Abstract Current approaches to project spatial biodiversity responses to climate change mainly focus on the direct effects of climate on species while regarding land use and land cover as constant or prescribed by global land‐use scenarios. However, local land‐use decisions are often affected by climate change and biodiversity on top of socioeconomic and policy drivers. To realistically understand and predict climate impacts on biodiversity, it is, therefore, necessary to integrate both direct and indirect effects (via climate‐driven land‐use change) of climate change on biodiversity. In this perspective paper, we outline how biodiversity models could be better integrated with regional, climate‐driven land‐use models. We initially provide a short, non‐exhaustive review of empirical and modelling approaches to land‐use and land‐cover change (LU) and biodiversity (BD) change at regional scales, which forms the base for our perspective about improved integration of LU and BD models. We consider a diversity of approaches, with a special emphasis on mechanistic models. We also look at current levels of integration and at model properties, such as scales, inputs and outputs, to further identify integration challenges and opportunities. We find that LU integration in BD models is more frequent than the other way around and has been achieved at different levels: from overlapping predictions to simultaneously coupled simulations (i.e. bidirectional effects). Of the integrated LU‐BD socio‐ecological models, some studies included climate change effects on LU, but the relative contribution of direct vs. indirect effects of climate change on BD remains a key research challenge. Important research avenues include concerted efforts in harmonizing spatial and temporal resolution, disentangling direct and indirect effects of climate change on biodiversity, explicitly accounting for bidirectional feedbacks, and ultimately feeding socio‐ecological systems back into climate predictions. These avenues can be navigated by matching models, plugins for format and resolution conversion, and increasing the land‐use forecast horizon with adequate uncertainty. Recent developments of coupled models show that such integration is achievable and can lead to novel insights into climate–land use–biodiversity relations. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Juliano Sarmento Cabral1, Alma Mendoza-Ponce2,3, André Pinto da Silva4,5, Johannes Oberpriller6, Anne Mimet7, Julia Kieslinger8, Thomas Berger9, Jana Blechschmidt1, Maximilian Brönner8, Alice Classen10, Stefan Fallert1, Florian Hartig6, Christian Hof7, Markus Hoffmann11, Thomas Knoke12, Andreas Krause13, Anne Lewerentz1, Perdita Pohle8, Uta Raeder11, Anja Rammig13, Sarah Redlich10, Sven Rubanschi7, Christian Stetter14, Wolfgang Weisser7, Daniel Vedder1,15,16,17 , Peter H. Verburg18, Damaris Zurell191 Ecosystem Modelling, Center for Computational and Theoretical Biology (CCTB), University of Würzburg, Klara-Oppenheimer-Weg 32, 37074, Würzburg, Germany2 Research Program on Climate Change, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico3 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria4 Department of Ecology and Genetics, Animal Ecology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden5 Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal6 Theoretical Ecology Lab, University of Regensburg, Universitätsstraße 31, 93053 Regensburg, Germany7 Technical University of Munich, Terrestrial Ecology Research Group, Department of Life Science Systems, School of Life Sciences, 84354 Freising, Germany8 Institute of Geography, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuernberg, Wetterkreuz 15, 91058 Erlangen, Germany9 Land-Use Economics in the Tropics and Subtropics, Hans-Ruthenberg Institute, Hohenheim University, Hohenheim, Germany10 Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biocentre, University of Würzburg, Am Hubland, 97074 Würzburg, Germany11 Technical University of Munich, Limnologische Station Iffeldorf, Chair of Aquatic Systems Biology, Department of Life Science Systems, School of Life Science,Hofmark 1-3, 82393 Iffeldorf, Germany12 Technical University of Munich, Institute of Forest Management, Department of Life Science Systems, School of Life Sciences, 58354 Freising, Germany13 Technical University of Munich, Land Surface-Atmosphere Interactions, Department of Life Science Systems, School of Life Sciences, 85354 Freising, Germany14 Agricultural Production and Resource Economics, School of Life Sciences, Technical University of Munich, 84354 Freising, Germany15 Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research - UFZ, Department of Ecosystem Services, Permoserstr. 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany16 Institute of Biodiversity, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Dornburger Straße 159, 07743 Jena, Germany17 German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstr. 4, 04103 Leipzig, Germany18 Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1111, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands19 Ecology & Macroecology, Inst. for Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, Am Neuen Palais 10, 14469 Potsdam, GermanyArticle type: review/perspective

Abtract Young people steer their life trajectories against the backdrop of profound transformations of rurality. They are considered protagonists in the present and future of rural areas; however, their experiences and perspectives on life in, and away from, the countryside have been scarcely acknowledged in academia. Considering conceptual thoughts on new mobilities, place-based belonging, and new ruralities, we argue that young people are a highly dynamic and continually reassessing group. In four case studies realized independently in Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Mexico, we closely involved young people with multiple participative methods to express their perceptions, concerns, and demands. We experiment on ways to integrate our insights for future comparative studies. Beyond the diversity in local contexts, we found convergences in young people's visions, which motivate them to stay or leave, with wider implications for the sustainability of rural places. "Living in between" thereby encapsulates multifaceted hybrid possible countrysides away from constraining dichotomic views.

This article develops mobility mapping as a valuable space-related instrument to tackle the lack of attention to the meanings of places and everyday spatial mobility in the process of refugee settlement. Referring to two consecutive case studies carried out with asylum seekers and recognized refugees in rural Germany, we discuss the surplus of this tool considering both peculiarities in implementation and the opportunities of analysis of respondent-generated maps. Experiences from this trial research point out ways of implementing a tool that focuses on the graphic and visual dimension of knowledge creation. Relying on principles of participatory research, this tool can help to diminish power asymmetries between the researcher and the participant and acknowledge individuals' competencies in terms of language. Depending on the aim of the study, the empirical data generated can be analysed both as a product and as a process. Results indicate added value by revealing the importance of spatial dimensions in asylum seekers' and refugees' life-worlds, encompassing the construction of individually important places as well as spatial mobility and accessibility. For practitioners, the implementation of the tool provides an opportunity to enhance participant-oriented planning and capacity building, such as in terms of networks and infrastructures, that addresses both individuals' needs and spatial structures.

In this article, we suggest (im)mobility biography as a method for reconstructing human (im)mobilities and related negotiations of meanings of place, time and social interaction. Based on biographical-narrative approaches and participatory ideals the combination of life history interviewing with a participatory timeline tool is the best fit for capturing individuals' life-worlds over time. After presenting theoretical presuppositions on relational meanings of place, time and social interaction, we provide an overview of biographical and participatory research in the context of human (im)mobilities and sketch methodological origins of the life history interview and the timeline tool. Furthermore, we address issues essential for planning and preparing (im)mobility biography, and demonstrate two different applications of the method in migration contexts in Germany and Ecuador. Subsequently, we present options for analysis and interpretation of textual and graphical data outputs. Keeping in mind strengths and challenges, we consider (im)mobility biography a valuable method for capturing (im)mobile life-worlds as well as contextual embeddedness of individual decision-making on moving or staying. Especially in terms of its participatory orientation, the visualization of migration trajectories facilitates structuration and memorization of life histories, allows for shared analysis even at the interview stage, and encourages participants to reflect on their biographies.

Innovative approaches could enhance scientific insights into how climate change affects mountain ecosystems and livelihoods and enrich climate action. Using an inter- and transdisciplinary approach in a remote tropical dry forest region of the Andes in southern Ecuador, this article combines local knowledge about climate change and adaptation, based on perceptions and experiences, with quantitative climate measurements. Our theoretical framework is based on the concept of vulnerability and sustainable livelihoods perspectives. Methodologically, we draw on the Participatory Rural Appraisal approach. Participatory workshops and qualitative interviews were carried out in the canton of Macará between 2015 and 2017. Local and regional climate data series were analyzed for climate trends and extreme events. Our study improves understanding of the social and physical dimension of climate change. Especially in mountain areas, differing scales of climate data must be considered to capture local climate conditions and changes. Thus, local knowledge could make a major contribution to selecting representative climate datasets, estimating local impacts of climate change, and developing adaptation policies.