Biodiversity conservation across scales: lessons from a science–policy dialogue

One of the core challenges of biodiversity conservation is to better understand the interconnectedness and interactions of scales in ecological and governance processes. These interrelationships constitute not only a complex analytical challenge but they also open up a channel for deliberative discussions and knowledge exchange between and among various societal actors which may themselves be operating at various scales, such as policy makers, land use planners, members of NGOs, and researchers. In this paper, we discuss and integrate the perspectives of various disciplines academics and stakeholders who participated in a workshop on scales of European biodiversity governance organised in Brussels in the autumn of 2010. The 23 participants represented various governmental agencies and NGOs from the European, national, and sub-national levels. The data from the focus group discussions of the workshop were analysed using qualitative content analysis. The core scale-related challenges of biodiversity policy identified by the participants were cross-level and cross-sector limitations as well as ecological, social and social-ecological complexities that potentially lead to a variety of scale-related mismatches. As ways to address these cha- llenges the participants highlighted innovations, and an aim to develop new interdisciplinary approaches to support the processes aiming to solve current scale challenges

Assessing the role of economic instruments in a policy mix for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision: a review of some methodological challenges

In this paper we review a number of methodological challenges of evaluating and designing economic instruments aimed at biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision in the context of an existing policy mix. In the context of the EU 2010 goal of halting biodiversity loss, researchers have been called upon to evaluate the role of economic instruments for cost-effective decision-making, as well as non-market methods to assess their benefits. We argue that cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and non-market valuation (NMV) methods are necessary, but not sufficient, approaches to assessing the role of economic instruments in a policy mix. We review the principles of “social-ecological-systems”(SES) (Ostrom et al. 2007) and discuss how SES can complement economic cost and benefit assessment methods, in particular in policy design research. To illustrate our conceptual comparison of assessment methodologies, we look at two examples of economic instruments at different government levels – payments for ecosystem services (PES) at farm level and ecological fiscal transfers to municipal /county government. What conceptual problems are introduced when evaluating policies in an instrument mix? How can the SES framework complement CEA and NMV in policy assessment and design? We draw on experiences from Brazil and Costa Rica to exemplify these questions. We conclude with some research questions

Shared attention for action selection and action monitoring in goal-directed reaching

Dual-task studies have shown higher sensitivity for stimuli presented at the targets of upcoming actions. We examined whether attention is directed to action targets for the purpose of action selection, or if attention is directed to these locations because they are expected to provide feedback about movement outcomes. In our experiment, endpoint accuracy feedback was spatially separated from the action targets to determine whether attention would be allocated to (a) the action targets, (b) the expected source of feedback, or (c) to both locations. Participants reached towards a location indicated by an arrow while identifying a discrimination target that could appear in any one of eight possible locations. Discrimination target accuracy was used as a measure of attention allocation. Participants were unable to see their hand during reaching and were provided with a small monetary reward for each accurate movement. Discrimination target accuracy was best at action targets but was also enhanced at the spatially separated feedback locations. Separating feedback from the reaching targets did not diminish discrimination accuracy at the movement targets but did result in delayed movement initiation and reduced reaching accuracy, relative to when feedback was presented at the reaching target. The results suggest attention is required for both action planning and monitoring movement outcomes. Dividing attention between these functions negatively impacts action performance