Ecosystem Services

Global Issues, Local Practices

Sander Jacobs, Nicolas Dendoncker, Hans Keune

• Publisher: Elsevier
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9780124199804
• Topic: Ciencias biológicas
• Subtopic: Conservación y Protección del Medio Ambiente

Ecosystem Services: Global Issues, Local Practices covers scientific input, socioeconomic considerations, and governance issues on ecosystem services. This book provides hands-on transdisciplinary reflections by administrators and sector representatives involved in the ecosystem service community. Ecosystem Services develops shared approaches and scientific methods to achieve knowledge-based sustainable planning and management of ecosystem services. Professionals engaged in ecosystem service implementation have two options: de-emphasize the ecological and socioeconomic complexity and advance in the theoretical, abstract field, or try to develop research that is policy relevant and inclusive in an uncertain environment. This book provides a wide overview of issues at stake, of interest for any professional wishing to develop a broader view on ecosystem service science and practice.

• Examines a broad scope of relevant issues to create common understanding in the ecosystem services community
• Includes contributions from several backgrounds, providing a broad, multidisciplinary view
• Offers recommendations to develop a thorough understanding and management of ecosystem services based on tools and research in larger territories as well as on local scales

Part I

Ecosystem Service Basics

Outline

Chapter 1 Inclusive Ecosystem Services Valuation

Chapter 2 Ecosystem Services and Their Monetary Value

Chapter 3 Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Chapter 4 Ecosystem Service Indicators

Chapter 5 Inquiring into the Governance of Ecosystem Services

Chapter 1

Inclusive Ecosystem Services Valuation

Nicolas Dendoncker¹, Hans Keune^2,3,4,5, Sander Jacobs^6,7 and Erik Gómez-Baggethun^8,9, ¹Department of Geography, University of Namur (UNamur). Namur Research Centre on Sustainable Development (NAGRIDD). Namur Centre for Complex Systems (naXys), ²Belgian Biodiversity Platform, ³Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), ⁴Faculty of Applied Economics – University of Antwerp, ⁵naXys, Namur Center for Complex Systems - University of Namur, ⁶Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), ⁷University of Antwerp. Department of Biology, Ecosystem Management Research Group (ECOBE), ⁸Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, ⁹Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Abstract

This chapter discusses the concept of ecosystem services valuation. It argues that beyond monetary valuation, ES valuation should also take into account ecological and social values. Valuation should be geared toward strong sustainability in order to improve the well-being of every individual and society, now and in the future. Following a systemic approach, bundles of ES should be valued together. When systems are far from critical thresholds, valuing changes through various alternatives is appropriate. Deliberative multicriteria decision tools could be appropriate to collectively value ES. However, when systems are close to thresholds or tipping points, ecosystem service valuation will need to switch from choosing among resources or alternatives to valuing the avoidance of catastrophic ecosystem change. Finally, it is important to remember that valuation is merely a tool and not a solution in itself. When one is valuing for sustainability, the questions of politics, governance, and institutions cannot be ignored.

Keywords

Valuation; strong sustainability; well-being; ES bundles; collective decision making

Chapter Outline

1. Introduction: On Value and Valuation

2. Why Do We Value?

2.1. Valuing for Sustainability

2.2. Valuing Bundles

2.3. Valuing Change

3. Valuation for Sustainable Development—A Three-Pillar Valuation Framework

3.1. Ecological Valuation

3.2. Monetary Valuation

3.3. Social Valuation of ES

4. Is Valuation of ES Enough for Proper Environmental Decision Making?

1 Introduction: On Value and Valuation

The word “value” comes from the Latin valor, which itself comes from the term valere, which can be translated as “being strong, having some kind of importance.” De Groot et al. [1], for example, equate value with importance. This value or importance is not easy to determine. As Maris and Bechet [2] point out, values are contextual, relative to a certain place, a certain time, and a certain group of people facing a problem and engaged in collective action. According to Costanza [3], value ultimately originates in the set of goals to which a society aspires.

The word “valuation” can be defined as the act of assessing, appraising, or measuring value, as value attribution, or as framing valuation (how and what to value, who values). Valuation can thus refer to assessing a monetary value or a price but also an estimation or appreciation of worth or meaning. Thus semantics and etymology immediately reveal that by no means should valuation be equated with monetary valuation. Monetary valuation, or, as Liekens et al. (Chapter 2, this volume; [4]) call it, monetization, is only part of what ought to be envisaged when one is trying to value ecosystem services.

Ecological and social values should also be taken into account when valuing ecosystem services (ES) [5]. Daly [6] and later Costanza [3] recognized that, in order to conduct appropriate valuation of ecosystem services, one needs to consider a broad set of goals that include ecological sustainability and social fairness, along with the traditional economic goal of efficiency. However, papers dealing with economic valuation only, or briefly touching on other aspects of valuation but failing to detail the operational side, still largely dominate the literature on ES valuation. Likewise, case studies on ES valuation that explicitly deal with nonmonetary values (e.g., [7, 8, 9]) are still scarce compared to those dealing with monetary valuations. Over 20 years after Daly’s paper [6], the first two goals of ecological sustainability and social fairness are still largely ignored.

In this chapter, we discuss the concept of valuation of ES. After clarifying the purpose of ES valuation, we propose to implement a three-pillar ecological-economic-social valuation process (adding to that proposed by 5) and briefly detail each pillar. We then suggest some promising methodologies to integrate these seemingly separate valuations into information that can be used for decision making. Finally, we conclude by framing valuation in the broader context of the transition path toward sustainability.

2 Why Do We Value?

Although this question may seem trivial, it is worth remembering that valuation of ES often applies to when we have to choose between different alternatives that lead to different outcomes in terms of ES provision (see also Liekens et al. this volume; [4, p.4]). As Costanza [3] puts it: “we humans have to make choices and trade-offs concerning ES and this implies and requires valuation, because any choice between competing alternatives implies that the one chosen was more highly valued.” In other words, valuation is important if alternatives are competing. Valuation can be seen as the final step before decision making: For Daily [10], it translates the consequences of maintaining the status quo and opting for each alternative into comparable units of impact on human well-being, now and in the future. Valuation can also be useful in other policy contexts, including awareness raising, environmental accounting, design of incentives, and in informing litigation processes where economic compensations are claimed for environmental damage [11].

2.1 Valuing for Sustainability

Our society is following an unsustainable path, and we now fully realize the need to get on a sustainable one. The final goal of ES valuation is to contribute to a more sustainable and equitable resource use. It is from this perspective that Daily [10] mentions well-being as a unit for valuation. The ultimate goal of ES valuation is to improve the well-being of every individual, now and in the future. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment says nothing else [12]. Of course, the indicators that best represent well-being are not easy to define and are context dependent [13].

We share the view of ecological economics, as represented by Costanza and Daly [14], that natural capital and manufactured capital are in a relation of complementarity rather than substitutability. In this strong sustainability view, economy is merely a subsystem of society, which is itself a subsystem of the environment, all being interdependent [15, 16, 17, 18]. Therefore, any valuation exercise should first assess the state of the ecological system (now and after expected changes), before dealing with the social and monetary aspects. In Section 3, we come back to these three pillars of valuation.

When valuing for sustainability, it is essential to respect the principles of sustainable development. The Brundtland Commission’s report (1987) defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [19, p.4]. The concept supports strong economic and social development, in particular for people with a low standard of living. At the same time it underlines the importance of protecting the natural resource base and the environment. Economic and social well-being cannot be improved with measures that destroy the environment. Intergenerational solidarity is crucial: All development has to take into account its impact on the opportunities for future generations.

Solidarity should not only be envisaged at the local scale but also at the global level. If project-based valuation is performed, the actors involved need to be aware of the global impacts of the choices made locally. For example, from an intragenerational equity perspective, it is pointless to implement sustainable agricultural systems locally (by, for example, reducing considerably the food provisioning services) if the local community then needs to rely on importing food that will have been produced elsewhere at the expense of biodiversity. This would contribute to increasing the already high ecological debt the global North owes to the global South (see, e.g., [20, 21]).

With regard to equity, Norgaard [22] mentions that sustainability is ultimately a distribution question, a matter of ethics or environmental justice within and between generations. This ethical principle has to be applied during the valuation process. For Vatn [23], choices made in the realm of the environment are fundamentally ethical in the sense that the preferences, valuations, and uses of goods by each of us influence what is left for others to value and use. The valuation process must therefore be a collective process engaging the relevant actors of society concerned with the issues at stake. Vatn [23] and Parks and Gowdy [24] argue further that fairness-based value would require that people vote their preferences as members of the community instead as individuals. This issue has important consequences for the valuation methodologies chosen.

2.2 Valuing Bundles

Often ES valuation and Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) only relate to a single service. As Kosoy and Corbera [25] indicate, the valuation exercises of single ecosystem functions are often misleading because their search for marginal values may have no real meaning, particularly when the critical question is how to protect the resilience of ecosystems [26]. The authors warn that favoring the production of one ES may have detrimental effects on many others (see also [27]). Indeed, not valuing the whole variety of services has contributed heavily to today’s biodiversity crisis. Hence, when valuing ES one should make sure to take all the relevant ES into account. In this respect, the approach followed by Van der Biest et al. [28], suggesting the need for a tool developed to capture the ecological complexity of delivery of ecosystem services bundles, is worth mentioning.

2.3 Valuing Change

Valuing bundles of ES does not mean valuing everything. Trying to quantify the present value of ecosyste...

Table of contents

• Cover image
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Copyright
• Foreword
• Contributors
• Editorial. Editorial for Ecosystem Services—Global Issues, Local Practices
• Introduction
• Part I: Ecosystem Service Basics
• Part II: Ecosystem Services: Conceptual Reflections
• Part III: Ecosystem Service Debates
• Part IV: Ecosystem Services: Tools & Practices
• Part V: Ecosystem Service Reflections from Practice
• Colophon
• Index