Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’

Cooper, Nigel; Brady, Emily; Steen, Helen; Bryce, Rosalind

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.014

Cited by 251 publications

(160 citation statements)

References 100 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

142

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A single numerical value, therefore, cannot capture the diverse ways in which people may value a given place, important though it is to quantify these. A prominent strand of value theory (Box 1) argues for the irreducible plurality of evaluative concepts, and everyday experience shows that people both perceive and value such goods as health, utility, diversity, beauty and generosity in different ways [28]. Compressing assessments of such distinct 'values' onto a smaller number of axes ignores the intrinsic dimensionality of the situation and is a form of devaluation [2].…”

Section: How Do Humans Value?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Meanwhile, the ambiguity of 'cultural services' can be lessened by using the full suite of aspects of appreciation.  The EVF intrinsically makes the normative nature of conservation explicit, facilitating the identification of negative as well as positive considerations, and "maintaining a plurality of values up to the point of decision-making" [28]. With the EVF, this "plurality of values" can be positivised as "a dozen (or more) evaluative scores".…”

Section: Box 2: the Ecosystem Valuing Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

Gunton

Asperen

Basden

et al. 2017

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights •Ecosystem services help itemise how we value natural places, but the concept is not robust.• A more robust framework should focus on aspects of human appreciation of places.• We propose an ecosystem valuing framework with 12 universal aspects of appreciation.• This can be unambiguously complemented by ecological analyses where necessary. AbstractThe ecosystem services framework (ESF) is advantageous and widely used for itemising and quantifying ways in which humans benefit from natural places. However, it suffers from two important problems: (i) incoherence of definitions and (ii) a narrow approach to valuation, inadequate to represent the full range of human motives for conservation and the diverse interests of different stakeholders. These shortcomings can lead to a range of problems including doublecounting, blind spots and unintended consequencest. Here we propose an ecosystem valuing framework (EVF) as a broader and more rigorous way to deliver the benefits currently sought from the ESF, without the conceptual problems. The flawed genius of ecosystem servicesThe ecosystem services framework (ESF) is a very popular approach to incentivising nature conservation, increasingly used by conservation campaigners and policy makers around the world as well as by scientists contributing to this cause. Its genius is to facilitate a multi-dimensional analysis of the benefits that humans may derive from natural places, allowing a wide range of interests and conservation concerns to be considered and integrated with a broad view of sustainable development 3 and human wellbeing. As such it supports a consequentialist ethic that can be more successful than deontological approaches (see Glossary) in securing consensus and motivating action [1]. However, criticisms of the ESF as a tool for conservation raise doubts about its effectiveness and legitimacy [2,3]. The most controversial issue is probably that of monetisation, as laid out recently by Silvertown [4]. One set of responses to such problems would continue using the ESF as a general tool for assessing habitats while recognising its multilayered structure [5], supervising it to avoid unintended consequences [6], perhaps discouraging monetisation [7], and even attempting to subjugate intrinsic value under the category of services [8]. Yet there are more profound problems with the ESF that call for a radical shift if we wish to contribute to conservation as part of a sustainable development agenda. Two outstanding issues are sufficient, in our opinion, to demand an overhaul of the ESF so radical as to require a new name. First, the definitions do not work. The fact that definitions of 'ecosystem services' (ES) and of specific categories are often vague, tautologous and/or at variance with the concepts actually employed is symptomatic of deep-seated problems, as we shall explain.Second, collapsing multiple human value judgments into one or a few numerical values is a form of devaluation. We unpack this claim by exploring the inescapably cultural foundation of ...

show abstract

Section: How Do Humans Value?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Box 2: the Ecosystem Valuing Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

Gunton

Asperen

Basden

et al. 2017

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This critique has been particularly well vocalised in the case of cultural ecosystem services [42] and spiritual and aesthetic values [18]. For example, as Cooper et al [18] (p. 225) argue, this value incongruence arises because: " .…”

Section: Valuation-some Criticisms: Money Is Not Everythingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An elaboration of Ideal values also captures the notion of transcendental and spiritual values-values that "are fundamental conceptions of the relationships of humans and nature" [18], which are above and beyond any particular contextual situation being concerned with "desirable end states or behaviours" [19] as well as "principles and life goals" [17]. An extension of Subjective values would also include mention of cultural, shared and social values, values that emerge through cultural transmission and contextual history evidencing "shared principles and virtues" as well as demonstrating "values held in common by members of a community" [17,[19][20][21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Value Landscape in Ecosystem Services: Value, Value Wherefore Art Thou Value?

Hejnowicz

Rudd

2017

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Ecosystem services has risen to become one of the preeminent global policy discourses framing the way we conceive and articulate environment-society relations, integral to the form and function of a number of far-reaching international policies such as the Aichi 2020 Biodiversity Targets and the recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals. Value; its pursuit, definition, quantification, monetization, multiplicity and uncertainty, both in terms of meaning and attribution, is fundamental to the economic foundations of ecosystem services and a core feature driving its inclusion across multiple policy domains such as environmental management and conservation. Distilling current knowledge and developments in this arena are thus highly prescient. In this article, we cast a critical eye over the evidence base and aim to provide a comprehensive synthesis of what values are, why they are important and the methodological approaches employed to elicit them (including their pros and cons and the arguments for and against). We also illustrate the current ecosystem service value landscape, highlight some of the fundamental challenges in discerning and applying values, and outline future research activities. In so doing, we further advance ecosystem valuation discourse, contribute to wider debates linking ecosystem services and sustainability and strengthen connections between ecosystem services and environmental policy.

show abstract

“…Contributors to this debate have pointed to the disruptive capacities of feminist/feminine positionalities in relation to the calculative rationalities underscoring accounting methodologies (C. Cooper, 1992), 'deep green' and systems perspectives that emphasise intrinsic values as well as the unquantifiable complexity of ecosystems (Hines, 1991;Gray, 1992), and the incommensurabilities arising through different valuation and value practices embedded in varied socio-cultural contexts (Graeber, 2001;O'Neill et al, 2008). Recent interventions emphasise the ways in which expansionary deliberative practices might better draw out shared and plural values so as to effect more 'tangible improvements in terms of environmental outcomes' (Kenter et al, 2015: 87;also Kallis et al, 2013;N. Cooper et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introduction[1][2]mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Mathematics maybe, but not money”

Sullivan

Hannis

2017

AAAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to consider and compare different ways of using numbers to value aspects of nature-beyond-the-human through case analysis of ecological and natural capital accounting practices in the UK that create standardised numerical-economic values for beyond-human natures. In addition, to contrast underlying ontological and ethical assumptions of these arithmetical approaches in ecological accounting with those associated with Pythagorean nature-numbering practices and fractal geometry. In doing so, to draw out distinctions between arithmetical and geometrical ontologies of nature and their relevance for “valuing nature”. Design/methodology/approach Close reading and review of policy texts and associated calculations in: UK natural capital accounts for “opening stock” inventories in 2007 and 2014; and in the experimental implementation of biodiversity offsetting (BDO) in land-use planning in England. Tracking the iterative calculations of biodiversity offset requirements in a specific planning case. Conceptual review, drawing on and contrasting different numbering practices being applied so as to generate numerical-economic values for natures-beyond-the-human. Findings In the cases of ecological accounting practices analysed here, the natures thus numbered are valued and “accounted for” using arithmetical methodologies that create commensurability and facilitate appropriation of the values so created. Notions of non-monetary value, and associated practices, are marginalised. Instead of creating standardisation and clarity, however, the accounting practices considered here for natural capital accounts and BDO create nature-signalling numbers that are struggled over and contested. Originality/value This is the first critical engagement with the specific policy texts and case applications considered here, and, the authors believe, the first attempt to contrast arithmetical and geometrical numbering practices in their application to the understanding and valuing of natures-beyond-the-human.

show abstract

Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’

Cited by 251 publications

References 100 publications

Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

The Value Landscape in Ecosystem Services: Value, Value Wherefore Art Thou Value?

“Mathematics maybe, but not money”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About