DOCSLIB.ORG

Application of the Natural Capital Protocol at Glensaugh Farm

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Application of the Natural Capital Protocol at Glensaugh Farm Fsoil organic Hay maket+++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Living document version 1.0 , September 4th, 2020* Application of the Natural Capital Protocol at Glensaugh Farm Author: Paola Ovando Contact: [email protected] This is a living document with the version, authors, and publication date above referred. This document is expected to evolve and expand through successive updates, changes, and adjustments. You are invited to provide comments, new evidence, reliable sources, and data to refine Glensaugh ’s natural capital assessment study, and in that way contribute, subject to revision and verification, to the new version of this document. Please send us your comments and suggestions through the following link: (https://www.hutton.ac.uk/research/projects/GlensaughProtocolComments) i Contents Executive summary .............................................................................................................................. 1 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6 1.1 BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION .................................................................................................................. 6 1.2 GLENSAUGH CASE STUDY ............................................................................................................................. 8 1.3 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ................................................................................................................... 11 2 Retrospective assessment of natural capital impact and dependencies ............................................... 13 2.1 FRAME STAGE - STEP 01: GET STARTED ........................................................................................................ 13 2.2 SCOPE STAGE – STEPS 02 AND 03: DEFINING OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE NATURAL CAPITAL ASSESSMENT ............. 14 2.2.1 Natural capital assessment objectives ............................................................................................... 14 2.2.2 Natural capital assessment scope ...................................................................................................... 14 2.3 SCOPE STAGE - STEP 04: DETERMINE THE IMPACTS AND/OR DEPENDENCIES ........................................................ 15 2.3.1 Characterization of natural capital stocks, their state, condition, and trends .................................. 15 2.3.2 Characterization of the relevance of natural capital for ecosystem services delivery ...................... 17 2.3.3 Determination of the materiality of impacts and dependencies on natural capital .......................... 18 2.4 MEASURE AND VALUE STAGE – STEPS 05-07: MEASURE AND VALUE IMPACTS AND DEPENDENCIES .......................... 19 2.4.1 Dependencies on natural capital and ecosystem services ................................................................ 19 2.4.2 Impacts on natural capital and ecosystem services........................................................................... 24 2.5 APPLY STAGE – STEPS 08: INTERPRETATION AND USE OF THE RESULTS ................................................................ 23 2.5.1 Natural capital related risks ............................................................................................................... 23 2.5.2 Market and policy related risks ......................................................................................................... 24 2.5.3 Natural capital related opportunities ................................................................................................ 25 2.5.4 New agricultural and environmental policies and investment opportunities ................................... 26 2.6 APPLY STAGE – STEPS 09: TAKE ACTION ....................................................................................................... 27 3 Prospective natural capital assessment of woodland expansion investment ....................................... 28 3.1 FRAME STAGE – STEP 01: GET STARTED ....................................................................................................... 28 3.2 SCOPE STAGE – STEP 02 AND 03: DEFINING THE OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE NATURAL CAPITAL ASSESSMENT ......... 29 3.3 SCOPE STAGE – STEPS 04 DETERMINE IMPACTS AND DEPENDENCIES .................................................................. 30 3.4 MEASURE AND VALUE STAGE – STEP 05: MEASURE OF IMPACTS DRIVERS OF WOODLAND EXPANSION ...................... 31 3.4.1 Timber and biomass production ........................................................................................................ 31 3.4.2 Climate change regulation ................................................................................................................. 32 3.4.3 Other potential impacts of woodland expansion .............................................................................. 34 3.5 MEASURE AND VALUE STAGE – STEPS 06: MEASURE CHANGES IN THE STATE AND TREND OF NATURAL CAPITAL .......... 34 3.6 MEASURE AND VALUE STAGE – STEP 07: VALUE IMPACTS ............................................................................... 35 3.7 APPLY STAGE – STEP 08: INTERPRET AND TEST RESULTS .................................................................................. 37 3.8 APPLY STAGE – STEP 09: TAKE ACTION ........................................................................................................ 37 4 Key finding and recommendations ....................................................................................................... 38 4.1 POTENTIAL VALUE ADDED OF APPLYING THE PROTOCOL TO EVALUATE LAND-BASED BUSINESS .................................. 38 4.2 NATURAL CAPITAL ASSESSMENT FOR SUPPORTING DECISION MAKING ................................................................. 38 4.3 MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS TO PRACTITIONERS .............................................................................................. 39 Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................ 39 5 References ............................................................................................................................ 40 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL ....................................................................................................................... 44 ii Supplementary material contents A.1 Characteristics of Glensaugh farm ........................................................................................................ 44 A.1.1 LAND COVER AND LAND USES ..................................................................................................................... 44 A.1.2 SOIL CLASSIFICATION MAP .......................................................................................................................... 45 A.1.3 LAND CAPABILITY AND POTENTIAL MAPS ....................................................................................................... 46 A.1.4 SOIL CARBON MAPS .................................................................................................................................. 47 A.1.5 SOIL DEGRADATION RISK MAPS ................................................................................................................... 48 A.2 Methodological appendix and material ................................................................................................ 50 A.2.1 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES CLASSIFICATION .......................................................................................................... 50 A.2.2 NATURAL CAPITAL CONDITION .................................................................................................................... 51 A.2.2.1 Relative wildness index ...................................................................................................................... 51 A.2.2.2 Biodiversity surveys ........................................................................................................................... 52 A.2.2.3 Freshwater resources condition ........................................................................................................ 53 A.2.2.4 Soil carbon stock ................................................................................................................................ 53 A.2.3 TREND IN THE DEPENDENCY AND IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK FARMING SYSTEMS ON NATURAL CAPITAL .......................... 54 A.2.3.1 Drivers of impacts and dependencies of livestock farming on natural capital .................................. 54 A.2.3.2 Livestock metabolic energy requirements and dependencies on external and own resources ........ 55 A.2.3.3 Trends in crop productivity and management .................................................................................. 56 A.2.3.4 Effect of crops productivity and quality on livestock enterprises profitability .................................. 57 A.2.3.5 Trends in the use of fertilisers ........................................................................................................... 58 A.2.3.6 Livestock farming GHG emissions and changes in economic-environmental efficiency ................... 59 A.2.3.7 GHG emissions due to grassland management ................................................................................. 61 A.2.4 CHANGES IN DEPENDENCIES AND IMPACTS OF OTHER LAND-BASED BUSINESS
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IUCN NCUK River Restoration & Biodiversity Expert Workshop Report
    IUCN NCUK River restoration & biodiversity expert workshop report th th 5 and 6 November 2014 Published by CREW – Scotland’s Centre of Expertise for Waters. CREW connects research and policy, delivering objective and robust research and expert opinion to support the development and implementation of water policy in Scotland. CREW is a partnership between the James Hutton Institute and all Scottish Higher Education Institutes supported by MASTS. The Centre is funded by the Scottish Government. This document was produced by: Stephen Addy, Susan Cooksley and Nikki Dodd The James Hutton Institute Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH Please reference this report as follows: Addy, S., Cooksley, S., and Dodd, N. (2015), IUCN NCUK River restoration & biodiversity expert workshop report, 5th and 6th of November 2014, CREW project number CRW2014_10. Available online at: crew.ac.uk/publications Dissemination status: Unrestricted. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, modified or stored in a retrieval system without the prior written permission of CREW management. While every effort is made to ensure that the information given here is accurate, no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements. All statements, views and opinions expressed in this paper are attributable to the author(s) who contribute to the activities of CREW and do not necessarily represent those of the host institutions or funders. Cover photograph courtesy of: Stephen Addy (the Rottal Burn, Angus, Scotland in July
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem Approach and Land
    Ecosystem Approach & Land Use Workshop Report 28th June 2013 Ecosystem Approach & Land Use Workshop Report Laurie Barant, Justin Irvine and Kirsty Blackstock Banchory Lodge Hotel, Banchory 28th June 2013 This document reports on the Regional Land Use Pilot and the Ecosystem Approach workshop. This activity followed the launch of the Dee Catchment Partnership Business Plan (http://www.theriverdee.org/). The report reflects the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the Dee Catchment Partnership, Aberdeenshire Council or James Hutton Institute. Acknowledgments This document was prepared by Laurie Barant, Justin Irvine and Kirsty Blackstock from the James Hutton Institute. It is based on the contributions of the plenary speakers, the workshop leaders (see Appendix One: Agenda) and the participants (see Appendix Two: List of Attendees). Thanks to the following facilitators and scribes from the James Hutton Institute: Katina Tam, Anja Byg and Kerry Waylen; and to Susan Cooksley and Dan Ward of the Dee Catchment Partnership for their assistance with organising the event. Thanks to the participants for their insightful and useful comments. The research was undertaken using funding from the Ecosystem Services Theme of the Scottish Government Environmental Change Programme 2011-2016. The specific research was not directly commissioned or endorsed by Scottish Government. Contacts Research on Ecosystem Approach: Justine Irvine: [email protected] Dee Catchment Partnership: Susan Cooksley: [email protected] Regional Land Use Pilot: Irina Birnie: [email protected] 1 Ecosystem Approach & Land Use Workshop Report 28th June 2013 Summary The aim of the workshop was to consider what an Ecosystem Approach can do for land use in Aberdeenshire.
    [Show full text]
  • A Vision for Rural Areas for 2040, Responses to Such Questions Are Required to Enable Coordinated and Aligned Efforts for Its Realisation
    A VISION FOR RURAL AREAS MAP Discussion Paper LONG-TERM VISION FOR RURAL AREAS: CONTRIBUTION FROM 20 SCIENCE- SOCIETY-POLICY PLATFORMS MAP DISCUSSION PAPER RURAL SCOTLAND AND RIVER DEE CATCHMENT Version 07/11/2020 Contact information Facilitators | David Miller, Katherine Irvine and Susan Cooksley Authors: David Miller, Katherine Irvine, Susan Cooksley, Eric Baird, John Barr, Charles Bestwick, Jackie Brierton, Ewen Cameron, Lorna Dawson, Andy Ford, Bob Forrest, Diarmid Hearns, Jim Hume, Derek MacDonald, Willie Nisbett and Roger Owen Suggested citation: Miller, D., Irvine, K., Cooksley, S., Baird, E., Barr, J., Bestwick, C., Brierton, J., Cameron, E., Dawson, L., Ford, A., Forrest, B., Hearns, D., Hume, J., MacDonald, D., Nisbett, W. and Owen, R. 2020. UK Multi-Actor Platform Discussion Paper on Long-term vision for rural areas: contribution from 20 Science-Society-Policy platforms. H2020 Sustainable Hub to Engage into Rural Policies with Actors Project (SHERPA), pp. 37. Page | 1 SHERPA receives funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 862448 MAP Discussion Paper| Long-term vision for rural areas Names and Affiliations of the Contributors from the Multi-Actor Platforms Eric Baird, Private individual John Barr, Private individual Charles Bestwick, Director Scottish Environment, Food and Agriculture Research Institutes Gateway Jackie Brierton, Chief Executive Officer GrowBiz Scotland Ewen Cameron, Independent Member North East Scotland Biodiversity Partnership, and Convenor
    [Show full text]
  • Firth Farm Carmyllie, Arbroath DD11 2QT Bellingram.Co.Uk
    Firth Farm Carmyllie, Arbroath DD11 2QT bellingram.co.uk An arable farm extending to about 71 ha (175 acres) with principal farmhouse and a range of farm buildings Carnoustie 4 miles, Dundee 11 miles, St Andrews 24 miles, Aberdeen 57 miles • Vestibule and reception hall • 3 public rooms • Dining kitchen • WC/laundry room • 4 double bedrooms • Family bathroom • Range of farm buildings • About 71 ha (175 acres) Viewing Description Strictly by appointment with Bell Ingram Perth office - 01738 621121. Dating from around 1870, Firth Farmhouse is a two storey traditional stone building with a slate roof. The farmhouse is centrally located within the subjects and the adjacent farm buildings lie Directions to the north. Leaving Dundee from the Kingsway East, proceed along the A92 dual carriageway for about 8.8 miles, leaving at the exit for Muirdrum. Travel north on the B9128 Forfar road and after Accommodation about 2.8 miles turn right onto the B961 signposted to Redford and Froickheim and after 0.3 The entrance vestibule has a tiled floor and a coat cupboard and opens through to an L shaped hallway where there is further storage space. To the left is the first public room which miles the entrance to Firth Farm is on the right. is currently being used as a dining room. It has a south facing window to the front and press cupboard. Situation Firth Farm lies approximately five miles north of Carnoustie which is well known for the To the right is the dining kitchen which has two windows. It is fitted with base and wall Carnoustie Golf Links that often hosts the Open Golf Championship.
    [Show full text]
  • Transformative Science 2016 - 2021 New Vision of How the World Was Formed and How It Is Constantly Evolving
    Our global collaboration Our New Corporate from Scotland to the world, and back again Plan Explained The James Hutton Institute collaborates and works in numerous global locations, The James Hutton Institute is a well-respected and globally recognised research exporting and importing knowledge, impact, innovation, skills, learning organisation delivering fundamental and applied science to drive the sustainable and experience. use of land and natural resources. The new James Hutton Institute Corporate Plan 2016-2021 sets out our goals for the next five years set within the context of much longer-term horizon scanning. It describes how we will tackle the scientific challenges needed to help the world, achieve our corporate goals, deliver for our customers and stakeholders and grow the financial stability of the James Hutton Group. The James Hutton Institute has a long history through its legacy organisations in providing independent, world-class scientific research tackling some of the world’s biggest challenges relating to food and environmental security and sustainable development. These are set in the context of significant global changes in population, increased demand for natural resources, a changing climate and economic and geopolitical policy drivers. Our scientists follow the inspiration of James Hutton, after whom we are named, and deliver global impact through excellent science, collaboration and innovation. He was willing to challenge accepted wisdom to create a Transformative Science 2016 - 2021 new vision of how the world was formed and how it is constantly evolving. The observations he made on Scotland’s rocks, soils and landscapes forever changed the way we think about the world.
    [Show full text]
  • New Pathways – New People Securing the Sustainability of Scottish Farming
    New Pathways – New People Securing the Sustainability of Scottish Farming Sustaining a cohort of new entrants Government to explore new and alternative business models is crucial to the ongoing vitality, for new entrant farming businesses (NEWBIE project), and to support farmer-to-farmer demonstration to encourage resilience, and competitiveness of farmers, crofters and landowners to consider options for agriculture and rural areas in Europe. knowledge exchange and support for new entrants (NEFERTITI project). New entrant farmers and crofters are wellsprings Farmers and advisors are encouraged to participate in the of entrepreneurship and innovation, as they bring networking opportunities arising from these projects, to share unique skills, networks, income streams and experiences and gain support with on-farm demonstrations. Links to the project webpages can be found below or by agricultural production pathways to the agricultural speaking directly to the Hutton researchers involved. sector. ‘New entrants’ can be individuals or families These projects seek to answer the following questions: initiating farming or crofting enterprises for the first time, or as successors to previous farming • How can aspiring new entrant farmers/crofters access the generations. Such innovation is important to the agricultural sector in Scotland? How can key barriers such as access to land and capital be removed? productivity and sustainability of Scottish farming. • What types of novel business models exist and where can In Scotland, the high cost of land in some regions and limited new entrants look for business support? availability of tenancies have impacts for those who wish • How can existing farmers/crofters be encouraged to pass to enter farming as new entrants, as do challenges around on their knowledge and experience to those aspiring to join access to capital and skills development.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Online Mapping Applications for Socio-Economic Data: Their Use and Impact
    Exploring online mapping applications for socio-economic data: their use and impact Workshop report Jonathan Hopkins* and Andrew Copus Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences The James Hutton Institute *: [email protected] This workshop took place as part of the “Web-based mapping for open access – building capacity and exploring user preferences” project, funded by the Macaulay Development Trust. The workshop contributed to Work Package 1 of this work. 1 Purpose of document and research aims This document summarises the activities and discussions which took place at a workshop “Exploring online mapping applications for socio-economic data: their use and impact” which took place at the COSLA Conference Centre in Edinburgh on the 3rd October 2016. This workshop was held as part of the project “Web-based mapping for open access – building capacity and exploring user preferences”. The specific aim of the first work package of the project was to “…assess ways in which web mapping facilities can be made more accessible and useful to end users, and can deliver policy impact”. Additionally, during the workshop introduction, three key research questions were noted: How are online mapping applications for socio-economic data used by different groups? How can they be improved/made more effective? How can they be used to generate impact and influence action? And two broader aims for the workshop event itself were recorded: Knowledge exchange, learning and discussion between professional end users, people involved in mapping tools, and researchers Open, informal and useful discussions Workshop organisation and timetable The ‘end users’ of online mapping tools for socio-economic data have been recently described based on the professions of Twitter users who shared the UK-based DataShine and LuminoCity websites1, and five ‘key groups’ of users of the DataShine site have also been identified: the private, public and non-profit sectors, teaching staff, and members of the public2.
    [Show full text]
  • James Hutton Institute Response to the Consultation on the Scottish
    Response to the Consultation on the Scottish Household Survey from the James Hutton Institute Consultation Questions Section A Use of SHS 1. What are the main social survey topics you use in the SHS? Please tick all that apply. Please distinguish between the topics in your following answers. HOUSEHOLD INTERVIEW X Household composition & characteristics of all occupants X Employment status of the highest income householder X Household income from employment and other sources X Health/disability X Driving Transport – Cars, fuel spend, and bicycles X Accommodation - Type of property, tenure, housing aspirations SHCS social survey – Heating patterns, repairs, adaptations X SHCS social survey – Household energy efficiency measures and renewables X Internet access X Recycling X Savings and household finances, including housing costs (mortgage and rent) X Children in the household (childcare, schools, and travel to school) RANDOM ADULT INTERVIEW X Key adult characteristics X Health/disability and caring responsibilities X Accommodation/housing experiences X Neighbourhoods and community safety (including perception of local crime rate and local police performance, harassment and discrimination) X Education - Qualifications X Employment/economic activity X Transport – Travel Diary X Transport – Use of private/public transport, congestion X Perceptions of local government and services Participation in sports activities Participation in cultural activities X Environment – Access to the outdoors, green space, land use X Environment – Climate change X Internet access and use Volunteering Other – please specify 14 2. What do you use the SHS for? We are particularly interested in how analysis of SHS data is used for informing, monitoring and evaluating policy and practice decisions, including examples of where analysis has influenced decision making.
    [Show full text]
  • UK Plant Sciences Federation Translation Working Group Implementation Plan First Published
    UK Plant Sciences Federation Translation Working Group implementation plan First published: November 2014 This report was produced by an independent working group convened under the UK Plant Sciences Federation. All views, unless otherwise noted, are those expressed at the working group meetings, and are not necessarily those of the convening groups. Working group members Belinda Clarke FSB Cluster Director, Agri-Tech East (Chair) Neil Bragg Chairman, Horticultural Development Company (HDC); Non-Executive Director, Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) Jan Chojecki MSB Managing Director, Plant Bioscience Limited (PBL) Katie Field Research Fellow, University of Sheffield David Gardner CEO, Innovation for Agriculture (IfA)/ Royal Agricultural Society of England (RASE) Thomas Howard Shell Open Innovation Independent Research Fellow, University of Exeter Lara Husain AMSB Employer Engagement Officer, Society of Biology (Minute Secretary) Smita Kurup Research Leader, Rothamsted Research Rick Mumford MSB Head of Plant Science, Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera) Lars Østergaard FSB Head of Crop Genetics, John Innes Centre Sarah Perfect FSB Global R&D Licensing and Collaboration Manager, Syngenta (UKPSF Executive Committee) Adam Price Professor of Plant Molecular Genetics, University of Aberdeen Rod Scott Professor of Biology and Head of Department, University of Bath Mimi Tanimoto MSB Executive Officer, UKPSF (Coordinator) Lesley Torrance FSB Head of Cell and Molecular Sciences Group, The James Hutton Institute; Professor in Biology, University of St Andrews Scope In a recent review by the UKPSF, UK plant scientists identified knowledge exchange as the biggest weakness in the UK’s research and funding strategy. Although plant science research has led to a broad range of intellectual properties, and despite considerable national activity in this area, there remains unlocked potential for translating basic scientific knowledge into useful applications.
    [Show full text]
  • TARRN 2018 – Think-Piece– Annie Mckee, the James Hutton Institute
    A. McKee, 16th March 2018 TARRN 2018 – Think-Piece– Annie McKee, The James Hutton Institute Future property ownership and the impact on rural sustainability Introduction Land is the ultimate resource, upon which all prospects for development and production are derived. The ownership and management of land are fundamental to society, and land tenure is said to ‘govern the relationship between people and the environment’ (Forbord et al., 2014). Land tenure is described as the complex ‘bundle’ of property rights (Munton, 2009), based on institutions and policies, which determine “how land and its resulting resources are accessed, who can benefit from these resources, for how long and under what conditions” (Robinson et al., 2014: 282). It is critical for society to evaluate and renegotiate the institutions of property ownership and use, and property rights are interconnected with the sustainability of rural areas. This think-piece aims to explore the emerging literature on, theory of and potential for new ways of property ownership and associated property rights (cf. Hodge and Adams, 2012; Wittman et al., 2017; Hoffman, 2018), and the implications of these shifts in perspective on property rights in resolving issues of inequality, social justice, and sustainability (i.e. economic, social, and environmental). In particular, the think-piece will explore knowledge and understanding on progressive property rights theory, which promotes a norm of social obligation in property rights (Lovett, 2011; Rosser, 2013; Alexander et al., 2009) (Section 1). The think-piece will draw on learning regarding partial or ‘plastic’ property rights, where mutual cooperation is necessary to underpin successful outcomes from the land resource (Wolf, 2017; Roberts and McKee, 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • A to Z of Scottish Business Pledge Companies As of 29 March 2017
    A to Z of Scottish Business Pledge Companies as of 29 March 2017 20/20 Business Insight 20/20 Productions Europe Limited 29studios 3x1 Group 4CornerNetworks 5pm.co.uk 999 Design Aberdeen Asset Management PLC Advanced Microwave Technologies Ltd Advice Direct Scotland Agenor Air Monitors Ltd Air Service Training (Engineering) Ltd Ajenta Albion Environmental Ltd Alex M Adamson LLP ALMIS International Anderson Strathern LLP Anglian Water Business (National) Ltd Anytime Leisure Ltd Aquatera Ardagh Glass Limited Arranshand Business Development Services Limited Asbestos Building Surveys Ltd. Ashbrook Research & Consultancy Ltd Aspen Solutions Ltd Atos Autosave Components Avaloq Innovation Ltd Aviva Barclay's Bank Barr + Wray Limited Barr Environmental Ltd BBD Creative BCF Technology Ltd B-DACS Ltd Beauty Kitchen UK Ltd Bidworks BigDNA Ltd BiP Solutions Birthsparks Ltd Blaze Manufacturing Solutions Ltd Blazing Griffin BrewDog PLC brightsolid Brightwater Services Ltd British Association for Shooting and Conservation - BASC Scotland Brodies LLP Business Excellence International Caithness Chamber of Commerce Campaign Collective Capital Credit Union Capital School of English, Edinburgh Carrington Dean Group Limited CC Technology ltd CCRS Brokers Ltd Cello Signal t/a - Signal CelluComp Limited Centrica Chocolate and Love Ltd City Building (Glasgow) LLP City of Glasgow College Civil Engineering Contractors Association (Scotland) Limited Cloud Cover IT Limited Clyde Space Limited CMS Enviro Systems Ltd Coca-Cola Enterprises Cohesion Medical Ltd. Com Dev International Community Enterprise in Scotland Computercare 2000 Ltd T/A Concept Northern Comrie Croft Connect Three Solutions Consarc Engineering Ltd Converged Communication Solutions Ltd Conveyancing Direct Corero Network Security (UK) Limited Craft Scotland Craneware plc Critiqom Limited Cultural Enterprise Office Damada Asbestos Removals Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • The James Hutton Institute
    Women in Science The James Hutton Institute is a respected, globally recognised research organisation that delivers fundamental and applied science to drive the sustainable use of land and natural resources. The Institute delivers independent, world-class scientific research tackling some of the world’s biggest challenges relating to food and environmental security and sustainable development. The context is significant global changes in population, increased demand for natural resources, a changing climate, and economic and geopolitical developments. Our scientists follow the inspiration of James Hutton, whose observations on Scotland’s rock, soils, agriculture and landscapes forever changed the way we think about the world. We deliver global impact through excellent science, collaboration and innovation and like Hutton, are willing to challenge conventional wisdom. For every £1 received in public funding, the James Hutton Institute generates £12.75 of benefit in the wider economy. Every job at the Institute supports 6 other jobs in the UK. Our research and areas of interest cover a vast span of scientific disciplines including: Hydrology Mineralogy Genomics Sociology Crop science Zoology Statistics Psychology Genetics Bio-informatics Microbiology Epidemiology Metabolomics Chemistry Systems analysis Systems Food chemistry Plant physiology Bio-geochemistry Economics Virology Agro-ecology Soil science Geo-informatics Plant breeding Plant Data mapping chemistry Analytical Plant pathology Landscape Ecology Modelling Ecology Physics Pedology Geography Introduction Being a scientist is a way of making a difference and improving people’s lives. It is generally accepted that research and scientists are crucial in providing solutions to global challenges like climate change, or food insecurity. However, science is not always considered as a potential career and women in particular remain under-represented in many science areas.
    [Show full text]