TY - JOUR

T1 - The means determine the end

T2 - Pursuing integrated valuation in practice

AU - Jacobs, Sander

AU - Martín-López, Berta

AU - Barton, David N.

AU - Dunford, Robert

AU - Harrison, Paula A.

AU - Kelemen, Eszter

AU - Saarikoski, Heli

AU - Termansen, Mette

AU - García-Llorente, Marina

AU - Gómez-Baggethun, Erik

AU - Kopperoinen, Leena

AU - Luque, Sandra

AU - Palomo, Ignacio

AU - Priess, Joerg A.

AU - Rusch, Graciela M.

AU - Tenerelli, Patrizia

AU - Turkelboom, Francis

AU - Demeyer, Rolinde

AU - Hauck, Jennifer

AU - Keune, Hans

AU - Smith, Ron

PY - 2018/2/4

Y1 - 2018/2/4

N2 - In environmental valuation, although it is well recognised that the choice of method heavily affects the outcome, little is known on how existing valuation methods actually elicit the different values. Through the assessment of real-life applications of valuation of nature, this study tracks down the suitability of 21 valuation methods for 11 value types and assesses the methodological requirements for their operationalization. We found that different valuation methods have different suitabilities to elicit diverse value-types. Some methods are more specialized than others, but every method has blind spots, which implies risks of biased decision-making. We summarized different value-types according to three value dimensions: non-anthropocentric, relational and instrumental. No single valuation method is able to capture this full spectrum of values of nature. Covering all value dimensions requires careful selection of complementary valuation methods. This study also demonstrates that performing such an integrated valuation does not necessarily entail more resources, as for every value dimension, methods with low to medium operational requirements are available. With this study, we aim to provide guidance for selecting a complementary set of valuation methods in order to develop integrated valuation in practice that includes values of all stakeholders into environmental decision-making.

AB - In environmental valuation, although it is well recognised that the choice of method heavily affects the outcome, little is known on how existing valuation methods actually elicit the different values. Through the assessment of real-life applications of valuation of nature, this study tracks down the suitability of 21 valuation methods for 11 value types and assesses the methodological requirements for their operationalization. We found that different valuation methods have different suitabilities to elicit diverse value-types. Some methods are more specialized than others, but every method has blind spots, which implies risks of biased decision-making. We summarized different value-types according to three value dimensions: non-anthropocentric, relational and instrumental. No single valuation method is able to capture this full spectrum of values of nature. Covering all value dimensions requires careful selection of complementary valuation methods. This study also demonstrates that performing such an integrated valuation does not necessarily entail more resources, as for every value dimension, methods with low to medium operational requirements are available. With this study, we aim to provide guidance for selecting a complementary set of valuation methods in order to develop integrated valuation in practice that includes values of all stakeholders into environmental decision-making.

KW - Ecosystem services

KW - Integrated valuation

KW - Operational requirements

KW - Valuation methods

KW - Values of nature

KW - Sustainability Science

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026787458&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011

DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:85026787458

VL - 29

SP - 515

EP - 528

JO - Ecosystem Services

JF - Ecosystem Services

SN - 2212-0416

IS - C

ER -