| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Masterson, Vanessa A., et al.
(author)
-
Revisiting the relationships between human well-being and ecosystems in dynamic social-ecological systems : Implications for stewardship and development
- 2019
-
In: Global Sustainability. - 2059-4798. ; 2
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Non-technical summary We argue that the ways in which we as humans derive well-being from nature - for example by harvesting firewood, selling fish or enjoying natural beauty - feed back into how we behave towards the environment. This feedback is mediated by institutions (rules, regulations) and by individual capacities to act. Understanding these relationships can guide better interventions for sustainably improving well-being and alleviating poverty. However, more attention needs to be paid to how experience-related benefits from nature influence attitudes and actions towards the environment, and how these relationships can be reflected in more environmentally sustainable development projects. Technical summary In the broad literatures that address the linked challenge of maintaining ecosystem integrity while addressing poverty and inequality, there is still a need to investigate how linkages and feedbacks between ecosystem services and well-being can be taken into account to ensure environmental sustainability and improved livelihoods. We present a conceptual model towards a dynamic and reciprocal understanding of the feedbacks between human well-being and ecosystems. The conceptual model highlights three mechanisms through which people derive benefits from ecosystems (use, money and experience), and illustrates how these benefits can affect values, attitudes and actions towards ecosystems. Institutions and agency determine access to and distribution of benefits and costs, and also present barriers or enabling factors for individual or collective action. The conceptual model synthesises insights from existing but mostly separate bodies of literature on well-being and the benefits humans derive from ecosystems, and reveals gaps and areas for future research. Two case studies illustrate how recognizing the full feedback loop between how ecosystems support human well-being and how people behave towards those ecosystems, as well as intervention points within the loop, can guide better action for sustainable poverty alleviation and stewardship of the biosphere.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Merçon, J., et al.
(author)
-
From local landscapes to international policy : Contributions of the biocultural paradigm to global sustainability
- 2019
-
In: Global Sustainability. - : Cambridge University Press (CUP). - 2059-4798. ; 2
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Non-technical summary Nature and culture are intricately linked and the rapid loss of both biological and cultural diversity around the globe has led to increasing concerns about its effects on sustainability. Important efforts to understand biocultural relations and bolster sustainable practices have been made by scientists, local communities, civil society organizations and policy makers. In spite of their efforts, a stronger articulation between sectors and biocultural discourses is needed for a broader transformative impact. Here, we analyse the connections between prominent biocultural discourses and discuss how the biocultural paradigm can contribute to both local and global sustainability. Technical summary Biocultural diversity refers to the interdependence between biological and cultural diversity, indicating how significant ensembles of biological diversity are managed, conserved and created by different cultural groups. In the face of the rapid decline of both biological and cultural diversity around the globe, biocultural discourses produced by scientists, practitioners and policy makers have attempted to promote knowledge and actions that contribute to halt such losses. We propose that biocultural approaches, collectively referred to as the biocultural paradigm, can contribute to both local and global sustainability but that a stronger articulation between sectors and biocultural discourses is needed for a broader transformative impact. We analyse some of the main differences and connections between prominent biocultural discourses in the context of sustainability. We propose that biocultural approaches should recognize and articulate an ontological dimension of biocultural diversity, an epistemological dimension through systems thinking, and an ethico-political dimension taking explicitly into account plural values, governance systems and power relations. Ontological, epistemological and ethico-political dimensions of the biocultural paradigm are interconnected and manifested through cultural practices and power relations embedded in specific biocultural landscapes.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Musoro, ZJ, et al.
(author)
-
Establishing anchor-based minimally important differences (MID) with the EORTC quality-of-life measures: a meta-analysis protocol
- 2018
-
In: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 8:1, s. e019117-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- As patient assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in cancer clinical trials has increased over the years, so has the need to attach meaningful interpretations to differences in HRQOL scores between groups and changes within groups. Determining what represents a minimally important difference (MID) in HRQOL scores is useful to clinicians, patients and researchers, and can be used as a benchmark for assessing the success of a healthcare intervention. Our objective is to provide an evidence-based protocol to determine MIDs for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). We will mainly focus on MID estimation for group-level comparisons. Responder thresholds for individual-level change will also be estimated.Methods and analysisData will be derived from published phase II and III EORTC trials that used the QLQ-C30 instrument, covering several cancer sites. We will use individual patient data to estimate MIDs for different cancer sites separately. Focus is on anchor-based methods. Anchors will be selected per disease site from available data. A disease-oriented and methodological panel will provide independent guidance on anchor selection. We aim to construct multiple clinical anchors per QLQ-C30 scale and also to compare with several anchor-based methods. The effects of covariates, for example, gender, age, disease stage and so on, will also be investigated. We will examine how our estimated MIDs compare with previously published guidelines, hence further contributing to robust MID guidelines for the EORTC QLQ-C30.Ethics and disseminationAll patient data originate from completed clinical trials with mandatory written informed consent, approved by local ethical committees. Our findings will be presented at scientific conferences, disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and also compiled in a MID ‘blue book’ which will be made available online on the EORTC Quality of Life Group website as a free guideline document.
|
|
