In: Bateman , I J , Coombes , E , Fitzherbert , E , Binner , A , Bad'ura , T , Carbone , C , Fisher , B , Naidoo , R & Watkinson , A R 2015 , ' Conserving tropical biodiversity via market forces and spatial targeting ' , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , vol. 112 , no. 24 , pp. 7408-7413 . https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406484112
The recent report from the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity [(2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3] acknowledges that ongoing biodiversity loss necessitates swift, radical action. Protecting undisturbed lands, although vital, is clearly insufficient, and the key role of unprotected, private land owned is being increasingly recognized. Seeking to avoid common assumptions of a social planner backed by government interventions, the present work focuses on the incentives of the individual landowner. We use detailed data to show that successful conservation on private land depends on three factors: conservation effectiveness (impact on target species), private costs (especially reductions in production), and private benefits (the extent to which conservation activities provide compensation, for example, by enhancing the value of remaining production). By examining the high-profile issue of palm-oil production in a major tropical biodiversity hotspot, we show that the levels of both conservation effectiveness and private costs are inherently spatial; varying the location of conservation activities can radically change both their effectiveness and private cost implications. We also use an economic choice experiment to show that consumers' willingness to pay for conservation-grade palm-oil products has the potential to incentivize private producers sufficiently to engage in conservation activities, supporting vulnerable International Union for Conservation of Nature Red Listed species. However, these incentives vary according to the scale and efficiency of production and the extent to which conservation is targeted to optimize its cost-effectiveness. Our integrated, interdisciplinary approach shows how strategies to harness the power of the market can usefully complement existing - and to-date insufficient - approaches to conservation.
Developing models to predict the effects of social and economic change on agricultural landscapes is an important challenge. Model development often involves making decisions about which aspects of the system require detailed description and which are reasonably insensitive to the assumptions. However, important components of the system are often left out because parameter estimates are unavailable. In particular, measurements of the relative influence of different objectives, such as risk, environmental management, on farmer decision making, have proven difficult to quantify. We describe a model that can make predictions of land use on the basis of profit alone or with the inclusion of explicit additional objectives. Importantly, our model is specifically designed to use parameter estimates for additional objectives obtained via farmer interviews. By statistically comparing the outputs of this model with a large farm-level land-use data set, we show that cropping patterns in the United Kingdom contain a significant contribution from farmer's preference for objectives other than profit. In particular, we found that risk aversion had an effect on the accuracy of model predictions, whereas preference for a particular number of crops grown was less important. While nonprofit objectives have frequently been identified as factors in farmers' decision making, our results take this analysis further by demonstrating the relationship between these preferences and actual cropping patterns.
Public policy requires public support, which in turn implies a need to enable the public not just to understand policy but also to be engaged in its development. Where complex science and technology issues are involved in policy making, this takes time, so it is important to identify emerging issues of this type and prepare engagement plans. In our horizon scanning exercise, we used a modified Delphi technique [1]. A wide group of people with interests in the science and policy interface (drawn from policy makers, policy adviser, practitioners, the private sector and academics) elicited a long list of emergent policy issues in which science and technology would feature strongly and which would also necessitate public engagement as policies are developed. This was then refined to a short list of top priorities for policy makers. Thirty issues were identified within broad areas of business and technology; energy and environment; government, politics and education; health, healthcare, population and aging; information, communication, infrastructure and transport; and public safety and national security.Public policy requires public support, which in turn implies a need to enable the public not just to understand policy but also to be engaged in its development. Where complex science and technology issues are involved in policy making, this takes time, so it is important to identify emerging issues of this type and prepare engagement plans. In our horizon scanning exercise, we used a modified Delphi technique [1]. A wide group of people with interests in the science and policy interface (drawn from policy makers, policy adviser, practitioners, the private sector and academics) elicited a long list of emergent policy issues in which science and technology would feature strongly and which would also necessitate public engagement as policies are developed. This was then refined to a short list of top priorities for policy makers. Thirty issues were identified within broad areas of business and technology; energy and ...
In: Parker , M , Acland , A , Armstrong , H J , Bellingham , J R , Bland , J , Bodmer , H C , Burall , S , Castell , S , Chilvers , J , Cleevely , D D , Cope , D , Costanzo , L , Dolan , J A , Doubleday , R , Feng , W Y , Godfray , H C J , Good , D A , Grant , J , Green , N , Groen , A J , Guilliams , T T , Gupta , S , Hall , A C , Heathfield , A , Hotopp , U , Kass , G , Leeder , T , Lickorish , F A , Lueshi , L M , Magee , C , Mata , T , McBride , T , McCarthy , N , Mercer , A , Neilson , R , Ouchikh , J , Oughton , E J , Oxenham , D , Pallett , H , Palmer , J , Patmore , J , Petts , J , Pinkerton , J , Ploszek , R , Pratt , A , Rocks , S A , Stansfield , N , Surkovic , E , Tyler , C P , Watkinson , A R , Wentworth , J , Willis , R , Wollner , P K A , Worts , K & Sutherland , W J 2014 , ' Identifying the Science and Technology Dimensions of Emerging Public Policy Issues through Horizon Scanning ' PloS one , vol 9 , no. 5 , e96480 . DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0096480
Public policy requires public support, which in turn implies a need to enable the public not just to understand policy but also to be engaged in its development. Where complex science and technology issues are involved in policy making, this takes time, so it is important to identify emerging issues of this type and prepare engagement plans. In our horizon scanning exercise, we used a modified Delphi technique [1]. A wide group of people with interests in the science and policy interface (drawn from policy makers, policy adviser, practitioners, the private sector and academics) elicited a long list of emergent policy issues in which science and technology would feature strongly and which would also necessitate public engagement as policies are developed. This was then refined to a short list of top priorities for policy makers. Thirty issues were identified within broad areas of business and technology; energy and environment; government, politics and education; health, healthcare, population and aging; information, communication, infrastructure and transport; and public safety and national security.