Journal Article MATTHEW JAMES HIGGINS Get access PETER SMITH PETER SMITH 18 Hall Rise, Haxby, York YO3 8LP Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Notes and Queries, Volume 16, Issue 4, April 1969, Pages 146-a–146, https://doi.org/10.1093/nq/16-4-146a Published: 01 April 1969
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.
Abstract Nature‐based solutions (NbS)—solutions to societal challenges that involve working with nature—have recently gained popularity as an integrated approach that can address climate change and biodiversity loss, while supporting sustainable development. Although well‐designed NbS can deliver multiple benefits for people and nature, much of the recent limelight has been on tree planting for carbon sequestration. There are serious concerns that this is distracting from the need to rapidly phase out use of fossil fuels and protect existing intact ecosystems. There are also concerns that the expansion of forestry framed as a climate change mitigation solution is coming at the cost of carbon rich and biodiverse native ecosystems and local resource rights. Here, we discuss the promise and pitfalls of the NbS framing and its current political traction, and we present recommendations on how to get the message right. We urge policymakers, practitioners and researchers to consider the synergies and trade‐offs associated with NbS and to follow four guiding principles to enable NbS to provide sustainable benefits to society: (1) NbS are not a substitute for the rapid phase out of fossil fuels; (2) NbS involve a wide range of ecosystems on land and in the sea, not just forests; (3) NbS are implemented with the full engagement and consent of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in a way that respects their cultural and ecological rights; and (4) NbS should be explicitly designed to provide measurable benefits for biodiversity. Only by following these guidelines will we design robust and resilient NbS that address the urgent challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss, sustaining nature and people together, now and into the future.
Abstract. Dynamic simulation models are increasingly used in environmental and agricultural science. Here we present a method that allows models to be used to determine optimum timing of sampling for field trials. The model is used to decide when to concentrate sampling effort before the field trial begins. The model chosen to design sampling strategy should include an appropriately sensitive description of all processes that influence measurements significantly. The simulation is run, using predicted weather data, to generate the full time series before the trial begins. Every point in the simulation is considered initially to be a potential sampling point. The potential error due to not including a measurement at each point is calculated using the ‘dot‐to‐dot’ method of b10Smith et al. (2002) by omitting simulated values consecutively. The calculated potential error provides a measure of the priority that should be given to sampling at each point. Where the error introduced by omitting the simulated value exceeds an acceptable error, the value at the last discernible time step should be measured so that all statistically significant changes in the system can be observed. The output from the calculation is a plan of sampling times needed to capture all statistically significant events that are likely to occur over the course of the trial.
Peer reviewed
Abstract An agent‐based modelling ( ABM ) framework was adapted to assess bioenergy crop uptake and integrate social and economic processes with biophysical elements. Survey results indicated that economic rationalisation was intrinsic to farmers’ decision‐making, but was not the only consideration. This study presents an approach, set within an established resource management framework, to incorporate a number of key socio‐economic factors, which we call Mitigation Willingness Factors ( MWF s), using survey data collected from farmers and land managers, into the ABM . The MWF s represent farmers’ willingness to compromise revenue in order to reduce GHG emissions, derived from their attitudes to climate change and the ability of different economic mechanisms to stimulate energy crop uptake. Adoption of bioenergy crops of different farmer types and farming enterprises was also assessed. Adoption rates and scenarios that take into account noneconomic factors are presented, and particular farming enterprises that may respond more positively to policy initiatives are identified.
It has been suggested that some agricultural carbon (C) mitigation options will yield no net C benefit under full carbon accounting (i.e. when costs are included alongside benefits). The largest likely C cost of implementing many options is the fuel cost associated with transporting resources from the place where they are produced to the place where they are used. In this article, we show that fuel C costs of transporting resources are much lower than the C benefits of agricultural mitigation options. These findings suggest that the agricultural C mitigation options examined here will yield a net C benefit, even under full carbon accounting.