Ecosystem services and ethics

Jax, Kurt; Barton, David N.; Chan, Kai M. A.; Groot, R.S. de; Doyle, Ulrike; Eser, Uta; Görg, Christoph; Gómez-Baggethun, Erik; Griewald, Yuliana; Haber, Wolfgang; Haines-Young, Roy; Heink, Ulrich; Jähn, Thomas; Joosten, Hans; Kerschbaumer, Lilin; Korn, Horst; Luck, Gary W.; Matzdorf, Bettina; Muraca, Barbara; Neßhöver, Carsten; Norton, Bryan G.; Ott, Konrad; Potschin, Marion; Rauschmayer, Felix; Haaren, Christina von; Wichmann, Sabine

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.06.008

Cited by 320 publications

(218 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

197

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[52]). Thus a comprehensive multi-aspectual assessment by a given stakeholder should have an inner coherence that is lost in combining isolated judgements about, say, the beauty or intrins ic value of a place.…”

Section: Box 1: Backgrounds To Aspectual Theory and Value Theorymentioning

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

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: Box 1: Backgrounds To Aspectual Theory and Value Theorymentioning

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

“…A person with a strong eco-centric value orientation may not be willing to evaluate nature in this manner. Although several scholars have argued that socio-cultural ES assessments may allow for the integration of eco-centric values (Jax et al 2013;Schröter et al 2014), most ES valuation studies have not attempted to explicitly address eco-centric values.…”

Section: Understanding Attitudes Towards Wetland Restoration From Difmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Support for Wetland Restoration: What is the Link With Ecosystem Service Values?

Scholte¹,

Todorova²,

Teeffelen³

et al. 2016

Wetlands

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fostering public support for wetland restoration is essential for long-term sustainable management and use of wetland areas. This paper explores the socio-cultural dimension of wetland restoration, by looking at the importance of wetland ecosystem services for different user groups. We try to better comprehend such values by evaluating the awareness people have of ecosystem services and the direct benefits people obtain from the ecosystems in their surroundings. In addition, we study how the values people assign to ecosystem services are related to wetland restoration attitudes. We identified four perspectives towards wetland restoration, which could partially be explained by corresponding values for ecosystem services: an eco-centric, a cultural, an economic and a negative perspective. To gather public support for wetland restoration it is important to take into account the different motivations people have to support such initiatives.

show abstract

“…Even supporters of the CA might argue that the capability of being able to live with a concern for a world of nature, including animals and plants [24], might be actualized to high levels by both present and future individuals. Studies that exploit the ecosystem services approach may come to the conclusion that cultural values of nature contribute far more to social welfare than conventional economic wisdom has believed (Jax et al) [48]. To hold natural capital constant over time also has an intragenerational aspect since contemporary groups of -naturalists‖ are benefitted by such policy [49].…”

Section: The Concept Of Strong Sustainabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutionalizing Strong Sustainability: A Rawlsian Perspective

Ott

2014

Sustainability

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The article aims to provide some ethical orientation on how sustainability might be actualized by institutions. Since institutionalization is about rules and organization, it presupposes ideas and concepts by which institutions can be substantiated. After outlining terminology, the article deals with underlying ethical and conceptual problems which are highly relevant for any suggestions concerning institutionalization. These problems are: (a) the ethical scope of the sustainability perspective (natural capital, poverty, sentient animals), (b) the theory of justice on which ideas about sustainability are built (capability approach, Rawlsianism), and (c) the favored concept of sustainability (weak, intermediate, and strong sustainability). These problems are analyzed in turn. As a result, a Rawlsian concept of rule-based strong sustainability is proposed. The specific problems of institutionalization are addressed by applying Rawls's concept of branches. The article concludes with arguments in favor of three transnational duties which hold for states that have adopted Rawlsian strong sustainability.

show abstract

Ecosystem services and ethics

Cited by 320 publications

References 38 publications

Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

Public Support for Wetland Restoration: What is the Link With Ecosystem Service Values?

Institutionalizing Strong Sustainability: A Rawlsian Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About