What are shared and social values of ecosystems

By J. Kenter, L. O’Brien, N. Hockley, N. Ravenscroft, I. Fazey, K. Irvine, M. Reed, Michael Christie, Emily Brady, Rosalind Bryce and 14 more. 2015

504 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Social valuation of ecosystem services and public policy alternatives is one of the greatest challenges facing ecological economists today. Frameworks for valuing nature increasingly include shared/social values as a distinct category of values. However, the nature of shared/social values, as well as their relationship to other values, has not yet been clearly established and empirical evidence about the importance of shared/social values for valuation of ecosystem services is lacking. To help address these theoretical and empirical limitations, this paper outlines a framework of shared/social values across five dimensions: value concept, provider, intention, scale, and elicitation process. Along these dimensions we identify seven main, non-mutually exclusive types of shared values: transcendental, cultural/societal, communal, group, deliberated and other-regarding values, and value to society. Using a case study of a recent controversial policy on forest ownership in England, we conceptualise the dynamic interplay between shared/social and individual values. The way in which social value is assessed in neoclassical economics is discussed and critiqued, followed by consideration of the relation between shared/social values and Total Economic Value, and a review of deliberative and non-monetary methods for assessing shared/social values. We conclude with a discussion of the importance of shared/social values for decision-making.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/39ea84901cc81f16fdb7c235efbf81d888daa6bb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Linking Industrial Ecology and Ecological Economics: A Theoretical and Empirical Foundation for the Circular Economy (2019, background): “Obviously, even this view is narrow, compared to the broader and nonmonetary motivations behind individual behavior addressed within EE (Kenter et al. 2015; Snep et al. 2009; Martı́n-López et al. 2007).”
Recreational cultural ecosystem services: How do people describe the value? (2017, background): “…that socio-cultural values are ill-suited for commodity metaphors and cannot be captured by conventional monetary valuation in meaningful ways (Milcu et al., 2013), thus various non-monetary valuation methods have been recommended (Kenter et al., 2015; Kelemen et al., 2014; Kenter, 2014).”
Ecosystem services and the idea of shared values (2016, background): “Kenter et al. (2015) add to this analysis by arguing that there are also technical problems associated with all forms of decision-making that cause particular issues when related to the aggregation of individual preferences.”
A place-based approach to payments for ecosystem services (2017, background): “Kenter et al. (2015) identify seven non-mutually exclusive types of shared values: transcendental, cultural/societal, communal, group, deliberated and otherregarding values, and value to society.”
Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions (2016, background): “…in England, 2011, publics identified particular woodlands that held specific meanings (often based on emotional attachment) for them and were valued as special places, such as the woods where they had climbed trees, played hide and seek, and built dens as children (Kenter et al., 2015).”
The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services : integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling (2016, background): “Kenter et al. (2015) considered that the values that we share are often expressed as transcendental values, de ﬁ ned as the guiding principles and life goals that transcend speci ﬁ c situations (also see Raymond and Kenter, 2016).”
Transcendental values and the valuation and management of ecosystem services (2016, background): “TVs can be differentiated from contextual values, which are values in the sense of the worth or importance of something, and from monetary or non-monetary value indicators such as willingness to pay (WTP), rankings and ratings (Kenter et al., 2015).”
Soil “Ecosystem” Services and Natural Capital: Critical Appraisal of Research on Uncertain Ground (2016, background): “The same year, Schlichting (1972) introduced the concept of multi-functionality of soils and described how the buffering capacity of soils in different respects is important to a multitude of organisms and to other parts of the landscape.”
Applying the pathways to nature connectedness at a societal scale: a leverage points perspective (2020, background): “These cultural conceptualisations of nature are reflected in societies and impact on individual connection (Kenter et al. 2015).”
Taking stock of the local impacts of community owned renewable energy: A review and research agenda (2018, background): “See Lover idge (2004) and Rey (2016) for a detailed discussion on compara bility of economic impact studies [43,44].”
Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services (2016, background): “Transcendental values are the overarching guiding principles and end-goals that guide our lives (Kenter et al., 2015).”
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services (2016, unknown): “According to the critics, economic valuation fails to capture social and ethical concerns such as cultural and moral values because they are not amenable to tradeoffs and monetary transactions (Chan et al. 2012; Kenter et al. 2015).”
Stocks and flows of natural and human-derived capital in ecosystem services (2016, background): “Eliciting community values (geographical communities as well as interest-based communities) is therefore important for measuring the value of landscapes in providing cultural services (e.g., Raymond et al., 2009; Kenter et al., 2015).”