several regulating services. This offers an opportunity for
442 local farmers and stakeholders to raise awareness about the costs and benefits of the different scenarios
443 and reflect on the actions that generate a transformation where ES trade-offs are reduced and ES
444 synergies are fostered, which is a challenge for research and policy (Brussaard et., 2010). For further
445 research, information about other ES (e.g., soil protection or pest control) could reinforce the reflection
446 on the impacts of the different scenarios as well as their importance on food production. Although
447 climate change scenarios were not explicitly incorporated in our PSP as they have been in others (e.g.,
448 Capitani et al., 2019), local farmers took them into account envisioning future management of Las
449 Cruces (e.g., coffee and cocoa cultivation migrating upslope).
450 Participatory refinement of the narratives provided avenues for discussion, understanding, and
451 ownership of the potential impacts of the scenarios. This refinement of future visions not only ensures
452 the relevance, legitimacy, and plausibility of future scenarios but may also pave the road to mutual
453 learning between scientists and stakeholders supporting sustainable transitions (Grêt-Regamey et al.,
454 2013; Mckenzie et al., 2012) and to develop strategies and rationales for actions during these
455 transitions (Prost et al. 2023).
20
456 Important advances of our PSP framework beyond related ones (e.g., Reed et al., 2013; Swetnam et al.,
457 2011) include the presentation of results of our PSP exercise to municipal government, NGOs,
458 environmental authorities, and governmental planning institutions at the regional and national levels.
459 Together with the local community and with the help of visual communication tools, as suggested by
460 Capitani et al. (2019), we showed the current land cover map, the socio-economic characterization, and
461 local future visions, which are highly relevant for decision-makers and stakeholders at the municipal,
462 regional, and even national level. This event allowed meeting stakeholders that otherwise would not
463 meet each other, facilitated exchange, especially with the local community, and allowed clarifying
464 misunderstandings which have created past tensions. In other words, reflections about the future
465 allowed a better understanding of the present and thinking pathways toward sustainable transitions. Our
466 PSP framework also integrated farm-level perspectives into the development of future narratives,
467 which has been explicitly recognized as a research challenge to support transitions to sustainable
468 agricultural systems (Prost et al. 2023).
469 Although the proposed PSP framework did not explicitly include a step for monitoring and evaluating
470 the outcomes, it built a fertile ground for transdisciplinary action research in Las Cruces through the
471 co-production of knowledge and the trust building between inhabitants and researchers. For example, it
472 set the enabling conditions for the joint development of the farms for knowledge exchange (FiNCO), a
473 local strategy to transition towards sustainability, which can be considered as a seed for a good
474 Anthropocene (Buendía et al., 2023a). It also motivated turning Las Cruces remarkable transformation
475 towards sustainability into an animated video that explains and uses the adaptive cycle concept
476 (Buendía, 2023b). It also contributed to the improvement of land cover classification methodologies
477 that distinguish forest from agroforestry systems which otherwise are often considered as forests in
478 automated classifications, invisibilizing their potential for agricultural production and biodiversity
479 conservation (Bolívar-Santamaría and Reu 2022).
480 Las Cruces is a MtSES in transition, exposed to global, national and local drivers of change and
481 planned by top-down schemes, which is facing similar challenges to those described by Klein et al.,
482 (2019). To our knowledge, this is the first well-documented PSP study in tropical MtSES in Colombia,
483 if not South America. It describes a methodological framework to achieve fine-scale information as
484 well as strategies to integrate the local community in understanding the past and the present to
485 participate in shaping the future. We consider the insights from this study could support the co-creation
21
486 of future pathways for enabling just transitions towards sustainable agriculture and food systems that
487 recognize the inherent complexity of tropical socio-ecological systems, especially mountains, hence
488 facilitating better-tailored planning schemes and improved decision-making by policymakers,
489 practitioners, and other stakeholders. In addition, this study started to unveil concrete actions within
490 this MtSES where local communities are building capacities to creatively cope with external shocks
491 while being protagonists in shaping their future (e.g. FiNCO, Buendía et al. 2023a)
492 5. Conclusions
493 This study has shown the application of a PSP framework to depict and map explorative scenarios of
494 real concern and their impacts on ES in a tropical MtSES. Despite the challenges that MtSES are
495 facing, our PSP framework allows us to explore futures where the costs and benefits of decisions are
496 balanced and transitions towards sustainability can be catalyzed. Through its participatory nature, our
497 framework generates opportunities for transdisciplinarity where local knowledge is valued and
498 integrated with scientific multidisciplinary knowledge. It also generates fluent communication between
499 the local community, researchers, and other stakeholders that creates awareness about the history,
500 drivers of change, and possible futures.
501 The implementation of this PSP framework helps to overcome two main challenges posed by MtSES
502 (Klein et al., 2019). On the one hand, it generates high-resolution spatial data that accounts for the
503 complexity of the MtSES by integrating scientific and local knowledge. On the other hand, it
504 encourages the active participation of local communities, which is key for contesting the policies and
505 planning instruments that are often made outside MtSES.
506 We consider that this framework is a useful tool for planning under the intrinsic complexity of tropical
507 MtSES, especially in Colombia and South America.
508
509 References
510 Allington, G.R.H., Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., Chen, J., Brown, D.G., 2018. Combining participatory
511 scenario planning and systems modeling to identify drivers of future sustainability on the
512 Mongolian Plateau. Ecol. Soc. 23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10034-230209
513 Bai, X., Leeuw, S. Van Der, Brien, K.O., Berkhout, F., Biermann, F., Brondizio, E.S., Cudennec, C.,
514 Dearing, J., Duraiappah, A., Glaser, M., Revkin, A., Steffen, W., Syvitski, J., 2016. Plausible and
22
515 desirable futures in the Anthropocene: A new research agenda. Glob. Environ. Chang. 39, 351–
516 362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.017
517 Balbi, S., del Prado, A., Gallejones, P., Pappachan Geevan, C., Pardo, G., Pérez-Miñana, E., Manrique,
518 R., Hernandez-Santiago, C., Villa, F., 2015. Modeling trade-offs among ecosystem services in
519 agricultural production systems. Environ. Model. Softw. 72, 314–326.
520 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.12.017
521 Baral, H., Keenan, R.J., Sharma, S.K., Stork, N.E., Kasel, S., 2014. Economic evaluation of ecosystem
522 goods and services under different landscape management scenarios. Land use policy 39, 54–64.
523 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.03.008
524 Berghöfer, A., Schneider, A., 2015. Indicators for Managing Ecosystem Services – Options &
525 Examples. Eschborn.
526 Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Schoon, M., 2015. Principles for building resilience: Sustaining ecosystem
527 services in social-ecological systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
528 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014240
529 Bishop, P., Hines, A., Collins, T., 2007. The current state of scenario development: An overview of
530 techniques. Foresight 9, 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680710727516
531 Bolívar-Santamaría, S., Reu, B., 2021. Detection and characterization of agroforestry systems in the
532 Colombian Andes using sentinel-2 imagery. Agroforestry Systems 95, 499–514.
533 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00597-8
534 Bolívar-Santamaría, S., Reu, B., 2023. Assessing canopy structure in Andean (agro)forests using 3D
535 UAV remote sensing. Agroforestry Systems, accepted. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-
536 2501023/v1
537 Boron, V., Payán, E., MacMillan, D., Tzanopoulos, J., 2016. Achieving sustainable development in
538 rural areas in Colombia: Future scenarios for biodiversity conservation under land use change.
539 Land use policy 59, 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.017
540 Brussaard, L., P. Caron, B. Campbell, L. Lipper, S. Mainka, R. Rabbinge, D. Babin, and M. Pulleman.
541 2010. Reconciling biodiversity conservation and food security: scientific challenges for a new
23
542 agriculture. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2(1-2):34-42.
543 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.03.007
544 Brüning L.Z., Krieger, M., Meneses-Pelayo, E., Eisenhauer, N., Ramirez Pinilla, M.P., Reu B., Ernst,
545 R., 2018. Land-use heterogeneity by small-scale agriculture promotes amphibian diversity in
546 montane agroforestry systems of northeast Colombia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
547 264, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.05.011
548 Buendía, C., Garces, E. & Aceros, J.C. 2023a. FiNCO farms for knowledge exchange: A Colombian
549 seed for a good Anthropocene. Ambio 52, 963–975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01821-0
550 Buendía, C., N. Tobalo, & J.D. Vargas. 2023b. Transiciones hacia la sostenibilidad: La Microcuenca
551 Las Cruces. Animated video. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA4udcsuygQ.
552 Accessed 9 June, 2023 (in Spanish).
553 Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Müller, F., Windhorst, W., 2009. Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem
554 services - A concept for land-cover based assessments. Landsc. Online 15, 1–22.
555 https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.200915
556 Capitani, C., Garedew, W., Mitiku, A., Berecha, G., Hailu, B.T., Heiskanen, J., Hurskainen, P., Platts,
557 P.J., Siljander, M., Pinard, F., Johansson, T., Marchant, R., 2019. Views from two mountains:
558 exploring climate change impacts on traditional farming communities of Eastern Africa
559 highlands through participatory scenarios. Sustain. Sci. 14, 191–203.
560 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0622-x
561 Capitani, C., Mukama, K., Mbilinyi, B., Malugu, I.O., Munishi, P.K.T., Burgess, N.D., Platts, P.J.,
562 Sallu, S.M., Marchant, R., 2016. From local scenarios to national maps: A participatory
563 framework for envisioning the future of Tanzania. Ecol. Soc. 21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-
564 08565-210304
565 Céspedes-Prada, C., Solano-Gutiérrez, C., Duarte-Sánchez, I., Cogollo-Calderón, A., 2020.
566 Restauración Ecológica de la zona norte del Parque Nacional Natural Serranía de los Yariguíes.
567 Unión Temporal Jaguar Corredor Norandino y Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia,
568 Bogotá D.C.
24
569 Felipe-Lucia, M.R., Comín, F.A., Bennett, E.M., 2014. Interactions among ecosystem services across
570 land uses in a floodplain agroecosystem. Ecol. Soc. 19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06249-190120
571 Grêt-Regamey, A., Brunner, S., Altwegg, J., Christen, M., Bebi, P., 2013. Integrating Expert
572 Knowledge into Mapping Ecosystem Services Trade- offs for Sustainable Forest Management.
573 Ecol. Soc. 18, 34. https://doi.org/105751/ES-05800-180334
574 Griewald, Y., Clemens, G., Kamp, J., Gladun, E., Hölzel, N., von Dressler, H., 2017. Developing land
575 use scenarios for stakeholder participation in Russia. Land use policy 68, 264–276.
576 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.049
577 Hagemann, N., Gawel, E., Purkus, A., Pannicke, N., Hauck, J., 2016. Possible Futures towards a
578 Wood-Based Bioeconomy: A Scenario Analysis for Germany. Sustainability 8, 1–24.
579 https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010098
580 Henrichs, T., Zurek, M., Eickhout, B., Kok, K., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Ribeiro, T., van Vuuren, D.,
581 Volkery, A., 2010. Scenario Development and Analysis for Forward-looking Ecosystem
582 Assessments, in: Ecosystem and Human Well-Being: A Manual for Assessment Practitioners.
583 Island Press, Washington D.C., pp. 151–220.
584 IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Valencia.
585 https://doi.org/10.1256/004316502320517344
586 Jiren, T. S., J. Hanspach, J. Schultner, J. Fischer, A. Bergsten, F. Senbeta, K. Hylander, and I.
587 Dorresteijn. 2020. Reconciling food security and biodiversity conservation: participatory scenario
588 planning in southwestern Ethiopia. Ecology and Society 25(3):24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-
589 11681-250324
590 Kirchner, M., Schmidt, J., Kindermann, G., Kulmer, V., Mitter, H., Prettenthaler, F., Rüdisser, J.,
591 Schauppenlehner, T., Schönhart, M., Strauss, F., Tappeiner, U., Tasser, E., Schmid, E., 2015.
592 Ecosystem services and economic development in Austrian agricultural landscapes - The impact
593 of policy and climate change scenarios on trade-offs and synergies. Ecol. Econ. 109, 161–174.
594 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.005
595 Klein, J.A., Tucker, C.M., Nolin, A.W., Hopping, K.A., Reid, R.S., Steger, C., Grêt-Regamey, A.,
25
596 Lavorel, S., Müller, B., Yeh, E.T., Boone, R.B., Bourgeron, P., Butsic, V., Castellanos, E., Chen,
597 X., Dong, S.K., Greenwood, G., Keiler, M., Marchant, R., Seidl, R., Spies, T., Thorn, J., Yager,
598 K., 2019. Catalyzing Transformations to Sustainability in the World’s Mountains. Earth’s Future.
599 547–557. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF001024
600 Kohler, M., Stotten, R., Steinbacher, M., Leitinger, G., Tasser, E., Schirpke, U., Tappeiner, U.,
601 Schermer, M., 2017. Participative Spatial Scenario Analysis for Alpine Ecosystems. Environ.
602 Manage. 60, 679–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0903-7
603 Kragt, M.E., Robertson, M.J., 2014. Quantifying ecosystem services trade-offs from agricultural
604 practices. Ecol. Econ. 102, 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.001
605 Landsberg, F., Ozment, S., Stickler, M., Henninger, N., Treweek, J., Venn, O., Mock, G., 2011.
606 Ecosystem Services Review for Impact Assessment: Introduction and Guide to Scoping, World
607 Resources Institute. Washington D.C.
608 Liniger, H., Weingartner, R., 1998. Mountains and freshwater supply [WWW Document]. Food Agric.
609 Organ. URL https://www.fao.org/3/w9300e/w9300e08.htm
610 Mckenzie, E., Rosenthal, A., Bernhardt, J., Girvetz, E., Kovacs, K., Olwero, N., Toft, J., 2012.
611 Developing Scenarios to Assess Ecosystem Service Tradeoffs: Guidance and Case Studies for
612 InVEST Users. Washington D.C.
613 MEA, 2005. Four Scenarios, in: Hassan, R., Scholes, R., Ash, N. (Eds.), Ecosystems and Human Well-
614 Being: Current State and Trends. Island Press, Washington D.C., pp. 223–294.
615 https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.29.5.267
616 Nainggolan, D., Termansen, M., Reed, M.S., Cebollero, E.D., Hubacek, K., 2013. Farmer typology,
617 future scenarios and the implications for ecosystem service provision: A case study from south-
618 eastern Spain. Reg. Environ. Chang. 13, 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-011-0261-6
619 Negret, P.J., Allan, J., Braczkowski, A., Maron, M., Watson, J.E.M., 2017. Need for conservation
620 planning in postconflict Colombia. Conserv. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12902
621 Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D.R., Chan, K.M.A., Daily,
622 G.C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Lonsdorf, E., Naidoo, R., Ricketts, T.H., Shaw, M.R., 2009.
26
623 Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and
624 tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1890/080023
625 Palacios-Agundez, I., Onaindia, M., Potschin, M., Tratalos, J.A., Madariaga, I., Haines-Young, R.,
626 2015. Relevance for decision making of spatially explicit, participatory scenarios for ecosystem
627 services in an area of a high current demand. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 199–209.
628 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.002
629 Plieninger, T., C. Bieling, B. Ohnesorge, H. Schaich, C. Schleyer, and F. Wolff. 2013. Exploring
630 futures of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes through participatory scenario development
631 in the Swabian Alb, Germany. Ecology and Society 18(3): 39. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-
632 05802-180339
633 Prost, L., Martin, G., Ballot, R., Benoit, M., Bergez, J.E., Bockstaller, C., Cerf, M., Deytieux, V.,
634 Hossard, L., Jeuffroy, M.H., Leclère, M., Le Bail, M., Le Gal, P.Y., Loyce, C., Merot, A.,
635 Meynard, J.M., Mignolet, C., Munier-Jolain, N., Novak, S., Parnaudeau, V., Poux, X., Sabatier,
636 R., Salembier, C., Scopel, E., Simon, S., Tchamitchian, M., Toffolini, Q., van der Werf, H., 2023.
637 Key research challenges to supporting farm transitions to agroecology in advanced economies. A
638 review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00855-8
639 R Core Team, 2020. R: A language environment for statistical computing.
640 Rabbinge, R., Bindraban, P.S., 2012. Making More Food Available: Promoting Sustainable
641 Agricultural Production. J. Integr. Agric. 11, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1671-2927(12)60777-
642 9
643 Rahbek, C., Borregaard, M.K., Colwell, R.K., Dalsgaard, B., Holt, B.G., Morueta-Holme, N., Nogues-
644 Bravo, D., Whittaker, R.J., Fjeldså, J., 2019. Humboldt’s enigma: What causes global patterns of
645 mountain biodiversity? Science (80-. ). 365, 1108–1113. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0149
646 Rawluk, A., Godber, A., 2011. Widening the scope of scenario planning in small communities: A case
647 study use of an alternative method. Ecol. Soc. 16.
648 Reed, M.S., Hubacek, K., Bonn, A., Burt, T.P., Holden, J., Stringer, L.C., Beharry-Borg, N.,
649 Buckmaster, S., Chapman, D., Chapman, P.J., Clay, G.D., Cornell, S.J., Dougill, A.J., Evely,
27
650 A.C., Fraser, E.D.G., Jin, N., Irvine, B.J., Kirkby, M.J., Kunin, W.E., Prell, C., Quinn, C.H., Slee,
651 B., Stagl, S., Termansen, M., Thorp, S., Worrall, F., 2013. Anticipating and managing future
652 trade-offs and complementarities between ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 18.
653 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04924-180105
654 Rincón-Ruíz, A., Echeverry-Duque, M., Piñeros, A.M., Tapia, C.H., David, A., Arias-Arévalo, P.,
655 Zuluaga, P.A., 2014. Valoración integral de la biodiversidad y los servicios ecosistémicos:
656 Aspectos conceptuales y metodológicos, Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos
657 Alexander von Humboldt (IAvH). Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander
658 von Humboldt, Bogotá D.C. https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.12587
659 Rippstein, G., Sionneau, J., Escobar, G., Ramírez, G., 2001. Radiometría Terrestre para el Inventario y
660 Otros Estudios de la Vegetación de Sabana, in: Agroecología y Biodiversidad de Las Sabanas En
661 Los Llanos Orientales de Colombia. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Cali, pp. 97–
662 110.
663 Sarkki, S., Ficko, A., Grunewald, K., Kyriazopoulos, A.P., Nijnik, M., 2017. How pragmatism in
664 environmental science and policy can undermine sustainability transformations: the case of
665 marginalized mountain areas under climate and land-use change. Sustain. Sci. 12, 549–561.
666 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0411-3
667 Schneidewind, U., Singer-Brodowski, M., Augenstein, K., 2016. Transformative Science for
668 Sustainability Transitions. In: Brauch, H., Oswald Spring, Ú., Grin, J., Scheffran, J. (eds)
669 Handbook on Sustainability Transition and Sustainable Peace. Hexagon Series on Human and
670 Environmental Security and Peace, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
671 43884-9_5
672 Swetnam, R.D., Fisher, B., Mbilinyi, B.P., Munishi, P.K.T., Willcock, S., Ricketts, T., Mwakalila, S.,
673 Balmford, A., Burgess, N.D., Marshall, A.R., Lewis, S.L., 2011. Mapping socio-economic
674 scenarios of land cover change: A GIS method to enable ecosystem service modelling. J.
675 Environ. Manage. 92, 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.09.007
676 Tallis, H., Polasky, S., 2011. Assessing multiple ecosystem services: an integrated tool for the real
677 world, in: Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T., Daily, G., Polasky, S. (Eds.), Natural Capital:
28
678 Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services, Oxford Biology Readers. Oxford
679 University Press, New York, pp. 34–54.
680 Thorn, J.P.R., Klein, J.A., Steger, C., Hopping, K.A., Capitani, C., Tucker, C.M., Nolin, A.W., Reid,
681 R.S., Seidl, R., Chitale, V.S., Marchant, R., 2020. A systematic review of participatory scenario
682 planning to envision mountain social-ecological systems futures. Ecol. Soc. 25, 1–55.
683 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11608-250306
684 Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Bhagwat, S.A., Buchori, D., Faust, H., Hertel, D., Hölscher, D., Juhrbandt,
685 J., Kessler, M., Perfecto, I., Scherber, C., Schroth, G., Veldkamp, E., Wanger, T.C., 2011.
686 Multifunctional shade-tree management in tropical agroforestry landscapes - A review. J. Appl.
687 Ecol. 48, 619–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01939.x
688 Van Berkel, D.B., Carvalho-Ribeiro, S., Verburg, P., Lovett, A., 2011. Identifying assets and
689 constraints for rural development with qualitative scenarios: A case study of Castro Laboreiro,
690 Portugal. Landsc. Urban Plan. 102, 127–141.
691 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.03.016
692 Vilardy, S., González, J., Martínez, B., Renán, W., Oteros, E., Silva, F., Montes, C., Cuadrado, B.,
693 2011. Repensando la Ciénaga: Nuevas miradas y estrategias para la sostenibilidad en la Ciénaga
694 Grande de Santa Marta. Universidad del Magdalena y Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Santa
695 Marta. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
696 Vrebos, D., Staes, J., Vandenbroucke, T., D’Haeyer, T., Johnston, R., Muhumuza, M., Kasabeke, C.,
697 Meire, P., 2015. Mapping ecosystem service flows with land cover scoring maps for data-scarce
698 regions. Ecosyst. Serv. 13, 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.005
699
29
anonymized household survey
Click here to access/download

Supplementary Material
Anonymized household survey database.xlsx
Revised Appendix
Click here to access/download

Supplementary Material
Appendix.docx
Author statement
Authors' contributions
Tatiana Rodríguez: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Validation;
Visualization; Writing - original draft.
Björn Reu: Formal analysis; Methodology; Project administration; Writing - review & editing.
Sergio Bolívar-Santamaría: Data curation; Formal analysis; Software.
Alexandra Cortés-Aguilar: Conceptualization; Supervision; Writing - review & editing.
Corina Buendía: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project
administration; Supervision; Validation; Visualization; Writing - review & editing.

Manuscript (without Author Details)
Declaration of interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Land Use Policy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Land Use Policy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Land Use Policy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Land Use Policy

A framework for participatory scenario planning to guide transitions towards

Manuscript Number: LUP-D-21-00740R2

Article Type: Full Length Article

Keywords: Scenario planning; food provision; aboveground biomass; agroforestry,

Corresponding Author: Corina Buendia, Ph. D.

First Author: Tatiana Rodriguez, M Sc.

Order of Authors: Tatiana Rodriguez, M Sc.

Björn Reu, PhD

Sergio Andrés Bolivar-Santamaría, M.Sc.

Alexandra Cortés-Aguilar, PhD

Corina Buendia, Ph. D.

Abstract: Pronounced environmental gradients of tropical mountains result in interconnected

Suggested Reviewers: Maria Schmitz

Response to Reviewers: Dear Sónia,

- The discussion section needs substantial revision to include an in-depth discussion

We added new references and comments on the methodological approach in Lines

We added information on current dynamics to illustrate the impact that the

Author response: In response to that question we added the following explanation in

Dr. Corina Buendia Grigoriu

Date: April 12th, 2021

Corina Buendia on behalf of all co-authors

Fig. 1. Map showing Las Cruces

- The discussion section needs substantial revision to include an in-depth discussion on

ecological systems and bottom-up governance at the local scale

A framework for participatory scenario planning to guide transitions towards sustainability in

mountain social-ecological systems: a case study from the Colombian Andes.

a Escuela de Economía y Administración, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Cra.27 Calle 9, 680002

● The intrinsic complexity of mountain social-ecological systems in the tropics challenges

governmental planning schemes.

● Agroforestry allows reconciling food production and conservation of biodiversity in the

social-ecological systems and bottom-up governance at the local scale

Pronounced environmental gradients of tropical mountains result in interconnected social-ecological

Corresponding author: Corina Buendia, coribuendia@gmail.com

Scenario planning, food provision, aboveground biomass, agroforestry, transdisciplinary, sustainability.

project (http://gef-satoyama.net/). TR acknowledge funding by the Corporación Colombiana de

Investigación Agropecuaria - AGROSAVIA and Universidad Industrial de Santander under the

University of Santander (UIS).

Availability of data and material

compromise the privacy of research participants.

Tatiana Rodríguez: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology;

Software. Alexandra Cortés-Aguilar: Conceptualization; Supervision; Writing - review & editing.

Corina Buendía: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology;

Project administration; Supervision; Validation; Visualization; Writing - review & editing.

1 A framework for participatory scenario planning to guide transitions towards sustainability in

2 mountain social-ecological systems: a case study from the Colombian Andes.

5 Pronounced environmental gradients of tropical mountains result in interconnected social-ecological

39 Thorn et al., 2020).

75 of detailed land-use, socioeconomic, and climate information required for planning.

76 2. Material and methods

77 2.1. Study area

87 the elevation gradients (grey-scale).

94 2.2. Methodological framework

95 The proposed methodological framework consists of seven steps described in Figure 2.

98 2.2.1 Step 1. Study area screening

103 2.2.2 Step 2. Drivers of change and future envisioning

118 2.2.3 Step 3. Land-cover classification

129 and selected the model with the highest accuracy.