Reconciling views and values of Ecosystem Services for sustainability? – Thoughts and tools from the Belgium Ecosystem Services community of practice.

Nicolas Dendoncker, Sander Jacobs, Hans Keune, Fanny Boeraeve , A. Boerema, Rik De Vreese, Guénaël Devillet, Marc Dufrêne, Corentin Fontaine

Research output: Contribution to conferenceAbstract

Abstract

This paper builds on the outputs of the book “Ecosystem Services – Global Issues, Local Practices” (Jacobs et al. 2013) with contributions from more than 80 authors from the BEES (Belgium Ecosystem Services) community of practice. In this context, we recently performed a (non-exhaustive) review of how the ecosystem service (ES) concept could be useful to Belgian and international policy actors. As the ultimate goal of ES valuation is to improve the well being of every individual now and in the future (MEA, 2005), this paper intends to elaborate on the concept of ES valuation and how it could (not?) reach the intended goal.

A clear tension appears between policy actors’ desire to acquire tools for monetary valuation and the risks posed by monetary valuation (e.g. commodification of nature, neglect of other values…). On the one hand, there is the need for ‘proof of concept’, and the availability of economic tools and mainstream character of ‘money talk’ is a pragmatic choice. On the other hand, we note a strong reluctance and critical attitude towards the culture of ‘math and money’ at all levels: it is perceived as one of the main causes of social and ecological unsustainability. Several actors therefore urge for more collaborative approaches of ES valuation, e.g. to build trust between providers and beneficiaries, as monetary valuation alone is not relevant in their working context.

Among the suggested solutions are the development of alternative new valuation methods and practices - amongst others using social debate and including relations between humankind and nature - as well as methods to integrate different types of values (e.g. economic, heritage, and biodiversity value) in decision making. In particular, several actors point out the necessity to account for environmental thresholds and ecological values, to consider socio-ethical values, and to deal with uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in decisions and actions. In the first part of this paper, we expand on the main outcomes and challenges, while in the second part some tools and test cases are presented. We conclude that integrated valuation of ES could start reconciling human viewpoints on nature and pave the way forward to the intended social and ecological sustainability, but there is still a long way to go.
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2014
Event7th Annual Ecosystem Services Partnership Conference 2014: Local action for the common good (ESP2014) - San José, Costa Rica
Duration: 8 Sep 201412 Sep 2014

Scientific committee

Scientific committee7th Annual Ecosystem Services Partnership Conference 2014: Local action for the common good (ESP2014)
CountryCosta Rica
City San José
Period8/09/1412/09/14

Fingerprint

valuation
ecosystem service
sustainability
economics
decision making
biodiversity

Cite this

Dendoncker, N., Jacobs, S., Keune, H., Boeraeve , F., Boerema, A., De Vreese, R., ... Fontaine, C. (2014). Reconciling views and values of Ecosystem Services for sustainability? – Thoughts and tools from the Belgium Ecosystem Services community of practice.. Abstract from 7th Annual Ecosystem Services Partnership Conference 2014: Local action for the common good (ESP2014), San José, Costa Rica.
Dendoncker, Nicolas ; Jacobs, Sander ; Keune, Hans ; Boeraeve , Fanny ; Boerema, A. ; De Vreese, Rik ; Devillet, Guénaël ; Dufrêne, Marc ; Fontaine, Corentin. / Reconciling views and values of Ecosystem Services for sustainability? – Thoughts and tools from the Belgium Ecosystem Services community of practice. Abstract from 7th Annual Ecosystem Services Partnership Conference 2014: Local action for the common good (ESP2014), San José, Costa Rica.
@conference{3e63d9dc5d9c403593cd3e4012a7bb9e,
title = "Reconciling views and values of Ecosystem Services for sustainability? – Thoughts and tools from the Belgium Ecosystem Services community of practice.",
abstract = "This paper builds on the outputs of the book “Ecosystem Services – Global Issues, Local Practices” (Jacobs et al. 2013) with contributions from more than 80 authors from the BEES (Belgium Ecosystem Services) community of practice. In this context, we recently performed a (non-exhaustive) review of how the ecosystem service (ES) concept could be useful to Belgian and international policy actors. As the ultimate goal of ES valuation is to improve the well being of every individual now and in the future (MEA, 2005), this paper intends to elaborate on the concept of ES valuation and how it could (not?) reach the intended goal. A clear tension appears between policy actors’ desire to acquire tools for monetary valuation and the risks posed by monetary valuation (e.g. commodification of nature, neglect of other values…). On the one hand, there is the need for ‘proof of concept’, and the availability of economic tools and mainstream character of ‘money talk’ is a pragmatic choice. On the other hand, we note a strong reluctance and critical attitude towards the culture of ‘math and money’ at all levels: it is perceived as one of the main causes of social and ecological unsustainability. Several actors therefore urge for more collaborative approaches of ES valuation, e.g. to build trust between providers and beneficiaries, as monetary valuation alone is not relevant in their working context.Among the suggested solutions are the development of alternative new valuation methods and practices - amongst others using social debate and including relations between humankind and nature - as well as methods to integrate different types of values (e.g. economic, heritage, and biodiversity value) in decision making. In particular, several actors point out the necessity to account for environmental thresholds and ecological values, to consider socio-ethical values, and to deal with uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in decisions and actions. In the first part of this paper, we expand on the main outcomes and challenges, while in the second part some tools and test cases are presented. We conclude that integrated valuation of ES could start reconciling human viewpoints on nature and pave the way forward to the intended social and ecological sustainability, but there is still a long way to go.",
author = "Nicolas Dendoncker and Sander Jacobs and Hans Keune and Fanny Boeraeve and A. Boerema and {De Vreese}, Rik and Gu{\'e}na{\"e}l Devillet and Marc Dufr{\^e}ne and Corentin Fontaine",
year = "2014",
month = "8",
language = "English",
note = "7th Annual Ecosystem Services Partnership Conference 2014: Local action for the common good (ESP2014) ; Conference date: 08-09-2014 Through 12-09-2014",

}

Dendoncker, N, Jacobs, S, Keune, H, Boeraeve , F, Boerema, A, De Vreese, R, Devillet, G, Dufrêne, M & Fontaine, C 2014, 'Reconciling views and values of Ecosystem Services for sustainability? – Thoughts and tools from the Belgium Ecosystem Services community of practice.', 7th Annual Ecosystem Services Partnership Conference 2014: Local action for the common good (ESP2014), San José, Costa Rica, 8/09/14 - 12/09/14.

Reconciling views and values of Ecosystem Services for sustainability? – Thoughts and tools from the Belgium Ecosystem Services community of practice. / Dendoncker, Nicolas; Jacobs, Sander; Keune, Hans; Boeraeve , Fanny; Boerema, A.; De Vreese, Rik; Devillet, Guénaël; Dufrêne, Marc; Fontaine, Corentin.

2014. Abstract from 7th Annual Ecosystem Services Partnership Conference 2014: Local action for the common good (ESP2014), San José, Costa Rica.

Research output: Contribution to conferenceAbstract

TY - CONF

T1 - Reconciling views and values of Ecosystem Services for sustainability? – Thoughts and tools from the Belgium Ecosystem Services community of practice.

AU - Dendoncker, Nicolas

AU - Jacobs, Sander

AU - Keune, Hans

AU - Boeraeve , Fanny

AU - Boerema, A.

AU - De Vreese, Rik

AU - Devillet, Guénaël

AU - Dufrêne, Marc

AU - Fontaine, Corentin

PY - 2014/8

Y1 - 2014/8

N2 - This paper builds on the outputs of the book “Ecosystem Services – Global Issues, Local Practices” (Jacobs et al. 2013) with contributions from more than 80 authors from the BEES (Belgium Ecosystem Services) community of practice. In this context, we recently performed a (non-exhaustive) review of how the ecosystem service (ES) concept could be useful to Belgian and international policy actors. As the ultimate goal of ES valuation is to improve the well being of every individual now and in the future (MEA, 2005), this paper intends to elaborate on the concept of ES valuation and how it could (not?) reach the intended goal. A clear tension appears between policy actors’ desire to acquire tools for monetary valuation and the risks posed by monetary valuation (e.g. commodification of nature, neglect of other values…). On the one hand, there is the need for ‘proof of concept’, and the availability of economic tools and mainstream character of ‘money talk’ is a pragmatic choice. On the other hand, we note a strong reluctance and critical attitude towards the culture of ‘math and money’ at all levels: it is perceived as one of the main causes of social and ecological unsustainability. Several actors therefore urge for more collaborative approaches of ES valuation, e.g. to build trust between providers and beneficiaries, as monetary valuation alone is not relevant in their working context.Among the suggested solutions are the development of alternative new valuation methods and practices - amongst others using social debate and including relations between humankind and nature - as well as methods to integrate different types of values (e.g. economic, heritage, and biodiversity value) in decision making. In particular, several actors point out the necessity to account for environmental thresholds and ecological values, to consider socio-ethical values, and to deal with uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in decisions and actions. In the first part of this paper, we expand on the main outcomes and challenges, while in the second part some tools and test cases are presented. We conclude that integrated valuation of ES could start reconciling human viewpoints on nature and pave the way forward to the intended social and ecological sustainability, but there is still a long way to go.

AB - This paper builds on the outputs of the book “Ecosystem Services – Global Issues, Local Practices” (Jacobs et al. 2013) with contributions from more than 80 authors from the BEES (Belgium Ecosystem Services) community of practice. In this context, we recently performed a (non-exhaustive) review of how the ecosystem service (ES) concept could be useful to Belgian and international policy actors. As the ultimate goal of ES valuation is to improve the well being of every individual now and in the future (MEA, 2005), this paper intends to elaborate on the concept of ES valuation and how it could (not?) reach the intended goal. A clear tension appears between policy actors’ desire to acquire tools for monetary valuation and the risks posed by monetary valuation (e.g. commodification of nature, neglect of other values…). On the one hand, there is the need for ‘proof of concept’, and the availability of economic tools and mainstream character of ‘money talk’ is a pragmatic choice. On the other hand, we note a strong reluctance and critical attitude towards the culture of ‘math and money’ at all levels: it is perceived as one of the main causes of social and ecological unsustainability. Several actors therefore urge for more collaborative approaches of ES valuation, e.g. to build trust between providers and beneficiaries, as monetary valuation alone is not relevant in their working context.Among the suggested solutions are the development of alternative new valuation methods and practices - amongst others using social debate and including relations between humankind and nature - as well as methods to integrate different types of values (e.g. economic, heritage, and biodiversity value) in decision making. In particular, several actors point out the necessity to account for environmental thresholds and ecological values, to consider socio-ethical values, and to deal with uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in decisions and actions. In the first part of this paper, we expand on the main outcomes and challenges, while in the second part some tools and test cases are presented. We conclude that integrated valuation of ES could start reconciling human viewpoints on nature and pave the way forward to the intended social and ecological sustainability, but there is still a long way to go.

M3 - Abstract

ER -

Dendoncker N, Jacobs S, Keune H, Boeraeve F, Boerema A, De Vreese R et al. Reconciling views and values of Ecosystem Services for sustainability? – Thoughts and tools from the Belgium Ecosystem Services community of practice.. 2014. Abstract from 7th Annual Ecosystem Services Partnership Conference 2014: Local action for the common good (ESP2014), San José, Costa Rica.