Paradox not an illusion
In a new paper centre researchers Garry Peterson and Maria Tengö together with collaborators from McGill University have been trying to untangle these potential explanations of Environmentalist´s Paradox.
The authors present four hypotheses to why human well-being is increasing while ecosystem services degrade:
1. Human well-being is actually declining because current ways to measure this are wrong or incomplete.
2. Food production and continued agricultural growth trumps all other ecosystems because only provisioning services are important for human well-being.
3. Technology makes humans less dependent on ecosystem services
4. The worst is yet to come: there is a time lag after ecosystem service degradation before human well-being is affected.
As for the first hypothesis, Peterson and colleagues argue that there is a large body of evidence demonstrating that human well-being, even of the worst off, has increased during the past fifty years, suggesting that the paradox is not an illusion.
Mixed support for the other hypotheses
Their assessment of the second hypothesis is that agricultural ecosystems strongly support human wellbeing.
However, support for hypotheses three and four is mixed. Despite great advances in technology and social organisation that have increased the benefits people get from nature, we have increased rather than decreased our use of ecosystems.
- There is little evidence from the past of sustained decreases in human wellbeing caused by environmental decline, but as the scope of human use of the planet has increased there are reasons to remain concerned about the future, says co-author Maria Tengö.
There is evidence that regulating ecosystem services that maintain stable environments for people are decreasing locally, while we are also pushing the entire earth system across its planetary boundaries.
- These findings do not show that the environment is unimportant, but rather that people are extremely innovative and adaptive. However, the careless destruction of ecological infrastructure is leaving people worse off than they would be if we made more thoughtful investments in ecological infrastructure. We have a lot of understanding of how humanity alters the biosphere, but little understanding of how these changes impact us, says Garry Peterson.
Time to invest in ecological infrastructure
The authors argue that humanity is under-investing in ecological infrastructure, and suggest three areas: agriculture, cities and infrastructure. In these areas, increased management, research, and governance to enhance ecosystem services could yield major gains in human well-being.
Major reasons for this lack of investment are disciplinary boundaries among researchers and inadequate attention to environmental governance.
- Researchers often address narrow aspects of global environmental change, based upon disciplinary assumptions that are often unconvincing to researchers outside their own discipline. We need research that addresses practical questions beyond disciplinary focus as well as increased theoretical and practical attention to environmental governance, say Peterson and Tengö.
See video seminar with centre director Johan Rockström on climate change, development and wellbeing:
Research news | 2018-09-24
New report on the links between environmental tipping points and global investors such as banks and pension funds
Research news | 2018-09-18
Why the concept of stewardship offers a platform for collaboration and dialogue between actors, even with differing perspectives
Research news | 2018-09-14
The world needs a much more ambitious work plan to halt species loss and restore biodiversity. Here are three steps to get there
Research news | 2018-09-13
Digital revolution and market forces poised to drive economic transformation away from fossil fuels, but not without the right policy mix and bold climate leadership
Research news | 2018-09-12
Centre launches new online platform for resilience assessments, representing a major innovation in resilience practice
Research news | 2018-09-06
Water and land governance need to consider effects of distant land-use change, because local land-use decisions are not as local as we have always assumed