Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment

Chan, Kai M. A.; Balvanera, Patricia; Benessaiah, Karina; Chapman, Mollie; Dı́az, Sandra; Gómez-Baggethun, Erik; Gould, Rachelle K.; Hannahs, Neil; Jax, Kurt; Klain, Sarah C.; Luck, Gary W.; Martín‐López, Berta; Muraca, Barbara; Norton, Bryan G.; Ott, Konrad; Pascual, Unai; Satterfield, Terre; Tadaki, Marc; Taggart, Jonathan; Turner, Nancy J.

doi:10.1073/pnas.1525002113

Cited by 1,177 publications

(1,138 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,063

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, it has the potential to meet various recommendations previously made for implementation of the ESF, including resilience, promotion of interdisciplinary collaboration and involvement of stakeholders [11], focus on direct human encounters with ecosystems and attention to both local and off-site effects [43]. Second, the EVF should function well in non-Western cultures (often found in parts of the world of great conservation importance [38]) by downplaying the 'humans vs. nature' [44] and 'cultural vs. material' [36] dualisms typical of Western worldviews and recognising instead how people's cultural identity and well-being may be closely bound up in relationships with the non-human world [10]. Finally, the independent philosophical foundations of the EVF should give confidence in its robustness and universal validity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Taken as the underlying substance that must be conserved in order to maintain delivery of ES, natural capital is prone to similar criticisms, although less susceptible to financial trading. The solution we will propose, by contrast, shifts focus from commodities to relationships between specific stakeholders and places [10].…”

Section: The Flawed Genius Of Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A proper treatment should be intrinsically multi-dimensional and recognise mutual human-environment relationships [10] involving diverse stakeholders.…”

Section: Valuing Ecosystemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Flawed Genius Of Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

“…Fishing provides income, but being out on the river may simultaneously have recreational aspects. Future ES research should focus on identifying the linkages between services and should acknowledge the myriad of ways with which people interact and relate with nature (Russell et al 2013;Chan et al 2016). Insight into how people connect with nature may provide us with the information necessary to strengthen this relationship, thereby promoting a nature conservation ethic.…”

Section: Discussion Linking Use Awareness and Valuation Of Essmentioning

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

“…The majority of people across Europe acknowledges the need for biodiversity protection and support policy actions in this respect (Eurobarometer 2013). Connectedness to nature and the experience of nature are relevant life experience for citizens around the globe (Chan et al 2016). People feel related to nature, they feel morally inclined to protect it, and they feel happy and healthy when enjoying nature (Tzoulas et al 2007).…”

Section: Introduction To Green Citizen Initiativesmentioning

confidence: 99%