野化经济学。

IF 5.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL Ambio Pub Date : 2024-06-08 DOI:10.1007/s13280-024-02019-2
Emmanuel Faure, Harold Levrel, Fabien Quétier
{"title":"野化经济学。","authors":"Emmanuel Faure,&nbsp;Harold Levrel,&nbsp;Fabien Quétier","doi":"10.1007/s13280-024-02019-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Rewilding, a concept often defined as an open-ended approach to ecological restoration that aims to establish self-sustaining ecosystems, has gained much interest in recent conservation science and practice. The economic dimensions of rewilding remain understudied, despite repeated calls for research, and we find that synthetic or programmatic contributions to the scientific literature are still missing. Here, we mined Scopus and Web of Science databases through a systematic review, looking for “rewilding” with various economic terms in the peer-reviewed literature, in the English language. We then screened out a 257 references-rich corpus with 14 variables, including the position of rewilding regarding positive and negative economic effects in specific sectors, and geographical or ecological foci. Our corpus amounts to ca. 40% of recent rewilding literature, with a clear emphasis on European study sites and the economic consequences of rewilding initiatives. Rewilding studies often refer to positive economic impacts on tourism and hunting, e.g., through higher income and employment rates, although very few studies properly quantify these. Conversely, most authors find rewilding harms farming, which is threatened by abandonment and damages by wildlife, raising interest in potential EU subsidy regimes. We highlight the surprising paucity of rewilding literature truly focusing on economics and/or providing detailed quantification—with remarkable exceptions. While rewilding’s ecological relevance is no longer in question, demonstrating its economic benefits and sustainability will undoubtedly help scaling up. Thus, we advise rewilders to systematically measure and report investments and outcomes of rewilding initiatives, and to adopt common standards for cost and benefit assessments.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":461,"journal":{"name":"Ambio","volume":"53 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Economics of rewilding\",\"authors\":\"Emmanuel Faure,&nbsp;Harold Levrel,&nbsp;Fabien Quétier\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13280-024-02019-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Rewilding, a concept often defined as an open-ended approach to ecological restoration that aims to establish self-sustaining ecosystems, has gained much interest in recent conservation science and practice. The economic dimensions of rewilding remain understudied, despite repeated calls for research, and we find that synthetic or programmatic contributions to the scientific literature are still missing. Here, we mined Scopus and Web of Science databases through a systematic review, looking for “rewilding” with various economic terms in the peer-reviewed literature, in the English language. We then screened out a 257 references-rich corpus with 14 variables, including the position of rewilding regarding positive and negative economic effects in specific sectors, and geographical or ecological foci. Our corpus amounts to ca. 40% of recent rewilding literature, with a clear emphasis on European study sites and the economic consequences of rewilding initiatives. Rewilding studies often refer to positive economic impacts on tourism and hunting, e.g., through higher income and employment rates, although very few studies properly quantify these. Conversely, most authors find rewilding harms farming, which is threatened by abandonment and damages by wildlife, raising interest in potential EU subsidy regimes. We highlight the surprising paucity of rewilding literature truly focusing on economics and/or providing detailed quantification—with remarkable exceptions. While rewilding’s ecological relevance is no longer in question, demonstrating its economic benefits and sustainability will undoubtedly help scaling up. Thus, we advise rewilders to systematically measure and report investments and outcomes of rewilding initiatives, and to adopt common standards for cost and benefit assessments.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":461,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ambio\",\"volume\":\"53 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ambio\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-024-02019-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ambio","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-024-02019-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

野化这一概念通常被定义为一种旨在建立自我维持生态系统的开放式生态恢复方法,在最近的保护科学和实践中备受关注。尽管人们一再呼吁开展相关研究,但对野化的经济层面研究仍然不足。在此,我们通过系统性审查对 Scopus 和 Web of Science 数据库进行了挖掘,在同行评审的英文文献中寻找带有各种经济术语的 "野化"。然后,我们用 14 个变量筛选出了 257 个参考文献丰富的语料库,这些变量包括野化在特定领域的积极和消极经济影响方面的定位,以及地理或生态重点。我们的语料库约占近期野化文献的40%,重点关注欧洲研究地点和野化行动的经济后果。野化研究通常会提到对旅游业和狩猎业的积极经济影响,例如通过提高收入和就业率,但很少有研究对这些影响进行适当量化。相反,大多数作者发现野化对农业造成了损害,因为农业受到了野生动物弃耕和破坏的威胁,这引起了人们对欧盟潜在补贴制度的兴趣。我们强调,真正关注经济学和/或提供详细量化数据的野化文献少得令人吃惊--但也有明显的例外。尽管野化的生态意义已毋庸置疑,但证明其经济效益和可持续性无疑将有助于扩大野化规模。因此,我们建议野化者系统地衡量和报告野化行动的投资和成果,并采用共同的成本和效益评估标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Economics of rewilding

Rewilding, a concept often defined as an open-ended approach to ecological restoration that aims to establish self-sustaining ecosystems, has gained much interest in recent conservation science and practice. The economic dimensions of rewilding remain understudied, despite repeated calls for research, and we find that synthetic or programmatic contributions to the scientific literature are still missing. Here, we mined Scopus and Web of Science databases through a systematic review, looking for “rewilding” with various economic terms in the peer-reviewed literature, in the English language. We then screened out a 257 references-rich corpus with 14 variables, including the position of rewilding regarding positive and negative economic effects in specific sectors, and geographical or ecological foci. Our corpus amounts to ca. 40% of recent rewilding literature, with a clear emphasis on European study sites and the economic consequences of rewilding initiatives. Rewilding studies often refer to positive economic impacts on tourism and hunting, e.g., through higher income and employment rates, although very few studies properly quantify these. Conversely, most authors find rewilding harms farming, which is threatened by abandonment and damages by wildlife, raising interest in potential EU subsidy regimes. We highlight the surprising paucity of rewilding literature truly focusing on economics and/or providing detailed quantification—with remarkable exceptions. While rewilding’s ecological relevance is no longer in question, demonstrating its economic benefits and sustainability will undoubtedly help scaling up. Thus, we advise rewilders to systematically measure and report investments and outcomes of rewilding initiatives, and to adopt common standards for cost and benefit assessments.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ambio
Ambio 环境科学-工程:环境
CiteScore
14.30
自引率
3.10%
发文量
123
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Explores the link between anthropogenic activities and the environment, Ambio encourages multi- or interdisciplinary submissions with explicit management or policy recommendations. Ambio addresses the scientific, social, economic, and cultural factors that influence the condition of the human environment. Ambio particularly encourages multi- or inter-disciplinary submissions with explicit management or policy recommendations. For more than 45 years Ambio has brought international perspective to important developments in environmental research, policy and related activities for an international readership of specialists, generalists, students, decision-makers and interested laymen.
期刊最新文献
A conceptual framework of indicators for the suitability of forests for outdoor recreation. Urban ecosystem services research in Russia: Systematic review on the state of the art. Publisher Correction: The interplay between the urban development of Rome (Italy) and the Tiber River floods: A review of two millennia of socio-hydrological history. Recurrent discharges of non-petroleum substances from chemical tankers in Swedish marine Natura 2000 sites are against the aims of EU Directives. Reaping what we sow: Centering values in food systems transformations research.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1