Jul 3, 2017 - TEEBs principal ...... the decision-making toolbox (com02; exe02; pol02). ...... content/uploads/2012/04/Handleiding-TEEB-stad_2012_- ...
The economisation of nature conservation An analysis of the pros and cons of economic valuation of ecosystem services by public institutions
Naomi Montenegro Navarro 03-07-2017
The economisation of nature conservation An analysis of the pros and cons of economic valuation of ecosystem services by public institutions
Naomi Montenegro Navarro 901204580120 03-07-2017 Msc Thesis Environmental Sciences Environmental Policy Group ENP-80436 Supervisor: dr. ir. Kris van Koppen Second reader: dr. ir. Peter Oosterveer
ii
Abstract Continued overexploitation and unsustainable use of nature have left the planet in a critical state. In response to the inability of the traditional conservation movement to halt this degradation, scholars from a variety of backgrounds have called for an alternative conservation approach. The economic valuation of ecosystem services is such an approach. By concretising the services nature provides into tangible and comparable monetary values, economic valuation of ecosystem services is advocated as a way to renew and enhance nature conservation decision-making in both public and private spheres. However, the economisation of nature conservation is heavily contested. This study aimed to shed light on the most important pros and cons of using economic valuation in the public sphere, by comparing the core arguments from the academic debate with the experiences with economic valuation within three case studies. It was found that the pros and cons of economic valuation can be clustered into three public domains: the decision-making, public legitimacy, and market domain. The domain structure was used to analyse the cases. The outcomes of the cases combined with the literature showed that the key limitation of economic valuation is the fact that it is based on flawed economic and ecological assumptions, and therefore unavoidably produces oversimplified data. This makes economic valuation an unsuitable approach when complete and robust information is required. The key significance of economic valuation is in uncovering of the benefits of nature in an understandable and concrete way. This makes economic valuation useful as a decision-making and awareness creating mechanism within public institutions. Combining these outcomes leads to the conclusion that economic valuation is not so much a replacement for traditional conservation, but can be useful in addition to traditional conservation, as a mechanism to support the implementation of set nature conservation goals.
iii
Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................. iii Abbreviations........................................................................................................................ vi List of tables and figures .................................................................................................... vii 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1
Economic valuation of ecosystem services: to the aid of nature conservation
decision-making.................................................................................................................... 1 1.2
Critical perspectives on economic valuation ............................................................. 3
1.3
Research objectives ................................................................................................. 3
1.4
Research questions .................................................................................................. 4
2
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 6 2.1
Case study selection................................................................................................. 6
2.2
Case study methods ................................................................................................. 8
2.3
Reading guide........................................................................................................... 9
3
The ecosystem services concept ............................................................................. 10 3.1
Introduction to the concept of ecosystem services ................................................. 10
3.2
Disentangling ecosystem services.......................................................................... 12
4
Valuation of ecosystem services .............................................................................. 16 4.1
Economic valuation of ecosystem services ............................................................ 17
4.2
Steps in the valuation process ................................................................................ 23
5
The economic valuation debate ................................................................................ 24 5.1
Discussion analysis: pros versus socio-economic cons ......................................... 24
5.2
Summary of the pros and cons ............................................................................... 30
5.3
The impact of economisation of ecosystem services: public domains ................... 31
6
Case study results ...................................................................................................... 34 6.1
Case 1: The economic and ecological perspectives of a double dike bordering the
Eems-Dollard ...................................................................................................................... 34 6.2
Case 2: Benefit estimation of the Natura2000 network in Flanders, Belgium......... 47
6.3
Case 3: TEEB City .................................................................................................. 58
7
Economic valuation by public institutions - a comparative analysis of the case
study results ........................................................................................................................ 72 7.1
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 72
iv
7.2
The impact of economic valuation of ecosystem services on the decision-making
domain ................................................................................................................................ 72 7.3
The impact of economic valuation of ecosystem services on the public legitimacy
domain ................................................................................................................................ 77 7.4
The impact of economic valuation of ecosystem services on the market domain .. 78
7.5
Economic valuation by public institutions: synthesis of the findings ....................... 79
8
Discussion .................................................................................................................. 83 8.1
Methodological limitations....................................................................................... 83
8.2
Discussion of the results ......................................................................................... 84
8.3
Reflection on the conceptual framework................................................................. 89
9
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 91 9.1
Final remarks .......................................................................................................... 94
9.2
Recommendations .................................................................................................. 95
References ........................................................................................................................... 97 Annex I - List of interviewees ........................................................................................... 104 Annex II - General interview script .................................................................................. 106 Annex III - Additional documents used ........................................................................... 109
v
Abbreviations ANB
Agentschap Natuur en Bos (Nature and Forest Agency Flanders)
ANK
Atlas Natuurlijk Kapitaal (Natural Capital Atlas)
CBA
Cost-Benefit Analysis
CBD
Convention on Biological Diversity
CICES
Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services
CMM
Choice Modelling Method
CVM
Contingent Valuation Method
E&E
Economy and Ecology in balance in the Eemsdelta
ESS
Ecosystem Services
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GL
Groninger Landschap
LNE
Leefomgeving, Natuur en Milieu (department of Environment, Nature and Energy
MEA
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
MAES
Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services
NKN
Natuurlijk Kapitaal Nederland (Natural Capital the Netherlands)
PBL
Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (Dutch Environment Assessment Agency)
SBZ
Speciale Bescherming Zones (Special Protection Zones)
SCEP
Study of Critical Environmental Problems
SRQ
Sub Research Question
TEEB
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
TEV
Total Economic Value
TSV
Total System Value
WTP
Willingness-To-Pay
WTA
Willingness-To-Accept
vi
List of tables and figures Figure 3-1. Visual representation of the central concepts and links in relation to ecosystem services. (Adapted from the MAES-report (European Commission, 2015)). ................................................ 13 Figure 4-1. The Total Economic Value-framework. Adapted from Daily (1997); Hein et al. (2006); Pearce and Moran (1994); TEEB (2010). ...................................................................................... 19 Figure 5-1. The pros and cons of economic valuation of ecosystem services, based on a literature analysis of socio-economic critiques (own creation). .................................................................... 30 Figure 5-2. Economic valuation of ecosystem services: domain structure and related indicators (own creation) ......................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 6-1. The Eemsdelta region. Picture taken from www.eemsdelta.groningen.nl ......................... 35 Figure 6-2. Impression of the double dike (Image taken from the website of the province of Groningen, credits: Cradle Media) ................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 6-3. Special protection areas, among other those from the Habitats Directive (green) and the Birds Directive (blue). The 46 special protection zones cluster these areas. Image taken from the presentation of Nachtergaele, ANB. The presentation can be found here. ................................... 47 Figure 6-4. The valuation pyramid, based on the Total Systems Value. Figure taken from Gantioler et al. (2014) ....................................................................................................................................... 49
vii
1 Introduction Humankind can exist by grace of the natural environment that hosts us. People can survive, develop and thrive because of the food, safety, and other essential support we get from the planet. Without nature, humanity cannot exist. However, we humans have not been very good at safeguarding our own life support system (Steffen et al., 2007). Overexploitation and unsustainable use of nature have led to the degradation of the natural environment, leaving the planet in a critical state (Djoghiaf & Dodds, 2011; Rands et al., 2010). Decade-long efforts of the conservation movement to protect nature have not been able to reduce the degradation of the natural environment, let alone halt it. On the contrary, anthropogenic biodiversity and habitat losses continue to persist and increase, due to unceasingly expanding demands on the natural environment for economic activities (Krausmann et al., 2009). Conservationists, ecologists, and other scholars have therefore argued a different approach to conservation is needed; one that moves beyond the strategies of the traditional conservation movement, one that pursues new, more effective methods (Armsworth et al., 2007; Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; Edwards & Abivardi, 1998; Gomez-Baggethun & Ruiz-Perez, 2011; Reid, 2006; TEEB, 2010).
1.1 Economic valuation of ecosystem services: to the aid of nature conservation decision-making The concept of ecosystem services (ESS) provides such an alternative approach to nature conservation. The term ecosystem services stands for 'the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human wellbeing (the concept of 'services' in this definition is synonymous with ecosystem 'goods and services'). ESS differs from the traditional conservation movement in that its main focus is the utilitarian relation human wellbeing has with nature (Beukering & Bouma, 2015; Fisher et al., 2009; Lele et al., 2013). The concept is aimed at redesigning and improving nature conservation by defining and emphasising what it is exactly that nature delivers us humans, how much that is, and how important it is for human welfare (MEA, 2005). The ESS concept has become an increasingly popular framework over the past decades (Fisher et al., 2009; Schägner et al., 2013). However, not only the use of ESS itself has become more prevalent. Specifically, its more economic approach, the 'economisation of nature conservation', is becoming an increasingly popular and is ever more prevalent in nature conservation projects all over the world (Beukering & Bouma, 2015; Laurans et al., 2013; Lele et al., 2013; Schägner et al., 2013). This approach presents an economic representation of the natural world, in which nature is framed as natural capital: an economic metaphor in which nature is represented as the world's essential stock of natural assets, that is the basis of our society (Costanza et al., 1997). One specific method of the economic valuation of ESS means that ESS are assigned monetary values. The purpose of monetary valuation is to ensure nature and the ecosystem services it provides are included into our economic system and in public and private decision-making processes at all levels (Costanza et al.,
1
1997; Daily, 1997; Ring et al., 2010; TEEB, 2010). By concretising the services nature provides into tangible and comparable monetary values economic valuation of ESS is advocated to be able to renew and enhance nature conservation decision-making at both public and private scales 1
(Armsworth et al., 2007; Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997). Pavan Sukhdev describes the monetary valuation message clearly: 'we use nature because it is valuable - we lose it because it's free'. This message promoting economisation of nature conservation resonates with a large audience. This is reflected by the amount of economic valuation projects that can be found on a wide range of geographical and institutional scales. At the global level, multiple projects have been set up that aim to promote and facilitate the use of economic valuation methods. One of the most well-known is the TEEB-initiative. The TEEB-initiative, which stands for 'The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity', is a global initiative focused on “making nature’s values visible". TEEBs principal objective is to mainstream the values of biodiversity and ecosystem services into decision-making at all levels. It aims to achieve this goal by following a structured approach to valuation that helps decision-makers recognize the wide range of benefits provided by ecosystems and biodiversity, demonstrate their values in economic terms and, where appropriate, capture those values in decisionmaking (chapter 4 provides more in-depth information into the TEEB methods). Since its foundation in 2009, TEEB has conducted multiple pilot studies in for instance Bhutan, Liberia and Ecuador, conducted four study reports for specific target groups (local policy makers for instance), numerous specific biome studies (for instance targeting oceans and coasts) and has led to over twenty national TEEB-inspired country programmes, consisting of various studies. TEEB does not stand alone. Other 2
large international projects are among others the WAVES Partnership (Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services, a global initiative aimed at prompting and implementing local 3
economic valuation programs all over the world), ValuES (a global partnership to help decisionmakers in partner countries to integrate ESS into policy and planning by monetarily valuing their 4
ecosystems), OPENness (which is mainly aiming to create and improve frameworks with which natural capital and ESS can be included into nature decision-making processes), the Natural Capital 5
Project (a coalition of academic institutions and NGOs), and many more. In addition, many national governments have their own specific economic-ESS programs, for example China, Mexico and the UK (Schomers & Matzdorf, 2013). Multiple European countries have also committed to conducting valuation studies, some of which were part of the TEEB country study program (teebweb.org). Over the past few years, the Netherlands has increased its interest in the use of economic valuation methods as well (PBL, 2016). In 2012, the Dutch government introduced natural capital as a new policy concept, in which the benefits of nature are the central focus point. Aim of the government is 'to 1
Pavan Sukhdev is the leader of the TEEB-initiative, www.teeb.org
2
WAVES is a World Bank-led initiative that aims to increase sustainable development, by ensuring natural areas are included
in development planning and national economic accounts. See www.wavespartnership.org 3
See http://www.aboutvalues.net/about_values/
4
See http://www.openness-project.eu/
5
See http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/
2
have all natural capital in the Netherlands preserved and used sustainably in various ESS' (Kwakernaak & Lenselink, 2015). This concept was taken a step further when the government commissioned the setup of 'Natural Capital' programme (NKN, in Dutch: Natuurlijk Kapitaal 6
Nederland) . This programme run until 2016, and focused on researching how the natural capital metaphor could be used in practice so public, private and societal organisations can take nature into account in decision-making in such a way that nature is not only used, but strengthened as well (PBL, 2016). To experiment with the notion and methods of natural capital and economic valuation of ESS, the Netherlands has completed multiple TEEB (or TEEB inspired) projects, executed by the 7
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Bureau (PBL, in Dutch: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving). In addition, the ministry of Economic Affairs commissioned the development of a 'natural capital atlas' in the Netherlands (ANK, in Dutch: Atlas Natuurlijk Kapitaal, currently under development). This atlas provides information on the ecosystems in the Netherlands, and the services those ecosystems provide, and is currently being combined with a tool to value those ESS monetarily (personal communication).
1.2 Critical perspectives on economic valuation This widespread interest in and use of the economic valuation approach in nature management projects in the Netherlands and beyond, suggests that the economic valuation strategy has been scrutinised and is generally judged to be a suitable method for improving nature conservation decision-making. However, the contrary is true: economic valuation of ecosystem services remains to be heavily contested (Bakker, 2010; Schröter et al., 2014). Extensive discussion exists in the literature on whether economic valuation of nature should happen in the first place, and if so, under what conditions. Additionally, the positive effects of economic valuation on decision-making are disputed too, as there is a large deficit in empirical proof on the effects of these valuation studies of ESS on policy and nature management decisions (Laurans et al., 2013). Several authors argue that the actual influence of economic valuation results on policy and decision-making tends to be quite low (Laurans et al., 2013; Schägner et al., 2013). The debate on the economisation of nature and monetary valuation of ESS is dispersed through the academic literature. In addition, limited empirical data exists on whether or not these concerns as expressed in the literature are observable in real-time cases and if so to what extent, as well as on whether or not economic valuation has actually contributed to decision-making. This thesis contributes to the discussion on the economisation of nature conservation by structuring the debate and providing insights into both research gaps.
1.3 Research objectives Following from these research gaps, the objective of this thesis is to: 6
See http://www.natuurlijkkapitaal.com/nl/
7
See http://themasites.pbl.nl/natuurlijk-kapitaal-nederland/achtergronden/teeb/teeb-studies-in-nederland
3
Shed light on the actual uses of economic valuation as a nature conservation tool, by comparing the arguments from the academic debate with experiences of economic valuation in practice. This aim will be achieved by the fulfilment of two sub objectives: a. determine what the potential pros and cons of economic valuation are as put forward in academic literature b. evaluate which of these assumed pros and cons can be observed in practice, by comparing the debate outcomes with economic valuation case studies.
1.3.1 Scope Although economic valuation can be used by both public institutions as well as private organisations, this thesis limits itself to the use of economic valuation for public management and decision-making only. This means the focus lays on economic valuation when commissioned by a public institution, with the intention to influence public decision-making on nature conservation issues, which include nature restoration, protection, maintenance or new nature creation. This thesis provides a qualitative analysis of the pros and cons of ESS valuation. Hence, the results will not provide quantitative data and statistical computations on how often and how significantly certain pros or cons could be recognised in cases. Rather, the data collected will give a more in-depth understanding of the pros and cons of economic valuation, both in theory and in practice.
1.4 Research questions Following from the main objective, the main research question is: What are the most important pros and cons of economic valuation of ecosystems services as a public nature conservation tool? This question can be answered by answering four sub research questions. The first two sub questions are theoretical: 1. What are the assumed merits of economic valuation of ecosystem services as a public nature conservation tool, as put forward in academic literature? 2. What are assumed weaknesses of economic valuation of ecosystem services as a public nature conservation tool, as put forward in academic literature? These sub questions will be answered by conducting a scientific literature review of the debate on economic valuation of ecosystem services, and by structuring the key points in favour of and against economic valuation. The results can be found in chapter 5. This debate will be used as the foundation for the empirical part of the thesis research, in which the following sub questions will be answered:
4
3. Which of the assumed pros and cons can be observed in actual economisation projects? 4. What is the impact of the use of economic valuations studies on public nature conservation? This third and fourth sub question will be answered by conducting case study analyses. The methods used to answer the research questions are outlined in the next chapter.
5
2 Methodology Research methodology refers to the systematic process of collecting, analysing and interpreting information to answer specific research questions (Kumar, 2011). As mentioned in the introduction, this thesis requires two data collection approaches: literature analysis to answer the first two research questions, and case study analysis to answer the latter two research questions. The literature analysis conducted is for the largest part based on peer reviewed scientific articles. In addition, several (scientifically based) government documents and project documents have been used. The case study approach of this thesis requires a more detailed explanation and is discussed in the following sections.
2.1 Case study selection Case studies provide detailed contextual analysis of a complex issue or event, and are specifically useful when the focus of a study is on 'extensively exploring and understanding, rather than confirming and quantifying' (Kumar, 2011, p. 155), as for this thesis. To ensure the cases fit within the study scope and the outcomes could provide answers to the research questions, case study selection was based on three criteria. The cases had to be: 1. commissioned by a government institution, to align with the public focus of this thesis; 2. intended to be used for nature conservation decision-making, or at least aimed at influencing decision-making; 3. finished for at least a year, so there was sufficient time for the studies to actually make impact on decision-making. These criteria were taken in mind when searching for projects in the Netherlands. During the search, it showed that the actual implementation of the economic approach to ESS is still rather new in the Netherlands, meaning not many public economic valuation studies have been conducted yet. To expand my search area, I also looked at projects in Flanders, the Dutch speaking region in Belgium. The search strategy applied was mainly based on desk research, as well as addressing key persons in the field of natural capital in the Netherlands and Flanders, to make use of their practical knowledge of potential projects. Eventually, I found six projects that matched the criteria, two from Flanders and four from the Netherlands. Of those six projects, three turned out to be unavailable for research, due to various reasons. One project was not publically available yet, a second project had not been used at all after completion and was only seen by the project managers, and a third project was put on hold during execution due to insufficient data. What remained were two projects from the Netherlands and one Flemish project. Each case is described briefly in the following subsections. A detailed description is given preceding the result analysis, in chapter 6. Case 1: The economic and ecologic perspectives of a double dike bordering the Eems-Dollard The first project related to the valuation of the ESS provided along the dike between Eemshaven and Delfzijl, in the Eems-Dollard estuary, Province of Groningen. The estuary is a region where nature,
6
harbour activities, and agriculture are combined. The current dike in the area is no longer safe and had to be renewed to meet the safety standards. The valuation study was used to see whether a nature-inclusive double dike would provide additional benefits in terms of ecology and economy compared to a traditional dike and would thus be a feasible solution (van der Meulen et al., 2015). Case 2: Benefit estimation of the Natura2000 network in Flanders, Belgium The second case study focused on a project in Flanders, Belgium, where a valuation study was conducted for the entire Natura2000 network. The mandatory unfoldment of the Natura2000 networks in all European member states implies large efforts and investments by the responsible government agencies. This was also the case in Flanders. The responsible bureau hoped to use the valuation study to gain insights in the benefits that the Natura2000 network creates, as well as to increase support for the project and ease negotiations (Broekx et al., 2013). Case 3: TEEB City The final case is in fact a collection of cases. The umbrella project under which the four investigated cases took place is called TEEB City. TEEB City was a pilot project conducted in 2011/ 2012, and aimed at practically researching how the value of green and blue in cities can be calculated, and how those values could be used in the urban environment. Eleven different municipalities joined this pilot, to experiment with monetary valuation in a site specific case in their city. Of the eleven TEEB City cases, four were part of the case study analysis of this thesis. First, I aimed at using only one TEEB City project, which seemed most suitable for this thesis based on the criteria as mentioned above. However, as not many people were directly involved, only two interviews could be arranged. Consequently, I decided to look at three more projects, all of which appeared to meet the case study criteria. In total, the projects of the municipalities of Rotterdam, Almelo, Apeldoorn and Haarlem were used for the TEEB City case study.
2.1.1 Case study types The three cases used in this thesis are similar in the sense that all are publically commissioned ESS valuation studies. Yet, the context in which the valuation is used differs for all three cases. In the Eems-Dollard case, valuation was used to potentially couple (in Dutch: meekoppelen) nature with another development task (in this case safety) in an area that combined nature, industry and housing. For the Natura2000 case, valuation was not used to couple nature with another development task, but as input for a nature conservation task in itself, the roll out of Natura2000 in Flanders. The central element of the TEEB City project is the potential to use valuation in the city- mostly used for coupling nature with urban development. These different uses will be reflected on in the results analysis phase (chapter 7).
7
2.2 Case study methods 2.2.1 In-depth interviews The most important source of information for this thesis were fifteen semi-structured in-depth interviews that have been conducted between 21-03-2017 and 15-05-2017. Five interviews related to Eems-Dollard, four to Natura2000, and six to TEEB City. Most interviews were arranged by means of snowball sampling: after identification of a first relevant respondent, these persons were asked to point out other potentially relevant respondents (Kumar, 2011). This was done for each case separately. For all three cases, I interviewed at least the project commissioner and involved decisionmaker(s) (if not the same person). That made it possible to identify why the project was commissioned, what the intended use of the project was, and why that did or did not succeed. Other interviewees were project coordinator, project executor, or representative of a participating nature organisation. A full list of all the interviewees and their relation to the projects can be found in annex I. In the text, the interviewees are referred to by using ID codes. The coding is explained in annex 1 as well. The interviewees and the related codes are provided in advance to the discussion of the case study outcomes as well. The fifteen interviews, which are the central part of the data collected, were conducted in semistructured fashion. This meant the interviews were prepared by formulating a set of questions in which all elements from the conceptual framework are represented. The precise interview scripts differed per case, and per interviewee role. Annex IIs provides the general interview script that was used during data collection. The merit of using semi-structured interviews is that the results can provide comparable data because fixed topics are discussed, while in addition providing the freedom for respondents to express their views in their own terms, and to come up with other relevant issues or visions if they wish to (Kumar, 2011).
2.2.2 Participant observation and document analysis Following one of the interviews I conducted for the TEEB City case study, I got invited to a follow-up meeting, called the "City Deal - the value of green and blue in the city'. During this meeting several different government bodies and business partners were present, discussing the potential and proceedings of increasing the use of valuing ESS in urban environments. I conducted several informal talks with the representatives present, in addition to conducting overt participant observation. Overt participant observation has the disadvantage that the behaviour of those studies changes due to the presence of the researcher (Kumar, 2011). However, the agenda of the meeting was set before I got invited to the meeting, no alterations were made due to my presence and the meeting seemed to have taken place without being influence by my presence. Attending this meeting allowed me to see how economic valuation of ESS is regarded in present day by government institutions in the Netherlands, and if and how Dutch government bodies are intending to further develop valuation efforts in the country. This is interesting as all the case studies researched had already been finished for at least a year.
8
In addition to interviews and participant observation, document analysis of so-called grey literature was used as well, primarily consisting of project documents and other related brochures, infographics and many policy documents. This helped to increase understanding about the specific cases, and the outcomes and impacts, and could hence be used as preparation for the interviews. In addition, several of the documents were used to compare the outcomes of the interviews with. Annex III shows a list of the additional documentation that was analysed for each case.
2.3 Reading guide The structure of this thesis largely follows the structure of the research questions as described in 1.4. To provide answers to the first two questions, it is important to provide the theoretical background of this thesis in the form of the conceptual framework. The conceptual framework will be presented in three different chapters. The first part of the conceptual framework discusses the key concepts of ecosystem services and ESS valuation in general (chapter three). The second part of the conceptual framework, provided in chapter four, regards the valuation of ecosystem services, and specifically provides a practical description of what economic valuation entails and how economic valuation processes can be conducted. The third part of the conceptual framework is presented in chapter five and provides the most important theoretical element of this thesis, discussing the debate on economic valuation of ESS, thereby addressing RQs 1 and 2. Chapter five ends with the presentation of the analytical framework that is used to guide the analysis of the case study results. This result analysis, based on the interviews, document analysis and participant observation, is presented per case in the subsequent chapter six. In chapter seven the comparative analysis of the research outcomes is given. The thesis ends with the discussion (chapter 8) and conclusion (chapter 9).
9
3 The ecosystem services concept 3.1 Introduction to the concept of ecosystem services Ecosystem services consist of two conceptual components, 'ecosystem' and 'services'. The 'ecosystem' element of ecosystem services is an ecological concept. The origins of the term 'ecosystem' can be found in the early 20th century, when Arthur Tansley, a British terrestrial plant ecologist, pledged to use the concept as the fundamental ecological unit to describe the organisations and interdependencies of both biotic and abiotic components of natural communities (Jørgensen, 2009; Mooney & Ehrlich, 1997; Tansley, 1935). In his article he described the ecosystem as 'the whole system, ... including not only the organism-complex, but also the whole complex of physical factors forming what we call the environment' (Tansley, 1935, p. 299). Yet, it was due to the arguments of Raymond Lindeman, an American limnologist, in his article on Cedar Creek, Minnesota (a paper considered to be one of the 'foundational papers in ecology') that the term ecosystem got permanently established. He was the first to move beyond conceptual introduction and theoretical groundwork and provide a well-defined presentation of how the concept could be applied (College of Biological Sciences, n.d.; Jørgensen, 2009; Lindeman, 1942; Mooney & Ehrlich, 1997). Over 75 years later the definition and use of the concept as proposed by Tansley and Lindeman has barely changed (Chapin et al., 2011; Jørgensen, 2009). In general, an ecosystem nowadays is still understood as 'an integrated system composed of a biotic community, its abiotic environment, and their dynamic interactions' (Jørgensen, 2009, p. 3). This definition does not say anything about the scale on which this definition is applicable. In essence, that means every system that meets these requirements can be defined as an ecosystem, however small it may be. For instance, a drop of polluted water may be considered an ecosystem (Jørgensen, 2009, p. 3) as 'it contains microorganisms, organic matter, inorganic salts, and these components are interacting'. However, the interest within ESS research and management usually lies in larger zones of nature, although sizes can still vary greatly (Jørgensen, 2009; MEA, 2005). As this thesis researches ESS as a public decision-making tool in relation to nature conservation, this means when discussing ecosystems, larger ecosystems are aimed at (large enough to be the focus of public policies or nature management projects). The origins of the second conceptual component, 'services', can be found in the 1970s and 1980s, when the Study of Critical Environmental Problems (SCEP) pioneered with framing the functioning of ecosystems in terms of delivering services to humans (Mooney & Ehrlich, 1997, p. 14; Study of Critical Environmental Problems, 1970). In addition, the SCEP produced the first list in which they outlined what types of services would weaken if there were to be a decline in ecosystem functioning (1970, pp. 122-125). The list consisted of only nine points, whereas currently, ecosystem services are mostly clustered in four types, and all four categories contain at least a dozen different services (MEA, 2005) (further explained in 3.2.1.). Nevertheless, the SCEP-report set the tone for further research on the links between ecosystems and human well-being.
10
The list of services, as well as the concept of ecosystem services itself, has been further expanded in the years following the report (Mooney & Ehrlich, 1997). Westman (1977) for example coined the term 'nature's services', while Ehrlich, Ehrlich, and Holdren (1977) preferred 'public services of the ecosystem' (Fisher et al., 2009; Mooney & Ehrlich, 1997). However, the choice of Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1981) to name the concept 'ecosystem services' can be considered the winner of this semantic battle, as this is the phrasing used today (Fisher et al., 2009; Gomez-Baggethun & Ruiz-Perez, 2011; Grunewald et al., 2015). Rather independent of whether ecosystem, nature, environment or any other similar term would have been used, it is the word 'service' in 'ecosystem service' that discloses the anthropocentric nature of the concept. Definitions of the word show that a 'service' requires a recipient: (a) the action of helping 8
9
or doing work for someone , or (b). the deed of one who serves; labour performed for another . In the ecosystem application of the word service, the recipient is us, humankind. The core of the concept is the dependence of human welfare on the services the natural environment provides (Beukering & Bouma, 2015; Haines-Young & Potschin, 2010; MEA, 2005).
3.1.1 Shifting purpose The original purpose of ESS was mainly communicative: to increase public awareness on and interest in nature conservation, by communicating the crucial role ecosystems play in the maintenance of human well-being and a good quality of life (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2009, p. 1; Gomez-Baggethun & Ruiz-Perez, 2011; Grunewald et al., 2015, p. 14; Spangenberg, 2013). However, interest in ESS greatly increased in the 1990s, when the concept shifted from a pedagogic, communication tool to a theoretical model, causing an enormous growth in use of the term in scientific literature (Fisher et al., 2009). A decade later the landmark publication 'Millennium Ecosystem Assessment'
10
(MEA) (MEA, 2005)
firmly established ESS as a global environmental policy tool (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2009; GomezBaggethun & Ruiz-Perez, 2011). The MEA was a five-year effort by around 1400 scientists that assessed the state of ecosystem services, the drivers of ecosystem change, and the implications for human well-being (MEA, 2005; Norgaard, 2009, p. 1220). In the MEA the need to protect biodiversity and the world's ecosystems got framed in terms of ecosystem services: the MEA reasoned that because the contributions of the natural world to humans are under-recognized and undervalued, ecosystems are destroyed (Beukering & Bouma, 2015; Lele et al., 2013; MEA, 2005). Defining and emphasising the dependence of humans on these contributions, the ecosystem services, offers an anthropocentric justification to take greater account for the natural environment (Grunewald & 8
Definition from the Oxford Dictionary https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/service
9
Definition from the Webster Dictionary http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Service
10
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is a very large scientific appraisal of the world's ecosystems and the services they
provide, to which over 1300 scientists contributed. See www.millenniumassessment.org
11
Bastian, 2015; Lamarque et al., 2011; MEA, 2005). The results of the MEA showed that an alarming 60% of the world's ecosystems that were evaluated were used unsustainably or were being degraded (MEA, 2005). These rather shocking outcomes gave a large stimulus to the interest in and use of the ESS approach (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2010). In the remaining years of the 2000s the concept was further developed and its use increased. Around this time was when the focus of ESS shifted to a more economic approach (Gomez-Baggethun & Ruiz-Perez, 2011). The increasing interest in estimating the monetary values of ESS was largely kickstarted by major publications by Daily (1997) and Costanza et al. (1997) at the end of the 1990s (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2009; Lele et al., 2013). Publications and projects in the years to follow expanded the economic paradigm in both theory and as the foundation for environmental management programmes (for example: Kareiva et al., 2011; TEEB, 2009; UNEP, 2008; World Bank, 2009), (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2009; Norgaard, 2009), with the earlier mentioned TEEB-initiative as one of the central initiatives in this field. The economic valuation approach is discussed in the second part of the conceptual framework, in chapter 4. However, before economic valuation of ecosystem services can be explained, it is necessary to further unravel the concept of ecosystem services itself. The next subsection is dedicated to giving this overview.
3.2 Disentangling ecosystem services Many various definitions of ESS exist. Below, four versions taken from landmark publications are given (based on the three most cited definitions as researched by Fisher et al. (2009), complemented by the more recent TEEB definition): 1.
the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfil human life (Daily, 1997)
2.
the benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions (Costanza et al., 1997)
3.
the benefits people obtain from ecosystems (MEA, 2005)
4.
the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human wellbeing. The concept ecosystem 'goods and services' is synonymous with ecosystem services (TEEB, 2010).
Although framed differently, all four definitions highlight the basis of the ecosystem services concept, which is the utilitarian relation between humans and nature (Daily, 1997; Haines-Young & Potschin, 2010; MEA, 2005). For further clarification of the relation between the societal and ecological realm within ESS, it is worthwhile to have a look at a visual representation of the conceptual framework for ESS (figure 1.1).
12
This framework is adapted from the MAES-report
11
of the European Commission (2015). Although the
framework is a very simplified representation of both systems as well as their linkages, the visualisation does allow for basic delineation of the central elements of the ecosystem service concept and their interlinkages. Sufficient understanding of the central concepts and interlinkages of these concepts of ESS is necessary as a basis for the theory on economic valuation of ecosystem services later in this thesis. In this report the same classification as in the TEEB report (2010) is used, meaning that 'services' in the definition of ESS can be read as 'goods and services'.
12
Figure 3-1. Visual representation of the central concepts and links in relation to ecosystem services . (Adapted from the MAES-report (European Commission, 2015)).
The left quadrant exemplifies the ecological segment of ESS. The ecological fundament of ecosystems are the biophysical structures and processes. These underlying structures and processes are the foundation of ecosystem 'operations', and are the result of 'complex interactions between biotic and abiotic components of ecosystems through the universal driving forces of matter and energy' (de Groot et al., 2002, p. 394). These structures and processes can be physical (e.g. sediment movement), chemical (e.g. oxidation) or biological (e.g. photosynthesis) (de Groot et al., 2012; Haines-Young & Potschin, 2010; TEEB, 2010, p. 19). Knowledge on the exact relations between ecosystems, biodiversity and the ecological structures and processes underlying ESS is still deficient and the concepts are often used interchangeably (Braat & de Groot, 2012). The key works of 11
MAES stands for Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services and is an initiative by the European
Commission based on the Biodiversity strategy to 2020. The project asks EU member states to map and assess their ecosystems. The MAES-report was developed to provide a single conceptual framework to be used, to ensure consistent approaches. See http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes 12
Pictures from www.staatsbosbeheer.nl (left) and www.citymetric.com (right)
13
Daily (1997) and Costanza et al. (1997) for instance see biodiversity as 'both an intermediate and final ESS, as well as a major component of ecosystem structure, processes, benefits and outcomes (Turner & Daily, 2008). This thesis follows the generally accepted explanation that biodiversity, defined as 'the variety of genes, species and ecosystems that constitute life on Earth' (Rands et al., 2010, p. 1298), facilitates the underlying biophysical structures and processes that constitute an ecosystem, and is thus not the same as ecosystem services (Loreau et al., 2001; Maes et al., 2013; Tilman et al., 1997). Consequently, it is important to be aware that safeguarding ESS does not per definition mean safeguarding biodiversity. In general, biodiversity does boost ESS provision, but a positive impact is much more uncertain the other way around (Bugter & Smith, 2015; Cardinale et al., 2012; Ridder, 2008; Ring et al., 2010). For instance, recreation (an ESS) in a certain area can have high positive benefits on human welfare, but put substantial pressure on biodiversity levels (Bugter & Smith, 2015). The ecosystem functions flow from the ecosystem structures and processes. Ecosystem functions can be defined as the potential ecosystems have to deliver a service (Braat & de Groot, 2012; de Groot et al., 2002; Haines-Young & Potschin, 2010; Maes et al., 2013; TEEB, 2010). The functions of an ecosystem are only transformed into services if they provide a fulfilled benefit to people. This means there has to be demand in order to harvest a service from a function (European Commission, 2015; Maes et al., 2013). This is confirmed in the way TEEB (2010, p. 12) describes services, as being the 'conceptualisations of the things that ecosystems do for humans'. The services however, are not yet immediately contributing to human wellbeing. This happens only when the service is reaped by a beneficiary. Put bluntly, services cannot exist without humans needing them (Daily, 1997; Haines-Young & Potschin, 2010). Beneficiaries are defined as 'any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the ecosystem’s services' (Hein et al., 2006, p. 213). In other words, welfare gains are generated when people benefit from the services ecosystems deliver, not by the mere existence of the service itself (see the right quadrant of figure 1) (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2010; Maes et al., 2013; TEEB, 2010). An example of this sequence from process to benefit can be given by looking at woodlands (based on Haines-Young & Potschin, 2010): Primary production (process) is required to grow woodlands that slow the passage of water (function), which leads to reduced flood risk (service). The people that live close enough to enjoy this reduced flood risk are the beneficiaries of the safety (benefit) provided by the woodlands. Subsequently, these benefits generated by ESS can be valued (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2010; Maes et al., 2013; TEEB, 2010). Hein et al. (2006, p. 213) assume a less linear relation between ESS, benefits and values. They argue that what is perceived as a relevant ESS, and what is perceived as a benefit of that ESS, is dependent on peoples’ preferences, on what they value. Hence, the relationship is dynamic and works both ways (see the top arrow in the right quadrant of figure 3.1).
14
3.2.1 Types of ecosystem services There are dozens of different types of ESS. Overall, the ESS can be specified into separate clusters. Three international systems for ecosystem services typology are available (Maes et al., 2013). The first system, constructed by the MEA (2005), identified four clusters of services: §
Provisioning services are the products people obtain from ecosystems. These are for instance food, water, raw materials, genetic resources.
§
Regulating services are the benefits people obtain from the regulation of ecosystem processes. These include for instance air quality regulation, climate regulation, erosion prevention, regulation of human diseases, and water purification.
§
Cultural services are the nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences.
§
Supporting services are those that are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services, such as primary production, production of oxygen, and soil formation. 13
However, the two following international classification systems, created by TEEB and CICES , have omitted the 'supporting service'-cluster, as this is seen as being a part of the structures and processes of ecosystems and not an ESS in itself (Maes et al., 2013; TEEB, 2010). In this thesis, the 14
classification system is followed as constructed by CICES , which consists of three clusters: the provisioning services, cultural services and regulation & maintenance services (referred to as regulation in the remainder of the text). This last group includes some of the services that were grouped in the 'supporting service cluster' by the MEA (European Commission, 2015), like soil formation (Maes et al., 2013). The CICES-system states that ESS have to be produced by biota (living organisms) or a combination of biotic organisms and abiotic assets and flows (which follows from the definition of an ecosystem, which implies living organisms are included). Purely abiotic assets and flows are therefore not considered ESS, as they do not rely on living organisms for their provision (Maes et al., 2013). Examples are minerals, fossil fuels, salts, solar, wind or geothermal energy (Maes et al., 2013).
13
CICES is an initiative of the European Environment Agency and stands for Common International Classification for
Ecosystem Services. CICES was set up to provide a comprehensive classification system that can aid with ESS measurement and analysis at all project and policy levels. See www.cices.eu 14
The full excel-file with all CICES ESS types and specific ESS can be downloaded at http://cices.eu/resources/
15
4 Valuation of ecosystem services The core of the ESS approach in relation to decision-making is ESS valuation (European Commission, 2015; TEEB, 2010). As valuation is based on people attributing importance to an ESS, the process is subjective. Consequently, valuation outcomes of the same service can differ per beneficiary (TEEB, 2010). The results are dependent on who values, what the interests are of the individuals or group that values, what they perceive as benefits, etcetera (Hein et al., 2006; TEEB, 2010). But what is valuation exactly? ESS valuation is defined as 'the process of expressing a value for a particular action or object, in this case, ecosystem services' (Farber et al., 2002, p. 376). Determining this value provides an opportunity for observation and measurement (Farber et al., 2002). Thereby, valuation can offer knowledge about the value of ecosystems and their services as a contribution to decision-making and awareness creation (Kenter et al., 2013, p. 87; TEEB, 2010). However, many of the value concepts are used interchangeably throughout the literature or seem to overlap in definition, and a clear delineation of the values relating to ESS is lacking (Chiesura & De Groot, 2003; Lele et al., 2013), (examples of interchangeable use can be found in Justus et al. (2009); Kumar and Kumar (2008); and TEEB (2010), among others). To avoid confusion, the different meanings for all value concepts that are important to this thesis are provided below. Note that this is not based on academic consensus in the literature, as definitions and applications diverge. However, the definitions provided below seem to reflect common uses with the least overlap in definition. TEEB focuses primarily on economic valuation of ESS. Economic values are inherently instrumental, which means the value relates to human needs and desires (Farber et al., 2002; Justus et al., 2009). Economic values are mostly determined through monetary valuation techniques, based on exchange values (market prices) or social values (what society would be willing to pay) (Farber et al., 2002) (further explained in the next chapter). However, many articles, including the MEA assessment, have issued the warning that the natural environment will not be conserved if only the economic values are taken into account. Instead, it is important to also regard the non-economic values of nature (see for example Chan et al., 2012; McCauley, 2006; MEA, 2005). The first non-economic value that is important is the intrinsic value of nature. Intrinsic value is the value of 'nature in itself'; the value of natural world irrespective of its utility, functioning, humans and humans needs (Farber et al., 2002; Justus et al., 2009; MEA, 2005; Pascual et al., 2017; TEEB, 2010). This implies that intrinsic value can certainly be considered in decision-making, but not measured by any metric; as it is implicitly separated from the human domain and its value indicators (Justus et al., 2009). Hence, intrinsic value is seen as the opposite of instrumental values of nature,
16
which are the values that serve a purpose to humans (Justus et al., 2009; Nunes & van den Bergh, 15
2001) . Socio-cultural values are defined as 'immaterial instrumental values', that serve a more emotional purpose compared to economic values (Justus et al., 2009; TEEB, 2010). Socio-cultural values are mostly related (although not restricted) to the cluster of cultural services (de Groot et al., 2002; Scholte et al., 2015). Examples are spiritual, religious, ethical, and affectional values (Chiesura & De Groot, 2003; MEA, 2005). In general, many authors agree that many socio-cultural values are not easily tangible, if at all, and specifically not in a monetary manner (Farber et al., 2002; Justus et al., 2009; MEA, 2005; Pascual et al., 2017; TEEB, 2010). A common framework for how to include sociocultural values in decision-making is lacking, making inclusion of these values a challenging part of ESS valuations (Chan et al., 2012; Parks & Gowdy, 2013; Pascual et al., 2017). The cluster of ecological values is slightly different. Ecological values, sometimes called biodiversity values (in MEA, 2005 for instance) relate to ecosystem functioning and ESS provisioning (de Groot et al., 2002; TEEB, 2010). Examples are ecosystem health and resilience. Although ecological functioning and its value is critical to human welfare, this relationship is indirect and very complex. Therefore, ecological values are argued to be difficult to be determined through valuation metrics, and are especially unsuitable for monetary measures. Instead, the ecological values are better determined and communicated as biophysical and qualitative descriptions (Farber et al., 2002; TEEB, 2010). Although many authors have expressed the importance of regarding the whole range of values, and not only economic values, over the last decades it has shown that economic valuation studies have prevailed over integrated valuation studies (Chan et al., 2012; Pascual et al., 2017). The next subsection provides a deeper understanding of what this most prevalent valuation methodology entails.
4.1 Economic valuation of ecosystem services 4.1.1 Value types and methodologies As with ESS itself, economic valuation of ESS is an anthropocentric methodology. It is a method that reflects a utilitarian view on nature, as the worth of nature can only be measured as long as it confers satisfaction to human beings. Without humans benefitting, economic valuation would not be possible (Daily, 1997; TEEB, 2010).
15
Note that this definition of intrinsic values is already the first debatable conceptualisation. Because, as argued by Lele et al.
(2013) and Hayward (2001) among others, all valuation is anthropogenic, i.e. produced by the human mind, even if the value does not serve the direct needs of humans. Stating that intrinsic values are 'separate' from the human domain and reflect value of nature in and on itself is thus strongly contested by those authors. Yet, as intrinsic values seem to be frequently defined as 'nature in and of itself' in the literature, this definition is followed in this thesis as well.
17
Economic valuation of ESS is based on the epistemological tradition of economics that presupposes that economic values are predefined, held by people as preferences, and can be deduced by analysis (TEEB, 2010, p. 189). Economic values attributed to ecosystem services are socially and culturally constructed, and no objective facts (Kallis et al., 2013; TEEB, 2009). Outcomes of economic ESS valuation are thus context-dependent, reflecting culturally grounded perspectives, mind sets, and institutional settings in which and by whom the values are given. Therefore, assigned values can very between groups, or between individuals within the same group (Kallis et al., 2013; TEEB, 2010). Economic valuation of ESS has a neo-classical economist origin, and is based on a 'strong utilitarian' approach, which presupposes that 'the value of any natural thing to society (in this case ESS) can be measured by aggregating the values conferred to individuals by that service' (Daily, 1997, p. 25). The goal of economic valuation methods is to use these aggregated individual values to estimate the impact on human welfare by marginal changes in the supply of ESS. Value is typically measured in terms of opportunity costs, or trade-offs: 'what must be sacrificed when the quantity of an ESS declines by one unit?' (Farley, 2012, p. 43). This trade-off analysis is the essence of economic valuation of ESS. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is the method used to measure these trade-offs (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; TEEB, 2010, p. 210). CBA compares different alternative options for ecosystem management by monetarily defining to what extent the ESS-flows are altered under the different scenarios, and quantifying the net benefits of each option (Daily, 1997, p. 25; Wegner & Pascual, 2011). The change in value when an ESS would go from one situation to another is what is measured, not the total value of an ESS in a constant state (see for instance Costanza et al., 1997). Based on the differences in net benefits the optimal decision can be made (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; TEEB, 2010, p. 210). However, marginal valuation assumes substitutability between services. This means economic valuation is only applicable well within normal ecological bounds, meaning no ecological tipping points are near or any irreversible ecosystem can changes occur (Limburg et al., 2002; Redford & Adams, 2009; TEEB, 2010). In addition, socio-cultural considerations may limit the applicability of marginal valuation and individual aggregation. For instance, collectively shared, cultural values of which the sum is greater than its parts cannot be measured this way (Kenter et al., 2013).
4.1.2 The Total Economic Value framework Monetary value estimations are based on the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of beneficiaries. Whenever possible, the measurement of WTP is done by measuring actual market prices, or alternatively by simulating markets. Both methods are clustered in a framework called the 'Total Economic Value'framework (TEV). TEV is divided into use and non-use values. Both types can be separated further and all require different valuation techniques (Daily, 1997; TEEB, 2010). When every branch of the framework has been determined, the total (marginal) value of the ESS has been established. Figure 2
18
provides a visual overview of the different elements of the TEV. Each value type is explained in below.
Total Economic Value
Use values
Direct use value
Indirect use value
Option value
Bequest value
Non-use value
Altruistic value
Existence value
Figure 4-1. The Total Economic Value-framework. Adapted from Daily (1997); Hein et al. (2006); Pearce and Moran (1994); TEEB (2010).
4.1.2.1
Value types within the Total Economic Value-framework
Use values are the values that reflect when nature does something for society physically. Use values can be divided into direct and indirect use values (Pearce & Turner, 1990). Direct use values, which result from direct human use of nature, can be either consumptive (for instance in the case of fruit consumption or timber use) or non-consumptive (for instance hiking) (Daily, 1997). All provisioning services and some cultural services have direct use value, with the former producing consumptive direct use values, while cultural services provide only non-consumptive direct use values (Hein et al., 2006). Indirect use values are often reflected by the regulating services provided by ecosystems, like flood protection (Daily, 1997). In between use and non-use values, the option values exist. Option value is the value attributed by individuals to having the possibility to have a resource for personal use in the future (Pearce & Turner, 1990). Non-use values are those values that do not involve direct or indirect uses of the ecosystem (TEEB, 2010). Non-use values can be divided in three separate types (Kolstad, 2000): Bequest value refers to value being ascribed by the knowledge that future generations will also have the option to benefit from a particular ecosystem or species. Altruistic value refers to value being ascribed by the knowledge that other people of the same generation can benefit from a particular ecosystem or
19
species. Existence value is derived from the simple fact that one knows certain ecosystems or species continue to exist, even though one might have never used or intended to use that ESS (TEEB, 2010). Although the intrinsic and socio-cultural value clusters are defined as different from economic values, (Chan et al., 2012; de Groot et al., 2002; Scholte et al., 2015), also in the TEEB report itself, they do seem to be partially incorporated in the TEV. As can been seen in figure 4.1, the socio-cultural values correspond to the non-use values in the form of bequest and altruistic values (the ethical values for instance), while intrinsic value seems to relate to existence value. In this thesis, all three value types (intrinsic, socio-cultural and non-use) are considered differently however, as for two of the three cases 16
that were analysed, the TEEB report was the methodological foundation
. Hence, based on the
definitions provided above, intrinsic value is only the non-instrumental value of nature that is important to take into account and is cannot be measured monetarily. Non-use and socio-cultural values are both seen as immaterial, yet instrumental values. The difference as it is made in the TEEB report is that non-use values can be determined monetarily, while socio-cultural values are those noneconomic instrumental values that are unsuitable for monetary valuation. In addition, non-use values are, as the rest of the TEV, individualistic values. Socio-cultural values on the other hand can also be 'other-oriented', in the forms of shared values for instance (Kenter et al., 2013; Scholte et al., 2015)
4.1.3 Valuation methods within the Total Economic Value framework These different types of values require different methods to be assigned monetary values. Direct use values are often associated with private goods, for which direct market valuation approaches can be used. For public goods however, for which no market prices exist, other mechanisms have to be used. The two most common methods are the stated preference method and the revealed preference method (Chee, 2004). All three methods are described below. It should be noted that no consensus exists on which method should be used when, because which methodological options fit best and in which combination is greatly dependent on the study details (Schägner et al., 2013). It should be noted that not always can monetary values be determined for all ESS under examination. Then, monetary values are complemented by qualitative information, for instance (TEEB, 2010). Hence, not always are economic valuation studies one hundred percent based on monetary values. Monetary valuation studies on the other hand are always economic.
16
This distinction is made as non-use and socio-cultural values are regarded as separate values in among others the TEEB
report. However, as explained above, it could be reasoned that non-use values of bequest and altruistic values are part of the socio-cultural value domain, and the existence value corresponds to intrinsic values. This means that the division on which of those values can and cannot be monetarised is less straightforward than how TEV makes it appear. However, researching the field of different value definitions and applications in relation to ESS is large enough to devote another thesis to and is therefore not further scrutinised in this text.
20
4.1.3.1
Direct market valuation approaches
According to TEEB (2010), direct market valuation approaches can be divided into (1) market pricebased approaches, (2) cost-based approaches, and (3) approaches based on production functions. These methods are based on existing market prices and hence relatively easy to obtain or establish (TEEB, 2010). Market price-based approaches can mostly be used to value 'goods' produced by provisioning services, like food or timber production, as those are sold on commodity markets. Market prices can also be used for some cultural services like recreation in nature parks that charge entrance fees (de Groot et al., 2002; TEEB, 2010). Cost-based approaches mean values are estimated by calculating what the costs would have been should the ESS have to be replaced artificially (Garrod & Willis, 1999). These values can be inferred by calculating the avoided costs, which means one would estimate the costs that are avoided because the ESS exist (Daily, 1997). For instance, without the natural flood protection services, societies would have much higher costs to acquire the same safety levels (de Groot et al., 2002). Another methods refers to estimating the replacement costs. In this case it is calculated what the costs of the ESS would be when replaced by artificial methods. Pollination for instance, would greatly increase production costs if done artificially instead of by insects. Lastly, cost-based values can be estimated by looking at restoration costs, which means estimating the costs of restoring an ecosystem in case it is lost or damaged (Garrod & Willis, 1999). Production-function based approaches are used to value ESS that are not expressed in markets directly, but that do directly support an ESS or commodity that can be valued based on market prices (Barbier, 1994; Chee, 2004). This method is mainly based on an analysis of the cause-effect relationship between the ESS to be valued and the resulting commodity (Chee, 2004). In his 1994 article, Barbier gives the example of mangrove forests (p. 167): a mangrove forest provides the nursery and spawning ground for certain fish. Therefore, these forests have influence on the catch of mangrove-dependent fish species. Including the mangrove area as a determinant of fish catch may therefore capture some of the value of the mangroves. Direct market valuation methods should be used with caution. Market distortions can create unrealistic reflections of the marginal cost of an ESS change (Sagoff, 1998; TEEB, 2010). In addition, because these methods are based on market prices, many ESS cannot be valued as these are public goods (Costanza et al., 1997). Rather, different methods have to be used that allow for monetary values to be determined for ESS that have no market price (Chee, 2004). These methods are clustered within the revealed and stated preference approaches. These preference approaches are also what is used as metric for many values related to the cultural services (Chee, 2004).
21
4.1.3.2
Revealed preference methods
Revealed preference methods assume that the extent to which people value different ESS can be determined by looking at their expenses on goods related to these ESS (TEEB, 2010). Two methods are often used: The travel cost method is mostly relevant for cultural and specifically recreational services as this method evaluates the travel costs people are paying to make use of a certain area. Also the money spent on other relevant goods or services, like bird watchers spending on watching equipment or recreational fishers on licenses, would be used in the calculations (Chee, 2004). These 'travel' costs are used as to estimate the economic value of the service (Garrod & Willis, 1999; TEEB, 2010). The hedonic pricing method can be used for (parts of) ESS that directly influence market prices. The methods assumes that the value people place on a marketed good is based on the attributes it possesses: these attributes can be natural (Garrod & Willis, 1999). This method is mainly used by looking at variations in housing prices caused by its environmental attributes, the proximity of a park for instance (Chee, 2004). Heal (2000, p. 26) provided an illustration of hedonic methods by explaining a valuation option for soil fertility. This is not something that can be valued easily, however, it does influence prices of farm land: and farms are bought and sold. Hence, one could estimate the value of quality of the soil for a certain patch, by collecting data on farm prices and comparing those in relation to the quality of the soil. Revealed preference methods are often appealing to decision-makers as they are based on actual transactions data and observed behaviour (Heal, 2000; Kontoleon et al., 2007). However, as with direct market methods, this also means data can be unreliable due to market distortions (Sagoff, 1998; TEEB, 2010). Additionally, these methods are limited in the sense they are generally only suitable for estimating use-values (Christie et al., 2012), and time and resource-consuming. Revealed preference methods require good quality data and large data sets, that need to be processed with complex statistical analysis (TEEB, 2010).
4.1.3.3
Stated preference methods
Stated-based methods are based on the assumption that individual's preferences can be determined by simulating markets (Chee, 2004; TEEB, 2010). The method is valuable as it can be used to define use and non-use values (Chee, 2004; Christie et al., 2012). The following three methods are most commonly used: The contingent valuation method (CVM) is a method in which peoples’ WTP for the enhancement or increase of a certain ESS, or willingness to accept compensation (WTA) in case of the loss or degradation of a certain ESS, is enquired by means of questionnaires (Chee, 2004; Daily, 1997).
22
The choice modelling method (CMM) is similar to CVM in the sense that it presents a hypothetical situation to respondents. However, the CVM methods mostly only presents one option. CMM asks people to state their preference between multiple scenarios. Each scenario has different levels of the attributes that are researched, and these can be presented at varying costs or prices (TEEB, 2010). Group valuation methods are based on the premises that public decision-making should result from open public debate, rather than measuring individual preferences and aggregating these. Contingent valuation or choice modelling methods are then used in group deliberation processes (de Groot et al., 2002). Although stated preference methods are valuable and frequently used, because they provide the only feasible ways to estimate economic values for non-use attributes of ESS, they are not uncontested. CVM methods specifically (and CMM for that matter), are criticised
because the framing of the
questions is key to the reliability of the survey (Bingham et al., 1995). In addition, the information that is provided in the survey greatly influences the outcomes.
4.2 Steps in the valuation process Valuing ESS serves the goal of informing decisions on ecosystem change, and equal distribution of the benefits and costs of the conservation of ESS. To achieve this, the valuation process should consist of three consecutive steps, according to TEEB (2010) (based on Kontoleon et al., 2007): 1. Demonstration of values Step 1 is about recognising and defining the ESS that are delivered by the analysed natural area. Here biophysical measurements should be conducted, for which the methods differ per servicetype (provisioning services for example, can be measured by quantifying the flows of goods that are harvested; cultural services however, cannot be measured in biophysical terms. These can be established by estimating the number of people benefitting from the services, as well as looking into the types of interactions the beneficiaries have with the ecosystem (Hein et al., 2006, p. 212)). 2. Appropriation of values This regards determining the value of the ESS that are delivered. The different types of value that can be determined, and the specific methods for measuring these value types monetarily are explained in 4.1. 3. Capturing the values In this step mechanisms have to be designed that (1) appropriately distribute the values as determined in step 2, and ensure that those who bear the cost of conservation seize the benefits as well, (2) ensure uptake of the revealed value into decision-making processes.
23
5 The economic valuation debate As explained in the introduction, the economic valuation of ESS is heavily debated (Bakker, 2010; Schröter et al., 2014). It has been a bone of contention within several scientific fields, especially ecology, conservation biology, environmental and ecological economics, and its occurrence has expanded specifically since the 1990s, mainly after the publications of Daily (1997) and Costanza et al. (1997). Criticisms on economic valuation of ESS are widely dispersed throughout the academic literature and the types of arguments that can be found are manifold. First of all, there are those that entirely reject economic valuation based on ethical grounds (see for example McCauley, 2006). However, the coming debate tries to focus more on the practical arguments in favour of and opposing economic valuation. Overall, the critiques on the economisation of ESS can be grouped under three different themes. The criticisms mentioned in the previous section mainly fall under the first theme, which regards the methodology on which economic valuation processes are based. Methodological critiques on economic valuation processes are abundant in academic literature, and quite a few more than the ones revealed above exist (see for instance Spangenberg & Settele, 2010; Wegner & Pascual, 2011). The second theme is rooted in the ecological complexity of ecosystems and ESS. Many concerns and criticisms of economisation of ESS are grounded in a disapproval of the inability of economisation methods to account for ecological interdependencies, interconnections, and dynamics (see among others Farley, 2012; Fisher et al., 2009; Görg, 2007; Lant et al., 2008; MartínLópez et al., 2008; Redford & Adams, 2009). Both themes convey legitimate and interesting arguments criticising economic valuation of ESS. Yet, when focussing on methodological and ecological issues, the debate analysis will become very large, and deviate from my personal scientific background. Therefore, I will focus the discussion analysis on the third theme only, which deals with concerns on the socio-economic complexities of economic valuation of ESS.
5.1 Discussion analysis: pros versus socio-economic cons As with the debate in general, criticisms that relate to the socio-economic complexities of economic valuation processes are frequently occurring, diverse, and dispersed throughout the literature. To structure the debate, I have therefore developed a framework that is based on the key arguments in favour of economic valuation as put forward in academic literature. These arguments in favour of economisation are less various and dispersed compared to the counterarguments, and therefore easier to cluster. The debate on the socio-economic complexities of the economisation of ESS is therefore analysed following this 'proponent view'. The three key arguments of which the proponent view consists are the following: 1. Economic valuation allows for rational decision-making 2. Economic valuation shows the importance of ecosystems in a language that is understood universally 3. Economic valuation can alter our current flawed economic model
24
These three key merits of economic valuation will be presented and explained one by one, each of them followed up by a synopsis of the related counterarguments. The section ends with a summary of the arguments and counterarguments in an overview diagram. Note that both the overview of the key arguments supporting economisation as well as the counterarguments given are non-exhaustive. However, these statements provided below seem to reflect the most frequently made and important arguments. 1. Economic valuation allows for rational decision-making This argument appears to be the most frequently proclaimed one. Economic valuation is said to enable the possibility to make rational decisions among alternative uses of nature. In the end, all decisions about ecosystem management imply trade-offs, and are subjective choices. These choices are per definition valuations: at some point one ESS option is valued above another, whether this difference is concretised or not (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997). To be able to make rational and ethical decisions about these trade-offs, the differences in value should be made as explicit as possible (Daily, 1997; NRC, 2005). In many cases, assigning monetary values to the ESS is seen as the most suitable way to do this (Barbier, 1994; Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; Justus et al., 2009). Monetary values provide quantitative, comparable outputs. This helps to compare the contributions made by different ESS, which can be taken into account in decision-making (Ring et al., 2010; TEEB, 2010). Moreover, it provides an opportunity to not only look at costs, but also the economic plus side of nature, by means of valuing ESS. Policy-makers and other public or private decision-makers are hence able to see and communicate the full costs and benefits of the proposed uses of an ecosystem. By this means, economic valuation can be a key tool for nature management (Armsworth et al., 2007; Daily, 1997; Guerry et al., 2015), and ESS can be given sufficient weight in decision-making processes (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; TEEB, 2010). Moreover, economic valuation can make justification of nature conservation policies and investments easier (Daily, 1997; Edwards & Abivardi, 1998; Jones-Walters & Mulder, 2009; NRC, 2005), as it allows for ESS to be translated into terms that are in line with dominant economic and political views (Daily, 1997; JonesWalters & Mulder, 2009; NRC, 2005). Critiques Besides to being the most frequently communicated argument supporting economic valuation, this reasoning also seems to be the most criticised statement. Counterarguments are principally rooted in the concern that economic valuation is unsuitable for decision-making, as it neglects key social dimensions of valuation and poses the risk of overemphasis of economy at the expense of ecology. How can one argue that economic valuation improves rational decision-making on alternative uses of nature if the information provided to make the decisions is incomplete and unbalanced? First of all, the incompletion of economic valuation methods for decision-making is reflected in the critique that monetary valuation is 'value-neutral'. Monetarisation methods aggregate individually collected values without any difference in weight, hence ignoring the socio-economic contexts in
25
which valuation takes place. Especially income and dependency levels are regarded as important parameters that should not be excluded (Daily, 1997; Kenter et al., 2013). Instead, some values ought to weigh more than others (Daily, 1997; Farley, 2012). For instance, between rich and poor people there is a large divergence in their capacity to define values for ESS through price, due to income limitations of the poor. If this is not corrected for by distributional weighing for example, these particular ESS are at risk of being undervalued (Wegner & Pascual, 2011). The other way around, allocation decisions based on monetary valuation can increase social inequalities if distributional differences are not taken into account. In essence, greater weight has to be given to values allocated by those who depend most on the ESS, but have the least capacity to afford substitutes (Farley, 2012). Yet again, economic valuation is disputed for not taking into account these distributional differences that are of influence on what nature management decision ought to be made. Moreover, decision-making based on economic valuation can be seen as incomplete as it neglects the socio-cultural context in which valuation takes place (Chan et al., 2012; Spangenberg & Settele, 2010; TEEB, 2010; Wegner & Pascual, 2011). This is disputed because valuation processes are a social issue as much as they are an ecological or economic one (Chan et al., 2012), and valuation results are inherently subjective and dependent on the social context in which the valuation takes place (Spangenberg & Settele, 2010; TEEB, 2010; Vatn, 2000; Wegner & Pascual, 2011). What role people uptake when asked to value an ESS, how they perceive themselves in relation to the ESS, what collective values, cultural and spiritual habits, or shared perceptions affect people’s opinions: all these social factors, and many more, are of critical influence on the outcomes of valuation processes. However, these are rarely taken into account in economic valuation processes (Kenter et al., 2013; Spangenberg & Settele, 2010; Vatn, 2005; Wegner & Pascual, 2011). Additionally, economic valuation is accused of only being able to grasp the obvious, easily quantifiable values of ESS, like direct use values, as all indirect and particularly immaterial values are very difficult to grasp and concretise (Jax et al., 2013; Luck et al., 2012; TEEB, 2010). Hence, sociocultural values, but even the non-use values that are defined in the TEV framework, are often excluded from valuation processes, while these values are very important in relation to human welfare (Chan et al., 2012; Chiesura & De Groot, 2003; Kallis et al., 2013; Kenter et al., 2013; Pearce & Moran, 1994). This thus leads to incomplete or biased valuation results, only based on the marketable and economically measurable value-dimensions (Chiesura & De Groot, 2003; Sikor, 2013; Wegner & Pascual, 2011). Something relatedly is at play when looking at the 'balance' critique. Monetary valuation results presents 'easy' and quantitative data which is understandable to political actors and shows the prospect of economic revenues. Hence, corresponding economic methods are argued to take precedence over other forms of valuation, meaning decision-making is based on economic information at the expense of socio-cultural indicators, as explained above, but also ecological indicators (Howard et al., 2016; Jax et al., 2013; Kallis et al., 2013; Turnhout et al., 2014). This can work
26
against biodiversity conservation. The option with the highest potential revenue may be selected as protected ESS, while most certainly, monetary indicators and biodiversity indicators do often not turn out the same way. In addition, conserving one ESS can have severe ecological impacts on other ESS. This does not become apparent based on economic information on the values of ESS only (Nunes & van den Bergh, 2001; Ring et al., 2010). When biodiversity parameters are thus not included as equally important but separate indicators, valuation might imply making a balanced and rational choice for biodiversity destruction (Nunes & van den Bergh, 2001; Spangenberg & Settele, 2010). The above-mentioned factors all make that economic valuation is accused of generating incomplete and over-simplified results, neglecting relevant social dimensions and ecological parameters, risking an excessive focus on economic values and monetary indicators only. 2. Economic valuation shows the importance of ecosystems in a language that is understood universally Economic valuation makes it possible to recognise and communicate the importance of nature in a language that is also understood by the general public, businesses, farmers, and policy and decisionmakers (Armsworth et al., 2007; Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; Edwards & Abivardi, 1998; Kumar, 2011; TEEB, 2010). Now, ESS are often overlooked in the narrative on nature, but translating nature into monetary values that reflect common economic language is argued to reduce this neglect of the natural environment (Daily, 1997; NRC, 2005). The discourse based on economic valuation of ecosystem services is argued to be able to redefine and communicate the importance of nature to society (TEEB, 2010). Using economic valuation of ESS makes people understand the value of nature. It emphasises the place of humans as part of nature, and shows all that the natural environment provides us and what that is worth. Hence, economic valuation of ESS is seen as a valuable communication tool, that can increase societal awareness on the importance of nature (Armsworth et al., 2007; Daily, 1997; MEA, 2005; NRC, 2005; TEEB, 2010). Hereby ESS is said to not only redefine, but also reconnect the broken relation between nature and humans (Armsworth et al., 2007; MEA, 2005), although this last argument is mostly advocated about the ESS-concept itself, and less frequently on economic valuation of ESS (Edwards & Abivardi, 1998; Kumar et al., 2013; TEEB, 2010). Critiques The common denominator among the arguments refuting the use of the economic approach to ESS are not about whether or not the economic language in itself is indeed understood universally. The arguments are mostly about whether its use is desirable in the context of nature conservation and public awareness creation. Because the economic language is able to redesign the discourse on ecosystems, ESS and nature conservation in general. The problem is the economic paradigm does not change the discourse in a positive way (Jax et al., 2013; Kallis et al., 2013).
27
The intrinsic, non-instrumental values of nature are explicitly ignored, and mainly the economic merits of ESS are focussed at (Luck et al., 2012; McCauley, 2006; Ridder, 2008; Sagoff, 2011). This development is highly criticised, and is one the of most basic and central ethical arguments against the economisation of ESS, on which grounds some scholars completely dismiss economic valuation as a justifiable solution for nature conservation (Ehrenfeld, 1988; McCauley, 2006). More specifically, this overemphasis on the instrumental values of nature is disputed because it is said to negatively alter human-nature relations (Jax et al., 2013; Luck et al., 2012). Precisely because the economic language is so easily understandable, nature becomes regarded primarily from this economicutilitarian perspective. But this utilitarian approach is disproved because it explicitly separates humannature ties by placing humans outside of the ecological realm, and by implying nature can be substituted by (human-made) alternatives (Fairhead et al., 2012; Farley, 2012; Luck et al., 2012), an argument that directly conflicts with the arguments of proponents that ESS-discourse places humans back as part of nature, repairing the broken relation. Relatedly, economisation underlines exploitative instead of interdependent bonds (Fairhead et al., 2012; Jax et al., 2013; TEEB, 2010), as humans are becoming consumers instead of citizens in relation to nature (Robertson, 2012). Consequently, several scholars are concerned that this new human-nature relationship can alter the predominant public motivations for conservation, excluding other motivations than the economic ones (Luck et al., 2012; Redford & Adams, 2009; Vatn, 2000). This means that not only are the intrinsic values of ESS undervalued or ignored, but they might not even be accepted as an incentive for conservation anymore. The same concern exists regarding public nature management (Farley, 2012; Redford & Adams, 2009; Vatn, 2000). Lastly, the final associated argument is somewhat more fundamental, and argues using the economic approach to nature management is not universally understandable at all. On the contrary, economisation is argued to be a technocratic approach, which means it is inherently non-inclusive, and not designed to be understood by other than the people possessing sufficient technical background knowledge (Sagoff, 1998; Sikor, 2013; Turnhout et al., 2014). In any case, the use of the economic discourse and approach is not seen as an enrichment of the conservation paradigm, but rather as a reduction, exclusive in nature by oppressing any other motivations and negatively conversing the relations between humans, the natural environment and conservation. 3. Economic valuation can alter our current flawed economic model This last argument endorsing economisation of ESS rests on the notion that our current economic system is not able to preserve the world's natural capital, because nature's true values are not taken into account in economic decision-making (Costanza, 2000; Ring et al., 2010). Ecosystems are economically invisible now, which leads to their destruction instead of preservation, because destruction is free, and preservation is costly (Daily, 1997; TEEB, 2010). A differently designed
28
economy is needed that does consider the values of nature (Costanza, 2000). An economy in which the benefits of positive externalities are passed on to the right individuals or groups, and in which the costs of negative externalities are borne by the polluter. Monetary valuation of ESS is seen as a critical element of such an economy that can be used to redesign market instruments, such as making these externalities explicit (European Commission, 2015; TEEB, 2010). In addition, human welfare indicators like the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fully ignore ecological downgrading, making ecosystem depreciation seemingly have no effect on human welfare (Costanza, 2012; TEEB, 2010). If the values of ecosystems would be concretised monetarily, this would pave the way for the development of more comprehensive human welfare indicators, in which the contributions of ecosystems and biodiversity are taken into account (TEEB, 2010). Critiques The idea that economic valuation of nature is a necessary means for a new, sustainable economic model is charged on a fundamental level by multiple scholars (Ehrenfeld, 1988, 1995; Heal, 2000; Norgaard, 2009). Valuing nature monetarily is seen as legitimising the process that is wiping it out, by basing the solutions for the damage to nature on those same economic institutions that caused degradation in the first place (Ehrenfeld, 1995, pp. 118-119; Norgaard, 2009). On a more practical level, this reasoning is denounced because economic valuation is seen as contributing to the expansion of the exploitative grasp of our economic system, rather than improving it. This is because the economisation of ESS is viewed as paving the way for the commodification of nature (Gomez-Baggethun & Ruiz-Perez, 2011; Kallis et al., 2013; Robertson, 2000; Turnhout et al., 2013). Even in the TEEB report itself this is explicitly mentioned. It states the most important consequence of economic valuation is the change in notion of ownership and property applied to the environment, creating a so called 'commodity fiction' (TEEB, 2010, p. 193). This commodity fiction creates the unjust postulation that ecosystems can be traded in the market (Vatn & Bromley, 1994). Thus, expressing ESS in monetary values and commodification are seen as two steps of the same process, following-up on each other easily (Gomez-Baggethun & Ruiz-Perez, 2011). Many of the key advocates however, like Costanza et al. (1997), de Groot et al. (2012) and the TEEB (2010) authors, stress that due to the public good nature of many ESS, privatisation and commodification would work poorly. Yet, precisely this belief that monetarily valuation of ESS can be separated from the general tendency of monetary processes to lead to further commodification developments is seen as naive, and a blindness of economic valuation proponents. The fact that ESS are not fit for commodification does not mean it cannot or will not happen (Dempsey & Robertson, 2012, p. 772; Gomez-Baggethun & Ruiz-Perez, 2011). In addition, once ecological externalities can be accounted for, this means companies for instance, can choose to overexploit ecosystems if that is economically more attractive than sustainable extraction practices. Thus well-intended market mechanisms can lead to 'optimal destruction of biodiversity' (Spangenberg & Settele, 2010).
29
Either way, this idea that monetary valuation can help to improve our currently flawed economy is strongly disagreed. Opponents see this development from a completely different perspective, highlighting potential increase in the negative impact of our economic institutions, rather than seeing monetary valuation as having potential to make the economy more sustainable.
5.2 Summary of the pros and cons The analysis above shows the contradictions that exist in the literature about the merits of economic valuation of ESS. These are summarised in figure 5.1. The starting point is the general goal of economic valuation of ESS, which is to enable nature and the ecosystem services it provides to be included in to our economic system and in public decision-making processes. This goal can be achieved due to three key characteristics of economic valuation (the central arguments in favour). Yet, the applicability of these merits (summarised in the left quadrants) are contested based on several grounds. These are counterarguments are shown in the quadrants on the right side of the diagram.
Figure 5-1. The pros and cons of economic valuation of ecosystem services, based on a literature analysis of socio-economic critiques (own creation).
30
5.3 The impact of economisation of ecosystem services: public domains The pros and cons analysis has provided a structuring of the debate. A closer look at the themes as provided above reveals a second layer: the public domains on which economisation of ESS has impact when used for nature conservation. Based on the analysis and structuring, it is concluded that economic valuation of ESS impacts three domains: the domain of decision-making, public legitimacy and market and economy. Each is defined below. All three are relevant in relation to the identifying the impact of economic valuation on public nature management. Analysis within the decision-making domain is defined as focussing on 'the use of the economic valuation within and by public institutions, in any way that relates to public decision-making in itself, and subsequent implementation of those decisions'. To illustrate, the use of monetary outcomes to choose between alternative uses of nature would be part of this domain, obviously. But also, the use of such studies by public institutions to acquire internal support for conservation decisions, or to convince other partners to participate in nature development projects are considered part of this domain. Moreover, whether or not economic valuation is useful, well-balanced and sufficiently inclusive towards social dimensions like income factors can be researched within this domain as well. It goes without saying that the decision-making domain is relevant in relation to use of economic valuation of ESS for nature conservation. However, based on the discussion analysis two other domains come to the surface as well, which are both also relevant to nature decision-making. First of all, the domain of public legitimacy. This domain refers to 'the influence of economisation of ESS on the awareness of the general public on the value of nature, as well as on their relation to nature'. Thus, this domain is not so much about actual nature decision-making in itself, but reflects the use of economisation to gain public support and awareness for nature management measures, as well as the influence this might have on human-nature relations. This relates to civilians, but can also be aimed at other groups of civic organisations or societal groups as a whole. Lastly, the debate analysis revealed the controversies on whether or not economisation, and specifically monetisation, can alter our economic system either positively or negatively. Hence, I conclude a third domain should be included that examines the market and economy impacts of the economisation of ESS. This market domain is defined as addressing 'the influence of economic valuation on market mechanisms in a positive way, as input for innovative market instruments, or negatively, as a foundation through which market forces increase exploitation of nature'. For example, monetary valuation could lead to the inclusion of externalities in pricing schemes, arguably positively altering how costs are determined, or negatively in the way that it can lead inclusion of noncommodity natural resources as exploitable goods or services by private or public actors. This domain structure is used as the analytical lens through which the three cases are examined (next chapter). To support analysis, several indicators were formulated to further operationalise each domain. Indicators give meaning to variables that are under study, in this case the three domains, by
31
reflecting the extent to which the concept that is studied is present or absent (Babbie, 2015). By gathering information from the case studies for each of the indicators, the impact of economic valuation by public institutions on the three domains can be determined. The indicators are directly subtracted from the debate analysis. This means this domain framework can help to systematically analyse the impact of using economic valuation for public nature management on the three domains, while at the same time addressing the key topics from the debate analysis. The synthesised outcomes per indicator are presented in chapter 7. Figure 5.2 gives a visual representation of the framework.
Figure 5-2. Economic valuation of ecosystem services: domain structure and related indicators (own creation)
The decision-making domain (based on discussion 1) leads to four indicators: 1. The impact of economic valuation on project decision-making This indicator relates to the arguments that economic valuation allows for rational decision-making, because it provides comparable, concrete outcomes that can be used to weigh offs nature conservation decisions. 2. Effect on justification and support generation for nature management decisions
32
This indicator relates to the arguments that economic valuation allows for justification of nature management decisions and investments, as these decisions are presented in a way that speaks to dominant economic and political views. 3. The balance between economic and ecological information This indicator regards the fact that using economic valuation methods can take precedence over ecological information, which can lead to negative instead of positive effects on ecosystems. Hence, it is relevant to analyse how the balance between economy and ecology was accounted for. 4. The inclusion of the social dimensions of valuation The final indicator of the decision-making domain is grounded on the concerns of criticists that economic valuations do not take into account three important social dimensions of valuation, which are (1) the socio-economic backgrounds of people valuing ESS (2) the socio-cultural context in which valuation takes place, (3) the immaterial values people carry, such as socio-cultural values. Within the public legitimacy domain (based on discussion 2) two indicators can be distinguished: 1. Effect on public awareness creation This indicator relates to the arguments that economic valuation allows people to understand nature's worth. Economic valuation of ESS is seen as a valuable communication tool, that can increase societal awareness on the importance of nature. By analysing the understandability and effect on public awareness, this indicator addresses the concern that economic valuation is too technocratic as well. 2. Effect on the relation between humans and nature This indicator addresses the concern that using the economic framing in communication with society can have a negative effect on the human-nature relation, by neglecting the intrinsic value of nature, shifting perceptions from citizen to consumer, altering motivations for conservation. The market domain (discussion 3) relates to two indicators: 1. Influence on market mechanisms This indicator relates to the potential of using economic valuation as a tool to make the economic model consider the value of nature. This is mainly based on the redistribution of externalities, and the use of monetary values as input for ecologyinclusive human welfare indicators. 2. Effect on commodification of nature The final indicator relating to the market domain addresses the concern that the uses of monetary valuation leads to overexploitation and commodification of nature, regardless of the public good nature of many ESS.
33
6 Case study results In the following three sections the results of the case study analyses are presented. As explained above, the domain structure was used as the analytical lens. The results will be presented accordingly; meaning for every case, the findings related to the decision-making domain, the public legitimacy domain, and market domain are given, respectively. In addition, for almost all indicators, expert reflections are given on the general applicability of economic valuation in relation to that specific indicator. Although these statements are not directly based on the experiences with the specific projects, they are interesting to include as these remarks reflect the expectations and opinions about the use of economic valuation by public institutions, of people who have been involved in economic valuation projects themselves. The expert reflections are shown in the coloured text boxes. Every case is concluded with a summary of the key findings.
6.1 Case 1: The economic and ecological perspectives of a double dike bordering the Eems-Dollard 6.1.1 Ecology and economy in the Eemsdelta In one of the most Northern tips of the Netherlands, opposite to Germany, bordered by the waters of the Eems-Dollard, lies the Eemsdelta region (see figure 6.1). The Eemsdelta region, in the province of Groningen, is a unique area in the Netherlands, in which two ports, Eemshaven and Delfzijl, as well as the ecologically unique but fragile Eems-Dollard estuary co-exist. However, over the past decades, the region has experienced difficulties with maintaining a durable balance between economic development of the industrial Eemsdelta on the one hand, and maintaining sufficient quality of the estuary on the other (Eemsdelta E&E, 2014; van Dorp et al., 2012). Especially the ecological state of the estuary was seen as severely insufficient, while a well-functioning estuary is critical to the ecological richness and resilience of the Eemsdelta as a whole. Hence, large efforts were required to achieve a healthy estuary (Eemsdelta E&E, 2014). To be able to improve the estuary while simultaneously improving the economic situation of the region, the province of Groningen initiated the programme 'Ecology and Economy in balance in the Eemsdelta' (or short E&E) in 2009. This programme was aimed at facilitating economic growth, improving the attractiveness of the region as an industrial and business location, while at the same time achieving a healthier living environment and a richer estuary. Balancing ecology, economy and environment is the central element of the project, and seen as key to sustainable improvement of the region. To achieve this balance, the province aimed for a participative approach, in which business, nature and governmental actors cooperate and communicate in a steering committee, to facilitate this long-term regional development (Eemsdelta E&E, 2014; van Dorp et al., 2012).
34
Figure 6-1. The Eemsdelta region. Picture taken from www.eemsdelta.groningen.nl
One of the strategies adopted within E&E to improve the estuary was to look for innovative solutions for the strengthening of the dike bordering the estuary. Reinforcement of the dike, which is located between Eemshaven and Delfzijl, was an urgent matter as water safety norms could no longer be secured due to several critical damages. Strengthening the dike was thus an administrative priority that required swift decision-making. Yet, at the same time this also provided a unique opportunity to look for a solution that would not only address safety, but also economy and ecology, potentially improving the quality of the estuary. Therefore, the province set up a separate project specifically for the potential innovative reinforcement of the dike. In the steering committee of this project, led by the province as well, also the water boards Noorderzijlvest and Hunze and Aa's were represented (although only Noorderzijlvest was directly responsible for the safety of the dike), as well as nature organisation Groninger Landschap, the municipalities of Eemshaven and Delfzijl and Groningen Seaports. The steering group first commissioned research that outlined which innovative dike solutions could address the required elements of safety, economy and ecology (a study by Van LoonSteensma et al., 2012). Eventually, only one option appeared to be applicable. This regarded the idea of a 'multifunctional double dike' solution. The double dike concept entails the creation of two dikes that together are as strong as one primary dike. The space in between the dikes allows for tidal influences and provides the ample opportunities for ecology of brackish water areas as well as aquaculture or recreational activities (Eemsdelta E&E, 2014; Kwakernaak & Lenselink, 2015). An impression of the double dike is shown in figure 6.2.
35
Figure 6-2. Impression of the double dike (Image taken from the website of the province of Groningen, credits: Cradle Media)
6.1.2 The Natural Capital project At the same time as the steering committee was researching the potential for innovative dike solutions, the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs commissioned the Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL, in Dutch: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving) to set up a national natural capital programme (NKN, In Dutch: Natuurlijk Kapitaal Nederland) (Egmond & Ruijs, 2016). During this programme, which ran from 2013 to 2015, PBL investigated how governments, businesses and societal organisations could determine and use the value of ESS in political decision-making and investment decisions. One of the activities within the NKN programme was to research the usefulness 17
of ESS valuation in relation to water safety projects in the Dutch Delta programme . Two case studies needed to be done, in which the economic and ecological added value of nature inclusive solutions to water safety projects would be estimated, based on the TEEB methodology. PBL approached multiple projects that were potentially interesting to add a TEEB study to. Eventually, two cases were confirmed, one of which was the multifunctional double dike project Eems-Dollard (van der Meulen et al., 2015). The double dike programme matched with the integrative goals of NKN, as the projects intention was already set at researching the potential of a nature inclusive solution in which both economy and ecology were addressed. Hence, the province, in consultation with the water board Noorderzijlvest, agreed to allow the execution of the TEEB pilot within the double dike programme. Following permission, PBL commissioned Alterra (now Wageningen Environmental Research) and Deltares to conduct the valuation study. The outcome of the valuation study was the report 'Economic and ecological perspectives of a double dike bordering the Eems-Dollard' (Kwakernaak & Lenselink, 2015).
17
The Dutch Delta programme is a government-run project aimed at the protection of the Netherlands against floods, and
ensuring climate resilience and water availability. For more information see https://www.deltacommissaris.nl/deltaprogramma
36
6.1.3 Project setup and methods used The Eems-Dollard valuation study from PBL's perspective was mainly aimed at gaining experience with how to implement the TEEB methods successfully. For the province, the project provided an additional information source on the benefits and feasibility of the double dike in terms of safety, economy and ecology. Deltares mainly focussed on the safety research, while Alterra conducted the valuation study on economy and ecology (Kwakernaak & Lenselink, 2015). The valuation study analysed what ESS would be generated if the double dike would be implemented, and compared those outcomes to the ESS that are provided now. Most results were described qualitatively. Only a few of the whole range of ESS that could be generated in between the dikes were included in the analysis. These were the provisioning services of aquaculture and saline cultivation, and the provisioning and regulating services of sludge sedimentation and extraction. The outcomes showed relatively high economic prospects both for cockle and saline cultivation (up to 32 thousand euro's per hectare for cockles), as well as the sedimentation of sludge (brought in by the incoming tidal water) as the extraction and sales of the clay from the sludge could generate up to 88 thousand euro's per year. The regulating potential of the sludge area was also researched but only described qualitatively, as contributing to flood protection, due to its functioning as water safety body, a sponge of sorts. In addition, the potential strengthening of biodiversity and the 'natural value' of the area was measured as well; as a separate unit to the ESS and not monetarily. This analysis mainly provided a qualitative description of how different varieties in habitats and (aquatic) vegetation could increase, as well as how the functionality of the region as foraging and breeding area would be strengthened. This specifically regarded the northern part of the project area, called area A, where the implementation of a fresh-salt water transition zone was investigated. For the central and southern part of the project area (B and C respectively), nature was not the primary function. Area B was mainly aimed at saline cultivation, while C focussed on sludge collection. Nevertheless, analysis showed also the B and C region showed potential for nature development, although the prospects for biodiversity were not as high as for region A. The valuation project followed the three steps of (1) recognising and mapping ESS, (2) quantifying and valuing those ESS, and (3) capturing these ESS in terms of inclusion in decision-making (as described in chapter 4). In addition to capturing the value of ESS, this study explicitly mentions the creation of biodiversity as part of the third step as well.
6.1.4 Interview results What the actual impact and use of the TEEB study has been to the double dike project will be discussed below. The results for this case are based on interviews and document analysis. Five people were interviewed that were involved in the double dike project and/ or TEEB study (for more information, see annex I):
37
1. The project manager from Alterra, Wageningen University (now Wageningen Environmental Research), who was responsible for the execution of the valuation study (exe01 - Cees Kwakernaak) 2. The project commissioner from PBL. Responsible for finding potential water safety projects to link the TEEB study to - contacted the province of Groningen to conduct the TEEB study in the context of the dike reinforcement programme (com01 - Ron Franken) 3. The
environment
manager
from
the
water
board
Noorderzijlvest
(in
Dutch:
omgevingsmanager waterschap), partner in the dike project. Responsible for the safety of the dike, with a decisive vote in the final decision-making about the design of the dike (pol02 Peter van Dijken) 4. A representative from Groninger Landschap, partner in the dike project. Groninger Landschap is the major nature organisation involved in the dike project steering committee, in an advising role (soc01 - Rob Reintsema) 5. The double dike project manager from the province of Groningen. Initiator of the search for innovative dike solutions, coordinator of the multifunctional dike project (coo01 - Matthijs Buurman, via Irene van Dorp).
6.1.4.1
Decision-making domain Impact on project decision-making
As explained above, from the Ministry's and PBL's perspective, the Eems-Dollard valuation study was mainly aimed at drawing lessons from the application of the TEEB methods, to see if and how the three subsequent steps of recognising and mapping, valuing, and capturing the value and creation of biodiversity would work. Central to this last step was the question whether or not knowledge on the value of ESS and biodiversity generated by a nature-inclusive solution (in this project the multifunctional dike approach), would contribute to the full consideration of that solution in subsequent decision-making (Kwakernaak & Lenselink, 2015). In short, did the valuation of ESS contribute to decision-making about reinforcement of the dike? Based on the TEEB project documentation, one can conclude that it did. The document states 'Valuation of ESS and the strengthening of biodiversity has played an important role in determining the feasibility of this double dike concept. The economic and ecological perspectives of the multifunctional solution proved to be sufficiently elaborated, substantiated and quantified to choose for this alternative in decision-making on the dike reinforcement Eemshaven-Delfzijl' (Kwakernaak & Lenselink, 2015, p. 42). It is important to note that this decision implied starting a pilot with the double-dike in which further research would be conducted, not immediate full implementation. This meant the available information did not have to be final yet (exe01). However, based on the interviews, the contribution of the TEEB study to decisionmaking appears to be less crucial than suggested in the report. Consultation and decision-making in the double dike project was done in the steering committee. The water board Noorderzijlvest was the key party with a 'legal' right to decide on reinforcement of the dike, as they were directly responsible for water safety and hence the functioning of the dike. In
38
addition, they were the largest investor. The province was the second party with a decisive vote, as the initiator of the project, but mainly, as the second investor (coo01, pol01, soc01). Nevertheless, all interviewees that were part of the steering group explained that the intention of the steering group was to come to unanimous decisions, in which the views and desires of all participants were taken into account, not only those of the water board and the province (coo01, pol01, soc01). This was a vital part of the integrative approach the province pursued in the region (Eemsdelta E&E, 2014; van Dorp et al., 2012). Although the idea was that the results of the valuation study would be used in the steering group to inform decision-making on the feasibility of the innovative dike solution, the interviews made clear this did not take place (coo01, pol01, soc01). One important cause was that when the TEEB study got added to the double dike project, the province had already planned to do a feasibility study in the form of a very thorough business case analysis (coo01). Within the steering committee, they mainly addressed this analysis. This study included a detailed comparison between the traditional dike and the double dike idea, and included very specific local conditions that were crucial to decision-making (coo01; pol01). This study showed that the same safety standards could be achieved for similar amounts of money, and showed what additional economic benefits the nature-inclusive alternative would create (coo01; soc01). This was decisive information for especially the water board, and made them accept the idea of starting a pilot with the multifunctional dike alternative (coo01, pol01, soc01). This is because, explains Peter van Dijken (pol01) of the water board, their core responsibility is safety. Hence, a fresh-salt water transition zone, saline cultivation, sludge developments; all those options aimed at ecological and economic development were not the responsibility or interest of the water board, but of the province. For the water board, only the safety parameters and related biophysical values were fundamental. If decision-making within the steering committee was based on the business case analysis, what then was the contribution of the TEEB valuation study to the double dike project? According to the province, the TEEB study mainly functioned as a scientific addition to their own business case analysis (coo01). The results were useful to them in the sense that they confirmed their study outcomes: the TEEB study also showed a multifunctional double dike would be beneficial from both an economic and ecological perspective (com01). But the province did not use the outcomes of the (monetary) valuation study as information input in decision-making meetings with the steering group (coo01). This is confirmed by the interviews with the water board and Groninger Landschap, as none of them could remember the explicit use of the TEEB study in the steering group consultations (pol01, soc01). This was not only due to the fact that the TEEB study was rather redundant in addition to the business case analysis, but also because the TEEB study was conducted without adjustment of the project boundaries (coo01). This meant the TEEB study included area A, while that area would not be part of the project anymore due to an incompatibility with European nature requirements (Natura2000). Yet the largest share of the outcomes of the TEEB study, especially for ecological developments, addressed area A (Kwakernaak & Lenselink, 2015). If that area would have been included, Matthijs Buurman (coo01) of the province thinks the study might have had more impact, as
39
the results were very positive in terms of the potential for the fresh and salt transition zone that was planned to be realised in area A. Due to the neglect of the study it is unknown whether or not the partners from the double dike group perceive monetary valuation to contribute to rational decision-making. Nevertheless, even though not the TEEB results but the business case analysis was used as input, both the province and Groninger Landschap think that determining economic prospects was crucial to the decision to go for the double dike pilot (coo01, soc01). In addition, all interviewees from the steering group see the integral approach in which the priorities of every partner are addressed, in terms of safety, economy and ecology, as extremely valuable and a key factor of success of the double dike project (coo01, exe01, pol01, soc01). Especially, the regard of nature as a valuable and useful project parameter was an important outcome. For Groninger Landschap, this meant they had to put less pressure for the inclusion of nature: "This awareness on the usefulness of nature meant ecological developments were much more accepted as a fundamental part of the project development. Hence, GL did not have to press for the inclusion of nature as we normally would need to" (Rob Reintsema, Groninger Landschap, soc01). Yet, he notes that this development towards better understanding and appreciation of the linkage between economy and ecology had been evolving already since the 1990s in the Eems-Dollard region. In that sense, the double dike project was must be seen in light of this trend of aiming for economic and ecological integration, of which the E&E umbrella project is also a result, than as an isolated project (soc01). Even though the study has not been used much, for Alterra working with ESS valuation was very fruitful. It provided structure, a sort of standardised approach that worked well for complex research topics like determining the benefits of a fresh-salt transition zone. Moreover, it allowed for determining the feasibility in terms of both ecology and economy (exe01). In addition, the pilot was useful for PBL as a checklist was constructed about the steps in the valuation process, which can be used to for other valuation cases as well. This checklist is an adaptation of the steps in the valuation process as presented in chapter 4, based on the experiences with the valuation of Eems-Dollard (van der Meulen et al., 2015). Not based on the Eems-Dollard case specifically, but on personal expectations, several additional remarks were made that regard the indicator 'impact on project decision-making'. These expert reflections are presented in box 1.
40
Box 1. Expert reflections Cees Kwakernaak (exe01) expects that more frequent use of monetary valuation studies can contribute to an increase in nature inclusive solutions for development projects. Not only because monetary valuation allows for nature to be fully regarded as an option too, instead of being seen as a too much of a hassle or too expensive only. But also, because valuation studies can help to identify where there are opportunities to include nature into other spatial development tasks: it shows opportunities for investing in nature. Also PBL sees merit in the future use of monetary valuation in relation to decision making. Ron Franken (com01) outlines that: "In relation to nature management, I would say that monetary values can play a role in determining what option you want to pursue. It makes investing in nature more realistic and the outcomes can provide clarity and concrete values". Also Peter van Dijken (pol01) expects that monetary valuation is useful for decision-making. Even though the study has been used now, he expects monetary valuation does fit specifically well in integral decision-making schemes such as the Eems-Dollard.
The balance between economy and ecology According to the province (coo01), the double dike pilot would most probably not have been pursued in case the results of the business case analysis were not positive from an economic perspective. Although the ecological outcomes were important to generate sufficient support for the development process, subsequent decision-making was mainly based on the (relatively positive) economic prospects in relation to safety and agriculture (com01). Nevertheless, most interviewees did not experience the economic outcomes to take precedence over ecological outcomes in the double dike project (exe01, pol01, soc01). For one thing, because the proposed double-dike idea was inherently nature-inclusive: that subsequent decision-making was based on the economic feasibility of that nature-inclusive solution is understandable, argues Rob Reintsema of Groninger Landschap (soc01): "In this project there were only opportunities for nature: the null hypothesis was no nature. When you do not have to protect, but have the possibility create, that changes your stance in such a project" (as a nature organisation, respectively). In addition, the mere presence of Groninger Landschap in the steering group provided a certain checks and balancing system in relation to safeguarding nature. However, for GL it was not necessary to actively intervene to maintain this balance, because awareness on the merits of including nature was sufficiently widespread amongst many of the key players (particularly the province of Groningen) (soc01).
41
During the double dike project phase, two workshops were organised with the participants of the steering group, Alterra, an architectural firm and commercial land owners from the project area. In those workshops, the economic potential of the double dike was explicitly used (exe01). But ecological and safety parameters just as much, therefore there was no overemphasis on the economic prospects of the double dike project (exe01). Even if this intention would exist, the project took place in an area where very strict nature regulations exist. Hence, these regulative requirements, in addition to the central safety demands of course, made potential economic development a nonessential plus and not the key focus of the project (exe01). Moreover, for the TEEB study specifically, the commissioner from PBL Ron Franken (com01) explicitly put biodiversity strengthening as the central goal of the study. He demanded biodiversity (in terms of variability of living things) to be regarded separately to the ESS, and to not be determined monetarily. He defends this by stating that: "When conducting monetary valuation studies based on ESS, it is paramount that it is communicated clearly that biodiversity strengthening is the goal. This decreases the risk of economic prospects prevailing over ecological values in decision-making". However, currently this inclusion of biodiversity strengthening is not obligatory within most valuation studies in the Netherlands (com01). This means it is the responsibility of the commissioner and subsequent decision-maker to decide whether or not measuring changes in biodiversity and describing those qualitatively and/ or biophysically is obliged (com01). Ron Franken (com01) argues it should be obligatory, as he has already noticed that sometimes, colleagues conduct monetary valuation studies to identify economic potential instead of for the strengthening of biodiversity. Justification and support generation The outcomes of the TEEB study were used by the province to acquire subsidies (coo01). According to Matthijs Buurman (coo01), monetary valuation is helpful for acquiring money necessary, because the results show the (sometimes unexpected) added values generated by the required investments. Nevertheless, the province did not use the results of the TEEB study for any other external justification or support generation purposes (coo01). Not to generate more support or participation for the double dike project amongst external stakeholders, nor to negotiate with agricultural stakeholders in the project area (coo01). These farmers were needed to voluntarily convert part of their property to have land available for saline cultivation (coo01, exe01). But the province used their own data as the basis for all of these negotiations. Yet, the province did use data that showed that the revenues of saline cultivation could substitute for the losses from potato cultivation, and that the farmers' soil could potentially become more valuable. This knowledge came from their business analysis, but was confirmed and researched more thoroughly in the TEEB report (coo01). The fact that the outcomes showed that conversion of land would not mean loss of income due to the substitution with saline cultivation was an important reason one of the farmers agreed to volunteer part of his parcel (exe01, pol01).
42
The outcomes of the valuation study showed that going for the multifunctional dike would not only costs money, but also generate money (com01). However, the ratio investments versus revenues was still highly skewed, as the investment costs were much higher. Therefore, Ron Franken (com01) expected the results to mainly be beneficial to help increase internal and external support for these investments, rather than that the economic potential of the developments will become a major contributor to decision-making. Less related to the TEEB study but more to the developments of E&E integration in the northern region, Rob Reintsema (soc01) explains that this holistic approach has led to new momentum in the nature conservation movement: "In the past, the nature conservation movement was rather conservative of course. However, we have become more and more aware that economy needs ecology and vice versa. Embracing economy can help to increase nature's 'license to exist', and provide opportunities for a better positioning for the natural environment as well". Of course, this development within the nature conservation movement was a slow process that generated a lot of discussion, but it is becoming more and more institutionalised. He sees this not only within the conservation movement, but also amongst other parties, in the Delta Programme for instance. "What can be picked up is an awareness that innovative, nature inclusive solutions to development issues can actually be valuable from multiple perspectives". Economic valuation is a good fit to such developments, he thinks (soc01). Inclusion of the social dimensions of valuation The TEEB study did not include any other values than direct use values, and established the monetary value of these ESS based on market prices. This choice was made because the project planning only spanned five months, which meant data collection and analysis had to be swift (exe01). For example, the sludge sedimentation area can increase flood protection (indirect use value) and provide the potential to extract the sludge (direct use value) (and regenerates the ecological basis of the area by increasing biodiversity levels on the other, however, biodiversity strengthening was regarded separately and not as part of the monetary valuation). Due to the time constraints, the value of flood protection increase was not determined. Only the potential revenue values from the sludge extraction were taken up as one of the values of investing in the double dike (Kwakernaak & Lenselink, 2015). In addition, the study did not make use of contingent valuation methods. Hence, it was not necessary to define the socio-cultural and -economic context of people asked to determine their WTP or WTA.
43
Box 2. Expert reflections Now, only direct use values were included due to time constraints. However, if more time would have been available, the study would still not have included monetary measurement of non-use values (exe01, com01). This is because in general, many socio-cultural values, and especially non-use values, should not be set monetarily at all, argue both Cees Kwakernaak (exe01) and Ron Franken (com01). This would make economic valuation studies much too difficult and far-fetched: "Only for those ESS that can be determined quantitatively and valued monetarily by market prices, it is fit to do so. Thus, only direct ESS like provisioning services, and some regulating and recreational services are suitable for monetary valuation. For those ESS that contribute to human welfare indirectly and would require odd complex valuation methods, I argue monetary valuation is not useful" (exe01). Rob Reintsema (soc01) also thinks that one of the key merits of such valuation studies would be its understandability and easiness to use. Both argue that when regarding values other than direct use values that are based on market prices ideally, outcomes become too difficult. "This works counterproductive for decision-making. The input that is supposed to provide structure then becomes abstract yet again" (Cees Kwakernaak, exe01). In addition, Cees Kwakernaak (exe01) argues that when valuing only direct ESS, it is not a problem to take into account social factors like income dependencies, next to monetary valuation of ESS (exe01). On the contrary, he reasons that it is important to only use monetary valuation as one information stream and never as isolated input. Other important parameters like biodiversity levels, and social and cultural values and contexts, he thinks, should be regarded separately (exe01). Ron Franken (com01) provides a similar reasoning, explaining that monetary valuation studies should not be used independently, but always in combination with other studies. This way, the inability of monetary valuation to take into account social dimensions like income factors or cultural contexts is less important.
6.1.4.2
Public legitimacy domain Effect on public awareness
The TEEB study has not been used in communication with the general public, nor was the study intended for that purpose (co001, soc01). Therefore, no comments could be made on whether or not this economic discourse was perceived as technocratic, nor on what using this economic discourse towards citizens did in terms of the bond between them and nature. Nevertheless, two interviewees did have an opinion about the potential influence of economic valuation on human-nature ties. These are presented in the box 3 in the next subsection.
44
The human-nature relation Box 3. Expert reflections Cees Kwakernaak (exe01) argues that he thinks only use values should be part of valuations (as mentioned previously as well). Valuing intrinsic and non-use values of nature, he argues, is both methodologically as good as impossible, as well as undesirable, as this can indeed pose the risk of decoupling people from nature. The contrary is the case for valuation of use values, he claims: "Showing use values provides the opportunity to actually strengthen the relation between humans and nature as it highlights nature's importance to humanity. It creates awareness and shows values of nature other than being beautiful and emotional. It can create a relation based on conscious use, instead of exploitation". Ron Franken (com01) on the other hand, thinks that a trend towards the economisation of ESS can definitely influence the relation between humans and nature negatively, and potentially shift motivations for conservation to economic revenues (however, he sees this threat mainly within civil servant circles, more than he thinks it applies to the general public). To avoid such a shift, he argues that monetary valuation results should never be presented independently. Yet, he also agrees that in general, valuation studies can be helpful especially in relation to development projects where nature can be coupled with another development issue. Although ecological values will always be most important in communication, he expects it can be helpful to address that these ecological values provide economic benefits as well. This way people might get convinced of the relevance and feasibility of such a nature inclusive solution more easily. He does not think the results such valuation studies are too technocratic for public communication, as for one thing the economic benefits are just one part of the story, for another because the story can be altered to the specific public that is targeted.
6.1.4.3
Market domain Influence on market mechanisms and effect on commodification
The valuation outcomes were not intended for and used as an information basis for alternative market mechanisms. Similarly, commodification of ESS was also not an issue at mind (pol01; soc01). Of course, the outcomes of the TEEB study itself were not explicitly used. However, even if it would have, the investment costs of exploiting the non-cultivation ESS that were defined were still much higher than the revenues. Hence the actual risk of commodification due to the monetary valuation of ESS was to rather low (com01). In addition, commodification would not have even been possible due to the myriad of regional, national and European regulations at play which demand certain minimum standards and management of the area (exe01). In addition, monetary valuation was used to look to find opportunities for were extra nature can be added and to find benefits that legitimise investments in nature, that might otherwise not have been found at all (exe02). The goal was a nature-inclusive
45
solution, with where possible a combination with economic development, not the other way around (exe01; soc01). As for the previous domain, several additional remarks were made that reflect the personal expectations about economic valuation and the market domain of the interviewees (in box 4). Box 4. Expert reflections Not all see merit in the use of economic valuation as input to change market instruments: "I do not think monetary valuation is the key to reforming our economic system. Nature needs to be protected, and that costs money, it is as simple as that. It is great if you can show that investing in nature creates benefits too, however that is 'extra' information. Biodiversity goals should be most important and monetary values should only be one tool from the entire toolbox. Nothing more" (com01). In addition, Ron Franken sees it as the responsibility of institutions commissioning valuation studies to not let it come to commodification. He reasons that separately defining the biodiversity values that have to be maintained or strengthened is the key tool to do this (com01). Cees Kwakernaak is slightly more positive in his expectations, yet also does not specifically address the effect on market instruments: "Overall, the economy is becoming more and more sustainable. Quantifying nature's values enables the identification of opportunities to invest in nature, in that sense contributing to greening our economy" (exe01).
6.1.5 Summary The Eems-Dollard case was a collaboration between two unique projects, one aimed at a nature inclusive dike solution for the Eems-Dollard, the other one aimed at experimenting with the valuation of ESS in relation to safety development tasks. Unfortunately, collaboration did not mean project integration: even though the TEEB study was executed, the double dike project barely used the outcomes. Rather, the TEEB study functioned as a scientific confirmation of the ideas and data that the province already had. This was not because the TEEB study was not useful itself, but due to the fact that the study did not provide any new information compared to the business case analysis of the province. The results of the study were helpful to acquire additional funding in the form of subsidies. For any of the other parameters of decision-making, communication with citizens, or alternative market mechanisms the study was not used. Nevertheless, both projects are perceived as successful: the integrative approach in the Eems-Dollard has led to acceptance of the double dike pilot, and the TEEB study allowed PBL to gain experience with economic valuation projects, and led to the construction of the valuation-checklist which is used still.
46
6.2 Case 2: Benefit estimation of the Natura2000 network in Flanders, Belgium The small continent of Europe hosts an impressive variety of plants, animals and landscapes. Unfortunately, this unique European landscape is under threat. Increasing and intensifying land use combined with persistent growth of urban areas is damaging the natural environment at unprecedented rates. To respond to this trend and to halt the loss of nature, the European Commission has set up the Natura2000 programme (Sundseth et al., 2008). Natura2000 is aimed at ensuring the long-term survival of Europe's most threatened species and habitats. The central element of the programme is the establishment of the largest collection of protected areas worldwide, which stretches over 18% of Europe's land area and 6% of Europe's marine territory. These areas are listed under the Birds and Habitats Directives and provide core breeding and resting sites for rare and threatened species, and protects several specific natural habitat types in their own right (Sundseth et al., 2008). Setting up Natura2000 Europe-wide implies that every member state has to translate and roll out the network within the national and regional borders and national institutional structures. This has not only geospatial and ecological implications, but profound political, organisational and socioeconomic consequences too (Haslett et al., 2010). As a semi-autonomous district within Belgium responsible for nature conservation within their regional borders, these implications apply to Flanders as well. The Flemish nature conservation strategy makes use of Special Protection Zones (or S.B.Z. - In Dutch: Speciale Beschermingszones). Within these protection zones the designated Natura2000 habitats are included and the rules and regulations from the Birds and Habitat Directives are at play (see figure 6.3 for the total collection of bird and habitat zones). Every zone can host a variety of different habitats. Currently, there are 46 of these habitat zones within Flanders, but only three of them are considered of sufficient quality. In the year 2020 at least sixteen of these zones have to be of sufficient quality, and the Flemish government aims for a hundred percent score by 2050. To achieve this, multiple conservation targets that align with the Natura2000 demands have to be realised (Agentschap Natuur en Bos, n.d.).
Figure 6-3. Special protection areas, among other those from the Habitats Directive (green) and the Birds Directive (blue). The 46 special protection zones cluster these areas. Image taken from the presentation of Nachtergaele, ANB. The presentation can be found here.
47
Establishing the Natura2000 network and the conservation targets is difficult, as large investments and efforts are required, and the measures affect a whole range of different stakeholders and institutions. This has made the roll-out of Natura2000 within Flanders a rather slow and ponderous process. This was one of the main reasons for the Agency for Nature and Forests (ANB - In Dutch: Agentschap Natuur en Bos, executive branch of the Belgian Ministry of Environment, Nature and Agriculture) to commission the study 'Benefit estimation of the Natura2000 networks in Flanders' (In Dutch: Raming van de baten geleverd door het Vlaamse Natura2000-netwerk). This study aimed to provide an estimation of the benefits delivered by the Flemish Natura2000 areas, as a whole as well as for specific sites. The goal was to increase support for the Natura2000 targets, to ease negotiation and decision-making about the implementation of these targets, and to look for alternative financing mechanisms (com02; exe02; pol02; Broekx et al., 2013).
6.2.1 Project setup and methods used To achieve these goals the study determined the benefits of the S.B.Z. regions, and estimated if and to what extent these benefits would change when the conservation targets are realised within these areas (Broekx et al., 2013). The study was conducted by VITO, a Flemish natural scientific research institute with ample experience with ecosystem research. Information necessary to value all ESS that the Natura2000 network can provide was not available. Therefore, VITO worked with the pyramid approach, based on Gantioler et al. (2014) (see figure 6.4). This pyramid approach is based on the Total Systems Value framework (TSV), instead of the TEV. According to the authors, TEV often leads to the unjust assumption that all values have been taken into account, and neglects those values that are difficult to monetise. Therefore, the total value of a natural environment, in this case the Natura2000 network, cannot be determined using TEV but has to be represented by a combination of monetary values, quantitative and qualitative insights (Broekx et al., 2013; Gantioler et al., 2014). Generally, there is less information available at the monetary level, and more information available at the qualitative level.
48
Figure 6-4. The valuation pyramid, based on the Total Systems Value. Figure taken from Gantioler et al. (2014)
The report explicitly states the researchers do not claim to have estimated every ESS, and certainly not the full spectrum of benefits. The results provide an estimation of the benefits as could be determined based on the available knowledge in Flanders at that time (Broekx et al., 2013). In total, seventeen ESS have been considered. These are listed in table 1. Table 1. Ecosystem services considered in this case. Adapted from Broekx et al. (2013)
Group
Ecosystem service
Provisioning services
Agricultural production (crops, cattle, and derivatives like milk and cheese) Water supply (soil and surface water) Wood production
Regulating services
Air quality (reduction, filtration and capturing of pollutants) Sound reduction Stabilisation of water levels (retention and infiltration) Flood protection (river) Flood protection (sea) Erosion prevention Global climate regulation (CO2 storage soil) Global climate regulation (CO2 storage biomass) Water quality (denitrification) Water quality (nitrogen and phosphorous storage) Pollination and seed distribution
Cultural services
Experience recreationists and tourists Experience residents Health effects of contact with nature
49
Valuation is based on methods and data that are available and most suitable to that specific service. For the largest part, this regards market price estimations (for agriculture and wood production, replacement costs, avoided health costs), alleged preference methods (travel cost method for recreationists, hedonic pricing method for residents) and to a small extent on CVM (valuation of the effects on health). In addition, the study includes additional economic effects, that cannot be aggregated with the benefits of the ESS, but that are of relevance to estimating the total economic effects of Natura2000 in Flanders (for instance, revenues for sectors active in tourism and recreation). However, these additional benefits are worked out only partially and provide mainly an illustrative function. In total, the benefits of Natura2000 in Flanders (ESS only) were estimated to range between ± 800 million to 1.4 billion euros (Broekx et al., 2013), with the largest benefits being generated by good air quality due to the collection of pollution by plants, recreation and health effects caused by contact with nature.
6.2.2 Interview results The results of this case are based on interviews and document analysis. I interviewed four partakers to the study (for more information on the interviews, see annex I): 1. the project manager from VITO, who was responsible for the execution of the study (the study was performed with seven other researchers) (exe02 - Steven Broekx) 2. the project commissioner from ANB (com02 - Jeroen Panis) 3. the project coordinator and policy officer from the department of Environment, Nature and Energy (LNE, an executive branch of the Ministry of Environment) (pol02 - Johan Toebat) 4. a representative from the nature organisation Natuurpunt, who were involved in subsequent stakeholder meetings about the Natura2000 network (soc2 - Anke Geeraerts)
6.2.2.1
Decision-making domain Impact on public decision-making
The main reason leading to the Natura2000 study were the difficulties concerning the implementation of Natura2000. The idea was the study could be used to ease decision-making and negotiations, as well as generate more support for Natura2000 (exe02, pol02). However, the study did not have much effect on actual decision-making (com02, exe02, pol02). First of all, at the higher political levels, where the foundations for Natura2000 policy and decision-making was laid out, the whole Natura2000 decision-making structure was already set by the time the study came out (pol02). This meant there was no room left for the results of the study to execute any influence on this structure. In addition, the study did not resonate at all at the policy-making levels. Why this is the case is not certain, but Jeroen Panis of ANB (com02) thinks this neglect might have to do with the fact that the monetary outcomes of the study were extremely large. Addressing those values would have meant admitting to decades of flawed policy, as these ESS that turned out to be extremely valuable to society had not received the political attention and protection that would be expected for such high-value services.
50
In addition, decision-making about the practical roll out of Natura2000 in Flanders was partially based on the outcomes of stakeholder negotiations amongst actors directly involved in or affected by the Natura2000 measures. These negotiations were led by ANB and included the nature sector, agricultural stakeholders, employers’ organisations, hunters, other administrative bodies and (nonagricultural) private land owners. These meetings were difficult and slow with much conflicting interests and resistance towards Natura2000 (com02; pol02). Unfortunately, the study did not solve any fundamental issues among the participants, nor did the results help to speed up the negotiations. On the contrary, the study could barely be used in the stakeholder meetings (exe02; pol02). One of the key causes was that the results had quite an opposite effect as what was hoped for on the agricultural stakeholders; the study showed that their land values were going to decrease substantially. Even though the benefits of Natura2000 were very large, these were all public, meaning for the farmers, the outcomes were negative nonetheless (com02; exe02). Johan Toebat (pol02) explained that this problem could not be solved, and that this distribution of benefits-dilemma is one of the key difficulties of ESS valuation: "There is always a huge tension between public benefits and private losses. Of course it is great that ESS conservation or restoration creates increased public benefits. Yet, when a private owner is going to lose value due to this proposed land use change, these public benefits do not solve the owner's loss in any way". The results of the study made this distribution issue even more explicit, rather than reduce tensions making negotiation and informed decision-making possible (pol02). Thus, to not intensify the discussions during negotiations, the study could therefore barely be used during the meetings (com02; exe02; pol02; soc02). The fact that the Minister of Nature was also the Minister of Agriculture did not help, as this meant no higher level political negotiations could be instigated (pol02). However, if the study would have been used for decision-making, the monetary valuation would not have been the only decision-making basis (exe02). Economic valuation is argued to be only functional as a form of decision-making support, and not a decision-making mechanism in itself (exe02; pol02). Because as with the Natura2000 study, quantitative and monetary studies do not present an allencompassing picture on which decision-making can solely be based (pol02; soc02). Combining different informative inputs would make this less of a problem (pol02). This remark answers slightly to the concerns as expressed by Anke Geeraerts (soc02), who explained Natuurpunt is still wary to the use of ESS and monetary valuation of ESS in the political and decision-making field. She argues if the results of such a study are going to be used for actual decision-making, the methods should be more robust than they are now. Because at this point, many Flemish valuation studies are methodologically unsound, as they are often based inappropriate ecological data, which is incomplete or outdated for example. Relatedly, this is why future monetary valuation studies are perceived to be best used as eye-openers, and not rigid and undisputable facts (exe02; soc02).
51
Justification and support generation In addition, the study was intended to highlight the socio-economic benefits of the Natura2000 project and bring about a positive narrative, to contrast the common negative discourse and feelings that surrounded the project, within and outside the stakeholder group (com02). However, the difficulties with the outcomes for the agricultural sector made that even for support generation the study could not be used much in the stakeholder negotiations. Nevertheless, the results have been used to some extent, creating a fairly positive impact on some of the participants (com02). The concretisation of the benefits functioned as an eye-opener, reducing some of the resistance towards certain Natura2000 measures that ANB was planning to take. For certain other specific goals support increased as well. Especially the perception of private land owners towards Natura2000 was positively altered by the study, as the results displayed that the values of their lands would increase (com02). The results could be used more among interest groups outside of the stakeholder meetings, like local and regional politicians (com02). There the results helped to increase support for the implementation of the Natura2000 network as it made clear that the public benefits would be much higher than the costs (com02). For example, the study helped to clarify the high impact Natura2000 has on public health (exe02; pol02). Accordingly, Johan Toebat of LNE (pol02) expects that as was shown in this study, these groups of civil servants that are normally not much interested in nature conservation or restoration, are most receptive to ESS valuation studies. To these groups, the results worked as an eye-opener and are helpful to increase support for decisions to be made (pol02). Steven Broekx makes a similar remark (exe02): "ESS valuation does help to bring together different government institutions. It is an integrated, structural way of speaking about a very difficult topic and allows for a professionalization of sorts. It can be seen as a sort of accounting, in which the results over-simplify reality, but thereby do help to grasp and discuss difficult and complex information. This can help to get players at the negotiation table that would otherwise not be interested, and help government institutions like ANB to get local and regional politicians to be aware of the fact that they have to take their nature seriously, as it represents large values". ANB confirms the benefit framing provides an accessible and common language which worked well and was specifically helpful with the participative approach for nature conservation that ANB aims to pursue (com02). The benefit framing is therefore still used in multi-stakeholder communication and meetings, in which also those actors that would usually not be interested in nature conservation are included (com02). In addition, the Natura2000 study has worked as a catalyst for many other (smaller-scale) studies of ESS valuation throughout Belgium (com02; pol02; soc02). These are also mainly deployed to generate support for nature management measures. For most of those studies, subsequent
52
communication is mainly focussed on a qualitative description of the benefits that are defined in those studies rather than the monetary outcomes specifically (soc02). Inclusion of the social dimensions of valuation The social consequences of the implementing Natura2000 in terms of who does and who does not benefit were not researched, as mentioned explicitly on the first page of the report (Broekx et al., 2013). As no contingent valuation methods were used, no information had to be acquired about the 18
socio-cultural and -economic backgrounds of those valuing . In addition, the valuation in the study was for the largest part based on the measurement of use values. Non-use values were intentionally left out (com02; exe02). Including those kinds of values is regarded as very difficult and ambiguous, and it would have made the economic valuation study extremely incomprehensible, a black box of sorts (exe02). Similarly, Jeroen Panis (com02) argues that non-use values are mutually exclusive with monetary valuation, which is contradicting to how most key authors view ESS (e.g. Daily, 1997; MEA, 2005). He explains his argument by saying that: "We did not include non-use values in this study. This was deliberate, as ESS are utilitarian by definition. Non-utilitarian, non-use values are thus not measurable as part of the ESS valuation framework. Nonetheless, those kinds of values are very important to look at and keep in mind. Therefore, they should always be regarded separately". Hence, this exclusion of many socio-cultural and non-use values is not seen as inherently problematic, because this merely implies monetary valuation studies should always be just one tool in the decision-making toolbox (com02; exe02; pol02). Other forms of values should be looked at separately. However, by the time this study was commissioned, it was status quo to mainly focus at monetary values in addition to quantitative, biophysical values. Nowadays, most studies have a more integrated approach and look at the whole spectrum of values, in which qualitative information on other values than economic ones are explicitly demanded (com02). This is because the merit of accessibility and simplicity is also seen as one of the key problems of monetary valuation of ESS. The outcomes gave an oversimplified view of nature based on use-values only, and he thinks this can lead to the complexities of nature conservation to be disregarded or misunderstood. Therefore, ANB now switched back to qualitative studies based on the intrinsic values of nature mainly (com02). The balance between economy and ecology This study estimated the benefits of the implementation of Natura2000, which will be implemented according to the Birds and Habitats Directives. In that sense, a sudden shift to regarding and implementing only those economically interesting measures was not possible. Hence, ecology was per definition the number one decision-making parameter (exe02). 18
As explained in the project set up and methods section, the health benefits of contact with nature were partially based on
CVM. However, these CVM estimates were taken from another study , and hence this has not been performed in this study itself (Broekx et al. (2015).
53
Steven Broekx (exe02) explains he does not expect decision-making in relation to nature conservation ever to ever be overly focussed on economic revenues, as nature is never going to put money on public banks directly. Moreover, most of these studies are commissioned by entities like ANB, or the INBO (the Flemish institute for Nature and Forest research). Their primary goal is nature conservation and restoration. This means the ecological outcomes of their studies are always going to be primary focus, and would never be outweighed by economic outcomes (com02; pol02). Anke Geeraerts (soc02) is critical nonetheless, as she experiences that for some of the projects INBO is realising for instance, ESS valuation is used as a tool; however, in the project documents, it almost seems as if the tool has become the end in itself, as the valuation goals are mentioned everywhere at the expense of a concretisation of biodiversity goals. Hence, overall biodiversity goals should be set much more clearly (soc02).
6.2.2.2
Public legitimacy domain Effect on public awareness
The results of the Natura2000 study have not been used directly in communication with civil stakeholders, however it has functioned as information basis for communication. For instance, both VITO and Natuurpunt explain that in their communication with civil society, they have not used ESS classifications and monetary values. Rather, they used a different story, based on the intrinsic and amenity value of nature and a qualitative description of some of the results of the benefits ESS create, in this case mainly the health benefits. These benefits are then translated into the functions of nature for people (exe02; soc02). This communication approach was not unique to the Natura2000 study: usually interaction with civilians (at least those that do not have a direct stake or say in the plans) does not include explicit economic framing, nor monetary values (exe02; soc02). However, it does occur that for instance one large key figure is used as an eye-opener to wow the public on the value of nature. This helps to give people an idea on the magnitude of the value of nature (exe02). Box 5. Expert reflections Communication primarily based on monetary values is irrelevant, agree most interviewees (exe02; pol02; soc02). The main goal is seen to be conveying the message that nature conservation actually contributes to society, and to people personally. The concretisation of the ESS and the monetary values can back that message up, by providing new and substantiated information and arguments, but should not be the basis of the narrative (exe02, pol02; soc02). As a side note, Anke Geeraerts (soc02) mentions that when people do have a direct stake or say in a project, probably in the case of smaller-scale projects, using economic framing and communicating monetary outcomes might be more useful, as those values can work clarifying and might help to increase support and willingness to participate.
The human-nature relations
54
No information could be shared on the influence of the economic public communication strategies on the relations between humans and nature because these were not used. Several interviewees did share their expectations on this impact, and elaborated on the effects of the currently used strategies, presented in box 6. Box 6. Expert reflections Because communication to the general public does not emphasise the economic value and monetary outcomes of ESS, valuation as such is not regarded as inherently damaging by the interviewees (com02; exe02; pol02; soc02). On the contrary, the framing based on the benefits of nature can positively influence the human-nature bond, argue both Steven Broekx and Johan Toebat (exe02; pol02). Steven Broekx (exe02) states: "It is important to be realistic about the way the average civilian views nature. More often than not, people are already quite disconnected from nature, and nature restoration is not something many people are very preoccupied with. Making visible what the benefits are for them personally, may help them to better understand and accept nature restoration programmes". Relatedly, Johan Toebat (pol02) explains that the fact that an instrumental approach neglects the intrinsic value of nature is not an argument to not look at the benefits that nature provides for civil society: "People that already have a good relation with nature and value nature intrinsically, are probably not influenced by a utilitarian framing. It is more focussed at the people who do not have this relation. Those people might be drawn a little closer, and become a bit more aware and interested, by highlighting the benefits nature delivers to them, in terms of health, recreation and safety for instance". The same goes for the possibility of the public motivation to shift to economic benefits only: both think motivations might be broadened due to increased public knowledge instead of decreased to economic aspects only; especially because communication will rarely explicitly use monetary values (exe02; com02). However, Anke Geeraerts (soc02) states that when only the instrumental framing is used and the intrinsic value of nature is not included in the narrative, the risk of damaging the human-nature relation exists nonetheless, even if the language is not explicitly economic. Therefore, she states that communication about nature should always combine both stories, and include a 'benefit' as well as 'nature for nature's sake' perspective. Currently, she finds that many studies conducted in Flanders do not make clear what the role is for nature and its intrinsic values. Therefore, she argues future studies should clarify what the balance is between nature protection for nature's sake, and nature for the sake of conserving ESS.
55
6.2.2.3
Market domain Influence on market mechanisms
The third goal of the Natura2000 study was to look for potential alternative financing mechanisms, which could make part of the benefits generated flow back to the Natura2000 network itself. The basic idea was to use a domestic offset scheme. However, that system never came into being (com02; exe02; pol02). What remained is a PES-like scheme in the form of subsidies, explains Jeroen Panis (com02). Private owners or local or regional governments for instance get subsidised to manage conservation themselves. This way conservation costs ANB less time and money. Yet, these subsidies are based on set cost-values, not on the determined monetary benefits (com02; pol02). If monetary valuation would be used the outcomes would have to be more robust (exe02), and then still, really getting revenue streams flowing back from beneficiaries to investors is considered as very difficult (com02; exe02; pol02). The study has not been used to look for other options to internalise externalities, nor to include nature's values into welfare indicators (pol02). Yet, both government actors believe that monetary valuation could play a role in the redistribution of negative externalities (com02; pol02). This is outlined in box 7. Box 7. Expert reflections None of the interviewees considered monetary valuation as a critical component of the transformation of the economy into a greener model (com02; exe02; pol02; soc02). Both government interviewees see merit in a move towards internalising externalities, for which monetary ESS valuation might be useful to provide knowledge on the natural resources private players use, as well as the values of those resources. These could be used to demand these values to be internalised (com02). Nevertheless, both are not sure if monetary valuation of ESS would be the most suitable information input to achieve these internalisations (com02; pol02). However, Anke Geeraerts (soc02) thinks that for one thing, this would require more robust outcomes, and secondly, it is important to ensure these kinds of valuations do not become compensation systems. This would allow private actors to trade-off whether it is economically more viable to destruct nature and pay the fine, instead of conserving it.
Effect on commodification As stated above, the core of the Natura2000 project is the implementation of protected areas under the Birds and Habitats Directive. Hence, the ecological goals are per definition most important; commodification in the sense of using the area for exploitation of ESS could not be possible as then the Natura2000 demands are not met (pol02). Hence, when economy is secondary to ecology due to policies and ecological goals for instance, it is argued that there is no risk of overexploitation (pol02). Nevertheless, there is a tendency in Flanders to link revenues to nature conservation. Mowing road side grass for instance used to cost, but now generates money, as roadside grass is sold as a resource (pol02). Similarly, Natuurpunt has commercialised some of their natural resources, for instance by selling wood chips from the trees that are cut (soc02). Yet, as long as the commercial
56
activity is subordinate to the ecological goals, which is the case for LNE and Natuurpunt, this does not have to mean overexploitation at all (pol02; soc02).
6.2.3 Summary The Natura2000 study was the first of its kind in Flanders in terms of scope and methods; never had such an extensive valuation study taken place. The goals of the study were twofold; to increase support for Natura2000 among political and non-political stakeholders involved and to aid in decisionmaking. Unfortunately, the study has not been used much for any of those goals. In relation to decision-making at the high political level, the study was not in time: the decision-making structure had already been set, leaving no room for the study results to influence any of it. In addition, the results did not resonate at high political level. A more fundamental issue was the problem of distribution of benefits. Even though the study outcomes showed that the Natura2000 measures would provide huge benefits, those benefits were largely public. This meant that the agricultural stakeholders, who's lands were going to lose substantial value according to the study, were not pleased with the outcomes. This tension between public benefits and private losses made it impossible to use the study within the stakeholder meetings in which the implementation of Natura2000 was negotiated. The study has not been used much in communication with citizens. Some of the outcomes, the large positive impact on health for instance, are being communicated, but not in an economic manner. Communication with civilians is based on qualitative narratives, that highlight the benefits nature provides, but does not provide an economics rationale.
57
6.3 Case 3: TEEB City Urban green is known to provide a myriad of aesthetic benefits. However, that investing in nature in the built environment represents a major economic value as well, was much less evident (Bade et al., 2011). To contribute to this knowledge deficit, the Green Pays! campaign got set up in the Netherlands in 2007, by a consortium of public space and green related organisations such as the Tree Foundation and the Royal Dutch Touring Club (In Dutch: ANWB). The Green Pays! campaign aimed to increase awareness on the merits of urban green, and to provide a more economic rationale in favour of green in the city. One of the activities of this campaign was the organisation of an excursion for a group of several local and regional politicians related to biodiversity in the built environment. This excursion made clear that there is ample space for green in urban environments, which provides a lot of potential for biodiversity development. However, too often green developments are not implemented within cities because there is no value attributed to nature other than intrinsic values, which is barely used in decision-making, if used at all (coo03x). As a result of this excursion, the representative councillor from the municipality of Apeldoorn got triggered take up this challenge of connecting biodiversity development and urban development. Resulting, the idea emerged to set up a programme aimed at increasing the visibility of biodiversity in the built environment, by doing TEEB-inspired valuation studies in cities. The Apeldoorn councillor approached the Ministry of Economic Affairs and a group of eleven other municipalities to set up, finance and conduct this programme together. A core group led by the municipality of Apeldoorn worked out the profile of the programme and contracted the engineering and research institution Witteveen+Bos to coordinate and facilitate the actual calculation methods. This was the start the TEEB City programme, set up as follow-up of the Green Pays! campaign (TEEB Stad, 2012). By gaining experience with determining the values of nature and water in the city within municipalities, the TEEB City project hoped to make the inclusion of the benefits of green and blue a customary practice in decision-making on urban spatial planning (TEEB Stad, 2012).
6.3.1 Project setup and methods used Where the Green Pays! campaign was mainly focussed at creating awareness on the economic benefits of green in the city, the TEEB City programme aimed at practically researching how the value of green and blue in the city can be calculated, and how those values could be used. All eleven participating municipalities filed a specific case, in which they could experiment with these calculations within their city (TEEB Stad, 2012). Witteveen+Bos designed a TEEB-based cost and benefit format that was used for the calculations, and determined where and when benefits of green and blue are created, how high these benefits are and which societal groups are the actual beneficiaries. For every case, the first step was to determine what quality-change would occur when the proposed measures would be executed. Subsequently, these quality changes had to be translated into benefits. Hence, the benefits that determined were not directly based on defined ESS as can be found in the
58
CICES classification for instance, but rather on a definition of the measure that had been taken. For example, planting trees in an area (measure) leads to increased attractiveness (quality change), which in turn generates higher housing values (benefit) (Kirchholtes, 2012). Some of the benefits determined in the cases would be filed under 'additional economic contributions', according to Gantioler et al. (2014) for instance. The second step was to select the appropriate valuation method to calculate the monetary benefits, for example avoided costs methods or travel cost methods. The calculations were all based on key figures taken from several reference works, and not site specific numbers. TEEB City valuation mainly focussed at the valuation of use benefits. Of the non-use values, only bequest value was taken into account for the Rotterdam case. The other cases only included use values (TEEB Stad, 2012). A list of the all the benefits looked at in the cases is provided below, followed by a brief description of each case. In total, these were all benefits looked at in the four TEEB projects used for this case study: a. Increased profits for retailers (only Almelo) b. Increased living pleasure (translated into higher housing values) c.
Reduced costs vacant houses (only Haarlem)
d. Increased recreational experience e. Avoided health risks due to reduced heat stress f.
Avoided health risks due to improved air quality
g. Avoided water management costs and increased water quality h. Improved micro climate due to increased CO2 storage i.
Avoided energy costs and improved micro climate due to more shelter from trees
j.
Avoided dredging costs (only Rotterdam)
k.
Bequest value due to increased biodiversity (only Rotterdam)
In the other seven TEEB City projects, three additional benefits were determined: avoided energy costs due to improved isolation of buildings; avoided costs of moving due to increased social cohesion; increased labour productivity and innovation due to increased social cohesion. Almelo The Almelo pilot study got commissioned by the province of Overijssel. The province was looking for innovative methods to get the benefits of soil and ground (In Dutch: ondergrond) concretised and taken into account in spatial planning processes. Four different pilots were commissioned throughout Overijssel. One of the four pilots was the TEEB pilot, which was conducted in the city of Almelo. The aim was to determine whether the benefits of a combination of measures (planting extra trees while re-zoning the underground cable infrastructure and instalment of a thermal energy system) in the city centre of Almelo would outweigh the investment costs, and hence increase uptake of that idea into spatial planning processes. The largest outcome was increased profit for retailers in the project area. Apeldoorn
59
In addition to being the TEEB City project coordinator, the municipality of Apeldoorn filed their own pilot as well. The pilot focussed at calculating the benefits of investing in park Zuidbroek. Park Zuidbroek is part of a residential area in Apeldoorn of which the construction was going to start in 2012. In spatial development projects like the Zuidbroek district, it is common to add natural elements like trees and shrubs as the last step in the development phase. But as it was a time of crisis, the risk existed that at the end of the construction period, all budgets would have been spent, leaving no room to invest in the park. By doing the TEEB pilot Apeldoorn hoped to see if it would be beneficial to start developments with the park instead of ending with it (which included steps like building ponds, planting orchards, restoring wild flora etc.). The involved councillor reasoned that restoring the park early on might up the housing sales, as he expected the presence of green to contribute to people's willingness to move there. The TEEB pilot was used to determine what the benefits would be of restoring the park, and if the benefits would legitimise the costs of starting the project phase with investments in the park. The largest outcome regarded increased housing value due to more living enjoyment. Rotterdam At first, the municipality and the harbour company of Rotterdam were asked to participate with the TEEB pilot for the area of Merwe-Vierhaven. However, when both parties were decided not to participate for unclear reasons, the engineering bureau of the municipality got asked to join instead. Usually, the bureau works on soil, ground infrastructure and GIS related studies, and is actively involved in trying to link the bottom and soil with the urban world above. As they were interested in the TEEB methods, they agreed to take over. Within the Merwe-Vierhaven area several spatial development projects were under consideration, but all mainly grey, low-nature solutions. At the time of the start of the pilot the area was already lacking green, and mainly a concrete neighbourhood. The TEEB pilot was used to determine what the benefits would be of a more nature inclusive, green development of the area. For Rotterdam also, the main outcome was the increase in housing values due to more living enjoyment for residents. Haarlem In Haarlem, the Kleverlaan area was going to be redeveloped. The TEEB pilot was used to see what the benefits would be of certain green measures in the area, and if concretising those benefits would help to get more nature in the city. This was particularly interesting in Haarlem as normally only the costs of planting or maintaining nature were highlighted, making urban green disappear rapidly, while it is already one of the most concrete cities in the Netherlands. The largest benefit was that of increased recreational value and reduced costs of vacant housing. Meeting City Deal 'the values of green and blue in the city' After completion of the TEEB City pilots, the municipal participants and the coordinating ministries of Economic Affairs and Infrastructure and Environment concluded that the TEEB approach was a promising way to address green and blue in the urban environment. The methods used in the pilots
60
however, were very time-consuming and required specialised knowledge. Hence, Economic Affairs commissioned the development of a digital instrument in 2012, that could be used as a tool by anyone interested in determining the values of green and blue in the urban environment, also those with no experience with societal cost and benefit analysis or ESS. This tool was finished in 2013. In 2016 the roll-out of TEEB City was taken a step further, when the ministries of Economic Affairs and Infrastructure and Environment, together with seven other municipalities and partners, set up the City Deal: 'the values of green and blue in the city'. The City Deal is seen as the new step towards the quantification of the Dutch Natural Capital. The goals of the City Deal are to improve and further develop the TEEB tool (specifically aimed at providing more location specific information, based on the geo-information as collected within the ANK); expansion and intensification of the network around the tool, thereby ensuring an increasing amount of governors and municipalities will use the tool and take into account green and blue in decision-making; and ultimately, to use these methods and information to create green and sustainable cities, that are attractive to both citizens and companies (City Deal 2016). I was present at one of the City Deals core group meetings, as well as a workshop following that meeting on green and health in the urban environment. Although the meeting did not apply to the TEEB City projects anymore, it was relevant to participate as it clarified how the TEEB approach for the urban environment is seen and used nowadays. As described in the methodology section, information gathering at this meeting was based on informal talks and participant observation.
6.3.2 Interview results In the following section, the results of the interviews and participant observation conducted are presented. Participants from four different municipalities were interviewed, being Almelo, Apeldoorn, Haarlem and Rotterdam. For more information, see annex I. 1. The project commissioner from Almelo case, active as policy officer for public space and soil for the Province of Overijssel (Jaya Sicco Smit - com03a) 2. The involved policy officer for the municipality of Almelo (Lydia Plant, pol03a) 3. The coordinator of the TEEB City project, also strategic advisor for the public space at the municipality of Apeldoorn (Henk Kuijpers, coo03x) 4. The programme manager for the Park Zuidbroek case, from the green space department within the municipality of Apeldoorn (Jolanda van Sikkelerus - exe03b) 5. One of the programme managers for the Rotterdam Port case, from the Rotterdam Engineering Bureau, responsible for public space and soil (Kees de Vette, exe03c) 6. The programme commissioner and manager for the Haarlem Kleverlaan case, policy advisor green and environment for the municipality of Haarlem (Diana Bakboord - com03d).
6.3.2.1
Decision-making domain Impact on project decision-making
For most cases, the influence of the pilot outcomes on decision-making was not substantial. In Haarlem, decision-making took place in the project board, consisting of many non-green politicians. The idea was to see whether the TEEB study, presenting the benefits of green in an economic
61
rationale results in the planning, could lead to more regard for green than usual. This way nature could potentially be included easier in the redevelopment project of the Kleverlaan zone (com03d). However, in the end the outcomes have not even been used in communication to the board, because the development plans for the designated area had not been determined yet by the time the TEEB study was finished. In the meantime, she experienced critique on the results as multiple colleagues thought the results to be disputable. Hence, the results were also not used to influence the development project designs at a later stage. In Almelo, the TEEB study was conducted as part of a large-scale re-development project in the city centre. Decisions were made within the specific project team from the municipality on the whole width of the project. Hence, the part that TEEB valued was only a relatively small section of the entire programme. Therefore, the outcomes on decision-making were not too large (pol03a). Nevertheless, this was not regarded as a failed pilot at all, as the aim was merely to get an overview of the benefits (of planting trees and installing the thermal energy storage system), to see whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and thus to see whether the nature inclusive development idea that they had was confirmed by the study (pol03a). The study certainly did that, and has thereby contributed to the further design of the planning processes in the city (pol03a). In Rotterdam, the project executors did try to use the monetary results explicitly to impact decisionmaking on alternative spatial planning. However, decisions on the developments in the MerweVierhaven were not made by the engineering bureau who conducted the TEEB study, but by another urban space department of the municipality, as well as private project developers. However, the study was disregarded as the outcomes were disputed, and parochialism was still very prevalent amongst the targeted decision-makers which were thus not very interested in the integral approaches of TEEB. Hence, no alternative area developments could be effectuated (exe03c). Nevertheless, especially because parochialism is an issue among urban planners, Kees de Vette (exe03c) of the engineering bureau of Rotterdam sees monetary valuation as a useful tool for decision-making. Because "without determining and displaying the value of nature properly, green will never be sufficiently regarded in decision-making". The economic approach, he expects, might easier convince these non-green urban stakeholders than argumentation based on intrinsic or aesthetic values only (exe03c). In Apeldoorn the study did clearly contribute to decision-making on park Zuidbroek. The outcomes of the study mainly helped to confirm the idea that investing the park was justifiable, particularly in the long run. Especially because during the time of the study the crisis was still very evident in Apeldoorn, the park would probably not have been restored if it was not for the TEEB study, explain both interviewees from the municipality (coo03x, exe03b). An important factor that allowed for the direct uptake of the results and led to the decision to invest in the park, was that the councillor responsible for Zuidbroek was also closely involved in the TEEB City project itself. Hence, he was already familiar with these kinds of studies and understood the value of the results (coo03x). Another important side note is that in the case of Apeldoorn, not only were the benefits determined, but also a direct financing
62
mechanism. The highest value determined was real estate value, which increased due to higher living enjoyment in the area. As every resident pays a housing tax to the municipality which is based on their real estate value, this meant that the municipality would certainly see some of its investments back. This was important support for the decision to invest in restoration of the Park before building the area (exe03b). After the TEEB pilots were done, Jolanda van Sikkelerus (exe03b) also tried to use the TEEB methods for a project at the border of Apeldoorn, where there are much less houses. However, she experienced the methods not to be useful there, as the intended green measures could not increase any living enjoyment. Hence, she argues the TEEB methods are mainly advantageous for decision-making about restoration or new development projects in urban areas. Based information provided by the interviewees, it shows that for the two municipalities where the results did impact decision-making, this was because the results were used to confirm already existing development ideas. According to project coordinator Henk Kuijpers (coo03x), this is not unique to those two cases. He thinks that monetary valuation to this day is mostly used to confirm (or disprove) development ideas. "Usually, there is an idea for a more nature inclusive solution. Then, benefit analysis can be used to research the merits, but especially also the additional benefits of that idea, that would otherwise not have been found. This way, the analysis can support the decision to go for the 'green' solution" (coo3x). Box 8. Expert reflections To the knowledge of Henk Kuijpers (coo03x), the use of monetary valuation as an explicit decisionmaking tool, for instance as a method to compare different scenario's, is very uncommon still. However, multiple interviewees see potential for monetary valuation to be used for this aim within future urban development projects (com03a, exe03c). Because, many of such projects are dependent on the weighing of alternative options. Monetary valuation is expected to be of great use to compare different nature-inclusive options, and to back-up potential decision-making afterwards.
Justification and support generation For all the municipalities that were interviewed, working with the TEEB methods was a new and sometimes difficult process. Yet, the focus on the economic benefits of green in the city worked well for everyone, and showed them how nature in the built environment can also be regarded. In the case of Almelo, not only the commissioner and related policy officer themselves appreciated this economic approach, but the story also resonated beyond their specific working groups, both the at the province as well as the municipality, and is actually still used within both institutions (com03a, pol03a). The other three municipalities have not seen a similar continuation of the economic discourse after the TEEB City pilots (exe03b, exe03x, com03d). Nevertheless, Henk Kuijpers (coo03x) finds that at least the notion that nature provides benefits other than purely aesthetic ones, has become more
63
embedded in municipalities all around the country. Even though actual monetary valuation studies that include calculations are still not common, he argues that: "TEEB City was a success nonetheless, because it put the value of nature on the municipal agenda. There is no municipality now that does not at least know about the benefits of green and blue in the urban environment". All interviewees agree that the worth of economisation is specifically grounded in its use as a tool for awareness creation that can be used to justify and acquire more investments in green and blue in the city (com03a, pol03a, exe03c, com03d). Three of the four municipalities communicated that this was their main reason to participate in TEEB City: the foresight of being able to highlight and communicate the benefits of green and blue in the city, instead of only looking at costs, which was customary then (com03a, pol03a, exe03c, com03d). Hence, for these municipalities the goal at the time was to create awareness internally, mainly within the non-green departments of the municipalities. Diana Bakboord (com03d) of the municipality of Haarlem hoped that concretising and quantifying the benefits that green and blue generate, would increase awareness amongst public officers that green and blue are an opportunity, and not only a problem. Because such methods make visible that investments do pay back (com03d). Up until the TEEB pilot in Almelo for instance, the narratives used to justify investments were too abstract and subjective, and always the same. The TEEB study provided a new, tangible and objective story that worked much better in communication with internal account managers for instance (com03a, pol03a). In Apeldoorn, the results did help to justify investments in nature at that time, however this was easier as the decision-maker was also directly involved in TEEB City (exe03b; coo03x). However, the economic narrative did not resonate to such an extent that it is used still today (exe03b). The involved councillor at the time for instance, made the decision that these kind of TEEB methods should always be included in development projects. However, to this day this does not happen, as long as the people who were directly involved in the pilot are not actively pursuing its use (exe03b). For two of the other municipalities, the monetary results of the study did not even help as a justification tool for investments in green. As touched upon above, in Haarlem, the pilot results were so high that other urban planners and designers had trouble believing them. As a result, only the qualitative, non-monetary story about the benefits ESS generate resonated (for instance, stressing the influence of green on water management in the area); the actual monetary values were of much less use (com03d). The Rotterdam case showed a similar outcome. The particularly high monetary values triggered reactions of disbelieve, which led to low serious regard for the study. Hence the Rotterdam representative thinks these kinds of valuation studies are not sufficiently understandable for all stakeholders, especially those local politicians with civil engineering or accounting related backgrounds, as they will find it disputable (exe03c). Yet contradicting stories can also be found. In Apeldoorn for instance, a few years back several politicians were considering removing a particular
64
green area. Jolanda van Sikkelerus (exe03b) of the green department in the municipality then calculated, in a very quick and dirty manner, what the costs and benefits would be of maintaining that area. That really worked as an eye-opener, she explains. Not only could the area remain, but that was the last time the option of removing the area was even considered. Nevertheless, (com03a; pol03a; coo03x; exe03b; exe03c; com03d). Even though experiences are mixed, most respondents experienced monetary valuation studies to be worthwhile in relation to support generation and legitimation. Highlighting the benefits of green and blue in the urban environment instead of only looking at the costs allowed for better legitimation of the inclusion of green in decision-making. It helped to find more appropriate arguments and to enter into dialogue with non-green politicians and decision-makers, and helps to enter in negotiations with more confidence (com03a, pol03a, coo03x, exe03b). Yet, several interviewees think it is important to mainly focus on a qualitative, convincing story about the benefits (although all agree biophysical merits can be expressed quantitatively, if necessary) (com03a, exe03c, com03d). The monetary values (as long as they are positive of course), are the foundation that can back the narrative up, but should not be a central element in communication, as the Rotterdam and Haarlem pilot have proven this can work contradictory (com03a, exe03c, com03d). This way, highlighting concrete benefits is still a valuable tool for the green departments in municipalities (com03a, exe03c, com03d). Even though scepticism is expected to remain present among non-green politicians, the benefit rational is fruitful, 'if only to generate curiosity and get a foot in the door' (com03d). Although not all interviewees explicitly stated that monetary values should generally not be the basis of communication, all interviewees did mention that the results of the pilot studies were too specific and technical to be used directly. Thus modification of the story is required depending on which group is targeted, and what the specific context or project is (com03a, pol03a, coo03x, exe03b; exe03c; com03d). "These kinds of tools are always difficult to understand, nothing is ever simple. Yet, it is simply a matter of knowing your audience and explaining it well" (exe03b). This is particularly important seen the interest of every municipality to use these kinds of monetary valuation studies as an aid to make part of the public investments in ESS flow back from the beneficiaries. Jaya Sicco Smit (com03a) of the province of Overijssel declared that: "The biggest gain we got from the TEEB pilot is that we were able to identify the beneficiaries of our intended measures. Now we know these are often different stakeholders than you would expect. Being able to approach these parties beforehand is very valuable in terms of increasing the chances of their participation, being financially or in any other way." Also for Almelo, Apeldoorn and Haarlem, the potential to include beneficiaries was seen as an interesting and promising feature of the valuation studies (pol03a, exe03b, exe03d). Yet, this means that valuation studies have to be conducted very early in the planning phases of such project
65
(pol03a). Because then beneficiaries can be approached at the very start of a project, or even before. This increases the chances they are willing to help by thinking along for instance, using their networks or putting in other forms of effort; although ideally, beneficiaries can be included to co-finance projects (com03a; pol03a). Which, according to Lydia Plant (pol03a) of the municipality of Almelo, is unavoidable in the future as municipalities and regional governments can never pay for all necessary investments in green themselves. That the question on how to include beneficiaries and redistribute costs and benefits is still a hot issue showed during the City Deal meeting. The central question for the participants of the meeting seemed to be how to involve beneficiaries, and how to get financial streams to flow not only from the municipalities but also other stakeholders. Corresponding to documents on the TEEB tool for instance, the potential of determining beneficiaries, followed up by the problem of how to get them involved, appears to be one of the most important outcomes of the TEEB study (TEEB Stad, 2013; van der Heide, 2015). Lydia Plant (pol03a) worries that trying to involve beneficiaries implies discussions on methods and input, because, what is the exact value of that tree parties have to contribute to and how did that value come to be? On the other hand, her colleague from the province stresses that to avoid these kinds of disputes, it is important to not use the monetary outcomes of valuation studies as undisputable outcomes that provide a one-on-one representation of what the beneficiary should pay (com03a). Instead, it is more a matter of readdressing the benefit narrative, mirroring that to the development projects, and seeing how you can get to new, possibly voluntary ways of cooperating together, than imposing a financial share that beneficiaries have to contribute (com03a; exe03b; com03d). Nevertheless, a concrete idea of how support and willingness to contribute could be created under beneficiaries, none of the interviewees was sure about (nor did any of the municipalities experiment with trying to get beneficiaries involved during the pilots) (pol03a, exe03b, coo03x, com03d). All interviewees expressed their willingness to continue using this economic approach to green in the city. This is particularly the case because the economic discourse is seen as useful in terms of interdisciplinary, integral consultations. Urban spatial planning projects often involve participants from different backgrounds, many of which are not involved or interested in (urban) nature. Translating nature's worth into a more economic description of the benefits of nature provides a common language that everybody at the table understands (com03a, pol03a, coo03x, exe03c). Lydia Plant (pol03a) thinks this language will fit specifically well in projects on the built environment from 2019 onwards, when the new Dutch law for the Built Environment
19
comes into play (In Dutch:
Omgevingswet). She expects this law to lead to more integral, opportunity and chain-based projects, and hence providing new momentum for the economic ESS reasoning, as this reasoning is understood by the whole range of partners. This can help to ensure the inclusion of green and blue as valuable elements of such development projects right from the start. 19
The new 'law for the Built Environment' aimes to bundle all rules and regulations for the built environment in the Netherlands
into one law, with much more room for local participation and development initiatives. See https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/omgevingswet/inhoud/vernieuwing-omgevingsrecht
66
The balance between economy and ecology Within the TEEB City pilots, biodiversity strengthening (in its definition of diversity 'within species, 20
between species, and of ecosystems ), was not included as a separate parameter, even the TEEB City pilots originated from an excursion on biodiversity in the built environment (coo03x). This lack of biodiversity observance is one of the key critiques of Henk Kuijpers (coo03x), former coordinator of the TEEB City project, on TEEB-based projects in the Netherlands. The tool for instance, neither mentions biodiversity (coo03x). He criticises this because it poses the risk that such studies lead to increased investments in urban green that do not do any good for biodiversity levels. Nevertheless, he does not think an over-focus on economy related to green is a substantial risk of monetary valuation used by public institutions. Mostly, because generating monetary revenues are not expected to ever be the goal of the study (com03a). Similarly, because: "Overall, I think the people pressing for such studies, as in the TEEB City pilots, are doing so from a nature-perspective: they want to see nature included and hence use monetary valuation to provide them with additional argumentation. These people understand that monetary valuation is just a tool to achieve more ecological value" (coo03x). Nevertheless, also several of the other respondents thought biodiversity goals are important for future implementation of economic valuation studies. Their remarks can be found in box 9. Box 9. Expert reflections Most other interviewees agree it is important to include biodiversity levels separately in these kinds of studies, although this did not lead to issues during the pilots yet (coo03x, exe03b, exe03c, exe03d). Even though making biodiversity more explicit by setting biodiversity goals is regarded difficult, it is not only seen as an important way to safeguard biodiversity, but also to avoid over-focus on the economically most interesting solution, according multiple respondents (coo03x, exe03b, exe03c). For example, when monetary valuation studies are used to compare different options, the risk exists the most economically interesting option gets selected, instead of the option with the highest ecological benefits (exe03c). However, when biodiversity preservation or strengthening is obliged to be included too, this risk is expected to be reduced greatly (coo03x; exe03c).
Inclusion of the social dimensions of valuation Of all eleven cases of the TEEB study only one included one of the non-use values (in the Rotterdam case, bequest values due to increased green in the were looked at). No other non-use values were included in any of the cases; the study was almost one hundred percent based on use values. Nonuse values were not explained as part of the calculation tool by Witteveen+Bos (exe03b). The studies did also not make use of contingent valuation methods, hence, none of the interviewees had 20
Definition of the Convention on Biological Diversity, www.cbd.int
67
experience with these elements. Why this was decided is unknown as Witteveen+Bos was not available for an interview. Nevertheless, most of the respondents shared expectations about the compatibility of economic valuation with socio-cultural values. These are displayed in box 10. Box 10. Expert reflections Monetary valuation is seen as incompatible with including many socio-cultural and non-use values. As one interviewee explained, economic valuation and non-use values are sort of a contradictio in terminis: non-use values cannot be measured well by methods (economic valuation methods, respectively) that are actually meant to capture goods and services that people use (exe03b). However, this is not regarded as a structural issue, because monetary valuation is seen as only one part of the decision-making process, and other forms of information can be acquired separately: "Monetary valuation gives an incomplete picture, but is that a reason not to use it? It is merely one of the tools that can be used for decision-making" (exe03b). More interviewees agree with the notion that monetary valuation cannot used independently (com03a; exe03c). However, overall monetary outcomes on their own are perceived as unsuitable to ever be used and presented as undisputable, all-encompassing outcomes, because the results never are (com03a; exe03c). Rather, all interviewees agree monetary valuation can better be regarded as a building block, that should be combined with other comparative tools, and which should regard information on the social context and consequences of the intended measures, as well as desired biodiversity levels, separately (coo03x, com03a, pol03a, exe03b, exe03c, com03d). Hence, if studies are clear about the limitations and the elements that could not be regarded, it is potentially a very valuable addition to the inputs for decision-making on alternative development projects (exe03b). In addition, both Henk Kuijpers (coo03x) and Kees de Vette (exe03c) argue that not only should monetary valuation be regarded as part of a toolbox; the results should be analysed in light of the hole urban-natural system, and never as a distinct, separate element. However, both experience that currently municipalities are still stuck in parochialism and disciplinary thinking mainly. They see potential for monetary valuation to aid in the transition to more integrated systems thinking.
6.3.2.2
Public legitimacy domain Effect on public awareness and the human-nature relation
None of the municipalities used the outcomes of the TEEB pilot in communication with citizens. This is explained by the fact that none of the pilots were intended to be used for public communication and awareness creation in the first place (pol03a, exe03b, exe03c, com03d). Resulting, the interviewees had no practical experience with the effectiveness of communication based on the economic ESS discourse on people, nor with its impact on human-nature relations. Yet, several of the respondents did share their personal opinions on the use of economic valuation for public awareness and the potential effect on the human-nature relation, as shown in box 11.
68
Box 11. Expert reflections Most interviewees explained that in future scenario's if these kinds of studies are used for public awareness creation, they would not convey a message based on monetary outcomes, but instead convey a story highlighting the benefits that nature provides to people in a qualitative way (pol03a, exe03b, com03d). However, when inhabitants are able to co-decide or at least provide input to projects, Kees de Vette (exe03c) thinks it might nonetheless be relevant to communicate the monetary values of different outcomes as well, allowing them to compare green alternatives with more civil engineering-based options. Relating to the risk of using the economic framing in relation to people's bond with nature, Henk Kuijpers (coo03x) personally thinks that "people will always understand the intrinsic value of nature". Nevertheless, he does recognise that many people today are still reluctant towards the use of monetary valuation and an economic perspective on nature, because they find that monetary valuation does neglect nature's intrinsic values. Yet, the use of the economic ESS perspective towards citizens is not expected to influence the way people perceive themselves in relation to nature, and especially not change their motivations for conservation or investments in green (com03a; coo03x; exe03b; com03d). For one thing, because they expect municipal communication with citizens aimed at increase their awareness on the value or support for investments in green instance, will mostly not address monetary values at all. Communication might be based on the economic rationale, but not on financial outcomes (com03a, pol03a, exe03b, com03d). Secondly, because stories stressing the benefits of ESS should be matched with narratives highlighting the intrinsic values of nature, in a non-economic way (exe03b, com03). Moreover, development projects in the built environment are always matter of addressing societal issues or desires: "These projects are primarily about people, and serving their needs. Venting the benefits these people can get from investments in green can merely help to increase their awareness on the relevance of green and blue" (com03a). Another perspective provided reasons that monetary valuation and communication based on the economic rationale can improve instead of worsen people's perception towards nature (coo03x; exe03c). Monetary valuation of green and blue is seen as a part of a circular economic system, in which economy and ecology are integrated, and the connection people have with nature is very important. As economy in its essence is about satisfying people’s needs, concretising the share that nature provides in those needs helps to make the connection between humans and the natural world, states Henk Kuijpers (coo03x). However, within the current take-make-waste system, an economic framing based on what nature provides humans might be tricky indeed, as the current linear system is closely linked with overexploitation (exe03c). Therefore, it is deemed important to not regard monetary valuations as all-inclusive outcomes or solid facts, but to provide an integral story, putting all the elements of decision-making into perspective, including monetary values (exe03c).
6.3.2.3
Market domain Influence on market mechanisms
69
As with public communication, the TEEB City pilots were not intended to be used as input for alternative welfare indicators or market mechanisms. Nor was the potential of monetary valuation of ESS as a tool to green the economy really an issue at mind by most interviewees. Nevertheless, several of the interviewees did have some thoughts to share on the topic, see box 12. Box 12. Expert reflections When asked about their ideas on the potential for monetary valuation to play a role in changing the economy, Diana Bakboord (com03d) replied she does not see monetarisation as a necessary part of a green economy at all. Two others do regard it as a step in the right direction, however, how important monetary valuation is to market transformation exactly they do not know (com03a, exe03b). Henk Kuijpers (coo03x) and Kees de Vette (exe03c) attribute more worth to monetary valuation, as already briefly mentioned in the previous subsection. Henk Kuijpers states: "Everybody is becoming more and more aware that we need to shift to a more sustainable and circular society in which economy and ecology are integrated. The essence is that everybody in urban planning has to understand that a sustainable economic model is paramount for long-term functioning, green cities". In summary, both see monetary valuation as an essential part of the circular economy due to its potential as an integrative approach, which speaks to green and non-green stakeholders (coo03x; exe03c). However, whether they see potential for the use of monetary values as input to internalise externalities for example, was unclear. On the contrary, Jolanda van Sikkelerus (exe03b) thinks monetary values of ESS are unsuitable for that purpose. She experienced the amount of effort required to come to acceptable values for park Zuidbroek only was substantial. Using those kinds of methods to determine the level of externalities to be included is far too extensive, she expects.
The effect on commodification Potential commodification was not a prominent issue during the pilots. This was mainly because commodification due to monetary valuation conducted by municipalities is not perceived as a risk at all, as exploitation is not the goal (com03a, exe03b, exe03). "The valuation of green and blue was mainly conducted to increase the amount of green included in urban environment, and to try to ease the acquiring of investments and support for that green. It is used to include nature in urban development programmes; then selling that nature for exploitation would defy the purpose" (com03a). However, there does seem to be an increase by (non-municipal) nature proprietors to search for new revenue models, based on natural resources. This development is not related to monetary valuation specifically, but might be associated with the increased interest in nature as a valuable, financial asset
70
(exe03b). Although one would expect low risks of unsustainable exploitation when ecological or biodiversity thresholds are set, this is does not appear to be guaranteed(exe03b). In the Veluwe for instance, the sales of wood by the Dutch forest service Staatsbosbeheer seem to become too much in terms of the ecological carrying capacity of the forest, although agreements on ecological and biodiversity standards are set, under Natura2000 among others. Nevertheless, because the field of players is very fragmented and everybody is making their own agreements with the responsible province and Staatsbosbeheer, these thresholds are difficult to remain clear and monitored. Hence, this shows that an economic approach to nature requires sound monitoring, to avoid overexploitation or commodification (exe03b; exe03c).
6.3.3 Summary The TEEB City project provided a novel application of the TEEB methods, using economic valuation in the urban environment. The experiences of the four cities with economic valuation are mixed. In Apeldoorn, the pilot directly influenced decision-making. The outcomes of the pilot confirmed the existing development plan, which could then be implemented. In Almelo, the outcomes were also useful in the sense that they confirmed an existing development idea; however, as the total project was much larger the exact contribution of the TEEB study is not known. Rotterdam and Haarlem were less successful as the results proved to be unbelievable, in the literal sense of the word. Non-green civil servants failed to appreciate the outcomes as they found the methods disputable. Nevertheless, all municipalities see merit in the use of the economic framing of green and blue in communication with non-green colleagues, as it provides new argumentation, that allows for a clarification of the benefits of green instead of focussing costs only. Yet, a qualitative depiction is seen as more fruitful. None of the cities has used the study in communication with external stakeholders or citizens. Nevertheless, all interviewees are interested in how to do this in the future. Because one of the central outcomes of the TEEB pilots is the awareness that beneficiaries of green investments can be found by conducting valuation studies. The next question is how to get them involved, in terms of effort of financially. Lastly, the neglect of biodiversity as a separate parameter within the valuation methodology is seen as a shortcoming. To maintain the right balance between economic outcomes and ecological outcomes ecological parameters should be taken into account in a non-monetary fashion.
71
7 Economic valuation by public institutions - a comparative analysis of the case study results 7.1 Introduction The previous chapter provided an overview of the three case studies and their outcomes, and showed for each of the projects how economic valuation related to the three domains. This chapter is aimed at integrating the most important findings of all three cases and comparing these to each other and to the arguments as outlined in the discussion analysis (5.1). This chapter follows the domain and indicator structure as presented in figure 5.2. The analysis ends with a summary of the findings.
7.2 The impact of economic valuation of ecosystem services on the decisionmaking domain 7.2.1 Indicator 1: Impact on project decision-making In the projects analysed the intended uses for economic valuation in relation to decision-making varied. The valuation studies were either deployed as a feasibility study, to see whether the natureinclusive idea at hand was worth to be implemented; as a tool to see whether it could increase support for and ease negiotiations about the roll out of nature conservation measures; and as a mode to try to get nature included in decision-making in the first place. Either way, for most cases the economic valuation study barely had any impact on decision-making, if at all. In the case of Eems-Dollard, this was mainly due to the fact that the study was not necessary for decision-making, as the business case analysis of the province was already used. If the TEEB study would have been used as decision-making input however, the outcomes would have been deployed as a confirmation tool to analyse the feasibility of the double dike initiative. This is similar to the two TEEB City projects of Almelo and Apeldoorn (the only two projects in which the valuation study impacted decision-making). In both cases, the valuation study was used to assess the feasibility of a nature-inclusive urban development idea (planting trees and park development, respectively). In both cases, the outcomes proved the idea to be worthwhile and thus confirmed that this option could be pursued, that the nature-inclusive plan was 'worth it'. In Apeldoorn this led to direct implementation of the renovation of Park Zuidbroek. In Almelo the impact on decision-making was not immediate, however this knowledge was taken into account in the decision-making of the main city redevelopment project. This use of economic valuation differs from the central argument as provided proponents (see chapter 5): the studies are not used to compare alternative uses of existing nature to, nor to base nature conservation strategies on. It seems this is related to the intention with which economic valuation is deployed; in both the Eems-Dollard case as TEEB City, nature was coupled with another development task (safety, (sub)urban development). Under such circumstances, the merit of the valuation study appears to be its potential to see whether the nature-inclusive development idea pays
72
off. It identifies the benefits that are generated by that solution, many of which would most probably not have been determined otherwise. In addition, monetary valuation can help to identify other beneficiaries, and potential financial feedback loops as happened in the Apeldoorn case. This information can help to confirm that the nature-inclusive solution is indeed worthwhile. Most interviewees agree that the methods on which economic valuation outcomes are based are not beyond dispute; on the contrary, these studies are regarded as presenting oversimplified representations of (ecological) reality. This confirms many of the arguments made by critics of economic valuation, as presented in the discussion analysis (5.1). Hence, for actual decision-making on nature conservation strategies, and for weighing off various conservation scenarios for existing nature, economic valuation studies are perceived as less suitable by multiple respondents. On the other hand, in line with the rationale of proponents of economic valuation, some interviewees expressed that even though methods are not solid, they might still use monetary valuation to compare different nature development plans in the future. However, this refers especially to cases in which nature is coupled with another spatial development task: so whatever option is chosen, 'extra' nature is created. Relatedly, although not complied with in all the cases itself, consensus exists that whatever the use of economic valuation is in relation to decision-making, monetary values should never be used independently for decision-making, but should always be regarded as only one tool from the decision-making toolbox, that is to be complemented with other forms of information, because yet again, the outcomes are oversimplifications. In the Natura2000 case the project outcomes have not been used for decision-making
and
negotiations at all. The main cause was the fact that the valuations made clear what the largest tradeoff would be: even though the implementation of Natura2000 generates substantial gains in terms of health and carbon storage for instance, these gains are all public. The large losses that the agricultural sector had to endure were thus not compensated by these benefits. This tension due to distributional differences made the study results close to useless in the stakeholder negotiations. Using them would have only increased the resistence of the agricultural stakeholders, and hindered negotiations. In the Eems-Dollard case, the proposed development plan also implied the conversion of agricultural land. However, there this conversion led to an alternative income stream in the form of saline cultivation, meaning the private losses of the farmers were going to be compensated. This shows that economic valuation is not only a mechanism to ease decision-making, but can also hinder negotiation processes by highlighting the differences between the winners and losers of nature management decisions, when no compenstations for the private losses can be arranged. Based on the case study analyses, one additional complexity of economic valuation became apparent. The high monetary outcomes of three of the projects (Natura2000, Rotterdam and Haarlem) did not lead to better regard for and uptake of the result in decision-making, but worked contradictory: the outcomes were neglected. Why this was the case in Flanders remains uncertain. In Haarlem and Rotterdam, the reason was clear. The outcomes triggered reactions of disbelieve, as the ouputs were
73
assumed to be too high to be based on solid methodology and hence to be regarded seriously. For both cities this meant the study could not be used as input for decision-making. This reaction was reinforced by the fact that for more than a few civil servants, parochialism seemed to prevail, and integrative approaches to urban development were not appreciated yet. This suggests that when the monetary outcomes of economic valuation studies are used to convince people outside of the group that commissioned the study in the first place, the exact outcomes might not be suitable in themselves. It is interesting to put this finding in perspective to the Eems-Dollard case. Regardless of the low use of the valuation study, the double dike project itself was very successful; a collaboration in which safety, economy and ecology were well integrated. The focus on the economic potential of the nature-inclusive solution made that nature was included in decision-making much more easiliy, and regarded as an equal decision-making parameter. However, this fruitful integration of nature into decision-making was made possible by more than a decade of effort to create awareness on the mutual dependence of economy and ecology among stakeholders in the region; it was not the results of one positive study outcome. Hence, when combining this knowledge with the negative reactions in TEEB City and Natura2000, this seems to show that successful integration of ESS in decision-making at local and regional political levels, is not merely a matter of determining convincing monetary values, but requires a cultural shift towards appreciation of integrative approaches as well. Simply presenting high monetary values in an organisational environment that is not used to regard nature as a valuable asset, can create an opposite response. This finding conflicts with the notion as put forward in the proponent literature (see 5.1., discussion point 1), that economic valuation is a valuable tool for decision-making as it 'aligns with dominant political and economic views'. Instead, it seems to reveal that dominant political and economic views are still rather disciplinary. Hence, not all civil servants and politicians are used to and willing to integrate nature into economic reasoning, causing them to respond to monetary valuation critically instead of openly.
7.2.2 Indicator 2: Justification and support generation The usefulness of economic valuation as a mechanism to generate support and to justify nature management decisions amongst civil servants and other political stakeholders, was not part of the most proclaimed arguments provided by proponents of economic valuation. Based on the case study analysis, however, this does seem to be one of the most important merits of economic valuation of ESS. Economic valuation of ESS is perceived as beneficial because the accounting-like approach reduces complex material into understandable, simplified information that can be used in communication towards 'non-green' civil servants and stakeholders, and has an eye-opening effect. In the cases analysed, this appears to have worked in two ways. One way was to use economic valuation to justify and increase (financial) support for nature management decisions that had already been made, as happened in Eems-Dollard and Flanders. The other way, which was how most TEEB City pilots
74
intended to use economic valuation, was to use the 'economic benefits-rationale' to help with including green in the planning processes in the phases before decision-making. The narrative based on the benefits and economic value of ESS gave more confidence to the participants, as these arguments were much perceived as less abstract and subjective compared to the arguments that were used before. This showed to work well for convincing non-green colleagues and other local and regional politicians of the merit of including nature in spatial development tasks. Focusing on the opportunities of nature, instead of looking at costs only, indeed seemed to make justification of nature inclusion easier, as stated by proponents as well (5.1 discussion point 1). However, even though there does seem to be consensus that economic valuation produces understandable information that is concrete and tangible, this does not mean communication should be based on monetary values specifically. Both from the Flanders and TEEB City project it became clear that what is considered useful is the benefit framing revealing what nature provides to humans and the economy. This can be backed up by calculations, however, the story should be mainly a qualitative description of the outcomes. ANB goes even further by stating that only the framing is important, and monetary valuation studies are not even required to back the story up. In any case, a qualitative economic framing is generally perceived as sufficiently functional for the goal of increasing awareness and legitimation among non-green stakeholders. This also decreases the risks of the outcomes of monetary valuations to be marginalised out of disbelieve on the calculations, as happened in Flanders, Rotterdam and Haarlem. Overall, it is expected that the economic metaphor would work specifically well in multi-stakeholder negotiations, as this discourse is understandable to all at the table. Using the right framing and tone is specifically important when the aim is to include beneficiaries into development or conservation projects. When used early in the planning process, before decisions are made (as was the case in the TEEB City pilots), economic valuation studies were seen as particularly interesting because it shows who benefits of the intended measures. Even though during these TEEB City pilots no attempts were made to actually include beneficiaries in the projects, this is something that many interviewees were interested in. This way, argued multiple interviewees, participative approaches to development or conservation projects can be taken one step further, as the knowledge on who benefits can be used to try to include those people or parties in the process, instead of only engaging in one-directional broadcast of information. This can regard contributions in terms of physical inputs, network availability or thinking along for instance, although the case study analysis showed that specific interest in acquiring financial contributions of beneficiaries exists as well. However, yet again, the use of monetary values to acquire financial streams from beneficiaries might lead to questions on how these numbers came to be. Therefore, several interviewees expectected that these sorts of cooperations might only work on a voluntary basis.
75
7.2.3 Indicator 3: The balance between economy and ecology The third indicator touches upon the concerns that using economic valuation will lead to decisionmaking primarily based on economic information, at the expense of ecological indicators, and can have (unintended) negative impacts on nature conservation (as explained the discussion analysis). The cases analysed, however, have neither led to an excessive focus on economic values at the expense of ecological information, nor to negative impacts on ecology. For two of the cases, this was not possible as ecology as a project parameter was more important than economic value. The reason the Natura2000 study got implemented in the first place was the implementation of the demands from the Birds and Habitat Directives; the outcomes of the study were used more for the purpose of increasing support for those measures than to become the central element of decision-making. In the Eems-Dollard TEEB study, the focus lay on the ecological feasibility as much as the economic feasibility. In addition, the goal of biodiversity strengthening was explicitly mentioned, hence solutions that would have had a negative effect on biodiversity would not have passed as feasible. Moreover, similar to Flanders, strict nature regulations were at play that would not have allowed for unsustainable outcomes to be implemented, if any would have come to the surface. Nevertheless, in the end decision-making in the Eems-Dollard was based on the economic feasibility of the natureinclusive solution, more than the ecological prospects. However, the regular option would have been no nature at all. Hence, the mere inclusion of the double dike solution meant that ecology was already a central part in decision-making. Economic valuation was used as a way to see whether it was worthwhile to pursue that nature-inclusive solution. The TEEB City pilots did not mention biodiversity conservation as a precondition. However, as in Flanders, every municipal department that commissioned the pilot did so from a 'nature-centric' perspective; in the case of TEEB City to increase green in the urban environment. Hence, the general opinion is that if the primary goal of the commissioning organisation is nature, as for green governmental departments, economic valuations studies are used as a tool to achieve more ecological value. These commissioners are well aware that nature does not put money on the bank directly and is not intended to be used revenue stream. Nevertheless, most of the interviewees agree that it would be better to always demand biodiversity conservation, or even strengthening, as a separate goal. This is believed to ensure that whatever option is selected, biodiversity levels will be at least maintained. In addition, this safeguards the means do not become the end, in the sense that determining economic value becomes the desired outcome, instead of using economic valuation for nature protection, which was a concern expressed in the interviews as well as the literature (see chapter 5).
7.2.4 Indicator 4: Inclusion of the social dimensions of valuation Although valuation studies are aimed to not only look at the economic values, critics of valuation argue that most often, the non-economic values and dimensions of valuation are neglected as these are more difficult to include (see discussion point 2, 5.1). Based on the case study analysis this concern seems valid, as in none of the projects, the cultural services and related values were fully
76
regarded, if at all. The reasons why diverge. First of all, none of the studies used contingent valuation methods. Hence, the socio-cultural and -economic contexts of those people valuing did not need to be established. Yet, this does show that the studies used only direct and indirect market prices as valuation input, and confirms concerns from the literature that generally, mainly the obvious and measureable ESS and value methods are used. Moreover, not one of the projects took into account the social-cultural context of the valuation studies, nor did any of the interviewees hold a clear view as to if and how to account for factors like shared values (although in relation to valuation, this is also mainly important in cases where CVM has been used). Nevertheless, a social dimension that could have been included regardless of the type of project, was also neglected in almost all cases. This dimension concerns accounting for the range of socio-cultural and non-use values. In at least two of the three cases this neglect was deliberate. Among interviewees it was more than once argued that all non-use values as well as many other sociocultural values, should be excluded from monetary valuation. These kinds of more emotional values are seen to make monetary valuation too ambiguous and incomprehensible, downgrading one of the key merits of economic valuation which is the understandability. However, agreement also existed on the fact that intangible socio-cultural values should be regarded separately in valuation studies. Nevertheless, this was not done in any of the projects. This corresponds to concerns from the literature as presented in the discussion analysis, that because these values are more difficult to address they are often simply neglected.
7.3 The impact of economic valuation of ecosystem services on the public legitimacy domain 7.3.1 Indicator 1: Effect on public awareness None of the projects has used the monetary outcomes explicitly in communication with the general public. On the contrary, in two of the three cases the studies were not used in communication outside of the decision-making domain at all. Hence, whether or not economic valuation studies are effective in increasing public awareness on the value of nature, as proclaimed in the literature, is difficult to say based on these results. In Flanders, some of the information of the study was used in communication with the general public. However, this was merely a qualitative description of some of the key results. The core of communication with the general public in Flanders are the benefits that nature provides to humans, combined with the intrinsic and amenity value of nature, and not the economic value. This approach corresponds to the expectations of most other interviewees, who explained if they would use valuation studies as input for communication with citizens, this would most probably be translated into a qualitative story that highlights the benefits that nature provides (based on ESS knowledge), including the intrinsic values of nature and would certainly not involve concrete economic data. Because overall, it is expected that people are influenced by a narrative that concerns their personal wellbeing, but less by public economic prospects. This approach to communication implies that the concern that economic valuation makes nature policy too technocratic is not applicable: in all cases,
77
communication has or would be translated to fit the specific audience. In the case of creating public awareness, this means not using monetary outcomes, but basing the story on personal benefits and the intrinsic value of nature.
7.3.2 Indicator 2: Effect on the human - nature relation The key critique regarding the use of economic valuation in communication with the general public, affects the consequences that flow from neglecting intrinsic values of nature, and the broadcasting of economic arguments for nature conservation. Based on the case studies, however, no conclusions can be drawn as to whether or not the economic discourse on nature has this effect on the humannature relation, as it has not been used. Nonetheless, because communication towards citizens (from public institutions at least) seems to be mostly a story that regards the benefits of ESS in a qualitative translation, it can be argued that these effects are not very likely to occur. Especially since agreement exists among the interviewees that in communication with citizens, the intrinsic value of nature should always be included too; it is primarily the unbalanced focus on nature as delivering services and the neglect of intrinsic values which triggers the concerns about the human-nature relation in the literature (see chapter 5). On the contrary, in every case at least one time the expectation was communicated that the benefit rationale can improve the relation between humans and nature. Those people that already have a good relationship with nature are not expected to be negatively influenced by a utilitarian rationale based on the benefits nature provides. But especially those people that would usually not be interested in the nature, might be drawn a bit closer if they understand what merits and services nature provides to them, and how valuable that is economically. However, most interviewees contend that this should only be done for use values. Trying to communicate the economic importance of nonuse values is regarded as irrelevant and indeed potentially damaging, as explained above. These outcomes and experiences differ from the notion that the 'value of economic valuation as a societal awareness tool is clear', as argued in the TEEB report for instance (2010, p. 200). Rather, these remarks show that in communication with citizens, the intrinsic value of nature remains important, and is well combined with the benefit-narrative based on ESS knowledge, but that communication does generally not include explicit economic values, with the exception of the use of some key figures. Therefore, the question on how important economic valuation studies are for public awareness on the value of nature remains unanswered, yet seems debatable.
7.4 The impact of economic valuation of ecosystem services on the market domain 7.4.1 Indicator 1: Effect on market mechanisms Proponents of economic valuation of ESS argue that determining monetary values of ESS is an essential ingredient of the transition to a greener economy, due to its potential contribute to innovative
78
market mechanisms, especially in relation to the distribution of externalities and the adaptation of welfare indicators (see discussion point 3, 5.1). However, in none of the cases has monetary valuation been used for the purpose of changing market mechanisms. On the contrary, when interviewees were asked about their personal opinion about the potential of monetary valuation for these purposes, very few had even thought about using monetary valuation in this way. Only in Flanders the commissioning institution intended to use the outcomes to install a PES-like scheme, in which private owners of nature would be compensated for the conservation efforts by beneficiaries of Natura2000 areas, such as companies. In the end, however, only a subsidy scheme flowing from the government remained, based on set-cost values and not the monetary values as determined in the valuation study. One of the arguments was that in order to use monetary valuation for such purposes, the methods need to become more robust. Moreover, using monetary values for an economy in which externalities are internalised and welfare indicators take into account ecological degradation, seems a large enough issue to require a study of its own. In the case where monetary valuation is used to link nature to specific spatial development tasks, such as in the Eems-Dollard and the TEEB City, it is thus understandable that the further use of those monetary values for alternation of market mechanisms is not an issue, as these values apply to the specific development project only.
7.4.2 Indicator 2: Effect on commodification The final major criticism as presented in the debate analysis regards the possibility for monetary valuation to lead to commodification of ESS. However, in these cases this threat could not be confirmed. No sudden interest in or actual exploitation occurred due to the valuation of ESS, not by the public institutions commissioning the studies, nor commercial parties. The goals of the cases analysed made commodification not plausible. As explained earlier, the goal of two of the three cases was to get extra nature. Overexploitation of those areas would defy the purpose of why these studies were commissioned in the first place. In Flanders the core of the study were the measures from the Birds and Habitats Directives that were going to be implemented. These regulations are set, as is the division between land available for exploitation versus untouched nature. Thus, commodification of that nature is not probable as the whole purpose is to preserve it. Nevertheless, it became apparent that both in Flanders as well as the Netherlands the tendency to use nature as a revenue stream is increasing. However, this is not regarded as problematic as long as these exploitations are subordinate to the ecological goals and regulations at play. This implies these goals do have to be clear, and additionally that sound monitoring is pursued to ensure these goals are maintained.
7.5 Economic valuation by public institutions: synthesis of the findings Based on the outcomes of the comparative analysis, the core merit of economic valuation of ESS provided in the literature (see 5.1), which states that economic valuation can function as the basis on
79
which conservation strategies can be compared and decided upon for existing nature, cannot be confirmed. This does not mean economic valuation has not worked at all. Rather, the findings ask for a different kind of appreciation of the use of economic valuation by public institutions, one in which economic valuation is regarded as one tool that can be supportive in relation to implementation of nature management measures, instead of setting the strategies in itself. Although all three cases have used economic valuation in a unique way, there is overlap between the intentions of the Eems-Dollard and TEEB City cases. For both projects, economic valuation was used in the context of coupling nature with another development task, namely water safety and urban development. Within this context, the monetary values influenced decision-making by confirming the feasibility of the nature-inclusive development plan. Not in the form of presenting a solid business plan, but by showing what (otherwise potentially undiscovered) benefits such a coupling of nature provides, not only in terms of nature protection, but specifically also in terms of human welfare benefits and related economic values. This information corroborated the idea to go for a natureinclusive development solution, because it shows that nature does not only costs, but also provides benefits. This last argument directly relates to the second way in which economic valuation was deployed within the case studies: as an internal awareness mechanism, to convince other public colleagues or departments. The cases show that economic valuation as the basis for internal awareness creation can at least be used in two ways: to generate support for decisions that have already been made, or earlier in the process, to get green included in decision-making in the first place. One of the central arguments of why economic valuation works well as an internal awareness mechanism is that it provides a substantiated, 'objective' rationale on the value of nature. It is a new and more convincing story, compared to the arguments that were used normally in internal communications, which were perceived to be too 'abstract' and unfounded to be effective. This reasoning is seen to work specifically well in relation to non-green civil servants and local and regional politicians, especially those that are usually not involved or interested in nature and see it only as a cost item and not an opportunity. In addition, the case study showed economic valuation can also be used to generate support amongst two types of external project stakeholders: stakeholders that are directly affected by the intended measures and stakeholders that will benefit from the measures. Nevertheless, for the group of affected stakeholders, it has shown to be tricky to use monetary valuation in negotiations. These values can emphasise who are the losers of the intended measure. If no alternative value flows back to these stakeholders, using the outcomes can increase conflict instead of benefitting negotiations. In relation to beneficiaries, the mere fact that these groups can be identified is what makes the valuation study valuable. Although no attempts occurred in the cases, the analysis does show that there is a high interest in involving those beneficiaries into development projects. Although involvement can mean physical or other forms of intellectual capital for instance, specific interest exists to get beneficiaries to contribute financially as well. However, as monetary
80
valuation outcomes are not robust, establishing this involvement cannot be done by presenting a bill, but most probably has to be done in the form of voluntary agreements. In what form this works best remains unanswered. In fact, the case studies show that not only for beneficiary involvement, but in any communication that takes place outside of the commissioning entity; it is expectedly most effective to not use the monetary outcomes directly. Alternately, the narrative used, aimed at getting nature included in decision-making for instance, should stress the benefits that are determined and its economic potential in a more descriptive fashion. On the one hand this is expected to reduce provocation of reactions of disbelieve, as the results are not presented as solid outcomes. On the other hand, this approach is seen to work well for participative approaches to decision-making, as all at the table understand this narrative. The case analysis shows that to conserve the comprehensibility of the economic value of ESS, it is perceived as best to exclude non-use values from monetary valuation practices. In almost every project, this occurred. However, agreement also existed on the fact that often socio-cultural values should be regarded separately. Yet, this did not happen in any of the cases either. This confirms the concerns from the literature that although the whole range of values ought to be included, overall economic valuation takes precedence over other value forms, mainly the socio-cultural ones. In addition, agreement exists in both the cases and the literature that valuation studies should include a clear definition of the nature management goal of the study. Although in two cases nature protection was safeguarded by means of the set of spatial environmental regulations at play, and in the 'coupling-projects', nature was per definition extra (meaning biodiversity creation is more like than destruction), a clear nature management goal, such as biodiversity conservation, is generally still seen as important to ensure safe and sustainable use of valuation studies. Among others, because strengthening of one ESS can have severe effects on other ESS. In addition, setting the goal clearly decreases the risk on intentional and unintentional misuse of economic valuation, as economic values will always be subordinate to ecology, as it is the means to achieve an ecological goal, and not vice versa. Next to its use for nature-related decision-making, in the literature economic valuation is also argued to be useful in relation to public awareness creation. However, based on the case study analysis, this proposition cannot be confirmed. Not because the use of an economic approach to public communication has had a negative impact on the relation between humans and nature, as argued by criticists, and is therefore undesirable. But, this proposition cannot be confirmed because economic valuation appears to be barely used for public communication. Instead, communication in Flanders was based on the benefits that ESS provide to humans, translated into a descriptive story. An economic framing was not used. In addition, communication is combined with attention for the intrinsic values as well, and not only the instrumental functions of nature. Although in the Netherlands both projects did not conduct public communications at all, similar approaches would be conducted in case awareness communication will take place. Nevertheless, it is expected by some interviewees that
81
referring to the large economic contribution of nature might be helpful to make those people that usually do not care at all, to appreciate the natural world a little more. As with public awareness creation, the use of the valuation studies as input for alternative market mechanisms was almost zero. One the one hand, because valuation studies do not seem to provide sufficiently robust outputs to be used for alternative financing schemes, such as redistributing the costs and benefits of externalities. On the other hand, all projects except Natura2000 produced local data aimed at specific spatial project boundaries. Using monetary valuation for alternative market mechanisms would most probably require a distinct study with less site specific data. Furthermore, the aims of the cases analysed were not only incompatible with the design of alternative market mechanisms, but also with commodification of nature. As the goals were to acquire extra nature on the one hand, and to ease the implementation of fixed nature policy on the other, commodification would not have been likely within these project boundaries. Nevertheless, separately defining the ecological goal of any valuation study is expected to greatly reduce the risk of commodification of nature, as the extent to which nature can be exploited will then always be subordinate to set ecological boundaries.
82
8 Discussion This discussion consists of three parts: first, the methodological limitations of the research are provided. Consecutively, several of the findings as discussed in the previous chapter that deserve further scrutiny are considered. The chapter ends with a reflection on the analytical framework used.
8.1 Methodological limitations 8.1.1 Literature analysis The theoretical foundation of this thesis is the academic debate on economic valuation of ESS. This debate is widely dispersed throughout the literature and spans a broad range of academic fields, from environmental value research to ecological economics and conservation science. To be able to analyse the debate systematically, the key arguments in favour of economic valuation were used as the starting point. Deduction of the key arguments in favour is done to the best of my knowledge, based on extensive literature research. It is, however, not proven that these arguments are indeed the most proclaimed or most important ones. Nevertheless, it is expected that the analysis provided is fairly representative of the current debate. Moreover, not the entire debate on economisation was included.
Initial
critique
analysis
revealed
three
different
thematic
streams
among
the
counterarguments, which addressed methodological, ecological and socio-economic critiques. To limit the scope of this thesis, the choice was made to only analyse the socio-economic concerns on economic valuation of ESS. However, this separation of the three thematic clusters was not fully held during analysis. Part of the methodological and ecological concerns came to the surface as well during the interviews. Thus, the empirical outcomes are not purely socio-economic and touch upon ecological and methodological concerns as well. If these latter two debate themes would have been included from the start, more extensive results for both themes would have come out of the interviews. Nevertheless, it is expected that the methodological and ecological concerns that were conveyed during the interviews were those that were most pressing for the participants. Therefore, it can be argued that the case studies reflect the socio-economic debate and the most important methodological and ecological concerns as experienced in practice. Lastly, the fact that the arguments in favour became the starting point for the debate structuring has influenced the analysis outcomes. What the exact influence of this decision on the thesis results are, is unknown. However, it might be expected that the subsequent domain structure for instance, would have turned out more positive if three critiques would have been chosen as the theoretical starting point. Yet, the literature analysis showed that the critiques are more thematically dispersed and varying than the arguments in favour of economic valuation. Clustering the critiques into three items would have led to the neglect of much of the critical arguments. It is therefore reasoned that the proponent-ordering is preferable.
83
8.1.2 Case study analysis To reflect the debate outcomes on experiences with economic valuation in practice, three qualitative case study analyses have been conducted. Of those three cases, both the Eems-Dollard and the TEEB City projects were pilots; the Natura2000 valuation was not a pilot, but was a first of its kind large-scale valuation attempt in Flanders and in that sense also sort of a trial project. This reflects the novelty of public economic valuation studies in the Netherlands and Flanders; there were not many alternative studies to look at. In relation to the validity of the thesis outcomes, this feature of the cases means that the case study analyses might show results that were specific to these trial projects only, and would not be repeated in future valuation studies. An extreme illustration is the fact that the commissioning institution in Flanders, ANB, has moved away from monetary valuation studies almost entirely. Another example would be the depth with which valuation was conducted in Eems-Dollard. This would have been in more detail if the study would not have been a five-month pilot. On the other hand, the fact that these studies were all forerunner projects means that the lessons drawn from these studies can be used as input for any future economic valuation study. In addition, the TEEB City pilots were all conducted in 2011 and 2012. This means that for many of the interviewees, their memories and specifically the details of the projects were blurred. Moreover, the TEEB City pilot was more a collection of smaller projects; hence, for every sub-case only one or maximum two people were interviewed, leading to a total of six interviews for TEEB City (for EemsDollard five, and for Natura2000 four interviews were conducted). This means that, specifically for the projects were only one person was interviewed, the sample was small, and there was little opportunity to compare the comments to those of other project participants. Nevertheless, the respondents interviewed were all key figures within the specific cases; and as the TEEB City umbrella project and related economic valuation methods were similar for every municipality, general uses and experiences could be compared.
8.2 Discussion of the results 8.2.1 Economic valuation and its use for decision-making In the articles advocating for economic valuation of ecosystem services, the approach is hailed for its ability to concretise the services that ESS provide into tangible monetary values, allowing for the comparison of alternative uses of nature. This way economic valuation of ESS can improve nature conservation decision-making and help to protect ecosystems (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997). However, as shown in the previous chapter, this thesis research sheds a different light on the use of economic valuation of ESS for decision-making. Based on the cases the core benefit of economic valuation shows to be its potential to expose the benefits of nature in a simplified and understandable way, a characteristic which is also central in the the key proponent literature, such as Costanza et al. (1997); and Daily (1997). This knowledge was used in various ways in the cases: to procure extra nature by coupling nature with other spatial
84
development tasks; to legitimise investments in nature; and to increase support for mandatory nature conservation measures. The common denominator amongst these deployments is that none relates to fundamental decision-making used to base conservation strategies for existing nature on; instead, these uses all assist in the achievement of set nature goals. Interestingly, the interview outcomes reveal that there does not seem to be interest in using economic valuation for weighing off alternative strategies for conservation of existing nature. Within the context of coupling nature with another development task, however, the cases did show that there is interest in using economic valuation as a tool for scenario-comparison. Then, economic valuation can be used to compare alternative natureinclusive solutions, but within the purpose of creating extra nature and not to decide upon conservation of existing nature. Moreover, the cases also revealed that within public institutions, the general opinion is shared that economic valuation studies are best combined with in a broader set of decision-making inputs, and are better not used independently. This position is common amongst critical literature (GomezBaggethun & Ruiz-Perez, 2011; Jax et al., 2013), but also amongst proponents. In the TEEB report (2010) and the article of Costanza et al. (1997) for instance, it is outlined that economic valuation should be one tool from the decision-making toolbox, and not the only tool. In addition, many of the interviewees expressed that however economic valuation is implemented, a clear delineation of the biodiversity goal of the valuation study should always be included. This idea is also confirmed in the literature. Among others O’Connor and Frame (2009) and Ridder (2008) argue that the logic of valuation starts with defining what needs to be conserved. However, setting distinct biodiversity goals appears not to be a prerequisite of most valuation studies yet. Nevertheless, including a clear goal is perceived as reducing the risk that economic valuation methods take precedence over ecological information inputs, as this explicitly puts nature conservation central, instead of economic value creation. Biodiversity goal-setting is also seen as an important tool to avoid unintended negative effects on biodiversity levels, and even as a tool to help avoid commodification of nature: even if ESS are exploited, concrete goals means that exploitation could theoretically only be done up until an ecologically responsible level. Thus the cases show a large appreciation of the importance of including biodiversity goals for ecosystem service valuations. However, proliferation of the goals set requires monitoring, as the example of Staatsbosbeheer shows (chapter 6, case 3). Moreover, biodiversity goal-setting requires profound ecological knowledge. Economic valuation studies, however, are often appreciated in use because it makes the complexities of nature more understandable. It might be hypothesised that biodiversity goals are thus not always explicitly demanded because of the complexities that setting and determining those goals brings about. Moreover, knowledge deficits persist on the relation between biodiversity and ecosystem services, and determining biodiversity levels and specifically drivers of decline of biodiversity levels remains to be challenging (Cardinale et al., 2012; Rands et al., 2010; Slocombe, 1998). Whether explicit biodiversity goal-setting is achievable is for every case where valuation is used is therefore questionable, especially in the case of small-scale spatial projects for instance. Setting biodiversity
85
preservation as a prerequisite, as argued in Egmond and Ruijs (2016) for example, might be more practical. In any respect, what is most important is that this perceived importance of biodiversity goals, as well as the prerequisite that economic valuation should never be used independently, reveals that economic valuation studies in itself are thus not per definition perceived as indisputably beneficial to nature. Used independently, the approach is alleged to not only improve nature conservation decision-making, as argued by proponents, but lead to erroneous decisions as well, and even potentially do harm to ecosystems instead of good. This judgement is shared by many academic criticists, who argue that economic valuation studies provide inadequate understanding the complex (socio-) ecological interdependencies and interconnectivities that are of crucial importance to ecosystem functioning, and are based on flawed methodological assumptions. These assumptions for instance imply that economic valuation studies assume substitutability, which does not apply to many ESS. Or, that price estimates are assumed commensurable and neutral, while they are based on subjective and hypothetical assumptions (Martinez-Alier et al., 1998; Spangenberg & Settele, 2010; Spash & Vatn, 2006; Wegner & Pascual, 2011). Or, more ecologically grounded, that economic valuation disregards ecosystem interlinkages and complexities; neglects ecosystem disservices; and should not be implemented when ecological treshholds are approaching, yet when this is the case is often poorly understood (Chee, 2004; McCauley, 2006; Wegner & Pascual, 2011). These are mere examples, more there a more flawed assumptions at play. As Spangenberg and Settele (2010, p. 334) put it: 'the sources of uncertainly, fuzziness and subjectivity are manifold and the risk that valuation will get values wrong is unavoidable'. The problem is that this reductionist analysis of human wellbeing is inherent to economic valuation, and not a characteristic that can be avoided (Lele et al., 2013; Spangenberg & Settele, 2010). The difference between proponents and critics is that the former group does not see these oversimplifications as a reason to restrict or avoid the use economic valuation of ESS for nature conservation decision-making (Daily et al., 2009; de Groot et al., 2010; Ring et al., 2010; TEEB, 2010), while the latter group certainly does (Lele et al., 2013; McCauley, 2006; Spangenberg & Settele, 2010). The case studies showed that the methods on which economic valuation outcomes are based, are also disputed and regarded with caution within public institutions. Monetary valuation studies are seen as methodologically dubious, and generally accepted as presenting an oversimplified representation of reality, based on incomplete (socio-) ecological information. Combined with the fact that in none of the cases economic valuation was used for fundamental nature conservation strategy setting (nor seems to ever be used in this way), but that there was much enthusiasm amongst the interviewees towards economic valuation (as a tool to couple nature with other development projects, and as a communication tool), this leads to the hypothesis that indeed economic valuation is not regarded worthwhile as a method to base fundamental strategies for the conservation of existing nature one; but is mainly suitable as a method to support the implementation of nature conservation strategies. Linking back to the academic debate, this vision is shared by several critical authors, who argue that
86
indeed economic valuation should not be seen as fundamental conservation decision-making tool that can solve the problems from the traditional conservation movement (Gomez-Baggethun & RuizPerez, 2011; Lele et al., 2013), but that 'economic valuation is best used to contribute to the implementation of set targets, rather than to be the target setting mechanism itself' (Spangenberg & Settele, 2010, p. 327). In other words, economic valuation in relation to decision-making is helpful when conceptual completeness and robustness of data is less critical (Lele et al., 2013, p. 354).
8.2.2 Economic valuation, but qualitative narration The case studies show high appreciation of economic valuation studies to assist in increasing 'internal awareness’, amongst municipal colleagues and other non-green local and regional public stakeholders. Interestingly, however, awareness creation and justification is not per definition considered beneficial when based on specific monetary outcomes, but when translated into a qualitative description of the economic benefits that nature provides. Because of the scepticism that exists towards monetary valuation within local governments, high monetary outcomes do not only work as an eye-opener, but can also create resistance. This is expected to have two reasons. First of all, this scepticism seems to also be based on the reductionist methods through which economic values come to be. Secondly, not all civil servants and politicians are willing to integrate nature into economic reasoning. Many civil servants are used to more conservative, disciplinary reasoning and decision-making. This causes them to respond to monetary valuation very critically instead of openly. This finding conflicts with the notion as put forward in the proponent literature (for instance Daily (1997); Jones-Walters and Mulder (2009)), that economic valuation is a valuable tool for decisionmaking as it aligns with dominant political and economic views. The case studies indicate that merely an 'aligning' economic rationale does not imply immediate appreciation of the value of nature. This discrepancy resembles with several findings from the large study of BESAFE (Bugter & Smith, 2015), on arguments for biodiversity conservation. In the study, it is first of all concluded that it is crucial to tailor the arguments to the specific audience, a notion that was shared with the interviewees. In the case of internal awareness creation amongst non-green civil servants, this most probably means cautionary use of explicit monetary values, if at all. Moreover, they explain that decision-making takes time; 'arguments are more effective if they persist throughout a process, and repetition and reformulation of arguments can be important tools for learning and building acceptance' (Bugter & Smith, 2015, p. 14). As the economic arguments for nature conservation showed to be a rather new framing within many local public institutions, it can thus be hypothesised that these arguments need to become more common for resistance to fade. This also showed in Eems-Dollard, where efforts to integrate economy and ecology have already been at play for over a decade. Moreover, the study of Bugter and Smith (2015, p. 14) argues that positive framing, emphasising the benefits that nature provides, works best. This reasoning confirms the usefulness of the inherently positive benefit narrative in relation to awareness creation amongst the own and other public institutions, as experienced in the cases examined. In addition, this finding relates to current practices regarding societal awareness creation as well. According to the case studies, communication with
87
citizens is framed positively, combining a utilitarian rationale that is focussed at the benefits that nature provides, with the intrinsic value of nature. That this last addition is useful is also confirmed in the BESAFE study, in which it is argued that not only is it important to use the positive benefit framing, but that also, communicating about intrinsic values is as important as instrumental arguments (Bugter & Smith, 2015). Interestingly, the case studies show that public awareness creation is 'limited' to this combined utilitarian and intrinsic story; and that societal awareness creation is never very economic. Overall, economic values of ESS are scarcely used. At most, a key figure would be included to create an eye-opening effect. This does make one wonder to what extent economic valuation is really a mechanism to increase public awareness, as is argued by the TEEB initiative among others. If public communication strategies are never going to make use of specific monetary valuation outcomes, as these case studies suggest, it could be argued that it is not a method for public communication. If this is not the case, this would mean that economic valuation of ESS does not impact the decision-making domain, the market domain, and the public legitimacy domain; but is only used in the former two. Either way, what can be concluded is that for communication on the value of nature, using explicit economic values do not seem the right approach. Within the decision-making domain, the economic framing is worthwhile in relation to support generation, internal awareness creation and participative development projects. However, in communication with societal stakeholders with the purpose of awareness creation only, the ESS framework on which benefits arguments can be based seems more important than actual economic valuation, as no economic rationale appears to be used. Whether the preference for a non-economic framing towards the general public is only specific to the public institutions researched for these case studies, or to the Netherlands and Flanders, is unknown. For future studies it can thus be interesting to research whether this non-economic approach to public communication is reflected in other cases as well. Then, insights can be provided with more empirical foundation about whether or not economic valuation is a suitable method to increase public awareness on the value of nature. In addition, it would be interesting to examine if and how the combined 'benefits and intrinsic value'-framing impacts human-nature relations. Because as the case studies from this thesis barely focus on public awareness creation, no empirical data could be acquired about the impacts of the economic, nor the benefit-intrinsic communication strategies on the target audience.
8.2.3 Economic valuation and immaterial values; an unhappy marriage As described in chapter four, the literature on valuation of ESS is not consistent in its definitions and implementations of the immaterial values of ESS (intrinsic values, socio-cultural values, non-use values). It appears as if the overlapping and interchangeably used interpretations of the different value make the debate very incomprehensible in practice as well. Vagueness surrounding the concepts increased reluctance towards the inclusion of immaterial values. In almost all of the projects analysed, much less of the values relating to cultural services were included compared to the provisioning and regulating services, if they were included at all. This corresponds to concerns from the literature that because these values are more difficult to address, they are often simply neglected
88
(Chan et al., 2012; Pascual et al., 2017; Wegner & Pascual, 2011), or that only the most obvious ones, such as recreation, are included (Scholte et al., 2015). Better delineation of the different value types is expected to increase their inclusion in valuation studies as confusion appears to lead to reluctance in practice. Yet, it is not only confusion in terminology that reduced the amount of values related to the cultural services to be included. Among the interviewees it was more than once argued that many sociocultural values, but especially non-use values (when reasoning from the notion that non-use values are part of the socio-cultural value cluster), were intentionally excluded from monetary valuation, and this would remain the case in future valuations. This is because incorporating those kinds of values is seen to make monetary valuation too ambiguous and incomprehensible, downgrading one of the key merits of economic valuation which is the understandability. This resembles with the judgements of among others O’Connor and Frame (2009); and Vatn (2005). They state that monetary valuation is mainly fit for commodity type of ESS valuation. Once ESS systems become complex and values are plural (specifically including non-use values), monetisation is of low contribution, as it becomes 'scientifically questionable and of doubtful pertinence to policy'. Nevertheless, in both critical as well as proponent literature (among others the foundational publications of Costanza et al. (1997) and TEEB (2010)), it is argued that if not regarded monetarily, socio-cultural values should be included separately. However, this also did not happen in any one of the cases. Hence, this confirms the arguments as made by critical authors that due to its easiness to use, monetary values tend to take precedence over other forms of value (see chapter 5). Based on the cases this indeed seems to apply to many of the values related to cultural services. As the understandability of economic valuation studies showed to be a core reason to use such studies in the first place, it can be hypothesised that the neglect of many immaterial values is a structural consequence of economic valuation studies, as they are not regarded monetarily, but also not qualitatively. However, especially many of those immaterial values are of indispensable importance to human welfare (Norton, 1987; Scholte et al., 2015), and can even show to be the largest contributors in terms of economic value, if determined (see for example Hein et al. (2006)). Thus, if economic valuation leads to a structural neglect of many of the values related to cultural services, it can be argued that economic valuation thus therefore persistently leads to incomplete ESS valuations, in which an important part of the values of ESS are not sufficiently regarded. However, according to Scholte et al. (2015), socio-cultural values continue to be better able to be integrated in ESS assessments as more and more frameworks and methods become known. Whether this reflects in practice can be researched by analysis of future valuation studies.
8.3 Reflection on the conceptual framework The outcomes as described above were revealed by following the domain structure (see figure 5.2) during case study analysis. This domain structure, based on literature research, was created to be able to methodically analyse the uses and impacts of economic valuation studies on public nature
89
management, while simultaneously analysing which debate elements are reflected in practice. During the case study analysis, the domain framework proved to be useful. Following the domains and related indicators in the interviews and document analysis enabled structured examination that could be repeated case by case. The framework allows for the examination of how economic valuation was used, what the impacts were on the three public domains, and how the key concerns have been accounted for. Therefore, this framework could be useful for future analysis of economic valuation case studies as well, even if the debate is not a central element of research. As the indicators reflect the key socio-economic pros and concerns from the literature, following this indicator structure makes it possible to analyse how well an economic valuation study has been conducted: How have these concerns been accounted for? Did the study indeed lead to the positive impact on public awareness for instance? However, the framework requires a few additional remarks. First of all, no separate indicator was made for the often recurring characteristic of 'universal language'. This was done because this characteristic appeared to be relevant for both the decision-making and the public legitimacy domain. Hence, to avoid confusion no separate indicator was made, but this characteristic was merged into the analysis of the indicators 'influence on project decision-making' and 'legitimacy and support generation' (decision-making) and 'impact on public awareness' (public legitimacy). Yet, as in the debate analysis the second argument (economic valuation shows the importance of ecosystems in a language that is understood universally, which is argued to reflect the public legitimacy domain) explicitly mentions the language characteristic, this can spur confusion. Perhaps, it would have been more clear if this argument would have been framed differently, for example 'economic valuation studies can show the importance of nature to civil society'. In addition, by creating the domain structure and designing the data collection strategies accordingly, the research on the impacts of economic valuation only reflects results that fit under one of those three domains, as these were only considered. This allows for the possibility that that other actual domains of impact have been missed. To determine whether other domains are relevant as well, it might be appropriate to conduct fully exploratory case studies of public economic valuation projects. Then it can be determined whether or not the same domains seem pertinent. However, based on the literature no other domains became evident. As this literature analysis had the proponent literature as the starting point, in which it is argued why economic valuation is useful, or in other words, what the (positive) impacts can be, it is expected that the domains as deduced in this thesis are at least the most important ones, if not the only ones.
90
9 Conclusion The traditional conservation movement has not been able to put a halt to the rapid destruction of the natural environment. Therefore, scholars from a wide variety of backgrounds have argued a new approach to nature conservation is required. Economic valuation of ecosystem services is such a new approach. The core element of this 'economisation of nature conservation' is the assigning of monetary values to ecosystem services. Interest in economic valuation of ecosystem services has increased greatly over the past two decades. However, while the popularity of the economisation of nature conservation grew, so did the critiques. This widespread debate was the theoretical starting point of this thesis, and led to the central research question: 'what are the most important pros and cons of economic valuation of ecosystem services as a public nature conservation tool?'. To provide an answer to this question, first the assumed pros and cons were determined, as put forward in the academic debate. Literature analysis revealed that the critiques are much more widespread than the arguments in favour of economic valuation. Therefore, the pro-arguments were used as the starting point of the debate analysis, and the critiques were clustered under each of the three key arguments in favour of economic valuation. This led to three core debate themes. First of all, economic valuation is argued to improve nature conservation by allowing for rational decisionmaking. Criticists argue, however, that economic valuation does not lead to rational, but to incomplete decision-making as economic valuations take precedence over ecological and socio-cultural information. Secondly, economic valuation is universally understandable, and is therefore said to be a useful tool for public awareness creation. Criticists argue, however, that economic argumentations should not be used towards the general public as this damages human-nature relations. Lastly, economic valuation is believed to be a key ingredient to make our economic model more sustainable, by functioning as input for innovative market instruments. Criticists on the other hand, expect a contradictory effect, as economic valuation is seen to expand the exploitative grasp of our market institutions by paving the way for the commodification of nature. A closer look at arguments and counter arguments reveals that according to the literature, economic valuation of ESS impacts three public domains: the decision-making domain, the public legitimacy domain and the market domain. These domains functioned as the structure through which three cases were analysed. These cases studies shed light on which parts of the academic debate showed to be relevant in practice as well, and led to an understanding of what the most important pros and cons are of the use of economic valuation by public institutions. The conclusions are presented below, following the domain structure. Decision-making domain Proponents argue that economic valuation can be used to concretise the values of ESS into comparable outputs. This allows for rational decision-making on nature conservation strategies for existing nature. But in the cases, economic valuation was not used for such 'fundamental' nature conservation strategy-setting. Economic valuation was used to couple nature with other development
91
tasks (that would otherwise not include nature, or much less), and as an awareness creating mechanism (to get nature included in decision-making in the first place, and to increase support for already determined nature conservation measures). Thus, these uses show that economic valuation was mainly applied as a support tool to implement set nature conservation goals, and not as the conservation strategy mechanisms in itself. In other words, economic valuation was implemented in situations where completeness and robustness of the data used was less critical. This appears to be linked to what shows to be the most fundamental limitation of economic valuation: it is an inherently reductionist approach. As economic valuation is based on multiple flawed economic and ecological assumptions, the values it produces are unavoidably incomplete. One of the most proclaimed solutions in the cases to deal with this lack in robustness of economic values, is to use economic valuation only as part of a broader decision-making basis and never independently. However, combining data showed not to be self-evident in the cases. This confirms the concern from the literature that economic valuation outcomes take precedence over other forms of information. This applied mainly to socio-cultural information. This is largely caused by the fact that economic valuation studies produce understandable outputs. The inclusion of many cultural services and related values, especially the non-use ones, was expected to make valuation studies incomprehensible, reducing what appeared to be the key merit of economic valuation: understandability. Thus, this indicates that the neglect of many socio-cultural values is a structural consequence of the easiness of economic valuation. This allows for the hypothesis that economic valuation therefore leads to consistently incomplete representations of the value of ESS, because socio-cultural values are often very large contributors to human welfare. However, currently there is still much confusion (in both literature and practice) about the definitions and implementations of socio-cultural values. Increasing clarity might lead to better inclusion of those values as well. The studies did not show an overly focus on economic values at the expense of ecological information. This was because for all projects, either the intention of the study itself, or the overarching goal of the commissioning institution was nature conservation. In those cases, ecological values are expected to always be central in decision-making, which is why a misbalance between economic and ecological information was not perceived an issue. However, the right underlying intention does not guarantee that misbalance is avoided. Therefore, including clear biodiversity goals was seen as an important measure to ensure ecological value will always be more important than the economic value creation. However, whether goal-setting indeed safeguards the balance between ecological and economic information remains to be seen in the future, as currently, this is not even a prerequisite of most valuation studies yet. Nevertheless, although the balance between economic and ecological information is not automatically safeguarded, neglect of ecological information does not appear to be a structural consequence of economic valuation studies. In spite of the general awareness on the reductionist characteristic of economic valuation, the large majority of the interviewees was positive towards the use of economic valuation by public institutions.
92
All projects showed that the central quality of economic valuation, which enabled its success as a decision-making and awareness mechanism, was the uncovering of the benefits and the related values of ESS in an understandable and concrete way. This is a confirmation of the proponent literature, in which both the potential to uncover benefits as well as the understandability are proclaimed as a central quality of economic valuation. In addition to the outcomes that directly correspond to the academic debate, the cases revealed two other important pro and cons contradictions relating to the use of economic valuation. First of all, determining the values of ESS uncovers the winners and losers of conservation measures. In the case of the winners, this is deemed very useful, as this implies the beneficiaries can be contacted and potentially included into (nature) development projects. In the case of the losers, however, valuation outcomes can emphasise the extent of their losses. This can lead to increased resistance for valuation measures, instead of increased support. Hence, if economic valuation is intended to be used for participative approaches, it is worthwhile to determine not only a strategy to include the winners, but to specifically also regard how to approach the 'losers'. Secondly, monetary outcomes can have a very useful eye-opening effect on an audience, but can work counterproductive as well. As scepticism towards the methods exists within public institutions, explicit use of monetary values can lead to reactions of disbelieve. In addition, using explicit values makes it appear as if these outcomes are robust facts, which they are not. Therefore, internal communication is argued to be most useful when framed economically, highlighting the benefits that intended measures have, yet translated into a qualitative narrative, without explicit use of valuation outcomes. Public legitimacy domain The impact within the public legitimacy domain was much less than the decision-making domain. None of the case studies explicitly used the outcomes of the valuation studies for communication with the general public. Therefore, it is difficult to say whether or not economic valuation is a useful tool for public awareness creation. However, it is not expected. It appears that if public awareness campaigns are pursued, economic valuation studies will not play a major role, if at all. Rather, public communication campaigns are expected to be focussed on a narrative that combines the benefits for human welfare that nature creates, with a narrative on the intrinsic value of nature. People are expected to be mostly drawn to stories that concern their personal wellbeing, more than public economic gains. Thus, the ESS framework, by revealing the human welfare benefits of nature, is seen as valuable for public awareness creation. Economic valuation on the other hand, far less. If societal communication is framed in this non-economic way, it can be expected that negative effects on the human-nature relation are not likely to occur. Because the concern that communication based on economic valuation studies can damage the human-nature relations, is predominantly grounded in the fact that intrinsic values are neglected, and that citizens become consumers. However, the cases show that the economic rationale is not pursued, and the intrinsic values of nature are not neglected in the narratives towards the general public. What the effects are on public awareness and the human-nature relation of this benefit-framing remains open to investigation.
93
Market domain None of the projects analysed led to any innovative market instruments. In most projects, using economic valuation for such purposes was not even considered as an option. In the one case where it was, the idea for a fund scheme did not succeed. One of the reasons that economic valuation as input for innovative market instruments was not pursued, was expected to, yet again, be related to the fact that economic values are insufficiently robust. Hence, whether economic valuations are the way to pursue in relation to the greening of the economy remains unanswered, yet questionable. The question whether economic valuation can lead to commodification, which was the core concern within this domain, can neither be answered with certainty. Nevertheless, within these cases commodification did not occur. The economic valuation studies were commissioned by public institutions with the intention to support nature conservation. The reason the studies were commissioned were either protection and creation of nature: allowing for commodification would have defied the purpose of the study. Hence, commodification was not perceived as an issue within these cases. However, whether in future cases the overarching goal of the commissioning organisation is sufficient to avoid commodification of nature remains open to debate, as it can still be an unintended consequence of valuation studies, as argued in the critical literature.
9.1 Final remarks The most important pro of economic valuation seems to be the possibility to determine the benefits of nature in an understandable way. The most important con, however, is the fact that economic valuation is based on flawed economic and ecological assumptions and therefore unavoidably produces oversimplified data. Comparing both statements reveals that the core strength of economic valuation, is also its key weakness: both are grounded in the fact that economic valuation is an inherently reductionist approach, which leads to the simplification of information. Hence, this implies economic valuation is dual by nature, which allows for the presumption that economic valuation is thus inextricably linked to 'discussion': the mere use of economic valuation provides ground for debate. Moreover, the inherently reductionist characteristic of economic valuation undermines its suitability as a fundamental conservation tool for existing nature. Therefore, economic valuation is not expected to be a suitable replacement of traditional conservation, as argued by proponents. Instead, it is argued it has the potential to be functional in addition to traditional nature conservation. Specifically, in local and regional public institutions the approach appears to work well; as the basis for internal communication, as input for project decision-making on nature-inclusive solutions, and as an instigator and common language for participative approached to spatial projects. Regardless of the specific use, however, several challenges remain to be linked to economic valuation. The uncovering of benefits shows not only those who win but also those who lose from a nature management decision. Therefore, although economic valuation is argued to work well in participative approaches, this does not apply when also those people or groups that lose land value are also present at the
94
table. Additionally, economic valuation tends to lead to under-appreciation of many of the values that belong to the cultural services, which leads to incomplete reflections of the value of nature. And lastly, as economic valuation is of an unavoidably dual nature, it is expected that regardless of how economic valuation is used, scepticism will remain.
9.2 Recommendations Recommendations for further research 1. The thesis outcomes suggest economic valuation does not have a large impact on the public legitimacy domain. It is worthwhile to research whether this is inherent to these specific projects only, or that in other cases, economic valuation is also not used for public awareness communication. Moreover, no conclusions can be drawn about the impacts of economic framing, nor the benefits-framing on human-nature relations. This remains open to investigation. 2. More research is needed to investigate the impacts of economic valuation on the market domain. No definite conclusions can be drawn about the applicability of economic valuation as input for innovative market mechanisms, nor whether economic valuation can lead to (unintentional) commodification of nature, while this is one of the key discussions points about economic valuation. 3. Consensus in definition and application is lacking for the values related to cultural ESS. To ensure increased uptake of these values within valuation studies, it is necessary to fill this knowledge deficit and work towards consensus on definitions and implementations. 4. This thesis has focussed on the use of economic valuation by public institutions. For future research, it can be interesting to examine what the goals and impacts are of the use of economic valuation by private institutions, as also interest in private use of economic valuation is increasing. It can be expected that other elements of the debate appear relevant, compared to the use by public institutions. Recommendations for practical use by public institutions 1. Economic valuation seems ideally deployed as a nature conservation-support tool. This means economic valuation studies are aimed at assisting in the implementation of nature conservation goals, rather than setting the goals themselves. Examples are using economic valuation studies to get nature included into urban spatial planning processes or increasing awareness for intended or planned conservation measures. 2. Whatever the intended use for the economic valuation study, it is best combined with other, non-monetary information inputs. This specifically regards ecological values and parameters, but in many cases, also socio-cultural information. Combining data is paramount as the methodological foundations on which economic valuations are based are not sufficiently inclusive to be used independently. 3. Using the economic benefits of as an internal awareness creating mechanism can be fruitful. However, it is expected that this rationale works best when not including explicit monetary
95
outcomes, but is based on a qualitative economic rationale. Otherwise, the values would appear to be factual representations of reality, while they are actually subjective estimations. More importantly, the use of explicit values can lead to resistance instead of appreciation as the outcomes are considered to be too disputable.
96
References Agentschap Natuur en Bos. (n.d.). Natura2000 Vlaanderen. Retrieved from https://www.natura2000.vlaanderen.be/wat-natura-2000 Armsworth, P., Chan, K., Daily, G., Ehrlich, P., Kremen, C., Ricketts, T., & Sanjayan, M. (2007). Ecosystem-service science and the way forward for conservation. Conservation Biology, 21(6), 1383-1384. Babbie, E. R. (2015). The practice of social research. London: SAGE Publishers. Bade, T., Smid, G., & Tonneijck, F. (2011). Groen Loont! Over maatschappelijke en economische baten van stedelijk groen. Retrieved from http://degroenestad.nl/downloads/groen-loont.pdf Bakker, K. (2010). The limits of ‘neoliberal natures’: Debating green neoliberalism. Progress in Human Geography, 34(6), 715-735. Barbier, E. B. (1994). Valuing environmental functions: tropical wetlands. Land economics, 155-173. Beukering, P. H. J., & Bouma, J. (2015). From concept to practice. In J. Bouma & P. H. J. Beukering (Eds.), Ecosystem Services. From Concept to Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bingham, G., Bishop, R., Brody, M., Bromley, D., Clark, E. T., Cooper, W., . . . Kellert, S. (1995). Issues in ecosystem valuation: improving information for decision making. Ecological Economics, 14(2), 73-90. Braat, L. C., & de Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 4-15. Broekx, S., de Nocker, L., Liekens, I., Poelmans, L., Staes, J., van der Biest, K., . . . Verheyen, K. (2013). Raming van de baten geleverd door het Vlaamse NATURA 2000-netwerk. VITO. Commissioned by Agentschap Natuur en Bos. Bugter, R., & Smith, A. (2015). How to argue for biodiverstiy conservation more effectively Recommendations from the BESAFE project. Sofia: Pensoft Publishers. Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., . . . Wardle, D. A. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486(7401), 59-67. Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A. D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., . . . Ulaljia, W. (2012). Where are Cultural and Social in Ecosystem Services? A Framework for Constructive Engagement. BioScience, 62(8), 744-756. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7 Chapin, F. S., Chapin, M. C., Matson, P. A., & Vitousek, P. (2011). Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology. New York: Springer. Chee, Y. E. (2004). An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biological Conservation, 120(4), 549-565. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.03.028 Chiesura, A., & De Groot, R. (2003). Critical natural capital: a socio-cultural perspective. Ecological Economics, 44(2), 219-231. Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T., & Kenter, J. O. (2012). An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies. Ecological Economics, 83, 67-78. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.012 College of Biological Sciences (n.d.). Raymond Lindeman (1915-1942). The creator of modern ecosystem science theory. Retrieved from http://cbs.umn.edu/about/cbs-greats/lindeman Costanza, R. (2000). Social goals and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosystems, 3(1), 4-10. Costanza, R. (2012). The Ecosystem Promise: Introduction and overview. In M. Brouwer (Ed.), The Ecosystem Promise. Bunnik: MB Partners in Communication. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Faber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., . . . Paruelo, J. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260.
97
Daily, G. C. (1997). Nature’s services: Island Press, Washington, DC. Daily, G. C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Pejchar, L., . . . Shallenberger, R. (2009). Ecosystem Services in Decision Making: Time to Deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1), 21-28. de Groot, R. S., Brander, L., van der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., . . . van Beukering, P. (2012). Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 50-61. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005 de Groot, R. S., Fisher, B., Christie, M., Aronson, J., Braat, L., Gowdy, J., & Ring, I. (2010). TEEB Report: Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. Wesseling, Germany: Banson Production. de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 393408. Dempsey, J., & Robertson, M. M. (2012). Ecosystem services. Tensions, impurities, and points of engagement within neoliberalism. Progress in Human Geography, 36(6), 758-779. Djoghiaf, A., & Dodds, F. (2011). Biodiversity and ecosystem insecurity: a planet in peril. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Edwards, P. J., & Abivardi, C. (1998). The value of biodiversity: Where ecology and economy blend. Biological Conservation, 83(3), 239-246. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(97)001419 Eemsdelta E&E (2014). Icoonproject: Vitale kust Eems-Dollard. Retrieved from https://www.provinciegroningen.nl/uitvoering/water-milieu-en-veiligheid/dubbele-dijkeemshaven-delfzijl/ Egmond, P. v., & Ruijs, A. (2016). Natuurlijk kapitaal: naar waarde geschat. Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, Den Haag. Ehrenfeld, D. W. (1988). Why put a value on biodiversity? In E. O. Wilson & F. N. Peter (Eds.), Biodiversity (pp. 37-59). Washington, DC. : National Academy Press. Ehrenfeld, D. W. (1995). Beginning again: people and nature in the new millennium: Oxford University Press on Demand. Ehrlich, A. H., & Ehrlich, P. R. (1981). Extinction: The causes and consequences of the disappearance of species: New York: Random House. Ehrlich, P. R., Ehrlich, A. H., & Holdren, J. P. (1977). Ecoscience: population resources environment. San Fransisco: W. H. Freeman. European Commission (2015). Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity. (11). Bristol: Science for Policy. Fairhead, J., Leach, M., & Scoones, I. (2012). Green Grabbing: a new appropriation of nature? Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(2), 237-261. doi:10.1080/03066150.2012.671770 Farber, S. C., Costanza, R., & Wilson, M. A. (2002). Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 375-392. Farley, J. (2012). Ecosystem services: The economics debate. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 40-49. Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 643-653. Gantioler, S., Rayment, M., ten Brink, P., McConville, A., Kettunen, M., & Bassi, S. (2014). The costs and socio-economic benefits associated with the Natura 2000 network. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 6(1-2), 135-157. Garrod, G., & Willis, K. G. (1999). Economic valuation of the environment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
98
Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2009). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1209-1218. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007 Gomez-Baggethun, E., & Ruiz-Perez, M. (2011). Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography, 35(5), 613-628. doi:10.1177/0309133311421708 Görg, C. (2007). Landscape governance: The “politics of scale” and the “natural” conditions of places. Geoforum, 38(5), 954-966. Grunewald, K., & Bastian, O. (2015). Ecosystem Services (ES): More Than Just a Vogue Term? In K. Grunewald & O. Bastian (Eds.), Ecosystem services - Concepts, methods and case studies (pp. 1-11). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. Grunewald, K., Bastian, O., & Mannsfeld, K. (2015). Development and Fundamentals of the ES Approach. In K. Grunewald & O. Bastian (Eds.), Ecosystem services - Concepts, methods and case studies (pp. 13-34). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. Guerry, A. D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Daily, G. C., Griffin, R., . . . Vira, B. (2015). Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(24), 7348-7355. doi:10.1073/pnas.1503751112 Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2010). The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Ecosystem Ecology: a new synthesis, 110-139. Haslett, J. R., Berry, P. M., Bela, G., Jongman, R. H., Pataki, G., Samways, M. J., & Zobel, M. (2010). Changing conservation strategies in Europe: a framework integrating ecosystem services and dynamics. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(10), 2963-2977. Hayward, T. (2001). Political theory and ecological values. New York: St. Martin's Press. Heal, G. (2000). Valuing ecosystem services. Ecosystems, 3(1), 24-30. Hein, L., Van Koppen, K., De Groot, R. S., & Van Ierland, E. C. (2006). Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 57(2), 209-228. Howard, B., Braat, L. C., Bugter, R. J. F., Carmen, E., Hails, R. S., Watt, A. D., & Young, J. C. (2016). Taking stock of the spectrum of arguments for biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation. doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1082-1 Jax, K., Barton, D. N., Chan, K. M. A., de Groot, R., Doyle, U., Eser, U., . . . Wichmann, S. (2013). Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecological Economics, 93, 260-268. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.06.008 Jones-Walters, L., & Mulder, I. (2009). Valuing nature: The economics of biodiversity. Journal for Nature Conservation, 17(4), 245-247. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2009.06.001 Jørgensen, S. E. (2009). Ecosystem Ecology. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Justus, J., Colyvan, M., Regan, H., & Maguire, L. (2009). Buying into conservation: intrinsic versus instrumental value. Trends in Ecological Evolution, 24(4), 187-191. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.11.011 Kallis, G., Gomez-Baggethun, E., & Zografos, C. (2013). To value or not to value? That is not the question. Ecological Economics, 97-105. Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T. H., Daily, G. E., & Polasky, S. (2011). Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kenter, J., Hockley, N., Irvine, K., O'brien, L., Christie, M., Church, A., . . . Reed, M. (2013). What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecological Economics, 34(659), 205. Kirchholtes, U. (2012). TEEB in de stad: handleiding bij het rekeninstrument voor de baten van natuur en watermaatregelen. Retrieved from http://www.omgevingseconomie.nl/wpcontent/uploads/2012/04/Handleiding-TEEB-stad_2012_-WittevenBos_def.pdf Kolstad, C. D. (2000). Environmental Economics. New York: Oxford University Press.
99
Kontoleon, A., Pascual, U., & Swanson, T. M. (2007). Biodiversity economics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Krausmann, F., Gingrich, S., Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K.-H., Haberl, H., & Fischer-Kowalski, M. (2009). Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century. Ecological Economics, 68(10), 2696-2705. Kumar, M., & Kumar, P. (2008). Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecological Economics, 64(4), 808-819. Kumar, P., Brondizio, E., Gatzweiler, F., Gowdy, J., de Groot, D., Pascual, U., . . . Sukhdev, P. (2013). The economics of ecosystem services: from local analysis to national policies. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(1), 78-86. Kumar, R. (2011). Research Methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners (15 ed.): Los Angeles: SAGE. Kwakernaak, C., & Lenselink, G. (2015). Economische en ecologische perspectieven van een dubbele dijk langs de Eems-Dollard. Alterra, Wageningen UR and Deltares. Lamarque, P., Quetier, F., & Lavorel, S. (2011). The diversity of the ecosystem services concept and its implications for their assessment and management. Comptus Rendus Biologies, 334(5-6), 441-449. doi:10.1016/j.crvi.2010.11.007 Lant, C. L., Ruhl, J., & Kraft, S. E. (2008). The tragedy of ecosystem services. BioScience, 58(10), 969-974. Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Billé, R., Pirard, R., & Mermet, L. (2013). Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: questioning a literature blindspot. Journal of environmental management, 119, 208-219. Lele, S., Springate-Baginski, O., Lakerveld, R., Deb, D., & Dash, P. (2013). Ecosystem Services: Origins, Contributions, Pitfalls, and Alternatives. Conservation and Society, 11(4), 343-358. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.125752 Limburg, K. E., O'Neill, R. V., Costanza, R., & Farber, S. (2002). Complex systems and valuation. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 409-420. Lindeman, R. L. (1942). The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology, 23(4), 399-417. Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Bengtsson, J., Grime, J., Hector, A., . . . Schmid, B. (2001). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science, 294(5543), 804-808. Luck, G. W., Chan, K. M. A., Eser, U., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Matzdorf, B., Norton, B., & Potschin, M. (2012). Ethical Considerations in On-Ground Applications of the Ecosystem Services Concept. BioScience, 62(12), 1020-1029. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.12.4 Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Liquete, C., Braat, L., Berry, P., . . . Santos-Martín, F. (2013). Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services-An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/MAESWorkin gPaper2013.pdf. Martín-López, B., Montes, C., & Benayas, J. (2008). Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation: the meaning of numbers. Conservation Biology, 22(3), 624-635. Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., & O'Neill, J. (1998). Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 26(3), 277-286. McCauley, D. J. (2006). Selling out on nature. Nature, 443, 27-28. doi:doi:10.1038/443027a MEA (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Island Press Retrieved from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Global.html. Mooney, H. A., & Ehrlich, P. R. (1997). Ecosystem services: a fragmentary history. In G. E. Daily (Ed.), Nature's Services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems (pp. 11-19). Washington DC: Island Press.
100
Norgaard, R. B. (2009). Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1219-1227. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009 Norton, B. (1987). Why Preserve Natural Variety? Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. NRC (2005). Valuing ecosystem services: toward better environmental decision-making: National Academies Press: Washinton DC. Nunes, P. A. L. D., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2001). Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense? Ecological Economics, 39(2), 203-222. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S09218009(01)00233-6 O’Connor, M., & Frame, B. (2009). In a Wilderness of Mirrors: Complexity, Confounded MetaNarratives and Sustainability Assessment. Cahiers du C3ED(01). Parks, S., & Gowdy, J. (2013). What have economists learned about valuing nature? A review essay. Ecosystem Services, 3, 1-10. Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., . . . Kelemen, E. (2017). Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26, 7-16. PBL (2016). Natuurlijk Kapitaal: Naar waarde geschat. PBL Publicatie, Den Haag. Pearce, D. W., & Moran, D. (1994). The economic value of biodiversity. London, UK: Earthscan. Pearce, D. W., & Turner, R. K. (1990). Economics of natural resources and the environment. Exeter, UK: JHU Press. Rands, M. R. W., Adams, W. M., Bennun, L., Butchart, S. H. M., Clements, A., Coomes, D., . . . Vira, B. (2010). Biodiversity Conservation: Challenges Beyond 2010. Science, 329(5997), 12981303. doi:10.1126/science.1189138 Redford, K. H., & Adams, W. M. (2009). Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conservation Biology, 23(4), 785-787. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01271.x Reid, W. V. (2006). Nature- the many benefits of ecosystem services. Nature, 443. doi:doi:10.1038/443749a Ridder, B. (2008). Questioning the ecosystem services argument for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17(4), 781-790. doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9316-5 Ring, I., Hansjürgens, B., Elmqvist, T., Wittmer, H., & Sukhdev, P. (2010). Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity- the TEEB initiative. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(1-2), 15-26. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.03.005 Robertson, M. M. (2000). No net loss: wetland restoration and the incomplete capitalization of nature. Antipode, 32(4), 463-493. Robertson, M. M. (2012). Measurement and alienation: making a world of ecosystem services. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(3), 386-401. Sagoff, M. (1998). Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing. Ecological Economics, 24(2), 213-230. Sagoff, M. (2011). The quantification and valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 70(3), 497-502. Schägner, J. P., Brander, L., Maes, J., & Hartje, V. (2013). Mapping ecosystem services' values: Current practice and future prospects. Ecosystem Services, 4, 33-46. Scholte, S. S., van Teeffelen, A. J., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: a review of concepts and methods. Ecological Economics, 114, 67-78. Schomers, S., & Matzdorf, B. (2013). Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosystem Services, 6, 16-30. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.01.002 Schröter, M., van der Zanden, E. H., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Remme, R. P., Serna-Chavez, H. M., de Groot, R. S., & Opdam, P. (2014). Ecosystem Services as a Contested Concept: a
101
Synthesis of Critique and Counter-Arguments. Conservation Letters, 7(6), 514-523. doi:10.1111/conl.12091 Sikor, T. (2013). The justices and injustices of ecosystem services. New York: Routledge. Slocombe, D. S. (1998). Defining goals and criteria for ecosystem-based management. Environmental management, 22(4), 483-493. Spangenberg, J. H. (2013). Ecosystem Services in a Societal Context. In S. Jacobs, N. Dendonker, & H. Keune (Eds.), Ecosystem Services. Global Issues, Local Practices (pp. 91-95). San Diego: Elsevier. Spangenberg, J. H., & Settele, J. (2010). Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 327-337. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.04.007 Spash, C. L., & Vatn, A. (2006). Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives. Ecological Economics, 60(2), 379-388. Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J., & McNeill, J. R. (2007). The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 36(8), 614-621. Study of Critical Environmental Problems (1970). Man's impact on the global environment. Retrieved from Cambridge: Sundseth, K., Mézard, N., & Wegefelt, S. (2008). NATURA 2000: Protecting Europe's Biodiversity. European Commission, Brussels. Tansley, A. G. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology, 16(3), 284307. TEEB (2009). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers. Wesseling: Wetzel+Hardt. TEEB (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Wesseling, Germany: European Communities. TEEB Stad (2012). Groen loont met TEEB Stad. Gemeenten redeneren, rekenen en verdienen met de baten van natuur en water. Retrieved from https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2012/09/20/teeb-stad TEEB Stad (2013). Van TEEB Stad naar TEEB Stadtool. Retrieved from http://www.platform31.nl/publicaties/van-teeb-stad-naar-teeb-stad-tool/ Tilman, D., Knops, J., Wedin, D., Reich, P., Ritchie, M., & Siemann, E. (1997). The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science, 277(5330), 13001302. Turner, R., & Daily, G. C. (2008). The ecosystem services framework and natural capital conservation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 39(1), 25-35. Turnhout, E., Waterton, C., Neves, K., & Buizer, M. (2013). Rethinking biodiversity: from goods and services to “living with”. Conservation Letters, 6(3), 154-161. Turnhout, E., Waterton, C., Neves, K., & Buizer, M. (2014). Technocratic and economic ideals in the ecosystem services discourse. Conservation Letters, 7(3), 336-337. UNEP (2008). Payments for Ecosystem Services- Getting Started. (DEP/1051/NA Produced by Forest Trends). Nairobi: UNON Publishing Services. van der Heide, M. (2015). Waardering van stedelijk groen en blauw. Evaluatie van het gebruik van de TEEB-Stad tool. Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, Den Haag. van der Meulen, S., Kwakernaak, C., & Bos, M. (2015). Natuurlijk Kapitaal Nederland pilots Waterveiligheid; Ecosysteemdiensten in de praktijk van het Deltaprogramma. Alterra, Wageningen UR and Deltares. van Dorp, I., Benthem, R., Drontmann, P., & Hoeve, M. (2012). Ecologie & Economie in balans in de Eemsdelta. Provincie Groningen, Groningen.
102
van Loon-Steensma, J., Schelfhout, H., Eernink, N., & Paulissen, M. (2012). Verkenning innovatieve dijken in het Waddengebied: een verkenning naar de mogelijkheden voor innovatieve dijken in het Waddengebied. Retrieved from http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/200881 Vatn, A. (2000). The environment as a commodity. Environmental Values, 493-509. Vatn, A. (2005). Rationality, institutions and environmental policy. Ecological Economics, 55(2), 203217. Vatn, A., & Bromley, D. W. (1994). Choices without prices without apologies. Journal of environmental economics and management, 26(2), 129-148. Wegner, G., & Pascual, U. (2011). Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: A multidisciplinary critique. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 492-504. Westman, W. E. (1977). How much are nature's services worth? Science, 197(4307), 960-964. World Bank (2009). Environment matters at the World Bank : valuing coastal and marine ecosystem services. Washington, DC.: World Bank. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/593291468150870756/Environment-matters-atthe-World-Bank-valuing-coastal-and-marine-ecosystem-services. Cover picture: https://pixabay.com/p-1093354/?no_redirect (rights free)
103
Annex I - List of interviewees
104
Project
Project
Project
Eems-Dollard
Cees Kwakernaak Ron Franken Peter van Dijken Rob Rijntsema Irene van Dorp
Alterra PBL Waterschap Noorderzijlvest Groninger Landschap Provincie Groningen
EXE01 COM01 POL01 SOC01 COO01
21/03/17 23/03/17 31/03/17 04/04/17 03/05/17
By phone Live By phone Live By phone
Natura2000
Steven Broekx Jeroen Panis Anke Geeraerts Johan Toebat
VITO Agentschap Natuur en Bos Natuurpunt LNE Vlaanderen
EXE02 COM02 SOC02 POL02
27/03/17 28/03/17 05/04/17 31/03/17
Skype Skype Skype Skype
Jaya Sicco Smit Lydia Plant Henk Kuijpers Jolanda Sikkelerus Kees de Vette Diana Bakboord Coordinator, chair, participant (2x)
Province of Overijssel Almelo municipality Apeldoorn municipality Apeldoorn municipality Rotterdam municipality Haarlem municipality Various
COM03a POL03a COO03x EXE03b EXE03c COM03d none
19/04/17 19/04/17 07/04/17 04/05/17 21/04/17 24/04/17 13/04/17
Live Live By phone Live Live By phone Live
TEEB City Almelo Apeldoorn Rotterdam Haarlem Informal interviews @ City Deal General Meeting
ID-Code Date
Mode
Legend Eemsdollard Natura2000 Vlaanderen TEEB City Almelo Apeldoorn Rotterdam Haarlem
1 2 3x 3a 3b 3c 3d
Commissioner Project manager/ executor Policy/ decision-maker Nature organisation Coordinator
COM EXE POL SOC COO
105
Annex II - General interview script 1. Introduction. a.
Naomi Montenegro Navarro, master student Wageningen UR, Environmental Sciences, major in Policy.
b.
Do I have your permission to record this interview?
c.
Duration: approximately 60'
2. The goal of my thesis is to shed light on the pros and cons of economic valuation of ESS. Specifically, I focus on the socio-economic concerns. 3. The goal of this interview is to acquire insights into your experiences with and thoughts on project X. At the end of the interview, I would like to ask your opinion about six statements discussing the main socio-economic controversies about economic valuation of nature. Introductions to the questions will be based on information acquired through document analysis. Some questions will not be asked if they can be found in project documents and need no further explanations. 4. First of all, could you describe the organisation you work for, and your function within the organisation? 5. Could you describe your relation to the project? a.
Role, tasks, level of authority?
6. Could you describe why the project was commissioned (by you/ by entity X)? What was the purpose? 7. What were the main outcomes of the project? a.
Main decisions reached?
8. How were decisions reached (internally - within project group)? 9. How much did the monetary outcomes influence decision A/ B/ C? a.
Did the availability of monetary values make the decision-making easier? How?
b.
Would the decisions have been different if no monetary valuation had taken place?
10. Could you describe the parties involved, and the relations between those parties? 11. How were decisions communicated between decision-makers and other project stakeholders? a.
Were the economic benefits explicitly used as a justification and/ or support generation tool?
b.
If no, why not; if yes, was that useful? Did communication go easier due to the use of economic framing?
12. How were decisions received by participants? And other stakeholders? a.
Did every stakeholder support decision A? Which ones did not, why?
b.
Did the monetary outcomes influence acceptance of decision A?
13. Would you say the use of economic framing was of influence on how the project idea was received and executed by participants? a.
Did it make the project more understandable for participants and other stakeholders? Why/ why not?
106
14. What kind of ESS were looked at? 15. Were both ecological and economic data considered in decision-making? a.
Were the economic and ecological (and social if applicable) results equally used for decision-making?
b.
If yes; was it concretised beforehand which of these values would be more important for decision-making?
16. Were socio-cultural values included? a.
If yes: Which ones? (shared values; non-use values)? How?
b.
If no: why not? Would this choice be made again in future projects?
c.
Do you think outcomes would have been very different if (more) socio-cultural values were included?
17. (If CVM) Did the project take into account differences between rich and poor, dependent/ independent stakeholders? How? 18. Would you say the project results provided sufficient data to base valid policy decisions on? a.
If no, what data was lacking?
19. Have the policy decisions that were made led to actual projects/ pilots/ implementations? 20. If applicable; How was general communication with civilians/ other civil stakeholders organised? a.
Was the economic language explicitly used in the communication about the project? (translation into NKN, ESD, Kosten en baten, etc)
b.
And explicit monetary outcomes?
c.
If yes, what were the effects? More understanding/ awareness/ acceptance? / More resistance/ difficulties in understanding?
21. Have you been involved in communication with external stakeholders (civilians specifically?)? a.
Would you say the use of economic discourse made that the relation between other stakeholders (define which) and nature became purely utilitarian?
b.
Did this relation between stakeholders and nature seem to be different than before?
c.
Have you noticed that the prospect of defined economic revenues made people accept the project more (in advance?)
d.
Do you see a shift in motivations for conservation due to this economic framing?
22. Did the outcomes of the project in any way influence the way welfare indicators are designed? a.
Could they? Under what circumstances?
23. Were the economic outcomes of this project used to redistribute the costs and benefits of externalities? a.
How was this achieved? How did this play out?
b.
If not: would this be a task for which economic valuation might be used in the future? Why/ why not?
24. Did the monetisation of ESS lead to commodification of those ecosystems?
107
a.
Or was increased interest from commercial parties visible after valuation?; Did the idea of taking valuation one step further, to commodify those ecosystems exist with any of the parties involved?
25. Conclusion: could you describe whether you think the project was a success? a.
Why/ why not?
26. This was everything I wanted to ask you about the project. a.
Do you think there are any issues important to this topic that have not been addressed in this interview?
27. I would like to end with six statements that reflect the discussion about the socio-economic pros and cons on economic valuation of ESS. Do you mind stating the extent to which you agree/ disagree with the following statements? a.
Framing nature and nature management projects in economic terms negatively alters the relations between people and nature, because it is purely focussed on a utilitarian relation between humans and nature.
b.
Public motivations for nature management will thereby become overly focussed on economic potential.
c.
Often valuation processes neglect social dimensions like income differences, dependency differences, as well as socio-cultural values people might have and does therefore not provide a consistent framework that can be used for decision-making
d.
Nature-related decision-making based on economic valuation is only understandable to experts and therefore less accessible to non-scientific stakeholders and the general public.
e.
Valuation of nature into monetary values is an important ingredient for altering our economic model into a more sustainable, nature inclusive model, by making nature visible economically and including those in innovative market instruments.
f.
Economic valuation of nature legitimises destructive economic mechanisms and paves the way for commodification of nature.
28. That is all. Do you have any further questions for me? 29. Would you like to be referred anonymously or can I use your function description/ name/ all? 30. Thank you very much for your time and cooperation. Would you like to have a digital copy of my final thesis?
108
Annex III - Additional documents used
109
Project
Documents used
Eems-Dollard
Economische en ecologische perspectieven van een dubbele dijk langs de Eems-Dollard Cees Kwakernaak (Alterra), Gerda Lenselink (Deltares) Natuurlijk Kapitaal Nederland pilots Waterveiligheid; Ecosysteemdiensten in de praktijk van het Deltaprogramma Suzanne van der Meulen, Maaike Bos (Deltares), Cees Kwakernaak (Alterra) Meerwaarde ecosysteemdiensten voor Deltaprogramma Ron Franken (PBL) Ecologie en economie in balans in de Eemsdelta Irene van Dorp (Provincie Groningen) Natuurlijk Kapitaal Nederland. Een conceptuele verkenning en afbakening van het TEEB-kader Frans Oosterhuijs, Arjan Ruijs (PBL) Natuurlijk Kapitaal Nederland: naar waarde geschat Petra van Egmond, Arjan Ruijs (PBL)
Natura2000
Raming van de baten geleverd door het Vlaamse NATURA 2000-netwerk Steven Broekx, Leo de Nocker (VITO) Duurzaam ondernemen: de waarde van ecosysteemdiensten in Vlaanderen Tanja Cerulus, Sara Ochelen (LNE Vlaanderen)
TEEB City
Groen loont met TEEB Stad. Gemeenten redeneren, rekenen en verdienen met de baten van natuur en water Jacqueline van Wetten, Sjaak de Ligt, Henk Kuijpers, Roel van Dijk (TEEB Stad) Gemeenten pionieren met de baten van groen Jaqueline van Wetten (Omgevingseconomie) TEEB-Rotterdam. De baten van meer natuur en water in de stadshavens Rotterdam Ursula Kirchholtes (Witteveen+Bos), Ronald Bakker, Kees de Vette, Flip van Keulen (Gemeente Rotterdam) Sturen op ondergrondbaten in het planproces voor de Almelose binnenstad Ursula Kirchholtes, Rob Dijcker (Witteveen+Bos) Waardering vna stedelijk groen en blauw: Evaluatie van het gebruik van de TEEB-Stad tool Martijn van der Heide (PBL)
110
111
