谁的价值观有价值?以公正为核心的自然价值研究述评

IF 6.6 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101350
M Schaafsma , S Ahn , AJ Castro , N Dendoncker , A Filyushkina , D González-Jiménez , Mariaelena Huambachano , N Mukherjee , TH Mwampamba , J Ngouhouo-Poufoun , I Palomo , R Pandit , M Termansen , H Ghazi , S Jacobs , H Lee , V Contreras
{"title":"谁的价值观有价值?以公正为核心的自然价值研究述评","authors":"M Schaafsma ,&nbsp;S Ahn ,&nbsp;AJ Castro ,&nbsp;N Dendoncker ,&nbsp;A Filyushkina ,&nbsp;D González-Jiménez ,&nbsp;Mariaelena Huambachano ,&nbsp;N Mukherjee ,&nbsp;TH Mwampamba ,&nbsp;J Ngouhouo-Poufoun ,&nbsp;I Palomo ,&nbsp;R Pandit ,&nbsp;M Termansen ,&nbsp;H Ghazi ,&nbsp;S Jacobs ,&nbsp;H Lee ,&nbsp;V Contreras","doi":"10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The Values Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services shows that multiple valuation methods and approaches exist to assess diverse value types. The evidence is based on the largest review of academic valuation studies on nature to date, developed for the Values Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We evaluate studies according to environmental justice criteria. The results suggest that although diverse value types and indicators are assessed across studies, few individual studies are plural, and studies fail to provide evidence on distributive justice and score low on procedural justice indicators. We provide a set of recommendations for incorporating issues of justice in the design of valuation studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":294,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability","volume":"64 ","pages":"Article 101350"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343523000970/pdfft?md5=528bf0df4f080b17a7e74a654f8eff91&pid=1-s2.0-S1877343523000970-main.pdf","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Whose values count? A review of the nature valuation studies with a focus on justice\",\"authors\":\"M Schaafsma ,&nbsp;S Ahn ,&nbsp;AJ Castro ,&nbsp;N Dendoncker ,&nbsp;A Filyushkina ,&nbsp;D González-Jiménez ,&nbsp;Mariaelena Huambachano ,&nbsp;N Mukherjee ,&nbsp;TH Mwampamba ,&nbsp;J Ngouhouo-Poufoun ,&nbsp;I Palomo ,&nbsp;R Pandit ,&nbsp;M Termansen ,&nbsp;H Ghazi ,&nbsp;S Jacobs ,&nbsp;H Lee ,&nbsp;V Contreras\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101350\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The Values Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services shows that multiple valuation methods and approaches exist to assess diverse value types. The evidence is based on the largest review of academic valuation studies on nature to date, developed for the Values Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We evaluate studies according to environmental justice criteria. The results suggest that although diverse value types and indicators are assessed across studies, few individual studies are plural, and studies fail to provide evidence on distributive justice and score low on procedural justice indicators. We provide a set of recommendations for incorporating issues of justice in the design of valuation studies.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":294,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability\",\"volume\":\"64 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101350\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343523000970/pdfft?md5=528bf0df4f080b17a7e74a654f8eff91&pid=1-s2.0-S1877343523000970-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343523000970\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343523000970","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: 7

摘要

生物多样性与生态系统服务政府间科学政策平台的价值评估表明,存在多种评估方法和途径来评估不同的价值类型。这些证据基于迄今为止对自然学术评估研究的最大规模审查,该审查是为生物多样性和生态系统服务政府间科学政策平台(IPBES)的价值评估而开发的。我们根据环境公正标准评估研究。研究结果表明,虽然不同的研究评估了不同的价值类型和指标,但很少有个别研究是多元的,研究未能提供分配公正的证据,在程序公正指标上得分较低。我们提供了一套将公正问题纳入估价研究设计的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Whose values count? A review of the nature valuation studies with a focus on justice

The Values Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services shows that multiple valuation methods and approaches exist to assess diverse value types. The evidence is based on the largest review of academic valuation studies on nature to date, developed for the Values Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We evaluate studies according to environmental justice criteria. The results suggest that although diverse value types and indicators are assessed across studies, few individual studies are plural, and studies fail to provide evidence on distributive justice and score low on procedural justice indicators. We provide a set of recommendations for incorporating issues of justice in the design of valuation studies.

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
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES-ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
CiteScore
13.80
自引率
2.80%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: "Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability (COSUST)" is a distinguished journal within Elsevier's esteemed scientific publishing portfolio, known for its dedication to high-quality, reproducible research. Launched in 2010, COSUST is a part of the Current Opinion and Research (CO+RE) suite, which is recognized for its editorial excellence and global impact. The journal specializes in peer-reviewed, concise, and timely short reviews that provide a synthesis of recent literature, emerging topics, innovations, and perspectives in the field of environmental sustainability.
期刊最新文献
The potential of social innovation to shift the limits to climate adaptation Greening container terminals through optimization: a systematic review on recent advances Advancing sustainable port development in the Western Indian Ocean region Adaptation constraints, limits and enabling conditions in small island developing states Three archetypical governance pathways for transformative change toward sustainability
×
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