Motivational crowding effects in payments for ecosystem services: Exploring the role of instrumental and relational values

Nature is perceived and valued in many different ways. Often, the types of values that are the most important to people depend on how they cognitively frame desirable human–nature relations. For instance, the value of nature can be seen through a utilitarian lens, for example, as providing ecosystem services for humans. Alternatively, it can also be considered valuable for non-instrumental reasons, for example, for its sacred or spiritual significance. In this paper, we use a framed field experiment to test how people belonging to three distinct communities in Colombia (Indigenous, Afro-Colombian and Campesino) respond to different ways of framing payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes, so as to assess potential motivational crowding effects of pro-social/intrinsic motivations for forest conservation. The experimental results indicate that crowding-in of intrinsic motivations for forest conservation occurred in participants from the Indigenous community when the PES scheme was framed in a way that highlighted the relational values of the forest. By contrast, motivational crowding-in took place for participants in the framed field experiment from the Campesino community when the PES scheme was introduced in a way that highlighted instrumental values instead. Participants from the Afro-Colombian community did not show the evidence of motivational crowding under either framing. Together, these results suggest that PES schemes that are framed in a way that harmonizes with locally salient human–nature relational models and associated values are more likely to cause motivational crowding-in, and thus encourage the higher rates of environmental conservation, even after payments are discontinued. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. © 2021 The Authors. People and Nature published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society.We would like to acknowledge the Corporaci?n aut?noma regional del Valle del Cauca (CVC), especially Andr?s Carmona and Santiago Mesa, the leaders and community members of Rio Bravo, the Resguardo Nasa Kiwe Embera Cham? (La Delfina) and the Consejo Comunitario Alto y Medio Dagua, without whom this study would not have been possible. We would also like to thank Adriana Bernal and Juan Felipe Ortiz-Riomalo for their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Funding for this research was provided by the Alexander von Humboldt-Foundation in the framework of the Alexander von Humboldt-Professorship endowed by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. B.L. and U.P. are supported by the Spanish Government through Mar?a de Maeztu Excellence Accreditation 2018?2022 (Ref. MDM-2017-0714). We would like to acknowledge the Corporación autónoma regional del Valle del Cauca (CVC), especially Andrés Carmona and Santiago Mesa, the leaders and community members of Rio Bravo, the Resguardo Nasa Kiwe Embera Chamí (La Delfina) and the Consejo Comunitario Alto y Medio Dagua, without whom this study would not have been possible. We would also like to thank Adriana Bernal and Juan Felipe Ortiz‐Riomalo for their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Funding for this research was provided by the Alexander von Humboldt‐Foundation in the framework of the Alexander von Humboldt‐Professorship endowed by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. B.L. and U.P. are supported by the Spanish Government through María de Maeztu Excellence Accreditation 2018–2022 (Ref. MDM‐2017‐0714)

Plural valuation of nature for equity and sustainability: Insights from the Global South

Plural valuation is about eliciting the diverse values of nature articulated by different stakeholders in order to inform decision making and thus achieve more equitable and sustainable outcomes. We explore what approaches align with plural valuation on the ground, as well as how different social-ecological contexts play a role in translating plural valuation into decisions and outcomes. Based on a co-constructed analytical approach relying on empirical information from ten cases from the Global South, we find that plural valuation contributes to equitable and sustainable outcomes if the valuation process: 1) is based on participatory value elicitation approaches; 2) is framed with a clear action-oriented purpose; 3) provides space for marginalized stakeholders to articulate their values in ways that can be included in decisions; 4) is used as a tool to identify and help reconcile different cognitive models about human-nature relations; and 5) fosters open communication and collaboration among stakeholders. We also find that power asymmetries can hinder plural valuation. As interest and support for undertaking plural valuation grows, a deeper understanding is needed regarding how it can be adapted to different purposes, approaches, and social-ecological contexts in order to contribute to social equity and sustainability

Diverse values of nature for sustainability

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

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

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

Diverse values of nature for sustainability

Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being, addressing the global biodiversity crisis 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 ever. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, 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 nature. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change, pandemic emergence and socio-environmental injustices. 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 decisions. 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

Mortality of emergency abdominal surgery in high-, middle- and low-income countries

Background: Surgical mortality data are collected routinely in high-income countries, yet virtually no low- or middle-income countries have outcome surveillance in place. The aim was prospectively to collect worldwide mortality data following emergency abdominal surgery, comparing findings across countries with a low, middle or high Human Development Index (HDI). Methods: This was a prospective, multicentre, cohort study. Self-selected hospitals performing emergency surgery submitted prespecified data for consecutive patients from at least one 2-week interval during July to December 2014. Postoperative mortality was analysed by hierarchical multivariable logistic regression. Results: Data were obtained for 10 745 patients from 357 centres in 58 countries; 6538 were from high-, 2889 from middle- and 1318 from low-HDI settings. The overall mortality rate was 1⋅6 per cent at 24 h (high 1⋅1 per cent, middle 1⋅9 per cent, low 3⋅4 per cent; P < 0⋅001), increasing to 5⋅4 per cent by 30 days (high 4⋅5 per cent, middle 6⋅0 per cent, low 8⋅6 per cent; P < 0⋅001). Of the 578 patients who died, 404 (69⋅9 per cent) did so between 24 h and 30 days following surgery (high 74⋅2 per cent, middle 68⋅8 per cent, low 60⋅5 per cent). After adjustment, 30-day mortality remained higher in middle-income (odds ratio (OR) 2⋅78, 95 per cent c.i. 1⋅84 to 4⋅20) and low-income (OR 2⋅97, 1⋅84 to 4⋅81) countries. Surgical safety checklist use was less frequent in low- and middle-income countries, but when used was associated with reduced mortality at 30 days. Conclusion: Mortality is three times higher in low- compared with high-HDI countries even when adjusted for prognostic factors. Patient safety factors may have an important role. Registration number: NCT02179112 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)

Low serological positivy in patients with histology compatible with celiac disease in Perú.

Objective: to study the frequency of positive serology for celiac disease (CD) in patients with duodenal biopsies suggestive of this disease. Material and methods: cross sectional study. We included patients with duodenal biopsies histologically compatible with CD and antigliadin, antiendomysial and IgA antitransglutaminase antibodies. We defined a “case” of CD if there was a positive biopsy and either antiendomisial or antitransglutaminase positive antibodies. Results: thirty one patients were included in our study. Six were antiendomysial positive and 5 antitransglutaminase positive while the antigliadin was positive in 14 cases. Therefore, out of 31 patients only 10 had a serology compatible with CD and only one had positive both antibodies, antiendomysial and antitransglutaminase. Conclusions: a) we have found that most of the duodenal biopsies compatible with CD are not diagnosed with positive serology; and b) we found a low correlation between serological diagnostic tests.Revisión por pares

Baja frecuencia de positividad serológica en pacientes con biopsias histológicamente compatibles con enfermedad celiaca en Perú Low serological positivy in patients with histology compatible with celiac disease in Perú

Objetivo: estudiar la frecuencia de positividad de las pruebas serológicas en pacientes con biopsias compatible con enfermedad celiaca. Material y métodos: estudio transversal. Se incluyeron pacientes con biopsia duodenal histológicamente compatible con enfermedad celiaca y determinación de anticuerpos antigliadina, antiendomisio y antitransglutaminasa IgA. Definimos como caso de enfermedad celiaca a quienes tuvieran biopsia positiva y anticuerpos antiendomisio y/o antitransglutaminasa positivos. Resultados: 31 pacientes fueron incluidos de los cuales 6 fueron antiendomisio positivo, 5 fueron antitransglutaminasa positivo y antigliadina fue positivo en 14. Por lo tanto de 31 pacientes con cambios histológicos compatibles con enfermedad celiaca sólo 10 tuvieron serología diagnóstica. Sólo uno de los pacientes tuvo positividad tanto para antitransglutaminasa como para antiendomisio. Conclusiones: a) encontramos que la mayoría de biopsias de duodeno con un cuadro histológico sugerente de enfermedad celiaca no se corresponden con serología diagnóstica de esta enfermedad; b) encontramos baja coincidencia en la positividad serológica entre antiendomisio y antitransglutaminasa.Objective: to study the frequency of positive serology for celiac disease (CD) in patients with duodenal biopsies suggestive of this disease. Material and methods: cross sectional study. We included patients with duodenal biopsies histologically compatible with CD and antigliadin, antiendomysial and IgA antitransglutaminase antibodies. We defined a "case" of CD if there was a positive biopsy and either antiendomisial or antitransglutaminase positive antibodies. Results: thirty one patients were included in our study. Six were antiendomysial positive and 5 antitransglutaminase positive while the antigliadin was positive in 14 cases. Therefore, out of 31 patients only 10 had a serology compatible with CD and only one had positive both antibodies, antiendomysial and antitransglutaminase. Conclusions: a) we have found that most of the duodenal biopsies compatible with CD are not diagnosed with positive serology; and b) we found a low correlation between serological diagnostic tests