Identifying and mapping forest-based ecotourism areas in West Virginia – Incorporating visitors' preferences

This study identifies and maps forest-based ecotourism areas in West Virginia by incorporating visitors' preferences. Relative weights for ecotourism destination criteria were obtained using the Analytic Hierarchy Process based on a survey of 777 participants. The study classified the state into five levels of naturalness with areas under Class I being the least natural and Class V being the most natural. The presence of wildlife was found to be the most important criterion and slope was found to be the least. Results also showed significant variations in visitors' preferences. Areas under Class IV and Class V in both weighted and unweighted ecotourism maps covered more than half of the state's area, suggesting high prospects for promoting forest-based ecotourism in the state. The results further showed that each class changed in size when visitors' preferences were applied. The ecotourism maps created provide useful insights for visitors, destination managers, and decision makers.     

Packaging as Vehicle for Mythologizing the Brand

The theoretical contribution of this article lies in the domain of marketplace mythology. By examining stories printed on the food packages that make use of a popular claim of naturalness, we offer a conceptual framework showing how corporations attempt to graft new myths onto old archetypes. We propose that by revisiting traditional mythology, contemporary commercial storytellers collectively create a grand postmodern marketplace myth—that of an empowered and ennobled consumer. We treat packaging narratives as cultural productions and explore them as vehicles for mythologizing the brand. Our findings reveal mythical themes exploited by companies in their packaging stories and messages they convey.     

Efficient ecosystem services and naturalness in an ecological/economic model

In an integrated economic/ecological model, the economy benefits from ecosystem services that include: (1) the consumptive use of a harvested species, (2) the non-consumptive use of popular species, and (3) naturalness, i.e., the divergence of the ecosystem’s biodiversity from its natural steady state. The biological component of the model, which is applied to a nine-species Alaskan marine ecosystem, relies on individual optimizing behaviour by plants and animals to establish population dynamics. The biological component is used to define naturalness. By varying harvesting we arrive at different steady-state populations and humans choose from among these steady states. Welfare maximizing levels of the ecosystem services are derived, then it is shown that in the laissez-faire economy overharvesting occurs when the harvesting industry ignores ecosystem services (2) and (3). Lastly, we introduce efficiency restoring taxes and standards that internalize the ecosystem externalities.

Can soil-less crop production be a sustainable option for soil conservation and future agriculture?

Agriculture faces huge challenges regarding sustainable use of soils and its sustainability performance in general. There are three different approaches to sustainable agricultural production commonly proposed, namely intensification, agro-ecological approaches and high-tech industrial approaches. Often, some propose that only agro-ecological approaches are truly sustainable options, with particular benefits for soil protection, while others argue that intensification or high-tech performs better through land sparing. In this viewpoint, we scrutinize the notion of “sustainable agricultural production” and the role these approaches may play for such, in particular addressing the controversy of “naturalness” versus “artificiality” in production systems. Consumers often perceive agriculture as “natural”, but agriculture today thrives always on strong human intervention. We posit that agriculture is linked to soils and natural processes, but that this provides little guidance on what sustainable agriculture should be. Being “natural” need not be an aspect of being sustainable. If it is, arguments for this need to be provided. Furthermore, revealed consumer preferences may much less frequently posit being “natural” as a central criterion for food consumed than usually assumed. By all this, we do not want to promote any of those three approaches uncritically. We rather argue for enlarging the option space for sustainable agriculture in an unprejudiced way.