Search

Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change8, pandemic emergence9 and socio-environmental injustices10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.Following a wide-ranging review of studies, reports and policies about nature’s multiple values, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation of nature, address barriers to uptake in decision-making, and make transformative changes towards more just and sustainable futures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Natural habitat at the landscape scale can promote biological control of crop pests, but farmers often regard natural habitat as a cost or a lost economic opportunity. Evaluating the benefits of promoting natural habitats in economic terms should make different management alternatives easier to compare. However, it is important to understand the mechanisms underlying the connection between natural habitat and natural pest control. In this study, we link measurements of natural habitat and ground cover with abundances of multiple natural enemy groups and biological control of the olive pest Prays oleae to describe spatial patterns in biocontrol and the economic value associated. Natural habitat increased biocontrol and crop yields by an average of 186.36 €/ha. This could be attributable to the entire community of predatory natural enemies present in the olive regardless of natural habitat. One predator species of this community, Anthocoris nemoralis, whose abundance was influenced by natural habitat, was strongly associated with elevated biocontrol. We hypothesize that this predator species could be the link between natural habitat and the biological control. Our results suggest that olive growers could stand to gain from conserving natural habitat. Moreover, our evidence suggests that minimizing the use of chopped pruning remains may result in increased biocontrol by bolstering the abundance of A. nemoralis. More generally, our study indicates that diversifying olive orchards and surrounding landscapes may improve olive yields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International corporations in an increasingly globalized economy exert a major influence on the planet's land use and resources through their product design and material sourcing decisions. Many companies use life cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluate their sustainability, yet commonly-used LCA methodologies lack the spatial resolution and predictive ecological information to reveal key impacts on climate, water and biodiversity. We present advances for LCA that integrate spatially explicit modelling of land change and ecosystem services in a Land-Use Change Improved (LUCI)-LCA. Comparing increased demand for bioplastics derived from two alternative feedstock-location scenarios for maize and sugarcane, we find that the LUCI-LCA approach yields results opposite to those of standard LCA for greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption, and of different magnitudes for soil erosion and biodiversity. This approach highlights the importance of including information about where and how land-use change and related impacts will occur in supply chain and innovation decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]