Whose values count? A review of the nature valuation studies with a focus on justice

The Values Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services shows that multiple valuation methods and approaches exist to assess diverse value types. The evidence is based on the largest review of academic valuation studies on nature to date, developed for the Values Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We evaluate studies according to environmental justice criteria. The results suggest that although diverse value types and indicators are assessed across studies, few individual studies are plural, and studies fail to provide evidence on distributive justice and score low on procedural justice indicators. We provide a set of recommendations for incorporating issues of justice in the design of valuation studies

Diverse values of nature for sustainability

Data availability: All the data are freely available online. The supplementary information provides links to Zenodo with specific DOIs where the data are stored for free use.Supplementary information is available online at https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-023-06406-9/MediaObjects/41586_2023_6406_MOESM1_ESM.docx . The Supplementary Information includes three parts. Part A explains how the paper is associated with the IPBES Values Assessment. Part B provides details about each of the 29 review protocols. Part C offers information about the case study of Chilika Lagoon, India, that is used in the main paper.Copyright © The Author(s) 2023. Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 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 ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, 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 nature7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change8, pandemic emergence9 and socio-environmental injustices10. 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 decisions7,11. 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.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

Key Emerging Issues for Forests and Livelihoods in the 21st Century - June 2019

Presentation about the FLARE network. The mission of the FLARE network is to establish a Community of Practice that advances the state of knowledge of the intersection of forests and livelihoods. In bringing together stakeholders – researchers, practitioners, donors, and decision makers – FLARE will leverage efforts that enrich the understanding of forest livelihood interactions. The researchers focus on the most pressing conceptual, political, and practical issues concerning forests and livelihoods

Whose values count? A review of the nature valuation studies with a focus on justice

The Values Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services shows that multiple valuation methods and approaches exist to assess diverse value types. The evidence is based on the largest review of academic valuation studies on nature to date, developed for the Values Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We evaluate studies according to environmental justice criteria. The results suggest that although diverse value types and indicators are assessed across studies, few individual studies are plural, and studies fail to provide evidence on distributive justice and score low on procedural justice indicators. We provide a set of recommendations for incorporating issues of justice in the design of valuation studies.</p

Biodiversity in species, traits, and structure determines carbon stocks and uptake in tropical forests

Impacts of climate change require that society urgently develops ways to reduce amounts of carbon in the atmosphere. Tropical forests present an important opportunity, as they take up and store large amounts of carbon. It is often suggested that forests with high biodiversity have large stocks and high rates of carbon uptake. Evidence is, however, scattered across geographic areas and scales, and it remains unclear whether biodiversity is just a co-benefit or also a requirement for the maintenance of carbon stocks and uptake. Here, we perform a quantitative review of empirical studies that analyzed the relationships between plant biodiversity attributes and carbon stocks and carbon uptake in tropical forests. Our results show that biodiversity attributes related to species, traits or structure significantly affect carbon stocks or uptake in 64% of the evaluated relationships. Average vegetation attributes (community-mean traits and structural attributes) are more important for carbon stocks, whereas variability in vegetation attributes (i.e., taxonomic diversity) is important for both carbon stocks and uptake. Thus, different attributes of biodiversity have complementary effects on carbon stocks and uptake. These biodiversity effects tend to be more often significant in mature forests at broad spatial scales than in disturbed forests at local spatial scales. Biodiversity effects are also more often significant when confounding variables are not included in the analyses, highlighting the importance of performing a comprehensive analysis that adequately accounts for environmental drivers. In summary, biodiversity is not only a co-benefit, but also a requirement for short- and long-term maintenance of carbon stocks and enhancement of uptake. Climate change policies should therefore include the maintenance of multiple attributes of biodiversity as an essential requirement to achieve long-term climate change mitigation goals

vanderSande_ea_Appendix_S3

Appendix S3 (full list of references from studies incorporated in the quantitative review

Data from: Biodiversity in species, traits and structure determines carbon stocks and uptake in tropical forests

Impacts of climate change require that society urgently develops ways to reduce amounts of carbon in the atmosphere. Tropical forests present an important opportunity, as they take up and store large amounts of carbon. It is often suggested that forests with high biodiversity have large stocks and high rates of carbon uptake. Evidence is, however, scattered across geographic areas and scales, and it remains unclear whether biodiversity is just a co‐benefit or also a requirement for the maintenance of carbon stocks and uptake. Here, we perform a quantitative review of empirical studies that analyzed the relationships between plant biodiversity attributes and carbon stocks and carbon uptake in tropical forests. Our results show that biodiversity attributes related to species, traits or structure significantly affect carbon stocks or uptake in 64% of the evaluated relationships. Average vegetation attributes (community‐mean traits and structural attributes) are more important for carbon stocks, whereas variability in vegetation attributes (i.e., taxonomic diversity) is important for both carbon stocks and uptake. Thus, different attributes of biodiversity have complementary effects on carbon stocks and uptake. These biodiversity effects tend to be more often significant in mature forests at broad spatial scales than in disturbed forests at local spatial scales. Biodiversity effects are also more often significant when confounding variables are not included in the analyses, highlighting the importance of performing a comprehensive analysis that adequately accounts for environmental drivers. In summary, biodiversity is not only a co‐benefit, but also a requirement for short‐ and long‐term maintenance of carbon stocks and enhancement of uptake. Climate change policies should therefore include the maintenance of multiple attributes of biodiversity as an essential requirement to achieve long‐term climate change mitigation goals

vanderSande_ea_Appendix_S2

Appendix S2 (data used in study

Understanding the multidimensionality of climate-smartness: Examples from agroforestry in Tanzania

Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) has three goals—productivity, resilience and mitigation. Rarely are these accounted for in CSA programming or the scientific evidence that supports it. Here, we evaluate the climate smartness of CSA-based agroforestry practices in Tabora and Dodoma, Tanzania using unpublished data from earlier studies. Firstly, a study of on-farm wood production and its use with the improved cook stove (ICS) was used to ascertain the productivity and mitigation effects of CSA. Next, intercropping experiments of maize or cassava with pigeonpea and/or G. sepium provided information on the production and resilience benefits of CSA. It was found that agroforestry practices (shelterbelt, trees on contours and intercropping) supplied up eight tons per hectare (t ha−1) of wood—enough to support a five-member family for up to 6 years when using ICS. Employing ICS also reduced the time spent in cooking (20%) and fuelwood collection (32%), and reduced gas emissions by 62%. Generally, intercropping pigeonpea or G. sepium enhanced farm production (as noted by a land equivalent ratio greater than 1) and agroecosystem resilience through crop diversification by using suitable intercropping arrangements and including a drought-resistant crop. Using the latter two in semi-arid Dodoma enhanced crop production across seasons and sites. Our analysis shows that adopting CSA-based agroforestry and intercropping practices is beneficial. However, these benefits are not universal. It also illustrates other key principles for understanding multidimensionality of CSA objectives, including the need to: select appropriate indicators, ensure designs are robust for heterogeneity, examine trade-offs, and conduct participatory evaluation of CSA