Representation of critical natural capital in China

Traditional means of assessing representativeness of conservation value in protected areas depend on measures of structural biodiversity. The effectiveness of priority conservation areas at representing critical natural capital (CNC) (i.e., an essential and renewable subset of natural capital) remains largely unknown. We analyzed the representativeness of CNC‐conservation priority areas in national nature reserves (i.e., nature reserves under jurisdiction of the central government with large spatial distribution across the provinces) in China with a new biophysical‐based composite indicator approach. With this approach, we integrated the net primary production of vegetation, topography, soil, and climate variables to map and rank terrestrial ecosystems capacities to generate CNC. National nature reserves accounted for 6.7% of CNC‐conservation priority areas across China. Considerable gaps (35.2%) existed between overall (or potential) CNC representativeness nationally and CNC representation in national reserves, and there was significant spatial heterogeneity of representativeness in CNC‐conservation priority areas at the regional and provincial levels. For example, the best and worst representations were, respectively, 13.0% and 1.6% regionally and 28.9% and 0.0% provincially. Policy in China is transitioning toward the goal of an ecologically sustainable civilization. We identified CNC‐conservation priority areas and conservation gaps and thus contribute to the policy goals of optimization of the national nature reserve network and the demarcation of areas critical to improving the representativeness and conservation of highly functioning areas of natural capital. Moreover, our method for assessing representation of CNC can be easily adapted to other large‐scale networks of conservation areas because few data are needed, and our model is relatively simple.     

What Every Conservation Biologist Should Know about Economic Theory

Abstract: The last century has seen the ascendance of a core economic model, which we will refer to as Walrasian economics. This model is driven by the psychological assumptions that humans act only in a self‐referential and narrowly rational way and that production can be described as a self‐contained circular flow between firms and households. These assumptions have critical implications for the way economics is used to inform conservation biology. Yet the Walrasian model is inconsistent with a large body of empirical evidence about actual human behavior, and it violates a number of basic physical laws. Research in behavioral science and neuroscience shows that humans are uniquely social animals and not self‐centered rational economic beings. Economic production is subject to physical laws including the laws of thermodynamics and mass balance. In addition, some contemporary economic theory, spurred by exciting new research in human behavior and a wealth of data about the negative global impact of the human economy on natural systems, is moving toward a world view that places consumption and production squarely in its behavioral and biophysical context. We argue that abandoning the straightjacket of the Walrasian core is essential to further progress in understanding the complex, coupled interactions between the human economy and the natural world. We call for a new framework for economic theory and policy that is consistent with observed human behavior, recognizes the complex and frequently irreversible interaction between human and natural systems, and directly confronts the cumulative negative effects of the human economy on the Earth's life support systems. Biophysical economics and ecological economics are two emerging economic frameworks in this movement.