2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.11.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Buying into conservation: intrinsic versus instrumental value

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
128
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 170 publications
(128 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
(31 reference statements)
0
128
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The concept of relational value has been recently emphasized in the academic discussion of ecosystem services assessments and valuations (Díaz et al 2015, Chan et al 2016, Pascual et al 2017, Tadaki et al 2017, Arias-Arevalo et al 2018, although relational values have been addressed through the concepts of cultural ecosystem services (Chan et al 2012, Daniel et al 2012, Milcu et al 2013) and socio-cultural valuations of ecosystem services (Oteros-Rozas et al 2013, Iniesta-Arandia et al 2014, Zagarola et al 2014, Castro et al 2016. Under the intrinsic-instrumental dichotomy, relational values have been conflated with instrumental values because of their anthropocentric nature (see Justus et al 2009, Sagoff 2009). Such conflation implies that the aesthetic appreciation of the páramo ecosystem in the Otún River watershed (a relational value) can be substituted by the aesthetic appreciation of a painting of the same páramo.…”
Section: From the Dichotomy Of Intrinsic Vs Instrumental Values To Tmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The concept of relational value has been recently emphasized in the academic discussion of ecosystem services assessments and valuations (Díaz et al 2015, Chan et al 2016, Pascual et al 2017, Tadaki et al 2017, Arias-Arevalo et al 2018, although relational values have been addressed through the concepts of cultural ecosystem services (Chan et al 2012, Daniel et al 2012, Milcu et al 2013) and socio-cultural valuations of ecosystem services (Oteros-Rozas et al 2013, Iniesta-Arandia et al 2014, Zagarola et al 2014, Castro et al 2016. Under the intrinsic-instrumental dichotomy, relational values have been conflated with instrumental values because of their anthropocentric nature (see Justus et al 2009, Sagoff 2009). Such conflation implies that the aesthetic appreciation of the páramo ecosystem in the Otún River watershed (a relational value) can be substituted by the aesthetic appreciation of a painting of the same páramo.…”
Section: From the Dichotomy Of Intrinsic Vs Instrumental Values To Tmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, what would motivate people to protect an ecosystem that does not provide them with adequate amounts of pure water or provides water that is not accessible to them? This is not to say that environmental management and protection should be based on some vaguely defined intrinsic value of nature or ES (Justus et al 2009), but rather that one must become aware of the potentially negative outcomes of the dichotomy: 'nature as a service provider/human beings as service users'. Consequently, environmental management should reconcile the aspects of commonality of rights and responsibility to overcome exploitation based on individual property rights (Ostrom 1990;Poteete & Ostrom 2004).…”
Section: Applicability Of the Es Perspective To Watermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another way to define these terms is that if something has intrinsic value, it is valuable as such, independent of the valuer. Additionally, if something has instrumental value, it is regarded as valuable by the valuer (Justus et al 2009). In other words, all of the value given to nature can be considered as instrumental value, since it needs to be given by someone.…”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 99%