| 1. |
- Blasiak, Robert, et al.
(författare)
-
Towards greater transparency and coherence in funding for sustainable marine fisheries and healthy oceans
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Marine Policy. - : Elsevier BV. - 0308-597X .- 1872-9460. ; 107
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This final manuscript in the special issue on Funding for ocean conservation and sustainable fisheries is the result of a dialogue aimed at connecting lead authors of the special issue manuscripts with relevant policymakers and practitioners. The dialogue took place over the course of a two-day workshop in December 2018, and this coda manuscript seeks to distil thinking around a series of key recurring topics raised throughout the workshop. These topics are collected into three broad categories, or needs: 1) a need for transparency, 2) a need for coherence, and 3) a need for improved monitoring of project impacts. While the special issue sought to collect new research into the latest trends and developments in the rapidly evolving world of funding for ocean conservation and sustainable fisheries, the insights collected during the workshop have helped to highlight remaining knowledge gaps. Therefore, each of the three needs identified within this manuscript is followed by a series of questions that the workshop participants identified as warranting further attention as part of a future research agenda. The crosscutting nature of many of the issues raised as well as the rapid pace of change that characterizes this funding landscape both pointed to a broader need for continued dialogue and study that reaches across the communities of research, policy and practice.
|
|
| 2. |
- Isacs, Lina, et al.
(författare)
-
What does value pluralism mean in practice? An empirical demonstration from a deliberative valuation
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The increasing calls for value pluralism within research on valuation in environmental decision-making responds to an increasing recognition that conventional approaches to environmental valuation based in neoclassical economics do not account for important aspects of human-nature relations. Few studies have however explored how value plurality actually plays out in practice. In this paper, we draw on Alan Holland’s (2002) essay “Are choices trade-offs?”, which goes to the heart of issues behind valuation and illuminates differences in conceptions of value and rationality between neoclassical and ecological economists. In a quasi-experimental study on values related to marine management in a coastal community in Sweden with local citizens and politicians, we empirically investigate how participants in a deliberative valuation handle different values in their reasoning and choicemaking. The results demonstrate the relevance of value pluralism for policy by showing the prevalence of preference uncertainty, value incommensurability and both inter- and intrapersonal value conflicts. Value conflicts played out as the inability to achieve multiple transcendental values that were aspired to, including conflicts between social and environmental goals. Rather than attempting to commensurate, participants sought to avoid moral conflicts, and showed emotional anguish where these conflicts came to the fore. This evidence thus suggests that choices are not, fundamentally, trade-offs. Incommensurability appeared as felt experience and deliberate positions rather than expressions of irrationality. Legitimately resolving value conflicts thus demands reason-sensitive means for deciding upon which sacrifices are made and for how to represent public opinion in environmental decision-making in a way that reveals the actual moral considerations of people.
|
|
| 3. |
- Isacs, Lina, PhD, et al.
(författare)
-
What does value pluralism mean in practice? An empirical demonstration from a deliberative valuation
- 2023
-
Ingår i: People and Nature. - : Wiley. - 2575-8314. ; 5:2, s. 384-402
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The intensified call for value pluralism within research on valuation in environmental decision-making responds to the recognition that neoclassical economic approaches to environmental valuation do not sufficiently account for important aspects of human–nature relations. However, few studies have explored how value plurality actually plays out in social deliberative reasoning and decision-making in practice, and these studies have mostly been deductive and quantitative.In his essay ‘Are choices trade-offs?’ Alan Holland (2002) goes to the heart of differences in conceptions of value and rationality between neoclassical and ecological economics. These conceptions differ in terms of whether values are seen as commensurable or incommensurable, whether people's choices amount to willing exchanges of gains and losses between different values and whether unwillingness to trade values off for net gain is irrational.Addressing Holland's question, we present a quasi-experimental study on deliberative valuation of marine issues on the Swedish west coast, where we considered how local citizens and politicians approached values in their reasoning and choice-making. Mixing quantitative and qualitative empirical material, we used an abductive analytical approach, iterating between data and theory to link our observations and interpretations to prevalent understandings of value, valuation and deliberation in the literature.The results demonstrate the relevance of value pluralism for environmental policy by showing the prevalence of preference uncertainty and intrapersonal value conflicts in participants' reasoning and interaction. Value conflicts played out as the inability to achieve multiple transcendental values that participants aspired to, including conflicts between social and environmental goals. Rather than attempting to commensurate different value dimensions, participants sought to avoid moral conflicts, showed emotional anguish when value conflicts came to the fore and tried to bridge conflicting aspirations and experiences through inclusive reason-giving and compromise.Thus, choices were not resolved through rational trade-offs, supporting Holland's claim and challenging the neoclassical trade-off model of choice. Incommensurability appeared as deliberate positions grounded in participants' experiences rather than as irrationality. Legitimately resolving value conflicts thus demands reason-sensitive means for deciding upon the sacrifices to be made and supporting public participation in environmental decision-making in ways that reveal peoples' actual moral considerations.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Rockström, Johan, et al.
(författare)
-
Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Ambio. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0044-7447 .- 1654-7209. ; 46:1, s. 4-17
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- There is an ongoing debate on what constitutes sustainable intensification of agriculture (SIA). In this paper, we propose that a paradigm for sustainable intensification can be defined and translated into an operational framework for agricultural development. We argue that this paradigm must now be defined-at all scales-in the context of rapidly rising global environmental changes in the Anthropocene, while focusing on eradicating poverty and hunger and contributing to human wellbeing. The criteria and approach we propose, for a paradigm shift towards sustainable intensification of agriculture, integrates the dual and interdependent goals of using sustainable practices to meet rising human needs while contributing to resilience and sustainability of landscapes, the biosphere, and the Earth system. Both of these, in turn, are required to sustain the future viability of agriculture. This paradigm shift aims at repositioning world agriculture from its current role as the world's single largest driver of global environmental change, to becoming a key contributor of a global transition to a sustainable world within a safe operating space on Earth.
|
|
