The Convention on Biodiversity has developed the concept of ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘natural resources’ in order to describe ways in which humans benefit from healthy ecosystems. Biodiversity, conceived through the economic approach, was recognized to be of great social and economic value to both present and future populations. According to its critics, the economic capture approach might be inadequate in addressing rapid biodiversity loss, since many non-human species do not have an economic value and there may thus be limited grounds for prohibiting or even restricting their destruction. This article aims to examine the concept of biodiversity through competing discourses of sustainability and to discuss the implications for education for sustainable development (ESD). https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408213495606 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
The concept of biodiversity, which usually serves as a shorthand to refer to the diversity of life on Earth at different levels (ecosystems, species, genes), was coined in the 1980s by conservation biologists worried over the degradation of ecosystems and the loss of species, and willing to make a case for the protection of nature – while avoiding this “politically loaded” term (Takacs, 1996). Since then, the concept has been embedded in the work of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, established in 1992) and of the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, aka ‘the IPCC for biodiversity’, established in 2012). While the concept has gained policy traction, it is still unclear to which extent it has captured the public imagination. Biodiversity loss has not triggered the same amount of attention or controversy as climate change globally (with some exceptions). This project, titled Prompting for biodiversity, investigates how this issue is mediated by generative visual AI, directing attention to both how ‘biodiversity’ is known and imagined by AI and to how this may shape public ideas around biodiversity loss and living with other species.
LINK
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, launched during the United Nations Biodiversity Conference in December 2022, encourages governments, companies and investors to publish data on their nature-related risks, dependencies and impacts. These disclosures are intended to drive businesses to recognise, manage and mitigate their reliance on ecosystem goods and services. However, there is a ‘biodiversity blind spot’ that is evident for most organisations and business schools. Business education rarely addresses the root causes of biodiversity loss, such as the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources. As the dominant positioning of Education for Sustainable Development Goals (ESDG) presents biodiversity in anthropocentric instrumental terms inadequate for addressing ecosystem decline, we posit that a more progressive and transformative ecocentric education through ecopedagogy and ecoliteracy is needed. Both approaches include the development of critical thinking about degrowth, the circular economy and conventional stakeholder theory to include non-human stakeholders. Using comparative case studies from Northumbria University, the University of Hong Kong and Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, we illustrate how business education can be transformed to address biodiversity loss, providing theoretical guidance and practical recommendations to academic practitioners and future business leaders.
DOCUMENT
Biodiversity loss is accelerating at an alarming rate, posing significant challenges for sustainability, yet it remains inadequately addressed in business management education. Current sustainability pedagogies in business schools are predominantly anthropocentric, overlooking the biodiversity and extinction crises. This study examines the limitations of these approaches, particularly their failure to incorporate ecocentric perspectives and interdisciplinary methods critical for a comprehensive understanding of biodiversity. To address this gap, this paper integrates intra-, inter-, and transdisciplinary perspectives, offering a framework that challenges traditional, siloed approaches to business education. This research aims to bridge the gap between business education and biodiversity. We use secondary-data-based case studies of organizations and institutions of higher learning that offer business/corporate or executive education. This paper demonstrates how an ecocentric curriculum can more comprehensively address biodiversity challenges in sustainability education by examining case studies and incorporating insights from fields including psychology, natural sciences, and social sciences. Key findings indicate that traditional business curricula lack the depth needed to tackle complex ecological issues, and integrating interdisciplinary approaches enhances students’ understanding of biodiversity’s role in sustainability. We conclude that reimagining Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) within business schools through an ecocentric framework is essential. This shift transcends disciplinary boundaries and fosters ethical leadership capable of addressing the complexities of biodiversity loss, contributing to more holistic sustainability education.
DOCUMENT
Biodiversity preservation is often viewed in utilitarian terms that render non-human species as ecosystem services or natural resources. The economic capture approach may be inadequate in addressing biodiversity loss because extinction of some species could conceivably come to pass without jeopardizing the survival of the humans. People might be materially sustained by a technological biora made to yield services and products required for human life. The failure to address biodiversity loss calls for an exploration of alternative paradigms. It is proposed that the failure to address biodiversity loss stems from the fact that ecocentric value holders are politically marginalized and underrepresented in the most powerful strata of society. While anthropocentric concerns with environment and private expressions of biophilia are acceptable in the wider society, the more pronounced publicly expressed deep ecology position is discouraged. “Radical environmentalists” are among the least understood of all contemporary opposition movements, not only in tactical terms, but also ethically. The article argues in favor of the inclusion of deep ecology perspective as an alternative to the current anthropocentric paradigm. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2012.742914 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
DOCUMENT
Biodiversity, including entire habitats and ecosystems, is recognized to be of great social and economic value. Conserving biodiversity has therefore become a task of international NGO’s as well as grass-roots organisations. The ‘classical’ model of conservation has been characterised by creation of designated nature areas to allow biodiversity to recover from the effects of human activities. Typically, such areas prohibit entry other than through commercial ecotourism or necessary monitoring activities, but also often involve commodification nature. This classical conservation model has been criticized for limiting valuation of nature to its commercial worth and for being insensitive to local communities. Simultaneously, ‘new conservation’ approaches have emerged. Propagating openness of conservation approaches, ‘new conservation’ has counteracted the calls for strict measures of biodiversity protection as the only means of protecting biodiversity. In turn, the ’new conservation’ was criticised for being inadequate in protecting those species that are not instrumental for human welfare. The aim of this article is to inquire whether sustainable future for non-humans can be achieved based on commodification of nature and/or upon open approaches to conservation. It is argued that while economic development does not necessarily lead to greater environmental protection, strict regulation combined with economic interests can be effective. Thus, economic approaches by mainstream conservation institutions cannot be easily dismissed. However, ‘new conservation’ can also be useful in opening up alternatives, such as care-based and spiritual approaches to valuation of nature. Complementary to market-based approaches to conservation, alternative ontologies of the human development as empathic beings embedded in intimate ethical relations with non-humans are proposed. https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
DOCUMENT
We address the explicit ecocentric roots of conservation science and the support of a growing number of conservationists for ecocentric natural value. Although ecosystem‐services arguments may play an important role in stemming the biodiversity crisis, a true transformation of humanity's relationship with nature ought to be based in part on ecocentric valuation. Conservation scientists have played a leading role in initiating this transformation, and they ought to continue to do so. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13067 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
We have developed a lesson in which learners interactively construct a qualitative representation about climate change and the decline of biodiversity by using the online software DynaLearn. They are supported by a built-in support function to notice mistakes, and they can run simulations to explore system behavior. Throughout the lesson, learners are guided by a workbook providing necessary information step by step.
DOCUMENT
Through the commodification of nature, the framing of the environment as a ‘natural resource’ or ‘ecosystem service’ has become increasingly prominent in international environmental governance. The economic capture approach is promoted by international organizations such as the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) through Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). This paper will inquire as to how forest protection is related to issues of social and ecological justice, exploring whether forest exploitation based on the top-down managerial model fosters an unequitable distribution of resources. Both top-down and community-based approaches to forest protection will be critically examined and a more inclusive ethical framework to forest protection will be offered. The findings of this examination indicate the need for a renewed focus on existing examples of good practice in addressing both social and ecological need, as well as the necessity to address the less comfortable problem of where compromise appears less possible. The conclusion argues for the need to consider ecological justice as an important aspect of more socially orientated environmental justice for forest protection. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892916000436 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
By supporting creation of protected areas, conservation projects are known to bring economic prosperity to the local communities, but also incite criticism. A common theme in the critique of conservation organizations is the proximity to neoliberal agencies seeking to capitalize on environment, which disadvantage the local communities. Community participation has been proposed as a panacea for neoliberal conservation. However, conservation efficacy is not always contingent on the community involvement and reliance on ‘traditional’ practices in protected areas has not always benefitted biodiversity. Simultaneously, critique of conservation ignores evidence of indigenous activism as well as alternative forms of environmentalism which provide a broader ethical support base for conservation. This article highlights the challenges and contradictions, as well as offers hopeful directions in order to more effectively ground compassionate conservation. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2015.1048765 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
