Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Volumn 26-27, Issue , 2017, Pages 7-16

  Pascual, Unai ^a,b,c   Balvanera, Patricia ^d   Díaz, Sandra ^e,f   Pataki, György ^g   Roth, Eva ^h   Stenseke, Marie ⁱ   Watson, Robert T ^j   Başak Dessane, Esra ^k   Islar, Mine ^l   Kelemen, Eszter ^g,m   Maris, Virginie ⁿ   Quaas, Martin ^o   Subramanian, Suneetha M ^p   Wittmer, Heidi ^q   Adlan, Asia ^r   Ahn, SoEun ^s   Al Hafedh, Yousef S ^t   Amankwah, Edward ^u   Asah, Stanley T ^v   Berry, Pam ^w   Bilgin, Adem ^x   Breslow, Sara J ^y   Bullock, Craig ^z   Cáceres, Daniel ^f,aa   Daly Hassen, Hamed ^ab   Figueroa, Eugenio ^ac   Golden, Christopher D ^ad   Gómez Baggethun, Erik ^w,ae,af   González Jiménez, David ^d,ag   Houdet, Joël ^ah   Keune, Hans ^ai,bc   Kumar, Ritesh ^aj   Ma, Keping ^ak   May, Peter H ^al   Mead, Aroha ^am   O'Farrell, Patrick ^an   Pandit, Ram ^ao   Pengue, Walter ^ap   Pichis Madruga, Ramón ^aq   Popa, Florin ^ar   Preston, Susan ^as   Pacheco Balanza, Diego ^at   Saarikoski, Heli ^au   Strassburg, Bernardo B ^av,aw,ax   van den Belt, Marjan ^ay   Verma, Madhu ^az   Wickson, Fern ^ba   Yagi, Noboyuki ^bb   more..

^a BASQUE CENTRE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE BC3   (Spain)

^b BASQUE FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^d INSTITUTO DE INVESTIGACIONES EN ECOSISTEMAS Y SUSTENTABILIDAD   (Mexico)

^e Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biologia Vegetal   (Argentina)

^f UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE CÓRDOBA   (Argentina)

^g Institute of Entrepreneurship and Innovation   (Hungary)

^h UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^j UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^k Project House   (Turkey)

^l LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^m Environmental Social Science Research Group ESSRG Ltd   (Hungary)

ⁿ CNRS   (France)

^o UNIVERSITY OF KIEL   (Germany)

^p UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^q HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^r UNIVERSITY OF KHARTOUM   (Sudan)

^s Korea Environment Institute (KEI)   (South Korea)

^t KING ABDULAZIZ CITY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Saudi Arabia)

^u Center for Environmental Governance   (Ghana)

^v University of Washington   (United States)

^w UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^x Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs   (Turkey)

^y UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^z UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^aa Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto M Lillo   (Argentina)

^ab UNIVERSITY OF CARTHAGE   (Tunisia)

^ac UNIVERSITY OF CHILE   (Chile)

^ad HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^ae NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

^af NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR NATURE RESEARCH   (Norway)

^ag Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GIZ GmBH   (Mexico)

^ah UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA   (South Africa)

^ai Instituut voor Natuur en Bosonderzoek   (Belgium)

^aj A 25   (India)

^ak INSTITUTE OF BOTANY   (China)

^al FEDERAL RURAL UNIVERSITY OF RIO DE JANEIRO   (Brazil)

^am Economic and Social Policy   (New Zealand)

^an DSI CSIR Nanotechnology Innovation Centre   (South Africa)

^ao UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^ap INSTITUTO DE CIENCIAS   (Argentina)

^aq NATL CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH   (Cuba)

^ar EUROPEAN COMMISSION   (Belgium)

^as Government of Canada   (Canada)

^at Deputy Minister of Planning for Development   (Bolivia)

^au FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^av PONTIFICAL CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF RIO DE JANEIRO   (Brazil)

^aw INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABILITY   (Brazil)

^ax FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF RIO DE JANEIRO   (Brazil)

^ay VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON   (New Zealand)

^az INDIAN INSTITUTE OF FOREST MANAGEMENT   (India)

^ba Society   (Norway)

^bb UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^bc UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; FUTURE PROSPECT; INTEGRATED APPROACH; KNOWLEDGE; NATURE-SOCIETY RELATIONS; PERCEPTION; POLICY ANALYSIS; STAKEHOLDER; VALUATION;

EID: 85013829440     PISSN: 18773435     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. 1 Martinez-Alier, J., The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Study of Ecological Conflicts and Valuation. 2003, Edward Elgar Publishing.
2. 2 Daily, G.C., Söderqvist, T., Aniyar, S., Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., Ehrlich, P.R., Folke, C., Jansson, A., Jansson, B.-O., Kautsky, N., et al. The value of nature and the nature of value. Science 289 (2000), 395–396.
3. 3 Tengö, M., Brondizio, E.S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., Spierenburg, M., Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43 (2014), 579–591.
4. 4 Brondizio, E.S., Ostrom, E., Young, O.R., Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: the role of social capital. Annu Rev Environ Resour 34 (2009), 253–278.
5. 5 Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., O'Neill, J., Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecol Econ 26 (1998), 277–286.
6. 6 Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D., Berry, P., Dunford, R., Harrison, P., Concepts and methods in ecosystem services valuation. Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., Turner, R.K., (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services, 2016, Routledge, London and New York pp. 99–111.
7. 7• Bennett, E.M., Cramer, W., Begossi, A., Cundill, G., Diaz, S., Egoh, E., Geijzendorffer, I.R., Krug, C.B., Lavorel, S., Lazos, E., et al. Linking ecosystem services to human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14 (2015), 76–85 Provides a social-ecological research agenda to answer key questions in ecosystem service science for decision making aiming at the the sustainable use of natural resources to improve human well-being.
8. 8•• Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., Adhikari, J.A., Arico, A., Báldi, A., et al. The IPBES conceptual frameworkíconnecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14 (2015), 1–16 The conceptual framework of IPBES is developed as the first public output of the Platform. It recognizes that values of nature, nature's benefits to people and a good quality of life are associated with three broad types of values: intrinsic, instrumental and relational values.
9. 9 UNEP: IPBES-2/4: conceptual framework for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In Report of the Second Session of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2014: http://www.ipbes.net/images/IPBES-2-17%20%20%20-%20%20Advance%20En.pdf.
10. 10 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. 2005, Island Press, Washington DC.
11. 11•• Chan, K., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gould, R.K., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S.C., et al. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113 (2016), 1462–1465 Reframes the discussion about environmental protection by defining relational values. It suggests that although intrinsic and instrumental values are critical to conservation, thinking only in these terms may miss a fundamental basis of concern for nature.
12. 12 Martin, A., Coolsaet, B., Corbera, E., Dawson, N.M., Fraser, J.A., Lehmann, I., Rodriguez, I., Justice and conservation: the need to incorporate recognition. Biol Conserv 197 (2016), 254–261.
13. 13•• UNEP, IPBES/4/INF/1: preliminary guide regarding diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services (deliverable 3(d)). Report of the Fourth Session of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2015 http://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/IPBES-4-INF-13_EN.pdf It is the document on diverse conceptualization of values of nature and nature's benefits to people for a good quality of life approved by the 4th Plenary of IPBES, held in Kuala Lumpur in February 2016. It is the basis of the present paper.
14. 14 Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Brander, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Verma, M., Armsworth, P., Christie, H., Eppink, F., Farley, J., et al. The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. Kumar, P., (eds.) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, Ecological and Economic Foundations, 2010, Earthscan, London, 183–255.
15. 15 TEEB, Kumar, P., (eds.) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations, 2010, Earthscan, London.
16. 16 Tallis, H., Lubchenco, J., Adams, V.M., Adams-Hosking, C., Agostini, V.N., Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Working together: a call for inclusive conservation. Nature 515 (2014), 27–28.
17. 17 Stern, D.I., The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev 32 (2004), 1419–1439.
18. 18 Cannon, T., Müller-Mahn, D., Vulnerability, resilience and development discourses in context of climate change. Nat Hazards 55 (2010), 621–635.
19. 19 Bateman, I.J., Harwood, A.R., Mace, G.M., Watson, R.T., Abson, D.J., Andrews, B., Binner, A., Crowe, A., Day, B.H., Dugdale, S., et al. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision making: land use in the UK. Science 341 (2013), 45–50.
20. 20 Duraiappah, A.K., Muñoz, P., Inclusive wealth: a tool for the United Nations. Environ Dev Econ 17 (2012), 362–367.
21. 21 Muradian, R., Arsel, M., Pellegrini, L., Adaman, F., Aguilar, B., Agarwal, B., Corbera, E., Ezzine de Blas, D., Farley, J., Froger, G., et al. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win–win solutions. Conserv Lett 6 (2013), 274–279.
22. 22• Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E., Martin, A., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. Bioscience 64 (2014), 1027–1036 It illustrates how subjective notions of social equity and fairness affect the perception of the value of protecting nature's benefits to people through economic incentive mechanisms such as Payments for Ecosystem Services.
23. 23• Berbés-Blázquez, M., González, J.A., Pascual, U., Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 19 (2016), 134–143 Addresses the importance of historical co-evolution of power relations and environmental change in shaping biodiversity and ecosystem services values.
24. 24 Cundill, G., Rodela, R., A review of assertions about the processes and outcomes of social learning in natural resource management. J Environ Manage 113 (2012), 7–14.
25. 25 Nyborg, K., Anderies, J.M., Dannenberg, A., Lindahl, T., Schill, C., Schlüter, M., Adger, W.N., Arrow, K.J., Barrett, S., Carpenter, S., et al. Social norms as solutions. Science 354 (2016), 42–43.
26. 26 Wittmer, H., Rauschmayer, F., Klauer, B., How to select instruments for the resolution of environmental conflicts?. Land Use Policy 23 (2006), 1–9.
27. 27 Kelemen E, Barton D, Jacobs S, Martín-López B, Saarikoski H, Termansen M, Bela G, Braat L, Demeyer R, García-Llorente M: Preliminary guidelines for integrated assessment and valuation of ecosystem services in specific policy contexts. EU FP7 OpenNESS Project Deliverable 4.3., European Commission FP7; 2015.
28. 28 Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol Econ 86 (2013), 235–245.
29. 29 Stirling, A., Analysis, participation and power. Justification and closure in participatory multi-criteria analysis. Land Use Policy 23 (2006), 95–107.
30. 30 Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Natural capital and ecosystem services: the ecological foundation of human society. Jacobs, S., Dendoncker, N., Keune, H., (eds.) Ecosystem Services, vol. 30, 2014, Elsevier Global Issues, Local Practices.
31. 31 Muro, M., Jeffrey, P., A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. J Environ Plann Manage 51 (2008), 325–344.
32. 32 Rincón-Ruíz, A., Echeverry-Duque, M., Piñeros, A.M., Tapia, C.H., David, A., Arias-Arévalo, P., Zuluaga, P.A., Valoración integral de la biodiversidad y los servicios ecosistémicos: Aspectos conceptuales y metodológicos. 2014, Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt (IAvH), Bogotá, D.C., Colombia, 151.
33. 33 Giampietro, M., Mayumi, K., Multiple-scale integrated assessments of societal metabolism integrating biophysical and economic representations across scales. Popul Environ 22 (2000), 155–210.
34. 34• Etxano, E., Garmendia, E., Pascual, U., Hoyos, D., Díez, M.A., Cadiñanos, J.A., Lozano, P.J., A participatory integrated assessment approach for Natura 2000 network sites. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 33 (2015), 1207–1232 Provides an example of an integrated quantitative valuation aroach, based on a social multi-criteria assessment tool that incorporates information on both monetary and non-monetary values of ecosystem services as perceived by different stakeholders. It is applied in the context of a European Natura 2000 conservation site in the Basque Country.
35. 35 Saarikoski, H., Mustajoki, J., Barton, D.N., Geneletti, D., Langemeyer, J., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Marttunen, E., Antunes, P., Keune, H., Santos, R., Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis: comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 22 (2016), 238–249, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.014.
36. 36 Vatn, A., An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal. Ecol Econ 68 (2009), 2207–2215.
37. 37 Satterfield, T., In search of value literacy: suggestions for the elicitation of environmental values. Environ Values 10 (2001), 331–359.
38. 38 Wilson, M.A., Howarth, R.B., Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecol Econ, 41, 2002, 431.
39. 39 Spash, C.L., Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecol Econ 63 (2007), 690–699.
40. 40 Wegner, G., Pascual, U., Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: a multidisciplinary critique. Glob Environ Change 21 (2011), 492–504.
41. 41 Brondízio, E.S., Gatzweiler, F.W., Zografos, C., Kumar, M., Jianchu, X., McNeely, J., Kadekodi, G.K., Martinez-Alier, J., Chapter 4. Socio-cultural context of ecosystem and biodiversity valuation. Kumar, P., (eds.) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, 2010, Earthscan, London and Washington pp. 149–182.
42. 42• Kenter, J.O., O'Brien, L., Hockley, N., Ravenscroft, N., Fazey, I., Irvine, K.N., Reed, M.S., Christie, M., Brady, E., Bryce, R., Church, A., What are shared and social values of ecosystems?. Ecol Econ 111 (2015), 86–99 Provides a conceptual framework about different dimensions of shared/social values and supports identifying shared values of ecosystem services to enhance legitimacy, effectiveness and transparency of valuation approaches which in turn would help decision making.
43. 43 Cáceres, D.M., Felicitas, S., Díaz, S., The rockypath from policy-relevant science to policy implementation—a case study from the South American Chaco. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 19 (2016), 57–66.