On the relation between ecosystem services, intrinsic value, existence value and economic valuation

This article provides a first rough sketch of how to conceptualize countries' present and historical contributions to the loss of global ecosystem services, i.e., ecosystem services of which the delivery is global and omnidirectional, and discusses the implications of questions concerning the international distribution of responsibilities. On the basis of limited empirical data about past and present land conversion, some first calculations suggest that keeping converted land in a converted state, thus preventing ecosystems recovery, may contribute more to current loss of global ecosystem services than new conversion of ecosystems. Moreover, many developing countries in the tropics may contribute more to the loss of global ecosystem services, in both absolute terms and per capita, than many developed countries in temperate zones. This would make finding an equitable arrangement for international allocation of responsibilities for biological conservation far more complex than for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, raising new and challenging questions for normative theorists.

Section: Not All Land Should Be Restored To Its Natural Statementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Equity and the Conservation of Global Ecosystem Services

Davidson

2017

“…For instance, Davidson [68] considers that the problem of inappropriate economic valuation resides with the conflated relationship between ecosystem services, intrinsic value and existence value. The argument advanced by [68] revolves around the issue of compatibility, and specifically, that intrinsic value and existence value are mutually exclusive, and that whilst existence value may be compatible with any ES applying the same logic to intrinsic value remains conceptually (philosophically) flawed. Nevertheless, as Davidson [68] is at pains to point out, intrinsic value, as benefits to nature, may still be captured economically although this depends upon the moral stance one takes.…”

Section: Valuations-we Still Have Some Way To Gomentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Hejnowicz

Rudd

2017

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.

“…The ecosystem services (ES) approach, which is characterized as the benefits that are provided by ecosystems to humans [2][3][4][5][6], has become most likely the foremost trend in conservation and sustainability science, which is demonstrated by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) and the recently established Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) [7]. This concept has received, over the past few years, increasing attention as a way to communicate human dependence on ecological processes, which is clearly a utilitarian reason to protect nature [8,9]. The idea of ES has opened the possibility of understanding nature within market ideologies and recognizing environmental destruction and its effects on human well-being.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making Nature Valuable, Not Profitable: Are Payments for Ecosystem Services Suitable for Degrowth?

Muniz

Cruz

2015

Abstract:The growth economy imposes multiple crises on humanity and the natural world. To challenge this economic growth imperative, the degrowth movement emerges as a dissident response. Although within an economic growth perspective, payments for ecosystem services (PES) have also been proposed to attenuate the negative impacts of capitalism, as a redistributive mechanism that is claimed to deliver equitable conservation and sustainability. Degrowth has notably similar concerns, although it is inclined to argue against PES traditional ideologies and practices, which lead conservation to perceive nature within economic growth and market ideologies, diminishing the relationship between humans and nature. In spite of that, PES are becoming a strong trend in environmental governance. This paper attempts to examine whether PES are, and how they could be suitable for degrowth, through the lens of its main sources. In order to integrate PES and degrowth, it could require a PES reconceptualization. Although we assert that PES are not the most appropriate instrument for conservation, we argue that maybe PES could contribute to degrowth as a transition instrument toward fostering better practices. However, it is important to elucidate how they can be used and under which circumstances they could be appropriate.