Diverse values of nature for sustainability.
Journal
Nature
ISSN: 1476-4687
Titre abrégé: Nature
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0410462
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2023
Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
22
07
2022
accepted:
05
07
2023
medline:
25
8
2023
pubmed:
10
8
2023
entrez:
9
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being
Identifiants
pubmed: 37558877
doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9
pii: 10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9
pmc: PMC10447232
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
813-823Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Daily, G. C. (ed.) Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (Island Press, 1997).
Costanza, R. et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260 (1997).
doi: 10.1038/387253a0
Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).
pubmed: 31831642
doi: 10.1126/science.aax3100
Dasgupta, P. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review (HM Treasury, 2021).
Convention on Biological Diversity. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Decision CBD/COP/DEC/15/4 (United Nations Environment Programme, 2022).
Global Sustainable Development Report 2015 (United Nations, 2015).
IPBES, Pascual, U. et al. eds. Summary for Policymakers of the Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Zenodo https://zenodo.org/record/6522392 (2022).
Pörtner, H. O. et al. Overcoming the coupled climate and biodiversity crises and their societal impacts. Science 380, p.eabl4881 (2023).
IPBES. Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Zenodo https://zenodo.org/record/4147317 (2020).
Ivanova, M. & Sharachchandra, L. Fifty years after UN environment summit, researchers renew call for action. Nature 606, 30–30 (2022).
IPBES, Balvanera, P., Unai, P., Christie, M. & González-Jiménez, D. (eds). Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522522 (2022).
Anderson, C. B. et al. in Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Balvanera, P. et al.). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522522 (2022).
Frainer, A. et al. Cultural and linguistic diversities are underappreciated pillars of biodiversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 26539–26543 (2020).
pubmed: 33028680
pmcid: 7604403
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2019469117
Martin, A. et al. in Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Balvanera, P. et al.). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522522 (2022).
Pascual, U. et al. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 7–16 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006
Rolston, H. III. Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in The Natural World (Temple University Press, 1988).
Chan, K. M. A. et al. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 1462–1465 (2016).
pubmed: 26862158
pmcid: 4760809
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1525002113
Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359, 270–272 (2018).
pubmed: 29348221
doi: 10.1126/science.aap8826
O’Connor, S. & Kenter, J. O. Making intrinsic values work; integrating intrinsic values of the more-than-human world through the Life Framework of Values. Sustain. Sci. 14, 1247–1265 (2019).
doi: 10.1007/s11625-019-00715-7
Haerpfer, C. et al. World Values Survey: Round Seven – Country-Pooled Datafile Version 5.0. (JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat, 2022).
Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., Berl, R. E. W., Bruskotter, J. T. & Kitayama, S. Social value shift in favour of biodiversity conservation in the United States. Nat. Sustain. 4, 323–330 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41893-020-00655-6
Cocks, M. L., Dold, T. & Vetter, S. ‘God is my forest’ - Xhosa cultural values provide untapped opportunities for conservation: research article. South Afr. J. Sci. 108, 52–59 (2012).
Roux, J.-L. et al. Exploring evolving spiritual values of forests in Europe and Asia: a transition hypothesis toward re-spiritualizing forests. Ecol. Soc. 27, 1–20 (2022).
Albó, X. in From Biocultural Homogenization to Biocultural Conservation (eds Rozzi, R. et al.) 333–342 (Springer International Publishing, 2018).
Chibvongodze, D. T. Ubuntu is not only about the human! An analysis of the role of African philosophy and ethics in environment management. J. Hum. Ecol. 53, 157–166 (2016).
doi: 10.1080/09709274.2016.11906968
Torralba, M. et al. Disentangling the practice of landscape approaches: a Q-method analysis on experiences in socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes. Sustain. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01307-2 (2023).
O’Neill, J. in Routledge Handbook of Ecological Economics: Nature and Society (ed. Spash, C. L.), Ch. 22, 227–236 (Routledge, 2017).
Arrow, K. J. Social Choice and Individual Values 3rd edn (Yale University Press, 2012).
Termansen, M. et al. in Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Balvanera, P. et al.). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522522 (2022).
Freeman, A. M. III, Herriges, J. A. & Kling, C. L. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods 3rd edn (RFF Press, 2014).
Bagstad, K. J., Semmens, D. J., Waage, S. & Winthrop, R. A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 5, E27–E39 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.004
Hanley, N. & Czajkowski, M. The role of stated preference valuation methods in understanding choices and informing policy. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 13, 248–266 (2019).
doi: 10.1093/reep/rez005
Kenter, J. O. et al. Shared values and deliberative valuation: future directions. Ecosyst. Serv. 21, 358–371 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.006
Tanaka, S. & Zabel, J. Valuing nuclear energy risk: evidence from the impact of the Fukushima crisis on U.S. house prices. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 88, 411–426 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2017.12.005
Adams, H. et al. Multi-dimensional well-being associated with economic dependence on ecosystem services in deltaic social-ecological systems of Bangladesh. Reg. Environ. Change 20, 42 (2020).
doi: 10.1007/s10113-020-01620-x
Esmail, B. A. & Geneletti, D. Multi‐criteria decision analysis for nature conservation: a review of 20 years of applications. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 42–53 (2018).
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12899
Haacker, E. M. K. et al. Transition pathways to sustainable agricultural water management: a review of integrated modeling approaches. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 55, 6–23 (2019).
doi: 10.1111/1752-1688.12722
Chan, K. M. A. & Satterfield, T. The maturation of ecosystem services: social and policy research expands, but whither biophysically informed valuation? People Nat. 2, 1021–1060 (2020).
doi: 10.1002/pan3.10137
Chilisa, B. Indigenous Research Methodologies 2nd edn (SAGE, 2020).
Vatn, A. An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal. Ecol. Econ. 68, 2207–2215 (2009).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.005
Drost, E. A. Validity and reliability in social science research. Educ. Res. Perspect. 38, 105–123 (2011).
Bishop, R. C. & Boyle, K. J. in A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation Vol. 13 (eds Champ, P. A. et al.) 463–497 (Springer, 2017).
Opdam, P., Steingröver, E. & van Rooij, S. Ecological networks: a spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 75, 322–332 (2006).
doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.015
Busch, M., La Notte, A., Laporte, V. & Erhard, M. Potentials of quantitative and qualitative approaches to assessing ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 21, 89–103 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.11.010
McDermott, M., Mahanty, S. & Schreckenberg, K. Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 33, 416–427 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.006
Barton, D. N. et al. in Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Balvanera, P. et al.). Zenodo https://zenodo.org/record/6522261 (2022).
Wegner, G. & Pascual, U. Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: A multidisciplinary critique. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 492–504 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.008
Singh, G. G. et al. Scientific shortcomings in environmental impact statements internationally. People Nat. 2, 369–379 (2020).
doi: 10.1002/pan3.10081
Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S. & Crosby, B. C. Designing public participation processes. Public Adm. Rev. 73, 23–34 (2013).
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02678.x
Leverington, F., Costa, K. L., Pavese, H., Lisle, A. & Hockings, M. A global analysis of protected area management effectiveness. Environ. Manage. 46, 685–698 (2010).
pubmed: 20859627
doi: 10.1007/s00267-010-9564-5
Oldekop, J. A., Holmes, G., Harris, W. E. & Evans, K. L. A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas: social and conservation impacts of protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 30, 133–141 (2016).
pubmed: 26096222
doi: 10.1111/cobi.12568
Dawson, N. M. et al. The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecol. Soc. 26, art19 (2021).
doi: 10.5751/ES-12625-260319
Lliso, B., Arias‐Arévalo, P., Maca‐Millán, S., Engel, S. & Pascual, U. Motivational crowding effects in payments for ecosystem services: exploring the role of instrumental and relational values. People Nat. 4, 312–329 (2022).
doi: 10.1002/pan3.10280
Ravera, F. et al. Gendered agrobiodiversity management and adaptation to climate change: differentiated strategies in two marginal rural areas of India. Agric. Hum. Values 36, 455–474 (2019).
doi: 10.1007/s10460-018-09907-w
Moore, D., Dore, J. & Gyawali, D. The World Commission on Dams + 10: revisiting the large dam controversy. Water Altern. 3, 3–13 (2010).
Lliso, B., Pascual, U., Engel, S. & Mariel, P. Payments for ecosystem services or collective stewardship of Mother Earth? Applying deliberative valuation in an indigenous community in Colombia. Ecol. Econ. 169, 106499 (2020).
Brondízio, E. S. et al. Locally based, regionally manifested, and globally relevant: indigenous and local knowledge, values, and practices for nature. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 46, 481–509 (2021).
doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-012127
Saadun, N. et al. Socio-ecological perspectives of engaging smallholders in environmental-friendly palm oil certification schemes. Land Use Policy 72, 333–340 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.057
Blundo-Canto, G. et al. The different dimensions of livelihood impacts of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) schemes: a systematic review. Ecol. Econ. 149, 160–183 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.011
Cánovas-Molina, A. & García-Frapolli, E. Untangling worldwide conflicts in marine protected areas: five lessons from the five continents. Mar. Policy 121, 104185 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104185
Barbier, E. B. The green economy post Rio+20. Science 338, 887–888 (2012).
pubmed: 23161980
doi: 10.1126/science.1227360
Wilson, E. O. Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life 1st edn (Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2016).
Rozzi, R. et al. (eds) Earth Stewardship: Linking Ecology and Ethics in Theory and Practice Vol. 2 (Springer, 2015).
D’Alisa, G. et al. (eds) Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era 1st edn (Routledge, 2015).
Hickel, J. et al. Degrowth can work—here’s how science can help. Nature 612, 400–403 (2022).
pubmed: 36510013
doi: 10.1038/d41586-022-04412-x
Pascual, U. et al. Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00694-7 (2021).
Díaz, S. et al. (eds) Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES Secretariat, 2019).
Kelemen, E. et al. in Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Balvanera, P. et al.). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522522 (2022).
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M. & West, R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement. Sci. 6, 42 (2011).
pubmed: 21513547
pmcid: 3096582
doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
Zafra-Calvo, N. et al. Plural valuation of nature for equity and sustainability: insights from the Global South. Glob. Environ. Change 63, 102115 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102115
Ecosystem accounting. United Nations: System of Environmental Economic Accounting https://seea.un.org/ecosystem-accounting (2021).
Busch, J. et al. A global review of ecological fiscal transfers. Nat. Sustain. 4, 756–765 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41893-021-00728-0
Vatn, A. Environmental Governance: Institutions, Policies and Actions (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016).
Pascual, U. et al. Governing for transformative change across the biodiversity–climate–society nexus. BioScience 72, 684–704 (2022).
doi: 10.1093/biosci/biac031
OECD. Innovative citizen participation and new democratic institutions: catching the deliberative wave. OECD iLibrary https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en (2020).
Hasler, B. et al. European agri-environmental policy: evolution, effectiveness, and challenges. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 16, 105–125 (2022).
doi: 10.1086/718212
Heinz, I., Pulido-Velazquez, M., Lund, J. R. & Andreu, J. Hydro-economic modeling in river basin management: implications and applications for the European Water Framework Directive. Water Resour. Manag. 21, 1103–1125 (2007).
doi: 10.1007/s11269-006-9101-8
Breustedt, G., Schulz, N. & Latacz-Lohmann, U. Factors affecting participation and compensation requirements in agri-environmental schemes: Insights from a discrete choice experiment. German J. Agri. Econ. 62, 244–258 (2013).
Berbés-Blázquez, M., González, J. A. & Pascual, U. Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 19, 134–143 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.02.003