Opponents,waverers or supporters: the influence of place-attachment dimensions on local residents' acceptance of a planned biosphere reserve in Austria

A supportive attitude of residents towards protected areas is crucial for successful implementation and management, particularly in densely populated regions such as Central Europe. While previous studies have revealed that emotional and cultural drivers, as well as information level and group membership, can influence attitudes towards protected areas, the effect of place-attachment dimensions remains unclear. A postal survey among local residents (N = 460) explored factors influencing attitudes towards the Lungau (-Nockberge) Biosphere Reserve in Austria before its official recognition. Results indicated societal support throughout all socio-demographic strata. A logistic regression showed that, besides socio-demographics and information level, place attachment had a significant influence on the acceptance of the biosphere reserve. Supporters and opponents showed both high place identity and dependence, while waverers scored low on these dimensions. Results indicate that place attachment is relevant for the design of participatory processes as well as for developing management policies for biosphere reserves.     

Bison and cattle grazing management,bare ground coverage,and links to suspended sediment concentrations in grassland streams

This study quantified the impact of bison and cattle grazing management practices on bare ground coverage at the watershed, riparian, and forested riparian scales within the Flint Hills ecoregion in Kansas. We tested for correlations between bare ground coverage and fluvial suspended sediment concentrations during base‐flow and storm‐flow events. We used remotely sensed imagery combined with field surveys to classify ground cover and quantify the presence of bare ground. Base‐flow water samples were collected bi‐monthly during rain‐free periods and 24 h following precipitation events. Storm‐flow water samples were collected on the rising limb of the hydrograph, using single‐stage automatic samplers. Ungrazed treatments contained the lowest coverage of bare ground at the watershed, riparian, and forested riparian scales. Bison treatments contained the highest coverage of bare ground at the watershed scale, while high‐density cattle treatments contained the highest coverage of bare ground at the riparian and forested riparian scales. In bison and cattle‐grazed treatments, a majority of bare ground was located near fence lines, watershed boundaries, and third‐ and fourth‐order stream segments. Inorganic sediment concentrations at base flow were best predicted by riparian bare ground coverage, while storm‐flow sediment concentrations were best predicted by watershed scale bare ground coverage.     

Augmenting Watershed Model Calibration with Incorporation of Ancillary Data Sources and Qualitative Soft Data Sources

Watershed simulation models such as the Soil & Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) can be calibrated using “hard data” such as temporal streamflow observations; however, users may find upon examination of model outputs, that the calibrated models may not reflect actual watershed behavior. Thus, it is often advantageous to use “soft data” (i.e., qualitative knowledge such as expected denitrification rates that observed time series do not typically exist) to ensure that the calibrated model is representative of the real world. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of coupling SWAT‐Check (a post‐evaluation framework for SWAT outputs) and IPEAT‐SD (Integrated Parameter Estimation and Uncertainty Analysis Tool‐Soft & hard Data evaluation) to constrain the bounds of soft data during SWAT auto‐calibration. IPEAT‐SD integrates 59 soft data variables to ensure SWAT does not violate physical processes known to occur in watersheds. IPEAT‐SD was evaluated for two case studies where soft data such as denitrification rate, nitrate attributed from subsurface flow to total discharge ratio, and total sediment loading were used to conduct model calibration. Results indicated that SWAT model outputs may not satisfy reasonable soft data responses without providing pre‐defined bounds. IPEAT‐SD provides an efficient and rigorous framework for users to conduct future studies while considering both soft data and traditional hard information measures in watershed modeling.     

Irrigation Water Allocation Using an Inexact Two‐Stage Quadratic Programming with Fuzzy Input under Climate Change

Agricultural irrigation accounts for nearly 70% of the total water use around the world. Uncertainties and climate change together exacerbate the complexity of optimal allocation of water resources for irrigation. An interval‐fuzzy two‐stage stochastic quadratic programming model is developed for determining the plans for water allocation for irrigation with maximum benefits. The model is shown to be applicable when inputs are expressed as discrete, fuzzy or random. In order to reflect the effect of marginal utility on benefit and cost, the model can also deal with nonlinearities in the objective function. Results from applying the model to a case study in the middle reaches of the Heihe River basin, China, show schemes for water allocation for irrigation of different crops in every month of the crop growth period under various flow levels are effective for achieving high economic benefits. Different climate change scenarios are used to analyze the impact of changing water requirement and water availability on irrigation water allocation. The proposed model can aid the decision maker in formulating desired irrigation water management policies in the wake of uncertainties and changing environment.     

Food: From Commodity to Commons

Our food and farming system is not socially, economically or ecologically sustainable. Many of the ills are a result of market competition driving specialization and linear production models, externalizing costs for environmental, social and cultural degradation. Some propose that market mechanisms should be used to correct this; improved consumer choice, internalization of costs and compensation to farmers for public goods. What we eat is determined by the path taken by our ancestors, by commercialization and fierce competition, fossil fuels and demographic development. Based on those, governments and the food industry are the choice architects who determine what we eat; consumer choice plays a marginal role. Using market mechanisms to internalize cost and compensate farmers for public goods has been proposed for decades but little progress has been made. There are also many practical, ethical and theoretical objections to such a system. The market is not a good master for a sustainable food system. Instead we need to find new ways of managing the food system based on food as a right and farming as a management system of the planet Earth. The solutions should be based on relocalization of food production and de-commodification of food and our symbionts, the plants and animals we eat.     

The Normative Limits of Consumer Citizenship

In political philosophy, citizenship is a key concept. Citizenship is tied to rights and duties, as well as to concepts of social justice. Recently, the debate on citizenship has developed a new direction in focusing on qualified notions of citizenship. In this contribution, I shall defend three claims. Firstly, consumer citizenship fits into the discussion of qualified notions of citizenship. Secondly, the debate on qualified notions of citizenship cannot be detached from the normative claims in the philosophy of citizenship more generally. In particular, duties and rights receive a distinct shape when debated in terms of “consumer citizenship”. Thirdly, I shall argue that further normative limits can be established by discussing qualified notions of citizenship as items of a list that need to cohere in normative terms. I shall pay particular attention to environmental citizenship.     

The IPBES Conceptual Framework: An Unhelpful Start

The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) have recently launched themselves as the UN-sanctioned instrument for conserving nature. They seek to establish themselves as the authority in this field alongside the well-known Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in climate science. Quickly following or even before recent publication of their conceptual framework in two biology journals, they were already underway building upon it. This headlong push, we believe, is ill advised. We show how the framework is unsound as a foundation for further work—in a number of ways and perhaps even by its authors’ own lights. It is therefore urgent that the IPBES thoroughly and thoughtfully reconsider their framework before too much effort is wasted.     

Consuming for the Sake of Others: Whose Interests Count on a Market for Animal-Friendly Products?

Many Europeans are concerned about the living conditions of farm animals because they view animals as beings that possess interests of their own. Against this background the introduction of an animal welfare label is being intensively discussed in Europe. In choosing a market-based instrument to take these concerns into account, normative judgments are made about the formation of preferences, the value system that is implicitly assumed, and the distribution of property rights. From the perspective of classical institutional economics it can be shown that the introduction of a label as an institutional change does not redefine institutions in a way that allows them to consider the interests of animals for their own sake. Rather, the label only redefines the property rights that humans have over animals. The market segregation into privileged and normal animals conflicts with the idea of equality between sentient animals. Within the group of humans only the interests of those who act on markets count. The commodification of their moral concerns assumes that people always decide based on their own interests, which can be traded off. The lexicographical ordering of preferences, which occurs when humans view animals as entities with rights, is not compatible with the normative assumptions of markets. Furthermore, interpreting animal suffering as market failure that can be corrected by labeling impedes a reasoned dialog within the society about the values and beliefs that serve as a basis for preference formation. Thus, an animal welfare label cannot replace a fundamental societal debate about legal standards on animal well-being.     

Determinants of Individual Attitudes Toward Animal Welfare-Friendly Food Products

Animal welfare involves societal and human values, ethical concerns and moral considerations since it incorporates the belief of what is right or what is wrong in animal treatment and care. This paper aims to ascertain whether the different dimensions of individual attitudes toward animal welfare in food choices may be characterized by general human values, as identified by Schwartz. For this purpose, an EU-wide survey was carried out, covering almost 2500 nationally representative individuals from five European countries. Compared with the previous literature this study shows a twofold novelty: (1) it develops a general framework to link individual enduring beliefs and attitudes toward animal welfare attributes in food choices; (2) the framework is analyzed within a broad-based cross-country study. Our empirical results prove that human values related to self-transcendence are strongly associated to overall animal welfare attitudes and especially to those explicitly related to food choices, while values related to the spheres of self-enhancement and conservatism are significantly associated to less sensitive attitudes to animal welfare. Moreover, our results appear to indicate that a determinant of animal welfarism in food choices is potentially associated to individual concerns regarding food safety issues.