Biodiversity and green open space

Biodiversity has been defined as the totality of genes, species, and ecosystems that inhabit the earth with the field contributing to many aspects of our lives and livelihoods by providing us with food, drink, medicines and shelter, as well as contributing to improving our surrounding environment. Benefits include providing life services through improved horticultural production, improving the business and service of horticulture as well as our environment, as well as improving our health and wellbeing, and our social and cultural relationships. Threats to biodiversity can include fragmentation, degradation and deforestation of habitat, introduction of invasive and exotic species, climate change and extreme weather events, over-exploitation of our natural resources, hybridisation, genetic pollution/erosion and food security issues and human overpopulation. This chapter examines a series of examples that provide the dual aims of biodiversity conservation and horticultural production and service; namely organic horticultural cropping, turf management, and nature-based tourism, and ways of valuing biological biodiversity such as the payment of environmental services and bio-prospecting. Horticulture plays a major role in the preserving of biodiversity.

Family-friendly employment laws (re)assessed: the potential of care ethics

In light of various reforms in recent years, this article provides a (re)assessment of the broad package of family-friendly employment rights and relevant dispute resolution procedure now available to pregnant workers and working carers. It exposes how the realities of working life for many pregnant workers and carers and the long standing desire to promote gender equality in informal care-work remain at odds with the legal framework. An argument is presented in favour of an approach that, based upon the concept of care ethics, better engages with the impact of the provisions upon crucial interdependent care relationships.

Resilience in crisis reconsidered: the need for values against relativist ethics

The need for a reconsideration of resilience from both a positive and a normative point of view can be discussed using some of the lessons and conclusions drawn from individual resilience studied by psychologists in an educational context. The main point made in this article is that unless we want to approach resilience as a feature which is exogenously given in each population and society and whose dynamics, if any, are not subject to deliberate actions and policies, we need a framework for the evaluation of resilience as a social good. Relying on the hope that resilience is necessarily built in our societies as a force guaranteeing convergence to a socially desirable point of social evolution may be too optimistic and even counterproductive, because it may lead us to an inefficient or biased political and regulatory decision making. When the effect of policies and actions at a national or international level take into account the dynamic effect of such actions on resilience itself, one cannot blindly rely on the goodness of the process any more. This is mainly because resilience is not uniformly embodied in all societies and it does not have a globally positive social value by itself. The issue of socially valuing the options available beyond market-price valuations becomes fundamental in this context.