Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Management &
policy
(e.g. investing in
ecological restoration)
Institutions &
human judgments
Feedback based on
perceived benefits &
values from EGS
Ecosystems &
biodiversity
Human
well-being
Biophysical
structure &
processes
Ecosystem
goods &
services
(EGS)
Functions
Benefits
Total
economic
value
1)
Figure 22.2 Conceptual framework for linking ecosystems and human well-being, according to TEEB (from de Groot et al .
2010 , modifi ed). Ecosystem functions are defi ned as a subset of the interactions between ecosystem structure, and the
processes, that together determine the capacity of an ecosystem to provide goods and services. Ecosystem goods and services
(EGS) are defi ned as the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being (MA 2005). The TEEB framework
distinguishes between ecological, sociocultural and economic benefi ts and values. Different values can be attached to a
particular benefi t. NB: Each ecosystem function infl uences various ecosystem services. Concurrently, unsustainable
exploitation of goods, or excessive use of certain services, can adversely affect ecosystem structure and processes.
ecosystem functions and ecosystem goods and serv-
ices, and also showing the pivotal role of the latter. This
should help dispel the very common confusion that
exists between ecosystem functions on the one hand,
and ecosystem services on the other. For example, the
provisioning service ' clean water ' is based on ' water
purifi cation' as a function , which in turn is based on
underlying structures and processes such as food chain
dynamics and nutrient cycling.
In a third box on Figure 22.2, we fi nd human welfare
and well-being (at the societal level) with 'benefi ts ' dis-
tinguished from ' values ' . The TEEB distinguishes eco-
logical, sociocultural and economic benefi ts and
values. Benefi ts are what can be measured in terms of
what people receive from EGS, while Values are assigned
by economists and others by various means. It is
important to distinguish between the two. For example,
benefi ts from catching fi sh from the ocean can be
measured as food for people, as cultural identity for
fi shers or as income from the market, whereas the
valuation of these benefi ts may have a subjective com-
ponent, depending on who attaches values to a par-
ticular benefi t. Note that both use and non-use (or
active-use and passive-use) values - that is, values that
can readily be assigned monetary equivalents and
those that cannot - are included in the term 'Total
Economic Value', which thus is an estimate of the full
economic value of a good or service, and not just its
direct monetary value (National Research Council
(NRC) 2005). As Loomis et al . (2000) , Robbins and
Daniels (2011) and others have shown, this approach
is highly valuable in promoting a closer union between
restoration ecology and economics.
As mentioned in Chapter 2, the TEEB project repre-
sents an anthropocentric approach towards ecosystem
functions, where they are instrumentally valued for
their benefi ts to human society (human well-being).
Instrumental valuation is defi ned as assessing func-
tions for their contribution to the benefi t of some par-
ticular reference, in this case human well-being.
Intrinsic values of nature are by defi nition non-
instrumental, and have thus not played an equivalent
role in decision making (see the discussion in Farber
et al . 2002). However, as proposed by Weesie and van
Andel (2008), ecosystem functions can, from a biocen-
tric point of view, similarly be valued in an instrumen-
Search WWH ::




Custom Search