Search

Scholars have critiqued mainstream economic approaches to environmental valuation for decades. These critiques have intensified with the increased prominence of environmental valuation in decision-making. This paper has three goals. First, we summarise prominent critiques of monetary valuation, drawing mostly on the work of Clive Spash, who worked extensively on cost–benefit analysis early in his career and then became one of monetary valuation's most thorough and ardent critics. Second, we, as a group of scholars who study relational values, describe how relational values research engages with and addresses many of the critiques of monetary valuation. Third, we offer suggestions for relational values research that continues and deepens its ability to respond to critiques of monetary valuation and contributes to transformative change towards sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Universities of Small Island States (SIS) have the potential to fulfill a crucial role in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) but also face barriers to local capacity building. The University of Aruba partly addresses these challenges through the development of The Academic Foundation Year (AFY), a one-year pre-university program aiming to optimally equip students for higher education. This study aims to assess to what extent the program can foster the local embeddedness of the students in ecology, culture and history and an understanding of opportunities and challenges for sustainable development in SIS. Design/methodology/approach: The authors provide examples of how the program incorporates education for sustainable development and how it emphasizes experiential learning. In addition, quantitative survey data and qualitative analysis of focus group meetings are used to reflect on the program's achievements and its potential for further development. Findings: The survey results suggest that AFY courses not only increase knowledge but also change students' perceptions regarding sustainability. Indeed, key impacts emerging from the student focus group related to both academic preparation and engagement with sustainability. Reflections by teachers emphasized the importance of experiential learning, an expansive view of the SDGs and preparing students as citizens. Originality/value: This study highlights that the program could provide a starting point for the development of similar initiatives in other SIS, the common basis being the fostering of sustainability literacy and social adoption of the SDGs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Listening is a pervasive and significant act of conservation research and praxis, mattering greatly for the realisation of conservation agendas, not least its ambitions to be outward looking and inclusive in approach. Yet, the value and role of listening has been barely explored in a sustained and reflexive way.This paper is a preliminary schematic of what it might mean to attend to the act of listening, set within the context of a larger field of listening scholarship as well as more specific manoeuvres to embed relational approaches into the study of people and nature interactions.We explore what it means to 'listen well' within the context of conservation, highlighting the importance of recognising listening as a relationship and our positions and power within those relationships; the need to care for the relationship through respect and empathy; and the building of inclusive relationships of listening by attending to how space and time influences understanding.We offer examples of how researchers and practitioners can create spaces for listening, illustrating our discussion with personal reflections about listening practices gained through our various conservation and research careers.We provide approaches and ideas which help the reader—academic and practitioner—to both understand and articulate the value of listening in conservation and relational values of nature. We hope to inspire the wider use of listening‐based approaches in conservation research and practice, and the recognition and support from senior managers and funders of what is needed to promote long‐term and meaningful relationships between people and nature. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agricultural producers, academics and policy‐makers are increasingly interested in multifunctional tree crop systems as a solution for maintaining ecosystem services and producing food. The US Midwest is emerging as a hotbed of such systems in the temperate North in the form of farm‐scale woody perennial polyculture enterprises, but they are currently only a tiny fraction of the landscape. Understanding how such approaches might be scaled up, thus, requires learning from the farmers that are at the forefront of the transition of land to woody perennial polyculture to answer a range of questions: What unique management knowledge is being implemented by farmers to manage complexity on multiple scales? What key challenges have farmers faced? And what values and motivations underpin these fledgling efforts?From 13 interviews with 18 midwestern perennial polyculture farmers, we found that they largely used a small portion of their farm's land for their perennial enterprises, and did not earn a large portion of their income from them, though this was projected to increase as trees matured. Through experimentation, innovation and farmer networks, the farmers had amassed unique adaptive management expertise for balancing diverse crops and livestock within multifunctional tree crop systems over time and space, an area largely absent from mainstream agricultural science and policy. The barriers these farmers report facing are largely economic rather than biophysical, involving access to capital, insurance, mid‐sized markets and regional processing infrastructure, as well as government programmes mismatched with perenniality.Cross‐cutting these topics, farmers sought to fulfil values anchored in their relationships to land, to the community or to both. The values of long‐termism, learning and sharing, diversity, stewardship and care of farmland, connection to nature and wildlife, self‐sustenance, other‐sustenance and eudaimonia were embodied and expressed in farmer decisions from the practical to the personal.Economic and agrarian policy, as well as programme development for multifunctional tree crop systems, should (a) be designed to align with farmer's values and motivations and (b) take advantage of their expert management and systems knowledge to drive appropriate and successful transitions to sustainable environments and livelihoods. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing scale and interconnection of many environmental challenges – from climate change to land use – has resulted in the need to collaborate across borders and boundaries of all types. Traditional centralized, top-down and sectoral approaches to governance of single-issue areas or species within social-ecological systems often have limited potential to alleviate issues that go beyond their jurisdiction. As a result, collaborative governance approaches have come to the forefront. A great deal of past research has examined the conditions under which collaborative efforts are likely to achieve desired outcomes. However, few studies have analyzed how the means to achieve successful collaborative outcomes differ based on context when examined across multiple studies. In this research, we begin to chart a means for doing this. Building onto a Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) Framework, we provide a coding manual to analyse how contextual variables mediate the effects of mechanism variables on outcomes of the collaborative governance of social-ecological systems. Through the examination of four cases, we provide a proof-of-concept assessment and show the utility of the CMO framework and coding manual to draw comparisons across cases for understanding how collaborative outcomes are contingent on the social-ecological context in which they occur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]