Suchergebnisse

This deliverable provides a General Framework for the BESTMAP Policy Impact Assessment Modelling (BESTMAP-PIAM) toolset. The BESTMAP-PIAM is based on the notion of defining (a) a typology of agricultural systems, with one (or more) representative case study (CS) in each major system; (b) mapping all individual farms within the case study to a Farm System Archetype (FSA) typology; (c) model the adoption of agri-environmental schemes (AES) within the spatially-mapped FSA population using Agent Based Models (ABM), based on literature and a survey with sufficient representative sample in each FSA of each CS, to elucidate the non-monetary drivers underpinning AES adoption and the relative importance of financial and non-financial/social/identity drivers; (d) linking AES adoption to a set of biophysical, ecological and socio-economic impact models; (e) upscaling the CS level results to EU scale; (f) linking the outputs of these models to indicators developed for the post-2020 CAP output, result and impact reports; (g) visualizing outputs and providing a dashboard for policy makers to explore a range of policy scenarios, focusing on cost-effectiveness of different AES.

Half of the European Union (EU) land and the livelihood of 10 million farmers is threatened by unsustainable land-use intensification, land abandonment and climate change. Policy instruments, including the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have so far failed to stop this environmental degradation. BESTMAP will: 1) Develop a behavioural theoretical modelling framework to take into account complexity of farmers' decision-making; 2) Develop, adapt and customize a suite of opensource, flexible, interoperable and customisable computer models linked to existing data e.g. LPIS/IACS and remote sensing e.g. Sentinel-2; 3) Link economic, individual-farm agent-based, biophysical ecosystem services and biodiversity and geostatistical socio-economic models; 4) Produce a simple-to-use dashboard to compare scenarios of Agri-Environmental Schemes adoption; 5) Improve the effectiveness of future EU rural policies' design, monitoring and implementation.

Are we entering a new 'Golden Age' of biogeography, with continued development of infrastructure and ideas? We highlight recent developments, and the challenges and opportunities they bring, in light of the snapshot provided by the 7th biennial meeting of the International Biogeography Society (IBS 2015). We summarize themes in and across 15 symposia using narrative analysis and word clouds, which we complement with recent publication trends and 'research fronts'. We find that biogeography is still strongly defined by core sub-disciplines that reflect its origins in botanical, zoological (particularly bird and mammal), and geographic (e.g., island, montane) studies of the 1800s. That core is being enriched by large datasets (e.g. of environmental variables, 'omics', species' occurrences, traits) and new techniques (e.g., advances in genetics, remote sensing, modeling) that promote studies with increasing detail and at increasing scales; disciplinary breadth is being diversified (e.g., by developments in paleobiogeography and microbiology) and integrated through the transfer of approaches and sharing of theory (e.g., spatial modeling and phylogenetics in evolutionary–ecological contexts). Yet some subdisciplines remain on the fringe (e.g., marine biogeography, deep-time paleobiogeography), new horizons and new theory may be overshadowed by popular techniques (e.g., species distribution modelling), and hypotheses, data, and analyses may each be wanting. Trends in publication suggest a shift away from traditional biogeography journals to multidisciplinary or open access journals. Thus, there are currently many stewardship of, the planet (e.g., Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). As in the past, biogeographers doubtless will continue to be engaged by new data and methods in exploring the nexus between biology and geography for decades into the future. But golden ages come and go, and they need not touch every domain in a discipline nor affect subdisciplines at the same time; moreover, what appears to be a Golden Age may sometimes have an undesirable 'Midas touch'. Contexts within and outwith biogeography—e.g., methods, knowledge, climate, biodiversity, politics—are continually changing, and at times it can be challenging to establish or maintain relevance. In so many races with the Red Queen, we suggest that biogeography will enjoy greatest success if we also increasingly engage with the epistemology of our discipline ; Peer reviewed

Are we entering a new 'Golden Age' of biogeography, with continued development of infrastructure and ideas? We highlight recent developments, and the challenges and opportunities they bring, in light of the snapshot provided by the 7th biennial meeting of the International Biogeography Society (IBS 2015). We summarize themes in and across 15 symposia using narrative analysis and word clouds, which we complement with recent publication trends and 'research fronts'. We find that biogeography is still strongly defined by core sub-disciplines that reflect its origins in botanical, zoological (particularly bird and mammal), and geographic (e.g., island, montane) studies of the 1800s. That core is being enriched by large datasets (e.g. of environmental variables, 'omics', species' occurrences, traits) and new techniques (e.g., advances in genetics, remote sensing, modeling) that promote studies with increasing detail and at increasing scales; disciplinary breadth is being diversified (e.g., by developments in paleobiogeography and microbiology) and integrated through the transfer of approaches and sharing of theory (e.g., spatial modeling and phylogenetics in evolutionary-ecological contexts). Yet some subdisciplines remain on the fringe (e.g., marine biogeography, deep-time paleobiogeography), new horizons and new theory may be overshadowed by popular techniques (e.g., species distribution modelling), and hypotheses, data, and analyses may each be wanting. Trends in publication suggest a shift away from traditional biogeography journals to multidisciplinary or open access journals. Thus, there are currently many opportunities and challenges as biogeography increasingly addresses human impacts on, and stewardship of, the planet (e.g., Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). As in the past, biogeographers doubtless will continue to be engaged by new data and methods in exploring the nexus between biology and geography for decades into the future. But golden ages come and go, and they need not touch every domain in a discipline nor affect subdisciplines at the same time; moreover, what appears to be a Golden Age may sometimes have an undesirable 'Midas touch'. Contexts within and outwith biogeography-e.g., methods, knowledge, climate, biodiversity, politics-are continually changing, and at times it can be challenging to establish or maintain relevance. In so many races with the Red Queen, we suggest that biogeography will enjoy greatest success if we also increasingly engage with the epistemology of our discipline.

Are we entering a new 'Golden Age' of biogeography, with continued development of infrastructure and ideas? We highlight recent developments, and the challenges and opportunities they bring, in light of the snapshot provided by the 7th biennial meeting of the International Biogeography Society (IBS 2015). We summarize themes in and across 15 symposia using narrative analysis and word clouds, which we complement with recent publication trends and 'research fronts'. We find that biogeography is still strongly defined by core sub-disciplines that reflect its origins in botanical, zoological (particularly bird and mammal), and geographic (e.g., island, montane) studies of the 1800s. That core is being enriched by large datasets (e.g. of environmental variables, 'omics', species' occurrences, traits) and new techniques (e.g., advances in genetics, remote sensing, modeling) that promote studies with increasing detail and at increasing scales; disciplinary breadth is being diversified (e.g., by developments in paleobiogeography and microbiology) and integrated through the transfer of approaches and sharing of theory (e.g., spatial modeling and phylogenetics in evolutionary–ecological contexts). Yet some subdisciplines remain on the fringe (e.g., marine biogeography, deep-time paleobiogeography), new horizons and new theory may be overshadowed by popular techniques (e.g., species distribution modelling), and hypotheses, data, and analyses may each be wanting. Trends in publication suggest a shift away from traditional biogeography journals to multidisciplinary or open access journals. Thus, there are currently many opportunities and challenges as biogeography increasingly addresses human impacts on, and stewardship of, the planet (e.g., Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). As in the past, biogeographers doubtless will continue to be engaged by new data and methods in exploring the nexus between biology and geography for decades into the future. But golden ages come and go, and they need not touch every domain in a discipline nor affect subdisciplines at the same time; moreover, what appears to be a Golden Age may sometimes have an undesirable 'Midas touch'. Contexts within and outwith biogeography—e.g., methods, knowledge, climate, biodiversity, politics—are continually changing, and at times it can be challenging to establish or maintain relevance. In so many races with the Red Queen, we suggest that biogeography will enjoy greatest success if we also increasingly engage with the epistemology of our discipline.

Extraction and use of minerals through mining is essential for industrial and societal development. However, the mining industry carries significant risks of long-lasting negative impacts on the environment, particularly on water resources and landscapes, as well as on local communities. Catastrophes such as the Brumadinho dam collapse in Brazil in January 2019 and in Nachterstedt, Germany, in 2009, where three people died because parts of an inhabited settlement slipped into a flooded open-cast mining area, call for action and can provide momentum for change. A transition towards mining in sustainable landscapes is necessary to ensure that the future of this industry operates with a sufficient degree of resilience and in a manner that can adequately respond to and align with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the United Nations and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This Science Policy Report which was written by a group of 23 young scientists from Brazil, Germany, Canada, Chile and Peru outlines a new vision for mining activities and proposes several recommendations that can guide this paradigm shift towards sustainable mining landscapes. The report by the young scientists is the result of a workshop hosted by the Leopoldina and the Brazilian Academy of Sciences last year in Belo Horizonte.