Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

Richard M. Gunton; Eline N. van Asperen; Andrew Basden; David Bookless; Yoseph Araya; David R. Hanson; Mark A. Goddard; George Otieno; Gareth O. Jones

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2017.01.002

Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

Richard M. Gunton^*, Eline N. van Asperen, Andrew Basden, David Bookless, Yoseph Araya, David R. Hanson, Mark A. Goddard, George Otieno, Gareth O. Jones

^*Corresponding author for this work

Geography and Environmental Sciences Department

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

54 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The 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 double-counting, blind spots and unintended consequences. In this opinion article, we propose an ecosystem valuing framework as a broader and more rigorous way to deliver the benefits currently sought from the ESF, without the conceptual problems.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	249-257
Number of pages	9
Journal	Trends in Ecology and Evolution
Volume	32
Issue number	4
Early online date	16 Feb 2017
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.01.002
Publication status	Published - 1 Apr 2017

Keywords

aspectual analysis
cognitive
communal
ecological
ideological
multicriterion assessment
natural capital
value theory

Access to Document

10.1016/j.tree.2017.01.002

Cite this

@article{201dfb4c7240427fa152293f38b930c1,

title = "Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable",

abstract = "The 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 double-counting, blind spots and unintended consequences. In this opinion article, we propose an ecosystem valuing framework as a broader and more rigorous way to deliver the benefits currently sought from the ESF, without the conceptual problems.",

keywords = "aspectual analysis, cognitive, communal, ecological, ideological, multicriterion assessment, natural capital, value theory",

author = "Gunton, {Richard M.} and {van Asperen}, {Eline N.} and Andrew Basden and David Bookless and Yoseph Araya and Hanson, {David R.} and Goddard, {Mark A.} and George Otieno and Jones, {Gareth O.}",

year = "2017",

month = apr,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.tree.2017.01.002",

language = "English",

volume = "32",

pages = "249--257",

journal = "Trends in Ecology and Evolution",

issn = "0169-5347",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Beyond Ecosystem Services

T2 - Valuing the Invaluable

AU - Gunton, Richard M.

AU - van Asperen, Eline N.

AU - Basden, Andrew

AU - Bookless, David

AU - Araya, Yoseph

AU - Hanson, David R.

AU - Goddard, Mark A.

AU - Otieno, George

AU - Jones, Gareth O.

PY - 2017/4/1

Y1 - 2017/4/1

N2 - The 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 double-counting, blind spots and unintended consequences. In this opinion article, we propose an ecosystem valuing framework as a broader and more rigorous way to deliver the benefits currently sought from the ESF, without the conceptual problems.

AB - The 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 double-counting, blind spots and unintended consequences. In this opinion article, we propose an ecosystem valuing framework as a broader and more rigorous way to deliver the benefits currently sought from the ESF, without the conceptual problems.

KW - aspectual analysis

KW - cognitive

KW - communal

KW - ecological

KW - ideological

KW - multicriterion assessment

KW - natural capital

KW - value theory

U2 - 10.1016/j.tree.2017.01.002

DO - 10.1016/j.tree.2017.01.002

M3 - Review article

C2 - 28214039

AN - SCOPUS:85012874481

SN - 0169-5347

VL - 32

SP - 249

EP - 257

JO - Trends in Ecology and Evolution

JF - Trends in Ecology and Evolution

IS - 4

ER -

Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this