Conceptually, the model we propose is based on previous interdisciplinary experiences. It also draws on applications with different foci, for instance, models addressing remediation/ removal of adverse effects (as in the case of classical pollution-damage-to-health relationships) and those taking a more proactive approach (such as those relating to the provisioning of beneficial effects on human health and wellbeing).
Another aspect is that in the same way as human influence can adversely affect ecosystems, negative effects or ‘dis-services’ of ecosystems (such as transmitting vectorborne diseases or flooding) should be accounted for in a comprehensive impact assessment framework. The frameworks
which would emerge from embracing these wider
considerations would include dynamic feedbacks (both positive
and negative), and may be considered ‘a bridge too far,’
until a consolidated view has been established in both the
research and policy communities.
Conceptually, the model we propose is based on previous interdisciplinary experiences. It also draws on applications with different foci, for instance, models addressing remediation/ removal of adverse effects (as in the case of classical pollution-damage-to-health relationships) and those taking a more proactive approach (such as those relating to the provisioning of beneficial effects on human health and wellbeing).
Another aspect is that in the same way as human influence can adversely affect ecosystems, negative effects or ‘dis-services’ of ecosystems (such as transmitting vectorborne diseases or flooding) should be accounted for in a comprehensive impact assessment framework. The frameworks
which would emerge from embracing these wider
considerations would include dynamic feedbacks (both positive
and negative), and may be considered ‘a bridge too far,’
until a consolidated view has been established in both the
research and policy communities.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
