| 1. |
- Barton, David N., et al.
(författare)
-
Value Expression in Decision-Making
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. - Bonn : The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). - 9783947851294 ; , s. 247-346
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This chapter links diverse values of nature as communicated through different value articulation (“valuing” and valuation) processes to decision-making and its outcomes. It reviews the underlying causes of treating impacts on nature as external to, and ignored in, decisions by current political, economic and socio-cultural actors and institutions (i.e., conventions, norms and rules), and describes how on-the-ground drivers of nature’s decline can be transformed towards recovery, focusing on land and sea use. The modalities and practice of explicit valuation of nature (preceding chapter) in support of decisions, and the decision-making processes themselves, may need to further evolve to achieve global sustainability goals, the CBD 2050 vision of living in harmony with nature and the recent Kunming Declaration of the CBD.
|
|
| 2. |
- Islar, Mine, et al.
(författare)
-
Diverse values of nature for sustainability
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Nature. - 0028-0836 .- 1476-4687. ; 620, s. 813-823
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 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 ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, 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 nature7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change8, pandemic emergence9 and socio-environmental injustices10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific 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 decisions7,11. 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid, et al.
(författare)
-
Transformative governance of biodiversity: insights for sustainable development : Transformative governance of biodiversity: insights for sustainable development
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. - : Elsevier BV. - 1877-3443 .- 1877-3435. ; 53:21, s. 20-28
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- While there is much debate on transformative change among academics and policymakers, the discussion on how to govern such change is still in its infancy. This article argues that transformative governance is needed to enable the transformative change necessary for achieving global sustainability goals. Based on a literature review, the article unpacks this concept of transformative governance. It is: integrative, to ensure local solutions also have sustainable impacts elsewhere (across scales, places, issues and sectors); inclusive, to empower those whose interests are currently not being met and represent values embodying transformative change for sustainability; adaptive, enabling learning, experimentation, and reflexivity, to cope with the complexity of transformative change; and pluralist, recognizing different knowledge systems. We argue that only when these four governance approaches are: implemented in conjunction; operationalized in a specific manner; and focused on addressing the indirect drivers underlying sustainability issues, governance becomes transformative.
|
|
