No abstract

Nature is perceived and valued in starkly different and often conflicting ways. This paper presents the rationale for the inclusive valuation of nature’s contributions to people (NCP) in decision making, as well as broad methodological steps for doing so. While developed within the context of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), this approach is more widely applicable to initiatives at the knowledge–policy interface, which require a pluralistic approach to recognizing the diversity of values. We argue that transformative practices aiming at sustainable futures would benefit from embracing such diversity, which require recognizing and addressing power relationships across stakeholder groups that hold different values on human nature-relations and NCP

This paper presents a critical review of current social, economic and policy issues relevant to marine aquaculture (mariculture) in Europe. Tools for identifying the full range of social, economic and environmental issues that influence the sustainable development of mariculture are examined. Under present sectoral approaches to policy, investment, development planning and natural resources management, these issues continue to be treated in isolation. The four main challenges presented in this paper are: (i) how to create a more objective information base with which to assess the social, economic and environmental factors that condition the sustainability of mariculture; (ii) how to provide information from different disciplines in an easy to obtain and compatible format; (iii) how to better integrate knowledge and skills from different disciplines to create a holistic and robust framework for assessing options for mariculture development that integrates social, economic and environmental parameters; and (iv) the effective integration of these assessments into the formulation of policy, investment strategies, spatial plans and natural resources management for coastal areas. Specific issues that need to be addressed within the framework for the integrated evaluation of the economic, social and environmental parameters governing the sustainable development of mariculture include: • development of more accurate information on the economic, social and environmental benefits and costs of well‐planned and managed mariculture; • clearer definition of gaps in existing knowledge on factors critical to the sustainable and equitable development of mariculture; • development of pro‐active consideration of the coastal land and water resource requirements of mariculture as part of strategic economic planning, spatial planning and natural resources management; • the need for more equitable treatment of mariculture regarding rights of access to sites for development and use of resources; • development of awareness among decision‐makers, planners, and managers from different sectoral agencies of the contribution that mariculture may make in promoting the sustainable use of coastal ecosystems; • promotion of a shift in emphasis away from controlling the end use of resources and toward a more balanced approach to coastal development where emphasis is also given to maintaining the health and productivity of coastal ecosystems and the resources they generate that sustain different forms of activity, including mariculture.

Recreational fishing, whether free or at cost, has an economic value. This value was measured in five Nordic countries based on a contingent valuation mail survey. Regression models were used to identify demographic characteristics, types of fishing patterns and differences in the countries’ management regimes that can explain both actual fishing expenditure and willingness to pay for the non‐market benefits by persons participating in fishing or enjoying the benefits derived by it. Net benefit, i.e. willingness to pay over and above actual expenditure was highest amongst those fishing. In Denmark, the small number of generalist fishermen get the highest benefit. In Finland results are mixed but sports fishermen benefit on average even more than generalists. Urban sports fishing raises the highest benefit in Iceland while in Norway the benefit is more equally spread, with occasional anglers and women reaping the least. In Sweden the mean benefit is the lowest in the Nordic countries but evenly distributed among categories of fishermen. In the Nordic countries combined, nationality explains willingness to pay as being Norwegian or Finnish increases benefit and being Icelandic reduces it. The non‐use value of recreational fisheries was elicited through posing questions on willingness to pay for the preservation of the existence of current fish stocks and current quality of recreational fishing to persons participating in fishing or enjoying the benefits derived from it. For those not fishing or people in general, the power of the models to explain willingness to pay for the existence of recreational fisheries was very weak. The benefit, i.e. willingness to pay, is higher if somebody in the household fishes. Educated, young, urban, well‐off citizens also put value on the non‐use of the resource.

The study was carried out in the Tarai area of Uttaranchal state to (i) identify the sources of risks perceived to be relevant by the farmers, (ii) examine farmers' risk attitude, (iii) identify the factors th at affect risk attitudes and (iv) evaluate the relative importance of different risk management strategies. Adverse effect on family health was perceived as a major source of risk by the dairy farmers, indicating the crucial role that surplus family labour plays in dairy farming in India. Lack of institutional support in dairying was also perceived to be a major source risk. Farmers' risk attitude was measu red using an attitudinal scale approach. The attitudinal scale consisted of a series of different risk management strategies and the farmers' attitude was measured by his rating of each of those strategies. The analysis establishes a refined 22-item scale that can be applied by researchers to measure the risk attitude of dairy farmers in Indian context. The refined scale has high degree of reliability as farmers' responses to the items of the scale revealed a communal variation of 85%, which is higher than the minimally acceptable range of 65% to 70%. The study furth er revealed slight degree of risk aversion among farmers as revealed by the adoption such risk management tools like vaccinating the animals, calling a veterinarian, prevention of illness, maintaining hygienic conditions, and feeding adequate concentrates. Hence, there is a strong tendency on the p art of the farmers to mitigate the production risks at farm level by adapting appropriate measures.But, a certain degree of risk taking behaviour was also seen in regard to certain risk management tools, especially livestock insurance. Regression analysis to ascertain relationship between socio-econom ic factors with risk attitudes, revealed largely insignificant influence of the variables considered in the study . Herd size and hours spent in off-farm work showed negative and significant impact upon the risk attitude score. Number of dependents showed significant and positive relationship with the total score. The variables included in the study explained 54.5 per cent of variation in risk attitude score. As regards to relative importance of different risk management tools, carrying adequate cash reserve was cited by the farmers as relevant, which is against the general perception that Indian farmers, mostly being subsistent can not afford to ho ld cash reserve to meet future crisis.