| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Cong, Rong Gang, et al.
(författare)
-
Managing soil natural capital : a prudent strategy for adapting to future risks
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Annals of Operations Research. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0254-5330 .- 1572-9338. ; 255:1-2, s. 439-463
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Farmers are exposed to substantial weather and market related risks. Rational farmers seek to avoid large losses. Future climate change and energy price fluctuations therefore make adaptating to increased risks particularly important for them. Managing soil natural capital—the capacity of the soil to generate ecosystem services of benefit to farmers—has been proven to generate the double dividend: increasing farm profit and reducing associated risk. In this paper we explore whether managing soil natural capital has a third dividend: reducing the downside risk (increasing the positive skewness of profit). This we refer to as the prudence effect which can be viewed as an adaptation strategy for dealing with future uncertainties through more prudent management of soil natural capital. We do this by developing a dynamic stochastic portfolio model to optimize the stock of soil natural capital—as indicated by soil organic carbon (SOC) content—that considers the mean, variance and skewness of profits from arable farming. The SOC state variable can be managed by the farmer only indirectly through the spatial and temporal allocation of land use. We model four cash crops and a grass ley that generates no market return but replenishes SOC. We find that managing soil natural capital can, not only improve farm profit while reducing the risk, but also reduce the downside risk. Prudent adaptation to future risks should therefore consider the impact of current agricultural management practices on the stock of soil natural capital.
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Pascual, Unai, et al.
(författare)
-
On the value of soil biodiversity and ecosystem services
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Ecosystem Services. - : Elsevier BV. - 2212-0416. ; 15, s. 11-18
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper provides a framework to understand the source of the economic value of soil biodiversity and soil ecosystem services and maps out the pathways of such values. We clarify the link between components of the economic value of soil biodiversity and their associated services of particular relevance to soils. We contend that soil biodiversity and associated ecosystem services give rise to two main additive value components in the context of risk and uncertainty: an output value and an insurance value. These are illustrated with examples from soil ecology and a simple heuristic model. The paper also points towards the challenges of capturing such values highlighting the differences between private (individual) and public (global) sources of value. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 5. |
- Primmer, Eeva, et al.
(författare)
-
Caught between personal and collective values : biodiversity conservation in European decision-making
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Environmental Policy and Governance. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1756-932X .- 1756-9338. ; 27:6, s. 588-604
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Individual decision-makers at different governance levels operate in social contexts, which means that they sometimes need to compromise their personal values. Yet, this dissonance is rarely the direct target of empirical analyses of environmental decision-making. We undertake a Q-analysis of decision-makers' personal perspectives and the perspectives they perceive to dominate in their decision-making contexts. Our empirical analysis addresses biodiversity conservation, which has traditionally been justified with intrinsic value- and science-based arguments. The arguments have recently been broadened with the concept of ecosystem services, highlighting human benefits and values. This evolving context is interesting because of the new rise of anthropocentric values, which can lead to decision-makers experiencing dissonance. Our analysis of interviews with 43 biodiversity conservation decision-makers from nine European countries reveals four personally held perspectives that highlight different, yet partly overlapping, values – intrinsic, human benefit, conservation and connection – as well as three perspectives perceived to dominate in decision-making – utilitarian, insurance and knowledge values. The comparison of personally held and perceived dominant perspectives points to one major conflict: those decision-makers who personally associate with intrinsic values and perceive utilitarian values to dominate in decision-making experience dissonance. By contrast, personally held human benefit values are accommodated well in decision-making contexts and decision-makers who perceive insurance values to dominate experience the least conflict with personally held values. These findings demonstrate the potential of arguments stressing long-term benefits for easing tension and conflicts in conservation decision-making, and the usefulness of empirically testing of the coincidence of individual and social values.
|
|
