Abstract
AbstractThe 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.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Nature and Landscape Conservation,Sociology and Political Science,Ecology,Geography, Planning and Development,Health (social science),Global and Planetary Change
Reference54 articles.
1. Alexander P, Rabin S, Anthoni P, Henry R, Pugh TAM, Rounsevell MDA, Arneth A (2018) Adaptation of global land use and management intensity to changes in climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Glob Change Biol 24:2791–2809. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14110
2. Alexander P, Arneth A, Henry R, Maire J, Rabin S, Rounsevell MDA (2023) High energy and fertilizer prices are more damaging than food export curtailment from Ukraine and Russia for food prices, health and the environment. Nat Food 4:84–95. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00659-9
3. Arneth A, Denton F, Agus F, Elbehri A, Erb K, Elasha B, Rahimi M, Rounsevell M, Spence A, Valentini R (2019) Chapter 1: Framing and Context, Special Report Climate Change and Land. IPCC
4. Arneth A, Leadley P, Claudet J, Coll M, Rondinini C, Rounsevell MDA, Alexander P, Fuchs R (2023) Making protected areas effective for biodiversity, climate and food. Glob Change Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16664
5. Blair KJ, Moran D, Alexander P (2023) Worldviews, values and perspectives towards the future of the livestock sector. Agric Hum Values. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10469-9