Costanza, R

Gordon, IJ

Sangha, KK

English

UCL Discovery

TYPE EditorialPUBLISHED 17 May 2023DOI 10.3389/fevo.2023.1174160OPEN ACCESSEDITED AND REVIEWED BYDavid Midmore,Central Queensland University, Australia*CORRESPONDENCEKamaljit K. Sanghakamaljit.sangha@cdu.edu.auRECEIVED 25 February 2023ACCEPTED 02 May 2023PUBLISHED 17 May 2023CITATIONSangha KK, Gordon IJ and Costanza R (2023)Editorial: Ecosystem services, policy, andhuman well-being.Front. Ecol. Evol. 11:1174160.doi: 10.3389/fevo.2023.1174160COPYRIGHT© 2023 Sangha, Gordon and Costanza. This isan open-access article distributed under theterms of the Creative Commons AttributionLicense (CC BY). The use, distribution orreproduction in other forums is permitted,provided the original author(s) and thecopyright owner(s) are credited and that theoriginal publication in this journal is cited, inaccordance with accepted academic practice.No use, distribution or reproduction ispermitted which does not comply with theseterms.Editorial: Ecosystem services,policy, and human well-beingKamaljit K. Sangha1*, Iain J. Gordon2 and Robert Costanza31Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT,Australia, 2Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT,Australia, 3Institute for Global Prosperity, University College London, London, United KingdomKEYWORDSecosystem services, human well-being, natural resources, policy, natureEditorial on the Research TopicEcosystem services, policy, and human well-beingRecognition is growing that ecosystems are the foundation for human health, well-being,and livelihoods, including supporting our economies. This is emphasized by the UnitedNations-led initiatives, initially the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) and morerecently the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES;2012 onwards). This recognition also comes from the impacts that we are experiencing,at the local, national, and regional scales, of our fast declining and degrading naturalcapital, collapsing biodiversity, and the increasing effects of climate change and naturaldisasters (Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2019).Despite this, our economies continue to operate in traditional modes, exploiting naturalresources to enhance income for a small fraction of humanity, applying old tools (i.e.,economic frameworks, measures, policy instruments, and related programs) that fail toconsider the underpinning role that natural capital plays in supporting our economies andoverall human-well-being. The over-emphasis of modern economies on the production andconsumption of marketed goods and services results in the overuse and destruction of theessential elements upon which our well-being depends including natural and social capital(Costanza et al., 2007, 2014; Daly, 2015). Our current measure of economic well-being, GrossDomestic Product (GDP), ignores these broader aspects of human well-being, and “GDP isdangerously inadequate as a measure of ‘quality of life”’ (Costanza et al., 2014). Quality of life(all life) and planetary well-being should be the focus of our modern economies, not GDPgrowth at all costs.The transformation of our economies is a critical first step toward sustainablyliving on planet Earth and while improving human well-being and the well-beingof the rest of nature. Hence, this Research Topic focuses on linking natural capital,ecosystem services, and human well-being while recommending transformative approachesto economic frameworks.The articles published in this Research Topic include: 1. “Ecosystem services andhuman wellbeing-based approaches can help transform our economies” by Sanghaet al.; 2. “A novel approach to identify and prioritize the connections between natureand people’s well-being in New Zealand” by Ausseil et al.; 3. “Coastal ecosystemservices modeling in Latin America to guide conservation and restoration strategies:the case of mangroves in Guatemala and El Salvador” by Hernandez-Blanco et al.;4. “Agents on a landscape: simulating spatial and temporal interactions in economicand ecological systems” by Johnson and Salemi; 5. “Toward SDGs: forest, marketand human wellbeing nexus in Indian Western Himalayas” by Dobriyal et al.; 6.“Community champions of ecosystem services: the role of local agency in protectingFrontiers in Ecology andEvolution 01 frontiersin.orgSangha et al. 10.3389/fevo.2023.1174160FIGURE 1Interactions among natural, social, built and human capitals that contribute to human well-being, and the two-way relationship between the rest ofnature and human well-being.Indonesian coral reefs” by Abdurrahim et al.; and 7. “Valuingecosystem services applying indigenous perspectives from aglobal biodiversity hotspot, the Western Ghats, India” byBalasubramanian and Sangha.All of these articles suggest various local, national or regionaltransformative approaches. For example, Sangha et al. recommendapplying the ES and human well-being-based economic approachesto evaluate and integrate the role of natural ecosystems toredesign economies that are circular, desirable, and sustainable.Ausseil et al. outline a participative, systematic approach to helppractitioners make sound policy decisions by applying impactand substitutability indices to examine links between ES andhuman well-being. Hernandez-Blanco et al. propose a combinedindex of coastal protection and carbon sequestration services tohighlight potential priority conservation and restoration regionsfor mangroves in El Salvador and Guatemala. Johnson and Salemidevelop an agent-based model where inter-agent competition isdirectly modeled by defining how Non-Timber Forest Productsextraction of one agent changes the extraction efficiency of nearbyagents. Dobriyal et al. assess the relationship between forest qualityand well-being (applying SDGs indicators) of local communities ofNanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (NDBR) in the Upper Ganga RiverBasin, Western Himalayas, India. Abdurrahim et al. describe localindividuals’ (community champions) motivation (i.e., personalexperiences, religion, vertical and horizontal relationships withina community, and developing alternative sustainable livelihoods),and how they operate to protect local ecosystems such as coralreefs and seagrass meadows. Balasubramanian and Sangha applyIndigenous (Adivasi) perspectives for highlighting the value of ESfrom the Indian Western Ghats such that policy decision-makersare informed to develop and design appropriate programs thatenhance the well-being of Adivasi people as well as conserve theforest ecosystems. In conclusion, two key messages flow from thisResearch Topic:1. We must transform and redesign our economies embracingthe role of nature and its ES, and human well-being.2. We must appreciate and include the two-way relationshipsbetween humans and the rest of nature for informing futurepolicies and development programs.Re-designing our economies involves understanding andembracing the connections between economies and the restof nature and their various components, including dynamicsand complexities. Costanza et al. (2014) highlight that oureconomy (comprising built and human capital) is embeddedwithin society (social capital) which is further embedded withinthe rest of nature (natural capital; Figure 1). In such a setting,an in-depth understanding of the interactions among natural,social, human, and built capitals becomes integral to developingtransformative economies (as highlighted by Sangha et al.; Ausseilet al.).Embracing two-way relationships with nature that sustainablylead to obtaining various economic and well-being benefits,involves a significant element of responsibility, ethics, and care,that should be exercised by every human being. Many Indigenouspeoples and local communities (IPLCs), around the globe,practice this relationship as they live in close association withnature (Sangha and Russell-Smith, 2017; Sangha, 2020). For ourmodern (mainly urban) society, the need is to connect withthe rest of nature not just to obtain goods and services, butalso to take responsibility for, and implement a greater degreeof paying back, for example, developing and supporting localcircular economies.We hope that this Research Topic will inform and inspireacademicians, practitioners, policy decision-makers and others toapply innovative perspectives to both understand and embracehuman interconnections with the rest of nature, thereby creatinga sustainable rewarding future.Frontiers in Ecology andEvolution 02 frontiersin.orgSangha et al. 10.3389/fevo.2023.1174160Author contributionsAll authors reviewed the articles for this Research Topic andhave compiled the editorial. All authors contributed to the articleand approved the submitted version.Conflict of interestThe authors declare that the research was conductedin the absence of any commercial or financial relationshipsthat could be construed as a potential conflict ofinterest.Publisher’s noteAll claims expressed in this article are solely those of theauthors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliatedorganizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and thereviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, orclaim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed orendorsed by the publisher.ReferencesCostanza, R., Fisher, B., Ali, S., Beer, C., Bond, L., Boumans, R., et al.(2007). Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs,and subjective well-being. Ecol. Econ. 61, 267–276. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.023Costanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., Giovannini, E., Lovins, H., McGlade, J., Pickett, K. E.,et al. (2014). Development: Time to leave GDP behind. Nature 505, 283–285.Daly, H. E. (2015). Economics for a Full World, Great Transition Initiative (June2015). Available online at: http://www.greattransition.org/publication/economics-for-a-full-world (accessed August 9, 2017).Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (2019). GlobalAssessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the IntergovernmentalScience-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. eds E. S.Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo (Bonn: IPBES Secretariat), 1,148.doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6417333Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being:Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Sangha, K., and Russell-Smith, J. (2017). Toward an Indigenous ecosystem servicesvaluation framework: A North Australian example. Conserv. Soc. 15, 255–269.doi: 10.4103/cs.cs_16_156Sangha, K. K. (2020). Global importance of Indigenous and local communities’managed lands: Building a case for stewardship schemes. Sustainability 12, 7839.doi: 10.3390/su12197839Frontiers in Ecology andEvolution 03 frontiersin.org

Editorial: Ecosystem services, policy, and human well-being

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10172571/1/fevo-11-1174160.pdf

Editorial: Ecosystem services, policy, and human well-being

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UCL Discovery