Suchergebnisse

English
A deep philosophical divide exists between 'strictly objective' scientists, who believe that engaging in civic debates undermines objectivity, and 'citizen scientists', who believe scientists can – and at times should – help decision makers incorporate sound scientific knowledge. Here we suggest that the threat posed to scientific objectivity by the escalating politicisation of science provides a limited bridge between these competing philosophical views: a commitment to scientific objectivity requires a greater civic presence.

Without widespread and immediate changes in human values and activities, massive tracts of natural habitat will be degraded to the detriment of those ecosystems, ecosystem services, and many threatened taxa—in the oceans and elsewhere. Despite this, the conservation movement has yet to devote much attention to the intentional project of widespread norm change. By one logic, the ecosystem services concept offers a means of integrating meaningful conservation into decision-making by diverse government and corporate actors, potentially normalizing conservation. But normalizing conservation would require not only the uptake of ecosystem-services concepts but also widespread changes in conservation practice and stewardship values—on a scale that far exceeds what we have witnessed to date. The concept of ecosystem services has potential for assisting such a societal transformation because it effectively puts a human face on environmental change, thereby enabling the extension of responsibility and morality into environmental arenas at all scales. Furthermore, cultural ecosystem services merit particular attention because of their contribution to the formation of attachments to particular places and to identities rooted in nature and conservation, which presents an opportunity to consolidate and shape deep motivations for lasting conservation. Realizing these two opportunities in a way that is both appropriate and effective, however, will require several important innovations and new institutions, which we propose here. One key step is to enlist a broad base of consumers and corporations in the funding of actions to mitigate the environmental impacts associated with their participation in global supply chains, via funding vehicles that are conspicuous, easy, enjoyable, and not too expensive. We describe a new initiative called CoSphere that strives to create such structures. With consolidated effort and explicit attention, conservation can become normalized—to the benefit of current people, future generations, and life on Earth. ; Science, Faculty of ; Non UBC ; Resources, Environment and Sustainability (IRES), Institute for ; Unreviewed ; Faculty ; Postdoctoral ; Graduate

A major strength of the ecosystem services (ESS) concept is that it allows a succinct description of how human well-being depends on nature, showing that the neglect of such dependencies has negative consequences on human well-being and the economy. As ESS refer to human needs and interests, values are to be considered when dealing with the concept in practice. As a result we argue that in using the concept there is a need to be clear about what different dimensions of value are involved, and be aware of ethical issues that might be associated with the concept. A systematic analysis of the ethical implications associated to the ESS concept is still lacking. We address this deficiency by scrutinising value dimensions associated with the concept, and use this to explore the associated ethical implications. We then highlight how improved transparency in the use of the ESS concept can contribute to using its strengths without succumbing to possible drawbacks arising from ethical problems. These problems concern the dangers that some uses of the concept have in obscuring certain types of value, and in masking unevenness in the distribution of costs and benefits that can arise in the management of ESS.

This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of the AAAS for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Science 359(6373) on 19/01/2018, DOI:10.1126/science.aap8826 ; A major challenge today and into the future is to maintain or enhance beneficial contributions of nature to a good quality of life for all people. This is among the key motivations of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a joint global effort by governments, academia, and civil society to assess and promote knowledge of Earth's biodiversity and ecosystems and their contribution to human societies in order to inform policy formulation. One of the more recent key elements of the IPBES conceptual framework (1) is the notion of nature's contributions to people (NCP), which builds on the ecosystem service concept popularized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2). But as we detail below, NCP as defined and put into practice in IPBES differs from earlier work in several important ways. First, the NCP approach recognizes the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining all links between people and nature. Second, use of NCP elevates, emphasizes, and operationalizes the role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding nature's contribution to people. ; PLEASE READ BEFORE VALIDATING: Licence unknown. Brighton University Repository on their webpage for this output https://research.brighton.ac.uk/en/publications/assessing-natures-contributions-to-people they have the author's accepted manuscript with the following bibliographical note "This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of the AAAS for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Science 359(6373) on 19/01/2018, DOI:10.1126/science.aap8826". Contacted Brighton repository for informatio about the licence and if it was specifically for their repository and they replied "I don't think it specifically said - I think the risk is very low of including it in your IR. From memory I think it was a generic statement and permission was not directly sought as their policy covered self-archiving in IRs as long as the statement was included.". Also, accoridng to Sherpa Romeo https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/id/publication/11114, the accepted manuscript can be deposited without embargo. Should we also upload it in ours with this disclaimer? CBoula, 10/11/2021 OK, will do so, will add disclaimer to a note field in repositoroy RVO