Why win-wins are rare in complex environmental management

  • Nelson, E. et al. Modeling of multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production and trade-offs at the landscape scale. Front. School. About. 74–11 (2009).

    Google Scholar article

  • Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, BL Global food demand and sustainable agricultural intensification. proc. Natl Acad. Science. United States 10820260–20264 (2011).

    CAS Google Scholar Article

  • Mueller, ND et al. A compromise frontier for global nitrogen use and grain production. About. Res. Lett. 9054002 (2014).

    CAS Google Scholar Article

  • Costello, C. et al. Global prospects for fisheries under contrasting management regimes. proc. Natl Acad. Science. United States 1135125–5129 (2016).

    CAS Google Scholar Article

  • Burgess, MG et al. Protect marine mammals, turtles and birds by rebuilding the world’s fisheries. Science 3591255-1258 (2018).

    CAS Google Scholar Article

  • Pascual, U. et al. Social equity is important in payments for ecosystem services. Biosciences 641027-1036 (2014).

    Google Scholar article

  • Muradian, R. et al. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal appeal of win-win solutions. Conserv. Lett. 6274-279 (2013).

    Google Scholar article

  • Hopkins, SR et al. How to identify win-win interventions that benefit human health and conservation. Nat. To support. 4298-304 (2021).

    Google Scholar article

  • Birkenbach, AM, Smith, MD & Stefanski, S. Dossier—taking stock of catch shares: lessons from the past and directions for the future. Rev. About. Econ. Politics 13130-139 (2019).

    Google Scholar article

  • Perfecto, I. & Vandermeer, J. The agroecological matrix as an alternative to the land conservation/agricultural intensification model. proc. Natl Acad. Science. United States 1075786–5791 (2010).

    CAS Google Scholar Article

  • Howe, C., Suich, H., Vira, B. & Mace, GM Creating win-win from compromise? Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of the trade-offs and synergies of ecosystem services in the real world. Global. About. Change 28263–275 (2014).

    Google Scholar article

  • Hajjar, R. et al. A comprehensive analysis of the social and environmental outcomes of community forests. Nat. To support. 4216-224 (2021).

    Google Scholar article

  • Tallis, H., Kareiva, P., Marvier, M. & Chang, A. An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. proc. Natl Acad. Science. United States 1059457–9464 (2008).

    CAS Google Scholar Article

  • O’Connell, CS et al. Balancing trade-offs: Balancing multiple environmental objectives when ecosystem services vary from region to region. About. Res. Lett. 13064008 (2018).

    Google Scholar article

  • Lester, SE et al. Marine spatial planning is making room for offshore aquaculture in congested coastal waters. Nat. Common. 9945 (2018).

    CAS Google Scholar Article

  • Fukuyama, F. Political order and political decadence: from the industrial revolution to the globalization of democracy (Macmillan, 2014).

  • Coello, CAC, Lamont, GB and Van Veldhuizen, DA Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems 2nd edition (Springer, 2007).

  • Lester, SE et al. Assess trade-offs between ecosystem services to inform marine spatial planning. March policy 3880–89 (2013).

    Google Scholar article

  • Hegwood, M., Langendorf, RE, and Burgess, MG Additional video for trade-off analysis of Hegwood, Langendorf, and Burgess. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6087610 (2022).

  • Plaza‐Úbeda, JA, Burgos‐Jiménez, J., Vazquez, DA & Liston‐Heyes, C. The “win-win” paradigm and stakeholder integration. Bus. Strategy Environ. 18487–499 (2009).

    Google Scholar article

  • Polasky, S. et al. Where to put things? Spatial land management to support biodiversity and economic returns. Biol. Conserv. 1411505-1524 (2008).

    Google Scholar article

  • Halpern, BS et al. Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs between social equity, economic return and conservation. proc. Natl Acad. Science. United States 1106229–6234 (2013).

    CAS Google Scholar Article

  • White, C., Halpern, BS & Kappel, CV Ecosystem service trade-off analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple uses of the ocean. proc. Natl Acad. Science. United States 1094696–4701 (2012).

    CAS Google Scholar Article

  • Groot, JC et al. Exploring multi-scale trade-offs between nature conservation, agricultural profits and landscape quality – a methodology to support discussions on land use prospects. Agric. Ecosystem. About. 12058–69 (2007).

    Google Scholar article

  • Groot, JC, Jellema, A. & Rossing, WA Designing a Hedge Network in a Multifunctional Agricultural Landscape: Balancing Tradeoffs Between Ecological Quality, Landscape Character, and Implementation Costs. EUR. J.Agron. 32112-119 (2010).

    Google Scholar article

  • Law, EA et al. Fewer and fewer opportunities to mitigate trade-offs between agriculture and the environment in a deforestation hotspot in South America. Biol. Conserv. 262109310 (2021).

    Google Scholar article

  • Rabotyagov, S. et al. Multi-objective spatial optimization of agricultural conservation practices using a SWAT model and an evolutionary algorithm. J.Vis. Exp. 704009 (2012).

    Google Scholar

  • Ruijs, A., Wossink, A., Kortelainen, M., Alkemade, R. & Schulp, CJE Ecosystem service trade-off analysis in Eastern Europe. Ecosystem. To serve. 482–94 (2013).

    Google Scholar article

  • Tóth, SF & McDill, ME Finding efficient harvest schedules under three conflicting objectives. For. Science. 55117-131 (2009).

    Google Scholar

  • Zhou, ZX, Li, J., Guo, ZZ & Li, T. Trade-off between carbon, water, soil and food in the Guanzhong-Tianshui economic region from remote sensing data. Int. J.Appl. Land Obs. Geoinf. 58145-156 (2017).

    Google Scholar article

  • Yang, W. et al. Trade-offs between ecosystem services in coastal wetlands under the effects of restoration activities. School. indic. 92354–366 (2018).

    Google Scholar article

  • Lautenbach, S., Volk, M., Strauch, M., Whittaker, G. & Seppelt, R. Trade-off analysis based on optimizing biodiesel crop production for agricultural watershed management. About. Model. Software 4898-112 (2013).

    Google Scholar article

  • Zhong, J. et al. Analysis of environmental and economic trade-offs in switchgrass supply chains for biofuel production. Energy 107791–803 (2016).

    Google Scholar article

  • Kanter, DR et al. Assessing agricultural trade-offs in the era of sustainable development. Agric. System 16373–88 (2018).

    Google Scholar article

  • Bryan, BA et al. Land use efficiency: anticipating future demand for greenhouse gas emission reductions from the land sector and managing trade-offs with agriculture, water and biodiversity. Global. Change Biol. 214098–4114 (2015).

    Google Scholar article

  • Juutinen, A. et al. Trade-off between economic returns, biodiversity and ecosystem services in the selection of energy peat production sites. Ecosystem. To serve. 40101027 (2019).

    Google Scholar article

  • Nalle, DJ, Montgomery, CA, Arthur, JL, Polasky, S. & Schumaker, NH Modeling coproduction of wildlife and timber. J. About. Econ. Manage. 48997-1017 (2004).

    Google Scholar article

  • Burgess, MG, Clemence, M., McDermott, GR, Costello, C. & Gaines, SD Five Rules for Pragmatic Blue Growth. March policy 87331–339 (2018).

    Google Scholar article

  • Comments are closed.