The means determine the end: Pursuing integrated valuation in practice

Sander Jacobs; Berta Martín-López; David N. Barton; Robert Dunford; Paula A. Harrison; Eszter Kelemen; Heli Saarikoski; Mette Termansen; Marina García-Llorente; Erik Gómez-Baggethun; Leena Kopperoinen; Sandra Luque; Ignacio Palomo; Joerg A. Priess; Graciela M. Rusch; Patrizia Tenerelli; Francis Turkelboom; Rolinde Demeyer; Jennifer Hauck; Hans Keune; Ron Smith

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011

The means determine the end: Pursuing integrated valuation in practice

Sander Jacobs^*, Berta Martín-López, David N. Barton, Robert Dunford, Paula A. Harrison, Eszter Kelemen, Heli Saarikoski, Mette Termansen, Marina García-Llorente, Erik Gómez-Baggethun, Leena Kopperoinen, Sandra Luque, Ignacio Palomo, Joerg A. Priess, Graciela M. Rusch, Patrizia Tenerelli, Francis Turkelboom, Rolinde Demeyer, Jennifer Hauck, Hans KeuneRon Smith

^*Corresponding author for this work

72 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In environmental valuation, although it is well recognised that the choice of method heavily affects the outcome, little is known on how existing valuation methods actually elicit the different values. Through the assessment of real-life applications of valuation of nature, this study tracks down the suitability of 21 valuation methods for 11 value types and assesses the methodological requirements for their operationalization. We found that different valuation methods have different suitabilities to elicit diverse value-types. Some methods are more specialized than others, but every method has blind spots, which implies risks of biased decision-making. We summarized different value-types according to three value dimensions: non-anthropocentric, relational and instrumental. No single valuation method is able to capture this full spectrum of values of nature. Covering all value dimensions requires careful selection of complementary valuation methods. This study also demonstrates that performing such an integrated valuation does not necessarily entail more resources, as for every value dimension, methods with low to medium operational requirements are available. With this study, we aim to provide guidance for selecting a complementary set of valuation methods in order to develop integrated valuation in practice that includes values of all stakeholders into environmental decision-making.

Original language	English
Journal	Ecosystem Services
Volume	29
Issue number	C
Pages (from-to)	515-528
Number of pages	14
ISSN	2212-0416
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011
Publication status	Published - Feb 2018
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Ecosystem services
Integrated valuation
Operational requirements
Valuation methods
Values of nature

Access to Document

10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011

Cite this

Jacobs, S., Martín-López, B., Barton, D. N., Dunford, R., Harrison, P. A., Kelemen, E., Saarikoski, H., Termansen, M., García-Llorente, M., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Kopperoinen, L., Luque, S., Palomo, I., Priess, J. A., Rusch, G. M., Tenerelli, P., Turkelboom, F., Demeyer, R., Hauck, J., ... Smith, R. (2018). The means determine the end: Pursuing integrated valuation in practice. Ecosystem Services, 29(C), 515-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011

Jacobs, S, Martín-López, B, Barton, DN, Dunford, R, Harrison, PA, Kelemen, E, Saarikoski, H, Termansen, M, García-Llorente, M, Gómez-Baggethun, E, Kopperoinen, L, Luque, S, Palomo, I, Priess, JA, Rusch, GM, Tenerelli, P, Turkelboom, F, Demeyer, R, Hauck, J, Keune, H & Smith, R 2018, 'The means determine the end: Pursuing integrated valuation in practice', Ecosystem Services, vol. 29, no. C, pp. 515-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011

@article{d2730935dad843ee95881899fa089e82,

title = "The means determine the end: Pursuing integrated valuation in practice",

abstract = "In environmental valuation, although it is well recognised that the choice of method heavily affects the outcome, little is known on how existing valuation methods actually elicit the different values. Through the assessment of real-life applications of valuation of nature, this study tracks down the suitability of 21 valuation methods for 11 value types and assesses the methodological requirements for their operationalization. We found that different valuation methods have different suitabilities to elicit diverse value-types. Some methods are more specialized than others, but every method has blind spots, which implies risks of biased decision-making. We summarized different value-types according to three value dimensions: non-anthropocentric, relational and instrumental. No single valuation method is able to capture this full spectrum of values of nature. Covering all value dimensions requires careful selection of complementary valuation methods. This study also demonstrates that performing such an integrated valuation does not necessarily entail more resources, as for every value dimension, methods with low to medium operational requirements are available. With this study, we aim to provide guidance for selecting a complementary set of valuation methods in order to develop integrated valuation in practice that includes values of all stakeholders into environmental decision-making.",

keywords = "Ecosystem services, Integrated valuation, Operational requirements, Valuation methods, Values of nature",

author = "Sander Jacobs and Berta Mart{\'i}n-L{\'o}pez and Barton, {David N.} and Robert Dunford and Harrison, {Paula A.} and Eszter Kelemen and Heli Saarikoski and Mette Termansen and Marina Garc{\'i}a-Llorente and Erik G{\'o}mez-Baggethun and Leena Kopperoinen and Sandra Luque and Ignacio Palomo and Priess, {Joerg A.} and Rusch, {Graciela M.} and Patrizia Tenerelli and Francis Turkelboom and Rolinde Demeyer and Jennifer Hauck and Hans Keune and Ron Smith",

year = "2018",

month = feb,

doi = "10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011",

language = "English",

volume = "29",

pages = "515--528",

journal = "Ecosystem Services",

issn = "2212-0416",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "C",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The means determine the end

T2 - Pursuing integrated valuation in practice

AU - Jacobs, Sander

AU - Martín-López, Berta

AU - Barton, David N.

AU - Dunford, Robert

AU - Harrison, Paula A.

AU - Kelemen, Eszter

AU - Saarikoski, Heli

AU - Termansen, Mette

AU - García-Llorente, Marina

AU - Gómez-Baggethun, Erik

AU - Kopperoinen, Leena

AU - Luque, Sandra

AU - Palomo, Ignacio

AU - Priess, Joerg A.

AU - Rusch, Graciela M.

AU - Tenerelli, Patrizia

AU - Turkelboom, Francis

AU - Demeyer, Rolinde

AU - Hauck, Jennifer

AU - Keune, Hans

AU - Smith, Ron

PY - 2018/2

Y1 - 2018/2

N2 - In environmental valuation, although it is well recognised that the choice of method heavily affects the outcome, little is known on how existing valuation methods actually elicit the different values. Through the assessment of real-life applications of valuation of nature, this study tracks down the suitability of 21 valuation methods for 11 value types and assesses the methodological requirements for their operationalization. We found that different valuation methods have different suitabilities to elicit diverse value-types. Some methods are more specialized than others, but every method has blind spots, which implies risks of biased decision-making. We summarized different value-types according to three value dimensions: non-anthropocentric, relational and instrumental. No single valuation method is able to capture this full spectrum of values of nature. Covering all value dimensions requires careful selection of complementary valuation methods. This study also demonstrates that performing such an integrated valuation does not necessarily entail more resources, as for every value dimension, methods with low to medium operational requirements are available. With this study, we aim to provide guidance for selecting a complementary set of valuation methods in order to develop integrated valuation in practice that includes values of all stakeholders into environmental decision-making.

AB - In environmental valuation, although it is well recognised that the choice of method heavily affects the outcome, little is known on how existing valuation methods actually elicit the different values. Through the assessment of real-life applications of valuation of nature, this study tracks down the suitability of 21 valuation methods for 11 value types and assesses the methodological requirements for their operationalization. We found that different valuation methods have different suitabilities to elicit diverse value-types. Some methods are more specialized than others, but every method has blind spots, which implies risks of biased decision-making. We summarized different value-types according to three value dimensions: non-anthropocentric, relational and instrumental. No single valuation method is able to capture this full spectrum of values of nature. Covering all value dimensions requires careful selection of complementary valuation methods. This study also demonstrates that performing such an integrated valuation does not necessarily entail more resources, as for every value dimension, methods with low to medium operational requirements are available. With this study, we aim to provide guidance for selecting a complementary set of valuation methods in order to develop integrated valuation in practice that includes values of all stakeholders into environmental decision-making.

KW - Ecosystem services

KW - Integrated valuation

KW - Operational requirements

KW - Valuation methods

KW - Values of nature

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011

DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85026787458

SN - 2212-0416

VL - 29

SP - 515

EP - 528

JO - Ecosystem Services

JF - Ecosystem Services

IS - C

ER -

The means determine the end: Pursuing integrated valuation in practice

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this