Details
| Originalsprache | Englisch |
|---|---|
| Fachzeitschrift | NATURE |
| Jahrgang | 620 |
| Frühes Online-Datum | 9 Aug. 2023 |
| Publikationsstatus | Veröffentlicht - 24 Aug. 2023 |
Abstract
Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being 1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis 3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever 4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) 5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals 6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature 7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change 8, pandemic emergence 9 and socio-environmental injustices 10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions 7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.
Zitieren
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTex
- RIS
in: NATURE, Jahrgang 620, 24.08.2023.
Publikation: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift › Artikel › Forschung › Peer-Review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Diverse values of nature for sustainability
AU - Pascual, Unai
AU - Balvanera, Patricia
AU - Anderson, Christopher B.
AU - Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca
AU - Christie, Michael
AU - González-Jiménez, David
AU - Martin, Adrian
AU - Raymond, Christopher M.
AU - Termansen, Mette
AU - Vatn, Arild
AU - Athayde, Simone
AU - Baptiste, Brigitte
AU - Barton, David N.
AU - Jacobs, Sander
AU - Kelemen, Eszter
AU - Kumar, Ritesh
AU - Lazos, Elena
AU - Mwampamba, Tuyeni H.
AU - Nakangu, Barbara
AU - O’Farrell, Patrick
AU - Subramanian, Suneetha M.
AU - van Noordwijk, Meine
AU - Ahn, So Eun
AU - Amaruzaman, Sacha
AU - Amin, Ariane M.
AU - Arias-Arévalo, Paola
AU - Arroyo-Robles, Gabriela
AU - Cantú-Fernández, Mariana
AU - Castro, Antonio J.
AU - Contreras, Victoria
AU - De Vos, Alta
AU - Dendoncker, Nicolas
AU - Engel, Stefanie
AU - Eser, Uta
AU - Faith, Daniel P.
AU - Filyushkina, Anna
AU - Ghazi, Houda
AU - Gómez-Baggethun, Erik
AU - Gould, Rachelle K.
AU - Guibrunet, Louise
AU - Gundimeda, Haripriya
AU - Hahn, Thomas
AU - Harmáčková, Zuzana V.
AU - Hernández-Blanco, Marcello
AU - Horcea-Milcu, Andra Ioana
AU - Huambachano, Mariaelena
AU - Wicher, Natalia Lutti Hummel
AU - Aydın, Cem İskender
AU - Islar, Mine
AU - Koessler, Ann Kathrin
AU - Kenter, Jasper O.
AU - Kosmus, Marina
AU - Lee, Heera
AU - Leimona, Beria
AU - Lele, Sharachchandra
AU - Lenzi, Dominic
AU - Lliso, Bosco
AU - Mannetti, Lelani M.
AU - Merçon, Juliana
AU - Monroy-Sais, Ana Sofía
AU - Mukherjee, Nibedita
AU - Muraca, Barbara
AU - Muradian, Roldan
AU - Murali, Ranjini
AU - Nelson, Sara H.
AU - Nemogá-Soto, Gabriel R.
AU - Ngouhouo-Poufoun, Jonas
AU - Niamir, Aidin
AU - Nuesiri, Emmanuel
AU - Nyumba, Tobias O.
AU - Özkaynak, Begüm
AU - Palomo, Ignacio
AU - Pandit, Ram
AU - Pawłowska-Mainville, Agnieszka
AU - Porter-Bolland, Luciana
AU - Quaas, Martin
AU - Rode, Julian
AU - Rozzi, Ricardo
AU - Sachdeva, Sonya
AU - Samakov, Aibek
AU - Schaafsma, Marije
AU - Sitas, Nadia
AU - Ungar, Paula
AU - Yiu, Evonne
AU - Yoshida, Yuki
AU - Zent, Eglee
N1 - Funding Information: We are grateful to the IPBES, whose 139-member states commissioned the Values Assessment and approved its Summary for Policymakers. We are also grateful for the contributions to the assessment’s review editors: S. Anderson, S. Baker, J. Camilo Cardenas, J. Cariño, K. Chan, J. Farley, C. Okereke, L. Pereira, E. Raez, H. Vessuri and R. Watson; the members of the management committee: B. Vilá, A. Díaz-de-León, C. Diaw, M. Avdibegovic, J. Marton-Lefevre and R. Allahverdiyev, and the more than 200 contributing authors who provided specific input to the full report. We express our gratitude to IPBES Executive Secretary A. Larigauderie and IPBES Chair A. M. Hernández for their strategic vision and continued advice. We received no specific funding for this work; all authors involved in IPBES do so on a voluntary basis. The IPBES Values Assessment was made possible thanks to many generous contributions, including non-earmarked contributions to the IPBES trust fund from governments. All donors are listed on the IPBES website www.ipbes.net/donors . U.P. acknowledges BC3’s Maria de Maeztu excellence accreditation 2023–2026 (reference no. CEX2021-001201-M) provided by grant no. MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033.
PY - 2023/8/24
Y1 - 2023/8/24
N2 - Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being 1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis 3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever 4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) 5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals 6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature 7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change 8, pandemic emergence 9 and socio-environmental injustices 10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions 7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.
AB - Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being 1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis 3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever 4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) 5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals 6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature 7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change 8, pandemic emergence 9 and socio-environmental injustices 10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions 7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85167358387&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9
DO - 10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85167358387
VL - 620
JO - NATURE
JF - NATURE
SN - 0028-0836
ER -