//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
ProfilePosts








Loading...
Moreover, these schemes are completely reliant on trustworthy monitoring. To pay the right people the right amount, we need to know how many carnivores there are and where. In Sweden, shifting snow conditions have made such accurate monitoring increasingly hard.
Why? One issue is that the more successful these schemes are, the more costly they become. In Sweden, payments have not kept pace with rising coexistence costs, remaining frozen for more than 20 years. It poses the question: Is society willing to pay the costs of carnivore recovery?
All is not lost though, wolverines are still doing well in the rest of Sweden, and the negative trends in the north can likely be turned with proper investment. In short, results-based payments must be designed to adapt to socio-ecological change, rising costs, and participants’ needs over time.