Ecosystem service mismatches evidence inequalities in urban heat vulnerability.

Exposure to heat poses a pressing challenge in cities, with uneven health and environmental impacts across the urban fabric. To assess disparities in heat vulnerability and its environmental justice implications, we model supply-demand mismatches for the ecosystem service (ES) urban temperature regulation. We integrated remote sensing, health, and socio-demographic data with Artificial Intelligence for Environment and Sustainability (ARIES) and geographical information system tools. We computed composite indicators at the census tract level for urban cooling supply, and vulnerability to heat as a measure of demand. We do so in the context of the mid-size city of Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country (Europe). We mapped relative mismatches after identifying and analysed their relationship with socio-demographic and health factors. Our findings show disparities in heat vulnerability, with increased exposure observed among socio-economically disadvantaged communities, the elderly, and people with health issues. Areas associated with higher income levels show lower ES mismatches, indicating higher temperature regulation supply and reduced heat vulnerability. The results point at the need for nature-based heat mitigation interventions that especially focus on the more socio-economically disadvantaged communities.

Diverse values of nature for sustainability.

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.

Modeling trade-offs across carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, and equity in the distribution of global REDD+ funds.

The program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) is one of the major attempts to tackle climate change mitigation in developing countries. REDD+ seeks to provide result-based incentives to promote emission reductions and increase carbon sinks in forest land while promoting other cobenefits, such as the conservation of biodiversity. We model different scenarios of international REDD+ funds distribution toward potential recipient countries using 2 carbon emission reduction targets (20% and 50% compared to the baseline scenario, i.e., deforestation and forest degradation without REDD+) by 2030. The model combines the prioritization of environmental outcomes in terms of carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation and social equity, accounting for the equitable distribution of international REDD+ funds. Results highlight the synergy between carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation under alternative fund allocation criteria, especially for scenarios of low carbon emission reduction. Trade-offs increase when distributional equity is considered as an additional criterion, especially under higher equity requirements. The analysis helps to better understand the inherent trade-offs between enhancing distributional equity and meeting environmental targets under alternative REDD+ fund allocation options.

Progress toward Equitably Managed Protected Areas in Aichi Target 11: A Global Survey.

The Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi Target 11 requires its 193 signatory parties to incorporate social equity into protected area (PA) management by 2020. However, there is limited evidence of progress toward this commitment. We surveyed PA managers, staff, and community representatives involved in the management of 225 PAs worldwide to gather information against 10 equity criteria, including the distribution of benefits and burdens, recognition of rights, diversity of cultural and knowledge systems, and processes of participation in decision-making. Our results show that more than half of the respondents indicated that there are still significant challenges to be addressed in achieving equitably managed PAs, particularly in ensuring effective participation in decision-making, transparent procedures, access to justice in conflicting situations, and the recognition of the rights and diversity of local people. Our findings are a first and fundamental contribution toward a global assessment of equitable management in PAs to report on Aichi Target 11 in 2020 and help define the next set of PA targets from 2020-2030.

Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom.

Landscapes generate a wide range of valuable ecosystem services, yet land-use decisions often ignore the value of these services. Using the example of the United Kingdom, we show the significance of land-use change not only for agricultural production but also for emissions and sequestration of greenhouse gases, open-access recreational visits, urban green space, and wild-species diversity. We use spatially explicit models in conjunction with valuation methods to estimate comparable economic values for these services, taking account of climate change impacts. We show that, although decisions that focus solely on agriculture reduce overall ecosystem service values, highly significant value increases can be obtained from targeted planning by incorporating all potential services and their values and that this approach also conserves wild-species diversity.

Agricultural intensification escalates future conservation costs.

The supposition that agricultural intensification results in land sparing for conservation has become central to policy formulations across the tropics. However, underlying assumptions remain uncertain and have been little explored in the context of conservation incentive schemes such as policies for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, conservation, sustainable management, and enhancement of carbon stocks (REDD+). Incipient REDD+ forest carbon policies in a number of countries propose agricultural intensification measures to replace extensive "slash-and-burn" farming systems. These may result in conservation in some contexts, but will also increase future agricultural land rents as productivity increases, creating new incentives for agricultural expansion and deforestation. While robust governance can help to ensure land sparing, we propose that conservation incentives will also have to increase over time, tracking future agricultural land rents, which might lead to runaway conservation costs. We present a conceptual framework that depicts these relationships, supported by an illustrative model of the intensification of key crops in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a leading REDD+ country. A von Thünen land rent model is combined with geographic information systems mapping to demonstrate how agricultural intensification could influence future conservation costs. Once postintensification agricultural land rents are considered, the cost of reducing forest sector emissions could significantly exceed current and projected carbon credit prices. Our analysis highlights the importance of considering escalating conservation costs from agricultural intensification when designing conservation initiatives.