Value orientations used to explain or justify conservation have been rooted in arguments about how much and in what context to emphasize the intrinsic versus instrumental value of nature. Equally ...prominent are characterizations of beliefs known as the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP), often used to help explain pro-environmental behaviour. A recent alternative to these positions has been identified as 'relational value'-broadly, values linking people and ecosystems via tangible and intangible relationships to nature as well as the principles, virtues and notions of a good life that may accompany these. This paper examines whether relational values are distinct from other value orientation and have potential to alleviate the intrinsic-instrumental debate. To test this possibility, we sought to operationalize the construct-relational values-by developing six relational statements. We ask: 1) Do the individual statements used to characterize relational values demonstrate internal coherence as either a single or multi-dimensional construct? 2) Do relational value statements (including those strongly stated) resonate with diverse populations? 3) Do people respond to relational value statements in a consistently different way than NEP scale statements? Data for this work is drawn from an online panel of residents of northeastern US (n = 400), as well as a sample of Costa Rican farmers (n = 253) and tourists in Costa Rica (n = 260). Results indicate relational values are distinct as a construct when compared to the NEP.
Monetary values and biophysical features tend to dominate spatial planning data, yet intangible cultural values have a large role to play in decision-making. If left implicit, such considerations may ...be represented poorly in planning. To foster explicit inclusion of intangible values alongside material values connected to ecosystems, we elicited verbal articulation, spatial identification and quantified marine-related values and threats across the seascape of northern Vancouver Island, Canada. We address: (1) how do our spatial interviews—involving maps and semi-structured interviews—enable and/or impede the elicitation of intangible values? (2) What categories of ecosystem benefits do participants identify as most important? (3) Are spatial distributions of monetary values correlated with non-monetary values and threats? Our findings indicate that (1) while maps were provocative, sizable minorities of interviewees refused to assign different numerical non-monetary values to specific locations (30%), or refused to identify locations of non-monetary importance (16%); (2) people allocated the highest non-monetary values to places notable for wildlife, outdoor recreation, then cultural heritage; and (3) significant pair-wise overlap occurred, but also sizable deviations, among monetary, non-monetary and threat distributions. Despite limitations to representing non-monetary values spatially and quantitatively, these methods offer a straightforward approach to catalog and map ecosystem services to inform spatial planning.
► We used map-based interviews to identify ecosystem services and cultural values. ► A subset of services and values can be mapped and quantified by some respondents. ► High non-monetary value was associated with wildlife, recreation and heritage sites. ► Income-related, non-monetary, and threat values were correlated spatially. ► A minority of respondents refused to map and quantify importance.
There is growing support for characterizing ecosystem services in order to link conservation and human well-being. However, few studies have explicitly included ecosystem services within systematic ...conservation planning, and those that have follow two fundamentally different approaches: ecosystem services as intrinsically-important targeted benefits vs. substitutable co-benefits. We present a first comparison of these two approaches in a case study in the Central Interior of British Columbia. We calculated and mapped economic values for carbon storage, timber production, and recreational angling using a geographical information system (GIS). These 'marginal' values represent the difference in service-provision between conservation and managed forestry as land uses. We compared two approaches to including ecosystem services in the site-selection software Marxan: as Targeted Benefits, and as Co-Benefits/Costs (in Marxan's cost function); we also compared these approaches with a Hybrid approach (carbon and angling as targeted benefits, timber as an opportunity cost). For this analysis, the Co-Benefit/Cost approach yielded a less costly reserve network than the Hybrid approach (1.6% cheaper). Including timber harvest as an opportunity cost in the cost function resulted in a reserve network that achieved targets equivalently, but at 15% lower total cost. We found counter-intuitive results for conservation: conservation-compatible services (carbon, angling) were positively correlated with each other and biodiversity, whereas the conservation-incompatible service (timber) was negatively correlated with all other networks. Our findings suggest that including ecosystem services within a conservation plan may be most cost-effective when they are represented as substitutable co-benefits/costs, rather than as targeted benefits. By explicitly valuing the costs and benefits associated with services, we may be able to achieve meaningful biodiversity conservation at lower cost and with greater co-benefits.
Despite increasing attention to the human dimension of conservation projects, a rigorous, systematic methodology for planning for ecosystem services has not been developed. This is in part because ...flows of ecosystem services remain poorly characterized at local-to-regional scales, and their protection has not generally been made a priority. We used a spatially explicit conservation planning framework to explore the trade-offs and opportunities for aligning conservation goals for biodiversity with six ecosystem services (carbon storage, flood control, forage production, outdoor recreation, crop pollination, and water provision) in the Central Coast ecoregion of California, United States. We found weak positive and some weak negative associations between the priority areas for biodiversity conservation and the flows of the six ecosystem services across the ecoregion. Excluding the two agriculture-focused services-crop pollination and forage production-eliminates all negative correlations. We compared the degree to which four contrasting conservation network designs protect biodiversity and the flow of the six services. We found that biodiversity conservation protects substantial collateral flows of services. Targeting ecosystem services directly can meet the multiple ecosystem services and biodiversity goals more efficiently but cannot substitute for targeted biodiversity protection (biodiversity losses of 44% relative to targeting biodiversity alone). Strategically targeting only biodiversity plus the four positively associated services offers much promise (relative biodiversity losses of 7%). Here we present an initial analytical framework for integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services in conservation planning and illustrate its application. We found that although there are important potential trade-offs between conservation for biodiversity and for ecosystem services, a systematic planning framework offers scope for identifying valuable synergies.
Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain ...misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to society's understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers—ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity—to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy-influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science—one that includes the natural and social sciences—will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences willfacilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice. A pesar del reconocimiento general del valor de las ciencias sociales y los crecientes llamados por un mejor compromiso con el elemento humano de la conservación, las ciencias sociales de la conservación siguen siendo malentendidas y poco utilizadas en la práctica. Las ciencias sociales de la conservación pueden proporcionar contribuciones únicas e importantes para el entendimiento de la sociedad de las relaciones entre los humanos y la naturaleza y para la mejora de las prácticas de la conservación y sus resultados. Existen cuatro barreras - ideológicas, institucionales, de conocimiento y de capacidad - para la integración significativa de las ciencias sociales dentro de la conservación. Proporcionamos una guia práctica sobre cómo sobreponerse a estas barreras paraJncorporar la perspectiva de las ciencias sociales a la ciencia, las prácticas y las políticas de conservación. En general, recomendamos promover el conocimiento sobre el alcance y las contribuciones de las ciencias sociales para la conservación, incluir a los científicos sociales desde el origen de los proyectos de investigación interdisciplinaria, incorporar la investigación de las ciencias sociales y las percepciones durante todas las fases de la planificación y la implementación de la conservación, construir la capacidad de las ciencias sociales en todas las escalas de las organizaciones y agencias de conservación y promover el compromiso con las ciencias sociales en y a través de organizaciones de conservación con influencia política. Los científicos sociales de la conservación, también, necesitan estar dispuestos a involucrarse con el conocimiento de las ciencias naturales y a comunicar percepciones y recomendaciones de manera clara. Le urgimos a la comunidad de la conservación que vaya más allá del compromiso superficial con las ciencias sociales de la conservación. Una ciencia de la conservación más incluyente y integradora - una que incluya a las ciencias sociales y naturales - permitirá una conservación más justa socialmente y más efectiva ecológicamente. Una mejor colaboración entre los científicos sociales, los científicos naturales, los practicantes y quienes elaboran las políticas facilitará una conservación más renovada y más sólida. Incorporar la perspectiva de las ciencias sociales de la conservación facilitará la absorción de la extensión completa de conocimiento y contribuciones de estos campos a la práctica y las políticas de la conservación.
Ecosystem service approaches have become a prominent basis for planning and management. Cultural services and non-use values are included in all major typologies and present some of the most ...compelling reasons for conserving ecosystems, though many barriers exist to their explicit characterization. The values that conform least well to economic assumptions—variously lumped together with/as cultural services—have proven elusive in part because valuation is complicated by the properties of intangibility and incommensurability, which has in turn led to their exclusion from economic valuation. We argue that the effectiveness of the ecosystem services framework in decision-making is thwarted by (i) conflation of services, values, and benefits, and (ii) failure to appropriately treat diverse kinds of values. We address this challenge by (1) distinguishing eight dimensions of values, which have implications for appropriate valuation and decision-making; (2) demonstrating the interconnected nature of benefits and services, and so the ubiquity of intangible values; (3) discussing the implications of these propositions for ecosystem-services research; and (4) outlining briefly a research agenda to enable decision-making that is ecologically appropriate and socially just. Because many ecosystem services (co-)produce ‘cultural’ benefits, full characterization of services must address non-material values through methods from diverse social sciences.
Payments for ecosystem services (PES) programs are one prominent strategy to address economic externalities of resource extraction and commodity production, improving both social and ecological ...outcomes. But do PES and related incentive programs achieve that lofty goal? Along with considerable enthusiasm, PES has faced a wide range of substantial critiques. In this paper, we characterize seven major classes of concerns associated with common PES designs, and use these as inspiration to consider potential avenues for improvements in PES outcomes and uptake. The problems include (1) new externalities, (2) misplacement of rights and responsibilities, (3) crowding out existing motivations, (4) efficiency-equity tradeoffs, (5) monitoring costs, (6) limited applicability, and (7) top-down prescription/alienating agency. As currently practiced, many PES programs are thus of limited benefit and even potentially detrimental to sustainability. From this dire conclusion, we highlight several innovations that might be combined and extended in a novel approach to PES that may address all seven problems. Recognizing that PES necessarily articulate and even normalize values, our proposed approach entails designing these institutions intentionally to articulate rights and responsibilities conducive to sustainability—those we might collectively seek to entrench. Problems remain, and new ones may arise, but the proposed approach may offer a way to reimagine PES as a major social and economic tool for enabling sustainable relationships with nature, conserving and restoring ecosystems and their benefits for people now and in the future.
•Payments for ecosystem services (PES) programs suffer from ≥7 classes of problems.•Problems include misplacing rights and responsibilities and undermining motivations.•The seven problems reviewed could be addressed via a re-imagination of PES.•Redesigned PES could yield not only behavior change, but also value and norm change.•By including supply chains, PES could foster transformation towards sustainability.
A focus on ecosystem services (ES) is seen as a means for improving decisionmaking. In the research to date, the valuation of the material contributions of ecosystems to human well-being has been ...emphasized, with less attention to important cultural ES and nonmaterial values. This gap persists because there is no commonly accepted framework for eliciting less tangible values, characterizing their changes, and including them alongside other services in decisionmaking. Here, we develop such a framework for ES research and practice, addressing three challenges: (1) Nonmaterial values are ill suited to characterization using monetary methods; (2) it is difficult to unequivocally link particular changes in socioecological systems to particular changes in cultural benefits; and (3) cultural benefits are associated with many services, not just cultural ES. There is no magic bullet, but our framework may facilitate fuller and more socially acceptable integrations of ES information into planning and management.
Conservation should benefit ecosystems, nonhuman organisms, and current and future human beings. Nevertheless, tension among these goals engenders potential ethical conflicts: conservationists' true ...motivations may differ from the justifications they offer for their activities, and conservation projects have the potential to disempower and oppress people. We reviewed the promise and deficiencies of integrating social, economic, and biological concerns into conservation, focusing on research in ecosystem services and efforts in community-based conservation. Despite much progress, neither paradigm provides a silver bullet for conservation's most pressing problems, and both require additional thought and modification to become maximally effective. We conclude that the following strategies are needed to make conservation more effective in our human-dominated world. (1) Conservation research needs to integrate with social scholarship in a more sophisticated manner. (2) Conservation must be informed by a detailed understanding of the spatial, temporal, and social distributions of costs and benefits of conservation efforts. Strategies should reflect this understanding, particularly by equitably distributing conservation's costs. (3) We must better acknowledge the social concerns that accompany biodiversity conservation; accordingly, sometimes we must argue for conservation for biodiversity's sake, not for its direct human benefits.
PDF
