Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services

A large network of researchers and practitioners have been working on ecosystem services (ES) for decades. In the inaugural issue of this journal, in 2012, we analysed the authorship structure, citations, topics, and journals publishing on ES. Here we update and expand that analysis and compare results with those we found in our previous analysis. We also analyse the influence that the journal Ecosystem Services has had on these variables over its first 10 years. We look at which articles have had the most influence on the field (as measured by the number of citations in Ecosystem Services) and on the broader scientific literature (as measured by total citations). We also look at how authorship networks, topics through keywords, and the types of journals publishing on the topic have changed. Results show that between the two time periods (before and after the establishment of the journal Ecosystem Services in 2012) there has been significant growth in the number of authors (12,795 to 91,051) and number of articles published (4,948 to 33,973) on ES. Authorship networks have also expanded significantly, and the patterns of co-authorship have evolved in interesting ways. The journal Ecosystem Services is now the most prolific publisher of articles on ES among the 4,286 journals that have published in the area. There is a cluster of 9 top journals that cite, and are cited by each other, within this rapidly expanding policy-relevant research area

Accelerated economic recovery in countries powered by renewables

The human economy is in effect a subsystem of the biosphere. Ecosystems provide natural resources that are fundamental to both societal well-being and economic performance. Here, we show how recovery of national economies from systemic crises can be moderated by the natural resources used to power them. By examining data from 133 systemic economic crisis events in 98 countries over 40 years, we found that countries relying on a broad range of electricity sources experienced extended recovery times from crises, though that effect was tempered somewhat when the relative contribution of those sources was increasingly balanced. However, the best predictor of economic recovery was the extent of reliance on renewable energy—we found that economic recovery tends to be swiftest in countries powered primarily by renewable energy sources. These findings have profound implications for global energy policy and reveal the need to consider both the composition and diversity of energy sources in models of economic resilience

The costs of increasing precision for ecosystem services valuation studies

Ecosystem services valuation (ESV) is increasingly used to provide the impetus to sustainably manage and restore ecosystems. When undertaking an ESV study, the available resources, desired scope, and necessary precision must be considered before determining the most appropriate approach. A broad range of techniques exist to support valuation studies, requiring a range of financial, time, and personnel resources. We surveyed authors that completed 56 responses around valuation studies regarding their total costs (including personnel costs) and the perceived precision of their results. Results show that the perceived precision of their results is statistically significant and increases with the cost of a study (adjusted R2 = 0.29, p = 0.018) and the number of person years required to complete it (R2 = 0.31, p = 0.22). Understanding the trade-offs between the costs of the study and the precision of the results allows policymakers and practitioners to make more informed decisions about which ESV methods are most cost effective for their needs. For example, basic value transfer techniques require minimal resources to implement but lack precision in the final estimates, while integrated modelling techniques provide dynamic, spatially explicit, and more precise estimates but are significantly more expensive and time consuming to implement. However, these techniques are not mutually exclusive. A quick, inexpensive initial analysis may support and motivate more elaborate and detailed studies

Perceptions, preferences and barriers: A qualitative study of greenspace and under-representation in Leeds, UK

1. Greenspaces facilitate well-being benefits for humans in several ways including through cognitive restoration, physical exercise and social interaction. However, some groups are under-represented in greenspaces, including women, older people, those with health conditions, people with lower socioeconomic status and people from ethnic minority backgrounds, and so are less likely to accrue these benefits. / 2. Using thematic analysis and semi-structured interviews with 40 individuals from under-represented groups in Leeds, UK, we explore (1) a range of perceived barriers to greenspace access, (2) how spending time in greenspace contributes to well-being for these groups, (3) the perceived positive and negative aspects of greenspace, (4) what impact COVID-19 had on access to greenspace and (5) how greenspaces could be improved. / 3. We also highlight inter-group differences and how some barriers disproportionately affect some of the groups in this study. Safety concerns were particularly important for women and people with low incomes, which included problems with anti-social behaviour (e.g. incivilities and disorder). Cultural barriers were also evident with ethnic minority participants often citing concerns about dogs and issues with visibility and prejudice. Participants desired physical improvements to the quality of greenspaces, along with easier access and transport options, changes in policy regarding dogs and increased security and park wardens to limit anti-social behaviour. / 4. We argue that to increase visitation for under-represented groups, upgrades in the physical environment must be coupled with harnessing community involvement and co-design. Some group differences and tensions in greenspaces, and problems with anti-social behaviours and safety concerns might be limited by more considerate planning and incorporating research findings that address these tensions through intergroup contact

Overcoming the myths of mainstream economics to enable a newwellbeing economy

Increasingly, empirical evidence refutes many of the theoretical pillars of mainstream economics. These theories have persisted despite the fact that they support unsustainable and undesirable environmental, social, and economic outcomes. Continuing to embrace them puts at risk the possibility of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and overcoming other global challenges. We discuss a selection of paradoxes and delusions surrounding mainstream economic theories related to: (1) efficiency and resource use, (2) wealth and wellbeing, (3) economic growth, and (4) the distribution of wealth within and between rich and poor nations. We describe a wellbeing economy as an alternative for guiding policy development. In 2018, a network of Wellbeing Economy Governments (WEGo), (supported by, but distinct from, the larger Wellbeing Economy Alliance-WEAll) promoting new forms of governance that diverge from the ones on which the G7 and G20 are based, has been launched and is now a living project. Members of WEGo aim at advancing the three key principles of a wellbeing economy: Live within planetary ecological boundaries, ensure equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity, and efficiently allocate resources (including environmental and social public goods), bringing wellbeing to the heart of policymaking, and in particular economic policymaking. This network has potential to fundamentally re-shape current global leadership still anchored to old economic paradigms that give primacy to economic growth over environmental and social wealth and wellbeing

Perceptions, preferences and barriers: A qualitative study of greenspace and under-representation in Leeds, UK

AbstractGreenspaces facilitate well‐being benefits for humans in several ways including through cognitive restoration, physical exercise and social interaction. However, some groups are under‐represented in greenspaces, including women, older people, those with health conditions, people with lower socioeconomic status and people from ethnic minority backgrounds, and so are less likely to accrue these benefits.Using thematic analysis and semi‐structured interviews with 40 individuals from under‐represented groups in Leeds, UK, we explore (1) a range of perceived barriers to greenspace access, (2) how spending time in greenspace contributes to well‐being for these groups, (3) the perceived positive and negative aspects of greenspace, (4) what impact COVID‐19 had on access to greenspace and (5) how greenspaces could be improved.We also highlight inter‐group differences and how some barriers disproportionately affect some of the groups in this study. Safety concerns were particularly important for women and people with low incomes, which included problems with anti‐social behaviour (e.g. incivilities and disorder). Cultural barriers were also evident with ethnic minority participants often citing concerns about dogs and issues with visibility and prejudice. Participants desired physical improvements to the quality of greenspaces, along with easier access and transport options, changes in policy regarding dogs and increased security and park wardens to limit anti‐social behaviour.We argue that to increase visitation for under‐represented groups, upgrades in the physical environment must be coupled with harnessing community involvement and co‐design. Some group differences and tensions in greenspaces, and problems with anti‐social behaviours and safety concerns might be limited by more considerate planning and incorporating research findings that address these tensions through intergroup contact.Read the freePlain Language Summaryfor this article on the Journal blog.</jats:p

Building a Sustainable and Desirable Economy-in-Society-in-Nature

This report is a synthesis of ideas about what this new economy-in-society-innature could look like and how we might get there. Most of the ideas presented here are not new. The coauthors of this report have published them in various forms over the last several decades, and many others have expressed similar ideas in venues too numerous to mention. What is new is the timing and the situation. The time has come when we must make a transition. We have no choice. Our present path is clearly unsustainable. As Paul Raskin has said, Contrary to the conventional wisdom, it is business as usual that is the utopian fantasy; forging a new vision is the pragmatic necessity [10]. But we do have a choice about how to make the transition and what the new state of the world will be. We can engage in a global dialogue to envision the future we want, the theme of Rio+20, and then devise an adaptive strategy to get us there, or we can allow the current system to collapse and rebuild from a much worse starting point. We obviously argue for the former strategy. In this report, we discuss the need to focus more directly on the goal of sustainable human well-being rather than merely GDP growth. This includes protecting and restoring nature, achieving social and intergenerational fairness (including poverty alleviation), stabilizing population, and recognizing the significant nonmarket contributions to human well-being from natural and social capital. To do this, we need to develop better measures of progress that go well beyond GDP and begin to measure human well-being and its sustainability more directly

Building a Sustainable and Desirable Economy-in-Society-in-Nature

The world has changed dramatically