Transcendental values and the valuation and management of ecosystem services

被引:100
|
作者
Raymond, Christopher M. [1 ]
Kenter, Jasper O. [2 ]
机构
[1] Swedish Univ Agr Sci, Dept Landscape Architecture Planning & Management, Umea, Sweden
[2] SAMS, Laurence Mee Ctr Soc & Sea, Oban, Argyll, Scotland
基金
英国自然环境研究理事会; 英国经济与社会研究理事会; 英国艺术与人文研究理事会;
关键词
Shared values; Deliberative valuation; Pro-environmental behaviour; Conservation planning; Participatory psychometrics; Value-belief-norm theory; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY; DELIBERATIVE MONETARY VALUATION; VALUE ORIENTATIONS; PLANNED BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL VALUES; ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN; LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT; CONSERVATION; BIODIVERSITY; INTENTIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.018
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Despite the wealth of studies assessing values in relation to the management of ecosystem services, few studies have assessed transcendental values (TVs). TVs include ethical principles and desirable end states, such as 'a world at peace' or 'unity with nature' that transcend specific situations. We argue that TVs are important to consider in relation to ecosystem services because they: are implicit within ecosystem service valuations; directly and indirectly affect behaviour; influence the way we view knowledge and evidence; may be shared when more superficial values conflict; and underpin social representations. We demonstrate through case examples from the United Kingdom, Solomon Islands and Australia how they can be applied to the assessment of pro-environmental behaviour, how they might influence monetary valuations, and be affected by deliberative processes. TVs had direct effects on behavioural intention and significantly influenced willingness to pay. In contrast to conceptions of TVs as stable, in some cases deliberation led to significant change in TVs. We also observed indirect effects between TVs and constructs that mediate between TVs and behaviour, including beliefs and norms about conservation actions. We discuss the implications of the results for ecosystem valuation and management, including directions for future research.
引用
收藏
页码:241 / 257
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services
    Himes, Austin
    Muraca, Barbara
    CURRENT OPINION IN ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY, 2018, 35 : 1 - 7
  • [2] Plural valuation in space: mapping values of grasslands and their ecosystem services
    Schmitt, Thomas M.
    Riebl, Rebekka
    Martin-Lopez, Berta
    Haensel, Maria
    Koellner, Thomas
    ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE, 2022, 18 (01) : 258 - 274
  • [3] Valuation of ecosystem services
    vanWilgen, BW
    Cowling, RM
    Burgers, CJ
    BIOSCIENCE, 1996, 46 (03) : 184 - 189
  • [4] Contribution to Araca Bay management: The identification and valuation of ecosystem services
    Carrilho, Caue Dias
    de Almeida Sinisgalli, Paulo Antonio
    OCEAN & COASTAL MANAGEMENT, 2018, 164 : 128 - 135
  • [5] The use of ecosystem services valuation in Australian coastal zone management
    Marre, Jean-Baptiste
    Thebaud, Olivier
    Pascoe, Sean
    Jennings, Sarah
    Boncoeur, Jean
    Coglan, Louisa
    MARINE POLICY, 2015, 56 : 117 - 124
  • [6] Valuation of Soil Ecosystem Services
    Jonsson, J. O. G.
    Daviosdottir, B.
    Nikolaidis, N. P.
    QUANTIFYING AND MANAGING SOIL FUNCTIONS IN EARTH'S CRITICAL ZONE COMBINING EXPERIMENTATION AND MATHEMATICAL MODELLING, 2017, 142 : 353 - 384
  • [7] Ecosystem services valuation in China
    Liu, Shuang
    Costanza, Robert
    ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2010, 69 (07) : 1387 - 1388
  • [8] Widening the Evaluative Space for Ecosystem Services: A Taxonomy of Plural Values and Valuation Methods
    Arias-Arevalo, Paola
    Gomez-Baggethun, Erik
    Martin-Lopez, Berta
    Perez-Rincon, Mario
    ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES, 2018, 27 (01) : 29 - 53
  • [9] Ecosystem services: Classification for valuation
    Fisher, Brendan
    Turner, R. Kerry
    BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2008, 141 (05) : 1167 - 1169
  • [10] The quantification and valuation of ecosystem services
    Sagoff, Mark
    ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2011, 70 (03) : 497 - 502