Interdisciplinary and multi-institutional higher learning : reflecting on a South African case study investigating complex and dynamic environmental challenges

Complex social-ecological problems need sustained interdisciplinary engagements across multiple disciplines, yet academic offerings continue to reflect disciplinary silos. To address this, a five-year program, within a developing country context, was conceived to follow an interdisciplinary research mode using a team of students and supervisors from various institutions across the disciplines of ecology, hydrology and economics. By using a flexible student training model, regional/ site specific knowledge was developed while simultaneously developing a shared vision and a model to combine information from each student project. Graduates felt enabled by the program that actively encouraged interdisciplinary interactions and engagements while simultaneously furthering disciplinary development. Cross disciplinary communication, was achieved through multiple engagement opportunities and common research outputs, all facilitated by an external boundary organization. While lengthy time frames are required for such collaborative interdisciplinary programs, researchers, higher learning institutions and funding agencies should not avoid this type of program and investment.The Water Research Commission of South Africahttp://www.journals.elsevier.com/current-opinion-in-environmental-sustainability2017-04-30hb2016Economic

Conceiving the science, business, and practice of restoring natural capital

Although not a new term, restoring natural capital is still very much the "new kid on the block" when one considers either ecological restoration or ecological economics. In essence, the term refers to the need for augmenting our natural resource stock if we wish to maintain or, ideally, increase flows of ecosystem goods and services to support an ever-growing global population. Capital augmentation as a strategy towards welfare enhancement is not new either. John Hicks (1946) referred to it for the first time shortly after World War II, although he only focused on manufactured capital. In brief, Hicks noted that if you do not keep your capital stock intact, you seem to desire to be worse off in the future than you are now! The principle that now bears his name can be applied equally well to natural capital

Ecological restoration : a new frontier for nature conservation and economics

Ecological restoration is still perceived by many conservationists, and the majority of economists, as a diversion, a delusion, and – far worse – a waste of money. In this paper we point out that restoration is in fact complementary not only to nature conservation but also to sustainable, equitable socio-economic development. This is because restoring and augmenting the natural capital base generates jobs and improves livelihoods and the quality of life of all in the economy. In developing countries, where most biodiversity hotspots occur, both conservation of nature and the restoration of degraded ecosystems will find local support only if they are clearly linked to socio-economic development. Conversely, sound socio-economic development in the environmentally damaged portions of those countries undoubtedly will require ecological restoration of the natural capital base. Nature conservation, ecological restoration, and sustainable economic development policies should therefore be planned, budgeted and executed conjointly

Nature conservation as if people mattered

The restoration of natural capital is arguably one of the most radical ideas to emerge in recent years as it links two imperatives whose exponents have been at loggerheads for decades. These are the need to protect biodiversity and conserve natural resources as espoused by conservationists and environmentalists, and the demand for natural resources as dictated by economists and society at large, at local, regional, national and international scales. We need to work together, or even ‘leap together’, across traditional disciplinary frontiers or polemical stances, in order to find innovative solutions that counter the prevailing ideological divide separating economics and ecology. We close this special issue with a proposition of five pillars and three principal tasks for sustainable living, including conservation and restoration

Natural capital : the limiting factor

The global economy is approaching crisis because of our neglect and misuse of the ecosystems that sustain us. Ecological overshoot of the globe's economy is an indisputable reality (Wackernagel et al., 2002). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) concluded that humans over the past few decades have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history. The challenge of slowing down, but preferably reversing, the degradation of ecosystems, while simultaneously meeting increasing human demands for energy, food, and ecosystem services requires significant changes in policies, institutions, and practices that are not currently under way (MEA, 2005). In other words, radical changes away from ‘business as usual’ or, better expressed, ‘dynamics as usual’ are needed

The possibilities and pitfalls presented by a pragmatic approach to ecosystem service valuation in an arid biodiversity hotspot

Arid regions are home to unique fauna, flora, and vulnerable human populations, and present a challenge for sustainable land-use management. We undertook an assessment and valuation of three key services, grazing, tourism and water supply in the arid Succulent Karoo biome in western South Africa - a globally recognised biodiversity hotspot. We were looking for ways and values that could be used to promote conservation in this region through the adoption of sustainable land-use practices which have human welfare benefits. Our study adopted a variety of methods in valuing these services in developing ranges of values for these services. At the biome level, total annual values ranged from $19e114 million for grazing,$ 2e$20 million for tourism, and$ 300e3120 million for water. These values are generally low compared with values derived for other biomes and regions and do not adequately reflect known dependence and the importance of ecosystem services to the residents of this biome. The ecosystems here provide small but critical benefits enabling communities to sustain themselves and small changes in service levels can have major welfare effects. Highlighting these sensitivities will require finding more appropriate ways to link ecological and social factors