Suchergebnisse

Cultural ecosystem services research is in a somewhat tumultuous state. The cultural ecosystem services (CES) idea is seen simultaneously as a welcoming, expansive addition to conservation policy-making and as a strange, square-peg-in-a-round-hole concept that should be replaced by a more appropriate metaphor or conceptual structure. This confluence of interest and skepticism suggests an opportune moment to take stock of CES, both as a concept and growing scholarly field. Here, we focus on dilemmas that characterize and constitute CES as a field of empirical inquiry and practice. We describe five tensions that characterize the field (and mirror tensions in interdisciplinary work more broadly): universalism and anti-universalism; reductionism and non-reductionism; historical and ahistorical approaches; politicized and depoliticized approaches; and objectivity and situated knowledges. We then suggest five non-mutually-exclusive roles that CES research can (and does) play: The Convener/Illuminator; the Process Police Officer; the Translator; the Revolutionary; and the Policy In-fighter. We provide examples of each tension and role, and posit that clarity and reflexivity may help to make sense of a fertile, if sometimes confusing, interdisciplinary field. Making more sense of, and being more explicit about, the contradictions and contributions of the CES field, can, we suggest, aid decision-makers, CES researchers, and others to better include these values in environmental management.

Place connections are core to being human: Every person lives in, and thus has direct experience of, at least one place and likely of numerous places throughout a lifetime. Sense of place—or the meanings, knowledge, and bonds that arise from the biophysical, social, and political–economic aspects of places—in turn influences people's interactions with those places. Of particular interest to researchers, practitioners, and policymakers, such interactions can impact place-protective, stewardship, or conservation behaviors. However, how sense of place develops and what it represents is shifting in today's rapidly urbanizing, globalizing world. Especially when considering the integrated social–ecological context, questions related to how sense of place forms and is enacted in urban settings and at a range of geographic scales are challenging to study. Our study addresses this dynamic space: We examined how people's place connections intersect with their notions of geographic scale and levels of urbanity. Specifically, we conducted a 1201-person randomized telephone survey in the San Francisco Bay Area ecoregion of California, USA, to explore how sense of place varies by (1) the scale of what people consider to be their place, and (2) the urbanity of where people live. In comparison with respondents who perceived their place as the larger-scale ecoregion, we found that respondents who perceived their place as primarily focused on the urban area rated their connection to the biophysical aspects of place (the plants, animals, and landscape-related elements) lower. Similarly, overall, respondents who lived in urban areas rated their connections to the biophysical aspects of place lower than did respondents who lived in non-urban areas. Our findings suggest the importance of encouraging conceptualizations of place at broader geographic scales and, particularly, of supporting notions of urban spaces that stretch beyond urban boundaries. We also call for supporting increased engagement with urban nature, especially among residents of urban areas.

Agroecology is grounded in principles that support transitions toward economic, social and ecological sustainability and proposes that real and lasting change will require a significant transformation of our agri-food systems. Evidence for agroecology's potential continues to grow, both through word of mouth by farmers and social movements, and through recent scientific assessments of its performance. With endorsements from the Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), national governments in both the global north and south, and social movements, it is developing the web of 'thick legitimacy' required for even broader adoption (Montenegro de Wit & Iles, 2016). ".Agroecology represents a system that works with nature instead of against it and offers an approach to food production that boosts biodiversity, creates ecological resilience, improves soils, cools the planet and reduces energy and resource use. It has been shown to be highly productive, to provide highly diverse dietary offerings and to support the process of community building and women's empowerment" (Anderson et al., 2020, p. 3). However, agroecology is an approach that is not yet recognized as being actively practiced in Vermont and the USA, despite its significant potential for supporting transitions to sustainable food systems in different contexts. The University of Vermont is home to researchers and practitioners at the forefront of agroecological research and learning. The objectives of this white paper are to demonstrate the importance of agroecology for the future of sustainable food systems in Vermont, and as a framework to assess and advance transformations towards sustainability. In this paper we will: a) Demonstrate the global evidence base for agroecology and the potential of agroecology in the United States, and Vermont. b) Present the case for an agroecological principles-based approach to assess food and farming sustainability which can capture the multifunctional dynamics and benefits of agroecology to economic, social and ecological sustainability. c) Present examples based on our newly developed Agroecological Assessment for Sustainability framework to existing initiatives in Vermont that represent constituencies across a range of farm types and scales. d) Demonstrate the importance of participatory and transdisciplinary approaches for research

© 2019, The Author(s). This paper concludes a special feature of Sustainability Science that explores a broad range of social value theoretical traditions, such as religious studies, social psychology, indigenous knowledge, economics, sociology, and philosophy. We introduce a novel transdisciplinary conceptual framework that revolves around concepts of 'lenses' and 'tensions' to help navigate value diversity. First, we consider the notion of lenses: perspectives on value and valuation along diverse dimensions that describe what values focus on, how their sociality is envisioned, and what epistemic and procedural assumptions are made. We characterise fourteen of such dimensions. This provides a foundation for exploration of seven areas of tension, between: (1) the values of individuals vs collectives; (2) values as discrete and held vs embedded and constructed; (3) value as static or changeable; (4) valuation as descriptive vs normative and transformative; (5) social vs relational values; (6) different rationalities and their relation to value integration; (7) degrees of acknowledgment of the role of power in navigating value conflicts. In doing so, we embrace the 'mess' of diversity, yet also provide a framework to organise this mess and support and encourage active transdisciplinary collaboration. We identify key research areas where such collaborations can be harnessed for sustainability transformation. Here it is crucial to understand how certain social value lenses are privileged over others and build capacity in decision-making for understanding and drawing on multiple value, epistemic and procedural lenses.

Humanity is on a deeply unsustainable trajectory. We are exceeding planetary boundaries and unlikely to meet many international sustainable development goals and global environmental targets. Until recently, there was no broadly accepted framework of interventions that could ignite the transformations needed to achieve these desired targets and goals. As a component of the IPBES Global Assessment, we conducted an iterative expert deliberation process with an extensive review of scenarios and pathways to sustainability, including the broader literature on indirect drivers, social change and sustainability transformation. We asked, what are the most important elements of pathways to sustainability? Applying a social–ecological systems lens, we identified eight priority points for intervention (leverage points) and five overarching strategic actions and priority interventions (levers), which appear to be key to societal transformation. The eight leverage points are: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. The five intertwined levers can be applied across the eight leverage points and more broadly. These include: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre-emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision-making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. The levers and leverage points are all non-substitutable, and each enables others, likely leading to synergistic benefits. Transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling-up of sustainability initiatives—it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems. These levers and leverage points build upon those approved within the Global Assessment's Summary for Policymakers, with the aim of enabling leaders in government, business, civil society and academia to spark transformative changes towards a more just and sustainable world. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. ; Fil: Chan, Kai M. A. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Boyd, David R. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Gould, Rachelle. University of Vermont; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Jetzkowitz, Jens. Staatliches Museum fur Naturkunde Stuttgart; Alemania ; Fil: Liu, Jianguo. Michigan State University; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Muraca, Bárbara. University of Oregon; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Naidoo, Robin. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Beck, Paige. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Satterfield, Terre. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Selomane, Odirilwe. Stellenbosch University; Sudáfrica ; Fil: Singh, Gerald G. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Sumaila, Rashid. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Ngo, Hien T. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Alemania ; Fil: Boedhihartono, Agni Klintuni. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Agard, John. The University Of The West Indies; Trinidad y Tobago ; Fil: de Aguiar, Ana Paula D. Stockholms Universitet; Suecia ; Fil: Armenteras, Dolors. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; Colombia ; Fil: Balint, Lenke. BirdLife International; Reino Unido ; Fil: Barrington-Leigh, Christopher. Mcgill University; Canadá ; Fil: Cheung, William W. L. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina ; Fil: Driscoll, John. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Esler, Karen. Stellenbosch University; Sudáfrica ; Fil: Eyster, Harold. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Gregr, Edward J. University of British Columbia; Canadá ; Fil: Hashimoto, Shizuka. The University Of Tokyo; Japón ; Fil: Hernández Pedraza, Gladys Cecilia. The World Economy Research Center; Cuba ; Fil: Hickler, Thomas. Goethe Universitat Frankfurt; Alemania ; Fil: Kok, Marcel. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países Bajos ; Fil: Lazarova, Tanya. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países Bajos ; Fil: Mohamed, Assem A. A. Central Laboratory for Agricultural Climate; Egipto ; Fil: Murray-Hudson, Mike. University Of Botswana; Botsuana ; Fil: O'Farrell, Patrick. University of Cape Town; Sudáfrica ; Fil: Palomo, Ignacio. Basque Centre for Climate Change; España ; Fil: Saysel, Ali Kerem. Boğaziçi University; Turquía ; Fil: Seppelt, Ralf. Martin-universität Halle-wittenberg; Alemania ; Fil: Settele, Josef. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research-iDiv; Alemania ; Fil: Strassburg, Bernardo. International Institute for Sustainability, Estrada Dona Castorina; Brasil ; Fil: Xue, Dayuan. Minzu University Of China; China ; Fil: Brondízio, Eduardo S. Indiana University; Estados Unidos