Clarifying relationships between participatory approaches,issues, processes,and results,through crosscutting case analysis in Japan’s environmental,energy, and food policy areas

Participatory public engagement approaches such as Consensus Conferences, Deliberative Polling^®, and Planning Cells have been used to try and resolve environmental disputes in Japan; however, the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches have not been analyzed adequately or comprehensively. This paper evaluates practical applications of each of the above participatory approaches and conducts a crosscutting analysis of these applications to evaluate how effectively each approach provides scientific information to participants and to consider how the quality of deliberations that occur during these processes affect their outputs. Based on existing classification of participatory processes, and methodology for public involvement in US environmental decision-making, this study compares and contrasts the processes and outcomes of 25 participatory planning case studies in Japan. After compiling a case inventory of participatory approaches, the features of one approach are documented using qualitative analysis, and the aspects of four other approaches are confirmed using crosscutting analysis. In so doing, the likely strengths and weaknesses of each approach are suggested as follows. When discussions require an understanding of scientific knowledge, the Consensus Conference tends to be more suitable than the DP approach. If the consensus of participants is expected, the Consensus Conference is also thought to be suitable. But through a DP process or Simplified Planning Cells approach, we can know the quantitative portion of each opinion through results of ballots. In sum, new participatory approach that incorporates strengths of the Consensus Conference and the Simplified Planning Cells into Local Environmental Planning is needed. Thus, the quality of consensus building could be improved.     

Carbon emission reduction and cost–benefit of methane digester systems on hog farms in China

Three different sizes of hog farms were selected to analyze the carbon emissions reduction and the cost–benefit of three methane digester systems. The sizes of the digesters are 2,200, 2,200 and 800 m³, respectively. The sales of slaughter hogs from them are 50,000, 35,000 and 10,000 head, respectively. The carbon emissions reductions were 5,237, 4,017, and 1,334 tons, respectively. The results show that while the methane digester systems have a significant effect on carbon emissions reduction, it is difficult to operate the systems sustainably. If the carbon emissions reduction can be traded at high enough prices in the carbon offset markets, then the systems will be profitable and sustainable. Newly established China's domestic carbon offset market could provide this possibility, but more government support is needed. In addition, this study shows that scale economies make the digester adoption relatively more profitable for larger farms than smaller ones.     

Ecosystem services assessments in local municipal decision making in South Africa: justification for the use of a business-based approach

The ecosystem services (ES) concept is being increasingly incorporated into environmental policy formulation and management approaches. The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) is a framework used to assess the dependence and impact that a business has on ES. The success of the corporate experience of ES assessment provides an opportunity for adaption for local authority decision making. In this paper, the ESR tool was adapted to the South African setting at a local government level, and tested at two sites in the Msunduzi Municipality, KwaZulu-Natal. In testing the tool and gathering feedback from key stakeholders, it was found that there are both opportunities and challenges to this approach. Overall, however, it provides an opportunity for the systematic inclusion of ES assessment into existing regulatory frameworks for land-use planning and Integrated Environmental Management, whether in a strategic application, at a broader spatial (municipal) scale or in a specific locale within the municipality.     

Temporal Trends in the Spatial Distribution of Impervious Cover Relative to Stream Location

Use of impervious cover is transitioning from an indicator of surface water condition to one that also guides and informs watershed planning and management, including Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.) reporting. Whether it is for understanding surface water condition or planning and management, impervious cover is most commonly expressed as summary measurement (e.g., percentage watershed in impervious cover). We use the National Land Cover Database to estimate impervious cover in the vicinity of surface waters for three time periods (2001, 2006, 2011). We also compare impervious cover in the vicinity of surface waters to watershed summary estimates of impervious cover for classifying the spatial pattern of impervious cover. Between 2001 and 2011, surface water shorelines (streams and water bodies) in the vicinity of impervious cover increased nearly 10,000 km. Across all time periods, approximately 27% of the watersheds in the continental United States had proximally distributed impervious cover, i.e., the percentage of impervious cover in the vicinity of surface waters was higher than its watershed summary expression. We discuss how impervious cover spatial pattern can be used to inform watershed planning and management, including reporting under the Clean Water Act.     

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.