• Energy Research
• Open Access close
• Open Source close
• 13. Climate action close
• 12. Responsible consumption close
• DE close
• AU close

This edited volume examines the opportunities to think, do, and/or create jointly afforded by digital storytelling. The contributors discuss digital storytelling in the context of educational programs, teaching anthropology, and ethnographic research involving a variety of populations and subjects that will appeal to researchers and practitioners engaged with qualitative methods and pedagogies that rely on media technology.

This edited volume examines the opportunities to think, do, and/or create jointly afforded by digital storytelling. The contributors discuss digital storytelling in the context of educational programs, teaching anthropology, and ethnographic research involving a variety of populations and subjects that will appeal to researchers and practitioners engaged with qualitative methods and pedagogies that rely on media technology.

AbstractBioenergy projects can lead to direct and indirect land use change (LUC), which can substantially affect greenhouse gas balances with both beneficial and adverse outcomes for bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation. The causes behind LUC are multiple, complex, interlinked, and change over time. This makes quantification uncertain and sensitive to many factors that can develop in different directions—including land use productivity, trade patterns, prices and elasticities, and use of by‐products associated with biofuels production. Quantifications reported so far vary substantially and do not support the ranking of bioenergy options with regard to LUC and associated emissions. There are however several options for mitigating these emissions, which can be implemented despite the uncertainties. Long‐rotation forest management is associated with carbon emissions and sequestration that are not in temporal balance with each other and this leads to mitigation trade‐offs between biomass extraction for energy use and the alternative to leave the biomass in the forest. Bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation needs to reflect a balance between near‐term targets and the long‐term objective to hold the increase in global temperature below 2°C (Copenhagen Accord). Although emissions from LUC can be significant in some circumstances, the reality of such emissions is not sufficient reason to exclude bioenergy from the list of worthwhile technologies for climate change mitigation. Policy measures to minimize the negative impacts of LUC should be based on a holistic perspective recognizing the multiple drivers and effects of LUC.This article is categorized under: Bioenergy > Economics and Policy Bioenergy > Climate and Environment

AbstractBioenergy projects can lead to direct and indirect land use change (LUC), which can substantially affect greenhouse gas balances with both beneficial and adverse outcomes for bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation. The causes behind LUC are multiple, complex, interlinked, and change over time. This makes quantification uncertain and sensitive to many factors that can develop in different directions—including land use productivity, trade patterns, prices and elasticities, and use of by‐products associated with biofuels production. Quantifications reported so far vary substantially and do not support the ranking of bioenergy options with regard to LUC and associated emissions. There are however several options for mitigating these emissions, which can be implemented despite the uncertainties. Long‐rotation forest management is associated with carbon emissions and sequestration that are not in temporal balance with each other and this leads to mitigation trade‐offs between biomass extraction for energy use and the alternative to leave the biomass in the forest. Bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation needs to reflect a balance between near‐term targets and the long‐term objective to hold the increase in global temperature below 2°C (Copenhagen Accord). Although emissions from LUC can be significant in some circumstances, the reality of such emissions is not sufficient reason to exclude bioenergy from the list of worthwhile technologies for climate change mitigation. Policy measures to minimize the negative impacts of LUC should be based on a holistic perspective recognizing the multiple drivers and effects of LUC.This article is categorized under: Bioenergy > Economics and Policy Bioenergy > Climate and Environment

A worldwide increase in tree decline and mortality has been linked to climate change and, where these represent foundation species, this can have important implications for ecosystem functions. This study tests a combined approach of phylogeographic analysis and species distribution modelling to provide a climate change context for an observed decline in crown health and an increase in mortality in Eucalyptus wandoo, an endemic tree of south-western Australia.Phylogeographic analyses were undertaken using restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of chloroplast DNA in 26 populations across the species distribution. Parsimony analysis of haplotype relationships was conducted, a haplotype network was prepared, and haplotype and nucleotide diversity were calculated. Species distribution modelling was undertaken using Maxent models based on extant species occurrences and projected to climate models of the last glacial maximum (LGM).A structured pattern of diversity was identified, with the presence of two groups that followed a climatic gradient from mesic to semi-arid regions. Most populations were represented by a single haplotype, but many haplotypes were shared among populations, with some having widespread distributions. A putative refugial area with high haplotype diversity was identified at the centre of the species distribution. Species distribution modelling showed high climatic suitability at the LGM and high climatic stability in the central region where higher genetic diversity was found, and low suitability elsewhere, consistent with a pattern of range contraction.Combination of phylogeography and paleo-distribution modelling can provide an evolutionary context for climate-driven tree decline, as both can be used to cross-validate evidence for refugia and contraction under harsh climatic conditions. This approach identified a central refugial area in the test species E. wandoo, with more recent expansion into peripheral areas from where it had contracted at the LGM. This signature of contraction from lower rainfall areas is consistent with current observations of decline on the semi-arid margin of the range, and indicates low capacity to tolerate forecast climatic change. Identification of a paleo-historical context for current tree decline enables conservation interventions to focus on maintaining genetic diversity, which provides the evolutionary potential for adaptation to climate change.

A worldwide increase in tree decline and mortality has been linked to climate change and, where these represent foundation species, this can have important implications for ecosystem functions. This study tests a combined approach of phylogeographic analysis and species distribution modelling to provide a climate change context for an observed decline in crown health and an increase in mortality in Eucalyptus wandoo, an endemic tree of south-western Australia.Phylogeographic analyses were undertaken using restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of chloroplast DNA in 26 populations across the species distribution. Parsimony analysis of haplotype relationships was conducted, a haplotype network was prepared, and haplotype and nucleotide diversity were calculated. Species distribution modelling was undertaken using Maxent models based on extant species occurrences and projected to climate models of the last glacial maximum (LGM).A structured pattern of diversity was identified, with the presence of two groups that followed a climatic gradient from mesic to semi-arid regions. Most populations were represented by a single haplotype, but many haplotypes were shared among populations, with some having widespread distributions. A putative refugial area with high haplotype diversity was identified at the centre of the species distribution. Species distribution modelling showed high climatic suitability at the LGM and high climatic stability in the central region where higher genetic diversity was found, and low suitability elsewhere, consistent with a pattern of range contraction.Combination of phylogeography and paleo-distribution modelling can provide an evolutionary context for climate-driven tree decline, as both can be used to cross-validate evidence for refugia and contraction under harsh climatic conditions. This approach identified a central refugial area in the test species E. wandoo, with more recent expansion into peripheral areas from where it had contracted at the LGM. This signature of contraction from lower rainfall areas is consistent with current observations of decline on the semi-arid margin of the range, and indicates low capacity to tolerate forecast climatic change. Identification of a paleo-historical context for current tree decline enables conservation interventions to focus on maintaining genetic diversity, which provides the evolutionary potential for adaptation to climate change.

Points out that sustainability as such does not provide a clearcut guide to policy. First one has to decide what is to be sustained. If this is agreed, it must be in an operational from. However, difficulties may still emerge since opinions may differ about how to achieve. This is illustrated by differences in the views of economists about how sustainable development is to be achieved. Orthodox economists stress the importance of the accumulation of man-made capital to achieve this end whereas neo-Malthusians stress the importance of conserving natural resource and environmental capital. Both take an anthropocentric point of view. For political reasons the neo-Malthusian has had little support but it may eventually turn out to be correct. Economics is concerned with reducing economic scarcity and economists have traditionally suggested four main ways of doing this of which economic growth is one. However, neo-Malthusian economists believe that this may not be a sustainable strategy – it may result in future poverty. It should be noted that economic systems are embedded in social and natural systems and depend on these. Economic sustainability depends on the sustainability of these other systems. So from this point of view, it is just one of several bottom lines. Values must be considered in relation to sustainability. Economics is completely anthropocentric in its approach. Therefore, economic approaches to conservation and sustainability can be at odds with the values of deep ecologists or those willing to accord rights to other sentient beings or ecosystems independent of human wishes, or those who want to make use of value judgments other than those based on the measuring rod of money. Consequently economics evaluation is sometimes ineffective in resolving social conflict, including conflict about what should be sustained. As a rule economics alone should not be the final arbiter of social decisions. It is a part (often an important part) of the social evaluation process but not the bottom line, or just one of many lines.

Points out that sustainability as such does not provide a clearcut guide to policy. First one has to decide what is to be sustained. If this is agreed, it must be in an operational from. However, difficulties may still emerge since opinions may differ about how to achieve. This is illustrated by differences in the views of economists about how sustainable development is to be achieved. Orthodox economists stress the importance of the accumulation of man-made capital to achieve this end whereas neo-Malthusians stress the importance of conserving natural resource and environmental capital. Both take an anthropocentric point of view. For political reasons the neo-Malthusian has had little support but it may eventually turn out to be correct. Economics is concerned with reducing economic scarcity and economists have traditionally suggested four main ways of doing this of which economic growth is one. However, neo-Malthusian economists believe that this may not be a sustainable strategy – it may result in future poverty. It should be noted that economic systems are embedded in social and natural systems and depend on these. Economic sustainability depends on the sustainability of these other systems. So from this point of view, it is just one of several bottom lines. Values must be considered in relation to sustainability. Economics is completely anthropocentric in its approach. Therefore, economic approaches to conservation and sustainability can be at odds with the values of deep ecologists or those willing to accord rights to other sentient beings or ecosystems independent of human wishes, or those who want to make use of value judgments other than those based on the measuring rod of money. Consequently economics evaluation is sometimes ineffective in resolving social conflict, including conflict about what should be sustained. As a rule economics alone should not be the final arbiter of social decisions. It is a part (often an important part) of the social evaluation process but not the bottom line, or just one of many lines.