Search

This dataset presents data collected from household surveys from Upper Madi Watershed of Nepal describing the benefits of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) to people of mountain ecosystems, their perceptions of climate change, and perceived impacts of climate change on NTFPs ecosystem services. The data were collected from 278 households that were randomly selected from the four villages in the watershed during the period September to December 2019. The survey assessed socio-demographic information; collected and utilized NTFPs; perceptions of climate change, and; perceived impacts of climate change on NTFPs ecosystem services. These data are important in understanding the benefits of non-timber forest products in mountain ecosystems and the impacts of climate change as the benefits and impacts are currently not well understood. The data will be helpful in formulation and implementation of adaptation strategies to sustain the supply, protection, and management of NTFPs in mountain ecosystems., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships which have, or could be perceived to have, influenced the work reported in this article., (© 2020 The Authors.)

Air pollution kills nearly 1 million people per year in China. In response, the Chinese government implemented the Air Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan (APPCAP) from 2013 to 2017 which had a significant impact on reducing PM 2.5 concentration. However, the health benefits of the APPCAP are not well understood. Here we examine the spatiotemporal dynamics of annual deaths attributable to PM 2.5 pollution (DAPP) in China and the contribution from the APPCAP using decomposition analysis. Despite a 36.1% increase in DAPP from 2000 to 2017, The APPCAP-induced improvement in air quality achieved substantial health benefits, with the DAPP in 2017 reduced by 64 thousand (6.8%) compared to 2013. However, the policy is unlikely to result in further major reductions in DAPP and more ambitious policies are required to reduce the health impacts of air pollution by 2030 and meet the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goal 3.

Experiences with nature through visits to protected areas provide important cultural ecosystem services that have the potential to strengthen pro-environmental attitudes and behavior. Understanding accessibility to protected areas and likely preferences for enjoying the benefits of nature visits are key factors in identifying ways to reduce inequality in access and inform the planning and management for future protected areas. We develop, at a regional scale, a novel social media database of visits to public protected areas in part of the Chilean biodiversity hotspot using geotagged photographs and assess the inequality of access using the home locations of the visitors and socio-economic data. We find that 20% of the population of the region make 87% of the visits to protected areas. The larger, more biodiverse protected areas were the most visited and provided most cultural ecosystem services. Wealthier people tend to travel further to visit protected areas while people with lower incomes tend to visit protected areas that are closer to home. By providing information on the current spatial flows of people to protected areas, we demonstrate the need to expand the protected area network, especially in lower income areas, to reduce inequality in access to the benefits from cultural ecosystem services provided by nature to people., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Environmentally extended input-output analysis (EEIOA) supports environmental policy by quantifying how demand for goods and services leads to resource use and emissions across the economy. However, some types of resource use and emissions require spatially explicit impact assessment for meaningful interpretation, which is not possible in conventional EEIOA. For example, water use in locations of scarcity and of abundance are not environmentally equivalent. Opportunities for spatially explicit impact assessment in conventional EEIOA are limited because official input-output tables tend to be produced at the scale of political units, which are not usually well-aligned with environmentally relevant spatial units. In this study, spatially explicit water-scarcity factors and a spatially disaggregated Australian water-use account were used to develop water-scarcity extensions that were coupled with a multiregional input-output model (MRIO). The results link demand for agricultural commodities to the problem of water scarcity in Australia and globally. Important differences were observed between the water-use and water-scarcity footprint results as well as the relative importance of direct and indirect water use, with significant implications for sustainable production and consumption-related policies. The approach presented here is suggested as a feasible general approach for incorporating spatially explicit impact assessments in EEIOA.

The Convention on Biological Diversity and its Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 form the central pillar of the world's conservation commitment, with 196 signatory nations; yet its capacity to reign in catastrophic biodiversity loss has proved inadequate. Indicators suggest that few of the Convention on Biological Diversity's Aichi targets that aim to reduce biodiversity loss will be met by 2020. While the indicators have been criticized for only partially representing the targets, a bigger problem is that the indicators do not adequately draw attention to and measure all of the drivers of the biodiversity crisis. Here, we show that many key drivers of biodiversity loss are either poorly evaluated or entirely lacking indicators. We use a biodiversity-crisis hierarchy as a conceptual model linking drivers of change to biodiversity loss to evaluate the scope of current indicators. We find major gaps related to monitoring governments, human population size, corruption and threat-industries. We recommend the hierarchy is used to develop an expanded set of indicators that comprehensively monitor the human behaviour and institutions that drive biodiversity loss and that, so far, have impeded progress towards achieving global biodiversity targets.

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets under Agenda 2030 of the United Nations map a coherent global sustainability ambition at a level of detail general enough to garner consensus amongst nations. However, achieving the global agenda will depend heavily on successful national-scale implementation, which requires the development of effective science-driven targets tailored to specific national contexts and supported by strong national governance. Here we assess the feasibility of achieving multiple SDG targets at the national scale for the Australian land-sector. We scaled targets to three levels of ambition and two timeframes, then quantitatively explored the option space for target achievement under 648 plausible future environmental, socio-economic, technological and policy pathways using the Land-Use Trade-Offs (LUTO) integrated land systems model. We show that target achievement is very sensitive to global efforts to abate emissions, domestic land-use policy, productivity growth rate, and land-use change adoption behaviour and capacity constraints. Weaker target-setting ambition resulted in higher achievement but poorer sustainability outcomes. Accelerating land-use dynamics after 2030 changed the targets achieved by 2050, warranting a longer-term view and greater flexibility in sustainability implementation. Simultaneous achievement of multiple targets is rare owing to the complexity of sustainability target implementation and the pervasive trade-offs in resource-constrained land systems. Given that hard choices are needed, the land-sector must first address the essential food/fibre production, biodiversity and land degradation components of sustainability via specific policy pathways. It may also contribute to emissions abatement, water and energy targets by capitalizing on co-benefits. However, achieving targets relevant to the land-sector will also require substantial contributions from other sectors such as clean energy, food systems and water resource management. Nations require globally coordinated, national-scale, comprehensive, integrated, multi-sectoral analyses to support national target-setting that prioritizes efficient and effective sustainability interventions across societies, economies and environments.

Climate change is having a significant impact on ecosystem services and is likely to become increasingly important as this phenomenon intensifies. Future impacts can be difficult to assess as they often involve long timescales, dynamic systems with high uncertainties, and are typically confounded by other drivers of change. Despite a growing literature on climate change impacts on ecosystem services, no quantitative syntheses exist. Hence, we lack an overarching understanding of the impacts of climate change, how they are being assessed, and the extent to which other drivers, uncertainties, and decision making are incorporated. To address this, we systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed literature that assesses climate change impacts on ecosystem services at subglobal scales. We found that the impact of climate change on most types of services was predominantly negative (59% negative, 24% mixed, 4% neutral, 13% positive), but varied across services, drivers, and assessment methods. Although uncertainty was usually incorporated, there were substantial gaps in the sources of uncertainty included, along with the methods used to incorporate them. We found that relatively few studies integrated decision making, and even fewer studies aimed to identify solutions that were robust to uncertainty. For management or policy to ensure the delivery of ecosystem services, integrated approaches that incorporate multiple drivers of change and account for multiple sources of uncertainty are needed. This is undoubtedly a challenging task, but ignoring these complexities can result in misleading assessments of the impacts of climate change, suboptimal management outcomes, and the inefficient allocation of resources for climate adaptation., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)