Mapping the shared socio-economic pathways onto the Nature Futures Framework at the global scale

IF 5.1 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Peter Alexander, Roslyn Henry, Sam Rabin, Almut Arneth, Mark Rounsevell
{"title":"Mapping the shared socio-economic pathways onto the Nature Futures Framework at the global scale","authors":"Peter Alexander, Roslyn Henry, Sam Rabin, Almut Arneth, Mark Rounsevell","doi":"10.1007/s11625-023-01415-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Nature Futures Framework (NFF) was developed for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to explore scenarios that represent a diversity of positive relationships between humans and nature. Widely used in global environmental assessments, the shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs) in combination with the representative concentration pathways (RCPs) were developed for climate change assessments. However, the relationship at a global level between the SSP–RCP scenario outcomes and the framing of the NFF around three value perspectives—Nature for Nature, Nature for Society, and Nature as Culture—has not been established. Here, we demonstrate a method to map onto the NFF value perspectives results from alternative SSP scenarios, each paired with an RCP consistent with the SSP storyline. For each of the NFF value perspectives, multiple elements were identified, each represented by one or more nature-focused indicators. Values for these indicators, for the different SSP scenario outcomes, were derived from an existing application of a global land system model, LandSyMM. A score for each indicator is estimated by comparing the indicator values against a normative target range. We find that only SSP1 provides greater benefits for Nature as Culture and Nature for Society relative to a 2010 baseline. Overall, the SSP scenarios provide fewer benefits for Nature for Nature, consistent with a bias towards the provision of material over non-material ecosystem services. The results demonstrate that the SSP–RCP scenario framing captures some, but not all, of the dimensions of nature and that alternative scenario framings, such as the NFF, are needed to study a broader range of biodiversity and ecosystem related questions as well as exploring positive futures.","PeriodicalId":49457,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Science","volume":"136 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainability Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01415-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The Nature Futures Framework (NFF) was developed for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to explore scenarios that represent a diversity of positive relationships between humans and nature. Widely used in global environmental assessments, the shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs) in combination with the representative concentration pathways (RCPs) were developed for climate change assessments. However, the relationship at a global level between the SSP–RCP scenario outcomes and the framing of the NFF around three value perspectives—Nature for Nature, Nature for Society, and Nature as Culture—has not been established. Here, we demonstrate a method to map onto the NFF value perspectives results from alternative SSP scenarios, each paired with an RCP consistent with the SSP storyline. For each of the NFF value perspectives, multiple elements were identified, each represented by one or more nature-focused indicators. Values for these indicators, for the different SSP scenario outcomes, were derived from an existing application of a global land system model, LandSyMM. A score for each indicator is estimated by comparing the indicator values against a normative target range. We find that only SSP1 provides greater benefits for Nature as Culture and Nature for Society relative to a 2010 baseline. Overall, the SSP scenarios provide fewer benefits for Nature for Nature, consistent with a bias towards the provision of material over non-material ecosystem services. The results demonstrate that the SSP–RCP scenario framing captures some, but not all, of the dimensions of nature and that alternative scenario framings, such as the NFF, are needed to study a broader range of biodiversity and ecosystem related questions as well as exploring positive futures.
将共享的社会经济路径映射到全球范围内的自然期货框架
自然未来框架(NFF)是为生物多样性和生态系统服务政府间科学政策平台(IPBES)开发的,旨在探索代表人类与自然之间各种积极关系的情景。在全球环境评估中广泛应用的共享社会经济路径(ssp)与代表性浓度路径(rcp)相结合用于气候变化评估。然而,在全球层面上,SSP-RCP情景结果与NFF围绕三个价值视角(自然为自然、自然为社会和自然作为文化)的框架之间的关系尚未建立。在这里,我们展示了一种映射到NFF价值视角结果的方法,这些结果来自不同的SSP场景,每个场景都与与SSP故事情节一致的RCP配对。对于每个NFF价值视角,都确定了多个元素,每个元素由一个或多个以自然为重点的指标表示。针对不同的SSP情景结果,这些指标的值是从全球土地系统模型LandSyMM的现有应用中得出的。每个指标的得分是通过将指标值与规范的目标范围进行比较来估计的。我们发现,相对于2010年的基线,只有SSP1为自然作为文化和自然为社会提供了更大的利益。总体而言,SSP情景为自然为自然提供的利益较少,这与提供物质而非物质生态系统服务的倾向相一致。结果表明,SSP-RCP情景框架捕获了部分(但不是全部)自然维度,需要其他情景框架,如NFF,来研究更广泛的生物多样性和生态系统相关问题,并探索积极的未来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Sustainability Science
Sustainability Science 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
174
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The journal Sustainability Science offers insights into interactions within and between nature and the rest of human society, and the complex mechanisms that sustain both. The journal promotes science based predictions and impact assessments of global change, and seeks ways to ensure that such knowledge can be understood by society and be used to strengthen the resilience of global natural systems (such as ecosystems, ocean and atmospheric systems, nutrient cycles), social systems (economies, governments, industry) and human systems at the individual level (lifestyles, health, security, and human values).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信