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.
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).