Haben Ökosysteme eine Eigenart? Gedanken zur Rolle des Eigenart-Begriffs in naturwissenschaftlich geprägten Naturschutzdiskussionen

Der vorliegende Band versammelt die umgearbeiteten Beiträge einer Tagung, die im März 2002 im Warburg-Haus in Hamburg stattfand. Sie wurde im Rahmen des Forschungsprojekts „Natur im Konflikt“ veranstaltet, das von der Volkswagenstiftung innerhalb des Förderprogramms „Schlüsselthemen der Geisteswissenschaften“ finanziert wird. Dieses interdisziplinäre Vorhaben widmet sich der Untersuchung von mentalen Konzepten, Bildern, Modellen und Wertzuschreibungen, die zum kollektiven Fundus unserer Vorstellungen von Natur gehören. Dabei richten sich die Untersuchungen aus der Perspektive verschiedener Fachrichtungen – Ethnologie bzw. Sozialanthropologie, Geschichtswissenschaft, naturwissenschaftliche Küstenforschung, Literatur-, Sprach- und Medienwissenschaft – insbesondere auf die diejenigen Naturbilder und Modellierungen, die zu den oft nicht thematisierten Argumentationen und Überzeugungen gehören.This volume collects the revised contributions of a conference that took place in March 2002 at the Warburg-Haus in Hamburg. It was organised as part of the "Nature in Conflict" research project, which was funded by the Volkswagen Foundation within the framework of the "Key Humanities Issues" funding programme. This interdisciplinary project was dedicated to the investigation of mental concepts, images, models and value attributions that belong to the collective fund of our ideas of nature. In this context, the investigations are directed from the perspective of various disciplines - ethnology or social anthropology, history, coastal research in the natural sciences, literature, linguistics and media studies - in particular at those images of nature and models that belong to the argumentations and convictions that are often not discussed

Different arguments, same conclusions: how is action against invasive alien species justified in the context of European policy?

The prevention and management of invasive alien species (IAS) has become a high priority in European environmental policy. At the same time, ways of evaluating IAS continue to be a topic of lively debate. In particular, it is far from clear how directly policy makers’ value judgements are linked to the European (EU) policy against IAS. We examine the arguments used to support value judgements of both alien species and invasive alien species as well as the relation between these value judgements and the policy against IAS being developed at European level. Our study is based on 17 semi-structured interviews with experts from EU policy making and from the EU member states Austria, Belgium, Germany and Hungary. We found that our interviewees conceived of IAS in very different ways, expressed a variety of visions of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and adhered to widely different values expressed in their perceptions of IAS and the impacts of IAS. However, only some of these conceptualizations and value judgements are actually addressed in the rationale given in the preamble to the European IAS Regulation. Although value judgements about IAS differed, there was considerable agreement regarding the kind of action to be taken against them. © 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrech

Exploring operational ecosystem service definitions : the case of boreal forests

Highlights • We examine alternative ways of defining and classifying ecosystem services by using an example of a boreal forest in Finland. • We suggest using the notion of final ecosystem goods and services in economic valuation and other priority setting contexts. • In the context of awareness raising it might be more effective to retain the well-established terminology of the M A. • We find a definition of ecosystem services value, which is based on willingness to pay, too narrow. • We suggest regarding both natural and semi-natural ecosystem outputs as ecosystem services.Despite the widespread use of the concept of ecosystem services, there is still much uncertainty over the precise understanding of basic terms such as 'ecosystem services', 'benefits' and 'values'. This paper examines alternative ways of defining and classifying ecosystem services by using the specific example of boreal forests in Finland. We find the notion of final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) operable, and suggest using it in economic valuation and other priority setting contexts, as well as in the selection of indicators. However, in the context of awareness raising it might be more effective to retain the well-established terminology of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Our analysis shows that the cascade model (Potschin and Haines-Young, 2011. Progress in Physical Geography 35(5), 575-594) is helpful in distinguishing between ecosystem structures, processes, services, benefits and values by making the sequence of links visible. Johnston and Russell's (2011. Ecological Economics 70(12), 2243-2249) operational mechanism for determining FEGSs proves also instrumental in separating intermediate (e.g. carbon sequestration) and final ecosystem services (e.g. reduction of atmospheric carbon). However, we find their definition of importance, which is based on willingness to pay, too narrow. Furthermore, we favour the CICES approach, which defines ecosystem services as the direct contributions that ecosystems - whether natural or semi-natural - make to human well-being

Sustainable Development Goals and risks: The Yin and the Yang of the paths towards sustainability

The United Nations 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) define a path towards a sustainable future, but given that uncertainty characterises the outcomes of any SDG-related actions, risks in the implementation of the Agenda need to be addressed. At the same time, most risk assessments are narrowed to sectoral approaches and do not refer to SDGs. Here, on the basis of a literature review and workshops, it is analysed how SDGs and risks relate to each other’s in different communities. Then, it is formally demonstrated that, as soon as the mathematical definition of risks is broadened to embrace a more systemic perspective, acting to maintain socioenvironmental systems within their sustainability domain can be done by risk minimisation. This makes Sustainable Development Goals and risks ‘‘the Yin and the Yang of the paths towards sustainability’’. Eventually, the usefulness of the SDG-risk nexus for both sustainability and risk management is emphasized. 2030 Agenda Environmental risks Planet boundaries Risk quantification Sustainability science Systemic approachpublishedVersio

Handling a messy world: lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational

The concept of ecosystem services is widely used in the scientific literature and increasingly also in policy and practice. Nevertheless, operationalising the concept, i.e. putting it into practice, is still a challenge. We describe the approach of the EU-project OpenNESS (Operationalisation of Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital), which was created in response to this challenge to critically evaluate the concept when applied to real world problems at different scales and in different policy sectors. General requirements for operationalization, the relevance of conceptual frameworks and lessons learnt from 27 case study applications are synthesized in a set of guiding principles. We also briefly describe some integrative tools as developed in OpenNESS which support the implementation of the principles. The guiding principles are grouped under three major headlines: “Defining the problem and opening up the problem space”, “Considering ethical issues” and “Assessing alternative methods, tools and actions”. Real world problems are often “wicked” problems, which at first are seldom clear-cut and well-defined, but often rather complex and subject to differing interpretations and interests. We take account of that complexity and emphasise that there is not one simple and straightforward way to approach real world problems involving ecosystem services. The principles and tools presented are meant to provide some guidance for tackling this complexity by means of a transdisciplinary methodology that facilitates the operationalisation of the ecosystem services concept

The Adaptability of Full Cast Crown in Preclinical Practice

A study was made to evaluate the adaptability of full cast crowns in preclinical practice of the fifth year students at Matsumoto Dental College in 1984. Gap space between the inner surface of the full cast crown and the surface of the abutment tooth was investigated with silicon material. The results were as follows: 1) The adaptability of crowns was better at the mesial surface than at the distal surface, and better at the lingual surface than at the buccal surface. 2) The adaptability of crowns was better at the axial walls, especialy in the middle, than in the cervical margin. 3) At the occulusal surface, the adaptability of crowns was worst

Opinion: Why Protect Nature? Rethinking Values and the Environment

A cornerstone of environmental policy is the debate over protecting nature for humans’ sake (instrumental values) or for nature’s (intrinsic values) (1). We propose that focusing only on instrumental or intrinsic values may fail to resonate with views on personal and collective well-being, or “what is right,” with regard to nature and the environment. Without complementary attention to other ways that value is expressed and realized by people, such a focus may inadvertently promote worldviews at odds with fair and desirable futures. It is time to engage seriously with a third class of values, one with diverse roots and current expressions: relational values. By doing so, we reframe the discussion about environmental protection, and open the door to new, potentially more productive policy approaches

Zu den Autorinnen und Autoren

Der vorliegende Band versammelt die umgearbeiteten Beiträge einer Tagung, die im März 2002 im Warburg-Haus in Hamburg stattfand. Sie wurde im Rahmen des Forschungsprojekts „Natur im Konflikt“ veranstaltet, das von der Volkswagenstiftung innerhalb des Förderprogramms „Schlüsselthemen der Geisteswissenschaften“ finanziert wird. Dieses interdisziplinäre Vorhaben widmet sich der Untersuchung von mentalen Konzepten, Bildern, Modellen und Wertzuschreibungen, die zum kollektiven Fundus unserer Vorstellungen von Natur gehören. Dabei richten sich die Untersuchungen aus der Perspektive verschiedener Fachrichtungen – Ethnologie bzw. Sozialanthropologie, Geschichtswissenschaft, naturwissenschaftliche Küstenforschung, Literatur-, Sprach- und Medienwissenschaft – insbesondere auf die diejenigen Naturbilder und Modellierungen, die zu den oft nicht thematisierten Argumentationen und Überzeugungen gehören.This volume collects the revised contributions of a conference that took place in March 2002 at the Warburg-Haus in Hamburg. It was organised as part of the "Nature in Conflict" research project, which was funded by the Volkswagen Foundation within the framework of the "Key Humanities Issues" funding programme. This interdisciplinary project was dedicated to the investigation of mental concepts, images, models and value attributions that belong to the collective fund of our ideas of nature. In this context, the investigations are directed from the perspective of various disciplines - ethnology or social anthropology, history, coastal research in the natural sciences, literature, linguistics and media studies - in particular at those images of nature and models that belong to the argumentations and convictions that are often not discussed

Resilience trinity: safeguarding ecosystem functioning and services across three different time horizons and decision contexts

Ensuring ecosystem resilience is an intuitive approach to safeguard the functioning of ecosystems and hence the future provisioning of ecosystem services (ES). However, resilience is a multi-faceted concept that is difficult to operationalize. Focusing on resilience mechanisms, such as diversity, network architectures or adaptive capacity, has recently been suggested as means to operationalize resilience. Still, the focus on mechanisms is not specific enough. We suggest a conceptual framework, resilience trinity, to facilitate management based on resilience mechanisms in three distinctive decision contexts and time-horizons: i) reactive, when there is an imminent threat to ES resilience and a high pressure to act, ii) adjustive, when the threat is known in general but there is still time to adapt management, and iii) provident, when time horizons are very long and the nature of the threats is uncertain, leading to a low willingness to act. Resilience has different interpretations and implications at these different time horizons, which also prevail in different disciplines. Social ecology, ecology, and engineering are often implicitly focussing on provident, adjustive, or reactive resilience, respectively, but these different notions and of resilience and their corresponding social, ecological, and economic trade-offs need to be reconciled. Otherwise, we keep risking unintended consequences of reactive actions, or shying away from provident action because of uncertainties that cannot be reduced. The suggested trinity of time horizons and their decision contexts could help ensuring that longer-term management actions are not missed while urgent threats to ES are given priority