Assumptions in ecosystem service assessments: Increasing transparency for conservation

Conservation efforts are increasingly supported by ecosystem service assessments. These assessments depend on complex multi-disciplinary methods, and rely on a number of assumptions which reduce complexity. If assumptions are ambiguous or inadequate, misconceptions and misinterpretations may arise when interpreting results of assessments. An interdisciplinary understanding of assumptions in ecosystem service science is needed to provide consistent conservation recommendations. Here, we synthesise and elaborate on 12 prevalent types of assumptions in ecosystem service assessments. These comprise conceptual and ethical foundations of the ecosystem service concept, assumptions on data collection, indication, mapping, and modelling, on socio-economic valuation and value aggregation, as well as about using assessment results for decision-making. We recommend future assessments to increase transparency about assumptions, and to test and validate them and their potential consequences on assessment reliability. This will support the taking up of assessment results in conservation science, policy and practice.Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft (DE)BiodiversaBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002347Peer Reviewe

Loving the mess: navigating diversity and conflict in social values for sustainability

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.Peer reviewe

Global Climate Change—Who Ought to Pay the Bill?

Global climate change is a significant challenge for current and, particularly, future generations. In the public debate about the fair allocation of associated costs commonly the moral claim that the developed countries should burden the costs is expressed. To support this claim, often four moral arguments, based on the theory of justice, are raised: (i) the polluter pays, (ii) the historical responsibility, (iii) the beneficiary pays, and (iv) the ability to pay. The aim of the paper is to assess whether these principles impose a duty on the developed countries and whether a fair allocation of costs would be achieved

EDDi - Serious Game: Read.Me

EDDi Serious Game - An Epidemic of Haemolytic Uraemic Syndrome in Hamburg This EDDi Read.Me provides credits, licenses, relevant references, and background information about the EDDi Serious Game. Information on the game and its application in teaching and capacity strengthening can be found under EDDi Serious Game (Windows / Web Player).This resource is published under an MIT license (https://opensource.org/license/mit/). The license's terms and conditions for further use and distribution apply. For further information on EDDi visit https://linktr.ee/e.d.d.i

Between complexity and unfamiliarity: preferences for soil-based ecosystem services

Soils provide multiple benefits for human well-being, which are largely invisible to most beneficiaries. Here, we present the results of a discrete choice experiment into the preferences of Germans for soil-based ecosystem services. To tackle complexity and unfamiliarity of soils, we express soil-based ecosystem service attributes relative to the site-specific potential of soils to provide them. We investigate how knowledge about soils, awareness of their contributions to human well-being and experience with droughts and floods affect the preferences. We find substantial yet heterogeneous preferences for soil-based ecosystem services. Only some measures of familiarity exhibit significant effects on preferences

Social Support at the Workplace, Motivation to Transfer, and Training Transfer: A Multi-Level Indirect Effects Model

Supervisor support, peer support and transfer motivation have been identified as important predictors for training transfer. Transfer motivation is supposed to mediate the support–training transfer relationship. Especially after team training interventions that include all team members (i.e., intact-team training), individual perception of these factors might be shared among team members. However, an integration of the team level in the training transfer process is rare, yet still needed. Analyzing 194 employees from 34 teams in the context of intact-team training interventions, we found similar relationships and processes at both levels of analysis: Social support enhances transfer motivation at the individual and team levels. Furthermore, motivation to transfer increases training transfer and serves as a connecting mechanism in the social support–training transfer link. The results underline the importance of (1) considering multiple levels in theories and research about the training transfer process and (2) ensuring the practice of individual-directed support and a shared, supportive climate within teams