- Email: [email protected]
Critical natural capital: a socio-cultural perspective
Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231 www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon
METHODS
Critical natural capital: a socio-cultural perspective Anna Chiesura *, Rudolf de Groot Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 8080, 6700 DD Wageningen, The Netherlands Received 22 January 2001; received in revised form 22 July 2002; accepted 17 September 2002
Abstract Critical natural capital (CNC) is commonly defined as that part of the natural environment, which performs important and irreplaceable functions. So far, the challenge to determine the criticality of natural capital (NC) has mainly been taken up by the natural sciences, and the critical functions of nature mainly associated with its life-support and ecological services. Little attention has been paid to the socio-cultural functions of NC and to their values for the health and well being of human societies. The aim of this paper is to encourage a more complete accounting of the critical functions of NC and its associated values, by highlighting the importance of the information functions (health, recreation, amenity, education, heritage, etc.) for the quality and sustainability of human life. It is argued that, despite their immaterial and often intangible nature, these functions provide many, socio /economic benefits, which might be assessed through both qualitative and quantitative valuation methodologies. Integration of ecology, sociology and economics is essential to operationalize the concept of CNC as a tool for more balanced environmental planning and decision making. # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. Keywords: Critical natural capital; Ecosystem functions; Environmental valuation; Information functions; Social and cultural values
1. Introduction The concepts of critical natural capital (CNC) and strong sustainability have been the object of academic debate for many years (Seralgeldin and Steer, 1994; Beckermann, 1995; Jacobs, 1995; Faucheux et al., 1997; Ayres et al., 2001). Grounded in neo-classical economic assumptions of capital theory, the original distinction between
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Chiesura).
weak and strong sustainability has been taken up by other disciplines (i.e. environmental and ecological economics) and stretched into a spectrum of overlapping sustainability positions, ranging from a techno-centric ‘very weak sustainability’ to an eco-centric ‘very strong sustainability’ position (Turner, 1993). A central issue in the debate is the question to what extent natural capital (NC) is seen as critical to human society. Current approaches to CNC refer to nature’s ecological or economic functions and values. However, natural ecosystems provide many functions and values that are not directly ascribable to the ecological or the economic domain, but which are nonetheless
0921-8009/03/$ - see front matter # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00275-6
220
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
crucial for the health and sustainability of human societies. It is argued that the present understanding of why NC is critical is still incomplete, lacking important insights into the social and immaterial functions of nature. Aim of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of CNC from the socio-cultural, more ‘humanistic’ perspective. To do that consistently we had to depart from the background of neo-classical economics and to address our analysis within the conceptual frame of ecological economics, more aware of the complexity of sustainability issues. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, theoretical and methodological consequences of our analytical choice are exposed. Section 3 contains a literature overview of some recurrent definitions of CNC, and discusses the introduction of the functional approach. In Section 4 the sociocultural approach is proposed as complementary analytical tool to identify CNC. Conclusions are presented and discussed in Section 5.
2. Ecological economics and critical natural capital concepts The foundations of the debate around weak and strong sustainability can be traced back to theories of neo-classical economics. The key theoretical difference between weak and strong sustainability boils down to the possibility of substituting NC by man-made capital. The weak criterion considers natural and man-made capitals as substitutable as long as the level of the total capital (man-made/ natural) remains constant. Given the substitution assumption it is permissible to lump natural and manufactured capital together. In this case an economy is recognized as sustainable even if it draws down its stock of NC, provided it creates enough manufactured capital to compensate for the loss of the NC (Gowdy and O’Hara, 1997). Strong sustainability, on the other hand, considers natural and man-made capitals as complementary, and claims that it is not sufficient to just maintain the overall level of capital. Rather NC must be separately preserved, because at least part of the NC is non-substitutable. The part of the NC,
which performs important and irreplaceable functions is called CNC and its preservation must be given the highest priority. In such a neo-classical economic approach, the sustainability debate is reduced to a mere question of substitutability between natural and man-made capitals; there is no concern for the complex interplay between economic, socio-cultural and ecological systems. As Spash (1999) acutely noted: ‘While neo-classical economics offers a type of theoretical rigor attractive to scientifically trained academics, this same rigor reduces environmental problems to narrow technical issues and deliberately excludes a range of potential options and an interdisciplinary approach’. Within a strict neo-classical frame, then, both weak and strong perspectives fail to provide complete guidelines to achieve sustainability. On the weak side of the sustainability ‘scale’, the claim of almost unlimited substitution possibilities between natural and man-made capitals relies upon questionable assumptions about human abilities to recreate, understand, and manipulate natural systems. But how can an economy be sustainable without its biophysical basis? Manufactured capital requires NC for its construction (Costanza and Daly, 1992). Economic production is essentially a transformation process, which at an aggregate level must be related to the biophysical environment (Tisdell, 1997). On the strong side of the sustainability spectrum, nature is seen as a separate type of capital given absolute protection when ‘some’ irreplaceable, non-substitutable functions are at stake (CNC). Although strong sustainability recognizes nature as a distinct, even critical, sort of capital (which makes it already more consistent with sustainability requirements) it remains somehow abstract and difficult to operationalize. Concepts such as ‘non-substitutable’ or ‘irreplaceable’ raise fundamental questions like: irreplaceable for what? and for whom? Questions which so far have been only partially addressed. A broader analytical angle is thus needed to address the problems in a more integrated way. Ecological economics, in its search to develop new ideas and alternative paradigms (Spash, 1999), provides us with such a conceptual environment, where the concepts of strong sustainability and
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
CNC can be the subject of a more challenging, inter-disciplinary analysis. In its broader analytical frame, in fact, the acknowledgment of the continuous interplay between ecological, economic and socio-cultural systems becomes a structural normative and methodological necessity in order to explore sustainability options. This analytical choice has the following important theoretical and methodological consequences: 2.1. The concept of natural capital Many authors have felt uncomfortable with extending capital theory to the ecological domain and treating nature as capital. Among them, Victor (1991) argues that in treating the natural environment as a form of ‘capital’ one implicitly assumes its substitutability and reproducibility by other forms of capital. Hinterberger et al. (1997) also criticises the notion of NC, arguing that it is not an adequate description of dynamic ecological systems that should be sustained. Holland (1997), p. 128) argues that there is a deep incoherence in the notion of NC and that the very conception of nature as capital provides little protection for the natural world. Dobson (1998) is persuaded that, however, clear we make the distinction between different types of NC, the description of nature as a form of capital, ‘is to look at it [nature] in a certain light, as economic asset of some description’. These doubts are legitimate when we read the most cited definitions of NC: ‘Natural capital is the stock which produces the flux of natural resources: the population of fishes in the ocean generating the flux of fish going to the market; the forest generating timber; the oil reserves whose exploitation provides petrol’ (Daly, 1994). In this definition, NC is seen as a mere source of material goods for production and consumption activities. Such an appraisal of nature as capital simply reiterates the reductionistic and utilitarian vision of neo-classical economics. In the context of our analysis, however, the term capital is not simply interpreted as a stock of resources yielding interests over time, or as a mere input to commodity production and consumption. Our use of the term ‘capital’ for natural systems is meant to embrace also those functions (and
221
values) of nature which are more intangible, and less directly ascribable to economic mechanisms of production and consumption activities, but which */we believe*/are as much as critical for the well being and the sustainability of human society. With these premises in mind we can conclude with Berkes and Folke (1994) that the term capital is seen as a short hand, a sort of metaphor to allow the exploration of a system approach with three fundamentally different, but nevertheless interrelated clusters of variables: ecological, economic and socio-cultural. 2.2. The concepts of needs and human well-being The concept of well being is subject to various interpretations: by some it is seen as a state of mind, by others as human capability or as the satisfaction of underlying needs (see Dodds, 1997). Despite the weak agreement over what human needs and well being are about (and how confidently we can extend them to future generations), the concepts are central in the definition of sustainability as is highlighted by the definition of sustainable development given by the WCED (1987) (emphasis added): ‘Development which meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. Unfortunately, going into this discussion would lead us too far from the scope of the present paper. The point we want to make is that well being has many dimensions. Jacobs refers to this as welfare pluralism, that is the belief that human beings need a variety of different kinds of goods, services, experiences and relationships in order to achieve well-being (Jacobs, 1995, emphasis added). 2.3. The concept of value In both neo-classical and environmental economics any process of valuation seems to be constrained to conform to the convention that money is the natural common measurement unit. The models of ‘value’ and ‘the human subject’ embedded in current neo-classical and environmental economic approaches to cost-benefit analysis embody assumptions which neglect crucial
222
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
constitutive relations between humankind and the value(s) with which, through personal development and cultural processes, the natural world is invested. Particularly disputable are the assumptions of ‘methodological individualism’ and of the ‘commodifiability of nature’ which rely on arbitrary readings of human experience and commitment. On the other hand, ecological economics attempts to develop a broader conception of value, and measurement units, which recognizes the pluralism of incommensurable values and interests existing in the real world (see Martinez-Alier et al., 1998; O’Neil, 1993). As better measurement techniques emerge, monetary values (prices) becomes but one aspect of value (adapted from Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1994a). It follows that broader valuation methodologies are to be fostered than the ones advocated through conventional economic techniques. This entails a methodological pluralism able to accommodate the different values and interest at stake and to allow the creative exploration of human nature and its fundamental needs.
3. Defining critical natural capital Many definitions of CNC can be found in the literature (see also Ekins et al., this issue). In a Report prepared for the UK Conservation Agency English Nature (Tyldesley et al., 1994), CNC is defined as ‘consisting of assets, stock levels or quality levels that are highly valued, and either essential to human health or to the efficient functioning of life-support systems, or irreplaceable or not-substitutable for all practical purposes (e.g. because of antiquity, complexity, specialization, location)’. In a city context, the critical natural resource might embrace assets contributing to local air quality (the ‘green lung effect’) or to a general feeling of well being (English Nature, 1995). Interestingly, the report introduces the concept of ‘critical social natural resource’ to designate natural areas that are of critical value largely as a result of their social value to local communities, rather than any outstanding ecological or scientific value. Such habitats might be critical because of their location and their value for
amenity, recreation and education and for bringing people into regular contact with the natural world. However, the approach does not have any operational consequences and the report focuses rather on the ecological and geological values (i.e. rarity, diversity, fragility). Noe¨l and O’Connor (1998) and Faucheux and O’Connor (1999) describe CNC as a ‘set of environmental resources, which at the prescribed geographical scale performs important environmental functions and for which no substitute in terms of manufactured, human or other NC exist’. Pearce (1997) mentions the ozone layer, the global atmosphere, and the world’s store capacity of biological diversity as examples of CNC. Following Collados and Duane (1999) NC is critical if it produces life-supporting environmental services and is necessary for ‘life production’. Turner (1993) defines CNC as the ‘vital parts of the environments that contribute to life support systems, biodiversity and other necessary functions denoted as ‘key stone species and processes’. In Costanza and Daly (1992), an additional (cultural) element is brought in as criterion for criticality. CNC is in fact considered as a subset of NC including ecological life support systems and irreplaceable cultural artifacts. A similar approach is taken up by Dodds, (1995), who defines CNC as ‘those assets that have no ready substitutes, cannot be replaced, and have a unique contribution to present and future well being’. Most of such assets will be natural, although some may embody human or cultural assets (particularly threatened indigenous knowledge) or particular historical artifacts. The identification of these assets will require improved understanding of biophysical systems and the way in which these interact with human systems, as well as an improved understanding of human fundamental needs. Other authors have suggested that any asset, natural or man-made, that is irreplaceable and subject to uncertainty and important for equity reasons should be conserved (e.g. Dobson, 1998). These assets are called ‘critical capital’ and ‘would be likely to include non-replaceable natural or built capital of cultural or historical significance, living and non-living assets necessary to maintain essential life-support systems and ecosystem functions, and a safe
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
minimum level of all or representative forms of living NC’ (Pearce and Wardford, 1993, pp. 52/ 53; Dodds, 1995). According to Dobson (1998), p. 125), CNC is ‘. . . critical precisely because without it human life would not be possible’. Furthermore, the definition adopted in the EU-funded project on strong sustainability (CRITINC) identifies CNC with ‘that set of environmental resources which performs important functions and for which no substitutes in terms of human, manufactured, or other NC currently exist’ (Ekins et al., this issue). An important finding of the CRITINC Project is the recognition that CNC is a dynamic concept, in that, depending on existence of substitutes or state of knowledge about the perceived importance of certain environmental functions, NC may change from being critical to not critical, or vice versa. A major common feature among the definitions reported is the tendency to identify the ‘criticality’ of nature either with its ‘irreplaceable’ or with ‘important’ ecological or life-support functions (de Groot at al., this issue). However, this approach captures only partially the importance of nature to human systems. Ecological and life-support functions, though undoubtedly essential, are only a partial indication of our dependence upon natural goods and services. They ensure the biophysical conditions that make our life on earth possible. But is that what life is all about? Human societies depend in many other ways upon the proper functioning of natural systems. The functional approach is a good analytical tool to show how human survival and activities are dependent, in almost all their dimensions, on goods and services provided by natural ecosystems (e.g. Costanza et al., 1997). Ecosystem functions have been classified in many ways (Hueting, 1974; De Groot, 1992; Daily, 1997; Noe¨l and O’Connor, 1998). They are divided into the following four categories: (1) Regulation functions: regulation of essential ecological processes and life support systems (bio /geochemical cycling, climate regulation, water purification, etc.); (2) Production functions: harvesting from natural ecosystems of, for example, food, raw materials and genetic resources; (3) Habitat functions: natural ecosystems provide refuge and reproduction /habitat to
223
wild plants and animals and thereby contribute to the (in situ) conservation of biological and genetic diversity and evolutionary processes. (4) Information functions: nature provides many possibilities for recreation and aesthetic enjoyment, cultural and historical information, artistic and spiritual inspiration, education and scientific research. From the above it is clear that many are the goods and services generated by ecosystems’ functions. The services generated range from the very sustenance of basic biophysical conditions (regulation and production functions) to the provision of opportunities to recreate, learn and experience ‘higher’ feelings (information functions). If the first provide the basic requirements for the very existence of human life, the second contributes to making it worthy to be lived. All these different functions might be considered as critical, that is important and irreplaceable, depending on the purposes of a given analysis or interests at stake. What the functional approach thus clearly addresses is the multidimensional character of the NC, and*/consequently */the existence of different domains under which it can be considered as critical. Fig. 1 gives a visual representation of the multifaceted nature of ecosystems’ functions
Fig. 1. Functions and dimensions of NC.
224
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
and the various dimensions */ecological, economical and socio-cultural-involved. The center of the circle represents NC, which provides a plurality of goods and services to human societies. The outer circle represents the ecological, the economic and the socio-cultural dimensions involved in human life. Given the continuous interplay between ecological, social and economic systems, we can reasonably say that each ‘category’ of functions directly or indirectly contribute to all the dimensions. As an example, we can think of the role of urban parks or botanical gardens: they act as lungs of the city (regulation function), as habitats for plants and animals species (habitat function), as well as places for relaxation (physical and mental health), recreation activities and other social functions. All those functions have an ecological (biodiversity, habitat and air purification in the given example), as well as an economic and social value (health, recreation, and quality of life). Areas of outstanding natural beauty can also be taken as example. Their full value has an economic (financial returns to local and foreigner investments through tourism), an ecological (biodiversity, habitat) and a sociocultural (local lifestyles, practices and traditions) dimension. This leads us to conclude that there are different descriptive domains under which NC can be considered as critical. Different disciplines bring different conceptual frameworks to value ecosystems, and thus lead to different representations in policy assessments. While economists focus on assigning market values to well-defined environmental resources and functions, the valuation methods of natural scientists are based on physical instead of monetary units (adapted from O’Hara, 1996). On the other hand, participatory techniques, perceptions and landscape preference studies are applied in the sociological sciences. However, little has been done so far to integrate those different domains within the CNC debate. We believe that more attention to social and psychological sciences can help to fill this analytical gap and add important complementary reference criteria for CNC. In the following section, a sociocultural perspective on determining the criticality
of NC is proposed, as complementary to the existent approaches.
4. The socio-cultural dimension of critical natural capital Ecological and life-support functions are undoubtedly critical services of NC, for they maintain the biophysical basis of life on earth and constitute the pre-conditions of any human activities. As previously seen, however, many other goods and services, though not directly determining the survival or reproduction of ecological systems themselves, make NC a very important source of well being, directly affecting the quality of human life. NC, in fact, does not only provides the bio/geochemical context for species’ and habitat preservation, but also the socio-cultural context for human society. In addition to the basic physiological needs (clean air, water, etc.), human life requires many other needs to be fulfilled, both at the personal (freedom, self-development, recreation, psycho /physical health, etc.) and at the collective (social contacts, norms and values, ideals, cultural identity, etc.) levels. These needs, when fulfilled, benefit not only the individuals as such, but also the society they compose. The socio-cultural perspective here addressed frames the concept of CNC as metaphor to elicit values of nature which are not directly quantifiable in monetary terms (a.o. amenity, health, education, symbolic meanings), but which belong to the ethical, spiritual, and affective realm of human beings, and which reflect the intangible dimensions of their relation with nature. Criticality can be considered as an ‘emergent property’ (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1994b) arising out of the interaction of ecological and human value systems. Central focus of the socio-cultural perspective is thus the human being with its social and psychological context, its non-materialistic needs, its understanding of well being, and the rational as well as the emotional components of its attitudes towards the natural environment. The category of information functions (Table 1) is taken to address the ‘importance’ and ‘irreplaceability’ of natural functions for the fulfillment of
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
Table 1 Information functions of NC Information functions Recreation
Scientific and educational information
Cultural and historical information
Religious and artistic information
Space for recreation and escape from urban stress Aesthetic enjoyment and ‘higher’ experiences and related therapeutic effects (mental and physical health) Opportunity for in-situ observations, source of genetic material for scientific research Study-material for educational purposes and environmental awareness (books, musea, etc.) Signs of personal and collective history Cultural identity (local habits, traditional practices, cultural landscapes, etc.) Heritage values Source of spiritual experiences and religious meanings Source of inspiration for artistic expressions (music, painting, poetry, etc.)
Adapted from De Groot et al., 2000.
social needs like health1 (physical and mental), education and research, recreation, social identity, or artistic and spiritual development. These functions have been rarely considered among the criteria to identify CNC. Very little research has been done, for example, on the criticality of natural systems for human mental health, on the restorative influences of viewing and experiencing nature, the joy of scientific learning, or on their ethical and cultural meanings. CAG and LUC (1997) indicate how many of these functions can have economic value. The loss of these functions could have serious economic implications, which are all too often not taken into account. Evidence for the importance of information functions comes from studies done already in the 1
The World Health Organisation defines health as follows: ‘Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’ (WHO, 1992).
225
60 s ( i.e. Bladgroen, 1963). More recent research in environmental psychology and landscape planning has also investigated the social and psychological components of human /nature relationships, and the benefits of nature-based experiences. A classic example of the positive mental effects of nature is the experimental study of Ulrich (1984) who tested the restorative effect of natural views on surgical patients. Results show that patients assigned to rooms with windows looking out on a natural scene had shorter postoperative hospital stays and took fewer analgesics than patients in similar rooms but with windows facing a brick building wall. Contemporary research on the use of urban parks and forests verify beliefs about stress-reduction benefits of urban nature (Hartig et al., 1991). Beyond aesthetic and health benefits of nature, natural features in cities can have other social benefits. In their research on nature in public housing, Coley et al. (1997) show that nature encourages the use of outdoor spaces, increases social integration and positive social interaction among neighbors. These are important social and psychological benefits, which may be most important to the urban poor who have limited environmental alternatives available to them. Other recent research (Kuo et al., 1998) suggests that the presence of trees and grass in outdoor common spaces may promote the development of social ties. Schroeder (1991) has shown that natural environments with vegetation and water induce relaxed and less stressful states in observers compared with urban scenes with no vegetation. This ability of trees, other vegetation types, and bodies of water to function as ‘natural tranquilizers’ may be one of the most significant human benefits of preserving nature, especially in urban areas where stress is an all too common aspect of daily living (Van den Berg et al., 1998). Natural environments can also be seen as a domain of active experience providing a sense of challenge, privacy and intimacy, aesthetic and historical continuity. A study on woodland value (Macnaghten et al., 1998) revealed the consistent perception of trees as carrier of affective, even spiritual meanings. A French study showed the value of the woodland as carriers of meanings, as elements of family and common heritage (Noe¨l et
226
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
al., 1999). These are some empirical evidences of the way natural systems fulfill immaterial human needs and of the many intangible values (Norton (1987) talks also about ‘transformative values’ of nature experiences) which make them a reservoir of meaningful experiences, invested with ethically */charged and deeply held values. Even more, it seems to be a universal human trait to feel some kind of happiness in intact natural scenery (Siebenhuner, 2000). From the above it is clear that natural functions and services influence human social structures, health and culture in many ways. The value of these benefits accrues not only to the singular individuals, but also to the community they compose, that is the society as a whole. It is, therefore, essential to assess their values and communicate them to policy makers, so that it can be better accounted for. The question is thus how to translate all these ‘soft’ values in such a way that they can be systematically integrated into policy making. Which valuation techniques are to be applied? The problem is that most of the social services of NC are not marketed and */more fundamentally*/they can hardly be forced into ordinary trade-off problems. Ethical aspects are among the most prominent non-reducible concerns (Etzioni 1988). Monetary valuation techniques such as CVM and WTP/WTA, often used to quantify ‘non-use values’ of the environment (see Vatn, 2000, p. 498), are seen as conceptually and methodologically ill suited to address the sociocultural values of NC in a consistent way. The commodity concept they are based upon, in fact, is the wrong paradigm in the context of this study. This does not mean that monetary valuation should be excluded a priori, or that it could not serve as complementary tool in a later stage, but in the first instance, the socio-cultural perspective directs the valuation exercise towards public debate, discursive and deliberative processes, and qualitative appraisal rather than to the market. Within our socio-cultural ‘reference system’, in fact, the concept of value is primarily interpreted in terms of significance, meanings, perceptions and qualitative associations, rather than in dollar figures. These parts of the process of value formation pertain to the personal, cognitive and
affective dimensions of humans’ relationship with nature, whose monetary quantification is impossible, if not simply morally disputable. Therefore, suitable eliciting methods would have to come from the sociological and psychological sciences: participatory approaches, survey techniques with space for narration and open questions, are some among the more appropriate techniques. Those techniques are very useful in disclosing people’s perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and the latent components underlying their interpretations of nature and well being. Within the context of this research, an empirical study was conducted in selected natural areas in The Netherlands and France which consisted of a survey (questionnaires and interviews) among the visitors over people’s appreciation of nature, their attitudes and perceptions (Chiesura, 2002). A first exploratory analysis of the data (N /467) shows that: a) Maintenance of ecological processes, heritage for future generations, and mental health are the three most important functions people recognize to nature. These findings reflect a considerable ecological awareness among lay people, the prevalence of non-materialistic needs over consumptive or material ones, altruistic values and ethical commitments; b) On average, people feel very good in nature. The feelings they mostly experience are freedom, peace, unity with nature and beauty. These are considered very important for their general well being because they restore their psychophysical equilibrium and they give them energy to live better. The emotional experience generated in natural environments, and the immaterial benefits for the quality of life, is believed to influence mental health and psychological equilibrium: many respondents, in fact, mentioned the crucial role of nature against stress and depression; c) The emotional dimension of natural experiences proved to be a very important component of people’s general well being. When asked to explain why were the feelings experienced important for their well being, the majority of the answers referred to the re-
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
storative and regenerative power of nature, to the possibility it offers to break from daily worries, and to escape from urban stress. Many answers contained spiritual and mystical components, such as in the sentence ‘In nature I can find the true essence of life’. d) The most important reasons attracting people to natural areas */both in natural and urban contexts */are the need to relax, to escape from the houses and traffic, and to listen and observe nature. These results indicate the role of nature as source of quietness, silence and beauty, and its functions in fulfilling people’s needs to relax and step back from the daily routine. This regenerative and relaxing function of nature is very important in the increasingly stressful rhythm of modern life; e) People represent nature not as a completely separated entity, independent from human activities, but as complementary to it, and integrated into human life. Giving lay people the possibility to express their opinions about the environment is a powerful tool not only to disclose human immaterial needs, but also to articulate the underlying values and beliefs. Therefore, public involvement is very important to improve environmental valuation techniques. However, pretending that this would ensure the systematic accounting of nature’s socio-cultural value(s) into the decision-making processes would be too optimistic. Political decisions are usually based upon cost-benefit considerations whose common denominator is money. That means that the possibility for the information functions to be accounted for in the balancing of cost-benefit analysis partially depends on the ability to relate them to goods and services traded in the market, so that prices can be assigned to them. Many of the goods and services provided by the information functions, however, are not traded in the markets. Table 2 summarizes some of the possible ways to translate the benefits provided by the information functions into monetary values. Some of these ideas were suggested a long time ago already by the Hueting (1974) and by Van Dieren and Hummelinck (1977).
227
In Table 2, each information function is related to the beneficial services it provides, which in turn is related to the beneficiaries (stakeholders). Finally, the last column suggests some possible way to express those values in monetary figures. For example, regarding the benefits of natural services to human health research could focus upon the relation among amount of natural areas and the health conditions of the population. Health benefits can also be reflected in the reduced public expenditures for the health care system, or in the better efficiency at work and increased productivity. On the other hand, quantification of the heritage value can be done by accounting for the donations and memberships to environmental organizations and conservation agencies, or for the time people are willing to invest in voluntary nature-related jobs. These are just some of the ways through which information functions can be valued in economic terms. There is still a long way to go before such an accounting will become common practice, and more research in this direction has to be encouraged. We also believe that this research would have to rely on genuine trans-disciplinarity, that is on a process of knowledge production which in itself is a complex learning process, and in which everybody has to be prepared to leave the secure premise of their own expertise in order to meet the new and urgent problems (Strand, 1999).
5. Conclusions Defining strong sustainability and CNC has been the object of academic research for quite a while. Current approaches however, tend to identify CNC with the ecological-life support, biodiversity */or economic */waste disposal, raw material */functions of nature. Social and cultural functions, on the other hand, remain largely unaccounted for. Consequently, many important natural services are excluded from valuation and assessment prospects. The main objective of this paper is to contribute to the current understanding of CNC by addressing the importance of the social dimension of nature’s functions and by highlight-
228
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
Table 2 Benefits and economic values of information functions Information functions
Benefits (use of nature for:)
Recreation (defined in its use /and non-use aspects)
Mental health relaxation, cognitive and emo- Health tional development, aesthetic enjoyment, freedom, etc.
Physical health sports, movement, clean air, etc.
Beneficiaries (stakeholders)
Tourism
Education and Scienti- Scientific research: study-materials for field Health (new medicines fic information observations and in-door experiments, genetic for health or nutrition resources, etc. purposes)
Education: nature-related study-materials (e.g. Education books, TV-programs), environmental awareness projects, natural musea, information centers) Media (TV, radio, etc.)
Economic values
National savings on health care system Private expenditures on natural health/beauty centers Income from nature-based recreation centers Memberships/donations [. . .] Market prices of books on nature and environment Investments in ecological and environmental research Value of scientific discoveries
Income from nature-based educational centers (musea, zoos, botanical gardens, etc.) [. . .] Cultural and historical Heritage value of nature (for present and Local economy, ecoEconomic returns from eco- and information future generations) tourism ‘cultural’ tourism Local scale: local practices, cultural identity, NGOs, non-profit sector Market of local products and handicraft, cultural landscapes etc. traditional handicrafts Global scale: world heritage sites and related Conservation agencies Memberships/donations to contourism, etc. (eg UNESCO) servation agencies Voluntary jobs [. . .] Artistic and spiritual Development of arts: source of inspiration for Public and private colAmount of art masterpieces coninformation paintings, poems, music, photography, etc. lectors taining natural scenes, and their market values Spiritual development: symbolic meanings, Academies Travels to ancient sites of relimystic values, religious movements, etc. gious meaning Religious movements [. . .]
ing their benefits for the well being and sustainability of human societies. The socio-cultural perspective here addressed frames the concept of CNC as a metaphor to identify not only natures’ immaterial and intangible services such as mental health, recreation or heritage values, but also the cognitive and emotional aspects of people’s relationship with nature. It is assumed, in fact, that the identification of the irreplaceable functions and services of nature necessarily involves a critical re-examination of
human fundamental needs. The point, thus, is not only to unfold the plurality of ecosystems’ functions and values, but also to structure them along a scale of importance, able to reflect society’s fundamental needs and goals. The paper presents some preliminary results of the empirical study conducted to investigate people’s perceptions and appreciation of nature. A first analysis of the answers obtained show, among others, that nature is appreciated by people mainly as source of peace, beauty, and diversion from the
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
stress of everyday life. The experience of nature is perceived as beneficial to people’s mental health and psycho /physical equilibrium in general. Ecological, health and heritage functions are the most important services nature generates to human societies. Though essentially immaterial, these functions fulfill crucial human needs and contribute to the sustainable development of human societies. It is, therefore, crucial to identify and assess their values so that they can be better accounted for in environmental and nature management policies. To identify and assess the sociocultural functions of NC, both qualitative and quantitative valuation methods have to be used. Monetary-based valuation techniques can help assigning ‘hard values’ to the goods and services provided by the information functions. The social perspective here proposed, however, directs the valuation exercise towards to the society at large, rather than to the market, and public debate and qualitative appraisal. Such an appraisal of CNC will enrich our understanding of the criticality of nature for the health, quality, richness and meaningfulness of human life, which are important factors in determining the future trajectory of human societies, and which are no less critical than the material processes on which ecology and economics focus. We conclude with saying that this constitutes a challenging research ground for ecological economics, which, as a post-normal science, is committed to acknowledge and investigate the pluralism of claims and values interacting in the real world.
Acknowledgements This paper is based on a project funded through a Marie Curie Research Grant of the European Commission (4th framework of the ‘Environment and Climate’ Program, Theme 4 ‘Human dimension of environmental change’). Participation in the European Project CRITINC (ENV4-CT970561) and discussions with the involved partners provided important ideas and impulses for this conceptual paper.
229
References Ayres, R.U., van den Bergh, C.J.M., Gowdy, J.M., 2001. Strong versus weak sustainability: economic, natural sicences, and ‘consilience’. Journal of Environmental Ethics (23), nr. 2 Beckermann, W., 1995. How would you like your ‘sustainability’ Sir? Weak or strong? A reply to my critics. Journal of Environmental Values 4, 169 /179. Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1994. Investing in cultural capital for sustainable use of natural capital. In: Jansson, A.M., Hammer, M., Folfe, C., Costanza, R. (Eds.), Investing in Natural Capital: the Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability. Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 22 /37. Bladgroen, W.J., 1963. Kinderspel. In: De wereld van de kleuter. (The world of children. In Dutch) Groningen. CAG and LUC (CAG Consultants and Land Use Consultants), 1997. Environmental capital: a new approach. A report to Countryside Commission, English Heritage, English Nature, Environment Agency, Countryside Commission, Cheltenham. Chiesura, A., 2002. People’s Appreciation of Nature: a sociological approach to nature valuation for a better recognition of nature’s immaterial benefits. Wageningen University and Research Center Working Paper, pp. 100. Coley, R., Kuo, F., Sullivan, W., 1997. Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Journal of Environment and Behavior 29, 468 / 494. Collados, C., Duane, T.P., 1999. Natural capital and quality of life: a model for evaluating the sustainability of alternative regional development paths. Ecological Economy 30, 441 / 460. Costanza, R., Daly, H.E., 1992. Natural capital and sustainable development. Journal of Conservation Biology 6, 37 /46. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R.S., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253 /260. Daily, G.C., 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington. Daly, H., 1994. Operationalizing sustainable development by investing in natural capital. In: Jansson, A.M., Hammer, M., Folke, C., Costanza, R. (Eds.), Investing in Natural Capital: the Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability. Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 22 /37. De Groot, R.S., 1992. Functions of Nature: Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Planning, Management and Decision Making. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen. De Groot, R.S., van der Perk, J., Chiesura, A., Marguliew, S., 2000. Ecological functions and socio /economic values of critical natural capital as a measure for ecological integrity and environmental health (pp. 191 /214). In: Crabbe, P., Holland, A., Ryszkowski, L., Westra, L. (Eds.), Implementing Ecological Integrity: restoring regional and global environmental and Human Health. NATO-Science Series,
230
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
IV. Earth and Environmental Sciences, vol. 1. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht/Boston/London. Dobson, A., 1998. Justice and the Environment: Conception of Environmental Sustainability and Theories of Distributive Justice. Oxford University Press. Dodds, S., 1995. Understanding Sustainable development: a policy oriented guide to the idea and its application. CRES Working Paper 1995/1, Australian National University, Canberra. Dodds, S., 1997. Towards a science of sustainability: improving the way ecological economics understands human well being. Ecological Economy 23, 95 /111. English Nature, 1995. Establishing criteria for identifying critical natural capital in the terrestrial environment. A research Report prepared by Mieem, J.G. and Mieem, P.S. Ekins, P., Simon, S., Deutsch, L., Folke, C., de Groot., R.S., 2002. A Framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability. Ecological Economics (this issue). Etzioni, A., 1988. The moral dimension: toward a New Economics. The Free Press, New York. Faucheux, S., O’Connor, M., 1999. Natural capital and the national product: a controversial terrain. International Journal of Development Planning Literature 14, 233 /273. Faucheux, S., Muir, E., O’Connor, M., 1997. Neoclassical natural capital theory and ‘weak’ indicators for sustainability. Land Economics 73 (4), 528 /552. Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1994a. The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecological Economy 10, 197 /207. Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1994b. Emergent complex systems. Futures 26, 5680582. Gowdy, J., O’Hara, S., 1997. Weak sustainability and viable technologies. Ecological Economy 22, 239 /247. Hartig, T., Mang, M., Evans, G., 1991. Restorative effects of natural environments experiences. Journal of Environment and Behaviour 23, 3 /26. Hinterberger, F., Luks, F., Schmidt-Bleek, F., 1997. Material flows vs. ‘natural capital’. What makes an economy sustainable. Ecological Economy 23, 1 /14. Holland, A., 1997. Substitutability. Or why strong sustainability is weak and absurdly strong sustainability is not absurd. In: Valuing nature. Economics, Ethics and Environment. J. Foster Ed. Hueting, R., 1974. New Scarcity and Economic Growth. Agon/ Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam. Jacobs, M., 1995. Sustainable development, capital substitution and economic humility: a response to Beckerman. Journal of Environmental Values 4, 57 /68. Kuo, F.E., Bacaioca, M., Sullivan, W.C., 1998. Transforming inner city landscapes: trees, sense of safety, and preferences. Journal of Environment and Behavior 30 (1), 28 /59. Macnaghten, P., Grove-White, R., Weldon, S., Waterton, C., 1998. Woodland sensibilities. Recreational uses of woods and forests in contemporary Britain. Report by the Center for the Study of Environmental change, Lancaster University.
Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., O’Neil, J., 1998. Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecological Economy 26, 277 /286. Noe¨l, J.F., O’Connor, M., 1998. Strong sustainability and critical natural capital. In: Valuation for Sustainable development, methods and policy indicators. Series Editor: Robert Costanza. Noe¨l, J.F., O’Connor, M., Tsang King Sang, J., 1999. The Bouchereau Woodland and the transmission of socioecological economic value. Cahiers du C3ED nr. 99 /04. Norton, B.G., 1987. Why Preserve Natural Variety. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. O’Hara, S., 1996. Discursive ethics in ecosystems valuation and environmental policy. Ecological Economy 16, 95 /107. O’Neil, J., 1993. Ecology, Policy and Politics. In: Human WellBeing and the Natural World. Routledge, London. Pearce, D., 1997. Substitution and sustainability: some reflections on Georgescu /Roegen. Ecological Economy 22, 295 / 297. Pearce, D.W., Wardford, J.J., 1993. World without End: Economics, Environment and Sustainable Development. Oxford University Press/World Bank, Oxford. Schroeder, H.W., 1991. Preferences and meaning of arboretum landscapes; combining quantitative and qualitative data. Journal of Environmental Psychology 11, 231 /248. Seralgeldin, I., Steer, A., 1994. Expanding the capital stock. In: Seralgeldin, I., Steer, A. (Eds.), Making Development Sustainable. The World Bank, Washington DC. Siebenhuner, B., 2000. Homo sustinens */towards a new conception of humans for the science of sustainability. Ecological Economy 32, 15 /25. Spash, C., 1999. The Development of Environmental Thinking in Economics. Journal of Environmental Values 8: 413 /435, 1999; The White Horse Press, Cambridge, UK. Strand, R., 1999. Handout of the Advanced Course in Decisions Tools and Processes for IEA. University of Barcellona. Tisdell, C., 1997. Capital/natural resource substitution: the debate of Georgescu-Roegen (through Daly) with Solow/ Stiglitz. Forum. Ecological Economy 22, 289 /291. Tyldesley, D. and Associates, 1994. Planning for environmental sustainability. Based on a report prepared For English Nature. Turner, R.K., 1993. Sustainability: principles and practice. In: Turner, R.K. (Ed.), Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management: Principles and Practice. Belhaven Press, London, pp. 3 /36. Ulrich, R.S., 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224, 420 /421. Van den Berg, A., I.M. van den Top, R.B. Kranendonk, 1998. Natuur wensen van stadsmensen (The demands on nature of urban citizens. In Dutch). IBN-DLO Rapport, Wageningen. Van Dieren, W., Hummelinck, M.G.W., 1977. Natuur is duur. Over de economische waarde van de natuur (Nature is expensive. Over the economic value of nature. In Dutch). Wereldvenster, Baarn.
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231 Vatn, A., 2000. The environment as a commodity. Journal of Environmental Values 9, 493 /509. Victor, P.A., 1991. Indicators of sustainable development: some lessons from capital theory. Ecological Economy 4, 191 / 213.
231
WCED, World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our common future. Oxford University Press. WHO, World Health Organization, 1992. Our planet, our health. Report of the WHO Commission on Health and Environment, Geneva, Switzerland.
METHODS
Critical natural capital: a socio-cultural perspective Anna Chiesura *, Rudolf de Groot Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 8080, 6700 DD Wageningen, The Netherlands Received 22 January 2001; received in revised form 22 July 2002; accepted 17 September 2002
Abstract Critical natural capital (CNC) is commonly defined as that part of the natural environment, which performs important and irreplaceable functions. So far, the challenge to determine the criticality of natural capital (NC) has mainly been taken up by the natural sciences, and the critical functions of nature mainly associated with its life-support and ecological services. Little attention has been paid to the socio-cultural functions of NC and to their values for the health and well being of human societies. The aim of this paper is to encourage a more complete accounting of the critical functions of NC and its associated values, by highlighting the importance of the information functions (health, recreation, amenity, education, heritage, etc.) for the quality and sustainability of human life. It is argued that, despite their immaterial and often intangible nature, these functions provide many, socio /economic benefits, which might be assessed through both qualitative and quantitative valuation methodologies. Integration of ecology, sociology and economics is essential to operationalize the concept of CNC as a tool for more balanced environmental planning and decision making. # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. Keywords: Critical natural capital; Ecosystem functions; Environmental valuation; Information functions; Social and cultural values
1. Introduction The concepts of critical natural capital (CNC) and strong sustainability have been the object of academic debate for many years (Seralgeldin and Steer, 1994; Beckermann, 1995; Jacobs, 1995; Faucheux et al., 1997; Ayres et al., 2001). Grounded in neo-classical economic assumptions of capital theory, the original distinction between
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Chiesura).
weak and strong sustainability has been taken up by other disciplines (i.e. environmental and ecological economics) and stretched into a spectrum of overlapping sustainability positions, ranging from a techno-centric ‘very weak sustainability’ to an eco-centric ‘very strong sustainability’ position (Turner, 1993). A central issue in the debate is the question to what extent natural capital (NC) is seen as critical to human society. Current approaches to CNC refer to nature’s ecological or economic functions and values. However, natural ecosystems provide many functions and values that are not directly ascribable to the ecological or the economic domain, but which are nonetheless
0921-8009/03/$ - see front matter # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00275-6
220
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
crucial for the health and sustainability of human societies. It is argued that the present understanding of why NC is critical is still incomplete, lacking important insights into the social and immaterial functions of nature. Aim of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of CNC from the socio-cultural, more ‘humanistic’ perspective. To do that consistently we had to depart from the background of neo-classical economics and to address our analysis within the conceptual frame of ecological economics, more aware of the complexity of sustainability issues. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, theoretical and methodological consequences of our analytical choice are exposed. Section 3 contains a literature overview of some recurrent definitions of CNC, and discusses the introduction of the functional approach. In Section 4 the sociocultural approach is proposed as complementary analytical tool to identify CNC. Conclusions are presented and discussed in Section 5.
2. Ecological economics and critical natural capital concepts The foundations of the debate around weak and strong sustainability can be traced back to theories of neo-classical economics. The key theoretical difference between weak and strong sustainability boils down to the possibility of substituting NC by man-made capital. The weak criterion considers natural and man-made capitals as substitutable as long as the level of the total capital (man-made/ natural) remains constant. Given the substitution assumption it is permissible to lump natural and manufactured capital together. In this case an economy is recognized as sustainable even if it draws down its stock of NC, provided it creates enough manufactured capital to compensate for the loss of the NC (Gowdy and O’Hara, 1997). Strong sustainability, on the other hand, considers natural and man-made capitals as complementary, and claims that it is not sufficient to just maintain the overall level of capital. Rather NC must be separately preserved, because at least part of the NC is non-substitutable. The part of the NC,
which performs important and irreplaceable functions is called CNC and its preservation must be given the highest priority. In such a neo-classical economic approach, the sustainability debate is reduced to a mere question of substitutability between natural and man-made capitals; there is no concern for the complex interplay between economic, socio-cultural and ecological systems. As Spash (1999) acutely noted: ‘While neo-classical economics offers a type of theoretical rigor attractive to scientifically trained academics, this same rigor reduces environmental problems to narrow technical issues and deliberately excludes a range of potential options and an interdisciplinary approach’. Within a strict neo-classical frame, then, both weak and strong perspectives fail to provide complete guidelines to achieve sustainability. On the weak side of the sustainability ‘scale’, the claim of almost unlimited substitution possibilities between natural and man-made capitals relies upon questionable assumptions about human abilities to recreate, understand, and manipulate natural systems. But how can an economy be sustainable without its biophysical basis? Manufactured capital requires NC for its construction (Costanza and Daly, 1992). Economic production is essentially a transformation process, which at an aggregate level must be related to the biophysical environment (Tisdell, 1997). On the strong side of the sustainability spectrum, nature is seen as a separate type of capital given absolute protection when ‘some’ irreplaceable, non-substitutable functions are at stake (CNC). Although strong sustainability recognizes nature as a distinct, even critical, sort of capital (which makes it already more consistent with sustainability requirements) it remains somehow abstract and difficult to operationalize. Concepts such as ‘non-substitutable’ or ‘irreplaceable’ raise fundamental questions like: irreplaceable for what? and for whom? Questions which so far have been only partially addressed. A broader analytical angle is thus needed to address the problems in a more integrated way. Ecological economics, in its search to develop new ideas and alternative paradigms (Spash, 1999), provides us with such a conceptual environment, where the concepts of strong sustainability and
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
CNC can be the subject of a more challenging, inter-disciplinary analysis. In its broader analytical frame, in fact, the acknowledgment of the continuous interplay between ecological, economic and socio-cultural systems becomes a structural normative and methodological necessity in order to explore sustainability options. This analytical choice has the following important theoretical and methodological consequences: 2.1. The concept of natural capital Many authors have felt uncomfortable with extending capital theory to the ecological domain and treating nature as capital. Among them, Victor (1991) argues that in treating the natural environment as a form of ‘capital’ one implicitly assumes its substitutability and reproducibility by other forms of capital. Hinterberger et al. (1997) also criticises the notion of NC, arguing that it is not an adequate description of dynamic ecological systems that should be sustained. Holland (1997), p. 128) argues that there is a deep incoherence in the notion of NC and that the very conception of nature as capital provides little protection for the natural world. Dobson (1998) is persuaded that, however, clear we make the distinction between different types of NC, the description of nature as a form of capital, ‘is to look at it [nature] in a certain light, as economic asset of some description’. These doubts are legitimate when we read the most cited definitions of NC: ‘Natural capital is the stock which produces the flux of natural resources: the population of fishes in the ocean generating the flux of fish going to the market; the forest generating timber; the oil reserves whose exploitation provides petrol’ (Daly, 1994). In this definition, NC is seen as a mere source of material goods for production and consumption activities. Such an appraisal of nature as capital simply reiterates the reductionistic and utilitarian vision of neo-classical economics. In the context of our analysis, however, the term capital is not simply interpreted as a stock of resources yielding interests over time, or as a mere input to commodity production and consumption. Our use of the term ‘capital’ for natural systems is meant to embrace also those functions (and
221
values) of nature which are more intangible, and less directly ascribable to economic mechanisms of production and consumption activities, but which */we believe*/are as much as critical for the well being and the sustainability of human society. With these premises in mind we can conclude with Berkes and Folke (1994) that the term capital is seen as a short hand, a sort of metaphor to allow the exploration of a system approach with three fundamentally different, but nevertheless interrelated clusters of variables: ecological, economic and socio-cultural. 2.2. The concepts of needs and human well-being The concept of well being is subject to various interpretations: by some it is seen as a state of mind, by others as human capability or as the satisfaction of underlying needs (see Dodds, 1997). Despite the weak agreement over what human needs and well being are about (and how confidently we can extend them to future generations), the concepts are central in the definition of sustainability as is highlighted by the definition of sustainable development given by the WCED (1987) (emphasis added): ‘Development which meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. Unfortunately, going into this discussion would lead us too far from the scope of the present paper. The point we want to make is that well being has many dimensions. Jacobs refers to this as welfare pluralism, that is the belief that human beings need a variety of different kinds of goods, services, experiences and relationships in order to achieve well-being (Jacobs, 1995, emphasis added). 2.3. The concept of value In both neo-classical and environmental economics any process of valuation seems to be constrained to conform to the convention that money is the natural common measurement unit. The models of ‘value’ and ‘the human subject’ embedded in current neo-classical and environmental economic approaches to cost-benefit analysis embody assumptions which neglect crucial
222
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
constitutive relations between humankind and the value(s) with which, through personal development and cultural processes, the natural world is invested. Particularly disputable are the assumptions of ‘methodological individualism’ and of the ‘commodifiability of nature’ which rely on arbitrary readings of human experience and commitment. On the other hand, ecological economics attempts to develop a broader conception of value, and measurement units, which recognizes the pluralism of incommensurable values and interests existing in the real world (see Martinez-Alier et al., 1998; O’Neil, 1993). As better measurement techniques emerge, monetary values (prices) becomes but one aspect of value (adapted from Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1994a). It follows that broader valuation methodologies are to be fostered than the ones advocated through conventional economic techniques. This entails a methodological pluralism able to accommodate the different values and interest at stake and to allow the creative exploration of human nature and its fundamental needs.
3. Defining critical natural capital Many definitions of CNC can be found in the literature (see also Ekins et al., this issue). In a Report prepared for the UK Conservation Agency English Nature (Tyldesley et al., 1994), CNC is defined as ‘consisting of assets, stock levels or quality levels that are highly valued, and either essential to human health or to the efficient functioning of life-support systems, or irreplaceable or not-substitutable for all practical purposes (e.g. because of antiquity, complexity, specialization, location)’. In a city context, the critical natural resource might embrace assets contributing to local air quality (the ‘green lung effect’) or to a general feeling of well being (English Nature, 1995). Interestingly, the report introduces the concept of ‘critical social natural resource’ to designate natural areas that are of critical value largely as a result of their social value to local communities, rather than any outstanding ecological or scientific value. Such habitats might be critical because of their location and their value for
amenity, recreation and education and for bringing people into regular contact with the natural world. However, the approach does not have any operational consequences and the report focuses rather on the ecological and geological values (i.e. rarity, diversity, fragility). Noe¨l and O’Connor (1998) and Faucheux and O’Connor (1999) describe CNC as a ‘set of environmental resources, which at the prescribed geographical scale performs important environmental functions and for which no substitute in terms of manufactured, human or other NC exist’. Pearce (1997) mentions the ozone layer, the global atmosphere, and the world’s store capacity of biological diversity as examples of CNC. Following Collados and Duane (1999) NC is critical if it produces life-supporting environmental services and is necessary for ‘life production’. Turner (1993) defines CNC as the ‘vital parts of the environments that contribute to life support systems, biodiversity and other necessary functions denoted as ‘key stone species and processes’. In Costanza and Daly (1992), an additional (cultural) element is brought in as criterion for criticality. CNC is in fact considered as a subset of NC including ecological life support systems and irreplaceable cultural artifacts. A similar approach is taken up by Dodds, (1995), who defines CNC as ‘those assets that have no ready substitutes, cannot be replaced, and have a unique contribution to present and future well being’. Most of such assets will be natural, although some may embody human or cultural assets (particularly threatened indigenous knowledge) or particular historical artifacts. The identification of these assets will require improved understanding of biophysical systems and the way in which these interact with human systems, as well as an improved understanding of human fundamental needs. Other authors have suggested that any asset, natural or man-made, that is irreplaceable and subject to uncertainty and important for equity reasons should be conserved (e.g. Dobson, 1998). These assets are called ‘critical capital’ and ‘would be likely to include non-replaceable natural or built capital of cultural or historical significance, living and non-living assets necessary to maintain essential life-support systems and ecosystem functions, and a safe
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
minimum level of all or representative forms of living NC’ (Pearce and Wardford, 1993, pp. 52/ 53; Dodds, 1995). According to Dobson (1998), p. 125), CNC is ‘. . . critical precisely because without it human life would not be possible’. Furthermore, the definition adopted in the EU-funded project on strong sustainability (CRITINC) identifies CNC with ‘that set of environmental resources which performs important functions and for which no substitutes in terms of human, manufactured, or other NC currently exist’ (Ekins et al., this issue). An important finding of the CRITINC Project is the recognition that CNC is a dynamic concept, in that, depending on existence of substitutes or state of knowledge about the perceived importance of certain environmental functions, NC may change from being critical to not critical, or vice versa. A major common feature among the definitions reported is the tendency to identify the ‘criticality’ of nature either with its ‘irreplaceable’ or with ‘important’ ecological or life-support functions (de Groot at al., this issue). However, this approach captures only partially the importance of nature to human systems. Ecological and life-support functions, though undoubtedly essential, are only a partial indication of our dependence upon natural goods and services. They ensure the biophysical conditions that make our life on earth possible. But is that what life is all about? Human societies depend in many other ways upon the proper functioning of natural systems. The functional approach is a good analytical tool to show how human survival and activities are dependent, in almost all their dimensions, on goods and services provided by natural ecosystems (e.g. Costanza et al., 1997). Ecosystem functions have been classified in many ways (Hueting, 1974; De Groot, 1992; Daily, 1997; Noe¨l and O’Connor, 1998). They are divided into the following four categories: (1) Regulation functions: regulation of essential ecological processes and life support systems (bio /geochemical cycling, climate regulation, water purification, etc.); (2) Production functions: harvesting from natural ecosystems of, for example, food, raw materials and genetic resources; (3) Habitat functions: natural ecosystems provide refuge and reproduction /habitat to
223
wild plants and animals and thereby contribute to the (in situ) conservation of biological and genetic diversity and evolutionary processes. (4) Information functions: nature provides many possibilities for recreation and aesthetic enjoyment, cultural and historical information, artistic and spiritual inspiration, education and scientific research. From the above it is clear that many are the goods and services generated by ecosystems’ functions. The services generated range from the very sustenance of basic biophysical conditions (regulation and production functions) to the provision of opportunities to recreate, learn and experience ‘higher’ feelings (information functions). If the first provide the basic requirements for the very existence of human life, the second contributes to making it worthy to be lived. All these different functions might be considered as critical, that is important and irreplaceable, depending on the purposes of a given analysis or interests at stake. What the functional approach thus clearly addresses is the multidimensional character of the NC, and*/consequently */the existence of different domains under which it can be considered as critical. Fig. 1 gives a visual representation of the multifaceted nature of ecosystems’ functions
Fig. 1. Functions and dimensions of NC.
224
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
and the various dimensions */ecological, economical and socio-cultural-involved. The center of the circle represents NC, which provides a plurality of goods and services to human societies. The outer circle represents the ecological, the economic and the socio-cultural dimensions involved in human life. Given the continuous interplay between ecological, social and economic systems, we can reasonably say that each ‘category’ of functions directly or indirectly contribute to all the dimensions. As an example, we can think of the role of urban parks or botanical gardens: they act as lungs of the city (regulation function), as habitats for plants and animals species (habitat function), as well as places for relaxation (physical and mental health), recreation activities and other social functions. All those functions have an ecological (biodiversity, habitat and air purification in the given example), as well as an economic and social value (health, recreation, and quality of life). Areas of outstanding natural beauty can also be taken as example. Their full value has an economic (financial returns to local and foreigner investments through tourism), an ecological (biodiversity, habitat) and a sociocultural (local lifestyles, practices and traditions) dimension. This leads us to conclude that there are different descriptive domains under which NC can be considered as critical. Different disciplines bring different conceptual frameworks to value ecosystems, and thus lead to different representations in policy assessments. While economists focus on assigning market values to well-defined environmental resources and functions, the valuation methods of natural scientists are based on physical instead of monetary units (adapted from O’Hara, 1996). On the other hand, participatory techniques, perceptions and landscape preference studies are applied in the sociological sciences. However, little has been done so far to integrate those different domains within the CNC debate. We believe that more attention to social and psychological sciences can help to fill this analytical gap and add important complementary reference criteria for CNC. In the following section, a sociocultural perspective on determining the criticality
of NC is proposed, as complementary to the existent approaches.
4. The socio-cultural dimension of critical natural capital Ecological and life-support functions are undoubtedly critical services of NC, for they maintain the biophysical basis of life on earth and constitute the pre-conditions of any human activities. As previously seen, however, many other goods and services, though not directly determining the survival or reproduction of ecological systems themselves, make NC a very important source of well being, directly affecting the quality of human life. NC, in fact, does not only provides the bio/geochemical context for species’ and habitat preservation, but also the socio-cultural context for human society. In addition to the basic physiological needs (clean air, water, etc.), human life requires many other needs to be fulfilled, both at the personal (freedom, self-development, recreation, psycho /physical health, etc.) and at the collective (social contacts, norms and values, ideals, cultural identity, etc.) levels. These needs, when fulfilled, benefit not only the individuals as such, but also the society they compose. The socio-cultural perspective here addressed frames the concept of CNC as metaphor to elicit values of nature which are not directly quantifiable in monetary terms (a.o. amenity, health, education, symbolic meanings), but which belong to the ethical, spiritual, and affective realm of human beings, and which reflect the intangible dimensions of their relation with nature. Criticality can be considered as an ‘emergent property’ (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1994b) arising out of the interaction of ecological and human value systems. Central focus of the socio-cultural perspective is thus the human being with its social and psychological context, its non-materialistic needs, its understanding of well being, and the rational as well as the emotional components of its attitudes towards the natural environment. The category of information functions (Table 1) is taken to address the ‘importance’ and ‘irreplaceability’ of natural functions for the fulfillment of
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
Table 1 Information functions of NC Information functions Recreation
Scientific and educational information
Cultural and historical information
Religious and artistic information
Space for recreation and escape from urban stress Aesthetic enjoyment and ‘higher’ experiences and related therapeutic effects (mental and physical health) Opportunity for in-situ observations, source of genetic material for scientific research Study-material for educational purposes and environmental awareness (books, musea, etc.) Signs of personal and collective history Cultural identity (local habits, traditional practices, cultural landscapes, etc.) Heritage values Source of spiritual experiences and religious meanings Source of inspiration for artistic expressions (music, painting, poetry, etc.)
Adapted from De Groot et al., 2000.
social needs like health1 (physical and mental), education and research, recreation, social identity, or artistic and spiritual development. These functions have been rarely considered among the criteria to identify CNC. Very little research has been done, for example, on the criticality of natural systems for human mental health, on the restorative influences of viewing and experiencing nature, the joy of scientific learning, or on their ethical and cultural meanings. CAG and LUC (1997) indicate how many of these functions can have economic value. The loss of these functions could have serious economic implications, which are all too often not taken into account. Evidence for the importance of information functions comes from studies done already in the 1
The World Health Organisation defines health as follows: ‘Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’ (WHO, 1992).
225
60 s ( i.e. Bladgroen, 1963). More recent research in environmental psychology and landscape planning has also investigated the social and psychological components of human /nature relationships, and the benefits of nature-based experiences. A classic example of the positive mental effects of nature is the experimental study of Ulrich (1984) who tested the restorative effect of natural views on surgical patients. Results show that patients assigned to rooms with windows looking out on a natural scene had shorter postoperative hospital stays and took fewer analgesics than patients in similar rooms but with windows facing a brick building wall. Contemporary research on the use of urban parks and forests verify beliefs about stress-reduction benefits of urban nature (Hartig et al., 1991). Beyond aesthetic and health benefits of nature, natural features in cities can have other social benefits. In their research on nature in public housing, Coley et al. (1997) show that nature encourages the use of outdoor spaces, increases social integration and positive social interaction among neighbors. These are important social and psychological benefits, which may be most important to the urban poor who have limited environmental alternatives available to them. Other recent research (Kuo et al., 1998) suggests that the presence of trees and grass in outdoor common spaces may promote the development of social ties. Schroeder (1991) has shown that natural environments with vegetation and water induce relaxed and less stressful states in observers compared with urban scenes with no vegetation. This ability of trees, other vegetation types, and bodies of water to function as ‘natural tranquilizers’ may be one of the most significant human benefits of preserving nature, especially in urban areas where stress is an all too common aspect of daily living (Van den Berg et al., 1998). Natural environments can also be seen as a domain of active experience providing a sense of challenge, privacy and intimacy, aesthetic and historical continuity. A study on woodland value (Macnaghten et al., 1998) revealed the consistent perception of trees as carrier of affective, even spiritual meanings. A French study showed the value of the woodland as carriers of meanings, as elements of family and common heritage (Noe¨l et
226
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
al., 1999). These are some empirical evidences of the way natural systems fulfill immaterial human needs and of the many intangible values (Norton (1987) talks also about ‘transformative values’ of nature experiences) which make them a reservoir of meaningful experiences, invested with ethically */charged and deeply held values. Even more, it seems to be a universal human trait to feel some kind of happiness in intact natural scenery (Siebenhuner, 2000). From the above it is clear that natural functions and services influence human social structures, health and culture in many ways. The value of these benefits accrues not only to the singular individuals, but also to the community they compose, that is the society as a whole. It is, therefore, essential to assess their values and communicate them to policy makers, so that it can be better accounted for. The question is thus how to translate all these ‘soft’ values in such a way that they can be systematically integrated into policy making. Which valuation techniques are to be applied? The problem is that most of the social services of NC are not marketed and */more fundamentally*/they can hardly be forced into ordinary trade-off problems. Ethical aspects are among the most prominent non-reducible concerns (Etzioni 1988). Monetary valuation techniques such as CVM and WTP/WTA, often used to quantify ‘non-use values’ of the environment (see Vatn, 2000, p. 498), are seen as conceptually and methodologically ill suited to address the sociocultural values of NC in a consistent way. The commodity concept they are based upon, in fact, is the wrong paradigm in the context of this study. This does not mean that monetary valuation should be excluded a priori, or that it could not serve as complementary tool in a later stage, but in the first instance, the socio-cultural perspective directs the valuation exercise towards public debate, discursive and deliberative processes, and qualitative appraisal rather than to the market. Within our socio-cultural ‘reference system’, in fact, the concept of value is primarily interpreted in terms of significance, meanings, perceptions and qualitative associations, rather than in dollar figures. These parts of the process of value formation pertain to the personal, cognitive and
affective dimensions of humans’ relationship with nature, whose monetary quantification is impossible, if not simply morally disputable. Therefore, suitable eliciting methods would have to come from the sociological and psychological sciences: participatory approaches, survey techniques with space for narration and open questions, are some among the more appropriate techniques. Those techniques are very useful in disclosing people’s perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and the latent components underlying their interpretations of nature and well being. Within the context of this research, an empirical study was conducted in selected natural areas in The Netherlands and France which consisted of a survey (questionnaires and interviews) among the visitors over people’s appreciation of nature, their attitudes and perceptions (Chiesura, 2002). A first exploratory analysis of the data (N /467) shows that: a) Maintenance of ecological processes, heritage for future generations, and mental health are the three most important functions people recognize to nature. These findings reflect a considerable ecological awareness among lay people, the prevalence of non-materialistic needs over consumptive or material ones, altruistic values and ethical commitments; b) On average, people feel very good in nature. The feelings they mostly experience are freedom, peace, unity with nature and beauty. These are considered very important for their general well being because they restore their psychophysical equilibrium and they give them energy to live better. The emotional experience generated in natural environments, and the immaterial benefits for the quality of life, is believed to influence mental health and psychological equilibrium: many respondents, in fact, mentioned the crucial role of nature against stress and depression; c) The emotional dimension of natural experiences proved to be a very important component of people’s general well being. When asked to explain why were the feelings experienced important for their well being, the majority of the answers referred to the re-
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
storative and regenerative power of nature, to the possibility it offers to break from daily worries, and to escape from urban stress. Many answers contained spiritual and mystical components, such as in the sentence ‘In nature I can find the true essence of life’. d) The most important reasons attracting people to natural areas */both in natural and urban contexts */are the need to relax, to escape from the houses and traffic, and to listen and observe nature. These results indicate the role of nature as source of quietness, silence and beauty, and its functions in fulfilling people’s needs to relax and step back from the daily routine. This regenerative and relaxing function of nature is very important in the increasingly stressful rhythm of modern life; e) People represent nature not as a completely separated entity, independent from human activities, but as complementary to it, and integrated into human life. Giving lay people the possibility to express their opinions about the environment is a powerful tool not only to disclose human immaterial needs, but also to articulate the underlying values and beliefs. Therefore, public involvement is very important to improve environmental valuation techniques. However, pretending that this would ensure the systematic accounting of nature’s socio-cultural value(s) into the decision-making processes would be too optimistic. Political decisions are usually based upon cost-benefit considerations whose common denominator is money. That means that the possibility for the information functions to be accounted for in the balancing of cost-benefit analysis partially depends on the ability to relate them to goods and services traded in the market, so that prices can be assigned to them. Many of the goods and services provided by the information functions, however, are not traded in the markets. Table 2 summarizes some of the possible ways to translate the benefits provided by the information functions into monetary values. Some of these ideas were suggested a long time ago already by the Hueting (1974) and by Van Dieren and Hummelinck (1977).
227
In Table 2, each information function is related to the beneficial services it provides, which in turn is related to the beneficiaries (stakeholders). Finally, the last column suggests some possible way to express those values in monetary figures. For example, regarding the benefits of natural services to human health research could focus upon the relation among amount of natural areas and the health conditions of the population. Health benefits can also be reflected in the reduced public expenditures for the health care system, or in the better efficiency at work and increased productivity. On the other hand, quantification of the heritage value can be done by accounting for the donations and memberships to environmental organizations and conservation agencies, or for the time people are willing to invest in voluntary nature-related jobs. These are just some of the ways through which information functions can be valued in economic terms. There is still a long way to go before such an accounting will become common practice, and more research in this direction has to be encouraged. We also believe that this research would have to rely on genuine trans-disciplinarity, that is on a process of knowledge production which in itself is a complex learning process, and in which everybody has to be prepared to leave the secure premise of their own expertise in order to meet the new and urgent problems (Strand, 1999).
5. Conclusions Defining strong sustainability and CNC has been the object of academic research for quite a while. Current approaches however, tend to identify CNC with the ecological-life support, biodiversity */or economic */waste disposal, raw material */functions of nature. Social and cultural functions, on the other hand, remain largely unaccounted for. Consequently, many important natural services are excluded from valuation and assessment prospects. The main objective of this paper is to contribute to the current understanding of CNC by addressing the importance of the social dimension of nature’s functions and by highlight-
228
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
Table 2 Benefits and economic values of information functions Information functions
Benefits (use of nature for:)
Recreation (defined in its use /and non-use aspects)
Mental health relaxation, cognitive and emo- Health tional development, aesthetic enjoyment, freedom, etc.
Physical health sports, movement, clean air, etc.
Beneficiaries (stakeholders)
Tourism
Education and Scienti- Scientific research: study-materials for field Health (new medicines fic information observations and in-door experiments, genetic for health or nutrition resources, etc. purposes)
Education: nature-related study-materials (e.g. Education books, TV-programs), environmental awareness projects, natural musea, information centers) Media (TV, radio, etc.)
Economic values
National savings on health care system Private expenditures on natural health/beauty centers Income from nature-based recreation centers Memberships/donations [. . .] Market prices of books on nature and environment Investments in ecological and environmental research Value of scientific discoveries
Income from nature-based educational centers (musea, zoos, botanical gardens, etc.) [. . .] Cultural and historical Heritage value of nature (for present and Local economy, ecoEconomic returns from eco- and information future generations) tourism ‘cultural’ tourism Local scale: local practices, cultural identity, NGOs, non-profit sector Market of local products and handicraft, cultural landscapes etc. traditional handicrafts Global scale: world heritage sites and related Conservation agencies Memberships/donations to contourism, etc. (eg UNESCO) servation agencies Voluntary jobs [. . .] Artistic and spiritual Development of arts: source of inspiration for Public and private colAmount of art masterpieces coninformation paintings, poems, music, photography, etc. lectors taining natural scenes, and their market values Spiritual development: symbolic meanings, Academies Travels to ancient sites of relimystic values, religious movements, etc. gious meaning Religious movements [. . .]
ing their benefits for the well being and sustainability of human societies. The socio-cultural perspective here addressed frames the concept of CNC as a metaphor to identify not only natures’ immaterial and intangible services such as mental health, recreation or heritage values, but also the cognitive and emotional aspects of people’s relationship with nature. It is assumed, in fact, that the identification of the irreplaceable functions and services of nature necessarily involves a critical re-examination of
human fundamental needs. The point, thus, is not only to unfold the plurality of ecosystems’ functions and values, but also to structure them along a scale of importance, able to reflect society’s fundamental needs and goals. The paper presents some preliminary results of the empirical study conducted to investigate people’s perceptions and appreciation of nature. A first analysis of the answers obtained show, among others, that nature is appreciated by people mainly as source of peace, beauty, and diversion from the
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
stress of everyday life. The experience of nature is perceived as beneficial to people’s mental health and psycho /physical equilibrium in general. Ecological, health and heritage functions are the most important services nature generates to human societies. Though essentially immaterial, these functions fulfill crucial human needs and contribute to the sustainable development of human societies. It is, therefore, crucial to identify and assess their values so that they can be better accounted for in environmental and nature management policies. To identify and assess the sociocultural functions of NC, both qualitative and quantitative valuation methods have to be used. Monetary-based valuation techniques can help assigning ‘hard values’ to the goods and services provided by the information functions. The social perspective here proposed, however, directs the valuation exercise towards to the society at large, rather than to the market, and public debate and qualitative appraisal. Such an appraisal of CNC will enrich our understanding of the criticality of nature for the health, quality, richness and meaningfulness of human life, which are important factors in determining the future trajectory of human societies, and which are no less critical than the material processes on which ecology and economics focus. We conclude with saying that this constitutes a challenging research ground for ecological economics, which, as a post-normal science, is committed to acknowledge and investigate the pluralism of claims and values interacting in the real world.
Acknowledgements This paper is based on a project funded through a Marie Curie Research Grant of the European Commission (4th framework of the ‘Environment and Climate’ Program, Theme 4 ‘Human dimension of environmental change’). Participation in the European Project CRITINC (ENV4-CT970561) and discussions with the involved partners provided important ideas and impulses for this conceptual paper.
229
References Ayres, R.U., van den Bergh, C.J.M., Gowdy, J.M., 2001. Strong versus weak sustainability: economic, natural sicences, and ‘consilience’. Journal of Environmental Ethics (23), nr. 2 Beckermann, W., 1995. How would you like your ‘sustainability’ Sir? Weak or strong? A reply to my critics. Journal of Environmental Values 4, 169 /179. Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1994. Investing in cultural capital for sustainable use of natural capital. In: Jansson, A.M., Hammer, M., Folfe, C., Costanza, R. (Eds.), Investing in Natural Capital: the Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability. Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 22 /37. Bladgroen, W.J., 1963. Kinderspel. In: De wereld van de kleuter. (The world of children. In Dutch) Groningen. CAG and LUC (CAG Consultants and Land Use Consultants), 1997. Environmental capital: a new approach. A report to Countryside Commission, English Heritage, English Nature, Environment Agency, Countryside Commission, Cheltenham. Chiesura, A., 2002. People’s Appreciation of Nature: a sociological approach to nature valuation for a better recognition of nature’s immaterial benefits. Wageningen University and Research Center Working Paper, pp. 100. Coley, R., Kuo, F., Sullivan, W., 1997. Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Journal of Environment and Behavior 29, 468 / 494. Collados, C., Duane, T.P., 1999. Natural capital and quality of life: a model for evaluating the sustainability of alternative regional development paths. Ecological Economy 30, 441 / 460. Costanza, R., Daly, H.E., 1992. Natural capital and sustainable development. Journal of Conservation Biology 6, 37 /46. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R.S., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253 /260. Daily, G.C., 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington. Daly, H., 1994. Operationalizing sustainable development by investing in natural capital. In: Jansson, A.M., Hammer, M., Folke, C., Costanza, R. (Eds.), Investing in Natural Capital: the Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability. Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 22 /37. De Groot, R.S., 1992. Functions of Nature: Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Planning, Management and Decision Making. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen. De Groot, R.S., van der Perk, J., Chiesura, A., Marguliew, S., 2000. Ecological functions and socio /economic values of critical natural capital as a measure for ecological integrity and environmental health (pp. 191 /214). In: Crabbe, P., Holland, A., Ryszkowski, L., Westra, L. (Eds.), Implementing Ecological Integrity: restoring regional and global environmental and Human Health. NATO-Science Series,
230
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231
IV. Earth and Environmental Sciences, vol. 1. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht/Boston/London. Dobson, A., 1998. Justice and the Environment: Conception of Environmental Sustainability and Theories of Distributive Justice. Oxford University Press. Dodds, S., 1995. Understanding Sustainable development: a policy oriented guide to the idea and its application. CRES Working Paper 1995/1, Australian National University, Canberra. Dodds, S., 1997. Towards a science of sustainability: improving the way ecological economics understands human well being. Ecological Economy 23, 95 /111. English Nature, 1995. Establishing criteria for identifying critical natural capital in the terrestrial environment. A research Report prepared by Mieem, J.G. and Mieem, P.S. Ekins, P., Simon, S., Deutsch, L., Folke, C., de Groot., R.S., 2002. A Framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability. Ecological Economics (this issue). Etzioni, A., 1988. The moral dimension: toward a New Economics. The Free Press, New York. Faucheux, S., O’Connor, M., 1999. Natural capital and the national product: a controversial terrain. International Journal of Development Planning Literature 14, 233 /273. Faucheux, S., Muir, E., O’Connor, M., 1997. Neoclassical natural capital theory and ‘weak’ indicators for sustainability. Land Economics 73 (4), 528 /552. Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1994a. The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecological Economy 10, 197 /207. Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1994b. Emergent complex systems. Futures 26, 5680582. Gowdy, J., O’Hara, S., 1997. Weak sustainability and viable technologies. Ecological Economy 22, 239 /247. Hartig, T., Mang, M., Evans, G., 1991. Restorative effects of natural environments experiences. Journal of Environment and Behaviour 23, 3 /26. Hinterberger, F., Luks, F., Schmidt-Bleek, F., 1997. Material flows vs. ‘natural capital’. What makes an economy sustainable. Ecological Economy 23, 1 /14. Holland, A., 1997. Substitutability. Or why strong sustainability is weak and absurdly strong sustainability is not absurd. In: Valuing nature. Economics, Ethics and Environment. J. Foster Ed. Hueting, R., 1974. New Scarcity and Economic Growth. Agon/ Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam. Jacobs, M., 1995. Sustainable development, capital substitution and economic humility: a response to Beckerman. Journal of Environmental Values 4, 57 /68. Kuo, F.E., Bacaioca, M., Sullivan, W.C., 1998. Transforming inner city landscapes: trees, sense of safety, and preferences. Journal of Environment and Behavior 30 (1), 28 /59. Macnaghten, P., Grove-White, R., Weldon, S., Waterton, C., 1998. Woodland sensibilities. Recreational uses of woods and forests in contemporary Britain. Report by the Center for the Study of Environmental change, Lancaster University.
Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., O’Neil, J., 1998. Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecological Economy 26, 277 /286. Noe¨l, J.F., O’Connor, M., 1998. Strong sustainability and critical natural capital. In: Valuation for Sustainable development, methods and policy indicators. Series Editor: Robert Costanza. Noe¨l, J.F., O’Connor, M., Tsang King Sang, J., 1999. The Bouchereau Woodland and the transmission of socioecological economic value. Cahiers du C3ED nr. 99 /04. Norton, B.G., 1987. Why Preserve Natural Variety. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. O’Hara, S., 1996. Discursive ethics in ecosystems valuation and environmental policy. Ecological Economy 16, 95 /107. O’Neil, J., 1993. Ecology, Policy and Politics. In: Human WellBeing and the Natural World. Routledge, London. Pearce, D., 1997. Substitution and sustainability: some reflections on Georgescu /Roegen. Ecological Economy 22, 295 / 297. Pearce, D.W., Wardford, J.J., 1993. World without End: Economics, Environment and Sustainable Development. Oxford University Press/World Bank, Oxford. Schroeder, H.W., 1991. Preferences and meaning of arboretum landscapes; combining quantitative and qualitative data. Journal of Environmental Psychology 11, 231 /248. Seralgeldin, I., Steer, A., 1994. Expanding the capital stock. In: Seralgeldin, I., Steer, A. (Eds.), Making Development Sustainable. The World Bank, Washington DC. Siebenhuner, B., 2000. Homo sustinens */towards a new conception of humans for the science of sustainability. Ecological Economy 32, 15 /25. Spash, C., 1999. The Development of Environmental Thinking in Economics. Journal of Environmental Values 8: 413 /435, 1999; The White Horse Press, Cambridge, UK. Strand, R., 1999. Handout of the Advanced Course in Decisions Tools and Processes for IEA. University of Barcellona. Tisdell, C., 1997. Capital/natural resource substitution: the debate of Georgescu-Roegen (through Daly) with Solow/ Stiglitz. Forum. Ecological Economy 22, 289 /291. Tyldesley, D. and Associates, 1994. Planning for environmental sustainability. Based on a report prepared For English Nature. Turner, R.K., 1993. Sustainability: principles and practice. In: Turner, R.K. (Ed.), Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management: Principles and Practice. Belhaven Press, London, pp. 3 /36. Ulrich, R.S., 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224, 420 /421. Van den Berg, A., I.M. van den Top, R.B. Kranendonk, 1998. Natuur wensen van stadsmensen (The demands on nature of urban citizens. In Dutch). IBN-DLO Rapport, Wageningen. Van Dieren, W., Hummelinck, M.G.W., 1977. Natuur is duur. Over de economische waarde van de natuur (Nature is expensive. Over the economic value of nature. In Dutch). Wereldvenster, Baarn.
A. Chiesura, R. de Groot / Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 219 /231 Vatn, A., 2000. The environment as a commodity. Journal of Environmental Values 9, 493 /509. Victor, P.A., 1991. Indicators of sustainable development: some lessons from capital theory. Ecological Economy 4, 191 / 213.
231
WCED, World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our common future. Oxford University Press. WHO, World Health Organization, 1992. Our planet, our health. Report of the WHO Commission on Health and Environment, Geneva, Switzerland.