Diverse values of nature for sustainability
- Pascual, Unai, Balvanera, Patricia, Anderson, Christopher B, Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca, Christie, Michael, González-Jiménez, David, Martin, Adrian, Raymond, Christopher M, Termansen, Mette, Vatn, Arild, Athayde, Simone, Baptiste, Brigitte, Barton, Davin N, Jacobs, Sander, Kelemen, Eszter, Kumar, Ritesh, Lazos, Elena, Mwampamba, Tuyeni H, Nakangu, Barbara, O’Farrell, Patrick, Subramanian, Suneetha M, van Noordwijk, Meine, Ahn, SoEun, Amaruzaman, Sacha, Amin, Ariane M, Arias-Arévalo, Paola, Arroyo-Robles, Gabriela, Cantú-Fernández, Mariana, Castro, Antonio J, Contreras, Victoria, de Vos, Alta, Dendoncker, Nicolas, Engel, Stefanie, Eser, Uta, Faith, Daniel P, Filyushkina, Anna, Ghazi, Houda, Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, Gould, Rachelle K, Guibrunet, Louise, Gundimeda, Haripriya, Hahn, Thomas, Harmáčková, Zuzana V, Hernández-Blanco, Marcello, Horcea-Milcu, Andra-loana, Huambachano, Mariaelena, Wicher, Natalia L H, Aydın, Cem I, Islar, Mine, Koessler, Ann-Kathrin, Kenter, Jasper O, Kosmus, Marina, Lee, Heera, Leimona, Beria, Lele, Sharachchandra, Lenzi, Dominic, Lliso, Bosco, Mannetii, Lelani M, Merçon, Juliana, Monroy-Sais, Ana S, Mukherjee, Nibedita, Muraca, Barbara, Muradian, Roldan, Murali, Ranjini, Nelson, Sara H, Nemogá-Soto, Gabriel R, Ngouhouo-Poufoun, Jonas, Niamir, Aidin, Nuesiri, Emmanuel, Nyumba, Tobias O, Özkaynak, Begüm, Palomo, Ignacio, Pandit, Ram, Pawłowska-Mainville, Agnieszka, Porter-Bolland, Luciano, Quaas, Martin, Rode, Julian, Rozzi, Ricardo, Sachdeva, Sonya, Aibek, Samakov, Schaafsma, Marije, Sitas, Nadia, Ungar, Paula, Yiu, Evonne, Yoshida, Yuki, Zent, Eglee
- Authors: Pascual, Unai , Balvanera, Patricia , Anderson, Christopher B , Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca , Christie, Michael , González-Jiménez, David , Martin, Adrian , Raymond, Christopher M , Termansen, Mette , Vatn, Arild , Athayde, Simone , Baptiste, Brigitte , Barton, Davin N , Jacobs, Sander , Kelemen, Eszter , Kumar, Ritesh , Lazos, Elena , Mwampamba, Tuyeni H , Nakangu, Barbara , O’Farrell, Patrick , Subramanian, Suneetha M , van Noordwijk, Meine , Ahn, SoEun , Amaruzaman, Sacha , Amin, Ariane M , Arias-Arévalo, Paola , Arroyo-Robles, Gabriela , Cantú-Fernández, Mariana , Castro, Antonio J , Contreras, Victoria , de Vos, Alta , Dendoncker, Nicolas , Engel, Stefanie , Eser, Uta , Faith, Daniel P , Filyushkina, Anna , Ghazi, Houda , Gómez-Baggethun, Erik , Gould, Rachelle K , Guibrunet, Louise , Gundimeda, Haripriya , Hahn, Thomas , Harmáčková, Zuzana V , Hernández-Blanco, Marcello , Horcea-Milcu, Andra-loana , Huambachano, Mariaelena , Wicher, Natalia L H , Aydın, Cem I , Islar, Mine , Koessler, Ann-Kathrin , Kenter, Jasper O , Kosmus, Marina , Lee, Heera , Leimona, Beria , Lele, Sharachchandra , Lenzi, Dominic , Lliso, Bosco , Mannetii, Lelani M , Merçon, Juliana , Monroy-Sais, Ana S , Mukherjee, Nibedita , Muraca, Barbara , Muradian, Roldan , Murali, Ranjini , Nelson, Sara H , Nemogá-Soto, Gabriel R , Ngouhouo-Poufoun, Jonas , Niamir, Aidin , Nuesiri, Emmanuel , Nyumba, Tobias O , Özkaynak, Begüm , Palomo, Ignacio , Pandit, Ram , Pawłowska-Mainville, Agnieszka , Porter-Bolland, Luciano , Quaas, Martin , Rode, Julian , Rozzi, Ricardo , Sachdeva, Sonya , Aibek, Samakov , Schaafsma, Marije , Sitas, Nadia , Ungar, Paula , Yiu, Evonne , Yoshida, Yuki , Zent, Eglee
- Date: 2023
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/415612 , vital:71270 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9"
- Description: Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being, addressing the global biodiversity crisis still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change, pandemic emergence and socio-environmental injustices. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientifc publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2023
- Authors: Pascual, Unai , Balvanera, Patricia , Anderson, Christopher B , Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca , Christie, Michael , González-Jiménez, David , Martin, Adrian , Raymond, Christopher M , Termansen, Mette , Vatn, Arild , Athayde, Simone , Baptiste, Brigitte , Barton, Davin N , Jacobs, Sander , Kelemen, Eszter , Kumar, Ritesh , Lazos, Elena , Mwampamba, Tuyeni H , Nakangu, Barbara , O’Farrell, Patrick , Subramanian, Suneetha M , van Noordwijk, Meine , Ahn, SoEun , Amaruzaman, Sacha , Amin, Ariane M , Arias-Arévalo, Paola , Arroyo-Robles, Gabriela , Cantú-Fernández, Mariana , Castro, Antonio J , Contreras, Victoria , de Vos, Alta , Dendoncker, Nicolas , Engel, Stefanie , Eser, Uta , Faith, Daniel P , Filyushkina, Anna , Ghazi, Houda , Gómez-Baggethun, Erik , Gould, Rachelle K , Guibrunet, Louise , Gundimeda, Haripriya , Hahn, Thomas , Harmáčková, Zuzana V , Hernández-Blanco, Marcello , Horcea-Milcu, Andra-loana , Huambachano, Mariaelena , Wicher, Natalia L H , Aydın, Cem I , Islar, Mine , Koessler, Ann-Kathrin , Kenter, Jasper O , Kosmus, Marina , Lee, Heera , Leimona, Beria , Lele, Sharachchandra , Lenzi, Dominic , Lliso, Bosco , Mannetii, Lelani M , Merçon, Juliana , Monroy-Sais, Ana S , Mukherjee, Nibedita , Muraca, Barbara , Muradian, Roldan , Murali, Ranjini , Nelson, Sara H , Nemogá-Soto, Gabriel R , Ngouhouo-Poufoun, Jonas , Niamir, Aidin , Nuesiri, Emmanuel , Nyumba, Tobias O , Özkaynak, Begüm , Palomo, Ignacio , Pandit, Ram , Pawłowska-Mainville, Agnieszka , Porter-Bolland, Luciano , Quaas, Martin , Rode, Julian , Rozzi, Ricardo , Sachdeva, Sonya , Aibek, Samakov , Schaafsma, Marije , Sitas, Nadia , Ungar, Paula , Yiu, Evonne , Yoshida, Yuki , Zent, Eglee
- Date: 2023
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/415612 , vital:71270 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9"
- Description: Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being, addressing the global biodiversity crisis still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change, pandemic emergence and socio-environmental injustices. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientifc publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2023
Non-material costs of wildlife conservation to local people and their implications for conservation interventions:
- Thondhlana, Gladman, Redpath, Stephen Mark, Vedeld, Pål Olav, van Eden, Lily, Pascual, Unai, Sherren, Kate, Murata, Chenai
- Authors: Thondhlana, Gladman , Redpath, Stephen Mark , Vedeld, Pål Olav , van Eden, Lily , Pascual, Unai , Sherren, Kate , Murata, Chenai
- Date: 2020
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/150174 , vital:38946 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108578
- Description: In assessment of costs (and benefits) of wildlife conservation, conventional economic valuation frameworks may inadequately address various non-tangible values and neglect social, cultural and political contexts of resources and their use. Correspondingly, there seems to be much more focus on quantifying the economic, material benefits and costs of wildlife conservation than the non-material aspects that also affect human well-being. In addition, current research on the costs of wildlife conservation tends to be discipline-focused which constrains comparability, often causing conceptual ambiguity. This paper is an attempt to address this ambiguity. While there is growing acknowledgement of the material costs of wildlife conservation, we contend that employing a broader, composite social well-being approach may provide better conceptual insights on—and practical options for—managing various non-material impacts of wildlife conservation for local people.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2020
- Authors: Thondhlana, Gladman , Redpath, Stephen Mark , Vedeld, Pål Olav , van Eden, Lily , Pascual, Unai , Sherren, Kate , Murata, Chenai
- Date: 2020
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/150174 , vital:38946 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108578
- Description: In assessment of costs (and benefits) of wildlife conservation, conventional economic valuation frameworks may inadequately address various non-tangible values and neglect social, cultural and political contexts of resources and their use. Correspondingly, there seems to be much more focus on quantifying the economic, material benefits and costs of wildlife conservation than the non-material aspects that also affect human well-being. In addition, current research on the costs of wildlife conservation tends to be discipline-focused which constrains comparability, often causing conceptual ambiguity. This paper is an attempt to address this ambiguity. While there is growing acknowledgement of the material costs of wildlife conservation, we contend that employing a broader, composite social well-being approach may provide better conceptual insights on—and practical options for—managing various non-material impacts of wildlife conservation for local people.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2020
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »