Instead of predicting the future, scenario studies help to outline the uncertainties of a complex and dynamic world [53
]. In the last few years a number of other global scenario studies have been carried out in order to scientifically depict the environmental uncertainties of our changing global system. The Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 [2
] and the Global Environmental Outlook 3 and 4 [57
] include prospects for future biodiversity―although their scope is usually broader and not specifically targeted on biodiversity. The scenarios developed by Sala’s group [13
] focus on biodiversity merely from an ecological point of view. What the majority of global scenarios have in common is the aim to bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and policymaking. In our post-modern age, scientific knowledge and practice are undergoing a change of character. Instead of telling “The Truth”, scientists increasingly acknowledge their task to show the uncertainties of a dynamic and complex world [33
] while at the same time recognizing that the stakes are high and the issues they are dealing with are urgent [34
]. When decisions on such issues have to be made they should be at the same time flexible and robust [7
]. They have to take into account a wide range of possibilities [23
] and a long term perspective. Additionally, a strong social basis has to be created carrying the decisions; containing a plurality of stakeholder perspectives on the problem; and possible solutions. This involves complicated ethical discussions as well, about the values of nature [57
]; about what choices are to be made; and about what these choices mean in the short and long term. Accumulating these elements, the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services can be accounted to such “wickedly” complex problems [52
5.1. The IPCC Scenarios
The analysis of the IPCC scenario storylines are complemented to the text of the IPCC Technical Paper on Climate Change and Biodiversity
]. The analysis of this technical paper discloses a narrative with a generally hierarchist perspective (43%, see Figure 2
). Especially the first part of the document, describing the possible changes and the relations between climate and biodiversity, is largely hierarchist. The underlying assumption is that change is something which has to be controlled. The focus in the document is on expert knowledge, scientific research data and the modeling of data in order to be able to develop policies to mitigate and adapt to the potential impacts of climate change on biodiversity and the impacts of changing biodiversity on the climate system.
IPCC Technical Paper on Climate Change and Biodiversity [22
IPCC Technical Paper on Climate Change and Biodiversity [22
With 23% of the egalitarian perspective apparent in the scenario, it can be said that the authors assume the ecosystem to be relatively vulnerable. The “precautionary approach” is regarded as a valuable choice available for the “enhancement and preservation of natural protection” [22
]. When human society is discussed, most attention is paid to participation of local communities in developing countries and to their dependence on wildlife and the ecosystem services biodiversity provides. This feeds to the assumption that management strategies of developing policies and regulations to control changes that may affect human livelihood, are seen as the best “precaution”. Nevertheless it is often implicit that many changes cannot be stopped or controlled, which accounts for a reflection of the fatalist (8%). Lack of knowledge and data is seen as the main reason for failing environmental protection strategies (hierarchist). Knowledge is largely lacking due to the complexities of the natural system (dynamic integrator: 8%). Controlling policies go along with opportunities in technological development, especially in alternative energy uses and more efficient agriculture (individualist: 18%).
Biodiversity is mainly regarded valuable with regards to the ecosystem services it provides for human well-being, subsistence and (economic) development (individualist). In some occasions the loss of ecosystem services and biodiversity functions such as pest control can be compensated with other species or with artificial innovations (individualist), but this is regarded as expensive at the same time and possibly causing new problems such as pollution or new pests; a fatalist standpoint. The autonomous perspective, indicating that individuals should retreat from activities that could disturb biodiversity or ecosystem services, is hardly represented in the document (1%). The dynamic integrator, although not very often explicit, has a strong say with relation to conservation: “Conservation of the broadest possible range of ecosystems requires that natural ecosystem dynamics continue” [22
The IPCC scenario narratives all display a strong representation of the individualist perspective. This is interesting especially because the technical paper presents only a modestly individualist worldview. The egalitarians score higher there. This seems to imply that the working group foresees a change to a more individualist world in any of the scenario storylines [59
A1: The A1 scenario in our view could be renamed the “Utility Treasure”. It projects a change in global temperature between 2.4 °C and 4 °C between 2090 and 2099 relative to the period of 1980–1999 and a sea level rise of 0.20 m to 0.59 m in the same time periods [59
]. The A1 scenario offers an unfavorable perspective for the pressure on biodiversity. When we consider the main driving forces of biodiversity change, we see that the population will rise to more than eight billion people in 2050, after which it slowly declines to seven billion. Economic growth is the strongest of all scenarios, which will lead to a significant increase in the consumption of natural resources and energy. Technological improvements, in combination with the high levels of income, result in a considerable improvement in communication and transportation facilities. These developments will put significant pressure on both the quantity and quality of biodiversity. Although the A1 scenario projects almost no changes in total land use, it is very likely that many pristine natural areas with a large degree of biodiversity will be converted into man-made areas. Probably, new natural areas will be created but these will have significantly less biodiversity, as they require time to restore.
IPCC SRES scenarios.
IPCC SRES scenarios.
The narrative of A1 is strongly individualist (67%). Economic growth is seen as the main driver of development and technological innovation making resources more accessible. Some communities, though, could be excluded and income growth could go hand in hand with an increased pressure on the global commons (egalitarian, 10%). The hierarchist perspective (16%) in this storyline is represented by the emphasis on a change from “conservation of nature” to “active management of natural and environmental services”. The focus on ecosystem services shows the potential of natural resources for human and economic development, which is again rather individualistic. It is believed that ecological resilience can be increased through taking a proactive approach which is made possible through economic growth combined with active management of the global resources. Nature is regarded a “utility treasure” and in such a world conservation strategies are implemented through technological innovation for more efficient, cleaner and sustainable resource use.
In this predominantly individualistic world another fitting approach to biodiversity conservation would be putting monetary values on ecosystem services [25
]. Combining biodiversity conservation with economic benefit by “internalizing the externalities” [25
] would enable an individualistically minded global culture to preserve, and perhaps even enhance, ecological resilience. A risk of this approach is that the ethical side, the existence values or intrinsic values of wild biodiversity [37
] and ecosystems are overlooked, which could lead to a simplification of nature and a loss of natural resilience. This risk is also identified in the TechnoGarden scenario of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
B1: We would propose to rename B1 “Efficient Combinations”. B1 and B2 present rather similar graphics, with strong and almost equal hierarchist, egalitarian and individualist assumptions. With 1.8 C projected temperature rise and 0.18−0.38 m sea level rise; the B1 scenario narrative shows least changes in climate and sea level. B1 offers a more favorable perspective for biodiversity. A sharp reduction in arable farming and cattle breeding acreage is expected, coupled to a strong increase in productivity. After a slight reduction in tropical rain forests world-wide, there is an increase in the second half of this century. Natural ecosystems are less affected, both in quantity and quality. The estimated temperature increase is not particularly high, resulting in less pressure on biodiversity than in the other scenarios, and the pressure from population growth is considerably lower. Furthermore, a lot is done to improve ecological capital. The speed with which such a transition to a balanced development takes place determines the reduction of threatening factors and prospects for biodiversity.
The egalitarian perspective (26%) is found in the high level of environmental and social consciousness of B1. This is brought about by clear evidence and by education of the impacts of natural resource use on the ecosystem and on human life on Earth (hierarchist: 27%). Resource friendly lifestyles, founded on autonomous and egalitarian worldviews, are based on clean technologies, accounting for a strong individualist percentage of 30%. Parallel to that, strengthened institutional cooperation shows a hierarchist favor for regulation, whereas a reduced level of (meat) consumption and a trend of dematerialization demonstrate the share of the autonomous perspective (7%) in the B1 society. Combinations of investments are made to achieve a more sustainable world: improved efficiency of resource use, research and development, incentive systems, increasing equity, developing social institutions and environmental protection measures (dynamic integrator: 6%). B1 combines technical and global organizational change with individual footprint reduction. Conservation efforts are grounded in strategies of low-impact agriculture—a hierarchist-autonomous combination—along with the maintenance of large wilderness areas (egalitarian-autonomous) and tightly controlled (sub) urban development (hierarchist).
Climate change and sea level rise will have the least impact on biodiversity in this scenario. It seems to be a promising scenario for sustainable development; interestingly representing people (hierarchist), planet (egalitarian-autonomous) and profit (individualist) percentually on an almost equally balanced level. For conservationist this would imply a necessity to work trans-disciplinarily and to increase awareness of the potentials of a pluralistic but integrated global approach to conservation.
B2: B2 could be called “Local Techno-Management”. This scenario narrative (2.4 °C temperature rise and 0.20 to 0.43 m sea level rise) differs from B1 because of the decline of international institutions and global strategies to address environmental problems. A world unfolds in which the approach to social, economic and ecological problems is primarily a local one. In such a future world, the pressure on natural system is greatly reduced, due to high average educational levels and the high degree of organization within communities. As a result, energy and material-efficient techniques can be developed. The regional differences are also very large, so that a global trend in biodiversity is difficult to estimate.
There is a strong focus on “group” via regional, local and community based governance (egalitarian 26%) in addition to technical solutions (individualist 30%). High educational levels are pursued and regional environmental policy and land use management lead to success in the management of some transboundary environmental problems (hierarchist 26%). The scenario narrative shows a rather individualist discourse when discussing the decline of international cooperation and of uneven investments in technology development for energy, also resulting in some fatalist discourse (6%). The autonomous perspective is, with 10%, the highest in this scenario compared to the other scenarios, pointing to low levels of car dependency, low (meat) consumption, reduced environmental pressures due to a transition away from the use of fossil fuels in a predominantly hydrocarbon based global energy system. The dynamic integrator is relatively absent in the B2 narrative. Conservation according to this storyline may work when policies are decentralized and technological innovations on community level join forces with individual responsibility and footprint reduction.
It could be said that through the strong emphasis on local and regional social and technological regulations, protection of nature and the environment receives a high priority. As a result, the availability of natural acreage could increase and the loss of species could be brought to a standstill. Nevertheless, sea level rise and climate change will impact biodiversity more in this scenario. This might indicate that in order to stimulate sustainable development and protection of ecosystems and biodiversity, global institutional approaches and regulations, complementary to local communitarian solutions, may be desirable additions to a B2 world.
A2: The A2 storyline, which could be renamed “Fundamental Differences”, represents a differentiated world. It has the most diversified perspective and has the highest projected rise in temperature (3.4 °C) and the highest sea level rise (0.23 to 0.51 m). An important characteristic of the A2 scenario is a continually growing human population that is expected to reach a total of almost 15 billion in 2100. This will significantly increase demand for cultivated land (agricultural and municipal areas) and related transportation infrastructures. Although economic growth is limited, the total consumption of natural resources will be considerable. The main focus will be on regional and local culture in an extremely heterogeneous world. Initiatives to preserve global natural resources are more difficult to implement regionally.
The prospects this scenario presents for biodiversity are not very encouraging: sharply increasing demand for food, water, energy and land will result in a significant loss of natural ecosystems and species. Therefore, the quantity of biodiversity will be substantially reduced. The same can be estimated for the resilience of ecosystems. The relatively low level of economic growth may result in slower improvements in production methods and thus greater pressures on the quality of biodiversity (e.g., through pollution and locally high uses of pesticides).
The A2 narrative shows a rather hierarchist (33%) controlling society but it is described in a rather individualist discourse. Economic, social, institutional and technological developments are kept under regional control. Mobility has decreased which also reduces the spread of innovation and ideas. Environmental problems are regionally and locally dealt with (egalitarian 13%). The dynamic integrator scores highest in this scenario (18%) compared to the other three. Diversified problem solutions and the increasing acceptance of cultural diversity and fundamental differences between people contribute to this percentage. Nevertheless, this seems contradictory in a world tending to protect local and even national interests, which is better reflected in the fatalist percentage of 18%. Economic growth is hampered by protectionist trade blocks. Not much is said about environmental values, policies or protection, which accounts for the relatively low egalitarian and autonomous percentages. Environmental concerns are related to agriculture and food production on local and regional scales.
Biodiversity will be under pressure in this scenario. The plurality of local approaches with a lack of real (global) integration and coherence and a lack of environmental concern does not seem to lead the world to a path onto sustainable development. This outcome is comparable to the world described in the Order from Strength narrative of the Millennium Assessment.
5.2. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Scenarios
For the analysis of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) storyline perspectives, we used the four scenarios from Chapter 8 of Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Scenario: Findings of the Scenarios Working Group [61
]. We selected Chapter 5 of the Assessment of Policy Responses [62
] as the key document to identify the overall MA perspectives on biodiversity and conservation. The assessment of policy responses shows a predominantly hierarchist perspective (34%). Much emphasis is put on the need of scientific research and the necessity of increased knowledge of complex biodiversity relations in order to design effective policy responses. In this document, the hierarchist is accompanied by the individualist (27%) and by the egalitarian (23%). The other three perspectives are relatively unvoiced. Although emphasis is put on combining strategies for sustainable conservation, the dynamic integrator scores relatively low because it only becomes explicit in the later pages of the document.
The basis assumption of McNeely and his colleagues is that protecting our vulnerable global biodiversity is essential (egalitarian). The intrinsic value of biodiversity (egalitarian) is mentioned ([62
], p. 122), but, foremost, biodiversity is seen as crucial to sustain our human well-being and subsistence (hierarchist). It also provides for a wide range of goods and services for pharmacy and industry (individualist). In spite of the egalitarian basic assumption of the authors, their discourse is rather utilitarian. “User needs” and “option values” are mentioned implicitly and explicitly throughout the document. In the view of the authors the major opportunity to effectively protect biodiversity is to move away from protection, based on the assumption that human activities negatively impact biodiversity, species and landscapes. This implies a move away from the strong ethical perspective of the autonomous. The “negative” supposition that we have to “retreat” from actions that impacts the biosphere, should be redirected towards a “positive” view on the current and future value biodiversity has for human subsistence, well-being, and for continuing economic growth. The “ecosystem services” delivered by species and landscapes to us and our businesses should become the central point of departure for conservation. In this way, the corporate sector will become engaged in conservation, which is seen as a necessary condition for conservation to become successful. At the same time the so called conservation community will “accept that business has a role to play in the debate” [62
Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Findings of the Scenarios Working Group [62
Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Findings of the Scenarios Working Group [62
Nature is implicitly seen as a resource. This utilitarian point of view is not debated in the document. It is seen as the key to effective conservation, if combined with the egalitarian assumption that nature is vulnerable. Starting with Costanza’s well-known article in Nature [26
] this approach is increasingly popular in business, for example in the Cradle to Cradle movement [63
] and in academic debates [25
]. Nevertheless, the “technology” side of the individualist coin is rarely mentioned by the authors. This is in contrast to the scenario storylines; in some of them technological developments are outspokenly present. Because of the vulnerability of nature, the engagement of business in conservation should be backed up, complemented and stimulated through policies concerning biodiversity and ecosystem services on all levels. To help improve and implement such policies research priorities should be directed towards a better quantification of biodiversity values [62
]. This again contributes to the hierarchist percentage.
Other main conservation responses are discussed in the document as well: much attention is given to protected areas and to “native” species within such areas. This type of widespread in situ
conservation regards “nature” as specific wild or semi-wild places where typical endemic, often iconic, species ought to reside. In the context of climate change linking up protected areas in networks [24
]. This is becoming a well-established approach for conservation as is shown for example in the expanding Natura 2000 Network of the European Union [67
]. Nevertheless, such networks are hardly discussed by McNeely and his colleagues. Protected area management of specific habitat sites combines egalitarian precautionary principles with hierarchist policy and control strategies. Complementarily to protected areas, the authors discuss the relevance of integrating biodiversity conservation into regional planning and into the agriculture, forestry and fishery sectors. This is called “mainstreaming”, which refers to the hierarchist connotation of the strategy of developing defined “regimes”. Mainstreaming is also linked to considerations regarding the empowerment of local communities. These should become better enabled to maintain their basis for subsistence, customs and traditional cultivation techniques. This reflects egalitarian “group” ethics. Notably, “local communities” often refer to smaller social structures in developing countries and not so much to societies of industrialized nations or regions. Good governance is also mentioned in this context, combining egalitarian and hierarchist principles.
Another strategy discussed by the authors is the improvement of international cooperation through multilateral environmental agreements. These strategies need better monitoring and controlling mechanisms in order to enhance compliance, showing the high grid inclinations of the hierarchist. Education and awareness raising principles are discussed in the context of non-formal (egalitarian) educational programs provided by “museums, zoos aquaria, botanical gardens, field study centers, protected areas educational and interpretative programs, and ecotourism” [62
]. Although “communication, education, and public awareness provide the link from science and ecology to people’s social and economic reality” [62
], the egalitarian minded work of large NGOs such as WWF, IUCN or Greenpeace, or of art and broadcasting is not explicitly mentioned in this context, whereas NGOs find a place in some of the scenario narratives.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment scenarios.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment scenarios.
The assumption that we live in a predominantly individualist world is also reflected in the four MA scenario storylines. In all of them the individualist perspective scores highest, with the exception of the “Adapting Mosaic” scenario. There the egalitarian and the individualist score the same (both 28%). The MA scenario storylines are remarkable for their detail, the plurality of drivers of global change used as variables (important ones are population growth, economic and technological development, habitat change, various ecological uncertainties, the level of global integration and of environmental awareness) and for their evolution through time. Especially the latter feature protects them from pinpointing them down to one-dimensional worldviews, which again, makes the CT framework a useful instrument for analysis, because it allows for flexible perspective combinations.
Global Orchestration (GO) narrates about a world of “reactive individualism”. It shows an overall individualist world (48%), striving for economic and technological growth. Remarkably, it more or less resembles the A1 scenario of the IPCC. The distribution of perspective percentages and the perspective content are alike in both storylines. The main difference between the two scenarios is that in GO the notion of ecosystem services is not taken up as an approach to ecological dilemmas [69
In GO cultural and economic globalization are increasing and economic growth allows for “smart policies and technological solutions” [69
] to fix ecological and socio-cultural problems. An increased awareness of the risks of globalization stimulates the governance systems to become more transparent and participatory, which meets a combination of increased egalitarian (19%) and hierarchist (23%) sentiments on the functioning of power. The growing global connectedness and the appraisal of cultural variety are also slightly reflected in the dynamic integrator (6%). Nevertheless, the increased transparency and possibility for participation in the democratic system appear to be largely window-dressing. The real power seems to be in the hands of large multinationals. People in the storyline are quite comfortable with that, because they benefit from the prosperity and they hardly see the environmental degradation, because problems are backed up by technological fixes (individualist).
Nature in this scenario is regarded resilient within limits (hierarchist) but this is mainly related to the fact that people have a strong belief in technology and in economic growth as the answer to all inconvenience (individualist). Nevertheless, responses in this scenario are rather reactive, directed towards controlling occurring problems. This can be seen as a hierarchist tendency. Technology may fix, but lessons are learned slowly. Due to the successes of economic growth and technological development environmental issues, such as climate change or biodiversity loss, are “more or less ignored” [69
Egalitarian or autonomous assumptions on the intrinsic value of nature and biodiversity are hardly discussed or present in the global orchestration society. The loss of biodiversity becomes apparent in the decreased fertility of highly intensified and industrialized agricultural land, of the decline in food variety and genetic diversity due to the patents claimed by many large multinational companies and of a decline in natural controls on diseases and pests. Chemicals and fertilizers where used in combination with low levels of environmental protection. The environmental pitfalls of the individualistic world become apparent when the storyline unfolds towards 2050. They are approached with hierarchist strategies based on controlling the course of events in order to maintain human well-being which would be at stake by that time. In this individualist world, many ecosystems collapse. Concern about the loss of ecological knowledge (hierarchist) is growing only slowly due to human inventiveness. But the costs of restoring previous ecosystem services and functions have become high. Moderately, human activities become greener, but still, solutions are sought in technology and control. Changing consumption patterns, behavior, or mind (autonomous values) and egalitarian counter movements are not much discussed in the storyline.
It becomes more apparent that many cost-effective (pro-active) opportunities for conservation of ecosystems were lost in this individualist colored world. Ecosystems, for example, seem to be rather disregarded in the course of time of this storyline. The role of ecosystems dynamics and interdependencies only becomes evident after ecosystems collapsed. Conservation in this scenario focuses on species and genetic diversity. Conservation of this species/genes-related diversity is based on “preserving representative examples in parks and museums” [69
]. This can be seen as a combination of hierarchist control with a touch of individualist optimism about the future, where ecosystems seem to be largely irrelevant. The establishment of gene-banks containing wild varieties of crops and seeds shows the predominantly individualist management style with the aim to control availability of genetic material for the future.
Order from Strength (OfS) shows a highly compartmentalized world moving into a downward spiral of increasing fatalism (26%). The picture of this scenario is quite similar to A2 of the IPCC. The major difference is that in OfS a “clash of civilizations” [70
] seems to take place, whereas in A2 a respect for different cultures prevails, which accounts for a higher percentage of the dynamic integrator, whose perspective is virtually absent in OfS. The OfS storyline is characterized by an inward focus of national states as a response to experienced threats and instabilities caused by globalization processes. The implementation of strong national security policies and the control of state borders become the paradigmatic response to feelings of insecurity and the economic crises occurring everywhere in the world, which shows a fatalist-hierarchist spiral: the fatalist feeling that such problems can’t be countered, results in an increased demand of strongly hierarchist control policies, which again fuels the fatalist perspective of a world running down and out of control.
The individualist pillar of this storyline results from the belief in technological fixes, but just as in the GO scenario, approaches to deal with environmental problems are reactive (hierarchist). Because global environmental problems, such as climate change, air pollution and biodiversity loss are also, often unsuccessfully, dealt with locally, a global decline in ecological quality takes place. The fatalist feeling that nature is capricious and cannot be controlled or protected seems to be the basic assumption of this narrative. Local environmental policies do exist but are only secondary on the agenda, because of urgent social and economic threats. National security prevails, often at the cost of environmental security. In developing countries agriculture expands vastly. Forest products are increasingly harvested in order to stimulate earnings and to maintain income. These developments result in an increased loss of species and ecosystems are pushed beyond their capacity to produce. The only light point in the downward spiral is that climate change is moderate because people all around the world were forced to live simpler lives. People with an autonomous perspective hardly exist in this fatalist world, just as there is least space for egalitarians in this scenario because altruism, solidarity and ethical behavior are seen as inconsistent with the paradigm of individual interests and survival of the fittest.
Conservation approaches are fragmented and directed towards securing natural resources for local peoples. Often conflicts arise over the distribution of the resources. Nature is being valued for its services, but many services can be substituted or repaired by technology (individualist). Recreational, cultural and existence values of biodiversity are considered a luxury for affluent nations. Some representative samples of ecological systems are maintained for as long as the reservists do not hamper economic development. The discourse of the scenario narrative is clearly pessimistic over the course of events that take place in OfS. For conservationists this unfolding world might be a worst case scenario, because there is hardly any proportional environmental awareness despite the occurring global devastation.
Adapting Mosaic shows a world of “egalitarian opportunists”. Comparing Adapting Mosaic (AM) to the IPCC scenarios, conceptually it shares the most with B2. Like B2, AM shows a world where new partnerships are made between civil society, NGOs and business, resulting in relatively high egalitarian (28%) and individualist (28%) percentages of perspective. There is a strong emphasis on learning about socio-ecological systems through adaptive management, which is based on balancing people, planet and prosperity on local and regional scales, a typical feature of the dynamic integrator (11%), which in this scenario scores highest of the Millennium Assessment scenarios. Pro-active approaches to maintain the balance are encouraged by participatory and adaptive types of governance, which combines an egalitarian sense of community with hierarchist management approaches. The fundamental differences between AM and B2 are the percentages of autonomous perspective (higher in B) and of the dynamic integrator (higher in AM).
Nature in Adapting Mosaic is seen as vulnerable (egalitarian), but there is also humility with regards to the unexpectedness of some of her processes. This does not result into fatalism and fear, but more into integrating the egalitarian and autonomous sense of respect. People are aware of the importance of biodiversity and ecosystems for the services and functions they provide for human well-being and economic development (individualist), but nature is also valued intrinsically (egalitarian/autonomous) and as a part of local and cultural identity (egalitarian). The AM storyline is one of so called “glocalization” [69
], integrating local and cultural values into the progressive dynamics of globalization (dynamic integrator). Learning about socio-ecological relations is facilitated by modern communication technology, which combines egalitarian values with individualist drive for progress. There are large investments in human capital and knowledge.
Conservation is based on adaptive management on local levels. The adaptive and locally varied approaches to conservation increase much of the resilience of ecosystems. Reformations in agriculture towards a larger share of organic food increase the quality of much of agricultural landscapes. NGOs in AM function as expert lobby groups. Their egalitarian ideals become institutionalized and professionalized. Nevertheless, local measures of environmental management do not seem to help solving problems with the global commons. Therefore, deterritorialized [72
] expert networks are developed to better manage these commons. For some commons though, like ocean fisheries tragedies that have already occurred due to failed experiments and the learning process only having come too late. This is reflected in the relatively high fatalist percentage (11%). The AM world evolves into a mixture of successes and failures in different world regions.
Reflecting on the meta-discourse of the AM narrative, we see a Scenario Working Group which is rather optimistic about the chances for biodiversity and ecosystem services in this scenario, accounting for their high egalitarian and individualist perspectives. This is also reflected in the analysis of McNeely et al.
]. The hierarchist share of their worldview is reflected in the overall assumption that environmental problems should also be tackled through strong international institutions and cooperation. This discourse is also discernible in the B2 scenario of the IPCC.
TechnoGarden (TG) is a world where a combination of technology and market oriented institutional reform aims to improve the reliability of ecosystem services. The discourse of the scenario is strongly individualist (40%), but in a much more pro-active manner than Global Orchestration. In contents TG is similar to the IPCC A1 scenario. The fundamental difference between these two scenarios is the strong emphasis on technocratic regulation and control. The underlying assumption of TG is the belief that the environment is basically vulnerable, but resilient if managed right. “Managing right” in this scenario refers to transforming the market towards a global trend of “natural capitalism” and designing policies to stimulate the agricultural sector to focus on ecosystem services instead of focusing on pure crop production all over the world (hierarchist-individualist).
Global economic integration is increasing in TG. Ecosystem services provide many opportunities for designing new property rights and trading systems. This results in the increase of multifunctional landscapes, better regulation of the global commons through treaties and strong international institutions, and economic profit at the same time. TG combines egalitarian (18%) ethics of natural protection with the more individualist notion of the utility opportunities of nature. This results in strong pro-active market based environmental regulation, founded in merging hierarchist (22%) and the individualist perspectives. At the same time, business, states and individuals are encouraged to adjust their practices and consumption patterns to lower impact levels (autonomous, 4%).
To improve ecosystem services, many investments and activities take place in the field of eco-engineering and biotechnology. Especially in rapidly urbanizing areas, spatial planning is centered on applying innovative eco-technologies and improving ecosystem services in cities in order to counter ecological and health problems in densely populated regions. Because of the sometimes occurring unintended consequences of such technologies, strict testing and regulating programs are implemented, accounting for the strong hierarchist demand for controlling unexpected events in this storyline. In the field of conservation ecological egalitarian minded restoration projects, which aim to re-wild landscapes and ecosystems, are competing with designer ecosystems.
Although the discourse of this scenario narrative is rather optimistic about TG, it questions, in an egalitarian minded way, whether intensive technocratic management of ecosystem services is wise [69
]. The authors try to rebalance the individualist optimism with a reminder of the need of hierarchist regulation which should be aimed at the priority of protecting the natural resilience of the global environment. Because of the market driven emphasis on increasing the provisioning services of ecosystems in this scenario, ecosystems were simplified, biodiversity and wilderness declined. In a world like TG, ecosystems will become less resilient in nature, vulnerable to disruption and management failures, and, most of all, have become dependent on continuous human management. The lesson for conservationists from this technocratic scenario is: had there been more attention to monitoring the technology and its effects on natural ecological balance and feedbacks, much of biological diversity and natural resilience could have been spared. This is a fairly hierarchist statement.