Re-establishing an ecological discourse in the policy debate over how to value ecosystems and biodiversity

Spash, Clive L.; Aslaksen, Iulie

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.04.049

Cited by 74 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 56 publications

(59 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ecosystem valuation, however, is not without controversy. Economic techniques cannot capture the intrinsic worth of ecosystems, are centered on human preferences [32], and may represent the commodification of global life support [33]. However, the goal of valuation lies not in conversion of non-market-values to monetary terms, but its ability to "frame choices and make clear the tradeoffs between alternative outcomes" [22], and to avoid the scenario where assigning no value to ecosystem services leads to the assumption of zero value.…”

Section: Valuing Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuing Ecosystem Services and Disservices across Heterogeneous Green Spaces

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates small-scale variability in ecosystem services and disservices that is important for sustainable planning in urban areas (including suburbs surrounding the urban core). We quantified and valued natural capital (tree and soil carbon stocks) ecosystem services (annual tree carbon sequestration and pollutant uptake, and stormwater runoff reduction) and disservices (greenhouse gas emissions and soil soluble reactive phosphorus) within a 30-hectare heterogeneous green space that included approximately 13% wetland, 13% prairie, 16% forest, and 55% subdivision. We found similar soil organic carbon across green space types, but spatial heterogeneity in other ecosystem services and disservices. The value of forest tree carbon stock was estimated at approximately $10,000 per hectare. Tree carbon sequestration, and pollutant uptake added benefits of $1000+ per hectare per year. Annual per hectare benefits from tree carbon stock and ecosystem services in the subdivision were each 63% of forest values. Total annual greenhouse gas emissions had significant spatial and temporal variation. Soil soluble reactive phosphorus was significantly higher in the wetland than in forest and prairie. Our results have implications for urban planning. Adding or improving ecosystem service provision on small (private or public) urban or suburban lots may benefit from careful consideration of small-scale variability.

show abstract

Section: Valuing Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuing Ecosystem Services and Disservices across Heterogeneous Green Spaces

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Parks and Gowdy [34] have recently called for researchers to expend far more effort in pursuing social valuation, describing it as the next "frontier" in ESV. Echoing this sentiment, Dendoncker et al [22] have advocated for a tripartite valuation system jointly focused on assessing ecological, social and monetary dimensions, whilst pressing for greater use of non-monetary social valuation approaches, a view fervently endorsed by Spash and Aslaksen [72] who demand that the social ecological aspects of ecosystems need to be explored far more richly and extensively. These clarion calls have started to bear fruit.…”

Section: Valuations-we Still Have Some Way To Gomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is clear therefore that there are a number of significant avenues to pursue to further progress the development of more realistic, credible and useful environmental valuations, and from the evidence-base (e.g., [11,17,19,31,32,59,61,71,72,121,123,126,127]), it seems reasonably apparent that actions need to be taken in the following areas:…”

Section: Conclusion: Future Researchmentioning

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

“…However, direct and indirect methods for evaluating the benefits (i.e., ecosystem services) have been found to be very laborious [11] and to face methodological shortcomings [12][13][14][15]. In conclusion, the authors consider CBA to be an appropriate method for selected cases only (large cities, exceptionally high economic interests at stake, important employment issues etc.…”

Section: Interpretation Of Disproportionalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the Achievement of “Good Status” for German Surface Waters Disproportionately Expensive?—Comparing Two Approaches to Assess Disproportionately High Costs in the Context of the European Water Framework Directive

Klauer

Schiller

Sigel

2017

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently only 8.2% of German surface water bodies have reached the goal of the European Water Framework Directive to bring all water into a "good status". For all water bodies that presumably will not achieve the objective by 2027, the member states have to justify an exemption by 2021, for example, by arguing that the costs of achieving "good status" would be "disproportionately high". In this paper, two approaches for assessing cost-disproportionality of surface water bodies are empirically tested and compared on a set of real-world data from a German federal state. In the first approach, called average cost approach, costs are considered as being disproportionately high if they are significantly higher than what would be a "relatively normal effort". The core idea of the second, the benchmark approach, is to take the past public expenditures on water management as a basis for comparison. Both approaches include generated utility for determination of a water-body-specific disproportionality threshold. While the benchmarking approach needs less data, the empirical tests indicate that both approaches yield comparable results and are suitable to support authorities in the decision as to which water bodies are to be considered disproportionately expensive such that exemptions are justified.

show abstract

Re-establishing an ecological discourse in the policy debate over how to value ecosystems and biodiversity

Cited by 74 publications

References 56 publications

Valuing Ecosystem Services and Disservices across Heterogeneous Green Spaces

Valuing Ecosystem Services and Disservices across Heterogeneous Green Spaces

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

Is the Achievement of “Good Status” for German Surface Waters Disproportionately Expensive?—Comparing Two Approaches to Assess Disproportionately High Costs in the Context of the European Water Framework Directive

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About