What are shared and social values of ecosystems?

Abstract

Social valuation of ecosystem services and public policy alternatives is one of the greatest challenges facing ecological economists today. Frameworks for valuing nature increasingly include shared/social values as a distinct category of values. However, the nature of shared/social values, as well as their relationship to other values, has not yet been clearly established and empirical evidence about the importance of shared/social values for valuation of ecosystem services is lacking. To help address these theoretical and empirical limitations, this paper outlines a framework of shared/social values across five dimensions: value concept, provider, intention, scale, and elicitation process. Along these dimensions we identify seven main, non-mutually exclusive types of shared values: transcendental, cultural/societal, communal, group, deliberated and other-regarding values, and value to society. Using a case study of a recent controversial policy on forest ownership in England, we conceptualise the dynamic interplay between shared/social and individual values. The way in which social value is assessed in neoclassical economics is discussed and critiqued, followed by consideration of the relation between shared/social values and Total Economic Value, and a review of deliberative and non-monetary methods for assessing shared/social values. We conclude with a discussion of the importance of shared/social values for decision-making

Incorporating multilevel values into the social-ecological systems framework

“…Building on past research that has distinguished among multilevel values (Klein and Kozlowski 2000, Manfredo et al 2014, Kenter et al 2015, we identified three categories that are relevant to the collective action situation in Ostrom's SESF: Cultural, Individual, and Assigned. First, Cultural values are guiding worldviews-or "ways of life"-that define a society (Inglehart et al 1998, Milton 2013.…”

“…Moreover, our multilevel differentiation goes beyond the SESF's approach because it accommodates normative aspects of Assigned and Individual values (Irvine et al 2016), provides access to a body of literature that specifies scales of measurement and corresponding methods (van Riper and Kyle 2014), and introduces a group-level dynamic represented by Cultural values that is otherwise absent (Manfredo et al 2016). Moreover, scholarship that considers three levels of values provides a basis to conceptualize dynamics between collective action and changes in human preferences, particularly surrounding Assigned values that are deliberated and negotiated within stakeholder groups (Kenter et al 2015). Specifically, we assert that Cultural, Individual, and Assigned values are the foundation of inner views and expressed preferences that influence how natural resources are governed over time (Hoff-Elimari et al 2014).…”

“…Building on insights from these studies, we then identify multiple management options and research implications that emerge during the three temporal phases of the conceptual model. We build on a growing body of research that suggests that conservation initiatives related to collective action will be more likely to succeed if distinctions among values concepts are recognized in social-ecological systems research and practice (Schwartz and Bardi 2001, Chan et al 2012, Manfredo et al 2014, Kenter et al 2015. That is, greater recognition of how values interact alongside comanagement and learning will yield more nuanced and directed approaches for governing complex social-ecological systems over time.…”

Participatory Environmental Valuation: A Comparative Analysis of Four Case Studies

“…Recent advances in the participatory literature also highlight the importance of participation to address complex and dynamic environmental problems [17], as well as the need to combine different approaches to capture different value dimensions [19][20][21][22]. From a similar standpoint, the field of "deliberative ecological economics" advocates for deliberative valuations to improve the quality of sustainable decision-making because deliberative processes are assumed to be more legitimate, fair and democratic [8,9].…”

Establishment and Application of Wetlands Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Ecological Evaluation Indicators

“…Ecosystem service (ES) assessments have traditionally focused on identifying the individual monetary values for each ecosystem service [12,13]. However, the lack of theoretical frameworks has led to subjective judgments and criticisms [14][15][16]. The integration of deliberate and non-monetary valuation approaches to ES valuations has increasingly been advocated as a way of revealing the wider value concepts.…”