| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Ahlberg, Erik, et al.
(författare)
-
"Vi klimatforskare stödjer Greta och skolungdomarna"
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Dagens nyheter (DN debatt). - 1101-2447.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (populärvet., debatt m.m.)abstract
- DN DEBATT 15/3. Sedan industrialiseringens början har vi använt omkring fyra femtedelar av den mängd fossilt kol som får förbrännas för att vi ska klara Parisavtalet. Vi har bara en femtedel kvar och det är bråttom att kraftigt reducera utsläppen. Det har Greta Thunberg och de strejkande ungdomarna förstått. Därför stödjer vi deras krav, skriver 270 klimatforskare.
|
|
| 3. |
- Brady, Mark V., et al.
(författare)
-
Roadmap for valuing soil ecosystem services to inform multi-level decision-making in agriculture
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Sustainability (Switzerland). - : MDPI AG. - 2071-1050. ; 11:19
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Agricultural soils contribute to human welfare through their generation of manifold ecosystem services such as food security, water quality and climate regulation, but these are degraded by common farming practices. We have developed a roadmap for evaluating the contribution of both private- and public-good ecosystem services generated by agricultural soils to societal welfare. The approach considers the needs of decision-makers at different levels, from farmers to policy-makers. This we achieve through combining production functions-to quantify the impacts of alternative management practices on agricultural productivity and soil ecosystem services-with non-market valuation of changes in public-good ecosystem services and benefit-cost analysis. The results show that the net present value to society of implementing soil-friendly measures are substantial, but negative for farmers in our study region. Although we apply our roadmap to an intensive farming region in Sweden, we believe our results have broad applicability, because farmers do not usually account for the value of public-good ecosystem services. We therefore conclude that market outcomes are not likely to be generating optimal levels of soil ecosystem services from society's perspective. Innovative governance institutions are needed to resolve this market failure to safeguard the welfare of future generations.
|
|
| 4. |
- Di Corato, Luca, et al.
(författare)
-
Passive farming and land development : A real options approach
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Land Use Policy. - : Elsevier BV. - 0264-8377 .- 1873-5754. ; 80, s. 32-46
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The EU's farmers are no longer required to produce commodities to receive direct payments as long as they keep their land in good condition. Some believe this is bad for development because it encourages passive farming. We evaluate, using a real options approach, the implications of decoupled payments for the desirability and optimal timing of agricultural land development when considering sunk investment costs and uncertain future returns. We find that decoupled payments accelerate development while passive farming increases, by adding managerial flexibility, the value associated with land. We then use the Nash bargaining solution to identify the rental share to be paid for leasing land. We show that a deal for the lease of land can always be reached, but that the facility to use passive farming as an outside option allows landowners to extract policy rents, thereby undermining the potential for the Basic Payment Scheme to support tenant farmers’ incomes.
|
|
| 5. |
- Nilsson, Lovisa, et al.
(författare)
-
A suboptimal array of options erodes the value of CAP ecological focus areas
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Land Use Policy. - : Elsevier BV. - 0264-8377 .- 1873-5754. ; 85, s. 407-418
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- As a part of the greening of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy in 2013, Ecological Focus Areas (EFA) became mandatory for many European farmers, with the aim to enhance on-farm biodiversity. However, their effects on biodiversity have been disputed. In this interdisciplinary effort, we assessed the effects of current and alternative formulations of EFA regulations in Sweden. By complementing economic and ecological modelling with interviews with persons at administrative and advisory bodies and a narrative decision game with farmers, we were able to demonstrate key shortcomings of mandatory EFAs as a policy instrument. In particular, we evaluated if requirements to increase the quality of EFAs and regulations allowing their collective implementation, have the potential to increase their effectiveness in benefitting functional biodiversity. We focused on how biodiversity underpinning crop pollination and natural pest control would be affected by alternative regulations. First, we show that several of the possible EFA measures have no or minimal actual effect on biodiversity. Second, we demonstrate the need for appropriate incentives for farmers to choose and place agri-environmental measures in an environmentally desirable way. The EFA regulation is experienced as complicated and without any clear environmental benefits for the participants in this study. As a result, the confidence in the policy is undermined. Third, we demonstrate the challenge of devising compulsory measures to improve biodiversity that also need to fulfil demands on being flexible and easy to administrate. Our results indicate that the latter goal has taken precedence over the former, and thus providing an explanation of the poor design of the EFA regulation from a biodiversity perspective. We argue that to enhance biodiversity in farmland through general agri-environmental measures, only measures with clear benefits for biodiversity can be on the menu. Further, better information as well as incentives for optimizing EFA placement for biodiversity on farms are needed and combined with stricter rules on quality and placement where appropriate.
|
|
| 6. |
- Zanchi, Giuliana, et al.
(författare)
-
Evaluating the contribution of forest ecosystem services to societal welfare through linking dynamic ecosystem modelling with economic valuation
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Ecosystem Services. - : Elsevier BV. - 2212-0416. ; 39
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Trade-offs exist among the multiple ecosystem services (ES) generated by forests. Generally, wood production conflicts with the provisioning of public-good ES such as the storage of carbon, nutrient retention and conservation of biodiversity. Recognizing that forests generate both private- and public-good ES implies that forestry should be optimized to maximize the contribution of forests to societal welfare. Here we develop an integrated approach for evaluating the contribution of forest ES to welfare. Our approach links the results from dynamic ecosystem modelling to economic valuation and benefit-cost analysis to evaluate the impacts of alternative forestry practices on welfare. We apply the approach to a Norway spruce forest in southern Sweden. We show that current practices are not maximizing societal welfare, because of conflicts in the optimal choice of practices from society's and forest owners’ perspectives, and the distribution of welfare between generations. In particular, intensifying biomass production is shown to reduce welfare due to the concomitant degradation of public-good ES, while welfare would improve through expansion of continuous cover forestry. We anticipate that this type of approach will aid the sustainable development of forestry, by informing decision makers of the impacts of alternative forestry practices on societal welfare.
|
|
